Di Vinci related-Mary named a prostitiute

[N/A Gone]

I was arguing and here is what i wrote..

[quote]5. Brown claims that the Church suppressed the important role of Mary Magdalene in the life of Jesus, and suppressed women, in order to seize and maintain patriarchal control of the Church. But if the Church wanted to suppress Mary Magdalene, how is it that record of her person and activity was carefully preserved in the Gospels? Why was she proclaimed a saint in the early Church and called “apostle to the apostles” for announcing Christ’s resurrection to the Apostles? Why would there be many churches named after her throughout the ages? And if the Church wanted to suppress women, why would the Church proclaim the Blessed Virgin Mary the greatest of all saints, and call men and women to imitate her?[/quote]

and here was the reply

[quote]If the case then why did Pope Gregory deem Mary Magdlene a prositute in the eyes of the catholic church when there is no proof in the bible to support that.

This is a theory, just like how every other religion is. One could say show us proof that everything in the Bible is real, but people don't do that. You can this isn't right because there is no evidence, their return argument is where is your proof of what happened is real.[/quote]

how would you respond?

[Guest JeffCR07]

A couple comments. First, Gregory (and many others) spoke of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute because traditionally she has been associated with the adulterous woman. They never asserted it categorically as biographical fact, it is simply what they believed.

Second, I would point out that associating her with the prostitute was never used to tarnish her name. In many respects, it made her more loved and devotion to her more widespread, because of how powerful her conversion was. Arguing that the Catholic Church tried to squash devotion to St. Mary Magdalene by saying she was a prostitute would be like saying that the Church tried to squash devotion to St. Augustine because it acknowledged that he had an illegitimate child. It's a ridiculous accusation to make.

Finally, I would point out that the whole DaVinci Code argument is ridiculous from a critical historical point of view. Dan Brown is trying to argue from Gnostic texts to the conclusion that Jesus had a wife and kids? Gnostics didn't even believe Jesus had a [i]body[/i], so how could their texts "prove" that he had kids?

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Didacus]

Research what pope Gregory said after Mary Magdalene and place it in proper context.

The rest seems more like rambling to me. Pretty hard to address stuff like that.

[Socrates]

[quote]If the case then why did Pope Gregory deem Mary Magdlene a prositute in the eyes of the catholic church when there is no proof in the bible to support that.

This is a theory, just like how every other religion is. One could say show us proof that everything in the Bible is real, but people don't do that. You can this isn't right because there is no evidence, their return argument is where is your proof of what happened is real.[/quote]
There's really not much of an argument to respond to.
Long before Pope Gregory made the sermon alluded to here, a tradition had grown up identifying Mary Magdalene (accurately or not) with the repentent sinner in the Gospels. While many now doubt that this woman and Mary Magdelene were the same person, this was not some dogma invented by Pope Gregory. The Pope was giving a sermon, based on the repentent woman in the Gospels and the popular tradition identifying this woman with Mary Magdalene. The sermon used the life of Mary Magdalene, as understood by popular tradition, to illustrate the importance of repentence. The Pope was giving a sermon, not defining dogma, nor proclaiming something new.
This was not some sinister plot to "suppress women" or any such thing.

I've seen all this nonsense claiming that the early Church was obsessed with "putting down" women and suppressing female leadership in the Church. There is really no evidence for this; it is the projection of late 20th/21st obsessions with sexual politics back into the early centuries of the Church. It is absurd in historical perspective - during the first centuries of the Church, it had to deal with serious persecutions, evangelizing and building the Church, barbarian invasions threatening to destroy civilization, etc., etc. "Gender politics" and "repressing women" was hardly a priority! (Besides, women were generally treated much harsher in the surrounding pagan cultures, than by the Church.)

[N/A Gone]

here was his reply..

0-------


So it is okay for the Pope to call ehr a prostitute without any type of historical backing to it? Yes many others called her that, after a little sermon in the year 591. By saying she was a prostitute instead of a follower of Jesus, the church put her on a different platform. She was the one who was "saved fromt he demons that were prostitution", however show me proof that she was a prostitute. The church later went back and corrected their error, after almost 1,500 years of a title that wasn't true.

How is the rest rambling? Do you believe that eveyr other world wide religion is wrong? How can they prove that their beliefs are real, how can a christian? It is a belief that one holds. Does it really matter if someone believes something that you don't support?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1021527' date='Jul 10 2006, 10:03 PM']
here was his reply..

0-------
So it is okay for the Pope to call ehr a prostitute without any type of historical backing to it? Yes many others called her that, after a little sermon in the year 591. By saying she was a prostitute instead of a follower of Jesus, the church put her on a different platform. She was the one who was "saved fromt he demons that were prostitution", however show me proof that she was a prostitute. The church later went back and corrected their error, after almost 1,500 years of a title that wasn't true.

How is the rest rambling? Do you believe that eveyr other world wide religion is wrong? How can they prove that their beliefs are real, how can a christian? It is a belief that one holds. Does it really matter if someone believes something that you don't support?
[/quote]
It was common tradition in the Western Church that Mary Magdalene "out of whom were driven seven devils" (Mark 16:9) was the same woman as the repentent "sinner" mentioned in Luke 7:36-50. "Sinner" is commonly taken in the New Testament to be a euphemism for prostitute.
The tradition of Mary Magdalene as a repentent prostitute (or "sinner") was already well established by the time Pope Gregory made this sermon. It had nothing to do with trying to smear the name of Mary Magdalene or suppress women, or any other such nonsense. The sermon praised St. Mary Magdalene as a model of repentence. If the Church was against Mary Magdalene, it would not venerate her as a saint.

([url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm"]Article on St. Mary Magdalene here.[/url])

The Church did not declare Mary Magdalene "a prostitute instead of a follower of Jesus," nor "put her on a different platform." The tradition was that Mary Magdalene became a follower of Jesus and repented of her sins.
Remember, the Gospels tell us seven devils were driven from Mary Magdalene, so it may be surmised that when she had seven devils in her, she was not leading a godly life!

[phatcatholic]

yea, what will he do next, malign the bible for saying that Mary Magdalene was possessed? he obviously didn't read the part about how her being a prostitute makes her conversion all the more spectacular. the fact that we deem her a saint and have built churches in her name obviously shows that the Church has not attempted to slander her.

at any rate, he can't PROVE that a smear campaign was involved. tell him to stick to what he can prove. conspiracy theories are fun, but they aren't that credible in a debate.