I’m sorry but I have to agree with Quix on this one. In the very early formation of the church the vote was by majority. Everything had to be approved unanimously. This is how the books of the New Testament were pass-by a unanimous vote. It was later changed to a majority rule vote-something that is not proper in the church. In fact as posted on another thread here, the Nicene Creed, something the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church has some contentions about, was passed by a majority vote as early as 350+AD against the wishes of the Eastern Orthodox.
I know only a small amount of about the Orthodox beliefs. But there is sufficient proof that many of the Council's theological decisions (especially 1000+ AD and on) were made to keep people attending and to keep the funding coming in.
That should be:
In the very early formation of the church the vote was by NOT BY majority. Everything had to be approved unanimously.
Purgatory in itself is not really different form the Partial Judgment except that it is unthinkable for an Orthodox Chirstian to think that souls of the deceased would be tortured by flames to God's "satisfaction." The Orthodox do not dwell on Jesus' suffering as much as on His triumphant Resurrection. We do not see God returning evil with evil but rather to the last breath of each human being extending a chance to save him, and so on. Indulgencies exist in the Orthodox Faith, but they are not redeemable with money. They are intended to help a person repent -- and never repeat the sins by changing his life.
There was no Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic when the Creed was put together in the 4th century. The Church was one, and catholic in its worship and teaching, not Roman Catholic as you know it today. The pope (the patriarchal title of the bishop of Rome) was one of the five patriarchs of the Church. He did not rule the Church, nor did he have juridical power over other bishops or patriarchs. He did enjoy the place of primacy of honor.
The dispute of the Creed started to take shape early. The Latin side of the Church and some Greek theologians started to refer to the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father and the Son (the famous Filioque) which was not part of the Creed as set by the first two Ecumenical Councils. There was a good reason for that: the Greek distinguishes procession from the fource (well, spirng) as opposed to proceding through. To the Greeks, the Filioque seems to suggest two causes two sources, which directly changes the monarchy of the Father, Who is the cause of all.
The Church never voted by majority against the original Creed, as it was finalized before 350 AD, as you seem to suggest. Your facts are incorrect. The practice of inserting "and from the Son" continued in the West and was made pulic at the (local, not ecumenical) Council of Toledo in the 6th century. The popes never sanctioned the use of that change of the Creed until after the Church split.
In the 9th century the 8th Ecumenical Council was held in whic, on the urging of the Frankish zealots, the Filioque was endorsed and the bishop of Constantinople (Photius) condemned. Ten years later the same Eight Ecumenical Council was held because the first one was annulled, Photius was restored and the Filioque rejected. Both the latin and the Greek side of the Church agreed on that, including the pope. To this day, theere is a Greek language Creed on the walls of the Vatican -- without the Filioque.
The Potestants often bring up Inquisition, indulgencies and papal immorality. The Church never held that its individual lay members and clergy are sinful and some gravely sinful at that. These individuals do not make the entire Church corrupt and sinful.
We disagree with the Vatican on the papal authority, which is not historically defensible. The Church Synods (Councils) were passed despite papal objections in the united Church. The princly position of the pope is unknown to the primitive and united church.
The East has not been influenced by St. Augustine (thank God!) or by humanism and/or Rennaisance. Our concept of God is different from the western, which is heavily influenced by pagan Greek philosophy, when God's "pride" is offended (!) by our unworthy transgressions. In the East we tend to see God as hurt the way a parent is hurt seeing his child, with great potential, go astray.
The work of Nicaea was taken up by the second Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 381. This council expanded and adapted the Nicene Creed, developing in particular the teaching upon the Holy Spirit, whom it affirmed to be God even as the Father and Son are God: 'who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and together glorified'. The council also altered the provisions of the Sixth Canon of Nicaea. The position of Constantinople, now the capital of the Empire, could no longer be ignored, and it was assigned the second place, after Rome and above Alexandria. 'The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogatives of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome' (Canon III).
EXCELLENT POINT ABOUT CONSENSUS.
I think consensus in spiritual groups is a good reality check.
However, I've seen groups operate in consensus AND
STILL
GO OFF THE DEEP END.
But it at least seems to retard the tendency and decrease the distance of the drop off the cliff.
I wish all such weren't true--but God must have involved His wisdom in leaving things this way. I believe it has to do with preserving a robust amount of
FREE WILL for each individual
AND,
as I've mentioned, insuring that each individual is compelled out of Love for God and God's requirements--to engage in a moment by moment dialogue and Heavenly Dance with God.