Mary and sinlessness

[Randy_Carson]

So, I am reading Teachings of the Catholic Church: Questions & Biblical Answers by Joe Poweziak. Basically, it’s a book that is a ‘letter’ intended for his family on why he left the Catholic Church.
One of his points is about Mary and the Immaculate Conception. I’m ok refuting most of his comments (at least in my mind, and not to someone else ) but there’s one I’m a bit stuck on and I’m hoping that others here can enlighten me.
He’s talking about was Mary sinless her entire life and quotes Luke 1:46-47 My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" and says that if Mary had never sinned, she would have no need for a Savior.
What do we say to that?

God can “save” a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; one can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?

 

[ezeekl]

I know the Orthodox do not believe Mary was conceived without sin, but they do hold that she was sinless after that. Just as a thought, could it be possible that by having Jesus in her womb, that He washed away her original sin? Much like how Jesus heals us when we receive Him in the form if the Eucharist?

I don’t think so. The angel Gabriel, when he initially addressed Mary, addressed her as “full of grace”. This was before she said yes to be the Mother of God.

 

[ezeekl]

When the angel said “Hail Mary full of grace”, why does this signify that Mary was conceived without sin? I would think perhaps one could interpret that as meaning Mary was a very righteous woman, always in a state of grace, thus being “full of grace” ?

The church receives her cue on Mary’s Immaculate Conception from the words translated as “full of grace” Jerome translated the Greek word kecharitomene into Latin as Gratia Plena. But it loses something in the translation. Here is what the Catholic Answers tract Immaculate Conception and Assumption
says about it:

“…The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind.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.”

The early church saw in Mary the new Eve just as Jesus was the new Adam. And just as Eve was a virgin and created without sin so too the new Eve would be also.

 

[Amandil]

The church receives her cue on Mary’s Immaculate Conception from the words translated as “full of grace” Jerome translated the Greek word kecharitomene into Latin as Gratia Plena. But it loses something in the translation. Here is what the Catholic Answers tract Immaculate Conception and Assumption
says about it:

"…The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. 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."

The early church saw in Mary the new Eve just as Jesus was the new Adam. And just as Eve was a virgin and created without sin so too the new Eve would be also.

I just wanted to highlight the most important point that underlies everything else about Mary. She was filled perfectly with Sanctifying grace. Thus is follows that she fulfilled God’s will in all things.

So it also follows that she never committed sin. It’s really that simple.

The point of the word Kecharitomene, its meaning and its singular instance in all of ancient literature indicates that there was something unique about not only the event (the Annunciation) but about Mary as well. The angel used that word as her name, not merely as a title.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It denotes one who has been and still is which is what we are saying in regards to the Angel at the Annunciation and in relation to the Incarnation. However, the point still remains valid these are teachings of both east and west historically.

So further as mentioned above “So it also follows that she never committed sin.” So follows the Assumption. She was guilty of nothing, resurrected, body and soul.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s a couple links to further explain.

philvaz.com/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm

absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/duns-scotus/

philvaz.com/apologetics/AssumptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, I am reading Teachings of the Catholic Church: Questions & Biblical Answers by Joe Poweziak. Basically, it’s a book that is a ‘letter’ intended for his family on why he left the Catholic Church.
One of his points is about Mary and the Immaculate Conception. I’m ok refuting most of his comments (at least in my mind, and not to someone else ) but there’s one I’m a bit stuck on and I’m hoping that others here can enlighten me.
He’s talking about was Mary sinless her entire life and quotes Luke 1:46-47 My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" and says that if Mary had never sinned, she would have no need for a Savior.
What do we say to that?

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. 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.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The question proposed here is somewhat incomplete. The real question which always comes around is: “Why do Catholics believe Mary is sinless” Lets be honest.

Aside from CC doctrine, the Church teaching, other than from Rome, has NO CONTINUITY or consistency. In others words “no-one” has discerned the issue as continuously as Rome to elaborate in a definitive manner, which was indeed required to do as a result of controversy and debate.

The question is, why would you believe otherwise?

 

[Della]

The question proposed here is somewhat incomplete. The real question which always comes around is: “Why do Catholics believe Mary is sinless” Lets be honest.

Aside from CC doctrine, the Church teaching, other than from Rome, has NO CONTINUITY or consistency. In others words “no-one” has discerned the issue as continuously as Rome to elaborate in a definitive manner, which was indeed required to do as a result of controversy and debate.

The question is, why would you believe otherwise?

I may be misunderstanding you here, but are you saying that this is not an ancient teaching of the Church held by faithful Catholics for several centuries? True, as I understand it, there was no formal definition/declaration until 1856 (Immaculate Conception), but that doesn’t mean that the Church didn’t hold to this teaching. Rather, the Church was exploring the hows and whys of this teaching with theologians grappling with all the issues brought up in this thread. When he thought it appropriate, the pope took all this into consideration and then made his decision.

This isn’t the only issue that was troublesome for people. Even the nature of Christ was hotly debated, but that doesn’t mean that what we believe about it is suspect. Once the Church has made a definition the debate is over. We rely on Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in all truth. If we don’t believe this, we may as well be Protestants who decide these things as each one sees fit.

 

[stewstew03]

…

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. 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.

…

My (Catholic) bible has the “highly favored” translation, and I don’t have a problem with that. As I’ve argued before, I think there’s zero difference between being “highly favored” by God and being “full of grace.” If I’m highly favored by God, am I not also full of His grace? What is grace if not God’s favor? And from an apologetics perspective, it’s far better to argue this point, rather than haggling with protestants over the correct translation.

 

[ezeekl]

The question proposed here is somewhat incomplete. The real question which always comes around is: “Why do Catholics believe Mary is sinless” Lets be honest.

Aside from CC doctrine, the Church teaching, other than from Rome, has NO CONTINUITY or consistency. In others words “no-one” has discerned the issue as continuously as Rome to elaborate in a definitive manner, which was indeed required to do as a result of controversy and debate.

The question is, why would you believe otherwise?

It is quite simple, really. It stems from a misinterpretation of scripture. Specifically the “all have sinned…” verse in Romans [Romans 3:23]. What protestants have done is they have taken this verse out of its context and applied it to each and everyone. However when read in proper context Paul is arguing the merits of being a Jew versus a Gentile. He concludes that there is no benefit to being either because ‘all’ [both Jew and Gentile] have sinned. Does Paul mean that each and every Jew and Gentile has sinned? Jesus was a Jew. Is Paul saying that Jesus sinned? Protestants will say of course not Jesus was God. But Jesus was also human. This comes dangerously close to denying Jesus having both a divine as well as a human nature. In addition there are people who are incapable of sin such as infants or the severely mentally retarded. Is Paul saying these people have sinned? Obviously not. The Greek word that is translated as “all” is the Greek word PAS. It is quite ambiguous in meaning. In fact the King James Lexicon states emphatically that rarely does pas mean each and everyone.

Such is the plight of those who reject the idea that Jesus established a church with authority and place all aiuthority in a book whose interpretation is subject to ones own opinion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I may be misunderstanding you here, but are you saying that this is not an ancient teaching of the Church held by faithful Catholics for several centuries? True, as I understand it, there was no formal definition/declaration until 1856 (Immaculate Conception), but that doesn’t mean that the Church didn’t hold to this teaching. .

Right, its not that there isn’t an ancient teaching, its incomplete and only suggestive by large from the first couple centuries, and probably due to several reasons, persecution, burnt and stolen books and libraries etc. Yet we do see suggestive thinking in the writings of several early church fathers which come very close to the definition defined in todays doctrine. So its a continued doctrine which become understood through time. And rightly so, nothing consistent with continuity existed prior to the work which followed the 1st Council forward. Even the earliest feast days of the Dormition are recorded here in this period.

Rather, the Church was exploring the hows and whys of this teaching with theologians grappling with all the issues brought up in this thread. When he thought it appropriate, the pope took all this into consideration and then made his decision…

Right

This isn’t the only issue that was troublesome for people. Even the nature of Christ was hotly debated, but that doesn’t mean that what we believe about it is suspect. Once the Church has made a definition the debate is over. We rely on Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in all truth. If we don’t believe this, we may as well be Protestants who decide these things as each one sees fit.

Right the Nature of Christ 4-ecumenical council is a large piece in understanding the continuity of Grace also thus sin. Our creation and God’s Incarnation are most intimately connected

What we believe is absolutely correct, the disadvantage is continuous work in this area didn’t continue outside of Rome as we moved toward the schism and reformation. By large the eastern Church was still catching up in various areas which I believe created points of contention. The reformation takes the Bible today and by large as we see above with polemical debates reads holy scripture “sola scriptura”. So what we don’t have here in the topology of Catholic scripture understanding. Same occurrence happens with the Saints and Councils, instead of viewing the whole, aspects are handpicked by various theologians to propose either fault in Rome’s thinking [in other words they explain what they think Rome is stating], or to propose a counter theory for example which arrived with essence energies which by large is compatible with Western theology

I haven’t any with continuity, all are fractured stories of grace from Genesis to Revelation. The story falls apart somewhere, often as you suggest right here with the Nature of Christ.

The protestants are a mixed batch from mainline to fringe. However, the consistent here has been an issue in the Church a long time, the protestant polemics are often used through the East also and visa-versa. Really it doesn’t matter, it just makes for a much longer conversation which in effect denial is also being contended with

“The difficulty, then, is to find truly the Blessed Virgin Mary in order to find grace. God, being the absolute Master can confer directly by himself that which He usually grants only through Mary, It would even be rash to deny that sometimes He does so. Nevertheless, St Thomas taught us that in the order of grace, established by divine wisdom, God ordinarily communicates Himself to mankind only through Mary. Therefore if we go to Him to be united with Him, we must use the same means He used to come to us, our Blessed Lady”

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is quite simple, really. It stems from a misinterpretation of scripture. Specifically the “all have sinned…” verse in Romans [Romans 3:23]. What protestants have done is they have taken this verse out of its context and applied it to each and everyone. However when read in proper context Paul is arguing the merits of being a Jew versus a Gentile. He concludes that there is no benefit to being either because ‘all’ [both Jew and Gentile] have sinned. Does Paul mean that each and every Jew and Gentile has sinned? Jesus was a Jew. Is Paul saying that Jesus sinned? Protestants will say of course not Jesus was God. But Jesus was also human. This comes dangerously close to denying Jesus having both a divine as well as a human nature. In addition there are people who are incapable of sin such as infants or the severely mentally retarded. Is Paul saying these people have sinned? Obviously not. The Greek word that is translated as “all” is the Greek word PAS. It is quite ambiguous in meaning. In fact the King James Lexicon states emphatically that rarely does pas mean each and everyone.

Such is the plight of those who reject the idea that Jesus established a church with authority and place all aiuthority in a book whose interpretation is subject to ones own opinion.

Right, amen, its one of the points which distract from the overall conversation. It leaves not only the issue of Mary, but as Della mentioned sticking to the Nature of Christ in the 4th Council they are left to explain the Incarnation of the Word of God. It can’t be done in any fluent manner. At least that’s what I have witnessed. The conversation usually goes that Mary is “just like the rest of us”. Problem is there is one Mother of the Lord and one supernatural Incarnation which by the hypostatic union again leaves the Incarnation up for dialogue.

Also worth mention here is the Nicene Creed. “We believe in one baptism for the remission of sin”

Like the Nature of Christ so too we have this in mind.

 

[GaryTaylor]

My (Catholic) bible has the “highly favored” translation, and I don’t have a problem with that. As I’ve argued before, I think there’s zero difference between being “highly favored” by God and being “full of grace.” If I’m highly favored by God, am I not also full of His grace? What is grace if not God’s favor? And from an apologetics perspective, it’s far better to argue this point, rather than haggling with protestants over the correct translation.

Ha, I know how you feel. Randy makes a good point for a good reason though, its historically documented at least as far back to Origin commenting on this unique Biblical wording. And its been contemplated in the Church at least this long.

Truth is the English language does no favor to the correct understanding and further distracts.

 

[Thorns]

The church receives her cue on Mary’s Immaculate Conception from the words translated as “full of grace” Jerome translated the Greek word kecharitomene into Latin as Gratia Plena. But it loses something in the translation. Here is what the Catholic Answers tract Immaculate Conception and Assumption
says about it:

“…The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind.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.”

The early church saw in Mary the new Eve just as Jesus was the new Adam. And just as Eve was a virgin and created without sin so too the new Eve would be also.

I still cant make the connection between being “full of grace” to mean “since conception.” Cant one be conceived in original sin, washed in the womb, and remain sinless the rest of their life to be considered “full of grace”?

Why was Jesus, or the Angel, never specific to this teaching? It is very vague.

At the end of the day, does it really matter whether she was conceived with or without sin?

 

[ezeekl]

I still cant make the connection between being “full of grace” to mean “since conception.” Cant one be conceived in original sin, washed in the womb, and remain sinless the rest of their life to be considered “full of grace”?

Why was Jesus, or the Angel, never specific to this teaching? It is very vague.

At the end of the day, does it really matter whether she was conceived with or without sin?

Let me make it real simple for you. The Church which Jesus said would be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth, has formally defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is dogma. You may not understand it and you really don’t have to understand it. It is defined dogma just as the Trinity is defined dogma. Like you, the great Saint Augustine could not “…make the connection between…” three persons in one God. But he believed it because the Church formally defined it. We do not get our understanding of the Trinity from scripture. If we did we would be Unitarians or Modalists. In fact we don’t get our understanding of the Trinity from Jewish philosophical thought. Instead, our understanding of the Trinity comes to us through the Church from Greek philosophy as it is expressed in terms of essence or consubstantiality and person. Yet trinitarian protestants all accept the Church defined Trinitarian dogma. And they would probably be very surprized if they knew that!

 

[Della]

I still cant make the connection between being “full of grace” to mean “since conception.” Cant one be conceived in original sin, washed in the womb, and remain sinless the rest of their life to be considered “full of grace”?

So, how does one decide just when Mary was full of grace and when she wasn’t? God isn’t that complicated. He simply preserved her from the stain of original sin at her conception so we wouldn’t have to guess as to when it happened. Besides, she wasn’t saved from her sins, even original sin, as we can be. She was preserved from original sin, and thus preserved from the temptation to sin. The difference between the two concepts is important to note.

Why was Jesus, or the Angel, never specific to this teaching? It is very vague.

Gabriel wasn’t there to give Mary a theology lesson. He was there to tell Mary what God had told him to relate to her. It was up to her to grasp his meaning, which is why she asked for a clarification about her status as a virgin. Mary understood well enough what Gabriel was proposing/announcing or she wouldn’t have said, “Be it unto me according to your word.”

At the end of the day, does it really matter whether she was conceived with or without sin?

Yes, it does matter. Why? Because the Holy Spirit has guided the Church to declare this teaching a dogma. We must remember that all the teachings about Mary are about Christ, more than about Mary. The Immaculate Conception tells us that Christ’s human nature was pure, making him the spotless Lamb of God who alone was worthy to be the sacrifice for our sins. It’s God assurance to us that Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled all that was necessary for our redemption.

Questions are fine, but there comes a time when we need to simply say, “I believe.”

 

[stewstew03]

…
Cant one be conceived in original sin, washed in the womb, and remain sinless the rest of their life to be considered “full of grace”?
…

I’m confused – are you saying you’re willing to accept Mary was “washed in the womb” as opposed to being conceived without sin?

 

[Thorns]

I’m confused – are you saying you’re willing to accept Mary was “washed in the womb” as opposed to being conceived without sin?

Im just asking how we come to a conclusion about a very specific point in time (conception) about her sinlessness from a very vague statement that was made by an angel.

So a pope defined it as dogma in the 1800s. How did he come to that conclusion and why were previous popes or even St Peter, never informed about this? I’d think the ones closest to Jesus would have had more insight than a pope in the 1800s. This is just my logic speaking, I am.not saying.I disbelieve but I cant be dishonest with myself, and so I have questions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Im just asking how we come to a conclusion about a very specific point in time (conception) about her sinlessness from a very vague statement that was made by an angel.

So a pope defined it as dogma in the 1800s. How did he come to that conclusion and why were previous popes or even St Peter, never informed about this? I’d think the ones closest to Jesus would have had more insight than a pope in the 1800s. This is just my logic speaking, I am.not saying.I disbelieve but I cant be dishonest with myself, and so I have questions.

The history and reason are given in the encyclical:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm