Why is it wrong to love Mary, the Mother of God?

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Mary certainly is holy and the mother of God, and we need all the prayers we can get, sinners that we are, so you’ll find no disputation in me about that. But how could have God made her imperfect? Well, I suppose in the same way that He created an imperfect being to announce the coming of His Son, an imperfect man to be His foster father, imperfect apostles to spread His gospel, and imperfect Christians who try to follow it today.

Now to the question: is it wrong to love Mary? I say: of course not! All of God’s fallen creatures should be loved, from the purest saint to the vilest sinner. I think the Blessed Mother of Our Lord is a lot closer to the former than the latter, but that does not make her without stain.

She is indeed without sin, and to call her less than immaculate is a heresy.

Misconceptions and false claims like this make me rejoice to be Catholic.

And whoa, what imperfect being to announce His coming? The Angel Gabriel? Another misconception?

 

[rev_kevin]

Where is that in the Bible, where a single sin is attributed to Mary, the vessel in which our Lord entered the world?

She was born like the rest of us with sin. She had a earthly mother and father who were with sin, she was not born like Jesus with only one human parent. Only Adam, Eve, were created without sin and only Jesus was born without sin. No where in the Bible does it say Mary was born without sin.
Where is it in the Bible that Mary was ever virgin? It isn’t.
Just because she was the vessel of our Lord don’t mean she was without sin or that she and Joseph never had marital relations.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Kevin, the Bible DOES say Mary was without sin. At the Annunciation Mary is greeted by the angel “Hail, full of grace”. “Full of grace” = without sin.

Until Jesus was born into the world, God never inhabited an unholy place. But before that, and after His Ascension, God has always occupied a holy place, including Mary’s womb. God created Mary that way, for the Incarnation. It’s not only in the Bible, and part of Sacred Tradition, it just makes sense.

Ignoring Sacred Tradition is not always illuminating.

 

[rev_kevin]

My question is why would God want a defiled vessel to conceive perfection? If God is perfect and one must be perfect to be in heaven,then why have a defiled vessel conceive perfection?

He was to be born like the rest of us with only one exception, Mary did not have relations with a man when she concieved Jesus. He was concieved by the Holy Spirit. So she was pure in that aspect. No man penetrated her so that would make her a perfect vessel. She has not been violated by a man in sexual relations. It don’t mean she was born without sin. There is nothing to back up the assumption of her being born without sin.

 

[rev_kevin]

Kevin, the Bible DOES say Mary was without sin. At the Annunciation Mary is greeted by the angel “Hail, full of grace”. “Full of grace” = without sin.

Until Jesus was born into the world, God never inhabited an unholy place. But before that, and after His Ascension, God has always occupied a holy place, including Mary’s womb. God created Mary that way, for the Incarnation. It’s not only in the Bible, and part of Sacred Tradition, it just makes sense.

Ignoring Sacred Tradition is not always illuminating.

Incorrect, Gabriel appeared to her and said, “greetings favored woman.” Thats one translation. NIV
“Good morning, favored woman.” Another translation. The complete Bible
“Hail thou that art highly favoured.” KJV

The phrase “full of Grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occures in only 2 places in the NT and neither one in in reference to Mary. It is found in John 1:14 and Acts 6:8.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Incorrect, Gabriel appeared to her and said, “greetings favored woman.” Thats one translation. NIV
“Good morning, favored woman.” Another translation. The complete Bible
“Hail thou that art highly favoured.” KJV

The phrase “full of Grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occures in only 2 places in the NT and neither one in in reference to Mary. It is found in John 1:14 and Acts 6:8.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

The expression “full of grace” is the translation of the Greek word kecharitoméne,which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely “full of grace”, but “*made *full of grace”, or even “*filled *with grace”, which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the Blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a perfect participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness. The same verb, in the sense of “to bestow grace”, is used in the Letter to the Ephesians to indicate the abundance of grace granted to us by the Father in his beloved Son (Eph 1:6), and which Mary receives as the first fruits of Redemption (cf. Redemptoris Mater, n. 10).

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm19.htm

 

[E.E.N.S]

An interesting read by Newman:
christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman2.html

 

[TriuneUnity]

Below (post# 2) is a letter / prayer that I wrote for Mary a while back. All of my comments in this letter are Biblically based. If you are not a Catholic and you do not love Mary, please explain why you don’t love Mary? Where is it written in the Bible that you cannot love Mary?

Nothing wrong at all with loving Mary. If Jesus loved her, I suppose it’s probably a good idea that we love her, too.

I believe I wrote about 5 threads on this very topic. You should take a gander at them, Jimmy.

 

[rev_kevin]

The expression “full of grace” is the translation of the Greek word kecharitoméne,which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely “full of grace”, but “*made *full of grace”, or even “*filled *with grace”, which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the Blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a perfect participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness. The same verb, in the sense of “to bestow grace”, is used in the Letter to the Ephesians to indicate the abundance of grace granted to us by the Father in his beloved Son (Eph 1:6), and which Mary receives as the first fruits of Redemption (cf. Redemptoris Mater, n. 10).

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm19.htm

The angle did not say Mary full of Grace. So that would be a incorrect statement.
But that is not what was said, you are putting things in Scripture that isn’t there. The words spoken were not full of grace. No matter how you spin it those words were not said about Mary. Like I stated the only 2 places in the NT that the phrase full of grace was used was in John 1:14 " and the word was make flesh, and dwelt among us…full of grace. Acts 6:8 “Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power…” Not about Mary.

 

[E.E.N.S]

The angle did not say Mary full of Grace. So that would be a incorrect statement.
But that is not what was said, you are putting things in Scripture that isn’t there. The words spoken were not full of grace. No matter how you spin it those words were not said about Mary. Like I stated the only 2 places in the NT that the phrase full of grace was used was in John 1:14 " and the word was make flesh, and dwelt among us…full of grace. Acts 6:8 “Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power…” Not about Mary.

Slow down and read the paragraph please:

The expression “full of grace” is the translation of the Greek word kecharitoméne,which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely “full of grace”, but “*made *full of grace”, or even “*filled *with grace”, which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the Blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a perfect participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness. The same verb, in the sense of “to bestow grace”, is used in the Letter to the Ephesians to indicate the abundance of grace granted to us by the Father in his beloved Son (Eph 1:6), and which Mary receives as the first fruits of Redemption (cf. Redemptoris Mater, n. 10).

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm19.htm

 

[E.E.N.S]

…or if you prefer a little more elaboration:

The variant of charitoo here is echaritosen. While Kecharitomene is, according to everything I’ve read, a perfect passive participle, echaritosen is an indicative active aorist. Kecharitomene means “having been” or “have already been” ** graced, according to this commentary on the Book of Zechariah – talking about perfect passive participles in a different context and a different verse [brackets indicate where I am inserting “graced” for the word in the relevant text]:
"That which will accompany, and be a result of, Jewish recognition, is a direct quotation from the Septuagint in Ps. 118:26, ‘Blessed be he that comes in the name of the LORD.’ This verse also is better understood with a Greek analysis. The word Blessed, ‘eulogamenos’ is a perfect passive participle. It literally means ‘having been blessed or praised.’ The ‘perfect’ action of the participle is considered to have been completed before the time of the speaker. How long before is not a consideration but the Greek verbal idea is that the action has already been completed. Time is still secondary but perfected action must imply the past in relationship to the speaker. The person using the word is confessing that the one referred to has already been blessed [or graced]." (Zechariah and Jewish Renewal: From Gloom to Glory by Fred P. Miller, chapter 31 on Zechariah 20)
Other examples of the perfect tense and what it means:
“There are seven tenses of the Greek verb. They are: the Aorist, Present, Imperfect, Future, Pluperfect, and Future Perfect. Let us exemplify the Perfect and Present tenses. In the words of the Greek grammarian J. Gresham Machen, ‘The Greek perfect tense denotes the present state resultant upon a past action’ (New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 187). The perfect is used in Matthew 4:4,7,10 (‘it is written’). Literally translated, ‘It has been written in the past and is still in force.’ Hence, Jesus expresses the continuing authority of God’s written law by using the perfect tense.” (“How About the Greek Language?” from BibleQuestions.org)
"…Ephesians 2:8, ‘For by grace are you saved through faith…’ The word ‘saved’ is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a * perfect passive participle. It means that ** this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present*…" (“The Lord is not Slack Concerning His Promise” from CephasMinistry.com)
In other words, the perfect tense in Greek is a * past* tense with a special meaning: * it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present*. So, here’s what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us “Kecharitomene” denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:
" ‘Highly favoured’ (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of * charitoo* and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate * gratiae plena* [full of grace] "is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’ "(A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)
“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase * kecharitomene* as ** completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace**.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm

 

[rev_kevin]

…or if you prefer a little more elaboration:

The variant of charitoo here is echaritosen. While Kecharitomene is, according to everything I’ve read, a perfect passive participle, echaritosen is an indicative active aorist. Kecharitomene means "having been" or "have already been" graced, according to this commentary on the Book of Zechariah – talking about perfect passive participles in a different context and a different verse [brackets indicate where I am inserting “graced” for the word in the relevant text]:
“That which will accompany, and be a result of, Jewish recognition, is a direct quotation from the Septuagint in Ps. 118:26**, ‘Blessed be he that comes in the name of the LORD.’ This verse also is better understood with a Greek analysis. The word Blessed, ‘eulogamenos’ is a perfect passive participle. It literally means ‘having been blessed or praised.’ The ‘perfect’ action of the participle is considered to have been completed before the time of the speaker. How long before is not a consideration but the Greek verbal idea is that the action has already been completed. Time is still secondary but perfected action must imply the past in relationship to the speaker. The person using the word is confessing that the one referred to has already been blessed [or graced]." (Zechariah and Jewish Renewal: From Gloom to Glory by Fred P. Miller, chapter 31 on Zechariah 20)
Other examples of the perfect tense and what it means:
“There are seven tenses of the Greek verb. They are: the Aorist, Present, Imperfect, Future, Pluperfect, and Future Perfect. Let us exemplify the Perfect and Present tenses. In the words of the Greek grammarian J. Gresham Machen, ‘The Greek perfect tense denotes the present state resultant upon a past action’ (New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 187). The perfect is used in Matthew 4:4,7,10 (‘it is written’). Literally translated, ‘It has been written in the past and is still in force.’ Hence, Jesus expresses the continuing authority of God’s written law by using the perfect tense.” (“How About the Greek Language?” from BibleQuestions.org)
"…Ephesians 2:8, ‘For by grace are you saved through faith…’ The word ‘saved’ is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a * perfect passive participle. It means that ** this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present*…” (“The Lord is not Slack Concerning His Promise” from CephasMinistry.com)
In other words, the perfect tense in Greek is a * past* tense with a special meaning: * it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present*. So, here’s what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us “Kecharitomene” denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:
" ‘Highly favoured’ (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of * charitoo* and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate * gratiae plena* [full of grace] "is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’ "(A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)
“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase * kecharitomene* as ** completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace**.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm

So to make your long story short kecharitomene which also means favor or kindness as well as full of Grace any of these translations would apply. The CC picks it to mean full of grace which then Stephen in Acts would have been born without sin because he was full of Grace or kecharitomene also.
All this elaboration don’t impress.

 

[Linda_Marie]

So to make your long story short kecharitomene which also means favor or kindness as well as full of Grace any of these translations would apply. The CC picks it to mean full of grace which then Stephen in Acts would have been born without sin because he was full of Grace or kecharitomene also.
All this elaboration don’t impress.

No, Stephen was not kecharitomene. Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plaras charitos

Kecharitomene occurs only once in the bible, in Luke 1:28, as the Archangel Gabriel’s address for Mary. Moreover this Perfect Passive Participle is being used as a Proper Noun. It is Mary’s True name.

And on the Mother of God note:

Elizabeth said, “Why should I be honoured by a visit from the mother of my Lord?”
New Jerusalem Bible Luke 1:43

 

[E.E.N.S]

So to make your long story short kecharitomene which also means favor or kindness as well as full of Grace any of these translations would apply. The CC picks it to mean full of grace which then Stephen in Acts would have been born without sin because he was full of Grace or kecharitomene also.
All this elaboration don’t impress.

No, not at all. If you aren’t going to read the posts, then please do not respond to them.

Our Lord prayed that we be as one as one of His last prayers, so if you would like to work towards that goal, please act accordingly by at least responding with a level of charity and honesty. On the other hand, if you just want to continue to divide, then by all means continue responding with obstinate, intellectual dishonesty.

The post that you responded to would merit your response had you actually read it, as it breaks down the word “*Kecharitomene”, (you even said yourself that the Greek word to describe Stephen was “plaras charitos”.) *However, if the post was too long for you to take the time to read, then you shouldn’t be posting in this thread (or on these fora for that matter) in the first place.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I know nothing much about Greek, apart from being able to identify and name the letters, but I always found the fact that “Kecharitomene” was used only once in the Bible and that was in reference to Our Lady. Of course I only know this because persons far more familiar with the language have posted about it at length.

Protestants, because they refer exclusively to the Bible for their information, have to either be able to read the original Greek, or are stuck with whatever someone else tells them what things mean. If, for whatever reason, no one tells them that “Kecharitomene” is used only once in the Bible, or if no one explains the word properly/translates it properly, then they will not know that Mary is described uniquely in the Bible. The information IS THERE, but it has to be recognized for what it is. The fact that it may conflict with some Protestant doctrine is not the fault of the text of the Bible.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

She was born like the rest of us with sin. She had a earthly mother and father who were with sin, she was not born like Jesus with only one human parent. Only Adam, Eve, were created without sin and only Jesus was born without sin. No where in the Bible does it say Mary was born without sin.
Where is it in the Bible that Mary was ever virgin? It isn’t.
Just because she was the vessel of our Lord don’t mean she was without sin or that she and Joseph never had marital relations.

You are wrong, and it pains heaven and earth to hear such things that seem to arise from a spirit of rebellion.

IF you read the Bible as it was meant to be read—you would know this.

Hail Mary, full of Grace! Pray for us who have recourse to thee. Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do.

 

[Metamorphoo]

When you look at this situation in a simple, practical way, the opposition to Mary makes no sense, at least not to me. We should, at least, be grateful she said “Yes” to the Incarnation, yet many do not even seem to honor her for THAT! Seems kinda nuts to me!

I am thankful that Mary said “yes” to the Incarnation; but I also believe that had she said “no,” God would have used another willing vessel. His plan of redemption for mankind–a plan that had been established before the foundation of the world–was not going to hinge on whether Mary agreed to become the Savior’s mother. With or without Mary’s cooperation, He would still have redeemed man.

I am not opposed to Mary, and I think I can safely say that non-Catholic Christians are not anti-Mary either. She was a godly woman and role model, and she is worthy of respect! What I and many other non-Catholics are uncomfortable with is the degree to which she is exalted by Catholics in their theology and practice.

An example of what I consider to be excessive is in the the prayer, Morning Consecration to Mary:

My Queen, My Mother, I offer
myself entirely to thee.
And to show my devotion to thee,
I offer thee this day, my eyes,
my ears, my mouth, my heart,
my whole being without reserve.
Wherefore, good Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me as thy property and possession.

Here’s another example: Prayer to Our Lady of Czestochowa

O Mother of God, Immaculate Mary, to thee do I dedicate my body and soul, all my prayers and deeds, my joys and sufferings, all that I am and all that I have. With a joyful heart I surrender myself to thy love. To thee will I devote my services of my own free will for the salvation of mankind, and for the help of the Holy Church whose Mother thou art.
From now on my only desire is to do all things with thee, through thee, and for thee. I know I can accomplish nothing by my own strength, whereas thou can do everything that is the will of thy Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thou are always victorious. Grant, therefore, O Helper of the Faithful, that my family, my parish, and my country might become in truth the Kingdom where thou reignest in the glorious presence God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, forever and ever.
Amen.

And another: Most Lovable Lady

I love thee, most lovable Lady, By the love which I bear thee, I promise ever to serve thee,
and to do as much as I can, that thou be loved by others also. I put all my hopes in thee,
all my salvation. Receive me as thy servant and cover me with the mantle of thy protection,
thou the Mother of mercy!
Amen.

The wording of these prayers, especially those phrases in bold, make me and other non-Catholic Christians cringe. The idea of consecrating/surrendering ourselves, dedicating our bodies and souls, to put all our hopes/salvation in her–it seems awfully close to giving to Mary what is reserved for the Lord alone: worship. That is what non-Catholic Christians have difficulty with.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The angle did not say Mary full of Grace. So that would be a incorrect statement.
But that is not what was said, you are putting things in Scripture that isn’t there. The words spoken were not full of grace. No matter how you spin it those words were not said about Mary. Like I stated the only 2 places in the NT that the phrase full of grace was used was in John 1:14 " and the word was make flesh, and dwelt among us…full of grace. Acts 6:8 “Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power…” Not about Mary.

I’m not even sure what you mean.

However, The Journey Home is a great program.

I speak not only to you but every Protestant on this thread. There is nothing excessive about prayers to the Mother of God.

Don’t you love your own mother? Why not love God’s as well?

Mary’s YES was essential to salvation. It is about humility. The very word PROTESTANT implies rebellion.

While I know many good and faithful Protestants who, in their everyday life, make better Catholics than Catholics, they lack understanding of Mary and her role in salvation.

Every intellectually honest Protestant would be well-informed even about the aspects of his own faith if he would watchThe Journey Home.

It might even be on YouTube by now.

 

[E.E.N.S]

…
The wording of these prayers, especially those phrases in bold, make me and other non-Catholic Christians very, very uncomfortable. It seems awfully close to giving to Mary what is reserved for the Lord alone.

And that is completely understandable! Myself as a convert had some of the same reservations, but once I actually read the writings of the people who wrote these prayers, I began to have a better understand for both the writing style, as well as the deeper meaning to what was meant by those words. St. Louis de Montfort, for example, could be viewed as one of the more “extreme” in his language regarding Mary, however, one has but to read his writings honestly to understand that everything is for the glory of Our Lord. (In fact, de Montfort’s “motto” is “God Alone”, so a reader would indeed need to read his writings to see exactly how this gels with his seemingly over emphasis on Mary.)

 

[TriuneUnity]

And that is completely understandable! Myself as a convert had some of the same reservations, but once I actually read the writings of the people who wrote these prayers, I began to have a better understand for both the writing style, as well as the deeper meaning to what was meant by those words. St. Louis de Montfort, for example, could be viewed as one of the more “extreme” in his language regarding Mary, however, one has but to read his writings honestly to understand that everything is for the glory of Our Lord. (In fact, de Montfort’s “motto” is “God Alone”, so a reader would indeed need to read his writings to see exactly how this gels with his seemingly over emphasis on Mary.)

There’s always a balance somewhere. I cringe at the excessive Marian devotion that you point to (by Montfort and Liguori, most notably). I mean this in the most God honoring way possible, and not as an offense to Catholics. Some of the prayers they wrote were blasphemy to the Triune God. To ever use language like that of the Holy Virgin is never warranted and were she able to hear them, she would feel the same.

However, that is not to say that praise of Mary’s virtues can never be expressed. It is in this that fundamentalists and Protestants of other stripes go too far in the other direction. By reacting to any praise or honor of Mary is nothing but simplistic over reaction to Catholicism. They go so far as to let their degradation of the Virgin have them make Christological errors by refusing to acknowledge her as the Mother of God, or as the Ever-Virgin. On the immaculata, they almost make Mary’s sinfulness the cause of our salvation instead of the sinlessness of Christ. Both extremes are to be rejected.