Right. The point remains that "full of grace" is the historical translation offered by Jerome and it is correct. Other paraphrases, such as even simply "graced" are possible. To substitute "favor" for grace in this context is not acceptable, -- no translator, even among the Protestant sleazebags, would use "favor" anywhere in St. Paul's writings, so why use it here? It is sheer mariophobia, even when a "catholic" translation does it. We also had "catholic" priests running after pubescent boys not long ago.
what sets them apart is its canoncity
Correct, and as I explained, what the canonicity implies.
What if any distinction do you see are regards any type and level of Divine inspiration of Scripture, and doctors and prelates of the church of Rome?
The distinction between canonical scripture and other writings is the canonicity of the former. Between various figures of authority in the Church, it is case by case and opinions may vary. But generally, those who were sainted, those who came earlier, those who have been named doctors, popes, -- have precedence. Certainly if any teaching of an authority has been condemned, the entire authority suffers to an extent. So, for example, Origen is extremely important as one who was so instrumental in sorting out the issues of canonicity of the New Testament books; but at the same time he was never glorified as saint and taught something that was possibly touched with universalist heresy. Aquinas, albeit from scholastic period, is held in very high regard due to the encyclopedic nature of his insights, even though some of his opinions are not shared by the Church Catholic. There is no hard and fast rule. Thank God, we are not Protestants with their idiotic legalisms.
charism of infallibility precludes errors
Yes; this is why the pope can act in absence of a consensus, like I said.
you were and making no real distinction btwn the Divine inspiration of Scripture and doctors, prelates (popes or including them) in speaking on faith and morals.
I told you what the distinction is. If you are sensing that to the Catholic mind the Holy Scripture is inseparable from the entire body of the magisterial teaching of the Holy Church, you are correct. This is why reading the scripture while denying the authority of the Church in the interpretation of the scripture is waste of time, and may end up wasting souls.
wonder what constitute "official teaching on many issues
Yes, and that is good. The Church wants us to examine the doctrine, weigh it against others and come to the understanding through our own effort so that the doctrine becomes internalized.
Rome as the police station
Not the Rome I know, -- and you just stated the opposite yourself.
Good thing her face wasn't described as "radiant in glory," otherwise the poor woman might've been immortalized in marble with horns like some kind of satyr, as occurred with Moses due to Jerome's historical translation of Exodus.
Wrong. There simply is no "full" at all in the Greek. It was added to the text as part of the extraBiblical exaltation of the Mary-goddess of Catholicism.
no translator, even among the Protestant sleazebags, would use "favor" anywhere in St. Paul's writings, so why use it here
When proof is nonexistent, use slurs. Since charitoō only occurs once in all of Paul's writings then your omniscience must be presumed. Yet to be graced means you have found favor (charis: Lk. 1:30), and "full" is still not even in the Greek, and thus to say "full of grace" it is reading more into the text than what it says, even if the blessed, holy, Spirit-filled Mary was.
It is sheer mariophobia, even when a "catholic" translation does it.
In-credible. Even Catholics who do not agree with annalex are mariophobic, rather than possibly seeking to be faithful to the Greek. But as RCs as yourself are simply bound to defend Rome and her unBiblical Mary, then objective views are not expected, though scorn as a substitute is.
The distinction between canonical scripture and other writings is the canonicity of the former.
This does not answer the question of why these are canonical as regards any difference btwn Divine inspiration of Scripture and Holy Spirit inspired, "dictated" statements by doctors and prelates of the church.
There is no hard and fast rule. Thank God, we are not Protestants with their idiotic legalisms.
This is all it appears you can do in a jam. Your first reply already equated statements by doctors and prelates of the church as being Divinely inspired like Scripture. Now actually answer the questions asked as to any theological distinction btwn Divine inspiration of Scripture and statements by doctors and prelates of the church (see below)?
I told you what the distinction is. If you are sensing that to the Catholic mind the Holy Scripture is inseparable from the entire body of the magisterial teaching of the Holy Church, you are correct.
"Inseparable" does not mean they are equally inspired of God. Scripture is that of the very words of God, being wholly inspired revelation of God, who is the principal author of it. Are you saying statements by doctors and prelates of the church also are the wholly inspired revelation of God, who is the principal author of it? And provide examples as asked. At least are all the writings your refer to all infallible? Are all infallible teachings inspired of God, if not wholly?
Yes, and that is good. The Church wants us to examine the doctrine, weigh it against others and come to the understanding through our own effort so that the doctrine becomes internalized.
That is just one more thing in which we see changes thru the years on among Catholic writings. You are certainly not to engage in objective examination of evidences in order to ascertain the veracity of RC official teaching, while implicit assent is what we see encouraged.
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." - John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals ,
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means " ,
The church is infallible...the church, as a visible, organized society, is the immediate recipient of a certain divine revelation, and the medium of it transmission. .Each individual must receive the faith and the law from the church, of which he is a member by baptism, with unquestioning submission of the intellect and the will. Catholic world, Volume 13, by Paulist Fathers, p. 580
The phrase
were initially your own words -- not his.
But way to go, put words in his mouth... as the above exemplifies.
What he did say in reply to your own initial use of that phrase was more complete -- and on point, too
for it is you who has said here on this thread;
It does appear to me that you consistently keep wanting to have things both ways, while also tossing off little holy hand grenade dismissive insult towards "Protestants" in general, all along the way.
Is this the "mind of the church" you keep speaking of? If so, what a mess of a mind.
But the above technique of yours I've flagged here for attention, is demonstrative your own practice of selectively clipping sentences into fragments, extracted from that which others write, which quotation by way of truncation can include implying others said those words as expressed by sentence fragment (rather than their more complete thoughts expressed) forming reply of your own to those fragments, as if those snippets be representative of their "mind", all done while affecting some pretense yourself that you yourself express the "mind of the church".