St.Mary Doctrine

antiskeptic

santing wrote: »

It is not. The same verb is used in Ephesians 1:6 "He has made us accepted" (KJV) or "He has freely given us" (NIV)

I gather though, that the form of the root word used at Mary being "full of grace" differs from the form used at Ephesians 1. A difference in form could be expected to result in a difference of meaning of at least some sort (which is not to say that different meaning is the one RC posits in the attempt to establish the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception).

And so I'm interested in the form used in John 1 - because Stephen point to Jesus being there described as also "full of grace" as a way of arguing as he does.

But if John 1 doesn't use the same word (as you suggest) - never mind the same form of word - then the attempt to form a basis for the doctrine collapses at this point.

Mary being "full of grace" would not connect to Jesus' being "full of grace"

antiskeptic

Piano man wrote: »

It's clear that some people are looking for a meaningless debate, rather than seeking to genuinely and charitably understand the Catholic viewpoint.

Understanding the Catholic viewpoint genuinely and charitably can take place under the auspices of debate. That the motivation behind the debate might be to uncover holes in doctrine formulation that are suspected to exist doesn't render anyone insincere nor the debate meaningless. Me? I enjoy the basis of my views being challenged - because the basis of my views surviving challenge generates confidience in those views.

The thing is, there is no short answer for many of these questions, and an individual interpretation of Scripture is doomed to be riddled with faults because we can only see the words as they are presented in the light of the twenty-first century society, and also some nuances of the Bible can be lost in translation from Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. It is vital if we are to read the Bible and draw conclusions from it, that we read it in the light it was written.

Seldom need the debate tackle the question as a whole. Generally speaking it's sufficient to examine elements of the question (for example, the alleged immaculate conception of Mary as part of the larger RC Marian view - on which Stephen is being queried and in which nuances are being suggested).

Now I know some of you won't because you don't seek to understand the Catholic view, just pick holes in the bits you don't understand.

Supposing for the sake of argument, that no scriptural support is found for Mary's immaculate conception. Would the leak caused by picking such a hole be considered "meaningless" by you. And if not, do you now see the meaningfulness of the attempt to pick such holes?

wolfsbane

Here's what I pm'd to Stephen, less the personal stuff:

Quote:
I do not believe that Mary accomplished redemption in equal to Jesus.

But you do believe she redeemed us to a lesser extent. That is a fundamental difference between us.

Quote:
Only Jesus redeemed us, but Mary Participated which is why we call her ''woman with the redeemer'' she had a 'Unique but subordinate role to Jesus in salvation, Unique in the sense that she is the Mother of Christ, her grieving and pain at the cross and the prohecy that came true, about a sword that would pierce her soul too, was the father allowing St.Mary share in her sons suffering on a subordinate level, it is not just the grief of an apostle but the grief of a Mother.

You are making the Christian's suffering for Christ a part of our atonement. It's not. He alone atoned for us. We share in His love for the brethren and gladly suffer to serve them - but we do not atone for them. We do not redeem them, even in part. That applies to Mary and every Christian.

Quote:
Before Jesus gave her to us as our Mother too,

He didn't. He gave her to John to care for her, to fulfil the filial role He was no longer able to do.

Quote:
was made Queen of heaven

She never was. The only Queen of Heaven mentioned in the Bible is a heathen goddess:
Jeremiah 7:17 Do you not see what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.

Quote:
etc, what made St.Mary stand out in the Gospel? She was perfected in Grace and was made immaculate.

Luke 1:28 - the phrase "full of grace" is translated from the Greek word "kecharitomene." This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just "highly favored." She has been perfected in grace by God. "Full of grace" is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Let's see what that term means:
Luke 1:28 καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

Ephesians 1:6 εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5487&t=KJV

Mary was filled with God's grace in the same sense any Christian may be. We have all received His grace time after time - and great grace for great needs. But that does not mean we are perfected or not in need of more grace in the future. Especially it does not mean we are dispensers of that grace.

No perfection of grace. Not even 'full' of grace. That description of Jesus in John has the term πλήρης full qualifying χάριτος of grace. Not so with the Mary address.

wolfsbane

Piano man wrote: »

And this should shed some light on the Mediator issue.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Mary/page5

Here's a quote from the second source above that should explain:

'Even we are mediators, in a lesser sense. The word mediator means someone who is a go-between. In 1 Timothy 2:5, which refers to Jesus as the "one mediator," the Greek word for "one" is heis, which means "first" or "primary" and does not denote something exclusive. In fact, we are all mediators when we pray for one another. As members of the Mystical Body of Christ, we all share in Christ’s role as mediator, but our efforts at being go-betweens "work" only because of what he has done.

Our mediating in no way diminishes the role of Christ as mediator; in fact, it glorifies the Father, because it is through Jesus that we can approach with confidence the throne of grace (Heb 4:14-16). How much more does Jesus give his mother Mary the privilege to be a participant in the distribution of grace!'

The author of that quote fails to note that heis (one) of mediator is also used in this verse of God. Do you think it means "first" or "primary" and does not denote something exclusive? The reason Christ can come before His Father and mediate for us is that Christ is the perfect, holy lamb of God. He alone is the mediator between God and man. We can approach God only by Him. Not by Paul, Peter, me or anyone here. Not by Mary either.

It does no good to equate our prayers for one another with mediation. Mediation is a covenant function. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.

Putting Mary as Mediatrix is goddess worship, also indicated by giving her the title Queen of Heaven.

wolfsbane

santing said:

In practice, Mary receives more devotion, more worship than God the Father, the Son and the Spirit together. Think about the Rosary - more devotion time ("prayers") to Mary than to God.

The Rosary gives Mary great power, either equal or greater than God, the following are quoted from the 15 promises:
Quote:
2) I promise My special protection and the greatest graces to all who shall recite the Rosary.
5) The soul which recommends itself to Me by the recitation of the Rosary shall not perish.
6) Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries, shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death. If he be just, he shall remain in the grace of God and become worthy of eternal life.
7) Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church.
8) Those who are faithful in reciting the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plenitude of His graces. At the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise.
9) I shall deliver from Purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.
10) The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven.
11) You shall obtain all you ask of Me by the recitation of the Rosary.
12) All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by Me in their necessities.

Can any Catholic here confirm this is official Catholic teaching? I'm very busy at the moment, otherwise I would check it out myself.

And if you would like to offer your own opinion on the 15 promises, that would help us all.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

No perfection of grace. Not even 'full' of grace. That description of Jesus in John has the term πλήρης full qualifying χάριτος of grace. Not so with the Mary address.

That was my suspicion: that the word used for Mary would be other than that used of Jesus in John 1 (although both are translated the same way, apparently, by the RC Bible).

Have you any idea of the R.Catholic basis by which 'fullness' is extracted from the Greek - in the case of the address to Mary. Is it simply being read into the word eg; in order to support the doctrine ?

santing

wolfsbane wrote: »

Can any Catholic here confirm this is official Catholic teaching? I'm very busy at the moment, otherwise I would check it out myself.

And if you would like to offer your own opinion on the 15 promises, that would help us all.

Cf. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html (emphasis mine)

At the start of the twenty-fifth year of my Pontificate, I entrust this Apostolic Letter to the loving hands of the Virgin Mary, prostrating myself in spirit before her image in the splendid Shrine built for her by Blessed Bartolo Longo, the apostle of the Rosary. I willingly make my own the touching words with which he concluded his well-known Supplication to the Queen of the Holy Rosary: “O Blessed Rosary of Mary, sweet chain which unites us to God, bond of love which unites us to the angels, tower of salvation against the assaults of Hell, safe port in our universal shipwreck, we will never abandon you. You will be our comfort in the hour of death: yours our final kiss as life ebbs away. And the last word from our lips will be your sweet name, O Queen of the Rosary of Pompei, O dearest Mother, O Refuge of Sinners, O Sovereign Consoler of the Afflicted. May you be everywhere blessed, today and always, on earth and in heaven”.
From the Vatican, on the 16th day of October in the year 2002, the beginning of the twenty- fifth year of my Pontificate.
JOHN PAUL II

Do we need more proof of the depth of this idolatry?

Stephentlig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's what I pm'd to Stephen, less the personal stuff:

But you do believe she redeemed us to a lesser extent. That is a fundamental difference between us.


You are making the Christian's suffering for Christ a part of our atonement. It's not. He alone atoned for us. We share in His love for the brethren and gladly suffer to serve them - but we do not atone for them. We do not redeem them, even in part. That applies to Mary and every Christian.


He didn't. He gave her to John to care for her, to fulfil the filial role He was no longer able to do.


She never was. The only Queen of Heaven mentioned in the Bible is a heathen goddess:
Jeremiah 7:17 Do you not see what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.


Let's see what that term means:
Luke 1:28 καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

Ephesians 1:6 εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5487&t=KJV

Mary was filled with God's grace in the same sense any Christian may be. We have all received His grace time after time - and great grace for great needs. But that does not mean we are perfected or not in need of more grace in the future. Especially it does not mean we are dispensers of that grace.

No perfection of grace. Not even 'full' of grace. That description of Jesus in John has the term πλήρης full qualifying χάριτος of grace. Not so with the Mary address.

I ignored wolfsbanes comments on Mary being our mother and Queen of Heaven and kept straight to the point. With respect to Wolfsbane I feel he has a habit of creating too much to debate in one topic.

I feel that wolfsbane breached the order of privacy and I must express my sincere dislike for his behaviour, I feel that this has become a ''battle of the egos''.

This is my response to wolfsbane ( meaning I've also breached the order of privacy) and a good night to you all.

But you do believe she redeemed us to a lesser extent. That is a fundamental difference between us.

not at all, the church only states that she participated on a subordinate level, she didnt redeem us, only Christ did. the Catholic church does not state your belief, you are imposing your own veiw into the text.

etc, what made St.Mary stand out in the Gospel? She was perfected in Grace and was made immaculate.


Let's see what that term means:
Luke 1:28 καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

Ephesians 1:6 εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5487&t=KJV
Mary was filled with God's grace in the same sense any Christian may be. We have all received His grace time after time - and great grace for great needs. But that does not mean we are perfected or not in need of more grace in the future. Especially it does not mean we are dispensers of that grace.

No perfection of grace. Not even 'full' of grace. That description of Jesus in John has the term πλήρης full qualifying χάριτος of grace. Not so with the Mary address.

Blessings

Hi wolfsbane, we could end up discussing loads of Marys doctrines in each reply as you've picked up on Queen of Heaven and Her being our Mother, so we should just now stick to Co-Redemptrix and Immaculate Conception.

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" (or 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 permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

However, I still haven't really gotten to my argument: whatever the denotation of "chaire, Kecharitomene," its connotation, what it actually meant to ancient Greek-speakers, is why it is communicating precisely that Mary was immaculately conceived.

Here are a number of ancient experts and what they say it means; each of them is a Greek-speaker from a culture basically identical to that of St. Luke; the passages are expositions by the authors of the meaning of Luke 1:28, generally centered on chaire, Kecharitomene:

The problem you have is that not one Early church father/ greek speaking Christian prior to the reformation ( a group of English speaking people) agrees with you Ian. ( note: I said in my pm ''English speaking people'' however that was historically inaccurate I feel however, no matter what language they spoke they certainly were not greek )

Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD):

O purest one
O purest virgin
where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered.
Where divine grace is present
the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit
in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship,
and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man's common standard
thou hast put on the vesture of purity
has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;
and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb
since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one,
and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other:
and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold

Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD):

Hail, O you, through whom Joy will shine forth!
Hail, O you, through whom the curse will disappear!
Hail, O Restoration of the Fallen Adam!
Hail, O Redemption of the Tears of Eve!
Hail, O Peak above the reach of human thought!
Hail, O Depth even beyond the sight of angels!
Hail, O you who have become a Kingly Throne!
Hail, O you who carry Him Who Carries All!
Hail, O Star who manifest the Sun!
Hail, O Womb of the Divine Incarnation!
Hail, O you through whom creation is renewed!
Hail, O you through whom the Creator becomes a Babe!
Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!

Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD):

Hail, our desirable gladness;
Hail, O rejoicing of the churches;
Hail, O name that breathes out sweetness;
Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace;
Hail, most venerable memory;
Hail, O spiritual and saving fleece;
Hail, O Mother of unsetting splendor, filled with light;
Hail, unstained Mother of holiness;
Hail, most limpid font of the lifegiving wave;
Hail, new Mother, workshop of the birth.
Hail, ineffable mother of a mystery beyond understanding;
Hail, new book of a new Scripture, of which, as Isaiah tells, angels and men are faithful witnesses;
Hail, alabaster jar of sanctifying ointment;
Hail, best trader of the coin of virginity;
Hail, creature embracing your Creator;
Hail, little container containing the Uncontainable.
(Homily 4:3; PG 77:1391B-C; Gambero, page 267-8)

santing

antiskeptic wrote: »

That was my suspicion: that the word used for Mary would be other than that used of Jesus in John 1 (although both are translated the same way, apparently, by the RC Bible).

Have you any idea of the R.Catholic basis by which 'fullness' is extracted from the Greek - in the case of the address to Mary. Is it simply being read into the word eg; in order to support the doctrine ?

The RC Vulgate translation is simply wrong here ...

A footnote at the NET Bible says:

The address, “favored one” (a perfect participle, Grk “Oh one who is favored”) points to Mary as the recipient of God’s grace, not a bestower of it. She is a model saint in this passage, one who willingly receives God’s benefits. The Vulgate rendering “full of grace” suggests something more of Mary as a bestower of grace, but does not make sense here contextually.

BTW, there is another verse with full of grace:

And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.
(Act 6:8 ESV)

, the same words are used here as in John 1:14

Stephentlig

BTW, there is another verse with full of grace: , the same words are used here as in John 1:14

although different words with Mary and Jesus in reference to full of grace, what matters is that they both contain the meaning full of grace as I demonstrated above, the difference between the greek word used in Luke and Eph.

your wrong also about the acts with stephen. the KJV version uses the words and stephen full of ''faith'' because the word used for grace here is pistus, which is different than the one used in John 1:14 which is ''pleres''

pistus is the grace of beleif, which proves to us that the grace to beleive is one that comes from God and him alone.

πίστις
pistis
pis'-tis
From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

χάρις
charis
khar'-ece
From G5463; graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude): - acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace (-ious), joy liberality, pleasure, thank (-s, -worthy).

philologos

I've yet to see how this warrants us holding that Mary is a co-redemptrix, or indeed that it warrants the view that she is an intermediary in our prayers.

santing

Stephentlig wrote: »

your wrong also about the acts with stephen. the KJV version uses the words and stephen full of ''faith'' because the word used for grace here is pistus, which is different than the one used in John 1:14 which is ''pleres''

Just use another version - KJV and NKJV have faith based on the reading of "pistus", all other translations (I checked) have grace based on the more accepted reading of chaires.

Stephentlig

Jakkass wrote: »

I've yet to see how this warrants us holding that Mary is a co-redemptrix, or indeed that it warrants the view that she is an intermediary in our prayers.

I've already showed you your misperception of ''Co-Redemptrix'' in an earliar thread.

although I dont want to move on to another doctrine of Mary such as Medatrix, here is a quick explanation for you.

Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. But that does not preclude Jesus from applying His role as mediator anyway He sees fit. In fact, right before Paul says that "Jesus is the one mediator" (1 Tim 2:5), Paul appeals for mediation from others besides Christ, by urging that "supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men" (1 Tim 2:1). How can Paul appeal to mediation from others if Jesus is our only mediator? Because, as St. Paul answers, "this is good, and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:3-4). Therefore, although Jesus is our one mediator, He has charged us to be intercessors, or subordinate mediators with Him. We are able to do this by virtue of our baptismal priesthood.

chozometroid

This whole "Mary" debate seems very simple to me. Can anyone actually read the Bible and take from it all of this elevated "sinless/mediatrix/co-redemptrix" Mary status? I don't see how this is possible unless you are taught this extra-biblically.
To anyone not taught this extra-biblically, all of this Mary worship is just plain shocking and makes one wonder, "where did all this come from?"
Mary was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus Christ and it ends there. There is no indication that she wasn't a normal human or that she plays some special role alongside the Trinity.

Matthew 12:47-50 (King James Version)

47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

So much for special treatment!

Stephentlig

chozometroid wrote: »

This whole "Mary" debate seems very simple to me. Can anyone actually read the Bible and take from it all of this elevated "sinless/mediatrix/co-redemptrix" Mary status? I don't see how this is possible unless you are taught this extra-biblically.
To anyone not taught this extra-biblically, all of this Mary worship is just plain shocking and makes one wonder, "where did all this come from?"
Mary was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus Christ and it ends there. There is no indication that she wasn't a normal human or that she plays some special role alongside the Trinity.

Matthew 12:47-50 (King James Version)

47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

So much for special treatment!

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - when Jesus asks, "Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?," some Protestants argue that Jesus is rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her. To the contrary, when Jesus' comments are read in light of Luke 8:5-15 and the parable of the sower which Jesus taught right before His question, Jesus is actually implying that Mary has already received the word as the sower of good ground and is bearing fruit. Jesus is teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it.

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - Jesus' question about "who are my mother, and sisters and brothers" was also made in reference to Psalm 69:8-9. Jesus the Prophet was answering the psalmist's prophecy that those closest to Him would betray Him at His passion. Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual family's importance over the biological family, and the importance of being faithful to Him. While many were unfaithful to Jesus, Mary remained faithful to Him, even to the point of standing at the foot of the Cross.

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - finally, to argue that Jesus rebuked Mary is to argue that Jesus violated the Torah, here, the 4th commandment. This argument is blasphemous because it essentially says that God committed sin by dishonoring His Mother.

postcynical

santing wrote: »

Do we need more proof of the depth of this idolatry?

It must be a matter of context, because it doesn't read as idolatry to me. To refer to Mary as the "sweet chain which unites us to God" is not too far-fetched. She was one of us, and God made Himself incarnate in her womb.

The finer points of discussion I can't help with - are the dead saints in union with God already, can they intercede for us, what is Mary's place in heaven - reunited with her son...

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

The reason Christ can come before His Father and mediate for us is that Christ is the perfect, holy lamb of God. He alone is the mediator between God and man. We can approach God only by Him.

But we can petition God the Father directly. In the old covenant there are plenty of examples of leaders mediating for the people with God the Father.

For salvation, certainly we can only reach the Father through Jesus but for petition I'm not convinced that God's ears are not sensitive to other forms of petition. How do non-believers petition God in their moments of desperation?

chozometroid

Stephentlig wrote: »

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - when Jesus asks, "Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?," some Protestants argue that Jesus is rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her. To the contrary, when Jesus' comments are read in light of Luke 8:5-15 and the parable of the sower which Jesus taught right before His question, Jesus is actually implying that Mary has already received the word as the sower of good ground and is bearing fruit. Jesus is teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it.

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - Jesus' question about "who are my mother, and sisters and brothers" was also made in reference to Psalm 69:8-9. Jesus the Prophet was answering the psalmist's prophecy that those closest to Him would betray Him at His passion. Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual family's importance over the biological family, and the importance of being faithful to Him. While many were unfaithful to Jesus, Mary remained faithful to Him, even to the point of standing at the foot of the Cross.

Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - finally, to argue that Jesus rebuked Mary is to argue that Jesus violated the Torah, here, the 4th commandment. This argument is blasphemous because it essentially says that God committed sin by dishonoring His Mother.

I said nothing about Jesus dishonoring Mary or rebuking her. The point is that she was His mother, but no more special than the rest of the body of Christ. Degrading Mary is not necessary to make the point that Mary is not some super-elevated holy being.

Soul Winner

To all who pray to Mary to intercede, can you answer these simple questions please?

Why is the advocacy of Jesus not enough?

And if it is enough then why the need to pray to Mary?

And if you say that we don't really need Mary to interceded then why bother praying to her or anyone else when the advocacy Jesus is already more than enough?

homer911

Soul Winner wrote: »

To all who pray to Mary to intercede, can you answer these simple questions please?

Why is the advocacy of Jesus not enough?

And if it is enough then why the need to pray to Mary?

And if you say that we don't really need Mary to interceded then why bother praying to her or anyone else when the advocacy Jesus is already more than enough?

or "through" Mary

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

although different words with Mary and Jesus in reference to full of grace, what matters is that they both contain the meaning full of grace as I demonstrated above..

A recap of the mounting problems might be order at this point:

1) The address to Mary at Luke 1 is posited as referring to a grace given at sometime past and continuing up to the present (according to the tense used). Assuming this take true for a minute, there has been no attempt to show how this past point in time can be taken as being the point of Mary's conception.

2) Stephen has made much of the fact that Jesus is also described as being "full of grace". But it turns out that the words used in both cases (Luke 1 of Mary and John 1 of Jesus) are altogether different in the Greek! Failing argument to the contrary, it is safe to suppose that two different words mean two different things (however they might be translated) and so the grace assumed of Jesus (present at conception) cannot be assumed of Mary

3) Santing has made an fine point about the term "full of grace" appearing elsewhere describing other people - outside the KJVersion. The wobbliness of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is made more apparent if Stephen deigns to seek support in this version over that version. I look forward to his comment here - given his statement that "full of grace" is attached to only two people in the Bible.

4) The only other piece of evidence offered in support of the Immaculate Conception isn't scriptural. Rather, it concerns a notion that Mary needed to be made original-sin free in order not to transmit sin to Jesus. Clearly there are other ways for this to be achieved and so we can dismiss this notion out of hand as speculative.

Soul Winner

antiskeptic wrote: »

4) The only other piece of evidence offered in support of the Immaculate Conception isn't scriptural. Rather, it concerns a notion that Mary needed to be made original-sin free in order not to transmit sin to Jesus. Clearly there are other ways for this to be achieved and so we can dismiss this notion out of hand as speculative.

But there is no need for Mary to be sinless so that Jesus could be born sinless. The whole concept of Jesus' conception was for His eternal divine nature to take on sinful flesh. John said that He struck a tent in human flesh. In other words, He took up His abode in human flesh and human flesh is sinful. He simply took the form of sinful flesh yet knew know sin.

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15

If Mary was sinless and Jesus was sinless then how could it be said that He took on the likeness of sinful flesh? And how could He have been tempted in all points as were are if He did not carry the same burden that we carry - sinful flesh? We buckle under the pressure of the flesh's urges and sin, but the whole message of the Gospel is that He didn't sin, and that He laid His perfect life down in order to pay the price for us. He didn't give into temptation as we do. He was without spot or blemish.

If the logic of Mary's immaculate conception is true, then was Mary's mother also immaculately conceived? If not, then that means that Mary was the one who was the true God-Human person not Jesus. If she was truly immaculately conceived then Jesus could not have been tempted in all points as we are because He didn't have the burden of sinning flesh on Him, because He never took on sinning flesh due to the perfection of Mary. If that's all true then what is the point of the claims of Christianity which state that Jesus was both man and God?

If we follow the logic of Mary's immaculate conception to its logical end then we end up with a Jesus that could never have been tempted in all points as we are as the scripture states, because He did not know what it was like to dwell in sinning flesh as we do, which means that the scripture is wrong in this regard. Hence Mary takes center stage over Christ which is so obviously a Satanic substitute that its blatantness seems ludicrous to point out.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

If we follow the logic of Mary's immaculate conception to its logical end then we end up with a Jesus that could never have been tempted in all points as we are as the scripture states, because He did not know what it was like to dwell in sinning flesh as we do, which means that the scripture is wrong in this regard. Hence Mary takes center stage over Christ which is so obviously a Satanic substitute that its blatantness seems ludicrous to point out.

Just a point. Orthodox Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic) does not believe that Christ dwelt in sinning flesh like we do.

btw - there is some language in this thread which, while not necessarily against the Charter, makes any meaningful discussion impossible.

Talking about 'idolatry' or 'satanic substitutes' pretty well banjaxes any chance that the other side might listen to you. Similarly, accusing Protestants in general of not being honest is the kind of grandstanding that gets in the way of genuine communication.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

4) The only other piece of evidence offered (add by edit: by Stephentlig) in support of the Immaculate Conception isn't scriptural. Rather, it concerns a notion that Mary needed to be made original-sin free in order not to transmit sin to Jesus. Clearly there are other ways for this to be achieved and so we can dismiss this notion out of hand as speculative.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But there is no need for Mary to be sinless so that Jesus could be born sinless.

Which was my very point (underlined above) in refuting this strand of Stephentlig's defence of the doctrine of the immaculate conception.

Whilst you offer further sound argument against the possibility of Mary being born sinless, Stephens position stands refuted already. Once we agree that there are various ways in which God can achieve sinlessness in Christ-born, the postion which supposes Mary-Sinless: a necessity, evaporates.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

Just a point. Orthodox Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic) does not believe that Christ dwelt in sinning flesh like we do.

I'd never much dwelt on this. Given he'd no sinful nature and dwelt not in sinful flesh, by what mechanism can Christ have been tempted. To what would the temptation be addressed (so to speak)

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd never much dwelt on this. Given he'd no sinful nature and dwelt not in sinful flesh, by what mechanism can Christ have been tempted. To what would the temptation be addressed (so to speak)

There's a whole potential theological debate as to the peccability of Christ. It would probably drag this thread off topic, but here's a wee taster of the issues involved: http://eternalperspectives.com/2006/01/23/jesus-peccable-or-impeccable/

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

Just a point. Orthodox Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic) does not believe that Christ dwelt in sinning flesh like we do.

Then my question to them is this: Was Jesus truly God in Human flesh? Was He really born of a woman? That is what the incarnation means isn't it? That He was incarnate in human flesh? The book of Ruth teaches that only one near of kin can redeem a lost inheritance. And if we are God's inheritance now, but were lost due to our sins, but have been reconciled back to God through the sacrifice of Christ, then the only way that this could have been done would be through God kinning Himself to us. Which means He must have taken on human flesh. And human flesh is sinful. It would not have been necessary for Him to take on human flesh had the human flesh been perfect to begin with. If human flesh was sinless then there would have been no reason for Him to be born of a woman in the first place let alone to die for the sins of mankind. I cannot see any real meaning in Christianity if God did not truly take on human/sinning flesh. He must have or else what He did on the cross has no meaning for us.

PDN wrote: »

Talking about 'idolatry' or 'satanic substitutes' pretty well banjaxes any chance that the other side might listen to you. Similarly, accusing Protestants in general of not being honest is the kind of grandstanding that gets in the way of genuine communication.

Well I'm open to anyone who wants to show that what I believe in is Satanic too. I'll gladly defend it, I'm not afraid to have mine tested as it should be.

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1

If others are afraid of a little testing then their insecurity is their problem. If they don't agree that their doctrine is Satanically derived then it is up to them to show me and put me in my place. If my comment about the placement of Mary in the place of Christ as being Satanic is not true, then what is Satanic? I'm sorry if my comment offended anyone, it wasn't gratuitous and wasn't meant to, I just followed the logic of the immaculate conception of Mary to its logical conclusion and was led to it. By all means show me that this logic is flawed - I'm all ears.

wolfsbane

postcynical wrote: »

But we can petition God the Father directly. In the old covenant there are plenty of examples of leaders mediating for the people with God the Father.

For salvation, certainly we can only reach the Father through Jesus but for petition I'm not convinced that God's ears are not sensitive to other forms of petition. How do non-believers petition God in their moments of desperation?

I've no problem with anyone praying for anyone else. That does not make them a mediator in the sense used of Jesus. The mediator of the covenant was not merely one who prayed for others.

wolfsbane

Stephentlig wrote: »

I ignored wolfsbanes comments on Mary being our mother and Queen of Heaven and kept straight to the point. With respect to Wolfsbane I feel he has a habit of creating too much to debate in one topic.

I feel that wolfsbane breached the order of privacy and I must express my sincere dislike for his behaviour, I feel that this has become a ''battle of the egos''.

This is my response to wolfsbane ( meaning I've also breached the order of privacy) and a good night to you all.



not at all, the church only states that she participated on a subordinate level, she didnt redeem us, only Christ did. the Catholic church does not state your belief, you are imposing your own veiw into the text.







Hi wolfsbane, we could end up discussing loads of Marys doctrines in each reply as you've picked up on Queen of Heaven and Her being our Mother, so we should just now stick to Co-Redemptrix and Immaculate Conception.

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" (or 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 permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

However, I still haven't really gotten to my argument: whatever the denotation of "chaire, Kecharitomene," its connotation, what it actually meant to ancient Greek-speakers, is why it is communicating precisely that Mary was immaculately conceived.

Here are a number of ancient experts and what they say it means; each of them is a Greek-speaker from a culture basically identical to that of St. Luke; the passages are expositions by the authors of the meaning of Luke 1:28, generally centered on chaire, Kecharitomene:

The problem you have is that not one Early church father/ greek speaking Christian prior to the reformation ( a group of English speaking people) agrees with you Ian. ( note: I said in my pm ''English speaking people'' however that was historically inaccurate I feel however, no matter what language they spoke they certainly were not greek )

I've just read this now - 14/01/2010 @ 12:40pm.

My apologies to Stephen, as he thinks I've violated the pm. I thought omitting personal stuff would have covered that, but on reflection I should have asked him.

Anyway, I have since found the pm not suitable for proper discussion, as the posts are limited to 7000 characters.

I will conduct any debate - this one included - from now on in the public forum.

I'll post a response to Stephen's comment above later.

wolfsbane

Stephentlig said:

But you do believe she redeemed us to a lesser extent. That is a fundamental difference between us.
not at all, the church only states that she participated on a subordinate level, she didnt redeem us, only Christ did. the Catholic church does not state your belief, you are imposing your own veiw into the text.

So she did not redeem us at all? Co-Redemptrix has nothing to do with redemption, just being an agent that allowed redemption to occur? Are you sure that is official Catholic teaching?

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" (or 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 permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

Let's hear what the Catholic scholar Raymond Edward Brown says. See pages 127-128:
Mary in the New Testament
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ML1mnUBwmhcC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=kecharitomene+in+secular+greek&source=bl&ots=S9ABj7Lq0G&sig=ywLYZ3_UmPQiaYatAkLzWXgcvCg&hl=en&ei=nlFPS7mWMJ_-0gTGufinCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=kecharitomene%20in%20secular%20greek&f=true

And this is helpful:
Luke 1:28 and kecaritwme,nh
Karl Keating alleged:
The newer translations leave out something the Greek conveys, something the older translation conveys, which is that this grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is charis, after all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception. That is, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace" or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way. This is just what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds. . . . (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 269.)

The above quotation goes far beyond anything a serious exegete of the passage in Greek could possibly say. This can be seen by examining the term in question, the perfect passive participle "kecharitomene."
First, let's look at the lexical meaning of the root of the term, that being the Greek word "caritoo"(carito,w) Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (edited by Gingrich and Danker) defines the usage of "caritoo" at Luke 1:28, "favored one (in the sight of God)." No lexical source that we have found gives as a meaning of "caritoo" "sinlessness." The term refers to favor, in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God's grace. The only other occurrence of "caritoo" is at Ephesians 1:6, "…to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." If the bare term "caritoo" means "sinlessness," then it follows that the elect of God, throughout their lives, have been sinless as well.
However, if we look at Mr. Keating's presentation, it seems clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the lexical meaning of the word "caritoo", but upon the form it takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle, "kecharitomene". Note that Keating alleges that the "Greek indicates a perfection of grace." He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek "indicates a perfection of grace." First, participles derive their time element from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) The main emphasis of a participle is found in its aspect, a present participle providing the idea of continuing action, the aorist undefined action, and the perfect completed action with abiding results to the present. What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something is, but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 ("Come, you who are blessed by my Father . . ."), 1 Thessalonians 1:4 ("knowing, brethren beloved by God . . ."), and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ("But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord . . .") emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a "perfection of blessedness that indicates that they had this perfection throughout their life, for a perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively" (to borrow from Mr. Keating's presentation). The application of Keating's thoughts to any of the above passages results in foolishness. Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary "must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace' or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way," he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid. Therefore, Madrid's statement, "This is a recognition of her sinless state," falls for lack of support. The angel addressed Mary as "highly favored," for, as he himself said, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God" (Luke 1:30).
From:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1455

However, I still haven't really gotten to my argument: whatever the denotation of "chaire, Kecharitomene," its connotation, what it actually meant to ancient Greek-speakers, is why it is communicating precisely that Mary was immaculately conceived.

Here are a number of ancient experts and what they say it means; each of them is a Greek-speaker from a culture basically identical to that of St. Luke; the passages are expositions by the authors of the meaning of Luke 1:28, generally centered on chaire, Kecharitomene:

The problem you have is that not one Early church father/ greek speaking Christian prior to the reformation ( a group of English speaking people) agrees with you Ian. ( note: I said in my pm ''English speaking people'' however that was historically inaccurate I feel however, no matter what language they spoke they certainly were not greek )

Quote:
Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD):
O purest one
O purest virgin
where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered.
Where divine grace is present
the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit
in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship,
and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man's common standard
thou hast put on the vesture of purity
has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;
and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb
since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one,
and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other:
and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold
Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD):
Hail, O you, through whom Joy will shine forth!
Hail, O you, through whom the curse will disappear!
Hail, O Restoration of the Fallen Adam!
Hail, O Redemption of the Tears of Eve!
Hail, O Peak above the reach of human thought!
Hail, O Depth even beyond the sight of angels!
Hail, O you who have become a Kingly Throne!
Hail, O you who carry Him Who Carries All!
Hail, O Star who manifest the Sun!
Hail, O Womb of the Divine Incarnation!
Hail, O you through whom creation is renewed!
Hail, O you through whom the Creator becomes a Babe!
Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!
Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD):
Hail, our desirable gladness;
Hail, O rejoicing of the churches;
Hail, O name that breathes out sweetness;
Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace;
Hail, most venerable memory;
Hail, O spiritual and saving fleece;
Hail, O Mother of unsetting splendor, filled with light;
Hail, unstained Mother of holiness;
Hail, most limpid font of the lifegiving wave;
Hail, new Mother, workshop of the birth.
Hail, ineffable mother of a mystery beyond understanding;
Hail, new book of a new Scripture, of which, as Isaiah tells, angels and men are faithful witnesses;
Hail, alabaster jar of sanctifying ointment;
Hail, best trader of the coin of virginity;
Hail, creature embracing your Creator;
Hail, little container containing the Uncontainable.
(Homily 4:3; PG 77:1391B-C; Gambero, page 267-8)

Let me point out that your ancient 'experts' are not arguing the meaning of the word, just giving their theology. Do you have any quotes of them discussing the word and its meaning?

But as to no support from the Early Fathers for my position, this from a Catholic site:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a115.htm

The Anglican historian JND Kelly (in Early Christian Doctrines) does refer to Origen, then Basil and John Chrysostom as doubting the sinlessness of Mary, but also notes that St. Ephraem in Syria did believe her "free from every stain, like her Son." Let's examine the fuller evidence from the Fathers and Doctors. First, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"But these Greek writers [who doubted Mary's sinlessness] cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition, when they express their private and singular opinions. Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin; she shows the greatest humility and patience in her daily life (Luke 1:38,48); she exhibits an heroic patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7,35,48; John 19:25-27). When there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted." (Catholic Encyclopedia [1913], on "Blessed Virgin Mary")
So it is acknowledged that some Fathers doubted Mary's sinlessness - but they are dismissed as private opinions.

However, regardless of who among them held to Mary's sinlessness, it should be remembered that even majority opinion is not proof of it being Biblical doctrine. The RCC makes the assertion that it is the deposit of apostolic truth, but that is to beg the question.

Protestantism points out that doctrines like Mary's Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc. are rather proof that the RCC long ago departed from the faith handed down by the apostles. Error was creeping into the Church even in the time of the apostles, and they had to constantly root it out. Paul reminded the Ephesian elders:
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

And Timothy:
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Paul also reminded the Thessalonians that the mystery of lawlessness was already at work:
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

It is no surprise then that grave distortions and plain fiction has been peddled even from the early days. But we have the Scriptures for our doctrine and the Holy Spirit to keep us from fatal error - so we all are without excuse if we give heed to such tales.