Though on many items of doctrine and practice, the same view no doubt is shared by many of my Orthodox brethren.
it published many times on FR RF with pride. Your REAL position is fairly well understood by even me.
It's not a matter of pride, so much as a position based on both faith and reason. If it's supposed that these early Christians were such a poor guide as to what Scripture teaches, then why should I believe them when they conclude these particular 27 books are "Scripture" on par with the Hebrew scriptures? It's the witness and faith of the early Christians that is our best proof that Jesus Christ did come, die, and rise again as he said he would. And they witnessed that He said he would build a church and be with it always. It is that promise of a church guided by truth that is the best guide to know these new scriptures are in fact "scripture" (Jesus says nothing at all about any future scripture).
So it's an odd faith, indeed, that accepts on the one hand that the early church was guided in Truth so as to correctly canonize the NT, while on the other hand (and at at the same time) fundamentally misconstruing what those Scriptures say on a whole host of points.
If I could manage to adopt such an inconsistent view on history and resolve the cognitive dissonance that would create, I perhaps could be a Protestant. But I can't; so I'm not.
How do we go to Heaven? Faith in Jesus or membership in a church?
Who is our Helper and Advocate? Holy Spirit or Mary?
Who is our priest? Jesus or a man?
Do we have complete forgiveness of our sins or is there something we must do to atone for those sins? Col 2:13-14 or indulgences?
So it's an odd faith, indeed, that accepts on the one hand that the CATHOLIC church was guided in Truth so as to correctly THROW OUT 1/2 of the Apocrypha, while on the other hand (and at at the same time) fundamentally construing what those Scriptures say on a whole host of points.