Z
Zeldarocks
Guest
I’ve been doing some research into Gabriel’s greeting to Mary as “Hail”, so far, I’ve found that the underlying Greek is but a greeting, not necessarily denotive of royalty. What say you?
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I know of no one who has tried to teach me that it was. Where did you see anything like that and is it from an authentic and authoritative Catholic source?
Those two words are not the important point there, it is the next part. “full of grace”.
Here’s why. Mary: Full of Grace (Fathers*)
Immaculate Conception and Assumption
Z
Zeldarocks
Guest
I looked at the underlying Greek from a neutral source: strongsnumbers.com/greek/5463.htm
In Context: biblos.com/luke/1-28.htm
In Context: biblos.com/luke/1-28.htm
C
Church_Militant
Guest
kecharitōmenē is the key, and Strong’s is not a neutral source.
P
patrick457
Guest
Yep, chaire or chairete (the imperative form of chairo, ‘rejoice’) in secular Greek is very much a common greeting when meeting and leaving a person as well as the standard greeting for letters. But it could also be of course a greeting with more formal overtones: the soldiers mock Jesus with the words “chaire, Basileu tōn Ioudaiōn”. In that case, I don’t think it would be proper enough to translate that as “Hello, King of the Judeans” since the mockery is apparently based on the standard salutation for the Roman emperor, “Ave, Caesar” (‘Hail, Caesar’; ave is actually very much the same as the Greek chaire in usage, mind you):
And the soldiers, having woven a crown of thorns, placed it on His head, and a purple garment they put on Him, and said, “Hail, the king of the Judeans!” And they were giving Him slaps on the face.
But even if Gabriel was using chaire in the normal sense here, the key word in the greeting is kecharitōmenē, as Church Militant has already said.
Z
Zeldarocks
Guest
I’ve also heard it said that the term ‘blessed’ in respect to Mary, was used in a different context than it would be used in respect to Jesus; e.i. Mary is Fortunate, Jesus is to be Adored.
P
patrick457
Guest
Jesus is to be given all honor and worship He is due because He is God, yes. No one’s suggesting here that we should give adoration to Mary like we adore God.
Eulogēmenē su en gynaixin, kai eulogēmenos o karpos tēs koilias sou.
Mary is ‘blessed’ because she alone, among all the women that existed or is existing on the earth, is chosen to be the God-bearer, mother of God (not the Father obviously, but the Son). She’s not just ‘fortunate’ or ‘lucky’ as if she was some contestant in a roulette game: she is literally one favored, ‘graced’ by God to be chosen for the task.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Hail may be a common, pleasant greeting among humans but, as far as I can tell, it’s use by an angel to greet a human seems unique to Mary.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Mary is human and so the word “blessed” can only be used of her in the sense that she was a recipient of God’s blessings, or “Fortunate.” She is, of course, never to be adored.
Jesus Christ is both human and divine and so the word “blessed” can be used of him in two ways, in the sense that, as man, he was a recipient of God’s blessings and in the sense that, as God, he is the source of blessings and is to be adored.
In Luke 1:42, the word “blessed” is used in the same (recipient of God’s blessings or “Fortunate”) sense for both Jesus Christ (the fruit of Mary’s womb) and Mary.
P
panevino
Guest
I agree with u.
And I’d say it is a pretty formal setting when an angel arrives to tell the woman chosen by god that she is to be the mother of a king.
I
inkaneer
Guest
I think the unique part is that the angel does not address Mary by name but rather by a quality that she possesses, that being full of grace. In Luke chapter 1 the angel addressed Zechariah by name. By not addressing Mary by name it is almost as if the angel is acknowledging that there is something more important about Mary than her name. Then also important is that in verse 38 Mary calls herself the “handmaid of the Lord” The Greek word there is “doule” and it means a female slave or bondmaid. The idea is that Mary is the property of or belongs to the the Lord. Then in verse 43 when Mary visits Elizabeth, she is greeted with Elizabeth saying, “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Which echoes what King David said about the Arc of the Covenant in 2Samuel 6:9: “…How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?”
C
Cachonga
Guest
I have a few problems with this dogma. Specifically, the greek word kecharitōmenē has nothing to do with sinlessness. It was a greeting, and we see Mary “… was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.” (Luke 1:29 RSV emphasis mine). There were some ECF’s (specifically, Origen, Basil, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria) that taught that Mary suffered from venial faults (see Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, page 203). Dr. Ott also states (on page 200) “The doctrine of the Immaculate Cenception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture.”, and on page 202, under section 4 (Argument from Reason), he writes, “Reason bases the dogma on the Scholastic axiom, which is already found in the writngs of Eadmer; Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit (God could do it, He ought to do it, therefore He did it). This, it is true, gives no certainty, but still, it rationally establishes for the dogma a high degree of probability.” (BTW - Eadmer lived around the beginning of the 12th century.)
I would say that these arguments (especially the last one) disregards the Scriptures that make it clear that “… my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa 55:8-9 RSV). There is no question that God could have done it, but that he ought to have done it is an argument based on a strictly human perspective, which makes the conclusion (therefore He did it) highly suspect (especially since this argument wasn’t brought forth until well over 1,000 years after Mary had left this life). Furthermore, I seriously question a dogma that is based on “a high degree of probability”. If you demand that someone believe it, you should be able to provide solid evidence for the belief.
inkaneer:
I would say that these arguments (especially the last one) disregards the Scriptures that make it clear that “… my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa 55:8-9 RSV). There is no question that God could have done it, but that he ought to have done it is an argument based on a strictly human perspective, which makes the conclusion (therefore He did it) highly suspect (especially since this argument wasn’t brought forth until well over 1,000 years after Mary had left this life). Furthermore, I seriously question a dogma that is based on “a high degree of probability”. If you demand that someone believe it, you should be able to provide solid evidence for the belief.
There is a problem with this alleged parallel. Why did you leave out the first part of the verse? Why not show the context in which this statement is made? If you read the verses prior to verse 9, you will see that David was bringing the Ark up to Jerusalem, that it was being carried on a cart, and that Uzzah had reached out and touched the Ark when the oxen pulling the cart stummbled. God killed Uzzah for touching the Ark, which made David angry. Then verse 9 reads, ‘And David was afraid of the Lord that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”’ (RSV). Was Elizabeth afraid that Mary had come to see her? Did God kill someone for touching Mary before Elizabeth made her statement? If not, then how does the parallel work?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Ah, but there is a parallel, even in the relating of the unfortunate Uzzah.
You see, the 1st Ark of the Covenant was not to be put in contact by humans, just as the New Ark of the Covenant was not to be in contact with humans… This is merely ONE of the reasons that Mary is taught to be perpetually virgin.
Let’s see if I can remember correctly:
a) both stories take place in the hill country of Judea.
b) Both Arks are greeted with cheering.
c) Both Arks are preceded with leaping.
d) Both Arks stayed at the house for 3 months.
e) God blessed both families that housed the Arks.
f) Both Arks were greeted with, “and how is this that … should come to me”.
That’s a rather persuasive parallel, Cachonga. Even you have got to admit that!
C
Cachonga
Guest
OK, so what relates to Uzzah in your parallel? You seem to have missed this explanation.
How many people did God kill for touching Mary, and why don’t we have it recorded in Scripture? If nobody was killed for touching her, what is the connection with the Ark that Uzzah was killed for touching?
Now, for your other points -
a) A lot of things happened in the hill country of Judea. Should they be part of this parallel as well?
I think I can answer b-f with a single point - Who was Mary carrying? What if Jesus was the “Ark”? Your points would still be valid, but only in regard to Jesus, not Mary. I have a couple of problems with viewing Mary as the “New Ark of the Covenant” (besides the fact that such a parallel is not clearly found in Scripture).
- The Kohathites would be a better parallel to Mary (they were responsible for carrying the Ark, which is what Mary did with Jesus).
- The Ark contains the manna, the tablets and Aaron’s rod, Mary was pregnant for only 9 months. To be sure, she cared for Jesus, but she did not “carry” him her whole life (not the way the Ark carried the manna, the tablets and the rod).
BTW - I also reject the dogma of her perpetual virginity, but that is a bit off topic, so I won’t go into detail here.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Yeah I can well imagine that Mary would be troubled by the angel’s greeting. I would imagine you would be too if an angel called you full of grace especially 30+ years before the age of grace began. But then maybe you can explain to me how that could be. And let’s not confuse the issue, the root word in kecharitōmenē is charito and it means more than just merely “highly favored”. It means grace. The church has bound this doctrine with the binding and loosening authority it possesses in maters of faith and morals. And so it is.
Wow I don’t know where you get your information but the “argument” for Mary’s Immaculate Conception was present in the early church long before your 1,000 years. I present these facts to show that the ECF’s writings on Mary’s purity abound:
The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me);
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (Hom. i in diversa);
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin (Sermo xxii in Ps. Cxviii);
Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace (Nom. viii de Natali Domini);
Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God (Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.).
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, Sermo cxl de Annunt. BMV);
it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (Saint Proclus, Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort. I 3);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, Hom. i in BV Nativ. ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. Saint Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary’s grace and sanctity: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …, alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body … my Lady 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 in Opp. Graec. Lat. III 524-37).
To Saint Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (Carmina Nisibena).
Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary. " It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin (“the sentence against Adam and Eve”) at the Annunciation.
Saint John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip. n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the “conceptio carnis” was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita, " Sect V ii 8; Summa aurea II 948. Cf. also the Revelations of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
You seem to miss the point of typology. All types in the OT are perfected in the NT. Jesus was the 2nd Adam. Did Jesus fail in the Garden? Jesus was the New Moses. Did Jesus fail in following Yahweh’s commands.
Of course they did. But how many of those “other things” had 5 or 6 other parallels that coincided. You can choose to keep your blinders on, but these parallels have been recognized for ages.
Jesus wasn’t the “Ark of the Covenant”. He was the Covenant.
But neither did the Ark do this permanently. The Ark has been “taken away”. Hmmmmm…
Could that be yet another parallel? Sorry, but my parallel arguments have been accepted by the Church for a long time, my brother!
I
inkaneer
Guest
The OT Arc of the Covenant held the the manna [bread from heaven], the tablets [word of God] and Aaron’s rod [symbol of the levitical priesthood], Mary the NT Arc of the Covenant held Jesus, the bread from Heaven, [John 6] the Word [John 1] and the eternal high priest. The OT was not just an ordinary box. It was lined with gold, the most precious metal, both within and without. Mary too is not just an ordinary woman but one most precious to God that she would bear His only begotten Son. Once again the OT is a prefigurement of the NT and what is prefigured in the OT is perfected in the NT.
P
patrick457
Guest
Before we go further, I think we should review first the two functions of the Ark - Ark as receptacle and Ark as footstool-throne in brief (yes, I’ll try my best). 
The 'aron (‘chest’, ‘box’; traditionally ‘ark’ from the Latin arca, a covered receptacle) is, as it name suggests, a container for objects of utmost importance and holiness. A box that is designed to hold the tablets Moses brought down from Sinai, and probably some other items, if we believe the testimony of the writer of Hebrews.
But the Ark also functioned as a ‘throne’ for the presence of the Lord. On top of the Ark is the kapporet (traditionally ‘mercy-seat’), perhaps a sort of lid made out of solid gold. On the two ends of this were two golden figures of cherubim, “of beaten work”. These cherubs stretched out their wings upward, “overshadowing the kapporet with their wings.” These wings formed a throne-seat for the presence, the shekinah, of the Almighty (cf. Ps. 18:10; cf. 2 Sam. 22:11 “And He rode a cherub and flew, and glided on the wings of the wind”) while the Ark underneath is His footstool. The Ark and the kapporet is thus, at the same time, both a throne and a footstool for the invisible God.
The 'aron (‘chest’, ‘box’; traditionally ‘ark’ from the Latin arca, a covered receptacle) is, as it name suggests, a container for objects of utmost importance and holiness. A box that is designed to hold the tablets Moses brought down from Sinai, and probably some other items, if we believe the testimony of the writer of Hebrews.
But the Ark also functioned as a ‘throne’ for the presence of the Lord. On top of the Ark is the kapporet (traditionally ‘mercy-seat’), perhaps a sort of lid made out of solid gold. On the two ends of this were two golden figures of cherubim, “of beaten work”. These cherubs stretched out their wings upward, “overshadowing the kapporet with their wings.” These wings formed a throne-seat for the presence, the shekinah, of the Almighty (cf. Ps. 18:10; cf. 2 Sam. 22:11 “And He rode a cherub and flew, and glided on the wings of the wind”) while the Ark underneath is His footstool. The Ark and the kapporet is thus, at the same time, both a throne and a footstool for the invisible God.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Well the German “Hail Mary” would translate into "be greeted (or greetings) Mary, full of grace / mercy.
I didn’t even realize that this might have been anything but just a simple greeting… The Latin Ave didn’t come over as special to me either… Just reminds me of “Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant” and that we exchanged the name once for our Latin teachers name before a scheduled class exam.
- Status