Zippy's Allegation/ Mary Magdalen


#1

Yes folks - another thread to keep anti-catholics from hijacking other threads.
Originally posted by Zippy in the non-catholic religion forum - the DaVinci Code:

In homily 33 Pope Gregory identified Mary as a prostitute…this is clearly not true.

In 1969 the Vatican FINALLY corrected this infallible error…

Now…Deacon Ed responded to Zippy and corrected the error.
Gregory the Great did not leave behind homilies - but he did leave behind epistles.
Examining epistle 33 reveals no statements concerning Mary Magdalene.

Zippy persists that Gregory the Great taught that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
Zippy is claiming this refutes the doctrine of infallibility since the the Church has said that Mary Magdalene may not have been a prostitute.
Zippy also accuses the Church of twisting history and only invoking infallibility when it suits the church.

What say all of you?


#2

[quote=Lorarose]Yes folks - another thread to keep anti-catholics from hijacking other threads.
Originally posted by Zippy in the non-catholic religion forum - the DaVinci Code:

Now…Deacon Ed responded to Zippy and corrected the error.
Gregory the Great did not leave behind homilies - but he did leave behind epistles.
Examining epistle 33 reveals no statements concerning Mary Magdalene.

Zippy persists that Gregory the Great taught that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
Zippy is claiming this refutes the doctrine of infallibility since the the Church has said that Mary Magdalene may not have been a prostitute.
Zippy also accuses the Church of twisting history and only invoking infallibility when it suits the church.

What say all of you?
[/quote]

It certainly is fair and honest of you to also provide the PROOF that I cited in my responses.

Since you don’t see fit to create the full picture, I’ll fill in your gap for you


Why then in the Roman Missal if 1969 did they correct a statement that was never made?

You can continue to ignore historical facts, but it really doesn’t help one end up at the TRUTH.

I refrained from continuing the discussion on that thread because the moderator said that things were getting off topic. In keeping with the rules of the forum, I complied with that request.

The fact reamins that Gregory the Great DID make the statements I stated, THAT IS A FACT!!! Even catholic websites like doctorsofthecatholicchurc h.com/GG.html confirm (scroll to the very bottom of the page) I did not make anything up, and the catholic government has in fact altered it’s view of Mary Magdalene.

I have read and quote that: “The universal church in its general revision of the Roman Missal in 1969, essentially retracted the assertion Pope Gregory the Great made in a sermon in 591: that she whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John called Mary (of Bethany), we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.” That was how the church viewed Mary Magdalen then…But Mary Magdalen’s voice is being heard more and more now.

Seems that you may want to brush up a bit on your history…

It’s also very sad that it took the “church” over 1300 years to correct this blatant lie…


stthomasirondequoit.com/…Alive/id114.htm

When the Catholic Church revised the Missal in 1969, the wiser view was adopted that Mary Magdalene was separate from the sinning woman and Mary of Bethany. Now her feast recognizes only the woman from Magdala. The collect of her Mass says, “Father, your Son first entrusted to Mary Magdalene the joyful news of His resurrection…” In the north window of this church of St. Thomas the Apostle, she and St. Thomas the Doubter are represented flanking the Risen Christ. Both were primary witnesses of His resurrection: Mary Magdalene to whom He first lovingly disclosed Himself; Thomas, the skeptic turned rapturous believer: “My Lord and my God.” Excertp from stthomasirondequoit.com (link above)

[harpercollins.co.uk/Reso...y_ga rdner.pdf](“http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Reso...y_ga rdner.pdf”)

I’ll not be participating in this thread any further…the FACTS speak for themselves


#3

Still lookiing for the “proof” Zippy!

Gregory the Great’s epistle 33 says no such thing.
The links you provide don’t say that he did either.


#4

Originally posted by Zippy:

msnbc.msn.com/id/3606237/site/newsweek/

Was Mary M. a prostitute?
This misperception probably began with a sermon by Pope Gregory the Great in A.D. 591 in which he conflated several figures into one. In 1969 the Vatican officially overruled Gregory.

How many citations do you want…

Well…here’s the problem,
You’ve provided sources that don’t list their source.
There is reference to a “sermon by Pope Gregory the Great in AD 591”

When you were pressed to specify which sermon this was - you said “homily 33” didn’t you?

Only there ISN’T a “homily 33”. There is an epistle 33 - but that said no such thing.

Where can I find this sermon Zippy?

And tell me what this has to do with the doctrine of infalliblity?


#5

[quote=Lorarose]Still lookiing for the “proof” Zippy!

Gregory the Great’s epistle 33 says no such thing.
The links you provide don’t say that he did either.
[/quote]

I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to fo out and learn the truth yourself? Why would you look to others to do the research for you? Are you afraid that you’ll learn that I am sharing the truth with you?

I’ve cited several sources that clearly state that Mary Magdalene was misrepresented by Pope Gregory in the year 591, and that the catholic church revised his teachings in 1969. Many of those sources are from catholic resources, they are factual.


#6

The information provided by Zippy is a load of … I have just touched on two links. The first link had information about St. Gregory the Great, and at the end of the page was that little piece that has no relationship with the rest of the page.

Another link provided was that of a Fr. McNamara and he in fact has claimed that there were three women named Mary who had a special link with Jesus. Mary of Bethany, Mary of Magdala and the woman who wiped the feet of Jesus. From my own reading of Scripture, I will go out on a limb and state that Fr. McNamara is wrong. Whilst it cannot be certain that Mary of Bethany is the same as Mary of Magdala, it is certain that Mary of Magdala is the same woman who wiped the feet of Jesus and then anointed him with oil. The woman caught in the act of adultery was not the same woman, and she alone is separate because we have no proof that she repented of her sins.

"One of the Pharisees invited him to a meal. When he arrived at the Pharisee’s house and took his place at table, a woman came in, who had a bad name in the town, She had heard that he would be dining with the Pharisee and had brought with her an alabaster jar of ointment… When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself "If this man were a prophet, he would know who this woman is that is touching him and what a bad name she has." (Luke 7: 36-50 - for the whole text)


Now immediately following on from this scene when the woman’s sins are forgiven is the following text:

“Now after this he made his way through towns and villages, preaching, and proclaiming the Good news of the Kingdom of God. With him went the Twelve, as well as certain women who had been cleaned of evil spirits and ailments; Mary, surnamed the Magdalene, from whom seven devils had gone out…” (Luke 8:1-3)

Matthew also mentions this woman and at the point when she anoints Jesus a second time, he does not mention her name, but the incident happened in the house of Simon the Leper at Bethany. One is left to draw a conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that this woman could be Mary of Bethany. Then we have the Gospel of Mark also does not name the woman at Bethany. However, the Gospel of John has a different take on this scene. The house is now identified as not that of Simon the Leper, but where Lazarus was with his sisters, Martha and Mary. Now John the Apostle positively identifies Mary of Bethany as the woman who anoints Jesus at Bethany.

As I said, I can see what Scripture has to say, and Mary of Magdala, who is also identified as Mary of Bethany is the same woman out of whom seven devils were cast. She had a reputation in Jersualem as a prostitute. It does not matter if she did have such a reputation because she is a sign of what can happen when one who has committed so much in the way of sin repents and returns to the Father.

As for what is in the 1969 missal, well unless I saw it in writing in front of me… I cannot verify the information because a missal is a strange place to have such an admission.

MaggieOH


#7

The quote that zippy makes is false and it is not from Gregory.

Zippy I have done a search for this, incase it was miss labeled as homily 33(there are no homilies from Gregory the Great). I have not found this statement anywhere except in papers that people have written where they make this quote of Gregory. I have not found it in anything from Gregory. Here are all passages in the writings of Gregory that use the word seven.

Quote:

[font=MS Sans Serif]or that the seven days sanctioned by the Lord’s command in the Law, during which only it is enjoined that the Lord’s Passover could lawfully be eaten (which are to be numbered from the 14th day of the moon to the 20th), should against law and right be exceeded? [font=Arial]REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, BOOK IX Epistle CXXVII[/font]

Quote:
For, if Easter is to be celebrated on the 21st or 22nd day, from the 14th to the 22nd nine days will be reckoned, that is, seven ordered by God, and two added by men. Epistle REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, BOOK IX Epistle CXXVII

Quote:
Which thing Paul insinuates well, when, manifesting the secret of his affection for us, he says, seven as I please all men in all things (1 Cor. x. 33). Books of Pastoral Rule of Gregory the Great Roman Pontiff to John Bishop of the City of Ravenna, Part II Chapter VIII

Quote:
Moreover, it is now even seven years that we have been living in this city among the swords of the Lombards. REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, BOOK V Epistle XXI

Quote:
He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, BOOK VII Epistle XL

Quote:
Seeing, then, that those who hold the office of Guardians are known to labour in the causes of the Church and in the service of the pontiffs, we have thought fit that they should enjoy the following prerogatives, granted to them for recompense; – appointing that, as in the school (schola) of notaries and subdeacons, through the indulgence of pontiffs long ago, there have been constituted regionarii, so also among the Guardians seven who may have commended themselves by proved utility shall be distinguished by the dignity of regionarii. REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE GREAT, BOOK VIII **Epistle XIV **

That is all of the mentions of the word seven in Gregory’s writings. They do not use the number 7 unless the translator is referencing something.

I have found the quote that you have given, but it is in none of Gregorys writings. I have found it in articles written by people quoting Gregory.[/font]


#8

[quote=Zippy]It certainly is fair and honest of you to also provide the PROOF that I cited in my responses.

Since you don’t see fit to create the full picture, I’ll fill in your gap for you


Why then in the Roman Missal if 1969 did they correct a statement that was never made?

You can continue to ignore historical facts, but it really doesn’t help one end up at the TRUTH.

I refrained from continuing the discussion on that thread because the moderator said that things were getting off topic. In keeping with the rules of the forum, I complied with that request.

The fact reamins that Gregory the Great DID make the statements I stated, THAT IS A FACT!!! Even catholic websites like doctorsofthecatholicchurc h.com/GG.html confirm (scroll to the very bottom of the page) I did not make anything up, and the catholic government has in fact altered it’s view of Mary Magdalene.

I have read and quote that: “The universal church in its general revision of the Roman Missal in 1969, essentially retracted the assertion Pope Gregory the Great made in a sermon in 591: that she whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John called Mary (of Bethany), we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.” That was how the church viewed Mary Magdalen then…But Mary Magdalen’s voice is being heard more and more now.

Seems that you may want to brush up a bit on your history…

It’s also very sad that it took the “church” over 1300 years to correct this blatant lie…


stthomasirondequoit.com/…Alive/id114.htm

When the Catholic Church revised the Missal in 1969, the wiser view was adopted that Mary Magdalene was separate from the sinning woman and Mary of Bethany. Now her feast recognizes only the woman from Magdala. The collect of her Mass says, “Father, your Son first entrusted to Mary Magdalene the joyful news of His resurrection…” In the north window of this church of St. Thomas the Apostle, she and St. Thomas the Doubter are represented flanking the Risen Christ. Both were primary witnesses of His resurrection: Mary Magdalene to whom He first lovingly disclosed Himself; Thomas, the skeptic turned rapturous believer: “My Lord and my God.” Excertp from stthomasirondequoit.com (link above)

harpercollins.co.uk/Reso…y_ga rdner.pdf

I’ll not be participating in this thread any further…the FACTS speak for themselves
[/quote]

That is not much of a source for your claims.


#9

. The woman caught in the act of adultery was not the same woman, and she alone is separate because we have no proof that she repented of her sins.
MaggieOH
Tell Mel Gibson that…
I do not care for the "hard facts"
In our community we have a special devotion to the patron Saint of repentant sinners aka Saint Mary Magdalen.
We see the Magdalen as having been a woman of loose morals and therefore probably indulged in self-destructive behaviour (the drug of the day). It was only her Love for Christ and his mercy that she was healed and became the great intercessor she is today.
If you have a time machine, we can all go back and pick every little detail, but we dont have a time machine. The spirit of the story is enough. :thumbsup:


#10

[quote=CreosMary]. The woman caught in the act of adultery was not the same woman, and she alone is separate because we have no proof that she repented of her sins.
MaggieOH
[/quote]

Tell Mel Gibson that…
I do not care for the "hard facts"
In our community we have a special devotion to the patron Saint of repentant sinners aka Saint Mary Magdalen.
We see the Magdalen as having been a woman of loose morals and therefore probably indulged in self-destructive behaviour (the drug of the day). It was only her Love for Christ and his mercy that she was healed and became the great intercessor she is today.
If you have a time machine, we can all go back and pick every little detail, but we dont have a time machine. The spirit of the story is enough. :thumbsup:
I don’t really pick a side on the story of Mary Magdalen. Either way she was an incredible woman. I have thought of it in the way you think of it.


#11

So…Is “Zippy” lying outright or what? :stuck_out_tongue:


#12

CreosMary and Jimmy,

I agree with both of you.

I have 2 problems I’ve been trying to address.

First of all…I am trying to figure out if something is being attributed to Pope Gregory the Great that he may actually never have done.

Second of all…I don’t know why someone would think this has anything to do with infallibility.

We have been accused of skewing history - and so I want to take an honest look at history and see who is doing the “skewing.”


#13

[quote=CreosMary]. The woman caught in the act of adultery was not the same woman, and she alone is separate because we have no proof that she repented of her sins.
MaggieOH
[/quote]

Tell Mel Gibson that…
I do not care for the "hard facts"
In our community we have a special devotion to the patron Saint of repentant sinners aka Saint Mary Magdalen.
We see the Magdalen as having been a woman of loose morals and therefore probably indulged in self-destructive behaviour (the drug of the day). It was only her Love for Christ and his mercy that she was healed and became the great intercessor she is today.
If you have a time machine, we can all go back and pick every little detail, but we dont have a time machine. The spirit of the story is enough. :thumbsup:
Mary,

you have got it perfectly because that explains the seven devils that were cast out. I maintain that Mary Magdalene is not the same woman as the one caught in the act of adultery. She is the woman who wept on the feet of Jesus.

There is nothing in the text of John’s Gospel that points to the other woman even repenting of her action. She is told to go and not sin again. She is not condemned but where does it say she was forgiven.

BTW Mel Gibson is not a theologian or an interpreter of the Scriptures, and I do not care what anyone says, I do not like the writing of Anne Catherine Emmerich. I just cannot read what she has written.


#14

[quote=Lorarose]CreosMary and Jimmy,

I agree with both of you.

I have 2 problems I’ve been trying to address.

First of all…I am trying to figure out if something is being attributed to Pope Gregory the Great that he may actually never have done.

Second of all…I don’t know why someone would think this has anything to do with infallibility.

We have been accused of skewing history - and so I want to take an honest look at history and see who is doing the “skewing.”
[/quote]

:bowdown2: I agree with you


#15

So…Is “Zippy” lying outright or what?

So far I suspect that Zippy happened upon this unsubstantiated quote that has been attributed to Pope Gregory the Great and then proceeded to build a fanciful tale around that.

Unless someone can prove me wrong…


#16

[quote=Lorarose]CreosMary and Jimmy,

I agree with both of you.

I have 2 problems I’ve been trying to address.

First of all…I am trying to figure out if something is being attributed to Pope Gregory the Great that he may actually never have done.

Second of all…I don’t know why someone would think this has anything to do with infallibility.

We have been accused of skewing history - and so I want to take an honest look at history and see who is doing the “skewing.”
[/quote]

I have a program on my computer that I downloaded where you can search the writings of the fathers for specific words. I have searched Gregorys writings and found nothing that comes close to the claimed quote. I realize it would be better to read through the writings, but I do not have the time to read all of Gregorys writings right now. Here is a link to a site where you can download the program.

zeitun-eg.net/

There is a link on the left that says early church fathers. You can download it there. This may make your search much easier.


#17

[quote=Lorarose]So far I suspect that Zippy happened upon this unsubstantiated quote that has been attributed to Pope Gregory the Great and then proceeded to build a fanciful tale around that.

Unless someone can prove me wrong…
[/quote]

I think I agree with you on this.


#18

[quote=jimmy]I think I agree with you on this.
[/quote]

It sounds like the search for the Cardinal Hosius quote that has never surfaced.

MaggieOH


#19

I have a program on my computer that I downloaded where you can search the writings of the fathers for specific words. I have searched Gregorys writings and found nothing that comes close to the claimed quote. I realize it would be better to read through the writings, but I do not have the time to read all of Gregorys writings right now. Here is a link to a site where you can download the program.

zeitun-eg.net/

There is a link on the left that says early church fathers. You can download it there. This may make your search much easier.

Thanks Jimmy!

When I get some time I’ll work through the epistles.
Deacon Ed stated in one post that none of Pope Gregory’s preserved epistles contained the alleged statement.

So…are there any OTHER preserved writings from him?
Or… are there any writings from others who claim to have heard this alleged sermon?

It would be interesting to find out where this comes from wouldn’t it?


#20

It sounds like the search for the Cardinal Hosius quote that has never surfaced.

This is something I haven’t heard of.


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.