Tradition prevails
In the article that follows, found at the CatholicHerald.com, we see a member of Catholic clergy defending Mary Magdalene’s traditional reputation as a sinner. This is interesting to me since it seems that the choices on this issue are:
1. Disregard the tradition entirely
2. Embrace the tradition and defend it
Embracing the tradition simply because it is tradition, without defending its historical likelihood, doesn’t appear to be an option.
Here is the article:
Straight Answers: Myths, Truths about Mary Magdalene
by Fr. William P. Saunders
Not a word uttered about the fact that Rome has distanced itself from the tradition. After concluding his defense of the sinner reputation by agreeing with Pope Gregory the Great, Fr. Saunders goes on to say (emphasis is mine):
As far as The Da Vinci Code is concerned, what one cannot construe is some of the misconceptions they erroneously present: for instance, that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, the mother of Jesus’ child, a participant at the Last Supper, His prophetic successor, and a priestess. Such conclusions, despite the best efforts of pseudo scholars, have no foundation in sacred Scripture, sacred tradition, other historical resources or even heretical texts.
I find this amusing for some reason, even though he is clearly echoing the most commonly cited reasons for Mary Magdalene’s conflation with the other women. Maybe because one tradition is being overwritten by another for which there is about just as much evidence.
2 Comments
This entry is filed under Mary Magdalene, Media sightings, Traditional and tagged with da vinci code, pope gregory the great, prostitute, roman catholic church, sinner, tradition.
You can also follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Or perhaps you're just looking for the trackback and/or the permalink.
Fr. Saunders, like most members of the orthodox Catholic clergy that I have met in the last two years, seems to adopt the position that what he calls sacred scripture is “first base” for belief. This is to be expected because that is the way the Church, indeed ANY church, works in terms of how it gathers members. However, if by “pseudo-scholars” he means those amongst us who have more enthusiasm for truth than we have diplomas pinned to the wall, then the term is indeed derogatory and unjustified. Most important discoveries in history, science and the humanities in the past century or so have been made by enthusistic, passionate, and skilled amateurs, like Margaret Starbird, and have then been simply amplified by academia to give them respectability.
I am no great fan of Dan Brown, but there would seem to me MORE historical resources pointing to the daVinci Code interpretation of events than point to the classical NT versions of Mary’s life. Gregory the Great was just an attention-seeking zealot with a private, almost Machiavellian, agenda to remould the Church of Rome to his liking. I don’t think any serious student of the development of canon gives Gregory more than a passing glance.
The likes of Fr. Saunders, being the “old guard”, will fade into the same pit of obscurity as the flat-Earthers, as the new paradigm takes more positive shape and new information comes to light, as it surely will in the very, very close future.
C
Can you clarify what historical resources you’re referring to? And what classical NT versions of MM’s life you mean?