James White on Lk 1:28 and Kecharitomene

[Churchmouse]

How about the title “kecharitomene”? If a title isn’t titular, what is? The angel doesn’t greet her as “Mary” but as “kecharitomene,” full of grace. That is a title, and it tells us something important about Mary: she was God’s chosen vessel, sanctified for the role which she was to play. I.e., she was sinless.

Why would a term be “titular”? How do you establish that it is? Other than an assertion that it is, I don’t see anything pressing me to believe it is a title.

CM

 

[dbaseII]

James White is well known to those of us who have traversed the cyberspace paths since the 1980’s. He wrote in his book against Catholicism that since Catholics are so far off, dialogue with them is not possible. And yet he loves to haunt Catholic places, spinning his rhetoric which on the surface sounds good but in reality doesn’t hold up.

I think the best advice is to ask one of the apologists here for an answer to your question…

Here’s the link for my (rather famous) rebuttal of his anti Catholic book, THE FATAL FLAW… net-abbey.org/fatal.htm

Arguing with him is futile… instead if you are on a general area where he’s stirring up things, ask him why he’s even dialoguing with Catholics when he plainly states in his book, THE FATAL FLAW that dialogue with Catholics is not possible.

Needless to say, he doesn’t like ME and also one of his close henchmen, converted to the Catholic faith many years ago and he was so NOT impressed… this person used to work for White in his organization. White must be getting old now… he was older than I am and I’m 64…

 

[po18guy]

Ok…just so you know I’m not being rude when I say:

“Ok…so the answer is; there is no connection”

I understand, and I’m not taking a dig at you; you’ve fully answered what I was wondering about.

Read post 28, and ponder it within the context of 1,976 years of Church teaching of revealed truth. It’s really that simple.

 

[dmar198]

Why would a term be “titular”? How do you establish that it is? Other than an assertion that it is, I don’t see anything pressing me to believe it is a title.

CM

(1) “kecharitomene” comes after a greeting, as titles usually do;
(2) Because it is a verb, I believe the angel would have been uttering an incomplete sentence (which is ridiculous) unless it is a title, as if he said, “Greetings, has been graced!” rather than “Greetings, O Gracious One!”
(3) the suffix of the verb is “mene,” a feminine ending, which gives the verb the properties of a noun; i.e. it is meant to designate the subject, Mary herself, which is the definition of a title.

 

[po18guy]

Why would a term be “titular”? How do you establish that it is? Other than an assertion that it is, I don’t see anything pressing me to believe it is a title.

CM

How about this: because the Angel knew Mary’s name, but greeted her instead by her title. In scripture, God called many persons by their name. Not so with Mary. She was called by the title of her God-given position in salvation history - the only human being ever created solely for the purpose of giving a human body and nature to the Son of God. Let’s not make this so complicated!

 

[Churchmouse]

James White is well known to those of us who have traversed the cyberspace paths since the 1980’s. He wrote in his book against Catholicism that since Catholics are so far off, dialogue with them is not possible. And yet he loves to haunt Catholic places, spinning his rhetoric which on the surface sounds good but in reality doesn’t hold up.

I think the best advice is to ask one of the apologists here for an answer to your question…

Here’s the link for my (rather famous) rebuttal of his anti Catholic book, THE FATAL FLAW… net-abbey.org/fatal.htm

Arguing with him is futile… instead if you are on a general area where he’s stirring up things, ask him why he’s even dialoguing with Catholics when he plainly states in his book, THE FATAL FLAW that dialogue with Catholics is not possible.

Needless to say, he doesn’t like ME and also one of his close henchmen, converted to the Catholic faith many years ago and he was so NOT impressed… this person used to work for White in his organization. White must be getting old now… he was older than I am and I’m 64…

Sue,

It is no secret that James White isn’t liked by many Catholics, especially those who dabble in various apologetics. However, poisoning the well doesn’t account for established apologists who refuse to answer for their own writings, as is the case with Keating. I’m sure that many would say that White doesn’t “like” them, but the truth is–as he has stated many times–he would rather debate the best. Every now and then, for lack of a better term, he may toss a bone to someone (reasons varying), but if he were to answer everyone who claims to have a refutation of one thing or another, he wouldn’t have the time or the lifespan to engage them. So, let’s keep our opinions to ourselves, shall we.

Btw, I’m 52 and I remember that White was younger than I am. I’m assuming he’s about 47 or 48 by now.

 

[Churchmouse]

(1) “kecharitomene” comes after a greeting, as titles usually do;

“Coming after” doesn’t intone that its a title. You are merely assuming that it does.

(2) Because it is a verb, I believe the angel would have been uttering an incomplete sentence (which is ridiculous) unless it is a title, as if he said, “Greetings, has been graced!” rather than “Greetings, O Gracious One!”

Rather, it means “favored one” and is a greeting stating that Mary has found favor in God’s eyes

(3) the suffix of the verb is “mene,” a feminine ending, which gives the verb the properties of a noun; i.e. it is meant to designate the subject, Mary herself, which is the definition of a title.

Of course it would be feminine because Mary is a female. I don’t see how it becomes a noun in the proper sense.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

How about this: because the Angel knew Mary’s name, but greeted her instead by her title. In scripture, God called many persons by their name. Not so with Mary. She was called by the title of her God-given position in salvation history - the only human being ever created solely for the purpose of giving a human body and nature to the Son of God. Let’s not make this so complicated!

Actually, I’m the one who’s accepting it as it’s written and not complicating it with appeals to terms/greetings becoming “titles.” There is a boatload of assumption going on when one reads into the text that it’s a “title” and then, subsequently, claims that many persons were called by their names, but Mary by her “title”

CM

 

[dmar198]

Rather, [kecharitomene] means “favored one” and is a greeting stating that Mary has found favor in God’s eyes

“favored one” is part of what it means, but it reflects neither the perfect tense of the verb nor the fact that it is intensive. “Completely, highly favored one” is more accurate because “highly” reflects the intensive and “completely” points to the perfect tense. Either way, anything with “favored one” in it accurately conveys the fact that the word is a title, because it designates the subject, Mary.

Of course it would be feminine because Mary is a female. I don’t see how it becomes a noun in the proper sense.

I have been told that the suffix “mene” gives the verb the properties of a noun; it is the difference between “jump” and “jumper,” (“favor” and “favored one,”) where the latter is a noun/verb combination. I do not know Greek, so I cannot positively verify that that is the case, but I have never seen any Greek scholar deny this, not even Protestant ones; so since it has the properties of a noun, i.e. it designates the subject, therefore it is a title, for that is what a title does – it designates the subject.

“Coming after” doesn’t intone that its a title.

Granted, but it is another piece of evidence in favor of its titular status, because titles do usually come after greetings.

I hope that helps. God bless!
-Dmar198

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Looks like Mr.White and his followers have taken notice:

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3405

So, we can only hope that the serious minded readers of the forums (who are rarely the most talkative in my experience) will consider well just how shallow and untenable Rome’s arguments based upon Luke 1:28 really are.

… and the first part of the page was about Karl Keeting – who doesn’t talk !



Is this – Question authority morphing into shut up already I’m talking !!!?
Or is it, people can’t read and type at the same time…
Co-ordination problems…
…



God bless Mr. White; in all seriousness – inasmuch as he is right, may God bless and vindicate any disturbed sleep, restless remembering of that which has been silent for years, and any fear he might have that God will punish anyone for what he can’t change;

With the stick we measure may God measure back to us each and every individual; with mercy may he temper the obsessive thoughts we human beings struggle with and allow us the grace to overcome. May he show clearly the folly of those engaged in it so that they may be free to repent; and vindicate those who are trampled under the feet of swine for the mistake of throwing their pearls.

May the intelligence of those who actually do think not be held against them; open the eyes of those who harass people because they think intelligence is the same as wickedness. That wisdom is the same as crookedness. And that truth is the same as putting someone to the test over and over and over. Lord open the mouths of those on trial with words they would not otherwise know how to say.

Father, we just ask this in your son’s name, our Lord Jesus.
Amen.

 

[steve_b]

dmar198,

Quote:

this is the definition of the Greek perfect tense:
The verb tense used by the writer to describe a completed verbal action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present (in relation to the writer). The emphasis of the perfect is not the past action so much as it is as such but the present “state of affairs” resulting from the past action.

You forgot, continuing on into the future.

IOW, there was not a time when she wasn’t perfectly graced

rpavich:

Likewise, I don’t see any connection from “cause to be the recipient of a benefit, to bestow favor on or highly bless” with the idea that Mary was sinless.

I think the problem here is, Protestants don’t recognize the absolute enormity of the incarnation and Mary being the mother of God. How Mary in Lk 1:28 was selected before the foundation of the world to be the mother of the incarnation of the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity. The one who spoke and all came into existance. God the son would take His humanity, His DNA, from Mary…alone. In her for 9 months, would be the Word of God, our High Priest, and the bread of life. She is the arc of the New and everlasting covenant.

rpavich:

As the other poster said; it seems that this comes from outside the text of scripture. And while I’m not going to argue what “traditions” mean now, and what they meant then…it would seem that the answer is still “this doesn’t come from the text itself and Karl Keating is reaching”

Kecharitomene has been discussed many times on this forum

Tense: Perfect,
Mood: Passive

Perfect tense: having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

Therefore, the grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present and into the future.

• So, the grace Mary enjoyed from her beginning (conception), was not a result of the angel’s visit. The archangel Gabriel addresses her as who she is and always will be, in the sight of God even before she gives her fiat…

Sin cannot be in her if she is perfectly and permamently graced.

Passive mood, means it was done to her without her doing anything on her own. It is truly a unique and special gift from God.

Therefore, God made her without sin, just like He made Eve without sin, but God preserved Mary without sin by a special grace perfectly applied

 

[po18guy]

Actually, I’m the one who’s accepting it as it’s written and not complicating it with appeals to terms/greetings becoming “titles.” There is a boatload of assumption going on when one reads into the text that it’s a “title” and then, subsequently, claims that many persons were called by their names, but Mary by her “title”

Well, if it is as Mr. White opines, Gabriel most certainly greeted Mary by a very unusual name. Neither did anyone else in scripture ever greet her by that term, nor was anyone else so greeted by Gabriel. And it clearly is not her name, but a “state of being” or a, well, title, right?

No one else had the awesome job of giving flesh to Christ. If we are to think that Mary is just an ordinary teenager, chosen at random by a directionless deity, we are far off the track. For Mr. White to be correct in his personal opinion, all of the great Christians throughout all of 1,976 years of must be individually and collectively wrong. What is the likelihood of this being true?

Rather, let us consider that Mr. White is confrontational by nature, and that his authority lies solely within himself.

It pains me that so much twisting of not only scripture, but revealed truth, has occurred, simply in order to be “not Catholic”. Christ is not raised up by tearing His mother down, or denigrating her memory.

 

[rpavich]

You forgot, continuing on into the future.

No I didn’t.

IOW, there was not a time when she wasn’t perfectly graced

Yes…as you’ve stated…that’s your assertion…but yet to be proven by the text.

The text merely says “highly favored one”…I have no problem with that…

It’s all the dogma that’s read into it that I’m questioning.

The poster who said that the doctrine doesn’t come from the text but the church tradition was the most honest so far in just stating the fact.

I have no problem with that…but to KEEP ASSERTING what has **yet to be established **is not doing a whole lot.

 

[dpgreen]

I think HUIOU THEOU has done a marvellous job of explaining the complexities of the Greek. I agree the key to understanding the passage is to see that Mary’s name had been changed and the significance of that throughout the OT.

As far as White goes, I’ve been on his website and I do not blame apologists for not debating with him. He is dishonest in his representation of Catholic apologists. He is not interested in meaningful dialogue. I find his behavior to be most unChristian. I’m curious to know why he is so “hell bent” on proving Catholicism wrong. If Catholics can show their beliefs via scripture, then what’s his problem. Isn’t that what protestantism is all about - self-interpreters of scripture. How can he say our interpretation is wrong. Is he making himself pope James? What about the issue of infant baptism. So many differing views within protestantism. Yet all these differing views resulting in the ‘bible alone’ theory.

Well it’s pretty obvious to me.

God bless

 

[po18guy]

No I didn’t.

Yes…as you’ve stated…that’s your assertion…but yet to be proven by the text.

The text merely says “highly favored one”…I have no problem with that…

It’s all the dogma that’s read into it that I’m questioning.

The poster who said that the doctrine doesn’t come from the text but the church tradition was the most honest so far in just stating the fact.

I have no problem with that…but to KEEP ASSERTING what has **yet to be established **is not doing a whole lot.

Three points: 1. We keep falling back to the Greek, because that is the language of the existing texts. However, Gabriel greeted Mary in her native Aramaic. I imagine that has also been discussed in these forums.

1. Did Gabriel, in greeting Mary, change her name from Mary to “Graced/Favored/Full of Grace” as an indication that her role in God’s covenant had forever changed? This would parallel Abram > Abraham; Sarai > Sarah; Jacob > Israel; Simon > Kepha, etc.
2. As to Sacred Tradition: since that is how Jesus taught the Apostles, and how the Apostles continued the Church, did Jesus then improperly found His Church on Tradition and without a bible?

 

[rpavich]

Three points: 1. We keep falling back to the Greek, because that is the language of the existing texts. However, Gabriel greeted Mary in her native Aramaic.

Is this a fact or a theory? Do you have a citation?

1. As to Sacred Tradition: since that is how Jesus taught the Apostles, and how the Apostles continued the Church, did Jesus then improperly found His Church on Tradition and without a bible?

You know full well that what I was referring to was “anachronistic” concepts of tradition as is common among RC apologists.

The fact is that the first responder to me nailed it by admitting that this particular text does not support the “full of grace” doctrine and that it’s the “tradition of the Church” that actually teaches it.

Since nobody has given any sort of real “answer” as it relates to the Greek syntax specifically, then why keep making assertions that on what the text means when what’s getting asserted are concepts foreign to the text being read into the text?

 

[po18guy]

Is this a fact or a theory? Do you have a citation?

Nice trick! So, do you deny that the language of Jesus and Mary was Aramiaic? If you must see proof in print before you will believe, we cannot converse.

You know full well that what I was referring to was “anachronistic” concepts of tradition as is common among RC apologists.

I do?

The fact is that the first responder to me nailed it by admitting that this particular text does not support the “full of grace” doctrine and that it’s the “tradition of the Church” that actually teaches it.

As it was intended to do, scripture backs up tradition.

Since nobody has given any sort of real “answer” as it relates to the Greek syntax specifically, then why keep making assertions that on what the text means when what’s getting asserted are concepts foreign to the text being read into the text?

Because the bible does not say that Gabriel spoke Greek.

 

[po18guy]

Does the bible teach every single thing that Jesus said and did? Does the bible tell of every single thing that the Twelve did? Does the bible tell of everything that Paul did? Well no, it does not.

So, where do we go from here? Either we trust Jesus’ word that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth, or we settle for the “Cliffs Notes” of salvation (bible). While it is true that Cliff’s Notes are 100% correct in their content, they are not complete. And, neither is the bible. So, at some point, the bible fails to tell the entire story.

Jesus knew all of this. He did not send scripture forth. He sent Apostles forth with teachings. Some, perhaps nearly all, of those teachings are written in the bible. What about the others? Are they to be ignored?

 

[inkaneer]

Ok…just so you know I’m not being rude when I say:

“Ok…so the answer is; there is no connection”

I understand, and I’m not taking a dig at you; you’ve fully answered what I was wondering about.

No, there is a connection. But it is not a direct statement. You will not find a verse stating Mary was sinless but you will find verses like Luke 1:28. This verse is very unique but not in the way that others have stated in this thread. The angel addresses Mary, not by name, but by a quality she possesses. “Hail, full of grace…” Now here’s a question for you. How can Mary be “full of grace” before the age of grace began? We are graced by Christ’s death on the cross. That is what ushered in the age of grace. But here is Mary who scripture says was not only graced at least 34 years before the age of grace began but was filled with grace. How can that be? It’s an important question but scripture does not tell us the answer. That’s why we cannot rely on scripture alone.

 

[Axion]

Mary was GRACED completely,
remains GRACED completely
this state of being GRACED completely will continue and
there is NOTHING MORE to be added!.