tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post2604944720328049886..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: St. Mary Magdalene and the insanity of modern Catholic biblical scholarshipFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-78890832486404882002013-09-21T11:52:12.176-07:002013-09-21T11:52:12.176-07:00@Anon 9:57am,
Please use a pseudonym
29 July is t...@Anon 9:57am,<br />Please use a pseudonym<br /><br />29 July is the feast of St Martha (new and old), so it is no surprise that Mary of Bethany would also be commemorated on this day as well.<br /><br />The new Martyrology need not be read as contradicting the whole western tradition ... just as there are more commemorations than one of St Paul, and there is still only one St Paul (and this goes for a great number of saints who are remembered on numerous days in the martyrology), so too we ought to hold that Mary of Bethany is commemorated with her sister on the octave of her proper feast day (St Mary Magdalene, July 22).Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3155661779464590632013-09-21T09:57:14.655-07:002013-09-21T09:57:14.655-07:00Dear Father,
According to your blog
Indeed, if M...Dear Father,<br /><br />According to your blog<br /><br />Indeed, if Mary Magdalene is not also Mary of Bethany, then we come to the awkward conclusion that Mary of Bethany is not venerated in the Roman Catholic Church – since there is no feast of “St. Mary of Bethany”,<br /><br />The latest edition of the Martyrologium Romanum<br />MMIV commemorates Mary of Bethany on 29 of July<br />and mentions she is the sibling of Martha and Lazarus.<br /><br />Hence, the argument here that Mary Magdalene is identical to Mary of Bethany immediately collapsed. The Roman Catholic Church has adopted the Greek Orthodox view that there are thee distinct persons. Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and the Penitent Woman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-57678291706376331852012-03-30T18:33:27.944-07:002012-03-30T18:33:27.944-07:00Hello Father,
I followed this link from your Mar...Hello Father, <br /><br />I followed this link from your March 30, 2012, post on the last week of Jesus's life. <br /><br />I have done personal investigation into the Scriptural accounts and there is <b>very probable</b> evidence that:<br /><br />(1) there were two Anointings that<br />(2) took place in Bethany, in the same house, <br />(3) of a man named Simon, who was a Leper, and 'surnamed' Lazarus. (i.e. Simon, the Leper, and Lazarus are the same person) and thus,<br />(4) this means that Mary of Bethany (sister of Martha, brother of Simon), the "Sinful Woman", and "the Woman", mentioned in all 4 Gospel accounts are all the same person as well. <br /><br /><b>The alternate views, e.g. three anointings, multiple Simons and multiple Marys, are exegetically WEAK and lousy.</b><br /><br />HOWEVER, along with FrH, I have not seen Fr Laptide or anyone else show the *exegetical* rationale for why Mary Magdalen must be included here. Magdalene is only mentioned in Luke 8:2, so at most people are saying it's a maybe that she is the same Mary of Luke 7 at the Anointing. Magdalene is said to have had demons, where as Mary Beth is said to be a sinner. Those could be synonymous, but that's implicit evidence at best.<br /><br />Another piece of *implicit* evidence that I don't see you mention is what the Catholic Encyclopedia (I think) mentioned, and that is this that Jesus concludes the anointings by saying this is preparation for His burial and that "wherever the Gospel is preached this story of this woman will be told" (Mt 26:12f; Mk 14:8f; Jn 12:7). The only Mary of any prominence at the Resurrection accounts is Mary Magdalene, who appears out of nowhere since she's not (really) mentioned earlier in the Gospels. It could be implicitly argued that Jesus rewarded these Anoinitings by letting this same Mary Magdalene be the first to witness His Resurrection. This would be fitting, but again not 'direct' proof.<br /><br />P.S. Blogger's new layout has DISABLED the option for Commentators to "Subscribe by Email" to new comments. To get this option back, you have to go to Settings and enable "Embedded Comments". This would help. Thanks. God Bless.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-13040916427497110602011-07-24T21:07:48.398-07:002011-07-24T21:07:48.398-07:00Excellent post. I'm afraid you have answered y...Excellent post. I'm afraid you have answered your own questions about "why" modern Catholic biblical scholars ignore the Church Fathers. I was told in school this is because the Church Fathers were not smart enough to use the historical critical method (they didn't use the word "smart" enough, but that is what they meant). THAT is why everything that came before is ignored. Because the historical critical method was supposed to make the exegesis of previous generations totally obsolete. <br /><br />I'm not kidding. <br /><br />That is what the professors were saying. <br /><br />TSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-23357020194999547512011-07-23T09:23:16.988-07:002011-07-23T09:23:16.988-07:00It is interesting to note that the first written e...It is interesting to note that the first written evidence of a belief that Jesus appeared first to his Mother (rather than to Mary Magdalene) comes with St. Anselm (the reference to St. Ambrose is incorrect).<br />Now, this belief [to which I am quite open] is accepted by nearly all people ... and it only became popular in the Middle Ages.<br /><br />Why then are people so critical of the fact that Augustine and Gregory the Great are the two principal proponents of the connection between the Penitent, Mary of Bethany, and the Magdalene? These two are much much earlier than Anselm!<br />As far as traditions go, the Mary Magdalene tradition is one of the oldest, and has a strong Scriptural basis. [it is much older and more well founded in Scripture than the tradition of the apparition to our Lady after the Resurrection, for example]<br /><br />If we think of Mary Magdalene as the penitent who converts (as nearly all the faithful have since the time of the later Fathers), then we have connected her with the Penitent woman of Luke 7. But Luke 7 is pretty clearly connected with John 11 and 12.<br />Mary of Bethany is almost certainly the Penitent of Luke 7 -- she who anointed Jesus. <br />And it is likewise almost certain (even in popular devotion of the people) that Mary Magdalene is the Penitent woman. <br />Therefore, the Magdalene and the sister of Martha are most likely one and the same -- and this tradition is both ancient and wide-spread.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-42044472599628652652011-07-23T08:09:33.997-07:002011-07-23T08:09:33.997-07:00Kate,
Thanks for the comment and for the info abo...Kate, <br />Thanks for the comment and for the info about Pope Benedict! <br />Peace to you, and keep up the fight!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68354920008196897112011-07-23T08:08:56.575-07:002011-07-23T08:08:56.575-07:00Steve Ray,
Augustine clearly connects the woman i...Steve Ray, <br />Augustine clearly connects the woman in Luke 7 (Penitent) with the woman in John 11 (Mary of Bethany) -- commenting on John 11:1-2, from the Catena Aurea:<br />Augustine: "John here confirms the passage in Luke, where this is said to have taken place in the house of one Simon a pharisee: Mary had done this act therefore on a former occasion. That she did it again at Bethany is not mentioned int he narrative of Luke, but is in the other three Gospels."<br /><br />I recognize that this tradition is not much older than Augustine (it is only hinted at by Ambrose) ... but it is striking to note how quickly it was accepted by all of good will ... Gregory the Great developed it still further (connecting Mary of Bethany more clearly with Mary Magdalene) ... and so it has been received by the Church even to our own day: Since we do not celebrate a separate feast of Mary of Bethany but rather commemorate the Magdalene such that Martha of Bethany falls on her octave day.<br /><br /><br />I do not argue that one simply must accept the Mary Magdalen is Mary of Bethany ... I only state that to dismiss this tradition out of hand (as though it were utterly absurd) is insanity and intellectual suicide.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56449139589946350002011-07-23T06:02:31.052-07:002011-07-23T06:02:31.052-07:00Hi Father,
Excellent post! In grammar school th...Hi Father, <br /><br />Excellent post! In grammar school the nuns taught us that the three Marys were the same person. To 'spartacus, I'm sure Fr. Reginaldus will agree that what the Pope is doing in using protestant sources along with his comprehensive mastery of the subject, is to adhere to the rules of academic debate: you go onto the field of your opponent to frame your argument. This way you can "reason" with him, and please God, if your opponent is a man of good will, he will admit that you have won on his turf. God bless you.Michelangelonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-57931525708052218992011-07-22T20:27:14.960-07:002011-07-22T20:27:14.960-07:00Excellent post Father.
I once wrote an essay for ...Excellent post Father.<br /><br />I once wrote an essay for a theology course taking pretty much the same line, and got a bollocking for it, reflecting the unfortunate rejection of tradition by modern exegetes! <br /><br />Your point about the occasional uncritical acceptance of such material by the Navarre Commentary are on the mark too. I use it in the absence of anything better, but squirm every time I come across something that contradicts Pontifical Bible Commission rulings and the tradition...<br /><br />On the Holy Father, I would note that his book is not magisterial, and as you say, is an attempt to some extent to show the problems of modern methodologies by using them. But when he does talk magisterially, he is always careful to line up with tradition.<br /><br />On the question of the authorship of St John's Gospel for example, I would refer I am not Sparatus to his three General Audiences on St John back in 2007. In the second one, he doesn't hesitate to discuss the Gospel in the same context as the letters of St John and attribute them to the apostle.<br /><br />In the third one (on Revelation), he alludes to the debate but is very careful indeed:<br /><br />"And let us immediately note that while neither the Fourth Gospel nor the Letters attributed to the Apostle ever bear his name, the Book of Revelation makes at least four references to it (cf. 1: 1, 4, 9; 22: 8). It is obvious, on the one hand, that the author had no reason not to mention his own name, and on the other, that he knew his first readers would be able to precisely identify him..."<br /><br />He then goes on to allude to the third century and later debates about his identity, but without lending any support whatsoever to doubts on this front.Kate Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01000040465724868745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-62266888107976295822011-07-22T18:32:03.614-07:002011-07-22T18:32:03.614-07:00JEROME. Not that he was a leper yet, but having be...JEROME. Not that he was a leper yet, but having been so, and having been healed by the Saviour, he retained the appellation to shew forth the power of Him who healed him.<br /><br />RABANUS. Alabaster is a kind of marble, white but marked with veins of different colours, which was in use for vessels to hold ointment, because it was said to preserve it from corruption.<br /><br />JEROME. Another Evangelist (John 12:3.) instead of ‘alabastrum’ has ‘nardum pisticam,’ that is, genuine, unadulterated.<br /><br />RABANUS. From the Greek πίστις, faith, whence ‘pisticus,’ faithful. For this ointment was pure, unadulterated.<br /><br /><br />ORIGEN. Some one may perhaps think that there are four different women of whom the Evangelists have written, but I rather agree with those who think that they are only three; one of whom Matthew and Mark wrote, one of whom Luke, another of whom John.<br /><br />JEROME. For let no one think that she who anointed His head and she who anointed His feet were one and the same; for the latter washed His feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and is plainly said to have been a harlot. But of this woman nothing of this kind is recorded, and indeed a harlot could not have at once been made deserving of the Lord’s head.<br /><br />AMBROSE. (in Luc. 7, 37.) It is possible therefore that they were different persons, and so all appearance of contradiction between the Evangelists is removed. Or it is possible that it was the same woman at two different times and two different stages of desert; first while yet a sinner, afterwards more advanced.<br /><br /><br />Thomas Aquinas, S., & Newman, J. H. (1841). Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 1: St. Matthew (877). Oxford: John Henry Parker.Steve Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15437262548864852885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-88689777961846356002011-07-22T16:07:35.788-07:002011-07-22T16:07:35.788-07:00Hi Father, may God bless you!
I personally think,...Hi Father, may God bless you!<br /><br />I personally think, and feel, that we are dealing with one Mary here. <br /><br />Relatedly, I am a staunch believer that the Magdalen was indeed, as is, or at least was..., commonly held, a very rank sinner, a prostitute, whose conversion, in its grandeur, reveals the depth of Christ's salvific power. For me, she has to have been that prostitute in order for Christ's mercy and love to be fully exalted. Total goat to total sheep. With God, not only for God, all things are possible.<br /><br />Of course nowadays her past is being "rethought", and in so doing, as she is blanched out, the exaltation of Him for what he did in her and for her is also being subtly blanched out, too.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-89521621159624089082011-07-22T15:09:31.064-07:002011-07-22T15:09:31.064-07:00I looked for a reference in St. Cyprian without su...I looked for a reference in St. Cyprian without success (which doesn't prove it isn't there). That leaves us with no definite recorded statement that Mary of Bethany = Mary Magdalene before St. Gregory.<br /><br />The problem with waiting for St. Gregory to make the link is that it means that no one said anything about the connection for 550 years. I realize that arguments from silence are tenuous things at best, and I further realize that St. Gregory was not the sort to chase off after a whim, but it does make the case less solid than it appears from Fr. Cornelius's presentation.<br /><br />FrHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-36128359877334647022011-07-22T14:31:47.677-07:002011-07-22T14:31:47.677-07:00FrH,
I too am unclear on all this ... certainly Au...FrH,<br />I too am unclear on all this ... certainly Augustine identifies Mary of Bethany with the Penitent Woman, but I don't know where he makes the final jump to the Magdalene (though it would be natural since she is closely connected by St. Luke between Luke 7 and 8).<br /><br />Gregory the Great gives the strongest argument for the connection of all three.<br /><br />Still, St. Augustine does all the hard work ... if Mary of Bethany and the Penitent are one and the same, then we will very quickly conclude (with Gregory and the whole Western tradition) that Mary of Bethany is the Magdalene.<br /><br />The Navarre Bible (and all the rest) completely dismisses even the connection St. Augustine makes -- they say, two anointings MUST mean two women ... quite silly indeed.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-17891801848740260602011-07-22T13:38:29.427-07:002011-07-22T13:38:29.427-07:00I am curious concerning the invocation of St. Augu...I am curious concerning the invocation of St. Augustine. Both reginaldus and Fr. Cornelius a' Lapide cite him in support of the thesis that Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene are the same person. Neither gives a direct source.<br /><br />I did my best to look, and what I found was in St. Augustine's <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vi.v.lxxx.html" rel="nofollow">Harmony of the Gospels</a> (apologies for the catty sidenote from the 19th century editor), where he does argue that the same woman anointed Jesus twice, and that it was Mary of Bethany, but I cannot see that he establishes a link to Mary Magdalene.<br /><br />Perhaps I'm overlooking something.<br /><br />FrHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-78476883829413581132011-07-22T11:53:14.666-07:002011-07-22T11:53:14.666-07:00Dear Father Reginaldus. I readily concede you are...Dear Father Reginaldus. I readily concede you are far more informed about these matters than am I and so I hope you are spot on in your assessment of Our Holy Father's intent.<br /><br />Still, is it not distressing to Peter and Pam Pewdwella that protestant sources seem to predominate?<br /><br />Well, let me rewrite that question as a simple declarative statement.<br /><br />It greatly troubles me that The Holy Father so often sources his opinions in protestant exegesis.<br /><br />For Lord's sake, every single word of the New Testament was written by a Catholic and the New Testament is the sole defender and explained of it but Peter and Pam Pewdwella are going to be encouraged to go out and purchase the books of the protestants who so prominently appear in the Pope's books.<br /><br />In any event, I have written what has me troubled and you have been gracious enough to reply and so I will now drop it.Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-66964717017819447452011-07-22T09:02:53.603-07:002011-07-22T09:02:53.603-07:00I am not Spartacus,
I just checked the bibliograph...I am not Spartacus,<br />I just checked the bibliography which Pope Benedict provides at the end of the first volume ...<br />there he cites only three Church Fathers (in fact only three individuals from before the 20th Century): St. Bernard, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine ... each of them are cited only one time and for only one work.<br /><br />Particularly insightful are the Holy Father's words on John's Gospel: "From among all the literature on St. John's Gospel my principal source has been the three-volume commentary by Rudolf Schnackenburg."<br />Now, as such a huge fan of Augustine and as a self-professed Augustinian, I am more than certain that Pope Benedict is aware of St. Augustine's commentary on John and of the fact that this is widely recognized as the greatest theological work of the early Church. Certainly, the Pope has read Auguistine's masterpiece -- probably many times!<br />Moreover, St. Bonaventure's commentary on John is also a masterpiece -- and we all know that Benedict sees himself as a disciple of Bonaventure.<br /><br />Why then would he not use these works in his book? Because he is not trying to set himself within the Catholic Tradition of Biblical Scholarship ... he is trying to instead to set out and defeat the rationalists and modernists at their own game!<br />[I myself am not interested in defeating the historical critical method with the same method, but it has long been the pet project of Ratzinger ...]<br /><br />Finally, as to whether the Holy Father thinks that John the Apostle is an Evangelist ... I am certain that he celebrates the feast of St. John, Apostle and Evangelist -- whatever he says in his book, I am certain that he prays to St. John as an Apostle and Evangelist.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68186623655360336252011-07-22T08:39:52.537-07:002011-07-22T08:39:52.537-07:00I am not Spartacus,
It is certainly clear that the...I am not Spartacus,<br />It is certainly clear that the Holy Father is not attempting to put himself within the Catholic Tradition of Biblical Scholarship ... he seems much more intent on beating the modernist historical-critical scholars at their own game ... still, I am quite certain (since he seems himself as such a strong Augustinian and Bonaventurian) that he would ultimately have to side with the 1800 year tradition of the Fathers, Doctors, saints, scholastics, theologians, and exegetes over that of the (mostly heretical [i.e. protestant] "scholars") of the past 200 years.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-49789741790693852162011-07-22T08:36:08.533-07:002011-07-22T08:36:08.533-07:00@Jerome in SC,
The Navarre Bible is generally very...@Jerome in SC,<br />The Navarre Bible is generally very good.<br /><br />The best easy commentary (on the Gospels) is the Catena Aurea of St. Thomas Aquinas, which is entirely made up of quotations from the Fathers of the Church.<br /><br />Also, the commentary given with most editions of Douay-Rheims is very good (if a bit short and simple). [I believe, but I could be remembering incorrectly, that this is (taken from) the Haydock Bible Commentary]<br /><br />Still, I would generally recommend the Navarre Bible ... just keep your eyes open! :)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-58215798960002230222011-07-22T06:38:17.951-07:002011-07-22T06:38:17.951-07:00You mention that the Navarre Bible, is occasionall...You mention that the Navarre Bible, is occasionally weak on particular points, which Bible commentary would you recommend as a better choice.<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />Jerome in South CarolinaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-70058929523769101482011-07-22T04:55:00.342-07:002011-07-22T04:55:00.342-07:00"Thus, the ancient and nearly unanimous tradi..."Thus, the ancient and nearly unanimous tradition of the Latin Church is completely ignored by the modern Catholic “scholars”."<br /><br />Excellent point, Father.<br /><br />And it is worth nothing that, while writing as a private theologian, the Holy Father's " Jesus of Nazareth "books (I bought only the first one) abound with protestant sources and raise and appear to settle such captious issues as to whether or not John really wrote his Gospel.<br /><br />According to The Holy Father, he didn't. Some anonymous "John" wrote it.<br /><br />The most modern text about Biblical exegesis I dare to read is Dom Orchard's. "A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture."<br /><br />This is a painful and sad thing to admit but after reading his first book, I will never read another book by The Holy Fathers if it has to do with Biblical exegesis.Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.com