Validity of the Protoevangelium of James

  • Thread starter Thread starter katholikos12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While Mary was presented in the Temple to God on Nov. 21,
just 6 days later she presented herself to us as Our Lady of Grace in the miraculous medal on Nov. 26.

Just a thought, two presentations in one week.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Did you read the link? That is a feast in the Roman Catholic Church. I’m not even talking about the Eastern Churches. But since you brought it yup anyway, the Eastern Catholic Churches and the valid and true Apostolic Orthodox Churches celebrate the feast equally as a Great Feast.
Click to expand...
Thanks and they are the schismatic part of the Catholic Church.
 
thistle said:
That could be said. However, because it is not considered inspired and the Church does not quote from it we cannot say what is true or not in that document. Speculating is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
That sounds correct. Thank you! Speculating does sound like a waste of time especially if one gets adamant about it.
 
thistle said:
Thanks and they are the schismatic part of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Thanks for being a loyal Roman Catholic, obedient to the Pope who said we should never call the Orthodox as schismatics.
 
Ok. Confused here…

Pope Benedict said that there was no Judaic tradition of dedication of virgins to the Temple.

But the Church still celebrates her dedication to the Temple?

I feel like I’m misunderstanding this.
 
=Dorothy;10145598]Although the Protoevangelium did not make it into the canon of the Church, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any truth in it.
Click to expand...
Dorthy;

“Any” is as far from the COMPLETE Inspiried Truth of the Bible; as the East is from the West. If God Himself had desired it to have been included; it would have been:)
 
katholikos12 said:
Ok. Confused here…

Pope Benedict said that there was no Judaic tradition of dedication of virgins to the Temple.

But the Church still celebrates her dedication to the Temple?

I feel like I’m misunderstanding this.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict wrote that there is no tradition of an older man marrying a consecrated young virgin for her protection in Judaism, and so that claim is not effective to explain Mary’s somewhat puzzling statement to the archangel Gabriel.

It’s considered a pious belief but not canonical or scriptural. The celebration originated in the Byzantine Church (as did the apocryphal Evangelium, I think), so it is venerated as an early feast day of the Eastern churches. In the Roman Catholic Church, we celebrate it not as a commemoration of a temple consecration by Mary, but “we celebrate that dedication of herself which Mary made to God from her very childhood under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who filled her with grace at her Immaculate Conception,” (that last from the Liturgy of the Hours for November 21) while honoring the ancient tradition of our eastern brethren.

Pope Paul VI in the 1974 encyclical Marialis Cultus, n.8, wrote of this feast that “despite its apocryphal content, it presents lofty and exemplary values and carries on the venerable traditions having their origins in the Eastern churches.”
 
PJM said:
Dorthy;

“Any” is as far from the COMPLETE Inspiried Truth of the Bible; as the East is from the West. If God Himself had desired it to have been included; it would have been:)
Click to expand...
Thank you PJM for pointing that out to me.

A little further back in the thread I received a similar message to yours, and I agreed.

Peace, and a Blessed Christmas!
 
I think the best description is “Constantly beloved and influential, but also constantly not trusted as history.”

Mostly, it’s what you call “edifying” or “interesting.” It’s not Gnostic or heretical, and it’s probably always been meant to be a sort of historical fiction for Christians. But like a lot of historical fiction, its images and interpretations are very well known; and it’s hard to tell what was made up from what was researched unless you have better sources than it.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
Pope Benedict wrote that there is no tradition of an older man marrying a consecrated young virgin for her protection in Judaism, and so that claim is not effective to explain Mary’s somewhat puzzling statement to the archangel Gabriel.

It’s considered a pious belief but not canonical or scriptural. The celebration originated in the Byzantine Church (as did the apocryphal Evangelium, I think), so it is venerated as an early feast day of the Eastern churches. In the Roman Catholic Church, we celebrate it not as a commemoration of a temple consecration by Mary, but “we celebrate that dedication of herself which Mary made to God from her very childhood under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who filled her with grace at her Immaculate Conception,” (that last from the Liturgy of the Hours for November 21) while honoring the ancient tradition of our eastern brethren.

Pope Paul VI in the 1974 encyclical Marialis Cultus, n.8, wrote of this feast that “despite its apocryphal content, it presents lofty and exemplary values and carries on the venerable traditions having their origins in the Eastern churches.”
Click to expand...
It didn’t originate from the “Byzantine Church”, as Byzantium was a back-alley town by 150AD. The elements of what we will recognize today as the Byzantine Rite did not exist back then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top