So at this point we have established your view as being that the collective Church is infallible, and the Bible (by itself) is not
No. Two heads are better than one. The collective knowledge of the Church is better than the individual knowledge of one person. Thus, we believe that the Apostolic Church Christ left behind, collectively, is protected by the Holy Spirit. Individual interpretations of the Bible is not.
Thus when kawaii and I or any Orthodox or Catholic speak on the subject, we express an opinion which is just that, and which may or may not agree with what the Church teaches and how the Church collectively interprets. Neither kawaii nor I are official spokesmen for the Church.
St. Gregory of Nyssa believed, like his mentor Origen, in universal salvation. The Church never taught universal salvation. St. Augustine taught that the Jews were the descendants of Cain, and therefore under the curse.
Clearly, this does not affect his theology that so many Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox find agreeable. Even the Church Fathers were fallible. The Apostles, being human, were also fallible. The scriptures they wrote were not.
We also believe, as the Protestants do, that the Scriptures were inspired by God. The inspiration and the message is infallible; human rendition of it is not, save for the originals which are no longer extant.
We know that there are copies of copies and that these copies have many, many versions, many copying errors, using different words, etc., and even that some of the purported "scriptures" are really forgeries (take for example Aquila's, Theodotion's and Symmachus' Greek Old Testaments).
We also know that neither one of us is inspired and that our individual readings of the Bible are influenced by our fallen nature, our corruption (prejudices, opinions, cultures, experiences, etc.) and are therefore subject to be erroneous interpretations.
We therefore defer to the collective understanding of the whole Church rather than make an individual a "church" unto itself. We believe that the Church is a community that prays together ans eats together of the same spiritual food and believes one and the same thing. A true believer must accept that God's
I took you to mean that whatever corruption IS in the Bible can only be corrected through Church interpretation.
No, the Church does not correct the Bible. The Church holds on to the faith that was given and maintains it through the Holy Tradition taught from the beginning. Thus, it is independent of trends, changing cultural norms, and individual human preferences and opinions. It can discern which copying error or linguistic error is inconsistent with that faith, and assumes that whoever committed the error by copying, agenda, or neglect is not what was delivered to the inspired authors originally by the Spirit.
Thus the Church could separate the wheat from the chaff when it came to various 'gosepls' floating around in the 2nd century AD and select 22 genuine works from the 200-plus scrolls known at that time.
It only means that the Church, collectively, interprets the Scriptures correctly, not that the Church corrects errors in the (original) Scriptures.
I you were to read in an Italian newspaper that Americans drive on the left you'd immediately know this to be an error because you know this is not true. The reasons for that error are a different story, but you'd now that the error originated in the process of printing/editing. Thus you would be justified is rejecting it as truth.
If you were to read that in America we call gasoline 'petrol' you would know it to be wrong as well. Again, the reasons for such error are a different matter, but the lack of veracity of the usage of 'petrol' would never be in question.
It wouldn't since the Church's job is to correct the errors in the scriptures
Based on what I just outlined before, I can say you are wrong. Protestant refusal to admit that copying errors and other factors resulted in numerous variants and errors in the Bible is dumbfounding to Orthodox and Catholics. Their conclusion that recognizing such omissions is 'correcting' the Scriptures is likewise.
iI marvel at how close I am on so many issues with other Protestants, considering if the starting point was "anything goes", as some like to portray it
If one sees the same movie, they will have similar opinions about it. There will be a few on each fringe who will have experienced it unlike the majority, but most people will have some sort of general consensus on the content. That does not mean it's the work of the Holy Spirit.
God reminds us not to use His Holy Name in vain. I would be very careful in claiming the Spirit every time I wanted to make my interpretations and opinions "authoritative."
Individual Fathers or Apostles are subject to error, but the group as a whole is not. I disagree because I do not think the individual writings of the Apostles (or any other Biblical writers) were subject to error
We only have copies of the copies of what they wrote. Just as I believe the souls we receive from God are pristine, so was His message that moves the apostles to write. Somewhere along the line our souls become darkened and copies of the originals contain known errors, conceptually, theologically, linguistically, culturally, etc.
I can only name two, Kosta and Kawaii. :) My hypo is new and only based on both of your collective comments on this thread
Neither he nor I would ever confuse our opinions with what the Church says. If we quote the Church doctrine, we make that clear. St. Augustine said all sorts of things, but in the end he deferred to the Catholic Church. he never once thought he was better or even equal to the Church as a whole.
What qualifications do you think are needed to interpret the Constitution correctly? Does one have to be a judge?
Yes. It makes no difference if you can read it. It makes no difference if you are 'qualified' to read it. What mater is the position you have been appointed to.
You can study medicine on your own and be able to even pass the licensure boards, but unless you have actually met the requirements (attended a recognized medical school, received an MD/DO diploma), passed the boards, and received a license to practice medicine and surgery you MAY NOT diagnose and treat.
Unless you are an appointed/elected judge, you may not rule what is constitutional and what is not. Your opinions simply don't count. You can agree or disagree with the official interpretation, but your opinion and a $1 will buy you a cup of coffee.