Mary "full of Grace?" or highly favored

[BRB]

This is the summary:

agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Mary%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm

Nicely done, good typology chart.

However, if you think about it …what this chart really proves is that Christ is the ‘Word made incarnate’. This symbolism, OT-NT typology points up the Messiah … not Mary.

Mary is simply the vessel … the ‘acacia wood’ if you will. Yes, she is golden and pure and saintly. And I venerate her … as most blessed among women.

But, as Mary said " Do whatever He tells you "…
Jesus us taught us to pray to the Father … via H.S.

 

[Bwsherman]

True … but, didn’t Mary also doubt the angel Gabriel ? She also questioned how she could be mother to the Lord. Yet, while Zachariah was punished … Mary’s disbelief was not.

Now, perhaps the fact she wasn’t punished might suggest she was ‘extra special’ !!

Still, the very fact she expressed doubts / disbelief … is a sin. Thus, how could she of been sinless or perfected – prior to the annuciation ?

You are taking that out of context. Zacahriah was an elderly man who was a priest. A man who was familiar with the scriptures and the Temple.

Mary was a prepubescent girl who was not literate and uneducated in Jewish Levitical worship.

God does not treat everyone the same. He reaches us where we are at and punishes us according to our deserving of it.

No parent would punish their two year old the same way they would punish their sixteen year old. Why should God be any different? If you look at the entirety of scripture, there are numerous examples of where God punishes one person for an act and does not punish another for a similar act.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Mary is simply the vessel … the ‘acacia wood’ if you will. .

And the Tabernacle (which was made of the acacia wood and housed the Tablets of the Ten Commandments, Aaron’s rod, and also the mannah or “bread of God”) wasn’t treated as special?

 

[Michael_G]

Yes, good points ! Some of the greatest prophets were possessed of H.S. by special graces of God. And we are told in OT & NT of this fact. Does this mean John and Jeremiah had no original sin ? I never hear anyone suggest they didn’t.

But, regarding Mary … we are not told the same applies. At least not from the womb.

Perhaps all the great prophets fit this mold. Elijah, Moses, etc. Maybe they are all extra special creations of God … for whom sin and the law don’t apply. But, God disciplined Moses for his disobedience and lack of faith. So, I don’t think we should go down this road of reasoning about ‘special human creations’.

So, can we make exception for Mary … and say she is the only one who never had original sin ?

No does not mean Jerimiah and John did not have orgiginal.

But in regards to Mary
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity (total and complete opposition) between you and the woman (woman is Mary, and between your offspring and her Offspring(Jesus); He will bruise and tread your head underfoot, and you will lie in wait and bruise His heel. Gal. 4:4.]
In order to have the same enmity with Satan as Jesus, Mary would have to be sinless. Add it together with completley and perfectly graced the meaning of a perfect passive particple as in full of grace, add it together with the ark of New Covenanant, you have to now demonstarate that none of it matters, that Mary is not the most unique individual created by God, grace is always comensurate with one’s lot in Life, hence the Mother of our Lord would have received more graces than one can imagine, all of the church fathers taught this, not until the Protestant revolt is all of this questioned.

 

[Michael_G]

Isn’t Our Mother both of them? “Full of Grace” and “highly favored”.

you mis the point that all Bibles translated as full of grace prior to 1500, that includes the ancient Arameic Pehsitta Bible, also includdes a quote Origin’s writing as calling the immaculate of the immaculate one, Panagia, all Holy one

 

[Michael_G]

True … but, didn’t Mary also doubt the angel Gabriel ? She also questioned how she could be mother to the Lord. Yet, while Zachariah was punished … Mary’s disbelief was not.

Now, perhaps the fact she wasn’t punished might suggest she was ‘extra special’ !!

Still, the very fact she expressed doubts / disbelief … is a sin. Thus, how could she of been sinless or perfected – prior to the annuciation ?

No no no, Mary didn’t doubt she was already betrothed to St Joseph, no reason to doubt per say, she couldn’t understand because according to church tradition she had taken a vow of celibacy, no sexual intercourse, so she is questioning how can she become pregnant if she is to be celibant. Read Blessed Ann Greda, the Mystical City of God…

 

[Michael_G]

How do we know this to be the case ?

Scripture teaches “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Does it say thereafter …except for Mary ?

.

Are there at times in the Bible such thing as tacit, understood exceptions??

All have sinned, did all the angels sin?? No, Do unborn babies sin??? no. Do Babies sin?? no. Did Jesus sin??? no…

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die,— the implication is All men die. have all men died, two exceptions in Scripture, Enoch, and Elijah

 

[hawkeye]

Greek is a much more precise language than English.

The words used of Jesus in John one are Pleres Charis. Pleres means “full” or “lacking nothing” (and is applied also to “truth”). Charis simply means “Grace”.

The word used of Mary in Luke 1 is Kecharitomene. It is a complex participle. The root of this word is Charis, meaning Grace. The prefix **Ke **means that the grace was already perfectly present before the angel appeared. The suffix **mene **means that Mary was the recipient of this grace.

In other words Kecharitomene shows that Mary was a **recipient **of a fullness of Grace. The grace was **given **to her. The perfect tense indicates that this filling with grace is a continuous event that was ongoing before the angel appeared.

The translations which state “highly favoured” instead of “full of grace”, are largely motivated by a doctrinal desire to downgrade Mary. The first version to use this translation was the King James Version, where the translators noted that “highly favoured” was used instead of “full of Grace” in order to show that Mary was not a source of grace. (Tyndale’s version on which the KJV was largely based, used full of Grace).

Most protestant bibles followed the KJV, (along with some modern Catholic ones!)

Now, in secular Greek, Charis can be translated simply as “favour”. So “Highly-favoured” could be a conceivable translation - but this would only be acceptable if the word “favour” were used as a translation for “Charis” everywhere else in the New Testament. But THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. Even those bibles which translate “Charis” as Favour" when referring to Mary, translate it as “Grace” everywhere else. This is highly misleading because in the New Testament the word “Grace” has a particular meaning distinct from “Favour”. In the New Testament “Grace” is a gift of God that saves from sin and its effects. So translating the word any differently is wrong. The correct translation is rightfully “Full of Grace”.

Source

 

[Michael_G]

How do we know this to be the case ?

Scripture teaches “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Does it say thereafter …except for Mary ?

.

More problems with the word all in trying to use this as proof that Mary sinned>…

Strong’s Lexicon
[quotation]

3956 pas { pas} . . .

GK - 4246 { pa`” }

1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types

“… the whole world has gone after him” [John 12:19 ] Did all the world go after Christ?

“then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” [Matt. 3: 5-6] Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?

“Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. [1 John 5:19] Does the whole world there mean everybody?

The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts – some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Nicely done, good typology chart.

However, if you think about it …what this chart really proves is that Christ is the ‘Word made incarnate’. This symbolism, OT-NT typology points up the Messiah … not Mary.

Mary is simply the vessel … the ‘acacia wood’ if you will. Yes, she is golden and pure and saintly. And I venerate her … as most blessed among women.

But, as Mary said " Do whatever He tells you "…
Jesus us taught us to pray to the Father … via H.S.

I would refuse to call my mother, “simply *anything” *since she is the Hope of the Saints in Heaven, the Mother of Mercy, the Mother of God, the Ark of the Covenant, the refuge of sinners, jacobs ladder, heaven’s gate, etc

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2909197&postcount=1

 

[bkropp]

The issue here is that as a Roman Catholic we place as much emphasis on Sacrad Tradition as we do on Sacrad Scripture.

I think it is interesting to ponder the point that Mary’s wound is the wound of God. The oxygen and essential nutrients that kept our Lord alive were Mary’s for a significant period of time. The creator of the universe humbled himself to the point of being completely dependent on this woman for the essential components of life.

As this is my first post on this site, I commend you all for putting time into comtemplating this mystery.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Mary was a prepubescent girl who was not literate and uneducated in Jewish Levitical worship.

I disagree. Since Mary and Joesph were engaged, she couldn’t have been prepubescent.

I find it hard to believe that Jewish people would allow engagement prior to puberty.

 

[BRB]

In order to have the same enmity with Satan as Jesus, Mary would have to be sinless. Add it together with completley and perfectly graced the meaning of a perfect passive particple as in full of grace, add it together with the ark of New Covenanant, you have to now demonstarate that none of it matters, that Mary is not the most unique individual created by God, grace is always comensurate with one’s lot in Life, hence the Mother of our Lord would have received more graces than one can imagine, all of the church fathers taught this, not until the Protestant revolt is all of this questioned.

I went back and reviewed Scott Hahn’s teaching on his subject. He makes point [like you] … that Adam/Eve were w/o original sin. Thus, the new Adam/Eve must be also.

But, why the necessity for Mary to be sinless from birth. Who was her mother ? EVE !! Thru Eve … all humans have inherited sin.

Christ via H.S. entered Mary at annunciation. All her original sin was annulled, healed, by H.S. So … Christ via H.S. baptized Mary, she is first Christian, she is immaculately perfected and presevered for ALL times. Christ has His perfect vessel to enter the world as new Adam.

So, is she most blessed of ALL people ? No … but among women yes !!

All Prostestants are asking is why the need of immaculate conception ? They see Christ as giving her the immaculate conversion at annunciation. Either way … God’s need for a perfect Eve is accomplished.

At least via the later means … the Scripture “all have sinned and fallen short of glory of God” is not violated. Catholics maintain that ALL canon scriptures must be internally consistent and accepted as sacred.

By insisting on an immaculate conception for Mary … we violate our RULE # 1.

 

[AMDGtoo]

By insisting on an immaculate conception for Mary … we violate our RULE # 1.

How so? Common sense tells us that not every one has sinned. (Jesus and others like innocent babies, haven’t sinned). And so that verse “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” just seems to be St. Paul emphasizing the universal aspect of sin–Jews and Gentiles alike.

Mary is the woman of Genesis 3:15–the one who has enmity with Satan and sin. (Several times in the Gospel, Jesus even calls her “woman”.)

 

[Robbinson]

How so? Common sense tells us that not every one has sinned. (Jesus and others like innocent babies, haven’t sinned). And so that verse “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” just seems to be St. Paul emphasizing the universal aspect of sin–Jews and Gentiles alike.

Mary is the woman of Genesis 3:15–the one who has enmity with Satan and sin. (Several times in the Gospel, Jesus even calls her “woman”.)

The problem is that Mary was born of natural man and woman and as descendants of Adam and Eve, scripture tells us, we all (including therefor Mary) inherits original sin. That sin can be cleansed with the Holy Spirit - which I believe was done at the annunciation. Is it possible that God imbued Mary with the Holy Spirit at birth and therefore cleansed her of sin (which otherwise would have been inherited like all other mankind since Adam/Eve) - yes, but there is nothing in scripture that suggests that (see caveat below).

Yes - Babies are born with original sin. Angels are not descendants of Adam and Eve so the concept of original sin is not applicable to them.

Jesus did not have sin because he is God and was born of the Holy Spirit (thus, not of Adam and Eve and therefore would not be infected by original sin). Protestants would say that since Adam, Jesus is the only of mankind without sin, and thus the only possible perfect sacrafice.

So - the issue that Protestants grable with is where did this doctrine of immaculate conception come from and why? Its not an attack on Mary - but a question of whether this Church doctrine really came from man with his assumption/desire to say that the mother of God must have been sinless. As was pointed out in earlier posts, God hasn’t worked that way elsewhere in the Bible (most heros in the Old Testatement were clearly sinners and Jesus himself is a descendant of sinners - Rehab, and mingled with sinners).

I agree wtih the earlier response - Mary was made (I believe) sinless certainly at the annunciation (not that I think that would even be a requirement to be the mother of God (earthly vessel of God), but it makes sense).

That being said, one line of reasoning that did make sense to me in this thread was the discussion of the term “full of grace” (pre-dating the announciation) and whether that was an indication that somehow, there was an implication that God acted supernaturally to remove Mary’s sin with the Holy Spirit from birth.

Maybe. I think this doctine is just one of those things that those who believe it just will take on faith and I don’t think its inconsistent with the Bible (i.e., dont’ think its impossible for God to have done this),

 

[mangy_dog]

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

What was available to St. Jerome then, is no longer available to us today. St. Jerome knew both the Latin and Greek documents of his time.
A protestant web site is a protestant web site…and so it doesn’t surprise me that a subtle attack on the Immaculate, Perpetual Virigin Mother of God would be snuck-in in this fashion… “Highly favoured” is a highly dubious translation.
The control language of the Catholic faith is Latin. It is “gratia plena” in Latin and it is used by the Archangel Gabriel as a proper name when he addresses the Theotokos…Salve, Gratia Plena.

Recommendation: Stick with a Cahtolic web site; when in doubt go to the Latin.

Regina coeli, sine macula originali concepta.

 

[AMDGtoo]

… but there is nothing in scripture that suggests that (see caveat below).

No, don’t quite agree here. I believe there is indeed Scripture that shows that Mary was immaculately conceived. Luke 1:28 tells us that the angel came down and addressed her as my KJV has it “Hail, thou art highly favored, the Lord is with thee”. (The footnote states that “highly favored” could also be understood as “graciously accepted, or much graced”, while the Ignatious Bible has “Full of Grace” and so does the Douay-Rheimes plus this mentioning of “grace” seems to be inline with the original past-present word “kecharitamene” of the translation. And please note that the angel addressed Mary as having complete grace before she agreed to the conception (The Annunciation.)

Scripture also mentions the woman of Genesis 3:15 and that she is at enmity between Satan and sin. Jesus even called His mother “woman”

Yes - Babies are born with original sin. Angels are not descendants of Adam and Eve so the concept of original sin is not applicable to them.

We aren’t talking about angels. And I believe that “original sin” itself is just a label for the concept of lacking grace. (Scriptrue agrees that Mary posessed grace.)

:::Just IMO, it’s so hard to discuss one aspect of Catholic belief without touching on others (example–here we are talking about “full of Grace” and it leads to what original sin is not to mention your bringing up of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception). It’s almost impossible, IMO, to compartmentalize Catholic beliefs.:::

Jesus did not have sin because he is God and was born of the Holy Spirit (thus, not of Adam and Eve and therefore would not be infected by original sin). Protestants would say that since Adam, Jesus is the only of mankind without sin, and thus the only possible perfect sacrafice.

Jesus is fully God and fully man. Yet even Scripture states that He is without sin. (And so as man, Jesus is still an exception to “All have sinned”). So the phrase used by Paul must mean something other than a judgement call against all–sounds to me that it is Paul empasizing a point, it’s not like Paul doesn’t do that in his writings. (Heck my own children do that–“all the kids are doing it”. It doesn’t mean that “all” the kids really are. It’s just to emphasize.)

And so, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is indeed in Scripture. Just not “in your face”. And we Catholics are not doing damage to the Scriptures when we claim it.

 

[Robbinson]

And so, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is indeed in Scripture. Just not “in your face”. And we Catholics are not doing damage to the Scriptures when we claim it.

I agree with you on this statement - and tried to emphasize that in my post. I don’t think this position is contrary to scripture, just not directly/clearly stated in scripture (except the “full of grace” translation which I also conceded in my post as a possible explanation). I do see a distinction between how Jesus is free of Sin at birth and how Mary would be - Jesus not being a descendent of the seed of Adam, though Mary is, but I respect your post and view. Its an interesting question for sure.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[davidv]

I went back and reviewed Scott Hahn’s teaching on his subject. He makes point [like you] … that Adam/Eve were w/o original sin. Thus, the new Adam/Eve must be also.

But, why the necessity for Mary to be sinless from birth. Who was her mother ? EVE !! Thru Eve … all humans have inherited sin.
{snip}.

See bold part above. The Church has never taught that Mary’s sinlessness was a necessity, she instead teaches that it was fitting. Declaring it to be necessary is just a straw man.

 

[Spirithound]

By insisting on an immaculate conception for Mary … we violate our RULE # 1.

No, that’s not rule #1. Jesus was born without original sin. You may say that that’s obvious, He’s God, He must have been without original sin. I agree with you, but the strict reading of the verse does not allow that. That is an additional interpretation. It’s one that we agree on, but it is additional, and you can’t tell me why we must then restrict the phrase.