Immaculate Conception: Luke 1 and Acts 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter mabowden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mabowden

Guest
I have a question regarding the Immaculate Conception. We frequently cite Luke 1:28 in support of the Immaculate Conception (“Hail, full of grace…” or “Hail, favored one…”). I had someone ask about a similar reference in acts 6:8 that referred to Stephen, “Now Stephen, filled with grace and power …”. How do we reconcile these two passages? They both seem to indicate a person who is full of grace. To my knowledge, Stephen has never been declared immaculately conceived nor sinless. Thanks.
  • Mark
 
The difference is that Mary was full of grace BEFORE Christ had even been conceived, while Stephen was full of grace AFTER the redemptive death of Christ. Mary was born free from sin and grew in grace all her life. Stephen was not born free from sin, but gained grace through faith in Christ. Both are wonderful examples of God’s grace working in human hearts and lives, but they are not of the same order of grace.
 
I believe the words used in the original Greek to refer to Mary and to Stephen are different, and that the one used for Mary implies that she had indeed ALWAYS been ‘full of grace’, whereas the one used for Stephen doesn’t.

Of course there’s much more to the Immaculate Conception than the angel’s greeting.

For one there’s the correlation between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant in the OT. Remember that the Ark was designedly constructed from scratch according to God’s own plan and design in order to be a fitting vessel for his word (the tablets of the 10 commandments) and presence. Remember that it was so holy that those who directly touched it died, and none but the priests and Levites could even be in the same area with it!

God didn’t choose a used and second-hand container, and say that it was ‘good enough’.

Same with Mary - Jesus both needed, and was able, to create from scratch a person to be the perfect vessel for his perfect humanity as well as his divinity. Pure in every way. The way to do this, and to ensure that she STAYED that way, was the Immaculate Conception.
 
In the Greek, it uses the perfect past participle, meaning the action is already done. If you look at Acts 6, it uses different language.
 
LilyM said:
I believe the words used in the original Greek to refer to Mary and to Stephen are different, and that the one used for Mary implies that she had indeed ALWAYS been ‘full of grace’, whereas the one used for Stephen doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Thank you all for your replies. While this is somewhat lengthy, here is the argument that my acquantance used:
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. “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). “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 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. What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean “full of grace” which is “plaras karitos” (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.
Click to expand...
I can’t even spell Greik ;-), so any refutations to this issue is welcomed.
  • Mark
 
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?
Click to expand...
“Full of Grace” referring to Stephen is a TEMPORARY state, therefore it does not indicate lifelong sinlessness. With respect to Mary, the term used indicates a CONTINUOUS state of fullness with Grace, which does therefore imply that being permanently filled with Grace, she is indeed without sin.
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.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The Greek Church and all other ancient Churches name Mary “Full of Grace”, and hold her sinless. The “Highly favoured” translation is a 17th century protestant invention, first introduced by the KJV translators. Even the Tyndale Bible says “Full of Grace.”
What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean “full of grace” which is “plaras karitos” (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.
Click to expand...
The word the Bible usees is Kecharitomene, it is a** title.** It is based on the Greek Charis which is always translated grace,
Literally it can be rendered **Perfectly-with-grace-endowed-one. **The Greek participle means that the grace was continuous and pre-existing the appearance of the angel.
 
Luke 1:28
kai eiselqwn proV authn eipen, caire, kecaritwmenh, o kurioV meta sou.

John 1:14
kai o logoV sarx egeneto kai eskhnwsen en hmin, kai eqeasameqa thn doxan autou, doxan wV monogenouV para patroV, plhrhV caritoV kai alhqeiaV.

Acts 6:8
stefanoV de plhrhV caritoV kai dunamewV epoiei terata kai shmeia megala en tw law.

The Greek word describing Mary is clear- "Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence. " (Catholic Answers catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp)

Ken
 
kleary said:
Luke 1:28
kai eiselqwn proV authn eipen, caire, kecaritwmenh, o kurioV meta sou.

John 1:14
kai o logoV sarx egeneto kai eskhnwsen en hmin, kai eqeasameqa thn doxan autou, doxan wV monogenouV para patroV, plhrhV caritoV kai alhqeiaV.

Acts 6:8
stefanoV de plhrhV caritoV kai dunamewV epoiei terata kai shmeia megala en tw law.

The Greek word describing Mary is clear- "Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence. " (Catholic Answers catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp)

Ken
Click to expand...
🙂 well put.
 
Do you mind an outsider coming in with a question that I have been wanting to ask for ages (I’m Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.)

At the time of the holy Archangel’s visit, Mary was free to accept or reject the invitation to become the Mother of God.

What happens if she refused? Would that mean there would be an immaculately conceived human being anyway? Or would God have cancelled her immaculateness and returned her to a normal spiritual state like other humans and sought out another girl to become the Mother of God?

Sorry for intruding but this has always interested me.
 
The whole point of the Immaculate Conception was that Jesus and the Father were preparing Mary, from the first moment of her life, for her task, to be the perfect vessel, mother and role model for Christ.

In other words to give her all the graces necessary to ensure that she WOULD consent and do what was required of her, respecting the bounds of free will of course.

Point being you may as well ask what would have happened had Jesus said ‘No’ to his ministry or his Cross. After all, his will was just as free as Mary’s.

Temptation must certainly have been there for both of them, but grace, obedience and love of God were there in greater measure. I for one think that Mary was given such an awesome task and responsibility that without the Immaculate Conception she COULDN’T have said Yes. After all, it was difficult enough for Jesus with his fullness of divinity allied to humanity!
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Do you mind an outsider coming in with a question that I have been wanting to ask for ages (I’m Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.)

At the time of the holy Archangel’s visit, Mary was free to accept or reject the invitation to become the Mother of God.

What happens if she refused? Would that mean there would be an immaculately conceived human being anyway? Or would God have cancelled her immaculateness and returned her to a normal spiritual state like other humans and sought out another girl to become the Mother of God?

Sorry for intruding but this has always interested me.
Click to expand...
Of course, I cannot say anything for sure because I do not have that authority but I understand it to be that if the Blessed Virgin, in her free will, decided not to be the Mother of the God-Man, we never have God-incarnate ( He only had one women in mind in Genesis).

Check out the book of Job 42: 7-11.

Just as the Eliphaz and his two friends had to ask for the INTERCESSION of Job to obtain pardon for their sins, it was ONLY through Jobs cooperation in his FREE WILL that moved God to save those men. Likewise, it was ONLY through the cooperation of the Blessed Virgin Mary with God that we were offered the gift of Salvation by Jesus (it also works in the opposite sense too: ie: Adam and Eve, their sin, our sin; the covenant)

Her Immaculate Conception was a gift from God so that she may be a proper mother of Christ Jesus, if she accepted. I am sure that she would have kept regardless. Of course, these kinds of question always lead into speculation which is generally abstract and not very useful. The best approach is to concentrate on what did happen and work from there.

Jeremiah 1:5 can be applied to the august Virgin allegorically, this is why I hold that God, the Holy Ghost, her spouse, had only one woman in mind that was ever going to be offered that tremendous honor of being the Mother of Christ.

God, not out of necessity, but out of His will, wanted Mary involved in our Salvation and accomplished this by involved Mary at key points during the Salvation History: Genesis, prophetically in the OT, at the Cross, and in battle with the Dragon. St. Louis De Montfort really does a nice job in teaching this, please read True Devotion to Mary if you have any desire to learn more about Our Mother.

The mere fact that it is recorded in the Holy Bible that Jesus gave us His mother, at the most powerful moment in Jesus’ triumph over the Devil, can only be something perpetual, not just some temporal thing. If it truly was just temporal, why did the Holy Spirit instruct St. John to insert it there? Do you really think that would make sense on God’s part?

In the Gospel according to St. John this disciple is unnamed is because THAT DISCIPLE IS YOU.

When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he said to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. -John 19:26

Ahhh, the sweetness of Christ, to give us His mother! He knows how much we would need her and He thought of that on the Cross during His agony.

Whats between you and Jesus is calvary. Take Mary’s hand, she has walked that path with Jesus and will lead you directly to Him!

The timing of Jesus’ decision to give us His mother is no coincidence; it was only at the utter peak of His Glory during the Passion that He gave us this wonderful gift of His mother.

Why would you throw away a gift from Jesus?

Also, if you read don’t read anything I suggest, I implore you to read Wisdom ch 7-9. These are quite possibly the most beautiful allegorical descriptions of the Blessed Virgin in scripture.
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Do you mind an outsider coming in with a question that I have been wanting to ask for ages (I’m Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.).
Click to expand...
Christian soul!
You are not an “outsider”, we share the same Sacraments. Despite the Church Militant of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches do not sit at the same table, we DO sit at the same table in the Church Triumphant, Sacramentally. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Orthodox Sacraments and I’m sure the Orthodox recognize the validity of the Catholics.
 
HailMary said:
Christian soul!
You are not an “outsider”,
Click to expand...
You are very kind, Mary.

Does your Church teach the Immaculate Conception? Some of the Eastern Catholic Churches do not and they seem to just quietly leave it alone.
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
You are very kind, Mary.

Does your Church teach the Immaculate Conception? Some of the Eastern Catholic Churches do not and they seem to just quietly leave it alone.
Click to expand...
Indeed, we do. The Chaldean Church is in full-communion with Rome and therefore, we also share the same faith.
We celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, on December 8th this year.
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Do you mind an outsider coming in with a question that I have been wanting to ask for ages (I’m Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.)

At the time of the holy Archangel’s visit, Mary was free to accept or reject the invitation to become the Mother of God.

What happens if she refused? Would that mean there would be an immaculately conceived human being anyway? Or would God have cancelled her immaculateness and returned her to a normal spiritual state like other humans and sought out another girl to become the Mother of God?

Sorry for intruding but this has always interested me.
Click to expand...
Well I guess we don’t know. If Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned then you and I wouldn’t exist either. If Jesus was not crucified we wouldn’t exist.

We do not know what God would have done if Mary said no.

I would not want to speculate either.

Ken
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
You are very kind, Mary.

Does your Church teach the Immaculate Conception? Some of the Eastern Catholic Churches do not and they seem to just quietly leave it alone.
Click to expand...
Excuse me Fr., but I do not understand this statement at all. All of the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome MUST teach and believe in the Immaculate Conception as decreed by the Pope. I mean what good is it to be in communion with Rome if they do not teach and celebrate the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

Ken
 
Fr_Ambrose said:
Do you mind an outsider coming in with a question that I have been wanting to ask for ages (I’m Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.)

At the time of the holy Archangel’s visit, Mary was free to accept or reject the invitation to become the Mother of God.

What happens if she refused? Would that mean there would be an immaculately conceived human being anyway? Or would God have cancelled her immaculateness and returned her to a normal spiritual state like other humans and sought out another girl to become the Mother of God?

Sorry for intruding but this has always interested me.
Click to expand...
Since God exists out of time, I don’t think the angel would have asked Mary, knowing that she was going to reject this gift. The IC would have been reserved for someone else who would have remained sinless and accepted.

Of course, being sinless, one would have to say yes, knowing it would please the Lord!!!
 
kleary said:
Excuse me Fr., but I do not understand this statement at all. All of the Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome MUST teach and believe in the Immaculate Conception as decreed by the Pope. I mean what good is it to be in communion with Rome if they do not teach and celebrate the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

Ken
Click to expand...
The Eastern Catholics who often call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome” adhere to a theology of Original Sin which is Orthodox and not Roman Catholic. This theology makes the Immaculate Conception without meaning.

In the case of the Melkites, they have a Joint Agreement signed with Rome at the time they came into the Catholic Church that stipulates that they will not be required to believe anything other than what they always believed. The Melkites quote this from the document but I have never been able to track it down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top