What a Priest told me about purgatory

[guanophore]

Putting the verses into their proper context we see Mary IS questioning the messengers remarks as possible since she has no ulterior thought process with which to put the Angels remarks into any other understanding.

I understand that it is important for you to reject what the Apostles taught us. I am not sure why this is, but I do accept that it is necessary for you to reject this teaching, and to justify it somehow from the text.

There is nothing particularly amazing in verse 38 that demands it be elevated to the accolades people have been fed to believe.

I am not sure what you have been “fed to believe” but what is written reflects what was handed down to us from the Apostles. One must understand what is written in context. The context of the New Testament is the Catholic Church. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

“…; genoito moi kata to rhema sou…” “…/be it/ /to me/ /according to/ /the/ /word/ /of you/…”

be it…fundamentally, “become” (becoming, became) she’s saying let it be true in reality…to me, she wants it to be true about herself

Not that she “wants it to be true” but she accepts it as already true. She is giving her consent to what God has revealed to her.

according to…(prep, properly, “down from a higher to a lower plane” “bring down exactly, complete” she wants the reality of the truth to be fulfilled exactly as it has been given to her…

Not that she “wants” but that she consents and acknowledges that it is already done.

his is the thing given to her that she hopes will be true…

Not that she “hopes” but that she accepts the word as it was given to her. Jesus testified to this. Luke 11:28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

We already know Mary was blessed to carry the messiah, but Jesus points out that she heard the Word of God and kept it, which is an even greater blessing than “the womb that bore you, and the paps that gave you suck”.

 

[Gorgias]

“…; genoito moi kata to rhema sou…” “…/be it/ /to me/ /according to/ /the/ /word/ /of you/…”

be it…fundamentally, “become” (becoming, became) she’s saying let it be true in reality…to me, she wants it to be true about herself

This is the second time you’ve brought up Mary’s fiat, and both times, I’m afraid, you’re missing the nuance here. It’s important, in order to understand Mary’s fiat, to recognize what the inspired author is saying here. In fact, γένοιτό (“genoito”) is in the optative mood. In all of the New Testament, the optative is used only 68 times! That should be a glaring, blinking, klaxon-accompanied signal to you: Luke is attempting to say something distinct and particular here!

It would be a mistake to confuse the Attic usage of the optative in the context of Koine Greek writings. In the former, it might point to an expression of ‘possibility’ (as you mentioned upthread). In Koine, though, it’s used in a different way, to make a distinct point. In fact, the optative is often used as an expression of prayer. “May God bless you!”, in Koine, would be an optative expression, not subjunctive. And, it doesn’t express ‘possibility’ (“gee… I really hope that God blesses you, but I don’t know for sure”); rather, it expresses a prayer made to God – that is, a request to God that the speaker is making.

With this in mind, let’s get back to the fiat. You’ve suggested that Mary didn’t know that Gabriel is an angel. You’ve suggested that her statement here merely sees her opinion that this is a ‘possibility’, perhaps a ‘possibility that she hopes for.’ However, both of those fail to take into account the optative verb here. Mary is praying to God, by addressing His angel. She prays, “may it be done to me according to your word.”

In this single line, we see two crystal-clear facts: in directing her prayer (to God) in the direction of the angel (“your word”), Mary is depicted as understanding what’s going on here – this is God’s messenger who is delivering this message from God! And, she’s not merely expressing her opinion of the message – she’s actively praying that it happens according to God’s will!

Hope this helps you to understand better what’s going on in this passage…

 

[setarcos]

Greetings quanophore, a pleasure once again to be reasoning with you.

The fact that the text does not show the question to Mary does not mean it was never asked.

You are correct. Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence etc. however if we are to comment on the text we must work within the confines of what the text gives us. Mary was never asked a single question in the pertinent verses. No hint of a request for approval is indicated, so this is simply what I am working with in order to paint a coherent picture. We cannot, nor should not add to what is revealed in scripture unless the revelations themselves unequivocally imply further related information. I believe that any implications derived from the verses in question all point to the fact that Mary was told her future and not asked if she would comply to any specific divine requests having dedicated herself to pious servitude already.

Mary had consecrated her life to God prior to the visitation.

In what manner and meaning Mary consecrated her life to God is what we are debating. I can only work with the evidence given. Why do you believe that, if this is true, it would preclude the possibility that she had no choice in the matter given her current state? Mary’s agreeing to anything would have been superfluous to the Angels previous statements. If, as I think you believe, Mary gave her life over to God in perpetual and total servitude prior to this why would she need to agree to what she already agreed to? She already signed the contract, what need to sign again? She already committed her will. This was not a “yes, I agree to do what you say.” statement.

“I am the handmaid of the Lord…” this is a statement acknowledging her pious dedication to her religion, all pious Jewish women were handmaids of the lord, “…let it be done to me according to your will” - and this is her hope in the messages fulfillment.

You seem to think that her agreement was given to the messenger, rather than to God? Or you just don’t think she understood the messenger was angelic?

I don’t believe she was convinced yet that the messenger was giving a legitimate message from God. I believe she was still incredulous but hopeful and not convinced that the message wasn’t from God. Her reply is at once responding to God in the first half and the messenger in the second. I have given many examples previously where messengers from God were not recognized at the time they relayed their message. Recognition usually comes after some ulterior proof or reassurance. It is of note that Gabriel did not announce his name to Mary as he did to Zacharias and Mary obviously didn’t recognize him as being a divine messenger since Gabriel had to reassure her about who sent him.

 

[setarcos]

I can understand why it would seem that way to you. Catholics believe that God gives every human soul the choice to follow Him, which means that we can all reject His purpose for our lives.

The "choice” to follow him is a bit more involved than you seem to think. Scripture describes time and again when God interferes with the will of humans, even directing their destiny to fulfill his desires. None of us are on an even playing field in exercising our so called free will see 2 Thessalonians 2:11, Ezekiel 36:27, Philippians 2:13, Exodus 4:21 etc. It is my personal conviction that our free will is nothing short of a delusory state created within us by God for his own personal pleasure. We are all working within the confines of Gods “story”. What then if God sustains the future and by his word to us sets its surety within our minds? Can God then be made to be mistaken through exercise of our free will? Gabriel’s message was no conjecture about Mary’s possible future; it was given as an already established fact. Mary could not un decide a decision who’s effects have already been established. Be that as it may our so called will is often in opposition to what happens to us. Will is not always the director of those actions we take whose effects are to be felt in reality. Sometimes our will is the reaction we have to those actions in reality whose effects we feel. A woman who is told she is or will certainly become pregnant may by her willing reaction be deemed righteous or not but her willing reaction has no bearing on the condition she has been subjected to being in.

I am not sure why it is important for you to believe this about Mary

What is important to me is the truth and where it leads me. I don’t care to be led around by the nose by someone’s personal conception simply for the furtherance of their personal agenda. Ask yourself why it is so important for you to believe Mary could not have doubts? She’s a twelve or thirteen year old girl with a young girls limitations. Even her religious training would have been limited to her own youthful abilities. Why must you take a human being I can relate to and appreciate given her situation and make her out to be some sort of mythical demigoddess? I don’t get that from scripture and I cant for the life of me see how others do?

 

[setarcos]

but there is nothing in this conversation that indicates she had any doubt at all.

That is what we are debating. I believe her doubt stems from her understanding of the immanency of the Angels message and the awareness of her own current state and understanding of pregnancy.

her question about how it would be accomplished reflects her prior consecration of herself to God as a virgin.

There is no reliable record concerning her consecrating herself as a perpetual virgin to God. This myth comes from the protoevangelium of James which most scholars consider to be simply a story made up to fill in the missing early life of Jesus and Mary which was in demand at the time by the masses. Even St. Thomas Aquinas in his suma theologiae rejects its authenticity. It couldn’t have been written by James, it contains references to Jewish customs not practiced at the time, and makes statements about Jesus’s birth which contradict scripture.

No young betrothed maiden who expected to have natural relations with a man would wonder about this. She would assume that she would become pregnant the way every young Jewish bride became pregnant!

Exactly! Yet the Angel puts the cart before the horse to use a common idiom. Mary wonders how she could be pregnant if she hasn’t even fulfilled the normal practice of consummation. Or if you prefer your way and believe Mary thinks the Angel is speaking of a future pregnancy, Mary is still wondering about the possibility of her getting pregnant since she’s consecrated herself as a perpetual virgin to God. We’ve simply changed from one seemingly impossible state - her being pregnant and yet still being a virgin since she hasn’t been with a man - to another - her getting pregnant in the future and remaining a virgin since she’s consecrated herself to God perpetually and will never be with a man. Either way the only way she, as a young child and educated in the ways of her people and religion, could conceptualize getting pregnant is by a normal coupling of man and woman. Either way she is still contemplating the impossibility of the situation and thus doubtful as to the messages authenticity. To think Mary is, instead of doubting the possibility of the message, simply asking the Angel how this pregnancy was to come about outside of the normal method of coupling between a man and a woman is to ascribe to Mary a mentality which strains the lines of credulity. Mary simply wouldn’t have had the mental capacity constrained by her 1st century Jewish upbringing to think of any other possibility apart from its impossibility.

 

[setarcos]

Mary was puzzled because she was greeted by a title with which she was not familiar. She did not have doubts about the veracity of the message. If she did, she would have had consequences for her unbelief, as Zacharias did.

It was not uncommon in Mary’s day for strangers to pop in unannounced with a traditional greeting. She would have been accustomed to such an occasion. The greeting was not only untraditional but the words themselves were bewildering since they referenced her directly, by name, and this from a stranger. I think we can agree here. A normal reaction from an abnormal greeting. I suspect since Mary was alone as well we can forgive her for being afraid. The situation would have been uncomfortably intrusive with the stranger knowing her but not her the stranger. I believe she did have doubts as I have shown earlier. There are important differences between Mary and Zacharias which I believe account for his punishment and Mary’s non punishment.
For one their respective ages and status. Zacharias was a priest on duty performing his important religious responsibilities - a fully grown man steeped in the innermost rituals of Jewish piety with an elevated status within his community. Mary was a young child who while being educated in the religious customs and traditions of her Jewish culture would still have been restrained to practices befitting a female and her own state of maturity. Her religious status as an individual within the community would have been marginal at best. Though women in her culture seemingly attain a level of responsibility far faster than compared to our culture, as befits the “duties” of a woman, Mary would still have been a child with the maturity of religious responsibility and understanding befitting a child.
Second and perhaps most importantly, Zacharias had prayed for the blessing of having a child. He requested a special blessing from God and the Angel after telling Zacharias who he was, something the Angel didn’t do with Mary, told Zacharias that his prayer had been heard. Zacharias was in the temple, a truly pious man performing pious duties who had asked for a blessing and then after being given the message, from a being that identified itself, that his prayers had been heard and his blessing given, Zacharias doubted Gods word.
Contrast that scenario with Mary. The Angel didn’t identify himself, Mary hadn’t prayed for the special blessing of birthing the Messiah, she was chosen to be given this blessing, the message given her was confusing and strange, and she wasn’t performing any particular pious rituals at the time. I thinks its hardly a wonder Zacharias was punished for his doubting and Mary wasn’t. People make a mistake when they equate Mary with Zacharias and consequently equate how they should be respectively punitively treated.
May God bless us all in our search for his truth.

 

[Gorgias]

It is of note that Gabriel did not announce his name to Mary as he did to Zacharias and Mary obviously didn’t recognize him as being a divine messenger since Gabriel had to reassure her about who sent him.

What ‘reassurance’ do you see here?

 

[guanophore]

however if we are to comment on the text we must work within the confines of what the text gives us.

This is only the case for those who are confined by the heresy of sola scriptura.

Catholics understand that Scripture is the inspired and inerrant Word of God given to the Church. It is best understood through the lens of Sacred Tradition (the teachings of the Apostles). For that reason, we understand what is written from the context in which it was produced, which is the Word of God committed to the Church.

Mary was never asked a single question in the pertinent verses. No hint of a request for approval is indicated

The angel came to her and laid out God’s plan. She assented to it. If you think that God forces His will upon people, then you do not know the God revealed by Jesus Christ.

The same angel came to Zacharias, but he did not assent. He expressed doubt and disbelief. He was consequenced for his lack of faith. Mary did not have a consequence because, as Jesus said of her :

Luke 11:28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Jesus says she is blessed because she heard the word of God and kept it (obeyed). If you think God forces people to obey Him without their consent, then you do not know the Holy Spirit.

so this is simply what I am working with in order to paint a coherent picture.

Naturally the picture will be constrained by the tools you are using .

We cannot, nor should not add to what is revealed in scripture unless the revelations themselves unequivocally imply further related information.

This is a hallmark of the heresy of Sola Scriptura. From that point of view, the Sacred Tradition, which is the lens through which Scripture should be understood, is an “addition”. On the contrary, separating Scripture from the Sacred Tradition that produced it is a subtraction.

I believe that

God has given you free will. You are permitted by His grace to jettison what He has revealed in favor of your own views.

I can only work with the evidence given.

I understand that you have ruled out half of the evidence.

In what manner and meaning Mary consecrated her life to God is what we are debating.

I have explained this in the above post. I will accept that you cannot accept it.

if this is true, it would preclude the possibility that she had no choice in the matter given her current state?

We understand it differently, don’t we?

Catholics believe that we can consecrate our lives to Christ, then fall from grace, rejecting our vows.

 

[guanophore]

If, as I think you believe, Mary gave her life over to God in perpetual and total servitude prior to this why would she need to agree to what she already agreed to?

This is a good question. Why do human beings need to continually renew their faith and commitment to God?

Why did God say of Abraham when he was willing to sacrifice Isaac “now I know…”?

Did God not know that Abraham has already given his life? Or was it Abraham that needed to "“know”?

She already signed the contract, what need to sign again? She already committed her will.

I think you are saying that the human will never vascillates, and that once a person makes a commitment, they will never waver, and never need to renew it.

This means that all those couples who renew their marriage vows are just engaging in a useless exercise, right?

“…let it be done to me according to your will”

I am at a loss as to how any one can read this statement and NOT understand it as an assent of the will.

I don’t believe she was convinced yet that the messenger was giving a legitimate message from God.

You are free to interpret your doubt and disbelief into the text. God has given you the grace to reject what He has revealed.

It would be inappropriate to agree to accept and obey a message from someone who purported to be from God, who was not.

If someone came to your door with a message they claimed to be from God, but you did not believe them, would you give such assent?

Recognition usually comes after some ulterior proof or reassurance.

This is true for skeptics, such as Zacharias, and Thomas, who needed to put his hands into the Lord’s wounds. But for someone who is intimately acquainted with God, knows His voice, and responds to the shepherd’s call, such proof is not needed. They know His voice, and they follow Him.

Mary obviously didn’t recognize him as being a divine messenger

If this were true, then it would have been a gross act of faithlessness to assent to what was being said. Clearly you are assuming that Mary did not know God - that she did not grow up to be His handmaid, did not recognize His voice, and would just go along with whatever some random man at the door told her. Honestly, it sounds quite absurd.

I believe she was still incredulous

Indeed. Just sign her life over to someone who shows up with an odd message purporting to be from God…

I guess that some people will go to great lengths to deny Mary’s relationship with God.

It is my personal conviction that our free will is nothing short of a delusory state created within us by God for his own personal pleasure.

If this is the case, then I think it is time for me to leave this thread, and this discussion.

 

[setarcos]

Greetings Gorgias, always a pleasure to reason with you.

There’s no Scriptural record. Is Scripture the sole historical record we have?

There’s also the Protoevangelium of James which, although not part of the canon of Scripture, was a document respected by early Christians. In opposition to your claims, it does speak of Mary’s and Joseph’s motivations with respect to marriage.

I have been unable to find any early Jewish records concerning the practices described as applied to Mary’s consecration at the temple. If you have anything I would be interested in seeing them. The Protoevangelium of James according to what I have been able to research was most probably not written by James. Most scholars consider it a story which filled in the gaps missing about Jesus and Mary’s early life in order to satisfy the common peoples desires for such things, apparently a common practice at the time. The early fathers actually didn’t have the respect for the document you seem to claim, St. Thomas Aquinas rejected it, Origen called it dubious. It speaks of Jewish traditions Jewish scholars say didn’t exist at the time, it is inconsistent with the scriptural depiction of Jesus’s birth etc… Another “dubious” document, - Origen’s description - which the Roman church has latched onto in order to further a personal cause, enforcing its own developed Mythos of Mary…imo. Your not even applying your own standards of evidence with this one sheesh.

 

[setarcos]

Ouch… just. plain. mistaken. Gabriel speaks in the future tense!

Good grief, your so self involved in your own thinking you either haven’t the desire to consider what my reasoning is or don’t care to attempt to understand it. Here we are considering what MARY is thinking, not what Gabriel has specifically said to her or understands himself. Gabriel speaks of the birth and future of the child. Mary speaks about the impossibility of these things given her present state thinking Gabriel means conception has already taken place. Imagine a doctor congratulating a women for being pregnant though the woman knows she hasn’t ever had sex.
Mary is speaking to Gabriel in the present tense. “Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο ,ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω ?”…“Pos estai touto epei andra ou ginosko ?”…“How will be this since a man not I know ?”.
Mary most assuredly has been instructed on the functions of a woman in marriage and the biology of having children. Mary asks how will this be in reference to Gabriel’s description of her future birth and her childs future experiences. The present tense of the second half of her question is a direct reference to her current state. She knows how conception occurs and she knows she has not - up to this point in her life - taken part in its necessary requirements. Mary wouldn’t have used the present tense unless she thought the Angel was referencing a conception already having taken place. Her statement would have been in the future tense indicating she didn’t intend to have relations with a man in the future; ever; it already being known she hasn’t had relations up to the present. The belief that her statement, though it is in the present tense, is still indicative of her future state is mere opinion and as I have shown is lacking in any kind of solid evidence, hinging on the opinion that she took a vow of eternal virginity at the Jewish temple without anything to show its factuality. It is also of note that the Angels first two statements to Mary are indicative of a present tense blessing. If you are blessed in the present tense, why you have been blessed is also in the present tense is it not? This sets the tone for Mary’s state of mind, thinking these things were to be imminent happenings. Then there’s verse 36 connecting Mary with an imminent happening.

 

[setarcos]

But what about Elizabeth and the perfect tense “has conceived”? Well… Mary has just asked about impossibilities, and Gabriel answers with an impossibility of his own: she who has been called ‘barren’ is now pregnant, because nothing will be impossible with God.

“καὶ ἰδοὺ , Ἐλισάβετ* , ἡ συγγενίς σου , καὶ αὐτὴ συνείληφεν…” “And Behold, Elizabeth, who relative of you, also she has conceived…” Your shamefully trying to misdirect away from the context we are speaking within here.The impossibility you speak of is one of Elizabeth getting pregnant at all because of her age. Yet we are speaking of present events and Mary’s state relevant to the present. This verse clearly indicates a relationship of Elizabeth’s current state with Mary’s further reinforcing an imminent conception in Mary’s mind. It says Elizabeth has also conceived. Indicating Mary must have already conceived as well. The two and their states are directly related and concurrent in the verse.

 

[setarcos]

That would be reasonable if Mary had asked “how is this possible”, and not “how will this be possible”.

Again Mary here is separating the future birth and events to happen to her son from the imminent conception she believes the Angel is speaking of. This is why the second half of the verse is in the present tense. She’s already betrothed and fully capable and aware of all the duties of a woman which this betrothal would require in the future but she hasn’t yet consummated the marriage. The natural state of affairs would have been a consummation of the marriage after the betrothal period and consummation of the marriage is even mentioned in Matthew 1:25 in a completely normal fashion as a normal process. Before you jump on this I am fully aware that the word ἕως “until” does not indicate a definitive delineation of before and after. However it also doesn’t indicate that there would never be a before and after delineation either. My point here though is that consummation is mentioned in a normal fashion in relation to Mary and Josephs marriage. Why mention consummation at all in such a light. If it was to show the marriage was never to be consummated in the traditional sense this is quite an unorthodox and unnecessarily confusing way to go about it and what’s more it actually doesn’t make this point. It gives no information to us with which we may make that conclusion. Its most likely Mary expected to consummate the marriage, hadn’t yet nor has ever “known a man”, nor expected to until the proper expiration of the betrothal period and thinking the Angel was speaking of an imminent conception was incredulous as to its possibility.

So… your analysis, sadly, doesn’t hold up in light of the Word of God.

Lol, I don’t think you’ve quite proven this yet. I think your pride may be getting in the way of having a productive and reasonable discussion while having respect and understanding for another persons perspective.
As always, may you be blessed in all things by God

 

[guanophore]

The greeting was not only untraditional but the words themselves were bewildering since they referenced her directly, by name, and this from a stranger.

No, the angel did not greet her by name. The angel greeted her with the title she holds in heaven - κεχαριτωμένη (Luke 1:28).

This term means “having been filled with grace from some time in the past”. This is one of the reasons we believe in the immaculate conception. She was born like Eve, free of original sin, filled with grace.

But I do agree, it was a bewildering title. No stranger who dropped by with a traditional greeting would use such a term.

Scripture says that Mary was διεταράχθη (greatly troubled). The angel responds “do not be afraid”.

I suspect since Mary was alone as well we can forgive her for being afraid.

Is being διεταράχθη (greatly troubled) a sin?

The situation would have been uncomfortably intrusive with the stranger knowing her but not her the stranger.

Mary grew up in the presence of God, and was intimately acquainted with God. She did not have “doubt” in God. She was a handmaid of the Lord.

Her religious status as an individual within the community would have been marginal at best.

I am not sure what this means, but on the face, it sounds preposterous. It also contradicts what Scripture says about Mary.

she wasn’t performing any particular pious rituals at the time. I

We cannot know this. She may have been at evening prayer (or any other hour of prayer).

People make a mistake when they equate Mary with Zacharias

Perhaps in your world view, but the same angel came to two pious Jews and announced the plan of God for the messiah. The responses were quite different.

I have been unable to find any early Jewish records concerning the practices described as applied to Mary’s consecration at the temple.

Here are some references that might help.

Another “dubious” document, - Origen’s description - which the Roman church has latched onto in order to further a personal cause, enforcing its own developed Mythos of Mary…imo.

There were many doubts about which books belonged in the Scripture also. This does not mean that the books that eventually ended up in the NT were accepted as canon "in order to further a personal cause! Doubt, as is clear in the case of Zaccheus, does not mean that Truth fails to exist.

 

[guanophore]

Mary speaks about the impossibility of these things given her present state thinking Gabriel means conception has already taken place.

No.

Mary asks how it will happen because she had already made a vow of celibacy that had been accepted by Joseph. She had no intention of having sexual relations.

Obviously she would not think conception had already taken place, since her celibate lifestyle indicated “I know not man”. The angel said “you will conceive” (future tense) so there was no reason for her to think “it had already taken place”. You speak of Catholics introjecting their theology into the passage as if you do not do the same!

Imagine a doctor congratulating a women for being pregnant though the woman knows she hasn’t ever had sex.

I agree, it is a ludicrious supposition, contrary to reason. So why make it?

Mary wouldn’t have used the present tense unless she thought the Angel was referencing a conception already having taken place.

No.

She had taken a vow of celibacy, which is why she is asking how it will happen. She had no intention of every having sexual relations with a man.

If you are blessed in the present tense, why you have been blessed is also in the present tense is it not?

I suppose so, but Mary was κεχαριτωμένη which was a very special kind of blessing that began at some point in the past and is continuing.

The Apostles taught that Jesus was the only son of Mary, and that she remained a virgin throughout her life. I know this is nearly impossible for people to believe who have fallen into the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

This sets the tone for Mary’s state of mind, thinking these things were to be imminent happenings. Then there’s verse 36 connecting Mary with an imminent happening.

I suppose, if one had been visited by an angel, and told they would become pregnant with the Messiah, one might conclude that the event was imminent. Especially when she was told Elizabeth was already pregnant.

Your shamefully trying to misdirect away from the context we are speaking within here.The impossibility you speak of is one of Elizabeth getting pregnant at all because of her age.

No.

The two had been trying to have children for decades, and she was thought to be “barren”. In fact, it may have been ol’ Zachy who was shooting blanks! There is nothing in this text that indicates she was barren because of her “age”.

Although we are not told at which point Mary was actually overshadowed by the HS, Catholics celebrate this at the annunciation because the angel told her “your kinswoman has ALSO conceived.”

 

[guanophore]

My point here though is that consummation is mentioned in a normal fashion in relation to Mary and Josephs marriage.

No. Mary never intended to consummate the marriage. If she had, she would not be asking “how”? She would have assumed that she would become pregnant after the way of all women.

Why mention consummation at all in such a light.

Good question! Because she never intended for this to happen.

If it was to show the marriage was never to be consummated in the traditional sense this is quite an unorthodox and unnecessarily confusing way to go about it and what’s more it actually doesn’t make this point.

I am sure that it seems that way to a person who has already rejected the Apostolic teaching.

It gives no information to us with which we may make that conclusion.

I agree. The Scriptures were never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. The are a collection of inspired writings from the early Church, but Jesus committed the faith to His Apostles, not to any writings.

Its most likely Mary expected to consummate the marriage

If this were true, she would not be asking “how” she would become pregnant!

thinking the Angel was speaking of an imminent conception was incredulous as to its possibility.

There is no “incredulity” demonstrated here. The angel told her she would be “overshadowed by the Holy Spirit”.

I think your pride may be getting in the way of having a productive and reasonable discussion

No.

We cannot depart from what the Holy Spirit has already revealed to the Church. It is not a matter of “pride”, but of humility. The boundaries of our theological speculation must be contained within Divine revelation.

 

[HolySpirit1]

The thing with Judgement , Hell , Purgatory, and Heaven, is only God knows who goes where and for what reason. Purgatory if one does end up there, is not eternal punishment. An like life on earth there is also an end to purgatory, which is heaven. A bit redundant . and there is debate on that as well, but there ya go.

 

[Gorgias]

Greetings Gorgias, always a pleasure to reason with you.
I have been unable to find any early Jewish records concerning the practices described as applied to Mary’s consecration at the temple.

That was the opinion of a 20th century theologian, and it tended to be accepted as Gospel truth. Not so sure that’s where current scholarship takes us now, though. You might want to check out Nutzman’s paper Mary in the Protoevangelium of James. There, she makes the case that there are good reasons to not cast the gospel of James into the rubbish heap.

The early fathers actually didn’t have the respect for the document you seem to claim, St. Thomas Aquinas rejected it, Origen called it dubious.

I’d love to see the quotes you’re referencing. As far as I know, Origin only spoke of James twice – in his commentaries on John and on Matthew, IIRC. And, it’s not that he calls it dubious – it’s that he mentions James without mentioning the Protoevangelium in one, and mentions the gospel of James in the other (without endorsing its provenance). So, I’m not quite sure – unless you have another quotation in mind – that we can say that Origen finds it “dubious”. That seems more of a scholar’s opinion, based on what Origen doesn’t say.

Aquinas, on the other hand, takes offense at the Protoevangelium’s assertion that a midwife was present. His problem is that he wants to assert that Mary’s birth did not “open her womb” – namely, that it was without pain and without the normal physical effects of giving birth to a first born. So, he contends, the Protoevangelium is wrong in asserting that there was a midwife present.

It’s a puzzling conclusion. Even if Jesus’ birth was what Aquinas claims it was, in terms of lack of normal effects of childbirth, then Joseph and Mary would have had no prior knowledge that this was going to be the case, and therefore, they would have sought a midwife! In fact, the Protoevangelium doesn’t assert that the midwife did anything, other than to witness the birth. I don’t know anything about the history of the scrolls of the Protoevangelium, so I can’t speak to whether Aquinas was reading the same version we read these days. Nevertheless, his objection seems overly emotional and with less logical content than his usual writings.

It speaks of Jewish traditions Jewish scholars say didn’t exist at the time

See Nutzman…

, it is inconsistent with the scriptural depiction of Jesus’s birth

Actually, it goes out of its way to describe some of the same details as appear in the Gospels…

Your not even applying your own standards of evidence with this one sheesh.

No, I don’t think that’s the case. I need to re-read the Nutzman paper – maybe after we both do so, we can continue the conversation?