Yes and no. We have the concept of infallibility, but instead of relegating it to one person (the Roman Pontiff) we relegate it to the entire Church and say that the entire Orthodox Church is infallible, although that does not exempt a local Church from falling into heresy.
Yes and that acceptance entails the affirmation of the laity so…as you can imagine even if we could hold a council with all of the local Churches represented, its deliberations would not be considered binding unless the people accepted it…thus the failure of Ferrara-Florence, the Council of Crete etc.
See Council of Crete 2016, which resulted in Great Schism 2.0 etc.
I don’t understand why we Catholics are trying to find out what teachings are infallible or not. It does not matter.
Fun part is that even then it isn’t infallible. Robber Councils aren’t infallible yet they were accepted by various Churches before and for example Chalcedon wasn’t accepted by a huge chunk of Christians yet is infallible… it’s useless to try finding some pattern in it. Only thing 7 Ecumenical Councils have in common without bias is that Pope accepted them. Even if you say “both East and West attended” what is exactly meant by that? Are Greeks and Latins sufficient? Are Copts not necessary? I think that Orthodox position can be best clarified as “wait and see what is and isn’t infallible”.
So do I. St. Cyprian was wrong according to Church at large, St. Augustine was wrong according to Orthodoxy (though now this new sentiment results in some people denying his Sainthood)… and we have fair share of “Saints who were wrong” in Catholicism. Some would even be manifest heretics as they contradicted teaching that was already infallible (yet not with full knowledge of course).
It does matter. One Pope once said that ensoulment of unborn baby happens quite late and hence early term abortions are okay. Another Pope discarded that teaching and corrected such mistake. First teaching wasn’t infallible though. If it did not matter there wouldn’t be those degrees in the first place.
No. If Pope says something in and interview I am not bound by it. If my Priest teaches something in homily I am not bound by it. There are various degrees and we aren’t bound by everything.
Okay. I obviously did not make myself clear. The CCC contains a summary of infallible and non-infallible teachings. Catholics are BOUND BY ALL TEACHINGS in the CCC.
Oh sorry. I didn’t know we were talking about Catechism. My bad. I was not trying to be cheeky and play word games… my apologies brother.
From historical perspective, Ecumenical Councils did not do this… Arianism was widespread and was such “tradition” represented in decision of Nicea? Or were Miaphysites represtented at Chalcedon? Basically Council is Council and those who do not accept it are out of the Church and that means their consent isn’t needed… it’s pretty strange concept. In theory you only need consent of those who are willing to grant it.
Absolutely. Councils exist to preserve, not to invent. And full understanding is needed. In Catholic world Papal Infallibility boils down to this- how many people miss essence of dogma by claiming Pope can not sin or that Pope can not ever lie or the other extreme that Pope can invent new religion through it. I am sure there are things behind dogma in Orthodox world too.
I realize that I was unclear. Truth (Orthodoxy) is not dependent on consent, but œcumenicity requires universality. Arianism was indeed represented at Nicaea, and declared heterodox, just like certain notions about the papacy within your Church was declared heterodox at the First Vatican council. If a body of believers declare that you must adhere to something to remain within the body, naturally it only requires consent of those who wants to remain within the body. That is a given in any faith system, including Roman Catholicism. The First Vatican council was declared Orthodox by those who believed in its content, but not by those Bishops and believers who opposed (Old Catholics, for example). A council makes clear who can remain together. We as Orthodox believe that our faith represents the tradition of the saints and the apostles, and this faith is not true because it is proclaimed by a council – the council is true because it adheres to the faith.
Of course but Roman Catholicism does not adhere to fact that something needs to be accepted by all to be infallible, which eliminates that there needs to be a certain consent of those not directly participating in the Council.
That’s something we also agree with. Problem comes when someone who is confused by many denominations wants to find the Truth. Let’s say that certain someone does not have brains to actually do deep theological research on what is and isn’t Apostolic Faith… then what? How does he decide where Truth is?
that’s why I included “the” in front of “various churches” . . .
Well, sure but technically that can be reduced to “Rome”. There is no Patriarchate whose approval didn’t once rest on Robber Council except Rome. Orthodoxy would disagree only with Photian Council (and of course, post-schism Councils).
This is my problem exactly worded.
I do not think any Church believes that consensus is required in order for something to be orthodox. What I meant was that a council usually set up boundaries for who is in and who is not. The synod gathers Bishops to solve problems, usually of both doctrinal and disciplinary character. The Bishops in the Latin Church believes that the vote of the Pope outnumbers the vote of all the other Bishops, but we as Orthodox cannot accept this. Our Patriarchs and Metropolitans have the right to gather Synods, but they do not constitute it.
I have heard this argument before, but it never quite spoke to me. The Roman solution to this problem is traditionally, the way I understand it, the following: “The Church is the Church by being faithful to Tradition. The Pope will always protect Tradition. You will, by studying Church history, see that Tradition was always protected by the Pope.”