They are not on the level of scripture, but they are an important part of the tradition.

Yes, i would say even, i think, even higher than the writings of thomas. Thomas became authoritative, although he wasn't in the 12 seventies. Earder the same. Bm, the condemnation of 12 77 applied to him as much as it did any other, many other people. But i would say that the text of cabalat is safer, so hard, the safer, yet tey rar the safer. By here, i would say that there are, they are probably on nearly equal footing as other textsn in the canon may

be more like an infallible document by a pope or an ecumenical council. Ye, maybe something like that. I mean, in so far as the pope doesn't speak

infallibly too often. Ah, but ye, he doesn't, ye, ye, ye. No, it. It's pretty rare. I think the last time he did it was 19 tifty three, 19 50. Ok? Wasi on the

the immaculate conception of something. It was quite the assumption of mary. And i've, i've done a study. I wrote a book on a on on the magisterium and how it works and how to evaluate magisterial documents. And there's only something like eight papal

documents that have ever engaged infallibility. It's pretty rare. But yo, in judaism, we have dozen of volumes that have gotten into scripture that way. So in that way, your taxtaget a lot looser then we have. We have dozens of volumes that are considered so much so that we would consider them like a sacred text which is to say, you would not bring them into the bathroom with you. You would kiss them when you picked them up and put them down. You would treat them with reverence a they would be buried in a graveyard, just like you would other sacred scripturesoh, silits theyr, their relatively high ranking. And for orthodox jews, the zophar, for instance, is, i mean, it's literally revealed, ous, revealed text. So they w siderate on par with any other revealed textages.