Resurrection apperance to Mary

[thistle]

It means the second link of this thread in post 27.

Do you mean this?

QUOTE
Homily for August 15th - The Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven

by Fr. Tommy Lane

You may be surprised by the choice of Scripture readings for our Mass today. There is no reference to the Assumption of Our Lady in them. Why? Not all of our beliefs are in the Bible. So when it comes to readings for the Assumption of Our Lady and the Mass of the Immaculate Conception on 8th December the best we can do is to choose other readings for Mass which are concerned with Our Lady. **Who did Jesus appear to firstly after he rose from the dead? The different Gospels give different accounts but from the early centuries of the Church there has been a strong tradition that Jesus appeared firstly to his own mother. **That would make sense, wouldn’t it? Not all of our beliefs are in the Bible. The remainder of our beliefs are in the teaching of the Church which we often call Tradition. So we need both the Bible and the teaching of the Church i.e. Tradition to guide us. So even though the Assumption of Our Lady is not in the Bible it has been believed in by the Church for centuries. Today we thank God for the Assumption of Our Lady. It is as the Preface to the Eucharist Prayer says today, “a sign of hope and comfort” for God’s people on their pilgrim way.
UNQUOTE

I certainly hope this is not your “evidence” of it being a tradition. Once sentence by a priest recently with nothing to back it up. That shows nothing except his opinion.

Now that I have gone out of my way to read everything you told me to read will you please tell us if you accept the Church teaching on who Jesus first appeared to?

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Do you mean this?

QUOTE
Homily for August 15th - The Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven

by Fr. Tommy Lane

You may be surprised by the choice of Scripture readings for our Mass today. There is no reference to the Assumption of Our Lady in them. Why? Not all of our beliefs are in the Bible. So when it comes to readings for the Assumption of Our Lady and the Mass of the Immaculate Conception on 8th December the best we can do is to choose other readings for Mass which are concerned with Our Lady. **Who did Jesus appear to firstly after he rose from the dead? The different Gospels give different accounts but from the early centuries of the Church there has been a strong tradition that Jesus appeared firstly to his own mother. **That would make sense, wouldn’t it? Not all of our beliefs are in the Bible. The remainder of our beliefs are in the teaching of the Church which we often call Tradition. So we need both the Bible and the teaching of the Church i.e. Tradition to guide us. So even though the Assumption of Our Lady is not in the Bible it has been believed in by the Church for centuries. Today we thank God for the Assumption of Our Lady. It is as the Preface to the Eucharist Prayer says today, “a sign of hope and comfort” for God’s people on their pilgrim way.
UNQUOTE

I certainly hope this is not your “evidence” of it being a tradition. Once sentence by a priest recently with nothing to back it up. That shows nothing except his opinion.

Now that I have gone out of my way to read everything you told me to read will you please tell us if you accept the Church teaching on who Jesus first appeared to?

First, I don’t mean to start a fight.
Now, he says strong tradition. If say, many Church Fathers express this belief, does “universal agreement of the Fathers” apply if some don’t talk about the subject at all? And who does the Church consider Church Fathers?

 

[thistle]

First, I don’t mean to start a fight.
Now, he says strong tradition. If say, many Church Fathers express this belief, does “universal agreement of the Fathers” apply if some don’t talk about the subject at all? And who does the Church consider Church Fathers?

There are two issues I’m trying to tackle.

One is whether Jesus appearing first to Mary really is a tradition or not (or wishful thinking on the part of some) and so far nobody has produced anything other than an opinion without any basis. Nobody has referred me to the Church Fathers opinions on this, if they exist. If the Church Fathers are silent on this then that means they accept the Gospels and have no need to express an opinion because its not a contentious issue.

The second one is more important. The Church teaching is clear and I quoted it earlier:

CCC 641 Mary Magdalene and the holy women who came to finish anointing the body of Jesus, which had been buried in haste because the Sabbath began on the evening of Good Friday, were the first to encounter the Risen One. Thus the women were the first messengers of Christ’s Resurrection for the apostles themselves. They were the next to whom Jesus appears: first Peter, then the Twelve. Peter had been called to strengthen the faith of his brothers, and so sees the Risen One before them; it is on the basis of his testimony that the community exclaims: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

I’m trying to understand why adstrinity is so desperately trying to prove its a tradition. For arguments sake lets say it was a tradition (which has not been shown) it would be contrary to Church teaching so why would anyone be trying hang their hat on a tradition instead of Church teaching. Is adstrinity trying to tell us that the Church teaching is wrong. She still has not answered that.

 

[adstrinity]

Do you mean this?

QUOTE
Homily for August 15th - The Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven

by Fr. Tommy Lane

You may be surprised by the choice of Scripture readings for our Mass today. There is no reference to the Assumption of Our Lady in them. Why? Not all of our beliefs are in the Bible. So when it comes to readings for the Assumption of Our Lady and the Mass of the Immaculate Conception on 8th December the best we can do is to choose other readings for Mass which are concerned with Our Lady. **Who did Jesus appear to firstly after he rose from the dead? The different Gospels give different accounts but from the early centuries of the Church there has been a strong tradition that Jesus appeared firstly to his own mother. **That would make sense, wouldn’t it? Not all of our beliefs are in the Bible. The remainder of our beliefs are in the teaching of the Church which we often call Tradition. So we need both the Bible and the teaching of the Church i.e. Tradition to guide us. So even though the Assumption of Our Lady is not in the Bible it has been believed in by the Church for centuries. Today we thank God for the Assumption of Our Lady. It is as the Preface to the Eucharist Prayer says today, “a sign of hope and comfort” for God’s people on their pilgrim way.
UNQUOTE

I certainly hope this is not your “evidence” of it being a tradition. Once sentence by a priest recently with nothing to back it up. That shows nothing except his opinion.

Now that I have gone out of my way to read everything you told me to read will you please tell us if you accept the Church teaching on who Jesus first appeared to?

The bolded, underlined is it exactly.

 

[thistle]

The bolded, underlined is it exactly.

You have simply repeated what I said and have not answered my questions.

The part you bolded is an opinion and no traditional source is quoted to back it up. I repeat. Where is the source to back up the opinion?

Secondly, as I asked in my previous posts, why are you so dogged in trying to show its a tradition (which you haven’t so far) when such a tradition would contradict Church teaching. Are you saying or implying Church teaching is wrong on this issue? You keep avoiding the issue. Please enlighten us.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If a couple of Church Fathers speak about it maybe it could be considered a tradition.

**If that were so, some pretty odd stuff would have been accepted as Tradition. Two Fathers is by not by any stretch even remotely representative of the Church. **​

**As for the thread topic, this is certainly the third thread on the matter. There is no more basis for supposing He met the BVM than that He met St Joseph. Something does not become true merely because people think it up. Tradition - at least as conceived of by properly qualified theologians - is not a lucky bag out of which we can pull any old rubbish that comes into our heads. This kind of thing is not Tradition, but what used to be called - & still is, perhaps - a “pious belief”. This is the lowest degree of theological certainty. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There’s a tradition. We don’t know much about it, 'cause it’s not our business. But yes, it was always said that Jesus did come to see His mother.

I mean, if He’d come back to life and not come to see His mother? His Jewish mother? She’d have had to kill Him! Again!

**By His Death & Resurrection He had put an end to death, so she would have no power to do so. **​

**If she were any kind of handmaid of the Lord at all, she would also know that her desires were of no importance compared to His Father’s Will for Him. Other Christians without a single one of the privileges claimed for her learn this, often early in their lives as Christians: it passes belief that she had not learnt so basic a lesson. Jesus is not subject to His mother - not since the end of His state of humiliation; & that ended with His Resurrection, when He began to enter into His Glory. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

First, I don’t mean to start a fight.
Now, he says strong tradition. If say, many Church Fathers express this belief, does “universal agreement of the Fathers” apply if some don’t talk about the subject at all?

Yes. The agreement must be at least that of a moral universality, if a numerical universality is lacking; as it often is (as Protestants often notice.)​

And who does the Church consider Church Fathers?

There are four* notes* to being a Father​

• it helps to be a Saint (some aren’t)
• learning
• antiquity (to 750 in the East with the death of St. John Damascene; to the death of St. Bede the Venerable in 735 in the West)
• orthodoxy (more or less - this too is fairly elastically interpreted)
  Doctors - as above, apart from antiquity; most are not ancient, though some are.

There are also Ecclesiastical Writers.

And auctores probati - approved authors, of special eminence or importance or value in their line of theology.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Thanks, Gottle of Gerr, for your insight.