Moreover, when her post was apparently misunderstood, she clarified:
The Vulgate was Latin translated by St. Jerome
Where does the [Roman] Catholic church teach that Gregory "wrote as the Holy Spirit dictated to him"?
Nowhere: I was pointing out the detail of the image I posted. Art has its own language and is there to educate, in this case, about the inspired nature of Pope Gregory's work. St. Gregory the Great is a doctor of the Church and like any definitive teaching of the Church it is inspired without, of course, being canonical scripture.
annalex (yet another "internet babbler"?)
I post, -- on Religion Forum that is, -- the teaching of the Catholic Church as I understand it, and generally, I do. If I post something that does not conform with the Catholic teaching, I ask fellow Catholics to point my error and I will stand corrected. That is the difference between Protestants posting their thoughts and ideas, typically quite heretical and without authority other than inside their own heads.
No, that is not clear or correct. Indeed it helps if you are going to post opinions to acquaint yourself with the nature of the controversy and the text of the relevant posts before opining. And the issue was what the correct rendering is, and her reference to the "original Latin" being "the original English translation" (though that was actually the Wycliff Bible from the Vulgate), infers that this "original Latin" was the "original language" that Lk. 1:28 was written in.
As the issue was what Lk. 1:28 really says, then referring to "original Latin" is misleading, unless she made it clear that she considers this superior to or definitive of the Greek, which she did not.
And what the Greek says is that both Mary as well as all believers (Lk. 1:28; Eph. 1:6) are "graced," (kecharitōmenē from the Greek word charitoō) being used to describe both, and all generations are to call Mary blessed among [en] women .
But the only one (though in some mss Stephen, in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT.
Where does the [Roman] Catholic church teach that Gregory "wrote as the Holy Spirit dictated to him"?
Nowhere: I was pointing out the detail of the image I posted.
More than that. You were objecting to my statement that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the writers of Scripture to write in Latin, as stating that "nothing else the prelates and doctors of the Holy Church wrote is inspired," or that "specifically what they wrote in Latin is not inspired." Which "opinions of yours" you said were not the faith of the Church.
Thus it is evident these opinions were what you were objecting to, and you followed with, "Gregory the Great writing as the Holy Spirit dictates to him."
It is obvious the latter is in response to my opinions you objected to, as being contrary to prelates and doctors of the Holy Church being inspired of God, by which is meant being inspired so that the Holy Spirit dictates to him, unless you post irrelevant pictures. And as the context of my remark was obviously Divine inspiration of Scripture, then it infers you are supporting Gregory as one (among others) that wrote under Divine inspiration as with the writers of Scripture.
So back to questions. Do you hold that such men as Gregory (among others wrote under Divine inspiration as with the writers of Scripture?
Do you hold that Popes in speaking infallibly also do so, or that God is otherwise the author of these infallible statements, so that it is a Divine document as Scripture is?
That is the difference between Protestants posting their thoughts and ideas, typically quite heretical and without authority other than inside their own heads.
Actually, RCs example how adept they are at variously interpreting Rome among themselves, as it appears you are, lacking an infallible interpreter for their infallible interpreter.
Try to respond with clarity, and without obfuscation and your usual recourse to insults.
Yes -- that was clear enough to me, which was I pointed out that very aspect to you, which is how the discussion over a particular verse went a bit sideways, and where seeing a statement made by daniel1212 in the midst of such as that (dan-the-man, or dan-the-freeperman I may refer to him,in the future) brought reply from yourself.
Now as to the related discussion there --- and I knew you would go there --- I saw it all as it unfolded, and knew the solution just as I saw the problems as they arose also.
So the lecturing tone taken towards myself is both superfluous and not needful, nor helpful either to myself at this juncture.
As I had asked of you;
stressing there in bold the word dictated which as I did take pains to point out, holds a particular meaning, particularly in regards to canon -- for if a thing be dictated and thus faithfully recorded, and those words coming from and/or by the Holy Spirit, then that would make the writing be equal to the being word of God, resulting in some unspecified document being written by Gregory as direct transcription of the same.
Yet as to where the Church teaches that Gregory wrote as dictated by the Holy Spirit, you replied to me;
So it was YOU who was "pointing out the detail". Am I getting that correct?
Now beneath the image (of an ornate carving) displayed in your own comment #312 were the exact words;
which I initially took to be your own words of description.
Checking a bit more thoroughly while composing here reply, I see that the image is separate from the words both above and below the image, as they are also when using my browser and opening "view image info", copying from there it's location, and opening it in another window or tab, there is the image only, with no textual information included with the image itself as it would visibly appear. All of which confirms that it was you who wrote the words seen below the image in reply #312, or if not, would leave only a copy/paste function for the sentence isolated from the image, which would have necessitated being deliberately undertaken in regards to the textual information (below the image) all of which would results in having you, yourself making or presenting claim that this Gregory the Great (otherwise known as St. Gregory I, who was indeed once the bishop of Rome --thus a Latin church "pope") was as was being depicted in the ornate carving (a wonderful and masterful carving it is) again copy/pasting directly from the words found beneath that image, indicated by you to be; "... writing as the Holy Spirit dictated"
But now you seem to be telling me you are not saying that the Holy Spirit was dictating what Gregory was depicted to being then writing...but that, as you now say when called on it, and what was conveyed as "truth" concerning the image and the words both; ;
So now -- it's more "art" which "has it's own language" but the "dictated by the Holy Spirit" language or words initially put there by YOU -- are now also backed away from by referring to is as being merely "inspired".
Where in the "language of Art" (capital "A" art, we should all take note) is there some difference between "dictated by" and "inspired by" that could apply those meanings being so interchangeable in regards to the Holy Spirit itself?
I don't think there is such a consideration -- even in "the language of Art". Stop making things up, and own up to your own words -- and what those words mean.
Then --- you could well enough (and simply enough --easy-peasy, no problemo whatsoever in regards to my own self) more openly admit first that the word dictate went too far (for as you confessed, the church ecclesiastical body which is the Roman Catholic church does not teach Gregory wrote "by dictate of the Holy Spirit", after which you could then adjust your own words to the lesser "inspired".
There is significant difference between the two words "dictate" and "inspire", as I took the trouble to stress & underline.
Why is this so difficult? It's always like this. All this squirming around. It is why I need write like a prosecuting attorney -- to keep people from wriggling away from their own words -- or shifty-shift pretending they don't meqan what they obviously enough do -- and the tow words in question --- holding precise theological definition and usages. They are NOT interchangeable.
Even when or if we use the phrase "inspired by the Holy Spirit" only in regards to Gregory, the question there remains -- does this inspiration of the Holy Spirit (no less) extend to all which he wrote? Every letter? How about every sermon-like teaching of Gregory's (of which there are more than a few that have been transmitted down to us in this day) of which I can read for myself -- thanks to Protestants like Schaff there at the last mile of transmission-line. Not all of those one would think (after reading them) would fully lend themselves to being among "inspired" written works, but more precisely while we are still being generous enough toward the man (hopefully) most all would be better classified as written by a man informed by faith and tradition, and I would like to add (in my own opinion) informed and influenced by the Holy Spirit. Thus are the doctors more accurately spoken of (in official RCC teachings) or so I have been led to believe, rather than spoken of as writing under the[direct] inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for terminology such as "influenced and led by" has definition varying and being something lesser than as directly "inspired"much less "as dictated by".
If there is a problem with that -- then we will return to Gregory and what he did write, to investigate in close detail what he wrote that would be so problematic for papists -- if you insist on terming all of his writings "inspired".
Your choice. Choose carefully.
To return to your own reply towards myself, in your own closing communication -- after speaking of yourself posting to the FR RF,
you have the nerve to speak of Protestants
The very phrase which in my initial reply to you concerning the words which you included as informational & instructive beneath the image --- came not from the RCC as to their own regard -- but from your own mind, from "inside your own head". Is that not true?
Unless you be bringing whatever it is from the RCC magesterium in words found there --- then your own arguments would themselves be "coming from your head" if just to suffer rewrite.
As you did say --- you write much as to the teachings "as you understand them".
But after terming dan-the-man an "internet babbler" fail to show yourself in actuality any better -- for daniel quite often sources his work well, leaving himself to be bringing support for the greater bulk of what he writes, but may have been wandering somewhat in his conversation with the other poster -- who had by slight mis-worded mistake of her own (entirely forgivable) had begun the distraction...
By which I mean -- if he is a "babbler" any beyond the single consideration he was momentarily mistaken for -- but admitted to some error allowing himself to be corrected -- then what does that make yourself, when having committed a possible slight (one word out of place -- not belonging --- put in place of another more precise but still questionable in application -- even according to RCC teachings and attitudes towards "doctors" who inform, but themselves not write that which be equal in inspiration to such as Paul's writings, in comparison OF "inspiration") but a yet worse babbler who himself misleads by writing from "the thoughts in his own head" but will scarcely admit to being in error when called on it? Dictated by The Holy Spirit -- "the language of Art" my foot.
In other words -- get real. I'm not interested in the continual self-justification act. Just stick with the info, and spare the broad-brush insult commentary so that I not be continually forced to respond also to that, which is just so much your own opinions coming across as flame-bait.
Every man his own little pope.