[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.

[Kolokotronis]

“Your faith is placed upon an institution that has, in the past, showed itself to be wrong.”

I am not at all sure that the Latins have placed their Faith in an “institution”. I know the Orthodox haven’t. You know, HD, the Orthodox view of what is and where one finds the fullness of The Church is substantially different from that held by the Roman Church. I often think Protestant’s view of what we call The Church is very Roman, very “institutional”, to no great surprise frankly.

“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....”

But most of the hierarchy in the East were Iconoclast heretics, like Leo, HD. It was Rome which held the true Faith, along with the laity, and restored it to the Eastern hierarchy. To point out that Eastern bishops fell into heresy and that The Church was pulled back from those heresies by the Bishop of Rome and the laos tou Theou, the people of God, is not exactly news, HD. Until the Great Schism, most heresy arose in the East and among Eastern hierarchs. Its one of the reasons we say that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.

“...and the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed.”

In my opinion that was heresy in the West and thoroughly outside the consensus patrum as originally explained by the West, as it still is today by the Protestants and in its original purpose (to combat Arianism). The East has remained faithful to Nicea on this one, HD.

“The Great Schism shows that the Orthodox do NOT follow the consensus patrum unless it suits them.”

How so? The Great Schism was about a number of theological points. Which Western theological point involved in the Schism do you think was within the consensus patrum and thus demonstrates Orthodoxy’s failure to adhere to the consensus.

You know, HD, because of the East’s understanding of where and what is the fullness of The Church, problems tend to be “self-correcting”, which is to say that, for example, the people have a final say on every theological point, accepting or rejecting beliefs by living out those beliefs or refusing to and rejecting them. But at the same time, the hierarchy and the lower clergy and monastics have similar, though by no means the same, roles. The Western Roman system isn’t at all the same and leads to different ecclesiology and even theology to a greater or lesser extent (maybe not so much now as in the time of the Great Schism or the Reformation or for that matter even in the 19th century.)