What a Priest told me about purgatory

[Gorgias]

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

The question isn’t how my mom – a woman living in Western culture in the 21st century – would feel about it… the question is how Mary would have perceived it!

Take a look at this explanation: Why Jesus Calls Mary "Woman" | Catholic Answers

However it is now how @Gorgias phrased his comment and on the surface it does seem disrespectful.

I paraphrase Scripture and I’m disrespectful?!?

 

[Elf01]

I paraphrase Scripture and I’m disrespectful?!?

Not you, referring to your mother as woman seems disrespectful if you don’t have the context.

 

[Gorgias]

Not you, referring to your mother as woman seems disrespectful if you don’t have the context.

LOL! Oh, ok… I get it now!

Yeah – in our current culture, it would be disrespectful. Not so, in Jesus’ …

 

[buffalo]

Think of it this way - purgation is a process. Getting showered, cleaned up and ready for the biggest feast ever.

 

[thistle]

Not you, referring to your mother as woman seems disrespectful if you don’t have the context.

You seem to misunderstand the culture 2000 years ago and think it is the same today. It is not!

 

[guanophore]

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

Jesus was echoing the creation of Eve. Mary is the new Eve - the woman who was blessed because she heard the Word of God, and obeyed it!

 

[guanophore]

Not you, referring to your mother as woman seems disrespectful if you don’t have the context.

It is not helpful to project our own cultural bias into the text. It sounds disrespectful to our ears, but it would be very different for His listeners at that time.

 

[Reuben_J]

In fact Jesus calling her woman is elevating her with the highest honor he could give to her as the most blessed woman.

A simple analogy is like a son who called her mother 'her majesty" instead of mom, because his mother is a Queen.

The understanding lies in what Jesus meant by woman, which he addressed his mother with. It is not disrespectful but an honor for his mother.

 

[setarcos]

Greetings Gorgias,
First off, I thank you for your response. I hope I may gain some wisdom therefrom. I think however that your use of emoji’s in a derogatory manner is beneath you. You should never use the “eye rolling” emoji when debating a point with another in an apologetic setting let alone any other emoji as a period to your insulting sentences. These things are unnecessary devices used to distract from the points being made in an attempt to emphasize the presumption of the correctness of ones own convictions. At most you take quite a chance of looking like a fool should you be shown to be in error and at the very least it shows your unchristian attitude towards others as legitimately seeking truth. Now to address your statements as best as I am able with my current understanding…

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

I am suggesting that throughout scripture the relationship between Jesus and Mary is not quite as cozy as Roman Catholics are apparently being led to believe…and yes I am familiar with the argument by some about what Jesus meant by referring to Mary as woman. I too wondered about this since in our culture it would have seemed insulting but I am not so shallow as to not realize that other cultures may have different views so I went straight to the horses mouth so to speak and looked in the Judaica encyclopedia, checked with some rabbi’s via e-mail, and read some books on early jewish culture. The uniform understanding I received from all of these sources was that indeed calling a jewish female woman in the culture would not have been insulting in general. Akin to saying Miss or madam when addressing a female in our culture- EXCEPT when addressing ones own mother. Jewish children have a word for mother and would not address their own mothers as woman, this would have been an insult to the mother and probably brought wrath from their father. They would have addressed her as Eema establishing her status within the family. There is no reason Jesus, in a normal situation wouldn’t have addressed his mother with this title. The reason he specifically didn’t is, I believe, to make a certain point. A point made clearer when someone actually referenced his mother to him and he corrected them by defining who his mother is. Theirs is clearly not a normal Mother, son relationship. Even St. Augustine was troubled by Jesus references to his mother as woman…continued 2

 

[setarcos]

2…continued…When Mary "lost’ Jesus for a few days in the temple their interaction is antagonistic and is an early indication that Mary doesn’t at this point understand Jesus’s purpose and mission.
During the wedding at Cana the Catholic view tends to emphasize Mary’s words to the servants entitling her actions with Jesus as a kind of “intercessor” however in the verses before this, which seems to be downplayed, when Mary asks for Jesus’s help with the wine, two things are apparent. First, Jesus is somewhat dismissive of Mary at first and hardly warm in his response, and two, because Jesus responded the way he did this seems to indicate that Mary was ignorant of Jesus’s mission and true purpose up to this point by importuning him with a request ahead of its proper time. This belies the Catechisms claims of Mary being in perfect communion with her son.
When Jesus was told his Mother and brothers waited outside to see him Jesus didn’t elevate Mary’s status nor did he even acknowledge her as his mother but redefined the term for the crowds in order to clarify the relationship. Also we see in Mark 3:21 when Jesus’s family made this trip to see him they did it because they thought he didn’t know what he was doing saying he was out of his mind. Another indication that Mary did not have a clue as to Jesus’s true status and mission. I’m sure at this point Mary is becoming more and more disillusioned about her dreams of her son being a mighty ruler. After this she seems to simply fade away until she reappears at the crucifixion. None of the interactions between her and her son indicate the kind of total communion of souls that the Roman Church has promoted…continued 3

 

[setarcos]

3 continued

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

Thank you for reminding me to take a breath, I had almost forgotten the need. I believe the chapter and verses you reference are in Luke chapter 1:26-38 not Luke chapter 2. I’m sure this was merely a typo on your behalf.

Let’s break this down:

What can we glean about Mary from these verses?

1. Mary is troubled and confused. She doesn’t recognize the person as an angel and his greeting is not the normal greeting a visitor would give.
2. Mary is afraid of the messenger in the beginning, perhaps wondering what he wants and if he’s there to do her harm.
3. Mary is told what her future would be, she doesn’t say yes to anything at this point because no question was asked of her, she’s told she will have an unplanned pregnancy and her offspring would be “great”, called son of the most high and he will be given David’s throne by God and reign forever, his kingdom never ending. Wouldn’t that be great she’s thinking since this would mean certain privileges in her culture.
4. The message however continues to confuse her and she doesn’t understand how this is possible in effect questioning God - at this point she would have probably considered this person a messenger from God- one of Gods prophets and in her culture talking to Gods prophet is talking to God himself. Nothing in the verses indicate that Mary recognized the messenger as an Angel yet
5. Luke 1:38 Mary still isn’t convinced fully, indicated by her last statement…“May your word to me be fulfilled”. Gods word is truth fulfilled and if Mary was fully convinced she was receiving a message from God she would not have spoken this way. For this reason one could even interpret her rushing off to her cousins for the purpose of verifying the Angels message.
   The parts she was confused about are fully in keeping with what she would have understood from her cultures expectations about the expected messiah. Nothing the Angel told her would have clued her into a crucified messiah who would be divine. The Jews were so skeptical precisely because Jesus was not what they were expecting from the one who would be their ultimate King.

 

[setarcos]

4

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.

Yes her culture considered any messenger from God, a prophet or Angelic being, as being like talking to God directly. You have to understand though that the message she would have thought was coming from God would have been filtered through her cultural expectations. This is indicated by her confusion and questioning. She didn’t understand the full meaning of the message given her humans can you – or Mary – make that claim?
beyond what was taught her by her culture to expect.

“he will rule over the house of Jacob forever.” Of how many

Again this would have been filtered through cultural understanding…forever would have been through lineage. King David continues to rule through his lineage as well. Should the lineage die out so dies the lineages rule.

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

Again with the eye rolls…lol.
This only speaks of your weakness of character. Ive spoken on Mary having the title of Queen Mother elsewhere should you care to research the forums so I will leave off commenting on the title of Queen Mother for now. You take my words out of context concerning what Mary would be horrified by.

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

You misunderstand my meaning. God points us to himself. One can testify to his glory but there is no “pointer” outside of God himself especially one elevated to the status of co-redeemer. Finally, I can find no records of Mary having the integrated and essential status in the Gospels, from the early church fathers writings, in any historical records, or in any early traditional records apart from a smattering of personal hyperbole, that the Roman Church has given her today. There is nothing beyond evidence of a small cult of Mary condemned early on as heresy due to its close resemblance to Canaan Queen of heaven worshipers. I may have missed something since I am no professional scholar nor have the ability to dedicate 100% of my time to looking so if you have something I would love to have you share it with me.

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

THE only records we have of Mary’s life with Jesus and after his ascension considered orthodox which directly reference her, those in the Gospels and acts. I can just about predict why you asked. Oh and… since your fond of being disrespectful.

 

[Brendan_64]

Kneeling before Mary? Why not before God?

What is wrong with kneeling in prayer before our Mother? Do we not want her to intercede and pray for us at the hour of our death? In our darkest hour we would do well to have our Mother battling for us.

 

[setarcos]

Philosophy is a construct of the mind in reflection. Tools are not philosophical. Anything insensate is not philosophical. Actions are not philosophical. Reactions are not philosophical…etc. Reflections on these things can be philosophical but not the things themselves. Even dogma doesn’t develop in a vacuum. Scripture says our faith is a reasonable faith. God supplements our faith with reason because we have been created as rational creatures in a universe in which this ability is not only useful but essential to survival.
Dogma’s and humanism are not strictly exclusive to each other. One definitions of humanism is…“any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate” all of which can relate to the development of dogmas which isn’t to say that dogmas by their very nature cannot be proven wrong in light of counter evidence or example. Just like scientific humanism.

 

[setarcos]

Nothing unless it somehow interferes with your total devotion and worship of the one true God. I still don’t understand why one seeks intercession when God is open and readily available to all at all times to assist and comfort us in our time of need and hear our plea’s to be forgiven. Scripture says to work out our own salvation. What better good does it do my soul to have someone go into an interview for me and plea on my behalf to an employer when the employers and my will is that I would come in person to talk with him? Especially when the intercessor can impart nothing about me which the employer is not already aware of. I am only interested in whether or not the Church bases her declarations on truth or on the promotion of a Mary that simply does not exist and has been embellished and if so why. This then would be important in that one would wonder if we are worshipping in a reality of our own making or still in a reality of Gods creation and how this might effect our salvation.

 

[setarcos]

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.

I am not Catholic and consequently am not bound to believe every declaration of the magisterium as inherently true. Even the magisterium cannot create truth out of a vacuum. What do you mean by elevated to his level? What is Jesus’s level and what precedence do you use for believing Mary has been elevated to this level by him?

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.

Not necessary? Mary is so theologically bound up with Jesus and salvation in the Church today that if the apostles thought of her in this way any heresies created about Jesus would inherently have included mention of her in some manner however briefly. The heresies surrounding the nature of Jesus were/are intimately bound up with the origins and nature of his humanity and divinity somehow unionized in his birth. One side or the other would have mentioned her should her status have been essential to the apostles teachings. This is a weak excuse used by the magisterium to cover an all too obvious void where Mary should have been.

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

I wasn’t formally “taught” any anti Catholic theology. I merely read the scriptures then read many commentaries, they asked many questions and have yet to come to any other convincing conclusions. I’m all for truth and being shown my errors so that I may correct them.

 

[setarcos]

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.

I wonder about Paul’s statements here since creation has fallen along with man so in what manner does creation reflect God’s glory now? Studying creation now we are left with myriads of questions as to why certain things were made so inferiorly to what even man could conceive, not in that one can imagine a more perfect creation, but one even slightly better with the materials at hand in the universe. One conclusion may be Paul is speaking of an idealized creation, the one before the fall, which is only dimly reflected in the mind of man now, inciting a cultural memory of this testament to Gods glory.

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.

The truth of which I speak is not God’s but mans. Man in leaning unto his own understanding, as Peter did when Jesus admonished him, I believe necessitates occasions when it is necessary for man with the guidance of the holy spirit to recognize his errors and in this way take the first steps toward evolving back to Gods truth which was before us from the beginning. This process gets short circuited when those errors are chiseled in stone and those that chiseled refuse to believe they may be in error.

 

[Reuben_J]

There are definitely different takes by different people about the relationship between Jesus and his mother, and yours is one of them.

Just to be brief.

(1) In Cana, despite what you said about how Jesus thought of her, he performed the miracle anyway. Had Mary did not ask him, the miracle would probably not happened. So it happened because Mary did bring up the matter - a fundamental in intercessory prayer where we bank in on the compassion of God. And Mary is an effective intercessor as can be seen here.

(2) Jesus saying that his mother is one who listens to the word of God and do it. This is by no mean Jesus denying Mary as his mother but rather one of those revelations about who he is, his divinity, that by obeying and doing God’s word, we become the family members of God.

And which woman who listened to the word of God and did it at that point in time, if not Mary? So Jesus was actually giving honor to Mary rather than denying her as his mother.

(3) Jesus also called his mother ‘woman’ in John 19. There is no reason to think that he was angry at her at the moment of his death.

It is hard to think that Jesus dishonored or insulted his mother as you implied. Being a pious Jew, Jesus would be aware of the Commandment to honor her (honor thy father and mother).

Ultimately here, what did Jesus mean in saying ‘woman’? Catholicism gives you an answer for that.

God bless.

 

[Arnold1N2D]

The Church teaches that there are two kinds of sins: venial and mortal. Mortal sin means you know that this act is very evil but you did it anyway, while venial sin is less in gravity of sin. Yeah, venial sins would bring your soul to purgatory when you die.

 

[guanophore]

I wonder about Paul’s statements here since creation has fallen along with man so in what manner does creation reflect God’s glory now?

Have you spent any time observing creation?

The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard;
4 yet their voice[a] goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world. Psalm 19

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ossibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5

Studying creation now we are left with myriads of questions as to why certain things were made so inferiorly to what even man could conceive,

Actually, I have never encountered these questions in myself, or anyone else. Perhaps because I observe Creation from the perspective that God has proclaimed “it is Good”?