The Infallibility of the Orthodox Church: “Concluding Remarks”

Source: The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, by Stylianos Harkianakis (future Archbishop of Australia and infamous ecumenist), published by ATF Press and St. Andrew’s Orthodox Press, Adelaide, Australia, 2008, pp. 245-250. From the author’s 1965 doctoral dissertation on ecclesial infallibility, in which he refutes the errors of Roman Catholicism and Russian theologian A.S. Khomiakov (+1860) on the issue of infallibility.

 

 

Briefly summarising all the findings made in this entire work on the subject of the infallibility of the Church, we are now in a position to write the following points in the form of logical outcomes:

I. The infallibility of the Church constitutes, both from a subjective as well as from an objective viewpoint of religion, the most central postulate and the most essential presupposition not only for the correct meaning of the religion of revelation par excellence, namely Christianity, but also for its purpose, so that, as the visible Church, it may guide the human person to the truth and salvation brought about by the incarnate Logos and Son of God.

II. The presuppositions of the infallibility of the Church, as an article of faith, are provided gradually, already from the very early sources of divine revelation; but this truth of the infallibility in the Church is testified clearly and conclusively in the New Testament and in the sacred doctrinal Tradition of the Church.

III. Distinguished from the concept of divine inspiration, the infallibility of the Church is, in the final analysis, a gift of God’s grace towards the Church established by Him. As an empirical criterion, infallibility presupposes fidelity to the truth handed over, and is not hindered by the sinfulness of the human factor in the Church. For this would signify an extremely moralistic evaluation of Christianity and would dangerously confuse the physical order with the kingdom of grace. However, even on this point, the words of St Paul acquire crucial significance: ‘But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us’ (2 Cor 4:7).

IV. A brief analysis of the nature of the Church in its two aspects, both as centre or instrument of salvation, on the one hand, and as communion of faithful, on the other, has proven that the spiritual nature of the Church would hardly exclude the concept of law, and external authority or power. On the contrary, the visible Church possesses—as an indispensable presupposition for its existence and for the application of its divine aims in the world—an external instrument of authority, as a normative measure in its activity. This consists in the canonical hierarchy of the Church established through apostolic succession, and especially in the episcopacy. This, however, does not imply a division in the body of the Church but rather the definition of its sacramental instrument.

Similarly, the most central concept of the Church as the body of Christ does not in the least exclude the distinction of its particular members, because it is precisely through the distinction and differentiation of these that the harmonious functioning and life of the body is possible. On the contrary, if every distinction between the members of the Church were to be removed, then we could no longer speak of a living body and organism, but rather of an inanimate mass, in which the particular would be added externally to the whole, without any organic and living bond.

V. As a quality, infallibility belongs to the whole Church, namely to its plenitude, both to its clergy and laity. Accordingly, no voice of any member can be ignored concerning the thought and life of the Church. At this point, however, a distinction should be made between the notions of bearer and instrument of infallibility. Bearers of the faith of the Church are all its members indiscriminately, but not all are authentic instruments of its formulation. The instrument of the infallible and authentic formulation of the faith of the Church is the institution of the synod, and especially the Ecumenical Synod. Similarly, the laity also has its own place in the synod by taking part in the discussions but without the right to vote. It is for this reason that already from the Apostolic Synod, in which the entire community participated—both the apostles and all people without distinction—and in which ‘much debate’ took place (Acts 15:7), the discussion was finalised by the teaching authority of the apostles. And it is for this reason that the sacred text of Acts designates the decrees enacted at the synod as ‘determined’ by the apostles and the presbyters: ‘As they went from town to town, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been determined by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem’ (Acts 16:4).

Accordingly, the entire Church is primarily infallible, that is the plenitude of the clergy and the laity. From this infallibility then, it also follows that the instrument of the Church, namely the consensus of the bishops whether acting in synod or as individual members of the synod, is likewise infallible.

VI. After the definition and distinction between bearer and instrument in the infallibility of the Church, the most significant truth is also that which concerns the scope or object of infallibility. The scope or object of the infallibility of the Church is only what relates to the eternal and unchangeable truth of the Church, namely the truths about doctrine and morals. Here the infallible activity of the Church has first and foremost, as scope or object, not the letter and the symbol—since they are, at any rate, of human origin and often change according to the literary and philosophical presuppositions of people from time to time—but the spirit and the meaning of the truths of the Christian faith and teaching on doctrine and morals.

VII. As the main deviations from this teaching on infallibility we could designate the Roman Catholic understanding concerning the infallibility of the pope, and the Protestant extremity of the Russian A.S. Chomiakov, with the so-called sobornost theory.

Both these erroneous extremities and heretical views have, as a common starting point, the fact that they confuse the notions of bearer and instrument of infallibility. In the first case, the confusion is at the cost of the bearer (where even the instrument is mutilated, since it is taken individually and not, as should be, synodically); and in the second case, the confusion is at the cost of the instrument, which is at first broadened at the risk of levelling the clergy and laity in the Church, and which is finally removed altogether, because in Chomiakov’s sobornost theory, no external authoritative instrument has any place in the Church.

VIII. In the refutation of the two deviations from the correct teaching of the Church on infallibility—namely that of the Roman Catholic error concerning the infallibility of the pope, and of the Protestant extreme view of Chomiakov—special emphasis was given in this work to refute Chomiakov’s sobornost theory, and this was done primarily for two significant reasons:

a. Chomiakov’s heretical extremity finds itself within Orthodoxy and directly affects the Orthodox Church, which has been the primary focus of this study.

b. Whilst the Roman Catholic perception of the infallibility of the pope has been attacked and refuted repeatedly since 1870—both from an Orthodox and non-Orthodox viewpoint—by a multitude of special treatises, this theory constitutes a known and identifiably erroneous belief. Yet Orthodox theology has not, to date, been informed about the dangers entailed in Chomiakov’s theory.

X. The dangers of the sobornost theory could briefly be summarised in the following points:

a. Mysteries (sacraments) and ‘word’ are not considered in their unified authenticity as two different forms of the same will of the one Lord Jesus Christ, but are separated from each other, so that the province of the mysteries is given to the clergy whilst that of the word is given to all the faithful.

b. A complete levelling is brought about between clergy and laity by the obvious denial of the divinely established New Testament polity of the Church, which is ultimately regarded as a matter of external order and not as the guarantee of the purity of the faith and teaching, through the significance of apostolic succession.

c. By an unrestrained mysticism, a moralistic evaluation of Christianity is sought, such that the boundaries between the natural order and the order of grace are confused.

d. An unrestrained subjectivism is proclaimed to the point of inconsistency, because although the sobornost theory seeks truth in the whole, nonetheless, no normative dimension whatsoever can control or restrain the inner experience of the faithful.

e. The fatal consequence of the sobornost theory is absolute agnosticism and uncertainty in matters of faith.

As we have seen, Chomiakov’s theory is refuted by the Holy Scriptures, the evidence of the Ecumenical Synods, the entire ecclesiological teaching of the Fathers of the Church, as well as contemporary Orthodox theology through its most renowned representatives.

Thus, we conclude the present study on the infallibility of the Church, without at all entertaining the belief that the matter has been finally resolved. However, we believe that the most important aspects related to the theme have been exposed in all their acuteness. Now if, as has been rightly observed, not only those books that bring solutions to problems, but also those that indicate and define the problems, should be considered as valuable contributions to academia, then the hope is perhaps justified that the present study will best contribute its findings towards more accomplished research towards the subject of the infallibility of the Church in Orthodox theology.