[yharmon6614]

In a conversation with an Orthodox friend we have delved into the issue of infallibility. Can we find support in the fathers for *any* concept of infallibility at all? The question that raised it was "Are saints infallible?"

[arrasleds]

The question that raised it was "Are saints infallible?"

No. Only God is infallible

[carpartsho]

In a conversation with an Orthodox friend we have delved into the issue of infallibility. Can we find support in the fathers for *any* concept of infallibility at all? The question that raised it was "Are saints infallible?"

No, we do not require that our saints be infallible. The concept of infallibility actually destroys free will. If I am incapable of being able to choose to be wrong, then I have no free will.

It is an impossible circular argument. I must be infallible because I say so, since I am infallible!

Herman the fallible Pooh

[ButKnillinoi]

I believe that, beginning with Justinian, certain Councils proclaimed their decisions to be infallible. You might wish to do a monachos search.

[muytreda]

Searching the forum, I found the following statements by various people:

1.
Orthodoxy has no need for "infallibility". It is not a "valid" concept. No single Father or bishop or theologian can be examined in isolation. All things must be "tested" as the Holy Apostle Paul teaches, to ensure that it is truely from God. The Church provides the FRAMEWORK, the "standard", the environment for this testing. We, as individuals, test "new" ideas against what the Church teaches so that we are not led astray. The Church, as a concilliar organism, keeps the various parts of itself in check. When one part of the Church departs from the true Apostolic Witness, the other parts of the Church work together to bring the ailing part back, sometimes through councils, other times through censure, convening of spiritual courts, and in extreme cases through severing communal relations. 2.
We actually believe that both the Bible and the Church are Church are INFALLIBLE, This does not mean PERFECT it means that they have no error as far as Doctrine is concerned).

Furthermore the Apostles have a higher authority than the Saints that we have today because they were witnesses of Christ and/or the Apostolic Church.

This does not mean that the Apostles or the Saints or the Bishops and priests are infallible. We do not believe in infallibility of individuals but we do believe in the infalibility of God worlking in the Church though regardless of time frame.
Please Read This

DOGMA AND AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/stylian_3.html) 3.
and I found what you mentioned that we don't believe in individual infallibility (Catholic church does!!) but we believe in the church's infallibility as workgroup in the body of the christ...

1) individual infallibility generated catholic hereseys, such as purgatory , immaculate conception , filioque ... salvation of non-believers!! 4.
We as Orthodox do not believe in the infallibility of people. 5.
any Orthodox theologian will admit that no one single Church Father is 'infallible' and all have expressed views that are not totally correct. 6.
In Orthodoxy no one is infallible including the saints, only Christ is the exception. When a saint is canonized, the Church is not ruling on his writings. He could have made some errors as he is human. The question asked is: did he die fully repentant and within the Church? Is he worthy of our veneration as a Holy One of God? 7.
For the life of me, I don't understand how the Church can be infallible, simply by proclaiming itself to be infallible. This self-proclamation comes relatively late in the life of the Church, by which time it was run by lawyers.

Scripture and Tradition are not true because of some doctrine of infallibility. They are true because they ring true, and because of what happens to us when we apply their principles in our lives that is demonstrable. Infallibility is not a demonstrable principle. It's a theory at best. 8.
Thanks be to God, neither we nor the Church are required to be "infallible." In fact the argument can be made that the idea of infallibility destroys the concept of free will, since the infallible person or institution is deprived of the free will ability to CHOOSE to be wrong.

The Church does not depend on infallibility. It depends on Holy Scripture, the Concensus of the Fathers, and Tradition as typified in our worship since we pray what we believe and believe what we pray. The prayers of the Church are really the best way to learn Orthodox theology. 9.
I've read the word infallible while reading the Fathers. If you don't care for the word and think it is "western terminology" or some other such thing then I have no problem with that. The Fathers did teach that the Church, which is in part Christ himself, is infallible though. 10.
When we Orthodox speak of "infallibility" and the Church, it is my understanding that "the Church", however you define it, does not depend on any single office or book or agency in discerning truth. That which the Church accepts must pass 3 different tests. It must not contradict Holy Scripture, it must be agreed to by the concensus of the Fathers (for example, some of Origen's ideas were not in accord with the others), it must not conflict with that which has been accepted before (believed in all places, at all times). 11.
I contend that this notion of "infallibility" is a strawman. It is superfluous. The Church doesn't need to be "infallible" because Christ promised HE would keep His Bride spotless. All the Church simply has to do is keep proclaiming the Truth as given by Christ to His Apostles, as explained by the Fathers, as proclaimed the bishops, as acknowledged by the people, as guided by the Holy Spirit. 12.
We don't need to know who is infallible, we merely need to know what is right. This idea of infallibility only confuses the debate.

I believe that the concept of infallibility destroys the concept of free will. Infallible means unable to be wrong. If we are unable to be anything, we are no longer creatures of free will, I think.

[topbonusescod]

Again, I believe certain Councils have proclaimed their statements to be infallible. Rome, by the way, does not teach "individual" infallibility. Only that the Pope's teachings are infallible when speaking on behalf of the Church. So the Papacy/Magisterium is the equivalent in authority to a conciliar doctrine. It does not teach that the Pope, per se, is infallible. Most conservative Protestants believe the Bible to be infallible, which raises all kinds of questions of course, as do our own conciliar statements (IMHO).

[Everwondopedo]

I have always understood that the Church's pronouncements on faith and doctrine in general council are infallible, not because the Fathers of the councils were infallible but because the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church and He, the Spirit of Truth, leads the Church into all truth according to Christ's promise.

[nerkvcbtre]

However one arrives at the conclusion, it is still a claim of infallibility.

[cmruloah]

I keep hearing "THE CHURCH" is infallible. However, no single aspect of the Church has ever been totally free from error. We have had Patriarchs who were in error (including Popes). We have had entire ecclesiastic bodies who had to be corrected by the people (the false union of Florence). We see people corrected by the bishops. Single individuals standing against the majority (Athanasius contra mundum). "Ecumenical" councils only really became so after the fact. There have been false councils, also declared so after the fact. If some part of the Church can lay claim to "infallibility", pinning down WHICH part of the Church it might be at any given moment can be, shall we say, challenging. Is it the bishops? Is it the people? Is it the monastics? Is it the saints?

Not knowing where "infallibility" is seated at any given time makes it somewhat problematic and limits its utility, don't you think? Do we really need it? The Israelites, the original PEOPLE OF GOD, were very, very fallible, but still remained the People of God.

It sounds nice. We might like the false sense of security that "infallibility" brings, but I don't know that it really solves anything. The People of God were still the People of God even when they got it wrong (they suffered for it until they got back on track, but God did not leave them despite their trying to leave Him).

So, which aspect of "The Church" can we look to for "infallibility"? How about the Holy Spirit? He will work through which ever aspect of the Church suits His purpose, be it the bishops, or councils, or prophets or the laity.

Now, I certainly understand how authority can pronounce certain things to be "non-negotiable", for which further debate is not necessary, but I don't know if that is the same thing as "infallibility". Call it that if it makes you feel better I suppose.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[casinobonbiner]

We shouldn't get too worked up by the RC resonance of the word, 'infallible' - it means incapable of error. If the Church meets in a general council and invokes the Holy Spirit to guide it, then if it is said that the statements of faith and doctrine of that council may be erroneous, there's a danger, is there not, that this is tantamount to saying that the Holy Spirit did not lead the Church into truth which means either that Christ didn't keep His promise or the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of Truth. If we can't be sure of the doctrinal statements of faith of the general councils, aren't we in trouble? I don't think 'non-negotiable' is the right expression. It sounds as though we have to accept it right or wrong. We accept the doctrinal statements of general councils as free from error; they were called after all, to correct error. How can they be said to have corrected error if they could themselves be erroneous?

[Haftdrarp]

We shouldn't get too worked up by the RC resonance of the word, 'infallible' - it means incapable of error. If the Church meets in a general council and invokes the Holy Spirit to guide it, then if it is said that the statements of faith and doctrine of that council may be erroneous, there's a danger, is there not, that this is tantamount to saying that the Holy Spirit did not lead the Church into truth which means either that Christ didn't keep His promise or the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of Truth. If we can't be sure of the doctrinal statements of faith of the general councils, aren't we in trouble?

Yeah, but....

So, hypothetically speaking, let's say the Ecumenical Patriarch actually pulls off the Council he has been threatening to call for a couple of decades now, and they declare, oh, I don't know, that we need to simplify the Liturgy, ditch fasting, and maybe rethink that whole Christ-is-God thing. And we are infallible because we said so, so it must be right. Do we simply say "all-righty then" and accept it, otherwise we would be in trouble, right?

We don't accept doctrine because it is infallible. It is "infallible" because we accept it, through the power of the Holy Spirit. And yes, that is a bit of a scary thought, but Faith can sometimes be a scary thing. That doesn't make it a bad thing. Do we really really need "infallibility" to be sure? Are we really that insecure?

No, the Church is very capable of error, and has made a few, remember that whole iconoclasm thing, for instance? And remember when Arians "controlled" "THE CHURCH" for a while as well? Was it "infallible" then? And I'll bet the "robber councils" also called on the guidance of the Holy Spirit as well.

Little thoughts from a bear of little brain,
Herman the Pooh

[Goodwin]

I don't think 'non-negotiable' is the right expression. It sounds as though we have to accept it right or wrong. We accept the doctrinal statements of general councils as free from error; they were called after all, to correct error. How can they be said to have corrected error if they could themselves be erroneous? Well, there have been erroneous (fallible) councils, that is a historical fact. The first item of business for a council was to declare which previous councils were "genuine", which ones correctly divined the Word of God's Truth. We generally only know the "inerrancy" of a particular council after the fact, not before. The council declares and we accept. Or not. If it is accepted it is an "inerrant" council, if it is not accepted, it must have been in error. The Holy Spirit does not NEED an infallible council or supreme vicar to get His job done. That will happen often despite our "best" efforts!

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain
Herman the Pooh

[Unlopssesuj]

The Holy Spirit does not NEED an infallible council or supreme vicar to get His job done. True - but we need a way of knowing that He has done His job.

As I have understood it, the seven councils were not free of error in their doctrinal statements because the councils said they were free from error but because they were accepted as such by the faithful. In that respect, Chalcedon is a problem. I think we need to be specific: we can't say 'councils are free from error'. I think we can say, as I have been careful to say, that the general councils' statements on doctrine are free from error. I repeat: they were called after all, to correct error. How can they be said to have corrected error if they could themselves be erroneous?

[Veveseinlep]

True - but we need a way of knowing that He has done His job.

Yeah, well, but, I just don't believe that "infallibility" does that. And I think (hope?) it is safe to assume that the Holy Spirit has indeed, "done His job", but we still need to ensure that we have done ours!!!

As I have understood it, the seven councils were not free of error in their doctrinal statements because the councils said they were free from error but because they were accepted as such by the faithful. In that respect, Chalcedon is a problem. I think we need to be specific: we can't say 'councils are free from error'. I think we can say, as I have been careful to say, that the general councils' statements on doctrine are free from error. I repeat: So, in other words, we are in agreement, the concept of "infallibility" actually contributes nothing to our ability to discern truth or untruth. I mean, think about it. How can we infallibly know that infallibility exists? Because somebody said so? Are they infallible? How do you know? Seems like a lot of theological tail-chasing to me and I am much too old a pooh to do too much of that.

I vote that we scratch "infallibility" off the list of useful concepts and look for other ways to discern and preserve Truth, but that might just be me and I am not infallible (although I could be wrong about that...?)

Herman the infallibly fallible Pooh

[corkBrobe]

I vote that we scratch "infallibility" off the list . . . which was why I chose the expression, 'free from error'.

[duexjepevef]

. . . which was why I chose the expression, 'free from error'.

Ah, but as an engineer, I think we must be careful in defining "free from error". My definition is probably different from yours, because I acknowledge a difference between "acceptable error" and "unacceptable error". Oh and I am perfectly fine with a calculated probability of error as long as it is taken into account...

In short, my world-view and theology do not need to be "free from error", I just need to have a relative idea of how much error (doubt?) there is and deal with it.

Herman the too technical for his own good Pooh

[Snitiendumurn]

In short, my world-view and theology do not need to be "free from error", I just need to have a relative idea of how much error (doubt?) there is and deal with it. I don't think error and doubt are the same. Can we have a relative idea of the truth when the truth cannot be relative?