What a Priest told me about purgatory

[billcu1]

Of all the things we (think we) have achieved, and have achieved by grace. Such as Chemistry, genetics, and so many of the sciences. In chemistry, interesting, but you will not find truth. Genetics, learning more all the time. But Chemistry and genetics, they are not “complete”. You will not find truth. We have been allowed to learn about the heavens and stars more than they knew in olden days. In our sciences we will only confuse ourselves more and more. People can be summed in in two words “totally confused”. Since the separation by sin. I only pray I be allowed to find truth and know truth. And not allowed to believe lies sowed among the tares. Oh humanism. Indeed “Lord have mercy.”

 

[guanophore]

Of all the things we (think we) have achieved, and have achieved by grace. Such as Chemistry, genetics, and so many of the sciences. In chemistry, interesting, but you will not find truth. Genetics, learning more all the time. But Chemistry and genetics, they are not “complete”. You will not find truth.

I don’t think this position is consistent with Catholic teaching, or Catholic history, in which it is clear that the Church founded the scientific method. Scripture is clear that God can be perceived in His Creation.

 

[buglady]

Also, if you die after receiving Anointing of the Sick and the Apostolic Pardon.

 

[billcu1]

There’s nothing wrong with scientific method. But it’s not the end all and tell all of everything. Nor is scientific method needed by God. It’s just another philosophy. Science teaches us one thing then corrects itself. Only if God interjects himself into this and we have scientific method because God allowed it for some some reason, can it reveal certain truths. from a certain point of view that we need. We have done nothing. We are privileged to be the vessels. Still even now, chemistry does not reveal truth there is one truth. Nor is it holistic.

 

[setarcos]

For us, there is no distinction. Mary only deserves any veneration because Jesus has given it to her.

There is no distinction between bowing to Mary and bowing to Jesus? Are you elevating Mary to Jesus’s level? There is absolutely no applicable records from scripture nor the early church that indicates Jesus, the apostles, or earliest church fathers looked upon Mary the same Mythologized way the Church does now. Actually scripture shows Jesus and Mary in a somewhat antagonistic relationship.

She knew that she bore the Son of God, as the Angel told her. She understood that anyone who knelt, did so our of reverence for her Divine Son.

Your mistaken. She wouldn’t have known that her son was divine, let alone God himself. Her expectations would have been in keeping with the cultures expectations in which she grew up and that culture was not expecting a divine leader. Nothing said by the angel would have made her cultural understanding change. She was expecting to birth a mighty King who would lead her people to peace and prosperity but the expectation would have been that her son would have been human not divine. Her attitude towards Jesus in the scriptures indicates as much as well.

I do not think it is possible to love the Mother of God “to disgrace”, but I do agree that some people do seem to go “overboard” and treat her like a goddess. I agree that Mary would be abhorred by such behavior. She points to her Son only.

I can only say that the way many have treated their approach to Mary she has become an unnecessary stumbling block to those who may otherwise be brought to salvation. This is the disgrace I believe Mary would have been horrified by. We must ask ourselves why look to the one pointing when we should be looking to the one being pointed at.

But the Church founded by Christ does not “spoon feed fables”. If people experience this, it is not coming from Christ, or the Church of which He is Head.

The Roman Church has built up a Mythos of Mary over the centuries not supported by scripture, by early tradition, by Jesus, by his apostles, or even by Mary herself in what records we have of her and all unnecessary to the keeping of Jesus’s commandments in order to be saved. I can only conclude there must be ulterior motives for doing so other than mans salvation. The magisterium has had to twist and turn and present theologically obscure terms and concepts and presumptions in order to do so one result of which is the creation of an unnecessary stumbling block to many people. Why? I’ve presented my theory, appeasement of the Goddess worshippers and those leanings even among some of the early Christians themselves in order to make Christianity more appealing to them, a tactic the Roman Church had used time and again in her early years with pagans .

 

[setarcos]

God keep you on your journey and lead you to his truth.

 

[setarcos]

Its my understanding that the scientific method in its earliest form was founded by the Greeks and by Francis Bacon (not a Roman Catholic) in its modern form who ironically was influenced in doing so by Galileo Galilei among others, yep the same one persecuted by the Roman Church however “delicately” though it was for his scientific declarations. So what do you mean it is clear the Church founded the scientific method?

 

[setarcos]

The scientific method is not a philosophy. It is a tool used to gather information. It makes no assumptions nor interpretations of the information it presents. Not sure what your getting at, it is self evident that if God made man he made man with the abilities he gave him. One of those abilities is rationalization. The scientific method is a tool of rationalization. However since man has been created with limited capacities misinterpretations of the information gathered by this tool can and do happen. Fortunately God has given man tools and abilities to correct mistakes and “evolve” towards truth. This is true of religion as well. Even the magisterium has made mistakes for which popes have apologized. The problem is when men’s arrogance and pride makes them refuse to evolve towards truth choosing instead to stick with an infallible mentality that they already have it despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Gorgias]

setarcos:

Actually scripture shows Jesus and Mary in a somewhat antagonistic relationship.

Umm… really? I mean, are you suggesting that it is ‘antagonistic’ for Jesus to point out to Mary that she is a woman?

setarcos:

Your mistaken. She wouldn’t have known that her son was divine, let alone God himself.

Take a deep breath, and think for a second. Here’s what we read in Luke, chapter 2:

Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”

And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

Let’s break this down:

• Mary conceives, but not by a man. Rather, the conception will be by the holy Spirit.
• This son of hers will be the “son of God”.
• His kingdom will last forever. Oh, wait… I got that wrong: it’s not only that his kingdom will last forever, it’s that he himself will be rule over the kingdom forever!
• Mary’s question isn’t “how can this stuff be true” (i.e., “I don’t believe what you’re telling me about him”), but rather, “how can this possibly happen to me?”

Mary knew. The angel told her, and she believed. If you want to pick something out of the Annunciation story that says otherwise, I’d love to hear it.

Her expectations would have been in keeping with the cultures expectations in which she grew up

Yes! Thank you for that!

Umm… what did her culture think about appearances by angels? Did they think that they were hearing the words of God himself? Yes… they did. So… by the very point you raise – the expectations and beliefs of her culture – Mary would have understood that the message of Gabriel was the message of YHWH himself.

the expectation would have been that her son would have been human not divine.

“he will rule over the house of Jacob forever.” Of how many humans can you – or Mary – make that claim?

This is the disgrace I believe Mary would have been horrified by.

Yes… Mary would’ve been horrified that we understand that Jesus is the Davidic King and therefore, that she is the Queen Mother.

We must ask ourselves why look to the one pointing when we should be looking to the one being pointed at.

Because if we don’t need to be pointed, then we never look at the person pointing.

The Roman Church has built up a Mythos of Mary over the centuries not supported by scripture…

[not] by early tradition…

[not] by Jesus…

[not] by his apostles,

Says you.

or even by Mary herself in what records we have of her

Great point! Tell me… what records of Mary herself do you have access to…?

 

[billcu1]

What is NOT philosophy? Isn’t the definition of a thing philosophical ? You’re talking about dogma vs humanism.

---- setarcos catholic_forums@discoursemail.com wrote:

 

[guanophore]

There is no distinction between bowing to Mary and bowing to Jesus? Are you elevating Mary to Jesus’s level?

Of course not! I am just saying that Mary is constantly in the presence of Jesus, so that when a person bows to Jesus, they bow in the presence of Mary. I am not saying that she is “equal” to Him, only that He has elevate her to His level, so that all who bow before Him, bow when she is present.

There is absolutely no applicable records from scripture nor the early church that indicates Jesus, the apostles, or earliest church fathers looked upon Mary the same Mythologized way the Church does now.

I could not speak to that, since I am unaquainted with the “mythologize way the Church does now”. But I can agree that the early fathers focused more on Jesus and His nature than they did upon hers. It did not become necessary to describe her as Theotokos until centuries later, when heresies around the nature of Jesus were rampant.

Actually scripture shows Jesus and Mary in a somewhat antagonistic relationship.

I can understand why it seems this way to you. I was also taught the same anti-Catholic theology.

 

[guanophore]

Your mistaken. She wouldn’t have known that her son was divine, let alone God himself.

I am sorry, I think you lost me here. It seems like you are saying that the Holy Scriptures are not inspired and inerrant Word of God. Perhaps your view is different from the Catholic view, which recognizes that they are?

Her expectations would have been in keeping with the cultures expectations in which she grew up and that culture was not expecting a divine leader.

On the contrary, this culture was eagerly awaiting a savior. Thought I would agree that they did not expect the Messiah to be Divine.

There is so much scripture and evidence that the Jews were expecting a Messiah that it is impossible to list here in a post. Basically what you seem to be saying is that the New Testament is not the Word of God.

Nothing said by the angel would have made her cultural understanding change.

I agree. Mary came from a culture that was expecting a Messiah, an anointed One, that would deliver the people.

She was expecting to birth a mighty King who would lead her people to peace and prosperity

Granted, it must have been difficult to figure out how to apply all the apparently disparate prophesies about the Messiah. But Mary had a 30 years with Her Divine Son to learn to grasp all this, and there is no doubt that He gave her clarity.

It is not unlikely that most, if not all, the Jews of that time expected a temporal peace and prosperity. This was one of the things so vexing when Jesus made it clear that His Kingdom was not of “this world”.

but the expectation would have been that her son would have been human not divine. .

To an extent, this is true. No young, eligible maid would ask “how can this be?” If she expected what normally happens with a betrothed woman to a man. She had made a perpetual vow of virginity, and did not ever expect to “know a man” in the natural and marital sense.

the expectation would have been that her son would have been human not divine. Her attitude towards Jesus in the scriptures indicates as much as well.

Not at all! We don’t know how many private miracles Jesus worked for His Mother before the wedding at Cana, but clearly by that time, she knew and expected that He would work miracles at her request. She told the servants “do whatever He tells you” because she KNEW, beyond shadow of doubt, that He would take care of the problem.

You seem to have been contaminated with some teachings that are not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[guanophore]

The scientific method is not a philosophy. It is a tool used to gather information. It makes no assumptions nor interpretations of the information it presents.

Well, at least we agree about something!

Not sure what your getting at

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. Rom. 1:20

God made creation so that it would reflect His glory. When we study it, we are led into His Glory.

Fortunately God has given man tools and abilities to correct mistakes and “evolve” towards truth. This is true of religion as well. Even the magisterium has made mistakes for which popes have apologized. The problem is when men’s arrogance and pride makes them refuse to evolve towards truth choosing instead to stick with an infallible mentality that they already have it despite evidence to the contrary.

Ahh. Perhaps your dispute originates below the waist?

The Truth of God does not “evolve’. The deposit of faith was made “once for all” to the Church by Jesus, through the Apostles. On the contrary, since the Truth of God is immutable, the only “evolution” is from those who depart from it into their own arrogance and pride. Only those who are humble, obedient, and docile to the Word of God will 'refuse to evolve” with the world and it’s philsophies, which can never replace what God has revealed to us.

 

[guanophore]

Its my understanding that the scientific method in its earliest form was founded by the Greeks

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04744b.htm

 

[billcu1]

She was also brought up from youth dedicated to the temple. And
was there for the most part of her early life.

 

[billcu1]

“a tool to gather information”. And expectation and philosophic
or logical application. ipse dixit .

 

[Dan_Defender]

The important thing is to repent from the heart. Otherwise the words of Scripture apply:
‘But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death’ Rev 21:8

 

[Elf01]

Umm… really? I mean, are you suggesting that it is ‘antagonistic’ for Jesus to point out to Mary that she is a woman?

I’m Catholic and accept the Marian dogmas, but how would your mother respond if you addressed her as woman?

 

[billcu1]

Woman, the Woman of Genesis.

 

[Elf01]

I know, as I said I believe in the Marian dogmas. However it is not how @Gorgias phrased his comment and on the surface it does seem disrespectful.