Mary the Magdalene, the Repentant Woman, and Mary of Bethany.

• Mary the Magdalene

Healed by Jesus from seven demons

1. Lk. 8:1-2

Financially supported Jesus's ministry

1. Lk. 8:2-3

Present at Jesus's crucifixion

1. Matt. 27:55-56
2. Mk. 15:40-41
3. Jn. 19:25

Present at Jesus's burial

1. Matt. 27:59-61
2. Mk. 15:46-47

Present for the anointing of Jesus's Body

1. Matt. 28:1
2. Mk. 16:1
3. Lk. 24:1
4. Jn. 20:1

First disciple to witness Jesus's resurrection (or second if you believe that He appeared to His Mother first), and be entrusted with the task of being the messenger of Resurrection

1. Mk. 16:9-11
2. Jn. 20:14-18

It's important to note that there are personal gestures, which are repeated and are peculiar to a person like the person’s style. They are unmistakable gestures. The following are two distinct scenes where the woman in each scene honored Jesus by means of the same gesture.

• The Repentant Woman in the House of Simon the Pharisee

"A woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that he was reclining in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. Standing behind at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and she wiped them with the hair of her head, kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment." (Lk. 7:36-50)

• Mary of Bethany

"Then six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, who had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. So they made him a supper there. Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with him. Therefore Mary took a pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious, and anointed Jesus’s feet and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment." (Jn. 12:1-3)

"While he was at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster jar of ointment of pure nard—very costly. She broke the jar, and poured it over his head." "Most certainly I tell you, wherever this Good News may be preached throughout the whole world, that which this woman has done will also be spoken of for a memorial of her.” (Mk. 14:3;9)

"Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him having an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table.' "Most certainly I tell you, wherever this Good News is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of as a memorial of her.” (Matt. 26:6-7;13)

Based on the Evangelist accounts above, can one reasonably deny that Mary the Magdalene—a woman healed by Jesus from seven demons, and who became the second-greatest woman disciple—and the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee and Mary in Bethany—both of whom were well-known sinners, and honored Jesus by means of the same gesture using their hair, with the gesture made in Bethany being memorialized by Jesus—couldn't have been the same woman?

Additionally, based on the account of Maria Valtorta, another true spokesperson of God, she confirms that Mary the Magdalene, the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and Mary in Bethany were the same person. Additionally, Lazarus, Martha, and Mary were siblings. Their father, Theophilus, a Syrian, was the governor of Antioch, and faithful servant of Caesar, and their mother was Eucheria. Mary was a well-known prostitute, even among the Romans in Israel, and thus the disgrace of her family. By extension, her family was affected. They couldn't go among people without having to put up with their mockery, including from the Pharisees and scribes, and Martha never married, because no one married the sister of a prostitute. Mary's conversion was a process, rather than an event. I highly recommend reading A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work, especially the chapters on the proofs, and The Story of Mary Magdalene (extracts from The Poem of the Man-God).

Ronald Nolette said:

Sorry but Mary who is the sister of Lazarus is different from Mary of Magdala.

Click to expand...

Based on the Evangelist accounts in post #1 alone...

can you really reasonably say that Mary Magdalene—a woman healed by Jesus from seven demons, and who became the second-greatest woman disciple—and the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee and Mary of Bethany—both of whom were well-known sinners, and honored Jesus by means of the same gesture using their hair, with the gesture made in Bethany being memorialized by Jesus—couldn't have been the same woman?

and, at the very least, can you reasonably say that the the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee and Mary of Bethany—both of whom were well-known sinners, and honored Jesus by means of the same gesture using their hair—were the same woman?

amigo de christo said:

correct my friend .

Click to expand...

Based on the Evangelist accounts in post #1 alone...

can you really reasonably say that Mary Magdalene—a woman healed by Jesus from seven demons, and who became the second-greatest woman disciple—and the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee and Mary of Bethany—both of whom were well-known sinners, and honored Jesus by means of the same gesture using their hair, with the gesture made in Bethany being memorialized by Jesus—couldn't have been the same woman?

and, at the very least, can you reasonably say that the the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee and Mary of Bethany—both of whom were well-known sinners, and honored Jesus by means of the same gesture using their hair—were the same woman?

amigo de christo said:

it was mary magadalene in both mentions . the woman mentioned with the hair and washing of his feet .
That was mary magadalene . that much is sure .

Click to expand...

If you're saying that Mary Magdalene, the repentant woman who used her hair to apply ointment to Jesus in Simon the Pharisee's house, and Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, who used her hair to apply ointment to Jesus in Bethany, were the same person, then that is correct.

amigo de christo said:

and my assumption is that mary magadalene may have been the woman caught in the act of adultery as well .

Click to expand...

It's convenient to assume that, but I can tell you that the adulterous woman wasn't Mary Magdalene. Jesus has explained that the adulterous woman wasn't fully detached from her sin, as is required to be forgiven. In her flesh, and unfortunately not even in her heart, there was no nausea for sin. When Mary Magalene savored His Word, she became disgusted with sin and came to Him, full of good will to change completely. But the adulterous woman still hesitated between the voices of the flesh and those of the spirit. And in the excitement of the moment, she had not yet been able to use the axe against the stump of the flesh and cut it off in order to go, once she was mutilated of her greedy weight, to the Kingdom of God. Mutilated of what is ruin, but increased with what is salvation.

Do you want to know whether the adulterous woman was saved? The answer to that question Jesus gave. He said, "I was not the Savior for everybody. I wanted to be so, but I was not because not everyone wanted to be saved. And that was one of the most piercing arrows in My agony at Gethsemane." (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. IV)

Behold said:

A False prophet giving false information.
Nothig new.

Click to expand...

To accuse Maria Valtorta of having been a false spokesperson of God is a serious accusation, and should be treated like one. It's not one that a person should make as a passing comment without substantial evidence as you just did. Do you have no fear of God?

Additionally, based on the Evangelist accounts in post #1 alone...

can you really reasonably say that Mary Magdalene—a woman healed by Jesus from seven demons, and who became the second-greatest woman disciple—and the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee and Mary of Bethany—both of whom were well-known sinners, and honored Jesus by means of the same gesture using their hair, with the gesture made in Bethany being memorialized by Jesus—couldn't have been the same woman?

and, at the very least, can you reasonably say that the the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee and Mary of Bethany—both of whom were well-known sinners, and honored Jesus by means of the same gesture using their hair—were the same woman?

Behold said:

She's a heretic.
That's not an accusation, that's a fact.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church doesn't even say that Maria Valtorta was a heretic, but if you want to say it's a fact that she was, it's not one that you've verified to be so. Is it out of no fear of God that you make such an unverified statement about someone believed to have been His spokesperson?

Behold said:

Here is an update for you.

THE VATICAN, stated that her "writings, vistions......are NOT of supernatural origin".

So, all her ""conversations with Jesus"", have been deemed by your own "cult of Mary" as ... = nothing but her own theology, concepts, writings.

Nothing more.

Click to expand...

The statement given by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that Maria Valtorta's writings "cannot be regarded as having a supernatural origin" is their opinion, and they've been wrong before. I recommend that you read A Comprehensive Analysis of the Vatican's February 2025 Press Release on Maria Valtorta's Writings, and below are a few excerpts.

On a positive note, the statement does not condemn Maria Valtorta's work or affirm any errors of faith or morals within it. It implicitly supports the right of Catholics to read her writings, echoing the position expressed by Bishop Dionigi Tettamanzi in his May 6, 1992 letter (Prot. N. 324-92) to the global publisher of Valtorta's works. This subtle affirmation makes the Vatican statement more favorable than many of the anti-Valtorta articles circulating online, which falsely claim that her works are "forbidden," "condemned," or otherwise banned. The DDF statement also does not forbid Catholics from holding a personal belief in the supernatural character of her writings, as we will discuss shortly.

However, on a negative note, the statement attempts to categorize Valtorta's writings as apocryphal, which is an inaccurate characterization. This could serve to mislead people. The term "apocryphal" refers to ancient or early Christian writings that were deemed non-canonical by the early Church and excluded from the official biblical canon. The term is generally associated with writings from the early centuries of Christianity, not modern or contemporary works. In Catholicism, apocryphal writings are those rejected during the formation of the biblical canon, particularly during key Church councils like the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), which confirmed the canon of the Old and New Testaments.

In contrast, mystical revelations, such as those attributed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Ven. Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God, the revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, and other mystics, are generally classified as private revelations. These writings are not considered apocryphal because they do not claim to be part of the official canon of Scripture, nor do they fall within the time period typically associated with the term apocryphal. While they are not regarded as part of Scripture (and thus not part of the Deposit of Faith, which demands divine faith from Catholics), the Church allows authentic private revelations to be accepted with what is known as human faith. The Church acknowledges that certain private revelations are truly inspired by God, Our Lady, or an angel. For example, the Church recognizes the messages of Our Lady of Fatima as authentically inspired by a supernatural source, and these messages are considered reliable and trustworthy. Similarly, the writings of Maria Valtorta, though controversial, fall under the category of private revelation, not apocryphal writings. Furthermore, Maria Valtorta herself never claims that her revelations are canonical or on the same level as Scripture.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence of a formal Vatican investigation that would support such a declaration. Thus, the matter remains one of personal discernment. Furthermore, under the new norms, the Vatican has excluded the possibility of any private revelation being affirmed as supernatural except in exceptional circumstances.

Click to expand...

Question: Has there been historic precedent for the Holy Office/CDF/DDF making mistakes in such judgments?

Answer: Yes. For example, there is significant historical evidence of many works of authentic private revelation and writings of saints being put on the Index of Forbidden Books, and then later taken off of the Index and approved and promoted by Popes. There are also examples of other mistaken judgments. For example, in the 1920s, the Holy Office issued five decrees and censures against (later Saint) Padre Pio and stripped him of most of his priestly functions. The Holy Office also declared that Padre Pio's stigmata and other apparent miracles "could not be considered of supernatural origin."5 Pope Pius XI, who reversed the ban on Padre Pio, stated, "I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed."6

Similarly, the writings of St. Faustina Kowalska were initially placed on the Index of Forbidden Books before she was canonized. Interestingly, St. Faustina's Divine Mercy writings were placed on the Index around the same time as Maria Valtorta's work, but they were later vindicated by Pope John Paul II. Even the works of St. Thomas Aquinas were condemned by Pope John XXI on January 18, 1277, but this condemnation was eventually annulled.7

Venerable Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God was examined for fourteen years and afterwards placed on the Index of Forbidden Books for three months, before it was later vindicated by Pope Clement XI who strictly prohibited the Mystical City of God from ever being put on the Index of Forbidden Books again in two decrees of June 5, 1705 and September 26, 1713. Her Mystical City of God was furthermore vindicated by two Popes of the past century who went so far as to give an Apostolic Blessing to readers and promoters of the Mystical City of God, much in contrast to the actions of the Hierarchy which once put this work on the Index of Forbidden Books.8 Additionally, during the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, the Index of Forbidden Books was revised, and about a thousand books were removed from it, highlighting the fluidity of some of these judgments.

Click to expand...

The Holy Office/CDF/DDF's judgments do not participate in the infallibility of the Magisterium. Dismissing the possibility of Maria Valtorta's writings being acceptable or supernaturally inspired based solely on the DDF's 2025 statement, without further research or a genuine search for truth, would be akin to arguing that Saint Padre Pio wasn't holy because of the five decrees of censures he faced and the declaration that "there is no supernaturalism in what happens to Padre Pio." (i.e., his stigmata). Such an argument is flawed, as the Holy Office was wrong in those judgments and ended up saying the exact opposite later on when they reversed their decrees and censures and eventually went so far as to declare him a canonized saint and approved the miraculous phenomena of his stigmata and other miracles which they once erroneously declared was of no supernatural origin.

Click to expand...

Additionally, I highly recommend that you read A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work, especially the chapters on the proofs in support of her writings having a supernatural origin, and this piece about Luigia Sinapi, the mystic who challenged the Holy Office's opposition to Maria Valtorta's Work and met with Pope Pius XII about her. The Vatican made Luigina a venerable in 2025.

Behold said:

If you want to read something from a couple of Saints who are not faking it.. then read the writings of..

Hildegard of Bingen

Bernadette Sorbious

St. Francis

Click to expand...

I read their writings as well.

Behold said:

"The cult of Mary", is exactly that, so "being wrong" is par for the course.

However, unlike you, they have not made an IDOL out of this heretic.
So, in that case, they are not wrong.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church doesn't even say that Maria Valtorta was a heretic, but if you want to say it's a fact that she was, it's not one that you've verified to be so. Is it out of no fear of God that you make such an unverified statement about someone believed to have been His spokesperson? And, please, point out what you perceive to be examples of me "making an idol out of Maria Valtorta", so that I can explain to you what making an idol out of someone actually looks like.

Behold said:

Now, if you want to study the lives and the teachings of real Saints.......the Catholic version, then :

Hildegard of Bingen
Bernadette Soubirous
St. Frances

Click to expand...

Again, I read their writings as well.

Behold said:

"The cult of Mary", is exactly that, so "being wrong" is par for the course.

However, unlike you, they have not made an IDOL out of this heretic.
So, in that case, they are not wrong.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church doesn't even say that Maria Valtorta was a heretic, but if you want to say it's a fact that she was, it's not one that you've verified to be so. Is it out of no fear of God that you make such an unverified statement about someone believed to have been His spokesperson?

Behold said:

Its because you have decided that in no case, no matter what, will you even consider that this person's writings are false.

So, when you are unable to consider this, then you have created the person to be an "IDOL".

Its the same with Mary Worship........or Calvinism.

Click to expand...

Firstly, to "make someone an idol" means "to place anyone or anything above God", and your "example" of me making Maria Valtorta an idol is not that. And, it would be difficult to find a Catholic who personally places, and/or teaches others to place, the Virgin Mary above God.

Secondly, it's been over a decade since I began reading Maria Valtorta's writings and comparing them with Scripture, familiarizing myself with the arguments of both her critics and supporters, and reviewing the proofs in support of her writings having a supernatural origin. Ultimately, it is by God's Grace, in cooperation with my free will, that I came to recognize her writings are God's Work. Without that, no amount of proof could convince anyone, because, for example, Jesus gave many proofs that He is God incarnate, and still disbelief wasn't and isn't lacking.

You, on the other hand, know little to nothing about Maria Valtorta, and rather than investigate her, you take at face value the opinion of certain people within the Church who have been wrong before, and that you consider to be part of a "cult" in the first place! I highly recommend that you read, with faith in God and good will, A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work, especially the chapters on the proofs in support of her writings having a supernatural origin. I sent that link to another member on this forum, a Protestant, and he concluded, at the very least, that her writings have a supernatural origin. You should also read this piece about Luigia Sinapi, the mystic who challenged the Holy Office's opposition to Maria Valtorta's Work and met with Pope Pius XII about her. The Vatican made Luigina a venerable in 2025.

Thirdly, I don't know the future, but I know that I have a free will, for good or evil, and thus, at any point in the future, God forbid, I could decide to believe that Maria Valtorta's writings aren't God's Work, despite evidence to the contrary, or worse, stop believing in God. By the same token, you could decide to believe that Maria Valtorta's writings are God's Work. This is why I, all of us, should try to ask God daily to increase our faith in, hope towards, and love for Him, because only He can help us to recognize and accept Who He is and all that comes from Him.

Ronald Nolette said:

Now please show the evidence that Mary of Bethany was a well known sinner!

Click to expand...

I've done more than that. I've shown that Mary Magdalene, the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and Mary of Bethany were the same person in post #1.

Ronald Nolette said:

Not at all! Mary Magdeline is called that because she was from Magdala. Lazarus' sister was from Bethany.

Click to expand...

A toponymic surname can be used to not only refer to one's place of origin, but also residence. For example, in Scripture we know that Jesus's place of origin was Bethlehem, and that He later resided in Nazareth, and thus was called "Jesus of Nazareth". For this reason, one can't reasonably say that Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany couldn't have been the same woman based on different toponymic surnames.