|
|
I was asked
to talk about women saints because the majority of saints in the
Church’s calendar are male saints and at times it appears that sainthood
is an exclusive club just for men which excludes female membership. This
is not true; all people are called to be saints whether male or female,
but the roles for each are different and it is these roles that have
determined why the male saints are more well known than the female
saints. The role of a woman in the church is the same as the role of a
man in the church. It is to be a member of the body of Christ and as
members of the Church everyone belongs to the royal priesthood, but men
have also been called to the ordained priesthood and it is this special
and exclusive priesthood that has made the difference in numbers between
men and women.
There are just as
many women martyrs as there are men, and just as many women who are
recognized by the church as Great-martyrs as there are men. Among the
ascetics saints we have the early fathers like St. Anthony, St.
Pachomius and St Macarius who established the monastic order for men. In
time monasteries for women were also established, but in those early
days of monasticism it was the male monastics that received fame
throughout the world for their ascetical struggles. From later periods
when monasticism was well established we have many female monastics who
have been recognized as saints through their ascetic lives. The only
area in which we see that men have surpassed women in numbers is the
priesthood to which women have not been called to serve. The majority of
the well known saints come from this exclusive office and more so from
the Hierarchy. To be a martyr or a monk did not need any form of
education other that to be instructed in the faith, but to be a bishop
of the church one had to be well educated because their role was to
instruct the faithful and to protect the faith. Many of the Church
fathers have left us with a wealth of writings in the Christian faith
which even to this day no theologian has surpassed and these writings
are read and quoted as authorities than safeguard the true understanding
of the Gospels and the Christian dogmas.
The bishops of the
church are the successors of the apostles and although women are barred
from this exclusive office, there are many women who have been
recognized by the church as equal to the apostles. For example St.
Thecla who was a co-worker of St. Paul, St. Photini, the Samaritan women
mentioned in the Gospels and who is remembered this coming Sunday which
is known as the Sunday of the Samaritan Woman, the Empress Helen, the
mother of St. Constantine, Princess Olga of Russia and St Nina the
enlightener of Georgia. The Byzantine Empresses also played a decisive
role in protecting the true faith like St. Irene and St. Theodora who
were responsible for re-establishing the veneration of Icons after they
were violently removed from the church in the 8th and 9th centuries.
There may
not be as many women saints as there are men, but this does not diminish
the role that women have played in the Church. They have been equally
responsible for spreading the Christian faith as have men and in many
cases it was the Christian wife or mother that was the influence behind
many of the male saints. The Church cannot be accused of honouring men
more than women because the greatest saint of all is Mary the Mother of
God who is honoured more than any other person in the history of the
church. Through her service to mankind she became the doorway to heaven,
a ladder joining heaven to earth and sits as the Queen of Heaven at her
Son’s side, having entered into perfect union with God and watches over
the destiny of the world. No other person is honoured and remembered by
the church in all her services and no other person is beseeched in
prayer as our intercessor before Christ more than Mary the Mother of
God.
Thus, women
should not feel hard done by. The church does not discriminate between
men and women, but recognizes and honours the service that each person
has given to the Church on an equal level and in accordance to the role
each had played in the salvation of mankind. The Gospels reveal to us
the twelve Apostles by name, but from the wider circle of Jesus’
disciples we are given the names of some of the many women who also
followed Christ and who after the resurrection were responsible for
spreading the Christian faith to various parts of the pagan empire.
These women were honoured by Christ himself for the faith and bravery
they showed which put to shame the apostles fear and lack of faith.
At the
crucifixion we see that out of fear the Apostles deserted Jesus and left
him alone, only John remained. On the other hand, the women disciples
remained loyal and courageous and stood by him until the end. And even
then they didn’t desert him, but remained and saw where his body would
be laid. Due to their great love for Jesus they became so brave and bold
that in spite of the climate of panic that circulated the streets, they
risked all danger by coming very early while it was still dark to the
tomb to bring Christ sweet spices mingles with their tears, with their
love and devotion. They are ready to endure everything for Christ and
even to die for him. That is why Christ honoured these women above his
disciples and appeared to them first. And because they first heard the
good news of the Resurrection they became Apostles to the Apostles. Two
Sundays ago the Church honoured these brave women with the Sunday
dedicated to the Myrrhbearers.
As the
request for today’s talk was to speak to you about the lives of women
saints, I think it is appropriate to begin with St Mary Magdalene who
was also connected to last week’s talk on the Gospel phrase “Touch me
not”, and is also recognized by the Church with the title “Equal to the
Apostles”.
Before we
look at Mary’s life and where she went and did after the resurrection,
we need to clear up a widely accepted misunderstanding that Mary
Magdalene was a prostitute. Mary has been the victim of western writers
who have unfoundedly associated her name with another unnamed woman in
the Gospels. The Orthodox Church has never shared this opinion and even
considers that Mary was a virgin.
The best way to clear up this misunderstanding is to see the passages
from the New Testament which refer to Mary Magdalene so that we can have
a proper, clear and unbiased understanding of who she wasn’t. Magdalene
is of course not her family surname. She is called Magdalene because she
came from the small city of Magdala on the banks of Lake Genesaret in
Galilee.
There are at
least 11 times when Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the Gospels. St Mark
says that “when Jesus was risen early the first
day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had
cast seven devils.” (Mark 16: 9-10) Part of the misunderstanding
is that western scholars identified seven devils as meaning that Mary
was a sinful woman and that was why she was possessed with demons. The
Gospels are full of people being possessed with demons, but none are
mentioned that they were possessed as a result of their sexual
behaviour. None are mentioned that they were possessed because they were
sinners. If that was the case, then what can we say about the man that
was possessed by a legion of demons or the young lad who was possessed
by a devil from his early childhood? Why do we automatically assume that
when a woman is possessed by demons then it has to be in connection with
sexual behaviour?
St. Luke
tells us that as Jesus went throughout every city and village, preaching
and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God:
“the twelve were with him, And certain women,
which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called
Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, And Joanna the wife of Chuza
Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him
of their substance.” (Luke: 8: 2-3) Mary then was not the only
woman cured of demons, but other women who followed Christ were also
cured of demons. If demonic possession means prostitution can we then
assume that Jesus was followed from city to city by a group of female
prostitutes? Of course not!
Many of the
Church Fathers, in interpreting what these seven demons refer to, have
said that we should not think that Mary was actually possessed with
demons, but just as the graces of the Holy Spirit are numbered and
called by the prophet Isaiah the seven spirits of grace which are the
spirits of wisdom, of understanding, of counsel, of might, of knowledge,
of godliness and fear of God, so also the opposite of these are called
seven demons. Every spirit of grace, every spirit of light has its
counterpart spirit of darkness. Whatever the interpretation, Mary was
certainly spiritually ill, but that does not make her a sinner, least of
all, a prostitute.
In all the
other cases where Mary is mentioned in the Gospels it is in connection
with the crucifixion and the resurrection. To save time we need not look
at each and every occasion where she is mentioned; it is enough to say
that nowhere in these passages is there anything that would even suggest
the slightest hint that Mary led an inappropriate or unethical life
before she met Christ. The only thing inappropriate is her name: the
fact that she was called Mary which we will now see.
There are
two episodes in the Gospels which although seem almost identical to each
other are in fact two different occasions. In these two episodes three
people take part: the central character which is Christ and two
different women. The name of one of these women is completely unknown to
us, but the second is Mary from Bethany, the sister of Martha and
Lazarus. Lets then see these two episodes beginning with the episode of
the unknown woman. Matthew, Mark and Luke relate the story of the
unknown woman. Matthew and Mark are almost identical whereas in Luke
there is a slight variation which could be interpreted as being another
episode with another woman.
Matthew
tells us that Christ was invited to dinner at the house of a certain
Pharisee named Simon, in the village Bethany. While he sat at meat a
woman came having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured
it on his head. The reading continues: “But when
his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is
this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given
to the poor. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye
the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the
poor always with you; but me ye have not always. For in that she hath
poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.” (Matth:
26:6-12)
Notice that in this version and in Mark’s which we shall hear in a
moment the unidentified woman is simply referred to as a woman whereas
only in Luke is the woman referred to as a sinful woman.
Mark says of
the same event: “And being in Bethany in the house
of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an
alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the
box, and poured it on his head. And there were some that had indignation
within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have
been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. And Jesus said,
Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do
them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she
is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.” (Mark
14:3-8)
Also note that in Matthew’s version the disciples were scandalized by
what they considered was a waste of the ointment which could have been
sold for a good price. In Mark’s version it says that some were
scandalized. In both cases it was not a single disciple but more than
one.
St. Luke
speaks of a similar event although he doesn’t mention where the event
took place. “And one of the Pharisees desired him
that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and
sat down to meat. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner,
when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an
alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and
began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of
her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now
when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself,
saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what
manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.”
(Luke 7: 36-39)
This could
be the same event that Matthew and Mark describe or it could be a
different episode altogether. There are enough discrepancies to suggest
this. The sinful woman and her actions are so very different. In Matthew
and Mark the woman was not weeping and poured the precious ointment on
Christ’s head, but in this version we have a sinful woman who began to
wash Christ’s feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair, kissed his
feet and then anointed his feet with the ointment. There is no mention
of disciples or anyone else being scandalized by the waste of ointment,
but only a scandalized Pharisee because Christ let a sinful woman touch
him.
That then is
the account of the unknown woman or women. Let’s now see the episode
involving Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus. This account is found
only in the Gospel according to St. John. John mentions the event twice;
once before Lazarus’ death and again after his resurrection. He says
that “a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of
Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which
anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose
brother Lazarus was sick.)” (John 11: 1-2)
After Jesus
raised Lazarus from the dead he was invited to their house for dinner.
It says: “Then Jesus six days before the passover
came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised
from the dead. There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but
Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. Then took Mary a
pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of
Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with
the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas
Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this
ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he
said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and
had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, Let her
alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor
always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.” (John 12:
1-8)
This
account, although it shares similar elements to the others, is certainly
different. The woman is identified as Mary the sister of Martha and
Lazarus and only one disciple is scandalized and is identified as Judas
Iscariot. It is possible that as both the events took place in Bethany
the town of Mary, Martha and Lazarus, that Mary was an eye witness or
heard about the event that took place in the house of Simon the Pharisee
and having seen that it pleased Jesus and heard his comments that the
unknown woman did it in anticipation of his burial, decided that she
would do the same now that Jesus was a guest in her house. If Mary was
present at the Pharisee’s house she would have also heard Jesus
reprimanding Simon for his cold reception and lack of respect towards
him telling him that when he entered into his house he didn’t give him
water to wash his feet as was the custom, but the woman washed them with
her tears. He didn’t greet him with a friendly kiss as was the custom,
but the woman from the time he came in hadn’t stopped kissing his feet.
He didn’t anoint his head with ordinary oil as was the custom but the
woman anointed his feet with precious ointment. If Mary had seen or
heard what took place in the Pharisee’s house then she made sure to do
the same because Jesus told Simon that that was how he should have
received him into his house but didn’t.
Having heard
from all four Gospels we can now ask where does Mary Magdalene fit in to
all this? According to what we have heard, her name is nowhere to be
seen. She has simply fallen victim by coincidence and a confusion
because of her name. Let see then how this confusion came about and
solve the mystery. For clarity’s sake I will refer to the possible three
episodes as only two.
During the
middle ages, Roman Catholic writers confused the two separate episodes
and the two women involved and considered than they referred to one
episode. One reason was that the first event took place in Bethany and
the account involving Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus also took
place in Bethany which was their hometown.
Then quite
arbitrarily, without any source from any existing ecclesiastical
tradition, these western writers identify the sinful woman with Mary
Magdalene and even confused her with Mary the sister of Martha and
Lazarus because both are called Mary.
There is
also a possibility that the mix up in the identity of the two Maries
occurred because on the 4th of May the Church commemorates the
Translation of Lazarus’ relics from Cyprus to Constantinople and also on
the same day is commemorated the Translation of Mary Magdalene’s relics
from Ephesus to Constantinople. Thus for these western writers it seemed
logical to think that for them to be remembered on the same day Mary
Magdalene must be Lazarus’ sister.
After this
confusion, various literary works began to be written with an imaginary
content on the supposed unethical life of Mary Magdalene which
intensified the confusion right up to our present day. Over the years
there has been so much distortion and slandering of Mary Magdalene’s
name that very many of the faithful have fallen victim to this extremely
wrong opinion that they actually believe that it is all written in the
Gospels.
We do not know much about the life of Mary Magdalene. There are various
legends of her that have been around for centuries especially in France
and Italy and some of these details have passed over into the Orthodox
world. According to these legends Mary was from a noble family whose
parent’s names were Syrus and Eucharistia. In the western legends Mary
is a passionate and sinner youth, but in the Greek versions she is
described as a God-fearing virgin who spent all her time studying the
Scriptures and paid special attention to the Psalms and the prophecies
concerning the coming of the Messiah. I think we should not put too much
emphasis on her life before she met Christ but concentrate only on what
tradition has given us after the resurrection.
Byzantine
historians say that when the apostles left Jerusalem to spread the good
news of the Resurrection, Mary traveled to Rome and preached the word of
God throughout Italy. Tradition relates that in Italy Mary Magdalene was
given a hearing before the Emperor Tiberias (14-37 A.D.). Standing
before the Emperor she said, “Christ is Risen!” At this the Emperor
pointed to an egg on his table and stated, “Christ has no more risen
than that egg is red.” After making this statement it is said the egg
immediately turned blood red. She then told the emperor that in his
Province of Judea the unjustly condemned Jesus had been executed at the
instigation of the Jewish High Priests, and the sentence confirmed by
his appointed procurator Pontius Pilate. Some traditions say that she
managed to receive a death sentence for the high priests Anna and
Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate. This seems a bit unlikely and other sources
like that of the 4th century historian Eusebius say that Pilate was
exiled probably to Gaul where he took his own life.
Mary is said to
have remained in Italy and helped Paul when he arrived. She remained two
more years after Paul had departed after his first court judgement.
Although we often speak of Paul as the founder of the Roman Church, the
Christian faith was already being preached there before his arrival.
Neither Paul nor Peter is the founder. Mary was there long before Peter
or Paul and even though she is not officially recognized as the founder
of the Roman Church she certainly played an important role in preparing
the ground for Paul to take over. Paul acknowledges this when he says in
his Epistle to the Romans, “Greet Mary, who
bestowed much labour upon us.” (Romans 16:6)
From Italy
Mary is said to have preached also in France before returning to
Jerusalem. Some traditions have her visiting Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria and
Pamphylia before returning to Jerusalem. At Jerusalem she stayed a short
while with the Mother of God until her death. From Jerusalem she was
persecuted by the Jews and was exiled to Marseilles together with the
Apostle Maximus of the seventy apostles. Here it is said that she
converted the whole of Provence and for many centuries there existed a
cult religion of Mary Magdalene.
Mary
finished her life in Ephesus near to St. John the Evangelist living in a
cave where she finished her earthly life and was buried. Her relics were
translated to Constantinople in 890 AD and placed in the monastery
Church of St Lazarus. In the era of the Crusader campaigns some of her
relics were transferred to Italy and placed at Rome under the altar of
the Lateran Cathedral. Part of the relics of Mary Magdalene are also
said to be in Provence, France near Marseilles, where over them at the
foot of a steep mountain a splendid church is built in her honour. I
should also mention that on the Holy Mountain Athos in the monastery of
Simonopetra is kept an incorrupt female hand which for centuries has of
its own been preserved at a natural physical temperature of a living
body. By Tradition this hand belongs to Mary Magdalene who with the many
miracles surrounding the hand is considered as a second founder of the
monastery. In 1747 the hand was stolen by pirates, but was purchased
back in 1765 by the Abbot of the monastery in Tripoli Libya.
Unfortunately the Monastery’s records were burnt in the big fire of 1891
so we don’t have any more details concerning the history of the hand.
St. Mary Magdalene is celebrated by the Church on 22nd July which is her
main feast and on 4th May the Translation of her relics.
Before we
finish for today I think something should be said concerning the
scandalous and blasphemous books and films that have appeared in recent
years. Books like ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail” “The Da Vinci
Code”, the film by the same name and “The Last Temptation of Christ”. In
these books and films Mary Magdalene is portrayed as being Jesus’ wife
and that together they had children. The root of these lies is to be
found in the Gnostic writings of the second and third century especially
the writing known as “the gospel of St. Phillip” which suggests that
Mary and Jesus had a special relationship. The Papyrus found in Egypt in
1945 is incomplete with many holes in it and guesses were made at what
might have been the missing words. The sentence made up by purely
guesswork reads “And the companion of the saviour was Mary Magdalene.
Christ loved Mary more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her
often on her mouth.”
Based on
this Gnostic gospel and the cult religions surrounding Mary Magdalene in
Southern France, the authors of the book “The Holy Blood and the Holy
Grail”, put forward a hypothesis that the historical Jesus married Mary
Magdalene, had one or more children, and that those children or their
descendants emigrated to what is now southern France. Once there, they
intermarried with the noble families that would eventually become the
Merovingian dynasty, whose special claim to the throne of France is
championed today by a secret society called the Priory of Sion. They
concluded that the legendary Holy Grail is simultaneously the womb of
St. Mary Magdalene and the sacred royal bloodline she gave birth to.
The film
“The Last Temptation” is based on the same source and depicts Jesus on
the Cross being given a choice not to die but to marry Mary and have
children to which he accepts but then in old age he repents of this
decision and asks God to let him die on the Cross as he was originally
supposed to do.
Dan Brown,
the author of the “Da Vinci Code” novel again has used as the source of
his blasphemous book the Gnostic writings and the beliefs concerning the
bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene mentioned in the book “The Holy
Blood and the Holy Grail”
All these
writings are just attacks on the Bible and its authority. They attack
the true identity of Christ, the true identity of Mary and the true
identity of man’s salvation. In his book, Dan Brown writes that the
bible is the product of man and not of God. Man created it as a
historical record of tumultuous times and it has evolved through
countless translations, additions and revisions. History has never had a
perfect version of the book. He claims that Constantine the Great
commissioned and financed a new bible which omitted those gospels that
spoke of Christ’s human straits and embellished those gospels that made
him godlike. The earlier gospels were then outlawed, gathered up and
burned. He further argues that more than 80 gospels were potential
candidates for the New Testament, but only Matthew, Mark Luke and John
were chosen for purely political reasons at the time of Constantine and
indicates that the true gospels have recently been discovered in the
Dead Sea Scrolls. This is where his argument crumbles because from the
1,000 or so documents found at Qumran near the Dead Sea the only
religious documents found were from the Old Testament and the messiah
prophesied in these Old Testament texts totally support the Jesus
portrayed in the canonical gospels.
In the Old
Testament found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are 125 prophecies
pointing to the coming of the Messiah. The probability that all these
prophecies being fulfilled in just one person is incalculable: it would
be in the many billions and trillions to 1. The Dead Sea scrolls
therefore reinforce the fact that the Old Testament has not been changed
or tampered with, and that the Jesus Christ found in the canonical
gospels goes hand in hand with the prophecies and writings of the Old
Testament, unlike the Jesus portrayed in the Gnostic gospels. His
argument that Constantine changed the New Testament is also unfounded.
Firstly there were no gospels found among the Dead Sea Scrolls as Dan
Brown falsely stated. Secondly one of the earliest manuscripts of the
New Testament known as the Rylands Papyrus p52 was found in Egypt and is
dated to about 110AD more than 200 years before the birth of
Constantine. There is also the Bodmer Papyrus dated to 200AD which
contains text from the New Testament and many more discoveries of New
Testament findings that are identical to today’s New Testament all
dating before the time of Constantine’s rule. Constantine therefore did
not and could not have created the New Testament or change any part of
it.
The Gnostic
gospels which were found in different times and places were not placed
in the bible because they contradicted the Old Testament. Gnosticism
refers to a religious movement consisting of beliefs generally united in
the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world
created by an imperfect god. The Old Testament contradicts this because
it states that God is perfect and people are not trapped on earth. Dan
Brown based his novel on the Gnostic beliefs and writings. It was the
gospels from these Gnostic writings that Dan Brown accused were left out
by Constantine. But they were left out because they contradict the Old
Testament and because they teach that the God of the Old Testament was
evil and that the serpent was good. The Gnostics also created a goddess
named Sophia who they worshipped as more noble and wise than Jesus
Christ. They were fascinated with the mother principle in the universe.
I mentioned
all these facts because these ideas and beliefs has been around for
centuries and we can be sure that they will be cropping up again and
again in new books and new films and although they are scandalous to the
many millions of Christians throughout the world, if we learn to ignore
them then they might eventually go away. What has happened in the past
is that the Hierarchs of the Churches rose up with cries of
excommunication and forbidding the faithful to read or see these films.
The results from all this screaming and shouting actually produced the
opposite effect. The majority of these works are just mediocre, which
under normal circumstances would have passed by unnoticed by most
people, but because of all the noise generated by the Christian
Churches, it awakened people’s interest and curiosity to see what all
the fuss was about. The end result was that more people than would have
bought the books and saw the films and the producers of these works made
a fortune. I am not saying that we should completely ignore such
blasphemous works and not say anything. But instead of rising up in
anger it would be better to soberly instruct and educate the faithful on
the origins of these works so that they can sieve out for themselves the
truths from the lies.
|
|
|