Infallibility and Conciliarity

An Icon of the 318 Fathers of the Church Who Declared the Faith Once Received from the Apostles at the First Council of Nicaea

“But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.” Matthew 10:17-18 KJV

By Bp. Joseph (Ancient Church of the West) 

Was conciliar process the basis of the authority of the Christian message in the Early Church? No, it was not. Was Apostolic Authority the basis for authority in the Christian message? No, it was not! Then what was the basis? The Person of Christ, His Claims, and His Story was the basis! The Apostolic Witness, the Conciliar Witness, and the Creedal Witness are overlapping and complementary facets that reflect their mutual dependence upon one another and their mutual rooting in the Message of the Gospel, the Revelation of the Person of God in Christ. This core, narrative, personal understanding is the foundation for all subsequent authority, and the method of propagation and sustainable influence of this story are secondary to these primary claims. If this is established, claims based upon the historical and political claims surrounding secondary witnesses must be clarified. 

The following is the declaration from the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, delineating the responsibilities of Gentile believers and the “canonical laws” that must be inherited from Judaism, marking the first time that the Church set forth a code of conduct, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It gives us a biblical basis for the later developments in the Church whereby disciplinary decisions would be made and declared by the "Whole Church," the "Kata Holos," the body catholic, and declared for the good of the faithful. However, it shows that it does not have the authority to change or develop any doctrine, and this can be seen from the first instance - the Apostolic Council enforces what was already proclaimed in the midst of God's Covenant People in God's Word. 

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” Acts 15:28-29 KJV

Historically, Church Councils have been incredibly helpful, but they have also been common, divisive, and have often been used for political gain by Byzantine Roman Emperors and Roman Popes. While their human aspects are painfully obvious, and their divisive effects historically proven, their problem often boils down to a simple claim that they make for themselves. While the Eastern Orthodox deny the concept of infallibility to a single man, the Pope, saying that it makes that man somehow a “god,” it then allows for infallibility on the part of the “whole church,” but does not counter that it then, just as in the papal situation, “makes the church a god.” The concept of “infallible” means “without error,” and it is commonly understood to mean “revealed,” “unchanging,” and “uncontested.” It also must be "universal," if it is truly infallible, and “unconstrained by time, space, language or culture.” These categories are where things start to break down. If something is infallible, then it is true and universal, and historical or contemporary divergence to an infallible claim must be untrue and incorrect. But, what if a claim to infallibility is based upon the authority of a previous revelation or claim which the new infallible claim contradicts? Can two, contradictory claims, both be infallible? No, they cannot. Therefore, should a later claim to infallibility be seriously considered if it does so? No, it cannot be seriously considered infallible. This is the central problem we have previously outlined with the Blessed Theodore Balsamon's canonical principle of interpretation, outlined in the Nomocanon in 14 Volumes, which states that "the newer council always overrules and clarifies the older council."

Then, in what case or sense is a Council infallible? Within the structure of authority that has arisen, infallibility is synonymous with “unquestionability,” meaning that the authority has made the matter in question non-optional and compels compliance. Compliance, then, ceases to be an voluntary act, offered by the recipient of the law because of an acceptance and love of the recipient for the law or personality being communicated to them, but is an action based on a fear of negative consequences. A fear of negative consequences as a motivation for action is not an un-coerced decision, and therefore, the responsibility for the insuring decision rests, not upon the compliant, but upon those who forced the submission. Therefore, an infallible council that contradicts earlier, known and established practices, which led to the expectation and claims of structural authority which were to be upheld within the council, if contradicted by the council, denies authority to that council. All claims to infallibility are invalidated by the nature of truth and the dependence of authority upon truth's verifiability (or upon agreement that the foundational, common assumptions of those in Council is confirmed by personal experience), if continuity and submission to previous precedents cannot be maintained. Likewise, all councils claiming infallibility based upon the anathematization of individuals who are not allowed to represent themselves, who are not present, or who died in communion with the Church (such as Origen or Theodore Mopsuestia), or that requires submission by pain of death, excommunication, or defrocking, rather than by decision for mutual love, agreement and submission, are also not infallible, based upon the procedural denial of the nature of unchanging truth, the rejection of the basis of Conciliar Authority (which is agreement, not disagreement), and the manner in which this decision contradicts the original claims of a necessarily infallible core revelation. 

Christ's Connection to the 12 Apostles, Contemporary Greek Icon of the Holy Vine

The Communion of the First Apostles is Pictured in the Communion of Bishops with One Another in Holy Synod (The First Council of Nicaea, by Giovanni Guerra, Fresco in Capella Sistina)

The Earthly Unity of the Church Martial is a Reflection of the Heavenly Unity of the Church Triumphant Standing Before Christ's Throne, United to the Life of the Holy Trinity Forever (From the First Colored Canto of Dante's Paradiso, 1555, held at Columbia University)

The Vision of this Holiness, Unity and Shared Life in this World is Known as the "Beatific Vision," Only Truly Experienced in this Life by Those Who Live in a State of Repentance, Obedience, Purity and Peace (Icon from the uncolored illustrated Paradiso, the Empyrean, 1555)

What does infallibility mean in the sense of a council in which these prerequisites have not been met? 1) Declaration of official sponsorship of a group of bishops who either agree with the Imperial Government or whose ideas are accepted by the Emperor. 2) Decisive disallowing of further debate or discussion regarding unanswerable questions. 3) Are not infallible, upon being turned over by another council with equal backing and procedural authority. 4) Or, as many canonists in the Orthodox and Oriental Churches teach, are only infallible upon being declared such by all local Churches, and by which definition there are no truly infallible Church Councils, except the first two, which have been accepted and ensconced in all ancient, Apostolic Churches. 

It strikes me that based upon this understanding, conciliatory process should not be thought of as infallible without the following “marks” of catholicity....

Infallibility based on faithfulness to the Gospel

Infallibility based on peace and love

Infallibility based on agreement of communion

Infallibility based on mutual submission and rejection of power

Infallibility based on continuity of practice 

Councils and canons may be locally binding and necessary for unity and good order, but their definitions do not define the parameters of the Church, unless they all received and promulgated by all of them. This is because infallibility would have to be a DIRECT MANIFESTATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHICH WAS ALREADY IN THE CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING, and will always reveal the biblical prerequisites for the Fruit of the Spirit and be "full of grace!" By their fruits you will know them (Matt 7:16), and we have a very clear listing of such attributes, which show the presence of the Holy Spirit in our midst...

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23 KJV

Read in this light, how many of the Church Councils were infallible? How was infallibility determined by political power? How was this infallibility used and what was the end result for the Church and for Communion? 

Ancient Icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent, 6th Century, Monastery of St. Katherine on Mt. Sinai 

Now, what about the role of Council in Communion? The two ideas are not just similar, but linked throughout Church History. Only those Churches that agree in Council will also share Communion with one another. In Communion, what we receive together is a mystery, in which we worship Christ and receive His Work of salvation. We all have necessary parts to play, worshipping, confessing, affirming, thanking, and receiving, and we are all unified in Christ's Body as we commune with Christ's Body and Blood, playing one role together, essentially unified, essential egalitarian, and essentially essential - the Communicant. What we do and how we do it is a mystery, fully dependent upon the Grace of God, worked out by Him and by His Power. Our personal roles are fulfilled and complemented with everyone else's roles in the process of the Liturgy, which is our experience of God revealing Himself to us, personally, and His forgiveness of our sins and transgressions. Those who have unconfessed sins do not take communion. They do not lose their baptism, but they cannot commune, because of the warning that to do so would be to burn away ourselves, united to sin, with that which is essentially Holy - Not discerning the Body and Blood of our Lord. Those who do not commune cannot say, “fine, we'll do our own communion” and go off and have their own communion in which Christ reveals Himself to them... The reason for that would be that their sins have not been confessed, and therefore, those sins or grudges keep Christ from revealing Himself in Communion, but only in condemnation. 

“For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” I Corinthians 11:18-31 KJV

Now, while there are great similarities, let us look at ways in which the Councils were different. For one, in communion, we receive a mystery. If we define anything that has been commanded and ordained by Christ, we fall into error... It places our mind before God. Therefore, it is confession of our sins and affirming a mystery by refraining from speculation or definition that allows us to partake in One Body, becoming One Body. Do the Church Councils do this? In some cases, yes, they do. When they affirm mystery, protect mystery from definition, and commonly confess the sinfulness and inadequacy of all parties, affirming Christ as God and partaking in the unity of His Body, they mirror Communion and are gifted with Thanksgiving. But, in other cases, definitely not. Such was Ephesus, Chalcedon, the 4th Council of Constantinople, and the Council of 2nd Nicea. Whenever councils were brought together to define, rather than affirm, witness, and draw a boundary around the Gospel of Christ, those Councils divided the Body of Christ and defeated the process of communion within the Church. The reason was clearly a lack of mutual repentance, love and humility. Without these, there can be no assurance of the Presence of the Holy Spirit, or His Witness of the Truth of Christ made manifest in any process. In fact, the only Councils that were held in harmony was the first and second councils, which gave us the Creed! This Creed is an expression of Human Communion with the Holy Spirit, for in it, we have the Witness of the Apostolic Gospel, pointing us all to the source of all Authority, Who is the Trinity Revealed in Christ, Both God and Man! The Eastern Orthodox are rightly concerned that the Roman Catholic Church changed this revealed Creed, without a synodal process and the revelation of the fruits of the Holy Spirit in mutual love and submission. 

Returning to the Father in Recognition of the Sins We Have Committed in a Contemporary Greek Icon of the Prodigal Son

All these other Councils are not wrong or evil - they were necessary to address problems of the day, but as such, they cannot claim absolutely inerrancy or infallibility, but only relatively to their reception by all Churches throughout time. If they erase these claims, they have much more potential for good, for reinterpretation (where the earlier maintains precedence over the latter), and for contextualization. We could justify the flexibility and “economia” by which they are currently applied by a clear logic of priority, rather than merely ignoring the inconsistencies or self-contradictions. But what needs to happen is not constant development and an endless stream of Councils, like the Romans practice, nor a retrenching and stubborn view of Infallible Councils, which fundamentalist Orthodox use to prove their canonical feuds with other apostolic traditions, nor a reactionary spirit that doubles down on personal correctness. No, what needs to happen is that the hierarchy of the Person, Gospel, Apostolic Witness, Fathers, Creed, Council, and Canon be kept in a hierarchy of priority that clearly returns to, defends, and contextualize the greatest to the least. This makes the Councils merely an “Amen” to the revealed mystery of Christ's Body, based on all of our mutual repentance and decision to respect and accept this Mystery. God Incarnate, witnessed by the Gospels, prophesied in the Old Testament, applied by the Church, and present in Communion is the revelation we see throughout Christian History of a Faith that is both life-giving and free, an organically growing organism that is fed by love and grace. This will only happen if we act upon the Lord's Prayer, and receive God's forgiveness in proportion to forgiving our debtors, or, as the passage before this central prayer says...

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Matthew 5:22-24 KJV