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 1As 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.
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?