Mary Magdelene Questions

[T1Catholic]

I listened to a radio interview yesterday on the CBC with a former nun and “Catholic critic” who has written a book I believe called “The Magdelene Moment”( www.cbcradio.ca ). She basically spewed the ususal nonsense about Jesus and Mary being lovers, Mary Magdelene being pushed down by the Church, etc, etc. But she said two things which I couldn’t refute in mind because I don’t know the answers.

She said that the early Church (first six hundred years) called Mary Magdelene the “Aposlte to the Apostles” because she was the brightest and most intelligent of all apostles and that she really was a real driver behind the growth of Christianity. Is there any truth to the reason why she was called the Apostle to the Apostles?

Then she said in the 6th century, a Pope (can’t recall) said that Mary Magdelene was in fact the same woman as the prostitute in scripture. She said this belief was held until the 20th century when another Pope I can’t remember said the Church had been wrong all those centuries and that the two were not one in the same. Is it true that the Church did say it was wrong in the past on this matter?

Any help would be most appreciated becuase I’m going to fire off a letter to the station detailing all the wrong facts they allowed this woman to present as truth.

 

[NotWorthy]

A quick Google will for “Apostle of the Apostles” will provide many links. They all claim that the ECF’s called her by that title, but they don’t show any of the quotes. I noticed that the sites that referenced this title are often looking for the Catholic Church to quit downplaying women’s roles in the Church.

I looked on Catholic Encyclopedia, and didn’t find the title, but I’ll look at a few other sites.

It was tradition that called her a prostitute. It was never a formal teaching. Hence, if a Pope contradicted this belief, it doesn’t indicate any profound shift in teaching.

 

[runandsew]

I only know that it is tradition (with a small t) that Mary Magdalene and the women that anointed Jesus’ feet with oil, (John says that women was Mary of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus fame), were the same person. As for the rest, you could probably find information refuting this claim in one of the many anti-DeVinci code books or articles that have been written in the last few years.

 

[tee_eff_em]

She said that the early Church (first six hundred years) called Mary Magdelene the “Aposlte to the Apostles” because she was the brightest and most intelligent of all apostles and that she really was a real driver behind the growth of Christianity. Is there any truth to the reason why she was called the Apostle to the Apostles?

I have heard of her called the apostle to the Apostles – And by good and holy Catholics – But not for the silly reason given above. Rather, it is because she is the first to see the risen Lord, and he sends her to his brethren to tell them. An apostle is one who is sent.

tee

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I listened to a radio interview yesterday on the CBC with a former nun and “Catholic critic” who has written a book I believe called “The Magdelene Moment”( www.cbcradio.ca ). She basically spewed the ususal nonsense about Jesus and Mary being lovers, Mary Magdelene being pushed down by the Church, etc, etc. But she said two things which I couldn’t refute in mind because I don’t know the answers.

This one seems to have become an established myth. It’s not technically a common atheist argument, but maybe I should have incuded it.

She said that the early Church (first six hundred years) called Mary Magdelene the “Aposlte to the Apostles” because she was the brightest and most intelligent of all apostles and that she really was a real driver behind the growth of Christianity. Is there any truth to the reason why she was called the Apostle to the Apostles?

The obvious answer is right. An apostle was an eyewitness to the Resurrection. Mary Magdalene was the first witness, and testified to the twelve before they too were granted sight of the risen Jesus. Therefore she was apostle to the apostles. As for her IQ, we simply don’t know. She may have played a leading role in the early church, but not a dominant one, again there is little real evidence.

Then she said in the 6th century, a Pope (can’t recall) said that Mary Magdelene was in fact the same woman as the prostitute in scripture. She said this belief was held until the 20th century when another Pope I can’t remember said the Church had been wrong all those centuries and that the two were not one in the same. Is it true that the Church did say it was wrong in the past on this matter?

Any help would be most appreciated becuase I’m going to fire off a letter to the station detailing all the wrong facts they allowed this woman to present as truth.

Tradition has it the Mary of Magdalene was a prostitute, which would probably have meant a mistress rather than a street hooker. As the other poster said, this is only a tradition and you in no wise have to believe it to be a good Catholic. It does make perfect sense that Jesus would have chosen such a person as His chief female disciple.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, finally I found something.

Hippolytus called her the Apostle to the Apostles. And, as was previously posted, this was because she was the first witness of the Resurrection

As Hippolytus said, she was the apostle to the apostles:

Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, `I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.

 

[NotWorthy]

While some often claim her role was repressed by the Early Church to prevent women from being priest, I’ve heard people use this scene to justify women not being priests.

Notice Jesus doesn’t let Mary touch him. Later on, though, he lets the Apostles touch him, feel the nail imprints, and put their hands in His side. Why is this?

In ancient Israel, after an animal was sacrificed, it could only be handled by a Levite Priest before it was burned in a holocaust, where the smoke would ascend to heaven as a pleasing odor to the Lord.

Jesus, the Paschal Sacrifice, hadn’t ascended to heaven, so He could only be touched by the priests of the New Covenant, the Apostles. He even alludes to this when He tells Mary, “Do not touch me, for I haven’t ascended to the Father yet… (paraphrasing)”.

Before you ask, no this is not official Catholic doctrine, that I’m aware of. But it was explained as a theory by noted Catholic Bible Scholar, Tim Gray.

 

[heart_and_soul]

The pope who combined those women into one, I believe was Pope Gregory the Great. But I understood it was for educational purposes for the masses.
This may be a little off subject, but also at Pentacost, the B.V.Mary was there with the apostles and received the Holy Spirit and did not go out to preach as the apostles did. One more biblical reason for no women priests.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

While some often claim her role was repressed by the Early Church to prevent women from being priest, I’ve heard people use this scene to justify women not being priests.

Notice Jesus doesn’t let Mary touch him. Later on, though, he lets the Apostles touch him, feel the nail imprints, and put their hands in His side. Why is this?

In ancient Israel, after an animal was sacrificed, it could only be handled by a Levite Priest before it was burned in a holocaust, where the smoke would ascend to heaven as a pleasing odor to the Lord.

Jesus, the Paschal Sacrifice, hadn’t ascended to heaven, so He could only be touched by the priests of the New Covenant, the Apostles. He even alludes to this when He tells Mary, “Do not touch me, for I haven’t ascended to the Father yet… (paraphrasing)”.

Before you ask, no this is not official Catholic doctrine, that I’m aware of. But it was explained as a theory by noted Catholic Bible Scholar, Tim Gray.

Fascinating. I notice that the Douay Rheims and King James both say “touch me not”, however, the newer translations all say “do not hold me” or “do not cling to me”. I trust the DRV the most, but I sure wish I knew Greek and Latin… probably Tim Gray knows both. Thanks for sharing, it is definitely something to ponder.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Fascinating. I notice that the Douay Rheims and King James both say “touch me not”, however, the newer translations all say “do not hold me” or “do not cling to me”. I trust the DRV the most, but I sure wish I knew Greek and Latin… probably Tim Gray knows both. Thanks for sharing, it is definitely something to ponder.

The Latin noli me tangere is, indeed, “do not touch me”. By chance, I’ve just been browsing Wikipdeia’s Category:Latin religious phrases which points to a page (Noli me tangere) which asserts the Greek is better rendered as “stop clinging to me”.

tee