Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[ckempston]

This is really getting annoying.

You are not just saying that God didn’t need Mary to be immaculate (which is something that Catholics can agree with). You are also saying that:

Are you just trying to difficult, or what?

No, not trying to be difficult, you just keep replying with one-liners and expect me to know what you’re talking about. You’ve done this several times.

I see where what I said threw you off now, but you could have just explained it instead of getting annoyed and accusing me of purposely being difficult. I saw my statements as roughly equivalent, but I realize what was going on in my head wasn’t what came across.

I would think that, if someone said, God doesn’t “need” Mary to be Immaculately Conceived, that someone would understand that Scripture doesn’t imply it. If the Scripture implied or explicitly stated this (whether through prophecy, or a NT statement), it would obviously be “needful” for God to do it, because he cannot lie. Sorry, that’s what was going on in my head, and it didn’t come out as intended. MY BAD.

 

[MarcoPolo]

What does Mary’s perpetual virginity have to do with my salvation?

This line of thinking reminds me of an old thread.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Peter sorry to barge in here.

I’'m sorry to barge in too. I thought it might be worth your side conversation with Peter to chime in Father Mateo’s discussion of translating kecharitomene.

CRI quotes Pope Pius IX in the official definition of the Immaculate Conception: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine, which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”(Ineffabilis Deus (1854).) This definition of 1854 came after centuries of widespread Christian belief, meditation on Scripture, theological debate, liturgical development, and prayer.

In Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel calls Mary kecharitomene, “graced,” “endowed with grace.” Jerome, in translating this Greek word, uses the Latin circumlocution gratis plena, “full of grace.” CRI accuses Jerome of mistranslation and tries to refute Karl Keating’s explanation of the original kecharitomene.(Elliott Miller, “The Mary of Roman Catholicism,” Christian Research Journal, Summer 1990, 14. The second part of Miller’s article appeared in the Fall 1990 issue. In these notes the two parts are referred to as Part 1 and Part 2.)

Keating writes: “This grace . . . is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as ‘full’ or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception. That is, she 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. This is just what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds.”(Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 269.)

CRI’s objection is brief and rests upon one text, Ephesians 1:6: “Keating is reading more into the participle kecharitomene (derived from the verb charitoo) than its scanty New Testament usage allows. charitoo is used of believers in Ephesians 1:6 without implying sinless perfection.”(Part 1, 14.) This is true, but CRI’s next statement is false: “There is hence nothing about Luke 1:28 that establishes the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception” [emphasis mine].(Ibid.)

The reason why the verb in Ephesians 1:6 does not imply sinless perfection, whereas the form of the same verb in Luke 1:28 does so imply, is this: The two verb forms use different stems. Every Greek verb has up to nine distinct stems, each expressing a different modality of the verb’s lexical meanings.(FH. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 108-109.) Ephesians 1:6 has the first aorist active indicative form, echaritosen, “he graced, bestowed grace.” This form, based on an aorist stem, expresses momentary action,(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166. ) action simply brought to pass.(Smyth, sec. 1852:c:1.) It cannot express or imply any fullness of bestowing because “the aorist tense . . . does not show . . . completion with permanent result.”(Ibid., sec. 1852:c, note.)

continued…

 

[MarcoPolo]

…Father Mateo’s article continued.

It’s Greek to CRI

Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the “continuance of a completed action”;(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) “completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.”(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” This becomes clearer when we examine other New Testament examples of verbs in the perfect tense: (The next three examples are taken from Blass and DeBrunner, 175-176.)

1. “He has defiled this sacred place” (Acts 21:28)–their entrance in the past produced defilement as a lasting effect.
2. “The son of the slave woman was born according to the flesh” (Gal. 4:23)–the perfect with reference to an Old Testament event can mean it retains its exemplary effect.
3. “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” 1 Cor. 9:1, Acts 22:15)–that Paul has seen the Lord is what establishes him permanently as an apostle.

Other examples I found:

1. “God spoke to Moses” (John 9:29)–the Pharisees hold that the Mosaic Law still and always holds.
2. “It is finished” (John 19:30)–the work of redemption culminating in the passion and death of Christ is complete and forever enduring .

3 “He rose on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4)–unlike Lazarus who was raised from the dead but must die again, Christ rose to everlasting life.

1. “All things have been created through him and for him” (Col. 1:16)–all creation continually exists, upheld by God (this is the teaching of God’s universal providence and also the refutation of deism).

Here are examples, like kechari-tomene, of perfect participles in the New Testament:

1. “To the praise of his glorious grace, which he bestowed on us in his beloved”(Eph. 1:6)–Christ is perfectly, completely, endlessly loved by his Father.
2. “Blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Luke 1:42)–Christ is perfectly and endlessly blessed by God.

Because Luke 1:28 uses the perfect participle kecharitomene to describe Mary, CRI is wrong to say there is nothing in this verse to establish the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. One word of one Bible verse does not prove the doctrine, but kecharitomene proves the harmony of the doctrine with Scripture.

Did Jerome goof?

CRI, you will remember, accuses Jerome of mistranslating kecharito-mene with gratis plena, “full of grace.” This is not nitpicking on CRI’s part, and for two reasons: The phrase “full of grace” has guided many centuries of Catholic theological thought since Jerome, and some modern Catholic writers are of the opinion that gratis plena is a mistranslation. Against these Catholics and CRI I contend that gratis plena is not a mistranslation. It is an extremely happy phrase, as close to the Greek as Latin can come and much to be preferred to modern efforts to improve it: “favored one” (NAB [1986], RSV), “highly favored” (NIV), and the monstrosity, “highly favored daughter” (NAB [1970]).

Latin, when compared to Greek, seems to be an extremely awkward language. It is word-poor and has suffered considerable form-erosion. Specifically here, Latin has no verb that means what charitoo does in Greek.

But using the resources that Latin does have, Jerome expresses the root meaning of charitoo by the Latin noun gratis (“grace,” “favor”) and the amplitude and completeness of the Greek perfect tense by the Latin adjective plena (“full”). The Latin phrase does not well connote permanent condition, as the Greek perfect participle does.

Catholics are not alone in this reading of kecharitomene. In his Personal Prayer Book (1522), Luther wrote, “She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”(Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia), vol. 43, 40.)

Max Thurian, while still Protestant, wrote, “In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary’s holiness and perpetual virginity. Whatever the theological position which we may hold today in regard to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, . . . these two Catholic dogmas were accepted by certain Reformers, not of course in their present form, but certainly in the form that was current in their day.”(Max Thurian, Mary, Mother of All Christians (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964), 197.)

 

[fbl9]

FBL I think you may be misunderstanding original sin. We are not born with original sin. The Catechism on this is actually quite brilliant. Original sin is the first sin committed by Man. The disobedience of Adam and Eve to not eat the forbidden fruit. The result of this original sin or first sin is a stain on our DNA that causes us to continue to commit sin. I believe the Catechism uses the wording: propensity to commit sin or tendency to commit sin.

it is in this reply the reason why Mary was imaculately conceived…Jesus Christ is 100%God and He also is 100% human…where did He get His 100% humanity from?MARY.
using CK’s idea from back further(occam’s (sic?)razor) if this is true then Christ DID NOT get full humanity from Mary,because He left out this stain of the dna…so He would be less then fully human.
but Mary being without the stain of original did not have it in her dna to pass on to her Son, so thus… He truly recieved 100%of His humanity from Mary…thanks ND for your well thought out and informative responses…God bless you too.

 

[NDfan]

it is in this reply the reason why Mary was imaculately conceived…Jesus Christ is 100%God and He also is 100% human…where did He get His 100% humanity from?MARY.
using CK’s idea from back further(occam’s (sic?)razor) if this is true then Christ DID NOT get full humanity from Mary,because He left out this stain of the dna…so He would be less then fully human.
but Mary being without the stain of original did not have it in her dna to pass on to her Son, so thus… He truly recieved 100%of His humanity from Mary…thanks ND for your well thought out and informative responses…God bless you too.

Well I’ve seen this line if thinking many times FBL. Why would Jesus inherit a sinful nature from Mary if Mary had not inherited it from her father?? Why would GOD need to pardon Mary per se to protect Jesus from sin when he could have just pardoned
Jesus? Jesus inherited his earthly qualities from Mary but it’s impossible for GOD to inherit sin. Jesus was GOD incarnate so if it’s possible for GOD to inherit sin then the world would fall apart.

To follow your response Jesus did not come from the seed of a man so HE therefore would not have inherited sin from Mary. The problem we get into with taking this approach is to reduce the ability for GOD to be man. Sin and GOD simply don’t mix. By virtue of being GOD sin is canceled out. That’s why we see so many people being healed just by touching Christ. Look at the leper who touched Christ and was immediately healed. Also the bleeding woman. In both cases you would have been considered unclean in the Jewish world. Instead the opposite happened.

If you say Jesus couldn’t be 100% an without Mary’s sinful nature, then the same could be said for Mary. That she wasn’t 100% woman. Scripture just does not say that at all.

Blessing to you too FBL. Look forward to talking with you some more.

 

[NDfan]

I’'m sorry to barge in too. I thought it might be worth your side conversation with Peter to chime in Father Mateo’s discussion of translating kecharitomene.

Marco I cut out your post simply to save space Thanks for the post though

I’ve read everything you posted many other times and am familiar with all arguments made by all parties catholic and non-catholic regarding the greeting in Luke 1:28. Or at least the most popular ones I’m also familiar with the constant use of perfect past participles in the NT as they are quite common.

With regard to the Latin the issue there is going from Greek to Latin to English. If something in the Greek doesn’t quite fit in Latin then we are forced to use language that best expresses what the idea is being represented. Which goes back to my point about thought-based translations vs word for word translations. The Latin Vulgate cannot be a word for word interpretation for the very reason you cite.

Kecharitomene is actually a feminine perfect past participle. But the root word Charitoo is a verb. This does not describe something GOD did to Mary. It describes an action GOD took about Mary. That HE favored her. It represents a completed action. Similar to me saying I favor red wine over white wine. I don’t incite a change about the the wine itself. It represents a feeling I have about the wine and now becomes an attribute of the wine. Conjugating it in the past perfect tense would mean it was an action taken previously that is permanent. I will always favor red over white. This is crude but the implication is the same.

The same thing applies to Mary. Charitoo is not an action of GOD filling Mary with grace. Charis is the noun form which represents the type of grace GOD infills us with and is a direct result of GOD initially favoring us. That’s why Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is worded the way it is. The favor Paul tells the Ephesians we have now has the same permanence as the favor GOD has for Mary. There simply is no difference except for the tense that is used that of past vs present. If the favor GOD has for us that is described in the letter to the Ephesians is not permanent then that would imply our Faith in Christ may not be sufficient. That even if we maintained our faith there’s the possibility that we could fall out of GOD’s favor. Don’t you see how ridiculous that sounds??

Christ is the only person ever described as literally being full of GOD’s grace. This is from John’s Gospel. The word Pleres signifies something that is complete, lacking nothing, perfect. Perfect past participles don’t imply a state of lacking nothing. They signify a permanence of the attribute being described. So back to the gentlemen confined to his mat. The perfect past participle lying is used to present to us that this man has a permanent attribute, that of being confined to his mat. Perhaps it was from birth or from an illness in the past. Either way his condition is permanent which makes the miracle Christ performs so significant as GOD would be the only one capable of healing this man.

In Mary’s case and ours referenced in Ephesians the same is true. GOD would be the only one who could change the favor we have with HIM. Mary is not more favored than we are and she does not grow more into her favor. Kecharitomene has no implication of an amount of favor one would have. This is the problem you run into when you try to apply a sinless state to this word.

 

[Peter_J]

It seems we agree that GOD did not need Mary to be sinless to bring forth the messiah. That seemed to be the point that brought you both into agreement. Not sure where it re-deviated.

Correct. I agreed with ckempston that God did not need Mary to be immaculate – something that all Catholics should agree with.

To this, **he responded “And that’s all I’m saying.” **

I don’t much like people playing games with me when I’m trying to have a sincere dialogue.

 

[NDfan]

Correct. I agreed with ckempston that God did not need Mary to be immaculate – something that all Catholics should agree with.

To this, **he responded “And that’s all I’m saying.” **

I don’t much like people playing games with me when I’m trying to have a sincere dialogue.

Peter I thought he was doing a quick summation of the dialogue that had taken place. I don’t particularly like some of the game-playing that goes on here either. Some posts are just too baiting that I don’t participate. Hopefully Ckempston will clear the air with you.

Blessings brother

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella you are incorrect here. The root word in kecharitomene is not Charis it is Charitoo. Charis is a noun and Charitoo is a verb. Mary is not described by the Angel as being in a state of grace as the word kecharitomene describes an action GOD took. Simply that HE favored her in the past tense. Not that HE filled her with grace. Again Christ is the only one described as being full of GODs grace (pleres charis). Charitoo only appears twice in the NT and is applied to both Mary and all Christians in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

Charis which is used the remaining 100+ times in the NT is the grace which infills all believers of Christ to make them Holy meaning set apart. It does not make one sinless.

I’m aware that ‘kecharitomene’ is a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo. ‘Oo’ verbs signify that someone is put in the state expressed by the root, which here is ‘charis’. ‘Charitoo’ means to put into grace. It is clear that the expression ‘kecharitomene’ is directly concerned with the notion of grace, since it is derived from the root word ‘charis’ which literally means grace. But only Mary is addressed (“kecharitomene”) by the angel as “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace” (cf. Blass & Debrunner, ‘Greek Grammar of the New Testament’: University of Chicago Press, 1961, p.166).

With regard to Ephesians 1:5-6, the variant of ‘charitoo’ differs from Luke 1:28. Here we have the expression ‘echaritosen’. It doesn’t mean “endowed with grace” but “grace which God has freely bestowed” [on all believers], according to Protestant linguist Marvin Vincent. Mr. Vincent points out that the meaning for the word grace differs between these two passages. As for the grace that has been bestowed on all believers, it is possessed in different measure by different believers.

But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gifts.
Ephesians 4:7

Catholic apologist, Mr. Armstrong, contends it’s fallacious to compare the “grace freely bestowed upon all believers” with the fullness of grace Mary received and was endowed with “completely, perfectly, and enduringly,” since we cannot compare an individual with a group of believers whose grace is possessed in different measure. Unlike all believers, Mary is uniquely and individually addressed by the angel in a manner that exemplifies her characteristics and signifies the essential quality of her spiritual state. The expression ‘kecharitomene’ assumes the form of a noun or, more precisely, a pronoun. Finally, Luke 1: 28 does indeed use the perfect tense, unlike Ephesians 1:6, which by itself denotes a present condition or state without reference to the length of time a person has been in a given state or will remain in it afterwards. But the prefect stem of a Greek verb denotes “a continuance of a completed action” (Blass & Debrunner, Ibid., p.61). Mary continued to be full of the grace she had possessed at the time the angel Gabriel appeared to her at the Annunciation (cf. Lk 1:30). Below are comments from Protestant biblical Greek scholars:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of ‘chartoo’ and means endowed with grace (“charis”), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6,…The Vulgate ‘gratiae plena’ is right if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’;"
Archibald T Robertson

"Luke 1:28…‘kecharitomene’ is a quite rare Hellenistic verb (only found elsewhere in the NT at Eph 1:6 in the active). Etymologically it should mean “To be furnished with grace”.
John Noland

“Chartoo…Highly favoured as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace upon…it really does not mean to show favor, but to give grace to.”
Spiros Zohdiates

The difference between Mary and the Ephesians, or all believers, is that she was “enriched or furnished with grace” or had grace “bestowed upon her” “completely, perfectly, and enduringly.” Jerome was aware of the accurate meaning of ‘kecharitomene’ in his Latin translation from the Greek: “to be made perfect by grace”. A fullness of grace indicates spiritual perfection through divine grace.

The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace. We cannot be saved unless we are in a state of the fullness of God’s grace which is necessary for us to live holy and sinless lives. But unlike Mary, we are inclined to fall from God’s grace through personal sin and disobedience. Because of concupiscence, our tendency to fall like Adam, the habitual sanctifying grace that has been bestowed on us is not enduring, notwithstanding any perfection and completeness of the state of grace we may momentarily be in by our disposition to love and obey God. Mary was made perfect by a fullness of grace that endured throughout her entire life because she was preserved free from the taint of original sin, and so she was holy by being sinless. Thus in the Magnificat Mary is in a position to declare with absolute confidence that she “is” saved.

Here is an English translation of the third century Eastern Aramaic version of Luke 1:28 found in the ‘Peshitta’:

"And the angel went in and said to her, “Peace be to you, O full of grace; our Lord is with you, O blessed one among women.”
[Translation by George M Lamsa]

 

[NDfan]

I’m aware that ‘kecharitomene’ is a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo. ‘Oo’ verbs signify that someone is put in the state expressed by the root, which here is ‘charis’. ‘Charitoo’ means to put into grace. It is clear that the expression ‘kecharitomene’ is directly concerned with the notion of grace, since it is derived from the root word ‘charis’ which literally means grace. But only Mary is addressed (“kecharitomene”) by the angel as “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace” (cf. Blass & Debrunner, ‘Greek Grammar of the New Testament’: University of Chicago Press, 1961, p.166).

With regard to Ephesians 1:5-6, the variant of ‘charitoo’ differs from Luke 1:28. Here we have the expression ‘echaritosen’. It doesn’t mean “endowed with grace” but “grace which God has freely bestowed” [on all believers], according to Protestant linguist Marvin Vincent. Mr. Vincent points out that the meaning for the word grace differs between these two passages. As for the grace that has been bestowed on all believers, it is possessed in different measure by different believers.

Sorry but this again is incorrect. The root word used in both cases is charitoo which is the verb form of charis. So if the oo places mary in a state expressed by the root then it also applies to the ephesians. Mary in the past tense and all believers in the present tense.

The verb has no indication of an amount of favor that is applied. That simply is butchering the Greek. Mary has no more favor than the generic “us” Paul uses in the Ephesians letter to refer to the elect. This is where Vincent is erroreous in his personal interpretation.

The perfect past participle also has no indication of the amount of time Mary was in favor. It just represents sometime in the past. But that doesn’t then translate into the notion that she was the recipient of more or that she grew more in favor. The Greek simply does not support that. The verb indicates an action GOD took that now adds an attribute to us and Mary. That we are favored. The action doesn’t define a state that GOD placed Mary in as a result of HIS action. Again the verb does not support that.

Christ is the only person described as being in a fullness state of GOD’s grace. Again the greek word Pleres is the indicator that gives a description of the state Christ is in. That of being perfect, complete and lacking nothing. This is not applied to Mary.

If Mary was sinless as you state then you have to explain why she died given that the result of sin is death. If Mary never sinned then she would be alive today living a perfect sinless life and available to us to clarify all these arguments. That is not the case is it?? If Mary was sinless then she would not have endured pains during the birth of Christ. Yet the Catholic Church asserts that Mary is the woman referred to in Revelation as the one crying out in child bearing pain which again is the result of sin as commanded by GOD in Genesis.

As far as us leaving this world in a full state of grace, this again is trying to apply a measurement of GOD’s free gift of grace that can’t be done. Going down this path would imply that some grace may not be enough which then begs the question how much grace is enough. Accepting GOD’s grace means accepting Christ which then infills one with grace. You can’t accept Christ a little and get just a little grace which GOD then says sorry that’s not enough.

PEACE

 

[Good_Fella]

Sorry but this again is incorrect. The root word used in both cases is charitoo which is the verb form of charis. So if the oo places mary in a state expressed by the root then it also applies to the ephesians. Mary in the past tense and all believers in the present tense.

The verb has no indication of an amount of favor that is applied. Mary has no more favor than the generic “us” Paul uses in the Ephesians letter to refer to the elect. This is where Vincent is erroreous in his personal interpretation.

The perfect past participle also has no indication of the amount of time Mary was in favor. It just represents sometime in the past. But that doesn’t then translate into the notion that she was the recipient of more or that she grew more in favor. The Greek simply does not support that. The verb indicates an action GOD took that now adds an attribute to us and Mary. That we are favored. The action doesn’t define a state that GOD placed Mary in as a result of HIS action. Again the verb does not support that.

Christ is the only person described as being in a fullness state of GOD’s grace. Again the greek word Pleres is the indicator that gives a description of the state Christ is in. That of being perfect, complete and lacking nothing. This is not applied to Mary.

If Mary was sinless as you state then you have to explain why she died given that the result of sin is death. If Mary never sinned then she would be alive today living a perfect sinless life and available to us to clarify all these arguments. That is not the case is it?? If Mary was sinless then she would not have endured pains during the birth of Christ. Yet the Catholic Church asserts that Mary is the woman referred to in Revelation as the one crying out in child bearing pain which again is the result of sin as commanded by GOD in Genesis.

As far as us leaving this world in a full state of grace, this again is trying to apply a measurement of GOD’s free gift of grace that can’t be done. Going down this path would imply that some grace may not be enough which then begs the question how much grace is enough. Accepting GOD’s grace means accepting Christ which then infills one with grace. You can’t accept Christ a little and get just a little grace which GOD then says sorry that’s not enough.

PEACE

Luke uses a special conjugated form of charitoo, ‘kecharitomene’, whereas Paul uses ‘escharitosen’ in his letter to the Ephesians, which is a different form of the verb ‘charitoo’. ‘Kecharitomene’ is a perfect passive participle; ‘escharitosen’ is an indicative active aorist. Again, ‘escharitosen’ means “he graced” or “bestowed grace”. According to Blass and Debrunner, ‘escharitosen’ signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass, whereas ‘kecharitomene’, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. ‘Kecharitomene’ denotes continuance of a completed past action (H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar: Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968, pp 108-109, sec 1852b; also Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.175).

Mary isn’t described as someone endowed with grace. She is named “full of grace” or “highly favoured one”. ‘Kecharitomene’ significantly takes the form of a noun. Please pay attention.

Mary has no more favour than the generic us? Recall the words of Elizabeth: “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” [Lk 1: 42] It would appear that Mary has been more graced or favoured than any other human being by virtue of her Divine Maternity. And for this reason she was endowed with a fullness of grace at her immaculate conception so that she would be fittingly sinless. Fritz Rienker and Cleon Rogers [Linguistic Key to the New Testament] ironically explain 'kecharitomene as meaning “to bestow grace, to show favor to someone, Here it is the divine favor for a special vocation.” This is what I mean by God’s measuring of his grace. The exceptional divine favour Mary received assured her salvation. Mary was created perfected by a lasting grace because of her divine Son.

“And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the serpent [cf. Gen 3:15]. To her did the Father will to give his Only-begotten Son…and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.”
*Pope Pius lX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854 *

With regard to Mary’s death, Enoch and Elijah escaped death, although unlike Mary, who was sinless, they haven’t yet been gloriously resurrected from the dead following Christ each in his own turn.

“Therefore, the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that He who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of the Assumption.”
Timothy of Jerusalem, ‘Homily on Simeon and Anna’ (A.D. 400)

Arise, O Lord, to your resting place;
you and your majestic ark.
Psalm 132, 8

Christ never intended that the scriptures should be a matter of private interpretation with regard to matters of faith and morals, not Mr. Vincent’s or yours. Pax.

 

[fbl9]

Well I’ve seen this line if thinking many times FBL. Why would Jesus inherit a sinful nature from Mary if Mary had not inherited it from her father?? Why would GOD need to pardon Mary per se to protect Jesus from sin when he could have just pardoned
Jesus? Jesus inherited his earthly qualities from Mary but it’s impossible for GOD to inherit sin. Jesus was GOD incarnate so if it’s possible for GOD to inherit sin then the world would fall apart.

To follow your response Jesus did not come from the seed of a man so HE therefore would not have inherited sin from Mary. The problem we get into with taking this approach is to reduce the ability for GOD to be man. Sin and GOD simply don’t mix. By virtue of being GOD sin is canceled out. That’s why we see so many people being healed just by touching Christ. Look at the leper who touched Christ and was immediately healed. Also the bleeding woman. In both cases you would have been considered unclean in the Jewish world. Instead the opposite happened.

If you say Jesus couldn’t be 100% an without Mary’s sinful nature, then the same could be said for Mary. That she wasn’t 100% woman. Scripture just does not say that at all.

Blessing to you too FBL. Look forward to talking with you some more.

Eve before she disobeyed God was 100% woman and had no sinful nature in her at that time…thus to say Mary without the nature of sin in her is less then 100% woman is incorrect.
are you implying that when Jesus was concieved in Mary’s womb is when she became without a sinful nature?
are you implying that only the seed of men contains the stain of sinful nature?and thus is not apart of a woman’s nature also,.every woman is without the stain of orginal sin?
Christ’s entire human nature was drawn from Mary entirely.
did nt ST.Paul refer to Jesus as the new Adam?
What was Jesus’s mission?it was to undo the sin of adam and eve…
so God is undoing (reversing) what man through disobience wrought.and instead of creating woman from man He created the "new"man(Jesus as the new Adam) through the “new woman” Mary.
no one said Mary’s father was without orginal sin…even if he was she would have still inherited it from her mother then.

 

[LutheranDK]

**Genisis 3:15:

(Known as the “Protoevangelion”)"

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

**This is the Scriptural evidence for non-Catholic Christians.

Oh…you’re serious?
Ahem…
How can you possibly say that the passage you quoted is Scriptural evidence of the immaculate conception of Mary?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Oh…you’re serious?
Ahem…
How can you possibly say that the passage you quoted is Scriptural evidence of the immaculate conception of Mary?

I already explained it way back when…

 

[Canto]

Sorry but this again is incorrect. The root word used in both cases is charitoo which is the verb form of charis. So if the oo places mary in a state expressed by the root then it also applies to the ephesians. Mary in the past tense and all believers in the present tense.

Shouldn’t we look at the whole word and not just the root. Yes both have chartioo but Paul uses EchartioSEN and Luke KEcharitoMENE - they are different.

Mary has no more favor than the generic “us” Paul uses in the Ephesians letter to refer to the elect. This is where Vincent is erroreous in his personal interpretation.

The woman who gave birth to GOD in the flesh is no more favoured than “us”

If Mary was sinless as you state then you have to explain why she died given that the result of sin is death. If Mary never sinned then she would be alive today living a perfect sinless life and available to us to clarify all these arguments. That is not the case is it?? If Mary was sinless then she would not have endured pains during the birth of Christ.

The birth pangs are the sword piercing Mary’s soul
Where in the Bible does it say Mary died?
Didn’t Jesus die?
Aren’t the people in heaven alive?
The Woman in Rev is a doulbe image of the Church but also of Mary body and soul in heaven

As far as us leaving this world in a full state of grace, this again is trying to apply a measurement of GOD’s free gift of grace that can’t be done. Going down this path would imply that some grace may not be enough which then begs the question how much grace is enough. Accepting GOD’s grace means accepting Christ which then infills one with grace. You can’t accept Christ a little and get just a little grace which GOD then says sorry that’s not enough.

Why do you transalte highly favoured then?
Should it not then be favoured or not favoured which ever the case may be?

 

[ckempston]

Correct. I agreed with ckempston that God did not need Mary to be immaculate – something that all Catholics should agree with.

To this, **he responded “And that’s all I’m saying.” **

I don’t much like people playing games with me when I’m trying to have a sincere dialogue.

Nobody is playing games. I explained what I meant. Why don’t you seek to understand instead of just assuming the worst?

 

[ckempston]

…Father Mateo’s article continued.

It’s Greek to CRI

Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the “continuance of a completed action”;(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) “completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.”(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” This becomes clearer when we examine other New Testament examples of verbs in the perfect tense: (The next three examples are taken from Blass and DeBrunner, 175-176.)
​

Being chosen to have a baby is indeed a continuance of a completed action. Once you have a baby, you never enter a state of having NOT HAD a baby. Father Mateo is butchering the Greek and using “salad bar” apologetics (choosing verses which seem to agree, but really don’t).

1. “He has defiled this sacred place” (Acts 21:28)–their entrance in the past produced defilement as a lasting effect.

Defilement is not a lasting effect. The Law has specific methods of removing defilement from people, places, and things.

The son of the slave woman was born according to the flesh" (Gal. 4:23)–the perfect with reference to an Old Testament event can mean it retains its exemplary effect.

Yeah, exactly. Once you’re “born” you cannot become “unborn,” hence the “permanent” effect. The effect in Mary’s case was being chosen to have a baby, which is a permanent thing that cannot become “undone” once completed.

1. “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” 1 Cor. 9:1, Acts 22:15)–that Paul has seen the Lord is what establishes him permanently as an apostle.

Again, once you become something, you can never go back in time and “unbecome” that thing. You can’t change the past, that is the point of the Perfect tense. It does not imply that the effects are perpetual. Paul himself admitted he could fall away or not finish the race, in which case, the effects of being chosen as an Apostle would be gone, but the fact that he was at one time an Apostle would remain.

Other examples I found:

1. “God spoke to Moses” (John 9:29)–the Pharisees hold that the Mosaic Law still and always holds.

But God is not continually speaking to Moses to this day. It happened, it’s a completed action that has a definite effect, but that **action itself **is NOT ONGOING.

1. “It is finished” (John 19:30)–the work of redemption culminating in the passion and death of Christ is complete and forever enduring .

Same thing. Action completed once and for all, not ongoing.

3 “He rose on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4)–unlike Lazarus who was raised from the dead but must die again, Christ rose to everlasting life.

AH, the nail in the coffin:

John 11:11 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”

“has fallen asleep” is in the perfect tense, and yet Lazarus’ state of being asleep ended, because Jesus raised him from the dead! Hook, line, and sinker. Lock, stock, and barrel. Choose your idiom. This argument is over, and you lost.

There’s no need to even proceed any further. This CLEARLY demonstrates that the Catholics here are attempting to make the perfect tense mean something it does not.​

 

[NDfan]

Shouldn’t we look at the whole word and not just the root. Yes both have chartioo but Paul uses EchartioSEN and Luke KEcharitoMENE - they are different.

Canto yes we should look at the entire word but we can’t understand the entire word without knowing the root which is charitoo. The difference between the 2 words is kecharitomene is written in the past perfect tense indicating the action is complete and that it does not need to be repeated. Echaritosen is written in the aorist tense which scholars deem to have 3 possible tenses although agree that the past tense is the most accurate especially in scripture. This would indicate that the favor described in the Ephesians letter also happened in the past.

The problem with trying to leapfrog from this greeting to a sinless state of Mary is Greek participles derive their time element from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, there is no main verb in what is in actuality, simply a greeting.

The woman who gave birth to GOD in the flesh is no more favoured than “us”

In the context of the use of the word charitoo yes this is accurate. Paul is basically stating that we are made acceptable to GOD by Christ. Acceptable is the echaritosen component of that verse. Therefore one who accepts Christ has GOD’s favor the same way Mary does. There’s no difference.

The birth pangs are the sword piercing Mary’s soul
Where in the Bible does it say Mary died?
Didn’t Jesus die?
Aren’t the people in heaven alive?
The Woman in Rev is a doulbe image of the Church but also of Mary body and soul in heaven

The birth pangs are not the sword piercing Mary’s soul. To quote from Revelation:

12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a** woman** clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.

The catechism of the catholic church has always maintained that this was Mary. The sword piercing Mary’s soul was taken from Luke in the conversation with Simeon.

As far as Mary dying again the catechism states that upon her death she was bodily assumed into heaven. The church makes no statement ever that she was assumed into Heaven alive. As far as Jesus dying? Jesus did not die from sin, HE was murdered as you well know. The legend that surrounds Mary’s death was that she was among the Apostles when she passed away.

With regard to people being alive in Heaven? Yes they have eternal life which I pray that you and I will also have one day. But before one receives eternal life you have to taste death correct? The only people from scripture that we know were taken up by GOD were Enoch and Elijah. If Mary met with this same fate then why doesn’t scripture record it?

Why do you transalte highly favoured then?
Should it not then be favoured or not favoured which ever the case may be?

Absolutely and that’s what the Greek states. Again I will submit to you that the greeting given to Mary represents a completed action. The perfect passive participle means that the action does not have to be completed again. So Mary had GOD’s favor. But the same action afforded to Mary is also afforded to us in our acceptance of Christ. We become favorable to GOD through Christ or as Ephesians states we were made accepted or blessed in the beloved depending on which translation you are using.

What we need to be careful of is to then make a jump that this means a sinless nature. If Mary was made sinless by her favor then so are we. But we know we die with the propensity to commit sin hence the need for purgation. One final note on the Greek and the word kecharitomene, there is no time factor that can be derived from this greeting. In other words we have no way of knowing how long Mary was in favor. Pius made the statement that it was from conception. But in either case of Luke and Ephesians, no time frame can ever be established from the past tense form of a Greek word.

PEACE

 

[NonCatholic]

For the best evidence, shouldn’t you look at what the Mary of the Bible actually said? Just a novel idea