Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 18, 2013, 05:58:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
 
Author Topic: Was Mary Magdalene a whore?  (Read 1877 times)
Jarrod_D
Member

Posts: 786


« on: August 17, 2005, 10:26:AM »

I don't know if it has been debated here before, but what is the deal with Mary Magdalene?  Was she a prostitute?  Promiscuous? I mean before she met Christ ...

 

Jarrod

Logged
HMiS
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 6,172



« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2005, 10:38:AM »

Yes, she was a prostitute before she converted and took on the sweet yoke of being a follower of Christ and taking care of the apostles (and Our Lady) later on.

 

She is the prime example of how deep sinners can be saved by the miraculous grace of God, and an admonition to us "civilized Christians" that if the Lord calls the deep sinners, how much is not wrong with the "civilized" Catholics who think of themselves as "good Catholics".

 

She is thé admonition and warning against Pharisaism!

 

Deo gratias.

 

Sancta Maria Magdalena, ora pro nobis!

Logged

„Ja, Ja, wie Gott es will. Gott lohne es Euch. Gott schütze das liebe Vaterland. Für Ihn weiterarbeiten... oh, Du lieber Heiland!” ("Yes, Yes, as God wills it. May God repay it to you. May God protect the dear fatherland. Go on working for him... oh, you dear Savior!") - Clemens August Cardinal von Galen, his last words.
CaroleK
Guest
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2005, 11:32:AM »

The short answser is that we do not know for certain that she was a prostitute.
 
  Not all Biblical scholars agree that Mary Magdalene was the woman  caught in adultery, but believe rather that she was the woman from whom  Christ cast out the seven demons.  The story of the woman caught  in adultery immediately preceeds the story of the woman from whom the  demons are cast and it is unclear exactly which woman is the  Magdalene.  The Gospel of Luke says only that she was a sinner who  had sinned openly and openly did penance.
 
  Though I would think that it wouldn't really matter one way or the  other as her story is one of redemption from past sins through Jesus  Christ.  That through Him all things are possible, even the  lowliest of sinners can become a Saint.
 
 
Logged
Sophia
Guest
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2005, 11:44:AM »

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to to say:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm

 

 

St. Mary Magdalen

Mary Magdalen was so called either from Magdala near Tiberias, on the west shore of Galilee, or possibly from a Talmudic expression meaning "curling women's hair," which the Talmud explains as of an adulteress.

In the New Testament she is mentioned among the women who accompanied Christ and ministered to Him (Luke 8:2-3), where it is also said that seven devils had been cast out of her (Mark 16:9). She is next named as standing at the foot of the cross (Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56; John 19:25; Luke 23:49). She saw Christ laid in the tomb, and she was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection.

The Greek Fathers, as a whole, distinguish the three persons:

the "sinner" of Luke 7:36-50;

the sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luke 10:38-42 and John 11; and

Mary Magdalen.

On the other hand most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same. Protestant critics, however, believe there were two, if not three, distinct persons. It is impossible to demonstrate the identity of the three; but those commentators undoubtedly go too far who assert, as does Westcott (on John 11:1), "that the identity of Mary with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture supported by no direct evidence, and opposed to the general tenour of the gospels." It is the identification of Mary of Bethany with the "sinner" of Luke 7:37, which is most combatted by Protestants. It almost seems as if this reluctance to identify the "sinner" with the sister of Martha were due to a failure to grasp the full significance of the forgiveness of sin. The harmonizing tendencies of so many modern critics, too, are responsible for much of the existing confusion.

The first fact, mentioned in the Gospel relating to the question under discussion is the anointing of Christ's feet by a woman, a "sinner" in the city (Luke 7:37-50). This belongs to the Galilean ministry, it precedes the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and the third Passover. Immediately afterwards St. Luke describes a missionary circuit in Galilee and tells us of the women who ministered to Christ, among them being "Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils were gone forth" (Luke 8:2); but he does not tell us that she is to be identified with the "sinner" of the previous chapter. In 10:38-42, he tells us of Christ's visit to Martha and Mary "in a certain town"; it is impossible to identify this town, but it is clear from 9:53, that Christ had definitively left Galilee, and it is quite possible that this "town" was Bethany. This seems confirmed by the preceding parable of the good Samaritan, which must almost certainly have been spoken on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. But here again we note that there is no suggestion of an identification of the three persons (the "sinner", Mary Magdalen, and Mary of Bethany), and if we had only St. Luke to guide us we should certainly have no grounds for so identifying them. St. John, however, clearly identifies Mary of Bethany with the woman who anointed Christ's feet (12; cf. Matthew 26 and Mark 14). It is remarkable that already in 11:2, St. John has spoken of Mary as "she that anointed the Lord's feet", he aleipsasa; It is commonly said that he refers to the subsequent anointing which he himself describes in 12:3-8; but it may be questioned whether he would have used he aleipsasa if another woman, and she a "sinner" in the city, had done the same. It is conceivable that St. John, just because he is writing so long after the event and at a time when Mary was dead, wishes to point out to us that she was really the same as the "sinner." In the same way St. Luke may have veiled her identity precisely because he did not wish to defame one who was yet living; he certainly does something similar in the case of St. Matthew whose identity with Levi the publican (5:7) he conceals.

If the foregoing argument holds good, Mary of Bethany and the "sinner" are one and the same. But an examination of St. John's Gospel makes it almost impossible to deny the identity of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalen. From St. John we learn the name of the "woman" who anointed Christ's feet previous to the last supper. We may remark here that it seems unnecessary to hold that because St. Matthew and St. Mark say "two days before the Passover", while St. John says "six days" there were, therefore, two distinct anointings following one another. St. John does not necessarily mean that the supper and the anointing took place six days before, but only that Christ came to Bethany six days before the Passover. At that supper, then, Mary received the glorious encomium, "she hath wrought a good work upon Me . . . in pouring this ointment upon My body she hath done it for My burial . . . wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached . . . that also which she hath done shall be told for a memory of her." Is it credible, in view of all this, that this Mary should have no place at the foot of the cross, nor at the tomb of Christ? Yet it is Mary Magdalen who, according to all the Evangelists, stood at the foot of the cross and assisted at the entombment and was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection. And while St. John calls her "Mary Magdalen" in 19:25, 20:1, and 20:18, he calls her simply "Mary" in 20:11 and 20:16.

In the view we have advocated the series of events forms a consistent whole; the "sinner" comes early in the ministry to seek for pardon; she is described immediately afterwards as Mary Magdalen "out of whom seven devils were gone forth"; shortly after, we find her "sitting at the Lord's feet and hearing His words." To the Catholic mind it all seems fitting and natural. At a later period Mary and Martha turn to "the Christ, the Son of the Living God", and He restores to them their brother Lazarus; a short time afterwards they make Him a supper and Mary once more repeats the act she had performed when a penitent. At the Passion she stands near by; she sees Him laid in the tomb; and she is the first witness of His Resurrection--excepting always His Mother, to whom He must needs have appeared first, though the New Testament is silent on this point. In our view, then, there were two anointings of Christ's feet--it should surely be no difficulty that St. Matthew and St. Mark speak of His head--the first (Luke 7) took place at a comparatively early date; the second, two days before the last Passover. But it was one and the same woman who performed this pious act on each occasion.

Subsequent history of St. Mary Magdalen. The Greek Church maintains that the saint retired to Ephesus with the Blessed Virgin and there died, that her relics were transferred to Constantinople in 886 and are there preserved. Gregory of Tours (De miraculis, I, xxx) supports the statement that she went to Ephesus. However, according to a French tradition (see SAINT LAZARUS OF BETHANY), Mary, Lazarus, and some companions came to Marseilles and converted the whole of Provence. Magdalen is said to have retired to a hill, La Sainte-Baume, near by, where she gave herself up to a life of penance for thirty years. When the time of her death arrived she was carried by angels to Aix and into the oratory of St. Maximinus, where she received the viaticum; her body was then laid in an oratory constructed by St. Maximinus at Villa Lata, afterwards called St. Maximin. History is silent about these relics till 745, when according to the chronicler Sigebert, they were removed to Vézelay through fear of the Saracens. No record is preserved of their return, but in 1279, when Charles II, King of Naples, erected a convent at La Sainte-Baume for the Dominicans, the shrine was found intact, with an inscription stating why they were hidden. In 1600 the relics were placed in a sarcophagus sent by Clement VIII, the head being placed in a separate vessel. In 1814 the church of La Sainte-Baume, wrecked during the Revolution, was restored, and in 1822 the grotto was consecrated afresh. The head of the saint now lies there, where it has lain so long, and where it has been the centre of so many pilgrimages.

Logged
Montreal_Marisa
Member

Posts: 730


« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2005, 03:26:PM »

I am so glad that you brought this subject up, Jarrod!  I have been mulling this over for many months now, because of what happened on another board.  I had made the statement that Mary Magdalen was a whore, and I was immediately slammed for saying so.  She was minimized to nothing more than a shop owner on that board.  The NO priest friend of mine said I was wrong, that she was a shop owner who followed Christ.  This topic had come up due to the content of that board, and "the DUH Vinci Code."

I was always taught by my mother that Mary Magdalen was a well known sinner/whore who repented because of Christ.  My mother was raised in the Catholic Church long before Vat II, attended Catholic school all the way to graduation, and this is what she was taught by her nun teachers.  In other words, she didn't just pull it out of her rear, it came from Catholic Church teaching pre Vat II.  Mom loooooved her Catholic schooling, and talked fondly of the nuns.  

I thought about bringing this subject up here, but was ashamed to ask.  I feared I would be dismissed as ignorant for believing what my mother taught me.  

Thanks for the info you posted Sophia!  
Logged


Vandaler
Guest
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2005, 03:57:PM »

Quote
I was always taught by my mother that Mary Magdalen was a well known sinner/whore who repented because of Christ. My mother was raised in the Catholic Church long before Vat II, attended Catholic school all the way to graduation, and this is what she was taught by her nun teachers. In other words, she didn't just pull it out of her rear, it came from Catholic Church teaching pre Vat II. Mom loooooved her Catholic schooling, and talked fondly of the nuns.

This is your personal experience... You can't read to much into certain contacts or conversation you had.

 

I see no pre or post-VAT II teachings here. Quite frankly, it's not conclusive anyway. Where do you get confirmation that she was a prostitute in this post?  Certainly HMiS seems to think so, but where does he find his certainty other then through a tought process. Certainly no hard facts.

 

She was a Sinner (not sure what a "deep" sinner his) that Christ embraced, thats all we know for sure.

 

 

 

Logged
DominusTecum
Guest
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2005, 04:55:PM »

The traditional Catholic interpretation has nearly always been "Mary Magdalen was a prostitute who repented, followed Christ, and became a great Christian saint."

 

Now, however, in the 20th Century, it is becoming the increasing opinion of "scholars" that Mary Magdalen was really not a prostitute or whore, and she was just a nice woman who Jesus met, they had a close relationship to, etc.  In liberal circles this has become the "good option," both because it's "new and modern from enlightened man" and also because it means that they can say:

     "see, look what the Catholic Church has done to holy Mary Magdalen, calling her a prostitute and calumniating her, when she was one of the greatest "disciples" of Jesus and among the first to see Him risen from the dead! They've done this to establish their eeeevil patriarchy and denigrate women for 2000 years."

 

Therefore, it's more politically correct to say the second one, and also because it doesn't do the slightly distasteful thing of calling her a woman of the night.

 

I, however, prefer to go with the former, traditional Catholic interpretation, and rejoice in the repentance of Mary Magdalen, who enjoyed the mercy of Christ and became a holy and devout saint.

Logged
Vandaler
Guest
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2005, 07:41:PM »

Dominus,

 

Regardless of which interpretation you prefer, the honest answer is that we just don't really know.

I certainly won't try and convince you out of your position has long you know thats it's rooted has much in religious folklore then in knowable facts.

 

 

Logged
Sophia
Guest
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2005, 08:51:PM »

I certainly won't try and convince you out of your position has long you know thats it's rooted has much in religious folklore then in knowable facts.

 

It isn't folklore, it is Church tradition.  Certainly, legends arise since it is hard to substantiate many stories from such ancient times.  For instance, there are many stories of St. Nicholas that may or may not be true.  Often, the traditions are correct.  That Mary Magdalen was a great sinner we know to be a fact.  Perhaps we don't know the nature of her sins.  It is an educated position, however, to hold that she was a former whore.  The etymology of the name "Magdalene" is the most obvious clue. 

 

I truly don't understand this desire to tear apart the traditions of the Church.  If this all comes from the Da Vinci Code it baffles me still more that a work of pure fiction has become a substitute for religion.  With today's emphasis on "scholarly analysis" and "scientific reasoning" it is ironic that many of the same people who pound their fists on the table demanding facts are the same people who drink the Da Vinci Code poison like water.

Logged
Vandaler
Guest
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2005, 09:18:PM »

Quote from: Sophia
I truly don't understand this desire to tear apart the traditions of the Church.  If this all comes from the Da Vinci Code it baffles me still more that a work of pure fiction has become a substitute for religion.  With today's emphasis on "scholarly analysis" and "scientific reasoning" it is ironic that many of the same people who pound their fists on the table demanding facts are the same people who drink the Da Vinci Code poison like water.

Sophia,

 

The question of Jarrod is not whether she was a Sinner (everyone is)... rather what was the nature of her sin.

By your own admission, your making an educated guess has to what these sins where.  (which is what "scholars" do for a living by the way)

Telling him about traditional teachings is useful, but more-so to publish like you did what it his based on.

 

Your coming out of left field with the Da Vinci Code. What does it have to do with anything?

I read it, and actually enjoyed his intricate web of lies and crafty enigmas. But not one second the thought of the book entered my mind today.

 

 

 

 

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC