The Issue of Infallibility

[~Anastasia~]

what proof would that be?

It depends.

Most normally, a person of great personal holiness and love is known by those around them. They begin to ask prayers from that person, because of the love shared, and their personal expectation that the person is almost surely with Christ. If miracles happen as a result of these intercessions, word can go further and eventually reach more official levels of the Church, and then an investigation may be made to verify miracles. Several criteria must be met, but it is the miracles as a result of their prayers that we usually take as evidence that they are pleasing to God, since He chooses to let His grace work through them.

 

[abacabb3]

as an example, if I wanted to know you, I would do just that. seek communion and experience of you as a person. usually then you would show me hardline, factual, "infallible" stuff like where you graduated, what jobs you have had, who you married, etc. but I start with coming to know you. if I started only with documents, and did not know you and therefore did not know how to piece them together, I could get off track.

so, say, you had a picture taking a drink of beer, and it was in mid-swig. I could wrongly infer that you have a drinking issue, even though that one snapshot was taken one of the occasional casual times you drink. however, if I come to know you first, and then you show me the picture, I would know that this was just something casual.

the problem with the West is since they have left the Church, most only struggle with the photo and its meaning, and don't come to know the person

Please forgive me for saying this, I am certainly not in the position to correct you, but I do not believe your example works. Sure, you don't know me, but if you got a picture of my fridge and there is a budweisser beer in it, maybe you cannot infallibly say I like bud, but you can infallible say my fridge has 2 beers in it.

So I have two pictures of the Canon, one in Georgia and one in Romania. Which picture matches the consensus from the beginning as you say and which does not? And how do we know?

 

[Petros2015]

I found things got easier when I replaced the word 'infallible' with the word 'sufficient'

 

[abacabb3]

It depends.

Most normally, a person of great personal holiness and love is known by those around them. They begin to ask prayers from that person, because of the love shared, and their personal expectation that the person is almost surely with Christ. If miracles happen as a result of these intercessions, word can go further and eventually reach more official levels of the Church, and then an investigation may be made to verify miracles. Several criteria must be met, but it is the miracles as a result of their prayers that we usually take as evidence that they are pleasing to God, since He chooses to let His grace work through them.

St Siloun (sp?) had a false revelation of Uncreated Energy that was demonic. I understand that the monks discern between truth and demonic delusions by the feeling that they have (the demons posing as Jesus/Uncreated Energy/saints/the reposed) are said to leave one feeling bewildered and anxious, while true spiritual experiences lack this occurrence. How are we sure that this method works all the time or is even a valid method? It would seem that consensus would be the nly means (i.e. if no saint disagreed with the method, and if it is ancient, then it is more sure--more recent and some saintly opposition, increasingly doubtful.

If this holds true, infallibility exists on a scale, which means we cannot infallibly know what is infallible and what is not.

 

[~Anastasia~]

St Siloun (sp?) had a false revelation of Uncreated Energy that was demonic. I understand that the monks discern between truth and demonic delusions by the feeling that they have (the demons posing as Jesus/Uncreated Energy/saints/the reposed) are said to leave one feeling bewildered and anxious, while true spiritual experiences lack this occurrence. How are we sure that this method works all the time or is even a valid method? It would seem that consensus would be the nly means (i.e. if no saint disagreed with the method, and if it is ancient, then it is more sure--more recent and some saintly opposition, increasingly doubtful.

If this holds true, infallibility exists on a scale, which means we cannot infallibly know what is infallible and what is not.

That is A method for discerning. Not the only one.

If a being proves itself to be demonic, then we know it is demonic.

If a being so far appears still to be Holy ... it may indeed be Holy, or we might not have yet discerned the truth.

But the fact that St. Silhouan was deceived at first is a good lesson. He did learn the truth. But if St. Silhouan could be deceived, we need to all be aware that we potentially can be as well.

There are actually many writings regarding delusion of this and similar kinds. Not the kind of thing it's a very good idea to read too much of too early on for most folks. But these kinds of accounts are instructive in several points. One of them is that demons can be very wily, and use different kinds of deceptions. This we need different tools to discern. It is also worth noting that anyone encountering such a experience must submit it to discernment by a spiritual elder. Often we don't possess sufficient tools to discern on our own.

But before I digress too far in an unhealthy direction, your question was actually about consensus? One person (no matter how holy) does not make a consensus. If something beneficial comes out of whatever the person sees/hears, and it leads people to Christ, then it is an edifying thing and can be used in that way. The same way a person's own experience, mind, wisdom can lead them to craft a parable or example that can be used to help people draw closer to Christ. But it cannot be used to create some new doctrine for the Church. Those just don't fit into the same category AT ALL.

I'm not sure if this is helping? But St. Silhouan's vision (neither the false one nor the true one) cannot be used to deepen an understanding of the Holy Trinity, for example. Such things were long, long ago established. We don't really develop doctrines.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well.

Does it make sense?

 

[~Anastasia~]

You use the words "infallible". We might apply those to the Nicene Creed. We absolutely believe that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. We absolutely believe that God created all things. We absolutely believe that Christ is coming again. These things are infallible. The Church as a whole is infallible in these kinds of things.

Fasting is a discipline. We have learned that it helps, how to do it, why it helps, how not to do it, and so on. We have this by a consensus, and we know by experience we are right. But we don't really attach the label "infallible" to that in the way we might to the Nicene Creed. This is why I said what I did about St. Silhouan's vision.

The Church in her wisdom knows what she knows. She leads us to Christ. Her methods work. And certain things we do consider dogma. Those we would have to call infallible, if you insist on using the word. But ... I guess in general, it seems something the west would do - abc is infallible, xyz is not, def is infallible, but only under certain circumstances. I just get the idea that you're trying to use a kind of language in a different way then we would use it, so I think it makes these things hard to answer.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sure, you don't know me, but if you got a picture of my fridge and there is a budweisser beer in it, maybe you cannot infallibly say I like bud, but you can infallible say my fridge has 2 beers in it.

it's because whether or not you have two buds in your fridge is about WHAT you are, not WHO you are. God is a Who, not a What.

So I have two pictures of the Canon, one in Georgia and one in Romania. Which picture matches the consensus from the beginning as you say and which does not? And how do we know?

the shorter one because that is what has been accepted from the beginning. I am pretty sure that the old lists only list 3 Maccabees

 

[abacabb3]

the shorter one because that is what has been accepted from the beginning. I am pretty sure that the old lists only list 3 Maccabees

so we know the georgians are wrong because they don't know their history?

 

[ArmyMatt]

so we know the georgians are wrong because they don't know their history?

no, since since 4 Maccabees is not wrong and they do have 1-3 Maccabees. 4 Maccabees is not universally accepted, but not wrong. a lot of early Christians included Clement in their NT canon. they were not wrong either, and the use of Clement as Scripture died out, although he is still read and doctrinally sound. the Georgians are not wrong because they have an extra book in their canon, they just have an extra book in their canon that has not gained universal acceptance. so Orthodoxy on the whole would not say that 4 Maccabees is accepted as THE OT of the Church, but we also would not deny it to the Georgians or whoever else would use it.

 

[abacabb3]

no, since since 4 Maccabees is not wrong and they do have 1-3 Maccabees. 4 Maccabees is not universally accepted, but not wrong. a lot of early Christians included Clement in their NT canon. they were not wrong either, and the use of Clement as Scripture died out, although he is still read and doctrinally sound. the Georgians are not wrong because they have an extra book in their canon, they just have an extra book in their canon that has not gained universal acceptance. so Orthodoxy on the whole would not say that 4 Maccabees is accepted as THE OT of the Church, but we also would not deny it to the Georgians or whoever else would use it.

Is this an example of paradoxy?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is this an example of paradoxy?

it's not a paradox because there is no conflict. it's just a unique local thing that the Patriarchate of Georgia does.

 

[Lukaris]

4th Maccabees is an intense homily of the martyered mother, her 7 sons, & the priest: Eleazar. It is on the account in 2nd Maccabees chptr 7; it is doctrinally sound.

I think for us in the American laity, we need a basic, informed, foundational faith. Theology is in the creed, living faith in the 2 great commands, the golden rule, & the 10 commandments. We can acknowledge the 7 basic sacraments ( same as the Catholics); they are listed as such in an early English language, Orthodox prayer book my grandparents had. We should probably stick to our basic prayer books ( like the Antiochian pocket one). We have the Bible.

Surely we can read all the patristics we want but I think if we get confused, stick to the basics. Personally, I know ( for ex.) it is not required to embrace the toll house doctrine but it cannot be called heretical either.

 

[buzuxi02]

So, the truth is often just understood and not able to be defined. That means there are issues which may be infallible, but because they cannot be defined, they cannot be categorized authoritatively.

I would say they can be defined but have yet been done so. The Trinity was understood and even experienced in the early church as seen in Paul's benediction in (2 Cor 13:14). It was finally defined when the Creed was produced in the 4th century. So if Arius never taught his heresy, or if the empire was still persecuting christians it still would not have been defined when it was.

Ath were basically forgotten until Fr. Seraphim Rose. They were more mentioned in monastic literature. Since then bishops such as Met. Hierotheos has tried to streamline their teaching, so the avergae layman can grasp the concept. For example the Russian accounts had some overly sensationalistic aspects which the greeks rejected. No Russian (that i know of anyway) has ever objected to this censure, hence some consensus has been reached(namely saints and holy people are totally unaffected by tollhouses and they ascend to God the demons fleeing from their presence finding nothing in them)

In the end of the day tollhouses and demons as tax gatherers is nothnig more than what St. Gregory of Nyssa taught. That once the sinful soul departs from the body it can no longer act through its bodily senses to appease its passions. But the soul having melded these sinful inclinations within itself will gravitate like to like. So the natural part of the soul made in the image and likeness of God struggles to free itself from the vices towards God, but the passions push it in the opposite direction towards its kindred in Hades. If the soul cannot amputate these sinful desires which are attracting it to the dark side it will remain in that abode forever, scripture calls this kolasis aionon (punishment everlasting).
If it can prune and amputate and cut off and pluck off its sinful attraction for the darkside it will be free but costly as scripture says:

Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.(Matt 5.25-26

And from the Didache:
Ch1....Woe to him who receives; for if one receives who has need, he is guiltless; but he who receives not having need shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what. And coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape from there until he pays back the last penny. And also concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give.

ch3..Rather, be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always trembling at the words which you have heard. You shall not exalt yourself, nor give over-confidence to your soul. Your soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but with just and lowly ones shall it have its intercourse. Accept whatever happens to you as good, knowing that apart from God nothing comes to pass.


So from the above we get an idea why they are called tax collectors and toll houses, they want to extract everything out of you, every penny you owe them for they believe you are rightfully theirs.. If your soul is inclined towards vice it will have intercourse and company with alike (whether demons, other souls, dark places, Hades, inglorious elements etc). And the energy the natural part of the soul requires to pull away from your passions is high, It will (pay out) tenfold.. They are attracted to you finding a kindred in the same passions you enjoy, but just like that clingy friend he will keep extracting everything until you excise them from your soul, or should we say overcome your addictive vices and head for freedom.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would say they can be defined but have yet been done so. The Trinity was understood and even experienced in the early church as seen in Paul's benediction in (2 Cor 13:14). It was finally defined when the Creed was produced in the 4th century. So if Arius never taught his heresy, or if the empire was still persecuting christians it still would not have been defined when it was.

Ath were basically forgotten until Fr. Seraphim Rose. They were more mentioned in monastic literature. Since then bishops such as Met. Hierotheos has tried to streamline their teaching, so the avergae layman can grasp the concept. For example the Russian accounts had some overly sensationalistic aspects which the greeks rejected. No Russian (that i know of anyway) has ever objected to this censure, hence some consensus has been reached(namely saints and holy people are totally unaffected by tollhouses and they ascend to God the demons fleeing from their presence finding nothing in them)

In the end of the day tollhouses and demons as tax gatherers is nothnig more than what St. Gregory of Nyssa taught. That once the sinful soul departs from the body it can no longer act through its bodily senses to appease its passions. But the soul having melded these sinful inclinations within itself will gravitate like to like. So the natural part of the soul made in the image and likeness of God struggles to free itself from the vices towards God, but the passions push it in the opposite direction towards its kindred in Hades. If the soul cannot amputate these sinful desires which are attracting it to the dark side it will remain in that abode forever, scripture calls this kolasis aionon (punishment everlasting).
If it can prune and amputate and cut off and pluck off its sinful attraction for the darkside it will be free but costly as scripture says:

Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.(Matt 5.25-26

And from the Didache:
Ch1....Woe to him who receives; for if one receives who has need, he is guiltless; but he who receives not having need shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what. And coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape from there until he pays back the last penny. And also concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give.

ch3..Rather, be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always trembling at the words which you have heard. You shall not exalt yourself, nor give over-confidence to your soul. Your soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but with just and lowly ones shall it have its intercourse. Accept whatever happens to you as good, knowing that apart from God nothing comes to pass.


So from the above we get an idea why they are called tax collectors and toll houses, they want to extract everything out of you, every penny you owe them for they believe you are rightfully theirs.. If your soul is inclined towards vice it will have intercourse and company with alike (whether demons, other souls, dark places, Hades, inglorious elements etc). And the energy the natural part of the soul requires to pull away from your passions is high, It will (pay out) tenfold.. They are attracted to you finding a kindred in the same passions you enjoy, but just like that clingy friend he will keep extracting everything until you excise them from your soul, or should we say overcome your addictive vices and head for freedom.

Thank you. It was this sort of thing too that some of the priests talked about but it sounds like there is more details in some points. Maybe I can look into it more someday.

 

[buzuxi02]

There is a lot of imagery and allegory, but we get the gist of what is meant. We have expressions such as, "It's taking its toll"... The expression originates from paying a burdensome tribute or tax, to exact a price, or that certain actions have associated costs.

The Orthodox expression is probably taken from the pre -Augustus Caesar roman tax collectors (publicans) who were thugs. They would do whatever to get theirs. Take above and beyond what was owed them, for their own gain. We can say the soul does not belong to them, it belongs to God but these sins (or demons who are behind them) hijack our true nature and we can't escape it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There is a lot of imagery and allegory, but we get the gist of what is meant. We have expressions such as, "It's taking its toll"... The expression originates from paying a burdensome tribute or tax, to exact a price, or that certain actions have associated costs.

The Orthodox expression is probably taken from the pre -Augustus Caesar roman tax collectors (publicans) who were thugs. They would do whatever to get theirs. Take above and beyond what was owed them, for their own gain. We can say the soul does not belong to them, it belongs to God but these sins (or demons who are behind them) hijack our true nature and we can't escape it.

This really seems to underscore the theology of theosis, don't you think? Specifically that becoming like Christ IS our salvation?(I hope I don't overstate that.)

My mind keeps returning to Christ's words, that the ruler of this world is coming for Him, but that he will find nothing of his in Christ.

I wonder if it is right to say that we all undergo a similar "judgement" by demons coming to seek what they can find of affinity in our souls. Finding it, or too much of it, we may be in trouble ... ?

Though in that case I think it is vital to underscore the work and grace of God. The good theif was "saved" quickly, and we have martyrs who were converted watching others be martyred and immediately martyred themselves as a result. I don't pretend to know God's judgement, but it seems unlikely for Him to abandon one who never had a chance to begin Theosis. If I'm saying all these things correctly.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This really seems to underscore the theology of theosis, don't you think? Specifically that becoming like Christ IS our salvation?(I hope I don't overstate that.)

My mind keeps returning to Christ's words, that the ruler of this world is coming for Him, but that he will find nothing of his in Christ.

I wonder if it is right to say that we all undergo a similar "judgement" by demons coming to seek what they can find of affinity in our souls. Finding it, or too much of it, we may be in trouble ... ?

Though in that case I think it is vital to underscore the work and grace of God. The good theif was "saved" quickly, and we have martyrs who were converted watching others be martyred and immediately martyred themselves as a result. I don't pretend to know God's judgement, but it seems unlikely for Him to abandon one who never had a chance to begin Theosis. If I'm saying all these things correctly.

yes, and if we are still talking about the toll houses, for someone who has never heard the Gospel, if he has the slightest inkling toward God, when he sees the demons, he will die asking God for mercy, which the Lord is always ready to give.

 

[buzuxi02]

This really seems to underscore the theology of theosis, don't you think? Specifically that becoming like Christ IS our salvation?(I hope I don't overstate that.)

My mind keeps returning to Christ's words, that the ruler of this world is coming for Him, but that he will find nothing of his in Christ.

I wonder if it is right to say that we all undergo a similar "judgement" by demons coming to seek what they can find of affinity in our souls. Finding it, or too much of it, we may be in trouble ... ?

Though in that case I think it is vital to underscore the work and grace of God. The good theif was "saved" quickly, and we have martyrs who were converted watching others be martyred and immediately martyred themselves as a result. I don't pretend to know God's judgement, but it seems unlikely for Him to abandon one who never had a chance to begin Theosis. If I'm saying all these things correctly.

I'm not sure how literal the demons are, it really pertains to those we would say are "going to hell". In other words the hellbound go towards a dark place because they are attracted to it. This is why it is said demons come out to meet such a soul finding something of themselves in it. The polluted soul goes where it believes it can quench it's desires apart from the body. St. Gregory of Nyssa always believed that the natural soul is that aspect of it made in God''s image so it tugs the soul into opposite direction causing it torments.

Now Pope Gregory the Great in his Dialogues bk 4 has numerous stories of the souls departure from the body. These recount diverse experiences. The holy person "excellently ascends" in one. He recounts how on their deathbed holy people are conversing with apostles and saints ready to triumphantly depart from the body. Angels singing triumphant hymns as they prepare to carry the soul of a man on his deathbed up to heaven. Including experience where a sinner on his deathbed sees demons and is agony, Pope Gregory explains the demons are sent for one final act of repentance through fear and to demonstrate to those family members surrounding the deathbed that they should repent of those same sins.
He recounts a vision of a narrow bridge where toxic fumes arise from below where a man crossing this bridge would be dragged down from his legs but then from above he would ascend as if someone is pulling him from his arms. but he did not know what the outcome of his fate was.
Now that sounds a lot like toll houses demons dragging him down while angels lift him back up. It also sounds a lot how Gregory of Nyssa says the soul is attracted like to like and how is tugged in opposite directions. St. Gregory the Dialogist explains that this individual had carnal passions unable to satisfy his lusts while in the body but he would show tremendous passion to the poor giving out alms to anyone in need. Thus these 2 sides of his personality or soul are in conflict and battling.
So are they literal demons or do they describe our personal demons and desires which are our sins?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not sure how literal the demons are, it really pertains to those we would say are "going to hell". In other words the hellbound go towards a dark place because they are attracted to it. This is why it is said demons come out to meet such a soul finding something of themselves in it. The polluted soul goes where it believes it can quench it's desires apart from the body. St. Gregory of Nyssa always believed that the natural soul is that aspect of it made in God''s image so it tugs the soul into opposite direction causing it torments.

Now Pope Gregory the Great in his Dialogues bk 4 has numerous stories of the souls departure from the body. These recount diverse experiences. The holy person "excellently ascends" in one. He recounts how on their deathbed holy people are conversing with apostles and saints ready to triumphantly depart from the body. Angels singing triumphant hymns as they prepare to carry the soul of a man on his deathbed up to heaven. Including experience where a sinner on his deathbed sees demons and is agony, Pope Gregory explains the demons are sent for one final act of repentance through fear and to demonstrate to those family members surrounding the deathbed that they should repent of those same sins.
He recounts a vision of a narrow bridge where toxic fumes arise from below where a man crossing this bridge would be dragged down from his legs but then from above he would ascend as if someone is pulling him from his arms. but he did not know what the outcome of his fate was.
Now that sounds a lot like toll houses demons dragging him down while angels lift him back up. It also sounds a lot how Gregory of Nyssa says the soul is attracted like to like and how is tugged in opposite directions. St. Gregory the Dialogist explains that this individual had carnal passions unable to satisfy his lusts while in the body but he would show tremendous passion to the poor giving out alms to anyone in need. Thus these 2 sides of his personality or soul are in conflict and battling.
So are they literal demons or do they describe our personal demons and desires which are our sins?

Interesting, thank you.

That appeals more to what I want to believe and what "sounds right" to me, but I will also say I stopped relying on that for its own sake.

But anyway ... it does seem to agree with stories I've heard and what I've seen photos sometimes of the deaths of holy people. (And also fits sometimes those others.) But I've heard of them conversing with Saints, seeing angels, and being delighted as they were about to die. What a wonderful way to experience death, I would think? And the smiles you see on some faces as they die.

Thank you for the info. I've not looked into those, so I will hopefully make a note and get back to it sometime.

 

[buzuxi02]

Interesting, thank you.

But anyway ... it does seem to agree with stories I've heard and what I've seen photos sometimes of the deaths of holy people. (And also fits sometimes those others.) But I've heard of them conversing with Saints, seeing angels, and being delighted as they were about to die. What a wonderful way to experience death, I would think? And the smiles you see on some faces as they die.
.

Yes, this is also an important lesson as to the OP, on how a consensus can be reached if a controversy such as ATH need better defining. .
We begin by affirming what every side can agree on. Everyone accepts that certain people, (such as that Athonite monk that recently died with a smile) they die smiling or have smiles shortly after death. That we can read the account of the proto-martyr Stephen where the heavens opened and he saw Christ coming for him. There are icons where the saint depicted shows angels or Christ descending placing a crown on their heads. So not everyone goes through the ordeal of tollhouses.

Pope St. Gregory in his dialogues also recounts how many just persons whose souls departing from the body fill the room with a pleasant fragrance. Others on their deathbed begin to prophecy shortly before death because the heavens having opened for them, they catch a glimpse of the future before their departure .etc.