Kecharitomene

  • Thread starter Thread starter ematouk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“40. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,(47) immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.(48)”-
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION
November 1, 1950
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
 
ematouk said:
Are you 100% sure of this teaching? because I can agree with it if this is true. I believe Mary remained with concupiscence (desire) and death. This would make her like the entire human race and worthy to be called our supreme example, the “first of the redeemed” who points to Christ in all things.

.
Click to expand...
Hi ematouk,

Yes, I’m 100% sure.
Here’s a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
#491 …as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."

Now, in connection with that you’ll need the Catholic doctrine which defines “stain of original sin”. That can be found in the Catechism #402-412. Here are a couple quotes:

*#404 …It is a sin … by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”–a state and not an act.

#405 …It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin–an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.*

(Original holiness and justice refers to sanctifying grace)

Nita
 
ematouk said:
Are you 100% sure of this teaching? because I can agree with it if this is true. I believe Mary remained with concupiscence (desire) and death. This would make her like the entire human race and worthy to be called our supreme example, the “first of the redeemed” who points to Christ in all things.

By saying this I would probably agree with the Catholic teaching of the IC, but I would still have to reject the idea that it was by the “singular grace and privilage of Almighty God”. Mostly because I dont believe anyone is an inheriter of Adam’s original guilt (forgiven in baptism by sanctifying grace).

So in this case, I would simply reject the underlying view of Original Sin which is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Click to expand...
As I remembered, the Eastern Orthodox don’t really have a concept of Original Sin, at least like the Catholic Church. Here’s an EO link:

oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4

Just as many Protestants (esp. the “Baptist” types) do not believe in Original Sin.

So then, in a sense, EVERYONE is born without Original Sin to them. So what’s the problem with Mary and her having no Original Sin? Is Mary the only person WITH Original Sin?
 
SPH1 said:
As I remembered, the Eastern Orthodox don’t really have a concept of Original Sin, at least like the Catholic Church. Here’s an EO link:

oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4

Just as many Protestants (esp. the “Baptist” types) do not believe in Original Sin.

So then, in a sense, EVERYONE is born without Original Sin to them. So what’s the problem with Mary and her having no Original Sin? Is Mary the only person WITH Original Sin?
Click to expand...
This article may have been a bit misleading. We do believe in the Original sin, in the sense that we believe Adam sinned. Original sin = first sin.

Orthodox theologians call the effects of that sin which are passed on to humanity “ancestral sin”. The main effects are death and concupisence (desire).

My understanding previously was that by saying Mary was without Original Sin the Catholic church was in fact stating that Mary had not inclination to sin (concupisence) and was immortal (could not die). This, I was taught, was a quality of God alone.

But as nita pointed out, the Catholic Church does not teach that Mary did not have concupisence and could not die (immortal). Therefore I am willing to accept that fact. But like you said I will not be willing to state that it was by the “***singular grace ***and privilage of Almighty God” implying that Mary alone possessed this quality.

Thankyou Nita for clearing a few issues up. But Adam brought up an interesting quote. Can you explain what POPE PIUS XII meant when he said:

“that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death”

(APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION
November 1, 1950)

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

In my understanding it seems to suggest Mary was immortal? and not subject to the effects of the Original Sin? But I do agree with your interpretation of the CCC. That seemed to clear things up.

God bless.
 
ematouk said:
Can anyone back up Nita’s interpretation or does anyone know any Catholic website or document which claims Mary was under concupisence (desire) and death?

May God help us to heal the schisms as soon as possible. God bless. Thankyou Nita.
Click to expand...
You won’t be able to find anyofficial Church teaching (infallible dogma or doctrine) on the above, because there isn’t one. The Catechism has nothing on it - at least, nothing I could find.

“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott gives the teaching that “From her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence” the theological degree of certainty of “sententia communis” - Common teaching/doctrine, “which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally”. The only theologian Ott mentions is St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica III 27, 3).

Hope this helps a little.

Nita
 
“that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death”

My understanding is that Mary would not decompose. The Church has no defined dogma as to whether or not Mary died.
 
ematouk said:
This article may have been a bit misleading. We do believe in the Original sin, in the sense that we believe Adam sinned. Original sin = first sin.

Orthodox theologians call the effects of that sin which are passed on to humanity “ancestral sin”. The main effects are death and concupisence (desire).

My understanding previously was that by saying Mary was without Original Sin the Catholic church was in fact stating that Mary had not inclination to sin (concupisence) and was immortal (could not die). This, I was taught, was a quality of God alone.

But as nita pointed out, the Catholic Church does not teach that Mary did not have concupisence and could not die (immortal). Therefore I am willing to accept that fact. But like you said I will not be willing to state that it was by the “***singular grace ***and privilage of Almighty God” implying that Mary alone possessed this quality.

Thankyou Nita for clearing a few issues up. But Adam brought up an interesting quote. Can you explain what POPE PIUS XII meant when he said:

“that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death”

(APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION
November 1, 1950)

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

In my understanding it seems to suggest Mary was immortal? and not subject to the effects of the Original Sin? But I do agree with your interpretation of the CCC. That seemed to clear things up.

God bless.
Click to expand...
It means that God did not leave her body in the tomb to undergo corruption. Instead her body was “resurrected” and she was assumed into heaven by God.

Notice that the Assumption doctrine seems to imply Mary experienced death.

Could you explain a little further what problem the word “singular” raises for you? To us it just means a special grace that was granted to only one (single) human person - Mary - since the fall. (Jesus is a Divine Person). That there should be such a singular grace is not surprising to me; to be chosen to be the Mother of God is itself a singular grace also given to Mary.

Nita
 
ematouk said:
Ok. I was under the impression Kecharitomene was the major crux of the Catholic argument. It seems to fill the most pages in a apologetic discussions as though it was the most profound piece of evidence on the subject.
Click to expand...
Oh hardly. The pages are merely for the exegesis for the word, but we really don’t point to “therefore she was immaculately conceivd” just from this single passage.
Check your greek. We call her Panagia (not Panagios). Mary is not a man, and she most definitely is not the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
See my previous post. I already admitted the gaffe.
In my understanding Mary is not called “Panagia” (All-holy) because of the word Kecharitomene. To be holy is to be by definition “free from passions”, to be “free”. Mary is called Panagia because of her obedience to God “let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). She is truly All-free by being All-obedient to the Lord.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you use kecharitomene, the fact is she is still Panagia. I know the Orthodox are not fond of defining everything unlike the Latins, but your understanding of Panagia is very much compatible with our own (negatively-put) wording. Our reasoning is simply that since she is Pan- hagia, there was no room for the fallen state of that comes with original sin. Hence, the freedom from passions, as you correctly pointed out. Therefore her being “Pan”-agia must have covered her entire existence. If she had had a point in which she had original sin, she would not have been hagia, or even very hagia, but perhaps less than pan hagia.
Most Orthodox Christians teach Mary as being personally sinless. But reject any notion of her being free from original sin. That is, not being under the power of desire (concupisence) and death. If she did not have these things then she can not be the supreme example to us pointing to Christ, because she truly was seperate from us.
Click to expand...
On Mary’s personal sinlessness, we agree. We take his as another offshoot of kecharitomene (fully and continually graced) and panagia.

We don’t, however claim that Mary was free of desire (concupiscence in Latin understanding points more to the propensity to sin) or death (since it is acceptable belief that she died) because she had free will. It was just that since she is full of grace in the highest possible sense, that grace was her strength over desire. She was human too, and even Jesus was tempted in every way.

But we must also understand that you Orthodox have a different understanding of original sin (I’m Latin, so I won’t presume to understand fully) but I’ve always accepted that it’s also a valid understanding in that original sin has to do with desires and passions that lead to actual sin and death (or that death is the factor that leads people to sin).

All that you need to understand as far as the compatibility of the dogma is concerned is that Mary was fully graced all throughout her existence. I think that should be compatible with you. It would not be fair to impose Latin terminology and expression on you. We don’t even do that to our Byzantine Catholic brothers as well.
Plares Charitas (“full of grace”) is a different word yes. But also means full of grace. If Stephen was “full of grace” while he did signs among the people, was he sinless while he did those signs? If Stephen was “full of grace” then surely he could not have any sin?
Click to expand...
The difference is that he was filled with grace after his baptism and ordination. The difference is that the word has no indication of a continuing state unlike kecharitomene. Also, pleres charitos is not in the vocative.

Anyway, I’m telling you, even if you don’t admit it. You do believe in the Immaculate Conception, but just word it differently.
 
Nita said:
It means that God did not leave her body in the tomb to undergo corruption. Instead her body was “resurrected” and she was assumed into heaven by God.

Notice that the Assumption doctrine seems to imply Mary experienced death.

Could you explain a little further what problem the word “singular” raises for you? To us it just means a special grace that was granted to only one (single) human person - Mary - since the fall. (Jesus is a Divine Person). That there should be such a singular grace is not surprising to me; to be chosen to be the Mother of God is itself a singular grace also given to Mary.

Nita
Click to expand...
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful " (Ineffabilis Deus; “The Definition”)

Firstly, by saying “singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God” this implies that Mary alone (+ Jesus) was “preserved” from inheriting the guilt of Adam.

I simply do not believe in inherited guilt. Thus I can not say Mary was “preserved” from something that does not exist. Nor can I say she was the only one to experience not having the stain of Adam’s sin. I believe all of humanity is innocent of Adam’s sin. This is why Orthodox Christians never taught unbaptised babies went to hell. (though it was a major issue in the Catholic church because of inherited guilt to the extent some decided to invent the place of Limbo because they could not reconcile a just God to one who sent unbaptised babies to hell for Adam’s sin)

When Adam sinned and refused to confess before God, he seperated himself from God (the source of life). Therefore death came into the world. Now that man can die, the passions developed of hunger, thirst, jealousy, etc… which results in concupisence (desire).

But, I do not believe God removed His sanctifying grace from us, as though it was some sort of punishment instilled by God. I believe Adam rejected God’s grace and thus he himself removed the grace from his heart. Grace now nolonger works internally, but externally on mankind.

Now that death has come upon Adam. And Adam has Lordship over all creation. Death affected all of creation, then the “entire cosmos” the Greeks say it affected. Now everything in this world is perishable.

Grace is also not seen as a created entity to the Orthodox. Grace is not a created entity that simply helps us become more Godlike or return to God, nor is it seen like some sort of Visa to get to heaven if you attain all the right “types of stamps”. Grace is the presence of God Himself. Grace is the very action of God Himself in the creation.

Therefore When Christ died on the cross He defeated the Ultimate death on our behalf. We still need to die, so that we can leave this perishable existance and be born anew in the new creation. Strangely enough, the Orthodox also teach we are actually dead now, and when we “die” we are actually being transported to life. Because heaven is the true life - in comparison this is death.

The Orthodox teach that we are forgiven of the Original Sin in baptism. But by that we do not mean we are forgiven of the sin Adam committed. We mean we die to sin and live to God, that we may trample down the ultimate death at the last judgement.

We do not understand things in legalistic terms and in most cases we try to avoid legalistic understandings, though we do use the terminology in some cases to promote a superficial understanding. I’m not going to provide scriptural evidence in this discussion because it is beyond the scope of the discussion.

Sorry I went a bit off topic. But you have been very helpful in this discussion Nita.

Thankyou and God bless.
 
Hi ematouk,

I do think there are perhaps areas where we mean the same thing, but because we use the language differently a problem arises.

Please do keep in mind that the guilt of original sin in no way means personal guilt for sin. I’m not even sure if we use the term “guilt”. For example, no Catholic would say “I was guilty of original sin”. (At least, I don’t think they would.) Rather, “I was born in the state of original sin”.

We believe that Adam acted as head of the race. The consequences of his sin passed on to all of his descendents - the supernatural consequences [loss of sanctifying grace (which was always a supernatural gift and not part of our human nature)] as well as the natural consequences (concupiscence, pain, death, etc.). It is our inheritance of the supernatural consequences that seems to trouble you. There are probably some who think it doesn’t seem right for God to pass on the natural consequences either. But we know God always has a good reason for what He does, that He loves us, and wants us all to be saved. I am Catholic and trust God’s guidance of our Church, ensuring it does not teach error in its doctrines.

I remember a Byzantine priest saying once that they had no problem with the Immaculate Conception since they believed everyone was immaculately conceived. (I wondered about it at the time,and still do, since the Byzantine rite is part of the Catholic Church.) This reflects your belief.

God bless,
Nita
 
The “corruption of the tomb” that Mary avoided appears to be referencing Genesis 3:19 re returning to dust. Not specifically and necessarily avoiding death, but the returning to dust. Possibly the main penalty from the fall.

That Mary avoided - whether she died or not - in the Assumption dogma.

Christ also avoided the corruption of the tomb - the primary penalty - by the Resurrection.
 
Thankyou everyone. You have all been extremely helpful… I’m going to ammend my article tomorrow to remove quite a few arguements.

So far my only disagreements with the doctrine are:
  1. Underlying doctrine of Original Sin
  2. I feel Christs cross can only be applied after He died (Hebrews 9:16-17)
  3. I feel it contradicts Gods justice to grant original innocence to one and grant original sin to the rest of mankind (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Galatians 2:6; Romans 2:11)
  4. Finally I can not agree that one is “condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church” by not agreeing with the Immaculate Conception. I see it as a non-salvic issue and thus should not be placed on the same level as the central dogmas of the trinity and two natures of Christ. (Ineffabilis Deus; “The Definition”)
God bless all of you, and thankyou for responding very respectfully.
 
ematouk said:
"This is why Orthodox Christians never taught unbaptised babies went to hell. (though it was a major issue in the Catholic church because of inherited guilt to the extent some decided to invent the place of Limbo because they could not reconcile a just God to one who sent unbaptised babies to hell for Adam’s sin).
Click to expand...
The church never truly taught that un-baptized babies went to hell; condemned to damnation for eternity… and limbo [never a doctrine/dogma] was a theory [yes, sadly accepted and over taught by many] that tried to answer the question that death before baptism leves in the hearts of Christians who grieve … [hopefully Limbo will stay where it has been relegated] …

Through time there have been Orthodox lead theologcal constructs [some even heresies] as well …

Please, lets just stick with your writings about the Immaculate Conception … and the mis-conceptions / mis-understandings …

Your initial premise was that the entire dogma was based upon one word … and how that word was used in reference to Stephen … neither of which was true … What about the the other passages in scripture that are used for the doctrine?

And what is it about the “singularity” of God’s grace that you find so troubling … is not bearing God a ‘singular’ grace? Yes or no? Yet you want to determine the point at when God granted that grace … not at conception … but at some later time … ? At the same time you make referecne to this being from the beginings of time … before Mary’s conception and after the conception but had nothing and no connection with her actual conception …

You say is has no connection to Jesus but Mary carried God, Incarnate and Jesus - humanity in her womb, her blood flowing through His veins, providing nourishment … and yet there can be no connection between the sin[less] state of Mary :confused: …

This is one instance where high theology and fancy diagramming and defining of words is not necessary … For God all things are possible …

If the Ark of the Covenant was to be perfect and created by God given specifications and the Holy of Holies was to remain undifiled and pristine, how much more so the womb in which Jesus grew and was nourished in preparation for the birth that brings salvation [redemption from the fall of humanity]?
 
adam_in_ohio said:
I so need my greek to english rosetta stone.:whacky: :doh2:
Click to expand...
This might help some:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3142174#post3142174

Luke 1:28
και εισελθ-ων προς αυτ-ην ε-ιπ-εν
and ?Comeing? toward her/As+ Said/2Aor

χαιρ-ε κε-χαριτω-μεν-η ο κυρι-ος μετα σ-ου
Hail/V she-who-has-been-kept-graced the/Ns^ Lord/Ns^ after[with?] of-you
Acts 6:8
στεφαν-ος δε πληρ-ης χαριτ-ος και δυναμεω-ς
Stefanos/Ns^ <–but full/Gs+ of-grace/Gs and dynamo[power]/Gs

ε-ποι-ει τερα-τ-α και σημε-ι-α μεγαλ-α εν τ-ω λα-ω
[he]did/3s wonder/NAs+ and sign/NAs big in[among] the/Ds^ people/Ds^

Interestingly enough (for the Greek inclined), both the word for Grace, and the word for power are following the genitive ending for older words, like the ones for λ or ρ endings, and τ,δ,θ The power word appearing as a contraction presumably because of the δυναμεω-ος becomes …ω-ς. So the first part of the phrase is somewhat archaic sounding.

The word for grace in Luke is the Verb form of the word – because participles take verbs and make them into noun/adjective like things. Most particples are -ing like words which take a verb and make an adjective or noun out of it – eg: jump-ing. the jump-ed board.

The word for grace in Acts is totally different – it is a noun form, not a participle at all – and uses an archaic ending. I would have to do some searching to find other examples before I could prove the nuances of these two words – but it is extremely odd if Luke meant Grace as only a noun, that he made a participle out of a verb rather than just using the same noun. It is, after all, the same author.

One other thing, as I noted in the other thread – the greeting χαιρ-ε is followed by a noun which is the name of the person being greeted – so the salutaion in Luke is odd in a second way. This verb-name is Mary’s name.
 
ematouk said:
  1. I feel it contradicts Gods justice to grant original innocence to one and grant original sin to the rest of mankind (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Galatians 2:6; Romans 2:11)
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this line of thinking. How does it contradict Gods justice to give certin graces to one but not others?
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
this same word is used for all christians twice in Eph 1:6.
Click to expand...
They’re not identical.
In Luke 1:28 the parsing is as follows:

Case - vocative
Mood - participle
Tense - perfect
Voice - passive

In Eph 1:6:
(no Case)
Mood - indicative
Tense - aorist
Voice - active
Only the second use of grace is applicable; the first use is the ordinary word used in Scripture for grace and is used often (a word search on the Greek came up with 155 times in the NT).

All of which means there is a difference in meaning because of different way it was used. And I’ll let somebody versed in Greek do any further explaining, because it’s beyond my abilities.

Nita
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top