Did Mary need a savior?

[codebilly]

I am sorry, but does Sacred Tradition ignore Scripture?

Rom. iii. 10, 23; v. 12, 18; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15; Gal. iii. 22; Eph. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 10; Psa. li. 5.

And this Sacred Tradition fails to meet the criteriea for True Dogma and Tradition. The semper, the ubique, and the ab omnibus

1. Not a unamious idea by the early church fathers

• see Iren. Adv. hœr. iii. c. 16, § 7:

We can add to the list:

Chrysostom, at the close of the fourth century - Chrys. Hom. XXI. al. XX. in Joh. Opera, ed. Bened. Tom. VIII. p. 122

Tertullian - De carne Christi, c. 7

As just two more sources.

Pelagius, a condemed heretic, is the first to espose the idea of the complete sinlesness of Mary.

Bernard of Clairvaux - Ep. 174, p. 334 sq

The above quote is actually the idea put forth by Perrone, when pressed as to the rational for his dogma.

Fianlly, the method about which this ‘doctrine’ was declared argues against it.

And your point?

 

[codebilly]

Both of those exceptions are stated in the Bible - where is the exception of Mary mentioned?

And as to the rest of my post, any one else have comments?

Yes. What is your conclusion? You didn’t state it.

 

[codebilly]

“Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5

Who will come forth and argue then, that Psalm 51:5 speaks of the Incarnation of Jesus?

:doh2:

 

[FCEGM]

I am sorry, but does Sacred Tradition ignore Scripture?

Rom. iii. 10, 23; v. 12, 18; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15; Gal. iii. 22; Eph. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 10; Psa. li. 5.

And this Sacred Tradition fails to meet the criteriea for True Dogma and Tradition. The semper, the ubique, and the ab omnibus

1. Not a unamious idea by the early church fathers

• see Iren. Adv. hœr. iii. c. 16, § 7:

We can add to the list:

Chrysostom, at the close of the fourth century - Chrys. Hom. XXI. al. XX. in Joh. Opera, ed. Bened. Tom. VIII. p. 122

Tertullian - De carne Christi, c. 7

As just two more sources.

Pelagius, a condemed heretic, is the first to espose the idea of the complete sinlesness of Mary.

Bernard of Clairvaux - Ep. 174, p. 334 sq

The above quote is actually the idea put forth by Perrone, when pressed as to the rational for his dogma.

Fianlly, the method about which this ‘doctrine’ was declared argues against it.

This article addresses some of your concerns:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm

A brief excerpt:

. . .before the Church solemnly defined it in 1854, Catholics were free to either believe in the Immaculate Conception or reject it. Indeed, even some of our greatest Catholic saints, such as Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux (who had profound devotions to Our Lady) had serious problems with the idea that she was conceived without original sin (although they believed she was personally sinless). Yet, despite this, there were also others in the Church, such as St. Bonaventure and Blessed Duns Scotus who championed the Immaculate Conception. So, the Immaculate Conception was a debated question in the Church for centuries.

However, what was NOT a matter of debate was Mary’s sinlessness. The universal witness of the Church, from Pentecost until today, has always professed that Mary was without sin. The only question was: “When did her sinlessness begin”?. . .

(Regarding Pelagius - a heretic can be absolutely orthodox in one or more points of theology. Luther, e.g., believed in the Most Holy Trinity and the sinlessness of Mary and for neither of these was he a heretic. )

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll try to get right to the point and hit the important stuff.

All things considered, I’d say it should lead you to believe Mary was a sinner, just like you and me.

No, it doesn’t. In the context of Paul’s letter to the Romans, the case is being made that both Jews and Gentiles are alike under sin. Paul is saying that Jews are no better than the Romans before God. Thus, he uses hyperbole saying that “all” have sinned - even though Paul would agree with you that truthfully, not “all” have sinned, after all.

Sure there’s exceptions, for certain types of people. Mary does not belong to any of those groups of people, though.

First, I’m pleased that you agree that not “all” have sinned. That’s pretty much the end of that argument, isn’t it?

Not all have sinned.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Not all have sinned.

Sure, Mary is in a unique class all by herself; the Church declares that by a 'singular privilege, Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin.

With God all things are possible.

Not all have sinned.

For example, Mary did not die as an infant, nor was she mentally deficient. She was, in all aspects relevant to this issue, just like you and me. She does not belong to any particular group of people that would be excluded from the “all” who have sinned. It requires a type of special pleading for just one special person. It requires, according to what you’ve described, and unseen act of God performed in utero whereby Mary was rescued from the sinful nature that, even according to you, would otherwise have caused her to sin.

Yep.

Given the nature of this alleged act on the part of God, can you see why I would ask for some kind of evidence? How, exactly, did anyone know about this? I don’t think Mary would have told anyone. She was a fetus when it (supposedly) happened. Who knew about this and how? In the absence of a good answer to this question, I will be forced to conclude that someone made this story up after the fact- probably someone in southern Europe who’d never been to the Mideast, much less knew Mary- and then this story became extremely popular and well-loved.

It does, however, force you to plead a special case for Mary whereby the normative sinfulness of her life (and, in all of history, hers alone) was derailed by God. The next step is easy: I ask you how you know that. Did God tell anyone? If so, why isn’t that in the Bible? If not, can you see how easy it is for me to conclude that it’s a made up story?

Of course I can understand why you think it’s made up. You’re Protestant, and you do not have an infallible Church protecting from such thinking.

Actually, since she doesn’t qualify for any of the groups that are exempt, it has to be admitted that, in the absence of a freaky miracle (which is never mentioned in the Bible or in any historical documents), Mary certainly did have to commit personal sins.

Why does that follow? Why is it necessary that every single person who ever lived MUST have sinned just because you think that is the most common experience?

For the same reason that you think that Mary and Joseph MUST have had sex just because you think this is what most married people do?

Well, I just have two questions. One’s been asked: Who knew and how? I realize you firmly believe God told the Pope about this in the mid to late 19th century, but the story had been around for quite some time. Who started the story? If you can’t provide any details about it in any way whatsoever, why would you expect me to have any confidence in a nameless faceless person such as this?

I don’t think that God told the pope about this in the 19th century. I think this was known to the Church MUCH, MUCH earlier.

My second question is this: Imagine for a moment that Mary had sex with Joesph on a regular basis, Mary had other kids, Mary sinned, and Mary needed to be saved from her sins just as much as we need it. The question is this: So what? Does it really make a difference to you if all of that is true, yet she’s still the Mother of Jesus?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren’t defending these ideas because you want to defend Mary’s honor. You aren’t even defending them because the veracity of historical documents (in this case, what historical documents?) is at stake. Those things aren’t at stake for you, and that’s not why you’re defending them. Trust me, I’d rather have that be the case, but I don’t think it is. I think this all comes down to “Church Authoritah.” That is the single reason why you must continue believing these things- because this Authority is so important to you.

I really wish it wasn’t about that. I truly wish we could have a meaningful discussion exploring the relevant evidence surrounding stories like this and evaluate the historical documents pertaining to these sorts of things. But I fear that you can’t fully involve yourself in such a discussion because it would require that you set aside the faith you have in this Authority and test it to see if it’s well-placed. It’s a kind of blind faith in that way. Do you think I’m coming kind of close to the truth in this assessment?

That’s what I’m thinking so far.

Mike-

(Edited) I’m more than old enough to be your father, and I’ve done the conversion thing from Protestant to Catholic before you were born. Don’t presume to tell me what I believe, why I believe it or what I’m afraid of.

(Edited)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson;5300361:

Mike-

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.”

Wow…thanks for this Randy. This is an issue I have been struggling with greatly, particularly when that particularly verse is thrown back at me.

Much food for thought. God bless.

:tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

---

or

---

The Immaculate Conception of Mary Proved from Scripture

---

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

 

[CarlaOLS]

=mmmcounts;5303300

…I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren’t defending these ideas because you want to defend Mary’s honor. … That is the single reason why you must continue believing these things- because this Authority is so important to you.

Do you think I’m coming kind of close to the truth in this assessment?

NO NOT EVEN CLOSE.

mmm You haven’t the vaguest clue of the love we hold for Mary nor I have a sneaking suspicion of the love Jesus holds for His Mother.

The very first commandment after the three involving our direct relationship with God is “Honor thy Father and Mother.” Jesus has seen to it His mother is honored above all others and she has cooperated in that grace to such an unimaginable degree.

Ask yourself what kind of son would place his own mother at his side to watch him be tortured and to see every agonizing moment of his three hour death agony. Ask yourself why Our Lord did that. Why is He sadistic or did He have a greater plan for her?

There is soooooo much more to Mary than you can ever understand so long as you cling to your false suspicion that our defense of doctrine concerning her has anything whatsoever to do with authority.

Peace

 

[Unwanted]

NO NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Ask yourself what kind of son would place his own mother at his side to watch him be tortured and to see every agonizing moment of his three hour death agony. Ask yourself why Our Lord did that. Why is He sadistic or did He have a greater plan for her?

Peace

And exactly how did he, “place her at his side”? I don’t recall him forcing her there, nor do I recall her wishing to be elsewhere - wishing it did not happen yes. And do you mean to say that Christ should not have attoned for the whole world so that your mary would not be distressed And many of the early Church fathers actually ascribe to her a sin at this point. I am curious, what Early Fathers denied the sinfulness of mary? I can find two, Augustine and Pelagius - any one else have something more, and please cite

As to my point, I see no way that it has the unamious consent of the Chuch Fathers, when so many oppose it - nor do I see the justification from scripture, but rather from political neccesity and desire.

“Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5

Who will come forth and argue then, that Psalm 51:5 speaks of the Incarnation of Jesus?

I am sory that you missed the point so terribly here - it is not concerning Jesus, but rather Mary - that we are sinful from conception. So, unless God stoped that from occuring, as you claim, and of which I still see no scriptual proof.

Mary herself has made the application; for she calls God her Saviour (Luke i. 47: ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου), and thereby includes herself in the number of the redeemed. With this corresponds also the proper meaning of the predicate applied to her by the angel, Luke i. 28, κεχαριτωμένη, highly favored, endued with grace (die begnadigte), the one who received, and therefore needed, grace (non ut mater gratiæ, sed ut filia gratiæ, as Bengel well observes); comp. ver. 30, εὗρες χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, thou hast found grace with God; and Eph. i. 6, ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς, he bestowed grace upon us. But the Vulgate changed the passive meaning into the active: gratia plena, full of grace, and thus furnished a spurious argument for an error

Please, some one, do me the favor of adequatly refuting these, or I shall take them as true

 

[CarlaOLS]

And exactly how did he, “place her at his side”? I don’t recall him forcing her there, nor do I recall her wishing to be elsewhere - wishing it did not happen yes.

So you don’t believe Christ was God?
God wiled that she be there. God chose her to be His Mother, to bear His Son.

And do you mean to say that Christ should not have attoned for the whole world so that your mary would not be distressed

Quite the opposite. Christ chose to allow her to suffer with him and gain souls through her martyrdom of the heart.

And many of the early Church fathers actually ascribe to her a sin at this point. I am curious, what Early Fathers denied the sinfulness of mary? I can find two, Augustine and Pelagius - any one else have something more, and please cite

Excuse me when did St. Augustine ascribe sin to the Mother of Christ? And what church fathers?

I am sory that you missed the point so terribly here - it is not concerning Jesus, but rather Mary - that we are sinful from conception. So, unless God stoped that from occuring, as you claim, and of which I still see no scriptual proof.

Ahem… “Full of Grace”

 

[CarlaOLS]

Here we go:

**St. Athanasius **

. . . pure and unstained Virgin . . . (On the Incarnation of the Word, 8; Gambero, 102)

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 shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O 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. (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71, 216; Gambero, 106)

St. Ephraem

Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life (Op. syr. II, 327; Ott, 201)

The Virgin Mary is a symbol of the Church, when she receives the first announcement of the gospel . . . We call the Church by the name of Mary, for she deserves a double name. (Sermo ad noct. Resurr.; Gambero, 115)

Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain. (Nisibene Hymns, 27, v. 8; Ott, 201)

Citing this source, J.N.D. Kelly asserts:

[W]e find Ephraem delineating her as free from every stain, like her son.

(Kelly, 495)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Pure and spotless is this birth. For where the Holy Spirit breathes, all pollution is taken away, so that the human birth of the Only-begotten from the Virgin is undefiled. (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 31-32; Gambero, 140)

St. Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor. (Sermon 38, 13; Gambero, 162-163)

St. Gregory of Nyssa

It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life. (On Virginity, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. V, 344)

[T]he power of the Most High, through the Holy Spirit, overshadowed the human nature and was formed therein; that is to say, the portion of flesh was formed in the immaculate Virgin. (Against Apollinaris, 6; Gambero, 153)

St. Ambrose

. . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22, 30; Jurgens, II, 166)

What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? (Virginity, II, 6; NPNF 2, Vol. X, 374)

St. Epiphanius

Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain? (Panarion, 30, 31; Gambero, 127)

St. Jerome

‘There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ The rod is the mother of the Lord–simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself… Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord. (Letter XXII. To Eustochium, 19, 38; NPNF 2, Vol. VI, 29, 39; cf. Gambero, p. 213: “whose purity was so great that she merited to be the Mother of the Lord”)

Indeed how inferior they are, in terms of holiness, to blessed Mary, Mother of the Lord! (Contra Pelagianos, 1, 16; Gambero, 212)

St. Augustine

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, chapter 42 [XXXVI]; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

Augustine went a step farther. In an incidental remark against Pelagius, he agreed with him in excepting Mary, “propter honorem Domini,” from actual (but not from original) sin. This exception he is willing to make from the sinfulness of the race, but no other. He taught the sinless birth and life of Mary, but not her immaculate conception. . . . The reasoning of Augustine backward from the holiness of Christ to the holiness of His mother was an important turn, which was afterward pursued to further results. The same reasoning leads as easily to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, though also, just as well, to a sinless mother of Mary herself, and thus upward to the beginning, of the race, to another Eve who never fell.

(Schaff, HCC 3, 418-419)
We do not deliver Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth; but for this reason, because this very condition is resolved by the grace of rebirth. (Opus Imperf. Contra Julianum, 4, 122; Graef, 99)

And so he created a Virgin, whom he had chosen to be his Mother . . . she, with pious faith, merited to receive the holy seed within her. He chose her, to be created from her. (De peccatorum meritis et remissione, 2, 24, 38; Gambero, 219)

 

[CarlaOLS]

St. Sophronius

Others before you have flourished with outstanding holiness. But to none as to you has the fullness of grace been given. None has been endowed with happiness as you, none adorned with holiness like yours, none brought to such great magnificence as yours; no one was ever possessed beforehand by purifying grace as were you . . . And this deservedly, for no one came as close to God as you did; no one was enriched with God’s gifts as you were; no one shared God’s grace as you did. (In SS Deip. Annunt. 22; O’Carroll, 329)

St. Andrew of Crete

Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God. . . . The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation. (Homily 1 on Mary’s Nativity; O’Carroll, 180)

. . . alone wholly without stain . . . (Canon for the Conception of Anne; Graef, 152)

St. John Damascene

O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew. (Homily I on the Nativity of Mary; O’Carroll, 200; cf. Graef, 154; Gambero, 402)

So according to John of Damascus, even the “active” conception of Mary was completely without stain, panamomos – a view which goes far beyond the terms of the later definition of the doctrine and was open to the objections raised against it by the schoolmen.

(Graef, 154)
She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God. (Homily on the Nativity, 9; Gambero, 403)

 

[codebilly]

As to my point, I see no way that it has the unamious consent of the Chuch Fathers, when so many oppose it - nor do I see the justification from scripture, but rather from political neccesity and desire.

*“Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5
*

The point here is your conclusion versus that of the Catholic Church. The Church fathers record a clear and consistent record of Mary’s sinless nature.

The title of the thread is “Did Mary need a savior?”

I ask you again, are you claiming that Mary conceived Jesus in sin?

Answer the question please, and not with another question. Just yes or no will do fine.

 

[Unwanted]

Irenæus does yet not hesitate to chargeMary with ‘unseasonable haste’ or ‘urgency,’ which the Lord had to rebuke at the wedding of Cana - Iren. Adv. hœr. iii. c. 16, § 7ominus, repellens intempestivam festinationem, dixit: ‘Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier!’

Chrysostom, at the close of the fourth century, ventured to say that she was immoderately ambitious, and wanting in proper regard for the glory ofChrist on that occasion - Chrys. Hom. XXI. al. XX. in Joh. Opera, ed. Bened. Tom. VIII. p. 122. Compare his Hom. in Matth. XLIV. al. XLV.,

Tertullian implicates her in the unbelief of the brethren of Jesus - De carne Christi, c. 7: Fratres Domini non crediderant in illum. Mater æque non demonstratur adhæsisse illi, cum Marthæ et Mariæ aliæ in commercio ejus frequententur.

Origen thinks that she took offense, like the Apostles, at our Lord’s sufferings, else ‘he did not die for her sins;’ and, according to Basil, she, too, ‘wavered at the time of the crucifixion.’ Gregory of Nazianzus, and Johnof Damascus, the last of the great Greek Fathers, teach that she was sanctifiedby the Holy Ghost; which has no meaning for a sinless being.

ask you again, are you claiming that Mary conceived Jesus in sin?

Answer the question please, and not with another question. Just yes or no will do fine.

No. that is not my claim. My claim is that she sinned after conceiving him, and that he have no account of her life prior so we can not claim when she was cleansed and prepared to bear Jesus, wheter at birth or sometime after.

 

[codebilly]

No. that is not my claim. My claim is that she sinned after conceiving him, and that he have no account of her life prior so we can not claim when she was cleansed and prepared to bear Jesus, wheter at birth or sometime after.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. - Matt. 7:1

By what knowledge or divine revelation do you pass the judgement that “Mary has sinned” ?

And further, how do you have the authority to judge here with sin and simultaneously be in keeping with Matthew 7:1?

 

[Unwanted]

Judge not, that ye be not judged. - Matt. 7:1

By what knowledge or divine revelation do you pass the judgement that “Mary has sinned” ?

And further, how do you have the authority to judge here with sin and simultaneously be in keeping with Matthew 7:1?

I myself have not judged, but rather have allowed scripture to be read in context, not misconstrued, and have refreenced several church fathers above which agree with me, and their actuall writtings in which they do so

 

[mmmcounts]

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

Even the NAB translates this phrase as “Hail, favored one!” I really wasn’t expecting that. But there it is. nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke1.htm

Ok, scroll down. Look at verse 28. Surprised? Now scroll back up and check what version it is. Yes, it really is the New American Bible. They did a good job on this verse.

I haven’t run across any besides the Vulgate (and the D-R preservation of it) that say “full of grace.” Contemporary English says “you who are truly blessed”…It’s not a very good translation, but it’s not the bad one I’m looking for. continues searching…

Ah! Wycliffe New Testament also says “full of grace.” Over 90% of medium to high-quality translations read something like “favored one” or “highly favored one,” though. Including the NAB. I think the only place saying “highly favored daughter” is in the older RSV, and I say “I think” because I’m finding it to be less accessible than most translations. I do see that it’s been changed in the NRSV, though. That was a good decision.

After the angel says this, Mary says nothing but wonders “What manner may this greeting be?” The angel explains why he called her “favored one.” He tells her “Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God.” That word translated “favor” has the same stem as the Greek word kecharitomene- it’s just the noun form, singular, accusative, and feminine. Translating it as “grace” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in either use of the word.

It makes even less sense as an “implicit reference” to Mary’s sinlessness when you read the angel’s continued explanation. After telling Mary she’s found “favor with God,” Gabriel tells her what this “favor” entails. You will be with child, give birth to a son, call him Jesus, so forth and so on. I don’t believe this is an implicit reference to God bestowing “divine grace” on Mary (remember when I asked what sort of grace and you said “amazing grace?” I found out the preferred name for it is “divine grace.” Small sidebar).

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”).

“Highly favored” is actually a much better translation than anything like “full of grace.” Calling her “daughter” isn’t really so bad either, though I probably wouldn’t do it. Acceptable translations include “one who is highly favored” and “highly favored one.” It’s not really so bad to change “one” to “daughter.” It’s technically true…she is someone’s daughter. It’s not really a traditional way of rendering this kind of verb, though. “Favored one” is probably the way to go.

I realize the Vulgate says “full of grace,” but it’s not the first instance where St. Jerome got something wrong or translated something imperfectly. We continue making new versions because we can improve on the old ones. I really hope you aren’t going to treat the Vulgate like the “KJV-only” kinds of people treat their favored translation. It’s just not smart. You should focus on the original Hebrew and Greek, then see which translations do a good job with them. Don’t make a habit of hitching yourself to one particular translation as if it’s inherently better than another one. No translation is divinely inspired.

There’s some stuff you should read. This is the first one.

searchgodsword.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=1&verse=28

And here’s number 2. It should take you right to verse 28.
searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=1&verse=28#Lu1_28

Number 3: What we’re dealing with here is a bit of an issue that comes up when you go from Greek to Latin and then from Latin to English. The problem came up in the Greek to Latin stage. It wasn’t the ideal translation. The better translations of today, however, don’t blindly rely on intermediate translations. These translators go straight to the source and rely on the oldest Greek manuscripts available whenever possible.
searchgodsword.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=1&verse=28

This is quickly devolving into something rather petting regarding semantics, though. What I’m still looking for is a primary source pertaining to these claims about Mary. I don’t know how to make it any clearer than that. If God really did this “divine grace” thing and preserved Mary from sinning, He did it in utero where no one could see. If anyone found out about it- particularly the details about when and how it happened- God must have told someone. Who was that person, and where can I find out about him or her? I’ve run across a couple of potential sources, but I don’t have time to track anything down on them right now. Can anyone tell me something about The Apocalypse (Chapter 21) and/or Ven Maria de Agreda, whoever or whatever that is?

Ps for Randy- remember when you asked me to take a look at those two articles by Scott Hahn on The Fourth Cup? I made a new thread for that in the “This Rock” section. Here’s the link again.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5326425#post5326425

I’ve posted quite a bit on the first article. I’m going to let you jump in on that before I go on to the next one.

 

[codebilly]

I myself have not judged, but rather have allowed scripture to be read in context, not misconstrued, and have refreenced several church fathers above which agree with me, and their actuall writtings in which they do so

Nice try. The bottom line is that you “conclude” and hence judge since you proclaim Mary sinned.

So you will accept the Authority of the Church, but only certain Fathers of the Church?

Then do you accept everything that the same Church Fathers you reference as Truth?

You said :: " several church fathers above which agree with me "

Agree with YOU??? Perhaps they too will pay you homage in heaven for your brilliant interpretations of scripture.

Ah! they little know the true Flower of the field. Did they know Him they would understand better Our Lord’s reproach to Martha. Our Beloved needs neither our brilliant deeds nor our beautiful thoughts. Were He in search of lofty ideas, has He not His Angels, whose knowledge infinitely surpasses that of the greatest genius of earth? Neither intellect nor other talents has He come to seek among us … He has become the Flower of the field to show howmuch He loves simplicity.The Lily of the valley asks but a single dewdrop, which for one night shall rest in its cup, hidden from all human eyes. But when the shadows shall begin to fade, when the Flower of the field shall have become the Sun of Justice, 26 then the dewdrop – the humble sharer of His exile –will rise up to Him as love’s vapour. He will shed on her a ray of His light, and before the whole court of Heaven she will shine eternally like a precious pearl, a dazzling mirror of the Divine Sun. - St. Teresa the Little Flower of Jesus

 

[codebilly]

Even the NAB translates this phrase as “Hail, favored one!” I really wasn’t expecting that. But there it is. nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke1.htm

Ok, scroll down. Look at verse 28. Surprised? Now scroll back up and check what version it is. Yes, it really is the New American Bible. They did a good job on this verse.

“Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5

Are you saying then, that Psalm 51:5 applies to the Incarnation of Jesus?

 

[Ignatius]

I guess most of you are working from the assumption that she never sinned. Let’s see what comes up.

Yes, Mary certainly did need a Saviour; It was His salvation that made her free from sin.

I hope that you are aware that we are sanctified by the blood of The Lamb!

Think about this, the very same blood that flowed through the veins of Our Saviour actually flowed through her when she carried Him in her womb.

I hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding on the matter.

Your servant in Christ.