This obviously presents a problem because it makes the Bible a fallible document in need of repair. Presumably, that would only be possible through an INFALLIBLE consensus patrum. That would clearly raise the consensus patrum above the level of scripture. However, the Orthodox I know here would probably not agree with that conclusion. What is the answer?
In addition, we all call the Bible "God's Holy word". If God is Holy in essence, and His word is Holy, then how can His word contain error? For this question we can throw out translation and copying errors because in your quote above it was specifically asserted that there was original error by the original writers.
They used the Septuagint in over 93% of the cases, FK. The ratio is very lopsided in favor of the Septuagint.
Even if so, a 93% use of the Septuagint does not equate to a 93% rejection of the truth of the Masoretic text. In what percent of the verses is there a material difference? I ask because I don't know, and I included BD on the ping list because I have some memory of him speaking on this before.
How can you compare this to the Protestant's innovation of 0% Septuagint and claim they did not introduce anything new and heretical? Is that not the same as saying the Apostles were "wrong?" Luther knew better?
Do you call the KJV, for example, a heretical document? Is it THAT drastically different from your Bible that you cannot get God's truth from it? That sounds strange coming from you since you believe that most of the Bible is allegory anyway. In the big picture, I always thought the main material difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text was the Apocrypha.
Well, the New Testament prohibits [private interpretation], and yet the entire Protestant movement is based on one's private interpretation, so someone had to introduce it, and it wasn't the Church. :)
Were not many of the early Fathers accused of heresy on specific issues? To what could this have been attributed if not to private interpretation?
By who? Bishops, the Pope, or other Fathers of the Church?
Were not many of the early Fathers accused of heresy on specific issues? To what could this have been attributed if not to private interpretation?
None of the Fathers were accused of heresy for their theologoumenna (hypotheses). Those who were anathematized are not the Fathers of the Church (i.e. Origen, Montanus, etc.) because they professed as truth their heresy.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the Cappadocian Fathers and a disciple of Origen, proposed—no doubt under Origen's Gnostic influence—universal salvation. Unlike his mentor, he later recanted this teaching and accepted the orthodox view that not everyone will be saved because of unrepetance of some.
Blessed Augustine of Hippo, likewise reached a point of "no return" with his teaching and recanted many of his postulates in a somewhat lesser known work of his (one of his last) titled "Retractions." St. Augustine realized that the turth of the Orthodox Faith is contained in the Catholic Church and he, in the end, derferred to the Church.
The Church always accepts those who have strayed into heresy as long as they recant their heretical teaching, so there is hope for all Protestants. :)