Replies

There simply is no "full" at all in the Greek

No, but the suffix "μενη", "μενος" indicates, in combination with the aorist, an action that has been completed on the subject.

since charitoō only occurs once

LOL. The word to look for is "χαρις", "grace" -- not first person present "I grace".

possibly seeking to be faithful to the Greek

There is nothing faithful here. "χαρις" means grace; "favor" is a kitchen term those mariophobic bastards would not use in any other theological context.

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.

In the inspiration part there is no difference. The difference is in the historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ. I thought that was clear already.

"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

No, there is no such claim. When a theological work reflects the mind of the Church it is inspired by the holy Ghost in that part. There is not claim that the entire theological output of a doctor of a church (for example) is equally inspired. I gave you two examples, of Aquinas and Origen, -- did you read them or do you just enjoy repeating the same question four times hoping for a different answer?

Are all infallible teachings inspired of God, if not wholly?

If a teaching is wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God.

You are certainly not to engage in objective examination of evidences

Who said that? It is commendable to examine the Catholic Faith; it is in fact an obligation to at least make an effort.

the Church is essentially an unequal society

Correct. See 1 Corinthians 12:14-31. Good quotes, all these.

"No, but the suffix "μενη", "μενος" indicates, in combination with the aorist, an action that has been completed on the subject."

Well, kecharitomene is just an ordinary perfect passive participle, if that's what you're trying to get at. It seems a reasonable Greek rendering of the well-established Hebraic notion of finding favor with God, as Noah did, as Abraham did, as Job did, etc.

Here’s the idea with a perfect participle. The aorist is a reference what they call punctilliar time. That is, it describes something that happened at a specific point in time. It could be anything. You have to look at the rest of the word to figure out what. For most purposes, the aorist just sets some singular action as occurring at one particular point in the past. The perfect just means the action is done and over. It does not, in itself, describe the formal extent of the act.

Let’s say the verb being modified by the participle was “saved” rather than “graced.” How would that look in some non-controversial context? Perhaps this:

“Having been saved from the sea, he climbed into the boat.”

“Having been picked up by the police, he was booked.”

Notice too the effect of the passive. This is something that happened to the person, and while the effects of the event continue on, the event itself does not, or at least not necessarily.

So for Luke 1:28, we could render the beginning of the angelic greeting something like this:

“Joyful greetings, Mary, [one] having been graced/highly favored …”

The temptation is to read into any given text special theological meanings that may not be present in the ordinary sense of the text, but derive from other sources. But that puts one at risk of committing the fallacy of special pleading, making something out to be an exception when there is no logical or factual warrant for doing so.

So here, there are other instances of perfect passive participles where there is clearly no possibility of a special theological meaning, such as eulogemenoi (“having been blessed”) in Matthew 25:34. It simply describes a completed, one-time event that happened to someone, rather than being caused by them. It falls to the root of the word to find out what the event actually was, as here it means “bless,” and in Luke 1:28 it means “favor”, “grace”, or even “kindness.”

But the precise theological nature of the event’s impact to the subject when it did occur is not described at all by the peripheral attributes of tense, voice and mood. That would have to come from a combination of a fully developed lexical sense of the root, combined with analysis of other passages, comparing Scripture with Scripture. And in the case of Christ we do have this confirmation from other Scripture, where it is explicitly set forth that he was tempted like any man, but without sin. See Hebrews 4:15. We have no such confirmation with Mary.

No, but the suffix "μενη", "μενος" indicates, in combination with the aorist, an action that has been completed on the subject.

That is as one that has been graced, as one of your Marian defenders states (unless he also is to be charged with being mariophobic in resorting to homosexual tactics) in my last post, "one who has been graced" or "woman who has been graced" (since the gender is female). It doesn't literally mean "full of grace," though that is defensible as a free translation.

Note i did not reject that she was full of grace (as one filled with the Spirit) but that the text is simply saying she is graced.

LOL.

Your argument weak here: use sarcasm.

The word to look for is "χαρις", "grace" -- not first person present "I grace". There is nothing faithful here. "χαρις" means grace; "favor" is a kitchen term those mariophobic bastards would not use in any other theological context

Rather, χάρις as "favor" is the very word even the DRB uses in

Acts 2:47 "Praising God and having favour with all the people."

Act 7:10 And delivered him out of all his tribulations: and he gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharao, the

Act 25:3 Requesting favour against him

Among other words such as thankworthy. To have grace is to find favor.

Your own opinions are unconvincing, and as you evidence you are bound to defend Rome regardless of what Catholic or other scholarship states if contrary to the way you see her, then i see little sense trying to convince you otherwise, and as Catholic translations use "favored" then see your own own elitist house. Maybe you can bring back the Inquisition with all its means o deal with all the mariophobia that hinders the mariolatry.

In the inspiration part there is no difference.

I see. So according to annalex some of what doctors and prelates teach on faith and morals is just as inspired as Scripture and just as fully. For as you said , "when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God."

Are you saying statements by doctors and prelates of the church also are the wholly inspired revelation of God

I was not referring to the entire theological output, but teaching on faith and morals. As when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, then his words are inspired by God, and there is "no difference" a re inspiration, then infallible statements by doctors and prelates of the church are the wholly inspired revelation of God, who is the principal author of it.

Are all infallible teachings inspired of God, if not wholly?

If a teaching is wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God.

Or so you say. The reason all this clarification was asked after you initially express that when a doctor or prelate of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, then his words are inspired by God just like and as much as Scripture, and which is what i see you affirming, is because while you provide your opinion, more weightier and substantiated sources say otherwise.

The venerable Catholic Encyclopedia states,

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. - Infallibility (emp. mine) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

This issue is addressed over at the scholarly Called to Communion site by RC Andrew Preslar, who states (with no dissent from his brethren) :

The question at hand is whether or not the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility is significantly distinct from a claim to inspiration. If not, then it seems that the Church effectively equates the authority of infallibly taught (though putatively non-inspired) ecclesial dogmas with the authority of Sacred Scripture (which is inspired as well as infallible)...Here is my very fallible attempt to explain what those differences are:

1. All inspired teaching is infallible, but not all infallible teaching is inspired.

2. Divine inspiration is an act of God whereby a human being is so moved by the Holy Spirit that the words which he utters or writes are (in a mystery) the very words of God. The work of God, in this case, pertains directly to the words spoken or written by inspiration.

3. Ecclesial infallibility is a gift of God, such that, when the whole Church expresses her mind, in an ordinary or extraordinary way, on matters of faith and morals, she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. The Church’s infallible teachings are not the very words of God.

4. In the case of inspiration, the Spirit is directing someone to speak or write something, i.e., God’s word. In the case of ecclesial infallibility, the Spirit is preventing someone from saying or writing something, i.e., error. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/infallibility-and-inspiration/[ more at page].

RC Dr Taylor Marshall likewise affirms,

Infallibility is not “on par” with divinely inspired Scripture...The gift of infallibility does not entail that the message spoken is divine revelation (the Word of God). God could technically give a mathematician the gift of infallibility with regard to his doctoral dissertation about a geometric proof. There would be no error in the dissertation, yet the dissertation would not be the “Word of God” simply because the brilliant treatise was infallible and contained no error. - http://taylormarshall.com/2009/06/does-infallibility-entail-divine.html

Thus according to the CE and fellow brethren, infallible statements by doctors and prelates of the church are not the wholly inspired revelation of God, and is not the author of it in the sense of His is of Scripture.

In addition to infallibility not being the same as Divine inspiration (though the latter means the former), your statement that when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God," which would include individual writings by many non-bishops, goes beyond the restriction of infallibility i have seen, which, outside the pope speaking ex cathedra, restricts it to when

"bishops in communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held." - LUMEN GENTIUM 25; http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

And

Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I gave you two examples, of Aquinas and Origen, -- did you read them or do you just enjoy repeating the same question four times hoping for a different answer?

You did no such thing. I asked for examples of statements, and all you gave was 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."

You thus fail to provide even one example of an infallible writing by a doctor or prelate, (and popes speaking from the chair on F+M, or conciliar bishops doing so in union with the former are a given).

And as there is no infallible list of all infallible statements, even as to whether all encyclicals are infallible, then your examples of docs and clerics writing infallibly would need to be somehow official substantiated as being infallible. How many infallible statements would you even approx. say there are?

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.]

Who said that? It is commendable to examine the Catholic Faith; it is in fact an obligation to at least make an effort.

Then you must not have examined the statements given, while you truncated my statement and simply responded to it as if it was simply saying you are not to examine the Catholic faith, which again avoids what was said. -