Ressurection Question for Protestants

[mattkubes]

^^From Pope John Paul II. I encourage and pray all the Catholics to read it, and I re-submit this question to the Protestants on the forum.

But Catholics don’t even have to be “comfortable” with the idea. We’re free to believe it, sure; but since it is not a part of the deposit of faith, we don’t have to.

 

[adstrinity]

But Catholics don’t even have to be “comfortable” with the idea. We’re free to believe it, sure; but since it is not a part of the deposit of faith, we don’t have to.

Did I say Catholics have to be comfortable with the idea? We at least KNOW of this tradition (or at least I thought we did). This is for the education/opinion of the Protestants. Either they are comfortable with this and it makes sense (especially those who hold Mary in high esteem) or they are not because it is not in the Bible, but, it’s certainly not adverse to it.

It’s not doctrine, we don’t have to believe it, may not change anything if we do; knowing this, wouldn’t the Jesus YOU, the reader, know, do this?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I KNEW I didn’t make this up. I KNEW I wasn’t halucinating. I KNOW I am not apostate:

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm51.htm

^^From Pope John Paul II. I encourage and pray all the Catholics to read it, and I re-submit this question to the Protestants on the forum.

Are you comfortable with this idea?

Thank you for all answers.

This is the second time I’ve heard of that idea; the first being discussion of what some news sources said JP2 had said. It sounded so unlikely that I put it all down to a mistake.​

Shoddy reasoning is shoddy reasoning, even from a Pope, even in the Bible. And JP2’s reasoning in that article is shoddy. It’s myth-making, & no Pope should do that.

There is a tradition that Joseph of Arimathea came to Britain after the Resurrection; the Glastonbury Thorn is said to be derived from his staff. It does not follow for one second that either story is true, & only wishful thinking would confuse reality with myth. That idea about the BVM & the Resurrection is equally baseless.

Worse still, it encourages people to accuse us of preferring what we might like to be the case, to what the NT says is the case. It does not encourage the idea that the CC cares very much for what’s true - instead, it encourages the suspicion that the Church manipulates Catholics by getting them to believe any old fiction it comes up with - even if the NT says otherwise. IOW, foolishness of this kind is meat & drink to the more anti-Catholic critics of the Church. Why is the Church so bent on helping those who hate it ? How are we supposed to reply, when such suspicions are fuelled by other Catholics, including a Pope ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Did I say Catholics have to be comfortable with the idea? We at least KNOW of this tradition (or at least I thought we did).

It seems not.​

We “don’t have to” eat rat poison - that’s no reason to offer it as food. The same goes for this.

This is for the education/opinion of the Protestants. Either they are comfortable with this and it makes sense

But what as ? Something can “make sense” as an idea, yet be downright false as history; or in other ways. Fictions acribing a pagan origin to Catholicism “MS” to those who believe them.​

It “made sense” to some to believe that Jews were responsible for the defeat of Germany in WW1 - that didn’t make it true. It MS to deny that heavier-than-air flight is possible: but in fact it is possible. Ideas can “MS” rationally, yet be false & provably so. Conspiracism thrives on what “MS” - because it ignores facts. This idea ignores
the facts of the Gospel, as well as Occam’s Razor.

(especially those who hold Mary in high esteem) or they are not because it is not in the Bible, but, it’s certainly not adverse to it.

It’s not doctrine, we don’t have to believe it, may not change anything if we do; knowing this, wouldn’t the Jesus YOU, the reader, know, do this?

Something has happened to your sentence…​

 

[ralphinal]

Although it is not part of my thoughts on the whole event, there is something human about him appearing to his Mother first, to console her and show his triumph.

Again, it was not important enough to salvation to mention it, so I really think it is not important enough to worry about.

 

[adstrinity]

Any Protestants care to respond or has Gottle summed it up?

 

[Publisher]

I have heard this story before from some Catholic acquaintences of mine…and also in some Catholic literature.

It is a pious story…if it has value for you in your walk of faith and dedication to Mary, then I really see nothing wrong with it. If it is to be made an “article of faith” and be required to accept it because it elevates the Virgin in some way…only then do I have an issue with it…it is a pious story of faith and I see nothing wrong with someone who had deep devotion to Mary believing it.

 

[Contarini]

Are you comfortable with and can you accept that the first person Jesus appeared to after he rose from the dead on Easter morning was His Mother?

It would not bother me to find out that this was true. But as other posters, including Catholics, have pointed out, there is no particular reason to believe this. Of course, if I wanted to start an argument with those other Catholics, I could point out that your reasoning is very similar to the reasoning used to support the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, which are Catholic dogmas. But the fact is that what you are saying is not official Catholic teaching. So Protestants have no reason to believe it at all, and Catholics don’t seem to have very strong reasons to insist on it.

In fact, there is a passage in the traditional canon of Scripture that contradicts what you are saying. Mark 16:9 says explicitly that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. Of course, modern scholars think that this was not part of the original manuscript. But one would think that this would weigh less with Catholics than with many Protestants. Certainly in my view a passage traditionally regarded by the Church as Scripture should continue to be seen as such, even if it wasn’t part of what the original author wrote. And I would think that this would fit well with the Catholic understanding of Scripture and Tradition. So I’m rather surprised, on further reflection, that this idea would be a traditionally Catholic one. Are you sure it isn’t just something you have misunderstood? How would Catholics traditionally have reconciled this with Mark 16:9?

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

I like what the pope said about it here

On the supposition of an “omission”, this silence could be attributed to the fact that what is necessary for our saving knowledge was entrusted to the word of those “chosen by God as witnesses” (Acts 10:41), that is, the Apostles, who gave their testimony of the Lord Jesus’ Resurrection “with great power” (cf. Acts 4:33). Before appearing to them, the Risen One had appeared to several faithful women because of their ecclesial function: “Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me” (Mt 28: 10).

If the authors of the New Testament do not speak of the Mother’s encounter with her risen Son, this can perhaps be attributed to the fact that such a witness would have been considered too biased by those who denied the Lord’s Resurrection, and therefore not worthy of belief.

As far as similarities between this and the Assumption and Immaculate Conception, there is one key difference: there is not an unbroken line of teaching on this. It is not something that was taught by the Church in ancient times. He only quotes one person on it.

Again, I have no issue with it as long as we don’t place to much importance on it.

 

[gcnuss]

Are you comfortable with and can you accept that the first person Jesus appeared to after he rose from the dead on Easter morning was His Mother?

I don’t see any reason to doubt the Gospel account of Mary Magdalene being the first to see the risen Christ. While have great respect for Pope John Paul II and find many of his writings to be very good expositions of Christian faith, I think his writing on this subject is very speculative and shouldn’t be taken as an article of faith or as a factual addition to what scripture tells us.

 

[jmcrae]

In another place (in reference to St. Thomas’ doubts), Jesus said, “More blessed are those who believe, yet do not see.”

Since Mary the mother of Jesus is the most blessed of all, perhaps He is obliquely indicating to us that she already knew that He had risen from the dead, even without seeing Him.

However, we do know that she was in the Upper Room after the Ascension, for the nine days until the day of Pentecost (which is where we get the idea for the Novena, which is to pray with Mary for nine days) so she also could have been there with the others during His appearances there.

But no - I am Catholic, but I don’t doubt that Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus risen from the dead, and that she was given the task of evangelizing the Apostles.

 

[adstrinity]

Are you sure it isn’t just something you have misunderstood? How would Catholics traditionally have reconciled this with Mark 16:9?

Edwin

And this is what I am coming to find out: I thought this WAS a tradition; it appears to be a theory, not a bad one, and, since it is the Pope who posited this, one could reason that it is not for nothing he has said this (with all the scholarship tools at his disposal and all).

 

[here_i_stand]

I KNEW I didn’t make this up. I KNEW I wasn’t halucinating. I KNOW I am not apostate:

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm51.htm

^^From Pope John Paul II. I encourage and pray all the Catholics to read it, and I re-submit this question to the Protestants on the forum.

Are you comfortable with this idea?

Thank you for all answers.

No, I’m not comfortable with this idea, because it is explicitly contradicted in the Gospels. It also troubles me that a pope would feel the need to write on the subject. I am not Catholic, but defend Catholicism when what I’m hearing from others isn’t in line with actual Catholic teaching. I would have a really hard time defending this. How does this type of writing have any value? It’s just pure supposition. For those who are looking for excuses to criticize the Catholic Church, it’s just more fuel for the fire, in my opinion, as it appears that Holy Scripture is just ignored.

 

[jmcrae]

And this is what I am coming to find out: I thought this WAS a tradition; it appears to be a theory, not a bad one, and, since it is the Pope who posited this, one could reason that it is not for nothing he has said this (with all the scholarship tools at his disposal and all).

I come from a very traditional parish, and as I mentioned, it’s not something we’ve really heard of, around here.

If it were authentically something that Catholics traditionally believe, then our Rosary ladies would have mentioned it, at some point along the way.

 

[love4mary]

The Blessed Virgin Mary did not need to go to the tomb to see the Risen Christ,I fully and completely believe that He went to Her BEFORE Mary Magdalene saw Him.

I believe that it was a private moment shared by the two, a personal meeting between Mother and Son. Remember that not everything that Jesus said or did was recorded in scripture.

There meeting was not a salvational issue for us, but just a loving moment shared by Mother and Son.

 

[mattkubes]

I read your thread in the Traditional Catholicism forum and I liked the explanation there, but I still think it’s just a nice devotion and nothing that we are expected to believe (I know you didn’t say we have to, but remember that good Catholics can disagree on a number of things, including this one).

I’m sorry if you felt ‘reemed’, but I really don’t think this is something we can reasonably expect Protestants to be comfortable with

Does it make sense? Sure. But there are doctrinal issues that our Protestant brothers and sisters need to accept before this one.

 

[jmcrae]

The Blessed Virgin Mary did not need to go to the tomb to see the Risen Christ,I fully and completely believe that He went to Her BEFORE Mary Magdalene saw Him.

She already knew where he was from what he told her when he was 12 years old - *Why did ye seek me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s work? *

Notice the parallel - three days in the Temple; three days in the realm of the dead. Mary would have certainly “gotten it” and wouldn’t have needed for Him to appear to her in the way that the disciples and the women did.

She knew without being told, and without having to see Him (although she most likely did see Him and speak to Him at some point during the 40 days.)

 

[Le_Cracquere]

If that’s what happened, then swell. Good for Them. But I see no pressing reason to believe it happened, either. To the best of my knowledge or yours, Mary Magdalene was the first to lay eyes on the resurrected Christ, and that knowledge appears to be all it was necessary to entrust to us.

I’m not comfortable or uncomfortable with the idea; it simply seems oblique to anything that should concern us, who have the testimony that we have.

 

[adstrinity]

The Bible is canonical - it is a yardstick for what is true doctrine. That suggestion is the sort of thing that brings the CC into contempt among Christians

Why is the Church so bent on helping those who hate it ? How are we supposed to reply, when such suspicions are fuelled by other Catholics, including a Pope ?

I’ve been chewing on this for a week now and I must say that what is wrong with the Church is those who do not defend the Pope when he proposes logical and beautiful theories that can only help strengthen the faith of those in Christ’s Church. We are supposed to reply by defending the Pope and explaining the true teachings of the Church and reply that the only reason the Bible is canon is because the Catholic Church with the help of the Holy Spirit set it so. We are supposed to defend Christ’s Church and if we don’t understand what the Pope or magisterium says, we should research it until we do.

That is all.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, the Gospels all say that it was Mary Magdeline, but, Catholics and Orthodox believe, and it makes sense to believe, that Jesus would appear to the Woman who chose to say Yes to God, to the Woman who raised Him, and to the Woman who gave Him life and watch Him die.

This belief (Jesus going first to His Mother) is not found in the Bible, but, it is widely believed. I ask for this reason: because it makes sense and is believed – That He went to Her to tell Her, ‘I’m Okay…Dad sends His Love…’, OR, can you not accept this because it’s not recorded in the Bible?

This is not a de fide teaching but a pious tradition. Even Catholics are not required to accept this as a matter of faith.