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

[Bastoune]

I was just playing with you… “A chacun son gout” – 'to each his own!"

We won’t speak any earthly languages in Heaven, probably, so we’ll all be on the same wavelength up there!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t see what the big problem is with “full of grace.” It’s true it does not exactly translate the original Greek word. It’s also true that the Greeks were exceedingly precise in their use of words and shades of meaning, which is why many battles were fought over the use of the word Theotokos. But this is entirely foreign to Americans, being English speakers. However, English can still express any idea that is conceivable in any other language. The difference is that the entire meaning is NOT conveyed by the word alone. It is a continuity of usage that gives a word in English its more precise meaning. The phrase “Full of Grace” has been in continuous use since the earliest English Catholic Bibles were printed, and its meaning has been taught for centuries. So in other words, to English speaking Catholics, the meaning of “full of grace” coincides with the Greek meaning. To those poorly catechized Americans that fill all of our churches now, the American Bishops have thought it proper to obtrude completely new words, that have even less meaning than the ones they replaced. This should guarantee an ongoing state of confusion and murkiness.

 

[Terrythrop]

I have just joined this site and therfore VERY new to it. Strange that the Question ‘Full of Favour’ as opposed to ‘full of grace’ should stare at me immediatley. My husband and I have been very concerned about this since we noticed the use of the word ‘favour’ a few months ago. My husband has written a thesis on the subject, (no he is not a theologin) in which he has quoted many Popes and Saints and Church Doctors, and nowhere can we find any reason as to who or why permission was given to change a word that we have had in the Bible since the beginning. ‘HAIL FULL OF GRACE’ Where do you think the prayer we use in the Rosary came from in the first palce??
If anyone is interested in receiving a copy, (47 pages) I would be happy to email it to you.
The Douay Rheims Bible is THE ONLY true Bible Catholics should be reading.
Terrythrop
South Africa

 

[Terrythrop]

‘Catholic Dude’ has got it right. Jerome was fluent in Latin and Greek and was only 3 centuries after Christ. A lot closer than modern translaters who are trying to interpret dead languages from a modern day dictionary. The Douay Rheims Bible is the English translation of Jerome’s work and served the Catholic Church right up to the late 1960’s and is still available. Jeromes Latin Vulgate was honored by the church for almost 1600 years. It was delclared by the Council of Trent to be the official (literally ‘authentic’ ) version of the canonical Scriptures and that no-one (may) dare or presume under any pretex whatsoever to reject it. 8th April 1546. Now did the Holy Spirit mislead the Catholic Church for almost 1600 years?
Read “Which Bible should you read” by Thomas A. Nelson (TAN)
My thesis ‘Hail full of Grace’ I will email, free, to anybody who requests it. After reading , you should never doubt the angel’s greeting to God’s mother . contact me at terrythrop@telkomsa.net

 

[Rustyxcv]

Hello All!
Let me put in my humble oar.
Whatever words are used, it’s the meaning of what has happened and is happening to Mary that is important. I get the impression that many Protestants and many modernist Catholic scholars would like to say that Mary is ONLY highly favored, so therefore she is not FULL of grace.
– Excuse me. How could anyone who was “highly favored” by the Lord God Almighty NOT be absolutely FULL of grace??? It just doesn’t make any sense to me. How could anyone object to using EITHER phrase (or any of the many excellent alternatives proposed in this blog string)? The RESULT is the same!!!
– And of course, the grace that Mary is FULL of is GOD’s grace. Any grace that she may impart to those who turn to her (the guests at Cana, for instance, Bernadette at Mesabeille) is still GOD’s grace.
– I get the impression that some may want to say that Mary is “highly” favored, but that St. Paul (the darling of many scriptural literalists) is VERY highly favored. St. Paul, himself, would be the first to disabuse anyone of that notion! Using “highly favored” allows and invites the use of even greater superlatives. “Full of grace” is complete in itself. Could we really call anyone “fuller” of grace than Mary? (Sorry . . . well perhaps the angels who turned Jesus “whiter than any fuller could wash” at the Transfiguration could be called Fullers of Grace ) Now I’m just getting silly – time to sign off. Pax Christi! --Rusty

 

[AmbroseSJ]

– Excuse me. How could anyone who was “highly favored” by the Lord God Almighty NOT be absolutely FULL of grace??? It just doesn’t make any sense to me. How could anyone object to using EITHER phrase (or any of the many excellent alternatives proposed in this blog string)? The RESULT is the same!!!

I don’t see that they are interchangeable myself. Full of Grace, as we understand it now, is something that ONLY applies to Mary, the Mother of God. St. John the Baptist was highly favored, Elijah was highly favored, even St. Joseph, the foster father of Jesus was highly favored.

Highly favored has no history of meaning, like “full of Grace” has. It has only its self-evident meaning. Highly favored does not mean so full of Grace, that there is NO ROOM for sin of any kind, not even Original Sin. Full of Grace (as used in the Bible) has that meaning. Highly favored seems to be back pedaling away from the Church’s teaching of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Rustyxcv]

Ambrose–
Thanks for this new twist. But . . . does the Archangel of the Lord come to John the Baptist, or to Elijah, or to St. Joseph, and say “Hail! Highly favored one!”? You might think, and in the ordinary way of speaking we might all agree, that these three heroes of the faith are indeed “highly favored” of God. But are they “ascribed” with that locution by a direct heavenly messenger and do we have a record of such a transaction?
You do raise a good point, though, that Gabriel’s words to the Blessed Mother-to-Be are in some way a testimony to the Immaculate Conception. Still, I personally prefer to take the words here at face value in an ordinary sense. The angel did not say “perfectly full of grace” (or whatever the superlative, imperative, emphatic form of the Greek construction might be – God help us all!). The angel didn’t even say Full of Grace (capital F – capital G). The angel said “full of grace.”
Now, you and I and all devout Catholics know that when we or the angel talk about the Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin, being “full of grace” we mean something entirely more wonderful (and entirely more mysterious, I might add!) than when we say that the ballerina Dame Margot Fonteyn was always full of grace. But to say that it is an improper or misleading translation of the biblical text to use the phrase “highly favored” or some such is to burden dear St. Luke with some 2,000 years worth of further hagiograpical and theological development, study, and inspiration.
I think that Luke said what he meant, clearly, and simply; recorded what he had been told. To create such a fuss over this very small matter of wording – is it not to “strain out a gnat while swallowing the camel”??? I dare say that our Sweet Mother Above is having Herself a good chuckle.
Pax Christi! --Rusty​

He called her “Ma”! She called her “Mom”! Her real name is “Mother”!!! - - - “Oh, my dear sweet children, it matters not at all what you call me, but only that you do call me.”

 

[jcrichton]

I was just playing with you… “A chacun son gout” – 'to each his own!"

We won’t speak any earthly languages in Heaven, probably, so we’ll all be on the same wavelength up there!

Hi, Bastoune!

I know!

…but there’s that truth that lingers… we would not be nationalists and patriotic if we did not think that ours was the “greatest, best, more beautiful, bigger and better…” It is human nature… as long as we do not take it serious (like those dopes in the soccer games turning from avid fans to ravid jackasses)…

I subscribe to that ole adage, “Vive la différence!”

…in Heaven… it could very well be like that first Pentecost when all heard the Apostles speaking in their own languages… or as spiritual beings it could very well be a language beyond our present abilities… either way, Heaven is the great Equalizer for we will be in the Presence of the Almighty!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…To those poorly catechized Americans that fill all of our churches now, the American Bishops have thought it proper to obtrude completely new words, that have even less meaning than the ones they replaced. This should guarantee an ongoing state of confusion and murkiness.

***Hi, AmbroseSJ!

…I agree completely!

…it is as though envious of hollo-wood (destruction of intellect, family, and morals) these bishops desire to bring down the House that God Built! :crying:

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

I have just joined this site and therfore VERY new to it. Strange that the Question ‘Full of Favour’ as opposed to ‘full of grace’ should stare at me immediatley. My husband and I have been very concerned about this since we noticed the use of the word ‘favour’ a few months ago. My husband has written a thesis on the subject, (no he is not a theologin) in which he has quoted many Popes and Saints and Church Doctors, and nowhere can we find any reason as to who or why permission was given to change a word that we have had in the Bible since the beginning. ‘HAIL FULL OF GRACE’ Where do you think the prayer we use in the Rosary came from in the first palce??
If anyone is interested in receiving a copy, (47 pages) I would be happy to email it to you.
The Douay Rheims Bible is THE ONLY true Bible Catholics should be reading.
Terrythrop
South Africa

Hi, Terrythrop!

Welcome to the Forum! :dancing:

I think that the problems lies in a two-fold error:

1. Catholics (from the Bishops down) want to emulate the world so badly (so that they can be seen as “modernists”) that they appropriate the slightest liberty from the Magisterium and hammer it down to libertinisms.
2. The erroneous belief that if Catholics waterdown the Catholic Doctrine non-Catholics will be more accepting and join us in ecumenical projects. (The problem with this thought is that, as far as I’ve experienced, the perspective of non-Catholics is that there are no “good Catholics:” i.e.: Catholicism must be eradicated.)

I believe that the Church is being assaulted from both without and within–sadly, the most damaging are those attacks from within.

One excellent point about Jesus’ desire… He wants us to Stand (St. Luke 21:36); yet, He is not concerned with the quantity of disciples, only the quality of those taking their cross and following Him! (St. Luke 18:8)

So as Paul said, do not be swayed from your Faith; even if seemingly good people, with seemingly righteous ideals, attempt to lure you away… do not follow suit!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hello All!
Let me put in my humble oar.
Whatever words are used, it’s the meaning of what has happened and is happening to Mary that is important. I get the impression that many Protestants and many modernist Catholic scholars would like to say that Mary is ONLY highly favored, so therefore she is not FULL of grace.
– Excuse me. How could anyone who was “highly favored” by the Lord God Almighty NOT be absolutely FULL of grace??? It just doesn’t make any sense to me. How could anyone object to using EITHER phrase (or any of the many excellent alternatives proposed in this blog string)? The RESULT is the same!!!
– And of course, the grace that Mary is FULL of is GOD’s grace. Any grace that she may impart to those who turn to her (the guests at Cana, for instance, Bernadette at Mesabeille) is still GOD’s grace.
– I get the impression that some may want to say that Mary is “highly” favored, but that St. Paul (the darling of many scriptural literalists) is VERY highly favored. St. Paul, himself, would be the first to disabuse anyone of that notion! Using “highly favored” allows and invites the use of even greater superlatives. “Full of grace” is complete in itself. Could we really call anyone “fuller” of grace than Mary? (Sorry . . . well perhaps the angels who turned Jesus “whiter than any fuller could wash” at the Transfiguration could be called Fullers of Grace ) Now I’m just getting silly – time to sign off. Pax Christi! --Rusty

Hi, Rusty!

…if both titles would be seen with the same reverence there should be no problem… however, it is doubtful that there was good intent in those who substituted “favored” as a “better and more comprehensive” definition for a Greek text that is so strong that has no equivalent in English, and which “Full of Grace” falls short of completely conveying its true force and complexity… I hope you are following my inference!

…you can tell that it is not a matter of substituting a phrase that falls short of the “fullness” of meaning because the less experts in concealment quickly turn from the play on Greek-English translations to, paraphrased: “…anyhow… Jesus’ Himself had no real respect for her since He kept calling her “woman;” so everyone can tell that He did not hold Mary in any special position…”

The root of the argument, I suspect, is much like the December 25th issue: they seek to fault the Authority of the Catholic Church!

…and those “Catholics” who acquiesce, under the guise of ecumenism, are simply aiding the enemy by not only bringing in the Trojan Horse but actually celebrating it!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ambrose–
Thanks for this new twist. But . . . does the Archangel of the Lord come to John the Baptist, or to Elijah, or to St. Joseph, and say “Hail! Highly favored one!”? You might think, and in the ordinary way of speaking we might all agree, that these three heroes of the faith are indeed “highly favored” of God. But are they “ascribed” with that locution by a direct heavenly messenger and do we have a record of such a transaction?
You do raise a good point, though, that Gabriel’s words to the Blessed Mother-to-Be are in some way a testimony to the Immaculate Conception. Still, I personally prefer to take the words here at face value in an ordinary sense. The angel did not say “perfectly full of grace” (or whatever the superlative, imperative, emphatic form of the Greek construction might be – God help us all!). The angel didn’t even say Full of Grace (capital F – capital G). The angel said “full of grace.”
But to say that it is an improper or misleading translation of the biblical text to use the phrase “highly favored” or some such is to burden dear St. Luke with some 2,000 years worth of further hagiograpical and theological development, study, and inspiration.
I think that Luke said what he meant, clearly, and simply; recorded what he had been told. To create such a fuss over this very small matter of wording – is it not to “strain out a gnat while swallowing the camel”??? I dare say that our Sweet Mother Above is having Herself a good chuckle.
Pax Christi! --Rusty​

He called her “Ma”! She called her “Mom”! Her real name is “Mother”!!! - - - “Oh, my dear sweet children, it matters not at all what you call me, but only that you do call me.”

I can appreciate your viewpoint Rusty. But I do not believe we are burdening St Luke with 2000 years worth of hagiographical and theological development, study and inspiration at all. The Evangelists put profound mysteries into words and writings. St. Luke may well have understood the profound meaning of the Angel Gabriel’s greeting, as he was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. The way I look at it, it has taken US 2000 years of hagiographical and theological development, study and inspiration to finally grasp the importance of those simple words. The words being in the Vulgate “gratia plena,” or in English “full of Grace” There is an ancient history of definition and eventual dogmatic definitions that (in The Roman Catholic Church) has hinged on the Vulgate’s wording. To throw them overboard now, at this late date, with words of even less meaning and murkier understanding, is at best ill-advised, and at worst… ?

Although the Angel Gabriel did not openly ascribe “highly favored” to the other Biblical persons as you mentioned, is that enough to prevent us (or the great mass of Catholics) from thinking that “highly favored” was just a very nice compliment paid to the future Mother of God? It lacks any real meaning. If the wording was “most favored” there would be something to that. But when the Archangel supposedly says “highly favored” it sounds more qualified, and nothing like “full of grace.” There is real theological meaning to grace, but favor is not a theological word at all. It’s just a worldly synonym for worldly grace.

As far as possibly making too much of a word or wording, look back to Nestorius and his shrinking from the wording “Mother of God,” (Theotokos) or to Arius and his eschewing of “one in being with the Father” (Homoousios) Entire heresies are built on innocent sounding simple words, or denial of the same. Words are very important in the Scripture, and I don’t think we are splitting hairs by any means.

Your reference to straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel is more perfectly applied to this NAB translation. They strain with every fiber of their being to reduce the Biblical text to its most minimal meaning, while swallowing the camel of gross misunderstanding and error.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

…if both titles would be seen with the same reverence there should be no problem… however, it is doubtful that there was good intent in those who substituted “favored” as a “better and more comprehensive” definition for a Greek text that is so strong that has no equivalent in English, and which “Full of Grace” falls short of completely conveying its true force and complexity… I hope you are following my inference!

We shouldn’t presume the worst of the translators since we have no record of their discussion and decision. It would be charitable to believe that they did so with the best of intention that they were faithful to their scholarship. Scott Hahn suggests in the Ignatius Study Bible that the “favoured one” translation is possible.

…and those “Catholics” who acquiesce, under the guise of ecumenism, are simply aiding the enemy by not only bringing in the Trojan Horse but actually celebrating it!

I do prefer the “full of grace” translation, but have no major problems with the “favoured one” rendering. Since we read Scripture in the light of Tradition, I’m not sure how much the difference will make.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

We shouldn’t presume the worst of the translators since we have no record of their discussion and decision. It would be charitable to believe that they did so with the best of intention that they were faithful to their scholarship. Scott Hahn suggests in the Ignatius Study Bible that the “favoured one” translation is possible.

I do prefer the “full of grace” translation, but have no major problems with the “favoured one” rendering. Since we read Scripture in the light of Tradition, I’m not sure how much the difference will make.

Scott Hahn’s statement sure falls short of an endorsement! It may not do violence to the text, but it certainly sucks every drop of meaning out of it.

You are very blessed to have grown up with “full of grace” so that you can mentally translate “highly favored” into its proper meaning. But what about subsequent generations who will never see “full of grace?”

 

[Mattjolley]

Am I Correct in saying only certain versions of the RSV CE have the passage saying ‘full of grace’? i’m sure the ignatius 2nd edition I own has this, while the OP says its not there. Does the earlier version not have the passage as full of grace?

Matt

 

[Rustyxcv]

Greetings to one and all–
Thank you for your many considered observations. As for future generations, I assume that little ones will say “Hail Mary, full of grace . . .” when they pray every day, even as I do.
– Words are important and there have been tremendous doctrinal errors fomented as a result of textual errors. On the lighter side, look at all of the statues of Moses sporting horns (as per the Vulgate text) when in reality he came down from the mountain wearing with a halo (or brilliant beams of light). LOL – “If we don’t adhere strictly to the venerable Vulgate tradition of the ancient church then generations of future Catholics will lack the soul-saving knowledge that Moses was endowed by God Almighty with horns!”
– The “Hail, full of grace/highly favored” passage is read so seldom at mass that it seems almost a non-issue to me. My personal “favorite” is the new English “Lamb of God” [Question for the moderators: Do we need to start a new string with this one?]
– The Latin is “Agnus Dei qui tollis pecatta [sp?] mundi” which our beloved ICEL has so “ably” translated as "Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world. . . " Now that would be an excellent translation of “Agnus Dei, tu tolla pecatta mundi.” A correct translation of the original Latin would be “Lamb of God who (or even that but never you) takes away the sin of the world, have mercy on us.”
– Shortly afterward, the priest echoes the phrase when he says, correctly, “This is (or Behold) the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Happy are those . . .”
– Does anyone have any contact with the currently sitting liturgical text revision commission. Can we get this fixed?
Pax Christi! --Rusty​

PS–An aside to Angel. I love your comments and the spirit behind them. But check your Greek. Isn’t it MARANA THA rather than MARAN ATHA ? I certainly agree with the sentiment. The sooner HE gets here the better!

 

[jcrichton]

As far as possibly making too much of a word or wording, look back to Nestorius and his shrinking from the wording “Mother of God,” (Theotokos) or to Arius and his eschewing of “one in being with the Father” (Homoousios) Entire heresies are built on innocent sounding simple words, or denial of the same. Words are very important in the Scripture, and I don’t think we are splitting hairs by any means.

Your reference to straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel is more perfectly applied to this NAB translation. They strain with every fiber of their being to reduce the Biblical text to its most minimal meaning, while swallowing the camel of gross misunderstanding and error.

Hi, AmbroseSJ!

Excellently put!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Manfred]

To those poorly catechized Americans that fill all of our churches now, the American Bishops have thought it proper to obtrude completely new words, that have even less meaning than the ones they replaced. This should guarantee an ongoing state of confusion and murkiness.

EXCELLENT!!

 

[Manfred]

As far as possibly making too much of a word or wording, look back to Nestorius and his shrinking from the wording “Mother of God,” (Theotokos) or to Arius and his eschewing of “one in being with the Father” (Homoousios) Entire heresies are built on innocent sounding simple words, or denial of the same. Words are very important in the Scripture, and I don’t think we are splitting hairs by any means.

Your reference to straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel is more perfectly applied to this NAB translation. They strain with every fiber of their being to reduce the Biblical text to its most minimal meaning, while swallowing the camel of gross misunderstanding and error.

Ambrose,

Blessed are you for not declaring the RNAB translators as just being faithful to their scholarship.

I agree, we’re not splitting hairs, and we’re not going to succumb to some misguided ecumenism, multiculturalism, or political correctness. We’re akin to a “remnant”.

BTW - your posts are VERY good!!

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrichton
…if both titles would be seen with the same reverence there should be no problem… however, it is doubtful that there was good intent in those who substituted “favored” as a “better and more comprehensive” definition for a Greek text that is so strong that has no equivalent in English, and which “Full of Grace” falls short of completely conveying its true force and complexity… I hope you are following my inference!

We shouldn’t presume the worst of the translators since we have no record of their discussion and decision. It would be charitable to believe that they did so with the best of intention that they were faithful to their scholarship. Scott Hahn suggests in the Ignatius Study Bible that the “favoured one” translation is possible.

Hi, perigrinus sg!

I respect your comments… but my perspective is that, as ignorant as I am, I can see from the context of both phrases that “highly favor” cannot replace “full of grace” on grounds of being more comprehensive and dynamic–which has been the only argument offered!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrichton
…and those “Catholics” who acquiesce, under the guise of ecumenism, are simply aiding the enemy by not only bringing in the Trojan Horse but actually celebrating it!

I do prefer the “full of grace” translation, but have no major problems with the “favoured one” rendering. Since we read Scripture in the light of Tradition, I’m not sure how much the difference will make.

…here’s the problem: if you go to any Catholic site you will find non-Catholics and self-professed atheists participating in the various forums… most are congenial enough… others believe that they have to liberate us from the “Whore of Babylon”–they may not always express themselves in that specific term… unless you dig deeper…

…so when fringe Catholics meet non-Catholics who point them to Scriptures and Scriptures represent not the 73 books included in the 4th century’s Councils or not “full of Grace,” but “highly favor” do you think they are going to search the Web for Catholic Tradition? …even if they might think to seek another Catholic for assistance, they would no doubtedly have been schooled on all of the “errors” of the Catholic Church and their personal faith would hinge upon all of the “new” teachings introduced and the dissembling of non-Catholics.

…as Jesus said, “…beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Maran atha!

Angel