M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Your man Gottle does a fine job here… forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=499401&postcount=6
Explaining it!
- Status
Explaining it!
J
justasking4
Guest
Its a apocrypha gospel i.e. false gospel.
M
maurin
Guest
Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Pour forth, we beseech thee, O Lord, Thy Grace into our hearts. That we, to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son, was made known by the message of an Angel, may, by His Passion and Cross, be brought to the Glory of His Resurrection. Through the same Christ our Lord, Amen.
G
Gamera
Guest
If I understand correctly, it’s been found not to have been inspired (like several other proposed gospels). That doesn’t eliminate its ordinary historical value. It still has the same historical value that any other non-inspired writing from the same period would have. In other words, the fact that it names Mary’s mother as Ann does constitute evidence that people referred to Mary’s mother as Ann back in 150 AD.
J
justasking4
Guest
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Apochrypha gospel means false gospel? I thought Apochrypha writings were of value, though considered not inspired.
Hmm, I learned something.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
But that’s not what you said. You called it false gospel, which would leave one to believe that it is simply not true.
P
Peter_Da_Rock
Guest
377 minus aproximately 77 equals 300. That equates more to 3 centuries instead of 4. But that is beside the point. The primary reason that it probably was not mentioned until latter is that it was widely held as being true, but some arrogant primitive protestant gave rise against it, so that an early church father had to comment on it.
J
justasking4
Guest
You are correct. If i’m not mistaken the church condemned these writings because they are false and misleading.
J
justasking4
Guest
What if i made a claim about something that happened 300 years ago in which it was never recorded. Would you believe me?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Suppose someone in your family came over from Europe on the Mayflower. There might be a famous story in your family about that voyage and how your ancestor saved the ship from foundering during a storm.
Each Thanksgiving, when the family gathered togther to celebrate the holiday, family tradition held that the eldest member of the family would retell the story to the entire gathering - especially to the children who had never heard it before.
You, as a child, would grow up hearing this story again and again until finally you are the eldest family member honored with telling the story that you know so well.
With great pride, you would unfold the tale of how your great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather had sailed from England to the New World with little more than the clothes on his back AND his most prized possession - an original 1611 edition of the King James Bible (sadly lost in a poker game by one of your not-so-great grandfathers - but that is another story!).
Finally, someone in your family says, “We really ought to write this down.” And so you do.
There are all kinds of objections and concerns that you can raise about my little anecdote, but the plain fact is that you - though fallible - can write down accurately what has been accurately handed on to you orally.
How much more can the infallible Church discern what is true from the Tradition that has been handed down from one generation to the next under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
J
justasking4
Guest
I agree you can write these down accurately. The problem is that even in your example you are going to have errors (since it was so long ago) and embelishments. Thats one of the main problems with the marian claims. In the NT, Mary is presented to us as a humble godly woman and yet the catholic church over the centuries has so emblished her as to now make her queen of heaven and elevated her just below the Trinity. That’s the problem.
You are making so many unprovable assumptions here. For one the church is not infallible. It has made mistakes. Two, you assume this is of the HS without any proof. Third, it fails to take into account the warning that false teachers would come into the church and decieve many.
G
Gamera
Guest
Actually, we find in the New Testament that religious oral tradition was considered reliable. In Hebrews 11:37, the writer refers to the Jewish oral tradition that the prophet Isaiah was sawed in half, a fact not written down in the Hebrew Scriptures but still considered authoritative. In Jude verse 9 (Jude having only one chapter) Jude refers to the oral tradition that Michael and Satan fought over the body of Moses, a fact nor written down in the Hebrew Scriptures but rather passed down orally.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
If protestant theology denied the orthodox understandings of the Incarnation, then I could understand if they denied giving honor to our Lady–she just gave birth to a man, after all, who later became the Christ, or who was later adopted by God, or fill in the blank with some heresy or other. But protestant theology doesn’t do that–or doesn’t claim to, at any rate. Which makes its understanding of Mary as just a nice woman inexplicable to me.
Either the Incarnation is important and Mary reflects that importance or it isn’t and our Mother is just a dear woman.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
Justasking, this is where I find the greatest problem with many protestant protestations against honoring our Lady. For all of the recognition of the importance of the Incarnation, including a tacit acknowledgement that our Lady, in her finite womb, bore the Eternal Word of the Father (making her a living embodiment of heaven, the “dwelling-place” of God), the ramifications of this act seem largely lost on protestantism. The woman WHO BORE GOD can only be looked at as a historical figure. In other words, the witness of the gospels to the Incarnation are reduced to a mere history book when it comes to the person of the Virgin Mary. She was just a nice lady.
If protestant theology denied the orthodox understandings of the Incarnation, then I could understand if they denied giving honor to our Lady–she just gave birth to a man, after all, who later became the Christ, or who was later adopted by God, or fill in the blank with some heresy or other. But protestant theology doesn’t do that–or doesn’t claim to, at any rate. Which makes its understanding of Mary as just a nice woman inexplicable to me.
Either the Incarnation is important and Mary reflects that importance or it isn’t and our Mother is just a dear woman.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Actually, the Catholic Church has done no more than to imitate Jesus who is the one who has honored her first. You do want to imitate Jesus, don’t you?
As for embellishments, I have no problem with the fact that you have pointed this out as a concern. However, we’re not talking about a theological game of “telephone” here. We are talking about the maintenance of revelation given by God through the power of the Holy Spirit. Since EVERYONE wants to claim that the Holy Spirit leads them (indivdually) into all truth according to the words of John’s gospel, you won’t mind if I say that the promise applies most appropriately to the Church that Jesus Himself said HE (not Peter) would build, will you? And if the Holy Spirit is leading the Church, then she can certainly keep Her stories (or traditions) straight under His direction.
The Church can make mistakes, but she cannot teach error. The Church is infallible, and you cannot prove from scripture that she is not while I can point to the Bible, Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church herself to support the fact that she is. You might claim, “That’s circular reasoning.” Fine. You want to start with the Bible and claim that everything has to be proven there (which I can do, btw). I say, “No, we have to begin with an authoritative Church to even get to the Bible to begin with.” But that’s another thread, isn’t it?
Finally, I note the irony of referencing “false teachers” against the Church that Jesus Himself founded. While I do not suggest that there have not been false teachers within the Catholic Church, they did not speak as Pope for the entire Church in any way that disproves the doctrine of infallibility.
While “many” may be deceived, the passage does not say “all” or even “most”, and I submit that deceivers have led “many” out of the true Church.
Happily, “many” like me have returned.
J
justasking4
Guest
Where do those who knew Mary best i.e. apostles ever exalt her the way the catholic church does? Where do they call her queen of heaven, without sin, or assumed into heaven?
Where do they in their writings teach us to pray to her?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Where in the Bible does it say that everything that Jesus (and by extension the apostles) ever taught, said, or did is recorded in the Bible?
Hint: It specifically says in the Bible that everything which Jesus said, taught and did with his apostles is NOT recorded in Scripture.
Hint: The Bible never specifically says that all Truth and all ‘knowledge’ is ONLY to be found in the Bible. Else why would the Holy Spirit be sent to 'guide you into all truth" and why is the CHURCH (not the Bible) spoken of as the pillar and bulwark of all truth?
Hint: It specifically says in the Bible that everything which Jesus said, taught and did with his apostles is NOT recorded in Scripture.
Hint: The Bible never specifically says that all Truth and all ‘knowledge’ is ONLY to be found in the Bible. Else why would the Holy Spirit be sent to 'guide you into all truth" and why is the CHURCH (not the Bible) spoken of as the pillar and bulwark of all truth?
H
historyb
Guest
I believe it says everything he did, not everything he said and taught. Do you have the verse I can’t recall it’s address and Google didn’t help in this case.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
My Douay Rheims has John 20 say "
I cannot think of Jesus just ‘doing’ something that was not meant to be an instruction, a guide, or a teaching. Nothing that is recorded in Scripture just has Him doing ‘something’ without explaining WHY He did it and what the MESSAGE is about His deed.
also there is John 21,
Certainly the word ‘did’ can encompass Him speaking and teaching in His ‘doings’.
I cannot think of Jesus just ‘doing’ something that was not meant to be an instruction, a guide, or a teaching. Nothing that is recorded in Scripture just has Him doing ‘something’ without explaining WHY He did it and what the MESSAGE is about His deed.
H
historyb
Guest
Thank you for that. I was always under the impression that it might be the things he did, not what he said. To that end I did inquire from some Catholic sources (Priests, Brothers) if that was the case and they said yes, since the text didn’t go beyond that. I have to say and this is my http://www.v-rodforums.com/forums/images/smilies/2cents.gif that everything he taught can be found in Holy Scriptures. But just not every miracle he did.
- Status