Was Mary full of grace or highly favored?

[John_Martin]

To have been able to see through Latin eyes saint Jerome must first have seen through greek eyes. As far as Luke 1:28 is concerned, the greek manuscripts are the source and to speculate that this source used a clumsy meaning for what was really intended is as far as my understanding goes, eisegesis. What is the source to change the translation of the greek into another meaning? And why is this change necessary for Christianity?

The greek did not use a clumsy word; it is the Latin that would have been improper in transliteration. Even the English is clumsy, perhaps even improper, through transliteration. “Favored” implies an emotion within God, which is not correct. “Graced One” is not common usage, therefore confusing. “Graced” means infused with the substance of grace. So, how much grace was infused into Mary? Knowing God, I would not be afraid to say a full portion.

Now, if you think “grace” is a “disposition to favor something within the mind of God”, so that this verb means that God is looking at Mary in a special way, then you would not consider her to contain anything from God with this verb. But as Catholics, we know of Grace as substantial, an “object” given to us. To be sure, we also know it as a disposition within God, but where that disposition is in Him, there is also a substantial gift given to the person favored.
Here is the way St. Thomas said it:

• “Accordingly when a man is said to have the grace of God, there is signified something bestowed on man by God. Nevertheless the grace of God sometimes signifies God’s eternal love…”

John Martin

 

[2co105]

No, the same root word is used in Eph 1:6. Your recourse to this verse is useful, however. We see in Luke 1:30 that Jerome takes a participle (κεχαριτωμένη) and translates it in a way that eliminates the verbal aspect (plena gratia). You have a problem with this (although I’m not certain of the nature of your problem). In Eph 1:6, Jerome takes another participle (ἠγαπημένῳ) and likewise translates it without the verbal aspect (dilecto).

Yet, you don’t have a problem with this translation, only the instance in Luke. Why is this? Is there something about that passage that bothers you?"

In fact, it’s not uncommon for a translator to use phrase to translate a difficult word, even when that phrase’s literal meaning can be expressed differently in the source language! Do you have any problem with translators calling Jesus the ‘firstborn’? After all, the source phrase for ‘firstborn’ is the-one-who-opens-the-womb. Are we mistranslating when we take that and choose a rendering which is understandable and not clumsy?

Your concern seems misplaced. Yes, κεχαριτωμένη is not πλήρης χάριτος. Yet, Jerome did not translate it as πλήρης χάριτος, he translated it as ‘plena gratia’. It’s a subtle, yet critical point.

No, eisegesis deals with interpretation, not translation. Yet, it has to do with inserting one’s own idea into a text. Does the notion of Mary as being a person filled with God’s grace not exist in the Greek text? Does κεχαριτωμένη not carry the meaning of ‘grace’ and having been bestowed with it?

I see your point. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I would have to conclude that “full of grace” is a viable translation. However, I do have issue with some of the ideology that is drawn out of the word kecharitōmenē. I am going to start another thread for insight on that.

 

[2co105]

The greek did not use a clumsy word; it is the Latin that would have been improper in transliteration. Even the English is clumsy, perhaps even improper, through transliteration. “Favored” implies an emotion within God, which is not correct. “Graced One” is not common usage, therefore confusing. “Graced” means infused with the substance of grace. So, how much grace was infused into Mary? Knowing God, I would not be afraid to say a full portion.

Now, if you think “grace” is a “disposition to favor something within the mind of God”, so that this verb means that God is looking at Mary in a special way, then you would not consider her to contain anything from God with this verb. But as Catholics, we know of Grace as substantial, an “object” given to us. To be sure, we also know it as a disposition within God, but where that disposition is in Him, there is also a substantial gift given to the person favored.
Here is the way St. Thomas said it:

• “Accordingly when a man is said to have the grace of God, there is signified something bestowed on man by God. Nevertheless the grace of God sometimes signifies God’s eternal love…”

John Martin

I appreciate your comments John. I understand that “full of grace” is a viable translation of kecharitōmenē.

 

[Bodyandblood999]

I am wondering about this: Do you think Roman Catholics are more focused on Mary or on Jesus Christ? I look at a lot of my Catholic friends and I honestly think that Mary is more popular than Jesus. I struggle with this. What you think about it? Be honest!

 

[po18guy]

I am wondering about this: Do you think Roman Catholics are more focused on Mary or on Jesus Christ? I look at a lot of my Catholic friends and I honestly think that Mary is more popular than Jesus. I struggle with this. What you think about it? Be honest!

Methinks you do not understand the mass, or have not read the catechism. Christ, our Savior, appearing to us in the Holy Eucharist, is the source and summit of our faith. We encounter Him at each and every mass or holy hour of adoration. We eat His Body and drink His Blood. Thus, I believe Catholics have an exponentially closer relationship with their “personal Lord and Savior” than any other denomination, save for the Orthodox Christians.

Are you going to tell us that, when you messed up, you went directly to your dad and told all, each and every time - or did you go to mom and have her go to dad? Notice that dad is still in charge and still lays down the law. It is all in how you approach dad. Since Catholics believe that Mary is our mother, we can go to her, as she always and everywhere leads us to her Son. Author and Catholic convert Mark Shea has said that Mary looks much larger from outside the Church than she does from within.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If your current bible translation does not say FULL OF GRACE then go out and get one that does!

 

[brb3]

Ok …lets grant Mary was highly favored, highly graced. So was John the Baptizer, Elijah, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Paul, John …and every son/daughter born again of the Father, via the Son via HS !!!

Lets keep our perspective on Mary …“most blessed among women” !!! Our Spiritual Mom, and great saint !! But, as she said, " do whatever Jesus tells you".

What did Jesus tell us to do about Mary ?

 

[po18guy]

Ok …lets grant Mary was highly favored, highly graced. So was John the Baptizer, Elijah, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Paul, John …and every son/daughter born again of the Father, via the Son via HS !!!

Lets keep our perspective on Mary …“most blessed among women” !!! Our Spiritual Mom, and great saint !! But, as she said, " do whatever Jesus tells you".

What did Jesus tell us to do about Mary ?

Let’s not venture toward equating the Mother of God with any others. Christ did not. She is the greatest of all creations. Conceived of and created by Christ for the sole purpose of giving Him flesh and remaining with Him throughout His earthly, and now heavenly life. No one else was. No one else is seated at His right hand. Jerome was right to believe her to be “full of grace.”

 

[brb3]

Let’s not venture toward equating the Mother of God with any others. No one else is seated at His right hand. Jerome was right to believe her to be “full of grace.”

Yes, and so do we … believe her “full of grace”.

But, to be seated at right hand of God … Christ told James and John, that was not his to grant. But, reserved for the Father to say. That spot could well be reserved for Abraham, Elijah, Enoch, Noah, etc. We just don’t know yet.

 

[Bodyandblood999]

Methinks you do not understand the mass, or have not read the catechism. Christ, our Savior, appearing to us in the Holy Eucharist, is the source and summit of our faith. We encounter Him at each and every mass or holy hour of adoration. We eat His Body and drink His Blood. Thus, I believe Catholics have an exponentially closer relationship with their “personal Lord and Savior” than any other denomination, save for the Orthodox Christians.

Are you going to tell us that, when you messed up, you went directly to your dad and told all, each and every time - or did you go to mom and have her go to dad? Notice that dad is still in charge and still lays down the law. It is all in how you approach dad. Since Catholics believe that Mary is our mother, we can go to her, as she always and everywhere leads us to her Son. Author and Catholic convert Mark Shea has said that Mary looks much larger from outside the Church than she does from within.

I know what the black print on white paper says about it, but I also know what I see over and over, and it just seems like most of my catholic friends are more about Mary than Jesus. Also, Jesus talked a lot about prayer, and so did Paul, and I don’t think they ever said a single word about including Mary in it! Jesus said to say, “Our Father…” And He said,
Matthew 7:11
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

And…
Matthew 6:8
So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

God is so good and so approachable (If your sins have truly been dealt with), that in Jesus’ name we can come right to him without any concern or lack of confidence!

John 14:13
Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Why in the world would Jesus not mention accessing him through Mary if it was so important??!! I’ll tell you why: The using of Mary for intercession appears to be a human attempt to feel more comfortable with a God that can only be known through the new birth that comes through faith in the cross.

The fact that neither Jesus nor Paul ever mentioned Mary in conjunction with prayer should be, I’m thinking, a huge warning that something is wrong. Just sayin’!

John 16:23
In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.

John 15:16
You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

Mary is never mentioned after Acts 1 !

 

[po18guy]

Yes, and so do we … believe her “full of grace”.

But, to be seated at right hand of God … Christ told James and John, that was not his to grant. But, reserved for the Father to say. That spot could well be reserved for Abraham, Elijah, Enoch, Noah, etc. We just don’t know yet.

Actually, we do. Go to 1 Kings 2:19. Solomon installed a seat beside his father’s (David) throne for his mother, Bathsheba. We know from Luke 1:32 that Jesus occupies the throne of His father, David. Well, that seat was prophetic in nature.

We know implicitly that that Christ first conceived of Mary in the divine intellect and then created her specifically to give Him flesh (John 1:1-3). Since we are commanded to honor our father and mother, and since Christ, being God, can neither deceive nor be deceived, would He not also honor the mother that He created for the singular purpose of giving flesh to Him? For a bible Christian, that certainly could explain his denial of that place to John and James.

Catholics have no such quandary, as the Church long ago taught that and has defined it for us.

Anglo-Catholic, i.e. Church of England, right?

 

[po18guy]

I know what the black print on white paper says about it, but I also know what I see over and over, and it just seems like most of my catholic friends are more about Mary than Jesus. Also, Jesus talked a lot about prayer, and so did Paul, and I don’t think they ever said a single word about including Mary in it! Jesus said to say, “Our Father…” And He said,
Matthew 7:11
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

And…
Matthew 6:8
So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

God is so good and so approachable (If your sins have truly been dealt with), that in Jesus’ name we can come right to him without any concern or lack of confidence!

John 14:13
Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Why in the world would Jesus not mention accessing him through Mary if it was so important??!! I’ll tell you why: The using of Mary for intercession appears to be a human attempt to feel more comfortable with a God that can only be known through the new birth that comes through faith in the cross.

The fact that neither Jesus nor Paul ever mentioned Mary in conjunction with prayer should be, I’m thinking, a huge warning that something is wrong. Just sayin’!

John 16:23
In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.

John 15:16
You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

Mary is never mentioned after Acts 1 !

If one artificially limits themselves to only the written Tradition (make no mistake - the bible is a tradition), how can full knowledge of that which the Apostles taught ever be known? It cannot. As well, the bible tells us in numerous places that it is incomplete.

The trinity is not explicit in scripture, even though many claim that it is. That doctrine was developed over time, as our understanding of revelation developed. This is exactly as it is with the Marian doctrines. Nothing is new in that regard.

As well, do you think that all 300 million living Eastern Orthodox Christians are also wrong? While they do not hold to the exact doctrines of the Catholic Church, their Marian devotion puts Catholics to shame. We both could learn a lot from them.

 

[brb3]

Actually, we do. Go to 1 Kings 2:19. Solomon installed a seat beside his father’s (David) throne for his mother, Bathsheba. We know from Luke 1:32 that Jesus occupies the throne of His father, David. Well, that seat was prophetic in nature.

We know implicitly that that Christ first conceived of Mary in the divine intellect and then created her specifically to give Him flesh (John 1:1-3). Since we are commanded to honor our father and mother, and since Christ, being God, can neither deceive nor be deceived, would He not also honor the mother that He created for the singular purpose of giving flesh to Him? For a bible Christian, that certainly could explain his denial of that place to John and James.

“Created Mary for singular purpose of giving flesh to Him” ? Is that what scripture teaches ?

It seems the Catholic Church has given many additional purposes to Mary’s life.
Why didn’t the Apostles see this spot as belonging to Mary ? … they had the OT scriptures ! Paul never put Mary in this choice spot.

 

[po18guy]

“Created Mary for singular purpose of giving flesh to Him” ? Is that what scripture teaches ?

Well, it appears that God has a two-step plan for all of creation: 1) Idea is in the Divine intellect. 2) By God’s Word, said idea is brought into being.

All things came into being by using this process (John 1:1-3), correct? Mary was one of these things, correct? If she was not to be the mother of the Christ, then why did Jesus create her? Why did God send Gabriel to her? Why did the Holy Spirit overshadow her? Why did she conceive as a virgin, bring forth a child, cause Him to perform His first miracle and remain with Him ever after? (Luke 1, John 2)

It seems the Catholic Church has given many additional purposes to Mary’s life.

Not at all. It simply recognizes them. You mean that you don’t?

Why didn’t the Apostles see this spot as belonging to Mary ? … they had the OT scriptures ! Paul never put Mary in this choice spot.

Why didn’t the Apostles understand anything? You ask the same question that our Lord asked them (Matthew 15:17, Matthew 16:9, 16:11, Mark 8:17, 8:21) As well, the bible does in no place say that Paul alone was privy to all revelation, or that he even wrote all things. Paul himself tells us that he did not write all tihngs (**Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:9, **) - yet all things he taught are important. Where are those things?

Actually, when Paul was stumped, when the scriptures just could not answer a very important question, he went somewhere for an authoritative answer. Acts 15. Again, when he feared that his preaching may not have been correct, he went somehwere for an authoritative decision. Galatians 2:2.

One huge problem you have: the bible. No, not that you have the bible, but that the bible is all you have. Really. There is a world full of books that are not in the bible (John 21:25). Is it all lost? Did God’s word return to Him void? (Isaiah 55:11)

Q: In which book does the bible claim that it contains all revelation?
A: It does not.

Q: In which book does it claim that some of God’s revelation is not important?
A: It does not.

Q: Where does the bible tell us that it is incomplete?
A: Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:9 etc.

We know that it does not contain all revelation, and we “assume” that all revelation is important - else why would it have been revealed? I tell you that it is kept somewhere, but you will not believe my words.

These are rhetorical questions - intended for you to ponder. There is an answer, and it is in the bible, but it is not the bible.

 

[panevino]

St Ambrose
Of the Holy Spirit - book 1chVII(Schaff’s translation)
“…Gabriel himself, when sent to Mary said:“Hail,** full of grace**” plainly declaring the grace of the spirit which was in her…”

 

[Bodyandblood999]

If one artificially limits themselves to only the written Tradition (make no mistake - the bible is a tradition), how can full knowledge of that which the Apostles taught ever be known? It cannot. As well, the bible tells us in numerous places that it is incomplete.

The trinity is not explicit in scripture, even though many claim that it is. That doctrine was developed over time, as our understanding of revelation developed. This is exactly as it is with the Marian doctrines. Nothing is new in that regard.

As well, do you think that all 300 million living Eastern Orthodox Christians are also wrong? While they do not hold to the exact doctrines of the Catholic Church, their Marian devotion puts Catholics to shame. We both could learn a lot from them.

Paul said, “All SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God…” The Holy Spirit saw to it that imperfect men were able to recognize what would one day constitute the Canon of Scripture. You can talk about what men added to that, and we could talk about when they got off track and began contradicting something that stands in judgement of ALL other human decrees (Scripture does), but the fact is that when holy Scripture says zip about Mary being a vehicle for prayer (that’s “nada”), any impartial observer would be extremely suspicious of those who act as if Scripture had all kinds of things to say about it!

In fact, a wise person would be a little fearful that the Author of Scripture might be a little upset with such license?

 

[po18guy]

Paul said, “All SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God…” The Holy Spirit saw to it that imperfect men were able to recognize what would one day constitute the Canon of Scripture. You can talk about what men added to that, and we could talk about when they got off track and began contradicting something that stands in judgement of ALL other human decrees (Scripture does), but the fact is that when holy Scripture says zip about Mary being a vehicle for prayer (that’s “nada”), any impartial observer would be extremely suspicious of those who act as if Scripture had all kinds of things to say about it!

In fact, a wise person would be a little fearful that the Author of Scripture might be a little upset with such license?

Don’t fall for this man-made argument! Jesus began His Church with no NT scripture at all! Zero! How is that possible?

Read Paul more closely: He is speaking of “all scripture” NOT “scripture is all.” Huge difference. This argument was made up by post-reformation bible-alone proponents - none of which agree with each other! How do you find the truth in that? Thousands of denominations which all disagree with one another. This is not God’s truth, it is the devil’s confusion and division.

 

[Lochias]

Paul said, “All SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God…”

All cow’s milk is given by cows, yet it’s not the only thing we drink. Similarly, all Scripture is given by God, but it’s not the only source and authority from which we derive our faith.

The Holy Spirit saw to it that imperfect men were able to recognize what would one day constitute the Canon of Scripture.

Yup. God looks after His Catholic Church pretty well, eh?

You can talk about what men added to that, and we could talk about when they got off track and began contradicting something that stands in judgement of ALL other human decrees (Scripture does), but the fact is that when holy Scripture says zip about Mary being a vehicle for prayer (that’s “nada”), any impartial observer would be extremely suspicious of those who act as if Scripture had all kinds of things to say about it!

Well, good golly. Scripture says zip about the Holy Trinity as such, too, but we’re able to know that’s real from SOMEWHERE. Hmmmm…

In fact, a wise person would be a little fearful that the Author of Scripture might be a little upset with such license?

An even wiser person would look at the entirety of history, logic, Scripture and other tradition in Christian history, and then look to see which Church is the only one that still resembles the Church that Jesus started.

 

[brb3]

Paul said, “All SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God…” The Holy Spirit saw to it that imperfect men were able to recognize what would one day constitute the Canon of Scripture. You can talk about what men added to that, and we could talk about when they got off track and began contradicting something that stands in judgement of ALL other human decrees (Scripture does), but the fact is that when holy Scripture says zip about Mary being a vehicle for prayer (that’s “nada”), any impartial observer would be extremely suspicious of those who act as if Scripture had all kinds of things to say about it!

In fact, a wise person would be a little fearful that the Author of Scripture might be a little upset with such license?

That is the Protestant fear. That they might potentially show worship or reverence to Mary / the creation … rather than to the Creator. It is indelibly drilled into the Protestant brain.

But, NT scripture does say alittle about Mary and prayer. After the Ascension of Christ … all the hundred or so were gathered together in prayer/meditation/fasting, etc. Mary is mentioned in that group. She probably held one of the key positions in that group of believers. Interceding, and strengthening the other brethren. We are supposed to pray for one another, sharing another’s burdens. IMO … this is what Mary is best talented at. This was probably her role for the early Church … and retained by her after her Assumption to heaven. We know she was the perfect Mother for Jesus … and thus the perfect Spiritual Mom for us.

 

[brb3]

Not at all. It simply recognizes them. You mean that you don’t?

These are rhetorical questions - intended for you to ponder. There is an answer, and it is in the bible, but it is not the bible.

I’m not convinced Mary is # 1 Saint … although I’m open to being convinced of.

I’m not certain she currently sits at Rt. Hand of Christ … although she may.

IMO … all the top Saints, are on same level as Mary. Able to intercede for us, able to assist the Church Militant on Earth. Although … maybe Mary is on a level above all the rest of the Church’s Sainthood.

I feel scripture supports Peter as Numero Uno … of the saints, and be at Christ’s Rt. hand.

IMO … these are probably items we can’t really be sure about. Are they crucial to our salvation … :dts: