Jo: I would venture to say there are more than that. I think he is defining by broad categories
Dogmas of the Orthodox Church are those issued by the undivided Church of the first millennium. These dogmas were issued in response to emerging heresies and include the Holy Trinity (Three Hypostases, One Essence), Christology (Two Natures, One Person) and Theotokos (Birthgiver of God).
After the Great Schism the Orthodox Church did officially accept hesychastic (Palamite) teaching as offical doctrine in the 14th century regarding uncreated Grace.
This doctrine was established in response to a challenge from a Latin priest who crossed over to Orthodoxy (only to cross over again after he lost) but I am not certain that it can be consdiered "dogma" as it was canonized only in a Pan-Orthodox Synbod instead of the synod of the whole Church.
There was never a dogmatic pronouncement specifically regarding Scriptures, as far as I know.
The Church truths are contained in the Holy Tradition that is not explicitly written down but believed everywhere and always as one faith once delivered. We know of these truths from the writings of Church Fathers, the Scriptures and the litugical life.
No one specifically wrote a dogmatic pornoucement that everything Apostles wrote was scriputre. The Church simply accepted that as something sine qua non. Determining exactly what was actually written by them was another matter.
So, from the start, the Church believed the scriputres as containing God's truth. One must likewise assume that the Church knew the Holy Trinity and Christology, as well as Mary as the Birthgiver of God because otherwise the Church would not be able to know what is heresy and what is orthodoxy.
So, in the undivided Church, the authoirty is not in the dogma; the dogma is simply a statemnt of faith the Church believed everywhere and always, in response to emerging heresies that distort that which the Church knew everywhere and always.
In other woreds, the Church did not "develop" or "discover" dogmas, but simply stated them as something that waas believed everywhere and always.
A heresy is, by definition, an internal distortion of the Holy Tradition. It is not something non-believers say or teach. Heresy is an inter-ecclesial departure from the normative faith regarding absolutely essential elements of that faith. Accepting such heresy means literally changing the faith in its essence and transforming it into something essentially different.
After the Western and Eastern churches stopped communing in 1054, the Latin (aka "Roman Catholic") Church eventually started to issue dogmatic pronoucements that were not in resposne to challenges to doctrinal orthodoxy of the Holy Tradition, but rather as unquestionable affirmations of long-held beliefs. Thus one of the first was the dogma of the Purgatory. The two famous dogmas in the 19th century were the Immaculate Conception (IC) and Papal Infallibility (PI). The the third dogma issued in the 1950's was affirming bodily Assumption of Mary (AM).
Again, the IC and the AM were long held beliefs in the Church is, but neither is scriputral. So, not only were these dogmas issued sans any threat of heresy within the Church, but they are not even biblical. The IC is based on +Auigustine's (4th century) doctrine of the original sin. The assumption of BEV Mary is apparently something both Catholic and Orthodox Churches always believed on their own.
The AM was not dogmatized in the first millennium or ever in the East simply because it was never challenegd within the Church and because the scriputre is silent on it.
Now, dogma may not be questioned. Those who question either the Holy Trinity, the Christology or that Mary is the Birthgiver of our Lord and God, Jesus Chirst, are anathematized because by belieeing those errors they have exocmmunicated themsleves form the Church.
Doctrine is a theological statement based on the Holy Tradition and must be in harmony with Holy Tradition (and that includes Scriputre). In the undivided Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Churches today, doctrine is based on consensus patrum, teachings of the Church Fathers based on Holy Tradition and consensually accepted by the whole Church as such. Doctrine is not what any individual Church Father/Doctor writes as theologoumennna or theological hypothesis.
Disagreeing with any individual Father is not heresy. being critical of someone else's interpretation that has not been dogmatized is permitted.
Thus, individual Fathers could challenge papacy (as +Cyrpian did at one time), but one must always be ready to defer to the consensus patrium and Church dogma as the final truth and one's disagreements as inability to see the truth.
Echoing what Kolo once said regarding +Paul, I don't particularly like him but the Church tells me he is important for my salvation, so I defer to the Church and hope that, I too will one day come to see it correctly.
In other woreds, the Church did not "develop" or "discover" dogmas, but simply stated them as something that waas believed everywhere and always.
Agreed. It is a definition that filters out what the Church does not believe about a particular issue. It is usually in response to heresy. Have you read Pelikan's "Development of Doctrine"? It is a very interesting read, seeing how the Christian theologians of the time make the effort to put into words what we believe through our actions in the liturgy and daily practice.
I think the Latin church was responding to heresy in the cases you mention. Material creationism vs. the Immaculate Conception, Totalitarianism and communism vs. the Assumption, and Counciliarism vs. the Papacy. The first two are pernicious philosophies that we are still dealing with, still pulling people out of the faith. I don't think the Latin Church lightly considers defining doctrine. But in the West, there are a lot of "free thinkers", if you get my drift.
What is ironic about St. Cyprian (and St. Chrysostom later) is that they fully supported the papacy, calling upon it when in need - but "fighting against the goad" when they were pushing their own particular understanding of the Faith when the Pope didn't agree. They both recognized the office and always remained within the Church. If only Martin Luther would have considered that option...
Regards