[kosta50]

I wasn't really thinking along the lines of major heretics, just local churches who may have come to agreement locally on some matter. At least in Orthodoxy, even many Councils were local, weren't they, and thus not "officially" consensus patrum?

No, consensus patrum means the whole Church. Local or particular churches and individual fathers can be within bounds of orthodoxy and differ on issues that are not dogmatic. Contrary to popular opinion, "orthodoxy" is not a narrow, rigid set of beliefs. Orthodoxy is a solid foundation on which the faith rests. The only restriction is that, in the final analysis, whatever we believe must not violate that foundation, namely the belief in the Holy Trinity, the dual nature of Christ in one Person, the belief in Resurrection, etc.

Since there was no dogma regarding the original sin, St. Augustine's teaching did not constitute "heresy" visa-a-vis the Church in the East, and the Church in the East could dismiss his teaching without making him a "heretic." Part of the Curch could disagree with him and still consider him a Saint in the Orthodox Church.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the three giants, the Cappadocian Fathers, thaught (for a while at least) universal salvation (he used to be Origen's student), but later realized his error and stopped teaching that, otherwise he would have been excommunicated for that teaching because the consensus patrum rejects universal salvation.

Likewise, anyone who taught that Christ was a "lesser" God than the Father, as taught by Arius (Arian heresy) or professed hierarchichal trinity of the Godhead (Gnosticism), as taught by Origen, was given a chance to recant or be excommunicated because this clashes with the foundations of the orthodox faith.

This idea of some variance being allowed within the confines of orthodoxy is evident form the earliest days of the Church. Thus, Hippolytus, an early 3rd century Christian writer left us this regarding the use of epiklesis in the liturgy (my emphases):

"It is absolutely not necessary for the bishop to use the exact wording which we gave above, as if he were learning them by heart for his thanksgiving to God. Rather each one should pray according to his capacity. If he is ready to pronounce a grand and solemn prayer, that is well; if on the contrary he should say a prayer according to a set form, no one may hinder him. But the prayer must be orthodox".

The Church always allowed what the Greeks call theologoumenna (theological opinions), with the understanding that they must not include heterodox beliefs but rather remain within the confines of orthodox foundations of the faith as recognized by the whole Church (i.e. consensus patrum), not local councils.

[Forest Keeper]

No, consensus patrum means the whole Church.

Yes, that's the distinction I wanted to understand. My original thinking was that, for example, (a) there was a Council that promulgated dogma. At this point there is a consensus patrum, and then this consensus must be either ratified or rejected by the laity. However, it looks like you might be saying that it is (b) there is no consensus patrum UNTIL a dogma has been ratified by the laity. Could you confirm?

The Church always allowed what the Greeks call theologoumenna (theological opinions), with the understanding that they must not include heterodox beliefs but rather remain within the confines of orthodox foundations of the faith as recognized by the whole Church (i.e. consensus patrum), not local councils.

We do the same thing, but since we do not have one overarching authority of men, every time someone does this we are slapped with having a "new denomination". :) If I'm understanding you correctly, your above is what allows me to be simultaneously a Reformer and a Southern Baptist.