L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Forget the Bishop of Rome for a moment. Who penned the gospel according to “Mark” and how do you know?
Pax
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Pax
C
commenter
Guest
We need to be very careful about guessing what someone else understood, even when they lived in our lifetime, in our culture. When it involves someone who lived in a different culture 5 centuries ago, probably did not speak our language, our guesses are very inaccurate indeed. It is true we have many writings by him, but many of those were written in response to this or that controversy or to answer a given question. Some things may have been understood, but not expressed, because he and his readers would have taken them for granted.True, a matter of perception. Catholics do not think Luther understood Catholicism very well, in spite of being a Doctor.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
The idea is that if Luther had properly understood all of Catholic theology, he wouldn’t have had the problems with it that he did. He was a tortured soul and his inadequate understanding failed to give him comfort.We need to be very careful about guessing what someone else understood, even when they lived in our lifetime, in our culture. When it involves someone who lived in a different culture 5 centuries ago, probably did not speak our language, our guesses are very inaccurate indeed. It is true we have many writings by him, but many of those were written in response to this or that controversy or to answer a given question. Some things may have been understood, but not expressed, because he and his readers would have taken them for granted.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
As far as I know there are numerous debates on “who” wrote it. Why, do you know?Forget the Bishop of Rome for a moment. Who penned the gospel according to “Mark” and how do you know?
Pax
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
That’s my point. Theres nothing in the bible indicating that someone named Mark penned it. Catholic tradition tells us this.As far as I know there are numerous debates on “who” wrote it. Why, do you know?
I see some protestantsts are anti-Rome and anti-tradition when the reality is that they better hope Rome and her traditions are credible since the book they hold so dear was penned , compiled and coded by Catholic hands.
Pax
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
I think if he were more patient he would have remained Catholic. Perhaps under a Lutheran rite of some sort.The idea is that if Luther had properly understood all of Catholic theology, he wouldn’t have had the problems with it that he did. He was a tortured soul and his inadequate understanding failed to give him comfort.
I do wonder if celibacy was too much for him and he just wanted to marry while still having pastoral duties.
D
dawid
Guest
During a discussion with two Franciscan theologians, they told me that they considered Luther to be an excellent theologian, but that he overstepped the mark.Personally I think Luther was a depressed individual with tons of problems. I really feel for him, although I admire his boldness!
The one has the same view as your assessment of Luther’s mental state.
You may find this book of interest “The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society”:
smile.amazon.com/Unintended-Reformation-Religious-Revolution-Secularized/dp/0674045637/ref=smi_se_mit_rcol_smi_2537928482?_encoding=UTF8&Version=1&entries=0&pldnCmp=rcol&pldnCrt=my-impact
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Uhmm. so now Mark is Catholic? That’s assuming it was Mark while the big discussion on who wrote that Gospel barely even includes Mark.That’s my point. Theres nothing in the bible indicating that someone named Mark penned it. Catholic tradition tells us this.
I see some protestantsts are anti-Rome and anti-tradition when the reality is that they better hope Rome and her traditions are credible since the book they hold so dear was penned , compiled and coded by Catholic hands.
Pax
(I know this is random but Catholic tradition did tell us the earth was the centre of the universe, but all of a sudden that’s okay as it wasn’t on morals or doctrine… although some paid a heavy price for saying it)
Sorry but I can’t answer the last, as again, it assumes Catholic hands compiled it or the first Church was Catholic or any of those. That gap will need to be breached before statements like that can carry any weight.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Would that have been possible? Although I do know there are numerous other rites in communion with Rome, these go a bit further back. Considering how the Catholic Church handled Luther, do you think they would have accepted in establishing a Lutheran rite or some “new” one?I think if he were more patient he would have remained Catholic. Perhaps under a Lutheran rite of some sort.
I do wonder if celibacy was too much for him and he just wanted to marry while still having pastoral duties.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Who is a better alternative to Mark (a follower and disciple of Peter) writing the Gospel of Mark? I would like to know.Uhmm. so now Mark is Catholic? That’s assuming it was Mark while the big discussion on who wrote that Gospel barely even includes Mark.
.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Being a follower of Peter is one of the possibilities I agree. Historically it is however inconclusive that this was the case.Who is a better alternative to Mark (a follower and disciple of Peter) writing the Gospel of Mark? I would like to know.
However even if it was written by Outback John the Australian it wouldn’t make much difference. Or maybe it would if one thinks the Authority of the Bible is vested in the human writer.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
.Uhmm. so now Mark is Catholic? That’s assuming it was Mark while the big discussion on who wrote that Gospel barely even includes Mark.
(I know this is random but Catholic tradition did tell us the earth was the centre of the universe, but all of a sudden that’s okay as it wasn’t on morals or doctrine… although some paid a heavy price for saying it)
Sorry but I can’t answer the last, as again, it assumes Catholic hands compiled it or the first Church was Catholic or any of those. That gap will need to be breached before statements like that can carry any weight.
It was more scientific consensus that considered the earth as the center, not especially religious doctrine, although it had biblical support.
There are those who are anti-tradition and bad-mouth it. But even those who are anti-tradition accept the tradition that Mark was written by Mark, Matthew by Matthew and so on. The point is that it is only by tradition that we assign authorships to the gospels at all, otherwise we have no idea. Therefore if we reject tradition we also have no basis for accepting the traditional authors of the gospels!
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Actually, the authority vested in the human writer is critical. Apostles have the authority of the Holy Spirit behind them, so something written by an Apostle is by definition authoritative and inspired and can be accepted as Scripture. But how do we know if a writing was written by an Apostle or not? That’s the rub.However even if it was written by Outback John the Australian it wouldn’t make much difference. Or maybe it would if one thinks the Authority of the Bible is vested in the human writer.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Just like you put a flash drive in your computer and print something, think of it like the flash drive came from heaven, and the writer is the printer. You can’t praise the printer for the content.Actually, the authority vested in the human writer is critical. Apostles have the authority of the Holy Spirit behind them, so something written by an Apostle is by definition authoritative and inspired and can be accepted as Scripture. But how do we know if a writing was written by an Apostle or not? That’s the rub.
By your definition anything an Apostle wrote is scripture? Although we know very well about Peter being rebuked by Paul. So they can be wrong, although as soon as they write it is Scripture? This seems rather to support us as anything the Apostles did means nothing if not for the Holy Spirit.
But I’m not really sure we are on point here.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t know if this question will advance the conversation, but I feel I ought to ask it: do you object just as much when the Orthodox say that St. Mark was Orthodox?Uhmm. so now Mark is Catholic?
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I would maybe if I meet an Orthodox individual who claims him. But I’d rather like to see the Catholic and Orthodox have a conversation/argument about whether Mark would agree with Catholicism or Orthodox.I don’t know if this question will advance the conversation, but I feel I ought to ask it: do you object just as much when the Orthodox say that St. Mark was Orthodox?
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
It’s the authenticity of a work that originally lead to acceptance of a book within the bible by the Church. What sources speak of the Gospel of Mark being written by a disciple of Peter but don’t mention it being Saint Mark?Being a follower of Peter is one of the possibilities I agree. Historically it is however inconclusive that this was the case.
However even if it was written by Outback John the Australian it wouldn’t make much difference. Or maybe it would if one thinks the Authority of the Bible is vested in the human writer.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
So you say the work is only authentic if the author was someone of stature?It’s the authenticity of a work that originally lead to acceptance of a book within the bible by the Church. What sources speak of the Gospel of Mark being written by a disciple of Peter but don’t mention it being Saint Mark?
I never said sources said that. Some say it was a follower of Peter, some say it was a Mark, some say it was both, some say it was none.
I can’t really see why we are still on Mark. It’s a bit of topic and not adding to anything.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
It is tied to the question of the thread. What is the basis upon which we have a bible? it seems to me the sources that we have that speak of the Gospel of Mark indicate the justification for it’s acceptance were because Mark was a follower of Peter (Irenaeus and Papias) and that it had been passed down throughout all the churches whereas other texts claiming to be Apostolic were fraudulent and didn’t have it’s pedigree (like the gospel of Thomas or other gnostic texts).So you say the work is only authentic if the author was someone of stature?
I never said sources said that. Some say it was a follower of Peter, some say it was a Mark, some say it was both, some say it was none.
I can’t really see why we are still on Mark. It’s a bit of topic and not adding to anything.
Authenticity is tied to the reason why we have a biblical canon and the church has worked with the tradition it has received concerning the ancient origins of it’s books. I believe the reason why certain books were disputed in the New Testament canon was due to it not being shown that certain works were Apostolic (The book of revelation for instance was not accepted for a long time in the eastern Church on that basis).
So while it might be a simple formula to say “The Catholic Church gave us the bible,” I think the essence of that saying (so long as it doesn’t mean only the roman Catholic church gave us the bible) isn’t wrong. Plenty of books can claim to be a true book but the Church was concerned to point out the reason why it accepts these books and not others.
(For my curiosity I would like to know what ancient authors said that the Gospel of Mark was written by a follower of Peter without saying Mark wrote it).
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Greetings.Uhmm. so now Mark is Catholic? That’s assuming it was Mark while the big discussion on who wrote that Gospel barely even includes Mark.
(I know this is random but Catholic tradition did tell us the earth was the centre of the universe, but all of a sudden that’s okay as it wasn’t on morals or doctrine… although some paid a heavy price for saying it)
Sorry but I can’t answer the last, as again, it assumes Catholic hands compiled it or the first Church was Catholic or any of those. That gap will need to be breached before statements like that can carry any weight.
I don’t want to derail the thread but could you expound a little further on this gap you speak? If there is any evidence that prior to the reformation the church was anything but apostolic, I’d love to see it. Probably warrants it’s own thread.
Pax
- Status
- Not open for further replies.