Marian dogma

[steve_b]

Yes, I can. That’s why I’m calling you on it. It’s a shame, therefore, that you have no defense for what you’ve asserted here.

I have given a defense
G:

No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. In fact, I keep reminding you that I, too, agree that Mary’s “being full of grace” does not end at the Annunciation.

However, I continue to remind you that the grammar of κεχαριτωμένη is not the sole proof of this theological assertion.

I never said it is the sole proof.

Unless acted on to end a past completed action, the perfect tense of a completed past action continues on in full effect. Therefore it goes on and on and on…unless / until an action changes it.

Absent that action, a completed past action continues on in full effect. Grammatically speaking of course
G:

Certainly, although I’ve already done so. What I’m saying is that the argument for Mary’s perpetual sinlessness is a theological argument, and not (primarily) a grammatical argument.

I never said the theology behind ( κεχαριτωμένη ) was primarily a grammatical argument. I showed how it can be defended by grammatical argument.
G:

The grammar aids in the theological argument; it does not, however, in and of itself, prove the theological argument.

I never said it is the be all to end all argument proving the theology.
G:

You seem to be having a difficult time isolating these two dynamics (‘theology’ and ‘grammar’). It seems to me – and perhaps I’m mistaken – that you want grammar to prove your theology. Grammar doesn’t have any skin in that game.

unless acted on directly to end a past completed action that is in full effect, then that past completed action will continue on and on and on…in full force. THAT’S THE POINT.

The definition of the “perfect tense” doesn’t contradict that.
G:

However, what I’m saying is not that “the Blessed Mother being full of grace doesn’t go past the annunciation.” In fact, I’ve said – again and again on this thread! – that I agree with that theological assertion! Rather, it’s simply an objective fact that the word κεχαριτωμένη itself does not (completely) make this theological assertion.

I never said it did. Grammatically speaking κεχαριτωμένη unless acted on to end that completed past action, it’s going to continue on in full effect. THAT is the point I’ve been making.
G:

Rather, its grammar aids us in making this theological assertion. If you have a problem distinguishing between ‘grammar’ and ‘theology’, then I understand your issues dealing with this question.

I have no problem distinguishing grammar and theology.
G:

Umm… if you say so:

Originally Posted by steve b

#60
If an action is anticipated to end, and isn’t anticipated to continue, i.e. won’t endure “in full effect” then another tense of a verb is available and should be used instead

Sure looks like you’re asserting that “another tense of a verb is available”…

In context, look at what I said there and why I said it (link #60 provided). I was responding to your following comment

Gorgias

Mary is κεχαριτωμένη. Gabriel is asserting that the past action (of God having given her grace) resulted in a state (she is ‘graced’), and that state continues to the present (i.e., the time of the Annunciation). Theologically, there is more going on, but grammatically, that’s all that’s being asserted here.

Just as you say there is more going on theologically there, you don’t acknowledge there is more to the grammar going on there as well. That’s why I asked

"Where in the definition of the NT Greek perfect tense, does it presume the end of a “completed past action that will NOT continue on / or endure, in full effect”?

Therefore, grammatically speaking, unless the Greek perfect tense of a completed past action is acted on directly to change that past action so that it is NOT contining on in full effect, then that past action continues on in full effect.

That’s NOT a theological argument. That’s a statement made on grammar.
G:

True enough; yet, you asserted that perfect tense meant that the effect would endure eternally. Clearly, that’s an erroneous assertion.

The problem is you’re arguing against what you portray not what has been said.

I think our discussion here is at an end. It’s clear that we both believe in Mary’s sinlessness, but it’s likewise clear (to me) that I won’t be able to help you understand that your conflation of ‘grammar’ and ‘theology’ is in error.

In closing, I’ll say it again,

Grammatically speaking, (Greek Perfect tense) unless the completed past action is acted on to end that action, then that past completed action continues on in full effect.

That’s a grammatical argument NOT a theological one.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, everything I’m seeing is that the Koine Greek perfect tense means:

an action occurred in the past and has been completed,
and its results are present at the time of speaking.

It doesn’t mean that the results will continue into the future.

So if the colt was bound five minutes ago and the binding was finished at that time,
right now he is bound. He’s a bound colt.

But that doesn’t necessarily imply anything about what will happen in the future, or that the colt will never be bound again, or that the colt isn’t also working on the rope in order to unbind himself.

Apparently, it’s kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle that implies permanence.

“Rejoice, one having been filled with grace before and currently full of grace” does sound a bit more lasting.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, everything I’m seeing is that the Koine Greek perfect tense means:

an action occurred in the past and has been completed,
and its results are present at the time of speaking.

It doesn’t mean that the results will continue into the future.

Right. You’re doing great!

Apparently, it’s kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle that implies permanence.

:doh2:

No – the fact that it’s a participle does not imply ‘permanence’. If you look at the colt example, you’ll see that that word, too, is a participle, and we agree that the colt isn’t ‘permanently bound’.

The ‘permanence’ is the theological part of the argument.

“Rejoice, one having been filled with grace before and currently full of grace” does sound a bit more lasting.

LOL! Something tells me that St Jerome, looking at that precise meaning, simply shrugged and said, “nah… ‘plena gratia’ flows a whole lot better here”…!

 

[Gorgias]

Unless acted on to end a past completed action, the perfect tense of a completed past action continues on in full effect. Therefore it goes on and on and on…unless / until an action changes it.

Strictly speaking, that too is not what perfect tense asserts. Practically speaking, in some cases, that might be precisely the situation. Perfect tense, however – since it is only interested in the fact of the present result being in existence – makes no statement about its viability in the future.

unless acted on directly to end a past completed action that is in full effect, then that past completed action will continue on and on and on…in full force. THAT’S THE POINT.

Not at all. The perfect tense doesn’t concern itself with the future, either in terms of continuation or lack of continuation. The point, as it were, is simply that the result of the action is in effect now, at the time of the statement.

Grammatically speaking κεχαριτωμένη unless acted on to end that completed past action, it’s going to continue on in full effect. THAT is the point I’ve been making.

That’s a nice modification of what you’ve been saying. It gets you closer to the truth.

Therefore, grammatically speaking, unless the Greek perfect tense of a completed past action is acted on directly to change that past action so that it is NOT contining on in full effect, then that past action continues on in full effect.

Although that may or may not be true, that’s not what perfect tense asserts. The tense simply looks at a point in time (the ‘present’, as asserted in the statement) and says “hey! the result of a past action is in effect now!” It makes no claims about whether that result will be “in full effect” in the future.

Grammatically speaking, (Greek Perfect tense) unless the completed past action is acted on to end that action, then that past completed action continues on in full effect.

Nope. That’s not what perfect tense says. There’s no “unless”, there’s no “acted upon”… there’s just “here’s what the situation is now.”

That’s a grammatical argument NOT a theological one.

Yes, that is a grammatical argument. Problem is, it’s a faulty one…

 

[steve_b]

Strictly speaking, that too is not what perfect tense asserts. Practically speaking, in some cases, that might be precisely the situation. Perfect tense, however – since it is only interested in the fact of the present result being in existence – makes no statement about its viability in the future.

It includes the present. And the definition includes “continues on in full effect”.

The “ongoing” aspect of the action is what you’re not dealing with.
G:

Not at all. The perfect tense doesn’t concern itself with the future, either in terms of continuation or lack of continuation. The point, as it were, is simply that the result of the action is in effect now, at the time of the statement.

finish the statement

“The point, as it were, is simply that the result of the action is in effect now, at the time of the statement” AND continues on in full effect.
G:

That’s a nice modification of what you’ve been saying. It gets you closer to the truth.

It’s no modification.

I answered your example of the act of releasing the colt. That ended the original act that tied the colt up. Who acted on Mary to release her from being full of Grace?

as I said previously

“Grammatically speaking κεχαριτωμένη unless acted on to end that completed past action, it’s going to continue on in full effect. THAT is the point I’ve been making.”
G:

Although that may or may not be true, that’s not what perfect tense asserts. The tense simply looks at a point in time (the ‘present’, as asserted in the statement) and says “hey! the result of a past action is in effect now!” It makes no claims about whether that result will be “in full effect” in the future.

"Time " is secondary. It’s the type of action that is primary. And while “present” is included in “perfect tense” so also is “continue on in full effect”.

“Present” has one connotation, “continue on in full effect” has another connotation. BOTH are included in the definition
G:

Nope. That’s not what perfect tense says. There’s no “unless”, there’s no “acted upon”… there’s just “here’s what the situation is now.”

ON THE CONTRARY, we’re talking about an action

Action ( i.e. a person who is passively made full of grace) is most certainly part of the definition we’re talking about here… Mary was acted upon. And her being fully graced is passive on her part. The act was done to her. A past action that is completed, and continues on, in full effect.

As the definition points out

NT Greek Perfect Tense (emphasis mine)
the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.

from ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

(progress of the action has been completed) refers to Mary is fully graced. Not partially graced but fully graced.

AND

“the continuation and present state of a completed past action” does NOT say continuation of a past action stops at the present state. It continues on.

As for your example you used

If a completed past action is stopped by some action, then that past action doesn’t continue on. Witness the colt in the example you used.

Absent an action that reverses a completed past action of Mary’s being full of grace, the completed past action of Mary being full of grace, continues on.
G:

Yes, that is a grammatical argument. Problem is, it’s a faulty one…

Your faulty opinion is duely noted

 

[Good_Fella]

It is important to keep in mind that the word *kecharitomene *is in the vocative case. The angel does not say: “Hail, Mary. You have been perfectly and completely endowed with grace.” Rather he directly addresses her by substituting her name for the word: ‘Hail, full of grace.’ Kecharitomene is the name the angel gives Mary when he addresses her. So the state of grace Mary continues to exist in at the time of the Annunciation can be considered to be of an enduring and permanent quality. In Scripture the names God gives his servants (Abram-Abraham, Sarai-Sarah, Jacob-Israel, Simon-Peter, Saul-Paul) refer to their defining characteristics. The name Sarah (“exalted princess” in ancient Hebrew), for example, points to the status of being the Matriarch of the Covenant. Thus the name Kecharitomene points to something essential about Mary’s nature. She isn’t simply full of grace, but embodies in her person what it means to be completely and perfectly endowed with grace. And the names God gives His servants are permanent. Grammatically and linguistically we must keep both the verb tense and the form of case in mind to fully understand what is being indicated here by the word kecharitomene. The perfect tense is being used here in a way that isn’t ever for any other person in the Scriptures.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Magdalenaa]

A good starting point is Revelation 12:1.
Now many protestants would twist and say that the woman in revelation means the Church, however the Church did not have a son. The son founded the Church. The woman in revelations has a son, a saviour.

Don’t forget “My soul magnifies the Lord” Luke 1:46 None of us magnify the Lord. We are stained by sin. We are born stained with original sin. Forgiven, but stained. We could never magnify the Lord. Only grace can make us be in him, with him, and through him.

“Hail Full of Grace” the angel addressed Mary. Full of Grace? What does that mean?
It means that the redemptive work of Christ has already been done completely and fully on Mary. As it will be on us after this exile.
No human is full of grace. We grow in grace but no human is full of grace until we are resurrected.
The stain of original sin would also prevent us from being full of grace.
She is blessed and she is our mother. We see in Luke that all generations shall call her blessed and we hear Jesus Christ Himself tell John the Apostle “Behold your mother…” because she is the mother of all humanity.

She is the new Eve who because of her “Yes” we got Jesus Christ our saviour. Because of her “Yes” God could incarnate. The angel asked her. It was not a command. A teenager, unless full of grace, would have faced the fear of being stoned to death by the Jews for adultery. She trusted God and said “Do unto me according to your will”

Finally, she is the woman in the apocalypse/revelation who crushes the head of the serpent.
Only because she represents the fully completed salvific work of Christ.
Christ defeated the devil and his demons by redeeming us. Mary, redeemed already crushes the head of the serpent. The same serpent that made the 1st Eve fall was defeated by the redemptive work of Christ in Mary, our second Eve. The one who said yes to God and thus let God redeemed us all.

She carried our Manna just like the Ark of the Covenant carried the Manna in the desert. She is the Ark of the Covenant who brought us our savior; our manna during this exile. The bread of life.

The Ark in the OT and NT
2 Samuel 6
The Ark carried the 10 Commandments, Manna, Aaron’s budded rod.
Luke 1
Mary carried the Word made flesh, Bread of Heaven, the Great High Priest

2 Samuel 6 v9
How can the ark of the Lord come to me?
Luke 1:43
Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

2 Samuel 6:14-16
David leaping and dancing before the Ark
Luke 1:41
John leaping in the womb before Mary

2 Samuel 6:11
The Ark stayed in the house of Obed-Edom for three months
Luke 1:56
Mary stays with Elizabeth for three months.

The correlations are beyond staggering. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. Just as the Levi crossed the Jordan to enter the promised Land carrying the Ark, we must also take with us our Mother as Jesus Christ left Her to us.

Jesus Christ left us many channels of grace. Mary, the Holy Spirit, the Communion of Saints, etc are all channels of grace. A person open to all of those channels will get closer to and inside Christ like no other.
A person with strong Marian devotion is assured to be closest to Jesus Christ. The closest possible during this exile. “My soul magnifies the Lord”… Go to Mary and you will see the Lord magnified.

 

[Good_Fella]

I have been reading the Early Church Fathers from the 1st and 2nd centuries and I have not seen any teaching about Mary or anyone alluding to her conception.

The earliest allusions to the Immaculate Conception that we have in extant writings belong to the 2nd century in the works of Justin Martyr (155 A.D.) and Irenaeus (180-189 A.D.) who designate Mary as the new Eve in God’s plan of redemption. In the mid 3rd century (235 A.D.) Hippolytus draws a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. These ECFs do not explicitly mention anything about Mary’s conception, but what they say may presuppose Mary’s freedom from all stain of sin. Irenaeus, for instance, speaks of Mary as the ‘obedient virgin’ who has ‘rescued the human race from the bondage of death’ which initially was wrought by the virgin Eve’s disobedience. It was through Eve that Adam (mankind) fell. Moreover, the Church Father calls Mary the ‘advocate of Eve’ which means the mother of our Lord has vindicated her. Mary couldn’t have done so if she hadn’t been created sinless or fell from grace by committing any personal sin. Filled with the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth pronounces her kinswoman ‘Most blessed among women’ which includes Eve (cf. Lk 1:42). Mary’s role in the recapitulation of the fall in an exact reversed order required Mary’s freedom from sin. Indeed, Justin Martyr compares Mary with Eve, both being ‘virgins’ and ‘undefiled’ before the fall; only Mary does not ‘conceive the word of the serpent’, but receives the word of God ‘with faith and joy’ (cf. Lk 1:46-49). Hippolytus describes Mary as the ‘tabernacle’ of our Lord who was ‘free from putridity and corruption’. The original ark was fashioned out of the purest natural material - gold and acacia wood - according to God’s specifications, since it was to serve as His sacred dwelling place. Thus this dogma is implicitly contained in these early Church teachings.

PAX
:heaven: