I am pinging my Orthodox brethren as a "quality control" check, and Quester because I think he will better understand on what level our communities agree and why we also disagree.
To answer your question I can only say that there is no "regulation" as to what you can believe; but we can say that such and such a belief is Orthodox or not by going back to the Apostolic teachings, the Scripture and the Councils (i.e. the Holy Tradition), the life of the Church.
Our "litmus test" of orthodoxy is to verify that what we believe was also believed by the primitive Church. The Faith was once delivered in its totality and cannot be re-invented, added to or subtracted from. We can only re-formulate that which was believed "everywhere and always."
Thus, we are free to formulate our own theologoumena (religious opinions), but unless they are backed by Tradition, they are not considered Orthodox.
This is where our mindsets, our phronemas, diverge, jo. The latin Church believes in the "deposit of Faith" treating faith as a "seed" from which new things can grow that were not there when the Apostles, or the Church Fathers walked the earth. We do not see that any aspect fo the Faith known today was hidden from the knowledge of the Fathers and the Apostles, or that they didn't know it because they weren't around when the deposit-seed poduced new "leaves."
So, when in doubt, we always go back. Thus, if Prugatory wa sunknown to the Fathers, it would not be the doctrine to adhere to.
Brother, I just got done reading about the Iconoclast heresy. Are you trying to tell me that the "ancient" Church always and everywhere believed in the "worship" of icons? Or that the Holy Spirit was seen as a "theological" procession from the Father alone - and an "economical" procession from the Father and the Son? :) (Starting to figure out that Filioque thing, too!)
The latin Church believes in the "deposit of Faith" treating faith as a "seed" from which new things can grow that were not there when the Apostles, or the Church Fathers walked the earth. We do not see that any aspect fo the Faith known today was hidden from the knowledge of the Fathers and the Apostles, or that they didn't know it because they weren't around when the deposit-seed poduced new "leaves."
I would dare say that the Iconoclast heresy is just one example of many where the Church of the day interpreted what came before as the "teachings of the Apostles", although one could find numerous Patristic writings to the contrary, writings that superficially could and were used to "disprove" such use of "idols".
We believe that the Church is a living interpreter of the Apostles' teachings, even when given in seed form, as you say. The theologians of the day saw the worship of icons by the faithful as an expression of this "seed" teaching, and left it to the Council to officially proclaim what was already "proclaimed" always and everywhere. The Apostles gave a core of teachings that implied other teachings that developed from them - one being the utilization of icons and statues that was NOT idolatry, and the belief that praying for the sake of the dead was efficacious.
Sure, the theological definitions of "purgatory" were not set in stone by the faithful. Nor did people understand the theological implications of icons. But in both cases, I believe, we have enough evidence to show that the faithful practiced something that was not defined by theologians. In the case of icons, the practice of the faithful of prayers asking for intercession of saints through these icons was sufficient, among other things, for the settling of the icon heresy. In the case of Purgatory, the prayers for the sake of the dead provide all the evidence we need for the existence of "Purgatory" - there would be no point in praying for the sake of a person in heaven or hell. Its existence is even implied in the Old Testament writings of Maccabees, Scriptures to both our communities, so it must be an Apostolic teacing, if it still existed as a belief in Christian communities as noted by early Christian historians...
I believe in the Orthodox Church, an accepted Ecumenical Council has not "proclaimed" or "denied" the doctrine. But if they were to study the question (as we have been forced to by the Reformation), they would come to the conclusion of its existence - though with different ideas of the specifics. As in any other doctrine, it takes heresy to define the borders of what we believe. And we always go back to that "seed" found in the Apostolic teachings.
Regards
Kosta, your 8393 requires no "quality control." I think you put it all very accurately and beautifully.
It is really hard to describe exactly the difference between Catholic and Orthodox approaches, but they are very real and acute in our eyes.
I think that the most important thing that you touch on is that in general, we consider theologoumena to be not a part of Orthodox tradition or belief. Truly Orthodox belief is marked by essential agreement on even the details, throughout the entirety of Orthodoxy. This includes agreement regarding what details we believe are unknowable and must remain undefined and unextrapolated because they were *never* revealed -- such as defining the "intermediate state" of the soul after death.
I do not think that the difference between our beliefs about the soul after death and the Catholic beliefs are the result of the challenge of Protestantism in the West, any more than I believe that the filioque wasn't inserted into the Creed in the East because the East didn't have a problem with Arianism! (Leaving aside the question of whether the filioque really helps combat Arianism...)
My impression of Catholicism, especially today, is that there is more an attitude of "if a belief isn't forbidden or declared to be heresy, then it is a valid and acceptable part of the Catholic tradition, as long as some Catholics believe it." There seems to be more of an attitude of a variety of extrapolated beliefs being included in Catholic tradition.
Orthodoxy, rightly or wrongly, does not believe so much in the development and extrapolation of doctrine as we do in the gradual articulation of beliefs that were held from the very beginning, without interuption, but perhaps in more inchoate form. Some would call this naive, but it is how we look at it.
So, no, it really isn't accurate to state that Orthodox Christians can choose to believe in purgatory just because it hasn't formally been declared to be off-limits. We consider that any level of going beyond what is agreed on within Orthodoxy is to stand on unstable ground, and is to be avoided.