A few questions on Mary

[Good_Fella]

Well, Acts 6:8 says the Stephan was full of God’s grace and power. Was he sinless too?

The Gospel of Luke was originally written in Koine Greek, so we must interpret verse 1:28 with the original language in mind.

καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν

The female vocative *kecharitomene *(κεχαριτωμένη), literally " favoured by grace", can be paraphrased “enduringly endowed with grace” (cf. Blass and De Brunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament). It is because Mary was to be the mother of our Lord, that the perfect past participle does “show a completeness with a permanent result” (Blass & De Brunner) and the “continuance of a completed action” (cf. H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar). Moreover, since the verb kecharitomene is in the vocative case, the angel is addressing Mary as the embodiment of all this expression denotes. When he greets her, he doesn’t acclaim Mary by her given name, but by her spiritual state. The verb is used as Mary’s name. Our names are something that we have since we are born, and normally they are something that we keep in this world until the end of our lives.

Blass and De Brunner have the morphological aspectual (not tense marked) stem of kecharitomene in mind: ke. This is the perfect stem of the root verb charitoo (“to endow/favour with grace”) which denotes a perpetuation of a completed past action. The perfect stem is distinguished from the aorist stem which we have in Ephesians 1:6, for example: escharitosen: “He graced” or “has freely given grace”. In this active indicative form, the aorist stem describes a completed action which has come to pass and is finished. It is temporal in aspect and a momentary result. The aorist stem does not signify an on-going state of grace. The perfect aspect, on the other hand, designates a state which prevails after an event has taken place and which is caused by this event. Catholics believe this to be the Immaculate Conception - when God sanctified Mary’s soul and preserved her free from the stain of original sin at the first instant of her conception by the foreseen merits of Christ because of her election to the Divine Maternity. Mary had found grace with God before the angel appeared to her (Luke 1:30). In the mind of God, she already was our Lord’s mother even before she gave her free consent (Luke 1:38).

The perfect tense normally expresses the continuance of a result down to the present time. For instance, our Lord’s expression “It is written” (Gegrapti / Γέγραπται) is literally ‘It has been written’. And what has been written remains in force as the result of a completed past action, what has been written being, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word coming out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).

The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing in full effect. The progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect tense, which indicates a completed past action that affects the present, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Galatians 2, 20

Galatians 2:20 should be translated “I am in a present state of having been crucified with Christ,” indicating that not only was Paul crucified with Christ in the past, but he is now existing in that present condition.

Thus, the Greek perfect tense has to do with the person’s present condition or state. Luke is telling us that the grace Mary was endowed with in the past is the state of grace she continues to exist in at the time of the Annunciation. Theologically, we may assume that Mary remained in this state of grace after the angel departed, since he left as soon as Mary consented to be the mother of the Lord, the Divine Maternity being the reason for this singular endowment of grace. The perfect tense itself does not function to indicate that this state of grace will necessarily continue to exist after the present time. Paul continues to be in the state of being crucified with Christ on condition that Christ lives in him, and so long as he lives his life “by faith in the Son of God,” just as Mary continues to be in the state of sanctifying grace provided she is the mother of our Lord (Luke 1:43).

To be continued.

:egyptian:

 

[Good_Fella]

Well, Acts 6:8 says the Stephan was full of God’s grace and power. Was he sinless too?

To continue, many Protestants have cited Acts 6:8 to demonstrate that this verse proves being “full of grace” doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is entirely sinless, or else Mary couldn’t have been the only sinless human creature to have ever lived, as Catholics claim. Anyway, supposing the accurate reading is pleres charitos (“full of grace”) instead of pleres pisteos (“full of faith”), as we find in the Protestant KJB, WNT, GB, and BB. Still, the noun charitos (“of grace”) is in the genitive case, whereas the expression kecharitomene is in the vocative case with respect to Mary’s endowment of grace. While Stephen is being described as being endowed with God’s grace on a particular occasion, Mary is being named endowed with His grace because of her election to the Divine Maternity. Further, if we look at the past tense verb ἐποίει (“was performing”) in Acts, we can place the noun χάριτος within a restricted time reference. The verb tense is imperfect past progressive, so it indicates that the action - performing great signs and wonders - is completed in the past and finished along with the grace that preceded and accompanied Stephen’s deeds in the synagogue. So the most we can gather about Stephen is that he was in a state of grace as opposed to being in a state of sin at the time he was debating with the elders and performing great signs and wonders in the name of Christ.

The noun charitos may simply indicate that Stephen was filled with wisdom and fortitude (actual signal graces) which he needed when debating with the religious elders in the synagogue and "performing great signs and wonders” by Divine intervention. Whether Stephen remained wise and resilient after this event is unimportant. Luke isn’t concerned with the time before and after the event during which Stephen was filled with a sufficient supply of grace that rendered him faithful in his present task. But this is not so with respect to Mary. Her maternal vocation extended throughout her entire life from the time she was born, having been predestined to be the Mother of God. Stephen, on the other hand, wasn’t chosen by God to evangelize and debate with the Jewish elders in the synagogue his entire life.

Hence, when the angel Gabriel addressed Mary with the title Kecharitomene, the one having been “completely, perfectly, and permanently endowed with grace,” he wasn’t simply describing her spiritual condition at a given instance in time as Stephen is described to be in his state of grace. Nor did the angel refer to particular spiritual gifts and actual graces such as wisdom and fortitude, which help to sanctify the soul. For Mary to conceive and bear the holy Son of God as a mother most worthy of him, the spiritual gifts of wisdom and fortitude, however plentiful and well-supplied in her soul, wouldn’t have been enough to meet her divine maternal call. She had to be perpetually holy in every virtuous aspect and graced with the fullness of sanctification and free from all the stain of sin from the moment she was conceived to the time of her dormition.

I will rejoice greatly in the Lord;
my soul shall exult in my God;
for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
he has covered me with the robes of righteousness.
Isaiah 61, 10

*PAX
*
:heaven:

 

[jcrichton]

If you mean that by the time of the 5th century with the arrival of St. Augustine the mind of the entire Church (sensus fidelium) thought of Jesus as being the only person in all humanity without sin, you are mistaken. Whether the early Eastern Fathers believed in the Immaculate Conception is debatable given the different ideas they held about original sin from the West according to their thoughts on justification and sanctification.

…In my citations of the ECFs below, I’ve highlighted in bold what I believe shows that the Immaculate Conception was a Marian doctrine which the Catholic Church had come to accept, at least implicitly and in shallow terms because of incertitude and a want of understanding, but nonetheless similar to the dogma in principle, based on the three prevalent theories of original sin between the East and West in the centuries leading up to St. Augustine. The doctrine of the IC appears to have developed to some extent in the East among the Greek Catholics and even in the Latin West by the time of St. Ambrose in the late 4th century. Whether any one of them believed that Mary was conceived without sin, or was sanctified at some point in her mother’s womb, or personally sinless from the time of her birth because she chose never to sin is uncertain.

…God’s intervening grace, inviolate and without the slightest flaw, who alone among all human creatures stood personally just before God her entire life. The Immaculate Conception was also implicitly taught by the 3rd century Western Father St. Hippolytus who, like the Eastern Father St. Athanasius in the 4th century, drew a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, as does St. Luke in his gospel, giving reference to the Book of Exodus, 2 Samuel, and 1 Chronicles. The Ark didn’t become holy after it was created, but was originally designed to be holy by God’s specifications and the matter He selected to have it constructed. The IC has always belonged to the sacred Tradition of the Church since apostolic time as part of the deposit of faith, but its articulation developed over time as the Church continued to grow in understanding all the dogmas connected with it. What is said about our Marian dogmas can also be said of our Christological ones. What we have aren’t novel doctrines, but the same ones, only understood and interpreted in different terms in the course of fully understanding. (See Ephesians 4:10-15; 1 Corinthians 2:10-13).

"For whereas the Word of God was without flesh,* He took upon Himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which He wove for Himself***, like a bridegroom, in the sufferings of the cross, in order that by uniting His own power with our moral body, and by mixing the incorruptible with the corruptible, and the strong with the weak, He might save perishing man."
St. Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ, 4 (A.D. 200)

“At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested….And the Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body”
Ibid., In Daniel Vl (ante A.D. 235)

"The Holy Virgin is herself both an honourable temple of God and** a shrine made pure**, and a golden altar of whole burnt offerings. By reason of her surpassing purity [she is] the Divine incense of oblation ( = προθέσεως),and oil of the holy grace, and a precious vase bearing in itself the true nard; [yea and] the priestly diadem revealing the good pleasure of God, whom she alone approacheth holy in body and soul. [She is] the door which looks eastward, and by the comings in and goings forth the whole earth is illuminated. The fertile olive from which the Holy Spirit took the fleshly slip (or twig) of the Lord, and saved the suffering race of men. She is the boast of virgins, and the joy of mothers; the declaration of archangels, even as it was spoken: “Be thou glad and rejoice, the Lord with thee”; and again, “from thee”; in order that He may make new once more the dead through sin. "
St.Gregory Thaumaturgus, Concerning the Holy Mother of God (ante A.D. 270)

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and** no stain in thy Mother**.”
St. Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370)

“O, noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures should I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all, O Ark of the Covenant**, clothed with purity instead of gold**! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.”
St. Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante A.D. 373)

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has** made inviolate, free of every stain of sin**.”
St. Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388)

:heaven:

Hi!

Excellent quotes!

…it is interesting how people search through historical records, cite those segments that, to their understanding, disprove Catholic Teaching while rejecting everything that demonstrate that their conclusions are wrong… I’ve noticed this with the JWs… they would quickly cite a text and emphasize that it is from a Catholic source while rejecting everything that disproves their arguments (ditto for Scriptural proof-texting).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

To continue, many Protestants have cited Acts 6:8 to demonstrate that this verse proves being “full of grace” doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is entirely sinless, or else Mary couldn’t have been the only sinless human creature to have ever lived, as Catholics claim. Anyway, supposing the accurate reading is pleres charitos (“full of grace”) instead of pleres pisteos (“full of faith”), as we find in the Protestant KJB, WNT, GB, and BB. Still, the noun charitos (“of grace”) is in the genitive case, whereas the expression kecharitomene is in the vocative case with respect to Mary’s endowment of grace. While Stephen is being described as being endowed with God’s grace on a particular occasion, Mary is being named endowed with His grace because of her election to the Divine Maternity. Further, if we look at the past tense verb ἐποίει (“was performing”) in Acts, we can place the noun χάριτος within a restricted time reference. The verb tense is imperfect past progressive, so it indicates that the action - performing great signs and wonders - is completed in the past and finished along with the grace that preceded and accompanied Stephen’s deeds in the synagogue. So the most we can gather about Stephen is that he was in a state of grace as opposed to being in a state of sin at the time he was debating with the elders and performing great signs and wonders in the name of Christ.

The noun charitos may simply indicate that Stephen was filled with wisdom and fortitude (actual signal graces) which he needed when debating with the religious elders in the synagogue and "performing great signs and wonders” by Divine intervention. Whether Stephen remained wise and resilient after this event is unimportant. Luke isn’t concerned with the time before and after the event during which Stephen was filled with a sufficient supply of grace that rendered him faithful in his present task. But this is not so with respect to Mary. Her maternal vocation extended throughout her entire life from the time she was born, having been predestined to be the Mother of God. Stephen, on the other hand, wasn’t chosen by God to evangelize and debate with the Jewish elders in the synagogue his entire life.

Hence, when the angel Gabriel addressed Mary with the title Kecharitomene, the one having been “completely, perfectly, and permanently endowed with grace,” he wasn’t simply describing her spiritual condition at a given instance in time as Stephen is described to be in his state of grace. Nor did the angel refer to particular spiritual gifts and actual graces such as wisdom and fortitude, which help to sanctify the soul. For Mary to conceive and bear the holy Son of God as a mother most worthy of him, the spiritual gifts of wisdom and fortitude, however plentiful and well-supplied in her soul, wouldn’t have been enough to meet her divine maternal call. She had to be perpetually holy in every virtuous aspect and graced with the fullness of sanctification and free from all the stain of sin from the moment she was conceived to the time of her dormition.

I will rejoice greatly in the Lord;
my soul shall exult in my God;
for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
he has covered me with the robes of righteousness.
Isaiah 61, 10

PAX

:heaven:

Hi!

Excellent posts…

…I understand Stephan’s filled with the Holy Spirit in Christ’s Word:

19 But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. 20 For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. (St. Matthew 10:19-20)

The Holy Spirit comes to the aide of the Believer when he/she is testifying for Christ; at the moment of the event/s we are filled (as Elizabeth was through John’s recognition of Jesus in the Virgin’s womb), and are able to both prophecy and hold firm to our Faith–even in the face of death.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi!

Excellent posts…

…I understand Stephan’s filled with the Holy Spirit in Christ’s Word:

The Holy Spirit comes to the aide of the Believer when he/she is testifying for Christ; at the moment of the event/s we are filled (as Elizabeth was through John’s recognition of Jesus in the Virgin’s womb), and are able to both prophecy and hold firm to our Faith–even in the face of death.

Maran atha!

Angel

19 But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. 20 For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. (St. Matthew 10:19-20)

Excellent Scriptural analogy! Wisdom and fortitude are gifts of the Holy Spirit.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi!

Excellent quotes!

…it is interesting how people search through historical records, cite those segments that, to their understanding, disprove Catholic Teaching while rejecting everything that demonstrate that their conclusions are wrong… I’ve noticed this with the JWs… they would quickly cite a text and emphasize that it is from a Catholic source while rejecting everything that disproves their arguments (ditto for Scriptural proof-texting).

Maran atha!

Angel

Thanks!

I know what you mean. At an ecumenical forum I belong to, I had a debate with a Fundamentalist who contended that the early bishops Clement of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna taught that we are saved by faith alone. Of course, he cherry-picked single passages of theirs that are somewhat more ambiguous and super-imposed the Protestant presumption onto them, while ignoring other passages that clearly contradict what he wished to infer. His mistake was that patented one of removing a part from its whole. By connecting all the dots, my job was to show him that these Church Fathers taught that we are saved by faith and works - works informed by charity (agape) in grace and through faith. Our verbal profession of faith by itself does not lead to salvation. Clement actually writes, “we are saved by works and not by words”. This reminds me of what James writes in his Epistle: “Be doers of the word and not hearers only.”

PAX
:heaven:

 

[jcrichton]

Excellent Scriptural analogy! Wisdom and fortitude are gifts of the Holy Spirit.

PAX
:heaven:

Hi!

…exactly!

…that’s is why Christ tells us not to worry about setting up a defense… the Holy Spirit fills the Believer, as with St. Peter, and even on the face of death, He will Grant us the fortitude to Stand for Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks!

I know what you mean. At an ecumenical forum I belong to, I had a debate with a Fundamentalist who contended that the early bishops Clement of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna taught that we are saved by faith alone. Of course, he cherry-picked single passages of theirs that are somewhat more ambiguous and super-imposed the Protestant presumption onto them, while ignoring other passages that clearly contradict what he wished to infer. His mistake was that patented one of removing a part from its whole. By connecting all the dots, my job was to show him that these Church Fathers taught that we are saved by faith and works - works informed by charity (agape) in grace and through faith. Our verbal profession of faith by itself does not lead to salvation. Clement actually writes, “we are saved by works and not by words”. This reminds me of what James writes in his Epistle: “Be doers of the word and not hearers only.”

PAX
:heaven:

Hi!

Exactly!

When we seek the Truth we should not just take what seems to support our argument/understanding…

…as I was reading through your post the same passage of St. James came to me: ‘be doers of the Word!’

I feel so sad when I encounter people who are professing to be seeking Knowledge of God, yet they begin and end their quest by filtering everything through their list of preconceptions… they even quote (partially) the Fathers/Doctors and “theologians/scholars” …but only to the point that these sources support their preconceptions… everything else is mute, ignored or outright rejected as false.

They have, in effect, in their search for Truth turned themselves into self-fulfilling prophets.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi!

Exactly!

When we seek the Truth we should not just take what seems to support our argument/understanding…They have, in effect, in their search for Truth turned themselves into self-fulfilling prophets.

Maran atha!

Angel

Good point! What we do have is a form of the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’. There is a positive feedback between what Person A wants to believe and what Person B has written so that what Person B has written becomes what Person A wants to believe Person B has written. In effect, Person A’s thoughts alter Person B’s thoughts so that Person B’s thoughts conform to Person A’s and validate it.

This is the passage of Clement many Protestants cite:

"We also, being called through God’s will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith."
**First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32 **

This is a passage many Protestants unintentionally or deliberately ignore:

*** “Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.”
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 30***

Clement was Catholic and the Bishop of Rome, so when he says that we are not justified through works, but through faith, it isn’t in the Protestant sense. The Council of Trent (Decree on Justification) sums up the perennial Catholic position which Clement held and ruled as a successor to the chair of Peter:

"In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace."
[Session Vl, Chapter Vlll]

Both Clement and the Council Fathers are reiterating what has belonged to the deposit of faith from the beginning, that we cannot merit for ourselves the initial grace of justification and forgiveness which Christ alone has merited for us, so that we can merit for ourselves and others by our works an increase in charity and sanctifying grace that lead to salvation. The justified, by no preceding natural merit of theirs, “increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ” by means of “faith co-operating with good works.” (cf. Eph. 2:8-10). James implies this in his Epistle: What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?*If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,*and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?*So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (2:14-16).

"I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ"
Polycarp (Epistle to the Philippians. Chapter 1; cf. Eph.2:8-9).

Protestants select this passage because they choose to ignore v.10 in Ephesians 2. But Polycarp is referring to vv.8-9 in the true Catholic sense.

We see the same cherry-picking by Protestants in their objection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Many of them, for instance, have tried to undermine the integrity of this Marian dogma by appealing to St. Thomas Aquinas to give the impression that the IC wasn’t believed by Catholics in Mediaeval time. Again, they select one passage while ignoring another one to accommodate their bias. The truth is, that Aquinas shifted from believing in the IC to denying it and back to believing in it. Yet he humbly owned when denying it at one point that it was up to the Magisterium to infallibly decide once and for all. I suppose he was willing to admit that he lacked holding one piece of the whole puzzle, which Duns Scotus would provide.

Period 1: “Such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin.” Com. in I Sent, d. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3]

Period 2 (cited by Protestants): “The Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin.” [Summa theologiae*IIIa, q. 27, a. 2,ad 2]

Period 3: “For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.”Expositio super salutatione angelica]

taylormarshall.com/2010/12/did-thomas-aquinas-deny-immaculate.html

PAX
:heaven:

 

[jcrichton]

Good point! What we do have is a form of the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’. There is a positive feedback between what Person A wants to believe and what Person B has written so that what Person B has written becomes what Person A wants to believe Person B has written. In effect, Person A’s thoughts alter Person B’s thoughts so that Person B’s thoughts conform to Person A’s and validate it.

This is the passage of Clement many Protestants cite:

"We also, being called through God’s will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith."
**First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32 **

This is a passage many Protestants unintentionally or deliberately ignore:

*** “Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.”
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 30***

Clement was Catholic and the Bishop of Rome, so when he says that we are not justified through works, but through faith, it isn’t in the Protestant sense. The Council of Trent (Decree on Justification) sums up the perennial Catholic position which Clement held and ruled as a successor to the chair of Peter:

"In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace."
[Session Vl, Chapter Vlll]

Both Clement and the Council Fathers are reiterating what has belonged to the deposit of faith from the beginning, that we cannot merit for ourselves the initial grace of justification and forgiveness which Christ alone has merited for us, so that we can merit for ourselves and others by our works an increase in charity and sanctifying grace that lead to salvation. The justified, by no preceding natural merit of theirs, “increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ” by means of “faith co-operating with good works.” (cf. Eph. 2:8-10). James implies this in his Epistle: What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?*If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,*and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?*So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (2:14-16).

"I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ"
Polycarp (Epistle to the Philippians. Chapter 1; cf. Eph.2:8-9).

Protestants select this passage because they choose to ignore v.10 in Ephesians 2. But Polycarp is referring to vv.8-9 in the true Catholic sense.

We see the same cherry-picking by Protestants in their objection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception… by appealing to St. Thomas Aquinas to give the impression that the IC wasn’t believed by Catholics in Mediaeval time. Again, they select one passage while ignoring another one to accommodate their bias. The truth is, that Aquinas shifted from believing in the IC to denying it and back to believing in it. **Yet he humbly owned when denying it at one point that it was up to the Magisterium to infallibly decide once and for all. **I suppose he was willing to admit that he lacked holding one piece of the whole puzzle, which Duns Scotus would provide.

Period 1: “Such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin.” Com. in I Sent, d. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3]

Period 2 (cited by Protestants): “The Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin.” [Summa theologiae*IIIa, q. 27, a. 2,ad 2]

Period 3: “For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.”Expositio super salutatione angelica]

taylormarshall.com/2010/12/did-thomas-aquinas-deny-immaculate.html

PAX
:heaven:Hi!

The highlighted text engulfs the totality of Protestantism: absolute negation of Church Authority!

Sadly, even in the continuous myriads of splinters of the Body of Christ, man continues to hold himself as authority rather then submitting to the Church Founded by Christ.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi everyone! I recently posted a thread on how to explain some things to an Evangelical friend on the Non-Catholic Religions area, and I got really helpful answers. I have yet to put to use the help I’ve been given.

The questions I have however which I am worried about when I talk to him again, concern the Blessed Virgin. My friend questions our belief that she is sinless. “How do you know and are so sure that she was any different from us? I don’t see that anywhere in the Bible. She was a simple girl, and you Catholics put her on a pedastal.” That’s the gist of what he says to me. He refers to Romans 3:23 to show me that she was a sinner just like the rest of us. I have tried explaining to him but he then just sends links to Protestant websites that show “proofs” (pretty much showing that they’re in the Bible) of Mary being a sinner. One website mentioned how could Mary need a savior and all that if she was sinless. I tried giving answers to what the website says, but he didn’t really seem to get it.

And now the question has gone to my mind, what if he asks about after Mary was done raising Jesus? He might say “okay, Mary could have been sinless during her pregnancy and being the mother to Jesus, but what about after his death? How do you know that she was still full of grace?” And I’m fretting over that possibility.

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

 

[Good_Fella]

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

If I may add, the implication in Romans 3:23 is that everyone is subject to inheriting the stain of original sin and on this condition do sin if capable of committing personal sins. Although Adam’s guilt isn’t imputed to us, we are all guilty by association. And for this reason, suffering and death have entered the world (Romans 5:14). Many infants do in fact suffer and die, albeit not having committed any personal sins, but probably would have if they survived and grew to full moral awareness. At any rate, Protestants who object to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception fail to fully understand the dogma. It holds that Mary was subject to contracting the stain of original sin like everyone else, but by a singular grace, God preserved her free from contracting it in view of the foreseen merits of her Son. Mary needed a saviour like everyone else, but she was redeemed in a most perfect way because of her election to be the Mother of God (Luke 1:43). The rest of humanity is redeemed by being cured of the stain, which they have contracted, through the sacrament of Baptism; although the effects of original sin and the temporal punishments attached to it remain. Only Mary was exempted from experiencing the moral ill-effects of original sin. And since Adam’s personal guilt isn’t imputed to all his descendants, God could do this ‘great thing’ for Mary in His mercy without negating His justice (Luke 1:49).

PAX
:heaven:

 

[jcrichton]

If I may add, the implication in Romans 3:23 is that everyone is subject to inheriting the stain of original sin and on this condition do sin if capable of committing personal sins. Although Adam’s guilt isn’t imputed to us, we are all guilty by association. And for this reason, suffering and death have entered the world (Romans 5:14). Many infants do in fact suffer and die, albeit not having committed any personal sins, but probably would have if they survived and grew to full moral awareness. At any rate, Protestants who object to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception fail to fully understand the dogma. It holds that Mary was subject to contracting the stain of original sin like everyone else, but by a singular grace, God preserved her free from contracting it in view of the foreseen merits of her Son. Mary needed a saviour like everyone else, but she was redeemed in a most perfect way because of her election to be the Mother of God (Luke 1:43). The rest of humanity is redeemed by being cured of the stain, which they have contracted, through the sacrament of Baptism; although the effects of original sin and the temporal punishments attached to it remain. Only Mary was exempted from experiencing the moral ill-effects of original sin. And since Adam’s personal guilt isn’t imputed to all his descendants, God could do this ‘great thing’ for Mary in His mercy without negating His justice (Luke 1:49).

PAX
:heaven:

Hi!

…from my perspective, it is not so much that they do not understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as much as their refusal to accept it. Their protestantism predicates upon the premise that the Church is wrong in her Teachings; accepting any dogma would be contrary to their affirmation that Luther’s schism actually reformed the Church… though it is really confounding how all the Church Teachings that they accept do not deter them from their philosophies (yet, it goes to their need to paint the Church in a bad light and reinvent Church history through their Protestant filters).

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi!

…from my perspective, it is not so much that they do not understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as much as their refusal to accept it. Their protestantism predicates upon the premise that the Church is wrong in her Teachings; accepting any dogma would be contrary to their affirmation that Luther’s schism actually reformed the Church… though it is really confounding how all the Church Teachings that they accept do not deter them from their philosophies (yet, it goes to their need to paint the Church in a bad light and reinvent Church history through their Protestant filters).

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

Hi!

I understand what you mean. I’ve had Protestants tell me that it isn’t necessary for Christians to believe in the Church’s Marian doctrines or accept her dogmas because they “aren’t necessary for our salvation.” This reasoning explains why they feel comfortable with rejecting them altogether either because they are “heretical” or optional for “pious belief.” And since they presuppose that Mariology has no soteriological connection with Christology, it can be safely dismissed at no peril to the soul. The capital Protestants have borrowed from the Catholic Church and reshaped to a great extent to accommodate their psychological needs and alleviate the anxiety that arises from a sense of guilt is purely Christological, but with a new twist in Christian anthropology that describes the human being as being a passive recipient of salvation rather than an active participant in it. Christ alone saves, and there’s nothing any person can do to merit their eternal reward. One is justified before God by the imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness to their account (forensic justification) so long as they put their faith in Christ’s merits.

Hence, Mary can have no role at all to play in our redemption other than serve to bear Christ. Since, Protestants believe Mary is so insignificant - practically a non-entity - in the Divine plan of salvation, and the Scriptures don’t appear explicit enough for them to think otherwise, they are comfortable with using the Church’s Marian dogmas in their effort to prove that at some point in history the Church fell into apostasy, giving them the justification they desire to have separated from the Church. If many of them refuse to accept the Church’s Marian teachings, it’s primarily because, that to do otherwise, they would have to accept the truth that they aren’t the passive recipients they would like to be and must work out their salvation in “fear and trembling” through grace that isn’t merely operative, but also co-operative , a grace that doesn’t merely justify a saved person synthetically, but a grace that one must allow to transform themselves so that they really and inherently are sanctified (made holy) and justified (not just declared to be while really not) before God.

But it’s discouraging for them to imagine that one’s deeds in charity and grace aren’t actually signs of having been saved, but rather the necessary means for being saved, and hopefully saved upon death. The Protestants who attack the Church’s Marian dogmas with ferocious hostility - Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Reformed - are the same ones who typically judge Catholics as suffering from a “guilt complex” which explains why Catholics are working so fearfully to work “for” their salvation for themselves. If only Catholics would put their faith in Jesus instead of in their imperfect selves, and in the mean time forget about Mary who was just as powerless and sinful herself. There’s nothing she can do for our souls, especially not now since she’s “dead,” so they claim. I’m afraid, Mary is a stumbling block to most Protestants because the Catholic perception of her place in soteriology contradicts their concept of justification by faith, which excludes works and supernatural human merit by the infusion of God’s grace into the soul. But I doubt they are consciously aware of all this, having so deeply suppressed the sense of guilt they sought to be liberated from by putting their faith in Christ, relying solely on his “work on the cross.”

PAX
:heaven:

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

I understand what you mean. I’ve had Protestants tell me that it isn’t necessary for Christians to believe in the Church’s Marian doctrines or accept her dogmas because they “aren’t necessary for our salvation.” This reasoning explains why they feel comfortable with rejecting them altogether either because they are “heretical” or optional for “pious belief.” And since they presuppose that Mariology has no soteriological connection with Christology, it can be safely dismissed at no peril to the soul. The capital Protestants have borrowed from the Catholic Church and reshaped to a great extent to accommodate their psychological needs and alleviate the anxiety that arises from a sense of guilt is purely Christological, but with a new twist in Christian anthropology that describes the human being as being a passive recipient of salvation rather than an active participant in it. Christ alone saves, and there’s nothing any person can do to merit their eternal reward. One is justified before God by the imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness to their account (forensic justification) so long as they put their faith in Christ’s merits.

Hence, Mary can have no role at all to play in our redemption other than serve to bear Christ. Since, Protestants believe Mary is so insignificant - practically a non-entity - in the Divine plan of salvation, and the Scriptures don’t appear explicit enough for them to think otherwise, they are comfortable with using the Church’s Marian dogmas in their effort to prove that at some point in history the Church fell into apostasy, giving them the justification they desire to have separated from the Church. If many of them refuse to accept the Church’s Marian teachings, it’s primarily because, that to do otherwise, they would have to accept the truth that they aren’t the passive recipients they would like to be and must work out their salvation in “fear and trembling” through grace that isn’t merely operative, but also co-operative , a grace that doesn’t merely justify a saved person synthetically, but a grace that one must allow to transform themselves so that they really and inherently are sanctified (made holy) and justified (not just declared to be while really not) before God.

But it’s discouraging for them to imagine that one’s deeds in charity and grace aren’t actually signs of having been saved, but rather the necessary means for being saved, and hopefully saved upon death. The Protestants who attack the Church’s Marian dogmas with ferocious hostility - Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Reformed - are the same ones who typically judge Catholics as suffering from a “guilt complex” which explains why Catholics are working so fearfully to work “for” their salvation for themselves. If only Catholics would put their faith in Jesus instead of in their imperfect selves, and in the mean time forget about Mary who was just as powerless and sinful herself. There’s nothing she can do for our souls, especially not now since she’s “dead,” so they claim. I’m afraid, Mary is a stumbling block to most Protestants because the Catholic perception of her place in soteriology contradicts their concept of justification by faith, which excludes works and supernatural human merit by the infusion of God’s grace into the soul. But I doubt they are consciously aware of all this, having so deeply suppressed the sense of guilt they sought to be liberated from by putting their faith in Christ, relying solely on his “work on the cross.”

PAX
:heaven:

Hi!

Excellent post! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

…it is as, if they remove themselves from Church History they cannot be found guilty of sinking into Catholicism… as you’ve explained, they’ve surgically excised anything that does not conform to their understanding of Christology–they have even engineered a mythical collapsed Christian Church in order to authenticate their theology… in their haste they have ignored two factors: 1) they are in direct contradiction of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and 2) the Church’s Doctrine and Practices have been handed down through Apostolic Succession as they have been part of the early the Church, known as Apostolic Teachings.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[wmscott]

Hi!

Excellent post! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

…it is as, if they remove themselves from Church History they cannot be found guilty of sinking into Catholicism… as you’ve explained, they’ve surgically excised anything that does not conform to their understanding of Christology–they have even engineered a mythical collapsed Christian Church in order to authenticate their theology… in their haste they have ignored two factors: 1) they are in direct contradiction of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and 2) the Church’s Doctrine and Practices have been handed down through Apostolic Succession as they have been part of the early the Church, known as Apostolic Teachings.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

And so, if I can interject a personal opinion here to what you and Good Fella has cited, as a convert who has been Catholic twice as many years as was a Protestant, during the conversion process the Blessed Mother was really never a stumbling block for me. It was the graven images thing that hung in there until I was able to understand the issue through much prayer. I guess it depends on what faith tradition you come from coupled with either pastor A’s or pastor B’s finite personal (flawed) interpretation of Sacred Scripture that they want to move to the forefront. What I have found is that many non-Catholics, either knowingly or unknowingly, hopefully unknowingly, use that finite flawed personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture, lacking any kind of authority or oversight, to box God in or paint Him into a corner. Making proclamations such as God would never do that, or that is impossible, or where does it say that in the Bible. They fail to see that they are thinking as a flawed finite being and not understanding the God transcends all knowledge and is infinite in all things. On the other hand I do know non-Catholics who are open minded and see the Catholic Church as the seat of Christianity. The reluctance in converting is that they are held in their particular faith tradition by family, friends, or the comfortableness and familiarity of their church. Thanks for letting me express my thoughts on this.

 

[jcrichton]

And so, if I can interject a personal opinion here to what you and Good Fella has cited, as a convert who has been Catholic twice as many years as was a Protestant, during the conversion process the Blessed Mother was really never a stumbling block for me. It was the graven images thing that hung in there until I was able to understand the issue through much prayer. I guess it depends on what faith tradition you come from coupled with either pastor A’s or pastor B’s finite personal (flawed) interpretation of Sacred Scripture that they want to move to the forefront. What I have found is that many non-Catholics, either knowingly or unknowingly, hopefully unknowingly, use that finite flawed personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture, lacking any kind of authority or oversight, to box God in or paint Him into a corner. Making proclamations such as God would never do that, or that is impossible, or where does it say that in the Bible. They fail to see that they are thinking as a flawed finite being and not understanding the God transcends all knowledge and is infinite in all things. On the other hand I do know non-Catholics who are open minded and see the Catholic Church as the seat of Christianity. The reluctance in converting is that they are held in their particular faith tradition by family, friends, or the comfortableness and familiarity of their church. Thanks for letting me express my thoughts on this.

Hi, WM!

…that has been my experience…

I do not see it as much as malice… but that of custom and familiarity… it’s like when we travel… whatever bed we sleep in is not our own (no matter how comfortable and pleasing)… once we get home and we hit that bed… our mind and body just absorb it! …that very first night back that bed feels like Heaven.

…hundreds of years removed from Apostolic Teaching and Succession has lull non-Catholic into accepting the teachings that are offered… in their quest for God they are in deed falling into the warning of the Scriptures that speak against accepting all sorts of teachings… but they cannot make the connection… even when they quote Scriptures that speak about authority and the Church being the pillar of Truth… they simply hold on to whatever interpretation the current denominational understanding holds.

I also concur with you, that God gets boxed into the mold of the denomination… that, coupled with the comfort and security of the close-knit environment and the “American” flair for doing it “my way,” enables that flawed theology to exist almost completely veiled–I mean, the mechanism is in place in such a way that the Fullness of Truth is longed for but, in spite of the shortcomings of the Faith base, the Call Home (embracing the Fullness of the Body of Christ) is vigorously wrestled with… sometimes pride also takes a toll, as the leader and his followers cannot accept that they are wrong and that their sojourn was meant to lead them Home, into a greater experience with Christ, Whom they Love.

Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[cominghome1966]

The Protestants who attack the Church’s Marian dogmas with ferocious hostility - Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Reformed - are the same ones who typically judge Catholics as suffering from a “guilt complex” which explains why Catholics are working so fearfully to work “for” their salvation for themselves. If only Catholics would put their faith in Jesus instead of in their imperfect selves, and in the mean time forget about Mary who was just as powerless and sinful herself. There’s nothing she can do for our souls, especially not now since she’s “dead,” so they claim. I’m afraid, Mary is a stumbling block to most Protestants because the Catholic perception of her place in soteriology contradicts their concept of justification by faith, which excludes works and supernatural human merit by the infusion of God’s grace into the soul. But I doubt they are consciously aware of all this, having so deeply suppressed the sense of guilt they sought to be liberated from by putting their faith in Christ, relying solely on his “work on the cross.”

PAX
:heaven:

This is a very interesting observation.