Pope Gregory The Great Was Wrong About Mary Magdalene

[SonOfMan]

Perhaps he was right.We will not know until after we die.I for one believe that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same.

Except “perhaps” isnt going to convince someone to be a believer and give up their entire lives for a “perhaps.” The price of a life is a lot to ask for, and for that we need certainty. I am not just talking about Mary Magdalene here, but the bigger picture.

 

[phil19034]

To someone like me, this leaves much doubt in my mind. If a Pope can be wrong on something so trivial, how then can I trust he wont be wrong on much more extraordinary topics?

I can understand what you are saying. However, it requires understanding what is part of the Deposit of Faith and what is not. Knowing who the individual Saints are, what they did, etc. is not part of the Deposit of Faith. Knowing or not knowing St. Mary Magdalene’s history will not affect your salvation.

The Church’s Infallibility (and hence the Pope’s) comes in regards to the Deposit of Faith and Morals. Most of the details regarding St. Mary Magdalene’s story is Catholic/Christian History. However, the lessons conveyed from the accounts deliver the Faith.

God Bless

 

[cjforJesus]

Except “perhaps” isnt going to convince someone to be a believer and give up their entire lives for a “perhaps.” The price of a life is a lot to ask for, and for that we need certainty. I am not just talking about Mary Magdalene here, but the bigger picture.

Now there was a certain man sick, named Lazarus, of Bethania, of the town of Mary and Martha her sister. [2] (And Mary was she that anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair: whose brother Lazarus was sick.) [3] His sisters therefore sent to him, saying: Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. [4] And Jesus hearing it, said to them: This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God: that the Son of God may be glorified by it. [5] Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus.

I think this is a prefiguring of the resurrection. Mary is identified as the woman who anointed Jesus feet.Mary is also the one who was going to anoint Jesus in the tomb.

 

[O_Lumen]

To someone like me, this leaves much doubt in my mind. If a Pope can be wrong on something so trivial, how then can I trust he wont be wrong on much more extraordinary topics?

There’s various levels of authoritative teaching, and a problem that a lot of Catholics and non-Catholics alike have is that they conflate all of them. It does not follow that, if the Holy Spirit preserves *one *type of teaching from being erroneous, that He should by necessity also preserve each of the others as well.

Moreover, people very often forget that it’s only one form of tradition that is dealt with when we discuss infallibility: the divine tradition. So-called ecclesiastical tradition, while it is authoritative, is not preserved by infallibility: and this includes many categories, ranging from canon law to the way in which parishes are decorated.

No one ever argues that, since many, many Popes celebrated Mass ad orientem, that this action was itself an infallible exercise of authority. Why not? Because such a thing is an ecclesiastical tradition and, while it is a way in which we understand the deposit of faith better, it is not the deposit of faith itself.

So avoiding category errors is a great way to more fully grasp infallibility.

Except “perhaps” isnt going to convince someone to be a believer and give up their entire lives for a “perhaps.”

Don’t assume that anything is going to “convince” someone outside of the grace of God. People can be utterly convinced that the Catholic understanding of infallibility is quite rational and quite reasonable, and yet they can utterly reject it. Why? Because understanding something is an act of the intellect; believing it is an act of the will, and the will is not moved to assent to divine truth unless given the grace of faith to do so.

 

[brandonmorris]

Most of the time from what I 've seen from non-catholics espceacially those of the Jehovah’s Witness’s group only want to see what they want to see as to twist statements and Scriptures in order to fit their theology. Just as the same as one would try to claim that the watchtower is infalliable .Just to put a interesting spin on the convo

 

[O_Lumen]

and what did Gregory **actually **say? She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, *we believe to be *the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.

I believe this is from “homily 33,” if Google is to be trusted.

I’m sorry, but anyone who is troubled by this surely must have some other issues that are coloring their perception of things. Because this is really easy to excuse, and I could not, in good conscience, use this homily as evidence of the falsity of papal infallibility, even I genuinely wanted to. I’m sorry, but there’s much better examples, if one really wanted to go at something that has teeth.

 

[phil19034]

I believe this is from “homily 33,” if Google is to be trusted.

I’m sorry, but anyone who is troubled by this surely must have some other issues that are coloring their perception of things. Because this is really easy to excuse, and I could not, in good conscience, use this homily as evidence of the falsity of papal infallibility, even I genuinely wanted to. I’m sorry, but there’s much better examples, if one really wanted to go at something that has teeth.

Furthermore, what is the context of “we believe to be”?

Does the Pope mean “we think she was” or is he declaring a Catholic Belief? I think (though I many be wrong) that he meant “we think she was.”

 

[Gorgias]

To someone like me, this leaves much doubt in my mind. If a Pope can be wrong on something so trivial, how then can I trust he wont be wrong on much more extraordinary topics?

Well, first off, this discussion helps us understand what infallibility is, and what it isn’t:

• It’s not a characteristic of a man: it’s a characteristic of an office – the role of the pope (and sometimes, of the pope acting in union with all the bishops).
• It’s not a characteristic of all activities of a person, but only relative to a certain circumstance, and in a situation in which the pope intends infallibility to be invoked. In fact, the pope makes it clear that this is what he intends by the way he invokes the power of his office. (Think of it this way: let’s suppose a priest were reading the Bible in a kitchen, or reading it at a Bible study when bread and snacks were sitting near him. When he reads, “do this in memory of me”, do we suggest that all the bread in the vicinity becomes the Eucharist? Of course not – that would be silly! Instead, it’s only when the priest is in the context of celebrating the Mass that his intent is to consecrate the Eucharist – and likewise, it’s only when the pope speaks formally, in the context of establishing doctrine or dogma, that infallibility can kick in.)
• It’s a characteristic of God protecting His Church from proclaiming false doctrine. In other words, it’s really saying more about God than about any pope.

How can you trust the doctrine of the Church? Because you trust God, and trust in His promises to protect His Church from error…

 

[Contarini]

Thank you Gorgias.

I just wish that the Pope, given his stature as influential to billions of Christians, wouldn’t proclaim something as truth (in a homily or whatever) if it might not be, because generations of Catholics took what he said in that homily and as time went on (you have heard of the children’s game “telephone” I’m sure), his words morphed into people teaching that “when Jesus rose from the dead, the first person he sought out was a whore.” Now, this could mean that Jesus can forgive any conceivable sin, or it could mean something else not so nice to think about.

It meant the former.

If it was a mistake (and I don’t know that the part about Mary Magdalene being a prostitute was a mistake, though it may have been) it was in many respects a very happy one.

I’m not sure the whole thing was really due just to St. Gregory, and I’m not as sure as many people are that it was wrong in the first place, though the part about Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala being the same probably was wrong.

But it’s entirely unfair to say that a Pope (particularly a sixth-century Pope whose office was relatively less important–only relatively, particularly in St. Gregory’s case since he was one of the greatest Popes ever–and who lived before mass media) is supposed to worry about how people centuries later might interpret something he says in a homily.

A homily is a homily. Popes, like all other preachers, do their best to interpret Scripture faithfully in light of Tradition.

Edwin

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, first off, this discussion helps us understand what infallibility is, and what it isn’t:

• It’s not a characteristic of a man: it’s a characteristic of an office – the role of the pope (and sometimes, of the pope acting in union with all the bishops).
• It’s not a characteristic of all activities of a person, but only relative to a certain circumstance, and in a situation in which the pope intends infallibility to be invoked. In fact, the pope makes it clear that this is what he intends by the way he invokes the power of his office. (Think of it this way: let’s suppose a priest were reading the Bible in a kitchen, or reading it at a Bible study when bread and snacks were sitting near him. When he reads, “do this in memory of me”, do we suggest that all the bread in the vicinity becomes the Eucharist? Of course not – that would be silly! Instead, it’s only when the priest is in the context of celebrating the Mass that his intent is to consecrate the Eucharist – and likewise, it’s only when the pope speaks formally, in the context of establishing doctrine or dogma, that infallibility can kick in.)
• It’s a characteristic of God protecting His Church from proclaiming false doctrine. In other words, it’s really saying more about God than about any pope.

How can you trust the doctrine of the Church? Because you trust God, and trust in His promises to protect His Church from error…

Keeper post.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

… This kind of stuff is why non-Catholics slam the Church for obedience to the Pope, a man.

Well, by that logic non-Catholics should also slam Jesus as He delegated his power and authority just prior to His Ascension to a man – Peter! If Jesus wanted to delegate to a man His authority and power “…what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”, who are we to object or question? Since the Gospel (of the Catholic Church) had to be spread by word of mouth (So faith comes by what is heard…Rom 10:17), as there was no bible until 390 AD, Jesus wanted to insure the leaders of His Church would not teach error in matters pertaining to faith and morals. After all, the bible says to listen to the Church:
…if he refuses to listen even to the church (Mt 18:17)
…you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15)

Notice how Jesus, nor anyone quoted in the bible, says to read, study, memorize or pray with the bible for the truth. We must listen to Jesus and His Church, which btw, gave us the bible, in order to know the truth of Christianity.