Being full of grace in relation to Mary and other saints

[SetonGirl]

I’m trying to understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Various translations of Luke 1:28 call Mary “full of grace” or “favored one”, etc. While reading Acts, I saw that Stephen was also referred to as filled with or full of grace. I’m trying to wrap my head around the difference between him and Mary.

Does the Church teach the Immaculate Conception based on Tradition or Luke 1:28 or some combination of the two?

Here are the relevant Scripture quotations relating to Stephen and Mary:

Stephen

New American Bible
Acts 6:8 Now Stephen, filled with grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.

Amplified Bible (AMP)

Acts 6:8 Now Stephen, full of grace (divine blessing and favor) and power (strength and ability) worked great wonders and signs (miracles) among the people.

Mary
New American Bible

Luke 1:28 And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Amplified Bible (AMP)

Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, Hail, O favored one [a]endued with grace]! The Lord is with you! Blessed (favored of God) are you before all other women!

 

[TimothyH]

Mary was full of grace - the full indwelling of the Holy Spirit - from conception. She was sanctified at or prior to her being conceieved. Others were sanctified - received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - while in the womb or after birth, but only Mary had the fullness of the Holy Spirit dwelling in her from the moment she was concieved.

John the Baptist was sanctified by the presence of Jesus, through Mary, while in Elizabeth’s womb.

for he will be great before the Lord,
and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother’s womb.
(Luke 1:15)

Elizabeth was “Filled with the Holy Spirit” at the same time as her son in her womb.

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41)

Many recieved the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost, but this was well after their conception and birth.

***And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit *and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4)

Only Mary was concieved with the fullness of grace and the presence of the Holy Spirit in her soul. Only Mary and John the Baptist were born that way. The rest of us, to the extent that we have recieved the Holy Spirit and are “Full of Grace”, have recieved that grace after conception and birth.

And it’s not just a matter of timing. Mary as more grace than the rest of us. She has recieved the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

-Tim-

 

[SetonGirl]

Thanks for your reply.

I never considered being full of grace as being the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. I haven’t researched that - - and I will - - but I think that’s separate from being filled with grace. All Christians are supposed to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them but I don’t think we could say that all Christians are full of grace.

And it struck me odd when I read that Stephen was full of grace too . . .

But back to my original question, is it Tradition, Scripture or a combnation of both that the Church uses to prove the Immaculate Conception?

 

[105lynne]

I’d like to know, too…

 

[aragonjohn1]

Thanks for your reply.

I never considered being full of grace as being the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. I haven’t researched that - - and I will - - but I think that’s separate from being filled with grace. All Christians are supposed to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them but I don’t think we could say that all Christians are full of grace.

And it struck me odd when I read that Stephen was full of grace too . . .

But back to my original question, is it Tradition, Scripture or a combnation of both that the Church uses to prove the Immaculate Conception?

Translated literally, the greeting reads thus: “Rejoice, full of grace. The Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). “Rejoice”: At first sight, this word appears to be no more than the formulaic greeting current in the Greek-speaking world, and tradition has consistently translated it as “hail”. But looked at against the background of the Old Testament, this formula of greeting takes on a more profound significance. Consider, in fact, that the same word used by Luke appears four times in the Septuagint, where in each case it is an announcement of messianic joy (Zeph 3:14; Joel 2:21; Zech 9:9; Lam 4:21).*

This greeting marks the beginning of the Gospel in the strict sense; its first word is “joy”.
“the Lord is with you” could be also why she rejoiced.

• philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm

Hope this helps
Shalom
God bless

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Well, looking at the Greek, they are different expressions. Stephen is either “πληρης πιστεως” (full of faith) or “πληρης χαριτος” (full of grace) depending on the source. Mary on the other hand is κεχαριτωμένη (graced). Since I do not know Greek, I don’t know what the distinction is, if Luke even intended one. The Vulgate uses the expression “plenus gratia” (or “gratia plena”) in both cases. Whatever the case, Stephen certainly did not carry God incarnate in his womb.

 

[Evan]

Thanks for your reply.

I never considered being full of grace as being the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. I haven’t researched that - - and I will - - but I think that’s separate from being filled with grace. All Christians are supposed to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them but I don’t think we could say that all Christians are full of grace.

And it struck me odd when I read that Stephen was full of grace too . . .

But back to my original question, is it Tradition, Scripture or a combnation of both that the Church uses to prove the Immaculate Conception?

As with all the teachings of the Church, nothing can be proved. But the teaching is based on Tradition (believed since the beginning), Scripture (nothing in Scripture contradicts it), the Magisterium (the teaching authority given by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit proclaims it). And it was verified miraculously at Lourdes when the Virgin Mary claim the title as her own.

 

[Dolezal]

I’m trying to understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Various translations of Luke 1:28 call Mary “full of grace” or “favored one”, etc. While reading Acts, I saw that Stephen was also referred to as filled with or full of grace. I’m trying to wrap my head around the difference between him and Mary.

Does the Church teach the Immaculate Conception based on Tradition or Luke 1:28 or some combination of the two?

Here are the relevant Scripture quotations relating to Stephen and Mary:

They are both said to be full of grace because they had received a special gift of grace, but only Mary is given the epithet “full of grace” because she is superior in the fullness of grace.

Cornelius a Lapide, Commentaries: “I answer that they are said to have been full of grace, but in different ways. For, as Maldonatus rightly says, a fountain is full of water, so is a river, so are streams, although there is more water and purer in a fountain than in a river, and in a river than in streams. Christ is full of grace, like a fountain where grace gushes forth and is collected as in a reservoir, and from which it flows forth to all men, as from a head to the members. The mother of Christ is full like a river very near a fountain, which although it has less water than a fountain, yet flows with a full channel. Stephen is full like a stream.”

St. Thomas, The Angelic Salutation: “The grace of God is given for two chief purposes, namely, to do good and to avoid evil. The Blessed Virgin, then, received grace in the most perfect degree, because she had avoided every sin more than any other Saint after Christ.”

 

[CalCatholic]

Here is just ‘a little bit’ of the commentary from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - New Testament:

‘The expression full of grace is rooted in Catholic tradition and traced to St. Jerome’s translation of this verse in the Latin Vulgate. Although fundamentally accurate, it lacks some depth of the Greek original. Luke could have described her with the words full of grace (Gk. pleres charitos) as he did of Stephen in Acts 6:8, yet here he uses a different expression (Gk. kecharitomene) that is even more revealing than the traditional rendering. It indicates that God has already “graced” Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who “has been” and “is now” filled with divine life.’

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks for your reply.

I never considered being full of grace as being the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. I haven’t researched that - - and I will - - but I think that’s separate from being filled with grace. All Christians are supposed to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them but I don’t think we could say that all Christians are full of grace.

And it struck me odd when I read that Stephen was full of grace too . . .

But back to my original question, is it Tradition, Scripture or a combnation of both that the Church uses to prove the Immaculate Conception?

Grace is an action of the holy Spirit. You can only be full of grace if the Holy Spirit dwells in you, and the holy Spirit dwells in you if you obey God’s commandments.

Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (John 14:23)

Remember that in the creed we state that the holy Spirit proceedes from the Father and Son. The Father and Son “making their home” with us is the presence of the Holy Spirit in our soul, and it only happens if we obey God’s commandments.

Who obeyed God’s commandments more than Mary? The holy Spirit dwelled in her and acted upon her soul so that she was “Full of Grace”.

**And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. **(Luke 1:35)

The action of the holy Spirit upon Mary was so strong that God himself became present in her womb. Grace himself took on flesh inside of Mary.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

But back to my original question, is it Tradition, Scripture or a combnation of both that the Church uses to prove the Immaculate Conception?

Both. It is a dogma drawn from both Sacred Tradition with roots in Sacred Scripture, especially the Old Testament. Mary is forshadowed by the ark of the covenant, and forshadowed by the many holy women in the Old Testament including Judith and Esther.

The ark’s purity was represented by the fact that no one could touch it.

And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God. (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

Mary’s purity - her virginity - is forshadowed in that no one was to touch the ark. She was to be preseved from her conception exclusively for her spouse, the holy Spirit.

There are many other stories, too many for me to list right now, and many writings of the doctors of the Church.

-Tim-

 

[jcrichton]

I’m trying to understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Various translations of Luke 1:28 call Mary “full of grace” or “favored one”, etc. While reading Acts, I saw that Stephen was also referred to as filled with or full of grace. I’m trying to wrap my head around the difference between him and Mary.

Does the Church teach the Immaculate Conception based on Tradition or Luke 1:28 or some combination of the two?

Here are the relevant Scripture quotations relating to Stephen and Mary:

…I think it goes back to the original announcement; did the angel Gabriel say to the Virgin Mary:

…hail, oh favored one

…hail, filled with grace

…or was it more like:

…hail, full of Grace!

…this is one of those times that I wish I were fluent in Arameic and Hebrew… I doubt very much that the angel would announce the Incarnation of the Word with a mild salutation or that the Virgin Mary would be celebrated as one in the millions who simply happened to be there at the right moment while the angel picked names from a bowl:

The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28):
philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm

While some renderings of Acts 6:8 would employ the term “full” instead of “filled” would it be correct to apply “full” as kecharitomene (always and will continue to be) or are we to understand that Stephen while facing persecution and possible death was filled with the Holy Spirit and was given valor and spiritual strength to not succumb to the assaults and to not derail his Faith? …and if this is the rending of the Writer would he have meant to say that Stephan always had had that fullness of Grace–even before the Lord’s Revelation and Ministry?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks for your reply.

I never considered being full of grace as being the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. I haven’t researched that - - and I will - - but I think that’s separate from being filled with grace. All Christians are supposed to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them but I don’t think we could say that all Christians are full of grace.

And it struck me odd when I read that Stephen was full of grace too . . .

But back to my original question, is it Tradition, Scripture or a combnation of both that the Church uses to prove the Immaculate Conception?

…here’s a link to newadvent.org:

The Immaculate Conception: Church Tradition based on Scriptures:
newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

Wikipedia gives it more chronology and expands on various definitions and misunderstandings:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[shreek]

i would think it’s just common sense.

God in his infinite wisdom, chose Mary, sinless, to make the word flesh.

As if God would chose a sinful women to bear a sinless man…

 

[brb3]

Mary was full of grace - the full indwelling of the Holy Spirit - from conception. She was sanctified at or prior to her being conceieved. Others were sanctified - received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - while in the womb or after birth, but only Mary had the fullness of the Holy Spirit dwelling in her from the moment she was concieved.

John the Baptist was sanctified by the presence of Jesus, through Mary, while in Elizabeth’s womb.

for he will be great before the Lord,
and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother’s womb.
(Luke 1:15)

Elizabeth was “Filled with the Holy Spirit” at the same time as her son in her womb.

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41)

Many recieved the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost, but this was well after their conception and birth.

***And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit ***and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4)

Only Mary was concieved with the fullness of grace and the presence of the Holy Spirit in her soul. Only Mary and John the Baptist were born that way. The rest of us, to the extent that we have recieved the Holy Spirit and are “Full of Grace”, have recieved that grace after conception and birth.

And it’s not just a matter of timing. Mary as more grace than the rest of us. She has recieved the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

-Tim-

Well, I wouldn’t say that John the Baptist was FullyGraced VIA MARY …
Mary had no idea John jumped with joy …until Elizabeth told her.

 

[brb3]

Furthermore, it was Elizabeth that got filled with HS … when JOHN JUMPED within her. Did we ever think that perhaps it was John…having greater effect on her than Mary ??

 

[brb3]

Thanks for your reply.

I never considered being full of grace as being the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. I haven’t researched that - - and I will - - but I think that’s separate from being filled with grace. All Christians are supposed to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them but I don’t think we could say that all Christians are full of grace.

And it struck me odd when I read that Stephen was full of grace too . . .

But back to my original question, is it Tradition, Scripture or a combnation of both that the Church uses to prove the Immaculate Conception?

All Christians are Filled with Grace, upon our First Spiritual Rebirths/Baptisms. We must of necessity be FULLY graced by Christ via HS … in order to be declared Children of the Father.

Now, can we stay that way for very long …as could John and Mary ? Nope, we need the Sacraments on regular basis !!!

 

[jcrichton]

Furthermore, it was Elizabeth that got filled with HS … when JOHN JUMPED within her. Did we ever think that perhaps it was John…having greater effect on her than Mary ??

…the only way that a six-month old pre-birth baby could recognize the Incarnate Word was if he in fact had been Blessed with the Holy Spirit… Elizabeth is only a secondary reaction but she too is Blessed with the Holy Spirit–we also know that John’s conception was ordained by God and that he was separated from before birth to Serve as the Herald of the Lord… all of this is incumbent upon the indwelling/shadowing of the Holy Spirit, the Lord, Giver of Life!

Maran atha!

Angel