From where I sit, my friend, it appears that the Orthodox have the same mentality towards anything Roman Catholic that came AFTER the Schism. Is there ANY dogma defined AFTER the Schism that the Orthodox would say "Yea, they are right, we also believe that"? No - despite the fact that the Western Church traces its Tradition to a common point with the Orthodox in these doctrines, such as the sinlessness of Mary. I do not know why that is. Do the Orthodox think that the West totally relied on the East to define doctrine?
Final point, Jo, you say that I am ignoring a Western consensus patrum in favor of an Eastern one. You are incorrect. There is only one consensus patrum which arose out of the patristic era of The Church.
You say that, but do you believe that, my friend? You seem to ignore or have disdain for anything that was a Western avenue in the development of theology. Because "Atonement theology" is decidedly Western, coming from even before Tertulian, you cast it aside in favor of the "Eastern" view. Please remember that the "Atonement theology" is only one of several explanations in the West - admittedly, until recently, the primary view on salvation. Theosis is more an Eastern idea - one which we share, of course. However, it would be ignoring our own Tradition to totally remove Atonement theology from our current faith. It is part and parcel of the Catholic faith. But it is not the sum total of what we believe on the subject. Thus, when you put down the "Atonement theology" of the West, you are clearly showing that you have no respect for the MANY theologians in the West, dating back to Hilary and before who clearly preached some sort of Atonement idea of salvation.
There are even great errors among the writings of the Fathers, especially among some of the early ones. Blessed Augustine's writings about original sin and the depravity of mankind are outside what any Father wrote prior to him (and in the East after him for that matter) except perhaps a few writings of Origen and Tertullian, both ultimately heretics. His influence on Western patristic writing after his death is undeniable as is his status as THE theologian of Calvinism.
Unfortunately, St. Augustine and his Neo-Platoism was not his alone. Many of the Greek Fathers ALSO tried to explain theology under the background of this Neo-Platonic tendencies. Some of St. Augustine's ideas on the Trinity stem from the Cappadocians, so I have to tell you that your charecterization of St. Augustine as some sort of loose canon who was a proto-Protestant is an unfair judgment. What is ironic is that the Protestant Reformation, theologically speaking, was an argument between the theology of Augustine on grace vs. free will. The battle lines were drawn utilizing the largest and most pronounced Father of the West, a man who wrote about many things and whose influence on Western Christianity is undeniable. Given that he wrote so much on various subjects, it would not be difficult for Calvin to find things to twist in his writings - just as one could take the writings of the Theologian and twist them regarding the Trinity.
As you may know, many of St. Augustine's ideas were NOT accepted by the Council of Orange, which dealt specifically with the issue that Calvin would later turn upside down. Yes, St. Augustine's ideas went too far, but the Western Church DID NOT ACCEPT THEM ALL!
All of these factors shaped his theology and in certain areas they lead him, unwittingly, outside the consensus.
We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the ENTIRE Church. Thus, if the West went in the direction of the Atonement for many years regarding soteriological theology, than it was the WILL OF THE SPIRIT! We CANNOT say that this was some sort of aberration. The Spirit is present with the Church and a Tradition of 1000 years cannot be ignored. While we may both agree that theosis and divinization is closer to the Patristic Fathers, it is not the sum total of our Tradition anymore. The Church is a living Body that grows and continues to grow and mature. We are not in some form of statis. Thus, our Tradition spans 2000 years, not just from 100 to 500 AD.
On matters of ecclesiology, Orthodoxy will not be asked to accept anything which it didn't accept prior to the Great Schism. +BXVI himself has said that.
And there is no reason why they should. We are catholic - universal. As such, the Church world-wide is to express itself to men in the society that it lives. People in the East and people in the West live in different cultures, and it is the responsibility of the Church to preach the Gospel to where men in society are CURRENTLY at. As such, it would be insane to expect the Church throughout the world to take on Roman disciplines. That mistake was made before. With Vatican 2, I think we have a recognition with "Gaudium et Spes" that we can no longer expect the Chinese to speak Latin and to celebrate St. Patrick's day anymore...
Regards
"Is there ANY dogma defined AFTER the Schism that the Orthodox would say "Yea, they are right, we also believe that"?"
MAYBE the Assumption, though I confess that while I certainly believe in it, as do all Orthodox I know, I don't see that that belief is a sine qua non of theosis. What other ones would you expect us to accept? Filioque? the IC? the dogmatic pronouncements of Vatican I?
"...despite the fact that the Western Church traces its Tradition to a common point with the Orthodox in these doctrines, such as the sinlessness of Mary."
The sinlessness of The Theotokos is well within the consensus patrum. The IC is not, nor its illogical extension the Co-Redemptrix notion. Do you suppose that Fr. Hardon would have used +Ephraim's hymns to justify that idea and so give it a patristric heritage too?
"Do the Orthodox think that the West totally relied on the East to define doctrine?"
No, we expect the West to rely on the The Church, like we do.
"Because "Atonement theology" is decidedly Western, coming from even before Tertulian, you cast it aside in favor of the "Eastern" view. Please remember that the "Atonement theology" is only one of several explanations in the West - admittedly, until recently, the primary view on salvation."
Orthodoxy does not reject the Atonement theory of salvation, though we do reject any notion that God demanded the bloody death of His Son to be persuaded to let us do what He created us to do. Properly preached, the theory has a place in Christian theology. As you say, many Fathers taught some form of it. The problem is that it is seldom properly preached.
"Some of St. Augustine's ideas on the Trinity stem from the Cappadocians, so I have to tell you that your charecterization of St. Augustine as some sort of loose canon who was a proto-Protestant is an unfair judgment."
HUH? The man couldn't read Greek, Jo! What parts of his Trinitarian theology are traceable to the Cappadocians? The only thing connected to the Cappadocians about Blessed Augustine's Trinitarian theology is that he got it so very, very wrong.
"Yes, St. Augustine's ideas went too far, but the Western Church DID NOT ACCEPT THEM ALL!"
Except that hasn't been the Western "company line". That line is well expressed by Fr. Hardon who, in conformance with Latin practice, makes Augustine the most influential Father of the entire Church! I think he has been in the West, with obvious results.
"We CANNOT say that this was some sort of aberration. The Spirit is present with the Church and a Tradition of 1000 years cannot be ignored. While we may both agree that theosis and divinization is closer to the Patristic Fathers, it is not the sum total of our Tradition anymore. The Church is a living Body that grows and continues to grow and mature. We are not in some form of statis."
The theological dogmatic innovations of the West after the Great Schism, and even before that with the filioque, were the product of papal decree and local councils. Rome would have done better to remain in a state of theological stasis, remaining faithful to the 7 Ecumenical Councils where the whole Church decreed dogma than simply assuming that it had the totality of the Church and thus some sort of ownership of the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy never presumed such a thing and while it believed and believes that it has preserved The Faith inviolate, it has not felt that it could declare further dogma for The Church while the West is in schism. Just because the Roman Church has been around 2000 years says absolutely nothing about the "orthodoxy" of its sua sponte dogmatic proclamations. Jo, by that criterion, Antioch and Jerusalem should have been proclaming even more valid dogma!