Zippy's Allegation/ Mary Magdalen

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lorarose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jimmy:
That is what I have noticed but I am having a little trouble translating it. If possible could you give a little help?
Give me a couple of days.

But Zippy’s point isn’t much of a point. As I stated in an earlier post, Catholics are allowed latitude in interpreting Scripture and the question of Mary Magdalene’s virtue is doubtless not one of the seven infallibly defined points of Scripture (especially since Scripture does not say that she was a prostitue). Thus, the fallible/infallible question does not arise.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Give me a couple of days.

But Zippy’s point isn’t much of a point. As I stated in an earlier post, Catholics are allowed latitude in interpreting Scripture and the question of Mary Magdalene’s virtue is doubtless not one of the seven infallibly defined points of Scripture (especially since Scripture does not say that she was a prostitue). Thus, the fallible/infallible question does not arise.
I have some of it translated(not sure how correct). I will send you what I have so far.
 
Well…I think it is clear I owe Zippy an apology.
I was sure there was not a “homily 33” - and clearly I was wrong.
Sometimes I get so tired of hearing baseless accusations against the Church - that I don’t give some questions enough time to be examined.
It has been very interesting watching this discussion develop.

On the other hand…Pope Gregory the Great has been accused of maligning Mary Magdalen’s reputation.
I’m not convinced of that and will wait to see some opinions on the translation of this homily.

Thank you everyone for participating here!
 
Hello folks, the translation is complete. This was done with alot of help from mercygate. Here it is
Cogitanti mihi de Mariae poenitentia, flere magis libet quam aliquid dicere. Cujus enim vel saxeum pectus illae hujus peccatricis lacrymae ad exemplum poenitendi non emolliant? Consideravit namque quid fecit, et noluit moderari quid faceret. Super convivantes ingressa est, non jussa venit, inter epulas lacrymas obtulit. Discite quo dolore ardet, quae flere et inter epulas non erubescit. Hanc vero quam Lucas peccatricem mulierem, Joannes Mariam nominat, illam esse Mariam credimus de qua Marcus septem daemonia eject fuisse testatur. Et quid per septem daemonia, nisi univera vitia designantur? Quia enim septem diebus omne tempus comprehenditur, recte septenario numero universitas figuratur. Septem ergo daemonia Maria habuit, quae universis vitiis plena fuit. Sed ecce quia turpitudinis suae maculas aspexit, lavanda ad fontem misericordiae cucurrit, convivantes non erubuit. Nam quia semetipsam graviter erubescebat intus, nihil esse credidit quod verecundaretur foris. Quid ergo miramur, fratres, Mariam venientem, an Dominum suscipientem? Suscipientem dicam, an trahentem? dicam melius, trahentem et suscipientem, quia nimirum ipse eam per misericordiam traxit intus, qui per mansuetudinem suscepit foris. Sed jam textum sancti Evangelii percurrentes, ipsum quoque ordinem quo venerit sananda, videamus.
in reflection for myself about the repentance of Mary, with much weeping, she poured out more than words can say. Indeed would those tears of this sinful woman not soften even the stony heart by a model of repentant? She has considered in somuch as what she has done, and she was unwilling to control what she might have been doing. While they were eating she entered, she came uncommanded, during the meal and she presented tears. Learn about the pain which is burning, between meals she is not ashamed to cry. This woman, in truth, whom Luke calls the sinfull woman, John names Mary, that woman we believe to be the Mary from whom seven demons were ejected according to Mark. And what by the seven demons, if not all the vices are denoted? Because the whole time is understood to be with seven days, correctly the whole is formed by a total of seven. Therefore Mary had seven demons, which she was full with the whole vices. But behold because she looked at the taint of her own shame, having to be cleansed she has run to the source of compassion, she was not ashamed while they ate. For since she was deeply ashamed within herself, she understood that nothing outside of herself could embarrass her. For at what should we marvel, brethren, Mary’s coming or the Lord’s receiving her? Receiving or drawing? I say rather, drawing *and *receiving, for certainly he drew in by mercy, that which he received through the door of gentleness.
 
As you can see Mary is not being degraded in this passage. She is honored.
 
40.png
jimmy:
Hello folks, the translation is complete. This was done with alot of help from mercygate. Here it is

in reflection for myself about the repentance of Mary, with much weeping, she poured out more than words can say. Indeed would those tears of this sinful woman not soften even the stony heart by a model of repentant? She has considered in somuch as what she has done, and she was unwilling to control what she might have been doing. While they were eating she entered, she came uncommanded, during the meal and she presented tears. Learn about the pain which is burning, between meals she is not ashamed to cry. This woman, in truth, whom Luke calls the sinfull woman, John names Mary, that woman we believe to be the Mary from whom seven demons were ejected according to Mark. And what by the seven demons, if not all the vices are denoted? Because the whole time is understood to be with seven days, correctly the whole is formed by a total of seven. Therefore Mary had seven demons, which she was full with the whole vices. But behold because she looked at the taint of her own shame, having to be cleansed she has run to the source of compassion, she was not ashamed while they ate. For since she was deeply ashamed within herself, she understood that nothing outside of herself could embarrass her. For at what should we marvel, brethren, Mary’s coming or the Lord’s receiving her? Receiving or drawing? I say rather, drawing *and *receiving, for certainly he drew in by mercy, that which he received through the door of gentleness.
OK, the translation is rocky, but the original statement was that Gregory called the Magdalene a prostitute. Now, that was a long-held interpretation, but does Gregory specify here that she was a prostitute?

Again, I reaffirm that the status of Mary Magdalene’s virtue is almost certainly not one of the officially defined passages of Scripture. Therefore to think that Mary was a prostitute, would not violate any principle of “infallibility.”
 
It is very beautiful!

I don’t see that he calls her a prostitute - only confirming what scripture says about the 7 demons.

It is sad this would be used as evidence that she was being maligned when actually it is a very beautiful tribute.

Thank you Jimmy and Mercygate!
I wasn’t expecting someone would have to work so hard during this thread - your efforts are greatly appreciated!
 
40.png
Lorarose:
It is very beautiful!

I don’t see that he calls her a prostitute - only confirming what scripture says about the 7 demons.

It is sad this would be used as evidence that she was being maligned when actually it is a very beautiful tribute.

Thank you Jimmy and Mercygate!
I wasn’t expecting someone would have to work so hard during this thread - your efforts are greatly appreciated!
He calls her a sinful woman and relates that to the seven demons. It is understood that the Magdalene prostituted herself, but that does not demean her character, especially after her conversion. I honestly do not understand why there should be a fuss as to the sinfulness of Mary of Magdala. The Scripture says that 7 sins were cast out of her.

MaggieOH
 
The odd thing about this thread is this: The topic of Mary Magdalene (IMO) is NOT a very big deal as it concerns infallibility. Although I think a mighty FINE job has been done to show Zippy the errors of his ways…I noticed he hasn’t posted for awhile on this thread…people like him like to find the eeniest, tiniest speck that seems to appear in Catholic teaching and then go after it with a vengeance. (Typical straw-man argument) and then can’t fess up when he or she is proven wrong. This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. -Just my two cents and not worth much more, -Maranajewell
 
40.png
Maranajewell:
The odd thing about this thread is this: The topic of Mary Magdalene (IMO) is NOT a very big deal as it concerns infallibility. Although I think a mighty FINE job has been done to show Zippy the errors of his ways…I noticed he hasn’t posted for awhile on this thread . . . -Maranajewell
Zippy resigned from this thread (I think it was post #2) because she was sticking with the “facts.” But as you point out, the topic of Mary Magdalene is not related to infallibility. The identity of the Magdalene prior to her conversion is unclear from Scripture. It is as reasonable to accept the tradition that she was a prostitute as that she was somebody else. The point of Christianity is that after conversion we are “new.” The Magdalene, in some sense, did not “exist” until she met the Lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top