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?
If the Virgin Mary had really written a gospel, I’m sure it would have been inspired.
However, some weirdish Gnostic text that didn’t show up until 200 years after Christ’s ascension, and which doesn’t even pretend to be the kind of book that Mary would write? The only people who ever promoted it as real have been Gnostics, and a few bored college professors with time on their hands.
Because she didn’t write it. It’s a heretical gnostic text.
Thanks y’all. I guess I should have done a little more research first…
I think you must have run into a tv show or article about the Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene. They never claimed it was written by Mary, the Blessed Virgin. However, it was not considered divinely inspired, and a couple of years ago a copy (supposedly ancient) showed up in Egypt (where the Gnostics had it) and according to this spurious “Gospel”, Jesus made Mary Magdalene His chief apostle, and also the Teacher of His disciples, and Head of His Church, basically. They must have thought she had a great deal more authority than Peter!
However, the Gnostics were considered heretical, and their writings and beliefs to be not in accord with the teachings passed down by the Apostles or by St. Paul. Seems like the idea recurs periodically though. Mary, the Mother of Jesus, never wrote a Gospel, nor, as far as I know, has anyone (yet) claimed to have found such a writing, but no doubt someone will fake one up eventually! Be not disturbed. The Gospels and Scriptures approved by the Church are all we need, and were most carefully selected and determined to be faithful to the teachings of Christ and to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. We do not need to add any others.
The Gnostic beliefs, from what I have read or heard, were apparently of the opinion that those who were the most “intellectual” received inspiration directly from God, and therefore were the ones who could teach others, and no one else was able to reach their intellectual “plateau”. (sort of prevented them from losing their authority, since obviously, by their own belief, no one else had the proper “mindset” and never would!)
Personally, I thank God constantly for the guiding hand of our Holy Catholic Church, or I’d have gone badly astray long ago!
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.
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.
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.
Sorry but you are wrong. There are no inspired writings outside Sacred Scripture.
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.
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.
The “lost” Gospels are a fun read if one keeps a perspective that they were written well after the fact.