Did Mary need a savior?

[CarlaOLS]

I found this for our discussion.

"Highly Favored " or "Full of Grace "? from:
catholicapologetics.net/grace.htm

“And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, FULL OF GRACE, the LORD IS WITH THEE…”(Luke 1:28)

The Annotation for Luke 1:28 in the 1582 Catholic Rheims Translation of the Bible in to English says:

" 28 Full of grace) Note the excellence prerogatives of our B. Lady, and abhor those Heretics which make her no better than other vulgar woman, and therefor to take from her fullness of grace, they say here, Hail freely beloved, contraire to all significations of the Greek word, which is at the left, endued with Grace, as S. Paul useth it Eph. I. by S. Chrysostoms interpretation : or rather Full of grace, as-both* Greek and Latin fathers have always here understood it, and the Latin’s also read it, namely S. Ambrose thus, Well is she only called full of grace, who only obtained grace which no other woman deserved, to be replenished with the author of grace. And if they did as well know the nature of these Greek words, as they would seem very skillful, they might easily observe that they signify fullness, as when them selves translate the like word (Luc. 16,20) full of force. Beza, Ulcerous." . (The Annotations for Luke Chapter I, of the 1582 Rheims New Testament .)

The translation “Full of Grace” instead of “Highly Favored” or “freely beloved” is far more accurate to the Greek. The Ancient Syriac, Arabic and Latin versions bare the truth of this out. The translation “Full of Grace” was also approved by the early Christian fathers.
This Scan is from Gorge M. Lamsa’s translation of the ancient Eastern Aramaic Version of the Scriptures called the “Peshitta” . As we can see third century Aramaic supports “Full of Grace” as the correct meaning of the passage.

St. Luke wrote kecharitomene [a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo]. In secular Greek charis meant charm, that which attracts favor. It was used to translate Old Testament Hebrew hen which first meant a favorable attitude of God to us, then the expression of that favor, then what He gives as a result of that favor. namely hokmah or beraka, wisdom or blessing. (Oo verbs means to put someone in the state expressed by the root, which here is charis. ) The word was not used broadly like NT charis which came to mean any gift from God to us. The net result was that charis could mean either favor or grace.

But now, a thing often overlooked: if God merely sat there and gave nothing but a smile, favor, then the human would do the good by his own power - which would be Pelagianism. So when we translate favor, we must keep this in mind, and usually would do better to translate grace. So then charitoo will mean to put into grace.
Luke 1:28 in the 1611 King James Version has in the Margin notes “Much Graced” This Scan is taken from the Thomas Nelson reprint of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible.

Further, in English we may use a noun to mark a person as the ultimate in his class. Kecharitomene is used here as her personal name. So just as Mr. Tennis is the ultimate in the category of tennis. --therefore she would be “Miss Grace”, much the same as full of grace.

The early Church father St. Jerome [who the translators of the 1611 King James Version called " a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him,".(From the Translators’ Preface to the 1611 KJV)] translated “kecharitomene” as “gratiae plena” meaning 'full of grace which thou hast received" when creating The Vulgate. The Rheimes new Testament [1582] has “Full of Grace”. Many of the early Protestant versions also accepted “Grace” to be the proper translation.

Wyclif’s Version [1380] said “Full of Grace”
Tyndale’s Version [1534] said “Full of Grace”
Cranmer’s Version [1539] said “Full of Grace”
Geneva [1599] said in the Margin Notes "might be rendered, 'full of favour and grace, " ( The Link is to a Scan from a 1608 Printing of the Geneva Bible)
Authorized Version or KJV [1611] said in the Margin notes “Much Graced”
Polyglott Bible [1838] said in the Margin notes “or Much Graced”
Revised Version [1885] said in the Margin Notes: “Endowed with Grace”.
American Standard Version [1901] said in the Margin Notes: “or Endowed with Grace”.
Scofield Edition [1909, revised in 1914] said in the Margin Notes “or Endued with Grace”
New Standard Reference Bible [1934] said in the Margin notes “Much Graced”
The Amplified [1958] in the verse (In brackets) “endowed with grace” with a foot note that says “literal translation.”

…

It is certain that kecharitomene is directly concerned with the idea of “grace,” since, as Vine noted, it is derived from the root word charis, whose literal meaning is "grace. The word “Charis” is translated by the King James Version, for example, 129 times (out of 150 total appearances) as “grace”.

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass & DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, p.166; Smyth, H.W., Greek Grammar, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1968, sec. 1852:b. )

We also have the another Protestant Greek scholar John Nolland, who expounds the Greek word “kecharitomene” as found in Luke 1:28 as follows:
“Luke 1:28…kecharitomene is a quite rare Hellanistic verb (only found elsewhere in the NT at Eph. 1:6 in the active) Etymologically it should mean 'To be furnished with Grace” (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 35A, Pg 50, Nelson, 1989 )

Thus, in just this one verse, pregnant with meaning and far-reaching implications, the uniqueness of Mary is strongly indicated, and the Immaculate Conception can rightly be deemed entirely consistent with the meaning of this passage.

mx3, so what do you think?

 

[CarlaOLS]

I’ve never heard of a virgin who caused herself to become pregnant. That would be a neat trick- and it’s one that Mary was totally incapable of performing. Mary did birth Jesus, but she did not cause this to happen. The Holy Spirit did. Does that make a little bit of sense?

mx3, He is not saying that Mary caused herself to become pregnant, but that her fiat was needed in a sense before God would act. Her cooperation was essential to God’s plan. He respected her will. Most theologians see the angel Gabriel asking for her permission, if you will.

This is a hard mystery to digest for us proud humans, as it was for Satan when he learned the way in which God intended to save mankind. For salvation would come through human flesh. Satan’s pride was and still is his downfall, which of course cannot change, for his NO as an angelic being was as perfect as Mary’s YES.

When I contemplate God’s reasons for bringing Jesus into the world through Mary, his “lowly servant,” I see a layer of the mystery unfolding in the subjugation of man’s pride. In fact the higher He raises Mary before men, the more it insults their pride. She is lowly, a woman and wholly human. Jesus was fully human through her flesh, but also fully Divine through the Holy Spirit.

Her fiat is our perfect example, our YES must also be given to God’'s plan in our lives. She is truly our mother, just as God planned. And just as Jesus came into the world through her in history as a man, He comes to us through her in our lives. It pleases God that it be so as it humbles mankind.

BTW, I do not think you a heretic. Not at all. I believe you may feel our debate will enlighten your Catholic brethren as to the error of their ways by making them ‘apologize’ or defend their beliefs. But sweet mx3, it is a debate much older than yourself and your church, and one in which the Catholic Church has never wavered or hesitated to defend in full.

I hope you will be open if by some chance you begin to see light in the teachings we propose.

Come Holy Spirit, guide our ecumenical efforts with your gifts. We ask this in Jesus name. Amen

 

[jean8]

mx3, so what do you think?

carla,
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I certainly do believe Mary was Highly Favored. She was the mother of our Savior, god with us. Mt.1:23
I do not accept the teaching that she was immaculately conceived.
I do believe that Jesus was , however.
Please read Mary’s Song found in Lu.1:46-56

God bless,
jean

 

[CarlaOLS]

carla,
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I certainly do believe Mary was Highly Favored. She was the mother of our Savior, god with us. Mt.1:23
I do not accept the teaching that she was immaculately conceived.
I do believe that Jesus was , however.
Please read Mary’s Song found in Lu.1:46-56

God bless,
jean

Jean Hi
Would it surprise you to know I have it memorized as we Catholics who pray the Divine Office recite the Magnificat every day at Evening prayer.

Let me ask you this What do you think Our Lord meant when He answered the woman who called out that “Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breasts that nursed thee.” When Jesus answered, “Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.”

Here Jesus is telling us that His Blessed Mother was not blessed by bearing Him, but rather because of her total surrender and obedience to God’s Word. She was not "favored,’ (a word, which as we see from the above information is not really an accurate translation), because of her being chosen to be the Mother of God, rather she was chosen to be the Mother of God because she was full of grace.

Now, she was “full of grace” from birth and was privlidged to be spared original sin, but she also cooperated fully with her own will in that perfect obedience to God. Her Yes was for all time. Think of all sin as a “no” to God’s will, and her yes the opposite.

**O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you! **

Notice we do not ask Mary to have mercy on us. Only God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit can have mercy on us and forgive us our sins. We simply ask His mother (and ours as Jesus gave her to us as He hung upon the cross - “Behold your Mother.”) to pray for us, to intercede for us, something I’m sure you do often with family and friends when you ask them to pray for you.

I hope that helps you understand us better.
Peace

 

[mmmcounts]

mx3, so what do you think?

Thanks for asking. I shall tell you.

First, I think you need to know something about the words χαρις and χαριτοω. They share the same root, but one is a noun while the other is a verb, and there is not exactly a one-to-one correspondence between their meanings. These links should help.

strongsnumbers.com/greek/5485.htm
strongsnumbers.com/greek/5487.htm

Also note that the verb χαριτοω is used only one other time in the Bible. This is the link pertaining to it.
concordance.biblos.com/echarito_sen.htm

That is how the translation of χαριτοω is done. Any questions?

Moving right along…

mx3, He is not saying that Mary caused herself to become pregnant, but that her fiat was needed in a sense before God would act. Her cooperation was essential to God’s plan. He respected her will. Most theologians see the angel Gabriel asking for her permission, if you will.

My perspective is perhaps a bit different from yours. God knew He was going to choose someone from the line of David. The “favored one” wound up being Mary. If she hadn’t been willing to do it, God would have used someone else from the direct line of David. But God knew Mary would be willing to go with the program, so God used her. This was the first time Mary heard what the plan would be, but God knew it well in advance. I know you didn’t mean to come across this way, but what I perceived in this line of thought was something approaching an implication of open theism. Also, I’d like to see which theologians think Gabriel is asking her permission. If you find anything, though, make sure you also post some links to counter-arguments. Give both sides.

BTW, I do not think you a heretic. Not at all.

Thanks. Since you mentioned it, though, I would like to push a little further with that.

I was hanging out with some friends last night. A couple of them are Protestants and a couple of them are Catholics who we haven’t seen in awhile- they moved out of state, but now they’re visiting for the weekend. We talked about church involvement briefly, and one of the Catholic individuals made this comment about our continued involvement at our church: “Hey, that’s cool. Do your thing; whatever works for you, man. Whatever works for you.”

Just a quick note before I continue: We never really talk about our religious differences with each other. It doesn’t come up. I am a Protestant who doesn’t mind one bit if they remain Catholic, and they are Catholics who (obviously) don’t mind if I remain Protestant. For the record, I don’t mind if any of you remain Catholic. I don’t exactly like it when people tell me I can be one of two things, though: Roman Catholic or heretic/heterodox. I don’t think that’s true, and it’d be nice if more Roman Catholics would say so. People I meet in real life tend to say this, but most of my real-life Catholic friends are cradle Catholics and quite nominal. People on this forum are a lot different. So I guess I’ll have to wait and see how this goes over.

Going back to my friend’s comment, though: “Whatever works for you.” That’s really just a starting point for me; I don’t entirely agree with it. I don’t want to be that relativistic. I would amend that comment in this way: “Whatever works.” I will contend that Protestantism works. Catholicism works, too. But as far as I’m concerned, the main thing I’m looking for is more Catholics who will say “Protestantism works.” I think this needs to happen in order for further ecumenical progress to be made in the Church as a whole. After exploring our differences more than I ever have before, I’ve concluded that this is the primary message I want to get across. The next step is figuring out how I can best deliver and support it.

Now, when you say “I don’t think you’re a heretic. Not at all,” this seems to imply that you are a Catholic who would be willing to say “Protestantism works.” I don’t really know how you could simultaneously believe “Protestants are not heretics” yet also believe “Protestantism does not work.” Maybe some people do that, though. I’d be open to an explanation if that’s the case.

Any thoughts?

I believe you may feel our debate will enlighten your Catholic brethren as to the error of their ways by making them ‘apologize’ or defend their beliefs.

Oh, you should always be working at that. Know why you believe what you believe. It’s a mantra I’ve been hearing my whole life- nearly as often as you’ve been hearing the words “Ave Maria.” Good old Latin Vulgate…

speaking of which…

 

[mmmcounts]

speaking of which…

It’s interesting that you should be focusing on the earliest translations of the Bible. For example…

Greek and Latin fathers have always here understood it, and the Latin’s also read it, namely S. Ambrose thus (as of 1582)…
The Ancient Syriac, Arabic and Latin versions bare the truth of this out. The translation “Full of Grace” was also approved by the early Christian fathers…
third century Aramaic supports “Full of Grace” as the correct meaning of the passage…
Many of the early Protestant versions also accepted “Grace” to be the proper translation.

I say this is interesting because Jerome went through this same sort of thing when he was translating the Vulgate. The Septuagint was taken very seriously ever since its codification. There was even a myth about seventy translators working independently, and all of them came up with the same exact word-for-word translation of the Old Testament into Greek. (This is why you sometimes see the numeral LXX in place of the word “Septuagint”). Many people felt that the Septuagint was every bit as divinely inspired as the Bible itself- literally a divinely inspired translation. Augustine certainly felt this way, and he advised Jerome against changing things. He felt that Jerome should translate the Greek of the LXX into Latin instead of using the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. Most people felt this way at the time. I don’t know how seriously he took the myth of the seventy translators, but he certainly did not want anything from the LXX to be changed.

It seems like there is an endless supply of little ironies in this whole situation. First, it should be noted that there certainly were translation errors in the Septuagint- both the subtle kind where one word works slightly better than another, as well as overt errors where an entirely wrong word was chosen. One of my favorite recurring Greek jokes is this: “All 70 translators made that same mistake. What are the odds?” Anyway, as it turned out, Jerome was a better translator of Greek than he was of Hebrew, so the New Testament turned out pretty nicely in the Vulgate. Not perfectly, but Jerome did very well- especially as he had no help from anyone else. The Old Testament proved to be more of a challenge for several reasons: He was working with manuscripts that did not include breathing marks (thus, Moses was “horned” as he came down from Saini), there is far more poetry in the OT than the NT (and that’s much more difficult to translate), and finally, Jerome just wasn’t as good with Hebrew as he was with Greek. The cumulative irony of it all is that the OT in the Vulgate may not be any better than the Septuagint translation. The other irony is that the Septuagint was once regarded by many as the divinely inspired translation, thus casting the entire premise of the Vulgate in some doubt- but once that passed, the Vulgate (and its English clone, the Douay-Rheims) took on a roughly similar role among many Christians.

It’s understandable for people to get attached to older translations and resist any kind of change to them (just look at the KJV-only people). I realize you don’t really think the Vulgate is a divinely inspired translation, but you do seem a bit resistant to any ideas of changing material found in older translations. You certainly seem to think the earlier translations carry more weight than the later ones. That is why you quoted all the early ones, right? Know this, though: There was a time when the Vulgate was the new translation, and people were resistant to Jerome using the Hebrew text instead of the Septuagint. The NAB and New Jerusalem Bible are no different- they are more recent translations based on the closest thing we have to autographs of Scripture (to a certain extent, anyway…at least for the New Jerusalem Bible), and they differ from intermediate translations if the intermediate translation happens to be less than ideal in certain places.

This is the situation of the Catholic translations right now: The oldest approved translation says “Hail Mary, full of grace.” You have gotten very attached to that translation. There’s an old Latin hymn based on it, and you really like it. You don’t want that to change. It already has changed, though. The NAB and the New Jerusalem Bible have both dropped the phrase “full of grace,” and they do this in spite of the bias you would expect from Catholic translators in this case. These translations look like this because the translators determined that the phrase “full of grace” was not the best translation of κεχαριτωμένη, so they changed it to what they (and virtually every other modern translator) determined was the best translation. So that’s what we have right now. Provided that a more modern translation is very well done and of pretty high quality (which I won’t say for the NAB, but perhaps will for the New Jerusalem Bible), the more modern translation should be favored ahead of the less modern translation. If the more modern translation is a good one, the changes it makes will be for the better.

Thus, in just this one verse, pregnant with meaning and far-reaching implications, the uniqueness of Mary is strongly indicated, and the Immaculate Conception can rightly be deemed entirely consistent with the meaning of this passage.

It’s probably not a good idea for you to continue this line of argument. It is not possible to prove the Immaculate Conception from the Gospel of Luke. I would imagine this might help you feel a bit more at ease with it, but it’s not possible for you to use the Gospel of Luke to convince a Protestant that Mary was sinless. I know it, you should know it, and Randy’s thrown it out there once already. Most Catholics are well aware of this fact before going into such a discussion. You can do yourself a favor by making a mental note of that for the next time you do something like this.

 

[CarlaOLS]

…
Now, when you say “I don’t think you’re a heretic. Not at all,” this seems to imply that you are a Catholic who would be willing to say “Protestantism works.” I don’t really know how you could simultaneously believe “Protestants are not heretics” yet also believe “Protestantism does not work.” Maybe some people do that, though. I’d be open to an explanation if that’s the case.

Any thoughts?

Here’s a start:

*DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

INTRODUCTION

1. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called “ecumenical.” Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God’s Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.

The Sacred Council gladly notes all this. It has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call.*

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your current Pope disagrees. With reference to heresy, he says this “cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian” (The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, 87-88).

As always, if I am in error, I will bow to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.

How’s that whole brotherhood thing going with you, anyway? Do you think you can call Protestants by the name “heretic” and “brother” at the same time?

Absolutely. You might disagree with someone in your own family, but that does not mean that he is not your brother. But tell me, Mike…if we Catholics are YOUR brothers, then why are you spending so much time in this forum trying to convince us that we are wrong? Are WE heretics because we believe the four Marian dogmas?

I think you’re failing to see the distinction between sola scriptura and nuda scriptura.

Then by all means, clarify this for us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We accept everything from Scripture, and we will accept anything else whose veracity can be adequately demonstrated. “Because I said so” does not qualify. There is some room for probabilistic assent, as well- ie., “That’s probably true. Wouldn’t stake my faith on it, but the evidence is pretty compelling.”

News flash: Neither do we. I am well aware of the fact that the concept of Divine Grace appears nowhere in the Bible. I have invited you to enlighten me as to why you believe what you believe, starting with a primary source. If you had a believable primary source who could verify these claims, that’d be totally cool. If a primary source like this existed apart from the Bible, I probably wouldn’t put the full measure of my faith in this story, but I’d give it some probabilistic assent as appropriate. In this case, though, there is no primary source.

Let me give you a quick example of how this would look in another situation. There’s this story about Peter being crucified upside down. The list of sources includes some rather untrustworthy documents, but there is quite a bit of legitimate evidence indicating that some of the more important details of those stories are historically accurate. Because of this evidence, I’m quite willing to say Peter was crucified upside down. I reserve the right to be unsure of the heretofore unsubstantiated details aside from the verifiable ones, but as far as the evidence verifies them, I have no problem assenting to them.

I’m being selective based on the source. The Bible is reliable. The Gospel of James is not. These are facts. It has nothing to do with doctrinal presuppositions. If you had a reliable source confirming the Immaculate Conception, I would have no problem accepting it.

Any other questions?

This is an interesting admission. Unless I have misunderstood, in the section I have quoted in red text, you seem to be saying that because of the historical accuracy of some other aspects of these writings, you are willing to assent to the possibility that Peter was crucified upside down.

Shouldn’t this same principle be at work with regard to Catholicism in general?

After all, the Church has gotten so much right (I say 100%) over the past 2,000 years that it seems only prudent for you to give her the benefit of the doubt when she declares a thing to be true - even when you cannot understand them.

But that is not what you do. Your position typically seems to be “I don’t understand how this can be true…it doesn’t make any sense to me. Therefore, I must be right and the Catholic Church must be wrong.” You accept the crucifixion of Peter on the authority of extra-biblical evidence but reject the Perpetual Virginity of Mary despite the authority of extra-biblical evidence. I think you would benefit from reading Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. He was one of the greatest minds of the 19th century…you should find him to be someone to challenge your intellect. It’s online free here: newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

Perhaps given your short time upon this earth, you might consider that some of the most brilliant minds in history have been grappling with these issues for two millennia. Maybe the Church knows just a bit more than you at this point.

 

[CarlaOLS]

Thanks for asking. I shall tell you.

First, I think you need to know something about the words χαρις and χαριτοω. They share the same root, but one is a noun while the other is a verb, and there is not exactly a one-to-one correspondence between their meanings.
Also note that the verb χαριτοω is used only one other time in the Bible.
That is how the translation of χαριτοω is done. Any questions?

It’s not as black and white as you would have us believe:

Of the form of the greeting, Lenski notes that the use of the word “Hail” (chairo, χαιρε), is in itself unremarkable. “[Chaire], the present imperative, is the common form of greeting in the Greek. No person now greets another, either on arriving or on leaving, by saying, ‘Hail!’ yet this translation persists. Perhaps the translation, ‘Greetings!’ will do as well as any; in the Aramaic it must have been the common wish: ‘Peace to you!’” (Lenski 1946, 62). However, what Lenski fails to appreciate is that the word does not stand alone, but is part of a peculiar phrase in Greek: χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη. Moreover, Lenski fails to place this phrase in its scriptural context.

The manner in which the angel addresses Mary offers a challenge to the translator, for the word kecharitomene is particularly difficult to translate. (Manelli 2005, 162) The word kecharitomene, by which Gabriel addresses Mary, is variously translated as “highly favoured”, “favored by the Lord”, “favoured one”, or “full of grace”. Even the casual observer must realize these different ways of translating the word in question have different meanings, and therefore it seems that none of these translations is entirely satisfactory.

Cueppens writes: “The Greek verb charitaô in the active sense means ‘to enrich with grace’; in the passive sense, it means ‘to be enriched with grace’; in the sense of the perfect passive participle, it means ‘to be enriched with grace in a firm and stable way’”. (Manelli 2005, 163) Lenski similarly comments: “[kecharitomene]…has the strongest connotation of the present: ‘having been favored and as a result still being in this blessed condition.’ The root in the verb is [charis], grace, the unmerited favor bestowed by God. The passive voice makes God the agent.” (Lenski 1946) Thus the angel Gabriel at a minimum greeted Mary as one who is highly favored of God, one who is compassed with favor, one who is honored with blessings—and in a firm and stable way remaining in this blessed condition, which we can call a state of grace.

The form of address is itself interesting. When looking at the individual words, the greeting seems wholly unremarkable. The greeting made by Gabriel to Mary is the same form as the “Hail, Caesar” used in the formal greeting and acclamation of the Roman emperor. In the New Testament, this form of address is used only of our Lord and of Mary. In Matt 26:49, Judas betrays Jesus and addresses him with “Hail, master”. In Matt 27:29, Mark 15:18, and John 19:3, the soldiers mock Jesus by saying: “Hail, King of the Jews”. And finally, in the Lukan birth narrative, Gabriel’s address to Mary: “Hail, full of grace”.

The careful reader will have noted that Gabriel did not address Mary by name (unlike, say, in the “Hail Mary”). In each of the passages mentioned above, the word “Hail” is followed by the title, making this the formal form of address. (The soldiers and Judas may have meant to mock or betray, but nonetheless their words were both a title and an accurate statement.) All this suggests the phrase “thou that art highly favoured” is in fact a title. In turn, this suggests the Douay version is more correct when it translates the greeting as “Hail, full of grace.” A greeting connected with a title is much more formal, indicating something of the status of the greeter vis-à-vis the person being greeted. This being the case, the idea that Gabriel spoke with Mary in such a respectful way indicates her elevated status, her importance place in the economy of God.

 

[CarlaOLS]

Continued:

Despite the indication of Mary’s status, nothing in this passage suggests the possibility that Gabriel is saying Mary is the seal of divine graces and a bestower of grace. It is not possible to build an entire dogmatic system from this single statement. If this is the sole scriptural evidence, proper exegesis leads us to reject the proposition that Mary is the bestower of grace, for the angel Gabriel once again speaks to Mary, saying: “Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God” (Luke 1:30). This word ‘favor’ in the Greek is charis (χαρις), which is the root word for charitoo (χαριτοω), the perfect passive participle form of is used as part of Mary’s title in verse twenty eight. The Greek word charitoo (χαριτοω) is used only twice in Scripture; once of the Virgin Mary, and once of redeemed sinners. In Ephesians we read: “To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph 1:6). The word ‘accepted’ is the word echaritosen (εχαριτωσεν), the aorist active indicative form of charitoo (χαριτοω). The Douay version translates this as: “Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us, in his beloved son.” So although the root words may be the same, the form of those words is entirely different. In Eph 1:6 we see that we have been accepted, or graced, in His beloved Son. This is quite different from the way Mary is portrayed in Luke 1:28. We have been graced in His beloved son, while Mary has either been found either to be worthy or has been made worthy to be graced with His beloved Son. We are left with the fact that Mary is addressed by the title “Full of Grace”, and with all that implies regarding her character and place in the plan of God. Moreover, we cannot ignore the way the angel Gabriel seems to venerate Mary by using such a formal form of address. If the Blessed Virgin Mary is venerated by Gabriel, dare we do any less?

Despite all this, we still have not fully explored the context of Gabriel’s greeting. Ratzinger provides the following literal translation: “Rejoice, full of grace. The Lord is with you.” While this construction is similar to the “formulaic greeting current in the Greek-speaking world”, it takes on greater import when placed in its scriptural context. Ratzinger compares Gabriel’s greeting with certain Old Testament statements which have the same construction in the Septuagint: Zeph 3:14; Joel 2:21; Zech 9:9; and Lam 4:21. Of these passages, Ratzinger draws our attention in particular to Zephaniah, as representative of them all. (Ratzinger 2005, 64) The import of the passage only becomes clear when we examine it in its context.

Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the LORD, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more. In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack. The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing. I will gather them that are sorrowful for the solemn assembly, who are of thee, to whom the reproach of it was a burden. Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame. At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you: for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the LORD (Zep 3:14-20).

 

[CarlaOLS]

and completed

This passage opens with the rather joyous: “Sing, O daughter of Zion”, which is remarkably similar in construction to Gabriel’s greeting: “Hail, thou that art highly favoured”. The LORD has taken away the judgements of the daughter of Jerusalem; He has cast out the enemy. Because the LORD is in the midst of her, she shall no longer see evil. The LORD is in the midst of her, rejoicing over her, loving her, singing her praises. This passage is clearly messianic; is it any wonder that the angel Gabriel greets this daughter of Jerusalem with rejoicing?

In order to grasp the sense of this announcement, we must return once more to the Old Testament texts upon which it is based, in particular to Zephaniah. These texts invariably contain a double promise to the personification of Israel, daughter Zion: God will come to save, and he will come to dwell in her. The angel’s dialogue with Mary reprises this promise and in so doing makes it concrete in two ways. What in the prophecy is said to daughter Zion is now directed to Mary: She is identified with daughter Zion, she is daughter Zion in person. In a parallel manner, Jesus, whom Mary is permitted to bear, is identified with Yahweh, the living God. He is the Savior—this is the meaning of the name Jesus, which thus becomes clear from the heart of the promise. (Ratzinger 2005, 65)

This greeting marks the beginning the Gospel in the strict sense; its first word is ‘joy’, the new joy that comes from God and breaks through the world’s ancient and interminable sadness. Mary is not merely greeted in some vague or indifferent way; that God greets her and, in her, greets expectant Israel and all of humanity is an invitation to rejoice from the innermost depth of our being. (Ratzinger 2005, 64)

The astute reader will notice that Ratzinger draws a connection between Mary and the daughter of Zion spoken of in the Old Testament. She is the personification of Israel; she is Israel in a person. This is a startling claim, one requiring further exploration. The Old Testament uses the phrase “daughter of Zion” twenty six times, and “daughter of Jerusalem” seven times. It is clear that these are parallelisms, that these phrases are simply different ways of referring to the same thing. For example, the Zepheniah passage quoted above uses three parallels: “Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem.” In this passage, the daughter of Zion is the daughter of Jerusalem, and both of these are identified with Israel. Israel is often spoken of as a woman. In Jeremiah 3:14 she is the wife of the Lord; in Jeremiah 3:20 she is an adulterous wife; and in Jeremiah 4:30 Israel is a despoiled woman, deserted by her lovers.

Jeremiah uses a great deal of spousal imagery to lay out God’s case against his people. However, Jeremiah sees Israel, the daughter of Zion, as being connected with the redemptive plan of God. Immediately after a verse in which we see Israel as a despoiled wife, deserted of her lovers, the prophet hears “a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers” (Jer 4:31). This remarkable verse not only is applicable to Jeremiah’s time, but by being expanded upon by the apostle John takes on a greater significance: “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered” (Rev 12:1-2). The woman of Revelations 12 is the Virgin Mary, who “brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne” (Rev 12:5). Thus the daughter of Zion stands in for the Virgin Mary. Mary is Israel in person and as a person; she is the concretization of Israel. (J. C. Ratzinger 2005, 30)

Peace triple m

 

[mmmcounts]

As always, if I am in error, I will bow to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.

I should probably clarify a couple of things. You know all about the levels of papal authority, and this isn’t a decree or anything. Nor was it written when he was Pope. However, he did publish it, so I’m pretty sure he meant it.

This is a different sort of posturing by a Pope toward Protestants. It does follow in the footsteps of Pope John Paul II, but it sharply contrasts with a variety of earlier popes. Rome is moving in a new direction. The question is…where?

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger was clear enough about one thing: He doesn’t think Catholics are right in calling Protestants heretics. He does not come to a decision on just what you should call us, though. It is summed up nicely in this statement:

“Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

This is a unique opportunity for you, Randy: You get to form an opinion for yourself. Where would you like to see the uppermost leadership in Rome go with this? I’m sure you will bow to his/their authority when the time comes, but for now, this is something that has yet to be determined. Are you comfortable with thinking about this? I know it’s a little different for you. You can’t rely on past decisions for this one, as the very nature of it is some kind of movement in a new direction. The future will, in some ways, be different from the past. What would you like to see in the future? What do you think is the right way to go here?

But tell me, Mike…if we Catholics are YOUR brothers, then why are you spending so much time in this forum trying to convince us that we are wrong? Are WE heretics because we believe the four Marian dogmas?

In order to demonstrate that it is reasonable to disagree with some aspects of Catholicism, and that such differences- even to the point of being non-Catholic in the Roman sense- do not make me any less a part of Christ’s Church. Christ’s Church is just that- Christ’s Church. It’s not the Church of Rome or the Church of the Pope- you’re just one part of it. The sole leader and head of Christ’s Church is Christ Himself, and He is the only one who can rightly require my allegiance. Your thing with the Pope is optional, and I won’t use it as a reason for disallowing your presence in Christ’s Kingdom. I won’t let you tell me it’s a requirement, though, on the grounds that Christ alone was crucified for me. Not Peter. Not Mary. Not any pope ever. Only Christ. (1 Corinthians 1).

Then by all means, clarify this for us. (Sola vs. Nuda)

You were once a Protestant. I thought you of all people would know what Sola Scriptura was. This is causing me to think you were sort of a nominal Protestant. Oh well, here goes.

Sola Scriptura- demands that no doctrine be admitted which is not found directly or logically within Scripture (logically- ie. the Trinity). SS does not imply that a person may read nothing but the Bible. It does not imply that all commentaries are evil. It does state that all other authority must be subordinate to and corrected by the Bible, which basically means nothing can contradict the Bible and be taken seriously. And here is one more statement for you to hang onto: While the Bible does not contain all knowledge, it does contain that which is necessary for salvation. Sola Scriptura readily recognizes the fact that the Bible does not contain all knowledge, and that is the primary misunderstanding that you appear to be having.

Nuda Scriptura, aka Solo Scriptura- implies an “undressing” of the Bible, in the sense that the reader sets aside tradition and any other intermediate influence that would hinder a pure understanding of what’s there. This kind of mindset is rather common in the Emergent Church Movement, where the goal in understanding the Bible is twofold: In part one, you attempt to understand the Bible from the standpoint of Jesus’ contemporaries, and in part two, you skip over everything between “then” and “now” in order to make an interpretation directly from “that” to “this.” The argument from this perspective is that by doing this, we do the same thing with interpretation that we already do with translation. For example, instead of translating the Bible into Latin, the Latin into Italian, the Italian into French, and then the French into English, we translate the Hebrew and Greek directly into English. Likewise, instead of making interpretation after interpretation where each one is based on the previous ones, the advocate of this Nuda Scriptura mindset wants to set aside all of the intermediate interpretations and go directly from the first century to the 21st century. Put in other terms, we should go straight from premodern thought to postmodern thought, and if it’s a little different from the stuff in between, that’s ok.

I think you know as well as I do that Protestants do no such thing in practicing Sola Scriptura. If you spend enough time with material presented by Rob Bell, on the other hand, you will run into quite a bit of it.

 

[mmmcounts]

This is an interesting admission. Unless I have misunderstood, in the section I have quoted in red text, you seem to be saying that because of the historical accuracy of some other aspects of these writings, you are willing to assent to the possibility that Peter was crucified upside down.

Sometimes the important elements of these kinds of stories are accurate, and this can be demonstrated. Other times, these elements are accurate, but it can’t be demonstrated. Other stories are inaccurate and this can be demonstrated, and then there are stories whose main details are inaccurate but it can’t be demonstrated.

This is regular history stuff.

Shouldn’t this same principle be at work with regard to Catholicism in general?

This evaluation of questionable documents is a rather specific kind of animal where you deal with questions of historical accuracy. Catholicism as a whole is like the entire animal kingdom. Does that make sense?

Your position typically seems to be “I don’t understand how this can be true…it doesn’t make any sense to me. Therefore, I must be right and the Catholic Church must be wrong.”

I don’t mean to do this. If I use recurring phrases that tend to imply such a thing, let me know what they are and I will try harder to say what I mean.

You accept the crucifixion of Peter on the authority of extra-biblical evidence but reject the Perpetual Virginity of Mary despite the authority of extra-biblical evidence.

I don’t accept the crucifixion of Peter solely on the authority of this particular type of extra-biblical evidence. If that were the case, it would strongly imply that I would accept any other story based on equally weak grounds. However, I do acknowledge that weak historical evidence can sometimes be correct, and in this case, weak evidence was corroborated by evidence that was quite strong.

The historical evidence for the PVoM continues to be quite weak. Additionally, this story differs from Peter’s in one particularly important way. Peter actually died in or around the area of Rome. Contemporary witnesses to the event were the first link in the chain of stories about it. It was passed on primarily within that same general area, and the story always went back to those first links- now nameless and faceless- who were actually witnesses of the event.

Mary’s situation is different. Mary was not born in or around the area of Rome. The first “link in the chain” for her story appears to be removed from the alleged event by at least three generations and 12 or 13 hundred miles. In other words, the individuals from Southern Europe who first told the story of Mary’s immaculate conception and sinless life are people who never knew her, probably didn’t know anyone who knew her, and appear to have made up the story on their own. The only way someone could be a contemporary witness of the Immaculate Conception is if God communicated this fact to someone directly. No one has ever claimed to be such a witness, nor has anyone claimed to have heard anything from such a person.

Given the lack of a viable contemporary witness, the truth of the matter is this: Some people in Southern Europe decided Mary must have been sinless, and the story of the Immaculate Conception was something they made up in order to explain how it happened. The fact that Europeans made the story up does not make it any less of a made-up story.

 

[Ignatius33]

Hi mmmcounts,

As a former Evangelical Protestant, I too struggled with this RC belief, which I eventually came to accept as the truth. In a discussion on another thread with an Evangelical, mainly about the development of doctrine (which Catholics regard as an ever-deepening understanding of the original deposit of faith by the Church, not “new” revelation), the topic of the Immaculate Conception kept coming up. Since I’m too lazy to rewrite or paraphrase what I wrote there, I’m just going to cut and paste a relevant portion of the discussion, for your consideration…

I’d like to return to the topic of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, if you’re still interested. You still seem to think that the RC Church dangerously relies on Church Father (CF) outliers in holding to this doctrine (though I have to disagree with the characterization of St. Augustine as an outlier or “penumbra”). Using the sentence token vs proposition framework, I’d like to try to make the case (albeit, an abridged one) for the RC position that the Immaculate Conception is formally implicit in the deposit of faith.

First, there are a number of sentence tokens, in both Scripture and Tradition, that potentially bear on the Immaculate Conception:

1. Mary was the “New Eve” (Apostolic Tradition)
2. Mary was “all holy” (Apostolic Tradition)
3. Mary was “full of grace” (Lk. 1:28)
4. Enmity between Satan and “the woman,” i.e., Mary (Gn. 3:15; Jn. 19:26-27; Rev. 12)
5. Mary would be “pierced by a sword” (Lk. 2:35)
6. Mary rejoiced in “God her savior” (Lk. 1:46)
7. “All have sinned” (Rom. 3:23)
8. Death came to “all” through Adam, “inasmuch as all sinned” (Rom. 5:12)

Second, some CFs wrote, as propositional matter, that Mary sinned at least once:

1. Origen attributed the sin of doubt to Mary. Most of the Eastern fathers who denied Mary’s sinlessness are indebted to Origen, and often follow him uncritically in this opinion.
2. St. Basil followed Origen in this opinion.
3. Ditto for St. Gregory of Nyssa.
4. Ditto for St. Cyril of Alexandria.
5. St. John Chrysostom, perhaps independently of the aforementioned four CFs, interprets the scene at the wedding feast of Cana as an instance where Jesus rebukes his mother for the sin of vainglory.

On the other hand, a number of CFs maintained (or at least intimated) the proposition that Mary was sinless. To name a few:

1. St. Hippolytus referred to Mary as the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption.
2. St. Ephraim sang: “You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others; for there is no blemish in you, nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (The Nisibene Hymns [ca. 361 AD]) and further described Mary as “most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (Precationes ad Deiparam).
3. St. Athanasius: “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 [Ark of the New] 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. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them . . . If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you” (quoted in L. Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church [1999]).
4. St. Ambrose: “Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118 [inter 387-388 AD]).
5. 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 honor 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” (On Nature and Grace 42 [415 AD]).

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

Clearly, there was not a unanimous opinion among the CFs on Mary’s sinlessness. But as a matter of logic and common sense, one side must be right and the other wrong, despite the lack of unanimity. Either she was sinless (as maintained by some CFs) or she wasn’t (as suggested by others). Neither side can point to a “consensus view” to decide the issue (and, unsurprisingly, many CFs didn’t address the question one way or the other at all). Do you see my point here? Deniers of Mary’s sinlessness, relying on Tradition, have no unanimity to support their position. Mary’s “sinfulness” is not a unanimous opinion of the CFs (far from it), nor does the Bible contain a verse explicitly stating that “Mary sinned.” In other words, the notion that Mary sinned also fails a wooden application of Vincent’s famous maxim, if that maxim is taken too literally and is not balanced with his explicit acknowledgement that doctrine does in fact develop through the Church’s ever-deepening understanding of divine revelation (Notebooks 54 "But perhaps someone is saying: ‘Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?’ Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself; by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion”]). People who rely on conflicts between CFs on a given point employ a double standard in their reasoning (Protestant apologists, in particular, seem to do this, even using this “conflict methodology” to dismiss such a core belief of the CFs as the Real Presence in the Eucharist – a conclusion both RCs and EOs would agree is absolutely ludicrous).

Yet, over the centuries, culminating in Duns Scotus’ “anticipatory redemption” breakthrough realization in the Middle Ages (meaning that someone can be redeemed if, by a special act of God, that person is preserved from sinning altogether), the Church came to understand that Mary was sinless and that she was immaculately conceived (i.e., preserved from the stain of Original Sin in the first instance of her conception, meaning that God “saved” her through the Christ’s redemption in an anticipatory manner). Ultimately, the Church infallibly declared the Immaculate Conception to be de fide in 1854. In doing so, the Church decided, once and for all, which CFs were right (e.g., Ephraim, Augustine) and which were wrong (e.g., Origen, Chrysostom). Indeed, there is much in both Scripture and Tradition to support the Church’s realization; I can only briefly touch on three such items here:

1. The idea that Mary was the “New Eve” is undoubtedly an Apostolic Tradition, the analogy having been made by such early CFs as St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus (In fact, the Gospel of John itself hints that Mary was the New Eve by identifying Mary with “the woman” in Gen. 3:15 – see Jn. 2:5-11; Jn. 19:26-27; see also Rev. 12, suggesting that the Apostle John himself was most likely the source of this Apostolic Tradition). The title “New Eve” calls attention to Mary’s cooperation in our redemption. Now, this role as Second Eve in the history of our redemption would seem to fit awkwardly with the hypothesis that Mary was a sinner. How could she fulfill her lofty office of leading the opposition to the devil if she had been herself at one time a slave of the devil, a sinner? Furthermore, we know that the Second Adam, Jesus, was free from sin. By analogical extension, therefore, it is not unreasonable to think of Mary as enjoying this privilege as well. The Genesis text speaks of a mutual enmity between the devil and the Second Eve, an enmity which is shared by Christ, the “seed.” Obviously in the case of Christ the enmity is perfect, which it would not be if he had ever sinned. Couldn’t this same reasoning be applied to Mary? Finally, it would be unfitting if Second Eve, who as the antitype of the First Eve surpasses her in excellence, should herself have an origin that was less perfect than the First Eve. But Eve, from the first moment of her existence, was free from Original Sin, and so it seems reasonable to infer that Mary also would enjoy this privilege. Indeed, the Old Testament “types” are always surpassed by their New Testament fulfillments, meaning that while Eve later fell into sin, Mary didn’t.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. In accordance with Luke 1:28, where the Archangel Gabriel hails Mary as “full of grace,” Mary’s unparalleled level of sanctity, achieved by grace, is a constant theme in the writings of the CFs. Origen himself seemed to attribute a special sanctity to Mary in saying that even she must have had at least some fault for which Christ had atoned. Her title as the Panagia – the “all-holy one” – was widely accepted by the Eastern Church and was apparently acknowledged even by Origen. In a vision, St. Gregory the Wonderworker in the third century sees the Apostle John say to Mary that he wants to please her in all things because she is the one closest to his heart. Apparently, some Christians at this time were giving Mary a status even above the Beloved Disciple, John. The ancient Greek prayer, Sub tuum praesidium, calls Mary the one who is “alone pure and blessed.” St. Athanasius holds out Mary as a worthy example of holiness that Christians should consciously imitate, and says that Mary is greater than the cherubim and seraphim. St. Ephraim and St. Ambrose explicitly wrote that she was sinless. St. Epiphanius stated that Mary “remained stainless” and “never did any wrong as far as fleshly actions are concerned” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [377 AD]). St. Cyril of Jerusalem held Mary out as an example of chastity worthy of imitation. St. Gregory Nazianzen stated that Mary underwent a special purification by grace in preparation for her role in the Incarnation, a statement that, at least according to positive substance, anticipates the Immaculate Conception. St. Jerome repeatedly calls Mary “holy,” even going so far as to say she was so pure she merited the privilege of becoming the Mother of God. St. Augustine taught the same thing. St. Cyril of Alexandria remarked that Mary was a “venerable treasure of the whole world.” What is striking about all of this is that even those CFs who denied that Mary was sinless still give evidence of a Tradition exalting her for her unparalleled sanctity. She is a model of imitation, an exemplar of virtue, the all-holy one, stainless, pure, and greater than angels. These attributions are precisely what we would expect to find if the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness had been formally-implicitly revealed by the Apostles. We might say that while the notion of her unparalleled sanctity was realized, its import had not yet been fully grasped. Recall in this connection the words of St. Vincent: “Let posterity welcome . . . what antiquity venerated without understanding” (Notebooks 53).

On this point, it is simply false to suggest that the Latin Vulgate’s translation of Lk. 1:28 as “full of grace” was the historical cause of the medieval view that Mary was the distributor (mediatrix) of grace, a claim made by Protestant scholars like Alister McGrath. The idea that Mary mediated grace to the Christian faithful is ancient. Eastern Christians prayed to her at least in the 4th century and very possibly the 3rd, if we are to accept the 3rd century dating of the (Greek, not Latin) prayer, Sub tuum praesidium. Moreover, the theological articulation of the view that Mary was mediatrix of grace arose in the East (again, not the Latin West) after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. It is not clear who first applied the term “mediatrix” to Mary, but it is clear that it originated in the East; proposals include Ephraim, Romanos the Singer, Basile of Seleucia, Andrew of Crete or Germanus of Constantinople. Eventually, this Eastern theology made its way to the West, being popularized by men like Peter Damien and Bernard of Clairvaux. To suggest, then, that this view of Mary arose on the basis of the Latin Vulgate, which was not even used by the Eastern CFs, is wrong. It is a myth perpetuated by Protestant scholars with very little, if any, historical basis. The Vulgate had very little if anything to do with the “elevation” of Mary in the West.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. There is a parallel between Mary and the Church (and “the woman” in Genesis 3/Revelation 12 can be viewed as an image of both Mary and the Church; there is no need to introduce a false dichotomy in those passages, as if “the woman” could refer only to one to the exclusion of the other). For the CFs, the Church was constantly called a “mother” and “virgin” bride of Christ. It did not take long before this paradoxical state of virginal motherhood was linked to mariology, since Mary was another famous Virgin and Mother. St. Clement of Alexandria drew a parallel between the Virgin Mary and the Church, as if the two are associated closely in his mind (Paed. 1:6). Later, St. Ephraim would write: “We call the Church by the name of Mary, for she deserves a double name” (Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church pg. 115). St. Epiphanius also taught that Mary was a symbol of the Church. St. Gregory Nazianzen said that Mary was the temple of Christ, a statement that closely associates her with the Church (id. at 163). St. Ambrose went so far as to call Mary the type and image of the Church (id. at 198). It does seem that the Mary-Church parallel can be justified by typology alone, since Mary, as the Second Eve, is the “mother of all living” (Gen 3:20), and the CFs all teach that the Church is also our mother. Moreover, Mary contained the body of Christ within her womb, and the Church is the body of Christ – so in some sense we may say she is the mother of all Christians (Rev 12:17); she has given birth to us all in giving birth to Christ, just as the Church gives birth to us all. Why is this important? If in fact Mary is the image of the Church, then the way is paved for a typological argument in favor of her sinlessness. For the Church is called “holy” in all of the ancient creeds – “I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.” St. Paul himself had said that Christ will “present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). If Mary is, in the plan of God, the woman chosen to be the living and personal image of the Church, then she also might be expected to be “holy” and “without blemish” – which is precisely what the CFs do say of her. One therefore can justify the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness on the basis of the pattern and structure of Biblical ecclesiology as it applied to Mary.

So, why then did some of the CFs hold that Mary had in fact sinned? (the two specific sins I’ve seen mentioned are the sins of doubt and vainglory.) Let’s start with Origen. Initially, it’s important to note that although Origen sometimes explicitly bases doctrines on an oral Apostolic Tradition (he does so with infant baptism), he does not do so with respect to his view that Mary committed sin. Rather, Origen appears to have based his view on two things. First, it was an exegetical inference he made, especially from Luke 2:34-35, where it was prophesied that Mary would be “pierced by a sword.” For Origen, these words meant that Mary would doubt her son, and thus commit sin. While this reading is perhaps plausible, it is by no means the only interpretation (and is certainly not the consensus interpretation among the CFs). Second, as a theological point, Origen reasoned that Mary must have sinned because Jesus died for all humans, and Mary was a human, presupposing that a human could be redeemed only if he or she had in fact sinned. Duns Scotus adequately answered this charge in realizing that Mary could have been anticipatorily redeemed, preserving Christ’s universal redemption. We may therefore conclude that Origen erred in supposing that someone can be redeemed only if that person sinned. Origen cannot be faulted for not knowing about anticipatory redemption – how could he have foreseen a development that took hundreds of years to unfold? But once the nature of anticipatory redemption is understood, we immediately see the unsoundness of Origen’s argument against Marian sinlessness. If someone opposes Mary’s freedom from sin, then, they must do so on grounds other than those supplied by Origen. This conclusion is important because St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril of Alexandria explicitly based their doctrine on Origen. Thus, in one swoop, most of the patristic witnesses against Mary’s sinlessness are called into serious question.

Furthermore, while most CFs after Origen appealed to his argument, they did offer a few of their own. For instance, some of them appealed especially to a very low estimation of women to ground their assertion that Mary committed sin. CFs falling into this category would include St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom and possibly St. Cyril of Alexandria. In other words, these CFs attributed imperfections to Mary for no other reason than that she was a woman who, as such, participated in a “weak” nature that is incapable of moral perfection. It goes without saying that this view is out of harmony with modern sensibilities and Church teaching (and it should be noted that not all the CFs shared this view on women). Since I always like to bring up St. Thomas Aquinas, I’d just point out that he writes that Chrysostom “goes too far” when he said that Mary succumbed to human frailty in seeking vainglory; and although Aquinas did not formally endorse the Immaculate Conception as it was later defined by the Church in 1854 (he lived 600 years earlier and died before Duns Scotus), he did state that “she was sanctified in the womb” (Summa Theologica III, Q.27, Art. 1) and affirmed that she was “preserved from all actual sin” during her life (id. III, Q. 27, Art. 4).

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

The only other patristic arguments against Mary’s sinlessness are based on pure Scriptural exegesis. I’ll just address a couple of their misinterpretations of the Bible. First, we can easily dismiss the argument from Luke 1:46, where Mary calls God her “savior.” In calling God her savior (which He was), Mary in no way admits that she was a sinner. Second, although Paul writes that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23), he cannot literally mean every single person because Jesus, infants and the severely handicapped cannot sin. If there are exceptions to the rule, nothing prevents Mary from being such an exception.

At bottom, what’s clear is that the CFs who taught that Mary sinned did not ground this view on Apostolic Tradition. Rather, it was based on (1) the misplaced theological assumption that only sinners are capable of being redeemed; (2) a narrow view of the nature of women; and (3) private Scriptural exegesis.

 

[Liraco]

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger was clear enough about one thing: He doesn’t think Catholics are right in calling Protestants heretics. He does not come to a decision on just what you should call us, though.

We DO have a name for Protestants: brothers in Christ.

From Unitatis Redintegratio:
[In the centuries following the apostles] serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into those communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . [They] have been justified by faith in baptism and incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church (U.R. 3).

Shame that terms like “heretic” get thrown around so easily. Sometimes one acts before thinking and, more importantly, without love. A heretic would only be one who IS a Catholic who publicly dissents from the Church. In this case the only heretics would be the ones who initially split from the church, and I’m pretty sure you’re not that old.

Ignatius makes some very good points in my opinion (though I admit I skimmed a few parts cuz I’m in a hurry.) God bless.