Meantime, This is a wonderful writing which conveys the mind of the Orthodox church.
"We give precedence to those beliefs that were agreed to over the broadest geographic range, from the earliest times, and attested by the greatest number of writers. The summary test is "everywhere, always, and by all."
Do all early writers, and early communities, agree?
No. We look for broadest consensus.
Give an example.
These Christians came to agreement on which books should be considered part of the canon of the New Testament and which should not. The question was strongly debated, and some books (the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation of St. John) required centuries to win full approval. Our older brothers and sisters in faith trusted in Jesus’ promise, "When the Spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). Whenever we open the New Testament we demonstrate, in turn, our trust in their discernment and leadership. Whenever we read the New Testament, we affirm that they had authority to make decisions like this.
Give an example of another decision.
These Christians also wrote the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.), to correct a popular idea that Jesus was a mere human and not God from all eternity. Some questions, like this one, seemed unclearly addressed in Scripture and open to the interpretation of the individual Christian. Believers met in council to decide such questions, prayerfully seeking the Spirit’s guidance. This method of discernment was in use even before the New Testament was written, as shown by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. It became, in fact, an article of faith to believe that the community had discerned accurately when it was "in one accord" (Acts 15: 25). In the Nicene Creed we say that we believe in four things: God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Church.
May any quotation from any early church writer be taken as Gospel?
No. We look for broadest consensus. Individual writers of the early church could be as flawed as they are today. Most have occasional trouble spots. Despite this, they may be called "saints." Even saints aren’t perfect on earth. Some whose writings are still treasured departed from the consensus at significant points--more likely to be points of theological speculation than points of devotion.
Give three examples.
Origen, most eloquent and intoxicated with the love of God, was censured for his assertion of universal salvation. Augustine, confessor of touching intimacy and humility, was criticized for his views of free will and Original Sin. Tertullian, acerbic Mark Twain of the early church, drifted from the faith community into a cult. Yet all may be read profitably today."
That's nice. The Catholic Church teaches it too. Its called various things like the indefectibility of the Church. But it needs a complement in the heirarchical authority of Bishops, and the recognition that the teaching of the heirarchy is infallible of itself, and not from the consent of the laity and priests.
I continue to await the Orthodox explanation, based on the theory that Ecumenical Councils require the consent of the Churches and faithful, as to how the Robber Council of Ephesus, accepted throughout the East, was false, but the Council of Chalcedon, rejected by half the east, was true.
The infallibility of Nicea proceeded from the Council itself and was settled then and there forever. It did not need to wait for Theodosius to outlaw Arianism and make the Churches at peace. There was never a moment when one could legitimately doubt that St. Athanasius was right, and the Arians wrong because the issue was not yet accepted as settled by all.
This is dogmatic formulation of Trent, forbidding the interpretation of Scripture against the agreement of the Fathers.
Do all early writers, and early communities, agree?
No. We look for broadest consensus.
As far as the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ they certainly do agree. I posted you a list of some Father's who teach this. Do you need the very quotes to be convinced?
St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyr, and St. John Damascene.
I await the discovery of a Father by you who teaches the bread and wine are not "changed", "transformed", "made over", etc. into the body and blood of Christ, but continue to exist after their consecration as bread and wine in substance.
These Christians also wrote the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.), to correct a popular idea that Jesus was a mere human and not God from all eternity.
Actually, it was not a popular idea. It became popular by persecution of the Catholics by Arian Roman Emperors.
Some questions, like this one, seemed unclearly addressed in Scripture and open to the interpretation of the individual Christian.
That simply is not true. The Catholic faith was well known to all, and the famous word homoousion had been in use for well over 50 years prior to Nicea, at least since Pope St. Dionysius had written St. Dionysius of Alexandria with the results of the Roman Synod of AD 272 on the Adoptionist heresy. Tertullian, who appears to have coined the word Trinity, seems to have also coined homoousion, using the Latin equivalent "unius substantiae" to denote the common essence of the Father and the Word. As to it not being clearly addressed in Scripture, its right there in St. John 1.1 "In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God."
Believers met in council to decide such questions, prayerfully seeking the Spirit’s guidance.
BISHOPS met in council! Not mere believers like you and I. BISHOPS, successors of the Apostles with authority to rule the Church of God. (Acts 20.28)