Fr.

Dumitru Stăniloae’s View on Laymen’s Participation

in the Infallibility of the Church

AlexAndru roşu*

Though Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae did not address the topic extensively, a certain view
on laymen’s participation in the Infallibility of the Church could be extracted from his
writings. While professing the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church, i.e., insisting
on the role of hierarchy in preserving and formulating the faith, Stăniloae alluded to a
specific charismatic role of laity in preserving and strengthening the faith. The dialogue
with the ecclesiology of I. Karmiris also led Stăniloae to the formulation of a personal
theory concerning the limits of Church infallibility. The collaboration between clergy and
laymen, as witnessed by the Liturgy, appears to be a suitable description of the manner in
which Church infallibility functions.

Keywords: Dumitru Stăniloae, Orthodox ecclesiology, infallibility, conciliarity,

development of dogmas, laity, universal priesthood, reception of councils

Still largely unknown to the Western world, Romanian Orthodox

theologian Dumitru Stăniloae (1903–1993) brought forth an optimistic,
person-centred and simultaneously Tradition-rooted theology, which may
provide suitable answers for the identity crises of modern man. His ecclesiology
distinguishes itself by marked Trinitarian and Eucharistic accents and accounts
for one of the most balanced ecclesiological and dialogue-opened Orthodox
views of the last century.1
In this paper we shall attempt to elucidate Father Stăniloae’s stance on
laymen’s participation in the infallibility of the Church.
From the beginning we should note that the words “laymen” or
“laypeople” are not to be taken in the sense of the French word laïc and of
the later-emerged concept of laïcité, i.e. “independent of ” or even “opposed

*
Alexandru Roșu, Dr. theol. in Dogmatic Theology (2013), University of Bucharest. As of
January 2014, deacon of the Bonn Romanian Orthodox Parish, under the jurisdiction of the
Romanian Orthodox Metropolitan See of Germany, Central and Northern Europe. Contact
details: Kölnstr. 464, D-53117 Bonn, e-mail: alexandru.rosu.th@gmail.com.
1
See, for instance, Radu Bordeianu, Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology, T&T
Clark Theology series, T&T Clark 2011. A review of this work signed by Adam A. J. DeVille
is to be found at: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.de/2011/10/on-dumitru-staniloaes-
ecclesiology.html, retrieved on the 1st of August 2013. Also see R. Bordeianu, “Retrieving
Eucharistic Ecclesiology”, in: Gesa Elsbeth Thiessen (ed.), Ecumenical Ecclesiology. Unity,
Diversity and Otherness in a Fragmented World, T&T Clark Theology series, T&T Clark
2009, pp. 128-142, in which he provides a view on Stăniloae’s Eucharistic ecclesiology in
comparison to the views of Afanassieff and Zizioulas.

RES 6 (1/2014), p. 29-48 DOI: 10.2478/ress-2014-0103

Alexandru Roșu

to the Church”. Indeed, the Romanian language, the language in which

Dumitru Stăniloae wrote, has the choice between two terms, when it comes to
denoting non-clergy. Due to the negative implications of laïcité, the Romanian
neologism laic is usually avoided by theologians, who instead prefer using the
older, of-Slavonic origin name of mirean. In most cases Fr. Stăniloae himself
preferred to speak in general of “the faithful” (Romanian credincioşi) or “the
people” [of the Church] (Romanian poporul).
Secondly, we should note that Fr. Stăniloae did not deal with the issue of
infallibility in an exhaustive manner. He mainly referred to infallibility when
he critically discussed the Roman-Catholic approach to it, especially in the
context of the Second Vatican Council.2 This is explainable by the fact that,
to the Orthodox, infallibility does not constitute a nota Ecclesiae by itself, but
it rather represents a consequence of her holiness.3 In general, it must also be
noted that Fr. Stăniloae was not concerned with historical or canonical aspects
of the perception of (ecumenical) councils. To these we may also add that the
dialectical dimension of Dumitru Stăniloae’s theology accounts for diverse
expressions concerning laypeople’s participation in Church infallibility. Thus,
piecing together his vision on the matter becomes a fairly difficult task.
The limits of infallibility
In his article “The Authority of the Church”, Fr. Stăniloae expounds the
following Orthodox understanding of infallibility:
“Above error are, in the first place, the teachings of Revelation, since
they have their source in God, Who is the only one above error. This
is why the teaching of the Church is without error, as it coincides with
the content of divine Revelation. By the divine grace she possesses – or
by the Holy Spirit dwelling inside her – the Church has been endowed
with the gift of preserving unchanged the teaching of Revelation, since
she is living in an unchanged manner the fullness of the life in Christ.
She possesses the gift of preaching a teaching without error, and, as the
need arises, to clothe this teaching in formulas, which are capable of

2
As with Fr. Stăniloae, “Sfântul Duh şi sobornicitatea Bisericii – extras din raportul unui
observator ortodox la Conciliul al II-lea de la Vatican”, in: Ortodoxia, 19 (1/1967), pp. 32-48
at 32-36. The observer alluded to in the title was Nikos A. Nissiotis. Also see: idem, “Doctrina
catolică a infailibilităţii la Primul si Al doilea Conciliu de la Vatican”, in: Ortodoxia, 17
(4/1965), pp. 459-492; of direct interest for our topic, pp. 488-492.
3
Idem, “Autoritatea Bisericii”, in: Studii Teologice 16 (3-4/1964), pp. 183-215 at 197-198.
The article comprises Stăniloae’s most systematic exposition of the issues of Church authority
and infallibility.

30
 Laymen’s Participation in the Infallibility of the Church

maintaining it unaltered, and of expressing it without error. It is in this

sense, i.e. limiting itself only to this, that Church infallibility exercises
itself. […] The Church does not arbitrarily dispose in matters of truth;
on the contrary she complies with the truth, that is, the revealed truth.
She has the capacity to guard this truth, which has been entrusted to
her, upon which she has been founded and established, because the
truth is Christ Himself and because she lives in Christ. This is why she
also has the capacity to express it in new form, whenever the need may
arise, yet without producing it or adding something to it. She complies
with the truth, which is in her, but which is superior to her. It is in her
capacity of remaining in it, as well as in her meekness in complying
with it, that her infallibility dwells.”4
This long and comprehensive exposition represents the fruit of the
dialogue which Fr. D. Stăniloae initiated with various theological positions
pertaining to N. Homiakov, Ch. Androutsos and I. Karmiris on the
background of Vatican II developments. Further definitions of infallibility
which Fr. Stăniloae put forth insist that infallibility is an attribute of the
Church as a whole and not merely of the ministry.
Inspired by Greek theologian Ioannis Karmiris, who asserted that the
negative adverbs of the Chalcedon Christological definition could be applied
to the relationship between Christ and the Church, His Body5, Fr. Stăniloae
put forth an original exposition on the limitations of Church authority to
teach. Stăniloae asserts that, in preaching the truth, the Church is being
limited by or, better put, dependent on the revealed truth, which has been
bestowed unto her by God. The Church as institution is not the source of
the truth she preaches, nor can she vouchsafe by herself alone the correct
understanding of the truth. The Romanian theologian approaches the issue
of infallibility limitation in personalistic terms:
“Her awareness [the Church’s, A.R.] that is united with Christ remains
in balance with the awareness that Christ is above her; her awareness
that her knowledge is the knowledge of Christ alternates with the
understanding that she receives knowledge from Christ, her Lord and
Master. This is why her authority concerning matters of faith cannot
be that of the last source or that of an absolute sovereignty; it cannot
be based on the understanding that she would extract the faith from

4
Ibidem, p. 195. Unless marked otherwise, all translations from Romanian belong to the
author.
5
Ibidem, pp. 185-187.

31
Alexandru Roșu

herself, but rather on the knowledge that she is to obtain it by means of

prayer and tireless striving.”6

In other words, this interior negative limitation – as Stăniloae puts it – of

the authority of the Church derives from the distinction between Christ as
Head and Lord of the Church and the Church herself, His attentive subject.
The Romanian theologian maintains that “this limitation is not experienced
by the ones receiving the truth from her”.7 We shall see why this is so.
The Church is being dependent on a Revelation limited in time, which
she received “in the past”, and which has been preserved in “exterior sources”;
this constitutes an exterior limitation of Church infallibility. In turn, in
understanding those sources, the Church is further dependent on “”heavenly
assistance”; in the words of Stăniloae, that constitutes an internal positive
limitation. It is called positive because the Subject – both Agent and Topic –
of the Revelation is Christ Himself, the One and the Same in all ages.8 As the
Revelation, which Christ Himself brought about, can be neither surpassed
nor exhausted, and as Christ teaches us how to understand and live it, we are
called upon to preserve and infinitely advance in the experience of the revealed
truth.9 No matter the physical limitations of Revelation nor the dependence
of the Church on Christ’s assistance in order to receive and access the truth,
the experience of Christ which opens up to every believer in the Church is
infinite. The richness of experiencing the divine life, which opens itself in the
Church, is what Stăniloae has in mind when maintaining that the people of
the Church do not experience the limitations of Church infallibility.
Somewhere else, Fr. Stăniloae asserted that it is the very act of remaining
within the realm of revelation, which ensures the infallibility of the Church:
“The Church infallibility understands the meaning of revelation,
because she herself is the work [effect, n. AR] of revelation, of the Holy
Spirit, and because she moves within revelation as one who is organically
united with it. The Holy Spirit, Who, together with Christ, is the
author of revelation, the one who brought the Church into existence
and the one who inspires Scriptures – the same Spirit is at work within
the Church, helping her to understand and to appropriate, in an
authentic and practical way, the content of revelation, that is, Christ in

6
Ibidem, p. 190.
7
Ibidem.
8
Ibidem.
9
Ibidem, p. 191.

32
 Laymen’s Participation in the Infallibility of the Church

the fullness of his gifts. The Church understands the authentic meaning
of the content of revelation because the Spirit sustains within her the
evidence of the lived fullness of revelation made concrete in Christ.”10
New dogmas?
We have noted that Fr. Stăniloae is very keen on stressing that infallibility
does not mean introducing new dogmas, but being able to express without
error the same truth in new formulas, suitable to every age. This insistence,
which is common to Orthodox theologians, appeared as a response to the
Roman-Catholic understanding of infallibility following the First Vatican
Council. The same is true for yet another definition of infallibility which Fr.
Stăniloae proposes:
“The Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth (John
16:13), is endowed with infallibility, becoming herself «the pillar and
the ground of truth» (1 Tim. 3:15). By means of employing infallibility,
the Church does not reveal new truths, but keeps the ones revealed,
and interprets and shapes them correctly. Revelation was brought to
an end in Jesus Christ, Son of God Incarnate. No one is able to know
as well as Him or better as Him the divine truth, so as to be able to
add something to the truth which He revealed to us. Yet this truth
has limitless depths, and, as a consequence, describing it in a relevant
manner [in the Romanian original, a reliefa, A.R.] is a never-ending
task.”11
The implicit negative implication of preserving and defending the one-
time received truth is overshadowed by the optimistic perspective of endlessly
being able to experience and grow into the life of grace of the Church, which
is the life of Christ.
All definitions of infallibility quoted above share in the reiteration of
the prohibition of proclaiming new dogmas or new “truths”. If the truth can
only be one, what about the dogmas? It would seem that, to the Orthodox,
dogmas remain the same, no matter their expression or formulas. Introducing
new termini technici does not alter the content of faith or the content of the
“old dogmas”; rather, if accepted by the Church, the new termini get to be
perceived as part of those unaltered dogmas. Dogmas are being perceived to
be there from the beginning and not even an Ecumenical Council may claim

10
Idem, The Experience of God. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, translated and edited by Ioan
Ionita and Robert Barringer, Brookline, Massachusetts 11994, 21998, p. 58.
11
Idem, “Sinteză ecclesiologică”, in: Studii Teologice, 7 (5-6/1955), pp. 267-284 at 280.

33
Alexandru Roșu

to introduce new dogmas:

“Even though the Council does not bring forth new dogmas, but it
reinforces and elaborates the old ones, yet, also the decisions of the
Council are regarded by it as «dogmas» (dedogmena). Thus, if the name
«dogmas» indicates the faith clauses of the beginnings – which in turn
implies the idea of making certain differences in order to distinguish
the faith from other conceptions – any new statements of the same
faith, which may arise if needed, are also called «dogmas», because they
bring into light the old dogmas in a new appearance. Not even one
dogma, which the Council may proclaim, is destined to fill in a gap or
an existing empty space; it has nothing to do with creating something
out of nothing. Rather, it is an elaboration or statement which adds to
the previous formulations, should the need arise. It is a new elaboration
of an older formulation or, to put it so, the new setting into a clearer
light of that which existed from the very beginning. […] And the first
formulations are those of the divine Revelation”.12
One could also note that it was always under the pretext of defending
the age-old dogmas and refuting any new and strange teachings that the
Eastern Fathers and theologians produced new theology. The continuous
elaboration of the content of faith represents another positive (formal)
aspect of infallibility.13 Furthermore, for Orthodox believers, dogmas do not
represent limitations, but safety-marks, allowing for a safe and rich spiritual
development within these boundary marks.14
Far from contenting herself with merely repeating the same formulas,
the Church explores new possibilities of bringing into expression the richness
of the life of grace:
“The fullness of the mystery of salvation, that is Godhead in its closest
approach and salvific action, continuously experienced inside the
Church, cannot be fully expressed in any words, metaphors or formulas.

12
Idem, “Noţiunea dogmei”, in: Studii Teologice, 16 (9-10/1964), pp. 533-571 at 547-548.
13
Idem, “Sinteză ecclesiologică”, pp. 280-281.
14
“It has also been shown that, for the Christian, dogma represents no constraint on the free
spiritual development of the believing human being but, on the contrary, it is dogma that
preserves the capacity for such development within human beings. Christian dogmas assure
the freedom of the believer as person, and do not leave him subject to nature or dissolved
within it. Rather, it is in freedom itself that Christian dogmas lay the foundation for the
spiritual development of the believer, because dogmas are the expression of his communion
with God as Person. Now, interpersonal communion is the domain of freedom par excellence,
although it is, at the same time, the domain of faith.” Idem, The Experience of God, p. 65.

34
 Laymen’s Participation in the Infallibility of the Church

It is here that we find the justification for expressing this endless and
continuous mystery in ever-new words, metaphors and formulas”.15
This insight provides aid in understanding as to why the Western
accusation of dogmatic immobilism – an accusation first uttered against
Eastern theologians during the age of Charlemagne – would be perceived by
the Orthodox as pointless.
The theological foundation: the three-fold priesthood
A series of younger theologians have rightfully drawn attention to the
fact that the three-fold priesthood theory underlies both the cosmological as
well as the ecclesiological constructions of Fr. Stăniloae. The three concentric
stages of priesthood are: a) the natural priesthood of humanity, b) the general
or universal priesthood of all those baptized (laity included), and c) the
ministerial or sacramental priesthood.16 We shall content ourselves briefly
with this present structure, granting precedence to the version put forth in his
1978 Dogmatic Theology.
The natural priesthood of humanity represents one of the distinctive
marks of Dumitru Stăniloae’s theology. Rooted in the cosmology of St.
Maximus the Confessor († 662), the vision which the Romanian theologian
puts forth is that of the world perceived as a gift, which God made to man.
Through the cosmic Liturgy and ever-increasing spiritualization the world
becomes the gift which man, in his turn, presents to God. Man is called upon
to heal in Christ – the Logos the distinctions, which appeared in creation after
the fall of man, and to unite all creation into a spiritualized sacrifice offered
to God.17 We note that Christianity seems to be the implicit premise of this
construction. Strictly referring to natural priesthood and not necessarily
to Christianity, we could say that it is precisely in man that creation finds

15
Idem, “Concepţia ortodoxă despre Tradiţie şi despre dezvoltarea doctrine”, in: Ortodoxia,
27 (1/1975), pp. 5-14 at 10.
16
In chronological order: Ronald G. Roberson, Contemporary Romanian Orthodox
Ecclesiology. The Contribution of Dumitru Staniloae and Younger Colleagues (Excerpta ex
dissertatione ad doctoratum), Pontificium Institutum Orientale, Romae: Typis Pontificiae
Universitatis Gregorianae, 1988, pp. 19-24. The author only speaks about the general (pp.
19-22) and the ministerial priesthood (pp. 22-32), respectively; Charles Miller, The Gift of
the World. An Introduction to the Theology of Dumitru Stăniloae, Edinburgh 2000, pp. 96-
98; Dănuţ Mănăstireanu, “Dumitru Stăniloae’s Theology of Ministry”, in: Lucian Turcescu
(ed.), Dumitru Stăniloae: Tradition and Modernity in Theology, Iaşi-Oxford-Palm-Beach-
Portland 2002, pp. 126-144 at 134-138. The most relevant contribution on the topic is that
of Fr. Radu Bordeianu, “Priesthood, Natural, Universal, and Ordained: Dumitru Staniloae’s
Communion Ecclesiology”, in: Pro Ecclesia 19 (4/2010), pp. 405-433.
17
Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică, Bucharest 1978, vol. I, pp. 325-326.

35
Alexandru Roșu

its purpose and reveals its reasons (logoi), which the Logos of God Himself
planted there at the creation. As endowed by God with superior reason and
conscience, it is man who is called upon to discern and fulfil those reasons,
becoming in the process the priest of all creation.18 The world as a whole
becomes a complex message – and a mission, in the sense of Gen. 1:28 or
Matt. 24:14-27. 34-36 –, which God addresses to man.19 This view of the
world boasts the double advantage of promoting a coherent view of natural
theology as well as stressing the ecological responsibilities which fall upon
man. The natural priesthood of humanity becomes increasingly evident when
considered from the Christian perspective; this priesthood receives a deeper
actualization in the general priesthood of all Christians.
The general or universal priesthood is conferred to all members of the
Church by means of receiving Baptism and Confirmation. In the words of
Charles Miller,
“This priesthood fulfils the half-hearted natural priesthood, which men
and women, as «priests of the natural order», exercise in their day to day
material sharing. It is renewed spiritual capacity restored to humanity
through consecration in Baptism”.20
As Mănăstireanu21, and Bordeianu22 have already noted, in the second
volume of his Dogmatic Theology, Fr. Stăniloae only granted two paragraphs
to the issue of general priesthood23. No mention is made there to the locus
classicus of 1 Pt. 2:9. He preferred there to approach the topic from the angle
of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s (†444) De adoratione et cultu in Spiritu et Veritate
(MG 68, 133sq) and spoke there of the necessity of approaching God the
Father in a state of sacrifice, so as to be acknowledged and accepted as sons of
God. With regard to general priesthood in the Church he says:

18
Ibidem, vol. I, pp. 11-13; pp. 16-18. For a deeper description of man as priest of all
creation according to Stăniloae’s view, see R. Bordeianu, “Priesthood, Natural, Universal, and
Ordained”, pp. 407-411.
19
D. Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. I, pp. 344; 350-351.
20
C. Miller, The Gift of the World, p. 97, alluding to D. Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică, vol.
III, pp. 153-157. It is here that Stăniloae suggests that the word mirean (“layman”) may
derive from the verb a mirui, “anointing with myrrh” and mir, “myrrh” itself – both action
and matter specific to the Sacrament of Confirmation. However, from an etymological point
of view, it would seem more probable that mirean derives from the Old Slavonic word mirŭ,
“world”, “peace”, “community”.
21
D. Mănăstireanu, “Dumitru Stăniloae’s Theology of Ministry”, pp. 134-135.
22
R. Bordeianu, “Priesthood, Natural, Universal, and Ordained”, pp. 411-412.
23
D. Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. II, pp. 235-236.

36
 Laymen’s Participation in the Infallibility of the Church

“In this way, all become priests and sacrifices in the Church, all are
teachers and guides on the way to salvation – both for themselves as
well as for others, who are close to them, but to others too, yet without
a formal responsibility for the church community. […] The personal
prayers which believers address, and the life of sacrifice, which they
lead – for themselves and in their relationship to others – both receive
their power from the continuous offering of Christ’s sacrifice and from
their partaking of it.”24
As compared to the bold assertions concerning natural priesthood, the
fragment quoted above could be regarded as a step backwards in the direction
of an emphasis on the traditional role of hierarchy.25 This reserve is to be
attributed to the particular polemic context of a specific formulation.26 In this
particular case, in the context of describing a universal priesthood, Stăniloae
deems it necessary to insist on believers’ dependence on the ministerial
priesthood, so as to compensate for various Protestant extremes on the matter.
Conversely, it is to be expected that, in dealing with the ministerial priesthood,
the Romanian Professor will stress the complementary role of laymen, against
any form of clerical absolutism.
When describing the function of the ministerial priesthood, Stăniloae
points out that there is a synergetic bond connecting the universal and the
sacramental priesthood. According to liturgical typology, priests (bishops
included) and believers act together – each of them in their specific way –
when performing cultic service. Liturgically, priests and the faithful depend
on one another.27 At one point, Fr. Stăniloae even states that
“... no Holy Sacrament can be celebrated without the active contribution
of the people. Every Sacrament needs not only a layman to whom the
priest administers it, but also some other laypeople, whose contribution

24
Ibidem, vol. II, p. 235; my italics.
25
At least that would seem to be the case with Stăniloae’s Dogmatic Theology. Some pages
onward (ibidem, vol. II, pp. 248-250), when discussing “Bishop conciliarity and its
dependence of Church conciliarity” (original subtitle), he dwells on bishops’ practice of
invoking Tradition and thinking “with the mind of the Church” as well as their limiting one
another, which results in preventing any primacy tendencies. No word is spoken here of the
laymen as partakers of infallibility. The passage bears the mark of an explicit criticism against
Roman primacy.
26
See also the remarks of Baptist Theologian D. Mănăstireanu, “Dumitru Stăniloae’s Theology
of Ministry”, pp. 141-142.
27
See, for instance, R. Bordeianu, “Priesthood, Natural, Universal, and Ordained”, pp. 412-
413.

37
Alexandru Roșu

is needed in order to have the Sacrament celebrated”.28

According to the Romanian dogmatist, the specific character of
ministerial priesthood lies in being bidirectional-representative: taken from
among the general priests (i.e., those baptized), and ordained by the bishop
with the participation of the community29, the priest typologically represents
Christ inside the community, and, at the same time, the congregation before
Christ.30 Among the biblical proofs, which Fr: Stăniloae chose to allude to,
there are Heb. 5:4-6, John 20:23; 15:15-16.31 The Romanian dogmatist
favoured arguments taken from the realm of conscience:
“Yet this sacrifice cannot be offered by any believer, because, in this
case, it would not be clear any more that it is offered «for all», and each
would offer it for himself. It needs to be offered by one for all, in order
to represent Christ, Who offers Himself as one sacrifice for all. This is
the priest, servant of the Church, who bears responsibility for a given
community. In this manner, it becomes evident to the conscience of
the believer that he needs Christ as Mediator. The priest symbolizes
Christ as Mediator, he symbolizes the fact that man cannot enter
by himself into the eternal loving relationship with God. Thus, the
priestly, the prophetic and the kingly general service, in their individual
dimensions, need the ministerial priesthood of the Church or of the
community as their foundation.”32
In turn, the clergy is not being hoisted above the community of believers.
The priest is still dependent on the relationship in prayer with other priests
and on the prayers of the community for him.33 Priests pray not exclusively
for others, nor do they celebrate the Eucharist only for the believers, but
also for themselves, as they are part of the community. The same applies to
preaching: “the priests and bishops do not preach only to others but also to

28
D. Stăniloae, “Slujirile bisericeşti şi atribuţiile lor”, in: Ortodoxia 22 (3/1970), pp. 462-469
at 467.
29
For people’s liturgical involvement in the Sacrament of Ordination, see: ibidem, pp. 467-
468.
30
D. Mănăstireanu, “Dumitru Stăniloae’s Theology of Ministry”, pp. 135-136.
31
D. Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. II, pp. 236-238.
32
Ibidem, vol. II, p. 236. Compare the translation of the passage to the one proposed by R.
Roberson, Contemporary Romanian Orthodox Ecclesiology, pp. 22-23.
33
D. Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. II, p. 241.

38
 Laymen’s Participation in the Infallibility of the Church

themselves”.34
Priests and even more so bishops have a special responsibility concerning
the office of maintaining and teaching the right faith; the grace helping them
to fulfil this mission has been conveyed from generation to generation through
apostolic succession.35 This does not mean that the faithful (laypeople) are
excluded from teaching; it means that ministerial responsibility towards
teaching encompasses more. The responsibility towards teaching, which Fr.
Stăniloae concedes to laypeople, could be described as “private”.36
Sacramental hierarchy in general and bishops in particular represent a
sign of the unity of the Church. The necessity of remaining in communion
concerns all ministers among themselves and between ministers and believers.
The collegiality of bishops – according to the Orthodox Church, no bishop
could claim to represent Christ or the Apostles alone – is a particularly relevant
sign of the unity of the Church.37 Although synods do not exclusively embody
the infallibility of the Church, they are the most evident manifestation of
Church authority and assistance of the Holy Spirit. Yet their decisions are
only valid if the Church as a whole receives them.38 Fr. Stăniloae describes the
connection between bishops (convened in synods) and the Church as follows:
“The Church in its totality, as the Body of Christ, is infallible because
Christ is infallible and He exercises His threefold office in it as one
whole. The Church partakes of His infallibility because it partakes of
His three offices. The episcopacy takes doctrinal decisions infallibly
because it takes them in the name of the Church, in inner connection
with it and by taking into account the mind of the Church related
to its life in Christ. The episcopacy can do this because it decides in
communion. Their communion insures not only every bishop, but also
all of them together, against dictatorial tendencies in the Church. Each
one and all of them together are limited in exercising the right to decide
in matters of faith by their mutual inter-relatedness and because they
seek together the accord between themselves and with the tradition of

34
Idem, “Temeiurile dogmatice ale ierarhiei şi ale sinodalităţii”, in: Studii Teologice 22 (3-
4/1970), pp. 165-178 at 177-178.
35
Idem, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. II, pp. 246-247; 298-299. Also see: idem, “Slujirile bisericeşti
şi atribuţiile lor”, pp. 465-466; idem, “Sinteză ecclesiologică”, p. 284.
36
The assessment belongs to D. Mănăstireanu, “Dumitru Stăniloae’s Theology of Ministry”,
p. 137. He alludes to D. Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. II, p. 246, where the dogmatist
speaks about “laymen’s teaching and exhorting from person to person”.
37
D. Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. II, pp. 241-242.
38
R. Roberson, Contemporary Romanian Orthodox Ecclesiology, pp. 32-34.

39
Alexandru Roșu

the Church.”39
To put it negatively, in exercising the prophetical office, the bishops limit
one another and themselves, by means of referring themselves to the “mind”
of the Church as retained by the living tradition. One could also discern the
allusion to discreet agreement of the community of believers (the references to
“in the name of the Church” and “in inner connection with it”).40 However,
the clericalist trend of the passage is obvious: in the eyes of the author, the
authority of the hierarchy is given through apostolic succession, and all that
the dogmatist may attempt is to explore the proofs he may choose to invoke
in support of the status quo.
The relationship between the hierarchy and the faithful is governed by
a “reciprocal complementarity”:
“One could say that the episcopal community or synodality completes
the communion of the ecclesial people, and this then strengthens and
sustains episcopal communion or synodality. The believing people give
life to the principles, the hierarchy maintains the unity of this life.
There is between them a reciprocal complementarity. The weakening
of synodality weakens the spirit of communion in the believing people;
the weakening of the spirit of communion of the people weakens
synodality or episcopal communion”.41
In this quote, the Trinitarian principle of the Church is the one being
highlighted. One could discern the suggestion that the need for communion
prevails over and in every institution of the Church.
Fr. Stăniloae does insist that dogmatic decisions taken in synods are
valid because they are formulated and signed by bishops in the name of
their respective local communities, as means of attesting the identity of the
new formulation with the faith each local community confessed. Convened
in synod, the bishops can only give a new formulation to the faith already
present in the Church.42 “This becomes evident if the Church does not refuse

39
D. Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. II, pp. 249-250, here quoting the translation
provided by R. Bordeianu, “Priesthood, Natural, Universal, and Ordained”, pp. 429-430.
40
Stăniloae does mention the known instances in Church history when lower clergy and
laypeople involved themselves in summoning or even in the proceedings of ecumenical
councils; in: “Autoritatea Bisericii”, pp. 205-208.
41
Idem, “Temeiurile dogmatice ale ierarhiei şi ale sinodalităţii”, p. 173; here quoted in the
translation of R. Roberson, Contemporary Romanian Orthodox Ecclesiology, p. 30.
42
D. Stăniloae, “Natura sinodicităţii”, in: Studii Teologice 29 (9-10/1977), pp. 605-614
at 613-614. For the tacit acceptance of the synodal decisions, see also idem, “Autoritatea

40
 Laymen’s Participation in the Infallibility of the Church

[doctrinal definitions], but receives them tacitly, or accepts them in the hymns
and prayers of her public service”.43
Laypeople’s participation in the teaching office
It is typical of Fr. Stăniloae to maintain that, to a certain degree, man
shares in the divine attributes.44 This seems to apply also in the case of the
three offices of Christ’s ministry: priest, prophet (teacher) and king. As typos of
Christ, the hierarchy embodies these offices; however the community of the
faithful participate to a certain extent in these offices and appears to be working
together with the priest in fulfilling them. The passage from the Dogmatic
Theology (vol. II, p. 236) quoted above seems to suggest that the people of the
Church may participate in the three offices, subject to the mediation of the
ministerial priesthood. In other words, the people of the Church would be
able to participate in the three offices while liturgically working together with
the hierarchy. This vision seems to be confirmed when discussing those offices
in terms of charismas. It should be said that Stăniloae favours a particularly
non-spectacular understanding of charismas: these are humble gifts, which
are very efficacious in the relationships between the faithful, and they have the
effect of building and strengthening the Church.45 All Church members share
in charismas, but the particular charisma of priesthood seems to be determining
– we are led to assume, by means of ministering the Sacraments – in the
“generation” and “activation” of individual believer’s charismas.46
Yet, the Romanian theologian asserts that “hierarchy not only instructs
the believers, but also receives instruction from them.” He then elaborates by
maintaining that,
“The general principles of the teaching reveal their spiritual depth and

Bisericii”, p. 209, as well as R. Roberson, Contemporary Romanian Orthodox Ecclesiology, p.

33.
43
D. Stăniloae, “Natura sinodicităţii”, p. 613.
44
Idem, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. I, pp. 162-281, passim; see the section titles.
45
Ibidem, vol. II, pp. 320-322; 325; 330. Idem, “Cultul Bisericii Ortodoxe, mediu al lucrării
Sfântului Duh asupra credincioşilor”, in: Ortodoxia 33 (1/1981) pp. 5-12 at 10.
46
“In this unity of the gifts and ministries in the Church, explained by the unity of organism
of the Church and by the unity of the Spirit in it, are included also the ministries and gifts
of the hierarchy. But only in part. This is because, on the one hand, they do not remain
exterior to the other ministries and cannot be exercised without their fulfilment through the
activation of all the gifts in the Church. But, on the other hand, the ministries and gifts of the
hierarchy are different from all other gifts and ministries, because they represent the basis of
the transcendent origin of all the other gifts and ministries, generating and activating them.”
Idem, “Temeiurile dogmatice ale ierarhiei şi ale sinodalităţii”, pp. 176-177; here quoting the
translation of R. Bordeianu, “Priesthood, Natural, Universal, and Ordained”, p. 414.

41
Alexandru Roșu

their unending abundance of meaning, their limitless capacity to adapt

to the indefinitely different situations, which every believer might be
presented with – and the members of the hierarchy acknowledge and
make use of this contribution of the believers. This is because any
given member of the hierarchy has the mission to preach the teaching
points in their form of general principles, which may at most receive
the light of their individual spiritual experience. Yet these points
become filled just as a warp does with the infinite adornments of
individual understandings of all believers. As they come to learn these,
the members of the hierarchy themselves become enriched with new
meanings of the teaching they profess, and they make use of these new
meaning in their future preaching”.47
This thread of argumentation appears to be a continuation of Stăniloae’s
theory on “coming to know what God is out of the concrete circumstances
of life”.48 By virtue of an existential – and no less, personalistic – optimism,
the Romanian Theology Professor comes to greatly value the direct individual
experience of God. In the passage quoted above he seems to suggest that the
hierarchy is called upon to take into account the spiritual experience granted
by God to individual believers. This however remains a matter of choice for
the hierarchy.
On another instance, Stăniloae attempts to describe laymen’s
participation in the teaching office in legalistic terms:
“As to what concerns the teaching office or confessing the right faith,
which constitutes a sort of preaching, it becomes clear that the faithful
becomes such a confessor at his Baptism. This baptismal confession
corresponds to the detailed confession professed by the candidate for
the position of bishop.”49
The passage says nothing of the criteria for laymen’s active participation
in the infallibility of the Church, and continues by reiterating the obligation
of every Christian to confess the true faith. The baptismal confession, alluded
to here, is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Although active, when
regarded in its dimension as a personal act of confessing, the content of that
which is confessed is represented by a text of fixed form, composed in the
past. Emphasis falls here upon preserving the faith unaltered.

47
D. Stăniloae, “Temeiurile teologice ale ierarhiei”, pp. 172-173.
48
Idem, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. I, pp. 139-145.
49
Idem, “Slujirile bisericeşti şi atribuţiile lor”, p. 468.

42
 Laymen’s Participation in the Infallibility of the Church

On another occasion, the Romanian dogmatist propounded a

naturalistic explanation for the existence of a magisterium:
“Throughout human society […] there is a pedagogical work, which
the more mature and instructed exert over those who are younger and
less instructed. Since the members of the hierarchy have been persisting
for a longer period of time in prayers pertaining to Church service
and they have been studying the Church’s teaching longer, one cannot
deny them a certain special role in fulfilling the pedagogic office in
the Church. One should also understand that this is not to be done
so as it may assert control over the ones being instructed, but instead
understanding that those being instructed are endowed with free
consciousness...”.50
The authority to teach is justified here – “to a certain extent”, as Ronald
Roberson puts it – by “personal training” and experience.51 Sensing perhaps
the insufficiency of this line of reasoning alone, Fr. Stăniloae introduced a few
lines later a moral proviso, which he designated a “spiritual factor”. Of special
interest to us is the way the author relates it to laypeople:
“And there are in the Church many members too, whose spiritual life is
often superior to that of some members of hierarchy. As consequence,
it is the Church in general that essentially conditions and complements
hierarchy in its process of knowing and teaching the truth. And that
is so because the Church represents the realm where a deep and living
understanding and dissemination of truth develops themselves.”52
These remarks touch upon a delicate point: the Church Fathers are of
the opinion that orthodoxy lies not only in confessing the true faith but also
in pursuing a life of virtue.53 What, then, would be expected to occur when
moral considerations would bring into discussion the moral authority of a
spiritual teacher? Is there to be a distinction between moral authority and
doctrinal infallibility? Fr. Stăniloae does not go on defining to what extent
and by what means laypeople respond to conditions and complement the

50
Idem, “Natura sinodicităţii”, p. 612.
51
R. Roberson, Contemporary Romanian Orthodox Ecclesiology, pp. 31-32.
52
D. Stăniloae, “Natura sinodicităţii”, p. 612.
53
See for instance Epistle 1, pp. 299-312, in: The Epistles of St. Symeon the New Theologian,
edited and translated by H.J.M. Turner, on the basis of the Greek text established by Joseph
Paramelle, the series “Oxford Early Christian Texts”, Oxford University Press 2009, p. 52;
compare the text in MG 95, 297D-300B, there ascribed to St. John Damascene.

43
Alexandru Roșu

work of the hierarchy in teaching the true faith. The way in which Orthodox
clergy and laypeople mutually complement themselves in matters of morals
and dogma appears to fall under the sign of mysterium.
A liturgical vision on the collaboration between clergy and laypeople
On a number of occasions, particularly when depicting to others “the
characteristics” of Orthodoxy, Fr. Stăniloae maintained that the faithful
usually manifest a low interest in dogma and theological speculation, and
that they prefer to liturgically engage in the Church.54 While at first glance
seeming to concede to “low theology”, this confession points out the fact that
the theology of the people of the Church is foremost doxological. Spiritual
experience bears evidence to the fact that, in a single stroke, prayer may allow
for disposing with dry speculation, while at the same time directly experiencing
the salvific reality, which speculation can only feebly attempt to describe. On
the basis of these general observations, some surprising theological remarks
follow:
“In this manner, prayer becomes the most complete form of theology;
it is theology fulfilled. And that because, in prayer, one does not come
to know something strictly theoretical about God, but experiences
God in all His might, as the One answering to prayer and cultivating
the sensitivity for prayer, that is experiencing God’s salvation in all its
width and complexity.”55
It becomes apparent that the believer is presented with more than one
suitable way for experiencing the Truth. Yet the gains the way of prayer may
bring can hardly be expressed in formulas; they preserve their mysterious
character, and they are themselves part of that richness of Church life.
Moreover, from a historical point of view, piety itself seems to be warranted
for maintaining correctness of faith. When speaking of the imperfect manner
[Romanian, nedeplin, nedeplinătate] in which other denominations partake in
orthodoxy, Fr. Stăniloae asserts:
“In the various Christian denominations, there are many believers,
whose Christian life was not restricted to the official doctrinal
formulations of their respective denominations. The old Tradition

54
D. Stăniloae, “Câteva trăsături caracteristice ale Ortodoxiei”, in: Mitropolia Olteniei, 32
(7-8/1970) pp. 730-742 at 736; 740; idem, “Sfântul Duh în Revelaţie şi în Biserică”, in:
Ortodoxia 26 (2/1974), pp. 216-249 at 242; idem, “Cultul Bisericii Ortodoxe”, p. 7.
55
Idem, “Sfântul Duh în Revelaţie şi în Biserică”, p. 241.

44
 Laymen’s Participation in the Infallibility of the Church

of the Church proved to be stronger as the doctrinal innovations

brought about by their [i.e., the denominations, n. A.R.] founders and
officially supported to this day by those groups and their theologians.
In Catholicism, for instance, the Sacraments are celebrated in the
believers’ conviction that by them the latter come to be intimately and
directly united with Christ, in other words that Christ Himself is active
inside the Church, although the Catholic theory provided Christ with
a substitute, and conceives the salvation brought by Christ as being
fulfilled by the mere satisfaction He granted to God on Golgotha, or
maintains that the grace bestowed through Sacraments is a created
grace and not a work sprung from Christ’s uncreated divine nature and
the extension of this work in the being of believers”.56
In other words, history shows that laypeople share in an instinct of the
correctness of faith, which is supported by sacramental piety and reverence
towards Tradition. To this, the Romanian theologian adds an argument
pertaining to common sense: the fact that the faithful belong to different
denominations is not to be regarded as solely the result of their own individual
freedom. He concludes that, if those denominations share to a certain degree
in the real presence of Christ, it is to be expected that “in the afterlife their
members could imperfectly partake in Christ, according to the promise
retained at John 14: 2: «In my Father’s house are many mansions…»”57 –
understood here not only as abundance, but also as diversity. Again, this is
an example of the personalistic optimism which sustains the whole dogmatic
construction of Fr. Stăniloae.
The daily liturgical practice of the Orthodox Church provides a suitable
help in understanding the manner in which the collaboration between clergy
and the believers functions. Every liturgical service is based upon the active
synergy between clergy and believers. For example, in every litany, the people
accompany the supplication of the priest by answering “Kyrie eleison!”58 To
every blessing, the believers respond with “Amen”.59 Moreover, it is through
prayer that the consciousness of the responsibility for the others is being
cultivated, as the believers pray for one another and for the clergy alike.60

56
Idem, Teologia Dogmatică, vol. II, p. 269.
57
Ibidem.
58
Idem, “Slujirile bisericeşti şi atribuţiile lor”, pp. 467-468.
59
Idem, “Sfânta Treime – creatoarea, mântuitoarea şi ţinta veşnică a tuturor credincioşilor”,
in: Ortodoxia 38 (2/1986), pp. 14-42 at 35.
60
Idem, “Sfântul Duh în Revelaţie şi în Biserică”, pp. 240-243.

45
Alexandru Roșu

This responsibility also applies in matters of faith, and it functions at the

personal level. When analysing the theological contribution of the believers
to the Liturgy of the Church, we came to the result that this is responsorial.
The people of the Church are essential dialogue partners to the hierarchy.
This liturgical view on laypeople’s place in the Church allows for a deeper
understanding of what Fr. Stăniloae maintains in his most comprehensive
dogmatic formulation with regard to the reception of synodal decisions:
“But just as in his diocese, the bishop is the first partner, and the clergy
and the believers represent the second partner of a dialogue, in the
same way, in the ecumenical council, as plenitude of representatives
of their dioceses are but the first partner in a dialogue, in which the
original faith receives a new formulation, meanwhile the second
dialogue partner is the clergy and the believers of all dioceses of the
Church. This is similar to the way in which the dialogue between
bishop or priest and the believers usually unfolds itself: preaching by
means of exposition put forth by bishop and priest meets acceptance
from the side of believers. Exceptionally, when the former deviate from
true faith, the position of the believers becomes articulated. The same
holds true with the case of the ecumenical council, which utters in new
form the original faith of the Church. In this instance, the role of the
believing people (and that of the clergy), as responders in the dialogue,
manifests itself in tacit acceptance; and it is only in the cases when, in
its new formulation, the council would deviate from the original faith,
that this role would become evident in manifested refusal. The clergy
and the laypeople (or, as it is usually called: the Church), which are not
in council (synod), have only the role to «ascertain» the identity or lack
of identity of synodal decisions as compared with the faith professed
earlier, and, should they correspond, to tacitly approve it, and, if not, to
manifestly disapprove with those decisions, and by no means to assume
for itself the initiative in formulating decisions. It is the role which the
faithful always had in preserving the faith. The clergy preaches it, the
hierarchy preaches it and – should the need be – reformulates it, the
people listen, ponder and approve and then communicate tacitly or
articulately the final verdict”.61

61
Idem, “Autoritatea Bisericii”, p. 209, my italics. The insistence on tacit reception of conciliar
decisions is directed against the views of Afanassieff, who promoted the vision of an “active”
reception of synodal decisions by every local church. See ibidem, pp. 210-211.

46
 Laymen’s Participation in the Infallibility of the Church

Concluding remarks
Fr. Stăniloae’s vision on laymen’s participation in the infallibility of the
Church accounts for a complex theological view. In general, his stance is that
of most Orthodox theologians, that is, he maintains that it is the prerogative
of bishops to put forth new formulations of the unaltered content of faith, and
that it is the prerogative of the believers to tacitly accept those formulations
and employ them in liturgy or prayer, or to articulately disavow and discard
them, should they contradict the original faith. The Romanian theologian is
keen to refute any primacy tendencies within the Church as well as various
Protestant challenges to the very idea of ministerial priesthood and its special
role in teaching faith. Yet, merely referring Stăniloae’s stance on infallibility
to contrasting notions – such as primacy, clericalism, or the critique against
both – may bring about a lack of nuance. His writings witness a balanced and
delicate vision on the collaboration between clergy and laymen, which has its
model in the responsorial structure of the Liturgy.
As a personal note, Stăniloae maintains that, to a certain extent, believers
(in their role as universal priests) partake in the offices of the ministerial
priesthood. Describing the partaking of the prophetic office in terms of
charismas appears to be particularly suiting. The Romanian theologian
suggests that laymen’s partaking of the offices of the Church can only be
achieved through the mediation of sacramental priesthood. At the personal
level, each believer is responsible for the faith of his fellow man; sometimes,
believers are endowed with the charismas needed to fulfil this responsibility,
thus strengthening the Church. Even though the author admits to an active
participation of the believer in the teaching office, it remains somewhat
unclear as to what the extent as well as the criteria for this collaboration may
be. History presents us with instances where laypeople’s instinct towards
the correctness of faith played a decisive role in the Church’s determination
to put an end to dogmatic crises. While it is clear how the people of the
Church may actively defend the faith of the Church in those instances when
the teaching should find itself under threat, it is harder to assess the positive
contribution of the people to deepening the understanding of dogmas, i.e., to
the spirituality of the Church. The same holds true with regard to individual
theological contributions. The Church herself has the last say with regard
to the authenticity and value of charismas. Although the exact formula
of infallibility escapes description, and he himself cannot provide a list of
instructions for times of crisis, the Romanian theologian remains optimistic
and manifests full trust in the ability of the Church as Body of Christ to
remain in Truth.

47
Alexandru Roșu

Giving emphasis to the centrality of prayer to the Orthodox, Fr.

Stăniloae asserts that there is a doxological way to access the Truth. In prayer,
the believer may experience in a more complete manner the salvific reality,
which the dogmas can only denote. Prayer may grant a spiritual experience
which would far surpass the endeavours toward a theoretical infallibility.

48