Explaining Conciliar Infallibility, Canons and Dogma
How the Orthodox Church Discerns Truth Through the Holy Spirit and the Reception of the Faithful
Introduction
A council is not infallible just because it declares itself “ecumenical”. But, Infallibility belongs to the Church (as the Body of Christ) in so far as it is guided by the Holy Spirit. A council’s teachings are recognized as infallible in hindsight, after they are tested, received, and confirmed by the whole Church. Much like how Scripture came to be recognized.
A good example is when the books of Scripture were first written, they were not necessarily declared infallible at that very moment. but over time, through the continued use, the apostolic tradition, and reception into the life of the Church, they came to be recognized as being truly God breathed.
Likewise, the decrees of the Ecumenical councils (especially regarding matters like the Trinity and the nature of Christ) were not necessarily understood (in the moment) as being beyond all doubt. But as they endured all challenges, proved consistent with Scripture and the rest of tradition, and were ultimately received into the Church’s liturgical, theological, and spiritual life, they came to be understood and affirmed as infallible expressions of the Church's faith.
Often, this reception is formally confirmed by later councils or by the universal consensus of the Faithful. Not that these teachings became true later on, but that the Church, over time, recognizes with certainty that the Holy Spirit truly spoke through them.
In other words, the infallibility of a council’s dogmatic definitions is confirmed by their coherence with the apostolic faith (which includes scripture), their continued endurance against all alternative doctrines, and their full reception by the Church in both teaching and worship.
On the Nature of Canons and Infallibility in the Orthodox Church
1. Canons Are Contextual, Not Dogmatic
The canons of Nicaea and other councils that govern how the Church is to be run may be called infallible, not because they are immutable truths, but because they are appropriate and pastoral responses to the needs of the Church at a given time. They are disciplinary and contextual, not dogmatic.
To be clear, Infallibility ≠ Immutability.
If I say “it is raining” while standing in a rainstorm, that statement is functionally infallibly true in its context, but that does not mean it can never be sunny. Church canons are often products of their time, perfectly calibrated for their era, but are subject to change as the “weather” of the Church shifts. Likewise, Church canons must be understood in their proper historical and pastoral context, just as Scripture must be interpreted according to its genre and purpose.
2. The Rudder (Pedalion): The Orthodox Guide to Canons and Dogma
The Orthodox Church’s understanding of canons and dogma is best outlined in The Rudder (Pedalion), by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and Agapius. It is a comprehensive collection of canonical material with commentary. For the rest of the article, I will be using it for the position of the Church.
We will start with a necessarily important function of canons, that canons can be adapted for economy (pastoral reasons):
“As for all rare actions out of economy, necessity, or bad state of things, and, in sum, all things done contrary to the canons, they are not to be construed as a law or canon or example of the Church...Once this matter of economy or necessity has passed, the canons are again in force.” - St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite & Agapius, The Rudder, p. 71 (Interpretation of Apostolic Canon 67; cf. Canon 46 and Canon 13 of the First Ecumenical Synod)
3. Dogmas Cannot Be Adapted or Changed
In contrast to the canons, dogmas are absolute and derived from divine revelation. They define the unchanging truths of the faith and are not subject to modification, even for pastoral reasons.
“The divine law is perfect and infallible, while, on the other hand, human legislation is defective and full of errors… Amendments are made to human laws, but not to the laws of God… The dogmas of the Church are definitions of the Covenant: they are truths of the Holy Bible that have been brought to light scientifically and have been confirmed by means of the Bible, and have been corroborated by signs and wonders… Persons who undertake to correct or abrogate or to alter them (under the guise of economy) forfeit all claims to Orthodoxy.” - The Rudder, p. 42 4.
4. True Infallibility Resides in the Holy Spirit, Not Institutions
Holy Orthodoxy does not view infallibility as something intrinsically possessed by councils, by any bishops (in groups or individually), or by ecumenical synods in isolation. But instead, infallibility belongs to the Holy Spirit, working in and through the Church.
“Infallibility in the Church is neither in individuals by themselves nor in the clergy, nor in synods, whether local or ecumenical, considered by themselves. It is not in the one or the many, but is found only in the mind of the Holy Spirit as defined in reference to related or endorsed by synods acting in the Holy Spirit.” - The Rudder, p. 37
The Church is infallible insofar as it abides in the Holy Spirit, with Scripture as the guiding reference point, not because of mere institutional authority.
The First Council in the Scripture
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15: How the Apostles Modeled Councils for the future church.
1. A crisis demands mutual discernment
“Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’” (Acts 15 : 1).
Ecumenical Councils are convened to address crises occurring within the Body of Christ. In the above verse, we see that there was a crisis within the church to a point where Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to consult
“…the apostles and the elders…” (Acts 15 : 2).
It is clear that the council is summoned because the truth of the gospel is at stake, and from that, the unity of the Church.
2. Deliberation together in the Spirit
In this section, I will lay out the main events of the Council:
Deliberation and debate begin after an initial report (Acts 15 : 4-7).
Peter recalls the event with Cornelius, saying that God did not discriminate between Jew and Gentile, and that faith purified their hearts (Acts 15:7-11; see also Acts 10:44-48).
Then, Paul and Barnabas report “signs and wonders” that God had performed among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12).
After which, James quotes Amos 9:11-12 to prove that Scripture had foretold Gentile inclusion (Acts 15:15-18).
And only after the recall of experience, testimony, and Scripture do they write their findings and conclusion, which begins, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15 : 28). Scripture makes it clear that the fundamental source of authority of the council is that of the Spirit.
After the council concludes, they send a letter, functioning as the Horos or Definition of the Council, from the Church to the surrounding churches to clarify the Church's proper and official doctrinal teaching.
3. Dogma Distinguished from Discipline
There are two levels that exist in the apostolic letter.
1. Immutable dogma:
“We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [the Gentiles] will” (Acts 15 : 11)
This is a clear dogmatic rejection of salvific circumcision.
2. Pastoral canons: Gentile converts are told to avoid meat sacrificed to idols, blood, strangled animals, and sexual immorality (Acts 15 : 20, 29) so that Jews and Gentiles can fellowship together without scandalizing one another. Evidence of economia in the application of canons can be seen in how the dietary laws are later applied flexibly (pastorally) by Paul, who allows eating meat that is sold in idol markets, so that no brother is scandalized (1 Cor 8:4-13; 10:25-30; Rom 14:14-21).
Now, are we to think that Paul is contradicting what the Apostles and the rest of the elders, i.e., the Church, said? Or is it the case that even in the time of the earliest Church, it was understood that there was a distinction between Canon and Dogma? Surely, the latter is the case.
Paul does not say this to rebel against the Jerusalem decree, but his pastoral flexibility is a proper application of the spirit of the canon in a new context.
So even in the definition of the first Council, the decree is infallible in intention and contextual purpose but flexible in its disciplinary applications. Dogma is immutable, but discipline is contextual.
4. Reception Confirms the Decree
Delegates then carry the letter to Antioch, and the Christians read it “and rejoiced because of its encouragement” (Acts 15:30-31). Paul conveys the same decisions in his later journey to the churches in Syria and Cilicia, and then later to those in Galatia, for them “to observe” (Acts 15:41; 16:4).
Importantly, it must be noted that long before the account of the Council itself becomes part of canonical Scripture, and by the close of the second century, Apostolic Father, Saint Irenaeus, invokes Acts 15 as a model of apostolic consensus and praxis (Against Heresies 1.10.2, 3.12.14, 3.12.15).
And importantly, evidence that the Canons of the Decree of the Council of Jerusalem were not dogmatic. That they “Allowed the Gentiles to act freely” while, "They themselves... continued in the ancient observances".
“And the apostles who were with James allowed the Gentiles to act freely, yielding us up to the Spirit of God. But they themselves, while knowing the same God, continued in the ancient observances… Thus did the apostles, whom the Lord made witnesses of every action and of every doctrine… scrupulously act according to the dispensation of the Mosaic law, showing that it was from one and the same God” Against Heresies 3.12.15
5. A Model for All Later Ecumenical Councils
The pattern established in Acts 15: crisis, council, discussion/debate, Scriptural basis, appeal to the Holy Spirit, a final twofold decree of dogma and canons, and finally gradual reception of said decree, reappears at Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and the rest of the ecumenical councils.
Conclusion
Acts 15 is an example of Orthodox conciliar theology. Verses 1-2 show councils meeting only for necessary crises; verses 4-18 display deliberation illuminated by the Spirit; verses 11 and 20-29 show the distinction between unchanging doctrine and circumstantial canons; verses 30-31 and 16:4 show how reception by the faithful seals a council’s authority. When later synods follow this apostolic pattern, they also share in the same Spirit-guided method of settling disputes first demonstrated at the Council of Jerusalem.