Mary Magdalene

  • Thread starter Thread starter ricchetto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ricchetto

Guest
Strange, the church give her a shade of sinner but the Bible say nothing about her so where the church got the idea that she was a sinner?
I think that for the male dominated church was and still is a bit embarrassing to have a woman smarter then the male apostles.
ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html
 
ricchetto said:
Strange, the church give her a shade of sinner but the Bible say nothing about her so where the church got the idea that she was a sinner?
Click to expand...
“The Church” did not give MM a “shade of sinner”. MM had 7 demons cast out of her. That we know. Beyond that, we do not know much about her. But, quite the opposite of casting her in a bad light, the Church celebrates her as a Saint-- it’s highest regard for a person.

Of course, we are all sinners, so if anyone got the “idea” MM was a sinner they were not actually wrong.
ricchetto said:
think that for the male dominated church was and still is a bit embarrassing to have a woman smarter then the male apostles.
Click to expand...
Oh please, this is not true at all. Don’t be silly. MM is a Saint in the Catholic Church.
ricchetto said:
ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html
Click to expand...
Oh yes, an article on the internet is definitely proof of a giant MM conspiracy. :rolleyes:

This joker starts with a “well-settled” premise, that is in fact not “well-settled” at all. Or even remotely within the realm of reality. This person is delusional.
 
ricchetto said:
Strange, the church give her a shade of sinner but the Bible say nothing about her so where the church got the idea that she was a sinner?
I think that for the male dominated church was and still is a bit embarrassing to have a woman smarter then the male apostles.
ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html
Click to expand...
the work is bogus. MM is an example of a changed life and someone who converted and followed Jesus. You need to stop reading material like this and Dan Brown which is in the same vein of thinking.
 
ricchetto said:
Strange, the church give her a shade of sinner but the Bible say nothing about her so where the church got the idea that she was a sinner?
I think that for the male dominated church was and still is a bit embarrassing to have a woman smarter then the male apostles.
ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html
Click to expand...
A certain Pope Gregory “the Great” erroneously misidentified Mary Magdalene with
unnamed women in the gospels, leading to the great mistake of calling her a prost-
itute. It was LATER in the 1960s I think that the Church redeemed Mary’s name, an-
nouncing that she WASN’T a prostitute, or at least the Church doesn’t know.

But the damage had been done, so we can kinda
blame Pope Gregory in part for the Da Vinci Code.

I actually like Mary, based on what little I know, believe she brought
Christianity to Syria, little legend that she turned an egg from white
to red miraculously, something about her becoming a hermit, Mary
though a mystery is a very fascinating woman.
 
She is my confirmation Saint. I believe the reason she got a reputation as being a sinner is that Pope Gregory conflated the stories about other different women with hers, i.e. Mary of Bethany, the prostitute who anointed Jesus’ feet, and the adulterous woman. This has led to all sorts of legends and beautiful art.

I think it is safe to say she had a few issues since our Lord cast out 7 demons, yet we don’t know exactly what her sins were. What is clear from the gospel accounts involving her is that he healed her and she loved him deeply, being one of the few who stayed with his mother at the foot of the cross and going to the tomb to anoint his body only to discover he was not there. I imagine she was so transformed by him during her life that she never ever forgot what he did for her. I also believe she must have been very dear to our Lord as she was the first person he chose to reveal himself to after the ressurection.

On her feast day, my pastor gave a homily where he referred to her as the “apostle to the apostles” because of her role in announcing the news to Peter and the others on Easter morning. My pastor is very conservative and quite knowledgeable about the historical facts of the various saints. I think his views are more consistent with the church at large, although as you have noted, there are definitely those out there who still have misunderstandings about her.

In the Orthodox church she is considered to be a saint on par with the apostles.
 
If anything, Mary Magdalene’s life should be a testament to the mysterious and yet wonderful, awesome ways of God. Before she met Jesus, her life must have been terrible and full of darkness. We don’t know for sure if she had committed sexual sins, but she must not have been in her right mind. The poor lady had seven demons possessing her! But after experiencing first hand the saving power of God, she became one of his strongest and most loyal supporters, refusing to abandon Him when all hope was lost. Mary was the first disciple to experience the “Easter joy” and bring the Good News to the others.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
A certain Pope Gregory “the Great” erroneously misidentified Mary Magdalene with
unnamed women in the gospels, leading to the great mistake of calling her a prost-
itute. It was LATER in the 1960s I think that the Church redeemed Mary’s name, an-
nouncing that she WASN’T a prostitute, or at least the Church doesn’t know.

But the damage had been done, so we can kinda
blame Pope Gregory in part for the Da Vinci Code.

I actually like Mary, based on what little I know, believe she brought
Christianity to Syria, little legend that she turned an egg from white
to red miraculously, something about her becoming a hermit, Mary
though a mystery is a very fascinating woman.
Click to expand...
There is no way one can “blame” Pope Gregory the great for what Dan Brown wrote in his books. That is a stretch. Whether St Pope Gregory the great was in error or not, we don’t really know. Many Protestant churches share the same view in that she was the prostitute as well. The bigger point is that no one is unredeemable at all even the worst of the worst.
St. Pope Gregory the great might have had access to material or info that we don’t have today and is now lost in time. The late 500 are a lot closer to the time of St. MM than the 1960’s
 
A very old Western tradition, attested to by but not I think originating with St. Gregory the Great, says that Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany (the sister of Martha and Lazarus), the woman caught in adultery, and the woman who anointed Christ and washed his feet with her tears were all the same person. Combined with extra-Biblical legends including that she later came to Europe, this composite Mary became one of the most beloved and inspirational saints of the Middle Ages. Her story was moving, and she became the model for repentant sinners and contemplatives at the same time.
 
ricchetto said:
Strange, the church give her a shade of sinner but the Bible say nothing about her so where the church got the idea that she was a sinner?
I think that for the male dominated church was and still is a bit embarrassing to have a woman smarter then the male apostles.
ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html
Click to expand...
No offense but she had demons cast out of her. I never saw a demon who did not cause one to commit sin.

But above all why are you blaming the CHurch for giving her a shade of a sinner? It was Jesus who said thy sins are forgiven.

Now why would Jesus forgive the sins of someone that was not a sinner?:confused:
 
robwar said:
There is no way one can “blame” Pope Gregory the great for what Dan Brown wrote in his books. That is a stretch. Whether St Pope Gregory the great was in error or not, we don’t really know. Many Protestant churches share the same view in that she was the prostitute as well. The bigger point is that no one is unredeemable at all even the worst of the worst.
St. Pope Gregory the great might have had access to material or info that we don’t have today and is now lost in time. The late 500 are a lot closer to the time of St. MM than the 1960’s
Click to expand...
Agreed and a good point as well.👍

Bottom line is a sinner is forgiven. That is what Jesus’ purpose is. Though I would not go to the extend of saying that there is a seemingly effort to rehabilitate St. MM’s image, it would make no difference for her; that she repented of her sin (whatever that sins were), Jesus forgave her and she would become one of his most faithful followers. And that’s what matters.
 
robwar said:
There is no way one can “blame” Pope Gregory the great for what Dan Brown wrote in
his books. That is a stretch. Whether St Pope Gregory the great was in error or not, we
don’t really know. Many Protestant churches share the same view in that she was the
prostitute as well. The bigger point is that no one is unredeemable at all even the worst
of the worst.
St. Pope Gregory the great might have had access to material or info that we don’t
have today and is now lost in time. The late 500 are a lot closer to the time of St.
MM than the 1960’s
Click to expand...
St. Pope Gregory the great might have had
access to material or info that…the Catholic
Church today has no access to?

THAT is a stretch I think.

You say also, “Many Protestant churches share the same view in that she
was the prostitute as well,” so what? To me that makes it a bigger problem.

The point being made on God’s Mercy is great and all, but if the identifying
Mary Magdalene as a prostitute is is in fact incorrect, it doesn’t take away
from God’s mercy, not at all, but it still isn’t cool.
 
I just can not understand why every time someone come out with a study that put new light into the life of Jesus or those around him the church say that they are heretics or nut case.
Here i am not only refer to the link that i show in my initial posting but to other things as well like the fact that does not make sense that those who never heard about Jesus will not be saved or the missing years (12-13 to 30) in which the church give no explanation or just say that it need to grow up within his family.
Sorry but this sort of attitude goes against logic and i am sure goes against Jesus teaching.
From what i can understand Jesus was open mind not blind mind so i am sure some people do a disservice to him.
 
ricchetto said:
I just can not understand why every time someone come out with a study that put new light into the life of Jesus or those around him the church say that they are heretics or nut case.
Here i am not only refer to the link that i show in my initial posting but to other things as well like the fact that does not make sense that those who never heard about Jesus will not be saved or the missing years (12-13 to 30) in which the church give no explanation or just say that it need to grow up within his family.
Sorry but this sort of attitude goes against logic and i am sure goes against Jesus teaching.
From what i can understand Jesus was open mind not blind mind so i am sure some people do a disservice to him.
Click to expand...
You would expect a Christian to defend her belief if it is being contradicted.

A religion like Christianity is about revelation from God and her belief is contained in the Church (Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium (the Church teaching office).

Basically the Church’s stand is that there is nothing new as far as her belief is concerned. Thus there is no compromise on different finding being inferred to this belief.

You mentioned about a study being made. The Church view on this would be ‘what’s new?’ There is none that is relevant and important that the Church does not know about.

Any other information that may result in the Church’s belief and doctrine being questioned is unacceptable. Thus what you perceive as not logical the reaction of Christians who do not buy such study or suggestion, it is actually a rebuttal what they think is not true.

Nobody is in a better position than the Church in knowing the so- called ‘missing years of Jesus’. And if it should come from other source than the Church, then there is no reason to take it seriously.

You last paragraph in saying it is against Jesus teaching is simply not supported by Jesus teaching unless you can show us the teaching that says so.
 
ricchetto said:
I just can not understand why every time someone come out with a study that put new light into the life of Jesus or those around him the church say that they are heretics or nut case.
Here i am not only refer to the link that i show in my initial posting but to other things as well like the fact that does not make sense that those who never heard about Jesus will not be saved or the missing years (12-13 to 30) in which the church give no explanation or just say that it need to grow up within his family.
Sorry but this sort of attitude goes against logic and i am sure goes against Jesus teaching.
From what i can understand Jesus was open mind not blind mind so i am sure some people do a disservice to him.
Click to expand...
Your post is very arrogant. Richetto.
It is also full of mistakes.
Am I right in thinking that English is not your first language.

Where is the ‘study’ that you refer to?

Surely not the ridiculous link you posted?

Your attitude goes against logic.
 
Reuben_J said:
You would expect a Christian to defend her belief if it is being contradicted.

A religion like Christianity is about revelation from God and her belief is contained in the Church (Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium (the Church teaching office).

Basically the Church’s stand is that there is nothing new as far as her belief is concerned. Thus there is no compromise on different finding being inferred to this belief.

You mentioned about a study being made. The Church view on this would be ‘what’s new?’ There is none that is relevant and important that the Church does not know about.

Any other information that may result in the Church’s belief and doctrine being questioned is unacceptable. Thus what you perceive as not logical the reaction of Christians who do not buy such study or suggestion, it is actually a rebuttal what they think is not true.

Nobody is in a better position than the Church in knowing the so- called ‘missing years of Jesus’. And if it should come from other source than the Church, then there is no reason to take it seriously.

You last paragraph in saying it is against Jesus teaching is simply not supported by Jesus teaching unless you can show us the teaching that says so.
Click to expand...
Sometime the things get stale.
When Jesus went in the temple in Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Passover he was so filled with anger at the desecration of the holy place and at the collusion between the high priest and the merchants that he had to do something about.
This show that nothing stay the same.
The lethargy lead to corruption and pure spirituality turn into false truth.
When you accept something as golden truth just because someone say so without trying to understand the meaning then is all over.
 
ricchetto said:
I just can not understand why every time someone come out with a study that put new light into the life of Jesus or those around him the church say that they are heretics or nut case.
Click to expand...
No one has put out a study that shed new light on the life of Jesus. Someone has put out opinions that have come out of thin air, and yes they are nuts. This is total silliness.
ricchetto said:
Here i am not only refer to the link that i show in my initial posting but to other things as well like the fact that does not make sense that those who never heard about Jesus will not be saved
Click to expand...
The Church does not teach this.
ricchetto said:
or the missing years (12-13 to 30) in which the church give no explanation or just say that it need to grow up within his family.
Click to expand...
They aren’t “missing”. They are simply not relevant to our salvation, Jesus’ public ministry is relevant.

Why do you chase after silly made up stories as if we need to fill in those years?
ricchetto said:
Sorry but this sort of attitude goes against logic and i am sure goes against Jesus teaching.
Click to expand...
It is the website you posted a link to that goes against logic.
ricchetto said:
From what i can understand Jesus was open mind not blind mind so i am sure some people do a disservice to him.
Click to expand...
Jesus was/is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus was/is the Word. Jesus was/is the Light. Jesus’ ministry was public, in the light. There is no secret knowledge. There is no secret Gospel. There is no secret conspiracy surrounding Mary Magdelene.

You are reading fairy tales written by heretics.
 
ricchetto said:
Sometime the things get stale.
When Jesus went in the temple in Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Passover he was so filled with anger at the desecration of the holy place and at the collusion between the high priest and the merchants that he had to do something about.
This show that nothing stay the same.
The lethargy lead to corruption and pure spirituality turn into false truth.
When you accept something as golden truth just because someone say so without trying to understand the meaning then is all over.
Click to expand...
Before I response to this post, I want to know whether you are a troll or not considering there is a warning about not to feed it in a few posts before this.

You are questioning my belief and I am sorry to say you do not speak for me whether it is ‘lethargy’ or it’s ‘all over’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top