How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)

I think we can only know God by revelation. If my mind was great enough to logic itself to an understanding, I would assume that understanding was wrong - I know my limitations, and I’m not 0.001% big enough to comprehend God.

I hear what you are saying and, believe it it or not, I do respect your honesty. In addition to that, you seem to be a very reasonable person, and fond of learning.

Given our notions influenced by the Bible, it is almost imperative to conclude that we can only "know' God by revelation. But you never answered me just how do you know it's God that is being revealed to you (as the NT reminds us), since we do not know what God's essence is in order to recognize it in some shape or form, whether it be spiritual, by word, or by physical appearance.

In order to know who is human and who is not, we must know what makes human human, i.e. the essence, or humanity. Obviously, it transcends form and shape, and color and size. In other words, we can confidently say that, based on humanity as a concept, we can call all men, regardless of color, race, gender, size, etc. human. We can, knowing that only humans possess a written language, confidently say that "if it talks it's human." we know children are human. We can safely ascertain that a newspaper article is written by a human, that a developing embryo is human, that any word we know and any letter is confidently a human creation, etc.

How do we interpolate unreachable, incomprehensible, unknowable God's essence into ordinary physical phenomena and not run a risk of mistaking, to use the biblical example, Satan for the Angel of Light? How do we say with confidence "this is from God" if we really dont know what God is?

Obviously even in their faith humans are not capable of coming to a common agreement as manifested by various Christian sects and even cults, and a variety of biblical canons, and worship.

In other words, if our logic is not big enough to comprehend God, our faith isn't either.

As for Protestants twisting scripture - of course we do. All I can claim is that I’m willing to be untwisted, if shown where wrong. And I have done that often in my life.

How can I show you that you are "twisted" in your beliefs (not that I am saying you are) if you already believe that the holy spirit led you this far? And what will help you get untwisted if not, OMG! facts and logic? Now you are telling me that your faith does depend on logic (and not on revelation) because it can be "untwisted" by facts (I suppose).

It is very hard to come to any writing or tradition and not rewrite it in one’s mind based on one’s own experiences. When studying, that is the goal one shoots for, and often misses. Protestants view the study of scripture, not as ‘I’ve got the truth’, but as ‘I’m heading towards the truth’. Scriptures lead us to God

While I recognize your perception of human tendencies as part of your knowledge of humanity, I am still in the dark how the Protestants know that scriptures lead one to God? In what sense?

If Catholics would say, “We’ll believe what we wish, regardless of scripture”, I’d disagree - but at least that would be consistent. It is the claim that their traditions - some dating back a hundred years - match scripture perfectly that drives me nuts.

I think every religion has a "working defense department" by which it seeks to justify its existence. Realistically speaking, there is no certificate of authenticity of any orthodoxy except by the fact that the party that called itself orthodox got to write the history. We can speculate whether the victory of the orthodox party was a divine providence as much as an election of a pope, we can be sure that if Arians won the Gospel would be interpreted differently and that would be the standard and the definition of their orthodoxy, and of their sacred deposit.

creating a feast day for Mary [...] when Easter would be celebrated

The formation of calendar is the task of the Church Universal, most naturally belonging to the Pope. Would you rather not have holidays?

the oldest texts we have are in 95-98% agreement with modern texts - depending on who you ask to keep count.

I absolutely agree: the arguments from doubts in the scripture are silly and generally are symptoms of a loss of faith. They are also anti-Catholic as their purpose generally is to undermine faith through sowing doubt in the trustworthiness of the Church who produced the Holy Scripture.

all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.
Leo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.]

That is a far more trustworthy source than a Pope in 1950 citing art examples

A quote or a link would be helpful here. However, Christian practice, including sacred art, are indeed a valid reference point in order to establish the ancient origins of a doctrine, especially when it lies outside of the scope of the Scripture, like the Assumption does.

if doctrine is not derived from the scripture, that flies in the face of what the scripture says about scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3:16)

2 Tim 3:16 does not say that docrine should be derived from the scripture. It says that the scripture is useful "to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct", exactly how the Catholic Church uses it.

Catholics use scripture to justify doctrine/dogma (i.e. papal supremacy with Matthew 16, etc).

Petrine supremacy is rather clear from the renaming of Simon, the grant of keys, the selection of Peter as the visible foundation of the Christ's Church, the purchase of the Temple rights, the charge to convert the brethren as they are corrupted by Satan, and to feed the sheep. Whether or not Petrine Supremacy translates to Papal infallibility is a matter of episcopacies agreeing with this doctrine; the Catholic bishops agree with it, and some other bishops, sadly, choose not to. Naturally, there would be no scripture telling us to obey Pope Benedict XVI, describing the ascension of Mary, or many other things necessary for the formation of the flock today.

On a personal note, I often argue for the Catholic faith at FR using the Protestant method of "Scripture alone". I do so not because the method is valid in all applications, but because it is sufficient and effective in order to show the Protestant doctrinal error. I hope people who follow my arguments that are based on the Holy Scripture do not take them as an admission of Sola Scriptura as a valid proposition; it is most emphatically not. "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

I absolutely agree: the arguments from doubts in the scripture are silly and generally are symptoms of a loss of faith

Am I to understand that what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't believe what you believe, or the books you hold sacred, is silly and has no faith? I am surprised Alex and wonder why otherwise reasonable people retreat to such exclusivist positions when they know better. May I remind you that what you believe is your subjective reality and by no means a proven fact, and that just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it is true?

Leo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.]"...all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."

No disrespect meant, but to me this seems rather silly. Especially considering the traditional Orthodox view of the scripture.

"The Holy Bible (or Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments) is the most authoritative part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church...Much has been said regarding the Divine authorship and inspiration of the Bible (theopneustia). Various theories have been expressed throughout the centuries concerning the way in which the Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit. Philo of Alexandria is the main exponent of the so-called "mechanical theory" of understanding the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. According to Philo, the authors of the Bible were in a condition of "possession" by the Spirit of God, who was just using these authors as blind instruments...
A better view is the so-called "dynamic view" of the cooperation between man and the Holy Spirit in the case of the Bible. In any case of "synergy" (cooperation) between God and man, God leads, and man follows...the Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit...
In this sense, we can understand possible imperfections in the books of the Bible...Biblical textual criticism is completely normal and acceptable by the Orthodox, since they see the Bible in this light. Nothing human is perfect, including the Bible, which is the end product of human cooperation with the divine Spirit." [The Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, by His Eminence Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh, Greek Orthodox Diocese of America]

I guess you can now go an accuse the whole Eastern Orthodox Church of a loss of faith and silliness...because it leaves a door open to something that is so obvious, documented and verifiable that it takes an active process of denial to pretend it's not there, aka sticking your head in the sand and pretending the sun doesn't shine.

2 Tim 3:16 does not say that docrine should be derived from the scripture. It says that the scripture is useful "to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct", exactly how the Catholic Church uses it

Alex, of all opeople I don't have to tell you what διδασκαλία means, do I? In context it was used as a specific nboun and not a general verb.

πασα [all] γραφη [scripture] θεοπνευστος [(is) God-breathed] και [and] ωφελιμος [useful] προς [for] διδασκαλιαν [teaching] προς [for] ελεγμον [reproof] προς [for] επανορθωσιν [correction] προς [for] παιδειαν [training] την εν [in] δικαιοσυνη [righteousness]

Alex, προς διδασκαλιαν for teaching, for that which is taught, i.e. for doctrine, not "to teach," as the translators of your verison of the Bible saw fit to translate in order to twist the meaning and dissasociate the Bible from being necessary for deriving doctrine, and claiming instead a Depsit of Faith for that purpose...how convenient.

Sorry, all I see here is (yet) another perfect example how diffrenet communities twist and spin the scriptures to fit their own agenda.

The notion of Mary not being the Queen of Heaven comes from not paying attention to the Book of Revelation, where she described as such

This book was considered "questionable" until the 9th century in Constantinople. How could it have been a source of dogmatic tradition about Theotokos accepted at the Nicene Council, and repeated in subsequent ones? After the 7th century there are no other Ecumenical Councils that the Eastern Church knows about or recognizes, and for sure no one in the East was told to call Mary the "Queen of Heaven."

Yet, Mariology was alive and well in the East, including the belief that she died and was assumed to heaven body and soul on the third day by her own Son. The feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos is almost as old as the Eastern Church, yet remains unknown in the Latin West to this day.

The Orthodox dogma of Mary is simple and ancient, and unchanged:

The Fathers of the Church speculate on Luke 1:35, concluding that Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit the day of Annunciation, in order for her to become the "worthy Mother of God." However, even after she gave birth to the Son of God, Mary was not exempted of less serious ("venial") sins. St. John Chrysostom attributes to Mary the sin of vanity, in the context of the first miracle of Christ in Cana of Galilee.

Mary was also saved by her Son, for God is her Savior (Luke 1: 47) as well. It is unfortunate that the Roman Catholic Church promulgated the doctrine of the so-called "Immaculate Conception" in 1854, which contradicts the traditional doctrine of the Church concerning Mary." [Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, by His Eminence Maximos, Metropolitan of Pittsburgh]

The Catholic tradition was obviously unknown in the East and is not part of any Eastern dogmatic tradition. Yet another example of more man-made traditions.

***I do not doubt the Catholic Church doesn’t derive doctrine from scripture...instead, it decides which doctrine it wants, and then twists scripture interpretation to support it.***

It really doesn’t matter about your doubts. The Church derives its doctrine from Scripture and the Tradition which includes many other writings from the Church Doctors, for instance. Many of the doctrines trace back to the first or second centuries, then fleshed out over the next decades or centuries. Easter, for instance, is based on a formula similar to Passover; do you call that ridiculous too?

***By 325 AD, the “Church” was paying attention to all wrong things for the wrong reasons. That is why scripture is so important.***

But you don’t have all Scripture, and the Scripture that you use is not the original.

***While it is possible for texts to be distorted, the oldest texts we have are in 95-98% agreement with modern texts - depending on who you ask to keep count.***

Just remember that when you tell us what happened on Resurrection Sunday with all the Gospels side by side.

what you believe is your subjective reality and by no means a proven fact

I believe that the Catholic Church furnished sufficient proof that the Incarnation of Christ, His Resurrection and Ascention into heaven, are historical facts, and therefore I choose to believe facts of lesser importance than that, contained in the Holy Scripture. I further am of the opinion that not believing this evidence once one is familiar with it is not smart.

traditional Orthodox view of the scripture

Without getting into theological arguments over details, Leo XIII also teaches, or at least, doesn't seem to dispute that human error exists in the scripture as delivered to us and understood by us. There are both errors of interpretation and errors of transmission, such as loss of original copies, mistranslations, interpolations, and such.

To acknowledge that is neither faithless or silly, but that is not what you do: you do not have faith in the substantial historical veracity of the scriptural evidence. That violates the Creed of the Church.

On to your subsequent posts.

not what the prayer says

22Most+Holy+Theotokos%2C+save+us

dissasociate the Bible from being necessary for deriving doctrine

I am fine with translating "is useful for doctrine", or "for teaching", but that still does not make the doctrine necessarily derived from the scripture. Both the dotrines and the scripture are derived from the "faith once delivered to the saints".

Mariology was alive and well in the East, including the belief that she died and was assumed to heaven body and soul on the third day by her own Son

Thanks, that's what Pius XII believes also, and all of us with him.

Mary was also saved by her Son, for God is her Savior (Luke 1: 47) as well

No kidding. The Orthodox teach that? Are you Catholic now?

I believe that the Catholic Church furnished sufficient proof that the Incarnation of Christ, His Resurrection and Ascention into heaven, are historical facts

I respect your belief but no one has furnished sufficient proof that they are historical facts. I wish someone did, then we wouldn't have to believe; we would know.

Without getting into theological arguments over details, Leo XIII also teaches, or at least, doesn't seem to dispute that human error exists in the scripture

That's not at all what he is saying in the passage you chose to share with us.

There are both errors of interpretation and errors of transmission, such as loss of original copies, mistranslations, interpolations, and such.

And some of them are not even errors but rather different beliefs held by many early Christians.

22Most+Holy+Theotokos%2C+save+us...

I have never heard this in a Slavonic liturgy. Maybe the Greeks do this, and if they do then it is nothing short of idolatry.

The Slavonic liturgy relating to the Lord's Entrance (Vkhod Gospoden') the choir sings Молитвами Богородицы, Спасе спаси нас or Through the prayers of the Theotokos, Savior save us, which is completely different from the idolatrous Theotokos "save" us.

If I had heard the version you mention, I would have walked out of the church convinced that I was in a wrong church. In all my years as a believer, I never once prayed to her, let alone believe tha6t she can save anyone.

My prayers were always to God and God alone, either the Father or the Son, but never to the Holy Spirit simply because I never heard a prayer to the Holy Spirit, except when the priest, in silence (at least in the Athonite typikon), invokes the epiklesis. But that's another Triniatrian topic...

Both the doctrines and the scripture are derived from the "faith once delivered to the saints".

The doctrine was not delivered to the saints, Alex. None of the disciples who bothered to write (assuming it was them who wrote), St. Paul came the closests to some sort of doctrine, but his Triniarianism is not even close and his Mariology is nonexistenet.

The fact is that the Church struggled for three centuries to define what she believed in, to even establish the 'pillars of faith.'

The Church has had 2,000 years to get the "story straight," and it's a sophisticated story, but the facts don't necessarily agree with it. And most people never dig that deep anyway.

Also, the scripture came way before the doctrine and the scripture came in all shapes an sizes and versions.

Thanks, that's what Pius XII believes also, and all of us with him

The Latin Church has yet to acknowledge that Mary died, Alex. If she is another Eve ontologically speaking, and she never sinned (unlike Eve), then she was not mortal just as Eve would not have been mortal had she never sinned.

Which poses a problem: is only God immortal or did he create other gods who then fell and became mortal? Was Adam a god until he sinned? Or, is immortality not exclusively a divine attribute?

[Mary was also saved by her Son, for God is her Savior (Luke 1: 47) as well] No kidding. The Orthodox teach that? Are you Catholic now?

Why, pray tell, did Mary NEED a Savior any more than Eve did before she sinned? Remember, Mary was ontologically not fallen like the rest of us and, having never sinned, why did she need a Savior?

In a nutshell. Because there were so many sources floating around, the Church used some of them in formulating doctrine; then they decided that the books as a whole were not inspired, although they kept some of the ideas and doctrines associated with them. That is why we rely on the Church’s Tradition and not just the Canon of Scripture

Mark, unlike the Western Church, the Church of the East considers scriptures part of the Holy Tradition, and not separate from it. This is a significant difference. Tradition of the Church is, of course, defined as the life of the Church, so scriptures play a role in it, liturgically and otherwise, and while there is a belief in infallibility of the Church as a whole (i.e. that the gates of hell will not overcome it), there is no claim of any inerrency. It is the duty of the Church to make sure the correct faith is transmitted despite errors and variants that may appear.

The mechanism of self-correction is the same one that is used in Judaism. You do things one way because your parents did them that way. And they did it because their parents did it. If you see someone else doing it differently, you are required to speak up and question it because you know it's wrong. How reliable and fool-proof is such a system I don't have to tell you. It's not, of course. yet they and the EO believe it is.

As for doctrine, that was derived pretty much through two theologians, Origen and Tertullian, both of which eventually straued into heresy. Early fathers such as Ignatius actually make a better case for Montanist heresy then orthodoxy. Irenaeus' concept of Mary is troubling, and before him, Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr were anything but theological giants, and Clement was anything but a pillar of orthodoxy. Irenaeus still used oral tradition to a large extent over a century after the initial Gospels were written.

The scriptures were no better. They existed in a variety of versions and Christianity pretty much progressed freely and without too many doctrinal or theological restrictions. Copyists were not professionals and undertook to change manuscripts to keep up with doctrinal developments.

While most churches agreed with basic NT books by the end of the 2nd century, the contents of these books were not the same. They came in different lengths as compared to others by the same name, and some were doctrinally divergent as well. In addition to that, the collection of books read in various churches, besides these heterogeneous NT ones, were books that were later deemed "apocryphal" (i.e. Book of Enoch, very popular and wisely read book in early churches), or outright pagan.

The story we know form the Church is of course different, well choreographed and tailored to fit the doctrine. Some prefer it that way. I don't because it doesn't fit the facts.

no one has furnished sufficient proof that they are historical facts

The Church has the proof as she is the witness. The faith is required to believe the witness, as with any historical fact.

in the passage you chose to share with us

No, not in the passage, because I did not choose the passage to illustrate that particular point. The theology is that human errors exist, both of transmission and understanding.

I have never heard this in a Slavonic liturgy

Then why didn't you google in slavonic? You would have found this beautiful Penitential Canon

Voice 6. Song 1
As if over dry land walked Israel, over the abyss on foot, seeing the pursuer the Pharao drown, the victorious song singing, proclaiming.
Most Holy Mother of God, save us.
All my filthy life I decry, as well as the multitude of my unmeasurable evils: that I should confess to you o Pure I do not comprehend and I am in fear: yet help me, Ruler [fem].
Most Holy Mother of God, save us.
Where do I start to speak of my deceitful and my fierce faults, as I am in torment; woe me that I will be lost; but o Ruler [fem], before the end, grant me.
Glory: Of the hour of by death and of the Frightful Judgement always I am mindful, o Most Chaste, as I am seduced by evel habit so fiercely: yet, help me.
As now, The burner of the Righteous, as he sees me lacking divine goodness, as I further depart and am separated from God, hastes to swallow me: o Ruler [fem] forestall.
...

My point is, of course, not to criticize Orthodox expression of Marian devotions, but to explain that the unique association of the Mother of God with the Redeemer is known to the Eastern Church as well.

The doctrine was not delivered to the saints

Faith was delivered. The doctrine, indeed has to be developed, as Christ promised it will be, and over time it has been developed.

The scripture came before the developed doctrine of the Councils, and simultaneously with oral teaching that contained the doctrinal essentials, as the scripture itself tells us. This is why the doctrine cannot be said to derive from the scripture alone. The scripture is, of course, "useful" or "profitable" for that, and immensely so, but it is not the sole source of doctrine. Especially, when the docrtine in question deals with the events outside of the scope of canonical scripture.

The Latin Church has yet to acknowledge that Mary died The Church refers to the same tradition the Eastern Churches do. That tradition speaks of the dormition, the "falling asleep", and of assumption into heaven. This can barely be called death, but we never teach that it wasn't either. I don't think any further clarification of the process by which Our Lady ended her natural life and was assumed into Heaven is necessary.

Definitely, neither Adam, or Eve, or Our Lady were divine even in intention.

Mary was ontologically not fallen like the rest of us and, having never sinned, why did she need a Savior?

This is a naive question I sometime face coming from Protestant prooftexters. The answer is, of course, that she needed (and indeed had) her Savior precicely in order to keep her free from sin.

The Church has the proof as she is the witness. The faith is required to believe the witness, as with any historical fact

Believe the witness? Only in staged trials, where "official truth" is dictated by fiat, do we have onse-sided witnesses. Inquisition comes to mind. All witnesses were anonymous! Since there is nothing to corroborate what the Church teaches outside of her own internal documents (her own biased witnesses), it is not a proof. It's (literally) 'take my word for it' type of "proof".

The theology is that human errors exist, both of transmission and understanding

What happened to the Holy Spirit guidance? Where does it say that scriptures are exempt?

Then why didn't you google in slavonic? You would have found this beautiful Penitential Canon

I said I have never heard it, not that it didn't exist. And I showed you what I have heard and there was nothing idolatrous about it because it implores Christ (not Mary) to save us. I also said that if I had heard what your source shows I would have walked out of the church, because it's heresy. Just as it is heresy when Orthodox icons depict the Father.

Faith was delivered. The doctrine, indeed has to be developed, as Christ promised it will be, and over time it has been developed.

Where does he say that?

The scripture is, of course, "useful" or "profitable" for that, and immensely so, but it is not the sole source of doctrine.

Oh, so now, the scripture is not the "sole source" of doctrine, and in post #54 you state unequivocally "the Church does not derive doctrines from the Bible." Which is it, Alex? It seems to me it's the Bible when you can find it in the Bible, but if you can't find it in the Bible then it is derived from the "Sacred Deposit" of faith...as needed. Either way, it doesn't clarify the "does not derive doctrines from the Bible" statement, but only obfuscates the matter further.
I suppose, we can always default back to the long memory "Oh, yeah, I remember someone told me long ago..." type of approach. After all, who needs proof? Our faith "proves" it all as a matter of fact. And the "Sacred Deposit" fills in all the blanks...conveniently.

Especially, when the docrtine in question deals with the events outside of the scope of canonical scripture.

Now this is really something interesting. I have heard it said that God revealed himself through the scripture only to the extent we need to know. Now you are telling me there is more we need to know? Where does it say that? Or is that another 'long memory?'

That tradition speaks of the dormition, the "falling asleep", and of assumption into heaven. This can barely be called death, but we never teach that it wasn't either.

Well, in the Eastern tradition, the term "asleep in the Lord" means physically dead. There is not question about it. It's certainly not considered "barely dead." In the Eastern tradition, Mary died (physically) and was buried and on the third day was assumed to heaven, body and soul, by her Son. You call that the "same" tradition as in the Catholic Church? Not by a long stretch.
The Catholic Church would not admit that Mary died. Instead, a "lawyeristic" language is used to refer to the "end of her life on earth" which can be taken anyway you want but will not admit that she died because she couldn't have died! There was no sin in her ontologically or otherwise. But if the Church admits she never died than she is immortal and that makes conditionally divine the way Adam and Eve were!

[Mary was ontologically not fallen like the rest of us and, having never sinned, why did she need a Savior?] This is a naive question...The answer is, of course, that she needed (and indeed had) her Savior precisely in order to keep her free from sin.

Good try, Alex. She didn't need a Savior any more than Adam and Eve did when they were created. They needed as Savior after they sinned. Ontologically, Mary (like Adam and Eve) had no propensity for it, and (unlike them) she made all the right choices and remained free of sin. So, why would she, the "Second Eve," need a Savior and Adam and (First) Eve didn't?
I remember reading very distinctly in the NT that Jesus "did not come to call the righteous, but sinners [to repentance] " (Mat 9:13 [Luk 5:32]) and explicitly "to save the sinners" (1 Tim 1:15). So why would the most pure and immaculate creature on earth, need a Savior? After all, God would have known that she will not sin (hence her election!) and that as such she, not being a sinner, would not need the Him to save her! Yet the Bible says otherwise (Luke 1:47). But we don't make doctrine based on the Bible, so what's the use appealing to scripture, especially when scripture contradicts doctrine, right?

there is nothing to corroborate what the Church teaches

So? You have witnesses; you are free to believe them or not believe them. I do. You don't. That is called freedom of conscience. My only iritation with you is that you believe (according to your posts) with the atheists, then lecture the rest of us with the Orthodox on what to call Mary.

What happened to the Holy Spirit guidance?

The Holy Spirit dictated the scriptures, which are therefore inerrant. We receive the scripture through certain human prisms, and that may very well be admixed with error. Luckily, the living magisterium of the Catholic Church continues to receive the same guidance and that provides ongoing correction to the Catholics.

I would have walked out of the church

You walked out of the Church when you (according to your posts) refused to believe her creed, not when you acquainted yourself with the Penitential Canon.

in post #54 you state unequivocally "the Church does not derive doctrines from the Bible."

Maybe I was unclear then. We do not derive doctrines in the sense of how sola scriptura believers derive it, by looking at prooftexts in St. Paul. Of course, the scripture being a central and substantial part of the Holy Tradition, plays a cardinal role in theology. But it is not the sole rule of faith, especially as regards Mary and other saints, since the canonical scripture is for the most part out of the chronological scope, and the Tradition is plentiful.

"Faith once delivered to the saints" is a quote from St. Jude. The promise to send the Holy Ghost Who will teach the Church "all things" is in Jn 14:26 and Jn 16:13. Consonant with that, the Church never taught that "God revealed himself through the scripture only to the extent we need to know"; God revealed himself through the Church abundantly, but not necessarily through the Holy Scripture, and not necessarily in such a minimalistic way. He just revealed Himself, albeit our comprehension of Him is limited.

But if the Church admits she never died

The Church simply does not teach anything about the death of Our Lady, which I believe is consistent with the Seven Ecumenical Councils that also govern the Orthodox. If the Orthodox added some teaching after their departure, I am not aware of it but maybe you are.

Ontologically, Mary (like Adam and Eve) had no propensity for it, and (unlike them) she made all the right choices and remained free of sin. So, why would she, the "Second Eve," need a Savior [?]

It is the Savior Who shaped her in that blessed condition. It is true that Christ did not call Mary (nor St. John nor other righteous people) to repentance, and were they the entirety of the human race, there would have been no need for the Incarnation and the Redemption of the Cross.

***In a nutshell. Because there were so many sources floating around, the Church used some of them in formulating doctrine; then they decided that the books as a whole were not inspired, although they kept some of the ideas and doctrines associated with them. That is why we rely on the Church’s Tradition and not just the Canon of Scripture
Mark, unlike the Western Church, the Church of the East considers scriptures part of the Holy Tradition, and not separate from it. This is a significant difference. Tradition of the Church is, of course, defined as the life of the Church, so scriptures play a role in it, liturgically and otherwise, and while there is a belief in infallibility of the Church as a whole (i.e. that the gates of hell will not overcome it), there is no claim of any inerrency. It is the duty of the Church to make sure the correct faith is transmitted despite errors and variants that may appear.***

Ummm, well, the differences may be in the translation rather than the actual. We believe that the overlap is so great so as to virtual containment. It may just be different in definitional words.

***The story we know form the Church is of course different, well choreographed and tailored to fit the doctrine. Some prefer it that way. I don’t because it doesn’t fit the facts.***

There is a certain level of glossing, sure. But the thing is that the basic Faith requires belief. The Church developed the Faith based upon its own authority and its own maturing understanding of the great truths of Jesus.

Facts? The fact that the Gospels all treat the events on the day of Resurrection totally differently does not alter the Faith. The references in the Gospels, Acts, and Paul do not agree on the eyewitness level by any means. That does not alter the Faith.

***The scriptures were no better. They existed in a variety of versions and Christianity pretty much progressed freely and without too many doctrinal or theological restrictions. Copyists were not professionals and undertook to change manuscripts to keep up with doctrinal developments.***

Or in some cases subsitute their own.

***It is the duty of the Church to make sure the correct faith is transmitted despite errors and variants that may appear.***

And emphatically not Luther’s every milkmaid or youth of nine.

So? You have witnesses

There are no extra biblical witnesses. That's the problem with claiming it as a historical fact. No one else recorded these "facts."

My only iritation with you is that you believe (according to your posts) with the atheists, then lecture the rest of us with the Orthodox on what to call Mary

That's because I happen to know a thing or two about the Orthodox Church from personal experience. And that's irritating to you?

The Holy Spirit dictated the scriptures, which are therefore inerrant. We receive the scripture through certain human prisms, and that may very well be admixed with error

Assuming that this is so, although none of the NT writers makes such a claim, but rather tends to state that he is writing on his own accord, then am I to understand that there is a possibility that the end product has been and is corrupted through that human prism? I hope you realize this is flatly denied, even as a possibility, by the papal quote you posted.

Luckily, the living magisterium of the Catholic Church continues to receive the same guidance and that provides ongoing correction to the Catholics

What? The Catholic Church isreceiving "updates?" Also, how can you say the Church is infallible if it is necessary to provide "ongoing correction?"

You walked out of the Church when you (according to your posts) refused to believe her creed, not when you acquainted yourself with the Penitential Canon

Thre Church rewrote Paul verses in the Creed to fit the dogma. It was not something the Church knew everywhere and always but had to "figure it out." I guess I just got fed up with everyone pretending the emperor has clothes when it's obvious he doesn't!

Maybe I was unclear then. We do not derive doctrines in the sense of how sola scriptura believers derive it, by looking at prooftexts in St. Paul

Far cry from your previous "the Church does not derive doctrines from the Bible" statement, but assuming you were "unclear" (that statement couldn't be any clearer, Alex!), just how does you (plural) derive doctrines if not from the scripture? "Updates?"

Of course, the scripture being a central and substantial part of the Holy Tradition, plays a cardinal role in theology

I though, in fact I am quite certain, the Catholic Church treats scriptures as separate from Tradition ("Two Realities With One Source"), not part of it. What you said is the Orthodox approach. I also believe the Catholic prefix for Tradition is "Sacred" rather than "Holy," the latter being Orthodox terminology.

"Faith once delivered to the saints" is a quote from St. Jude. The promise to send the Holy Ghost Who will teach the Church "all things" is in Jn 14:26 and Jn 16:13.

Except that "saints" in this case are the believers (as the Bible uses the term) and the Church is the gatheirng of the believers, not the Magisterium...that is, as the Bible uses the terms.

I can see why the Bible may get in the way...and since we are on the subject tell me what does the NT say about the Church?

The Church simply does not teach anything about the death of Our Lady, which I believe is consistent with the Seven Ecumenical Councils that also govern the Orthodox

First, as for the Ecumenical Councils, the Church made only a theological (not ontological) statement about Mary, namely that she is the Mother of God Incarnate, i.e. (Theotokos).

Second, I believe you mean the Latin Church, not the Church, because the Church, while it was still the undivided Church, very much taught about her death, and all of it was extrabiblical. Ask any Orthodox priest if she died and you will get an unequivocal "yes." Ask a Latin priest and you will get "maybe, maybe not."

The Orthodox are so certain, their churches not only celebrated her dormition (repose in the Lord, physical death) from the earliest days, but even have the icon depicting Mary on her deathbed!

Icon of the Domroition of the Theotokos

So, to say that "the Church" does not teach about it is a bit of a stretch...

It is the Savior Who shaped her in that blessed condition.

God created Adam and Eve in the same condition and they didn't say he was their Savior. Assuming the IC dogma is valid, God didn't "save" her, he chose her. Someone who was perfectly obedient in her faith and sinless all her life would have been saved even without the Immaculate Conception.

or else you'd all be in trouble! :)

It is true that Christ did not call Mary (nor St. John nor other righteous people) to repentance, and were they the entirety of the human race, there would have been no need for the Incarnation and the Redemption of the Cross

That's a novel idea! Did you just pull this out of a hat? Or is this doctrine "on the fly?" So, what happened with St. John the Forerunner's and St. John the Evangelist's fallen human nature? Aren't we in need of the Savior because we are all born in original sin ("none is righteous, none," says St. Paul), even if we don't sin personally (i.e. children)? And, as far as I know, none of the Apostles were an exception?

I have no issues with that, Mark. That becomes somewhat pertinent when universal authority is claimed on faith alone.

Facts? The fact that the Gospels all treat the events on the day of Resurrection totally differently does not alter the Faith.

The question is: does the Bible give faith or do believers agree with the Bible because it reflects their faith? And how does one establish the order? based on how the NT was put together, I would say the latter. In which case, what the Bible says neither reveals nor teaches anything one doesn't already know, and that smacks of Gnosticism.

The references in the Gospels, Acts, and Paul do not agree on the eyewitness level by any means. That does not alter the Faith

The problem with development and growth and maturing is that the knowledge is incomplete, and is being perfected. And that which is incomplete is imperfect by definition (perfect coming from the word meaning complete). If the Church is "developing" and receiving "updates" as Alex seems to think, then the Church cannot claim to know the truth, but only that it's learning it.

Or in some cases subsitute their own

Yes, that too, unfortunately.

This is how I understand the magisterial process.

The Holy Scripture as dictated to the inspired authors is inerrant if read with the intent and understanding of the inspired author. It reflects the Holy (or Sacred, same word) Tradition but does not encompass all of it, because it does not contain the subsequent guidance of the Holy Ghost, experiences of the Fathers that are not even verbal, such as liturgical material and iconography, historical knowledge that did not make it into the canonical Scripture, reflections of cultural and historical developments of the age, and generally the pious intuition that confirmed Catholics ordinarily have, which works with the living magisterial teaching and provides answers to everyday questions, 2000 years ago and today. It is a living, self-correcting organism which as a whole protected from error by the Holy Ghost.

This is how development of doctrine is possible within the Catholic Church.

So which council declared that Mary experienced ordinary death? That belief is quite compatible with Catholicism, but I am curious since when it is a definitive teaching of the Eastern Churches.

Assuming the IC dogma is valid, God didn't "save" her, he chose her

Christ precisely saved her by shaping her the was He shaped her.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.