Mary Magdalene

[_bc]

This article from the Christian Science Monitor confuses me.

Somebody please explain the real teachings on Mary Magdalene.

What exactly is the status of the "gnostic gospels"?

[Ellenita]

I don't know if it's possible to explain the 'real teachings' of Mary Magdalene without access to the 'fragment' of the gospel attributed to her which is suggested in the article. I'd also want to see some sort of evidence that it is an authentic fragment since there have been numerous hoaxs about all sorts of things connected to Christianity throughout the whole of Christian history.

From a personal perspective, I love the idea that she was an apostle to the apostles and a leader within the early church! It would really place a new slant on the position of women in the church, but then I have seen astoundingly spiritually wise and gifted women side lined in terms of being able to use these gifts in any sort of leadership role in the church simply because they are single women. It has always amazed me that the church does not know what to do with these single women and such talent is often wasted. I should say here that this perspective has been formed from some time spent in very fundamentalist protestant churches, before I returned to my Anglican roots (who do allow women to hold leadership positions) and therefore I cannot speak about the Catholic church! And incidently I would not be so bold as to include myself within the group of women I describe as spiritually wise or gifted so it's not about saying what about me!

The notion that Mary Magdalene had a physical relationship with Jesus is something that I find very difficult to accept - in fact I feel quite offended by it, though I haven't really thought through my reasons why. It's interesting that the article implies this is being suggested because of the issue of homosexuality. I wonder why there is no analysis of the position of chastity or celebacy - perhaps because these are currently not popular 'life style choices'!

I also wonder what the background of the author of the article is? The newspaper is aligned to the Christian Science Church - some mainstream protestant churches do not consider Christian Scientists as Christians and would therefore call into question anything published within the paper. If I remember rightly this claim is made in connection to their view of who Jesus is, but I may be wrong and I apologise if I have inadvertedly offended anyone!

I always thought the church teaches that the gnostic gospels are heresy.

[Dave]

Yes, the gnostic Gospels are inDouche heresy.

And as for the role of Mary Magdalene as a leader in the early Church, I can say with certainty that she was never ordained a priest and thus never functioned as one.

And then there's the subject of Mary Magdalene being the unidentified sinful woman in the Gospels. It's a long-standing tradition that the woman was Mary Magadalene, although not what we Catholics call Sacred Tradition. Thus, we're free to believe or disbelieve that Mary Magdalene was that woman. To my knowledge, I never heard the claim that it was a "mistake" that the Church "corrected" in the late 60s. I bet that's false. And I bet the idea of Mary Magdalene being the sinful woman goes back further than the article stated.

[_bc]

Thanks. I'm glad I don't have to forget everything I thought I knew about Mary Magdalene. I'll have to update my view of this newspaper though.