J
Jerome22
Guest
How, can the Mother of our Lord, collect writings of her time with the other disciples and Him during His ministry, and it not be divinely inspired?
Both of these statements are in error and have no basis in Church teaching. Only Sacred Scripture is inspired, and all Sacred Scripture is canonical, that is, already included in the canon.You should keep in mind that something may be inspired, even if the Church did not consider it canonical…
…The best example of some writing which IS inspired but NOT canonical, is the Catechism of the Catholic Church…the CCC is inspired…
The “Gospel of Mary” refers to St. Mary Magdalene, not the BVM, and there is no evidence supporting its authenticity. No historian seriously believes that the historical Mary Magdalene (much less the mother of Jesus) had anything to do with its authorship/editing.How, can the Mother of our Lord, collect writings of her time with the other disciples and Him during His ministry, and it not be divinely inspired?
Sorry but you are wrong. There are no inspired writings outside Sacred Scripture.I don’t know that I’ve ever read any deeply boring book on the subject of inspiration and/or canonicity, but I have come to a certain realization about those topics.
You should keep in mind that something may be inspired, even if the Church did not consider it canonical, that is, suitable for use in the liturgy – which is the question to which our Bible is the answer.
I’ve never heard of the Gospel of Mary. I’ve never studied that whole subject of what was considered to be canonical.
Obviously it didn’t meet one or more early Church criteria for inclusion in the Bible.
The best example of some writing which IS inspired but NOT canonical, is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Note, the CCC was issued with one or more errors in it, and what we are using now is the second edition of the CCC. So, that brings up another issue, the CCC is inspired but not inerrant, because it was written by men – a committee no less.
Have you ever read it? It’s actually referring to Mary Magdalene. And like many other “gospels” its style of writing is much different from the Canonical Gospels. While some of the writers of these other gospels had good intentions they often made Jesus look like a fictional character, like just another mythological story. They don’t capture the Truth like the Canonical Gospels. Also, I hate that it’s even called the Gospel of Mary, since its style sounds more like it should be called the Acts of Mary.How, can the Mother of our Lord, collect writings of her time with the other disciples and Him during His ministry, and it not be divinely inspired?
Because it came out well after the fact. Kind of like if you missed Monday at school and then brought a doctors note 200 yrs later lol.How, can the Mother of our Lord, collect writings of her time with the other disciples and Him during His ministry, and it not be divinely inspired?