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!
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?