"Solo Scriptura" (scripture alone) vs. "Holy Tradition"

[Lotar]

Nope. I didn't say that.

Are you contending that the word of God is infallible? If so, then were Peter, Luke, Mark, Paul and the rest of the apostles capable of failure?

If so, how did the fallible produce the infallible?

Were they not inspired by the Holy Spirit? When they are inspired, is it not the work of God and infallible?

So, then, how can the Bible be infallible unless those who chose it where inspired by God and the selection itself infallible? If the selection was infallible, then are you not elevating tradition to Tradition, and are you not then breaking the doctrine of solo scriptura?

 

[Ainesis]

Ok, so there you have the historical discussion and arrangement as background.

And a great synopsis it was. Thank you!

So just to clear things up, the Scriptures aren't infallible because the Church says so.

Okay.

However, what good is an infallible Scripture without an infallible canon?

I won't go so far as to say "no good," because inspired text is still God's revelation whether it is formally recognized or concolidated as such or not. However, I agree that formally acknowledging a standard canon was an important step in the preservation and protection of the faith.

Luther threw out half of the NT books and called James an "epistle of straw" because they confilcted with his theology.

Without bashing Luther, I will just say that we should never try to conform God's word to our views, but rather should conform our views to His word. Likewise, neither is it righ to add to His word in order to support our own theology.

Infallibility does not equal inerrancy, some will say. Just because the church got it right doesn't make it infallible. True. But how do you infallibly know which books belong and which do not?

Honestly, what is the protestant answer to this?

Okay, honestly, what is the orthodox answer to this? How did the council know which books belong? Was it by their own power or by the leading of God? If it was by the leading of God, does God no longer lead today?

Did Barnabas really write the epistle of Barnabas? Should it be canonical? The fathers concluded no because it couldn't be traced back to the actual person of Barnabas. They knew it couldn't because of Tradition.

Okay. So why is Hebrews in the canon? Did tradition simply fail in this regard? Did Hebrews just happen to slip through?

i think that's all my fellows were trying to say. You can't infallibly know what the canon is without infallible Tradition. Or, to say the least, you can't be sure you know what it is.

Of course you can because the One who was available to and guiding them at that time is still available and is still guiding today.

And is that how God left His people? Blind and without a clue as to what goes in and what stays out? Well-meaning fathers disagreed on their canons. That invalidates "My sheep hear my voice" as a canon verse.

Does it? Does "well-meaning" mean the same as infallible? If the early church fathers used the infallibel reference of tradition to understand Scripture, then why were there different understandings of what was canon among those who all shared in these same traditions?

The point is that God has not left us blind and without a clue. He has specifically sent His Spirit to accomplish just that; to comfort and guide us into all truth.

 

[Ainesis]

The simple answer is that they did not, produce the infallible.
"For the Fathers, authority is not only the Bible, but the Bible plus those glorified or divinized as the prophets and apostles. The Bible is not in itself either inspired or infallible. It becomes inspired and infallible within the communion of saints because they have the experience of divine glory described in the Bible."
Professor John Romanides of the University of Thessaloniki
Professor Romanides gives the Orthodox view of the Bible rather well.
Jeff the Finn

And this is true because Prof. Romanides says so?

Should I disregard Scripture's confirmation that it is inspired in favor of Prof. Romanides' perspective?

 

[Ainesis]

Were they not inspired by the Holy Spirit? When they are inspired, is it not the work of God and infallible?

"They" who? I cannot understand whether you are referring to Scriptures, to the apostles, or to the council.

So, then, how can the Bible be infallible unless those who chose it where inspired by God and the selection itself infallible? If the selection was infallible, then are you not elevating tradition to Tradition, and are you not then breaking the doctrine of solo scriptura?

Which Bible?

Further, what was the determinant of the selection? Clearly is not "tradition" alone as you would propose for there was a tradition of some books being canon that were rejected. While tradition may have been one of many factors considered, isn't the overriding guide the Holy Spirit in determining what is of God?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Good Day, Othodoxyusa

Do you think venerated and honour are the same thing, can not find venerated in this work, but can find honour used with reguards to Mary.

Peace to u,

Bill

I would say yes...

Forgive me..

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Steve,

I wish I had your energy...

Forgive me...

 

[filioLumen]

Hi Ainesis!

Okay, honestly, what is the orthodox answer to this? How did the council know which books belong? Was it by their own power or by the leading of God? If it was by the leading of God, does God no longer lead today?

Of course we believe the recognition came by the Spirit of God, not by their own human wisdom. And of course the Spirit still leads.

It's just that we Catholics recognize the infallible leading of the Spirit only in the Magisterial authority of the Church. If it were to work on an individual level, wouldn't we have a Christian populace in complete agreement?

To me it seems that on a historical level, the only way this promise can be applied is when the Church speaks as a whole, as in Acts 15. Remember "It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit?" We take that as our model and feel that combining this with the verses on the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church is infallible in her teachings on faith and morals.

This charism is still around today, in the present teaching authorities of the Church. But the canon having been decided once is decided no longer, as it was recognized by the Holy spirit through the council so long ago and the inspirations of God will never conflict with each other.

As i said, the reason that i can't accept that it's given to each indidvidual believer is that in experience believers come out with different theologies, and not because of willful rebellion against plain meanings of the text. Even when done honestly and open to the Spirit's move, many heresies have been created.

So the promise of the Spirit guiding us "into all truth" would probably refer to some other form than on the individual level, no?

And we recognize that form as primarily being when the Church speaks unaminously in council.

Okay. So why is Hebrews in the canon? Did tradition simply fail in this regard? Did Hebrews just happen to slip through?

The bishops were led by the Holy Spirit to include Hebrews in the canon despite the unknown authorship. Actually all traditional evidence points to Paul, what little there is, but that's aside the point.

But actually Hebrews is a more important issue for Protestants. On what basis do they include Hebrews? Luther threw it out (not trying to impugn his character, just stating fact) because of its ambigous authorship, so why do you personally accept it? A worthy question for self-analysis, if for nothing else...

The point is that God has not left us blind and without a clue. He has specifically sent His Spirit to accomplish just that; to comfort and guide us into all truth.

But can you understand my point above about why it's not based in individuals? What are your thoughts on thought? Again, the bulk of my argument on this is just from experience and inferences from two Scriptures. What do you think?

And i disagree with the second part of that Romanides quote...Roman Catholics don't believe that, i don't know about the Orthodox...

God bless you all and always! Maranatha!
Steve

 

[Lotar]

"They" who? I cannot understand whether you are referring to Scriptures, to the apostles, or to the council.

They, as in the Apostle's.

Which Bible?

Which ever one you choose.

Further, what was the determinant of the selection?

Authorship, doctrines taught, general consensus. Some objected to some of the books that were accepted, some accepted books that were rejected.

Clearly is not "tradition" alone as you would propose for there was a tradition of some books being canon that were rejected. While tradition may have been one of many factors considered, isn't the overriding guide the Holy Spirit in determining what is of God?

Are you saying the Holy Spirit tells you which books are inspired?

The Holy Spirit + tradition = Tradition
This is what solo scriptura supposively rejects, inspired tradition, ie Tradition.

But, as I see it, you have these two options (please tell me if you have another):

1.) tradition = Bible canon
With this option, even if you believe Scripture is inspired, whether the selected books are infallible or not is still suspect, as the source of decerning what is inspired vs what is not inspired is fallible.

2.) tradition + Holy Spirit = Bible canon
But if, tradition + Holy Spirit = Tradition, then Tradition = Bible Canon, therefore, you are appealing to Tradition when you supposively reject it.

 

[Reader Nilus]

And this is true because Prof. Romanides says so?

Should I disregard Scripture's confirmation that it is inspired in favor of Prof. Romanides' perspective?

Professor Romanides is just stating the view of the Church, it is not his view alone but the whole church's.
Jeff the Finn

 

[filioLumen]

As for Romanides:

"For the Fathers, authority is not only the Bible, but the Bible plus those glorified or divinized as the prophets and apostles.

This part, i have no problem with. The succesors of the apostles, i.e., the bishops, have a definite teaching authority. Tradition, exactly.

The Bible is not in itself either inspired or infallible. It becomes inspired and infallible within the communion of saints because they have the experience of divine glory described in the Bible."

This i do not agree with. The Scripture has independent authority, just as the Apostles do. Neither draws from the other.

The Scriptures are authoritative because they are specifically the Revelation of God.

The Apostles and their successors are authoritative because of Christ's commission.

So i would have to disagree with the Orthodoxy if that really is what you believe.

God bless you always! Maranatha!
Steve

 

[Ainesis]

Of course we believe the recognition came by the Spirit of God, not by their own human wisdom. And of course the Spirit still leads.

In this we would agree.

It's just that we Catholics recognize the infallible leading of the Spirit only in the Magisterial authority of the Church. If it were to work on an individual level, wouldn't we have a Christian populace in complete agreement?

Not necessarily, because not all who claim to be Christian are in fact Christian. There were heretics even in the days of the early church who considered themselves Christian. Also, the revelation of the Spirit is not an all or nothing event. We are given revelations according to the level of our understanding. That is why we are to grow in th eknowledge of the Lord.

Further, if the Spirit's presence in believers is evidenced by complete agreement, then why were there differing opinions about what was canon in the early church? Since all of these inidividuals were members of the same church body following the same traditions, did the same spirit lead them to different truths?

As for how the Spirit operates and leads, I would offer the following as I just posted in another thread.

God fills individuals with His Spirit who collectively comprise His Body.

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" Romans 8:14-16

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many." I Cor. 12:12-14

So, according to Scripture, does God create a "body" that He endows with the Spirit and only those who join that body receive the Spirit? Or does He endow individuals with the Spirit and as a result they are engrafted into the body?

To me it seems that on a historical level, the only way this promise can be applied is when the Church speaks as a whole, as in Acts 15. Remember "It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit?" We take that as our model and feel that combining this with the verses on the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church is infallible in her teachings on faith and morals.

Well, I think assuming infallibility based on that scripture is quite a leap. In fact, I would say that is something being read into the text as it is not what the text states itself. That does not mean that your assertion is false, it only means that it is not provable by this text.

Further, every version I have seen places the Holy Spirit first. For example, the KJV says "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," Not only is the Holy Ghost put in preeminence as the to one whom it seems good, but the expression "and to us" is positioned as a confirmation of their submission to the desires of God's Spirit.

Again, if there is a pattern to be seen here, I would have to say that the pattern as seen in this Scripture is for elders to align their views with what the Holy Spirit says and pronounce understandings that are commiserate with that. Still, the authority being sought and exercised is that of the Spirit. The Church is only confirming that authority.

This charism is still around today, in the present teaching authorities of the Church. But the canon having been decided once is decided no longer, as it was recognized by the Holy spirit through the council so long ago and the inspirations of God will never conflict with each other.

I agree that that which is inspired by God will never conflict one with the other.

So the promise of the Spirit guiding us "into all truth" would probably refer to some other form than on the individual level, no?

No, I would not say so. I think I address this in the earlier part of my response.

The bishops were led by the Holy Spirit to include Hebrews in the canon despite the unknown authorship. Actually all traditional evidence points to Paul, what little there is, but that's aside the point.

Is it really beside the point? You asserted that it was tradition that guided the council on what Scriptures to include. As evidence to this, you site that the authorship of Barnabus could not be deciphered via tradition, therefore it was rejected.

My point is that Hebrews was included although the same tradition could not verify its authorship. Therefore, there is clearly much more to the decisions about what was canon than simply an appeal to tradition.

If you concede, as I think you did earlier, that the council was guided by the revelation of the Spirit, then this essentially shows that the leading of the Spirit supercedes what is known by tradition. I think that is very relevant to this discussion.

But actually Hebrews is a more important issue for Protestants. On what basis do they include Hebrews? Luther threw it out (not trying to impugn his character, just stating fact) because of its ambigous authorship, so why do you personally accept it? A worthy question for self-analysis, if for nothing else...

Me personally? I accept it because the Lord directed me to purchase the KJV when He first started illuminating me about the faith, and the KJV contains Hebrews.

However, even if I had first heard of and entrusted that book because of the traditions of the RCC, it is still a credit to God and not the church specifically that His word has been preserved.

But can you understand my point above about why it's not based in individuals? What are your thoughts on thought? Again, the bulk of my argument on this is just from experience and inferences from two.

While I understand your point, I do not think it is Scriptural (no offense ) as I point out above.

And i disagree with the second part of that Romanides quote...Roman Catholics don't believe that, i don't know about the Orthodox...

God bless you all and always! Maranatha!
Steve

Neither do I.

You know that I think you are wonderful Steve. thank you for your patience with me and I pray you have a blessed evening!

 

[filioLumen]

Rather than go back and forth with another post disagreeing with your points, in the next post i'll back up a little and further explain why Tradition is what it is.

See ya then! God bless! Maranatha!
Steve

 

[Ainesis]

That's sounds good Steve. But I did raise some specific points in the previous post that I would like to get your insight into. So if oyu can incorporate them into your response that would be great.

Thanks!

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Filio

Would you be so kind as to address post # 11 I would really like your imput.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[filioLumen]

First, let's look at how Jesus, the Ultimate Pastor and the Source of the Apostles' commission and authority, taught:
​

i. The Authority of Jesus​

1. John 5:30: “’I am not able to do anything of myself; as I hear, I judge.’” Jesus Himself takes no initiative, but humbly submits to the Father’s Will and communicates that Will by the Father’s authority.
​

2. John 7:16: “Therefore Jesus answered them and said, ‘My teaching is not mine, but is of the One Who sent Me.’”
​

3. John 8:28: “Therefore Jesus said to them, ‘When you lift up the Son of man, then you will know that I AM and that from Myself I do nothing, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.’”
​

4. John 12:49: “’Because I do not speak from Myself, but from the One having sent Me, the Father, He has given a command to Me, what I may say and what I may speak.’” The father's authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on His own. This is a transfer of Divine authority.
​

5. John 14:10: “’Do you not believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in Me? The words I speak to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.’” Notice that the Christ abides in the Father and vice versa; we abide in Christ, and thus have the Father. But again, we see a continuation of the authority that is transferred. When we look at how the Father’s authority was transferred to the Son we should see a similar pattern emerge in the Son’s authority to the apostles.
​

John 16:15: “’All things which the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He receives of mine and will announce it to you.’” These things which the Father gives the Son are communicated to the disciples. There is the continuation and succession of delegated authority, just as He worked under the Old Law.​

​

With this in mind, let's look at the apostolic continuation of Christ's ministry:​

​

i. The apostolic commission by Christ
​

1. Matt. 10:1, 40: “And summoning the Twelve disciples, He gave them authority over unclean spirits so as to cast them out and heal unclean every disease and every illness… ‘The one receiving you receives Me, and the one receiving Me receives the One Who sent me.’”
​

3. Luke 10:16: “’The one listening to you (pl.), listens to Me; the one rejecting you (pl.) rejects Me; but the one rejecting Me rejects the One Who sent Me.’”
​

4. Luke 22:29, 30: “’And I decree to you (pl.) the Kingdom, just as the Father decreed it to Me, so that you (pl.) may eat and drink at My Table in My Kingdom, and you will sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’”
​

5. John 17:18; 20:21: “’As You sent Me into the world, so I send them into the world… As my Father has sent Me, so also I send you (pl.).’” As the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have Divinely appointed authority.
​

6. John 13:20: “’Amen, I say to you (pl.), the one receiving whomever I may send receives Me, and the one receiving Me receives the One Who sent Me.’” Thus, accepting those Christ sends, i.e., the apostles, receives Him, and by extension the Father. Each is sent to create a long chain of unity leading back to the Father. The apostles, mere men, are invited to participate in the Lord’s evangelistic mission, and are given such authority that they are not to be rejected by any man without suffering judgment (Matt. 10:15).​

​

i know, Ainesis, that you will agree about this apostolic authority. But notice the Nature of it: the Spirit speaks through them, and their declarations are as though spoken of God. Just as Jesus (aside from the fact He was God) had this charism, so did the apostles.​

​

And then this authority is passed onto their successors, the bishops, as i've already discussed in various places. If you wish we'll begin discussing whther or not this special authority is passed on; But for right now, i want to make sure you're with me so far. ​

​

So ok, i'll wait for your response. God bless! Maranatha!​

Steve​

​

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Filio

Let me define exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

We believe that the Scriptures, infallibly inspired by God, were infallibly recognized by the Chruch. This means that the Scriptures are infallible regardless of the Church's authentication; they were infallible before the proclamation and after it and would have been without it.

Do you have a source for this , as it is contray to what I have been told by others in the Roman Catholic Church. I have posted what I have been told in this thread and provided a link.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[filioLumen]

Sure BBAS 64,

Good Day, FilioLumen

Typical practice to go by the interpretations of the Fathers. Fair enough which one's?

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ as the guide for biblical interpretation.(fn. 23) But just what this would entail is far from clear. For, as already mentioned, there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical-critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, “nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.” (fn. 24) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scripture, The Soul of Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p. 70.

Would you go with the historical- critical, or the literal, or allegorical exergesis of Scripture?
Fathers who employed these standards, often came to diffenet conclusions on the text. Who is right who is wrong.

Some with in the Roman Catholic Church see it as :

Cardinal Congar even goes on to insist “It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), p. 399.

The problem is that the church does not define the orginal intent of the Scripture, Where as some Fathers have some have not.

Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.


Peace to u,

Bill

Though it is true that each passage of Scripture has not specifically been interpreted by either the ecumenical Church in Council or by an Infallible papal statement, that in no way demeans that there is a definite and apostolic interpretation of every text.

It is true that as one goes through the ages various other means and methods of interpretation are employed; however these are always seen by the interpreters themselves as mere tools to glean out yet more spiritual understanding from the text than had been previously realized. These expositors usually recognize their methods of interpretation as innovative and thus submit to the earlier and simspler methods of examination.

There are a few exceptions, such as Origen. But his faulty interpretation of Scripture is one of the main reasons he was never canonized, despite his great place of leadership in the early church.

But every father, and certainly every bishop, throughout the ages does have more interpreting authority than we do, if for no other reason than their closeness to the source, i.e. the apostles. By the time of Augustine we have these early saints writing entire treatises on expostion and biblical understanding, in many case nearly exhaustive. And when we say we submit to the patristic understanding of texts we primarily refer to those who were earliest, who have the greatest preeminence and clarity of Tradition.

Judgments such as these (which patristic quotes should be followed and which not) really do fall down to the Church who proclaims the broad doctrines.

Catholicism is actually very open with a wide space for belief. She has always done more in her declarations to declare what is not, rather than what is. Every council has been preceded by a threat from heresy, and the council itself was in direct response to the heretical threat. Conciliar decisions are expressed primarily in terms of what beliefs are heretical.

And thus Scriptural interpretation is a more open field, so long as one submits to the Church's authority in doctrine and practice. We obviously give the fathers preeminence, but that which has not been specifically declared by the church is not binding on all the faithful.

And all this is why i can participate in hermeneutical Scripture studies without constantly falling back on Patristic interpretations. i can study Scripture so long as i do not depart from the confines of the Catholic faith. That simple. That complex .

God bless you always! Maranatha!
Steve

 

[Ainesis]

i know, Ainesis, that you will agree about this apostolic authority. But notice the Nature of it: the Spirit speaks through them, and their declarations are as though spoken of God. Just as Jesus (aside from the fact He was God) had this charism, so did the apostles.

And then this authority is passed onto their successors, the bishops, as i've already discussed in various places. If you wish we'll begin discussing whther or not this special authority is passed on; But for right now, i want to make sure you're with me so far. ​

So ok, i'll wait for your response. God bless! Maranatha!​

Steve​

​

​

Hi Steve,

I agree that this authority is passed on, but I believe this is passed on to all believers. It was communicated to the apostles first, because they constituted the beginnings of the church. As I pointed out in the other thread, many of the "authority" you speak of representing Apostolic succession we can see demonstrated by those who were not apostles.

However, in the context of our current discussion of sola Scripture vs. tradition, I owuld love also to hear your thoughts on the points I raise in the previous post.

Maranatha!

 

[BBAS 64]

Thanks Filio,

Good nite all, may he Bless you and yours.

Bill

 

[filioLumen]

Do you have a source for this , as it is contray to what I have been told by others in the Roman Catholic Church. I have posted what I have been told in this thread and provided a link

CCC:



81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44



120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91

The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi. The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).



Hmm, not too much there. That's all i could find in the Catechism. And as usual it's vague.

But that's what i've understood of things. And it makes logical sense to me.

i perfectly affirm that it is neccesary to have the infallible teaching authority of the church to recognize the canon. Yet i do not accept that the Church suddenly made the documents "God breathed" by their admission. Theirs was the task of recognition.

If there are any Caths out there who could show me otherwise either fromt the Fathers or from official Church declaration, i'll reconsider.

But not til then

God bless you all and always! Maranatha!
Steve