Mary Magdelene as first pope and women priests

So I was talking with a person (non-Catholic for the practical intents and purposes of this debate) and was talking about various topics when it came to the papacy and after I cited Mt. 16:18 with “You are Peter…” he said Mary Megdelene was the first pope. With that statement being so far out in left field I wasn’t exactly sure how to respond. On women priests I mentioned the gender of the apostles, to which he asked the role of women in the church. (And one thing he mentioned was pagan priestesses being the reason behind no demale priests.) As a couple of these things were a bit out there, I’m hoping for better explanations I could cite in defense of the Church’s position.

There is, of course, zero evidence of Mary Magdalene ever being a bishop. In any case, Protestants often see bishops, priests, and popes, as unnecessary, so it is really not an issue for them.

Pope John Paul II explained it.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

Ed

Thanks for the link.

As strange as it seems, I’ve heard that claim (about MM being a pope) before. As has been pointed out, there isn’t any evidence, other than fabricated snippets. (She was told to tell the Apostles Easter Sunday, and it goes off into the weeds from there).

Mostly framed by anti-Catholics, as opposed to non-Catholics.

Blessings,
Stephie

Mary Magdalene has been given the short end of the stick in popular culture, particularly in the west. That is very true, though it was not always so, and thankfully it is changing. She was a very close disciple of Christ. She very likely assisted in evangelization and spreading the Gospel.

But there is no evidence that she had the role of Bishop or priest.

You’re welcome.

Ed :slight_smile:

Absolute, 100% made-up hogwash.

It is not even seen in the spurious, rejected apocryphal writings. Not a peep in the Dead Sea scrolls or any other archeological site. Nothing until after the “reformation” when all of the other whoppers popped up. One then wonders where her See was, where her successor is, and which presbyters she laid hands on and ordained are. Why she wrote nothing, even through a secretary. And this person probably hangs on Joyce Meyer’s every word! :rolleyes:

The evil one knows that the best lie is the big lie.

@Ed, I suppose it is time I read JPII’s document. Thanks for the link.

@Poguy, their argument was she was demonized for Peter to take over, but still… I assume John Meyers is a staunch anti-Catholic? Though I’d doubt he’d take him literally word for word.

@all, thanks for the help so far. Kibd of good to kniw there’s not really a basis at all for Mary Magdelene as first pope.

She really wasn’t “demonized” at all (irony- seven demons were cast out of MM).

There are reasons that she was associated with the sinner who anoints Jesus, with the woman caught in adultery, and with Mary of Bethany.

newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm

Pope Gregory’s exegesis in his homily wasn’t until 1591-- nearly 1600 years after “Peter took over”… since we have writings from the first and second century listing the Popes we an See there was no conspiracy at all.

She was de-demonised. :smiley:

With apologies to Porky Pig.

Well, in the sense of attaching a sexual sin to her, that’s a form on demonization.

“Mary Magdalene was a prostitute!”

Actually, emmm…the Bible never states that.

But that sin has been attached to her, and that’s a type of demonization.

But it doesn’t matter how bad her sins were or what sort, she’s a wonderful, shining example of a repentant sinner who responded to Our Lord’s call. The worse her sins, the greater and, to an outsider at the time, the more startling her turnaround.
“Though your sins be as scarlet…”

Recently, the celebration of her memorial was raised to a feast day.

St Augustine of Hippo…the Number 2 Doctor of the Church…for years, “not very nice” at all.

There’s nothing in the above that I disagree with.

It doesn’t seem to follow, however, from my point: Mary Magdalene was indeed demonized. She had a sin attached to her which was never recorded in the Scriptures.

That was a quick response!!!

i know what you mean, and it does look more than a bit off, but what other sins could a woman in those days commit to warrant the indwelling of the demons? :shrug:
That’s probably what a lot of folks wonder about.

Anyway, i belong to the group which is happy to leave it hanging in the air. As if it could be any other way under the circumstances!
The main thing is that she’s a beautiful saint, and good for her :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.