Replies

Again, I don’t care what your views or on the matter. You elevate yourself to sole interpreter of scripture. Again, the Catena Aurea Commentary put together by Saint Thomas Aquinas is the most extensive Patristic Commentary of the Bible in the History of Holy Mother Church. It is a line by Line commentary of the Gospels. With respect to Luke 1:28, the commentary of the Patristics on this passage is supportive of the Catholic position

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/CALuke.htm

Futhermore, as other Catholic sources note [Navarre Commentary, Ignatius Commentary included in the RSC Catholic version], the passage in Luke 1:28 is the only place in the entire Bible where an angel addressed someone by a title rather than personal expression. As the Ignatius commentary notes, 2 considerations help fully clarify the meaning of the “full of grace” translation you see in many Catholic Bibles which is:

1)Saint Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of the Church [so fluent in Hebrew, Latin and Greek that even Saint Augustine admired his biblical translation skills] translated the passage as such. While this translation is “fundamentally adequate”, it lacks the depth of the Greek original.

As the Ignatius Commentary further notes, Saint Luke could have translated the passage as pleres Charitos, as he did in Acts 6:6 with respect to Saint Stephen yet he used a different expression in Luke 1:28 for Mary [kecharitomene] that is more revealing than the other rendering as it indicates God has already Graced Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who has been and is now filled with Divine Life.

(2) Alternative translations like “favored one” or “highly favored” are possible but inadequate. Because of the unparalleled role that Mary accepts at this turning point of salvation history, the best translation is the most exhalted one as God endowed Mary with an abundance of Grace to prepare her for the sacred vocation of Divine motherhood and to make her a sterling example of Christian holiness and faith and obedience to God’s will

Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine’s commentaries linked earlier, support the Catholic Position. The 16th century protestant rebels support your view. I will stay with Augustine, Jerome and Ambrose’s view, you can have Calvin, Zwingli and Knox, etc.

I don’t care what your views or on the matter

No one was ever in a better position to say that than Jesus. Yet He never did. Why do you suppose that is?

Anyway, interesting citation you provided. I found the section on Luke 1:28 rather weak, there being only a bare handful of sources cited, and none of those draw from the Biblical text any argument to support an immaculate conception. Frankly, this is not surprising, because even Aquinas knew that the sanctification of Mary from the womb, though he believed it himself, could NOT be defended from Scripture:

Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth.

See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 27, Article 1

I also found the passage from Augustine too short and cryptic to give me a clue where he was really coming from, so I looked for fuller discussions and found this, in which he clearly states the only person ever born without sin was Jesus, a doctrine that could be preached from any Baptist pulpit:

The same holy man also, in his Exposition of Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: “Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.” Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.”

See Augustine, Of the Grace of Christ and of Original Sin, Book II, Chapter 41

As for the text of Luke 1:28, I know you don't care for Protestant views, but what are we to do? The text doesn't say "full of grace." Grace is favor. Favor is grace. But in Ephesians 1:6, that same word, that save favor or grace, is applied equally to all who believe in Jesus. So whatever it is, it's not unique to Mary. It's for all believers. These are lexical facts, as much as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Do you wish us to lie against our consciences? Of course not. And we couldn't do that anyway. We read the text and it says what is says. Sometimes we like what Scripture says, and sometimes we think, as sinful humans, that something different should have been said. But God the Holy Spirit chose these words. What choice do we have but to simply believe and accept what He has said?

Because of the unparalleled role that Mary accepts at this turning point of salvation history, the best translation is the most exhalted one

Please do not take offense at this, but I have to point this out. That is a circular argument. You are concluding, in advance, that the text supports your position, therefore the "best" translation is the one that supports the conclusion you've already chosen though other means, patristics, tradition, what your priest told you, whatever. That's not how you do Biblical translation. If you want to know what it means to be your own pope, that is the very example of it, predetermining a conclusion then insisting the inspired text conform to that conclusion.

These are the words of God. This is holy ground. It demands respect. We cannot come to this ground and tell God what to say. Instead we must sit and respectfully listen to the words He has given us as He gave them to us. It is what He says about Mary that we should listen to. There is nothing wrong with learning from godly teachers gifted with wisdom. But we are all fallible, all vulnerable to the temptations of pride and haste that produce errors in understanding, errors in judgment. But the word of God is God-breathed. It is without error, just as Christ is without sin. It is God's lamp, given to light our path. We cannot do better that to follow that light wherever it leads us.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Peace,

SR

Again, I don’t care what your views or on the matter. .

Once again, that is your fundamental flaw. So once again, seeing as you affirm that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth;

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, so that those who dissent from the latter are in some form of rebellion to God,

How could both men and writings of God be established as being so without an assuredly infallible magisterium? And how could laity be right in following an itinerant preacher in the desert who ate insects, seeing as he reproved and disagreed with the magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, as being the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture?

As well as another itinerant preacher who reproved them by Scripture, and invoked the baptism of the first itinerant preacher when challenged to name who gave Him His authority? (Mk. 11:27-33)

Consistent with the "who are you to disagree with the historical magisterium" premise of RCs, then all should have followed those who sat in the seat of Moses. But if the church began with common people being right, and the magisterium being wrong, and Truth claims being established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) versus your premise of the assured veracity of Rome, then you and your church are operating out of a foundationally contrary premise than the NT began under.

You elevate yourself to sole interpreter of scripture.

Resorting again and again to this fallacious charge, akin to saying i am making myself a pope, speaks of desperation, or an inability to deal with refutation, which i have shown you before. Again, appealing to the weight of wholly inspired Scriptural substantiation as the basis for credibility is not the same as presuming personal infallibility, which is your basis via reliance upon Rome which presumes this.

With respect to Luke 1:28, the commentary of the Patristics on this passage is supportive of the Catholic position

There is nothing wrong with seeking help, but an RC cannot objectively examine a text in order to ascertain its veracity, but the the Lord did not expect 1st c. Hebrew souls to always follow the traditional interpretation of their magisterium.

Meanwhile, there is actually nothing said by the two "fathers" listed in Lk. 1:28 besides Jerome, who, as with Gn. 2, examples how he can read into a verse what the text simply does not say. Even if what he makes this text say was true (that Mary uniquely was full of grace, which Scripture says the Lord was), yet it remains that this is not what the Greek words mean.

)Saint Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of the Church

Which presumes much if meant of all time, and which does not translate into faithful rendering (the devil knows more). I have already shown how Jerome could read into Scripture what He wanted it to say in exegesis, and some cite evidence to his views on women doing likewise in his translation (though i certainly uphold the headship of men in the church and home).

And as Leslie J. Hoppe, O.F.M. writes ,

One problem was the character of Latin. In Jerome’s day, it was a fixed language that resisted new vocabulary. But Latin did not have words that corresponded to some of the religious language of the Bible. This required adopting Greek words into Latin or forcing Latin words to bear new meanings.

The principle that Jerome used as he translated was not “word for word” but “sense for sense.” Today the type of translation that Jerome favored is called “dynamic equivalence..” (http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Sep1997/feature2.asp)

This “dynamic equivalence..” which the poor NIV also uses, means you are more likely to read what the translators think a word or phrase should say rather than what it does say.

in Luke 1:28 is the only place in the entire Bible where an angel addressed someone by a title rather than personal expression.

Another invention. ,Hail, "highly favoured" is not a title, but a greeting which describes what she is, like as Daniel who is called by the angel, "greatly beloved," (Dan. 10:11) and unlike where the Lord does give people a new title/name, the Holy Spirit never uses this sppsdly new title again - or gives her other titles in stark contrast to the approx 900 of Catholicism - but continues to call her Mary.

Saint Luke could have translated the passage as pleres Charitos, as he did in Acts 6:6 with respect to Saint Stephen yet he used a different expression in Luke 1:28 for Mary [kecharitomene] that is more revealing than the other rendering as it indicates God has already Graced Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who has been and is now filled with Divine Life.

The issue is not whether Mary was graced, even before the salutation, bu whether Lk. 1:28 states was uniquely full of grace. And this attempt to force Scripture to support Rome is actually another argument against her. The reason "plērēs is not used in Lk. 1:28 is because that actually does denote "full" 17 other places in the NT., and thus it is used of the one who was/is unmistakably full of grace and Truth. And which was unmistakably previous to this point.

Nor does kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)

If Mary was perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was full of grace, as Christ was, (plērēs charis).

Alternative translations like “favored one” or “highly favored” are possible but inadequate.

No, only to souls who want to think of mortals "above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:60 and which this is part of. We must respect the Spirit's silence as well as statements, and Mary was a holy women chosen to be the instrument for the Christ who created her, yet she is mentioned in a rather marginal degree, while far more press is given to the apostle Paul describing his suffering for Christ and labor, and righteousness under severe testing, but who is very marginal to Caths compared with Mary.

Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine’s commentaries linked earlier, support the Catholic Position. The 16th century protestant rebels support your view.

And the church began with rebels against those whom RCs would follow, consistent with their unBiblical basis for determining Truth. You can have them as Hell will also. May God grant you repentance.