Why "O favoured" instead of "Full of grace?"

[IrishBrigade]

…it just so happens that I am currently engaged in translating the Westcott-Hort Greek texts back into our vernacular and producing my own rendering of Scripture…and I happen at present to be working in Luke…the word “kexaritomene” is a complex one, not easily translated into any other language, Latin or English…I have it down as 'honored by blessing" which can be interpreted easily as 'full of grace", or a number of other things, should one wish to do so. I, being flushed with Catholic ardor, swimming the Tiber in 2005, of course revere the words of the Ave, and am loath to yeild its beauty and reverence to the pedestrian 'highly favoured"…
I find the dimming of the Ave’s lovely prose to be most unfortunate,
and would wish that any Catholic Bible retain the traditional rendition, however romanized it may be…

 

[jcrichton]

This all started with the Protestant Revolt. One ought to consider the history, as well as what Greek Scholars say about the word. One KeCharitoMene, the Charito is the base word which does mean grace, while favor can be grace, it is not necessarily so, favor has multiple meanings and might have nothing to do with grace so to use the word favor only muddies the water. All translations prior to the Protestant Revolt this passage was recorded as full of grace, which is for all practicality the same as filled with grace. The Wycliffe Bible , Tyndale, and Tyndale coverdale Bile all translated as full of grace. What is even more powerful is the Arameic Peshitta Bible which dates to 500 AD to about 100-200 AD (Hebrew-Arameic translated as full of Grace).

The original 1611 King James translated as highly favored but its margin notes suggested that it could be read as much graced. They would eventually drop out the margin notes so no one could be the wiser. The Geneva Bible translated as highly favored but its margin notes in the original aknowledge that it could be rendered full of Grace.

Robertson word Picture, a Baptist no friend of the Catholic Church, a Greek linguist author of "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research%between% "
%between%Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research acknowleges that Jerome was right, in translating to full of grace.

*When one looks at a greek english interlinear with grammer tags one will find that KeCharitomene is a special word only used one time in the entire Bible and it is a perfect Passive Particple, meaning that it has both verb and noun properties, and that the action on the word Chartio-grace is a perfectly completed action on the word grace meaning Mary is perfectly graced in the past with ongoing meaning in the present by something outside of her by God. *

So the Protestant revolt started changing the meaning of the word eventually wiping out any rememberance for the full of grace in their translation, which would then spread to certain Catholic Bibles such as the Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible

***Hi, Michael G!

Thank you for the excellent post!

…my concern is with your last paragraph… are the resources of the Vatican and the whole Catholic Church world-wide so limited that not one scholar can be found that has a strong fluency in Aramaic and Greek? …and if there are, why is the Church capitulating and assisting those who desire to reduce her Authority and her Doctrine to nil?

Whatever happened to “Amen I say to thee”?.. such a simple word Amen is removed with little concern… but if you read old Biblical text as the JB (unless the translation was totally wrong to begin with) you find that Amen should have never been removed from Scriptures–it is vital to the full understanding of Yahweh’s revelation:

“15b …pero a sus siervos les dará un nombre nuevo 16 tal que, quien desee ser vendecido en la tierra, deseará serlo en el Dios del Amén, y quien jurare en la tierra, jurará en el Dios del Amén…” (Isaías 65:15b-16a)
(…and call his servants by another name.
16 In which he that is blessed upon the earth, shall be blessed in God, amen: and he that sweareth in the earth, shall swear by God, amen

“17b …al vencedor le daré maná escondido; y le daré también una piedrecita blanca, y, grabado en la piedrecita, un nombre nuevo que nadie conoce sino el que lo recibe.” (Apocalipsis 2:17–3:12)
(To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna and will give him a white counter: and in the counter, a new name written, which no man knoweth but he that receiveth it.)

“El Ángel de la Iglesia de Laodicea escribe: Así habla el Amén, el Testigo fiel y veraz, el principio de la ceación de Dios.” (Apocalipsis 3:14)
(14 And to the angel of the church of Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God: The Amen…)

This early translation (1975) offers us a direct concurrence between Isaiah 65:16-17 and Apocalypse 2:17; 3:12 and 3:14–one which makes better sense of the terms (new name) while simultaneously demonstrating that the Son, Christ Jesus, shares yet one more title with his Father, Yahweh: The Amen!

Do you have any insights as to these evolutionary changes?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Bastoune]

Eph 1:6 that greek word is used for all believers twice in this verse.

WRONG.

Eph. 1:6 does NOT use “kecharitomene.” This word, this tense of the verb “charitoo” exists only ONCE in Sacred Scripture – to describe the Virgin Mary.

Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.”

“Echaritosen” means “he graced” (bestowed grace.) “Echaritosen” signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166.)

Whereas, “Kecharitomene,” the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a with permanent result. “Kecharitomene” denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968 ) 108-109, sec 1852:b also Blass and DeBrunner p.175.

Incidentally, the other “full of grace” verse in Sacred Scripture describes Saint Stephen, just before he is martyred for the faith, Acts 6:8. However a different word form is used to describe Saint Stephen. In the Greek the conjugated form of “charitoo” that is used to describe him is “charitos” not “kecharitomene” that is used in reference to Mary.

Regardless, as Mary is a symbol of the Church, it is fitting that she would be “full of grace” in a manner that precedes us, we who receive the grace of God after the fact, whereas, as the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant, from whom the Lord took His flesh and human nature, would be bestowed with grace, in a fuller, more complete way BEFOREHAND. But “kecharitomene” denotes something PRECEDING – she was “graced” before the Annunciation.

And notice one thing: NEVER in Scripture does an angel address a person. They just come and deliver a message. Gabriel addresses her “charite kecharitomene” – “Greetings, 'kecharitomene.” (It’s rather MUSICAL in the Greek.)

Gabriel doesn’t use the name Mary, nor, unlike elsewhere in Scripture is a message simply delivered but there is a GREETING, with a “TITLE” – describing her nature. Interesting because it is a unique moment in Scripture.

 

[Bastoune]

Incidentally, I can’t find the commentary but Jerome himself clearly stated that “gratia plena” was NOT the most accurate translation but because simply the Greek word “kecharitomene” did not have an exact translation. So he did the best he could.

The Portuguese word “saudades” has no equivalent in any language but is used to describe how one “misses” someone or something. And there are similar difficulties in any translation work , as I, as a translator and teacher of languages can concur!

(By the way, I am a French-Canadian, and I am sorry but our language is at least 100K times more romantic that espanol… which is a little to gutteral for my taste. )

 

[Michael_G]

Hi, Michael G!

Thank you for the excellent post!

…my concern is with your last paragraph… are the resources of the Vatican and the whole Catholic Church world-wide so limited that not one scholar can be found that has a strong fluency in Aramaic and Greek? …and if there are, why is the Church capitulating and assisting those who desire to reduce her Authority and her Doctrine to nil?

Whatever happened to “Amen I say to thee”?.. such a simple word Amen is removed with little concern… but if you read old Biblical text as the JB (unless the translation was totally wrong to begin with) you find that Amen should have never been removed from Scriptures–it is vital to the full understanding of Yahweh’s revelation:

"15b …pero a sus siervos les dará un nombre nuevo 16 tal que, quien desee ser vendecido en la tierra, deseará serlo en el Dios del Amén, y quien jurare en la tierra, jurará en el Dios del Amén…" (Isaías 65:15b-16a)
(…and call his servants by another name.
16 In which he that is blessed upon the earth, shall be blessed in God, amen: and he that sweareth in the earth, shall swear by God, amen

"17b …al vencedor le daré maná escondido; y le daré también una piedrecita blanca, y, grabado en la piedrecita, un nombre nuevo que nadie conoce sino el que lo recibe." (Apocalipsis 2:17–3:12)
(To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna and will give him a white counter: and in the counter, a new name written, which no man knoweth but he that receiveth it.)

"El Ángel de la Iglesia de Laodicea escribe: Así habla el Amén, el Testigo fiel y veraz, el principio de la ceación de Dios." (Apocalipsis 3:14)
(14 And to the angel of the church of Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God: The Amen…)

This early translation (1975) offers us a direct concurrence between Isaiah 65:16-17 and Apocalypse 2:17; 3:12 and 3:14–one which makes better sense of the terms (new name) while simultaneously demonstrating that the Son, Christ Jesus, shares yet one more title with his Father, Yahweh: The Amen!

Do you have any insights as to these evolutionary changes?

Maran atha!

Angel

Do you have any ionsigts as to these evolutionary changes?

Not completely, some may even be valid, but this I do know that since Vatican II there has been a revolt among certain segements within the Catholic Church, with the watering down of down of Catholic catechesis over the last 40-50 years so as many Catholics were never taught so many things that they should have been taught, much turned into mush, so that many Catholics do not know their faith. the Protestation of how how it came to pass to receive Holy Eucharist in the Hand just like the Protestants do, and did upon the revolt thus causing within the Catholic Church a lack of reference and belief in the Holy Eucharist the Real Presence, the liberalization of commentary to the point of herasay in the New American Bible, as it came up with new ideas, contrary to the into history and teachings of the Church

 

[Deacon110]

Has anyone ever thought that Gabriel was not referring to Mary with regard to Full of Grace? Perhaps and this is just a theory, could full of grace refer to her future womb carrying the baby Jesus?? That she would be full of Grace (carrying Jesus). If we continue to read further:

29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

The word favor (charis) certainly refers to her having favor with GOD. But it seems inconsistent with the previous verse which we are claiming applies a sinless nature to Mary. It’s like Gabriel is saying “Greetings sinless one, the Lord has found favor with you.” Sinless one referring to a past and current state of her nature. But Mary was troubled and afraid at the first greeting of Gabriel and the word “kecharitomene” (or whatever the original armaic word was). Trying as the verse states to “discern” what type of greeting it was. If Mary was well versed in Armaic and living a sinless life up until this point which was anywhere from 12-18 or 19 years depending on who’s theory you read, then she would have understood Gabriel’s greeting. So Gabriels greeting couldn’t have referred to a past condition of Mary. It must be referring to a future condition that Mary will be in, or something she’s going to do. That of carrying the baby Jesus. This would explain her dilemma and fear of trying to figure out just what Gabriel means.

I think of it this way. Gabriel greets Mary with this high regard like she is someone very very special. Then tells her she has found favor with GOD. She is completely baffled at this to which Gabriel says don’t be afraid. So imagine Gabriel coming to your front door and giving this exhalting greeting to you. We would probably be a little fearful and puzzled, as Mary was, thinking, “what’s he talking about?”.

Gabriel uses 2 different words so the first must mean something different. But Mary certainly doesn’t understand it. Why?? Why is this the first time she’s hearing of her sinless nature and why is she so puzzled? Would we not know that we are living a sinless life? It’s like Gabriel is saying greetings sinless one but Mary is thinking, not me. If she wasn’t a sinner I think this greeting would have made complete sense to her. It’s not until she visits Elizabeth that she seems to finally understand what is going on: Luke 1:39-45. She now knows that she is carrying the messiah to which she responds with the Magnificat.

Then if we look at how Mary is referred to in future verses of Luke especially by Jesus we don’t see any sinless nature or elevated status applied to her by her own SON. I refer to the following passage from Luke:

Luke 11: 27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Jesus is not exhalting Mary for who she is. HE is exhalting her and/or “those”, you/me, that upon hearing the word of GOD keep it. Why is this? If Mary was truly asserted any elevated title or position, why doesn’t Jesus confirm this for us right here? This is the perfect opportuinty to give HIS mom the clear position if you will, that she will hold now and in the future.

Again this in no way is a show of disrespect to Mary. I certainly have the highest regard for her as a true role model for anyone. But the rest of Luke as well as the Bible itself never seem to give us further insight. Am I missing something here? Please help.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

Do you have any ionsigts as to these evolutionary changes?

Not completely, some may even be valid, but this I do know that since Vatican II there has been a revolt among certain segements within the Catholic Church, with the watering down of down of Catholic catechesis over the last 40-50 years so as many Catholics were never taught so many things that they should have been taught, much turned into mush, so that many Catholics do not know their faith. the Protestation of how how it came to pass to receive Holy Eucharist in the Hand just like the Protestants do, and did upon the revolt thus causing within the Catholic Church a lack of reference and belief in the Holy Eucharist the Real Presence, the liberalization of commentary to the point of herasay in the New American Bible, as it came up with new ideas, contrary to the into history and teachings of the Church

I wouldn’t blame the Protestants for the Eucharist in the hand. Growing up in the Catholic church I remember this change specifically, and having it explained to us in school. We were told that Jesus broke the bread and passed it to HIS disciples allowing them to eat it themselves. We were then given an option to either receive it in our hand or in the mouth. I personally received it in my mouth for a very long time until one day the Priest just about literally placed it in my hand. At a recent Catholic funeral a few stepped up to receive it in their mouth but the Priest motioned for them to step back so he could place it in their hand.

I see it as a return to the way it was done in the Bible. The Apostles didn’t place it on everyone’s tongue. Most early churches celebrated the Eucharist in their homes at a dining table.

PEACE

 

[Spirithound]

Why is this the first time she’s hearing of her sinless nature and why is she so puzzled? Would we not know that we are living a sinless life? It’s like Gabriel is saying greetings sinless one but Mary is thinking, not me. If she wasn’t a sinner I think this greeting would have made complete sense to her.

She may have been aware that she didn’t commit any sins, but I don’t think she could have been aware that she didn’t have Original Sin.

 

[Michael_G]

I wouldn’t blame the Protestants for the Eucharist in the hand. Growing up in the Catholic church I remember this change specifically, and having it explained to us in school. We were told that Jesus broke the bread and passed it to HIS disciples allowing them to eat it themselves. We were then given an option to either receive it in our hand or in the mouth. I personally received it in my mouth for a very long time until one day the Priest just about literally placed it in my hand. At a recent Catholic funeral a few stepped up to receive it in their mouth but the Priest motioned for them to step back so he could place it in their hand.

I see it as a return to the way it was done in the Bible. The Apostles didn’t place it on everyone’s tongue. Most early churches celebrated the Eucharist in their homes at a dining table.

PEACE

Those in the know understand that number one, one of the first things the Prostents did with the Eucharist for those who still had was to give the Eucharist in the hand because most rejected it as being the body and blood of Christ as the real presence. The practice of receiving it hands was something which did not come from VATcanin 2 but was something a radical number of priests through out this country as well as I believe Europe started this practice in the name of the spirit of vatican 2. Pope Paul VI grudgingly allowed it for fear of mutiany fear of major division in church

 

[jcrichton]

WRONG.

Eph. 1:6 does NOT use “kecharitomene.” This word, this tense of the verb “charitoo” exists only ONCE in Sacred Scripture – to describe the Virgin Mary.

Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.”

“Echaritosen” means “he graced” (bestowed grace.) “Echaritosen” signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166.)

Whereas, “Kecharitomene,” the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a with permanent result. “Kecharitomene” denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968 ) 108-109, sec 1852:b also Blass and DeBrunner p.175.

Incidentally, the other “full of grace” verse in Sacred Scripture describes Saint Stephen, just before he is martyred for the faith, Acts 6:8. However a different word form is used to describe Saint Stephen. In the Greek the conjugated form of “charitoo” that is used to describe him is “charitos” not “kecharitomene” that is used in reference to Mary.

Regardless, as Mary is a symbol of the Church, it is fitting that she would be “full of grace” in a manner that precedes us, we who receive the grace of God after the fact, whereas, as the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant, from whom the Lord took His flesh and human nature, would be bestowed with grace, in a fuller, more complete way BEFOREHAND. But “kecharitomene” denotes something PRECEDING – she was “graced” before the Annunciation.

And notice one thing: NEVER in Scripture does an angel address a person. They just come and deliver a message. Gabriel addresses her “charite kecharitomene” – “Greetings, 'kecharitomene.” (It’s rather MUSICAL in the Greek.)

Gabriel doesn’t use the name Mary, nor, unlike elsewhere in Scripture is a message simply delivered but there is a GREETING, with a “TITLE” – describing her nature. Interesting because it is a unique moment in Scripture.

***Hi, Bastoune!

Excellent post!

…it is still Greek to me… but the comparison of the various values of the verb “charitoo” enlightens not just the language but also the motives of those who purposely opt to employ a term with a lesser import.

…and the fact that Gabriel’s salutation is exceptionally exclusive just seems to go waaaay over the heads of those who desire to simplify the Mother of God!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

(By the way, I am a French-Canadian, and I am sorry but our language is at least 100K times more romantic that espanol… which is a little to gutteral for my taste. )

***Hi, Bastoune!

…don’t mean to disagree with a linguist… but I do believe you are biased… …OK, perhaps HS French was too rudimentary… and perhaps the teacher was too nasal and throaty in an exaggerated attempt to train our ears… either way there’s no denying that we all suffer from that old idiosyncracy: mine is better than…

Thanks, again, for your imput!

Bonne chance!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

Not completely, some may even be valid, but this I do know that since Vatican II there has been a revolt among certain segements within the Catholic Church, with the watering down of down of Catholic catechesis over the last 40-50 years so as many Catholics were never taught so many things that they should have been taught, much turned into mush, so that many Catholics do not know their faith. the Protestation of how how it came to pass to receive Holy Eucharist in the Hand just like the Protestants do, and did upon the revolt thus causing within the Catholic Church a lack of reference and belief in the Holy Eucharist the Real Presence, the liberalization of commentary to the point of herasay in the New American Bible, as it came up with new ideas, contrary to the into history and teachings of the Church

***Hi, Michael G!

…the highlighted text is exactly my concern… how is it that the Vatican seems to not be aware of all of the chaff that is being sown into the fabric of the Catholic Doctrine? Why are Catholic Bibles being printed, with the authority of “Catholic Bishops” which contain anti-Catholic teachings?

Jesus was so clear when He warned that a kingdom divided would fall–is that the future of the Church?***

 

[jcrichton]

Has anyone ever thought that Gabriel was not referring to Mary with regard to Full of Grace? Perhaps and this is just a theory, could full of grace refer to her future womb carrying the baby Jesus?? That she would be full of Grace (carrying Jesus). If we continue to read further:

***Hi, Deacon!

…that’s a nice thought… however, Gabriel is not saying to Mary, “You’ll soon be Full of Grace.” He is stating the status of Mary as he has found her: Mary, Full of Grace; the Lord (Yahweh God) is with you.

The word favor (charis) certainly refers to her having favor with GOD. But it seems inconsistent with the previous verse which we are claiming applies a sinless nature to Mary. It’s like Gabriel is saying “Greetings sinless one, the Lord has found favor with you.” Sinless one referring to a past and current state of her nature. But Mary was troubled and afraid at the first greeting of Gabriel and the word “kecharitomene” (or whatever the original armaic word was). Trying as the verse states to “discern” what type of greeting it was. If Mary was well versed in Armaic and living a sinless life up until this point which was anywhere from 12-18 or 19 years depending on who’s theory you read, then she would have understood Gabriel’s greeting. So Gabriels greeting couldn’t have referred to a past condition of Mary. It must be referring to a future condition that Mary will be in, or something she’s going to do. That of carrying the baby Jesus. This would explain her dilemma and fear of trying to figure out just what Gabriel means.

---

…are you suggesting that angels were common place apparitions in Mary’s lifetime? …here’s this young woman being greeted by Gabriel… till that day she believed herself a servant of the Lord; not special in any way… and Gabriel gives her this heavy news! …is any of us so mature spiritually that we can nonchalantly just sit back in our recliner while an angel brings us news from God’s Throne? Would Mary thinking herself pure not have been a sin of pride? Listen to her words, “the Lord’s servant!”

Knowing a language and knowing God’s Mind are two very distinct and diverse things!

Gabriel uses 2 different words so the first must mean something different. But Mary certainly doesn’t understand it. Why?? Why is this the first time she’s hearing of her sinless nature and why is she so puzzled? Would we not know that we are living a sinless life? It’s like Gabriel is saying greetings sinless one but Mary is thinking, not me. If she wasn’t a sinner I think this greeting would have made complete sense to her. It’s not until she visits Elizabeth that she seems to finally understand what is going on: Luke 1:39-45. She now knows that she is carrying the messiah to which she responds with the Magnificat.

…so you are saying that a revelation from a human being was more important to Mary than a revelation from Gabriel? It was the Holy Spirit that made Himself known through Elizabeth’s words; this was a confirmation of everything that Gabriel had told her–the revelation of Whom she was carrying had already been made!

Then if we look at how Mary is referred to in future verses of Luke especially by Jesus we don’t see any sinless nature or elevated status applied to her by her own SON. I refer to the following passage from Luke:

Luke 11: 27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Jesus is not exhalting Mary for who she is. HE is exhalting her and/or “those”, you/me, that upon hearing the word of GOD keep it. Why is this? If Mary was truly asserted any elevated title or position, why doesn’t Jesus confirm this for us right here? This is the perfect opportuinty to give HIS mom the clear position if you will, that she will hold now and in the future.

Again this in no way is a show of disrespect to Mary. I certainly have the highest regard for her as a true role model for anyone. But the rest of Luke as well as the Bible itself never seem to give us further insight. Am I missing something here? Please help.

PEACE

…from your logic, Jesus must’ve been really slow… here’s a guy that jumps when His Mother tells Him to do something–His only rebuttal is “not yet my time” right before He acquiesces… since Jesus did not perform any miracles prior to this one, how do you suppose Mary knew that He could convert water into wine?

…and boy was Jesus slow… all He had to do was acquire enough following from the elite and powerful and none would have dared touch Him! …or would that be falling for Satan’s temptations?

…and when the demons surrendered to Him and started to reveal His True Nature, why do you suppose Jesus adamantly stopped them?

…and while we are on the “ifs,” why do you suppose Jesus did not have the Twelve secure some scribes and redact the Gospels and all of the rest of the New Testament? …why not throw in a manual for the Church? …I mean, 3 and 1/2 years is ample time to get much written down, specially if He would employ others as when He Baptized…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I wouldn’t blame the Protestants for the Eucharist in the hand. Growing up in the Catholic church I remember this change specifically, and having it explained to us in school. We were told that Jesus broke the bread and passed it to HIS disciples allowing them to eat it themselves. We were then given an option to either receive it in our hand or in the mouth. I personally received it in my mouth for a very long time until one day the Priest just about literally placed it in my hand. At a recent Catholic funeral a few stepped up to receive it in their mouth but the Priest motioned for them to step back so he could place it in their hand.

I see it as a return to the way it was done in the Bible. The Apostles didn’t place it on everyone’s tongue. Most early churches celebrated the Eucharist in their homes at a dining table.

PEACE

***Hi, Deacon!

…so do you think that in the future (as Catholics use bread instead of the present host) non-Catholics will accept the Transubstantiation as they share their bread or other symbolic element?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Michael_G]

Hi, Michael G!

…the highlighted text is exactly my concern… how is it that the Vatican seems to not be aware of all of the chaff that is being sown into the fabric of the Catholic Doctrine? Why are Catholic Bibles being printed, with the authority of “Catholic Bishops” which contain anti-Catholic teachings?

Jesus was so clear when He warned that a kingdom divided would fall–is that the future of the Church?

I do not know all the Idiosyncrasies but if you pay attention to EWTN, radio stations like Catholic Relevant radio, there are still a supstantial number of Bishops and priests and lay people particularly Catholic publishers and universities not in union with Rome. Vatican is aware of this there are limits to what they can do, there is a growing counter move by the very fact of good outstanding Catholic programing from TV and Radio, there is an ever growing number of orthodox Biships being appinted which started from John Paul II and is still going on Under Benidict the
XvI

 

[jcrichton]

I do not know all the Idiosyncrasies but if you pay attention to EWTN, radio stations like Catholic Relevant radio, there are still a supstantial number of Bishops and priests and lay people particularly Catholic publishers and universities not in union with Rome. Vatican is aware of this there are limits to what they can do, there is a growing counter move by the very fact of good outstanding Catholic programing from TV and Radio, there is an ever growing number of orthodox Biships being appinted which started from John Paul II and is still going on Under Benidict the
XvI

***Hi, Michael G!

…yeah, I have heard or read of such behavior… personally, I believe that these people are truly not Catholic since they are essentially working against the Catholic Faith.

I do know that there’s a limit to what the Vatican can do… but I also know that living the status quo or hoping things get better all on their own is not the answer.

Just the issue of the NAB shows that ignoring a problem does not make it go away; rather, a lax guard only serves to strengthen the resolve of the anti-Christ!

…what is really perverse about Satan’s manipulation of the world is that those who are intent in modernizing the Catholic Church overlook Jesus’ own Word:

2b the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God. 3 And these things will they do to you; because they have not known the Father nor me. (St. John 16:2b-3)

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[CactusJack]

Has anyone ever thought that Gabriel was not referring to Mary with regard to Full of Grace? Perhaps and this is just a theory, could full of grace refer to her future womb carrying the baby Jesus?? That she would be full of Grace (carrying Jesus). If we continue to read further:

29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

The word favor (charis) certainly refers to her having favor with GOD. But it seems inconsistent with the previous verse which we are claiming applies a sinless nature to Mary. It’s like Gabriel is saying “Greetings sinless one, the Lord has found favor with you.” Sinless one referring to a past and current state of her nature. But Mary was troubled and afraid at the first greeting of Gabriel and the word “kecharitomene” (or whatever the original armaic word was). Trying as the verse states to “discern” what type of greeting it was. If Mary was well versed in Armaic and living a sinless life up until this point which was anywhere from 12-18 or 19 years depending on who’s theory you read, then she would have understood Gabriel’s greeting. So Gabriels greeting couldn’t have referred to a past condition of Mary. It must be referring to a future condition that Mary will be in, or something she’s going to do. That of carrying the baby Jesus. This would explain her dilemma and fear of trying to figure out just what Gabriel means.

I think of it this way. Gabriel greets Mary with this high regard like she is someone very very special. Then tells her she has found favor with GOD. She is completely baffled at this to which Gabriel says don’t be afraid. So imagine Gabriel coming to your front door and giving this exhalting greeting to you. We would probably be a little fearful and puzzled, as Mary was, thinking, “what’s he talking about?”.

Gabriel uses 2 different words so the first must mean something different. But Mary certainly doesn’t understand it. Why?? Why is this the first time she’s hearing of her sinless nature and why is she so puzzled? Would we not know that we are living a sinless life? It’s like Gabriel is saying greetings sinless one but Mary is thinking, not me. If she wasn’t a sinner I think this greeting would have made complete sense to her. It’s not until she visits Elizabeth that she seems to finally understand what is going on: Luke 1:39-45. She now knows that she is carrying the messiah to which she responds with the Magnificat.

Then if we look at how Mary is referred to in future verses of Luke especially by Jesus we don’t see any sinless nature or elevated status applied to her by her own SON. I refer to the following passage from Luke:

Luke 11: 27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Jesus is not exhalting Mary for who she is. HE is exhalting her and/or “those”, you/me, that upon hearing the word of GOD keep it. Why is this? If Mary was truly asserted any elevated title or position, why doesn’t Jesus confirm this for us right here? This is the perfect opportuinty to give HIS mom the clear position if you will, that she will hold now and in the future.

Again this in no way is a show of disrespect to Mary. I certainly have the highest regard for her as a true role model for anyone. But the rest of Luke as well as the Bible itself never seem to give us further insight. Am I missing something here? Please help.

PEACE

Deacon…

You have hit upon something I have never seen and which kept me from understanding the import of this dialogue. I have been dealing with this, as with many other scriptures, for over 30 years!

I’ve been conflicted by the idea of Mary being sinless and your post directs me to the REAL message. Full of GRACE! Jesus is GRACE and in His very body the fulness of the Godhead resides! Jesus in Mary… Mary is full of GRACE! Amen!

Mary, in my understanding, must have known she needed a Savior because she said, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” Sinless folk, as far as I know, don’t need a savior.

Thanks for your kind approach and for suggesting that we consider your thoughts and insights. I appreciate this approach as it gives me room to consider, test, study and allow the Holy Spirit to confirm.

Over the years I’ve been exposed to (forgive spelling) Isogesis and Exogesis. In the case of isogesis the translator/teacher brings his/her preconceived notion to the word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, book, etc.

With Exogesis the translator/teacher comes to the scripture without any preconceived notions.

I have seen entirely false doctrinal systems based on isogesis.

A simple example of this would be the “world is flat” theory. All data that is brought to the world is flat believer has to be manipulated to prove the false thesis. And… furthermore, those who do not adhere to the world is flat theory are considered…
heretics!

When God’s word is rightly divided and properly taught the teacher (a gift from God) and the disciple (student/learner) are both blessed. The teacher is patient and trusts that God’s word will penetrate the soul/mind/heart of the disciple and the Holy Spirit will confirm the truth.

Your post, in reference to this thread, in my opinion, exemplifies this graced approach.

Thanks for your post.

bro jack

 

[jcrichton]

I’ve been conflicted by the idea of Mary being sinless and your post directs me to the REAL message. Full of GRACE! Jesus is GRACE and in His very body the fulness of the Godhead resides! Jesus in Mary… Mary is full of GRACE! Amen!

Hi, CactusJack!

…you fail to follow Scripture… Gabriel did not say to Mary “…you’ll soon be full of Grace, just wait till the Holy Spirit come upon you and deposit Jesus (GRACE) in your womb.”

He said, “you are full of Grace and the Lord (Yahweh God) is with you.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Charles_R]

CactusJack

“Mary, in my understanding, must have known she needed a Savior because she said, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” Sinless folk, as far as I know, don’t need a savior.”

Mary was / is sinless. But she still needed the saving grace of that great Sacrifice – Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection – to open the door to heaven.

Just my thoughts on those words.

 

[porthos11]

Deacon…

You have hit upon something I have never seen and which kept me from understanding the import of this dialogue. I have been dealing with this, as with many other scriptures, for over 30 years!

I’ve been conflicted by the idea of Mary being sinless and your post directs me to the REAL message. Full of GRACE! Jesus is GRACE and in His very body the fulness of the Godhead resides! Jesus in Mary… Mary is full of GRACE! Amen!

True of course, but that’s not the meaning of the context.

The Greek is very clear. Mary was already full of grace IN THE PAST, and it had been continuing up to and through the time of the angel’s visit. Jesus had not yet been conceived by the time the greeting was spoken.

So no, limiting it to Jesus’ presence does not work.