As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox Church now, and before the Great Schism, has always believed in the infallibility of the Church, correct? This infallibility, as far as I can tell, has been exercised through the college of Bishops in an Ecumenical Council. Proof of this exists in the view of Orthodoxy on the first seven Councils.
However, HOW can this position be maintained when Eastern Orthodox Bishops are in Schism from the Church, the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed infallibility? By refusing to join the Roman Catholic Church, are you not implicitly DENYING the infallibility of the Church in its ongoing decisions, which the Catholic Church had made in Ecumenical Councils SINCE Nicea?
Protestants can justify schism based on this very idea - that the Church is NOT infallible (which is the VERY THING that Eck questioned Luther on - and shut the door on any further communication - whether Councils were infallible. Luther responded "no". Eck said "then you are as a taxcollector and a heathen to me".) But what about Eastern Orthodox Christians? HOW CAN AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH FALL INTO HERESY?
Those who separate from this infallible Church were no longer catholic (meaing "according to the whole") precisely because they had separated from the visible Church. Thus, according to Bishop B.C. Butler's book, "The Church and Unity", he argues "...for {St.} Jerome, both ecclesiastical communion and doctrinal orthodoxy depend on Rome". Rome was and continues to be seen as the visible unity of the Catholic Church. The doctrine of infallibility of the Church is closely allied to the doctrine of visible indivisible unity. Since one depends on the other, again, a contradiction rears its head for the Orthodox...If the Church is NOT infallible in its doctrine, it is unable to preserve that visible unity because at some time or another, one part of the body will secede from the other.
WHO is to say authoritatively that it SHOULD NOT, if the Church is itself is not infallible? Thus, visible unity is seen to depend on infallibility, as a precondition of permanent communion within the Church. And quite naturally, the college of bishops CANNOT exercise their own charism of infallibility WITHOUT the unifying authority of the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. Certainly, the Orthodox Bishops realize this, as they have not convened an Ecumenical Council for 1000 years without Peter.
Does the Primacy of Peter truly have no significance or relevance to the above questions? If the Church is to have an infallible authority, then that infallible authority, to be effective, must be exercised through an individual, who is Peter's successor. This charism is given to the Church by Christ HIMSELF! The Church is the continuation of the Incarnation, and thus, an indivisible visible unity and an infallible authority centered in one must be recognized as a gift from God to continue the mission of Christ and the Spirit - the calling of people into the Kingdom of God.
Your comments show very little trust in God's Divine Providence and promise to keep the Gates of Hell from prevailing on His Church. Nor do they show an understanding of the very limited action of the charism of infallibility or his use of this "power" over the other bishops.
Regards
1. I have never seen a catechism material that talks of infailability.
2. Rome chose to bring itself into heresy. This is no different for instance that they monosyphites.
3. Protestants come from they already schismatic Roman church, they are illrelevant to the discussion.
4. I don't see how this is news to you since this is the exact same position Rome has held for a thousand years. You may recall, and if not I can link you to quotes, that teh Cardinal of Paris said the Crimean war was god-pleasing for killing the [Orthodox] heretics.
5. I again ask you why if the pope has inherited the primacy of Peter why he does not exercise the same sort of absolute removal from the church Peter undoubtably would with regard to homosexual clergy abusing children. Do you honestly feel Peter would wait years until everyone weighed in, moving clergy from place to place? I sincerely doubt it, I suspect he would come down quite strongly against this sinful heresy in the priesthood. Please explain to me why the current 'heir of Peter' finds this behavior acceptable enough that he acts so slowly against it.