A few questions on Mary

[pacloc]

There have been some very beautiful things said about the Holy Virgin Mary so far. I thought I’d add a couple more that I have learned recently, that are scriptural as well.

First, I read from St. Gregory Palamas how scripture states: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” and “For every tree is known by his own fruit.” If the fruit of the tree of the Holy Virgin is Goodness itself, how Good must the Holy Virgin be! She is not only the best good among men, but of all creation, if she bore God.

Second, I heard in a homily how great a difference it was when the Holy Virgin encountered St. Gabriel compared to how the encounter between God’s servants and Angels usually go. In most cases, the prophets are so afraid they fall to the ground and seem to not be sure whether it is a favorable thing that the Angel is there to communicate. The Angel has to reassure them that they are not bringing harm. The encounter with the Holy Virgin and Gabriel is different. The Holy Virgin up to this point, by tradition, has been living in the Holy of Holies and been in the presence of the Angels this whole time. So the only thing peculiar to the Holy Virgin is that Gabriel greets her in such a new way, and without saying a word, communicates to the Angel Gabriel to explain Himself further. If anything, it is the Holy Angel Gabriel who seems to be in fear of the Holy Virgin, by using such honoring words to the Queen of Heaven and Earth.

 

[jcrichton]

There have been some very beautiful things said about the Holy Virgin Mary so far. I thought I’d add a couple more that I have learned recently, that are scriptural as well.

First, I read from St. Gregory Palamas how scripture states: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” and “For every tree is known by his own fruit.” If the fruit of the tree of the Holy Virgin is Goodness itself, how Good must the Holy Virgin be! She is not only the best good among men, but of all creation, if she bore God.

Second, I heard in a homily how great a difference it was when the Holy Virgin encountered St. Gabriel compared to how the encounter between God’s servants and Angels usually go. In most cases, the prophets are so afraid they fall to the ground and seem to not be sure whether it is a favorable thing that the Angel is there to communicate. The Angel has to reassure them that they are not bringing harm. The encounter with the Holy Virgin and Gabriel is different. The Holy Virgin up to this point, by tradition, has been living in the Holy of Holies and been in the presence of the Angels this whole time. So the only thing peculiar to the Holy Virgin is that Gabriel greets her in such a new way, and without saying a word, communicates to the Angel Gabriel to explain Himself further. If anything, it is the Holy Angel Gabriel who seems to be in fear of the Holy Virgin, by using such honoring words to the Queen of Heaven and Earth.

Hi!

I agree with the second paragraph–it is the reason why the Church holds the Virgin in such veneration.

On the third paragraph I would change “fear” to “deference”–the Virgin, as our Salvation, was chosen in Christ to be the Mother of God even before Creation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Hockeygurl]

Mary, a young girl, was praying when an angel of the Lord appeared to her and what did he say? Luke 1:26-28:in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

You can’t be full of grace and have something else in there, too!

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

 

[Evan]

I don’t know if anyone has reasoned the other way around.
…
Historically, the apostles or ECF would have known if Mary was assumed or not.

Since she was assumed, why would God have assumed Mary if there was not something unique about her, that her body should not be left on earth.

Why would God not leave a body on earth? Because it did not have the curse of Adam–Original Sin, nor the failings of man-- Actual Sin.

So we conclude that the Virgin Mother was conceived Immaculate, and remained without sin.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

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

Her is a good response to this question:

First of all, Acts 6:8 does not describe St. Stephen as “full of grace” (past-perfect tense). Rather, Stephen is described as “.filled with grace and power was working great wonders and signs among the people.” In other words, it is a simple present tense. More on this in a moment. Secondly, the Greek of Acts 6:8 is dramatically different from the Greek of Luke 1:28, which describes Mary as “full of grace.” In Luke 1:28, Mary is called “Kecharitomenae” --past-perfect tense, and literally translated as “perfectly graced.” In Acts 6:8, Stephen is described as “pleres charitos” --present tense, and literally translated as “filled with grace.” Thirdly, and directly connected to this, is the fact that Luke 1:28’s expression “full of grace” (“gratia plena” in Latin) is a Latinism created by St. Jerome via his Vulgate translation. The Greek itself of Luke 1:28 makes no literal reference to being “full” of anything. Rather, as I said, the Greek term (“Kecharitomenae”) literally means “perfectly graced” or “completed in grace,” and so, from the point of view of the original Greek, there is simply no comparison between Luke 1:28 and Acts 6:3 at all. Fourthly, and as I mentioned above, Luke 1:28’s “Kecharitomenae” is in the past-perfect tense. In this, it is a term exclusive to Luke 1:28, and so exclusive to Mary. No one else in the Bible is described in this way in regard to grace. And this becomes especially striking when we compares it to verses like Ephesians 1:6 and Ephesians 2:8, where Scripture speaks of Baptized Christians as being “graced” (“a charie toson” --past tense), but never “perfectly graced” or “completed in grace” (“kecharitomenae” --past perfect tense). And lastly, the most strinking difference between Acts 6:3 and Luke 1:28 is that, in Luke 1:28, Mary is being called “Kecharitomenae” (that is “Full of grace” or “Perfectly graced”) as a proper name! It is amazing how people always overlook that. Unlike Stephen in Acts 6:8, who is merely being described as “filled with grace and power” (and merely at a given moment), Mary is being called - and not only called - but hailed by an angel as “Full of grace” / “Perfectly graced.” And we all know the importance of names in Scripture, right? So, “Kecharitomenae” describes Mary’s very nature because it is presented as her name: “Chaire, Kecharitomenae” —literally: “Hail, Full of grace.” And this is the very same term (“chaire” --“hail”) that the soldiers use to mock Jesus in John 19:3 (“Hail, King of the Jews”). In other words, a term reserved for royalty. And so, here, an angel --a supposedly superior being --is addressing this Galilean maiden with the words, “Hail, Full of grace.” Very powerful stuff; and St. Alfonso Liguori was right to boast about it (albeit, as he does, in a very “flowery” and poetic way).

The above was taken from the following:
catholic-legate.com/qa/kecharitomenae.html

 

[jcrichton]

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

Hi!

…does that passage state that an angel visited Stephan and told him that he was full of God’s Grace or is that passage not speaking of the immediate event?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t know if anyone has reasoned the other way around.
…
Historically, the apostles or ECF would have known if Mary was assumed or not.

Since she was assumed, why would God have assumed Mary if there was not something unique about her, that her body should not be left on earth.

Why would God not leave a body on earth? Because it did not have the curse of Adam–Original Sin, nor the failings of man-- Actual Sin.

So we conclude that the Virgin Mother was conceived Immaculate, and remained without sin.

Hi, Evan!

…consider too that the Virgin’s uniqueness comes from God’s Salvific Plan–a Plan set in motion even before the world came into being.

…Apocalypse 12 depicts the war or the worlds (temporal and spiritual) where Lucifer puts into motion his treacherous plan to usurp God’s Authority and Command; he commits to it, brings down with him those who followed him, attempts against the Son of God, and, finally, out of pure frustration, wars against the woman and her other children, the Believers…

This is the fundamental experience of the Virgin… as with the ground that was made Holy and which Moses could not simply trample down, the Virgin’s Immaculate Conception is in preparation for the Word’s Incarnation. Mary’s singularity is brought into existence by God’s sheer Will to remain Holy.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patricius79]

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.

First, I would suggest praying to Mary and depending on her in all things. She will help you to defend her honor and that of Her Son, which is connected with her honor. Also, explain that Christianity is founded on the Church which Christ established to teach us the truth through all the ages. This Church solemnly believes and teaches that Mary is Immaculate. Mary will help you.

 

[tiny_augustine]

It’s obvious, first and foremost, that your friend does not realize the great importance given to the Gebirah/Queen Mother tradition in the Old Testament. David and Solomon fulfilled, in themselves, the original, but lost vocation of Israel (because of the golden calf), and Solomon was called the royal and priestly “Son of God,” and fulfilled the promises of Moses, made by his own authority, within Deuteronomy, Solomon, and his sons, being non-divine small “m” messiahs. I doubt he knows this, but, if he did, he should then recognize the great importance given to their queens, who were their mothers (since these kings had no so many wives and concubines in order to bring the nations into covenant with God, their mothers acted in the role of the queen of Israel…obviously this was non-sexual, lol). As queen, the king’s mother was the primary intercessor to the people. If you angered Solomon, he wouldn’t talk to you, but you could talk to his mother to intercede for you on your behalf. The queen mother was even enthroned beside her son! Beneath the king, there was only two primary subordinate strands of authority, one strand being the Davidic Prime Minister with the other 11 Ministers, AND the Queen Mother, and the Queen Mother still obviously outranked any Minister, being the Queen. This reality and office carried over into the New Covenant with Jesus being the Divine and Human King, Mary being the True Queen Mother, and Peter and the Apostles being the Prime Minister and the 11 other Ministers. This is one of the biggest reasons we put Mary on a pedestal.

HAVING SAID THAT…your friend surely should realize that while Jesus too was sinless, he, nonetheless, chose to enter into and embrace our fallen, Adamic, death-filled nature, in his Humanity through his Incarnation within the womb of the Blessed Virgin. Couldn’t Mary, too, have been sinless but yet within our fallen, Adamic reality, just as her Son was? Doesn’t this make all the more sense?

The “proofs” they offer of Mary sinning are hardly sins.

Her asking why Jesus had done what he did when she found Him in the Temple is not only legitimate, but even if she could be argued to have, in a moment of desperation, forgotten that Jesus must be in his Father’s House, this is NOT sin, but rather the weakness of our own fallen human nature, which she shared in. She still treasured “all these things in her heart,” the sign of the truest Saint.

 

[tiny_augustine]

Her offering of a sin offering after childbirth, too, has nothing to do with actual sin. Sin offerings were sacrifices made not for immoral actions but, rather, for AMORAL realities…those realities of the fallen world that we are born into, and can’t avoid. Certain secondary, penitential, and symbolic laws were authorized by God and Moses to further quarantine the Israelites from Egyptian idolatry only because of the golden calf apostasy. Idolatry is the worship of “dead things” (the spirits of the dead and demons) conjured into “dead” stone images. Certain things, therefore, associated with death in general such as the loss of blood in general, and blood shed in childbirth (the life/soul is in the blood, and that blood was lost), emissions/discharges of semen and sexual intercourse (children were thought to be within the loins of their fathers…even a fruitful act of sexual intercourse was seen as having wasted much life), leprosy (living decomposition and exclusion from the life of the community), touching a dead corpse, etc., these things symbolically associated with death in general were taught to require a ritual purification. Ritual purification was needed in order to be able to enter and practice liturgically in worship within God’s Desert Tent and later Temple. This was to teach and remind the people of the “death” that is idolatry, as well as the fact that they worship the Living God, and shouldn’t bring their “death” (not their actual sins BUT THEIR HISTORY OF PAST SINFULNESS) into the Living Presence of God. While these laws are no longer binding, all Israelites had to follow them, including the holiest people of the Old Covenant. Mary, being a faithful Jew, likewise followed these laws, even though she was guilty of no sin. Furthermore, if your friend were to accept the constant opinion of the early Fathers that her giving birth to Jesus was miraculous, “as light passing through a window,” and, therefore, an unbloody birth, he would also realize that she didn’t actually have to go to the Temple to be purified from the blood lost in childbirth, but did so only to avoid causing scandal within her Jewish community…and this is a loving action, not a sin!

Finally, her coming to see Jesus with his “brothers” (actually cousins or relatives) who thought that he was “out of his mind” could, alternatively, be interpreted to mean that she was interceding, as Queen Mother, on behalf of these family members who did not have faith in Jesus. Jesus “being out of his head” was not her position, but theirs. Jesus being the King, however, was free to deny her request, and she humbly accepted that.

CONCERNING ROMANS 3:23, your friend is ignorant of biblical language. When the Bible uses “all,” it does not mean, every time, “all people.” This can be considered idiomatic language. And, according to Paul’s context, it can hardly be said that he has the Virgin Mary in mind. She too needed salvation from the Adamic, fallen nature, just as we do. And she was saved by Christ even though she committed no sin, and God incarnated through her through her Faith in Him! If, furthermore, he has Galatian 4:4 in mind…again there’s no problem with Mary being “born under the Law” since Jesus, too, was born under it, to fulfil it.

 

[tiny_augustine]

HERE’S MORE ON HOW MARY IS SPECIAL:

• Jesus chose her to be his mother and his Queen.
• She was, is, and will always be “full of grace” because this is the meaning of that verb within the perfect tense (which we translate into English as a noun). A proper Greek translation would be “Grace to you, you who have been, who are, and who always will be full of Grace! The Lord is with you!” Now Grace is the Presence of God which no one had within a personal way within the Old Covenant. They had it only in an external way, giving guidance through Words, dwelling in untouchable Divine Fire, within a veiled Holy of Holies, etc.
• Notice how Mary is not disturbed by the angel Gabriel who greeted her, but is, interestingly, disturbed by what his words mean. Compare this with Zechariah who was disturbed upon seeing the angel, and had shown contempt for what his words mean. Someone talking to angels is pretty special. The only people, in the Old Covenant, to have talked to angels were the most important and holiest figures, and none of them were given a message like this!
• Notice how Jesus does his first miracle at Cana upon her intercessory request. Through her, he begins to fulfill the Second Temple Judaism hope of the Wedding Feast of the Messiah in terms of a Garden of Eden abundance, as well as prepares the way for the institution of the New Covenant, the Eucharist (Jesus only used the words “the New Covenant” when he offered the Eucharist).
• Jesus, too, calls her “Woman,” reminding us of the fact that she is the New Eve, just as he is the “New Man/Adam.”
• Finally, on the Cross, he considered her so important so as to give her to the Church. He wasn’t making his will then. Any man who knows that he would soon die, makes his will prior to his death. Jesus handing her over to the Church is a sign, therefore, of her importance.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT MARY WAS STILL SINLESS AFTER JESUS’ DEATH…well, read the end of Revelation 11 and then 12 in context. She’s the Ark, and the Woman (just as Luke also depicts), the one who gave birth to the True Ruler! And, again, the perfect verb “full of Grace” mentioned earlier. Consider also the early Church writing the “Assumption of Mary,” and the early Church’s teaching of her being assumed into Heaven (again, Revelation 11 and 12). Does God allow any sinner to be in his Heavenly Temple?

Don’t worry, brother or sister. Keep defending the Truth! God Bless you!

 

[petra22]

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

At that time, IMHO, I’d say yes he was… Freed from sin by belief in Jesus Christ! all sin, washed away. So, at that time, yes, sinless. Like we are right after Reconciliation… we are close to being saints then…

 

[hu324b]

Its not the same thing.

Mary is hailed as full of Grace from the beginning of her life - God prepared her from the beginning and sustained her her entire life - he was with her in Jesus - this cannot be denied - its biblical.

Steven is filled with Gods Grace as he is stoned to death and has a vision of heaven - not from the beginning of his life - God likely did this because Saul who came to know as St Paul was watching all this happening and approved of it.

And if God Choose to fill Steven full of Grace at the moment of Death who are we to question it - isn’t that what we all hope for?

Absolutely not the same thing as our Holy Mother.

I will also add that yes I would say he is sinless at that moment - all his sins would have been forgiven - God/Jesus is there for every martyr at the moment of their death to bring them to heaven

 

[Evan]

Hi, Evan!

…consider too that the Virgin’s uniqueness comes from God’s Salvific Plan–a Plan set in motion even before the world came into being.

…Apocalypse 12 depicts the war or the worlds (temporal and spiritual) where Lucifer puts into motion his treacherous plan to usurp God’s Authority and Command; he commits to it, brings down with him those who followed him, attempts against the Son of God, and, finally, out of pure frustration, wars against the woman and her other children, the Believers…

This is the fundamental experience of the Virgin… as with the ground that was made Holy and which Moses could not simply trample down, the Virgin’s Immaculate Conception is in preparation for the Word’s Incarnation. Mary’s singularity is brought into existence by God’s sheer Will to remain Holy.

Maran atha!

Angel

I agree, however, I was trying to show an apologetic method of arriving at the sinlessness of Mary from historical fact (the assumption). God could have been born from a great sinner, or from a woman who sinned after he left home, BUT he chose to be born from the most holy Virgin.

After the God given sign of the assumption, we may be able to conclude her perpetual holiness. This argument is to stand against those who would claim Mary may have sinned after the Nativity.

 

[jcrichton]

HERE’S MORE ON HOW MARY IS SPECIAL:

• Jesus chose her to be his mother and his Queen.
• She was, is, and will always be “full of grace” because this is the meaning of that verb within the perfect tense (which we translate into English as a noun). A proper Greek translation would be “Grace to you, you who have been, who are, and who always will be full of Grace! The Lord is with you!” Now Grace is the Presence of God which no one had within a personal way within the Old Covenant. They had it only in an external way, giving guidance through Words, dwelling in untouchable Divine Fire, within a veiled Holy of Holies, etc.
• Notice how Mary is not disturbed by the angel Gabriel who greeted her, but is, interestingly, disturbed by what his words mean. Compare this with Zechariah who was disturbed upon seeing the angel, and had shown contempt for what his words mean. Someone talking to angels is pretty special. The only people, in the Old Covenant, to have talked to angels were the most important and holiest figures, and none of them were given a message like this!
• Notice how Jesus does his first miracle at Cana upon her intercessory request. Through her, he begins to fulfill the Second Temple Judaism hope of the Wedding Feast of the Messiah in terms of a Garden of Eden abundance, as well as prepares the way for the institution of the New Covenant, the Eucharist (Jesus only used the words “the New Covenant” when he offered the Eucharist).
• Jesus, too, calls her “Woman,” reminding us of the fact that she is the New Eve, just as he is the “New Man/Adam.”
• Finally, on the Cross, he considered her so important so as to give her to the Church. He wasn’t making his will then. Any man who knows that he would soon die, makes his will prior to his death. Jesus handing her over to the Church is a sign, therefore, of her importance.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT MARY WAS STILL SINLESS AFTER JESUS’ DEATH…well, read the end of Revelation 11 and then 12 in context. She’s the Ark, and the Woman (just as Luke also depicts), the one who gave birth to the True Ruler! And, again, the perfect verb “full of Grace” mentioned earlier. Consider also the early Church writing the “Assumption of Mary,” and the early Church’s teaching of her being assumed into Heaven (again, Revelation 11 and 12). Does God allow any sinner to be in his Heavenly Temple?

Don’t worry, brother or sister. Keep defending the Truth! God Bless you!

Hi!

…this passage brings to the foreground Apocalypse 12:17–it all ties in with St. Luke’s 1:48.

The Virgin Mother is the Mother of God (the Incarnate Word) and of all humanity–a clear reason for Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I agree, however, I was trying to show an apologetic method of arriving at the sinlessness of Mary from historical fact (the assumption). God could have been born from a great sinner, or from a woman who sinned after he left home, BUT he chose to be born from the most holy Virgin.

After the God given sign of the assumption, we may be able to conclude her perpetual holiness. This argument is to stand against those who would claim Mary may have sinned after the Nativity.

Hi, Evan!

…I understand your endeavor; though I do question the “if” contingency… God could have made Himself known to Moses in any forum… He chose a specific spot and made (Sanctified) the ground Holy for the encounter… we also have several passages that hint on the Purity of the Messiah–the two most salient are the ride into the city on a foal and the burial place which had not been used before.

Though there are myriads of possibilities, God made a determinate choice that would effectively demonstrate His Divinity and Holiness.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

Nor is it written anywhere in the Bible that all the books compiled in it have been written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But we Catholics are just as sure without having to proof-text the Scriptures that God is the author of all 73 of the sacred texts as much as He preserved the Blessed Virgin Mary from all stain of sin.

*"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.*I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *
Matthew 16:18-19

… if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
1 Timothy 3, 15

She was a simple girl, and you Catholics put her on a pedestal."

Actually, we Catholics simply acknowledge that it is God who has put her on a pedestal.

for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
Luke 1, 49

He refers to Romans 3:23 to show me that she was a sinner just like the rest of us.

The word “all” in this verse is pantes, and it is to be taken in a collective rather than distributive sense. Thus there can be exceptions to the rule.

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers."
Genesis 3, 15

“Most blessed (eulogomene) are you among women, and blessed (eulogemenos) is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

The particular Greek word Luke employs in this verse for describing Mary and Jesus as being equally blessed is used only for Mary and the kingdom of heaven (feminine) and Jesus (masculine) in the New Testament.

One website mentioned how could Mary need a savior and all that if she was sinless.

I wonder if the author of this website believes that infants are in need of our Lord and Saviour, though they aren’t mature enough to commit any sins. He or she probably doesn’t believe in the necessity of infant baptism. And if that’s the case, we have a conclusion drawn from a faulty premise. Well, we Catholics believe, that because Mary was subject to inheriting original sin, God redeemed her, before she might ever commit any personal sins, in the most perfect way - by her Immaculate Conception - in view of the foreseen merits of Christ. And God saw to it that she would never want to commit any personal sins by the influence of his actual grace. God does have the power to keep anyone from ever falling, if He so pleases. God endowed Mary with the fullness of His grace so that she would never fall because of her election to the Divine Maternity. God the Father looked with favour on the lowliness of our Blessed Lady to glorify the Son (Luke 1:48). God did this by providing a mother worthiest of him. Ask your friend why God shouldn’t preserve Mary from all stain of sin? Would it be to glorify the Son?

*Now to him who is able to preserve you without sin, and to present you spotless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, *
Jude 1, 24

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?”

We know by the fact that Mary was still the mother of our Lord after he died.

καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπε· Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη· ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ· εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν.
Luke 1, 28

Please visit my website to see the meaning and function of the Greek word kecharitomene.

blessedaboveallwomen.co/2016/04/13/hail-full-of-grace/

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Wesrock]

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

The Greek is different. The use of kecharitomene for Mary implies a prior and continuing action of God. For Stephen, pleres charitos is used.

 

[Good_Fella]

I think it would be more accurate to say ‘what God did and did not do,’ instead of ‘what God can and cannot do.’

But how do we determine with absolute certainty what it is that God has or hasn’t done? Certainly, not by studying the Bible and reasoning for ourselves. The only way we can know is by the Church receiving a revelation from God and gradually arriving at a full understanding of it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (See John 16:12-13). And it is for the Magisterium of the Church to decide what God has revealed about His mighty deeds in salvation history. The charism of infallibility has been conferred on the Roman Pontiff as a successor to the chair of Peter, and all the bishops of the Catholic Church have a share in this gift when they are all united with the pope in defining Church doctrine. Without this organ of infallibility, the Church could never know with absolute certainty what she perceives to be a divine revelation. The human intellect alone doesn’t have the capability of asserting a divine truth. For this reason, Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to his Church to guide her in all truth. The Holy Spirit, who aids the minds of the faithful, guarantees that the Magisterium doesn’t commit the Church to error. The Church, whose individual members are personally fallible, is itself as a corporate, hierarchical body indefectible, so prophesied Isaiah (35:8):

And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

Catholics don’t believe that Mary’s cousin Elizabeth was immaculately conceived. Is this because they don’t think God could do this? Or is it just because they don’t believe God chose to do this in this circumstance?

We can say that it’s because Catholics don’t see any reason for God to do this. Elizabeth wasn’t elected to be the mother of our Lord. The Divine Maternity is the reason for this “supreme privilege” being granted to Mary.

I am confused about the topic and how free will and original sin interact. Could God cause someone to not be able to choose to sin in any circumstance? I suppose He could. Did He do this? I don’t know.

Whenever we resist the Devil and overcome temptation, it is in co-operation with God’s efficacious grace. Since Mary was preserved free from contracting the moral ill effects of original sin (concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and the pride of life), unlike ourselves albeit our baptism, we may safely assume that Satan fled each time he tried to tempt Mary by the fact that it isn’t impossible to resist the Devil (James 4:7). Surely, no fallible individual could know with absolute certainty that this was so with respect to Mary, regardless of how tenaciously they studied their Bibles while relying on their intellects alone. Hence, we must rely on the divinely constituted teaching office of the Church to clearly know what it is God desires we should know about His deeds. And all that God has revealed to His Church is first through His unwritten word, viz., that which is declared by the Holy Spirit (sacred Tradition) and then taught orally by His appointed ministers before being consigned to writing.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 Corinthians 2, 13

PAX

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

So at the time that the idea was being finalized that man was born contaminated with Adam’s sin, it was thought that only Jesus was free from it. I don’t know when that idea changed and why it is necessary to understand this about Mary

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. However, there were some who appear to have believed that Mary was untouched by any stain, both original and personal, seeing how she could be equated with her divine Son in being “made” or fashioned sinless, and he having been made sinless in the flesh by being born of Mary. 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. But at any rate, they all certainly believed that she was made holy in body and soul by 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: