And if memory serves me correctly, the Orthodox are not ashamed to admit they are willing to change teaching and doctrinal positions. Does that mean what was the infallible position of the Church, like bishops being the husbands of one wife as Paul stated, is no long an infallible teaching? Was Paul out of date? One has to wonder if it was good 300 years later why it isn't good now? It does make one question what the term "infallible" means?
"That sounds very much like a Clitonism."
It does, doesn't it!
"Sorry, if I understand you correctly, that's the old Catholic argument; "The scriptures are infallible because we say it so."
I think you misunderstand. The Church recognizes Truth and the scriptures as we have them in the canon are in perfect accord with Truth to the extent we understand it. They are, therefore, inspired of God; every word in scripture is True. Infallibility isn't an attribute of things but rather of The Church. The meaning of the inspired scriptures can be infallibly determined by The Church insofar as that is possible for man. There is much in scripture which is a complete mystery and there is nothing wrong with saying that, especially when it comes to the "nature" of God. The Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and when their writings are within and part of the consensus patrum as determined by The Church, the writings may be said to be inspired. No matter how inspired any individual Father was, each could individually err and many (maybe all of them) did in one way or another. That's why I said that it depends on what you mean by "inspired". Inspired doesn't, at least for us, mean inerrant. The scriptures are in complete accord with the Truth as The Church has been given to know it and thus are "inerrant". The Fathers are not.
"And if memory serves me correctly, the Orthodox are not ashamed to admit they are willing to change teaching and doctrinal positions."
If a teaching of a bishop or a council is not lived out by The Church, then it is error. The history of The Church has a number of examples of this. I guess I miss your point, HD.
"Does that mean what was the infallible position of the Church, like bishops being the husbands of one wife as Paul stated, is no long an infallible teaching? Was Paul out of date? One has to wonder if it was good 300 years later why it isn't good now? It does make one question what the term "infallible" means?"
That's not a dogmatic matter upon which salvation hinges, HD. Those are disciplinary matters. I suspect they can be changed without danger to anyone's soul.
"I guess that makes some of the writings by St. Bob or St. Fred equivalent to St. Paul and St. Peter; at least as long as a few hundred people vote to say it is."
Well, if the writings of St. Bob and St. Fred are written within The Church and are accepted and lived out by The Church, perhaps their writings are inspired. Maybe even the writings of people outside The Church which are consistent with the Truth as it has been revealed to The Church are inspired. If one posits that +JC Ryle, the great Anglican bishop of the 19th century was outside The Church, nevertheless one would be hard pressed to say that his sermons and tracts were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. But are they so inspired that they are the equivalent of the scriptures, no, The Church doesn't teach that at all.
Nonsense. The Lord never taught anything about bishops being husbands of one wife, nor that presbyters and their wives are to be "model citizens." Even +Paul admits on more than one occasion that what he is writing are not God's commandments, but his own.
As far as the Church is concerned, a bishop being celibate is a matter of dicipline, where celibacy was always held to the highest degree, including by Apostle Paul.
The doctrines of the Church concern themselves with the Holy Trinity and Christ, based on the Scripture and what was not reduced to writing but taught by Apostoles verbally.
Show me when and by whom are the Orthodox willing to change their teaching and doctrinal positions?