Latin transl. Needed. Mary – at Resurrection

[DaveBj]

Read John 21; 25. God Bless, Memaw

Yes, Jesus did to lots of things that were not written down, but what was written down says that He met the Magdalene first. Bibliologically John 21:25 cannot contradict Mark 16:9, and textually / logically it does not.

 

[JohnR77]

That is a heckuva lot of extrapolation from a very short text.
.

My response was only intended for those who have a teachable spirit and who wanted to learn.

Ultimately, though, it is no more than a personal thought or opinion.

The teachings of Saint John Paul II that Jesus probably saw the Blessed Virgin Mary first after the resurrection is not a matter of personal opinion. It is now official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Mary wasn’t at the tomb because she already believed He would be raised from death.

Really ?

Yes. Let us consider her agenda at this point.
She was going to have to take her pet poodle to get him trimmed and get his nails clipped.
She was going to have to get the living room sofa reupholstered . It was just too year AD 20ish fad and she was just over that…
And of course, she was going to have to drive the Bentley through the car wash …

No … No … No.
When someone who is very very close to you dies, there is only one thing on your agenda. Her only Son was the only thing important to her.
Even if she had figured out that He was going to rise from the dead she would have gone at first opportunity, at daybreak, to witness that great event or at least the evidence of it.

If your only son is going to accomplish some great feat like win an Olympic event you are going to want to witness that if all you have to do is walk across town to see it, not just sit home and think about it. Mary is still a human being.

To anyone who has traveled to the Holy Land can see, traveling at night with no street lights, no electric flashlights was just not done in that time period. Not only robbers were to be considered, but the rough terrain made such an idea unfeasible. In the dark, on false step could lead a person off a steep jagged rocky cliff. The kind of injury that would result at that time period would be life threatening or leave a person crippled for life.

Jesus didn’t fulfill the Paschal Mystery (the death and resurrection) for His own sake. He is God. He needs nothing. He rose from the dead for our sakes. The resurrection is God’s gift to us. We do need that gift. When someone you love gives you a gift you do not leave it in the wrapping paper. You do not ignore the gift and just say the thought is all that matters. No, you examine and cherish the gift.

Mary would go to witness the resurrection, that is, unless Saint John Paul II was right and Jesus had come to her first.

I believe the Blessed Virgin Mary was the first to know that Jesus had risen from the dead, even though Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus risen from the dead.

Really ?
What is your source for that?
We will see below that Sacred Scripture does not tell us that.
So, we can also rule out Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching as well.
Except of course the magisterial teaching that is to the contrary.

Read John 21; 25. God Bless, Memaw

usccb.org/bible/jn/21:25#51021025

Thanks for your support Memaw.
It is good to see someone on this thread who accepts the possibility that Maybe, Saint John Paul II knows better than us how to exegete the sacred scriptural passage of Mark 16:9.

 

[JohnR77]

Yes, Jesus did to lots of things that were not written down, but what was written down says that He met the Magdalene first. Bibliologically John 21:25 cannot contradict Mark 16:9, and textually / logically it does not.

It is not question of contradicting Mark 16:9. It is a question of what exactly does that passage mean.

According to Saint Pope John Paul II,
Sedulius , Eadmer of Canterbury (c. 1126,), St. Ignatius of Loyola, Albert the Great, and Pope Benedict XIV, all of who accept the authority of Sacred Scripture, all of whom accept Mark 16:9, but do not accept your “infallible decree” as to that it “clearly” means, believe that Mark 16:9 can be interpreted to allow Mary to be the first to see our risen Lord. See second portion of Post #11 above or
defendingthebride.com/pp/tomb/index.html#obj

No, I’m implying that St. Mark knew the situation better than someone who lived a thousand years after the event. When Sacred Scripture clearly states something, I take that authority over even a sainted Pope.

Your Bible exegesis is not definitive therefore your “proof” is invalid.

The proper Catholic attitude is to have a healthy mistrust in our own thinking and our own private interpretation of Sacred of Sacred Scripture. Our faith is in God, not in man, not in ourselves.

Acts 8:30
“Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?”

Martin Luther and the rest of the Protestants took the same approach as you. “This Bible passage means what I say it clearly means, and therefore the Pope is wrong.” The Catholic Church formally rejects not only their conclusions but also their methodology. The only difference is which passages are classified as “clear.” The Catholic Church rejects not only the conclusion as to what you claim Mark 16:9 “clearly” means, but she also rejects your methodology as to how you go about interpreting Sacred Scripture.

25 Brief Arguments Regarding Biblical “Clearness” (Perspicuity)
patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/11/25-brief-arguments-re-biblical-clearness.html

The Bible belongs to the Catholic Church. She decides how to interpret it, not you apart from her. So, hypothetically, even if Jesus did first appeared to St. Mary Magdalene, you could not use Mark 16:9 as a way of knowing that information.

According to the magisterial teaching of Saint Pope John Paul II,
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_21051997.html

the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, which has authority over how Divine Revelation is to be understood, which includes Sacred Scripture, which includes Mark 16:9, means that the correct understanding of Mark 19:9 does not preclude possibility of Jesus first appearing to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

And your methodology, going contrary to magisterial teachings, has no basis in Catholic Church.

In short summary,
Getting into heaven is more of a heart test than a head test.
If we love Mary more, and thus know and follow Jesus better,
We would want for this teaching of JPII to be true.
This would get the self imposed blinders out of the way and we would see how this could be true, and probably is.

 

[JohnR77]

Latin transl. Needed. Mary – at Resurrection

Eadmer (c. 1060 – c. 1126, disciple of Saint Anselm), “De Excellentia Virginis Mariae”
(Excellence of the Virgin Mary) chapter 5

Thanks,
John
.

From another source I got the translation I needed :

Eadmer of Canterbury (c. 1060 – c. 1126, disciple of Saint Anselm),
Liber de excellentia Virginis Mariae , Chapter 5
- CAPUT V. De compassione beatae Mariae pro filio crucifixo.
English paraphrase :
A focus on the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. And …
The Blessed Virgin Mary was the first to witness Jesus coming into the world as He took on flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit. And it was the Blessed Virgin Mary who first witnessed Jesus after He had rose from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit as He came in His new resurrected flesh. (Romans 8:11)
Eadmer is alluding to the principles of typology. He is not only stating that Jesus first appeared to the BVM (Blessed Virgin Mary,)
he is also providing us with a proof.

  We need only to understand      two principles.

First typology and second how Mary is the most perfected of all creatures.
 It would be an insult to      Jesus if someone who was less close to Jesus and who had a greater      outpouring of God’s grace or participated more fully in the heavenly glories      than someone who was closer to Jesus Christ and His grace.

  But now in the example on      Mary she is the greatest of God’s creatures because she has the fullest      co-operation and participation with God’s grace.  She can point to no      creature greater than herself because no creature co-operated with Jesus      more than she did.  If there was a greater participation by someone other      than BVM  in the Glories of Heaven such as Jesus’ resurrection by someone      who was not as close to Jesus as was BVM that would be an insult to Jesus      Christ because He is the sole source of all grace.

  Therefore, Mary had to be the      first to participate in the heavenly glory of Jesus’ resurrection.
 See **[More Details](http://www.defendingthebride.com/pp/tomb/eadmer.html)

.
**

 

[James248]

My response was only intended for those who have a teachable spirit and who wanted to learn.

The teachings of Saint John Paul II that Jesus probably saw the Blessed Virgin Mary first after the resurrection is not a matter of personal opinion. It is now official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Really ?

Yes. Let us consider her agenda at this point.
She was going to have to take her pet poodle to get him trimmed and get his nails clipped.
She was going to have to get the living room sofa reupholstered . It was just too year AD 20ish fad and she was just over that…
And of course, she was going to have to drive the Bentley through the car wash …

No … No … No.
When someone who is very very close to you dies, there is only one thing on your agenda. Her only Son was the only thing important to her.
Even if she had figured out that He was going to rise from the dead she would have gone at first opportunity, at daybreak, to witness that great event or at least the evidence of it.

Mary would go to witness the resurrection, that is, unless Saint John Paul II was right and Jesus had come to her first.

Mary probably could have gotten word of John of Jesus’s prediction of His Passion. And if she knew He wouldn’t be in the tomb, well, why would she have gone? Jesus’s resurrection wasn’t witnessed by ANYONE, not even the guards at the tomb.

And Scripture is a higher authority than ANY private thoughts even the pope might have.

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-jesus-appear-first-to-his-mother.html#more

*"The strongest authority against an apparition to the Mother of God prior to that given St. Mary Magdalene is drawn from Scripture, He appeared first to Mary Magdelen (Mark 16:9). The most obvious reading of this passage would be that the Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Lord – which would mean that there was no prior apparition given to the Mother of God. However, some scholars (including the great Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide) assert that the word first indicates not an absolute priority, but only a relative priority. The context of the passage is: But he rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen, out of whom he had cast seven devils. She went and told them that had been with him, who were mourning and weeping (Mark 16:9-10). It is possible that the sense of the Greek is that first Jesus appeared to the Magdalene, then she went and told the apostles; or that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first, i.e. before appearing to the apostles, but not before visiting his Mother. [this is, however, certainly not the most obvious reading of the text]
St. Thomas Aquinas (who writes not merely with his own authority but also as a witness to the entire preceding tradition) very clearly does not think that there was any prior apparition to the Mother of God. Citing Mark 16:9, the Angelic Doctor claims that the first to see the risen Jesus was St. Mary Magdalene (cf. ST III, q.55, a.2, sed contra). Moreover, the earliest tradition of the Church presumes that Mary Magdalene was the first to see Christ after his Resurrection: “A woman was the beginner of transgression. A woman first tasted death, but in Magdalene woman first saw the resurrection” (Venerable Bede, d. 375; cited by Cornelius a’ Lapide on Mark 16:9). Likewise, the Easter sequence Victimae paschale laudes speaks not to the Mother, but to the Magdalene.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also seems to indicate that St. Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ: “Mary Magdalene and the holy women …] were the first to encounter the Risen One” (CCC 641).
“…The principle theological argument against a prior apparition to the Blessed Virgin is that Mary had no need of such a visit. The Mother of God had a firm and unshakable faith in the Resurrection, and this faith did not waver on that first Holy Saturday. Mary already knew and believed that her Son would rise, she had no need to see – Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed (John 20:29).
This would explain why the Mother was not present at the tomb: She already knew that he had risen. She did not know by sight, but by her unshakable faith. Of course Mary would not accompany the other women, she knew already that the body would no longer be there!
Finally, considering whether it would be unfitting for Jesus to neglect to visit his Mother, we must answer that Mary did not have any need of such consolation. Although she was truly filled with grief, this sorrow need not indicate that she lacked faith in Christ’s Resurrection – indeed, the Lord himself was filled with sorrow, though he knew he would rise. Even if Christ did not visit Mary, we must admit that the two were most intimately united by grace – just as the Ascension of our Lord into heaven does not imply a separation, neither would Jesus’ physical separation from his Mother imply any neglect or division. The love which binds these two Hearts constitutes a far greater union than that which is produced by mere physical sight.” *

 

[Tim_D]

My response was only intended for those who have a teachable spirit and who wanted to learn.

The teachings of Saint John Paul II that Jesus probably saw the Blessed Virgin Mary first after the resurrection is not a matter of personal opinion. It is now official teaching of the Catholic Church.

No, it is not “official” teaching of the Church. It is theological speculation that can never know with certainty the truth of the details. Your own use of the word “probably” allows doubt to the veracity of the argument.