Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Clare73]

Here is another source. The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol., CXXXIX, No. 1, July 1958. c. What Did St. Luke Mean by Kecharitomene, by Eugene R. Cole. Pg 230-231Kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle (feminine) of charitoo, a late Hellenistic verb. Like other verbs ending in oo (such as thaumatoo, fill with wonder; spodoomai, burn to ashes; haimatoo, turn into blood ; karoo, plunge into deep sleep ; ommatoo, furnish with eyes ;’ it expresses the full intensity of an action. In this case the action—as any dictionary will reveal—is one of “favoring” or “gracing.” There is but one other instance of its use in the New Testament, in Eph. 1:6. The verse reads: eis epainon doxes tes charitos autou, hes echaritosen hemas en to egapemeno. Such a mode of expression is very emphatic and finds frequent parallels in St. Paul. A few examples are: “on account of His great love with which He has loved us,”(7) “of the calling with which you are called,”(8) “by means of the consolations with which we our-selves are consoled.”!° A possible translation of the Greek phrase above would be: “to the praise of the glory of His grace with which He has thoroughly graced us.”(11) In other words, God is shown to have completely exhausted His favor and grace upon mankind through the redemption of His beloved Son.

​

Divine favor is likewise expressed by charitoo in The Testament of The Twelve Patriarchs: “When I was in chains, the Savior showered His favor upon me and set me free (ho soter echaritose me en desmois, kai eluse me).”(12) Again, we read in Hermes the Pastor: “The Lord then seeing their simplicity and entire child- liness made them abound in the labors of their hands, and thor- oughly favored them in all their undertakings (ho oun kurios idon ten aploteta auton kai pasan nepioteta eplethunen autous en tois kopois ton cheiron auton kai echaritosen autous en pase praxei auton).”(13) In these instances of the verb the emphasis is upon the exhaustiveness of the action. Charitoo seems to have been the best expression of God’s ineffable beneficence to man.​

With these preliminary observations we may logically deduce a general meaning for the word kecharitomene. Its reference is obvi- ously to a woman who has been thoroughly favored or graced by God. Michael J. Gruenthaner, S.J., in his article “Mary in the New Testament,” sums up the grammatico-etymological signifi- cance of the word very nicely: “It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state.’’(14)​

Keeping in mind that the same word is used of those in Christ (Eph 1:6), "who are those who have been and still are the object of divine benevolence, ones who have been favored and continue to be favored by God in Christ, ones who have been granted supernatural grace (which all grace is) and remain in this state" (Jn 10:27-30).

This is perfectly true. For the perfect passive participle of every Greek verb conveys the notion of having received something in the past and of possessing it now in a stable fashion. Thus, it is distinguished from the present passive participle which emphasizes the reception of some action hic et nunc. Now, these and like considerations lie behind most of the translations of the word as found in versions of the Bible made during the last few centuries. Translators have felt that as long as they suggest some idea of God’s favor to Mary and her possession of that favor at the time of the Annunciation, and as long as they include a certain intensity of that action, their renderings must be deemed legitimate.15 And with nothing more than syntax and a dictionary to go by we would have to admit that kecharitomene might mean as little as “one who has been especially favored by her destiny to be Mother of Christ.” Yes, this would be a possible interpretation, and we could have no quarrel with Protestants where they keep to this minimum. However, we have the best possible assurance that the word means more than this. I refer to the assurance that the usage of kechari-tomenos affords us. For, after all, it is usage that reveals to us all those subtle overtones of a word—overtones that a cold grammatico- etymological analysis can never hope to capture. It is the “life” of a word that tells us most about it. We must therefore inquire into that life.​

​

7 Ommatomenos, the perf. pas. part. of this verb, was employed by the poets to describe the Argus as “all-eyes.”​

​

8 The New Testament, op. cit., Eph 2, 4. Ibid., 4, 1.​

​

10 [bid., 2 Cor 1, 4.​

​

11 The Peshitto has: “. . . grace which He has poured out (Sephah) upon us.”​

​

12 The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, PG, II, 1125.​

​

14 Michael J. Gruenthaner, S.J., “Mary in the New Testament,” Mariology, edited by Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M. (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1954), I, 85.​

​

15 Certain English translations, however, appear to be wholly uninfluenced by these considerations, e.g., the Revised Standard Version, the translations of James Moffat, J. B. Phillips, Edgar J. Goodspeed, etc., obstinately hold to “favored one.” The Authorized King James Version reads, more honestly, “highly favored one.”​

Source: The American Ecclesiastical Review 1958-10: Vol 139 Iss 4 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[JoeT]

-- Chromosomes do not "travel on their own" to the womb. Living matter is needed.

When the TWO living cells join into a single diploid cell - we have the aggregate form of DNA from two haploid living cells.

My point isn't a detailed description of the scientific discourse on human reproduction in which I simply use the metaphor 'spark' to explain the beginning of the cell division. I believe this process is called mitosis which was instigated by the Holy Spirit. Hence, the Holy Spirit didn't need intercourse to father Christ child so that He remains in every way human. The process must be in every way human else we can say Christ is an abnormality, which He is not.

JoeT

 

[Clare73]

God is all powerful, so there are no limitations to what God can do.

Agreed. . .but it is not about what God can do, it is about what Scripture reveals that God did do. And
1) Scripture does not teach that Mary was sinless.
2) Scripture does teach that all mankind was sinful (Ro 3:10, 23, 11:32, Gal 3:22, etc.), with Jesus being the only exception (Jn 8:46).
3) So this extra-Biblical notion regarding Mary is contra-Biblical and, therefore, in error.

Nor is this concept necessary to preserve the sinlessness of Christ.
For if Mary can be born sinless from a fallen-nature mother, Anne, then Jesus can likewise be born sinless from a fallen-nature mother, Mary.

 

[Valletta]

Agreed. . .but it is not about what God can do, it is about what Scripture reveals that God did do. And
1) Scripture does not teach that Mary was sinless.
2) Scripture does teach that all mankind was sinful (Ro 3:10, 23, 11:32, Gal 3:22, etc.), with Jesus being the only exception (Jn 8:46).
3) So this extra-Biblical notion is contra-Biblical and, therefore, in error.

Nor is it necessary to preserve the sinlessness of Christ.
For if Mary can be born sinless from a fallen-nature mother, then Jesus can likewise be born sinless from a fallen-nature mother.

I've just gone through some Holy Scripture that points to Mary being sinless. There is Scripture too that points to three Persons in the Godhead, although it may not spell it out to one's satisfaction. But let's look at your Biblical passages. Romans 3:10. Romans 3:10 says that "none are righteous." Let me say first that Catholics agree with you and believe the Bible is inerrant. We believe it teaches exactly what God intends it to teach, that doesn't mean that every word is to be taken completely literally, it should be accepted in the context in which God gave it to us. So Romans 3:10 is a lament, first it is not teaching us that Jesus is not righteous. Nor is the meaning to teach us that there are no other righteous people, the Bible speaks of others who are also righteous:

Luke 1:5-6​

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition​

The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold​

5 [a]In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari′ah,[b] of the division of Abi′jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

"All" is a way of speaking, when "all" of Judea went out to see John the Baptist, is God trying to tell us that every pagan, and every Roman in Judea, even Roman prefects, every invalid and baby and person on their death bed went out to see John the Baptist? When the Bible says none is righteous and in a different place says that there are righteous people, we are not being lied to. It's the same for "all have sinned." God is not telling us there are no exceptions at all, that newborn babies have committed sins or that Jesus has sinned. All either means every individual or it does not.

 

[Clare73]

I've just gone through some Holy Scripture that points to Mary being sinless. There is Scripture too that points to three Persons in the Godhead, although it may not spell it out to one's satisfaction. But let's look at your Biblical passages. Romans 3:10. Romans 3:10 says that "none are righteous." Let me say first that Catholics agree with you and believe the Bible is inerrant. We believe it teaches exactly what God intends it to teach, that doesn't mean that every word is to be taken completely literally,

It does when it agrees with much else in the NT, which Ro 3:10 does, as in Ro 3:23, 11:32, Gal 3:22, etc.
It seems we don't handle Scripture in the same way.

it should be accepted in the context in which God gave it to us. So Romans 3:10 is a lament, first it is not teaching us that Jesus is not righteous. Nor is the meaning to teach us that there are no other righteous people, the Bible speaks of others who are also righteous:

A lament doesn't alter its truthfulness or meaning.
Likewise, the righteousness of the NT is in reference to faith (Ro 1:17), while the righteousness in the OT is in reference to law-keeping, by which no one is righteous (Ro 3:20).

Since we don't handle Scripture the same way, we have no basis for coming to agreement on matters.
So I will just leave it here.

 

[Valletta]

It does when it agrees with much else in the NT, which Ro 3:10 does, as in Ro 3:23, 11:32, Gal 3:22, etc.
It seems we don't handle Scripture in the same way.

A lament doesn't alter its truthfulness or meaning.
Likewise, the righteousness of the NT is in reference to faith (Ro 1:17), while the righteousness in the OT is in reference to law-keeping, by which no one is righteous (Ro 3:20).

Since we don't handle Scripture the same way, we have no basis for coming to agreement on matters.
So I will just leave it here.

Most people contend that Paul is referring to Psalm 14 in Romans 3:10. But you say righteousness is different in the OT. Let's for the moment stay within the OT. Is Psalm 14 is lying to us because elsewhere in the OT Zechariah and Elizabeth are spoken of as righteous?

 

[Clare73]

Most people contend that Paul is referring to Psalm 14 in Romans 3:10. But you say righteousness is different in the OT. Let's for the moment stay within the OT. Is Psalm 14 is lying to us because elsewhere in the OT Zechariah and Elizabeth are spoken of as righteous?

Saving righteousness/justification/salvation in the OT was by faith in the Promise (Ge 15:5-6, Ro 4:23, Seed, Jesus Christ--Gal 3:16).

Righteousness regarding those in the OT often refers to obedience, not to salvation by faith.
Which is not to say that their obedience did not include faith in the Promise (salvation).

 

[Valletta]

Saving righteousness/justification/salvation in the OT was by faith in the Promise (Ge 15:5-6, Ro 4:23, Seed, Jesus Christ--Gal 3:16).

Righteousness regarding those in the OT often refers to obedience, not to salvation by faith.
Which is not to say that their obedience did not include faith in the Promise (salvation).

My point is about usages of the word "all" or "none." It seems like it takes a lot of explaining away. Do you think that newborns have sinned?

 

[JoeT]

Keeping in mind that the same word is used of those in Christ (Eph 1:6), "who are those who have been and still are the object of divine benevolence, ones who have been favored and continue to be favored by God in Christ, ones who have been granted supernatural grace (which all grace is) and remain in this state" (Jn 10:27-30).

"Grace”, is a gift from God making one holy, sinless and saved as well as a spiritual or physical beauty. Grace is expressed by the Greek word “charis". "Charitoo" is to "fill with grace" or alternatively bestow grace and can mean to make beautiful or make favorite. “Kecharitomenos” is a perfect participle of the act of "charitoo. Continuing, we have "kecharitomene" making the "charitoo" a noun in the vocative, singular, feminine case. Hence it identifies, a singular female person as the noun of the person being characterized as "full of grace" in the past, in the here and now, in the future.

Again, Charis (χάρις), as found in Ephesians 1:6 is a gift of holiness or sinlessness from God in the words "Charis" or "charitoō". Obviously not the same as "kecharitomene" (κεχαριτωμένη) appearing once in Scripture Luke 1:28, nor does it have the same importance or significance.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

Agreed. . .but it is not about what God can do, it is about what Scripture reveals that God did do. And
1) Scripture does not teach that Mary was sinless.
2) Scripture does teach that all mankind was sinful (Ro 3:10, 23, 11:32, Gal 3:22, etc.), with Jesus being the only exception (Jn 8:46).
3) So this extra-Biblical notion regarding Mary is contra-Biblical and, therefore, in error.

Nor is this concept necessary to preserve the sinlessness of Christ.
For if Mary can be born sinless from a fallen-nature mother, Anne, then Jesus can likewise be born sinless from a fallen-nature mother, Mary.

Uhm, you can be sinless in the founts of the Church; with out regard to the state of your parents. Mary was made right with God, just, with God; Justified. You can receive justification with God in the baptism in the founts of the Church. Mary received Justification at her conception, you obtain it at Baptism.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

Since we don't handle Scripture the same way, we have no basis for coming to agreement on matters.
So I will just leave it here.

Catholics have Sacred Tradition out of which comes Sacred Scripture.

JoeT

 

[Clare73]

My point is about usages of the word "all" or "none." It seems like it takes a lot of explaining away. Do you think that newborns have sinned?

By virtue of "original sin" (Adam's sin and sin nature), all mankind is born in sin and will spend eternity in damnation if they do not believe in and trust on the person and saving work of Jesus Christ for the remission of that sin which condemns them, and live according to that faith.

Catholics have Sacred Tradition out of which comes Sacred Scripture.

Tradition did not pen the Scriptures.
The apostles, including Paul, and Luke, James and Jude penned the Scriptures.
The Catholics decided which books/letters were authentic and which were not.

 

[Valletta]

By virtue of "original sin" (Adam's sin and sin nature), all mankind is born in sin and will spend eternity in damnation if they do not believe in and trust on the person and saving work of Jesus Christ for the remission of that sin which condemns them, and live according to that faith.

But do you believe that newborns have sinned? The Bible says "all have sinned," not all have original sin.

 

[Clare73]

"Grace”, is a gift from God making one holy, sinless and saved as well as a spiritual or physical beauty. Grace is expressed by the Greek word “charis". "Charitoo" is to "fill with grace" or alternatively bestow grace and can mean to make beautiful or make favorite. “Kecharitomenos” is a perfect participle of the act of "charitoo. Continuing, we have "kecharitomene" making the "charitoo" a noun in the vocative, singular, feminine case. Hence it identifies, a singular female person as the noun of the person being characterized as "full of grace" in the past, in the here and now, in the future.

Again, Charis (χάρις), as found in Ephesians 1:6 is a gift of holiness or sinlessness from God in the words "Charis" or "charitoō". Obviously not the same as "kecharitomene" (κεχαριτωμένη) appearing once in Scripture Luke 1:28, nor does it have the same importance or significance.

JoeT

Both Lk 1:28 and Eph 1:6 use the same verb, charitoo, same meaning, but in different forms of the verb.

 

[Clare73]

Uhm, you can be sinless in the founts of the Church; with out regard to the state of your parents. Mary was made right with God, just, with God; Justified. You can receive justification with God in the baptism in the founts of the Church. Mary received Justification at her conception, you obtain it at Baptism.

JoeT

I find that nowhere in Scripture.
What I find is Ro 3:10, 23, 11:32, Gal 3:22, etc.

 

[Chris35]

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Being born of a virgin was a sign given to the Jews, that Jesus is the messiah. Simple as that.

 

[JoeT]

I find that nowhere in Scripture.
What I find is Ro 3:10, 23, 11:32, Gal 3:22, etc.

It depends on how you describe Justice or justification. In Protestantism, justification is by faith alone devoid of charity, an uninformed faith (fides informis). Whereas Catholicism is based on faith formed in charity (fides formata). Here justification is the rectitude of the will to that of God's will. At least partially that original justice lost by Adam and Eve is re-established.

JoeT

 

[RileyG]

Please expound on that a bit "worshiped in error"

I assume you mean "she is not to be worshiped" as though she were a fourth member of the Trinity etc.
And do you find it "much expected" that no scripture gives her the title "Mother of God"??

Jesus is God. Mary is Jesus’s mother. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

 

[Clare73]

It depends on how you describe Justice or justification. In Protestantism, justification is by faith alone devoid of charity, an uninformed faith (fides informis).

There seems to be some misunderstanding.

Saving faith is belief in and trust on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the mission of one's sin and right standing with God (justification--declared righteous), which faith saves apart from the works of faith (Eph 2:8-9).
Not to mention that when the unbeliever comes to faith, there are no works to accompany it, for he had no faith to produce acceptable works before that.

Whereas Catholicism is based on faith formed in charity (fides formata). Here justification is the rectitude of the will to that of God's will. At least partially that original justice lost by Adam and Eve is re-established.

However, the meaning of the word justification (dikaiosis) is declaration of righteousness, sentence of acquittal (Ro 4:25, 5:18).
It is a forensic righteousness, distinct from actual righteousness of sanctification.
It is the result of forgiveness of sin through belief in and trust on the atoning work of Jesus Christ (faith).
Both salvation (Eph 2:8-9) and righteousness (Ro 3:28) are not based on one's law-keeping (works), they are based only on one's faith.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus Christ is wholly God and wholly man. Both natures God/man are uniquely and inseparably joined without mixing, mingling, or confusion.

The problem with "headship," (more properly described as “Federal Headship"), is it makes men the actual thing we call sin, which we aren't. It is built on the concept of “once saved always saved ". Its an attempt to explain away the need of Mary from God's plan for our redemption. With your concept of "headship" Mary can bear a man who is sin yet remain the Personification of the Word. This concept has sin hanging on a cross as the Personification of God's Breath produces reparations for the sins of man is an absurdity. The Theoandros is completely lost.

Recall the Messias, the Son of David, or the Son of God is "begotten not made". The reformer cannot abide in Mary (a human) becoming an instrument of God’s plan of salvation consequently there god is 'remade' in the womb of Mary. He was as you say totally human. Therefore, the being God/man then the man Jesus Christ goes from conception to to birth the same as any child. He receives the flesh of His mother.

You keep saying Jesus received the "flesh of His mother." No, he received the flesh of his mother and father through their DNA. The Holy Spirit supplied the DNA for the father, Mary the DNA of the mother. While God is not a being of flesh, God can and has created flesh and human DNA. The fertilized egg in Mary's womb was a normal fertilized egg but the method by how that egg can to be fertilized was different. Just because Jesus did not have an earthly father does not mean his flesh is 100% from Mary. It is those chromosomes mixing in the egg that create the flesh.

Federal Headship is found in the Bible as Christ is called the "second Adam." It was not invented nor was an attempt to explain away anything regarding Mary. I don't see where Federal Headship is married to "once saved always saved" either.

If His mother is corrupt, this Jesus Christ is born with corrupted flesh. If He avoids this as a 'bubble child' He is a mad god, which of course is an absurdity except in polytheism.

Look God gave us a brain when we were created. Short of Christ being God made, bubble boy there is no other way He can take on flesh. [Cf. Hebrews 4:15]. Could God have taken on uncorrupted human flesh no doubt, but He found it fitting to be begotten of Mary.

You are assuming sin nature is passed by physical means. Our sin nature is a spiritual affliction that is part of our spiritual nature. It is not something found in the father or mother's DNA. This should not be surprising as our redeemed nature is also not gained through the flesh. Mary was a sinner but that does not make Jesus a sinner because he was not given that sin nature which is considered passed on through the father but not in his DNA. It was not necessary for Mary to be without sin for Christ to be born without a sin nature.

Catholicism does make Him pernicious it is the Protestant paradigm. There is no injustice on God's part, none whatsoever. However the paradigm suggested does indeed make Him unjust. The birth of Christ without sin is not addressed by these verses in Romans 9.

The only way Christ is born of woman is to be the child of a New Eve, a woman without sin.


Why resist Mary's role in the birth of the Personification of your salvation.

What does this have to do with the discussion?

The main focus in Scripture is on the sin of Adam, not Eve. Although Eve did sin, and sinned first, it is Adam's sin that is the focus. Scripture never calls Mary a "New Eve", and any parallels between Mary and Eve are largely manmade by the Catholic church. Many Old Testament saints were saved before Mary was ever born.

Mary was a blessed vehicle through whom God gave us the incarnation. She was not born sinless, likely did not remain a virgin, and no doubt sinned during her lifetime. That does not diminish our admiration for her in believing by faith the incredible news she was given by the angel Gabriel. She is a model wife and mother. Why must we make her into something more she is not?

JoeT