P
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Mary isn’t God. All that Mary is because of Christ, let us not forget that. Mary was prepared to hold Christ. All Mary needed was the Immaculate Conception.
B
Brendan
Guest
Yes, they have the same root word “Charitoo”, but they are different forms of the word
Luke 1:28 use “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” ." Echaritosen means “he graced” (or he bestowed grace). Echaritosen is imperfect, active voice, itsignifies a momentary action that was done by the subject an action that came that the subject did. Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows that the subject was the recipiet of the action, with a completeness with a permanent result.
In addition, Luke used Kecharitomene, not as an adjective, but rather as the nomintive Subject, Gabriel said that “Full of Grace” was Mary’s name itle.
Paul used echaritosen as an adjective to describe a state.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Was or Is Mary as Pure as Jesus?
In a Word…((“No”)) because Jesus is God and anything that God creates in His unfathomable creation seen and unseen is less than God.
However; there is NO absolute reason to diminish the Blessed Virgin Mary the Immaculate Conception.
It would take too many pages to write herein but may I suggest people consider reading Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen’s book The World’s First Love first chapter entitles Love Begins With A Dream.
Entire Book Free Download:archive.org/details/TheWorldsFirstLove
archive.org/stream/TheWorldsFirstLove/SheenTheWorldsFirstLoveedited.txt
Chris
In a Word…((“No”)) because Jesus is God and anything that God creates in His unfathomable creation seen and unseen is less than God.
However; there is NO absolute reason to diminish the Blessed Virgin Mary the Immaculate Conception.
It would take too many pages to write herein but may I suggest people consider reading Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen’s book The World’s First Love first chapter entitles Love Begins With A Dream.
Entire Book Free Download:archive.org/details/TheWorldsFirstLove
archive.org/stream/TheWorldsFirstLove/SheenTheWorldsFirstLoveedited.txt
Peace
Chris
S
Sandalwood
Guest
that is probably the best explanation I’ve ever heard. Well said. Thank you!!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
That may be so. But think about it: The Incarnation was Christ becoming flesh in the womb of Mary.
The Immaculate Conception was Mary’s being conceived ‘without sin’.
Both are miraculous events.
Obviously, God ‘could have’ chosen to have Mary be born with original Sin and then have Jesus conceived ‘without sin’. . .
But Scripture itself in its prefiguring of Christ in the Old Testament indicates that this was not what really happened.
The Immaculate Conception was not just miraculous in Mary’s being sinless, but also in that a 'woman born with original sin conceived Mary.
That is the extra ‘little step’ that gets overlooked. The assumption that "oh in order to be without sin in the womb the womb itself needs to be sinless’ is simply that, an assumption, not a fact. Assumptions can be wrong.
We know that the Immaculate Conception is a fact. So we know that while it was not ‘necessary’ that a sinless person be conceived FROM an equally sinless person, it was done to fulfill God’s promise as prefigured in the OT and shown in the NT.
It was not ‘necessary’ that Christ be conceived by a ‘sinless’ woman in the sense that He could not have been conceived (theoretically) any other way.
But it was necessary that He be conceived by a ‘sinless’ woman in the FACT that this was God’s own Will and God’s own choice.
Just as it is not ‘necessary’ that God have redeemed us through Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection. God could have redeemed us (theoretically speaking) in many ways. But Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection was the way He CHOSE and which is shown to be prefigured in the OT and realized in the NT.
We need to pay attention to the OT and not to look at the events of the NT without that context. And we should not ‘cherry pick’ an event like the Immaculate Conception and look at it without that context either. It is rather pointless to say that God ‘didn’t have to make Mary sinless’ when the fact remains that He DID make her sinless. Since He made her sinless it was obviously POSSIBLE for a sinful person to conceive a sinless one through God’s power. But since God made Mary sinless it means that He wanted Christ conceived by a sinless person, even though He didn’t ‘have to be’ (theoretically speaking). But God had chosen this way and He has shown us in Scripture that this was what it was supposed to be.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You know, God could have created people to have three arms and three legs. Lord knows that when my children were small I could have used an extra leg and arm!
God could have created people to speak telepathically. He could have created people with wings so that they could fly.
But God created us as we are, despite the fact that He ‘could have’ created us infinitely differently and STILL created us ‘in His image’.
So just because God ‘could have’ created us with more body parts, different body parts, and different abilities, doesn’t alter the fact that He created us as we ARE.
Just because God ‘could have’ (theoretically) caused Christ to become incarnate from a ‘sinful’ woman, or heck, to be born or spring from her a la Athena, fully formed, means nothing when we consider what God actually did.
**We KNOW that Mary was conceived without sin (even though her mother was born with original sin herself) because the Holy Spirit has guaranteed it. So we know that it DID happen. Obviously God had the power to do this miracle just as later He had the power to allow Mary to conceive His Son. **
So why speculate on what God didn’t do, when we know what He DID do?
God could have created people to speak telepathically. He could have created people with wings so that they could fly.
But God created us as we are, despite the fact that He ‘could have’ created us infinitely differently and STILL created us ‘in His image’.
So just because God ‘could have’ created us with more body parts, different body parts, and different abilities, doesn’t alter the fact that He created us as we ARE.
Just because God ‘could have’ (theoretically) caused Christ to become incarnate from a ‘sinful’ woman, or heck, to be born or spring from her a la Athena, fully formed, means nothing when we consider what God actually did.
**We KNOW that Mary was conceived without sin (even though her mother was born with original sin herself) because the Holy Spirit has guaranteed it. So we know that it DID happen. Obviously God had the power to do this miracle just as later He had the power to allow Mary to conceive His Son. **
So why speculate on what God didn’t do, when we know what He DID do?
T
The_Old_Medic
Guest
Your Baptist upbringing is coloring your perceptions of Mary. As a former evangelical protestant myself, I understand the problem.
Many Protestants believe that Catholics place Mary at the same level as Jesus. That they, in effect, consider her a “goddess”.
That is 100% wrong.
Mary was/is a human being. The ONLY difference between her and s is that from conception onward, she was without the stain of sin. She is not in any way more than a human being. She is not a God, she is not divine.
She holds a place of honor because God put her in a place of honor. She is the human mother of our Lord Jesus. Just as the Commandments requires us to “Honor thy father and they mother”, so Jesus honors his mother. He, his Father and the Holy Spirit honored her by making her without original sin, and without the capability of sinning.
We also believe that she remained a virgin throughout her life. Therefore, she was pure, from birth to assumption into heaven. But, in no way is she equal to Jesus, equal to the Father or equal to the Holy Spirit.
We honor her because she was the human mother of our Lord and Savior. We ask for her intercession on our behalf, because as a dutiful son, if she asks, her son will provide what she asks.
Just because we pray to ask her intervention on our behalf however, does not mean that she will actually ask her son to do what we want. Being without sin, and without the failings that sin entails, she will know if what we ask of her is appropriate or possible. You can not expect her to intervene on our behalf for that which is harmful, or impossible.
Just as you might venerate your grandparents, we venerate Mary. We do not worship her, we honor her.
Many Protestants believe that Catholics place Mary at the same level as Jesus. That they, in effect, consider her a “goddess”.
That is 100% wrong.
Mary was/is a human being. The ONLY difference between her and s is that from conception onward, she was without the stain of sin. She is not in any way more than a human being. She is not a God, she is not divine.
She holds a place of honor because God put her in a place of honor. She is the human mother of our Lord Jesus. Just as the Commandments requires us to “Honor thy father and they mother”, so Jesus honors his mother. He, his Father and the Holy Spirit honored her by making her without original sin, and without the capability of sinning.
We also believe that she remained a virgin throughout her life. Therefore, she was pure, from birth to assumption into heaven. But, in no way is she equal to Jesus, equal to the Father or equal to the Holy Spirit.
We honor her because she was the human mother of our Lord and Savior. We ask for her intercession on our behalf, because as a dutiful son, if she asks, her son will provide what she asks.
Just because we pray to ask her intervention on our behalf however, does not mean that she will actually ask her son to do what we want. Being without sin, and without the failings that sin entails, she will know if what we ask of her is appropriate or possible. You can not expect her to intervene on our behalf for that which is harmful, or impossible.
Just as you might venerate your grandparents, we venerate Mary. We do not worship her, we honor her.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Well for me I think…No I’m sure I would honor and love Mary far greater than my grandparents without diminishing anything about the uniqueness of my grandparents.
In my own smallness I believe The Virgin Mary, (“The Immaculate Conception”) to be God’s ultimate masterpiece in creation. I use the word masterpiece as a poor human description for something far more profoundly unspeakable in human intellect.
If one studies all the Saints and what they speak about and that which can be known about the Virgin Mary; humans in history including the Catholic Church only know a small part that God has allowed to be known to us about the Virgin Mary.
The Greater Mystical, Beautiful and profound part about our beloved Virgin Mary; God has kept hidden beyond human sight because her perfection unfathomably belongs to God. In other words God has kept the greater part of her to Himself.
M
Mintaka
Guest
A lot of the most Biblical and ancient Christian texts on this doctrine tend to get neglected. For instance, huge numbers of the Fathers associated Mary as being “the new Eve”, staying sinless this time, or even “virgin earth” like what Adam was made from. Obviously this brings in both the “physically virginal” and the “pure of sin” connotations; and this is something big both in East and West, though there was a lot of discussion about ways and means and workings (as with most doctrines, from the Trinity and salvation, on down).
To some extent, you’re not going to get a lot of good replies on sites like these, because opposition on these questions triggers the “you are insulting my mama!” reflex. Nor are we alone in this. When you’re reading the Fathers, just see how a lot of the super-intellects tended to melt into big ol’ marshmallows when they contemplated Mary. St. Jerome, for instance, who nearly went into spasms defending Mary, or St. Augustine, who had good reason to understand a mother’s love. We know what we know.
Books like Mark Shea’s little trilogy explaining the various Marian-related teachings will help a lot more to give you an understanding of what’s going on, intellectually, underneath the marshmallow. and the fighting for Mama.
To some extent, you’re not going to get a lot of good replies on sites like these, because opposition on these questions triggers the “you are insulting my mama!” reflex. Nor are we alone in this. When you’re reading the Fathers, just see how a lot of the super-intellects tended to melt into big ol’ marshmallows when they contemplated Mary. St. Jerome, for instance, who nearly went into spasms defending Mary, or St. Augustine, who had good reason to understand a mother’s love. We know what we know.
Books like Mark Shea’s little trilogy explaining the various Marian-related teachings will help a lot more to give you an understanding of what’s going on, intellectually, underneath the marshmallow. and the fighting for Mama.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
To understand the Immaculate Conception, one has to understand that Mary has to have the purity of Adam and Eve before the fall, but at the same time she needs to be a part of mankind, thus be concieved and born of a human mother. If God created Mary from the ground as He did Adam, then Mary would be a completely new human. Jesus would inherit His humanity from this new human who is unstained, yet unconnected to everyone else. Thus the salvation Jesus brings will only be for Mary, who at this point doesn’t need any saving.
We can also look at Mary’s purity as a foreshadow of our own. Should we be worthy, we will be purified and perfected and brought to full and perfect communion with God.
We can also look at Mary’s purity as a foreshadow of our own. Should we be worthy, we will be purified and perfected and brought to full and perfect communion with God.
C
centurionguard
Guest
I think one has to look far more profoundly than the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary became the New Eve (“which is profound in itself”). Her biggest role in a manner of speaking was that She was created (Her very Soul) to be the Tabernacle for Jesus human birth in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity. Only a creature (A holy Soul, A holy Vessel) created by God in the design of perfection could be that Holy Vessel to contain God (Jesus) the Ultimate font of Perfection. The Virgin Mary became that Vessel of Perfection.
Its almost unimaginable to think humanly in our childlike intellect just how much love God put into creating the essence of the Virgin Mary’s perfected Soul. This is why Jesus (God) gave her the name Mother of God. The font of meaning in this itself goes well beyond human literal understanding. Archbishop Fulton Sheen captured this when he wrote:
**The Woman Whom even God dreamed of
Before the world was made; **
Peace
Chris
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Agreed, but Jesus and Mary has to inherit humanity as it is, otherwise they won’t be humans at all. That is why they had corruptible bodies. Jesus then restored the body into its glorified state at His resurrection, which is a sign of things to come for us who are in God’s family. Mary of course got hers at the Assumption.
J
jahluver
Guest
gonna need some scripture for this thought,this is a soft point for me with Catholocism
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
R
realpatience
Guest
The two words are the same and have the same meaning in both contexts. The word in Luke (kecharitomene) is a participle of the verb charitoo (in Ephesians), a factitive verb from the root charis which means favor or grace. If sinlessness is implied, it has to be derived from the context, and not from grammatical forms of the verb. You need to show how the specific grammatical principles apply in the context of Luke 1:28 and Eph. 1:6 to say that the two words have different meanings. The perfect in Luke simply means that Mary has received favor from God as a result, contextually, of being about to become the mother of our Lord.You are incorrect. The word used in Luke 1:28 is **kecharitomene **and is NOT found ANYWHERE else in the Bible. It is in fact the Perfect passive participle of the word charitoo.
God Bless
(There is a really intensive interaction with this, by Robert Dean Luginbill, Ph.D. Department of Classical and Modern Languages University of Louisville Louisville, KY 40292, on this site: http://ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.htm)
Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics Int’l admits that, “although it [Luke 1:28] may imply Mary’s immaculate conception, it does not explicitly teach it. The verse would not explicitly teach the doctrine unless it said: ‘Hail to the one who has been immaculately conceived.’”
Dr. Sungenis further admits that, “even if we [Catholics] translated Luke 1:28 as “full of grace,” this does not necessarily mean that Mary was immaculately conceived. It only demonstrates that Mary was full of grace at the time the angel spoke to her.”
He says that, “Extending Mary’s full state of grace back to Mary’s conception… is the prerogative of the Church in her dogmatic decrees [not the meaning in Luke 1:28], since there is no explicit verse of Scripture teaching Mary’s immaculate conception.”
What Dr. Sungenis is saying is that the use of the word kecharitomene, does not mean Mary was full of grace all the way back to her conception – that she was sinless all her life. However, he says that Catholics can extend Mary’s being full of grace all the way back to that point because the meaning “allows” for such an extension.
The fact is, this belief of Mary’s immaculate conception/sinlessness did not come about from a reading of the Scriptures [not even Luke 1:28]. The doctrine was believed first and then a search of the Scriptures was made to justify the belief. Dr. Sungenis confirms this when he said that, “if we were looking for a verse that was in keeping with the doctrine of the immaculate conception, Luke 1:28 would be the strongest verse.”
The scriptures [mainly Luke 1:28] do not give a credible and verifiable testimony to the immaculate conception of Mary as, according to Dr. Sungenis, “What the Church has in the way of credible and verifiable testimony on the immaculate conception is [only] from oral tradition….”
Blessings,
R
RobbyS
Guest
From earliest times, “the Virgin” was thought of as the second Eve. Any effort to lessen the role of Mary logically leads to a lessening of the role of Our Lord. It is sometimes as if some forgot to read the first two chapters of Luke, which I have read described as “the gospel of Mary.” Mary is both the daughter of Zion and the mother of the Church, the ultimate bridge between the “old” and "new"convenent. Sometimes, though, I wish the Church used the term Theotokos, rather than Mother of God since some many Catholics as well as Protestants, have such a weak grasp of the doctrine of the Trinity. Interestingly, I have heard some less bigoted Protestants speak of “Mother Mary.” They may be Nestorian in their thoughts, but I like the term, since they do ignore her except at Christmas time.
- Status