[Kolokotronis]

Long post....

“You accused M-L-G of holding heretical doctrine about Cain and here you are doing the very same thing with Moses. What’s the difference?”

HD, I did not. I have no idea what that person believes vis a vis Cain. In any event, I know how to say heretic and heresy and have on multiple occasions here. Being called a heretic doesn’t bother me in the least. It shouldn’t bother any of us who are convinced of the “orthodoxy” of our beliefs. As I said before, all of this has to be taken whence it comes.

“Quite frankly, Kolo, I’m not at all impress with the way the fathers are used here. I find things in them that are contrary to what is the doctrine of both the Orthodox and Catholic Church and the response I get is, “Well, that’s not what the Church teaches.”

But in a nutshell that’s an appropriate response because what The Church teaches is, among other things, doctrines which arise from and are consistent with the consensus patrum. It means nothing that you can find quotes from the Fathers which are contradictory to what The Church teaches. Those contradictory comments are outside the consensus patrum. Some of the comments are, or border on heresy. The Fathers were not infallible and Orthodoxy has never taught that they were...that’s something we’ve left to the Latins and even they seem to apply that infallibility only to Popes, though I’d argue they’ve raised Blessed Augustine to that level too.

“I would wager to say that if the Holy Spirit job is to guide people to all truth, then the Orthodox/Catholic position should be virtually the same given they are the “true” church.”

As institutions with a major “human” component, I’d say that our positions are remarkably the same in virtually all areas. Many of the differences are in “traditions” (small t) and praxis; they are apparent but not fundamental. On the other hand, there are differences which are profound, most (but not all) of them running back to +Augustine’s writings and the interpretation and importance the Church of Rome gives to them.

“Tell me, do you believe in the Pope’s infallibility?”

As defined by Vatican I? No; it is a 19th century Roman innovation and an unfortunate and pernicious one at that.

[HarleyD]

HD, I did not. I have no idea what that person believes vis a vis Cain. In any event, I know how to say heretic and heresy and have on multiple occasions here. Being called a heretic doesn’t bother me in the least.

Well that is certainly time implication of some of the posts that I have read such as #10,702. I use the term "heresy" in the traditional sense of "incorrect" doctrine so don't go getting all offended.

That being said you have not explain how your view of Moses not being an Israelite, is not heretical considering the inspired scriptures (as agreed to by the Church's consensus patrum) states otherwise. I don't see any difference in what M-L-G is accused of and what you are stating.

Our basis is the scriptures. If anyone wanted to find out where Cain came from they should have referred to Gen 4:1:

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

It's rather clear as to where Cain came from as it is where Moses came from.

But in a nutshell that’s an appropriate response because what The Church teaches is, among other things, doctrines which arise from and are consistent with the consensus patrum. It means nothing that you can find quotes from the Fathers which are contradictory to what The Church teaches.

Your faith is placed upon an institution that has, in the past, showed itself to be wrong. I often bring up this fact with the Catholics and indulgences. The great Orthodox/Catholic schism of 1054 is another one in which the eastern church refused to submit to the doctrine laid down by Rome.

I know you and F-K have been discussing this and I haven't follow the conversation. But it's hard to say the Orthodox favor the consensus patrum when, in fact, history shows the Orthodox rebelled against the official teachings of the Church such as Leo III the Isaurian forbidding icons and the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. The Great Schism shows that the Orthodox do NOT follow the consensus patrum unless it suits them.