P
protestantman
Guest
Nope, I do not.
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
What part of “full of grace” = “without sin” is so disturbing?
P
protestantman
Guest
WHAT??
I do believe that there is a possible two-fold meaning here. But like many other prophetical statements in the bible, it is difficult to say. This would be a topic for another thread, as it could be a leangthy one. Look at Isiaiah 9 for an example. There is a great deal of contraversy about this Prophesy. But again, that would be a topic for a new thread.It has nothing to do with snakes.
But it’s also obvious that it has to be a metaphor of Jesus, right? (I hope?)
P
protestantman
Guest
What is grace? It is a gift of God. It is non specific.
Elijah was taken up to heaven by a chariot of Fire, and yet Mary was not. In fact I think that Elijah is the only one spoken of in scriptures to leave the Earth in that manner, other than Christ. Would you say that Elijah was not full of grace? He had many gifts that he recieved from God.
P
protestantman
Guest
If Mary was without sin, then she would have been righteous. Myt problem with this is that it goes against what the scriptures teach about righteousness.
M
mikeledes
Guest
N
Namesake
Guest
The reformation was not in any way against what Christ had originally founded. That is a ridiculous argument! The reformation was against the apostasy that had corrupted what Christ had founded.
J
justasking4
Guest
Here is what the term “full of grace” or “highly favored” one means. This is taken from a greek lexicon of the NT.
Full of grace
χαριτόω charitóō; contracted charitó̄, fut. charitó̄sō, from cháris (5485), grace. To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace.
Notice in this definition that there is no mention of a person so favored is without sin. A person can be highly favored as believers are said in Ephesians 1:6 and not having to be without sin.
What is disturbing is when people add to this term “highly favored” one that it means also this person is without sin. To say this is to go beyond the meaning of the word and add something that is not in the meaning. Its dishonest to do this and misleads people.
D
deanarrca
Guest
In a nut shell being Full of Grace is an attribute of the person. It is different than being Filled with Grace. It goes back to the Greek and the Greek usage of the word/ expression. Again a translational issue. I don’t have my notes in front of me.
I get the impression ( and please correct me if I am wrong - I don’t really want to assume anything) that you are just at the inguiry stage of learning about these issues from a Catholic perspective.
I come from a varied Protestant background and my journey Home to Christ’s Catholic Church has taken over 20 years. Many here on the forum are converts
To be honest the Marian Doctrines are usually without exception are the last Doctrines to be understood by us ex Fundamentalist/Evangelicals. (Getting past dispensationalism is also in there too)
It is a process, once you understand Biblically Christ’s plan for his Church and Apostolic succession and realize in your heart the Authority he gave the Church then the rest of it begins to fall in place. I re-read the scriptures concerning the Eucharist objectively. We Fundamentalists want to take everything literally except when it comes to the Eucharist. I started reading the Old Testament with new Clarity. Scriptures that never made sense before were making sense. The confusion went away and the Holy Spirit was right there by my side telling me this is home.
To be honest I don’t think with just the Holy Bible as your sole authority that you can 100% prove the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It isn’t a Scripture Alone thing. However likewise I don’t believe you can disprove it either from scripture. So until you can accept the Authority of the Church given to it by Christ and protected by him, can you really accept this Doctrine. But once you see how everything the Church teaches through the Scriptures and Godly Tradition, is a cohesive whole, it is wonderful and makes perfect sense.
I am so much more at peace in the Catholic Church without all the doctrinal confusion of the Protestant world
M
mikeledes
Guest
Are you sure Catholcisim is the “apostasy”, since Protestantism came after Catholicism?
The problem is that the Reformers sought to “rediscover” the True Gospel and ended up opening Pandora’s Box. the fruit of the Reformation has been doctrinal confusion (Arminian vs. Calvinist, etc.). God is not the author of confusion. Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His church. If such an “apostasy” occurred, then Christ did not keep His promise.
God Bless,
Michael
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
No, what is disturbing oh fallable man is that you can’t see that God made specific exceptions to how how some people are “saved”. Mary had a greater salvation than all other men since she was saved from committing sin by virtue of the merits of her son and redeemed in a more exalted fashion (after CCC 492). She has **more **reason to call God her Savior than we do, because He saved her in an even more glorious manner! No other person in the universe can claim they are the mother of Jesus.
Do you deny that Mary was the mother of Jesus? Do you deny that Jesus was the Son of God? Do you deny that Jesus existed at all time with God the Father in His 2nd person? Do you deny the trinity? Do you imagine that an omniscient God would create His Living Word of His 2nd person through an avenue of a sinful vessel?!
No Mary was sinless. To assume otherwise is to disbelief that God could not make it so and to believe that God’s Nature could tolerate to be contained within a vessel of sin! BLASAPHEMY!
Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.
Do you think of yourself as a son of God or a son of KJVs scripture?
James
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Because you reject Apostolic Succession, this will probably not hold much sway with you. However, for Catholics, we interpret the following as the granting of the rights, graces and powers associated with becoming a Bishop (fullness of Holy Orders:
Acts 6:1-10: At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table.
Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. ** They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.** The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith. Now Stephen, filled with grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people. Certain members of the so-called Synagogue of Freedmen, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and people from Cilicia and Asia, came forward and debated with Stephen, but they could not withstand the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke.
Note in this passage, Stephen was filled with the Spirit (like any lay person) but it was not enough. They laid hands on him and then was filled with grace and power such that his words were now extra-ordinarily powerful. Kinda sounds like Teaching Authority doesn’t it and an authority that the Apostles passed on.
1 Timothy 4: 13-14: Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. **Do not neglect the gift **you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.
Again, they gain a special gift from laying on of hands that speaks to their authority in ministry.
1 Timothy 5: 22: Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins. Keep yourself pure. Be selective to whom you give this gift. It appears they could even give the gift to someone not Holy if they chose. That is alot of authority. Makes you understand how we got some not so good Popes.
2 Timothy 1:4-6 I yearn to see you again, recalling your tears, so that I may be filled with joy, as I **recall your sincere faith **that first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and that I am confident lives also in you. For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands. Again, even if Paul is not absolutely sure of his faith, he tells him to use the gift he got from the imposition of hands.
Well, considering that we now know what laying on of hands means, do you want to revisit what may have occurred in Acts 9 with the laying on of hands on Paul by Ananias?
Remember, there is a parallel in some of Christ’s laying of hands where he both healed their physical sickness as well as forgave their sins. Thus, laying of hands can do more than just heal depending on the intent of the person doing so.
I believe it does because of the imposition of hands by Ananias.
To know the Peter which means to know what Peter knew in combination with Paul’s new found power.
The above Scripture seems pretty clear to contradict what you say above.
Acts 6:1-10, 1 Timothy 4:13-14, 1 Timothy 5:22, and 2 Timothy 1:4-6
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
In response to this comment in reference to if the Catholic Church follows the command to expel evildoers, "Yes. However, most Catholics fall into a state of mortal sin, separating themselves from the Church, so a public statement is not necessary.
In Catholic parlance, “Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion – exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society.” This is much more than just kicking someone out of the house. Don’t feel bad, alot of Catholics don’t understand the severity either.
In response to the following "Christ took on Mary’s flesh - the flesh of her ovum, in her womb - and became Man. He was her biological son; she was not a surrogate mother, or “just a vessel.”
First, it was a conception that infers joined with Mary’s egg. Second and more importantly, I thought you believed that Christ was fully man. He did this without a human parent? And then you have to deal with Romans 1:3 which as of now you still have not done.
In this regard, I’d like to see the Scripture for this out of curiousity and its context:
The snake in Genesis was a possessed snake (why would Eve talk to just an animal?) and not Satan.
Jesus did not gain His human nature from Mary but someplace else.
Unless you want to have a theology hugely removed from 99% of Christianity, I strongly urge you to re-think your position.
Is 100% of the time consistent enough for you? In a later post you appear to not see the parallel of excommunication and expelled.
In Catholic parlance, “Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion – exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society.” This is much more than just kicking someone out of the house. Don’t feel bad, alot of Catholics don’t understand the severity either.
Read Acts 6:1-10, 1 Timothy 4:13-14, 1 Timothy 5:22, and 2 Timothy 1:4-6 (in the other post that I had to split). It may not say “Apostle” but it sure makes it clear they have their powers.
1 Timothy 5:22 makes it clear that one that is impure may gain the power by the imposition of hands. Or in 2 Timothy4-6 where Paul doesn’t speak with assurance of Timothy’s faith but he sure does about his power. These two sure give evidence they can be separate.
In response to the following "Christ took on Mary’s flesh - the flesh of her ovum, in her womb - and became Man. He was her biological son; she was not a surrogate mother, or “just a vessel.”
Luke 1: 31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
First, it was a conception that infers joined with Mary’s egg. Second and more importantly, I thought you believed that Christ was fully man. He did this without a human parent? And then you have to deal with Romans 1:3 which as of now you still have not done.
In this regard, I’d like to see the Scripture for this out of curiousity and its context:
Protestantman, you have certainly plowed a lot of ground today. And introduced to me two theological concepts that I have never heard before which is amazing considering being in an ecumenical Bible Study, educated at a Protestant college, an ecumenical book group, years here on CAF, and fairly well-read.
The snake in Genesis was a possessed snake (why would Eve talk to just an animal?) and not Satan.
Jesus did not gain His human nature from Mary but someplace else.
Unless you want to have a theology hugely removed from 99% of Christianity, I strongly urge you to re-think your position.
J
justasking4
Guest
This is all speculation on your part. If this was taught in Scripture you would have a case but there is nothing in Scripture that claims she had a “greater salvation than all other men since she was saved from committing sin by virtue of the merits of her son and redeemed in a more exalted fashion”. She even acknowledges that God is her Savior in Luke 1:47 which means she considered herself a sinner.
More speculations. The Scriptures never makes any kind of distinctions (“He saved her in an even more glorious manner!”) about her like this.
No to all.
Yes because that is exactly says He did. Evidently God can enter the world even through a sinful woman.Do you imagine that an omniscient God would create His Living Word of His 2nd person through an avenue of a sinful vessel?!
Luke 1:47 is an indicator she saw herself as a sinner. Secondly, no one in the NT including Jesus Himself ever claims she was without sin.
Why not? Did not Jesus Who was God in the flesh touch and hang out with sinners without Himself becoming contaminated by them?To assume otherwise is to disbelief that God could not make it so and to believe that God’s Nature could tolerate to be contained within a vessel of sin! BLASAPHEMY!
Does not the Scriptures teach in I Corinthians 5:21 that Jesus so indentified with our sin that He became our sin?
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Good point.
A son of God as in John 1:12–But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,Do you think of yourself as a son of God or a son of KJVs scripture?
What is a "son of KJVs scripture?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
You still do not understand that scripture does not teach - authorized teachers teach. Such teachers will point out to you clearly that scripture itself indicated that one must follow traditions and teachings. No where in scripture can be found a new commandment of God to “Read scripture so that it may teach you.” What the apostles command is that you obey their teaching. Why do you disobey the authority of the apostles and no do as they say? The things I cite come directly from authorized teaching of the One Apostolic Church. Nothing you say comes from any authority that is recognizable to any man nor to God. Your statement:* ‘She even acknowledges that God is her Savior in Luke 1:47 which means she considered herself a sinner’* is a non-sequitur. You equate salvation with the presumption of sin as a pre-existing condition for all beings. Mary has acknowledged only that God has saved her from the occasion of the same certain sin she would have been subject to had God let her fall into it. Thus Mary can be “without sin” while it also being true that Mary is “saved” from falling into the trap of sin. There is no contradiction. Do you deny that God has the power to prevent someone from sinning while also accepting that Jesus, as both God and man did not not sin. If so, you are inconsistent in your logic and parroting rote dogmatic belief. Unless you yourself propose to stand before God as Mary’s accuser in the role of Satan show us in scripture where God told us Mary sinned.
You challenge the teaching authority of the One Apostolic Church without having authority to do so. You yourself speculate on the false doctrine of sola scriptura even when it is unbiblical and in spite of the fact no apostle ever taught it nor did any early church father do so. Where did you get this teaching since it seems to me somone has lorded a human tradition and authority over you that is not from The Church nor God.
This is not what God said He did. Show me where in scripture or in official teaching of The Church where God said He would bring forth His Son from a woman born in sin.
I know that the Protestants reject the Book of Wisdom since you do not have the complete Word of God. But consider that your deficiency explains why you can not accept what all the Apostles accepted as God’s Word. Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, **wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB). ** Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11). We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule of sin: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made. Further note the implicit reference to Mary’s sinlessness may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit.
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Wrong - see the above. Salvation applies equally to rescue from sin as it does to prevention of sin. You are just being selective in the protestant tradition of identifying heavily with your sinful nature. Could this selectivity arise from the human conscience not being able to accept the blatant error of OSAS where one can sin and remain saved? God told us He would write His laws on our hearts. It should come as no surprise that the false doctrines of men like Luther who compel the sinner to “sin boldly” should exist without creating disordered thinking and selective reasoning.
Yet, we know from scripture that nothing impure can enter heaven and we know that Jesus ascended to the Father. Sin could find no mark in Jesus’ soul by reason of His Divinity. You are reading this phrase too literally. How can Jesus be The Living Word of God, a God who can do no evil, and become both Living Word and Sin? Your interpretation creates a new Divine Person of Sin and raises it to Equality with God. Clearly, your private interpretation is infantile (less than 500 years old) and theologically illogical and contradictory to other scripture. You need to start listening to true teaching and get out of the trap of fundamentalism.
So you do not think yourself a son of God. Pity.
Who do you say your mother is?
A son of KJV imagines that scripture is His Father and Mother and he seeks to honor his father and mother by teaching us that scripture teaches itself while ignoring the contradiction.
James
G
guanophore
Guest
This is how the Sacred Tradition teaches us to understand it, ja4. We believe that the only way one could be “approved by God” is to be without sin. The only way to be without sin is to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. That is why we believe that Mary was saved by Christ in advance, so that she could be a fitting vessel for HIs incarnation.
It is not “adding”, ja4. It is understanding what was meant by the writer. This is what Sacred Tradition does for us. We believe that the writers knew what they meant by the words that they used. This meaning is what was passed down to us.
If you are disturbed, why are you here? If you think that Catholicism is dishonest and misleads people, why have you been here conducting an intensive study of it for almost two years? Curious, isn’t it?
No. It means she considers herself the recipient of salvation by grace.
He could, if He wanted to. But, He chose instead to take His flesh from Mary, and to do that, He had to sanctify it first. You will understand this doctrine better when you study gnosticism, and the heresies that arose in the early centuries about the nature of Christ.
Indeed! And he could do this because He was the Lamb without Blemish. He took all the blemish out of Mary, so that He could take His flesh from her flesh without the contamination of original sin. He could have appeared out of the sky as a full grown man, sure. He chose to do it this way.
G
guanophore
Guest
Depends upon the level of acceptance. THose who reject that Jesus is the Son of God…I can’t be sure about that. All those who are properly baptized are considered part of the Body. Those baptized persons who have not accepted all of the Teachings are in various levels of improper joining to the Church. But there is only One Body,and One Church, and therefore, all who are in Christ are members of it. Does it gall you so much to be joined to “Catholics” in this manner?
S
sodak
Guest
Enoch, I believe, was also assumed into heaven and did not die. But I don’t think he had a chariot of fire. I think he was the son of Cain, I need to go and check…
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree with you on this point.
No, but I do think it was very important to Paul that he do this. Why did Jesus command this to him? He states that he basically submitted His gospel to the Apostles. He wanted to be in unity with them, and no matter where he went all over the Church, he kept hearing that Peter had the keys. It had to make him curious about what kind of man Peter was, and why Jesus chose Him to shepherd and feed the sheep.
" I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain." Gal 2:2
I agree. I think it is pretty clear that Paul was made an Apostle by Christ, just like all the other Apostles. Jesus taught him by direct revelation in addition to being taught by other disciples, and the Apostles.
It says he “went by revelation”, so it seems that Jesus sent him purposefully.
I agree with you on this point also. I think that they did not accept him as an Apostle until he “laid out before them” his gospel. At that point, I think they had to accept that he was called by God for a specific Apostolate.
On the contrary, Paul says this explicitly! It is also clear when we read the immediate post-Apostolic Fathers that they understood their ordination and mission in this manner.
We have no more Apostles, but Christ gave His power to appoint to the Apostles, who passed it on to their successors. When the Church ordains, it is Christ who is at work. “He who hears you, hears Me” and “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven”.
- Status