Discussing Mary


#1

Catholic position and objections towards Mary discussed here.


#2

I sure have and I am very willing to accept what the scholars have to say about it.

So - where do you say this reasoning (in the article) “falls way short”?


#3

How about this quote from the article…
" …Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.
Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7,9; 3:6,9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin…
The problem is his application of grace in regards to Mary being sinless. Grace never means to be without sin or devoid of it. In the context of Luke 1:28 it means – To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem.
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary .

The other problem with his reasoning is the context. The angel is giving Mary a greeting with the meaning that she is highly favored to bring Christ into the world. There is no implication of her being without sin all her life.

Further problems with this is that Mary herself acknowledges her need for a Savior. Neither Jesus or any the apostles claim she was sinless.
These are just some of the problems with so many aspects of the marian doctrines.

"


#4

Hm… ok I accept the context and other relevant passages in the Scripture. One of the basic priciples of exegesis is to explain Scripture with Scripture. I suggest then to look then at some passages from the OT mentioning the ark, tabernacle and the temple. By analyzing similarities one can see how the Immaculate Conception is altogether keeping with the typologogy within the Bible:

The temple was sacred an holy(1 Chron 29:3; Isa 11:9; 56:7; 64:10) as its various rooms and areas and all its sacred objects (Ezek 42:13;46:19; Isa 62:9) and the city of Jerusalem itself (Neh 11:1,18; Isa 48:2). The ground of the Mt. Sinai was holy due to God’s peculiar presence (Ex 3:5) and God’s presence in the Israelites camp rendered it holy (Deut 23:14)

The presence of God always imparted holiness (Deut 7:6; 26:19; Jer 2:3) Even God’s “holy name” was thought by the Jews to constitute hi actual presence with them (Lev 20:3, 22:2; 1 Chron 16:10). Angels were called “holy ones” precisely because of their proximity to God (Job 5:1; Ps 89:6-7)

The furnishings of the tabernacle, a portable sacred tent then prefigured and preceeded the temple, were not to be touched by the Levites (or anyone else, save for a selected priests), on pain of death (Num 1:51-53; 2:17; 4:15). Likewise, the ark, which was carried on poles inserted through rings on its edges, was so holy that it could not be touched.

On one occasion, the ark was about to fall over when being transported, and one Uzziah (who wanted nothing more than to prevent it from falling) reached out to steady it and was struck dead (2 Sam 6,6-7). The men of Bet-Shemesh also died when they merely looked inside the ark (1 Sam 6:19; Ex 33:20).

I could go on. Scholars say Luke intentionally depicted Mary as the ark for God’s dwelling by making parallels with David’s carrying the ark into Jerusalem. Look at THIS chart.

Now tell me - can it be reasonably argued that Mary had to be the most sacred place on earth where God would dwell for the 9 months while he was in the womb? Can a holy Holy place contain something that is unholy? Isn’t this Scriptural evidence enough for making a reasonable conclusion it all points to this?


#5

Number of issues with this:
1- do any of the OT writers ever refer to the mother of the messiah as some kind of ark?

2- In the OT, is any human being ever referred to as a type of ark?

3- Since the ark was sacred and as you bring up the case of Uzziah touching the ark irrevenantly, would you apply the same thing to Mary in regards to those who may have mistreated her? Would they to be struck dead?

4- Since you claim Mary had to be sinless so Jesus would not be “contaminated” by sin, it would follow that her parents would also have to be sinless. Are you willing to believe that also?

5 Are you aware that even Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the immaculate conception?


#6

The other problem with his reasoning is the context. The angel is giving Mary a greeting with the meaning that she is highly favored to bring Christ into the world. **There is no implication of her being without sin all her life. **

When Gabriel appears to Mary, the first words he says to her are “Chaire, kecharitomene!” Caire, kecaritomene!]. Chaire (which means both “rejoice” and “hail”) is the salutation, like the word “hello” in “hello, Cathy!” The word that follows, kecharitomene, is the direct address. In the previous example, the name “Cathy” is the direct address. A direct address is usually a name or title (or pronoun taking the place of a name or title) which represents the identity of the person being spoken to. Gabriel identifies Mary with a single term: not the name “Mary,” but the word kecharitomene.
Here, a common translation problem occurs. Gabriel only uses one word to refer to Mary, but most English translations do not. One particularly bad translation renders kecharitomene as “highly favored daughter.” Kecharitomene is extended from one word to three. The direct address in the translation is “daughter,” a word which does not appear in the Greek at all (as will be shown below). “Daughter” is then modified with a relevant word. This doesn’t really do kecharitomene justice. The same is true of translations which make the direct address “you” or “one” and modify it with adjectives or appositive phrases.

caritow

The root word is charitoo caritow], which means “to grace, favor.” On this much, it seems, all agree. All the common English translations of the word therefore, regardless of whether the translators are Catholic or Protestant, use some form of “grace” or “favor” in them.

ke

The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense. This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action. The action which brought about the state in which Mary is, in other words, was completed before Gabriel’s greeting. Gabriel is viewing the finished results.

This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be “you are certified to teach.” “Are” indicates a present state, “certified” shows that the state is the result of a completed past action.

mene

The suffix on charitoo, mene, makes this a passive participle. “Passive” means that the action is performed on the subject, in this case Mary, by another agent. The verb is “grace” and the implied subject is Mary. The passive usage means that “someone graced Mary,” rather than “Mary graced.” Most theologians would probably accept the assumption that the implied “someone” is God. “Participle,” in this case, means that the word has properties of both a verb and a noun. This makes sense in light of what has already been said about direct address. A direct address is a noun or pronoun, but “to grace” is a verb. Kecharitomene has verb and noun properties.


#7

**1. **So? Is the Messiah refered to as existing in hypostatic unity? Is the Holy Spirit mentioned there as a part of the Trinity? Is the Trinity mentioned in the OT at all? Do these argument negate what was a later Christian developement?

2. I don’t think so. So? Was Yahweh in the OT presented as the Trinity?

3. If God didn’t want it that way, why should it be so? I just see no reason… Want Scripture support? Think of this:

A. Why weren’t the Phillistines also struck dead after stealing the ark?

B. Were Adam and Eve in still-sinless state struck dead when they were having their first marital embrace/first touched each other/etc. ?

**4.**If Mary was God, I agree, that would be very probable. However they do not typologically represent the ark. Her parents did not included the typologically related “contents” of Mary’s womb

A… God’s word on on stone tablets --> Living God’s word in Mary
B. Manna --> The Real Living Bread in Mary
C. Aaron’s rod signifying Levitic priesthood --> The most high priest abiding in Mary

The Greek word for owershadow (episkiasei) is in the Septuagint found only with reference to God’s Shekinah overshadowing the ark. This is only mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels with the reference to Mary. I could use your argument and say “Does the Bible mention Mary’s parents being overshadowed, having the typologically parallel contents as the ark? Were they called “kecharitomene” and will every generation call them blessed?” No. THere’s nothing like that in the Scripture.

5. Are you familiar with the contrary evidence? (HERE)

So, if you mention Aquinas, would you accept everything what Aquinas taught as the Doctor of the Church?


#8

I call off my example with Adam and Eve. That was not an appropriate one.


#9

i had to copy and paste your comments here.
Re: Discussing Mary


Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Number of issues with this:
1- do any of the OT writers ever refer to the mother of the messiah as some kind of ark?

2- In the OT, is any human being ever referred to as a type of ark?

3- Since the ark was sacred and as you bring up the case of Uzziah touching the ark irrevenantly, would you apply the same thing to Mary in regards to those who may have mistreated her? Would they to be struck dead?

4- Since you claim Mary had to be sinless so Jesus would not be “contaminated” by sin, it would follow that her parents would also have to be sinless. Are you willing to believe that also?

5 Are you aware that even Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the immaculate conception?

  1. So? Is the Messiah refered to as existing in hypostatic unity? Is the Holy Spirit mentioned there as a part of the Trinity? Is the Trinity mentioned in the OT at all? Do these argument negate what was a later Christian developement?

This doesn’t answer my question. Its either yes or no. What do you say?

  1. I don’t think so. So? Was Yahweh in the OT presented as the Trinity?

So we agree there are no refences in scripture that a human is ever referred to as a type of ark?

  1. If God didn’t want it that way, why should it be so?

If you want to argue that Mary is some kind of ark then you have to incorporate these elements in also.

I just see no reason… Want Scripture support? Think of this:
A. Why weren’t the Phillistines also struck dead after stealing the ark?

I forgot about this. When the Phillistines had the ark they got very sick and wanted to get rid of it.

B. Were Adam and Eve in still-sinless state struck dead when they were having their first marital embrace/first touched each other/etc. ?

What does this have to do with Mary being sinless? Can you clarify?

4.If Mary was God, I agree, that would be very probable. However they do not typologically represent the ark. Her parents did not included the typologically related “contents” of Mary’s womb

This is another indicator how off this is in making some of the claims about Mary being sinless. If Mary had to be sinless she also would be in danger of being contaminated by her parents as Jesus would be if Mary was a sinner.

A… God’s word on on stone tablets --> Living God’s word in Mary
B. Manna --> The Real Living Bread in Mary
C. Aaron’s rod signifying Levitic priesthood --> The most high priest abiding in Mary

Since the NT are the only records we have on the life of Mary, where do they refer to her in any way like this?

The Greek word for owershadow (episkiasei) is in the Septuagint found only with reference to God’s Shekinah overshadowing the ark. This is only mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels with the reference to Mary. I could use your argument and say “Does the Bible mention Mary’s parents being overshadowed, having the typologically parallel contents as the ark? Were they called “kecharitomene” and will every generation call them blessed?” No. THere’s nothing like that in the Scripture.

I agree. However, the scriptures saying she is blessed because the Father used her as a channel to bring the Son into the world is a truly blessed thing. No doubt because of this she is blessed. What does not follow from this nor do the scriptures teach it, is that she is sinless, assumed into heaven, or queen of heaven.

  1. Are you familiar with the contrary evidence? (HERE)

Evidently there is some contraversy. Is it not also true that other fathers thought she had sinned?

So, if you mention Aquinas, would you accept everything what Aquinas taught as the Doctor of the Church?

No. No man is inflalible. There was only One Who this could be said of. All men are capable to erring. This is primarily why we should never accept any church’ claim that they can never err.


#10

Does this last statement of yours meet its own criteria? Is it possible then it is also wrong since you claim it and at the same time say “no man is infallible”? Perhaps certain claim yours are wrong then… And no offence, really, but tell me - why should I trust your conlcusions more than Aquinas’?


#11

zemi;2572852]Does this last statement of yours meet its own criteria? Is it possible then it is also wrong since you claim it and at the same time say “no man is infallible”?

Even though men are fallen and can err does not mean they always do. The reason Jesus was infallible is because He was God in the flesh and as such cannot err.

Perhaps certain claim yours are wrong then… And no offence, really, but tell me - why should I trust your conlcusions more than Aquinas’?

Since all men are capable of error, then to trust them unreservedly is foolishness. If any man makes a spiritual claim, hold them to the teachings of the scriptures. It is the scripture alone that is inspired-inerrant. With this standard, you can compare what any man claims with them. If they don’t line up with the scriptures, then it is to be rejected or is but a mere opinion.


#12

I just wanted to point out that your statement has to meet it’s own criteria. If not it would be a contradition.

  1. You seriously think Aquinas didn’t know the Scripture? I mean do you doubt what he taught? Do you take from him oly what is compatible with your beliefs?

  2. Hmm, I asked you before how can you know the Council of Nicaea (325) was right. You said because it was compatible with the Scripture. So - with what Scripture it was compatible in 325?


#13

zemi;2572905]I just wanted to point out that your statement has to meet it’s own criteria. If not it would be a contradition.

  1. You seriously think Aquinas didn’t know the Scripture? I mean do you doubt what he taught? Do you take from him oly what is compatible with your beliefs?

I don’t know what he believed that much. If he believed in the marian doctrines as taught by the catholic church today he would be in error. Not because its not compatible with my beliefs but its not in harmony with what the scriptures teach?

  1. Hmm, I asked you before how can you know the Council of Nicaea (325) was right. You said because it was compatible with the Scripture. So - with what Scripture it was compatible in 325?

Can you be more specific? What claims of Nicaea are you referring to?


#14

The Perfect God Jesus never united His perfect Humanity with what they think was the sin infested depraved humanity of Mary!

All Protestants that maintain He did Blaspheme Jesus!


#15

Jerry-Jet;2576015]The Perfect God Jesus never united His perfect Humanity with what they think was the sin infested depraved humanity of Mary!

Was Mary a daughter of Eve? Was she a human being?

Do you writers of the NT ever claim she was without sin?

All Protestants that maintain He did Blaspheme Jesus!

How so? No where in the gospels does Jesus ever say she was without sin.


#16

Do you think Mary was ever virgin i.e. perpetual virgin?


#17

Not only my ego thinks that:

Everything he wrote was securely based upon Holy Scripture and that was the foundation upon which he built. For as he was convinced that Scripture was entirely and in every particular the true word of God, he carefully submitted the interpretation of it to those very rules which Our recent Predecessors have sanctioned, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus and Benedict XV in his Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus.

Pius XI, STUDIORUM DUCEM (On St. Thomas Aquinas) XXII

I know that from the logical standpoint this doesn’t diminish your argument at all but to me it’s like you saying “Einstein is wrong because though he was really brilliant, his equasions doesn’t match with my interpretations of the reality (i.e. the facts). Nor are important all the scientists that preceded him as we have to compare what they come up with with my interpretations.”

That would be at least silly, wouldn’t it? But, justasking you have to realize you are not claiming that “facts show that you Catholics are wrong on many issues”. This has nothing to do with the facts. It’s only your interpretation of them. It’s on the basis of your interpretation of the biblical verses you’re claiming the Catholics didn’t get it right.

I am pretty confident you don’t agre with even things Luther&Co. believed. Is it after all possible that you have found the true interpretation after those long centuries? Why this is not only your claim but there are 33,000+ denomination that claim the same? They claim they are led by the Holy Spirit and it is THEM that have the truth. So my question is - how come this is possible?!

Nicaea taken as a whole - Nicaean creed + its 20 canons. Where did they take their authority from?


#18

If the question is for me - yes, I do.


#19

I am not aware of that. So?

Let me make this clear. Are you saying that Mary couldn’t have been the ark because one of the reasons is that she would have to contaminate people around her/kill them?

I called this example off in my previous post

But not if God decided otherwise. Let me clear this a bit - Catholics do not claim Mary MUST(!) have been sinless. God could do it either way. The Catholic position is that is would certainly be most appropriate for Mary to be created without the stain of sin. I think you would claim this also, but you would add that this does not mean it was actually so. Right?

Sharing your interpretations of the Scripture, I would also agree :wink:

Those are the only canonical things we have. Then we have (count is as a historical evidence) the Protoevangelium of James, Assumption of Isaiah, Papyrus 470 (the Theotokos prayer) and Transitus accounts. This is for the early accounts. Of the last we even texts in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic (Egyptian), and Arabic, there would seem to be little doubt that the belief in Assumption and veneration towards Mary was a “late” developementwas. It shows it was a catholic (i.e. universal) belief among early Christians.

And yes…almost forgot… most importantly we have the Sacred Tradition which is complety scriptural but you deny it.


#20

So you pick the alleged (!) claim from Aquinas that he taught the contrary of Immaculate Conception… but leave the rest of his 100% Catholic teaching not looked into…

You accept from Luther the “solas”… yet you still pick and choose. Do you believe what he believed about Mary? I think you don’t because even he didn’t get to the full truth yet, right?

And yes… along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):


Just a few quotes from **Luther **about Mary:

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

(Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)

He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

(Ibid.)

God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary’s Son, and that Mary is God’s mother . . . She is the true mother of God and bearer of God . . . Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs . . . just as your son is not two sons . . . even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone.

(On the Councils and the Church, 1539)

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.

(Sermon, September 1, 1522)

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. <— !!!

(Sermon, Christmas, 1531)

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.

(Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537)

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.

(Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother.

(Sermon, Christmas, 1529)

Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!” You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her . . . He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary.

(Personal Prayer Book, 1522)


What is your comment on that? :slight_smile:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.