What a Priest told me about purgatory

[setarcos]

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.

Your right, I was being sarcastic. Its not nice. I do need a meaningful explanation and what’s more the entirety of scripture is based upon meaningful explanation. Our faith is supplemented with reason, our desire for truth with revelation. The only thing I must axiomatically take completely on faith alone is the revelations Jesus Christ himself declared and even this was supplemented with evidence. Jesus didn’t just appear and say I am Gods son and I can conquer death. He gave evidence. He died. He rose, he performed miracles. He did not however give revelatory statements, and neither did his original apostles, about Maries assumption, the meaningless phrase of Mother of God as apposed to Jesus, or her perpetual virginity. These were all revelatory works of the magisterium, made dogmatic long after Christ ascended even though it is said that ALL revelation ended with Jesus. Of course there is always a loop hole which the Roman Church can exploit.

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.

I think not otherwise. All grace does come from God. Sometimes directly, via miracles or what not, sometimes indirectly via expedient means but to declare that Gods band has but one instrument with which to play is making unfounded claims and restraining God, as if that were possible.

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?

I would say more apparent to us but his presence with us is internal and personal. While we may receive grace through the instruments of his choosing the Grace of Gods presence is given to us individually and directly. It is his sustaining essence with each of us and depends upon no extraneous methods. By reducing all Gods graces to the mediation of a single person, the Mediatrix of all Grace removes God from directly interacting with our souls unless you believe that Mary is the conduit whereby Gods grace somehow sustains our being? Mary then becomes grace itself, a part of Gods nature.

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

I pray all the time for Gods help and guidance. As far as unresolved mother issues go I don’t believe I have any, as far as I can tell, and what would it matter should some Freudian psychoanalytic theory determine that to be my impetus, truth is truth, however you get there.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I did not claim that “no Catholic believes” this, as I have met some that I know do so. I am saying this is not a teaching of the Church.

It comes about this way. Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ. He is the fullness of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind. Jesus came through Mary, the Theotokos chosen by God to bring Jesus into the world. She has also been called the Ark of the New Covenant.

So, while God can dispense His grace however He chooses, He chose to enter the world through Mary.

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.

I understand why it seems that way to you. I think this is because you are confusing the meanings of “mediation”. No one can mediate our eternal salvation but Christ. However, God has chosen people through which He mediates His graces on earth. Even Paul wrote about being such a mediator.

God desires a personal relationship with me and to allow for this to happen only through Mary’s mediation by definition eliminates that possibility.

To be blunt, the reason you know that Jesus desires a personal relationship with you is because Mary brought Him into the world. So she has facilitated this opportunity.

We then begin to set up unnecessary stumbling blocks for many peoples salvation.

I have difficulty understanding how this is a stumbling block, since God created Mary and gave her this special role in salvation history. But I also notice that people are free to reject this concept of Mary (Protestants do) and don’t seem to encounter any stumbling blocks to salvation. how do you account for that?

If its not essential to believe in order to be saved then don’t make it a stumbling block!

Again I am confused about how you see it that way, but may I suggest that you don’t create such a block for yourself? That might be a good way to start.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Well, perhaps in your part of the world, it is like this. I realize that different places have different practices. In my part of the world, we use the Catechism, which makes it clear that these practices and rituals are not necessary for 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.

That would be ideal, of course, but it is more like a choice to assent, which means, if you are having trouble embracing a dogma, you decide to trust that God will make it clear to you in time, and you will submit in faith, even without understanding.

To be fair, the vast majority of American Catholics do not even embrace the dogmas of the Church. I am not praising that, but I think a person who struggles with dogma is in a better conscience before God than those who either ignore it or outright reject it!

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!

I see what you are saying, and I do agree, the Marian dogmas are the most difficult for people raised Protestant. I think that is why it requires a leap of faith, such that a candidate chooses to place their trust in Jesus, and believe that all will be made clear in time. Kinda like the Apostles did in John 6. I don’t think they understood what Jesus was saying either, but they knew He had the words of eternal life, so they stayed. The truth was made known to them later.

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?

No, it does not bother me, because I do not see it as a stumbling block. I also know that these dogmas were not “created by the Roman Church”. And I also know that God can and does save whoever He wants, however He likes. If a person cannot embrace what the One Church, founded by Christ, believes and teaches, then God will judge them in the light of their conscience.

I do need a meaningful explanation and what’s more the entirety of scripture is based upon meaningful explanation.

I do not think this is true either. I think there are a great many mysteries in Scripture that we may never understand until the other side of this life. That being said, I do think it is important for faith to seek understanding.

 

[guanophore]

The only thing I must axiomatically take completely on faith alone is the revelations Jesus Christ himself declared and even this was supplemented with evidence.

So if Jesus appeared to you and told you that Mary is the mediatrix of all graces, you could take that on faith alone?

He did not however give revelatory statements, and neither did his original apostles, about Maries assumption, the meaningless phrase of Mother of God as apposed to Jesus, or her perpetual virginity.

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

These were all revelatory works of the magisterium, made dogmatic long after Christ ascended even though it is said that ALL revelation ended with Jesus. Of course there is always a loop hole which the Roman Church can exploit.

Public revelation, yes, but we believe that private revelation continues. But I agree with you, the Church can only pronounce on those matters that are contained in the once for all divine deposit of faith.

to declare that Gods band has but one instrument with which to play is making unfounded claims and restraining God, as if that were possible.

I agree, which is why I think you have misunderstood. Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ. Jesus came through Mary. This does not limit God in any way.

I would say more apparent to us but his presence with us is internal and personal. While we may receive grace through the instruments of his choosing the Grace of Gods presence is given to us individually and directly. It is his sustaining essence with each of us and depends upon no extraneous methods.

This makes it sound like you have no interest or need for the Sacramental life. If that is the case, then there seems to be no need to be Catholic, and if that is the case, then again, how can any dogmas about Mary be a barrier? I would think that the lack of faith in Sacraments is a much bigger barrier!

By reducing all Gods graces to the mediation of a single person, the Mediatrix of all Grace removes God from directly interacting with our souls unless you believe that Mary is the conduit whereby Gods grace somehow sustains our being? Mary then becomes grace itself, a part of Gods nature.

I would recommend that you abandon this line of thinking. I think you would have much more peace of mind.

truth is truth, however you get there.

It sounds like you have already arrived at your Truth, and it does not resemble Catholic faith. I commend you to your spiritual journey, and will pray that God will reveal to you the kind of relationship He wants you to have with His mother.

May the Peace of the Easter season be with you always.

 

[setarcos]

greetings Gorgias, health and happiness to you and yours.

They convey emotion.

concerning you emoji use, it goes without saying that that is their primary use in an literary format. Now ask yourself, is their any time at which you would consider the conveyance of emotion to another inappropriate? What do you imagine a wink says to a person in a serious debate after making a counterpoint remark?

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

There is no proper use of the rolling of the eyes emoji when in a serious apologetics discussion. It holds its origins in arrogance and unfounded pride. It serves no purpose beyond feigning superior knowledge in light of another’s remarks. At the least it does absolutely nothing to advance your argument towards the others understanding of your viewpoint, and at worst it sets up an emotional obstacle to be overcome between you and who you are debating with. You elevate the emotional at the expense of the reasonable in this manner.

 

[setarcos]

She was afraid and greatly troubled by his appearance… 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.

First of all your misunderstanding her culture again. Mary wasn’t troubled by the Angels appearance, reread Luke 1:29. Mary was troubled at his words not his appearance. It was not uncommon for strangers to stop in a household on their journeys to and fro. It was written into law how such strangers should be treated. They should be welcomed and offered food etc…look it up. What troubled Mary here is the manner of his greeting which was way outside the standard greeting of her day. Your skipping ahead, her reply “…may it be done to me according to your word.” comes after Mary questions the possibility of the messengers message and the angel further explains. Your being ignorant of the culture again. To Mary’s culture speaking to a messenger of God is like speaking to God himself. The messenger can be Angelic or a human prophet it makes no difference. I understand your zealousness to prove your point but you really must look at both sides of an issue and not just regurgitate what you’ve been told. Looking deeper into the Greek word -transliteration-“aggelos”, -phonetic spelling “angelos” you speak of we see that…
32 ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.
32 (ággelos) is used 176 times in the NT (usually of heavenly angels), but only the context determines whether a human or celestial messenger is intended. For example, 32 (ággelos) in Rev 1:20 can refer to heavenly angels or key leaders (perhaps pastors) of the seven churches.
[32 (ággelos) can refer to “a human messenger” (cf. John the Baptist, Mt 11:10, quoting Mal 3:1; see also Lk 7:24, 9:52).
We see that the word can mean a human OR a heavenly being. In the pertinent verses the reader is of course told that it is the Angel Gabriel that speaks to her but this is literary description. No where in the verses does it say Mary knew or was told a heavenly being was speaking. There are several instances in the bible in which people did not realize they were speaking with heavenly angels.

 

[setarcos]

While definitive proof for some is lacking, given the context of her reaction, her questioning attitude, and the culture she lived in, it is more likely she thought she was speaking with a man who claimed to have knowledge direct from God about her future. Notice in verse luke 1:38 Mary says “May your word to me be fulfilled”. To me this is a curious response since to be told by God ones future is to make that future inevitable, Gods word IS extent reality, no “may” about it. This is where a much more appropriate response like Mary’s so called “magnificat” should have been inserted. Unless she is not yet convinced the man who speaks to her is actually a messenger from God and then after confirmation of the messages truth by visiting Elizabeth she then can sing praises in gladness for the message she received now validated. Makes much more sense and to me is more likely. Religion shouldn’t be separated from reality simply because someone likes a particular story line.

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.

Suffering but triumphant in conquering Israel’s enemies and human not divine. The Jews were not expecting a divine messiah. The concept would have been foreign to them. God cannot suffer, God cannot be killed. God cannot be birthed. Incidentally Gabriel’s message to Mary mentioned nothing about her son suffering or dying on a cross. The message she received was nothing but positive with absolutely no negative connotations involved so that is what Mary had to work with at the time.

 

[setarcos]

Mary kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”

Why shouldn’t Mary be reflecting on these things? She’s was given a message from God about her babies glorious future. The shepherds stories would have been more anecdotal evidence from others that her and her child’s future was very bright. At this early juncture she is probably still elated and overjoyed. No one and nothing yet has indicated to her that Gabriel’s message to her was lacking in some important and relevant details about her future happiness and her sons demise.

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”…

That would be a reasonable assumption. Except in this most unique of situations in which the claim is being made that Mary was aware of who her son was and what his mission on earth was about. Are you saying Mary was unaware that Jesus was divine? If so it proves my point. If she was aware, knowing his mission and nature then why do you think she would think her divine son didn’t know what he was doing and couldn’t take care of himself? To know Jesus mission is to know Jesus’s divinity is it not? You are really stretching things in order to answer a conundrum here. One minute Mary’s a normal Jewish mom with normal concerns the next she’s so in communion with her son as to be the apex in understanding of his mission and nature. If this is the Catholic understanding its mere meaningless equivocation.

 

[guanophore]

“…may it be done to me according to your word.” comes after Mary questions the possibility of the messengers message

I don’t think she questioned the possibility. What she was asking was “how”, since she had already made a vow to be a virgin for life.

Your being ignorant of the culture again.

Or you are! A young maiden who was betrothed would be educated in the ways of the marriage embrace. She would be familiar with all the writings of the prophets about the Messiah, and would expect that the Messiah would be born of a natural relationship between a man and a woman, which she never planned to have.

In the pertinent verses the reader is of course told that it is the Angel Gabriel that speaks to her but this is literary description. No where in the verses does it say Mary knew or was told a heavenly being was speaking. There are several instances in the bible in which people did not realize they were speaking with heavenly angels.

I think you are saying that Mary did not know who the Angel Gabriel was?

given the context of her reaction, her questioning attitude, and the culture she lived in, it is more likely she thought she was speaking with a man who claimed to have knowledge direct from God about her future.

I am not sure what you mean by “questioning attitude”. Her attitude of faithful acceptance is the main distinction between her reaction and that of Zachariah.

Let me get this right. Luke speaks to Mary personally to obtain her side of the story for His gospel. Luke documents that she was visited by the Angel Gabriel, but you have determined that Mary did not know she was visited by an angelic being?

Mary says “May your word to me be fulfilled”. To me this is a curious response since to be told by God ones future is to make that future inevitable, Gods word IS extent reality, no “may” about it.

Such a position denies free will, which may be part of your theology, but is not consistent with what we have received from the Apostles. God does not impose His will upon people without their consent.

This is where a much more appropriate response like Mary’s so called “magnificat” should have been inserted.

It is a shame that you were not chosen by God to write the Gospel, as you seem to have a great many ideas about how it might have been done better!

Unless she is not yet convinced the man who speaks to her is actually a messenger from God and then after confirmation of the messages truth by visiting Elizabeth she then can sing praises in gladness for the message she received now validated.

Does it make any sense to agree to submit your will to someone you do not believe is a messenger from God?

 

[guanophore]

Makes much more sense and to me is more likely. Religion shouldn’t be separated from reality simply because someone likes a particular story line.

Except when you are reading the account, apparently.

Incidentally Gabriel’s message to Mary mentioned nothing about her son suffering or dying on a cross. The message she received was nothing but positive with absolutely no negative connotations involved so that is what Mary had to work with at the time.

One has to assume a vast ignorance on the part of any Jew to make such an assumption. They had much more knowledge of the Scriptures, and although some of their expectations may not have accurate, they certainly read the same things in the book of Isaiah that we do.

Mary kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”

Why shouldn’t Mary be reflecting on these things? She’s was given a message from God about her babies glorious future.

Wait…
You are saying she was not convinced that the Angel Gabriel was actually an angelic being, nor that she believed what he told her, and now you are saying that she accepted the words of an old man in the temple as a message from God?

No one and nothing yet has indicated to her that Gabriel’s message to her was lacking in some important and relevant details about her future happiness and her sons demise.

Unless she was a complete ignoramus about the Scriptures, which her expressions to Elizabeth show she was not.

the claim is being made that Mary was aware of who her son was and what his mission on earth was about.

I think you are saying that, though she spent more time on earth with Him than any other human being ever did or will, she was unable to understand His mission?

If she was aware, knowing his mission and nature then why do you think she would think her divine son didn’t know what he was doing and couldn’t take care of himself?

I don’t think she did, but I am sure she jumped at the chance to travel with relatives to see him.

To know Jesus mission is to know Jesus’s divinity is it not?

Indeed.

One minute Mary’s a normal Jewish mom with normal concerns the next she’s so in communion with her son as to be the apex in understanding of his mission and nature. If this is the Catholic understanding its mere meaningless equivocation.

Some people are incapable of thinking in a “both/and” framework, and are limited to an “either/or” framework.

I don’t see how our acceptance of both of these realities is a “mere meaningless equivocation”, but perhaps you are just expressing your frustration at your inability to do the same?

 

[setarcos]

Thank you guanophore for your continued responses to my assertions. I do so enjoy reasoning together and hope it leads me to further my understanding of Gods truth. I have been planning on responding to your earlier posts but time waits for no man and it certainly passes by me faster than I can utilize it best so I will respond to your latest posts them perhaps some of your earlier ones to try and catch up.

I don’t think she questioned the possibility. What she was asking was “how”, since she had already made a vow to be a virgin for life.

This may be true except for the fact that Mary went to the extreme of asking about possibilities, even using that exact term. Surely she knew nothing was impossible for God. Mary didn’t ask, “How will you accomplish this?” she asked “how is this even possible to do?” As you say, Mary would have been steeped in her cultures religious teachings and wouldn’t have questioned God in such a way.With that in mind Mary wasn’t questioning what it is possible for God to do, she was questioning the legitimacy of the beings claim to be a messenger of God.

Or you are! A young maiden who was betrothed would be educated in the ways of the marriage embrace. She would be familiar with all the writings of the prophets about the Messiah, and would expect that the Messiah would be born of a natural relationship between a man and a woman, which she never planned to have.

I was a little rude here and for that I should apologize. Gorgias’s methods had made me a little exacerbated. What I was pointing out was that in Mary’s culture a “messenger” from God could be either a spiritual Angelic being or a human prophet sometimes without distinction and that often in scripture spiritual beings weren’t known to be spiritual beings upon first meeting but appeared as normal humans. I’m not sure what relevant argument your making here. I agree with your statement.

I think you are saying that Mary did not know who the Angel Gabriel was?

I am saying that there is no reason to think that Mary would have recognized the being interacting with her as the Angel Gabriel let alone a spiritual being. He did not announce his name to her and elsewhere in scripture Gabriel goes unrecognized until he announces his name at least proving that he can go unrecognized, and this by men of the priestly cast. I conjecture that a spiritual being manifesting physically may take somewhat different forms each time. I do not know why this would be so if true.

 

[setarcos]

I am not sure what you mean by “questioning attitude”. Her attitude of faithful acceptance is the main distinction between her reaction and that of Zachariah.

Literally, she questioned the angel about the possibility of his message being true. Mary’s interaction with the angel is not with an attitude of certainty, but you are correct, it is with an attitude of faith. Faith is not certitude. If you have faith it is raining outside and then someone just came inside dripping wet and told you it was your faith just became certitude. Mary wasn’t certain about the messengers message but she was faithful in its possibility IF this messenger was a messenger from God. Mary was hopeful that the message was true and faithful that it could be true because as the angel said…"…no word of God will ever fail."
Zachariah on the other hand dismissed the message as impossible because of his lack of faith even in its possibility.

Let me get this right. Luke speaks to Mary personally to obtain her side of the story for His gospel. Luke documents that she was visited by the Angel Gabriel, but you have determined that Mary did not know she was visited by an angelic being?

I am unaware of any record indicating that Luke got the entirety of his birth narrative scenario by speaking directly with Mary about it. He could have been inspired by the spirit considered the subject we are discussing. However keeping things more grounded and likely, he probably did speak with her and embellished a little bit for religious purposes an narrative elegance. Mary says a man from God gave her a message and Luke makes this being a spiritual Angel and Gabriel. However since this would be unacceptable to you I’m supposing lets say Mary told Luke the angel Gabriel visited. I would still propose that at the time these events happened she did not recognize him as such given her demeanor and responses only somehow being enlightened on the matter later, perhaps by God. As I’ve pointed out before, if Mary absolutely knew it was a messenger from God she would have absolutely acted as if she were speaking with God himself and being intimate with her religious upbringing and status she would not have questioned God in such a manner. Its just not a realistic reaction.

 

[setarcos]

Such a position denies free will, which may be part of your theology, but is not consistent with what we have received from the Apostles. God does not impose His will upon people without their consent.

My personal feeling…er not my own actually…LOL, is that free will is simply a state of impressed delusion. That is a whole other thread debate though. However, I’m afraid scripture indicates that God does and indeed has imposed his will upon people without their consent at times. Pharaoh is one case. If God determines a thing to happen what makes you think humans are exempt from the inevitable events to happen regardless of their will that it doesn’t? This is irrelevant in this case anyway since Mary isn’t exercising her will here, she was already willing to accept the reality of the message, now she is expressing her hope that the message is truly Gods will. Incidentally, if the ability to exercise ones own free will is contingent upon someone else exercising their free will first then do we really have free will of our own?

It is a shame that you were not chosen by God to write the Gospel, as you seem to have a great many ideas about how it might have been done better!

No, no ,no, not “done better”. Blasphemy. I was merely pointing out the reasoning behind my train of thought. IF Mary was certain she was talking with God it seems much more likely that the magnificat would have been right after the angels glorious speech about her sons future. Instead of a Mary described with radiant joy and blessings to almighty God for his Grace upon her we get an anticlimactic, gee I hope your word will be fulfilled. It just seems more likely she was still unsure at this point.

Does it make any sense to agree to submit your will to someone you do not believe is a messenger from God?

I didn’t say she didn’t believe or rather believed it wasn’t true. Belief is certitude. She wasn’t certain but had hope the message was true and faith that all things are possible with God.
I have to go now but look forward to future discussions. Gods blessings be upon you.

 

[guanophore]

This may be true except for the fact that Mary went to the extreme of asking about possibilities, even using that exact term. Surely she knew nothing was impossible for God. Mary didn’t ask, “How will you accomplish this?” she asked “how is this even possible to do?”

In fact, that is exactly what she asked. A young maiden who planned to have natural relations would assume, if she was to bear a son, it would be in the natural manner. He did not plan to have these relations, so she asked how God planned to make this promise occur. She believed that God had accepted her vow of virginity because Joseph had accepted it.

34 And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her,

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born[h] will be called holy,
the Son of God.

36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Unlike Zach, she did not question the truth of what was to happen.

As you say, Mary would have been steeped in her cultures religious teachings and wouldn’t have questioned God in such a way.

I think you have not spent much time reading the Psalms. The Psalms were the prayer book of the Jews. They were Jesus’ prayer book. There are such questions throughout the Psalms.

With that in mind Mary wasn’t questioning what it is possible for God to do, she was questioning the legitimacy of the beings claim to be a messenger of God.

Why would a faithful Jew submit themselves to something said by a person they did not believe came from God?

I am saying that there is no reason to think that Mary would have recognized the being interacting with her as the Angel Gabriel let alone a spiritual being.

I think what you are saying is that you would not recognize an angel or messenger of God?

Obviously it is clear from the text that the greeting was a title, not a name.

Even if she did not know at that time, by the time she got to her Kinswoman and heard the rest of the story she would know by then!

19 “And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news.” Luke 1

The reason that Mary did not have a consequence like Zach was because she was obedient and submissive to the message. Jesus affirms this later.

27 As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”Luke 11

Mary heard the Word of God and kept it.

 

[guanophore]

Literally, she questioned the angel about the possibility of his message being true.

No, this was Zach’s mistake! " “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” Luke 1.

Not how will this come to be, but how shall I KNOW THIS. This is why he got a consequence - he did not accept the truth of the message.

I am unaware of any record indicating that Luke got the entirety of his birth narrative scenario by speaking directly with Mary about it.

At the foot of the cross Jesus gave Mary to John, and she removed with him to Ephesus. Luke later attached to Paul, and they both when to Ephesus, where he had a chance to get a first hand interview. This is why the other gospels don’t have the detail about Mary that Lukes has.

Mary says a man from God gave her a message and Luke makes this being a spiritual Angel and Gabriel.

So what Gabriel told Zach was not true? Or you think some other person visited Mary? Or you just don’t believe any of it literally because the authors “make it into” something other than the Word of God? If that is the case, there is no reason to continue the discussion.

As I’ve pointed out before, if Mary absolutely knew it was a messenger from God she would have absolutely acted as if she were speaking with God himself and being intimate with her religious upbringing and status she would not have questioned God in such a manner. Its just not a realistic reaction.

Ok, well, I will commend you to your beliefs about her culture.

 

[setarcos]

Good day guanophore,
Peace be upon you this fine day.
You may have said all you intend concerning this matter and have moved on to other things but I felt compelled to at least acknowledge your replies with a few incidental thoughts of my own.
First, beyond speculative fiction there is no record of Joseph agreeing to abstain from consummating the marriage. There is no record that Mary took a perpetual vow of virginity. If this were the case why would she agree in the first place to marry Joseph? Scripture indicates her betrothal took place before Gabriel’s message to her. If she were to be a perpetual virgin dedicated to the temple service such a marriage contract would not have been initiated. Incidentally what bible interpretation are you using? Mary wouldn’t have said in verse 34 I have no husband since she clearly did at this point. This is a poor interpretation.
Second, Mary is responding to the Angel in the present tense. She believes the Angel is referring to an imminent or existent pregnancy. Verse 36 “…Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son;…” is the present tense in comparison. Mary knows full well how babies are made and would not have conceived of any method deviating from this process. Remember, most of the Jews expected a normal birth process for their messiah. Mary knew she had not been with a man, her husband or otherwise. Putting the verses into their proper context we see Mary IS questioning the messengers remarks as possible since she has no ulterior thought process with which to put the Angels remarks into any other understanding. This miraculous process of pregnancy would not have been even a remote possibility in her mind. To her thinking, you need a man and a women who have had relations in order to become pregnant. She knows she has not been with a man therefore the possibility of her being pregnant is extremely suspect in her mind. Her mind can only conceive of the impossibility of the event given her current state and so the Angel goes further with his description of the process in verse 37 telling her that nothing is IMPOSSIBLE with God. There is nothing particularly amazing in verse 38 that demands it be elevated to the accolades people have been fed to believe. In a sense ALL pious Jewish women would have considered themselves handmaids (doule) of the lord. See for comparison Acts 2:18.
“…; genoito moi kata to rhema sou…” “…/be it/ /to me/ /according to/ /the/ /word/ /of you/…”
be it…fundamentally, “become” (becoming, became) she’s saying let it be true in reality…to me, she wants it to be true about herself
according to…(prep, properly, “down from a higher to a lower plane” “bring down exactly, complete” she wants the reality of the truth to be fulfilled exactly as it has been given to her…
the word…(a thing spoken, command, report, promise…) this is the thing given to her that she hopes will be true…
of you…(personal pronoun) simply means the person she is talking to.

 

[setarcos]

This is not a statement of acquisition of a state of being through agreement. No question was asked of Mary. A prophecy was given her about her future and Prophets are prophets in the Jewish community because their prophecies come from God and are true. False prophets speak falsehoods not from God. Truth in its fulfillment is the primary means by which a prophecy is known to have come from God. Mary was blessed because she was chosen. Her future was set. This much touted hyperbolic business of “she said yes” is a shallow push towards emphasizing a particular Mythic view of Mary. Mary knows that if this persons statements are truly from God then her future is set and the truth of the statements unwavering. There is nothing to agree to. The message itself - her belief that it speaks of an imminent pregnancy - and her own knowledge of her state casts doubts within her mind though of this being an authentic message from God. Doubts which the Angel tries to eliminate with his assurances.

 

[guanophore]

No question was asked of Mary.

The fact that the text does not show the question to Mary does not mean it was never asked. But, even if not, Mary had consecrated her life to God prior to the visitation. She also gave her acquiescence at the time of the visitation saying “I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me according to your will”. You seem to think that her agreement was given to the messenger, rather than to God? Or you just don’t think she understood the messenger was angelic?

Mary was blessed because she was chosen. Her future was set. This much touted hyperbolic business of “she said yes” is a shallow push towards emphasizing a particular Mythic view of Mary.

I can understand why it would seem that way to you. Catholics believe that God gives every human soul the choice to follow Him, which means that we can all reject His purpose for our lives.

There is nothing to agree to.

This sounds like a Calvanistic perspective.

The message itself - her belief that it speaks of an imminent pregnancy - and her own knowledge of her state casts doubts within her mind though of this being an authentic message from God.

I am not sure why it is important for you to believe this about Mary, but there is nothing in this conversation that indicates she had any doubt at all. In fact, her question about how it would be accomplished reflects her prior consecration of herself to God as a virgin. No young betrothed maiden who expected to have natural relations with a man would wonder about this. She would assume that she would become pregnant the way every young Jewish bride became pregnant!

Doubts which the Angel tries to eliminate with his assurances.

Mary was puzzled because she was greeted by a title with which she was not familiar. She did not have doubts about the veracity of the message. If she did, she would have had consequences for her unbelief, as Zacharias did.

 

[Gorgias]

First, beyond speculative fiction there is no record of Joseph agreeing to abstain from consummating the marriage. There is no record that Mary took a perpetual vow of virginity. If this were the case why would she agree in the first place to marry Joseph?

You’re mistaken. There’s no Scriptural record. Is Scripture the sole historical record we have?

There’s also the Protoevangelium of James which, although not part of the canon of Scripture, was a document respected by early Christians. In opposition to your claims, it does speak of Mary’s and Joseph’s motivations with respect to marriage.

Second, Mary is responding to the Angel in the present tense. She believes the Angel is referring to an imminent or existent pregnancy.

Ouch… just. plain. mistaken. Gabriel speaks in the future tense!

ἰδοὺ συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ (Luke 1:31)
behold, you will conceive in your womb
συλλήμψῃ – “you will conceive” – is future tense.

Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω (Luke 1:34)
how will this be, since I do not know man?
ἔσται – “will be” – is future tense. Not “how is this (now)”, but “how will this (conception) be (in the future)”

Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις Ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι (Luke 1:35)
the Holy Spirit will overtake you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you
both of these verbs are in the future tense.

So, you see, the words of Gabriel in Scripture contradict your assertions: Gabriel explicitly talks about what will happen in the future (and not, as you claim, refers “to an imminent or existent pregnancy”).

But what about Elizabeth and the perfect tense “has conceived”? Well… Mary has just asked about impossibilities, and Gabriel answers with an impossibility of his own: she who has been called ‘barren’ is now pregnant, because nothing will be impossible with God.

To her thinking, you need a man and a women who have had relations in order to become pregnant. She knows she has not been with a man therefore the possibility of her being pregnant is extremely suspect in her mind. Her mind can only conceive of the impossibility of the event given her current state

That would be reasonable if Mary had asked “how is this possible”, and not “how will this be possible”.

So… your analysis, sadly, doesn’t hold up in light of the Word of God.

 

[guanophore]

First, beyond speculative fiction there is no record of Joseph agreeing to abstain from consummating the marriage.

There is a Levitical law that allowed betrothed husbands to accept a maiden’s vow to God. As long as the husband was willing to receive her, she could keep the vow.

I am sure you understand that women were best protected by marriage, and until that time, were the charge of their father, or oldest male relative.

There is no record that Mary took a perpetual vow of virginity.

This is how we understand her query to the angel about “how” her motherhood was to happen. She does not “know man” in this way, and never intended to do so.

If this were the case why would she agree in the first place to marry Joseph?

This was the best legal protection for her. What is described in the Protevengelium of James is a cultural practice.

Scripture indicates her betrothal took place before Gabriel’s message to her.

Yes. The Law allowed a vow of virginity so long as the husband agreed to it.

If she were to be a perpetual virgin dedicated to the temple service such a marriage contract would not have been initiated.

On the contrary, once a girl dedicated to the temple reached puberty, she was given for safekeeping to a male member of the community. These arrangements were usually made with men who had finished completing their family, who might be a widower, and had already grown Children, as Joseph did.

Incidentally what bible interpretation are you using? Mary wouldn’t have said in verse 34 I have no husband since she clearly did at this point.

She was betrothed, but had no intention of sexually consummating the marriage, as Joseph had accepted her vow of virginity.

Mary knows full well how babies are made and would not have conceived of any method deviating from this process.

Of course, which is why she asked how it was going to happen!