Is It Permitted to Read "Non-Approved" Gospels?

[patrick1945]

Here is my understanding: our NT was compilied during the Council of Trent. Many texts were considered, and some were not included because of errors in theology and/or morals. But, the Council agreed that some of these non-approved texts were accurate, in part.

So, my question is two-fold:

1. Is it ok to read these texts?
2. Is there any way of knowing what part of a given text was not approved by the Council?

Thanks very much and Happy Easter.

 

[juliamajor]

Here is my understanding: our NT was compilied during the Council of Trent. Many texts were considered, and some were not included because of errors in theology and/or morals. But, the Council agreed that some of these non-approved texts were accurate, in part.

So, my question is two-fold:

1. Is it ok to read these texts?
2. Is there any way of knowing what part of a given text was not approved by the Council?

Thanks very much and Happy Easter.

Are you talking of Canon? What do you mean by compiled?The NT books and manuscripts were around way bvefore Trent.The Canon of the Bible (as far as I know) was formalized at Trent (mostly because as the result of the Reformation) But the “informalized” though still binding canon had been recognized by the council of damascus. Canon means to measure. The books of the NT were "measured " besides other books that were considered beneficial.What is beneficial doesn’t always mean "divinely inspired"or “inerrant” that is what canonizing scripture is supposed to dp.Separate the wheat from the chaff- the HS inspired from the rest… NT writing had to be written either by an apostle or someone who was a disciple of the apostle.Had to be in common use among the far flung churches.Had to be consistent in message. Had to have been used liturgically in those churches.Those were the basic criteria.
Apocrypha(otrher so called Gospels or texts) do not fit the criteria and were not and are not considered divinely inspired. I 've read many of them to get an insight to the culture and temper of the times that forged early christianity.Some of them a\have filtered through and have become part of tradtion(small t).Protoevangelium of James is chock full of goodies and an interesting read.The are fascinating and are an adjunct to a scholarly study of the scripture.
as far as being ok to read-popes and scholars of all stripes have studied and quoted these books.There is nothing wrong with it if you are a mature well grounded christian.

 

[patrick1945]

Yes, I was referring to the Canon. “Compilied” was a poor choice of words, on my part. Given the requirements for inclusion in the Canon, is it fair to say that the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mary were probably not authored by Peter and Mary?

Thanks for your informative answer to my first questions.

 

[speight]

i think i depends on the gospel but the priest will tell you what shouldnt be reading.

 

[PJM]

=patrick1945;6482616]Here is my understanding: our NT was compilied during the Council of Trent. Many texts were considered, and some were not included because of errors in theology and/or morals. But, the Council agreed that some of these non-approved texts were accurate, in part.

So, my question is two-fold:

1. Is it ok to read these texts?
2. Is there any way of knowing what part of a given text was not approved by the Council?

Thanks very much and Happy Easter.

Hi Patrick

Can you YES!

Should you; Probably Not

Why?

Unless you know how to understand the Inspired Text, you may may be mis-lead.

If you do know how to understand the Inspired Text; you’ll gain nouting from the extra effort.

My Great Irish Granpa used to say you’re far less likely to finf trouble if you don’t go looking for it."

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[puzzleannie]

Here is my understanding: our NT was compilied during the Council of Trent. .

wrong, the canon of scripture was solidified within the 1st four centuries of the early Church, and the gospels and NT were written w/i the first hundred years, and the canon of scripture ends with the death of the last apostle. The Council of Trent confirmed but did not establishe the canon for the first time.

by definition, gospel refers only to the 4 that are part of the Christian canon, those attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Any other writing purporting to be a “gospel” is spurious and those rejected were composed long, long after the death of the last apostle or of those who could have known and worked with the apostles and heard their preaching. also you have not defined “non-approved” so if you mean something other than non-canonical gospels, you will have to give more detail.

 

[Seno_Ryan]

I do not think that you should read “Gospels” outside the Christian Canon since they are not divinely inspired and you increase the chances of being misled by some of the teachings contained in these.

 

[Bookcat]

Note: some other “Gospels” are gnostic and thus from those in heresy…

 

[juliamajor]

I do not think that you should read “Gospels” outside the Christian Canon since they are not divinely inspired and you increase the chances of being misled by some of the teachings contained in these.

Why not if you are well grounded in the Canon?They are used constantly by scholars and in commmentaries.they are studied for the light they throw unto inspired texts

 

[Major_Tom]

Here is my understanding: our NT was compilied during the Council of Trent. Many texts were considered, and some were not included because of errors in theology and/or morals. But, the Council agreed that some of these non-approved texts were accurate, in part.

So, my question is two-fold:

1. Is it ok to read these texts?
2. Is there any way of knowing what part of a given text was not approved by the Council?

Thanks very much and Happy Easter.

I think that you can, and should, read anything that you d*** well please!

As with all texts/articles, etc. you should consider the source, take nothing at face-value, compare and contrast with other authors that you know and respect, etc.

 

[Seno_Ryan]

Why not if you are well grounded in the Canon?They are used constantly by scholars and in commmentaries.they are studied for the light they throw unto inspired texts

You make a valid point. I was more concerned about laity who may not be so grounded. Unfortunately there are many Catholics who do not even know the basics of the Catholic faith. For someone who is now commencing the process of educating himself in the faith, I would not recommend not reading these books he/she is adequately grounded in the Canon.

 

[thistle]

Here is my understanding: our NT was compilied during the Council of Trent. Many texts were considered, and some were not included because of errors in theology and/or morals. But, the Council agreed that some of these non-approved texts were accurate, in part.

So, my question is two-fold:

1. Is it ok to read these texts?
2. Is there any way of knowing what part of a given text was not approved by the Council?

Thanks very much and Happy Easter.

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[crazzeto]

Here is my understanding: our NT was compilied during the Council of Trent. Many texts were considered, and some were not included because of errors in theology and/or morals. But, the Council agreed that some of these non-approved texts were accurate, in part.

So, my question is two-fold:

1. Is it ok to read these texts?
2. Is there any way of knowing what part of a given text was not approved by the Council?

Thanks very much and Happy Easter.

It was compiled far earlier than Trent, it was first compiled at the Council of Hippo in 390. Is it wrong to read non-cannonical or apocryphil texts? Not necessarly, as long as you’re not making them equal in importance to the canonical texts. It may even be prophitable to read some, such as the Didache, others are interesting merely as curiosities or as evidence as to how non-Christians tried to infultrate the faith and how they hoped to destroy it like for instance, with the Gosple of Mary Magdelin (which History typically likes to do speacials on durring easter “the gosple so contravertial it had to be covered up”).

It should be understood, these texts were either not affirmed as Sacrade (or condemed) for good reason.

 

[patrick1945]

Thanks for all of your responses. I especially liked the link from Thistle.