Mary "full of Grace?" or highly favored

  • Thread starter Thread starter bcullum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bcullum

Guest
I was reading a non-catholic web site to better understand their issues and arguments…came across this Mary as highly favored and St Jerome translated it to Full of Grace instead of translating it accurately to highly favored. Possibly a good question for the robo-Catholic (Jimmie Akin)

Here are a couple quotes from the web site.

“The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament, neither one is in reference to Mary.”

“Therefore, we conclude that the Roman Catholic Church has manufactured far too much doctrine concerning Mary out of the erroneous translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible and that the RCC needs to recant its false teaching concerning Mary.”

Pls read the entire article to get the full understanding (it’s only about a page long).
carm.org/catholic/fullofgrace.htm
thanks
 
bcullum said:
I was reading a non-catholic web site to better understand their issues and arguments…came across this Mary as highly favored and St Jerome translated it to Full of Grace instead of translating it accurately to highly favored. Possibly a good question for the robo-Catholic (Jimmie Akin)

Here are a couple quotes from the web site.

“The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament, neither one is in reference to Mary.”

“Therefore, we conclude that the Roman Catholic Church has manufactured far too much doctrine concerning Mary out of the erroneous translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible and that the RCC needs to recant its false teaching concerning Mary.”

Pls read the entire article to get the full understanding (it’s only about a page long).
carm.org/catholic/fullofgrace.htm
thanks
Click to expand...
Please remember, St. Jerome had access to many texts that are no longer available to us.

Also, I don’t know how we can be sure of the precise meaning of a Greek word, 2000 years later. In fact, one of the translations for the word in question in your cited article is “make graceful”.

I would trust St. Jerome on this one.

God Bless
 
Luke in [RSV] reads: “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you”

Not sure how ‘favored’ gets transformed into “full of grace”.

Later, in the second key part … the RSV does say "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb ! "
So, at least the second part seems to comport with the usual Catholic translations.
 
Please note that Carm is not a credible source. It’s highly anti-Catholic. If you look under “cults”, they have an entire page dedicated to lies about the Catholic Church.
 
Mister_De said:
Please note that Carm is not a credible source. It’s highly anti-Catholic. If you look under “cults”, they have an entire page dedicated to lies about the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Oh I have no doubt he is not credible hem mentions the Bible and how the Catholic Church didn’t canonize the books of the Bible…totally disregarding history trying to misrepresent the truth so I know he has an underlying agenda. This agenda is not uncommon (unfortunately) and I would like to be able to answer intelligently when confronted with these false arguments, which is why I am on CA.
thks
 
Mister_De said:
Please note that Carm is not a credible source. It’s highly anti-Catholic. If you look under “cults”, they have an entire page dedicated to lies about the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
If Catholics have the correct dogmas on Mariology … the Church should be able to defend itself against cults. I come from Protestant roots, won over to most Catholic ways of understanding in recent year. Still, I cannot find good support in scriptures for Church’s teachings on Mary. Christ never place Mary on a holy pedestal. In fact, he seemed to treat her as rather ordinary.

Clearly Mary is the Mother of our Lord, and our spiritual mother.

Did early church tradition teach she was sinless from birth and was resurrected at death ? If so, I’d sure like to see the evidence.

For me, Mariology is the weakest link in the Church. It also bothers me that the Marian dogma got set so late in Church history. That doesn’t suggest a strong case of evidence to support it.

I hope I’ve overlooked some important evidence … because I really value Mary as perhaps the first Christian, a devoted mother, most probably w/o other children than our Lord, and a saint of the highest order. I really believe she can intercede to her Son on our behalfs.

I just don’t see why the Church did what they did in 1800’s. Making her w/o original sin just doesn’t seem credible.
 
NIV: The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

**NASB: **And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored F21 one! The Lord is F22 with you.”

American Standard Version: And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord [is] with thee.

King James: And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women

NRSV: And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you

Latin Vulgate: 1:28
et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

Complete Jewish Bible: Approaching her, the angel said, “Shalom, favored lady! ADONAI is with you!”
 
There was to be only one woman in the course of eternity destined to give God a human nature. Did He send the angel Gabriel to a run-of-the-mill girl? No. Since Mary was so young, what on earth could she have accomplished as a teenager to be addressed as “full of grace” or “highly favored” by the Angel Gabriel? No one else in scripture was so addressed - especially not by the angel Gabriel, who stands in God’s presence. Since nothing is written about Mary prior to the annunciation other than the reference in Isaiah 7:14, we firmly believe that she was “highly favored” by God, Who preserved her from sin. Consider the contrast from scripture:

Psalm 30:7 (of King David) O LORD, when you favored me, you made my mountain stand firm;

Luke 1:43 (Elizabeth) But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Luke 1:28
The angel went to her (Mary) and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

King David, and Elizabeth, by their own reckoning, were “favored”. Only Mary was “highly favored”, spoken by the Angel of the Lord, not by her own reckoning. Her messenger and God’s mission came directly from the Throne of the Most High. He alone gave her a personal mission, one requiring her to honor Him and in turn be honored (Luke 1:48).
 
BRB said:
If Catholics have the correct dogmas on Mariology … the Church should be able to defend itself against cults. I come from Protestant roots, won over to most Catholic ways of understanding in recent year. Still, I cannot find good support in scriptures for Church’s teachings on Mary. Christ never place Mary on a holy pedestal. In fact, he seemed to treat her as rather ordinary.

Clearly Mary is the Mother of our Lord, and our spiritual mother.

Did early church tradition teach she was sinless from birth and was resurrected at death ? If so, I’d sure like to see the evidence.

For me, Mariology is the weakest link in the Church. It also bothers me that the Marian dogma got set so late in Church history. That doesn’t suggest a strong case of evidence to support it.

I hope I’ve overlooked some important evidence … because I really value Mary as perhaps the first Christian, a devoted mother, most probably w/o other children than our Lord, and a saint of the highest order. I really believe she can intercede to her Son on our behalfs.

I just don’t see why the Church did what they did in 1800’s. Making her w/o original sin just doesn’t seem credible.
Click to expand...
Hi BRB - I’m Protestant (looking and studying here as well! 🙂 ). I share your concern on this particular issue as there is nothing in the scriptures regarding immaculate conception (free of original sin) and it appears to be a late (1800s) Church tradition. It also seems inconsistent with the way God has operated elsehwere in the Bible. God did not choose the great and mighty or even pure of heart to be the heros of the Old Testatement - he chose average people and helped them rise to the task. Jesus’s decendants include a protestitute (Rahab) and a convert (Ruth) - so there is nothing in scripture that would have suggested a need or expectation that Mary would have been free of sin. She may have been (I don’t have an issue with believing that to be possible), but it does seem (to an outsider - non Catholic) more like what a man would think rather than what God would require.

Similarly the Church position that Mary remained a virgin even after Jesus birth is not in the scriptures, but became a Church tradition and at least raises the same issues.

I’ll continue to have an open mind as I study it out - but the issues of extreme veneration of Mary are among the most difficult for non-Catholics to become comfortable with (IMO).

Blessings
 
BRB said:
If Catholics have the correct dogmas on Mariology … the Church should be able to defend itself against cults. I come from Protestant roots, won over to most Catholic ways of understanding in recent year. Still, I cannot find good support in scriptures for Church’s teachings on Mary. Christ never place Mary on a holy pedestal. In fact, he seemed to treat her as rather ordinary.

Clearly Mary is the Mother of our Lord, and our spiritual mother.

Did early church tradition teach she was sinless from birth and was resurrected at death ? If so, I’d sure like to see the evidence.

For me, Mariology is the weakest link in the Church. It also bothers me that the Marian dogma got set so late in Church history. That doesn’t suggest a strong case of evidence to support it.

I hope I’ve overlooked some important evidence … because I really value Mary as perhaps the first Christian, a devoted mother, most probably w/o other children than our Lord, and a saint of the highest order. I really believe she can intercede to her Son on our behalfs.

I just don’t see why the Church did what they did in 1800’s. Making her w/o original sin just doesn’t seem credible.
Click to expand...
You would do well to read the writings of St. Justin the Martyr or St. Iraneus. You can check out their writings on www.earlychurchfathers.org. They both do an excellent job of explaining the sinless nature of Our Lady along with other Catholic doctrine. You might also do well to do some research in the OT ark of the covenant to try and understand what was so important about it and how it alludes to Mary. These two resources coupled with an understanding of Christ as the fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom will properly catechize you on Marian doctrine. I can be more specific if you would like; however, I have found that the fruits of labor will be better if the research is done yourself.

Pax
 
Robbinson said:
Hi BRB - I’m Protestant (looking and studying here as well! 🙂 ). I share your concern on this particular issue as there is nothing in the scriptures regarding immaculate conception (free of original sin) and it appears to be a late (1800s) Church tradition. It also seems inconsistent with the way God has operated elsehwere in the Bible. God did not choose the great and mighty or even pure of heart to be the heros of the Old Testatement - he chose average people and helped them rise to the task. Jesus’s decendants include a protestitute (Rahab) and a convert (Ruth) - so there is nothing in scripture that would have suggested a need or expectation that Mary would have been free of sin. She may have been (I don’t have an issue with believing that to be possible), but it does seem (to an outsider - non Catholic) more like what a man would think rather than what God would require.

Similarly the Church position that Mary remained a virgin even after Jesus birth is not in the scriptures, but became a Church tradition and at least raises the same issues.

I’ll continue to have an open mind as I study it out - but the issues of extreme veneration of Mary are among the most difficult for non-Catholics to become comfortable with (IMO).

Blessings
Click to expand...
Welcome! What you say is true, but none of the persons mentioned was conceived of and chosen by God, from all eternity, to bear His Divine Son. Why would the Lord choose sin, which he hates, to bear His son? Also, this was “defined” in the 1,800s, not put forth. The Catholic church defines doctrine when it is challenged.
 
po18guy said:
What you say is true, but none of the persons mentioned was conceived of and chosen by God, from all eternity, to bear His Divine Son.
Click to expand...
Besides, St. Paul called Mary the new Eve. And indeed she is, so why wouldn’t God spare her from original sin as He did to Eve, another woman conceived without sin?

It’s often forgotten that Mary didn’t have exclusivity in being immaculately conceived, with Adam and Eve having preceded her. Which goes to show that being sinlessness at birth or at any time is not strange to human nature, rather it’s how God intended us to be, had we not fallen.

:blessyou:
 
Robbinson said:
Hi BRB - I’m Protestant (looking and studying here as well! 🙂 ). I share your concern on this particular issue as there is nothing in the scriptures regarding immaculate conception (free of original sin) and it appears to be a late (1800s) Church tradition. It also seems inconsistent with the way God has operated elsehwere in the Bible. God did not choose the great and mighty or even pure of heart to be the heros of the Old Testatement - he chose average people and helped them rise to the task.
Similarly the Church position that Mary remained a virgin even after Jesus birth is not in the scriptures, but became a Church tradition and at least raises the same issues.

I’ll continue to have an open mind as I study it out - but the issues of extreme veneration of Mary are among the most difficult for non-Catholics to become comfortable with (IMO).

Blessings
Click to expand...
It’s very difficult for a Protestant to accept the Church’s teachings on ‘certain aspects’ of Mary. I’ve recently read the Pope’s book on Mary, & Scott Hahn’s book on her. Both were excellent … but, just didn’t make case for her being Resurrected … or w/o original sin.

IMO, Luke’s scripture can just as easily indicate she was an ordinary Jewish girl, selected by God to be human vessel for our Lord. Would any young girl facing Gabriel turn down the invitation to be mother to the Messiah ? God may of found favor with her for reasons we will never know, and forgave her of all sins when she gave consent … thus, Jesus was conceived of H.S. … within a holy human vessel. Her original sins were washed away by Jesus … first Christian, first to be baptized by Christ … perhaps ? Did she not share His blood ? Early on, there is some minor leakage of blood across placental barrier.

I know the Church teaches that no human vessel ever touched by sin could possibly be used for birth of Christ. But, why not ?

As long as He purified that sin at some point before conception … He would not be adversely corrupted. Christ dealt/mingled freely among sinners … and was criticised greatly for it by the Pharisees & scribes. Sinful humans touched Christ thruout his life here on earth … yet He was never corrupted by it. He always transformed sin into healing by grace.
 
bcullum said:
I
“The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament, neither one is in reference to Mary.”

%between%
thanks
Click to expand...
The greek word here written with english lettering is
Ke-charito-mene…Strongs G5847 which only translates the Charito, the base word here can be favor or grace, but the mor accurate to express as grace. In a good Greek English interlinear it will give the grammer for this word as a perfect passive Participle, this word in the Greek is both a noun and a verb. Perfect tense word means the action is perfectly completed on the word grace, being a participle means it is a past action with a continuence of the action in the present.

Prior to 1500 all Bibles translated the Kecharitomene as full of grace this includes the wyclif Bible, the Tyndale, Tyndale Coverdale all translated as full of grace. The Arameic Pheshitta translated as full of grace in Luke 1:28. The Arameic Pheshitta depending upon whos data one excepts is from about 1-2 hundred AD to up to 500 AD, so it is within a couple hundered years on either side of Jeromes Latin Vulgate and both translate as full of grace.

If one were to look at an orginal 1611 KJV one will find that they translated has highly favored, but in their margin notes they wrote could be rendered as much graced.

The Geneva Bible from the same time frame also rendered the translation as higly favored but in their margin notes stated that it could be rendered as much graced or full of grace. Of course as the centuries went on these margin notes disappear and now we Catholic Bibles protestantizing that verse. Who changed it and were they right, based on historical understanding it gives total agreement to Jerome and the others gradually shifted the translation…

Roberts word pictures and excellent in greek grammer a Baptist minister from the 1800 no friend of the Catholic church states
"**
Luk 1:28 -
Highly favoured (kecharitōmenē). Perfect passive participle of charitoō and means endowed with grace** (charis), enriched with grace as in Eph_1:6, non ut mater gratiae, sed ut filia gratiae (Bengel). The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’”
 
BRB said:
It’s very difficult for a Protestant to accept the Church’s teachings on ‘certain aspects’ of Mary. I’ve recently read the Pope’s book on Mary, & Scott Hahn’s book on her. Both were excellent … but, just didn’t make case for her being Resurrected … or w/o original sin.

IMO, Luke’s scripture can just as easily indicate she was an ordinary Jewish girl, selected by God to be human vessel for our Lord. .
Click to expand...
The Ark of OT was considered to be very holy, so holy that no mere man could touch it without being struck dead on the spot.

The orginal Ark was Holy, not because of the gold which coated the outside, but the Ten Comandment inside- the law that had been inscribed by the finger of God on the tablets of stone. What else was inside? Manna, the miracle bread that fed the people, Aron’s rod that blossomed as a sign of his office as high priest (see Nm 17) What makes the new ark holy? The old Ark contained the word of God written in stone; Mary contained in her womb the Word of God Who became man and dwelt among us. The Ark contained manna; Mary contained the Living bread come down from heaven. The ark contained the the rod of the high priest Aaron; Mary’s womb contained the eternal high priest, Jesus Christ. In the heavenly temple, the Word of God is Jesus, and the ark in whom he resides is Mary, His mother

This verse explicitly establishes a link between Mary as bearer of the New Covenant and the Ark of the Old Covenant. The Gk. word for **“overshadow” (“episkiasei”) was used of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (**Mt 17:5; Lk 9:34) and is reminiscent of the Shekinah of the OT, which represented God’s Presence (Ex 24:15-16;40:34-8; 1 Ki 8:4-11). Mary became like the Holy of Holies in the Temple, where God dwelt. God gave extremely detailed instructions on constructing the ark, since it was to contain His Law (Ex 25-30 and 35-40). Mary had to be that much more holy, since she was to carry the Word of God in the flesh (Job 14:4). Further parallelism between Mary and the Ark is indicated in comparing Lk 1:43 with 2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:44 with 2 Sam 6:14-16, and Lk 1:39-45,56 with 2 Sam 6:10-12.

“The power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow(overshadow). And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.” Luke 1:35-----
Luke 1:35 "overshadow–NT:1982 episkiazoo; to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in shadow, to overshadow: Tropically, of the Holy Spirit exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it (a use of the word which seems to have been drawn from the familiar O.T. idea of a cloud as
symbolizing the immediate presence and power of God): with the dative Luke 1:35. (from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database…)
OVERSHADOW 1. episkiazo NT:1982, “to throw a shadow upon” (epi, “over,” skia, “a shadow”), “to overshadow,” is used (a) of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration, Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34; (b) metaphorically of the power of “the Most High” upon the Virgin Mary, Luke 1:35; (from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

Was there anyone sanctified from the womb prior to Mary?

Yes **
Others are reported to have been santified in the wombs of their mothers, in virtue of an extraordinary privilege of grace**. Thuse we are told with regard to Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb **I sanctified thee Jer 1:5. **and in Luke 1:15 the angel says of John the Baptist: " He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb." We cannot suppose that the favor granted to the precursor of Christ and to the prophet was denied to Christ’s own mother… Yet such sanctification did not preced the infusion of her soul…**The blessed Virgin Mary, however, was sanctfied with such a wealth of grace that thencforth she was preserved free from all sin:
**
 
Michael_G said:
The Ark of OT was considered to be very holy, so holy that no mere man could touch it without being struck dead on the spot.

The orginal Ark was Holy, not because of the gold which coated the outside, but the Ten Comandment inside- the law that had been inscribed by the finger of God on the tablets of stone. What else was inside? Manna, the miracle bread that fed the people, Aron’s rod that blossomed as a sign of his office as high priest (see Nm 17) What makes the new ark holy? The old Ark contained the word of God written in stone; Mary contained in her womb the Word of God Who became man and dwelt among us. The Ark contained manna; Mary contained the Living bread come down from heaven. The ark contained the the rod of the high priest Aaron; Mary’s womb contained the eternal high priest, Jesus Christ. In the heavenly temple, the Word of God is Jesus, and the ark in whom he resides is Mary, His mother

This verse explicitly establishes a link between Mary as bearer of the New Covenant and the Ark of the Old Covenant. The Gk. word for **“overshadow” (“episkiasei”) was used of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (**Mt 17:5; Lk 9:34) and is reminiscent of the Shekinah of the OT, which represented God’s Presence (Ex 24:15-16;40:34-8; 1 Ki 8:4-11). Mary became like the Holy of Holies in the Temple, where God dwelt. God gave extremely detailed instructions on constructing the ark, since it was to contain His Law (Ex 25-30 and 35-40). Mary had to be that much more holy, since she was to carry the Word of God in the flesh (Job 14:4). Further parallelism between Mary and the Ark is indicated in comparing Lk 1:43 with 2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:44 with 2 Sam 6:14-16, and Lk 1:39-45,56 with 2 Sam 6:10-12.

“The power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow(overshadow). And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.” Luke 1:35-----
Luke 1:35 "overshadow–NT:1982 episkiazoo; to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in shadow, to overshadow: Tropically, of the Holy Spirit exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it (a use of the word which seems to have been drawn from the familiar O.T. idea of a cloud as
symbolizing the immediate presence and power of God): with the dative Luke 1:35. (from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database…)
OVERSHADOW 1. episkiazo NT:1982, “to throw a shadow upon” (epi, “over,” skia, “a shadow”), “to overshadow,” is used (a) of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration, Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34; (b) metaphorically of the power of “the Most High” upon the Virgin Mary, Luke 1:35; (from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

Was there anyone sanctified from the womb prior to Mary?

Yes **
Others are reported to have been santified in the wombs of their mothers, in virtue of an extraordinary privilege of grace**. Thuse we are told with regard to Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb **I sanctified thee Jer 1:5. **and in Luke 1:15 the angel says of John the Baptist: " He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb." We cannot suppose that the favor granted to the precursor of Christ and to the prophet was denied to Christ’s own mother… Yet such sanctification did not preced the infusion of her soul…**The blessed Virgin Mary, however, was sanctfied with such a wealth of grace that thencforth she was preserved free from all sin:
**
Click to expand...
Good stuff here. That’s an interesting analogy to the Ark of the Covenant (particularly to me as I have an Old Testatement background - Jew who became a Christian). I don’t think, however, we can take that too far - as you pointed out, one could not even touch the Ark of the Covenant. Also, Mary did not become a vessel to Christ until after the announciation - so this doesnt’ really go to the issue of original sin (immaculate conception). Its easier to understand/believe (and I do) that Mary was washed of her sin by the Holy Spirit upon the annunciation. I did find an earlier response quite helpful on the original sin issue - will be looking further into it.

Blessings,
 
In my KJV the footnote to Luke 1:28 :Hail, thou that art highly favored" says “graciously accepted or much graced”. That makes a lot more sense to me than “highly favored”. Afterall, I believe Mary was referred to as “Kecharitomene” with the “chari” referring to grace and the whole word being “full of grace”. I mean it really shows that Mary is separate from us who are “highly favored” by virtue of our Baptisms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top