where to find St Mary Magdalene?

[ChooseLove]

Pope St. Gregory the Great on St Mary Magdalene:
“And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices? … It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner. She had coveted with earthly eyes, but now through penitence these are consumed with tears. She displayed her hair to set off her face, but now her hair dries her tears. She had spoken proud things with her mouth, but in kissing the Lord’s feet, she now planted her mouth on the Redeemer’s feet. For every delight, therefore, she had had in herself, she now immolated herself. She turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance, for as much as she had wrongly held God in contempt.”
This I sent to someone and the response was this:
It’s interesting because in the Bible the story of the woman who washes Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair does not mention the name of this particular woman, so we must be careful in spreading untruths. Many have assumed that this in fact was St Mary Magdalene, but this is not known.
How should I respond? I figure if a pope has said something this lovingly, than heck it must have been her in the bible story. Where could I find the name of the woman in the story, I know it has to be somewhere or the pope would not have said such.

 

[thistle]

Pope St. Gregory the Great on St Mary Magdalene:
“And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices? … It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner. She had coveted with earthly eyes, but now through penitence these are consumed with tears. She displayed her hair to set off her face, but now her hair dries her tears. She had spoken proud things with her mouth, but in kissing the Lord’s feet, she now planted her mouth on the Redeemer’s feet. For every delight, therefore, she had had in herself, she now immolated herself. She turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance, for as much as she had wrongly held God in contempt.”
This I sent to someone and the response was this:
It’s interesting because in the Bible the story of the woman who washes Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair does not mention the name of this particular woman, so we must be careful in spreading untruths. Many have assumed that this in fact was St Mary Magdalene, but this is not known.
How should I respond? I figure if a pope has said something this lovingly, than heck it must have been her in the bible story. Where could I find the name of the woman in the story, I know it has to be somewhere or the pope would not have said such.

That was Pope St Gregory’s personal opinion and too much of a leap from devils to prostitution. His opinion is NOT Church teaching. There is nothing in scripture or tradition that even suggests Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and we certainly do not have to believe that.

 

[ChooseLove]

Does anyone know if there is anything written by any of the Church Fathers about her?

 

[prodromos]

St Mary Magdalan was a woman of high status in the community and not a prostitute. Tradition tells us that after the Ascension she journeyed to Rome where she was admitted to the court of Tiberius Caesar because of her high social standing. After describing how poorly Pilate had administered justice at Jesus’ trial, she told Caesar that Jesus had risen from the dead. To help explain his resurrection she picked up an egg from the dinner table. Caesar responded that a human being could no more rise from the dead than the egg in her hand turn red. The egg turned red immediately. Many icons of St Mary depict her holding a red egg because of this event, otherwise she is usually depicted as one of the myrrh bearers.

http://www.northernway.org/school/omm/MMicon.jpg

Her left hand is one of the precious relics found at the Orthodox Monastery of Simonopetra on Mt Athos in Greece. Not only is her hand completely whole and incorrupt, it also maintains body temperature.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This I sent to someone and the response was this:
It’s interesting because in the Bible the story of the woman who washes Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair does not mention the name of this particular woman, so we must be careful in spreading untruths. Many have assumed that this in fact was St Mary Magdalene, but this is not known.

It has been a long and popular understanding by Catholics that St Mary Magdalene was the same woman who was a prostitute and washed the feet of Jesus. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say it, but the Biblical evidence does point in that direction. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:%between%%between%In the New Testament she is mentioned among the women who accompanied Christ and ministered to Him (Luke, viii, 2-3), where it is also said that seven devils had been cast out of her (Mark, xvi, 9). She is next named as standing at the foot of the cross (Mark, xv, 40; Matt., xxvii, 56; John, xix, 25; Luke, xxiii, 49).

The Greek Fathers, as a whole, distinguish the three persons:
the “sinner” of Luke, vii, 36-50;
the sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luke, x, 38-42, and John, xi;
and Mary Magdalen.
On the other hand most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same. Protestant critics, however, believe there were two, if not three, distinct persons.

The first fact mentioned in the Gospel relating to the question under discussion is the anointing of Christ’s feet by a woman, a “sinner” in the city (Luke, vii, 37-50). This belongs to the Galilean ministry, it precedes the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and the third Passover. Immediately afterwards St. Luke describes a missionary circuit in Galilee and tells us of the women who ministered to Christ, among them being “Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils were gone forth” (Luke, viii, 2); but he does not tell us that she is to be identified with the" sinner" of the previous chapter. In x, 38-42, he tells us of Christ’s visit to Martha and Mary" in a certain town"; it is impossible to identify this town, but it is clear from ix, 53, that Christ had definitively left Galilee, and it is quite possible that this “town” was Bethany.

St. John, however, clearly identifies Mary of Bethany with the woman who anointed Christ’s feet (xii; cf. Matt., xxvit and Mark, xiv). It is remarkable that already in xi, 2, St. John has spoken of Mary as “she that anointed the Lord’s feet”, e aleipsasa; it is commonly said that he refers to the subsequent anointing which he himself describes in xii, 3-8; but it may be questioned whether he would have used e aleipsasa if another woman, and she a “sinner” in the city, had done the same. It is conceivable that St. John, just because he is writing so long after the event and at a time when Mary was dead, wishes to point out to us that she was really the same as the “sinner”. In the same way St. Luke may have veiled her identity precisely because he did not wish to defame one who was yet living; he certainly does something similar in the case of St. Matthew whose identity with Levi the publican (v, 7) he conceals.

If the foregoing argument holds good, Mary of Bethany and the “sinner” are one and the same. But an examination of St. John’s Gospel makes it almost impossible to deny the identity of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalen. From St. John we learn the name of the “woman” who anointed Christ’s feet previous to the last supper.

At that supper, then, Mary received the glorious encomium, “she hath wrought a good work upon Me… in pouring this ointment upon My body she hath done it for My burial. wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached… that also which she bath done shall be told for a memory of her.” Is it credible, in view of all this, that this Mary should have no place at the foot of the cross, nor at the tomb of Christ? Yet it is Mary Magdalen who, according to all the Evangelists, stood at the foot of the cross and assisted at the entombment and was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection. And while St. John calls, her “Mary Magdalen” in xix, 25, xx, 1, 18, he calls her simply “Mary” in xx, 11 and 16.

In the view we have advocated the series of events forms a consistent whole the “sinner” comes early in the ministry to seek for pardon; she is described immediately afterwards as Mary Magdalen “out of whom seven devils were gone forth”; shortly after, we find her “sitting at the Lord’s feet and hearing His words”. To the Catholic mind it all seems fitting and natural.
The above is the argument for why it COULD be, but there is no definitive proof. I personally go with the traditional understanding that she was the prostitute.

 

[prodromos]

It has been a long and popular understanding by Catholics that St Mary Magdalene was the same woman who was a prostitute and washed the feet of Jesus. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say it, but the Biblical evidence does point in that direction.

Actually it clearly excludes the possibility

St. John, however, clearly identifies Mary of Bethany with the woman who anointed Christ’s feet

Mary Magdalene is so named because she is from Magdala. Mary of Bethany is clearly from Bethany. There is no room for any confusion. The Latin tradition has its source in Pope St Gregory in the beginning of the 7th century, much later than the Eastern tradition.

John

 

[thistle]

It has been a long and popular understanding by Catholics that St Mary Magdalene was the same woman who was a prostitute and washed the feet of Jesus. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say it, but the Biblical evidence does point in that direction. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:%between%%between%In the New Testament she is mentioned among the women who accompanied Christ and ministered to Him (Luke, viii, 2-3), where it is also said that seven devils had been cast out of her (Mark, xvi, 9). She is next named as standing at the foot of the cross (Mark, xv, 40; Matt., xxvii, 56; John, xix, 25; Luke, xxiii, 49).

The Greek Fathers, as a whole, distinguish the three persons:
the “sinner” of Luke, vii, 36-50;
the sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luke, x, 38-42, and John, xi;
and Mary Magdalen.
On the other hand most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same. Protestant critics, however, believe there were two, if not three, distinct persons.

The first fact mentioned in the Gospel relating to the question under discussion is the anointing of Christ’s feet by a woman, a “sinner” in the city (Luke, vii, 37-50). This belongs to the Galilean ministry, it precedes the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and the third Passover. Immediately afterwards St. Luke describes a missionary circuit in Galilee and tells us of the women who ministered to Christ, among them being “Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils were gone forth” (Luke, viii, 2); but he does not tell us that she is to be identified with the" sinner" of the previous chapter. In x, 38-42, he tells us of Christ’s visit to Martha and Mary" in a certain town"; it is impossible to identify this town, but it is clear from ix, 53, that Christ had definitively left Galilee, and it is quite possible that this “town” was Bethany.

St. John, however, clearly identifies Mary of Bethany with the woman who anointed Christ’s feet (xii; cf. Matt., xxvit and Mark, xiv). It is remarkable that already in xi, 2, St. John has spoken of Mary as “she that anointed the Lord’s feet”, e aleipsasa; it is commonly said that he refers to the subsequent anointing which he himself describes in xii, 3-8; but it may be questioned whether he would have used e aleipsasa if another woman, and she a “sinner” in the city, had done the same. It is conceivable that St. John, just because he is writing so long after the event and at a time when Mary was dead, wishes to point out to us that she was really the same as the “sinner”. In the same way St. Luke may have veiled her identity precisely because he did not wish to defame one who was yet living; he certainly does something similar in the case of St. Matthew whose identity with Levi the publican (v, 7) he conceals.

If the foregoing argument holds good, Mary of Bethany and the “sinner” are one and the same. But an examination of St. John’s Gospel makes it almost impossible to deny the identity of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalen. From St. John we learn the name of the “woman” who anointed Christ’s feet previous to the last supper.

At that supper, then, Mary received the glorious encomium, “she hath wrought a good work upon Me… in pouring this ointment upon My body she hath done it for My burial. wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached… that also which she bath done shall be told for a memory of her.” Is it credible, in view of all this, that this Mary should have no place at the foot of the cross, nor at the tomb of Christ? Yet it is Mary Magdalen who, according to all the Evangelists, stood at the foot of the cross and assisted at the entombment and was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection. And while St. John calls, her “Mary Magdalen” in xix, 25, xx, 1, 18, he calls her simply “Mary” in xx, 11 and 16.

In the view we have advocated the series of events forms a consistent whole the “sinner” comes early in the ministry to seek for pardon; she is described immediately afterwards as Mary Magdalen “out of whom seven devils were gone forth”; shortly after, we find her “sitting at the Lord’s feet and hearing His words”. To the Catholic mind it all seems fitting and natural.
The above is the argument for why it COULD be, but there is no definitive proof. I personally go with the traditional understanding that she was the prostitute.

There is absolutely no scriptural basis for even speculating that she might have been a prostitue.
There was not even a tradition that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute before Pope St Gregory made known his personal opinion. That was the point it started and has no basis at all.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Actually it clearly excludes the possibility

Mary Magdalene is so named because she is from Magdala. Mary of Bethany is clearly from Bethany. There is no room for any confusion. The Latin tradition has its source in Pope St Gregory in the beginning of the 7th century, much later than the Eastern tradition.
John

I did a word search for “Mary” and here is what I found:

In Matthew, Mary Magdalen only appears mentioned at the foot of the cross and Resurrection. Same thing for Mark, only mentioned at the foot of the cross.

Luke first mentions Mary Magdalen in Lk 8:2 saying she was Mary “called Magdalen,” which doesn’t necessarily mean “from Magdala.” In Lk10:39 a “Mary” sister of Martha is mentioned, but there is no indication it is Magdalene which seems odd if they were the same person. In Lk24 Magdalene is mentioned again at the foot of the cross.

John’s Gospel is where things get interesting. Mary is first mentioned in John 11:
1Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair.
Now, when did this anointing take place?
Mat 26 6While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. 12When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.13I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Mk 14 3While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. 8She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Lk 7 36Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, 38and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
39When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”
40Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”
“Tell me, teacher,” he said.

John 12 1Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.
These accounts are undeniably the same event. Lazarus and Simon the Leper are clearly the same person. It is very clear that “Mary of Bethany” is the “sinful woman” in Lk 7. It appears very plausible to me that her sinfulness was kept quiet to spare her the humiliation.

The article, and Latin custom, note that each Gospel mentions the anointing, three of them mention a blessing this Mary was to receive in relation to anointing for His burial, and each gospel mentions Mary Magdalene at the foot of the cross. While it isnt definitive proof, it is not a stretch to say the blessing the woman received included being at the foot of the cross and the first to see the Resurrected Lord.

There is absolutely no scriptural basis for even speculating that she might have been a prostitute.
There was not even a tradition that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute before Pope St Gregory made known his personal opinion. That was the point it started and has no basis at all.

Oh, you are saying that “sinner” does not mean “prostitute”, that is a good distinction to make which I did not realize before.
I did some searching around and apparently the prostitute thing came up because someone said the “woman caught in adultery” (John 8) was Magdalene. I havnt done any personal research yet, but as of now it does not look like the woman of Jn 8 can be linked to Mary Magdalene.

 

[prodromos]

These accounts are undeniably the same event. Lazarus and Simon the Leper are clearly the same person. It is very clear that “Mary of Bethany” is the “sinful woman” in Lk 7. It appears very plausible to me that her sinfulness was kept quiet to spare her the humiliation.

Alas, your zeal to defend Pope St Gregory has blinded you to some obvious facts in the scriptures you have quoted, not to mention the fact that Holy Tradition records entirely different accounts of the lives of Saint Mary Magdalene and Saints Martha and Mary of Bethany.

Now the passages you have quoted describe two different events, one (Luke 7 and John 12), before His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, in the home of Lazarus with Mary his sister pouring myrrh on Jesus’ feet, and another (Matt 26 and Mark 14), some time after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem in the home of Simon the Leper with a woman who is known only to God pouring myrrh on Jesus’ head.

Two different times, two different homes, two different women, and neither of them is St Mary Magdalene.

Luke first mentions Mary Magdalen in Lk 8:2 saying she was Mary “called Magdalen,” which doesn’t necessarily mean “from Magdala”.

Actually that is exactly what it means. I challenge you to provide any basis for another interpretation.

Scripture on its own is plain enough regarding who the different Marys are when you don’t start from a particular premise and try to read it into the texts, but I am surprised that you as a Catholic has completely disregarded what Holy Tradition has to say about the lives of each of these women in the first century of the Church. Listen to the consistent teaching of the Church and you won’t be led astray by the errors of individuals, even if they do happen to be saints.

John

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Alas, your zeal to defend Pope St Gregory has blinded you to some obvious facts in the scriptures you have quoted, not to mention the fact that Holy Tradition records entirely different accounts of the lives of Saint Mary Magdalene and Saints Martha and Mary of Bethany.

I’m not deliberately disregarding Tradition or Scripture, this is the first time I have spent any time looking into the issue. I welcome any correction you may provide.

Now the passages you have quoted describe two different events,

one (Luke 7 and John 12), before His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, in the home of Lazarus with Mary his sister pouring myrrh on Jesus’ feet,

and another (Matt 26 and Mark 14), some time after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem in the home of Simon the Leper with a woman who is known only to God pouring myrrh on Jesus’ head.

** Two different times, two different homes, two different women**, and neither of them is St Mary Magdalene.

This is interesting, there is a distinction between feet and head which I didn’t recognize before, or even two different anointings. I went over all four accounts again as carefully as I could and made some lists:

Mat 26:
Passover two days away.
Bethany.
Simon the Leper.
Woman.
Alabaster Jar of very expensive perfume.
Poured on his head at the table.
Disciples ask “this could have been sold”.
Jesus: dont bother her, poor always have, on body for burial, gospel.

Mk 14:
Passover two days away.
Bethany.
Simon the Leper.
Woman.
Alabaster jar of very expensive perfume.
Poured on his head.
Some present ask “why the waste”
Jesus: leaver her alone, poor always have, on body for burial, gospel.

Lk 7:
Time unknown.
Place unknown.
Simon the Pharisee.
Sinful woman.
Alabaster jar of perfume.
Poured on feet, wiped with hair.
Simon Pharisee asks why touch a sinner.
Jesus says she loved more, sins forgiven.

Jn 12:
Six days before passover
Bethany.
Lazarus.
Mary.
Expensive perfume.
Poured on feet, wiped with hair.
Judas asks why wasnt this sold.
Jesus: leave her alone, “save this perfume for the day of my burial” the poor you will always have.

Taking this evidence as it stands, three of them mention Bethany, and three mention Simon. I think it is safe to conclude the Lk 7 unknown location was in Bethany and that Simon and Lazarus are the same person. You even say Lk 7 and Jn 12 are the same event. Thus all 4 accounts of anointings took place at Bethany at the home of a man named Simon.

The time frame here is also interesting. Two say it was two days before passover, one is silent, and the last says six days before passover. That means that if these were two different anointings then they took place within four days of each other. Further, it would mean two different homes in Bethany of two different men named Simon opened the door to Jesus.

IF there were two anointings that would mean Jesus was anointed at Bethany at Simon1’s home, entered Jerusalem, then went back to Bethany to get anointed again at Simon2’s home, and then re-entered Jerusalem. This seems improbable and I don’t think the Bible supports this, in fact the Bible would likely point out two different anointings in the same few days.

Next, three of the accounts have virtually identical conclusions: someone objects and asks why the perfume was “wasted” instead of going to the poor, Jesus says leave the woman alone, the perfume was for his burial, and that the poor they would always have but not Him. Now, do you think that the same discussion took place twice, even within 4 days of each other? It seems very improbable to me.

In conclusion, I would say there is strong evidence there was one anointing, at Bethany, in the home of a Pharisee, Simon the Leper (nicknamed Lazarus). He was anointed on both His head and feet by a ‘sinful woman’ named Mary, sister of Martha. Luke is the “odd man out” and is not concerned with precise chronology.

Lastly, does any of this prove this was Mary Magdalene? No, no such conclusion can be drawn from accounts themselves.
The only case could be based on implicit evidence (and Tradition) that she is the one whom the “Gospel promise” is in reference to in conclusion of the anointing, and that is why Gospels don’t really mention Magdalene except at the end.

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

Actually that is exactly what it means. I challenge you to provide any basis for another interpretation.

Scripture on its own is plain enough regarding who the different Marys are when you don’t start from a particular premise and try to read it into the texts, but I am surprised that you as a Catholic has completely disregarded what Holy Tradition has to say about the lives of each of these women in the first century of the Church. Listen to the consistent teaching of the Church and you won’t be led astray by the errors of individuals, even if they do happen to be saints.
John

Again, as I said above, I am not deliberately disregarding Scripture or Tradition. I don’t know what Tradition has to say on this, and it was only recently I took a good look at the Scriptures.

As for whether the phrase “Mary called Magdalene” means “from Magdala” I don’t know for sure but here is how I would reason it out. First of all we know for certain that certain people and places went by different names, for example, the Bible is clear that certain Apostles went by different names.
Second, I looked up the word for “called” in Greek, it occurs 147 times in the NT, almost always in reference to a simple name of someone (eg. a man ‘called’ X). I kept a look out for the format of “X called Y” but it didn’t occur that often, here are where it occurs:
-Lk 6:15, “Simon called Zealot”
-Lk 8:2, “Mary called Magdalene”
-Jn 1:42, “Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas”
-Acts 1:23, “Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus”
-Acts 15:37, “John called Mark”
-Rev 12:9, “that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan”

None of these indicate “called” means “from,” but rather in reference to an alternative name. In the case of Magdalene it could mean this, but from the usage it also doesn’t necessarily.

Also on St Thomas Aquinas’ Cantena (commentary of the Fathers on the Gospels) for Luke 8 he quotes: THEOPHYL; Mary Magdalene is the same of whose repentance, without mention of her name, we have just read. For the Evangelist, when he relates her going with our Lord, rightly distinguishes her by her known name, but when describing the sinner but penitent, He speaks of her generally as a woman; lest the mark of her former guilt should blacken a name of so great report. Out of whom seven devils are reported to have gone, that it might be shown that she was full of all vices.
I assume this is Theophilus of Antioch, but I cant find an official quote.

 

[ChooseLove]

WOW guys this is REALLY interesting stuff! Wish I had the time to look deeper, but with feeding all these kids my life just doesn’t allow me that privilege. Keep up the great work, I’m loving reading it all!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

WOW guys this is REALLY interesting stuff! Wish I had the time to look deeper, but with feeding all these kids my life just doesn’t allow me that privilege. Keep up the great work, I’m loving reading it all!

It is very interesting, I didn’t really look into this issue either until a few days ago.

 

[prodromos]

On further investigation I realise I have mispoken. There are not two separate events described but three.

Luke describes the first event just after John the Baptist, who has been arrested, sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one they are waiting for (he sends his disciples for their benefit, not his own). It is after this event that Jesus is found at the home of Simon the Pharisee, it doesn’t say which city, and an unnamed woman pours myrrh on Jesus feet. No mention is made of this being a preparation for His burial as Jesus has barely begun His ministry. Key events which follow in Luke are:Jesus calms storm after falling asleep in the boat
Jesus feeds the 5000. Christ’s Transfiguration on Mt Tabor.
Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem.
Last supper. Jesus arrested.
Next we have the account in John where in Bethany, well after the Transfiguration, Lazarus is at the table with Christ and his sister Mary pours myrrh on Jesus feet, wiping His feet with her hair. Only Judas is indignant about the expense of the myrrh. Following this is Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, after which come the last supper and Jesus’ arrest.

The third event is described by both Matthew and Mark in the home of Simon the Leper in the town of Bethany after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where another unnamed woman pours myrrh on Jesus head. This time others are indignant at the expense. Following this is the last supper and Jesus’ arrest.

Now it is remotely possible that Matthew and Mark are describing the same event as John, despite the obvious difference in the placement of myrrh, but it does not follow as Catholic Dude suggests that Lazarus and Simon the Leper are one and the same person. John’s gospel only puts Lazarus at the table with Christ but does not name it as his house so it is a perfectly acceptable assumption that Lazarus was a guest in the house of Simon the Leper.

John

 

[Catholic_Dude]

On further investigation I realise I have mispoken. There are not two separate events described but three.

Does Holy Tradition say anything about these being 3 different events?

Luke describes the first event just after John the Baptist, who has been arrested, sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one they are waiting for (he sends his disciples for their benefit, not his own). It is after this event that Jesus is found at the home of Simon the Pharisee, it doesn’t say which city, and an unnamed woman pours myrrh on Jesus feet. No mention is made of this being a preparation for His burial as Jesus has barely begun His ministry. Key events which follow in Luke are:Jesus calms storm after falling asleep in the boat
Jesus feeds the 5000. Christ’s Transfiguration on Mt Tabor.
Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem.
Last supper. Jesus arrested.

It could be that Luke separated this story and was not concerned about chronology, that is how I see it. In Luke’s account the woman has an alabastar jar (mentioned in Mt and Mk) with the word “ointment” for anointing (mentioned in Mt, Mk, Jn) and is wiping his feet with her hair (clearly paralleled in john). If this was not the same event then it would mean Luke did not mention the famous anointing at all when the three others did.

Next we have the account in John where in Bethany, well after the Transfiguration, Lazarus is at the table with Christ and his sister Mary pours myrrh on Jesus feet, wiping His feet with her hair. Only Judas is indignant about the expense of the myrrh. Following this is Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, after which come the last supper and Jesus’ arrest.

But this story is very closely matched in Mat and Mk, so I dont see how it can be a “third” anointing.

The third event is described by both Matthew and Mark in the home of Simon the Leper in the town of Bethany after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where another unnamed woman pours myrrh on Jesus head. This time others are indignant at the expense. Following this is the last supper and Jesus’ arrest.

It would mean Jesus was in Bethany to get anointed, triumphanly entered Jerusalem, left to go back to Bethany to get anointed again, and reentered Jerusalem quietly just before Passover. This seems like a stretch with no strong Biblical foundation (nor in Tradition, I presume).

Now it is remotely possible that Matthew and Mark are describing the same event as John, despite the obvious difference in the placement of myrrh

I dont think the phrase “remotely possible” is a fair assessment. All three are at Bethany for an anointing for burial with someone mentioning wasted money and the same rebuke, and all with a maximum time frame of 4 days. The same language in each account and you are arguing there is only a “remote possibility,” and instead propose a second entry into Jerusalem after a second trip to Bethany for a second anointing, all factors which Scripture is utterly silent upon (and in fact leans towards just the opposite conclusion).

, but it does not follow as Catholic Dude suggests that Lazarus and Simon the Leper are one and the same person.

Of course it follows they are the same person if they are the same event. The head of the household is mentioned in each and it is not a stretch at all to say Simon the Leper is Lazarus (a nickname, noting that John gives even other Apostles nicknames).

John’s gospel only puts Lazarus at the table with Christ but does not name it as his house so it is a perfectly acceptable assumption that Lazarus was a guest in the house of Simon the Leper.

John 12 explicitly says that is the home where Lazarus lived and says Martha served the meal, it would be a gigantic stretch to say Lazarus was merely a guest in Simon the Leper’s home.

My research has led me to conclude there was a single anointing, anything more would be having Jesus enter Jerusalem twice and ignore the undeniable similarities in each of the accounts.

If there were three accounts that would be one rare occasions (if not the only one) where all four Gospels describe three different accounts of Jesus without mentioning the other two!

I would guess tradition supports the notion there were one or two anointing, but not three.

 

[ChooseLove]

I’m sticking with early Church tradition that she was a prostitute who totally changed her life around once Jesus entered into it.

www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?id=6091&repos=1&subrepos=&searchid=260754

here is just a bit of it…

This scene is part of Jesus’ ministry in the area of the Sea of Galilee. Also, right after the declaration of forgiveness in the seventh chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, Mary Magdalene is mentioned by name as a follower of Jesus and identified as the one “from whom seven devils had gone out” (Lk 9:1-3). Keep in mind that Magdalene is derived from Magdala. Magdala, located along the Sea of Galilee near Tiberias, was a wealthy city known for its prosperous fisheries. The Romans destroyed the town because of its moral depravity and its participation in the Jewish revolt. Interestingly, in the Talmud, from the word Magdalene is derived the expression “curling women’s hair,” which means “adulteress.” Even though the penitent woman of Luke 7 is not specifically identified as the Mary Magdalene “from whom seven devils had gone out” of Luke 8, one could easily draw the conclusion, as did Pope St. Gregory. Moreover, the early Church tradition has also upheld this connection.

 

[ChooseLove]

newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm
second paragraph it reads,

Protestant critics, however, believe there were two, if not three, distinct persons. It is impossible to demonstrate the identity of the three; but those commentators undoubtedly go too far who assert, as does Westcott (on John 11:1), “that the identity of Mary with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture supported by no direct evidence, and opposed to the general tenour of the gospels.” It is the identification of Mary of Bethany with the “sinner” of Luke 7:37, which is most combatted by Protestants.

 

[prodromos]

I’m sticking with early Church tradition that she was a prostitute who totally changed her life around once Jesus entered into it.

Moreover, the early Church tradition has also upheld this connection.

There is no ‘early Church Tradition’ that St Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. This is a view which has appeared only in the West and it is not the first time this has happened. Once knowledge of Greek died out in the West, the western See basically cut themselves off from the early Tradition apart from the little which had been translated into Latin

Magdala, located along the Sea of Galilee near Tiberias, was a wealthy city known for its prosperous fisheries. The Romans destroyed the town because of its moral depravity and its participation in the Jewish revolt.

Josephus mentions a wealthy Galilean town destroyed by the Romans in the Jewish War (III, x) with the Greek name Tarichaeae (Josephus does not give its Hebrew name), from its prosperous fisheries, and some authors (e.g. Achtemeier, 1996) identify this with Magdala.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdala

As you can see, it is by no means certain that the city described by Josephus is indeed “Magdala”. I have also not been able to find any reference to the so called ‘moral depravity’ of the city. The only reference I can find is the following:But as soon as he was informed that Tiberias was fond of innovations, and that Tarichere had revolted, both which cities were parts of the kingdom of Agrippa, and was satisfied within himself that the Jews were every where perverted [from their obedience to their governors], he thought it seasonable to make an expedition against these cities, and that for the sake of Agrippa, and in order to bring his cities to reason.As you can see, the word “perverted” is immediately qualified and has nothing to do with moral depravity.
The article you quoted makes bold claims with no foundation whatsoever. I would especially like to see a reference for the following statement

Interestingly, in the Talmud, from the word Magdalene is derived the expression “curling women’s hair,” which means “adulteress.”

John

 

[ChooseLove]

www.allsaintsmem.org/MaryMagdalene.htm
this site has the same article as on Catholic Encyclopedia site and at the end of the article this is written.

Written by Hugh T. Pope. Transcribed by Paul T. Crowley. In Memoriam, Sr. Mary Leah, O.P. and Sr. Mary Lilly, O.P. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

I’ve yet to find anything on the Talmud issue, and if an article has both the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, I’m going with it.

here is another website
www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterpentecost3x.html
this one to me completes the deal…

But the first two verses of John 11 tells us who that “sinner” was:

John 11:1-2
Now there was a certain man sick, named Lazarus, of Bethania, of the town of Mary and Martha her sister. (And Mary was she that anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair: whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
Despite this verse, dissenters of various stripes attribute the Church’s view of Mary as the repentant sinner solely to a sermon given by Pope St. Gregory the Great, and then deem this sermon misogynist, as some sort of insult against her dignity as a follower of Christ. But here is what this great Pope also said about Mary Magdalen:

When Mary Magdalen came to the tomb and did not find the Lord’s Body, she thought it had been taken away and so informed the disciples. After they came and saw the tomb, they too believed what Mary had told them. The text then says: “The disciples went back home,” and it adds: “but Mary wept and remained standing outside the tomb.”

We should reflect on Mary’s attitude and the great love she felt for Christ; for though the disciples had left the tomb, she remained. She was still seeking the One she had not found, and while she sought she wept; burning with the fire of love, she longed for Him Who she thought had been taken away. And so it happened that the woman who stayed behind to seek Christ was the only one to see Him. For perseverance is essential to any good deed, as the voice of truth tell us: “Whoever perseveres to the end will be saved.”
This strange, modern obsession to twist Mary Magdalen’s story has a few definite purposes:

it attempts to undermine the authority of the Church and paint Her hierarchs as “woman-haters”

it attempts to provide a radical feminist justification for the ordination of women by emphasizing Mary Magdalen’s importance – but in an inordinate, unhistorical way

it attempts to downplay sexual sins by keeping Mary Magdalen away from them and, thereby, keeping them out of mind, ignoring the need of repentance for such acts
But these modernist critics forget that everything we can know about Mary comes from Scripture and Sacred Tradition (their Gnostic “gospels” were written hundreds of years after Christ). They forget that the Church recognizes that St. Paul had been a murderer of Christians – surely more of a sin than Mary’s promiscuity – and he is honored above all apostles but St. Peter! They forget that we hold Mary in such great esteem that we celebrate her Feast, name churches for her, and build shrines in her memory! And misogynist? It is funny how Catholics are accused by some of “hating women” while Protestants accuse us of “worshipping” one!

**Mary’s story of redemption and grace is very important and relevant to today’s world, a world in which such sinful behaviors are seen as normal and good. Mary’s story gives hope to all who have dark pasts that Christ, the Divine Physician, heals and redeems. Alleluia! **
Today is a good day, then, to ponder Christ’s mercy, to recall the sins of your life and how you are forgiven of them through the Sacrament of Penance.

 

[thistle]

www.allsaintsmem.org/MaryMagdalene.htm
this site has the same article as on Catholic Encyclopedia site and at the end of the article this is written.

I’ve yet to find anything on the Talmud issue, and if an article has both the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, I’m going with it.

here is another website
www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterpentecost3x.html
this one to me completes the deal…

It is not scriptural that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
It has NEVER been a Church teaching that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
It has NEVER been a Church Tradition that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
The so-called tradition simply started after Pope St Gregory expressed his personal opinion that she was a prostitute and his opinion was baseless and not taken up by the Church then or thereafter.

You hang your hat on Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur??? Wake up and smell the coffee!!