What a Priest told me about purgatory

[guanophore]

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.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the Church’s assignation of “time”. In the early days of the Church, penances were given that were comprised of “time” in weeks, days, months, and years. The references to “time” were to these temporal penalties, not to “time” in Purgatory.

 

[setarcos]

Hi kind scholar,
thank you for you incites on my post
What presumptions am I making about what happened at the wedding?

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.

I see where we are misunderstanding each other here. Mary, by definition did indeed intercede at the wedding, you are correct. Where we differ is in the universal vs. the particular. Who among us hasn’t interceded at one point or another? Yet we wouldn’t imagine carrying the title of intercessor for everyone we meet would we? Who among us hasn’t interceded with God on behalf of another through prayer and sacrifice in one way or another and doesn’t God reply “ask and you shall receive”, “knock and the door will be opened” and “blessed is he who would give up his life for another”? We are all intercessors at times. I take exception when the claim is made that Mary is the sole intercessor between Jesus and the rest of us. I may conclude that there is no special role of Mary as sole intercessor for the rest of us because the scene at the Cana wedding is not the last interaction to take place concerning Jesus and Mary and John 2:3+ is not the last verses to refer to intercession as shown in the verses above. I think I have shown in other interactions between the two that at the very least their interactions were not flattering to an interpretation of complete and total communion and understanding between the two. If you take in all of the pertinent verses concerning the two interacting in scripture it is clear that Mary simply doesn’t get what her sons mission and purpose is all about.
Ask yourself why Jesus questioned Mary’s request? Jesus surely would have been aware that the wine had run out. He would have already been aware that he was going to perform the miracle before Mary even asked. What’s striking about the verse is not his acquiescing to Mary’s supposed intercession, what’s striking is Jesus response. Every commentary I have consulted, including: Barnes notes, Benson commentary, Calvin’s commentaries, Clarke’s commentary, Darby’s bible synopsis, expositors bible, Ellicott’s commentary, Guzik bible commentary, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown bible commentary, Kelly commentary, Meyer commentary, and several others without exception all state that Jesus was rebuking Mary for her presumption.

 

[setarcos]

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.

I did not say it was because Jesus wanted the disciples to believe, I said the miracle was so they would be “encouraged and believe” in him. I stated that wrong. I should have been clearer in my meaning and stated it was so that the disciples would be encouraged and affirmed in their belief. They obvious did to an extent believe the testimony of John and in the conversations they had with Jesus prior. What is of note is that the last verse concerning the event specifically sums up the purpose of why Jesus went ahead with the miracle. Mary isn’t mentioned. The apostles and the miracle are and are connected in purpose.

 

[setarcos]

You’ll have to elaborate on what you think the importance of the term woman was in Jesus’s mission of salvation. It was just a generic form of address when speaking with a female. Jesus is speaking the language of the common Jew of the day. The only reason one wonders at the term used by him, which would otherwise pass unnoticed and unimportant IS due to the fact that when taken contextually as a whole in the scriptures it is shown that Jesus, even when confronted directly with the word Mother in reference to Mary’s status with him, he specifically avoids using it going even so far as to redefine the word concerning him in Mathew 12… for instance, otherwise without these specific references there would be no special relevance. Should Jesus have called Mary mother, or not made comment when others called her his Mother no one would have batted an eyelash. Jesus made an effort not to call Mary his mother nor acknowledge others use of the term accurately in reference between himself and Mary. People are thinking too shallowly by presuming that because one points to the terms unusual use by Jesus that person is somehow saying Jesus is being insulting to Mary. This is incorrect.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi kind scholar,
thank you for you incites on my post
What presumptions am I making about what happened at the wedding?

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.

Hi. I am not a scholar. I hope we can be more objective in discussion so as not to be distracted.

There are so many erroneous presumptions here.

I see where we are misunderstanding each other here. Mary, by definition did indeed intercede at the wedding, you are correct.

I am glad you agree about that, a point that I did want to make.

Where we differ is in the universal vs. the particular. Who among us hasn’t interceded at one point or another? Yet we wouldn’t imagine carrying the title of intercessor for everyone we meet would we? Who among us hasn’t interceded with God on behalf of another through prayer and sacrifice in one way or another and doesn’t God reply “ask and you shall receive”, “knock and the door will be opened” and “blessed is he who would give up his life for another”? We are all intercessors at times.

If you intercede, you are an intercessor. If you are a mother, then you are a mother and an intercessor. I am at a loss how this is so difficult to understand.

Of course we are all intercessors at one time or another. We are intercessors as long as we intercede, and stop being one, when we stop.

I take exception when the claim is made that Mary is the sole intercessor between Jesus and the rest of us.

Nobody, least of all, Catholics make that claim. She is not the sole intercessor as per explanation above. She is one of the intercessors among the saints, a very good one, no doubt. Cana demonstrates that. Even though it was not Jesus’ time yet, because of her interceding to him, a miracle was granted.

 

[Reuben_J]

I may conclude that there is no special role of Mary as sole intercessor for the rest of us because the scene at the Cana wedding is not the last interaction to take place concerning Jesus and Mary and John 2:3+ is not the last verses to refer to intercession as shown in the verses above. I think I have shown in other interactions between the two that at the very least their interactions were not flattering to an interpretation of complete and total communion and understanding between the two. If you take in all of the pertinent verses concerning the two interacting in scripture it is clear that Mary simply doesn’t get what her sons mission and purpose is all about.

Your conclusion is wrong about Mary being not an intercessor. Perhaps, it is better to say that I do not agree with you. She does intercede even today. The thousands of apparitions and testimonies albeit private, testify to that.

How could Mary not know what and who Jesus is? He is his mother. The Angel told her.

For the sake of charity I can concede that she might not understand everything, but the fact that the angel told her, and her response and prayers, indicate that she knows that Jesus was not an ordinary person. However, it was after the resurrection that the fullness of Jesus was revealed. How could Mary not know? She was in the upper room and later lived with the apostle John. You got to be kidding, mate.

Ask yourself why Jesus questioned Mary’s request? Jesus surely would have been aware that the wine had run out. He would have already been aware that he was going to perform the miracle before Mary even asked. What’s striking about the verse is not his acquiescing to Mary’s supposed intercession, what’s striking is Jesus response. Every commentary I have consulted, including: Barnes notes, Benson commentary, Calvin’s commentaries, Clarke’s commentary, Darby’s bible synopsis, expositors bible, Ellicott’s commentary, Guzik bible commentary, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown bible commentary, Kelly commentary, Meyer commentary, and several others without exception all state that Jesus was rebuking Mary for her presumption.

Try getting some of Catholic commentaries and you may get different comments.

Even if he rebuked her, he still did the miracle out of obedience and honor for his mother. If he did not perform the miracle then your (they) point would be more credible that it was a mere rebuke.

In any case, both are striking. It is unusual indeed for Jesus to do something which he is not supposed to do. So that is striking.

Jesus response is striking too as it tells us that his time (ministry?) was not yet come.

I do not see any of these affect my argument at all.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

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.

I did not say it was because Jesus wanted the disciples to believe, I said the miracle was so they would be “encouraged and believe” in him. I stated that wrong. I should have been clearer in my meaning and stated it was so that the disciples would be encouraged and affirmed in their belief. They obvious did to an extent believe the testimony of John and in the conversations they had with Jesus prior. What is of note is that the last verse concerning the event specifically sums up the purpose of why Jesus went ahead with the miracle. Mary isn’t mentioned. The apostles and the miracle are and are connected in purpose.

If that is the sole purpose and not because of his mother bringing the matter to him, then as I said, it is moot. Jesus was with them and his revelation obviously come in stages.

 

[Reuben_J]

You’ll have to elaborate on what you think the importance of the term woman was in Jesus’s mission of salvation. It was just a generic form of address when speaking with a female. Jesus is speaking the language of the common Jew of the day. The only reason one wonders at the term used by him, which would otherwise pass unnoticed and unimportant IS due to the fact that when taken contextually as a whole in the scriptures it is shown that Jesus, even when confronted directly with the word Mother in reference to Mary’s status with him, he specifically avoids using it going even so far as to redefine the word concerning him in Mathew 12… for instance, otherwise without these specific references there would be no special relevance. Should Jesus have called Mary mother, or not made comment when others called her his Mother no one would have batted an eyelash. Jesus made an effort not to call Mary his mother nor acknowledge others use of the term accurately in reference between himself and Mary. People are thinking too shallowly by presuming that because one points to the terms unusual use by Jesus that person is somehow saying Jesus is being insulting to Mary. This is incorrect.

I have not much time now. The term woman that Jesus used is not just generic but a revelation of what Mary is. Today we know that she is the new Eve.

Jesus also says he is the son of man, and that is not generic as well but alluding to his divinity. How could he be a son of man and be divine unless it alludes to the earlier prophecy?

 

[guanophore]

I take exception when the claim is made that Mary is the sole intercessor between Jesus and the rest of us.

Is someone claiming this?

I think I have shown in other interactions between the two that at the very least their interactions were not flattering to an interpretation of complete and total communion and understanding between the two.

So you have claimed, but it is because you are projecting your modern values and sensibilities into the text.

without exception all state that Jesus was rebuking Mary for her presumption.

Perhaps none of them can appreciate that Jesus gave Mary the decision. She knew that, once His purpose to Israel was revealed, it would be a straight shot to the cross. He let her participate in relinquishing Him to His ministry.

 

[guanophore]

If you take in all of the pertinent verses concerning the two interacting in scripture it is clear that Mary simply doesn’t get what her sons mission and purpose is all about.

I think you lost me here! She spent 30 years with Him! She had more time with Him than any other person on earth. Do you honestly believe He was unable to convince her in all those years? He chose His own mother. Why would He choose someone who could not understand?

Luke 2:19 “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.”

What things were they, and how is it the Holy Spirit, who overshadowed her, was so inept as to fail to bring her to understanding these things?

 

[Reuben_J]

Indeed. Earlier I mentioned in my post that Mary, being his mother, must have tied and untied the lace of his sandal as a small boy. The painting of Our Lady of Perpertual Help shows how one of baby Jesus’ sandals was untied as she holds him in her arm. The thing a mother would do. How could she not know about her son?

btw I was allluding to John the Baptist, a great prophet of the New Testament, who said he was unworthy even to untie his sandal. If John knew who Jesus was, how much more then Mary, a person worthy therefore than the great prophet by his own admission?

 

[guanophore]

How could she not know about her son?

I must say it is a mystery why there is such a push to degrade Mary, and make her out to be some kind of haughty, demanding, moron. I think it is a cultural projection.

 

[Gorgias]

Every commentary I have consulted, including: Barnes notes, Benson commentary, Calvin’s commentaries, Clarke’s commentary, Darby’s bible synopsis, expositors bible, Ellicott’s commentary, Guzik bible commentary, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown bible commentary, Kelly commentary, Meyer commentary, and several others without exception all state that Jesus was rebuking Mary for her presumption.

Take a deep breath and think about what you’ve just written.

Now, which commentaries are you consulting?

• Barnes was a Presbyterian minister
• Benson was a Methodist minister.
• Calvin founded a Protestant denomination
• Clarke was a Methodist theologian
• Darby was a Protestant of many stripes (Anglican, then Plymouth Brethren, defender of Calvinist doctrine, then “Exclusive Brethren” (who were also known as “Darbyite Brethren”). He essentially founded the Dispensationalist movement within Christianity (i.e., his thought was picked up by Scofield, who liked Darby’s “rapture” idea).
• The Expositor’s Bible Commentary was edited by Frank Gaebelein, who was a deacon and presbyter in the Reformed Episcopal church.
• Ellicott was an Anglican theologian and cleric.
• Guzik is untrained in theology, but runs the Calvary Chapel in Santa Barbara
• Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown were Protestant ministers.
• Kelly was a member of the Plymouth Brethren
• Heinrich Meyer was a German Protestant cleric.

Now, looking at that list of commentaries that you say you’ve read, can you pick out a common thread?

They are all Protestants.

It’s part of Protestant theology to downplay Mary’s role in salvation history and, specifically, make the claims you’re parroting about Jesus dissing Mary.

So, if you want to gain any traction on this issue, on a Catholic forum, I think you’re going to have to do better than that. Your claims of substantiated scholarship here just aren’t gonna hold water, if all you quote is Protestant scholarship.

 

[guanophore]

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

I guess that would depend upon what she knew about the Woman of Genesis.

 

[billcu1]

She knew all about the woman of Genesis. More than we Masses have
been allowed yet. remember all the things that happened in Jesus’
life and, “Mary kept these things in her heart.” And at the same
time was completely clueless?

 

[billcu1]

To me in a sense, this place right here can be a purgatory. We are working to purification. And if you believe in Gilgul as Jesus would’ve. I would that would be even more purgatory like. Is it s state, place, time. Any of these things or even none.

 

[thistle]

And if you believe in Gilgul as Jesus would’ve.

Jesus would not have believed in Gilgul because that is about reincarnation and reincarnation does not exist.

 

[idifacs_john]

Strictly speaking, no one has one iota of a clue as to how exactly Judges people once they die and how God determines who goes where and for what. An also strictly speaking no one knows for sure if God goes by what a priest or the church says in regards to anything. It is only speculation. It is also only speculation that purgatory even exists. So far no one can explain why the Holy Trinity can not instantly purge one from the " temporal scars of sin " nor can one explain why Jesus was able to over come death and sin on the Cross but for some reason now we need purgatory because it wasn’t enough; what a kick in the rear that has to be, to die for humanity and conquer death and sin, and then find out woops; it wasnt enough for you to technically get into heaven.

But what ever play it safe than sorry, just keep going to confession, hope for the best, expect the worst. pray for those in purgatory just incase it does exist.

Here is a fun side note too, priests opinions vary just as much on purgatory as they do on plenty of other issues. but some how the church is a separate entity with a gender that can separate it self from people with said opinions. huzza.

 

[billcu1]

From:
thistle

To: billcun@suddenlink.net

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 5:47 PM

Subject: [Catholic Answers Forums] [Apologetics/Philosophy] What a Priest told me about purgatory

thistle

    March 19

billcu1:
And if you believe in Gilgul as Jesus would’ve.

Jesus would not have believed in Gilgul because that is about reincarnation and reincarnation does not exist.

So Jesus believed half of the father’s teachings, and not the other half ? This was given too the first Adam. And Abraham by Noah’s son. And Jesus would not have believed in Adam and Eve’s 120 year estrangement ? IDK you got me. later they picked and chose what they wanted to believe. I think Jesus was smarter than that as evidenced though careful with what he was talking about.

Bill

 

[NeedImprovement]

For me, the rubber really hits the road when we pray for the holy souls in Purgatory.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church :

1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.

1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.

If enough of us prayed for the souls in Purgatory on a regular basis, we would, through the Church and by the Mercy of God , effectively obtain for each other relief, reprieve and remission of temporal punishment due to sin.

The Church prays for the souls in Purgatory at every Mass.

I further believe that souls in Purgatory do undergo a type of suffering . The writings of St. Faustina would seem to confirm this. In her Diary, Our Blessed Lord advises her :

“Today bring Me the souls who are in the prison of purgatory and immerse them in the abyss of My mercy. Let the torrents of My Blood cool down their scorching flames. All these souls are greatly loved by Me. They are making retribution to My justice. It is in your power to bring them relief. Draw all the indulgences from the treasury of My Church and offer them on their behalf. Oh, if you only knew the torments they suffer, you would continually offer for them the alms of the Spirit and pay off their debt to My justice.”

One might also wish to consider the Divine Mercy Sunday indulgence which can be gained on the Sunday following Easter Sunday.

We also have a Prayer Thread for the Souls in Purgatory going here at CAF.