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

The following excerpts are pulled from the Internet. Their full articles are worth reading, if you want to understand their thought. In hopes of keeping this at a digestible meal, I've quoted the sections I found most interesting - and deleted a great deal of good reading!

...When the church began, there were no New Testament books. Old Testament texts alone were used as scripture. The first book written was probably I Thessalonians (c. 51) (or possibly Galations which may be c. 50-there is some controversy over the dating of Galatians). The last books were probably John, the Johannine epistles, and Revelations toward the end of the first century.(1) The books were written to deal with concrete problems in the church-immoral behavior, bad theology, and the need for spiritual "meat".

Thus, the church existed for roughly twenty years with no New Testament books, only the oral form of the teaching of the apostles. Even after a book was written, it was not immediately widely available. Some books like II Peter were read almost exclusively in their target area, a situation which continued for a long time, leading to their (temporary or permanent) rejection from the canon due to doubts about their apostolic origins. Thus, for instance, II Peter was rejected for centuries by many, and it is rejected by Nestorians to this day.(2) Even if not universally accepted, a book was highly regarded by its recipients and those church's in the surrounding areas. This led to local canonicity, a book being used in public worship in a particular region. Twenty-seven of these books came in time to have universal canonicity, but others (e.g. Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, I Clement, Gospel of the Hebrews) were rejected for inclusion in the New Testament canon, even though they often retained a reputation for being profitable Christian reading.(3)

Although the New Testament books we have today were written in the first century, it took time for them to be accepted as universally authoritative. Initially, only the life and sayings of Christ were considered of equal authority with the Old Testament scriptures. For instance, Hegessipus in the first half of the second century accepted only "the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord" as norms "to which a right faith must conform"(4) The Didascalia Apostolurum which appears to have been written in the first half of the third century in Northern Syria similarly states the authoritative norms are "the sacred scriptures and the gospel of God" (which it also refers to as "the Law, the book of the Kings and of the Prophets, and the Gospel" and the "Law, Prophet, and Gospel").(5)

Moreover, the "Gospel" spoken of was often the Oral Gospel and not exclusively the four Gospels we have in our current Bible. There were also many apocryphal gospels written between the late first and early third centuries. Some of them appear to accurately preserve some of Christ's sayings and were long used in Christian circles (for instance, Eusebius (c. 325) writes that the Gospel of the Hebrews was still in use although not widely accepted); others were written to support some heretical sect.(6) While use was made of the four Gospels, in the first one and a half centuries of the Church's history, there was no single Gospel writing which is directly made known, named, or in any way given prominence by quotation. Written and oral traditions run side by side or cross, enrich or distort one another without distinction or even the possibility of distinction between them.(7)

The reason for this is that the authority of Christ's words came from Christ having spoken them and not from the words appearing in a sacred text in a fixed form. As a result, sayings from apocryphal sources and the Oral Gospel appear alongside quotes from the four Gospels of our present New Testament.(8) Many early Christians, in fact, had a preference for oral tradition. For instance, Papias in the first half of the second century, said that he inquired of followers of the apostles what the apostles had said and what "Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord were still saying. For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice." However, he does mention the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Matthew by name.(9) Early Christian preference for oral tradition had rabbinic parallels-for instance Philo thought oral tradition was superior to scripture. In Semitic thought, the idea persisted for a long time. As late as the thirteenth century, Arab historian Abu-el-Quasim ibn `Askir said, "My friend strive zealously and without ceasing to get hold of [traditions]. Do not take them from written records, so they may not be touched by the disease of textual corruption."(10)

St. Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200), Bishop of Lyons and a great fighter against heresy, was the last writer to use the Oral Gospel as an independent source. He initially fought heresy using only the Old Testament and the church's Oral tradition. However, later, in response to needs arising from fighting Gnosticism and Marcionism, he came to use the books of New Testament extensively.(11)

Besides the Oral Gospels, the Diatessaron served as an alternate Gospel. The Diatessaron was a harmony of the four gospels, written c. 150-160 by Tatian. It circulated widely in Syriac-speaking churches-it was their standard text of the gospels until it was superseded by the Peshitta in the fifth century. The Diatessaron's use shows that the four gospels were considered important authorities, but not exclusive authorities. The Diatessaron by itself constituted as the New Testament scriptures for the Syrian churches until the fourteen Pauline epistles were added in the third century.(12)...

...The Pauline letters achieved acceptance in a fixed form considerably earlier; they were circulating as a body of writing "well before AD 90."(13) In fact, recent research makes it quite likely that p46, an early collection of Pauline letters should be dated in the late first century.(14) The letters were known and circulated among both orthodox and heretics as a collection from the early second century. The collection probably contained ten Pauline letters: Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, and Philemon.(15)

The first person to attempt to define the canon precisely was the heretic Marcion...

...However, Marcion was not satisfied with accepting the eleven books of his canon in the form he received them. He was convinced that they had been interpolated with "judaising" material. He set out to reconstruct the original, uncorrupted text, free from all distortions.(19) His mind was too narrow and his ideology too rigid to conceive that there were multiple perspectives on the same truths in St. Paul, that God's Law and Grace while contrasted were not put into opposition-although God's Law and man's laws were. He eliminated all but one perspective from his Gospel and Epistles. This perspective, however, was not St. Paul's, but Marcion's. However, it should be noted that he only subtracted, he never added to the texts he received.(20)...

...In responce to Marcion's canon, the expansion phase of the New Testament canon began...

...St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), the preeminent apologist of the early church and a vigorous opponent of Gnosticism including Marcionism,(22) was unwilling to accept Marcion's truncated canon. He "quoted freely from" the four canonical gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles including Hebrews, and I Peter.(23) However, he does not speak of a canon-for instance he was apparently unacquainted with treating the four church gospels as a unit.(24)

St. Irenaeus, who was previously mentioned in connection with the Oral Gospel, produced the first known catholic canon. He was the first to adopt Marcion's notion of a new scripture. He used this idea to fight heresies, including Marcion's. He recognized the four gospel canon as an already established entity and championed it as "an indispensable and recognized collection against all deviations of heretics."(25) Thus, sometime in the last half of the second century, the four church gospels began to be viewed as a single unit...He defended Acts by pointing out that it is illogical to accept St. Luke's gospel and reject Acts (as the Marcionites did). The Pauline letters needed no defense as even the heretics acknowledged them as authoritative.(26)...

...The expansion phase considerable enlarged the accepted canon. It reached near final form in many quarters by around 200, containing the four gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. The main books disputed after that time were: Revelations, Hebrews, Philemon, and the Catholic Epistles (I and II Peter, I and II and III John, and Jude).(32)...

While the ideas of a canon became more clear, only the core described previously was certain. Revelation in particular was attacked by many because Montanism had made apocalyptic material suspect. Gaius of Rome, an early third century churchman, attacked the inclusion of the Gospel of St. John, Hebrews, and Revelation on anti-Montanist grounds (he ascribed St. John's Gospel and Revelation to Cerinthus, a Gnostic heretic who was a contemporary of St. John).(40) In general, however, apocalyptic material, while treated with caution, was not considered as suspect in the West as in the East. The Shepherd was dropped from the Western canon; the Revelation of Peter and the Revelation of John were both challenged. However, in the East (the Greek speaking parts of the world and Egypt), there was nearly universal refusal to allow apocalyptic writings into the canon until Western influence began to sway the Eastern Christians in the fourth century. Moreover, Hebrews was rejected in the West because it was used by the Montanists to justify their harsh penetential system and because the West was not certain of its authorship. Hebrews was not accepted in the West until the fourth century under the influence of St. Athanasius.(41)

Origen (c. 185-c. 254), the most influential Biblical commentator of the first three centuries of Christianity, categorized books into three categories: those acknowledged by all the churches, the disputed books which some churches accepted, and the spurious books. The acknowledged books were the four gospels, Acts, the thirteen Pauline epistle, I Peter, I John, and Revelation. The disputed books were II Peter, II John, III John, James, and Jude.(42) He may have considered Barnabas, Didache, and the Shepherd canonical as well-he used the word "scripture" for them. Both Bruce and von Campenhausen indicate that Origen did view them as canonical (although, Origen became more cautious about both Revelation and the Shepherd in later life), while Davis states that even though Origen used the word "scripture" for them, Origen "did not consider them canonical."(43)...

...The final form of the canon was nearly at hand. Emperor Constantine's order for fifty copies of scripture may have been important in the process. While their exact contents are not certain, some surmise that these copies may have contained the 27 books of the final New testament canon.(48) The canons of the council of Laodicia (c. 363) accepted all the books of the final canon except Revelation.(49)...

...The Western Council of Hippo (393) was probably the first council to specify the limits of the canon, and it accepted the 27 book canon, allowing only them to be read in church under the name of canonical writings. It "permitted, however, that the passions of martyrs, be read when their [martyrdoms'] anniversaries are celebrated."(55)...

...The complexity of the process demonstrates that we can know that all and only those books that belonged in the canon are in fact in the canon only because we know that God is faithful, that He will give us all that is necessary for salvation, that He promised to protect His Church so that the gates of hell will be impotent to prevail against her. If, however, we accept that He led the Church aright in the matter of preserving the apostolic teachings, it seems logical that He must have preserved His bride from errors in other matters as well. The myth of the Church abandoning its Master's precepts shortly after the apostolic age or after the beginning of the Constantinian era must be abandoned by those who wish to affirm the New Testament scripture for those scriptures were recognized by that church...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now a Protestant. I originally planned to quote F.F. Bruce, but I thought this article (only a fraction is quoted below) provided a broader view. To save space, I deleted a lot of historical review, which repeats much of what is discussed in the previous article...

I start my excerpt about half way thru, at "The Development of the New Testament Canon"

...The common evangelical view of the development of the New Testament canon sees the canon as having arisen gradually and through usage rather than through conciliar pronouncement which vested the books of the New Testament with some kind of authority. Athanasius' festal letter (A.D. 367) is generally viewed as the document which fixed the canon in the East, and the decision of the Council of Carthage in the West is viewed as having fixed the Latin canon. Youngblood summarizes this position in his recent Christianity Today article,

The earliest known recognition of the 27 books of the New Testament as alone canonical, to which nothing is to be added and from which nothing is to be subtracted, is the list preserved by Athanasius (A.D. 367). The Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Third Synod of Carthage (A.D. 397) duly acquiesced, again probably under the influence of the redoubtable Augustine.41

The closing of the two canons and their amalgamation into one are historical watersheds that it would be presumptuous to disturb. 42

Evangelicals insist upon the primacy of the written documents of Scripture over and against all human authority. However, in so doing we tend to overlook the fact that other authority did in fact exist in the ancient church, particularly the authority of Jesus Christ and His apostles. We often fail to appreciate that the church was founded not upon the apostolic documents, but rather the apostolic doctrine. The church existed at least a decade before the earliest book of the New Testament was penned, and possibly as long as six decades until it was completed. But during this period it was not without authority. Its standard, its canon, was ultimately Jesus Christ Himself,43 and mediately His apostles. Even in the immediate post-apostolic period we find a great stress on apostolic tradition along side a written New Testament canon.44

As the apostles died, this living stream of tradition grew fainter. The written documents became progressively more important to the on-going life of the church. The question of competing authorities in the sense of written and oral tradition subsided. However, even as late as the mid-second century we find an emphasis on oral tradition which stands in some way parallel to the written gospels as authoritative...

...Without doubt, the earliest Bible for the Church consisted of the Old Testament Scriptures, interpreted Christologically. Additionally, in the New Testament itself we find at least one case of some New Testament books being placed on a par with the Old Testament.48 This probably indicates that even at this early date the writings of the apostles were viewed in some circles as being on a par with the Old Testament...

...Yet another factor which must be considered in the canonization of the New Testament is the phenomenon of Tatian's Diatesseron. Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr, took the four canonical gospels and from them composed a harmony. This work supplanted the canonical gospels in the Syrian church well into the fifth century, at which time the hierarchy made a concerted effort to stamp out the work and restore the four canonical gospels to their rightful place within the canon.54

The Festal letter of Athanasius (c. A.D. 367) is well known as the first list to contain all and only the present twenty-seven book New Testament Canon. Thirty years later the Synod of Carthage, under the influence of the great Augustine, reached a similar conclusion. Youngblood gives the common Protestant evaluation of these pronouncements:

Thus led (as we believe) by divine Providence, scholars during the latter half of the fourth century settled for all time the limits of the New Testament canon. The 27 books of Matthew through Revelation constitute that New Testament, which possesses divine authority equal to that of the Old.55

The problem with such a sweeping assertion is that it does not fit the historical facts. First, the synods of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils, but local assemblies whose decisions held sway only in the local sees.56 The Festal letter of Athanasius, to be sure, gives us the judgment of a key figure of the ancient church, but it did not bind even the Eastern Church.57 The ancient church never reached a conscious and binding decision as to the extent of canon. Proof of this fact can be seen in the canons of the various churches of the empire.

While the canon in the West proved to be relatively stable from the late fourth century, the canon in the oriental churches varied, sometimes widely. The Syriac church at the beginning of the fifth century employed only the Diatesseron (in place of the four gospels), Acts, and the Pauline epistles.58 During the fifth century the Peshitta was produced and became the standard Syriac version. In it the Diatesseron was replaced by the four gospels, 3 Corinthians was removed and three Catholic epistles, James, 1 Peter and 1 John were included. The Apocalypse and the other Catholic epistles were excluded, making a twenty-two book canon. The remaining books did not make their way into the Syriac canon until the late sixth century with the appearance of the Harclean Syriac Version.59 While the Syrian church recognized an abbreviated canon, the Ethiopic Church recognized the twenty-seven books of the New Testament plus The Shepherd of Hermas, 1 & 2 Clement and eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions.60

Even in the West the canon was not closed as tightly as commonly believed. A case in point is the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans. In the tenth century, Alfric, later Archbishop of Canterbury, lists the work as among the canonical Pauline epistles. Westcott observes that the history of this epistle "forms one of the most interesting episodes in the literary history of the Bible."61 He notes that from the sixth century onward Laodiceans occurs frequently in Latin manuscripts, including many which were prepared for church use. So common was the epistle in the Medieval period, it passed into several vernacular translations, including the Bohemian Bible as late as 1488. It also occurred in the Albigensian Version of Lyons, and while not translated by Wycliffe personally, it was added to several manuscripts of his translation of the New Testament.62

On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63 Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64

The point of this survey has been to demonstrate that the New Testament canon was not closed in the fourth century. Debates continued concerning the fringe books of the canon until the Reformation. During the Reformation, both the Reformed and Catholic Churches independently asserted the twenty-seven book New Testament canon...Rather than focus solely upon the external criteria of apostolicity, inspiration or providence for our assurance that our present twenty-seven book NT canon is indeed the canon of Jesus Christ I believe that there is a better way for us to approach the problem. This way is not new but a return to and recognition of the Reformers' doctrine of the witness of the Spirit and the self-authenticating nature of Scripture

Discomfort with the traditional conservative Evangelical apologetic for the canon is not new...

...as Warfield and Ridderbos both have noted, no book of the New Testament as we possess it contains a certificate of authentication as to its apostolic origin. That is, from our perspective, separated by nearly two millennia from the autographs, we cannot rely upon such means as the known signature of the apostle Paul to assure a book's authenticity. Hence, we cannot use apostolicity as the means by which we are ultimately assured of the shape of the canon. The same can be said for the criterion of prophetic authorship, unless we merely beg the question and assert that the book itself is evidence that its author was a prophet.

I believe that the starting point of canonicity must be a recognition that at the most basic level it is the risen Lord Himself who is ultimately the canon of His church.70 As Ridderbos has observed:

The very ground or basis for the recognition of the canon is therefore, in principle, redemptive-historical, i.e. Christological. For Christ himself is not only the canon in which God comes to the world, but Christ establishes the canon and gives it its concrete historical form.71

It then follows that it is also Christ who causes His church to accept the canon and to recognize it by means of the witness of the Holy Spirit. With this proposition I believe most evangelical Protestants would agree. However, this does not relieve us of the responsibility of examining the history of the canon, nor does it give us the right to identify absolutely the canon of Jesus Christ with the canon of the church. As Ridderbos has said, ". . . the absoluteness of the canon cannot be separated from the relativity of history."72 In short, we confess that our Lord has given us an objective standard of authority, for our purposes today that consists of the written documents. But we also recognize that, due to sinfulness, insensitivity or misunderstanding, it is possible for us subjectively to fail to recognize properly the objective canon Christ has given. We may include a book which does not belong, or exclude a book which does belong.

How then are we to determine what properly belongs to the canon? Is it "every man for himself"? I believe that Charles Briggs has proposed a viable method for us to consider today. Following the Reformers, he proposed a threefold program for canon determination, built upon the "rock of the Reformation principle of the Sacred Scriptures."73 The first principle in canon determination was the testimony of the church. By examining tradition and the early written documents, he contended that probable evidence could be presented to men that the Scriptures "recognized as of divine authority and canonical by such general consent are indeed what they claim to be."74

With reference to the Protestant canon this evidence was, he believed, unanimous. This evidence was not determinative, however. It was only "probable." It was the evidence of general consent, although given under the leading of the Spirit. It was from this general consent that conciliar pronouncements were made. It did not, however, settle the issue, since divine authority could not be derived from ecclesiastical pronouncement or consensus. The second and next higher level of evidence was that of the character of the Scriptures themselves. This is the Reformers' doctrine of the autopistie of the Scriptures. Their character was pure and holy, having a beauty, harmony and majesty. The Scriptures also breathed piety and devotion to God; they revealed redemption and satisfied the spiritual longing within the soul of man. All these features served to convince that the Scriptures were indeed the very Word of God. As Briggs stated, "If men are not won by the holy character of the biblical books, it must be because for some reason their eyes have been withheld from seeing it."75 It is in light of this concept that we should understand the Syriac church's rejection of the Apocalypse and Luther's rejection of the book of James. In both cases there was a pressing theological reason which kept them from seeing the divine fingerprints upon specific books of the New Testament. In a very real sense it was their zeal for the truth of the apostolic faith/gospel which blinded them.76

The third and highest principle of canon determination was that of the witness of the Spirit. He stated, "The Spirit of God bears witness by and with the particular writing . . . , in the heart of the believer, removing every doubt and assuring the soul of its possession of the truth of God."77

Briggs saw the witness of the Spirit as threefold. As noted earlier, the Spirit bore witness to the particular writing. Secondly, the Spirit bore witness "by and with the several writings in such a manner as to assure the believer"78 that they were each a part of the one divine revelation. This argument was cumulative. As one recognized one book as divine, it became easier to recognize the same marks in another of the same character.79 A systematic study of the Scriptures yielded a conviction of the fact that the canon was an organic whole. The Holy Spirit illumined the mind and heart to perceive this organic whole and thus gave certainty to the essential place of each writing in the Word of God.80

Third, the Spirit bore witness "to the church as an organized body of believers, through their free consent in their various communities and countries to the unity and variety of the . . . Scriptures as the complete and perfect canon."81 This line of evidence was a reworking of the historical argument but strengthening it with the "vital argument of the divine evidence."82 Whereas before, the church testimony was external and formal, whenever the believer came to recognize the Holy Spirit as the guiding force in the Church in both the formation and recognition of the canon, "then we may know that the testimony of the Church is the testimony of divine Spirit speaking through the Church."83

Focusing on the principle of the witness of the Spirit for assurance in canonical questions introduced a subjectivity factor which rendered the question of canon, in the absolute sense, undefinable.84 While the Reformers did attempt in their creeds to define the limits of canon, Briggs contended that in so doing they betrayed their own principle of canon determination. If Scripture was self-evidencing, then that evidence that God was the Author was to the individual.85 In addition, doctrinal definition, in order to be binding upon the Church, had to be held by consensus of the whole church. Both the Reformed churches and the Roman Catholic Church represented but a fraction of the church catholic, hence, they could not give definitive pronouncement to canon questions.86 He held that the question of canon must then be regarded as open to this day in the subjective sense. An individual believer was thus free to doubt the canonicity of a particular book without the fear of being charged with heresy.87

Summarizing Briggs' method of canon determination: first, the logical order began with the human testimony as probable evidence to the divine origin of Scripture. This testimony brought the individual to esteem the Scriptures highly. Next, when he turned to the pages of Scripture itself, they exerted an influence upon his soul. Finally, the divine testimony convinced him of the extent of the truth of God, at which point he shared in the consensus of the church.88

The question of the Canon of the New Testament is clearly not as simple as it appears in survey texts and popular presentations...

...Yet, American evangelicals have forsaken their Reformation heritage and slipped into the same type of rationalism regarding the canon as that for which we castigate liberals of a bygone era. My point here is that we as Evangelical Christians are by definition, people of faith. I believe that when we attempt to build our rationale for our New Testament canon solely upon rational ground we betray the faith principle.

The individual's ultimate assurance that the Scripture he has received is indeed the Word of God must be grounded upon something more (but not less) than historical investigation. Scripture as the Word of God brings with it its own witness, the Holy Spirit, who alone can give certainty and assurance.

The canon of the New Testament was not closed historically by the early church. Rather, its extent was debated until the Reformation. Even then, it was closed in a sectarian fashion. Therefore the question must be asked, is it then heresy for a person to question or reject a book of the present canon ? There have been repeated reevaluations of the church's canon. This happened during the initial sifting period. It happened again during the Renaissance and Reformation period, and it is beginning to happen again now. In such instances the fringe books of the canon have been repeatedly questioned. If an individual believer should come to question or reject a book or books of the accepted canon, should that person be regarded as a heretic, or accepted as a brother whose opinions are not necessarily endorsed?

The article from F.F. Bruce that I had intended to quote is here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html

Calvin's ideas can be found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.viii.html

Catholic: Canon of the New Testament, by GEORGE J. REID, Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik

Link: http://web.archive.org/web/20000301195136/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

I only quote a bit (hence, 2 1/2 views) because much of the history is a repeat of previous writing, and the basic approach, to me, seemed to be 'the Catholic Church decided at Trent - don't question'.

...Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages.

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council...

Before entering into the historical proof for this primitive emergence of a compact, nucleative Canon, it is pertinent to briefly examine this problem: During the formative period what principle operated in the selection of the New Testament writings and their recognition as Divine?--Theologians are divided on this point. This view that Apostolicity was the test of the inspiration during the building up of the New Testament canon, is favoured by the many instances where the early Fathers base the authority of a book on its Apostolic origin, and by the truth that the definitive placing of the contested books on the New Testament catalogue coincided with their general acceptance as of Apostolic authorship. Moreover, the advocates of this hypothesis point out that the Apostles' office corresponded with that of the Prophets of the Old Law, inferring that as inspiration was attached to the munus propheticum so the Apostles were aided by Divine inspiration whenever in the exercise of their calling they either spoke or wrote. Positive arguments are deduced from the New Testament to establish that a permanent prophetical charisma (see CHARISMATA) was enjoyed by the Apostles through a special indwelling of the Holy Ghost, beginning with Pentecost....These authors (some of whom treat the matter more speculatively than historically) admit that Apostolicity is a positive and partial touchstone of inspiration, but emphatically deny that it was exclusive, in the sense that all non-Apostolic works were by that very fact barred from the sacred Canon of the New Testament. They hold to doctrinal tradition as the true criterion...

...This Gospel was announced to the world at large, by the Apostles and Apostolic disciples of Christ, and this message, whether spoken or written, whether taking the form of an evangelic narrative or epistle, was holy and supreme by the fact of containing the Word of Our Lord. Accordingly, for the primitive Church, evangelical character was the test of Scriptural sacredness. But to guarantee this character it was necessary that a book should be known as composed by the official witnesses and organs of the Evangel; hence the need to certify the Apostolic authorship, or at least sanction, of a work purporting to contain the Gospel of Christ. In Batiffol's view the Judaic notion of inspiration did not at first enter into the selection of the Christian Scriptures. In fact, for the earliest Christians the Gospel of Christ, in the wide sense above noted, was not to be classified with, because transcending, the Old Testament. It was not until about the middle of the second century that under the rubric of Scripture the New Testament writings were assimilated to the Old; the authority of the New Testament as the Word preceded and produced its authority as a New Scripture. (Revue Biblique, 1903, 226 sqq.) Monsignor Batiffol's hypothesis has this in common with the views of other recent students of the New Testament canon, that the idea of a new body of sacred writings became clearer in the Early Church as the faithful advanced in a knowledge of the Faith. But it should be remembered that the inspired character of the New Testament is a Catholic dogma, and must therefore in some way have been revealed to, and taught by, Apostles...

...Even those Catholic theologians who defend Apostolicity as a test for the inspiration of the New Testament (see above) admit that it is not exclusive of another criterion, viz., Catholic tradition as manifested in the universal reception of compositions as Divinely inspired, or the ordinary teaching of the Church, or the infallible pronouncements of ecumenical councils. This external guarantee is the sufficient, universal, and ordinary proof of inspiration. The unique quality of the Sacred Books is a revealed dogma. Moreover, by its very nature inspiration eludes human observation and is not self-evident, being essentially superphysical and supernatural. Its sole absolute criterion, therefore, is the Holy inspiring Spirit, witnessing decisively to Itself, not in the subjective experience of individual souls, as Calvin maintained, neither in the doctrinal and spiritual tenor of Holy Writ itself, according to Luther, but through the constituted organ and custodian of Its revelations, the Church. All other evidences fall short of the certainty and finality necessary to compel the absolute assent of faith...

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.