What a Priest told me about purgatory

[setarcos]

Goodness time does fly by. My apologies for my apparent abandonment of the discussion. I was required elsewhere. If you prefer not to be called a scholar I will respect that. I simply meant to suggest that you are a student - as are we all here - with some knowledge of the subject as per an acceptable definition of scholar.
As for my “erroneous” presumptions…I can only hope you may correct me in my errors.
I do not disagree that Mary by definition is a Mother and an intercessor. This never was difficult to understand. I can argue that she was more of a surrogate Mother than not though but that is not the focus here. My main point concerning Mary and intercession is that these verses show nothing concerning her that cannot be applied to ourselves. Every time we pray for another we intercede with Jesus on behalf of another so why the over emphasis and embellishment with Mary’s intercession with Jesus? At most the intercession itself is not exceptional to her alone, one must bring into the equation her Motherhood concerning Jesus in order to give the intercession some semblance of unique importance.

 

[setarcos]

Nobody, least of all, Catholics make that claim. She is not the sole intercessor as per explanation above.

This conception of Mary as concerns Catholics is like a greased snake, slippery to grasp and hard to pin down, especially for someone who is not one or is thinking of becoming a Catholic. Thus you’ll have to forgive me my presumption. At least some Catholics have interpreted her as being “The mediatrix of ALL graces.”.

“The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace”[1]

— Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda Semper Expectatione

In 1896, French Jesuit priest René-Marie de la Broise interpreted Pope Leo XIII’s papal encyclical Octobri mense[3] as teaching that all graces from Jesus Christ are imparted through Mary.
The formal proposal of dogmatically defining her role concerning intercessory status was presented at Vatican II though it was considered not “opportune” at the time.

“Redemptorist priest François Xavier Godts wrote a book, De definibilitate mediationis universalis Deiparae (On the definability of the universal mediation of the Mother of God), proposing precisely that it be defined that Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces. Désiré-Joseph Mercier, Cardinal Archbishop of Mechelen, Belgium championed this cause.
Among Filipino Catholics, the term “Mediatrix” is associated with an alleged 1948 apparition of the Virgin Mary to Teresita Castillo, with title Mary Mediatrix of All Grace in the Carmelite monastery of Lipa, Batangas, Philippines. Ramón Argüelles, the current Archbishop of Lipa, declared his personal belief in the veracity of the 1948 apparitions, encouraging veneration of Mary under that title.[9]”

Stigmatist Emma de Guzman, foundress of the La Pieta association, which has received ecclesiastical approval,[11] said that Mary had declared herself to be “the Mediatrix standing in front of the Mediator”.[12]
While not formally dogmatically defined there is a definite push towards and belief in Mary being the soul intercessor between us and the soul mediator between God and man for some Catholics, another example of the ongoing creation of the Mythos surrounding Mary. God bless

 

[NeedImprovement]

The Blessed Virgin Mary can also help the holy souls in Purgatory: She Knows Them Well

 

[Reuben_J]

No problem. I am just a lay Catholic. The term scholar would be flattering for a person who has no theological background.

I agree with your post insofar we can be our own intercessor.

And yes, her Motherhood does make her special in her relationship with Jesus, from where we derive her efficacious intercession. This can be explained more in Marian doctrine in Catholicism.

The Cana incident is a classic example of the mother/son relationship, where in her intimacy with Jesus, she was able to know about him much better than us, a fact we cannot deny.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

I see where you get those quotes.

However, on the same page of Google search for ‘Mary, the Mediatrix of all Grace’, you will have an article by Father William G. Most, who was a Catholic theologian and Scripture scholar, where he quoted the Vatican document, Lumen Gentium. Perhaps that’s closer to the Catholic Church teaching on this issue.

We must consider whether or not the term Mediatrix applies to all graces or only to some. We will ask also about the nature of the mediation: is it only by way of intercession, that is, does Mary simply pray to her Son that he may give us grace, or does God also use her as an instrument in distributing grace.

To begin, we can say without doubt that the title “Mediatrix” is justified, and applies to all graces for certain, by her cooperation in acquiring all graces on Calvary.
The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said:

… in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.

This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer…"

We notice that Vatican II did not add the words “of all graces.” However, as many papal texts point out, Mary’s role in dispensation flows logically from her role in acquiring all graces. Further, the Council itself added a note on the above passage, in which it refers us to the texts of Leo XIII, Adiutricem populi, St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, and Pius XII, Radiomessage to Fatima.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm

 

[setarcos]

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.

I made no conclusion, or didn’t mean to indicate that Mary was not an intercessor in these verses. You will read in my quote that I said there is no evidence with which I may conclude beyond mere opinion that Mary has any special role as intercessor between us and Jesus. By definition Mary did intercede for the wedding couple in these verses. What about Mary’s behavior at this wedding would be abnormal or super normal concerning her behavior though which may not be found in others? Being most assuredly a widow at this point who but her only son might she have turned to to make any observations about the wine running out? Why make “a mountain out of a mole hill”, so to speak, of her actions when any of us can, were, and are encouraged to do the same thing…ask in order that we receive? One has to build up a conception of Mary and then incorporate the why of her actions into this Mythos which has been created for her in order to gleen any extraordinarily important concomitant information from her interceding at the wedding. As for me, the interesting thing is not in her asking but in Jesus’s reply. As for the apparitions, something about them just strikes me as suspect as to whether or not they come from God or elsewhere. For instance if we inspect some of the more famous apparitions some things are suspect, on one occasion the apparition is an hour late in appearing, the time being set by her previous message, her message in another case says she will appear for all to see in order that all will believe yet not all see her, in most cases only a select few have any discernible actual view of her, others merely tune in to the cues of the seers. In still others there are discrepancies over what actually was witnessed, In the few which depict some sort of apparition via picture or video that I have seen none are clear and leave open speculation as to what they are, personal convictions not withstanding, her messages are patently un extraordinary and mundane an anticlimax to an otherwise extraordinary phenomena. In the one case her secrets were mundane observations anyone could have spoken and hardly revelatory about the future, the third secret being, depending on how far you wish to stretch possibilities, proven incorrect or in the realm of Nastrodomian territory, vague enough that anyone can prove or disprove its correctness. I’m open to possibilities though should you care enough to discuss a particular apparition and hear my opinion on it.

 

[setarcos]

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

Yes…Mary is his mother. I do not know how she couldn’t have known who he was and what he was about but scripture gives examples that she didn’t know, the scene in the temple being one, in which after two or three days absence she and Joseph finally found him. Jesus clearly wonders at his mothers not knowing where he would be found and where he was found is not the first place they looked…there’s a definite message here. Mary at this point apparently did not know her sons mission nor his nature. Jesus was constantly surprising the Jews because they did not expect a divine messiah who would be eventually crucified. Mary’s interpretation of the Angels message was colored by her cultural understanding concerning the coming messiah. There is no mystery at all concerning her confusion about his nature and mission in my opinion.

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.

I thank you for your charity. Mary’s prayers and responses are in full keeping with what she would have understood about her God and the coming messiah at the time. Like I said her interpretation would have been colored by her Judaism and the Jews did not expect a divine messiah nor one that would be crucified. Yes Mary was mentioned as being in the upper room and why wouldn’t she have been? She had recently witnessed her only son crucified, she was grieving, was probably scared and wanted to be with others who were discussing her son, and especially wanted to believe her son had risen since she must have heard he actually had from other witnesses, perhaps she was wondering if he would make an appearance in the upper room. I can imagine she desperately wanted to see him again after being told by others that he had risen and he had appeared to them, after all one of the people he never appeared to after rising was Mary herself so I can only imagine her desperate desire and expectation for him to appear to her as well. Alas no mention of his appearing to her was recorded in scripture and if he did appear to her the appearance must be relegated to the realm of speculation. Mary is not the central figure in the upper room scene. She’s mentioned and that’s it. A silent character in a scene which gives her little attention. She neither engages in the discussions nor does records concerning her give any indication hereafter that she is involved in any way in evangelizing her sons revelations to the world. I kid you not mate.

 

[setarcos]

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

I agree, here I ridiculously forgot where I was and quoted the evil anti Catholic protestant scholars. Seriously though you are correct I consulted some Catholic scholarship and theologians on the matter and one thing I got from them was that many concede that the remark has a semblance of a rebuke. One went as far as to say that it was more of a remonstrance than a rebuke. One theologian remarked that it was actually a light hearted banter between him and his mother, some joshing back and forth apparently. The U.S. conference of catholic bishops quoting scriptural references makes it out to be a "Hebrew expression of either hostility (Jgs 11:12; 2 Chr 35:21; 1 Kgs 17:18) or denial of common interest (Hos 14:9; 2 Kgs 3:13). Mk 1:24; 5:7 used by demons to Jesus.
According to Father MacRory’s Commentary he says “Among Catholics many have held that the words contain the semblance of reproof; to teach us, not Mary, that we are not to be influenced by motives of flesh and blood in the service of God. Others
have held (and this is the general opinion of modern Catholic commentators) that the words do not contain even the appearance of reproof.” So he says some Catholics hold that the words contain a “semblance” of reproof (whatever that means) to teach us but not Mary…um, and why not Mary, because if you take on faith the Catholic mythos about Mary then you must believe she is beyond reproof I guess. Other Catholics say the words do not contain even the appearance of reproof. Seriously? By definition it appears (even though it may not be) to be a reproof.
Here’s what George Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary on John 2 has to say…
“…the Fathers have spoken without sufficient precaution on this action of the blessed Virgin; supposing she was actuated by some inclination to vanity, in begging her Son perform a miracle on this occasion; that some of the glory of it might accrue to her, and that on this account our Saviour answers her with severity, saying, Woman, (not Mother) what is it to thee or me. Other Fathers, with more reason, attribute the interference of the blessed Virgin to her charity and compassion for the new married couple. Whatever turn be given to our Saviour’s answer, it must be acknowledged it has in it the appearance of something severe. But the Fathers have explained it with mildness,…”. These statements tell me the appearance of reproof is definitely there, the only question being, how does one explain the appearance of reproof? I’m sure our preprogrammed expectations have a lot to say about the matter.

 

[setarcos]

Though this is an older post I feel compelled to reply should you still be around.

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

It would rather seem that your sense of propriety is completely lacking. You believe your correct, you believe you’ve countered my arguments effectively and you finish your statements with a roll of the eyes or a wink. What does a roll of the eyes or winking at those your debating indicate to you? Do they somehow further solidify your refutations? I think we both know that you use them as juvenile distractions to indicate what you see as superior and all too obvious counterpoints to my arguments. If you could see beyond your own self righteous pride you would realize that these things would insult anyone except those who choose to ignore the implication by their use. I was merely trying to point out that you should treat others with more respect. I can, and will from now on, choose to ignore your misuse of these emojis since I can gather from your reply that even though you think I may be overly offended by them and thereby out of respect and Christian charity stop their use in reasoning with me, you’ve chosen to continue in the same manner. Whether out of ignorance of your own Christian faith or simply hardness of heart I will not feign to guess.

 

[setarcos]

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…)

First, there is no indication that Mary knew she was talking to an Angel. The bible narrative of naming the Angel who visited Mary is for the readers benefit not to indicate that Mary knew it was an Angel. It is quite possible she thought this was merely a prophet from God. There were many walking about in her day and there are many instances of Angels being unrecognized in the bible…Jacob wrestled with what he thought at first was merely a man, Manoah in Judges 13:21 hadn’t at first recognized the man as an angel of the lord, the people in Sodom didn’t recognize the men with Lot, nor did Lot, as Angels, and of course Hebrews 13.2 tells us to be wary lest we be entertaining angels without knowing, etc. Now of course this is splitting hairs since to a Jew of the time speaking to a prophet or speaking to an angel were indistinguishable from speaking with God. There is no question Mary came to believe great things were to happen to her and her son however her understanding would have been colored by her cultural upbringing and a crucified messiah was not on the Jewish agenda at the time. Nothing else, the visits from wise men or the shepherds - the heavenly host appeared to the shepherds in the fields - scripture doesn’t say anything about them appearing at the birth and recorded reactions from those that did appear do not indicate as much so one can only speculate about such things through ones own predilections, as for taking Jesus to the temple, I don’t think this was the case. They actually lost track of Jesus and the temple was the last place they looked of which her son was astonished that she would not know he would be there. There is no evidence scripture Mary was ever involved in Jesus missionary work beyond a passing acquaintance. She at one point was one of the family members who went to save him from the crowds thinking he was out of his mind. Hardly a notion conducive to knowing his mission and who he really was. So, yes, seriously.

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…

 

[setarcos]

[/quote]
My dismay? What I want hardly matters. What matters is what is and what Jesus is is hardly warm and fuzzy. According to himself he came not to bring peace but discord. He is truth and the truth hurts sometimes because it bares witness to our iniquities and forces us to do the same. In scripture Jesus doesn’t publicly engage in idle chit chat, everything he says is meaningful to our salvific situation. Jesus is antagonistic to the world and his relationship with his interlocutors being in the world are often a reflection of that. I could as easily say of your thinking that because you think Jesus should always be warm and fuzzy with his mother he can never be antagonistic with her. Seems your trying to tell God what he can and cannot be like with his creatures…hmmm.

First, your analysis seems to indicate that Mary brow-beat Jesus into performing the miracle at Cana. Second, being unaware of the ‘mission start time’ doesn’t indicate ignorance of the mission.

Some thoughts concerning your thoughts,
First, Your projecting into my statements your own mistaken understanding as if it were proven truth. I never even closely asserted Mary “brow beat” Jesus into anything. Lets do think about this for a minute. Why did Jesus go ahead and perform the miracle? Even Catholic theologians believe that there is a lesson to be learned here. So what is Jesus telling us by “remonstrating” ( the term some Catholic scholars will accept) with Mary? We know from Catholic theology that God does not change his mind, that Gods will cannot be apposed therefore it is impossible for God to do anything unwillingly and that it was the divine nature of Christ that performed the miracle so we might conclude that Jesus knew before Mary asked that he was going to perform the miracle and that that miracle would inevitably be performed. Mary’s pointing out the lack of wine was simply incidental to Jesus’s foreknowledge. Knowing beforehand he could have told Mary previously not to ask that it would be taken care of but this would merely cause confusion in Mary and forestall any lessons to be learned, opportunities which God in his omniscient wisdom uses to our benefit time and again and we in our ignorance need time and again because of our lack of faith in Gods perfect control of all things reflected in our asking. From Mary’s point of view, if as you claim Mary knew her son quite well, his nature and mission, then why would she even ask in the first place. Had she no faith that he would already know and take care of the situation if it was deemed worthy to do by him? That verse could have been omitted. Mary shows her ignorance of his true nature and mission in her bringing up the situation to him earning her a 'remonstrance" and the rest of us a lesson in miraculous intervention before its proper time by testing the lord.

 

[setarcos]

Second, being ignorant of the mission start time one should not deem oneself worthier than God to determine when that start time should be. If I knew the mission and nature of my Captain then I would be aware of my own inferior status and not deem it incumbent upon myself to push my superior into starting the war ahead of his own actions to do so. By the nature of this action I would be implying that I knew better than he when to do so. Mary’s actions can be read as not a question of will you, or can you, but as a statement implying you will because I know when it is best for you to publicly demonstrate your true nature. This is testing the lord.

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?

If you would stop to think about what I say before trying to assert your pseudo superior wisdom you would realize that your proving my point. Mary was outside with his family because they came to get him thinking he was out of his mind…they weren’t in sink with him. Who woulda thunk that…wink wink

 

[setarcos]

“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.

As I’ve pointed out elsewhere many times in scripture people didn’t recognize that who they were interacting with was an Angel. It is logical that she would have been troubled with not only the greeting, but the stranger greeting her. She was alone, the greeting was not the traditional greeting of visitors, and I can imagine the greeter was quite intimidating to her. This could easily been perceived by her as a prophet of God not an angel and she would have been aware that there were many false prophets walking around. In her time an unknown prophet was proved by witnessing the truth of his prophecy fulfilled not by acknowledging the person as a true prophet merely by his speech, unless like I said they were already known as a prophet or had been proven to be one. For all she knew she might have been about to be raped by a man feigning to be under the guise of a prophet of God. Also if she were immaculate, knowing no sin, she should not have been afraid in the first place. An Immaculate should feel no fear.

 

[setarcos]

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!

You might do better to stop telling me to take a deep breath and do the same for yourself. You can stop with these derogatory remarks and just reason with me. I understand you emotional about these things but try to suppress your emotion so you can express your reasoning in a better light. You keep referencing the 1st century Jewish culture but I’m getting the feeling you haven’t really studied up on it to any depth. Woman were much more than merely baby making machines in this culture. The pregnancy was unplanned because of her cultural traditions. Mary was betrothed but remained in her fathers house until a period of time passed in which her husband would take her into his house and consummate the marriage at which time any vows taken would be supplanted by the marriage. Unless you believe both Mary and Joseph agreed to retain her vow of continence…in either case the pregnancy would have been unplanned, too soon in the one case since she herself said she hadn’t known a man yet and ever in the case of the other due to her vows. It is curious to note that Mary didn’t ask how she could get pregnant because she had taken a temple vow of chastity, she instead mentioned the fact that she hadn’t known a man yet. This would make more sense if she was actually expecting to consummate the marriage with Joseph, eventually.

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!”

Gotta love words like Eisegesis. Those who use them never apply them to themselves. Her reaction at this point was normal for a 12 year old girl given this impressive message about her future by a stranger. I believe she was hopeful his message would be true but she was still unsure. This makes perfect sense. The last thing she said to the angel was MAY your word be fulfilled. She’s just been told she would give birth to a mighty king whose kingdom would never end, she should have been jumping with joy…yet her words were robotic. Makes plenty of sense to me if she wasn’t positive of the truth of the messengers prophecy yet. Mary’s song of joy doesn’t come until after she rushed off to Elizabeth’s, after the angels statements were confirmed. It makes perfect sense Mary wanted confirmation.

 

[setarcos]

“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.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Prophets were messengers from God as well. In either case a Jew would have considered themselves speaking with God himself via his messengers.

How would she have responded, then?

If God himself told you not harm will come to you, even though your boat is sinking and you cant swim, would you say to him “Gee I hope your telling me the truth.”? No, you would immediately be thankful and praise his mercy and wisdom etc. Mary’s song should have been the last thing she said to the angel. It was not. She merely said, MAY this be true.

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!

The important difference between Zechariah’s response and Mary’s is that Zechariah had no hope that the angel could be telling the truth because of his unbelief. Mary on the other hand was hopeful that the angels message was true. She believed that if this was a true Prophet of God then his message would be true. Her last statement to the angel indicated she wasn’t positive.

 

[setarcos]

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.

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?

The two go hand in hand, the messenger told Mary she would become pregnant AND her cousin was pregnant. Mary’s rush to seek confirmation of the truth of her own prophecy was sought in the extant reality of her cousins own pregnancy. She had hope in her own prophecy and if hope then the possibility of reality and in order to have hope in her own prophecy she of necessity must go to help her cousin since the same messenger made the prophetic statements. She HAD to go to retail hope in her own prophecy. To not go would deny her own hope and upon confirmation of her cousins prophecy she confirmed her own and was elated, singing praises to the Lord.

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

Mary’s belief was that it could be true. Mary fully believed that if this was truly a messenger from God then his prophecy was possible. Zechariah wouldn’t have gone because of his unbelief. This is the difference and this is why Elizabeth was overjoyed in her belief.

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

Your showing ignorance of the culture again…to the 1st century Jews the title “Son of God” did not denote a divine nature.
Here is a quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia;
…“Yet the term by no means carries the idea of physical descent from, and essential unity with, God the Father. The Hebrew idiom conveys nothing further than a simple expression of godlikeness (see Godliness). In fact, the term “son of God” is rarely used in Jewish literature in the sense of"Messiah.” Though in Sukkah 52a the words of Ps. ii. 7, 8 are put into the mouth of Messiah, son of David, he himself is not called “son of God.” The more familiar epithet is “King Messiah,” based partly on this psalm (Gen. R. xliv.). In the Targum the of Ps. lxxx. 16 is rendered (= “King Messiah”), while Ps. ii. 7 is paraphrased in a manner that removes the anthropomorphism of the Hebrew: “Thou art beloved unto me, like a son unto a father, pure as on the day when I created thee.”"…

he will be king forever. How many humans do you know, who will live forever?

Same…look it up

 

[setarcos]

Elizabeth greets her as “mother of my Lord”

And? Elizabeth would have had the same cultural bias as Mary.

How does the nativity scene show his divinity? Why wouldn’t Mary ponder these things? She’s a part of it. I suspect any pondering done by Mary would have been along the lines of wondering why reality was not matching up with her expectations.

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.

The scene in Luke 2:33 may be revealing to later generations who read this but to Mary and Joseph not much is shown that they understood the implications of what Simeon said to them. Mary was already told he would become the messiah. A Jewish messiah, a bit different than the Christian messiah Jesus was to actually become. When Mary is told a sword would pierce her own soul no reaction from her is recorded. We understand this statement now but did she then? Not likely and we’ll never know. Her reaction is not recorded. What is recorded is that they marveled at what was said about their son even though they had already been given the prophecy about their son. I suspect they waivered between belief and disbelief as their expectations were continuously challenged by their unfolding reality.

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…

What we see is that Mary hopes he is the Messiah, colored by her belief in what the Jewish messiah was to be, that the Jewish messiah wasn’t divine, that Mary had to evolve to an understanding of what the Christian messiah really was, and that there is no indication that Mary understood what Simeon meant. In other verses there’s plenty of indication she didn’t understand and in Luke 2:50 fifteen verses away we are told by scripture point blank she didn’t understand.
I’m glad I’m not playing ball with you because you seem to be a blind and arrogant umpire. wink wink

 

[setarcos]

My point in giving those quotes is to show that there is definitely an understanding, desire, and or push towards making Mary the soul intercessor between us and Jesus who himself is the mediator between whatever is left and God.
Does God use Mary as an instrument in distributing grace? What does this truly mean? The sole instrument in distributing his grace? The question remains.

To begin, we can say without doubt that the title “Mediatrix” is justified, and applies to all graces for certain, by her cooperation in acquiring all graces on Calvary.

The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said:

… in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.

As I’ve said, I am not a Catholic and consequently am not bound to swallow every dictate presented by the Magisterium as if it were ipso facto part of the reality of God. There is no reasoning here, no proof given. There is only statements concerning preconceived Catholic belief. How is it that she cooperated with the savior in his suffering? Had she a choice? Could she have prevented his suffering somehow? Interceded on his behalf so that he didn’t have to drink from this cup? What does this mean? We all suffer. Some have lost far more than Mary. Mary was witness to Jesus, she walked with him. If she believed because she knew him she also knew of the paradise to come. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. Yes Mary suffered but not beyond what others have equally suffered. I know of a man whose wife and two young daughters were beaten, raped, and then set on fire after he was beaten unconscious and left for dead. He survived. He still has faith in a silent God. Blessed is he I say. Has he suffered less than Mary? Mary is built up here to be this all encompassing mediator distributing all Gods graces on the underserving masses putting her on a level with Jesus then as if after realizing this she is subjugated beneath him again with the equivocating explanation of
“This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer…” How nice, but I see no explanation as to what distinguishes the one from the other. No reasoning as to why it doesn’t take away from the one mediator’s mediation. No meaningful explanation of why we cannot get our grace direction through Christ since this is what scripture seems to indicate. Why take God and push him even further from us by making Mary one more barrier we must mediate with between us and him and what speculative theological obfuscations are used to declare ALL graces have been acquired by her as if only by her sharing her own grace with us are we graced by God?
God grant me the ability to see your wisdom and follow it.
Gods blessings be with you.

 

[setarcos]

This is not a push to degrade Mary in any way. I have the utmost respect for Mary. I think most who disagree with Catholic views concerning Mary are more interested in fighting against her exploitation in order to further a particular agenda. IMHO
God bless

 

[guanophore]

Does God use Mary as an instrument in distributing grace?

Of course. Why would He exempt His own mother from the gift He has given to all of us?

What does this truly mean?

Her soul “magnifies” the Lord, so looking through her enables us to see Him larger.

The sole instrument in distributing his grace?

Of course not, or the Sacraments would have no value! But Mary is the sole person through which Jesus entered physically into the world and humanity, so she has a special position shared by no one.

I am not a Catholic and consequently am not bound to swallow every dictate presented by the Magisterium as if it were ipso facto part of the reality of God.

This is an odd statement to make. Do you believe that Catholics are bound to do this? It has a hostile/derogatory tone to it.

There is no reasoning here, no proof given.

There are many church documents that make statements about the faith without providing “reasoning and proofs” in every place. They exist elsewhere. If you are interested in the reasoning behind Mary as Mediatrix there are plenty of documents.

There is only statements concerning preconceived Catholic belief.

I think you will find that the great majority of Catholic documents contain these, beginning with the New Testament, which is entirely composed of preconceived Catholic beliefs!

How is it that she cooperated with the savior in his suffering? Had she a choice?

It may not be possible for anyone who did not see their own beloved son crucified to appreciate how one’s heart would be pierced as with a sword. She was closer to Him than any other human being ever, she bore Him in her womb, changed His diapers, cleaned His scrapes, taught him to pray and nurtured Him until she gave Him to the world. Yes, she had choice all along the way.

Could she have prevented his suffering somehow? Interceded on his behalf so that he didn’t have to drink from this cup?

It is an interesting question. But she was the Handmaid of the Lord, and agreed that it be done to her according to His will. She understood that His death was necessary, and though it broke her heart, she accepted it.

What does this mean? We all suffer.

What does what mean? That He suffered, or that she did? YEs, we all suffer, but there is a different quality when deicide is involved. There were tens of thousands of crucifixions also, but none of them were God.

Some have lost far more than Mary.

I suppose that depends upon one’s point of view. Certainly many mothers have lost sons to war and other deaths. But none of them lost the Son of the Most High.