Well, a humble question is better than implying that Saint Pope John Paul II did not have basic understanding of sacred scripture. So, I will answer your question.
But first,
My Dad was the first who taught me about Jesus visiting Mary first. My Dad was, and now in heaven is, a very holy and very wise man. I write about Jesus and His Church. My Dad loved Jesus. From past experiences I learned to be humble accept what he taught me even if I didn’t understand right away.
In Bible study we often get what we deserve. Myself being an exception to that rule I often get so much more than what I deserve because of all the sacrifices of those who are holy pray so much for me.
For example, in the parable about the talents, or coins, the person who only got one said “Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter” Matthew 25:24. So, a demanding master is what he got. If a person wants to justify their sins and leave God’s Church He often lets them deceive themselves because their heart is closed to His grace. A loving humble heart is much more open to what God is teaching.
Many teachings about Mary are not so obvious in Sacred Scripture unless a learned and holy person breaks open the meaning for us. Protestants think they are so proud of themselves in “following the Bible” as they reject everything Mary. After all, the Bible speaks so little about Mary, right? Wrong, Wrong. Wrong. A loving heart is what we need.
My Dad taught this teaching on Mary to the RCIA group. Everyone at church ridiculed him for doing so. This did hurt him because he knew he was right. His teaching was based on love. I knew I should accept his teaching because I had come to trust him even when I did not fully understand. He gave several scriptural arguments. And it was about six weeks later that Saint Pope John Paull II the great gave his teaching on Wednesday, 21 May 1997 confirming what my Dad had taught me.
My favorite argument was not based on Scripture, but on love. He said he knew Jesus visited Mary right after His resurrection because that is where my Dad would have been if it had happened to him, implying the obvious that Jesus is HOLY and so much better than my Dad, and Mary is so much more deserving that even my saintly grandmother. Since my Dad loved his Mom so much, how much more did Jesus love Mary.
More to support this argument below.
And second, before I answer your question,
Let us look at why
Mark 16:9-10
“Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who …”
is not a proof that Jesus did not appear to Blessed Virgin Mary before visiting Mary Magdalene.
A Flawed Conclusion
Words based on context can several different meanings.
Many bible exegetes have affirmed that the wording is not conclusive as to who received the very first apparition. The great Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide assert that the word first indicates not an absolute priority, but only a relative priority.
Rupert (De divinis officiis, vii, 25; ML, CLXX, 207), with the approval of Salmeron, Maldonatus, and a number of other exegetes, answers the difficulty drawn from Mark (16:9), “apparuit primo Mariae Magdalenae.” He thinks that the custom of the Roman Church in placing the station for Easter at St. Mary Major confirms our opinion.
[Jesus Christ: His Life, His Teaching and His Work,
By Ferdinand Prat, page 415 notes. The opinion being confirmed is that the Blessed Virgin Mary was the first to see the resurrected Lord.
See
http://www.defendingthebride.com/pp/tomb/mark.html”]complete context.]
The evangelist Mark was using the term “first” to convey the order of events after the resurrection that he [Mark] relates. First, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, and then she went to and then she told the good news to the Apostles. It does not necessarily preclude the possibility of an earlier apparition.
So, Mark was saying first Jesus appeared to Magdalene, and then … without commenting on what Jesus may or may not have done before.
The argument that Mark 16 precludes a visit to Blessed Virgin Mary before Magdalene is based on a supposed conclusion that is not definitive, therefore the proof is flawed. Most of the Church fathers do not address this issue. The ones who deny Mary was visited first base their argument on this flawed conclusion, therefore their testimony must be dismissed as unfounded.
.
