[Kolokotronis]

"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 Was Paul out of date?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.

[HarleyD]

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.

If I understand you correctly, this is a rather interesting summary and one that I think is consistent with your view. From your statement you state the Church "recognizes" Truth and the "canon are in perfect accord with Truth". In other words, the Church somehow has a capability to understand what is true and they say the canons are true. This brings in the mysticism that was talked about a while back and in this current post. How the Church recognizes this Truth is a mystery but it does.

The problem I see with this argument is with the fundamental disagreements that arise in the Church. For example, take the fillique of the Nicene Creed. Orthodox and Catholics both have different interpretations. If the Church had the capability to recognize Truth, wouldn't one side or the other recognize their error?

That's not a dogmatic matter upon which salvation hinges, HD. Those are disciplinary matters.

Ah, this answers my point. I should be clear that I find nothing wrong with the Church stating they do not wish their priests to marry. I happen to think it is a wrong policy but the rules are the rules. That being said, if the scriptures lay forth the criteria of a bishop, and the Church recognizes the scriptures as Truth, then doesn't it follow that the criteria of a bishop as set forth in Paul's writing is what God wants? Isn't the Church tacking on something a little more than what God requires for the sake of discipline? And one has to wonder how well this "discipline" has worked given the past scandals within the Catholic Church.

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.

I assume then the criteria for "inspired" is what is accepted and lived out by The Church. While I would personally disagree with this view, for the Orthodox, who have been more thoughtful in their theology I can understand this point of view. For Catholics who constantly tinker with their doctrine, it is more problematic. What was accepted and lived out by The Church 600 years ago, in some cases, isn't what is accepted and lived out by The Church today. The Orthodox would simply shrug their shoulders and say, "It wasn't inspired". The Catholics would try to say it was a different interpretation that clarify earlier interpretations.