Non Catholic view of Mariology II

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can see the similarities. However,. it can also be interpreted as he ark representing Christ who fulfils in Himself all these things. Some of the symbolism fits Christ better than Mary - for example

It seems a bit precarious to use this as the main argument for Mary.
Well you asked how it was fitting for Mary to be born without sin. I was trying to use the example of the Ark of the Covenant…itself so Holy that no one could touch it…and it contained the manna from heaven.

Point being…what kind of vessel would God have incarnate, the True Bread of Life by which no one would die that eats it, unlike those in the OT that ate the manna and died…one more or less Holy than that of the OT?

Doesn’t seem fitting that God incarnate would become human in an Ark less holy than that of the Ark in the OT…quite the opposite.
 
Thanks, the references were helpful. So it seems about 300 years after Christ there was a wide belief in the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness. 300 years still seems quite a gap from the apostles. From my protestant perspective,if this truly was part of the apostolic deposit of faith then we should see evidence of such a belief earlier. The fact it became a widely held belief in the church 300 years after doesn’t necessarily prove apostolic origin.

In fact this thread has got me pondering…From a protestant perspective assuming the imputation is real., then Mary would indeed be found sinless before God.
Thinking…

As Catholics we take seriously the words of Scripture :

John 16:13
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Christ here is speaking to the Apostles, the first Bishops of the Catholic Church…and not to the crowds. Hence, he is saying with all heavenly authority that he will lead the Church to all truth on faith and morals. Regarding the 300 years, just because it is the first writings, doesn’t mean that the belief was not there orally before hand.And record retention wasn’t easy writing on parchment (we don’t have any of the original NT or OT writings).

And…the bible itself wasn’t put into a canon by the Catholic Church until the 390’s…almost 400years.

Something to think about…
 
Thanks, the references were helpful. So it seems about 300 years after Christ there was a wide belief in the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness. 300 years still seems quite a gap from the apostles. From my protestant perspective,if this truly was part of the apostolic deposit of faith then we should see evidence of such a belief earlier. The fact it became a widely held belief in the church 300 years after doesn’t necessarily prove apostolic origin.
Retrospectively, there are a number of references to deep reverence by the Apostles. The stories of the Dormition, the iconography attributed to St. Luke, etc. There is also specific reference in the scripture to her singular and miraculous role in salvation history. However there was a deluge after Ephesus.

I read an Orthodox clergyman - sorry can’t find the link - who thought back to the troparion of the Transfiguration:
You were transfigured on the mountain, O Christ God, revealing Your glory to Your disciples as far as they could bear it.
His argument was that in an time and place that featured families of gods and goddesses, earlier attention to the Theotokos was guarded, but when the time was right, the need against heresy was there, and right belief was sanctioned, then there was an effusive outpouring of devotion.
 
Thanks, the references were helpful. So it seems about 300 years after Christ there was a wide belief in the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness. 300 years still seems quite a gap from the apostles.
You do know that the canon of the NT was not formed for 400 years, right?

And it is, at least, good to see you acknowledge that there was indeed a “wide belief” in the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness.
 
In terms of “full of Grace” - Most modern Bibles., including catholic ones,. translate it as “Greetings favoured one” or “graced one”. “Full of Grace” is not found in the original Greek,. and even if it was., the fact Stephen was “full of grace” doesn’t make him sinless.
There is a different word for Stephen, than what is used in Greek for Mary, although both are translated as “full of grace”.
 
Not when it comes to how God acts
Then that makes Bible college, theology, theologians, pastors, sermons and homilies all outside of our purview, does it not?

For is that not what all of the above does–discerns what is fitting for God, among other things?
 
The quote from Hippolytus though refers to “He was the ark” It seems the earliest quote you gave interprets the ark as representing Christ?
Yes. I believe that this quote was erroneously applied as apologia for Mary as the ark.
 
The references are not accurate. The Acts of Andrew is a rejected apocryphal work arising later, the oldest copy of the Liturgy of St Mark comes from the 4th century and is full of anachronisms such as the Nicene creed. The liturgy of St James is no longer believed to have been written by him,. but most sources date it to the 4th century. None of these can count as 1st century sources
 
Thanks, the references were helpful. So it seems about 300 years after Christ there was a wide belief in the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness. 300 years still seems quite a gap from the apostles. From my protestant perspective,if this truly was part of the apostolic deposit of faith then we should see evidence of such a belief earlier. The fact it became a widely held belief in the church 300 years after doesn’t necessarily prove apostolic origin.
The doctrine of the Trinity was not officially defined before the Council of Trent. Does that mean that the Church did not believe in the Trinity from Apostolic times? Of course not. Most issues arise, from a historical perspective, only when there is a challenge. That is why the councils were formed and doctrine was defined; to defend the Catholic faith from errors that arise throughout the centuries.

The fact that there was not “wide spread” discussion of Mary’s sinlessness has little to nothing to do with whether or not the Church believed it.
 
Thinking…

Read this tract…it may help.

Catholics understand that even if in a Catholic bible saying “highly favored one” is also understood as “full of grace”.

Some non-Catholics however follow a preconceived view and misinterpret the Greek. Rebels they are…:rolleyes:
Read the article you posted.

on the words in Luke found this article by Dr James White:

*First, let’s look at the lexical meaning of the root of the term, that being the Greek word caritow. Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (edited by Gingrich and Danker) defines the usage of caritow at Luke 1:28, “favored one (in the sight of God).” No lexical source that we have found gives as a meaning of caritow “sinlessness.” The term refers to favor, in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God’s grace. The only other occurrence of caritow is at Ephesians 1:6, “…to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves” (NIV). If the bare term caritow means “sinlessness,” then it follows that the elect of God, throughout their lives, have been sinless as well.

However, if we look at Mr. Keating’s presentation, it seems clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the lexical meaning of the word caritow, but upon the form it takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle, kecaritomene. Note that Keating alleges that the “Greek indicates a perfection of grace.” He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek “indicates a perfection of grace.” First, participles primarily derive their tense aspect from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something is (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament pg. 202), but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 (“Come, you who are blessed by my Father…”), 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (“For we know, brothers loved by God…”), and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord…”) emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a “perfection of blessedness that indicates that they had this perfection throughout their life, for a perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively” (to borrow from Mr. Keating’s presentation). The application of Keating’s thoughts to any of the above passages results in foolishness. Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary “must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace’ or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way,” he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid. Therefore, Madrid’s statement, “This is a recognition of her sinless state,” falls for lack of support. The angel addressed Mary as “highly favored,” for, as he himself said, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.” *

Sounds a reasonable argument.
 
Well you asked how it was fitting for Mary to be born without sin. I was trying to use the example of the Ark of the Covenant…itself so Holy that no one could touch it…and it contained the manna from heaven.

Point being…what kind of vessel would God have incarnate, the True Bread of Life by which no one would die that eats it, unlike those in the OT that ate the manna and died…one more or less Holy than that of the OT?

Doesn’t seem fitting that God incarnate would become human in an Ark less holy than that of the Ark in the OT…quite the opposite.
I have no problem with Mary being holy. I believe she was holy. There is a difference though of being holy and never having committed a sin. The Bible uses the words “saints” for believers doesn’t it?
 
I found it strange. The Catholic perspective derives not from grammatical analysis, but from the mind of the church, expressed and reinforced over and over again since antiquity.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Our faith was whole and entire before anyone knew what would be included in the Sacred Scriptures. Our interpretation of biblical texts comes from the faith we first received from the Apostles which is the only authentic way to interpret them.
 
Thinking…

As Catholics we take seriously the words of Scripture :

John 16:13
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Christ here is speaking to the Apostles, the first Bishops of the Catholic Church…and not to the crowds. Hence, he is saying with all heavenly authority that he will lead the Church to all truth on faith and morals. Regarding the 300 years, just because it is the first writings, doesn’t mean that the belief was not there orally before hand.And record retention wasn’t easy writing on parchment (we don’t have any of the original NT or OT writings).

And…the bible itself wasn’t put into a canon by the Catholic Church until the 390’s…almost 400years.

Something to think about…
We also take seriously the words of scripture 🙂

I agree that the passage is referring to the apostles, the Church is founded on the teaching of the apostles 👍. Fair point about the record retention. However we then have the problem distinquishing the church fathers own views from the true apostolic tradition. Really the fundamental hinge is whether the church is infallible or not.
 
Then that makes Bible college, theology, theologians, pastors, sermons and homilies all outside of our purview, does it not?

For is that not what all of the above does–discerns what is fitting for God, among other things?
No., theology is about studying and understanding what God has revealed to us through general and special revelation. The secret things though belong to God., and what He hasn’t revealed to us we can’t presume to guess.
 
The doctrine of the Trinity was not officially defined before the Council of Trent. Does that mean that the Church did not believe in the Trinity from Apostolic times? Of course not. Most issues arise, from a historical perspective, only when there is a challenge. That is why the councils were formed and doctrine was defined; to defend the Catholic faith from errors that arise throughout the centuries.

The fact that there was not “wide spread” discussion of Mary’s sinlessness has little to nothing to do with whether or not the Church believed it.
But interestingly the councils and fathers referred to scripture,. in their arguments about the Trinity. What arguments did they use to support their view of Mary’s sinlessness? There views are only as good as their arguments
 
No., theology is about studying and understanding what God has revealed to us through general and special revelation. The secret things though belong to God., and what He hasn’t revealed to us we can’t presume to guess.
Amen!

So who has determined that we cannot discern what kind of dwelling place would be fitting for the Lord on High? Based on what has been revealed is seems quite reasonable to profess that God deserves a pure and immaculate vessel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top