"Carte blanche"? Hardly. There is a huge difference between the above quote and the idea that God and our Salvation history are limited to literal, sometimes word-by word, often self-interpretation of Scripture. Again, often a rejected verse in these discussions, John the Evangelist himself said that not everything Jesus did could ever be written.
Again, Catholic in lower case, "Book of Mormon" and Koran on caps...
"Carte blanche"? Hardly. There is a huge difference between the above quote and the idea that God and our Salvation history are limited to literal, sometimes word-by word, often self-interpretation of Scripture. Again, often a rejected verse in these discussions, John the Evangelist himself said that not everything Jesus did could ever be written.
Again, Catholic in lower case, "Book of Mormon" and Koran on caps...
Yes....catholics run to John 20:30 yet ignore 31.
30Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
Please due notice the limitation though of v30.....signs Jesus did in the presence of the disciples. This greatly narrows down the time period we're talking about.
Catholics will also run to John 21:25 for the same reason. No doubt the life of Jesus, which is eternal, would be very, very, expansive. None doubt that.
However we have the Word of God to show us the path to salvation. How to have a forgiveness and a relationship with God on an eternal basis.
If the Bible is not the standard by which we measure truth, as we are told to search the Scriptures, then any source could be claimed as truth. Hence the reference to the Koran, Book of Mormon, Aunt Mary had a vision, etc.
My point is that the roman catholic church has had opportunites over the years to "canonize" additional books to the Bible that cover some of the aspects of Mary but they have not. And there's a reason they haven't.