Resurrection apperance to Mary

[thistle]

If you look at the other thread, there is tradition to back it up. That is why I am so adamant about it.

It is NOT a tradition.

This is the Church teaching:

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!”

 

[adstrinity]

If you look at the other thread, there is tradition to back it up. That is why I am so adamant about it.

It is NOT a tradition.

This is the Church teaching:

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 stand by what I said. Check out the other thread.

 

[thistle]

I stand by what I said. Check out the other thread.

The Church teaches that Mary Magdalene and the other Holy women were the first to encounter the Risen One.

Are you saying the Church is wrong?

If yes, then wow that’s a biggie!!
If no, then why are you trying to show something that contradicts Church teaching.

By the way you keep referring to another thread but how can I read another thread when you still haven’t give me the thread title to search for?

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

First of all, if Jesus made a resurrection appearance to His mother, and it was his first appearance after His resurrection, it would thus not be at his grave. He appeared to her in the Cenacle or something else. Second, if that was the same catechism that said the covenant of the Jews still applied I would be weary. If we went to Pope Benedict and asked him about this he would look it it more than the one sentence in the catechism. Some parts of the new catechism trouble me, not major dogma wise, but other (little) things.

 

[adstrinity]

The Church teaches that Mary Magdalene and the other Holy women were the first to encounter the Risen One.

Are you saying the Church is wrong?

If yes, then wow that’s a biggie!!
If no, then why are you trying to show something that contradicts Church teaching.

By the way you keep referring to another thread but how can I read another thread when you still haven’t give me the thread title to search for?

I told you how to find it, search through my posts. It’s title is pretty similar to this one.

 

[thistle]

I told you how to find it, search through my posts. It’s title is pretty similar to this one.

Why won’t you answer my question?
Are you saying the Church is wrong in its teaching?

To refer to another thread normally a poster has the courtesy to give the thread instead of saying look through all my posts until you find it. What is the thread title or am I supposed to scroll through nearly 3000 of your posts and hope I come across it.

 

[adstrinity]

Why won’t you answer my question?
Are you saying the Church is wrong in its teaching?

To refer to another thread normally a poster has the courtesy to give the thread instead of saying look through all my posts until you find it. What is the thread title or am I supposed to scroll through nearly 3000 of your posts and hope I come across it.

I wont answer your question because I question your question. Jesus wouldn’t answer Pilate.

Looking back at my posts, I did see that the both of them are not labled such as this. The original was a thread that got off topic and the sequel was a reply to that. I’m going to ask that you check both out, because I only posted the answer to one.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269922
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=270404

 

[thistle]

I wont answer your question because I question your question. Jesus wouldn’t answer Pilate.

Looking back at my posts, I did see that the both of them are not labled such as this. The original was a thread that got off topic and the sequel was a reply to that. I’m going to ask that you check both out, because I only posted the answer to one.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269922
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=270404

You mean you are equating yourself to Jesus??

You won’t answer my question but in the thread you directed me to you expect others to answer your question:

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?

Also why are you maintaining Jesus appeared first to Mary is a tradition in this thread when in the two threads you referred me to to read your comments you admit its not a tradition.

Your own words:

“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).”

“**What this theory (the one I erroneously proposed as tradition) **says is that Jesus went to His Mother first. What the Gospels cover is that Mary Magdalene was one of the first followers of Jesus to go to His tomb.”

**“I was under the assumption that this was a tradition, but, I’ll stop propositioning it as such if it’s merely the theory of the Pope **who got to be who he was because of his dedication to the Queen of Heaven.”

Therefore as you admitted all the above do you now accept the Church teaching:

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.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Again, if I went to the Pope and leading mariologists(?), they would probably think more into it. They have to keep things simple for a book of the Church’s beliefs.
Pax

 

[adstrinity]

thistle, you will see, if you kept checking my posts, that it is indeed a tradition, something I found out after I posted those statements. Those statements are retracted. It is a tradition.

Do I compare myself to Jesus…that’s a good question. thistle, who is it that you say I am?

 

[thistle]

thistle, you will see, if you kept checking my posts, that it is indeed a tradition, something I found out after I posted those statements. Those statements are retracted. It is a tradition.

Do I compare myself to Jesus…that’s a good question. ** thistle, who is it that you say I am?**

I checked every post in the two threads you referred me to and you did not retract your statements. Tell me the post number in which you made the retraction. Your only retractions were that you agree it was NOT a tradition after all and that you would not say that anymore.

Who do I say you are? Certainly not Jesus or anything like him.
Your profile says you are Catholic but it seems you won’t accept Church teachings.
Do you accept the Church teaching regarding who the Risen Christ appeared to first? Yes or No?

 

[adstrinity]

I checked every post in the two threads you referred me to and you did not retract your statements. Tell me the post number in which you made the retraction. Your only retractions were that you agree it was NOT a tradition after all and that you would not say that anymore.

Who do I say you are? Certainly not Jesus or anything like him.
Your profile says you are Catholic but it seems you won’t accept Church teachings.
Do you accept the Church teaching regarding who the Risen Christ appeared to first? Yes or No?

I posted a correction on the thread in the Traditional Catholic Forum.

I posted the retraction on this thread. I would like to make that clear.

 

[thistle]

I posted a correction on the thread in the Traditional Catholic Forum.

I posted the retraction on this thread. I would like to make that clear.

Where did you post a retraction on this thread or are you talking about the post I just replied to.
Now you are talking about a thread in a forum which you have not even given a link to. You are really good at dodging around.

By the way we are still waiting for you to tell us how this is a tradition. You certainly cannot be referring to Pope John Paul II’s comments because that is not tradition. He is merely expressing his opinion.

I’ll give you another chance to show your credibility.

1. Please give me the title of the thread in the Traditional Catholic Forums you are referring to. I promise I will read your comments.
2. Please give me any thread you have opened or posted in that show the tradition you feel compelled to say exists. Its not in this one or the two which you previously referred me to. I really do want to understand your position.
3. Do you accept the Church’s teaching on who the Risen Christ first appeared to?

 

[adstrinity]

This thread. I posted a retraction in the “Resurrection apperance to Mary” thread. When I said, “I retract those statements.”

The priest in the link of the thread in the Traditional Catholic Forum said it was a tradition. I said something akin to “I am posting this now because I am finding it now.”

Hope this helps.

 

[thistle]

This thread. I posted a retraction in the “Resurrection apperance to Mary” thread. When I said, “I retract those statements.”

The priest in the link of the thread in the Traditional Catholic Forum said it was a tradition. I said something akin to “I am posting this now because I am finding it now.”

Hope this helps.

Let me know when you find the thread.

It is not a tradition but for the purpose of debate lets say you find something saying a tradition, what would that show? It would show something contradictory to Church teaching so what relevance would it have?
Then you would have to choose between that and the Church teaching. This is why I don’t understand why you are so intent on showing this was a tradition. Why would you care if it is against Church teaching?

 

[adstrinity]

Let me know when you find the thread.

I did. The past three times I posted.

 

[thistle]

I did. The past three times I posted.

No you didn’t.
You simply said there is a thread in the Traditional Catholics Forum. How is that any help?
Please have the common courtesy to give me the thread title.

 

[adstrinity]

No you didn’t.
You simply said there is a thread in the Traditional Catholics Forum. How is that any help?
Please have the common courtesy to give me the thread title.

I could have sworn I posted it in Traditional Catholocism. Either it was moved to Spirituality or I forgot I posted it there. It is the second link in thread 27.

 

[thistle]

I could have sworn I posted it in Traditional Catholocism. Either it was moved to Spirituality or I forgot I posted it there. It is the second link in thread 27.

Maybe you are confusing thread and forum.

For example, the title of this thread is “Resurrection appearance to Mary” in the Apologetics Forum.

What I need from you is not just the forum but the title of the thread and the correct forum. I have no clue what “the second link in thread 27” means.

 

[adstrinity]

Maybe you are confusing thread and forum.

For example, the title of this thread is “Resurrection appearance to Mary” in the Apologetics Forum.

What I need from you is not just the forum but the title of the thread and the correct forum. I have no clue what “the second link in thread 27” means.

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