Eastern Orthodoxy Index

            It is the assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that ecumenical (i.e. worldwide) councils are infallible.  Roman apologists and other defenders of the Roman Church claim that this has always been believed by all Christians since the time of the Apostles, and thus, they accuse Protestants of theological novelty in the rejection of this belief.  However, when the facts are brought to light, it is Rome that has brought about a theological novum.  As will be shown, the church fathers clearly believed that plenary (i.e. ecumenical) councils were only authoritative as long as they were founded upon Scripture and that they could err if they were not so founded.  What will follow are a few quotes that the thesis stated above followed by commentary.  Afterward, a few texts that Roman apologists use will be dealt with. 

Athanasius

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly,that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (Emphasis mine)

                       -Athanasius, De Synodis, 1.6

            http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-64.htm#P7325_2907692  

           Here, we have Athanasius, the ‘Father of Orthodoxy’, commenting that Scripture is totally sufficient for the Christian faith, and he criticizes those who constantly call for councils.  He goes on to say that the position of the Nicene council (1^st Ecumenical) was stated so well because it was in accordance with Scripture.  Contrary to the belief of Roman Catholic apologists that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be completely found in Scripture (explicitly or implicitly), Athanasius states the opposite and says that everything that was stated in the Nicene council can be found clearly in the Old and New Testaments. 

John Cassian

“You see then that the Creed has the authority of God: for “a short word will the Lord make upon the earth.” But perhaps you want the authority of men: nor is that wanting, for God made it by means of men. For as He fashioned the whole body of the sacred Scriptures by means of the patriarchs and more particularly his own prophets, so He formed the Creed by means of His apostles and priests. And whatever He enlarged on in these (in Scripture) with copious and abundant material, He here embraced in a most complete and compendious form by means of His own servants. There is nothing wanting then in the Creed; because as it was formed from the Scriptures of God by the apostles of God, it has in it all the authority it can possibly have, whether of men or of God: Although too that which was made by men, must be accounted God’s work, for we should not look on it so much as their work, by whose instrumentality it was made, but rather as His, who was the actual maker.” (Emphasis mine)

                     -John Cassian, On the Incarnation 6.4

            http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-11/Npnf2-11-84.htm#P7309_2674452

           John Cassian is commenting on the authority of the Creed that was composed by the Council of Antioch.  He says that the Creed has as much value as Scripture only because it is based on Scripture.  J.N.D. Kelly comments:

“The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by the latter is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended what amounted to the exposition of the Bible.  Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis…The creed itself, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine and Cassian, was a compendium of Scripture.”

–J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, reprinted 2003), p.46.

Augustine

The best has been saved for last:

“…and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?” (Emphasis mine)

                       -Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.3

           http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-53.htm#P3181_1852879

           This quote from Augustine is the ‘death knell’ of the Roman Catholic belief.  Here, Augustine clearly explains his belief that plenary (i.e. ecumenical) councils can be “corrected” by later plenary councils.  If plenary councils are “corrected”, then obviously, the previous council has erred somewhere and the later council corrected it.  Thus, Augustine, though he had a high view of the Church, never believed that the Church was infallible.  However, one may object and say that this is the opinion of just one church father.  Alister McGrath comments on the influence of Augustine:

“It is certain that no writer, other than those of scripture, has exercised so great an influence over the development of western Christian thought as Augustine of Hippo…Anselm of Canterbury spoke for the theological tradition of the west when he equated orthodoxy with conformity to the writings catholicorum patrum et maxime beati Augustini.”

–Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2^nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), p.24.

The influence of Augustine cannot be overstated.  He was perhaps the most prolific and influential of all the church fathers.  Dismissing him as just one opinion among many church fathers is perhaps to dismiss all the other fathers with him.  Augustine was merely stating the common belief and practice of the Church in his day.

________________________________________________________________________

           Roman Catholic apologists like to use a few out-of-context citations of the early fathers in an attempt to convince others that the church fathers believed that ecumenical councils were infallible.  What will follow are the quotations and commentary on each one:

“The confession arrived at Nicaea was, we say once more, sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church.”

-Athanasius, Ad Afros 1

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-69.htm#P7823_3136995

Roman apologists latch on to the phrase “sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy” and argue that Athanasius held the belief that Nicea I, the first ecumenical council, was infallible.  They infer that Athanasius’ use of “sufficient” meant that he was implying that this would quell the heresy of Arianism because everyone believed that the ecumenical council was infallible.  However, this is not only misleading, but it also goes against history as well.  The great Church historian, Philip Schaff, was the editor of the 38-Volume The Early Church Fathers series.  In his introduction to Athanasius’ letter, Ad Afros, he wrote this:    

“In the encyclical before us he begins (1-3) by contrasting the synod of Nicaea with that of Ariminum, and pointing out the real history of the latter, going over again to some extent the ground of the earlier sections of the de Synodis. He touches (3. end) on the disastrous termination of the Council. He then proceeds to vindicate the Nicene creed (4-8) as essentially Scriptural, i.e. as the only possible bar to the unscriptural formulae of the Arians. This he illustrates (5, 6) by an account, substantially identical with that in the de Decretis, of the evasions of every other test by the Asian bishops atNicaea. He repeatedly urges that the formula was no invention of the Nicene Fathers (6, 9), appealing to the admission of Eusebius to this effect. He attacks the Homoean position, shewing that its characteristic watchword merely dissembles the alternative between Anomoeanism and the true co-essentiality of the Son (7). The most novel argument in the Letter is that of §4, where he refutes the repudiation of ousia and upostasij in the creed of Nicé by an argument from Scripture, starting from Ex. iii. 14 (as de decr. 22 and de Syn. 29), and turning the equivalence of the two terms in question. This would appeal to Westerns, and expresses the usual view of Atn. himself (Tom. ad Ant. Introd.) but would not have much force with those who were accustomed to the Eastern terminology.”

–Philip Schaff, NPNF, Series II, Vol. IV, Introduction to Ad Afros Epistola Synodica

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-68.htm#P7813_3132319

Athanasius’ main argument was not a defense of the infallibility of the Council of Nicea, but rather, his main defense of Nicea was from Scripture. Logically speaking, could the council be “sufficient” in some way other than the way Roman apologists tell us it is?  Of course it could!  It was sufficient in that it fully refuted the Arian heresy from the Scriptures:

“Such was the corrupt mind of the Arians. But here too the Bishops, beholding their craftiness, collected from the Scriptures the figures of brightness, of the river and the well, and of the relation of the express Image to the Subsistence, and the texts, ‘in thy light shall we see light,’ and ‘I and the Father are one.’ And lastly they wrote more plainly, and concisely, that the Son was coessential with the Father; for all the above passages signify this.”

-Athanasius, Ad Afros 6 (emphasis mine)

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-69.htm#P7873_3150509

There is nothing in this letter that would lead one to believe that Athanasius held Nicea to be infallible because it was an ecumenical council.  Indeed, if Athanasius had put forward such an argument, he would in essence be ‘slitting his own wrist’.  James White comments on the logical inconsistency of the Roman position:

“Ask yourself a question: how can someone read these materials and say that Athanasius is specifically writing to defend the infallibility of the Church? He’s writing against men who are in positions  in the Church, who have convened council after council in the Church to condemn his own theology and the position of Nicæa! If anyone proves that you should always believe in the infallibility of Scripture over against any supposed infallibility of the Church, Athanasius proves this! He held out, almost alone, for decades against the combined weight of the institutional Church of his day! It is quite obvious that someone has to be looking for something that comes from another source to be able to read such a concern into Athanasius. His words, quoted above, are easily understood in their context: the definition of Nicæa was sufficient to refute Arianism. But the simple fact of history is, it took long years of fighting, replete with in-depth biblical exegesis and study, for the Nicene definition to gain acceptance and obedience. It did not win the final battle because it claimed inherent infallibility: it won that battle because it was in harmony with that which is inherently infallible: the revealed Word of God, the Scriptures.”

–James White, http://aomin.org/credenda.html

           Another misused text by Roman apologists is that of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures:

“It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.”

           -Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 18.23

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-23.htm#P2555_721302

As was noted in the article, Concerning the Church Fathers, a few Roman apologists use the translation by Jurgens which says “…it [i.e. the Catholic Church] teaches universally and infallibly…”  Of course, this is a mistranslation:

“The original Greek does not support this translation.  The quotes…come from the work, The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens.  But this is a completely novel translation.  He is alone in translating the Greek word used by Cyril to mean infallible.  The Greek term employed by Cyril is…(anelleipos), meaning ‘completely’, not infallibly.  This is the translation given by the Roman Catholic Fathers of the Church series, the Roman Catholic editors Berington and Kirk in their work The Faith of Catholics, as well as by the editors of the Nicene-Post Nicene Fathers.” 

-William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol. II  (Battle Ground, Washington: Christian Resources, 2001), p.262 

Still, what does he mean by “completely”?  Very simply, it means that the Church teaches orthodoxy instead of heresy and it teaches all doctrines necessary to believe in order to be saved. The last text that will be examined is one from Augustine:

“But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

            -Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, ch.5

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-12.htm#P952_485346

First, it must be noted that nowhere does Augustine suggest that the Church is infallible.  In fact, as was noted above, he said that the Church could indeed err. But what does Augustine mean?  John Calvin, the Protestant reformer of Geneva and a man who knew the church fathers quite well, gives the answer:

“Augustine, therefore, does not here say that the faith of the godly is founded on the authority of the Church; nor does he mean that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it; he merely says that unbelievers would have no certainty of the gospel, so as thereby to win Christ, were they not influenced by the consent of the Church. And he clearly shows this to be his meaning, by thus expressing himself a little before: “When I have praised my own creed, and ridiculed yours, who do you suppose is to judge between us; or what more is to be done than to quit those who, inviting us to certainty, afterwards command us to believe uncertainty, and follow those who invite us, in the first instance, to believe what we are not yet able to comprehend, that waxing stronger through faith itself, we may become able to understand what we believe—no longer men, but God himself internally strengthening and illuminating our minds? These unquestionably are the words of Augustine (August. Cont. Epist. Fundament. chap. 4); and the obvious inference from them is, that this holy man had no intention to suspend our faith in Scripture on the nod or decision of the Church, but only to intimate (what we too admit to be true) that those who are not yet enlightened by the Spirit of God, become teachable by reverence for the Church, and thus submit to learn the faith of Christ from the gospel. In this way, though the authority of the Church leads us on, and prepares us to believe in the gospel, it is plain that Augustine would have the certainty of the godly to rest on a very different foundation.”

           -John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7.3

 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.htm

In other words, the Church does not establish that the Gospel is true, but rather, it is evidence that the Gospel is true.

________________________________________________________________________

Eastern Orthodoxy Index