Jul 22 2008
Feastday of St. Mary Magdalene
[From: St. Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle, Seventh Mansions, Ch. 4]
“I assure you, sisters, that that better part came to her only after sore trials and great mortification – even to see her Master so much hated must have been an intolerable trial to her. And how many such trials did she not endure later, after the Lord’s death!
I think myself that the reason she was not granted martyrdom was that she had already undergone it through witnessing the Lord’s death. The later years of her life, too, during which she was absent from Him, would have been years of terrible torment; so she was not always enjoying the delights of contemplation at the Lord’s feet.”
The life of St. Mary Magdalene portrays two very different contemplative experiences of being “at the Lord’s feet”. We desire one, and accept it with joy and gratitude. But the other?
I have always loved July 22. If it couldn’t be granted that my mom pass on Kateri’s own day, I’d asked if she could be led Home just about a week later, by the Magdalen. There’s another grace. He left me my Magdalen’s day for solace. It was indeed.
Indeed, she must’ve undergone a white martyrdom, there at His feet, with His heartbroken Mother. Thank you so much for mentioning her to us.
Ann, probably only truly answered in the heart…
I’m really glad you chose to include this excerpt today, and the question you chose to pose was perfectly framed. Sometimes Mary Magdalene can be a difficult figure to ‘grapple’ with–simply because she encapsulates every facet of Christian life. She represents the fact that we are called upon to partake, in some portion, not only of Christ’s own glory, but also of His suffering. We have to be willing to be equal partners in both-I think that is what her love for Him ultimately teaches us.
Thank you for visiting my blog, I left a reply to your comment.
Erin
heandi.qc.ca/mariavaltorta.net/church_approval.htm
It’s gone from, in 1948, “restrained with severe prohibition” all the way to, in 1992, “does not contain errors, is not censurable, and may thus be reprinted just as it is, and that reading it is not harmful even for the least prepared of the faithful” and “the decision to allow all Catholics to read Maria Valtorta’s work on the same terms as any other worthwhile publications”.
Re Anne Catherine Emmerich, yes, her cause has long been underway. She has passed “Servant of God” and “Venerable”, and is now “Blessed”. If you found Jesus to be portrayed as effeminate in the movie, I imagine it has more to do with the producer/director than Anne Catherine Emmerich.
Re your comment about encountering “hatred-spurring of Jews”, I think we cannot just pick and choose whom we are going to condemn for this, i.e., certain mystics and not the rest of the faithful. We must remember that their understanding was certainly limited, to say the least, and it was the Catholic Church herself who was promoting anti-semetic behaviour for centuries. It was only our good John Paul II who had the courage to apologize on behalf of the Catholic Church to our Jewish brothers and sisters after centuries of the Church engendering hatred towards the Jews. Even our beloved St. Teresa of Avila used words such as “murderous Jews” (or something similar, in Interior Castle, if I remember correctly). And she herself was of Jewish ancestry; her grandfather was Jewish and converted to Catholicism out of fear, which fact she had to keep quiet during the inquisition).
Re Trads, Orthodox, contemplatives, mystics… We are continually called to discern. Personally, I would not arbitrarily disregard or dismiss any saint and/or mystic just because the Trads liked him/her.
The editor and publisher is an old friend of the family who has a little publishing house and who has witnessed the amazing story of how these books were first passed along from friend to friend, and then translated into many, many languages, in an amazing exponential growth. The publishing house lives on these publications alone, with prices that are absolutely ridiculous, considering the encyclopedic job they had to do in putting it together. The Lord seems to have taken her to her word, but He’s kept His, too.
Other than that, all I can say is that this series of books, together with her autobiography and the collection of notebooks (thousands and thousands of pages) were the most important stepping stone to my re-version story. I am not concerned with whether or not her description of Mary Magdalene (who she states had long flowing blonde locks) is the same as anyone elses, or having a morbid curiosity about what Jesus looked like, but rather that her writings gave me the impetus to really change my life and my way of living my faith.
I wouldn’t be frequenting this or anyone else’s Catholic blogs if I hadn’t read Maria Valtorta’s work. And I’d be missing out on a lot of things. Grazie, Maria!
We lose no grace if we simply do what John suggests, which is to not add anything to Scripture — which is the problem with some apparitions, visions, etc. I don’t want to put anyone on the defensive, but as a Catholic, I need the Nihil Obstat, I need the Imprimatur of the Church. I don’t know much and I surely can’t fathom things on my own, and even with the best of intentions and in grateful, true humility, surely I can and do put my own spin on little things–perhaps some of which may not be from Him at all. This is the beauty of having theologians and Magisterium etc. The only thing that is infallible is dogma.
Gab, to clarify, it was John who appeared to be quite gay in Mel Gibson’s movie –I’m surprised others didn’t pick up on that. By default, that casts aspersions on Jesus, too, because this is “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” If that aspersion is something that came from A.C.E. via Mel’s Sedevacatism, then my semi-spurning her based on that has nothing to do with Trads (who ought to know better). As a matter of fact, Mel deviated from his father’s own hatreds and judgmentalism against the Jews in this movie. Many of her visions are astoundingly powerful food for thought.. it is nonetheless possible, however, that not all her data is accurate.
“Rome condemned the books in 1949, 1959, 1960,1985, twice in 1993. What more do people want?” Taken from an url I will put spaces in, should anyone want to read the whole thing:
http: // jloughnan.tripod.com /valtmedj. htm
Secondly, Maria Valtorta does not portray a gay Jesus or John, any more than the Gospel does. Whoever sustains that apparently has no inkling of how affection is manifested within the Mediterranean cultures, both mid-eastern and western. If you come to Italy or Spain, you will see girls taking walks in parks, hugging, walking hand in hand, even kissing each other. They are no more gay than I am. Even men walk arm in arm, though a bit less over the past few years, since “homophobic” cultural mores have taken over and influenced the way people display their deep friendships.
It seems to me that the Gospel speaks clearly and it is no metaphor:
23There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, “Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking.”
25He,leaning back thus on Jesus’ bosom, said to Him, “Lord, who is it?” (John 13: 23-25)
That “sounds” pretty “gay”, doesn’t it? Maria Valtorta explains very clearly the reason for all this reclining and leaning on bosoms and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Only a question of traditions and habits of the Jewish population at that time.
Writers or “seers” from the past had no idea of how we, 21st century “modern” folks would have interpreted things that for them were perfectly normal and pristine.
Why is it that we have to witness such a sad loss of “innocence”? It seems practically impossible to take something for what it is, with simple hearts, rather than judge them for how we think it’s supposed to be, according to rules that are made by very fallible human beings; rules that change on whim, depending on what is to be condemned, without looking at the heart. This troubles me deeply.