I never mentioned "Kolbob" (whatever in the galaxy that is), and my quote does not contain the words what God "could do".
Stop putting words in my mouth. That's dishonest.
The problem is that you are accepting Sola Scriptura not only as axiomatic, but exclusive.
That is, apparently you think that "if it's necessary for salvation, it's in Scripture" implies that ONLY those things explicitly in Scripture have any validity;
it then *appears* (from what you write) that you think
1) if someone denies Sola Scriptura, they must be open to any and all outside-of-Scripture ideas
2) They believe all these things are "supposed" to be given equal weight with Scripture.
None of those ideas are _accurate_. Some people might insist on them, but not _everybody_ does.
For example, the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Jesus appeared to Sister Faustina Kowalska in 1931, a number of times. Some of the notes she took read as follows:
Paint an image according to the pattern you see, with the signature: Jesus I trust in You. I desire that this image be venerated, first in your chapel, and throughout the world. (Diary 47)
I promise that the soul that will venerate this image will not perish. I also promise victory over its enemies already here on earth, especially at the hour of death. I myself will defend it as My own glory. (Diary 48)
I am offering people a vessel with which they are to keep coming for graces to the fountain of mercy. That vessel is this image with the signature" :Jesus, I trust in You." (Diary 327)
The two rays denote Blood and Water. the pale ray stands for the Water which makes souls righteous. The red ray stands for the Blood which is the life of souls. These two rays issued forth from the very depths of My tender mercy when My agonized heart was opened by a lance on the Cross. These rays shield souls from the wrath of My Father. Happy is the one who dwell in their shelter, for the just hand of God shall not lay hold of him. (Diary 299)
Not in the beauty of the color, nor of the brush, lies the greatness of this image, but in My grace. (Diary 313)
By means of this image I shall grant many graces to souls. It is to be a reminder of the demands of My mercy, because even the strongest faith is of no avail without works. (Diary 742)
And the image is as follows:
I find it singularly difficult to decry anything about this image, or the accompanying explanation, as heretical, or leading people away from salvation.
I never mentioned "Kolbob" (whatever in the galaxy that is), and my quote does not contain the words what God "could do". Stop putting words in my mouth. That's dishonest. No, it merely follows your argument, which was that since God showed grace in renting the veil in the temple then it allows for the possibility of God providing other channels for His Grace=PTCBIH. In short, since God could do it, then it supports Catholicism saying He did it.
Likewise, since God's grace abounds, and will seat overcomers in His throne, (Rv. 3:21) and He has all power in Heaven, then believers could inhabit other planets, one of which could be called Kolob, thus supporting Mormonic literature which teaches of it being "nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets..." (Abraham 3:1-9)
Mormons could argue there is nothing that would forbid this in Scripture, and while the whole thing is absurd, it illustrates what extrapolation out of your single principle (God has and can give more grace) might do. Other Catholic also extrapolate PTCBIH us being blessed with all spiritual blessings in heaven. (Eph. 1:3) Read into that what you need, despite the evidence (or lack thereof) to the contrary, or stop Catholics from putting words in Scripture's mouth. That's dishonest.
The problem is that you are accepting Sola Scriptura not only as axiomatic, but exclusive.
Oh I see: so after vainly appealing to Scripture yourself by being met with the incongruent utter absence of even one example of this most basic common practice, you must attack the premise that substantiation from Scripture is requires, and instead must do what I basically told you to do, just admit this is received by tradition from your fathers.
Yet my argument need not rest on SS, but on what is manifestly reasonable. For even it you do not hold to SS, yet seeing how much attention that the Holy Spirit of God gives to prayer, and even instruction on who to address, and how basic and common PTCBIH is for Catholics, which they imagine the NT church was, and how many beings were available to pray to, and occasions of need wherein it would be expected, and how much the NT relies upon Scriptural substantiation, then the utter absence among over 200 prayers of it is highly incongruous, and it is hardly reasonable to dismiss this with, "well, not everything is written down."
That is, apparently you think that "if it's necessary for salvation, it's in Scripture" implies that ONLY those things explicitly in Scripture have any validity;
That is not what i said or inferred, but argued for a manifest example in the light of this basic common practice for which there are multitudinous examples but none of PTCBIH. If someone wanted to argue that born again believers in the Bible could also communicate telepathically ("all spiritual blessings...) they would have the same problem is multitudes of examples of oral or written communication, but none of telepathy (outside of a rare vision from God). And this is not a matter of whether or not there will be pets in Heaven.
And thus i also argued at length from principle, of what we would expect from Hebrews in particular, and how instead it is Christ whom the believer is directed to as intercessor, and by whom the believer has immediate direct access with boldness into the holy of holies by Him. In addition, unlike a doctrine like the Trinity which is supported by clear statements as well as what is implied and demanded in the face of otherwise contradictions, there is no need for belief in PTCBIH, besides the lack of explicit or actual implied references to PTCBIH.
it then *appears* (from what you write) that you think 1) if someone denies Sola Scriptura, they must be open to any and all outside-of-Scripture ideas
No, but your argument based on God giving more grace does not help. Yet the reality is that writing is God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa. It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:
2 Chronicles 34:30-31) And thus even the veracity of apostolic preaching was subject to examination by Scripture as supreme, unlike Rome presumes.
2) They believe all these things are "supposed" to be given equal weight with Scripture.
No, I argued to the contrary, that a most basic common practice for which there is abundant examples would expect to have at least one of the kind of basic common practice Catholics engage in. This is not like arguing if a form of cannibalism can ever be allowed.
I find it singularly difficult to decry anything about this image, or the accompanying explanation, as heretical, or leading people away from salvation.
Saying something is expressly the words of Christ as a public revelation need not be heretical in what is says in order to be wrong, while the kind of promises given to ongoing veneration of a painting is contrary to what Scripture says and shows, in which victory is not by looking at what is seen, though illustrations van be helpful, but by faith in what is not seen. (2 Corinthians 4:6,18; Heb. 12:2) ) Moreover, this private but public revelation" is not that of a officially sanctioned pervasive Catholic practice. .