Protestants: When and how long was Mary "full of Grace"?

#21

No division. This is from the Catechism.

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135
0 Likes

#22

So the following translations; NAB, ‘O highly favored daughter’; JB, ‘So highly favored’ agree with the ‘full of grace’ Catechism idea?

No division???

.

0 Likes

#23

I gave you the Catechism on what Catholics believe. You were given an explanation which you may have failed to read by Axion. There is no division. Luckily we are not going to run off and form some protestant religion number 40,000 based on that. I keep praying for you! :slight_smile:

0 Likes

#24

Axion, Hi
I agree with you on the ‘grace’ -vs- ‘favor’ bit on your post
but,

πλήρης χάριτος (John 1:14, Acts 6:8)
why to translate the same - ‘full of grace’ - as
κεχαριτωμένη ??

it almost tends to imply that
πλήρης χάριτος = κεχαριτωμένη
I would understand if English here was limited as the Latin is

the shift of the rhm’s translation
from 'having-been-highly-graced’
to ‘full-of-grace’ (‘made-full-of-grace’)
I dunno, seems like a fine line to me…thanks
H

0 Likes

#25

Lampo;3876191]Okay…are you trying to say that someone that is 100% full of grace can at the same time have sin?

St. Paul goes further in Rom 6:14 when he says in Rom. 6:14.
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace. So while Grace is a free gift as acknowledged by all Catholic and Protestants alike and is a virtue of blessings, Paul links Grace and sin as antithetical. In other words they are diametrically opposite. Hence to be full of Grace means to have no sin or be sinless since that person [Mary] has all of God’s blessings.

Hi Lampo
One again when we use certain words we need to look at the meaning of those words. In your Scripture reference above it says that “sin shall not have dominion”. Dominion means to have control of or to rule over one. I have never nor have I seen anyone say that Mary was ruled by sin. I believe that Mary was and is the most Godly woman to live. What an honor to be chosen to carry our Lord. I also believe that Mary sinned at least once. It took a perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world and Christ is the only perfect one to do that.

0 Likes

#26

I’ve heard that argument a lot, but it doesn’t make sense to me. I keep wondering, if that is a good analogy, then why didn’t people who touched Jesus die? If he bumped into another child while playing, did that child die? Did Joseph (who was with sin) die when he touched him? Obviously, I think the answer is no. I believe that maybe it’s becuase Jesus was both God AND man, just as he was within Mary’s womb. I don’t think Mary needed to be without sin for him to be inside her…just as others didn’t need to be without sin to be close to him outside the womb.

0 Likes

#27

I have never heard that before, and it gives me something to think about, for sure. However, that would simply be an educated guess as scripture never tells us that. Also, I look back on scripture and seem to remember God asking others to make important decisions and they certainly weren’t sinless.

0 Likes

#28

Yes they do agree. first of all the word for daughter is never used.and secondly, to say that highly favored one means that mary was not sinless, is yet another strange assumption.as long as you understand the context of the angels salution to mary, the translation " highly favored" does not suggest she is just another sinner.but actually puts her above all other women. and when you take into consideration the old testament types as well as early Church tradition, it makes it all the more clear. Jesus is described by Paul as the new adam. and we view Mary as the new eve. through one we recieved the state of original sin, and through the other “Mary” we recieve eternal salvation " Jesus" . also Mary’s womb is likened to the Arc of the covenant. the original arc carried the word of God, the staff, and the manna or bread from heaven , Jesus is the word of God. and the everlasting High Preist, and the true bread from Heaven. which was carried in the womb of our most Holy Mother. also the Arc was never found , although some claim to have it. there is no proof of its wearabouts. just the same with Mary, we have no evidence of her remains. the Catholic Church is known for relics. and few if any would be more revered than the remains of Mary. but there are none and have never been. which supports our belief in her being assumed into heaven.

0 Likes

#29

Should Catholics transalte charis and it’s derivitives as grace or favour?
Or should we throw all consistency out the window?
Is it correct to say that we are justified by favour???

multilingualbible.com/romans/3-24.htm

NASB
being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4

δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ **χάριτι **(chariti) διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ•

Latin: Biblia Sacra
iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius per redemptionem quae est in Christo Iesu

multilingualbible.com/luke/1-28.htm

NASB
And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4
καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν• χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, (Kecharitomene) ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.

Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata
et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

The word in 1:28 of Luke shows the perfection of grace to Mary from God is in the past, yet still present (angels visit) and still present in the future (lasting). The grace of Stephen is not permenant like Mary and Christ is of course the author of grace.

Full of grace is not a 100% correct translation but it illustrates the end result of the word far better than any translation with favour. Some Greek words don’t easily translate into one simple English word.

If Mary is full of grace and we are justified (freed from sin) by grace, how could she have sinned?

Did Mary deserve this honour?
Could God have made it so?


As for the JB and NAB doing highly favoured, it does not show any rift. The Vatican doesn’t tell translators how to translate every word.

The Catechism, The Douay Rheims (compared to the Greek), the Christian Community Bible, the the leading Catholic Bibles in Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, Portugese etc all transalte full of grace.

Even the Protestant Amplified Bible at least reads “…favourd one endued with grace] the Lord is with you…for you have found grace with God…”

I even believe the ancient Aramaic says full of grace???

0 Likes

#30

The translation issue does show why Catholics should trust Vulgate derived bibles over non vulgate bibles.

Trent declared that the Vulgate was free from error on doctrine and faith and morals.

See how you can have problems when you depart from the Vulgate?

Of course Catholic doctrine does not depend on any particular translation of the bible–but on the other hand since it does derive from the holy scrpitures as well as from sacred tradition and the teaching of the magisterium let me ask this:

If a Catholic would not support Catholic Tradition being wrong or the teaching of the Catholic magisterium being wrong–why would they countenance ERROR in the translation of holy scripture?

And as this clearly shows it is quite possible for a non-Catholic Protestanst to come to ERROR filled views of doctrine by reading Catholic non–Vulgate translations of the bible that do contain error in doctrine!

Do you know how much “Full of grace” is?

It’s so compete that God could not give Mary anymore grace!

How could anyone think that any person filled with that much grace from God would yield to Satan and still sin?

Wouldn’t that make Satan more powerful than God–I mean if you can be completely filled with grace and still sin–who is more powerful–God or Satan?

Of course this line of thinking is untrue–“Fullness of grace” from God is strong enough to defeat Satan!

Adam and Eve were created by God with sanctifying grace and fell to sin–but Mary was given MORE than sancitfying grace–she was given “Fullness of Grace”!

Protestants knnew the significance of this verse and changed it accordingly–and liberal Catholics who wrote the NAB and the Jerusalem bible and sometimes are filled with Pseduo ecumenical sensibilities to our separated Protestant bretheren also CHOSE to translate different than the Vulgate.

I’ll say something that many here may not like but I’ll say it anyway–any bible that does not say “fullness of grace” in reference to Mary is in error.

And the minute that Catholics stop using error filled translations of the bible might be the very minute that they can convert confused Protestants!

0 Likes

#31

Seems to me an honest translator would acknowledge that it’s the same Greek word each time–chariti, charito–and translate it accordingly. When it is not translated accordingly, Protestant bias is obvious. Thanks, Canto, for the great link to that multilingual bible!


[quote=Canto]As for the JB and NAB doing highly favoured, it does not show any rift. The Vatican doesn’t tell translators how to translate every word.

The Catechism, The Douay Rheims (compared to the Greek), the Christian Community Bible, the the leading Catholic Bibles in Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, Portugese etc all transalte full of grace.
[/quote]

Catholic should non Douay Rheims translations with discretion, deferring to the DR when there is dispute, it seems.

0 Likes

#32

To reinforce your point, in John 1, it says that Jesus was “full of grace and truth”. The same Greek word for grace is used. So if Mary being “full of grace” means that she is a sinner who received favor from God, then John saying that Jesus was “full of grace” would mean that Jesus is a sinner who received favor from God.

0 Likes

#33

Can anyone explain to me why
κεχαριτωμένη
would translate the same - ‘full of grace’ - as
πλήρης χάριτος (John 1:14, Acts 6:8) ??

it almost tends to imply that
πλήρης χάριτος = κεχαριτωμένη

I would understand if the English language was limited, not being able to easily differentiate the two expressions (as is case with Latin) that the two expressions would end up with the same translation, but English’s range is not the problem.

Perhaps (???) translators looking at the translation issue **first **from the point of view of πλήρης χάριτος - 2 rhms, ‘full’ & ‘of-grace’ - then relating to the single rhm κεχαριτωμένη would see a need for these two expressions to be translated differently, even if slightly, and having the English tools to do so would render the ‘present perfect passive’ κεχαριτωμένη as "having been highly graced’.

Does this make sense??

0 Likes

#34

I did not write that the same phrase but the same Greek word for grace was used - χάρις which transliterates in English to be “charis”. From this word, we have the word “charismatic” or “charismata”, which means grace gifts (see 1 Cor 12). From here, you can see undeserved favor of God for grace does not fit well. The gifts of the Holy Spirit has more to do with the power of God than with God’s undeserved favor.

The reason it is a perfect passive participle for Mary is that it is refering to a past event when Mary had received God’s grace, which we Catholics say happened when Mary was conceived. Jesus was always full grace, even when He was in the bosom of the Father. So if the perfect participle was used for Jesus, that would mean that there was a time in the past when He either did not have grace or He did not exist. Both would be heresy, so the perfect passive partiple was used for Jesus.

0 Likes

#35

guys, this is great, but for us non-Greeks, can’t we use the transliterations rather than the actual Greek, or at least not the Greek without the transliterations (Henning :slight_smile: )?

0 Likes

#36

Is this thread about how Greek is translated or is it about how long Mary was “full of grace” and how long, or if she ever was, sinless?

0 Likes

closed #37
0 Likes

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.