A
AuntT
Guest
As a Catholic, what must one believe about Mary?
The infallible teachings are her immaculate conception, and her bodily assumption into Heaven.As a Catholic, what must one believe about Mary?
To remain in full communion with the Church Catholics are obligated to give sacred assent to the four Marian dogmas.As a Catholic, what must one believe about Mary?
The Four Marian DogmasAs a Catholic, what must one believe about Mary?
I’m getting confused here.That she was sinless, that she was immaculately conceived, that she is the Mother of God, and that she was assumed into Heaven I believe.
But the question isn’t Holly believes. The question is what loyal Catholics need to believe.I’m getting confused here.On another forum you said that she was not sinless and that you were an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian.
Oh, I see.But the question isn’t Holly believes. The question is what loyal Catholics need to believe.
You are new here, so I would like to extend a warm welcome to CAF.As a Catholic, what must one believe about Mary?
You may or may not know that the Gospel of Mary was not written by Mary. Nor was the Apocalypse of Peter written by Peter. I believe they were written in the 2nd (or 3rd) century.im not talking about the same mary,when i say,what happened to the gospel of mary.why isnt it in the new testament,and why isnt the apoclypse of peter in there either.as far as i know that john revalation,almost didnt make it.im not sure.i was watching banned from the bible,and i found that kinda intresting. i think everyone should watch it,intresting stuff
The Gospel of Mary, however, is considered to be of gnostic origin.Apocalypses of St. Peter
The Muratorian Fragment, written at Rome in the latter part of the second century, names the apocalypses of John and Peter side by side as the only ones received in the Church, remarking that some do not acknowledge the latter. There is abundant evidence that the Petrine apocalypse was believed authentic in many quarters of the early Church, and enjoyed in a certain measure canonical authority. Clement of Alexandria always credulous with regard to apocrypha even honoured it with a commentary; Eusebius (Church History VI.14.1), places it almost on an equality with the antilegomena or better class of disputed writings; Jerome rejects it flatly. Notwithstanding this, as late as the middle of the fifth century it was publicly read in some churches of Palestine. The few citations of patristic writers were unable to convey an idea of its contents, but fortunately a considerable fragment of this ancient document was discovered at Akhmîn, Egypt, together with the pseudo-Petrine Gospel in the language of the original, viz., Greek. A quotation of Clement of Alexandria from the recovered parts enables us to identify the manuscript with certainty as a portion of the apocalypse of antiquity. The passage relates to a vision granted by Christ to the Twelve on a mountain, exhibiting the glory of two departing brethren, the splendour of heaven, and a gruesome picture of hell. The language has a Jewish-Christian savour. The apocryphon is attributed by critics to the first quarter of the second century and is therefore one of the earliest specimens of non-canonical literature. There exist under the names Apocalypse of St. Peter, Apocalypse of St. Peter through Clement, Liber Clementis, various Arabic and Ethiopic recensions of an apocalypse which has nothing in common with the ancient Greek one.
Whatever the Catechism says, here:As a Catholic, what must one believe about Mary?