What a Priest told me about purgatory

[guanophore]

Mary was witness to Jesus, she walked with him. If she believed because she knew him she also knew of the paradise to come.

Yes, as do we all, but as you say, knowing that deliverance will come does not necessarily make the suffering any less.

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?

I think this is confirmation of the point I made above. What horrible suffering for anyone! And to still have faith - what a great gift of grace! He is indeed blessed.

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.

You may have an intolerance for mystery, so that you feel a strong need for this situation to be justified. As I say, there are plenty of writings on this issue. For me it is a matter of God being the Creator, and having the right and the glory to choose however He will with His Own Creatures. I do not think it appropriate to compare His mother with other persons who were not chosen to have the role she has.

And if you do not believe that Mary has a special role in the Church, why would it bother you so much that other people believe she did?

 

[guanophore]

How nice, but I see …

Actually, the tone of your post does not show that you think it is “nice” at all! In fact, you seem to be blinded by your own need for a “meaningful explanation”. It may be that one does not exist. For those who are hostile to Mary having this role, there will never be an explanation that satisfies.

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.

There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. Now, I understand this is a statement of faith, and therefore it may not meet your need for a “rational” explanation, but this is what we believe. No creature can be on the same level with God. Jesus has honored His mother greatly, but this does not raise her beyond the level of being human.

All grace comes from God. If you think otherwise, then you have not understood.

God allows us to participate as avenues of grace, but we are not the source of it.

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?

It is curious that you would perceive receiving God’s grace through another person as “pushing God even further from us”. On the contrary, He works through people to be more present to us! Do you look at the healings in the NT this way? Do you think the healings in the NT created “barriers” to God?

Have you considered praying and asking God to give you the attitude He wants you to have toward His mother?

Sometimes people that experience Mary as a “barrier” have unresolved mother issues.

 

[guanophore]

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

I believe this is true, and the cultural expectation was that the Messiah would be a human being who would restore the earthly Kingdom to Israel. There was no expectation that the Messiah would be the second person of the Trinity.

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.

What were those expectations? The Angel told her that she would bear the Son of God, the shepherds came and affirmed that the Angels told them the same thing.

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.

Yes, there is often a limited understanding of prophesy at the time it occurs. I am not sure that Mary and Joseph could possibly have understood the implications. But, each time the Word of God came to them, it confirmed what had been revealed.

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?

Do you think that, because no reaction is recorded, one did not exist? Do you think that not knowing all the details meant the prophesy was of less value to her? Is there some reason you would not expect her to understand the prophesy in the light of what she had already been told?

We understand this statement now but did she then? Not likely and we’ll never know. Her reaction is not recorded.

I guess, if you don’t expect to ever meet her, I can see how you would feel this way. Have you ever thought to ask her these things?

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.

First you say they had no reaction, now you admit that they marveled? Have you ever been given a prophesy? If you had, don’t you think you would marvel and ponder it?

I think you are right, being human, they did waiver between believe and disbelief, and struggling with their expectations. This is clear in the story where Jesus was left behind in Jerusalem.

Personally, I cannot imagine what it would be like to be told I was to be the parent of the Son of God. I expect I would be in quite a bit of disbelief.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think what Mary had was beyond only “hope”. Jesus says of her “Blessed is the one who hears the Word of God and keeps it”. This indicates that she believed what was told to her, and was faithful to it, and as a result, was even more Blessed than she was blessed to bear the Son of God and give the milk of her breast to Him.

All of our understanding develops over time (not an evolution), but Jesus was not a “Christian Messiah”. He was a Jewish Messiah, given of the Jews to the whole world.

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.

Yes, there are many spiritual truths that we don’t grasp immediately. The difference with Mary and Joseph is that they accepted in faith what did not make sense to them. This is an approach that might well benefit you in this area!

 

[Gorgias]

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?

Nope. They convey emotion.

I can, and will from now on, choose to ignore your misuse of these emojis

So, let me ask: what is the proper use of a ‘rolling-eyes’ emoji?

First, there is no indication that Mary knew she was talking to an Angel.

She was afraid and greatly troubled by his appearance. Her reply is “may it be done to me according to your word.” Who, pray tell, is the “your” referring to? It’s God. That means that His message is transmitted by a messenger. Know what the Greek word that the Bible uses for ‘messenger’ is? ἄγγελος – “angelos”. It’s the source of our word “angel”. So, yes… Mary knew she was talking to an angel, that is, to a messenger from God.

a crucified messiah was not on the Jewish agenda at the time

I’m not going to make the claim that she knew the details of how her son would die, but I’d be remiss to point out that the notion of the “Suffering Servant” was “on the Jewish agenda at the time.” Moreover, the Jews would have been well aware of the prophecies of Daniel, which pointed to a Messiah coming and being struck down. So yeah… it wasn’t as unexpected as you’re trying to make it out to be.

the heavenly host appeared to the shepherds in the fields - scripture doesn’t say anything about them appearing at the birth

Not, but it does say that the shepherds talked about it:
“[The shepherds] went in haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. When they saw this, they made known the message that had been told them about this child. All who heard it were amazed by what had been told them by the shepherds. And Mary kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”

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.

Hmm… a Jewish mom is worried that her first-born son wasn’t taking care of himself, and wasn’t eating properly. C’mon, now, that hardly rises to the standard of “Mary didn’t know Jesus’ mission”…

 

[Gorgias]

We know from Catholic theology that God does not change his mind

What did Jesus do with the Gentile woman who was begging Him for help?

I think you’re taking a statement about God the Father out of context here.

it was the divine nature of Christ that performed the miracle

It was the person of Christ. Trying to split up His actions as “divine nature” or “human nature” always typically leads to misunderstandings…

If you would stop to think about what I say before trying to assert your pseudo superior wisdom

Use an emoji. C’mon… it won’t hurt you.

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.

They were concerned about His health. “[Jesus] came home. Again the crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, ‘His is out of his mind.’”

Yeah… they were in sync with His mission – but they were worried about His health. They were a loving family… who’d’a thunk it?

 

[setarcos]

Thank you so much for taking the time to reflect and respond to what I have said.

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

To further explain my meaning…while God may see fit to choose what instruments he wishes to use in order to distribute his Grace, Mary not withstanding, I can see no reason from scripture, no self evident nor logical argument from theology, nor the treatment of the early church that would imply Mary as being the sole instrument of the distribution of Gods graces. From studying scripture one might conclude the exact opposite. Mary is merely one among many with the sole distinction of being chosen to birth Jesus by receiving Gods grace.

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

This is another example of hyperbole born up in the minds of men in order to satisfy a created Mythos of Mary. How does Mary uniquely magnify the Lord for us that others have not and some even more so? What does it mean to say she allows us to see him “larger”? In scripture she makes no remark concerning Jesus’s statements. No recorded evangelization in the early church, no demonstrable accord with his mission. Even her so called later apparitions afford more adoration of Mary herself than Jesus. Her images invoke a relationship with herself whereby people vicariously glimpse Jesus through her. We see more and more of her invocation, her intercession, mediation, and vision as time goes on and less and less of Jesus directly. God came down to man as a man in order that he may magnify himself in each of us. No one can magnify God for us but God.

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 agree, but this special position could arguably be as a surrogate mother in order that prophecy be fulfilled. The same way Jesus insisted on being baptized by John even though he was without sin.
Mathew 3:15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. John consented though he at first protested that the baptism should be the other way around. Mary birthed Jesus though God cannot have a mother nor be born, being eternally unchanging in his nature. Mary WAS the vessel through which God fulfilled his prophetic appearance on earth. So why the push to make her the mediatrix of ALL graces as if God does not grace anyone but through her? God graced the world before her, why funnel all graces to the world through her after Jesus’s birth? Are we saying Mary was the deciding factor in God allowing for the salvation of mankind? Are we saying that the salvation of mankind boils down to a deal between God and this one woman? This would render our own free will superfluous.

 

[setarcos]

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.

Yes, it is my understanding that in order to be a Catholic one must agree with the magisterium’s teachings. Is this wrong?

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.
Yes, I am interested in the reasons given for making the statements about Mary and also if those I discuss these things with understanding the reasoning behind the hyperbole. If I am not a Catholic and I want to be one but have a question concerning some Catholic teaching I don’t agree with. Am I merely to be given a Catholic statement which does agree with what I don’t as if that clarifies my error for me and solidifies the truth of the Catholic statement? Unless the question deals with the actual existence of the statement itself this would be of little value towards settling the question.

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!

I’m afraid that though the Roman Catholic church would like people to believe she was coherent and unified continuously from Jesus’s time up to the present day this is demonstrably not true. There was much bickering, political maneuvering, confusion, and no universally accepted, recognizable head of the church early on. Even with the early councils, the first being called by a non Catholic by the way, didn’t accomplish much towards unifying the clergy in these tumultuous times. What you might call universally agreed upon only vaguely reared its head through enforcement not agreement.

 

[setarcos]

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.

I was at a meeting once for those who have lost loved ones in tragic circumstances. Every single one of those Mothers had their souls pierced. Crucifixion is horrific. It would be soul crushing for Mary. But so would be being bound and made to watch as your children were murdered in front of you. Hearing their screams as they begged for their mom to help them, or the father who had to find his only son who shot himself in the head the day after he last visited him and noticed he wasn’t acting quite right. The father who cant stop feeling that he could have saved him…somehow, if only he acted sooner, how bout the father who’s marriage crumbled because he can’t get over seeing his daughter being burned alive because he couldn’t get her out of the car wreck that he feels he caused, continuously hearing her screams in his nightmares? Its unfathomable to me how he can still function at all. Anyone who has raised loved ones and then lost them horrifically is as close to Jesus as Mary was. Mary didn’t give Jesus to the world, God did. Jesus belongs to the world not just Mary. This is his gift to us and if she cannot fathom, or does not wish to think that she isn’t closer to Jesus than anyone else then this is her curse.

Yes, she had choice all along the way.

She had a choice? Did she choose what her nature would be? Did she divine her own desires into existence on her own? What choice does any normal parent have with loving their children? As God said, what parent would give their child a rock when they ask for bread? Did she really have a choice?

She understood that His death was necessary, and though it broke her heart, she accepted it.

But she didn’t understand, or rather she would have misunderstood. She didn’t know that her son was to be sacrificed, let alone crucified. Nothing she was told would have given her the slightest inkling that her son would end up nailed to a cross at the age of 33 some odd years. Nothing in scripture indicates she really understood any of Jesus’s mission as it unfolded, continuously becoming more disillusioned as through scripture as Jesus’s actually mission deviated from her expectations as given to her by the Angel. She was with the family to get him when they thought he was out of his mind for gosh sakes.

 

[setarcos]

YEs, we all suffer, but there is a different quality when deicide is involved.

And tell me, how does one Kill God? This concept is absolutely foreign to having the nature of God. There’s nothing even at the point of the crucifixion that indicates Mary would have really understood what “her” son was all about. Her grief was for a lost son, not a lost God. The very notion would have been unthinkable to a first century Jew. I imagine at this point she only wondered why the Angels descriptions about her sons future did not come true.

Certainly many mothers have lost sons to war and other deaths. But none of them lost the Son of the Most High.

I don’t see it that way, we’ve all lost the son of the Most High. Anyone who desires the kingdom of God can conceptualize the supernatural magnitude of what was lost, Christianity depends on it, and any natural maternal loss of a son felt by Mary has been felt by anyone who has lost a child.

 

[PJM]

I am not quite sure where to post this. One of the Diocese’s Priests was doing Mass tonight and I went to confession. We talked a little bit. He said even venial sin would cause you to be in purgatory. Is that right? I have never heard that. But I am not quite sure what examples of venial sins are. I know you can go to Mass and that forgives them. there’s supposed to be other ways too.

He right!,
In order for ANY Soul to enter into heaven that soul must literally Be PERFECT:

Matt.5: 4 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect

Any Soul that dies with unconfessed, or unremitted Venial sins and OR the Temporal Punishment that all sins accrue {GOOGLE IT; space does not permit an in-depth discussion}; will spend time in Purgatory until that Soul has been perfected.

All Souls that die with unconfessed, unremitted Mortal sins are self-condemened to Hell.

Easter Blessings,
Patrick

 

[billcu1]

From:
setarcos

To: billcun@suddenlink.net

Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 7:30 PM

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

setarcos

    April 4

guanophore:
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.

Yes, it is my understanding that in order to be a Catholic one must agree with the magisterium’s teachings. Is this wrong?

guanophore:
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.
Yes, I am interested in the reasons given for making the statements about Mary and also if those I discuss these things with understanding the reasoning behind the hyperbole. If I am not a Catholic and I want to be one but have a question concerning some Catholic teaching I don’t agree with. Am I merely to be given a Catholic statement which does agree with what I don’t as if that clarifies my error for me and solidifies the truth of the Catholic statement? Unless the question deals with the actual existence of the statement itself this would be of little value towards settling the question.

guanophore:
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!

I’m afraid that though the Roman Catholic church would like people to believe she was coherent and unified continuously from Jesus’s time up to the present day this is demonstrably not true. There was much bickering, political maneuvering, confusion, and no universally accepted, recognizable head of the church early on. Even with the early councils, the first being called by a non Catholic by the way,

Who was this ? What was he ?

didn’t accomplish much towards unifying the clergy in these tumultuous times.

What clergy ?

What you might call universally agreed upon only vaguely reared its head through enforcement not agreement.

[…]

 

[straykat]

I honestly don’t think it’s helpful to focus on attachment to individual sins. It’s a whole collection of sin. It’s about attachment to the world, period… and therefore, this is why Christ calls us to die to the world (and this is also what makes heaven painful to reach. For if you die with this attachment, the pain of “detaching” will be all the greater. i.e. You’ll have to purge it). And also why martyrs are so holy… they paid the ultimate price in one fell swoop and denied the world in a very real way.

 

[Gorgias]

How does Mary uniquely magnify the Lord for us that others have not and some even more so? What does it mean to say she allows us to see him “larger”?

She gave birth to the Savior. Without her fiat, we would never have seen our Savior.

I’m thinking that this is a pretty significant way that allows us to see Him.

In scripture she makes no remark concerning Jesus’s statements.

Au contraire. John 2:5.

this special position could arguably be as a surrogate mother in order that prophecy be fulfilled.

Huh? A surrogate mother isn’t a biological mother. Mary is Jesus’ biological mother. Your point doesn’t hold up – perhaps you might wish to clarify what you really mean?

Mary birthed Jesus though God cannot have a mother nor be born

The Church that Jesus Himself founded disagrees with you. She’s the Theotokos.

So why the push to make her the mediatrix of ALL graces as if God does not grace anyone but through her? God graced the world before her, why funnel all graces to the world through her after Jesus’s birth?

Is the Church the means through which all graces are funneled from Jesus to humanity? Then, doesn’t that mean that Jesus is the source of all graces given us? And, if Jesus comes to us through birth by Mary, doesn’t that mean that Mary is the one person through whom Jesus comes to the world?

Therefore, Mary is the one person through whom all graces are mediated. Simple logic.

Are we saying that the salvation of mankind boils down to a deal between God and this one woman?

Yes… and no.

The salvation of mankind really does boil down to the Incarnation of Jesus, right? So then, yeah… it does boil down to Mary’s fiat.

But, on the other hand, it doesn’t only boil down to Mary’s “be it done unto me” – it also depends on Jesus and His salvific sacrifice, and our acceptance of Him.

 

[guanophore]

To further explain my meaning…while God may see fit to choose what instruments he wishes to use in order to distribute his Grace, Mary not withstanding, I can see no reason from scripture, no self evident nor logical argument from theology, nor the treatment of the early church that would imply Mary as being the sole instrument of the distribution of Gods graces.

I think such a position would be a misunderstanding of what the Church believes. Mary had a unique role in Christendom. Only she could bear the Son of God in her womb. She mediated His grace to the world in a way that no one else ever has, or ever will, by carrying Him, breastfeeding Him, changing His diapers and cleaning His scrapes.

From studying scripture one might conclude the exact opposite. Mary is merely one among many with the sole distinction of being chosen to birth Jesus by receiving Gods grace.

This is certainly a very common anti-Catholic perception of Scripture.

This is another example of hyperbole born up in the minds of men in order to satisfy a created Mythos of Mary.

I can understand why it would seem that way. None of us will ever know what it was like to share 30 years on earth with Jesus as she did. None of us will have the kind of relationship with Him she has, bearing His body into the world then relinquishing her Divine Son on the cross. A sword pierced her heart in a way that no one else’s heart could be pierced.

It was Jesus who declared that Mary would be Blessed among women, and that all nations would call her blessed. It was He who declared that, though she was blessed that her womb bore Him, and her breasts gave Him suck, she was even more blessed because she heard the word of God, and did it.

How does Mary uniquely magnify the Lord for us that others have not and some even more so?

Perhaps she does not for you, because you don’t have that kind of relationship with her?

What does it mean to say she allows us to see him “larger”? In scripture she makes no remark concerning Jesus’s statements.

Perhaps you are reading scripture with anti-Catholic blinders?

No recorded evangelization in the early church, no demonstrable accord with his mission.

Well, we read it differently, do we not?

Even her so called later apparitions afford more adoration of Mary herself than Jesus.

I can see how a person contaminated with anti-Catholic sentiment would hold this view.

 

[guanophore]

Her images invoke a relationship with herself whereby people vicariously glimpse Jesus through her.

No more than we all do with the world. We are all His hands, His feet, His voice in the world. We may be the only “Jesus” someone meets. It is by our love the world will know we belong to Him.

There is no dichotomy or contradiction in a relationship with Jesus, and His mother. Her entire life was given in His service, to be His handmaid. She eternally tells us “do whatever He tells you”.

We see more and more of her invocation, her intercession, mediation, and vision as time goes on and less and less of Jesus directly.

I am not sure who these “we” are that you represent, but for Catholics, this is not the case. We encounter Jesus daily in the Sacraments.

God came down to man as a man in order that he may magnify himself in each of us. No one can magnify God for us but God.

God has given to certain persons the gift to see Him more clearly through their lives. This is the case with all the saints. It appears that you have a hostility toward God for choosing certain people to have certain roles in His Kingdom.

I agree, but this special position could arguably be as a surrogate mother in order that prophecy be fulfilled. The same way Jesus insisted on being baptized by John even though he was without sin.

I will not argue the wisdom of God that He chose to enter into human history by becoming incarnate. You can argue if you want, but God chose to be conceived in the womb of a human mother, to take her flesh to be His own flesh, and to be born of her, nursed by her, and sit upon her lap.

Mary birthed Jesus though God cannot have a mother nor be born, being eternally unchanging in his nature.

It seems as though your issue is not really with Mary, but what Jesus taught about Himself, and what He revealed to the Church through the Apostles about His nature.

So why the push to make her the mediatrix of ALL graces as if God does not grace anyone but through her?

Clearly you are confused, and do not understand what this means.

God graced the world before her, why funnel all graces to the world through her after Jesus’s birth?

God funnelled all graced to the world THROUGH His birth. There was only one womb through which He was made flesh.

 

[guanophore]

Are we saying Mary was the deciding factor in God allowing for the salvation of mankind?

No. God decided, and Mary humbly accepted His choice.

Are we saying that the salvation of mankind boils down to a deal between God and this one woman?

I am not sure what you could possibly mean by “deal”. Jesus is the lamb that was slain for our sins. Mary consented to be His handmaiden in the service of His plan of salvation for mankind.

This would render our own free will superfluous.

I don’t see how. If He wanted, Jesus could have appeared on earth as a full grown man, skipping the womb and childhood. If He had, would you then have no free will?

Yes, it is my understanding that in order to be a Catholic one must agree with the magisterium’s teachings. Is this wrong?

It is true, but your characterization of this is bizarre:

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 statement seems to imply that Catholics and candidates “swallow every dictate”, which is not the case. We are invited in faith, as Jesus has taught us. Jesus did not ask anyone to “swallow every dictate” did He? And neither does the Church He founded. He teaches us about His Kingdom and His commandments, and gives us the faith to accept them.

Jesus founded One Church, and gave His Holy Spirit to guide her into “all Truth”. He appointed a teaching authority. He gave them the same authority in which He was sent from the Father:

Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

You, along with every other human being, are free to reject Him, and the Church He founded. There is no obligation for anyone to “swallow every dictate” at all. This is not the way of Christ. I do not understand why you are so hostile to Christ. Following His commandments is not burdensome.

I’m afraid that though the Roman Catholic church would like people to believe she was coherent and unified continuously from Jesus’s time up to the present day this is demonstrably not true.

I guess that depends upon your point of view. We understand the Church is incarnational, like Jesus, having two natures. You don’t seem to accept this teaching from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

There was much bickering, political maneuvering, confusion, and no universally accepted, recognizable head of the church early on. Even with the early councils, the first being called by a non Catholic by the way, didn’t accomplish much towards unifying the clergy in these tumultuous times. What you might call universally agreed upon only vaguely reared its head through enforcement not agreement.

Indeed, the Church has been attacked from without and within. But the Church is not, as you seem to believe, a matter of consensus or democratic majority. It is a theocracy. The Truth is not defined by those who reject it.

Mary didn’t give Jesus to the world, God did.

Both things are true. Jesus allowed Mary, out of love for her, to choose the time He would be revealed to the world. She knew the day He was revealed, it would be a straight shot to the cross.

Jesus belongs to the world not just Mary.

In addition to a number of other wounds, you seem to be suffering from either / or thinking.

Of course Jesus came to redeem the world. He belongs to Mary in a special way, but He died as much for her as all of us.

This is his gift to us and if she cannot fathom, or does not wish to think that she isn’t closer to Jesus than anyone else then this is her curse.

You are suffering from some sort of demonic fantasy. Scripture tells us that Mary is Blessed.

What choice does any normal parent have with loving their children?

I would say complete choice. Plenty of parents abandon their children. Some parents even kill their own children.

As God said, what parent would give their child a rock when they ask for bread? Did she really have a choice?

Yes, she chose.

But she didn’t understand, or rather she would have misunderstood.

You seem to be projecting your own psychological struggles into the text. I can’t help you with that!

She didn’t know that her son was to be sacrificed, let alone crucified.

If you do not wish to believe what the Scriptures state, that is your choice. You have the same free will Mary had.

Nothing she was told would have given her the slightest inkling that her son would end up nailed to a cross at the age of 33 some odd years.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

 

[guanophore]

Nothing in scripture indicates she really understood any of Jesus’s mission as it unfolded, continuously becoming more disillusioned as through scripture as Jesus’s actually mission deviated from her expectations as given to her by the Angel.

You seem to have a very warped perception of the Holy Writings. I will pray for you.

She was with the family to get him when they thought he was out of his mind for gosh sakes.

I think you have misunderstood what was written.

And tell me, how does one Kill God? This concept is absolutely foreign to having the nature of God.

I don’t see any benefit to discussing this, since you have denied what the Church teaches about the incarnation.

There’s nothing even at the point of the crucifixion that indicates Mary would have really understood what “her” son was all about. Her grief was for a lost son, not a lost God. The very notion would have been unthinkable to a first century Jew. I imagine at this point she only wondered why the Angels descriptions about her sons future did not come true.

At this point it seems best that I commend you to your imaginings. They are very distant from what the Church founded by Christ believes and teaches, but you have a right to them.

 

[setarcos]

One of the premises of my argument is that while you’ve declared that no Catholic believes Mary to be the sole mediator of Gods graces I have shown that plenty of Catholics not only believe this but are pushing to get it dogmatically stated. Because scripture tells us that there is only one mediator between me and God and that is Jesus, I cannot at the same time hold the belief that Mary is a mediator of all Gods graces. The two statements are mutually exclusive. God desires a personal relationship with me and to allow for this to happen only through Mary’s mediation by definition eliminates that possibility. We then begin to set up unnecessary stumbling blocks for many peoples salvation. Scripture tells us not to be stumbling blocks. It doesn’t say to not worry about being a stumbling block for many people because those people just don’t understand and its their problem if they cant get over it. If its not essential to believe in order to be saved then don’t make it a stumbling block!

And if you do not believe that Mary has a special role in the Church, why would it bother you so much that other people believe she did?

The problem is that this created Mythos of Mary has become so ingrained into the worship of God and his only begotten son that belief in the resultant dogmas and practice of the related rituals has been given the appearance of necessity towards ones salvation. It is my understanding that in order to become a Roman Catholic and partake in her Eucharist one must confess a belief in all her dogmas. This is the stumbling block. Many cannot confess a belief in the Marian dogmas with truth in their heart making this one of the most cited blocks to becoming a Roman Catholic, and belief in this stumbling block isn’t even necessary to our salvation! Why does it bother me? It bothers me because the Roman Church has created unnecessary stumbling blocks to many peoples joining her and if being a Catholic is the only path to salvation why wouldn’t this bother you?