How to object Acts 6:8

[fabio_rocha]

I found this in a protestant website and I need more clear explanation about the expression FULL OF GRACE which I thought it was only attributed to Mary…

The Bible and “full of grace”

<The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.
1.“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
2.“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase “full of grace” does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen’s case it signifies that he was “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase “full of grace” come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena “Hail full of grace.’” Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.>

 

[Goya]

Full of Grace and Highly favored in Luke 1:28 are both acceptable translations–expecially going from Greek to Latin (as St. Jerome did), although Highly favored is perhaps a bit more consistent with other uses in the bible. The use of the same word with Septhen doesn’t necessarily imply the same meaning–for that, we go to context–and we also look to Sacred Tradition.

Stephen was the first martyr, and honored as such; but no where in Sacred Tradition, do we find any inclination to support the proposition that he was ‘full of grace’, in the same way as our Lord, or the Virgin Mary.

Re. Mary:

1. The ANGEL Gabriel, comes to her, and shows her reverence. That is extraordinarliy significant, in and of itself;
2. She was to usher in the God-Man–and she was to provide the “man” part, of that equation (significant?);
3. She was going to concieve…while remaining a virgin (signifcant?);
4. No other human being in the Bible up to nor after Mary, save Jesus, played such a signicant role in the Salvation Narrative;
5. Sacred Tradition, from BEFORE St. Jerome’s translation, largely accepted this belief.

FWIW:

Here is a great perspective, by St. Thomas Aquinas:

“HAIL MARY”

We must now consider concerning the first part of this prayer that in ancient times it was no small event when Angels appeared to men; and that man should show them reverence was especially praiseworthy. Thus, it is written to the praise of Abraham that he received the Angels with all courtesy and showed them reverence. But that an Angel should show reverence to a man was never heard of until the Angel reverently greeted the Blessed Virgin saying: "Hail."

THE ANGEL’S DIGNITY

In olden time an Angel would not show reverence to a man, but a man would deeply revere an Angel. This is because Angels are greater than men, and indeed in three ways. First, they are greater than men in dignity. This is because the Angel is of a spiritual nature: “Who makest Thy angels spirits.”[4] But, on the other hand, man is of a corruptible nature, for Abraham said: "I

will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes."[5] It was not fitting, therefore, that a spiritual and incorruptible creature should show reverence to one that is corruptible as is a man. Secondly, an Angel is closer to God. The Angel, indeed, is of the family of God, and as it were stands ever by Him: “Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him.”[6] Man, on the other hand, is rather a stranger and afar off from God because of sin: “I have gone afar off.”[7] Therefore, it is fitting that man should reverence an Angel who is an intimate and one of the household of the King.

Then, thirdly, the Angels far exceed men in the fullness of the splendor of divine grace. For Angels participate in the highest degree in the divine light: “Is there any numbering of His soldiers? And upon whom shall not His light arise?”[8] Hence, the Angels always appear among men clothed in light, hut men on the contrary, although they partake somewhat of the light of grace, nevertheless do so in a much slighter degree and with a certain obscurity. It was, therefore, not fitting that an Angel should show reverence to a man until it should come to pass that one would be found in human nature who exceeded the Angels in these three points in which we have seen that they excel over men–and this was the Blessed Virgin. To show that she excelled the Angels in these, the Angel desired to show her reverence, and so he said: “Ave (Hail).”

“FULL OF GRACE”

The Blessed Virgin was superior to any of the Angels in the fullness of grace, and as an indication of this the Angel showed reverence to her by saying: “Full of grace.” This is as if he said: "I show thee reverence because thou dost excel me in the fullness of grace."

The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace in three ways. First, as regards her soul she was full of grace. The grace of God is given for two chief purposes, namely, to do good and to avoid evil. The Blessed Virgin, then, received grace in the most perfect degree, because she had avoided every sin more than any other Saint after Christ. Thus it is said: “Thou art fair, My beloved, and there is not a spot in thee.”[9] St. Augustine says: “If we could bring together all the Saints and ask them if they were entirely without sin, all of them, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, would say with one voice: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.’[10] I except, however, this holy Virgin of whom, because of the honor of God, I wish to omit all mention of sin.”[11] For we know that to her was granted grace to overcome every kind of sin by Him whom she merited to conceive and bring forth, and He certainly was wholly without sin.

…

 

[porthos11]

I found this in a protestant website and I need more clear explanation about the expression FULL OF GRACE which I thought it was only attributed to Mary…

The Bible and “full of grace”

<The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.
1.“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
2.“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase “full of grace” does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen’s case it signifies that he was “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase “full of grace” come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena “Hail full of grace.’” Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.>

He is wrong in that we do not base the doctrine off the Latin translation, which we know is also deficient. We do not even base the doctrine of Scripture itself, but rather, we use this in support of the doctrine. And to support the doctrine, we use the Greek, not the English or the Latin.

 

[k9cole]

“,worship adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church”
Funny, when did we start worshippingMary?**

 

[snarflemike]

We do not even base the doctrine of Scripture itself, but rather, we use this in support of the doctrine.

This is absolutely critical, and bears constant repeating.

 

[MaryT777]

“,worship adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church”
Funny, when did we start worshippingMary?**

You know we Catholics, always worshipping someone other than the Lord .
Sigh.

 

[snarflemike]

You know we Catholics, always worshipping someone other than the Lord .
Sigh.

And then denying it, because you always want to make sure you vehemently deny worshiping that whom you worship. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

 

[Farsight001]

I found this in a protestant website and I need more clear explanation about the expression FULL OF GRACE which I thought it was only attributed to Mary…

The Bible and “full of grace”

<The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.
1.“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
2.“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase “full of grace” does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen’s case it signifies that he was “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase “full of grace” come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena “Hail full of grace.’” Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.>

Looks like carm “apologetics” to me.

Here’s the thing. The Greek word “kecharitomene” also translates as “full of grace”, and this is the word used to refer to Mary. It, as well as “planas karitos” both contain the root word for grace, “charitoo”, and they both translate as “full of grace”. What is different about the two, then? They are in different tenses. Kecharitomene is in what is called the “past perfect participle” tense, a tense that does not exist in the English language. Basically it means that not only is she now full of grace, but also that she always has been, as though it is part of her very nature. So Mary is, in fact, full of grace.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Their argument is incoherent since, as they point out, Stephen is also called “full of grace.” If the expression gratia plena were the basis for all our Marian doctrines and–again, as they say–our “adoration” of her, we would also adore Stephen (who was plenus gratia) and hold Stephen to be immaculately conceived etc. Their argument only works if we suppose that nobody in the Catholic Church ever read the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[brumano]

I found this in a protestant website and I need more clear explanation about the expression FULL OF GRACE which I thought it was only attributed to Mary…

The Bible and “full of grace”

<The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.
1.“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
2.“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase “full of grace” does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen’s case it signifies that he was “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase “full of grace” come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena “Hail full of grace.’” Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.>

You probably wouldn’t have needed to tell us this came from a protestant source. The fullness of grace that only Mary is given becomes her name or equal with her name as she is addressed this way in luke, hail full of grace. plaras karitos may mean full of grace in greek but it can probably also be said more expressly by other greek phraseology or words that carry loftier or more dramatic overtones depending on the subject they are attached to. We can look up greek words all day but we can’t escape the literal and transliteral import of who the entire 1st.chapter of luke says that Mary is. So the latin translation is unfortunate for them, but it is translationally accurate in itself. And other gospels do not record full of grace literally but they describe Mary as a virgin who conceives Jesus, none of the other gospels say anything about her that is out of this nature either.
1.JN.1,14 speaks directly about Jesus and indirectly about Mary, neither of these two names are given verbatim in this verse, so unless we read the verse with anti marian angst or some distorted viewpoint, Mary can never be divorced from this verse, if protestants don’t understand the first dwelling place amongst us was the Virgin Mary, it doesn’t require anyone else to follow suit.
2.St.Stephen was full of grace from that time and at that moment when as the verse said he was filled with the Holy Spirit, to do what he was doing; showing signs of power and wonder and so on, Mary is from her first moment of being full of grace , not St. Stephen or any other of many who are full of grace from a certain time forward, it’s just that most of them are not described this way. St Peter is said to be blessed by God the Father when the truth about Jesus is given to him, he could have been called full of grace at that time and it would have been true. Mary is full of grace always.

Something to remember also is that the new testament we have is mostly in greek, that does not mean that the originals were in greek, or maybe in greek and other languages such as aramaic.

 

[Theophorus]

Their argument is incoherent since, as they point out, Stephen is also called “full of grace.” If the expression gratia plena were the basis for all our Marian doctrines and–again, as they say–our “adoration” of her, we would also adore Stephen (who was plenus gratia) and hold Stephen to be immaculately conceived etc. Their argument only works if we suppose that nobody in the Catholic Church ever read the Acts of the Apostles.

The Acts of who?

 

[porthos11]

Something to remember also is that the new testament we have is mostly in greek, that does not mean that the originals were in greek, or maybe in greek and other languages such as aramaic.

Luke is a Greek original, as he was Greek himself. Our apologetics is based on the Greek kecharitomene, not the Latin gratia plena or the Greek pleres charitos in other parts of the NT.

 

[Goya]

He is wrong in that we do not base the doctrine off the Latin translation, which we know is also deficient. We do not even base the doctrine of Scripture itself, but rather, we use this in support of the doctrine. And to support the doctrine, we use the Greek, not the English or the Latin.

As the old adage goes…

***The Church doesn’t teach what it teaches because it’s in the Bible…it’s in the Bible because it’s what the Church always taught. ***

 

[porthos11]

As the old adage goes…

***The Church doesn’t teach what it teaches because it’s in the Bible…it’s in the Bible because it’s what the Church always taught. ***

Correct.

 

[brumano]

Luke is a Greek original, as he was Greek himself. Our apologetics is based on the Greek kecharitomene, not the Latin gratia plena or the Greek pleres charitos in other parts of the NT.

Fine, I only mention a fact so that other posssible translitterations on the part of St.Jerome are seen as credible not suspicious. I’ll add this also, the challenge for him, was not less daunting than for st.luke as to how to faithfully translate an address that had never been made to anyone before or thereafter into understandable latin for the common people it was made for.
I care what our faith is based on not our apologetics; full of grace is the real truth .

 

[Goya]

Here, some CF’s speak of the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception–centuries before it was declared dogma-and it may be surmised thereby, they also subscribed to her ‘fullness of grace’:

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.”
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.”
"Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”
Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

“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.”
Augustine,Nature and Grace,4236,in NPNF1,V:135

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.”
Proclus of Constantinople,Homily 1(ante A.D. 446),in ULL,97

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.”
Theodotus of Ancrya,Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446),in THEO,339

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.”
Peter Chrysologus,Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97

“[T]he 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.”
Jacob of Sarug(ante A.D. 521),in CE

“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”
Andrew of Crete,Sermon I,On the Birth of Mary(A.D. 733),in THEO,180

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all,not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as ecelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.”
Germanus of Constantinople,Marracci in S. Germani Mariali(ante A.D. 733),in ULL,98

“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.”
John of Damascus,Homily I in Nativ.(ante A.D. 749),in THEO,200

…of course, I may be strecthing things a bit–I suppose one could be immaculately conceived, especially chosen by God Himself for the unique privilge of serving as His mother–of carrying Him inside her–incarnate–of her own flesh–in her womb; of raising Him; and of and accompanying Him throughout His earthly life…being revered by His archangel (while no other human being in the Bible was, save Jesus), served as the ark of the New Covenant, and Tabernackle of the Lord…and yet not quite be said to be ‘full of grace.’

I suppose perhaps I may be going a tad overboard, making the colossal leap from Immaculate Conception (and that which is entailed thereby)–along with her roll in the overall salvation narrative–to buttress ‘full of grace’…

 

[rfournier103]

May I ask what Protestant website this came from?

 

[porthos11]

Fine, I only mention a fact so that other posssible translitterations on the part of St.Jerome are seen as credible not suspicious. I’ll add this also, the challenge for him, was not less daunting than for st.luke as to how to faithfully translate an address that had never been made to anyone before or thereafter into understandable latin for the common people it was made for.
I care what our faith is based on not our apologetics; full of grace is the real truth .

Full of grace is indeed the real truth, but it falls short of the Greek. The Greek is virtually untranslatable without a whole lot of clumsy phrasing. There’s nothing wrong with “full of grace” but the attack cited by the OP claims that we base our dogma on the Latin, which is, due to the limitations of translation, deficient. Rather, we base our dogma on the Greek which is extremely compact and rich, in that single word kecharitomene.

 

[DaveBj]

Looks like carm “apologetics” to me.

Here’s the thing. The Greek word “kecharitomene” also translates as “full of grace”, and this is the word used to refer to Mary. It, as well as “planas karitos” both contain the root word for grace, “charitoo”, and they both translate as “full of grace”. What is different about the two, then? They are in different tenses. **Kecharitomene is in what is called the “past perfect participle” tense, a tense that does not exist in the English language. **Basically it means that not only is she now full of grace, but also that she always has been, as though it is part of her very nature. So Mary is, in fact, full of grace.

Actually, kecharitomene is present perfect, not past perfect, and both present perfect and past perfect tenses do exist in English. What English doesn’t have is participles, other that the xxxing and xxxed forms.

Full of grace is indeed the real truth, but it falls short of the Greek. The Greek is virtually untranslatable without a whole lot of clumsy phrasing. There’s nothing wrong with “full of grace” but the attack cited by the OP claims that we base our dogma on the Latin, which is, due to the limitations of translation, deficient. Rather, we base our dogma on the Greek which is extremely compact and rich, in that single word kecharitomene.

Bingo. Exactly correct.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Acts of who?

Acts of the Apostles… where the example verse (Acts 6:8) about Stephen being “full of grace is from.”

“Stephanus autem plenus gratia et fortitudine faciebat prodigia et signa magna in populo”