Church Mariology making me nuts!

[Cat_Herder]

Tatum Ergo …

Being filled with HS isn’t getting to the crux of our discussion. All Christians are filled with HS @ our Rebirth. That is a NORMATIVE & ESSENTIAL matter.

What is key to the discussion, is WHEN it happens. For most it’s in adulthood. For John the Baptist, it was as a Fetus. Was it at his conception …or at month #6 ? I argue it was at conception.

With regards to Mary, …was it at age 15, or earlier ? Sacred Scripture suggests it was when Gabriel spoke to her. Others here believe it was earlier, but, they can’t ( or haven’t yet) made that case from the scriptures …or shown us that early Apostolic traditions believed this the case.

They, can only make claims based on rather recent Papal revelations/ declarations …which followed reports of visions of Mary to children.

Are you ignoring Genesis 3:15?

 

[Fragile]

This flows from the Immaculate Conception. Mary, being without sin, is most attuned to the will of God in a way that everyone else is not. What She has said in private revelations like Fatima is that WE need to pray the Rosary every day in order to avoid the wrath of God–despite the power of Her own intercession, God wants for us to pray ourselves because WE are the ones who need to change. We need to repent and do penance and by praying, we are opening ourselves up to the Holy Spirit so that He can change our hearts.

What is so wrong with this?

So the children of God, born from above, loved by Christ, filled w/the Holy Spirit…need to pray the Rosary every day to keep the wrath of God off their heads?!

Private revelation is not binding on anyone, many eastern Catholics have never even learned the Rosary.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer

I would disagree with you. Scripture says John the Baptist was filled with the spirit “…from the womb”. But conception does not occur in the womb. It occurs before the ovum enters the womb and attaches to the lining of the womb. Therefore taking the scripture into account John would have already been concieved before the Spirit entered him in his mother’s womb. Now whether this occurred in the sixth month at the time of Mary’s visit or before is not clear. But what is clear is that John was already concieved before he was graced by the Holy Spirit.

No so quick on draw with your response …

If John had been filled while inside the womb, lets say at month # 6 as you propose …
then scripture would of recorded … IN THE WOMB, not FROM the womb [as it says].

By saying FROM THE WOMB … this should suggest to you that John was filled FROM HIS CONCEPTION, from his FIRST MOMENT in Elizabeth.

Read my earlier response. Conception occurrs before the ovum enters the mother’s womb. In fact here is what WebMD says about when conception occurs:

"Fertilization
If one sperm does make its way into the Fallopian tube and burrow into the egg, it fertilizes the egg. The egg changes so that no other sperm can get in.

At the instant of fertilization, your baby’s genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl.

Implantation: Moving to the Uterus
The egg stays in the Fallopian tube for about three to four days, but within 24 hours of being fertilized it starts dividing very fast into many cells. It keeps dividing as it moves slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Its next job is to attach to the lining of uterus. This is called implantation.

So conception [fertilization] occurs in the Fallopian tubes and not in the uterus [womb] So John the Baptist was already concieved before he was filled “…from the womb by the Holy Spirit”. Now if you don’t like the sixth month time period that is fine but you can’t argue that it was at conception.

 

[Cranch]

Originally Posted by brb3

If John had been filled while inside the womb, lets say at month # 6 as you propose …
then scripture would of recorded … IN THE WOMB, not FROM the womb [as it says].

By saying FROM THE WOMB … this should suggest to you that John was filled FROM HIS CONCEPTION, from his FIRST MOMENT in Elizabeth.

So conception [fertilization] occurs in the Fallopian tubes and not in the uterus [womb] So John the Baptist was already concieved before he was filled “…from the womb by the Holy Spirit”. Now if you don’t like the sixth month time period that is fine but you can’t argue that it was at conception.

Give it up inkaneer. Can’t you see “from the womb” doesn’t mean “from the womb”? It means whatever brb3 says it means!

 

[inkaneer]

Nope … that’s not what Gabriel said ! Quote him correctly.

It was “HAIL O favored one”

I will quote scripture. Scripture says the angel said, “*Chairo kecharitomene *” again kecharitomene is the perfect past tense of the verb charitoo. Jerome translated the Greek “*Chairo kecharitomene *” into the Latin “Ave, gratia plena,” From which we get “Hail, full of grace.” The use of the term “favored one” is a protestant invention because they could not explain how Mary could be full of grace before the age of grace began. So they purposely mistranslated kecharitomene so that Mary was not full of grace but only favored. But for the first 1100 years between the first Bible and the protestant revolt the church was undivided that “*Chairo kecharitomene *”, “Ave, gratia plena,” meant “Hail full of grace.”

Now you say you are Catholic so why are you using non Catholic terminology like “favored one”?? No wonder you have problems with this subject. Maybe you not so Catholic after all. If so, this would not be the first time some protestant came on these forums pretending to be Catholic and lying in the process. My discernment is that you are not what you would like us to think you are.

 

[inkaneer]

Give it up inkaneer. Can’t you see “from the womb” doesn’t mean “from the womb”? It means whatever brb3 says it means!

Well that is very protestant of brb3. Good old sola scriptura filtered by private interpretation will do it every time. I just did a review of brb3’s posts. She says many people consider Irenaeus to be the “Godfather of Catholicism” and basically claims he was a sola scripturist. How many Catholics call Irenaeus the “Godfather of Catholicism”? I know of none. Typical protestant stuff. Here is her post:

"We have learned from no others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they DID AT ONE TIME proclaim in public, and AT A LATER PERIOD, by the will of God, HANDED DOWN TO US IN THE SCRIPTURES, to be the GROUND & PILLAR OF OUR FAITH …Matthew issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and laying the foundations for the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish the Gosple during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the Law and Prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. " [Against Heresies 31.1.2]

Now, Irenaeus said this before the New Testament Canon was Codified. Irenaeus is a Bishop as he writes this … yet it’s not the Church which he calls the ‘bedrock’ Gound & Pillar of the Faith. And, it’s Irenaeus … who is consided by many the GodFather of Catholicism.

So, does Irenaeus speak correctly here ?

I know Paul said the Church was … but, that was in the early Apostolic preaching days, … before God breathed the bedrock of the Gospel message into its written form … thru Paul, and the other’s Irenaeus mentions above.

In that same thread some asked her if she was Catholic. Here is her response:

Yes, a recent Protestant convert … that wishes the Catholic Church would stick to her early century roots.

It appears that brb3 hasn’t left protestantism. But then again one could argue that brb3 wasn’t a very good protestant. After all what good protestant would accept the uninspired writing of Irenaeus over the inspired writing of the Apostle Paul? Catholics don’t.

By the way, brb3 cherry picked the quote by Irenaeus. What she left out was what Irenaeus wrote in the very next chapter of Irenaeus’ book 3 of *Against Heresies *:

“2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” [Against Heresies 3.2]

I strongly suggest that brb3 read what Irenaeus wrote in *Against Heresies * 3.3. Then after reading that chapter come back and tell us that Irenaeus was sola scripturist enough to believe in only scripture being the pillar and foundation of truth.

“The Godfather of Catholicism”, . . . really?

 

[MotoCatholic]

InKanner…AMEN to your last post. My thought exactly. I stated earlier in this thread that I was disappointed that my long drought on CA forums was broken by looking at this thread (mainly bc of the less-than-kind tone at times). But I take that back-I’ve been following the thread since then, and have greatly enjoyed the discussion. The depth of knowledge by the contributors is impressive. I know I’m not there yet.

These sorts of discussions always make me think this-do arguments like this not make clear the power and beauty of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church? I know my Protestant friends discount that completely. They have to-it undermines the validity of whatever church they belong to. They politely “argue” with me all the time. They argue amongst themselves even more often. And they refuse-simply refuse to acknowledge the absence of valid authority, and the inevitable and incessant squabbling over “this word means x y or z,” has led directly to Christianity splintering into tens-of-thousands of churches, all claiming to “have it right.”

But for supposed Catholics to so openly and vociferously disagree with dogmatic teaching…well that’s another matter completely. But I agree-claiming to be catholic and stirring up controversy and dissent is very effective. Beware!

 

[stewstew03]

Nope … that’s not what Gabriel said ! Quote him correctly.

It was “HAIL O favored one”

Most translations quote Gabriel as saying "“highly favored one” or “full of grace”, and I would submit there really is no difference between these two phrases when an Angel of God approaches you and says these words.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:28[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Mark121359]

Most translations quote Gabriel as saying "“highly favored one” or “full of grace”, and I would submit there really is no difference between these two phrases when an Angel of God approaches you and says these words.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:28[/BIBLEDRB]

According to this from EWTN there is a real difference;

Catholic exegetes, in discussing the Immaculate Conception, first look at the Annunciation. Gabriel greeted Mary by saying, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek kecharitomene. This word actually represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it must on that account express a characteristic quality of Mary. What’s more, the traditional translation, “full of grace,” is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” True, Mary was a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that.

The newer translations leave out something the Greek conveys, something the older English versions convey, which is that this grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is charis, after all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception.

More Than Highly Favored

That is, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace.” If she was merely “highly favored,” in the normal connotation of those words, her status would have been indistinguishable from that of some other women in the Bible, such as Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, or Sarah, the wife of Abraham, or Anna, the mother of Samuel–all of whom, by the way, were long childless and were “highly favored” because God acceded to their pleas to bear children.

Here is the full story if you’re interested…ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3.htm

 

[brb3]

Are you ignoring Genesis 3:15?

Not at all. But, wish to put it into Apostolic context. What did Paul say about that verse, what did he say on status of Mary.
Next, I beg to differ with another poster here … for all Catholics should know the important role Irenaeus played in setting forth in his writings the CATHOLIC TEACHINGS of his day. To imply that Protestants favor him over Catholics is ludicrous ! Catholics historians rightly view him as THE early Godfather of the ECF’s !!
What did Ireneaus teach on Mary, on her Mediatrix role ? If he taught what we are hearing some here claim …then I recant.

 

[brb3]

What was the early century heresy against Mary … that the earliest ECF’s wrote about, correcting the errs of heretics, and advising the faithful Church of the TRUTH ABOUT MARY & Mediatrix status ??

 

[Cat_Herder]

Not at all. But, wish to put it into Apostolic context. What did Paul say about that verse, what did he say on status of Mary.

Then WHAT WOMAN was at enmity with the devil?

 

[stewstew03]

According to this from EWTN there is a real difference;

Here is the full story if you’re interested…ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3.htm

I’m no linguist, but I agree that the better translation, by all accounts, seems to be “full of grace.” However, even some Catholic translations have the phrase “favored one” instead of “full of grace” (my Ignatius Study Bible has a footnote at Luke 1:28 that says “Or ‘O favored one’”). All I’m saying is that her “highly favored status” wouldn’t change the fact that Mary was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence, as evidenced by the fact that she was prepared to carry the Son of God in her womb. For me, that proves she was preserved from the stain of original sin.

:bible1:

 

[brb3]

… even some Catholic translations have the phrase “favored one” instead of “full of grace” (my Ignatius Study Bible has a footnote at Luke 1:28 that says “Or ‘O favored one’”). All I’m saying is that her “highly favored status” wouldn’t change the fact that Mary was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence, as evidenced by the fact that she was prepared to carry the Son of God in her womb. For me, that proves she was preserved from the stain of original sin.

:bible1:

Good …

so highly favored & full of grace language is equivalent.

Now, how do you arrive at your conclusion that this was in effect …from the moment of her existence, and not at age 15, or at the age of accountability…for Jewish children?

 

[brb3]

Then WHAT WOMAN was at enmity with the devil?

A Non-Responsive answer. Please contribute to the topic discussion & help get both Catholics & Protestants to a consensus position.

 

[brb3]

Folks, think about this.

Scriptures say John the Baptizer was filled with HS from BEFORE his birth. Where however does it say same of Mary, …before she was visited by Gabriel and DECLARED SO at age 15 or so ?

I rest my case.

 

[Christine85]

Catholics rely on both Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Cat_Herder]

A Non-Responsive answer.

Et tu quoque.

Please contribute to the topic discussion & help get both Catholics & Protestants to a consensus position.

You won’t accept a consensus position unless it is the Protestant one.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Good …

so highly favored & full of grace language is equivalent.

Now, how do you arrive at your conclusion that this was in effect …from the moment of her existence, and not at age 15, or at the age of accountability…for Jewish children?

You are left with the mystery of the Incarnation which leaves us but “3” alternatives.

1] Mary was preserved at the Moment of the Overshadowing of the HS. Unlikely since this followed the Annunciation. Mary indeed was chose “prior” to the indwelling of the HS.

2] Mary was preserved earlier at some point which the Annunciation indicates as those who stand in the presence of God acknowledge Her.

3] She was preserved at the moment of Her conception, is most fitting since from the on-set of the Church Mary is perceived to have No Spot or Stain in other words Immaculate.

The impossible is to explain how Mary was infected with sin, and bore the Living God biologically.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Folks, think about this.

Scriptures say John the Baptizer was filled with HS from BEFORE his birth. Where however does it say same of Mary, …before she was visited by Gabriel and DECLARED SO at age 15 or so ?

I rest my case.

“Before his birth” is a known, its doesn’t indicate conceived without sin.

What is “does not” say is that John the Baptist was “conceived” without sin. John the Baptist was preserved at the Visitation by Mary, thus the presence of God in Marys womb was the cure of Grace.

Your second sentence leaves you to explain Gods biological birth still.