Mariology Answers

So as not to threadjack a topic in Traditional Catholicism, I am inviting dicussion and answering justasking4’s questions here.

Of course, just as I know you listened to the MP3 I linked earlier. You heard how a mother of a king was due special honors, graces, and favors, securing a special place in his court?

Here are two issues: 1)Mariology and the 2)Sola Scriptura. Regarding the latter: there no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it doesn’t contradict Scripture. 2Tim 3:16 doesn’t say that Scripture is the only source of revelation, everything Christ said and did is not recorded in Scripture (Jn 21:25), and Christian teaching is handed down in the oral tradition of the Church (2Thes 2:2).

As you wish:

First, let’s take the Angelic Salutation: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women” (Luke 1:28). Most Protestants would prefer to render the original Greek kecharitomene as “highly favoured” rather than “full of grace.” In fact, a strict translation of kecharitomene is “thou who hast been[/h] graced.” Of the two options, “full of grace” is a more clear and definite rendering of the angel’s words than “favor.” From here.

And from here: …here’s what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us “Kecharitomene” denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:

(kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6…The Vulgate *gratiae plena *[full of grace] "is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’ " (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p14)

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Eph1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced” (bestowed grace) [and] signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. 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 [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).

Both words, echaritosen and kecharitomene, come from the same root verb, charitoo, meaning “to [bestow] grace.” Echaritosen is an indicative active form, meaning “he graced” or “he bestowed grace,” and it is used in the first chapter of Ephesians:

…for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:6).

Kecharitomene, on the other hand, is a perfect passive participle of the same verb charitoo, so, despite the fact that it is often translated as, literally “[one who is] highly favored,” if the definition is adopted from the root verb, it can also mean “[one who is] endowed with grace.”

continued below]

Therefore, the Catholic Bible’s translation of the verse is not only acceptable, but also more precisely represents what the Greek denotes.

More on the original Greek, and interpretations by ancient experts of Greek from the 3rd century, can be found here: Kecharitomene: Full of Grace.

Now, to my second example is Mary’s Magnificat, or Canticle, which supports her Immaculate Conception by what is called “preservative redemption.” Just as John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15) Mary was sanctified at her conception.

Additionally, from here: “Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.”

Therefore, I do not see anything from Sacred Tradition that contradicts Sacred Scripture, since both make up the Deposit of Faith. As I used the methodology you suggested, I hope this brings you to a better understanding of what Catholics believe. There are plenty of resources here on catholic.com. I’m going to encourage you, in return, to look at this article: How to Defend the Immaculate Conception

I think I’ve gone on enough for tonight, but would like to get more into the Magnificat and “preservative redemption” at another time. Please feel free to reply with any more questions. Or, look at / listen to the links I’ve provided already. :wave:

Miserissima;2667058]So as not to threadjack a topic in Traditional Catholicism, I am inviting dicussion and answering justasking4’s questions here.

Of course, just as I know you listened to the MP3 I linked earlier.

I haven’t listened yet.

You heard how a mother of a king was due special honors, graces, and favors, securing a special place in his court?

If you want to apply this to Jesus, then looks at the gospels. Is Jesus presented in the gospels as a king holding court?

[quote]Here are two issues: 1)Mariology and the 2)Sola Scriptura. Regarding the latter: there no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it doesn’t contradict Scripture.

They can define doctrines as long they want. The issue is: are those doctrines grounded in the scriptures? Mary’s assumption is one such doctrine since it is never recorded.

2Tim 3:16 doesn’t say that Scripture is the only source of revelation,

If the Scripture is not the only source of revelation, then what else is?
Are the Sacred Traditions of the catholic church considered inspired-inerrant Word of God also?

everything Christ said and did is not recorded in Scripture (Jn 21:25),

True. But how does this help you in regards to the marian doctrines for example?

and Christian teaching is handed down in the oral tradition of the Church (2Thes 2:2).

If you look at the context for this verse you will see that Paul is speaking of his traditions and not the traditions of the entire church.

As you wish:

First, let’s take the Angelic Salutation: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women” (Luke 1:28). Most Protestants would prefer to render the original Greek kecharitomene as “highly favoured” rather than “full of grace.” In fact, a strict translation of kecharitomene is “thou who hast been[/h] graced.” Of the two options, “full of grace” is a more clear and definite rendering of the angel’s words than “favor.” From here

.

And from here: …here’s what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us “Kecharitomene” denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:

(kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6…The Vulgate *gratiae plena *[full of grace] "is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’ " (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p14)

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Eph1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced” (bestowed grace) [and] signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. 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 [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).

Both words, echaritosen and kecharitomene, come from the same root verb, charitoo, meaning “to [bestow] grace.” Echaritosen is an indicative active form, meaning “he graced” or “he bestowed grace,” and it is used in the first chapter of Ephesians:

…for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:6).

Kecharitomene, on the other hand, is a perfect passive participle of the same verb charitoo, so, despite the fact that it is often translated as, literally “[one who is] highly favored,” if the definition is adopted from the root verb, it can also mean “[one who is] endowed with grace.”

continued below]
[/quote]

Miserissima;2667066]Therefore, the Catholic Bible’s translation of the verse is not only acceptable, but also more precisely represents what the Greek denotes.

More on the original Greek, and interpretations by ancient experts of Greek from the 3rd century, can be found here: Kecharitomene: Full of Grace.

Now, to my second example is Mary’s Magnificat, or Canticle, which supports her Immaculate Conception by what is called “preservative redemption.” Just as John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15) Mary was sanctified at her conception.

Think about what you are claiming here. If John was sanctiifed from the womb before birth just as Mary was to as you claim, then we can also say that John to had an immaculate conception also and the same grounds. Do you believe this also?

Additionally, from here: “Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.”

Where in scripture do we see Jesus honoring her with some kind of unique glory?

Therefore, I do not see anything from Sacred Tradition that contradicts Sacred Scripture, since both make up the Deposit of Faith.

There is a contradiction her in regards to Mary being without sin. Romans 3:9-10 and 5:12 teaches that all men are sinners. See also Revelations 15:4 where says only God alone is holy.

As I used the methodology you suggested, I hope this brings you to a better understanding of what Catholics believe. There are plenty of resources here on catholic.com. I’m going to encourage you, in return, to look at this article: How to Defend the Immaculate Conception

I think I’ve gone on enough for tonight, but would like to get more into the Magnificat and “preservative redemption” at another time. Please feel free to reply with any more questions. Or, look at / listen to the links I’ve provided already. :wave:

Scripture is a product of Sacred Tradition so the question is bizarre to me.

For the definition of Sacred Tradition, check here.

Here’s an excerpt:
The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith: by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority. Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere.

And at the end of the day, the Sacred Tradition of Mary’s Assumption more greatly reveals one of the meanings behind the woman in heaven in Revelation 11 & 12.

[Transferred from Traditional Catholicism forum by Moderator]

[quote=guanophore]Mary, as a creature, can do nothing without Christ. All she is, and all she does, depends only upon what the Lord allows her to do. If Jesus decides to put the Church under her patronage, that is His choice.

I am not familiar with the context or accuracy of this quote, but I do know what scripture teaches us, that Jesus was obedient to HIs mother, and that when she asked Him for something, He did it for her. She is the eternal example of “do as He tells you”. Therefore, there would be no distinction between what Mary would want, and what Jesus would want. She is united to Christ by faith and by blood.
[/quote]

[Transferred from Traditional Catholicism forum by Moderator]

Because all that happened wasn’t written down. There has to be an oral tradition, because it’s writting that there IS an oral tradition.

I am afraid you are taking that whole passage out of context. Let me help you to explore this a little further: “When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition! (from here)

No. John wasn’t Jesus. Elizabeth wasn’t Mary. There’s no parallel here. However, we can draw a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant.

“In John’s revelation the ark is replaced by a woman who gives birth to the male child, who apparently is Jesus (based, among other things, on Rev 12:5, “one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron”, which corresponds closely with the messianic implications of Psalm 2:7-9). This means the woman is Mary (it is important to note though that this is a “polyvalent” passage, with the woman being symbolic of not only Mary, but also of the Church, and of Israel). Since the ark is seen in God’s temple in heaven, and since Mary’s physical body is the New Testament ark, Mary is physically in heaven (not just her spirit, cf Heb 12:23). (from here )

Being in her womb. Honestly, there could be no greater honor, could there? I mean, Catholics carry Christ sacrificially within themselves during the Eucharist. How much more of an honor to carry Him physically within you? This goes back to my point about Mary being the Ark of the Covenant.

The notion that God is the only being without sin is quite false–and even Protestants think so. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were free from sin, and they weren’t gods…[o]ne must remember that Mary was not the first immaculate human being, even if she was the first to be conceived immaculately. (here)

Paul’s statements in Romans chapters 3 and 5 (no one is righteous; no one seeks God; no one does good; all have sinned) should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense–if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Paul’s statement that “all have sinned.” Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn’t mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.

If certain groups are exempt from the “all have sinned” rubric, then these verses can’t be used to argue against Mary’s Immaculate Conception, since hers would be an exceptional case too, one not needing mention given the purpose of Paul’s discussion and his intended audience.

Part 1

Miserissima;2679618]Because all that happened wasn’t written down. There has to be an oral tradition, because it’s writting that there IS an oral tradition.

I agree. However the oral teachings don’t help us since we don’t know what they were exactly.

I am afraid you are taking that whole passage out of context. Let me help you to explore this a little further: “When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

What exactly was the apostolic tradition that Paul was referring to here? Was he referring also to Mary’s assumption, queen of heaven etc?

(from here)

Part 2

No. John wasn’t Jesus. Elizabeth wasn’t Mary. There’s no parallel here. However, we can draw a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant.

I certainly can make a parallel if you can. John was first born, Jesus was first born. Mary was a mother, Elizabeth was a mother.
Are there any authors in the NT that refer to Mary as being the ark?

“In John’s revelation the ark is replaced by a woman who gives birth to the male child, who apparently is Jesus (based, among other things, on Rev 12:5, “one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron”, which corresponds closely with the messianic implications of Psalm 2:7-9). This means the woman is Mary (it is important to note though that this is a “polyvalent” passage, with the woman being symbolic of not only Mary, but also of the Church, and of Israel). Since the ark is seen in God’s temple in heaven, and since Mary’s physical body is the New Testament ark, Mary is physically in heaven (not just her spirit, cf Heb 12:23). (from here )

The problem with this kind of thing is that there is no limit to what a person can draw. What you really want to look at to see if what you are claiming is true is to look at what the writers of scripture actually say about Mary. Do any of them say anything about her being some kind of ark type? Do any say that the ark was some kind womb?

Being in her womb. Honestly, there could be no greater honor, could there? I mean, Catholics carry Christ sacrificially within themselves during the Eucharist. How much more of an honor to carry Him physically within you? This goes back to my point about Mary being the Ark of the Covenant.

With this kind of reasoning anyone who receives Christ is also an ark type to.

The notion that God is the only being without sin is quite false–and even Protestants think so. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were free from sin, and they weren’t gods…

You are right. However Adam and Eve were speical creations directly by God Himself. All humans after them have to come through them. From Adam all men inherit the sin nature. See Romans 5:12

one must remember that Mary was not the first immaculate human being, even if she was the first to be conceived immaculately. (here)

There is absolutely no proof for this assertion. The scriptures never present Mary without sin.

Paul’s statements in Romans chapters 3 and 5 (no one is righteous; no one seeks God; no one does good; all have sinned) should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense–if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Paul’s statement that “all have sinned.” Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn’t mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.

All of the “exceptions” would also be sinners because all humans inherit the sin nature from Adam.

If certain groups are exempt from the “all have sinned” rubric,

This is a false premise. None are exempt.

then these verses can’t be used to argue against Mary’s Immaculate Conception, since hers would be an exceptional case too, one not needing mention given the purpose of Paul’s discussion and his intended audience.

If Mary was exempt the scriptures would have to tell us this. In fact Mary herself acknowledges her need for a savior in Luke 1:47.

That might be true if Scripture was intended as the sole rule of faith.

Even so, Scripture does tells us this in Luke 1:28.

Why can they ‘define doctrines as long as they want’ if you don’t agree with the fact that the Catholic church doesn’t hold to Sola Scriptura?

This is not a measuring stick we use, so how can you use it to measure us? Use that measuring stick to measure someone that holds true to Sola Scripture (as much as one can)

If I’m playing Soccer, why are you trying to get me to explain my actions as defined in baseball rules? Hold those rules to baseball players.

And since YOU seem to be so Sola Scripture… wanna explain to me why you don’t go to confession (that is, assuming that you don’t go to confession)

You hold to Sola Scriptura… that tells me that you believe that it MUST be in The Book. If it is not in The Book, it doesn’t count. Right?

So, here’s that same old question off the shelf once again: where in scripture does it tell YOU that everything must be in scripture? If you are going to use Sola Scriptura, shouldn’t your Scriptures tell you to be Sola Scriptura? If not, WHY NOT?

MarcoPolo;2681489]That might be true if Scripture was intended as the sole rule of faith.

What other rules of faith are there that are inspired-inerrant?

Even so, Scripture does tells us this in Luke 1:28.

Luke 1:28 has nothing to do with being sinless.

Upthread is the context and language of Luke 1:28 at the beginning of this post – by your request – and yet you discount it. Your request, your methodology. Both cultural context and word meanings are included. Luke 1 has everything to do with being sinless, for all the reasons I have already cited.

Like that abortion is murder, for instance. You can’t find that addressed in the Bible, but the Church has declared it infallibly.

Well, what can really be said here besides, sure it does. And now both I and Miserissima have explained this to you in detail. For you to just say “no” is kind of…I don’t know…vacant.

MarcoPolo? You see what I see?

Yes!

And to justasking…do you follow the meaning behind the Greek text identifying Mary as having been full of grace in both directions of time…i.e. all the way back to her conception, and forward forever. If you don’t see it, well then I guess you don’t! :shrug:

Whatever label you want to use, at least you understand that concepts can be drawn from Scripture that aren’t explicit with a casual reading. That’s the first step toward understanding Mary! :thumbsup:

If I might add briefly, other Scripture that reinforces Mary’s sinlessness is her identification as the new Ark of the Covenant (described at the end of this article for those unfamiliar…this article also talks about her sinlessness foreshadowed in Genesis.)

And we know from Exodus 25 how perfect and precise was God’s instruction to Moses in building the Ark…and we know New Testament typology is the superior version of the Old Testament parallel (Heb 8:6-7, 2 Cor 3:11…et al.)…the Ark was described as ornate and golden and precise and Godly designed, and Mary is even more perfect than that!!

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.