Many Orthodox Christians today believe that no Church council can be considered ecumenical until the “whole Church” has accepted it. This theory, known as “receptionism”, was first put forth by the Orthodox philosopher Alexis Khomaikov who proposed that while a particular council may declare itself to be ecumenical, it may later be regarded by the Church as being a “Robber Council,” that is, a council which did not declare the truth but rather heresy. Alternatively, a council may teach the truth properly but not be of universal significance for the Church; such councils are usually termed local. Thus, receptionism holds that that a council must be “received” by the Church and of universal significance before it can be considered ecumenical.
What is not immediately obvious to its proponents, apparently, is the reality that this theory engenders in the individual believer the notion that his “vote” counts; in other words, he is actually encouraged to pick and choose what he will or won’t accept from the hierarchy of his Church. As a result, rather than the Church judging, guiding and correcting the individual on his journey through life, each individual Orthodox now stands in judgment of the Church on its passage through history!
In many respects, this situation is similar to the private judgment of Protestantism which, when coupled with the false doctrine of sola scriptura, means that every Protestant is the ultimate interpreter of the Bible. Given the tendency of human nature to assume that our own ideas are correct, it is not uncommon for people to believe that their own interpretations are without error, and while few people would be so bold as to claim that their own interpretations are infallible, in essence, that is how personal opinions are often viewed. While this creates enormous problems for Catholic-Protestant dialogue, the challenges are multiplied many times over with and within Orthodoxy, because receptionism depends upon the ability of each individual Orthodox to read and to interpret properly not only the Bible but also the much larger body of writings of the Fathers and the Councils of the Church, as well.
This private judgment problem is exacerbated by Orthodoxy’s rejection of the supremacy of the successor of Peter as head of the universal Church and its denial of papal infallibility. Without one, unifying, and visible head of the one, visible Church, the Orthodox have unwittingly undermined the authority of their own patriarchs and bishops whose ability to teach infallibly when in communion with the Bishop of Rome has been eliminated by schism. In denying the Bishop of Rome anything more than an empty “primacy of honor”, Orthodoxy has relegated its patriarchs to that same empty “primacy of honor” amongst its other bishops. In the absence of any final court of appeal, disagreements and disputes rage on indefinitely as all parties jockey amongst themselves for positions of honor.
