What a Priest told me about purgatory

[setarcos]

Greetings Reuben…I hope this day finds you in good health and happiness.
I don’t just want a “different take” on their relationship. I wish to know definitively what Jesus is telling us by how he interacted with Mary. I don’t believe this relationship should be left up to the relativistic opinions of different individuals and I believe we can get to some solid conclusions by studying the context in which the records place the whole relationship between them.
The fact that the miracle at Cana was performed anyway I suspect involves way bigger issues than just Mary’s request. Lets investigate what we’re told - there are at least 4 different informative messages we can glean from the relevant verses -To emphasize any one of them at the expense of deemphasizing any of the others would be a travesty in my opinion.
So Mary was at this wedding, she must have been some sort of attendant or else the wine wouldn’t have been of her concern, and Jesus and his disciples were also invited. So we know Mary did not bring Jesus to the wedding nor herself invite him to come along. Jesus and his disciples were invited separately, the scripture separates the two invitations between Mary being at the wedding and Jesus and his disciples also being invited. They could of course have went to the wedding together as a group though.
Here is what we are taught took place at the wedding…

1. The wine ran out and Mary probably being an attendant at the wedding sought to enlist the help of her son to procure more wine. Nothing so far indicates that Mary would have thought her son would create a miracle to get it. So far this is a natural setting and a natural request from Mother to son though verse 3 isn’t actually a request but a statement.
   2 Jesus’s reply tells us a couple of things, a) the context of the statement indicates annoyance with her request, he doesn’t immediately hop to but questions Mary b) Mary is ignorant of her sons mission or doesn’t take it into consideration, she doesn’t respond to his answer at all, or if she did it was not deemed important enough to record, she seems to be only concerned with procuring wine for the wedding.
2. Mary tells the servants to do what he tells them either presuming Jesus will act on her request or wanting the servants to simply be prepared in case he does, since we have no other recorded interaction between her and her son from when she made her request to when she talked to the servants we cannot know exactly what she was thinking.
3. Jesus creates a miracle, verified by the master of the banquet with a taste test though the verse makes sure to state he wasn’t aware a miracle had taken place - verse 9 and 10 tells us Jesus was able to preserve his “proper time” still despite his Mothers request.
4. The last important message we are given…verse 11 sums up the probable reason for Jesus acquiescing to Mary’s request, it was so that his disciples would be encouraged and believe in him.

 

[setarcos]

   You say the miracle probably wouldn't have happened if not for Mary asking? Why do we not believe God is in control of events from the beginning and his plans will unquestionably be fulfilled? If Jesus hadn't been invited to the wedding the miracle wouldn't have happened either, if the Groom didn't ask to marry his bride the miracle might not of happened, if, if, if,. The if's aren't confined to Mary's request and there are no if"s for God. Do you really believe Jesus didn't know the wine had ran out? Do you really believe Jesus wasn't already aware of what he would do and why? The message isn't in her request the message is in Jesus reply to her and the reason for the miracle is summed up in the last relevant verse, verse 11. It was so that his disciples would believe in him without his prematurely betraying his proper time. Mary is a character in this setting fulfilling a purpose. Someone had to ask to make the scene work.
 Your misunderstanding what I'm saying by referencing the fact that Jesus doesn't call his Mary his mother. At the wedding his response to her was one of impatience but his attitude had nothing to do with calling her woman. Jesus is not disrespecting Mary or insulting her when referring to her as woman. He is merely sending us a message about his relationship with her. This is clarified in Mark 3:34. How did Mary and Jesus brothers end up waiting outside for him while he taught inside the house? Roman Catholics would say it is a testament to Mary's humility and patience but Mark 3:21 tells us how...they went to get him because they thought he was nuts and gonna get harmed. They had to wait outside because Jesus wanted to make a point against the backdrop of Mary and his brothers waiting outside, those who didn't understand his message and those inside with him who were with him because they believed. Refer to Mark 3:32-34

Again I say Jesus calling Mary woman has nothing to do with whether or not he was angry with her or being disrespectful. Even your Catholic tracts on the subject admit Jesus calling Mary woman and never mother was unusual and then try to explain it. Heck even St. Thomas was troubled by this. Why was it unusual? Because in that early Jewish culture Children had a word for mother and they respectfully used it. I believe it was Eemam without looking it up.

 

[setarcos]

Have you spent any time observing creation?

Yes guanophor I have spent alil time observing creation.
I am impressed that everything can actually exist together for any length of time and there are amazing features to be found in nature. However these things are a dim reflection of Gods original creation since it has been revealed to us that all of creation has fallen along with man.
What’s glorious about cancer, an animal eating another alive, the stench of decay and rot, defective genes, joints like the knee that could have demonstrably been made to function more efficiently, among other body parts, the inefficiency with which we utilize oxygen and on and on…alls I’m saying is that when we look to the glories of creation as a reflection of Gods perfection we must be reflecting on a creation, not of which we find ourselves in now, but one that we were meant to be in - pre fall creation -, the one God called good.
Incidentally, you do realize Einstein believed in the same God Spinoza did…a kind of pantheistic being. Not the God you believe in.
Gods blessings be upon you always

 

[Reuben_J]

Greetings. Thank you. Hope all is well with you too.

As for the Cana incident. I take note of your post. I don’t mind you retelling the story, but any presumption of what happened that is not mentioned in the passage will be just that, our presumtpion. If you do that, then I can’t help it but it is obviously your take.

Aside from what I said, that Mary interceded here and Jesus complied even though it is not his time yet, the incident demonstrated that Mary is an inrecessor. That much at least we can glean from the factual verses here.

As for Jesus wanting the disciples to believe, this is less demonstrated and besides, as we can see along the way, they were with him, and the fullness of his revelation was not revealed until after the resurrection. Your conclusion I have to say, is not conclusive.

As for Mary did not know the full extent of who Jesus is, that I can agree with you, but it does not mean she was totally in the dark about Jesus. She knew he is someone special, not born of a human father and in the minimum there is something exceptional about him. Thus for her to tell the organizers to do what Jesus tell them during that wedding is a reflection of what Mary think of what Jesus can do - that Jesus would do something (which he did).

After all Mary was his mother. Most probably she had been tying and untying the lace of his sandal as a small boy.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

   You say the miracle probably wouldn't have happened if not for Mary asking? Why do we not believe God is in control of events from the beginning and his plans will unquestionably be fulfilled? If Jesus hadn't been invited to the wedding the miracle wouldn't have happened either, if the Groom didn't ask to marry his bride the miracle might not of happened, if, if, if,. The if's aren't confined to Mary's request and there are no if"s for God. Do you really believe Jesus didn't know the wine had ran out? Do you really believe Jesus wasn't already aware of what he would do and why? The message isn't in her request the message is in Jesus reply to her and the reason for the miracle is summed up in the last relevant verse, verse 11. It was so that his disciples would believe in him without his prematurely betraying his proper time. Mary is a character in this setting fulfilling a purpose. Someone had to ask to make the scene work.
 Your misunderstanding what I'm saying by referencing the fact that Jesus doesn't call his Mary his mother. At the wedding his response to her was one of impatience but his attitude had nothing to do with calling her woman. Jesus is not disrespecting Mary or insulting her when referring to her as woman. He is merely sending us a message about his relationship with her. This is clarified in Mark 3:34. How did Mary and Jesus brothers end up waiting outside for him while he taught inside the house? Roman Catholics would say it is a testament to Mary's humility and patience but Mark 3:21 tells us how...they went to get him because they thought he was nuts and gonna get harmed. They had to wait outside because Jesus wanted to make a point against the backdrop of Mary and his brothers waiting outside, those who didn't understand his message and those inside with him who were with him because they believed. Refer to Mark 3:32-34

Again I say Jesus calling Mary woman has nothing to do with whether or not he was angry with her or being disrespectful. Even your Catholic tracts on the subject admit Jesus calling Mary woman and never mother was unusual and then try to explain it. Heck even St. Thomas was troubled by this. Why was it unusual? Because in that early Jewish culture Children had a word for mother and they respectfully used it. I believe it was Eemam without looking it up.

It is unusual, not because Jesus wants to insult her or despise her, but because of Jesus’ understanding the term ‘woman’ in his mission of salvation. He is speaking a different language, so to speak. Thus your average Jews would probably do not understand that either, so there is no use trying to get it from them.

As can be seen in John 19, the implication of calling Mary ‘woman’ is much more than what appear on the surface.

God bless.

 

[billcu1]

IMHO Jesus tells her right off, “My time is not yet.” To that indicates he believeed she wanted him to do something super natural. He does seem annoyed. And I believe she knew exactly who he was…to a certain degree anyway. After all the angel visited her.

Bill

 

[guanophore]

However these things are a dim reflection of Gods original creation since it has been revealed to us that all of creation has fallen along with man.

The fallen nature of man and creation does not preclude that man still bears His image. Creation continues to declare His glory, despite Satan being the God of this world.

The fact that Creation groans for redemption indicates that Creation itself has a desire to be unified with the Creator.

What’s glorious about cancer, an animal eating another alive, the stench of decay and rot, defective genes, joints like the knee that could have demonstrably been made to function more efficiently, among other body parts, the inefficiency with which we utilize oxygen and on and on

It is true that death and decay have entered into creation through sin. But the presence of these maladies and imperfections does not eliminate the witness that God has left of Himself in Creation.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

I think I understand, now, why you think Jesus was being antagonistic to Mary. Your antagonism-sense seems to have a hair trigger.

their interaction is antagonistic and is an early indication that Mary doesn’t at this point understand Jesus’s purpose and mission.

Ahh… right. So, after being visited by an archangel, and having had a miraculous delivery (including visits by hosts of angels and wise men from afar), and having had more experiences when they took Jesus to the temple… Mary still didn’t know or understand who her Son was. (Seriously? C’mon…)

Jesus is somewhat dismissive of Mary at first and hardly warm in his response

Perhaps this is the real source of your dismay: you want Jesus to be warmer and fuzzier? And when He’s not, your perception of Him and His interlocutors is one of ‘antagonism’? Hmm…

, 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.

Two thoughts in response to your two assertions:

• First, your analysis seems to indicate that Mary brow-beat Jesus into performing the miracle at Cana. (It’s this assertion that makes your arguments seem weak.) Think about it for a second: if it wasn’t time, and if He was dismissive of His mother because of it… then why did Jesus perform the miracle? Your argument boils down to the suggestion that He did it unwillingly. And, if He’s God and Messiah, that argument just doesn’t hold up.
• Second, being unaware of the ‘mission start time’ doesn’t indicate ignorance of the mission. Just because I can’t tell you when the Pirates home opener is, doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize that the Pirates are an MLB team, or that I don’t recognize that they are preparing for a new season of baseball…

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.

That’s one way of looking at it. On the other hand, we might assert that He was saying, “relationship with God isn’t a ‘blood relationship’ thing. It’s a ‘are you and I in sync?’ thing.” Huh! Imagine that! A people who define their relationship with God in terms of who their parents are, need to be told that this isn’t what defines their relationship with God! Who woulda thunk it?

 

[Gorgias]

What can we glean about Mary from these verses?

Not what you’re asserting, I’m afraid…

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.

“Doesn’t recognize an archangel”? Really? That’s what you’re going with? She was troubled with “what was said”, not with who was saying it. Moreover, Gabriel perceives her fear and tells her “do not be afraid, Mary.” No… it seems pretty clear that she recognized that this wasn’t a villager, or a Roman soldier, but rather, a messenger from God.

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

Time for another deep breath, @setarcos. Mary was a woman in 1st century AD Jewish culture. The norm for girls therein was to get married and start having babies. That was it. They were there to do housework and birth babies. Period. There would be nothing “unplanned” about a pregnancy for a girl who was already espoused and was waiting to be taken into her husband’s home. Unless… she had made a vow of continence. And that was precisely her question, in response to the angel!

Wouldn’t that be great she’s thinking since this would mean certain privileges in her culture.

Eisegesis is a beautiful thing, ain’t it? There’s nothing in her reaction that even hints at an indication that she was thinking “wow! awesome! I’ve hit the jackpot!”

Nothing in the verses indicate that Mary recognized the messenger as an Angel

“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” That’s a pretty strong indication that she knew he was a messenger from God.

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.

How would she have responded, then?

Note that we do see the kind of response that indicates disbelief: Zechariah’s response is “I don’t believe you. How shall I know that what you said is true?” And you see the reaction, right? And none of that is present in the interaction with Mary, right? So… the implication is that the nature of Mary’s response is quite different than Zechariah’s!

continued…

 

[Gorgias]

continuing…

For this reason one could even interpret her rushing off to her cousins for the purpose of verifying the Angels message.

Hang on a second: you’ve just been told – by God Himself! – that your elderly, heretofore barren cousin is pregnant. Are you really telling me that you wouldn’t rush to be with her and offer assistance during her pregnancy? And, since the angel says that she’s already six months pregnant, Mary runs to get there in time, and stays for the birth (v56 tells us she remained “about three months”… that is, until Elizabeth’s ninth month of pregnancy). This wasn’t an “I need proof” visit – this was a “I need to help my elderly pregnant cousin” visit!

(And, as the final nail in your argument’s coffin, Elizabeth herself asserts that Mary believed, and therefore, didn’t need proof (see v45).)

Nothing the Angel told her would have clued her into a crucified messiah who would be divine.

Deep breath time, again, I’m afraid. Let’s look at the text:
“[your son] will be called Son of the Most High… and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever.”
What do we see here?

• “Son of God” is a divine title.
• he will be king forever. How many humans do you know, who will live forever?

But wait – there’s more!

• Elizabeth greets her as “mother of my Lord”
• the entire Nativity narrative shows Him as divine – and, Mary is clearly presented as observing and pondering it! She’s not unaware!
• at the presentation in the temple, Mary is told not only that He’s the Messiah, but that He will be contradicted and Mary herself will be pierced in her very soul.

So, we see that Mary knows He’s the Messiah, that He’s divine, and that his life will be painful to her. I’m thinking that you’re in “three strikes, you’re out!” territory, here…

 

[tafan2]

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.

But you are ignoring the other passages about the infancy narrative:

Elizabeth “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me”
Mary “henceforth all generations will call me blessed”

The angel to Joseph: “you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins… and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means God is with us).

What can we glean about Mary from these verses?

1. That her cousin Elizabeth had a revelation from God about Mary’s son and shared it with Mary.
2. Mary was not surprised by Elizabeth’s reaction, indeed she let it be known that the reaction would be shared by people until the end of time
3. It is such a stretch to assume that Joseph did not communicate with Mary about his dream. He simply had to. The angel told Joseph that Jesus would save men from their sins AND that he was the son of God.
4. Simeon said to Mary: “a sword will pierce through your soul also.”
5. Taking this all into account, and including the narrative you pointed out about the annunciation, it should be clear that when Mary put it all together, she knew that her son was the Son of God (both she and Joseph were told conception was due to the Holy Spirit) AND that Jesus was the savior of the world. Did she know that he would be cruxified? No. But shortly after Jesus’s birth she certainly knew that it would entail some level of suffering. So if there was any confusion after the initial Annunciation, as you claim, it certainly was all made clear to Mary and Joseph relatively soon.

 

[tafan2]

Gorgias, sorry about repeating some of your points, I had not read all the way down the thread before I responded.

 

[tafan2]

As to the original topic: purgatory. One of my really good friends, a priest, once said the most wonderful thing about purgatory is that God does not give up on you just because you happened to die. We all are focused on needing to be holy to get into heaven, and that is certainly a valid point. But being holy is part of what will make us perfectly happy. Its the state we were intended to be.
A couple of other points: do we still go to purgatory if we made a perfect confession? Maybe, and not just to atone for the sins, but even though we may be perfectly contrite (ie sorry for offending God and doing wrong, and not just because of the fear of punishment), we still could have an attachment to those sins. That attachment needs to be purged. And that purging of our worldly attachments is probably where the pain of purgatory comes from.
Do we always go to purgatory even if there are venial sins we did not confess? Not necessarily so, if we are truly contrite for those sins and not attached to any sin (we have achieved holiness in this life), then we could go to straight to heaven even if there are sins that may not have been confessed.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, sorry about repeating some of your points, I had not read all the way down the thread before I responded.

It’s all good. The truth is the truth and sometimes, bears repeating.

 

[Hockeygurl]

The Church has gotten away with assigning “time” to purgatory, and admits that this could be outside of time and space or happen instantaneous… slippery slope when indulgences used to be 500/finite years off of your time in purgatory.

 

[Hockeygurl]

also… purgatory is not necessarily a place but a process of purgation or cleansing, whereas we know heaven is a place as GOD has prepared a PLACE for us where there are many mansions.

 

[crenfro]

Hello.

Are you sure it isn’t unrepented mortal sin and not unconfessed mortal sin? Suppose you returned to the church after many years and didn’t remember every sin you’d committed, and went to confession. You may not have confessed every mortal sin, but I’m pretty sure you were forgiven.

Please let me know if I’m off on this one.

 

[Vico]

ok; lolsob

Here is your new death fantasy: die immediately after receiving the Anointing of the Sick with the Apostolic Blessing with no attachment to sin. That would be immediate heaven.

 

[anon64350612]

I think the precise language is “unrepented mortal sins.” (CCC 1033: "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”).

Of course, we should be going to Confession to confess our mortal sins properly and receive absolution and do penance. And still too this is no excuse to not confess mortal sins and just feel contrite for them

To reply @hockeygurl and @crenfro I think @aaa cleared up my inaccuracies at the beginning of this thread. See quote. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

As for indulgences, it would be better to find out the reasoning behind them than to be bitter about the whole thing. (So I suggest learning more about it before arguing against what you think it is.) Now this penitential wand sounds cool, but to some it will seem CRAZY! http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/12/ask-father-whats-up-with-the-penitential-wand-and-indulgences/

 

[anon64350612]

Loading…

www.eyeofthetiber.com