The Magdalene Mystery.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

Dear KilgoreTrout,

Good question and I agree with you completely.

The idea was accepted and spread for centuries. You're probably right that it still is, but I don't know that. If so, however, I'm unclear on what you meant by:

The correction was published in The Roman Missal on 3rd April 1969 (under Pope Paul VI) and clarified that they recognised that Mary Magdalene and the 'sinful woman' Mary of Betany were seperate entities, rather than one and the same as had been put forth by Pope Gregory in 591.

It sounds like teaching has been corrected.

Would you like a completely uninformed opinion? (Tough, you're getting it anyway.) Could it be that it was never considered as an crucial problem? Then when it was pointed out, it was corrected and the Church moved on thinking nothing more was necessary?

But, as I say, an uninformed opinion.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I work in an Anglo-Catholic church, and as such I attend services almost every Sunday, though I am not an Anglican myself...anyway...my interest in the subject arose when I attended an Easter Sunday service that mentioned, with a s'n-word', that Mary wore red to indicate her 'shameful past'. Having read the Bible I know that there is no mention of such a 'past' so I was intrigued and investigated further.

Given that Pope Gregory's homily was delivered long before the reformation, and all other subsequent splits from Catholic faith and within Christianity, I feel that the so-called ' First amongst equals' has some responsibility to explain itself and communicate that a quite fundamental error was made, and encouraged to be taught. Interestingly enough, the Eastern Orthodox church does not, and has never, taught that Mary was a whore, or as importantly, a penitent. According to the Eastern tradition, she had nothing to be penitent for.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

I poked around a little and found that some believe Pope Gregory's statement makes sense. Not that it's 100% proven or anything, but still intellectually respectable:

Given the specific references to "Mary Magdalene," the second step is to examine whether Mary Magdalene may also be the penitent woman found in the Gospel of St. Luke (7:36-50). Remember the penitent woman entered the home of Simon the Pharisee. She wept, and her tears fell upon our Lord’s feet. She anointed His feet with perfumed oil and dried them with her hair. Simon the Pharisee said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, He would know who and what sort of woman this is that touches Him — that she is a sinner," an obvious reference to her being "untouchable" because of such a serious sin as adultery, fornication, or promiscuity. In the end, Jesus forgives the penitent woman.

This scene is part of Jesus’ ministry in the area of the Sea of Galilee. Also, right after the declaration of forgiveness in the seventh chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, Mary Magdalene is mentioned by name as a follower of Jesus and identified as the one "from whom seven devils had gone out" (Lk 9:1-3). Keep in mind that Magdalene is derived from Magdala. Magdala, located along the Sea of Galilee near Tiberias, was a wealthy city known for its prosperous fisheries. The Romans destroyed the town because of its moral depravity and its participation in the Jewish revolt. Interestingly, in the Talmud, from the word Magdalene is derived the expression "curling women’s hair," which means "adulteress." Even though the penitent woman of Luke 7 is not specifically identified as the Mary Magdalene "from whom seven devils had gone out" of Luke 8, one could easily draw the conclusion, as did Pope St. Gregory. Moreover, the early Church tradition has also upheld this connection.

The third and more difficult step to the investigation is to see if Mary Magdalene could indeed be Mary of Bethany. Following Luke 8, the gospel in the 9th and 10th chapters relates such stories as the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves, the Transfiguration, the exorcism of a possessed boy and teachings about discipleship. Our Lord then traveled to "a village" (i.e. Bethany, although not specified by Luke) to the home of Martha, who "had a sister named Mary" (confer Lk 10:38-42). There Martha prepared a meal for our Lord.

While the Gospel of St. Luke does not specifically identify Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, the Gospel of St. John helps resolve the issue. In John 12:1-11, Jesus arrived at Bethany, "the village of Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead." Martha served a meal. Mary anointed our Lord’s feet with perfume and dried his feet with her hair. Keep in mind this is a different scene than the anointing by the penitent woman in the home of Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7; nevertheless, the same kind of action in both scenes helps suggests the same actor, namely Mary Magdalene.

Moreover, in John 11, the earlier scene where Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the Gospel reads, "There was a certain man named Lazarus who was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This Mary whose brother Lazarus was sick was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and dried His feet with her hair" (Jn 11:1-2). Here Mary is identified as "the one who anointed the Lord." While some speculate that this identification in John 11 refers to the subsequent anointing in John 12, why would John need to make such a reference when the story of John 11 flows right into the story of John 12? More likely, the identification refers to a previous action, namely the story at the home of Simon the Pharisee.

www.catholicculture.org...

But I don't know how far I have strayed from the original purpose of the thread.

With respect,
Charles1952

It would seem to me that the Roman Catholic Church of old denied Mary Magdalene simply because the Christ is more venerable if he is listed of dying for OUR sins.

I oftenentertain the idea that he did it for Mary his mother and Mary his wife.

Originally posted by charles1952
I poked around a little and found that some believe Pope Gregory's statement makes sense. Not that it's 100% proven or anything, but still intellectually respectable:

I agree, but for me that is also why the whole thing is so very interesting. And politically driven.

Worthy of note, in an odd twist, the gospel reading in church today, was Luke 7:36 to 8:3

Anyway, there are a number of recent theologians who have come to the same conclusion as Pope Gregory, but there is also some disagreement as to whether Simon the Pharisee is the same person as Simon the Leper. Only Luke refers to Simon as a Pharisee, so the general feeling is that, given the overall context, that the woman who anoints the feet of Jesus at the home of Simon the Pharisee, is not the same woman referred to by Mark, Matthew and John, and that while Mark, Matthew and John's story does refer to Mary Magdalene, Luke's does not. I have a tendency to agree, and it is because Luke refers to Mary Magdalene, by name in the very next verse, that I do so. Why would he not make the literal connection if the connection existed? And if Jesus knew the woman, the story of her anointing his feet, as it played out situationally, and as a lesson, makes no sense. Further, Luke describes those women, Mary, Susannah and Joanna, as supporting him from their own means, would Jesus forgive their sins, and then live off their immoral earnings? I find that hard to believe.

But above and beyond that, and what makes Gregory's homily political, is that he instituted, via that homily, firstly, that Mary was a penitent. And yet, she was forgiven and told by Jesus, that she was free of her sins. No penitence required. More importantly though, he not only linked her to the Mary who had seven demons cast from her, but he defined those demons as carnal sins, and gave those sins names. No where are the demons explained until Gregory explains them, and further links her to sin by attaching Mary to the sinful woman.

Gregory is recorded historically as the Pope that brought patriarchy firmly to fore in the Roman Church and his ideas are clearly influenced by the works of Boethius, in my opinion, particularly in his neo-Platonic ideas of women as the originators of sin, and that it is this, that influenced his perception of Mary. In the weltenschauung of Gregory and Boethius women were responsible for the 'fall', and men their hapless victims. Even if Mary had not been 'sinner', she would still be a 'sinner' by grace of her gender, that is how the church and it's intellectual body felt about women at that time. This coupled with the wider politic, the defeat of Gothic rule in Rome under Justinian, and the subsequent problems that followed, there was some need to rule with a firm hand, and as was Rome's way, that generally meant restrictions upon women, and it can be concluded that Gregory was simply saying what everyone wanted to hear, it was all the fault of loose women.

But since there is no record of Gregory's reasoning on the matter, that is pure speculation His reasoning may have been sound, in connecting characters, not necessarily correct but sound all the same, but that does not excuse the license that he exercised in naming the 'seven demons' and making them all refer to sins of the flesh. There, as far as I can tell, he had no basis.

And, still...if his reasoning is sound, doesn't that make the 1969 turnaround all the more intriguing?

reply to post by KilgoreTrout



Red Alert...

reply to post by Kantzveldt

After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41 He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). 42 Immediately the girl stood up and began to walk around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. 43 He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat.

www.biblegateway.com...:21-43

boymonkey74
reply to post by Kantzveldt

 

So If the skull was Jesus that would disprove the resurrection wouldn't it? thus disproving the whole Christian doctrine.

And indeed it does. The church hates the idea of a human Jesus Christ, cause that depends on him living and being married and having heirs to such as his titles and regalia. Rome's idea was to rule the Holy Land of their new religion, not being bothered by some line of Hebrew messiahs to the house of David. So they tailored doctrines to Jesus having no father, his mother being a virgin, and to have been born outside on the coldest and darkest day of the year. And of course there is all the impossible things he is supposed to have done, not to forget dying after heavy torture in his mid thirties, and then miraculously come back to life before swooping into the Heavens never to be seen again. I smell a rat, and it's church doctrine being the devil's invention.

Jesus was a man, a prophet, a rabbi, a husband, who nearly died in his thirties and fled north to an undisclosed location where his bloodline has blended in with European royalty and workingclass. To me it's obvious from reading the books kinda feeling sorry for the guy when seeing how the church have always messed with his carcas. Turning his life into a fairytale that has had great branches of Yggdrasil broken off.

reply to post by Kantzveldt



Arvo Pärt, Berliner Mass VII
Liturgy: Agnus Dei

Kantzveldt

There are four general artifacts that will be seen in association with this theme, a book, the skull, an ointment jar and cross with pronounced vertical proportions.
...

Her closest relationship was to the skull, the evidence would suggest this relates to the skull of Jesus itself, it was her love and she rejected all others;

The way I see it: The skull is relating to the legacy of John the Baptist, symbolic of Faith and Loyalty. The scroll would be symbolic of the Word, the Prophecy. The ointment symbolic of Salvation and Absolution and the extended cross the regalia of the Lamb of God, symbolic Sacrifice or rather Transformation.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout



And it came to pass that after she had eaten she did take up a stick of burnt wood with which she drew the event, much to their further astonishment.






reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Perhaps as you say, though i tend to think more in terms of necromancy

Kantzveldt
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

Perhaps as you say, though i tend to think more in terms of necromancy

All four relics are directly related to life and death in one way or the other, so to think along the lines of necromancy is adequate I suppose. Good thread BTW. S&F

Utnapisjtim
The way I see it: The skull is relating to the legacy of John the Baptist, symbolic of Faith and Loyalty. The scroll would be symbolic of the Word, the Prophecy. The ointment symbolic of Salvation and Absolution and the extended cross the regalia of the Lamb of God, symbolic Sacrifice or rather Transformation.

edit on 23-1-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: typo & syntax error

The ointment is symbolic of the Christos and the Holy Spirit...

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[a] 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life.

26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

www.biblegateway.com...

KilgoreTrout

Utnapisjtim
The way I see it: The skull is relating to the legacy of John the Baptist, symbolic of Faith and Loyalty. The scroll would be symbolic of the Word, the Prophecy. The ointment symbolic of Salvation and Absolution and the extended cross the regalia of the Lamb of God, symbolic Sacrifice or rather Transformation.

edit on 23-1-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: typo & syntax error

The ointment is symbolic of the Christos and the Holy Spirit...

Yes, that I just see that as salvation and absolution. Kings and high priests were annointed (Meschiach means annointed).

There is also a fifth element which should be noticed in depictions of Rosemarie: The royal blue gown, often mixed with crimson elements, both symbolic of the Bloodline.

Utnapisjtim

KilgoreTrout

Utnapisjtim
The way I see it: The skull is relating to the legacy of John the Baptist, symbolic of Faith and Loyalty. The scroll would be symbolic of the Word, the Prophecy. The ointment symbolic of Salvation and Absolution and the extended cross the regalia of the Lamb of God, symbolic Sacrifice or rather Transformation.

edit on 23-1-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: typo & syntax error

The ointment is symbolic of the Christos and the Holy Spirit...

Yes, that

I just see that as salvation and absolution. Kings and high priests were annointed (Meschiach means annointed).

Splitting hairs I know, but I would consider salvation and absolution to be related to the rite of baptism, a lay practice and quite different to the tradition of anoiting. As you point out, Kings and High Priests were anointed. By that act, they entered into the service of the Divine and essentially became instruments of god on earth. Hence the connection with the Holy Spirit, and to become possessed of god. Anoiting belongs to a much older tradition. Jesus of Nazareth becomes Jesus Christ, the instrument of god, through the anointment.

The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.

1 Samuel 2:10

Anointing with oil generally meant a person or object was ‘set aside’ for divine service. This was a form of sanctification identifying a person as a priest and/or king—a messiah. This sanctifying practice extends back to the goddess tradition of the Near Eastern religions where “anointing the head of the king with oil was a ritual performed by the heiress or royal priestess who represented the Goddess. In Greek, this rite was called the hieros gamos or ‘Sacred Marriage.’ The anointing of the head had erotic significance, the head being symbolic of the phallus ‘anointed’ by the woman for penetration during the physical consummation of marriage…. Through his union with the priestess, the king/consort received royal status, he became known as the ‘Anointed One’—in Hebrew, the ‘Messiah.’”

www.revolutioninreligion.com...

To be a little bit more explicit about this tradition and it's origin and meaning...

We may conclude with the following passage from Captain Burton, which exhibits similar customs among a rude and barbarous people of the present day: "Among all barbarians whose primal want is progeny, we observe a greater or less development of the phallic worship. In Dahome it is uncomfortably prominent. Every street from Whydah to the capital is adorned with the symbol, and the old ones are not removed. The Dahoman Priapus is a clay figure, of any size between a giant and the pigmy, crouched upon the ground, as if contemplating its own attributes. The head is sometimes a wooden block rudely carved, more often dried mud, and the eyes and teeth are supplied by cowries. The tree of life is anointed with palm-oil, which drips into a pot or a shard placed below it, and the would-be mother of children prays that the great god Legba will make her fertile."

www.sacred-texts.com...

KilgoreTrout
Splitting hairs I know, but I would consider salvation and absolution to be related to the rite of baptism,

When Jesus was baptised (he never baptised anyone himself, atleast not in the Bible) the Spirit came by in the shape of a dove. The way I see it, the Christ brings salvation by conquering evil and delivering mankind establishing eternal peace, and the Holy Spirit is the only power in the Universe that can bring absolution, how it penetrates even the thickest floors of Hell or the most distant parts of the world, who knows everything about everyone ever.

Utnapisjtim

KilgoreTrout
Splitting hairs I know, but I would consider salvation and absolution to be related to the rite of baptism,

When Jesus was baptised (he never baptised anyone himself, atleast not in the Bible) the Spirit came by in the shape of a dove. The way I see it, the Christ brings salvation by conquering evil and delivering mankind establishing eternal peace, and the Holy Spirit is the only power in the Universe that can bring absolution, how it penetrates even the thickest floors of Hell or the most distant parts of the world, who knows everything about everyone ever.

I suppose relatively speaking, in principle. On a one by one basis. However, there are numerous flaws in...or omissions from, your synopsis in the practical sense. Demonstrably, faith in itself is insufficient in combatting evil, rather it is as likely to create it, destroying peace...for example.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Salvation actually means annointing, as in the annointed, the Meschiach....

Utnapisjtim
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

Salvation actually means annointing, as in the annointed, the Meschiach....

If you say so...but I disagree, or rather, it doesn't have that meaning to me. Kristos, or Christ, the 'anointed one', is the route to salvation according to some traditions, so possibly belief in the anointed one is the same as salvation to some, but the anointing itself is not salvation. Anointing is the process by which someone becomes an instrument of god, hence why it is also equal to the Holy Spirit, as that too, when it is received within, similarly gives that person over to god's will. The older tradition of anointing clearly marks the evolution of both practice and the beliefs behind such ritual. I suppose in the more passive Paulian sense, anointing could mean salvation, but I remain unconvinced though, and prefer my own interpretation, as I am sure you do yours.

All the best