Posted on 10/08/2015 8:02:23 AM PDT by Salvation
As a young child I was very close to God. I spoke to Him in a very natural way and He spoke plainly to me. Although I have very few memories of my early childhood, I vividly remember how close I was to God. When early puberty approached, though, I began to slip away, drifting into the rebellious and angry years of my teens. As the flesh came more alive, my spirit submerged.
The culture of the time didn’t help, either. It was the late 1960s and early 1970s and rebelliousness and the flesh were celebrated as “virtues.” Somehow we thought ourselves more mature than our pathetic forebears, who were hopelessly “repressed.” There was the attitude among the young that we had come of age somehow. We collectively deluded ourselves, aided by the messages of rock music and the haze of drug use, that we were somehow “better.”
So it was the winter of my soul. The vivid faith of my childhood gave way to a kind of indifferent agnosticism. Though I never formally left Church (my mother would never had permitted that as long as I lived in under my parents’ roof), I no longer heard God or spoke to Him. I’ve mentioned in previous posts that when I was in high school I joined the youth choir of my parish church. This was not precipitated by a religious passion, but rather by a passion of another kind: there were pretty girls in the choir and I “sought their company,” shall we say. But God has a way of using beauty to draw us to the truth. Week after week, year after year, as we sang those old religious classics a buried faith began to awaken within me.
But what to do? How to pray? I heard that I was supposed to pray. But how? As a child it had been natural to talk with God. But now He seemed distant, aloof, and likely angry with me. And I’ll admit it, prayer seemed a little “goofy” to me, a high school senior still struggling to be “cool” in his own eyes and in the eyes of his friends. Not only that, but prayer was “boring.” It seemed an unfocused, unstructured, and “goofy” thing.
But I knew someone who did pray. My paternal grandmother, “Nana,” was a real prayer warrior. Every day she took out her beads and sat by the window to pray. I had seen my mother pray now and again, but she was more private about it. But Nana, who lived with us off and on in her last years, knew how to pray and you could see it every day.
Rosary Redivivus – In my parish church of the 1970s, the rosary was non-existent. Devotions and adoration were on the outs during that sterile time. Even the Crucifix was gone. But Nana had that “old-time religion” and I learned to appreciate it through her.
Ad Jesum per Mariam – There are some, non-Catholics especially, who think that talking of Mary or focusing on her in any way takes away from Christ. It is as though they consider it a zero-sum game, in which our hearts cannot love both Mary and Jesus. But my own experience was that Mary led me to Christ. I had struggled to know and worship Christ, but somehow a mother’s love felt more natural, safer, and more accessible to me. So I began there, where I could. Simply pole-vaulting right into a mature faith from where I was did not seem possible. So I began, as a little child again, holding my Mother’s hand. And gently, Mother Mary led me to Christ, her son. Through the rosary, that “Gospel on a string,” I became reacquainted with the basic gospel story.
The thing about Marian devotion is that it opens up a whole world. For with this devotion comes an open door into so many of the other traditions and devotions of the Church: Eucharistic adoration, litanies, traditional Marian hymns, lighting candles, modesty, pious demeanor, and so forth. So as Mary led me, she also reconnected me to many things that I only vaguely remembered. The suburban Catholicism of the 1970s had all but cast these things aside, and I had lost them as well. Now in my late teens, I was going up into the Church “attic” and bringing things down. Thus, little by little, Mother Mary was helping me to put things back in place. I remember my own mother being pleased to discover that I had taken some old religious statues, stashed away in a drawer in my room, and placed them out on my dresser once again. I also took down the crazy rock-and-roll posters, one by one, and replaced them with traditional art, including a picture of Mary.
Over time, praying the Rosary and talking to Mary began to feel natural. And, sure enough, little by little, I began to speak with God. It was when I was in the middle of college that I began to sense the call to the priesthood. I had become the choir director by that time and took a new job in a city parish: you guessed it, “St. Mary’s.” There, the sterility of suburban Catholicism had never taken hold. The candles burned brightly at the side altars. The beautiful windows, marble altars, statues, and traditional novenas were all on display in Mother Mary’s parish. The rest is history. Mary cemented the deal between me and her Son, Jesus. I became His priest and now I can’t stop talking about Him! He is my hero, my savior and Lord. And praying again to God has become more natural and more deeply spiritual for me.
It all began one day when I took Mary’s hand and let her lead me to Christ. And hasn’t that always been her role? She, by God’s grace, brought Christ to us, showed Him to us at Bethlehem, presented Him in the Temple, and ushered in His first miracle (even despite His reluctance). She said to the stewards that day at Cana, and to us now, “Do whatever he tells you.” The Gospel of John says, Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him (John 2:11). And so Mary’s intercession strengthened the faith of others in her Son. That has always been her role: to take us by the hand and lead us to Christ. Her rosary has been called the “Gospel on a string” because she bids us to reflect on the central mysteries of the Scripture as we pray.
I guess using that logic, Catholics should lop off the entire Old Testament seeing as it belonged to the Jews. The Apostle Paul even said that unto THEM were committed the “oracles of God”.
The sacred scriptures are given to ALL those who seek after the truth. Just because some misuse, misunderstand or ignore what God has revealed is no excuse for one group to presume sole ownership to the exclusion of all others. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to those who diligently seek it.
There's so much to thank God for, here!
Bottom line: this unique neologism Kecharitomene (also called, linguistically, a "nonce word" or "hapax legomenon") is the best Greek word that could have been invented by Divine inspiration to indicate Mary's sinlessness, her being equipped to play her role as the natural source of Christ's human nature, His flesh: human, yet untainted by sin. No other Greek formulation could have conveyed it all.
So do 'us' Prots."
Nice to see you here again, Elsie.
Welcome to Christianity 101!
“Glory in the fact”? That’s going a bit too far! I would say Catholics recognize the significance of the fact that all of the Savior’s “select men” -— and that includes Peter, first in position among the Apostles-— are still prone to darkness of intellect, error and sin. IIn the case you cite (Jesus calling Peter “Satan”) it’s because it goes against all (uninspired) human nature to think that God would allow His beloved Son to be tortured to death.
But with exceptions, of course. Jesus, for instance.
OK. Very busy.
How are you doing after your eye surgery?
Well said! I would add that Scripture confirms that there is ONLY one mediator between us and God - Jesus Christ our Lord. We need no other.
AMEN!!!
I expect better from you.
You assume that "Kecharitomene" has been, so to speak, debunked as a word pointing to a unique and mighty work done by God. You see it as somewhat commonplace, even "de minimis" ---a rather shrunken view which is, to say the least, not proven.
As I proposed in #126, "Kecharitomene" is an unprecedented word, a nonce word. Never used anywhere else in the Bible. Never used anywhere else in all of secular Greek literature, and found only in Christian literature where the author is commenting on its first and only usage in Luke 1:28. It is a one-off event, a hapax legomenon, a singularity not only in the lexical sense but almost, I would say, in the space-time sense. What a delight! And yet --you've never dealt with that fact, neither with delight, nor even (as far as I can tell) with comprehension.
There are reasons why an unprecedented word would be used for an unprecedented phenomenon. It can be fairly analyzed by adverting to Greek grammar, which is what I did, but you simply reject it as "false information" without refuting it.
What great things, what great things God has done! In the context of something so marvelous, the rather lazy rejoinder of "well, it's not all that great," is rather disappointing. I sometimes ask myself why I bother. But of course I write because it delights me to think of what God has done here, as well as for the sake of other readers who may join all the rest of Christendom in that delight.
However because it is used one time does not make it unique in that sense. There are around 400 words (iirc) that are used one time in the NT.
Your attempt at the Greek, while commendable, is based on an incorrect application of the Greek as I've noted too many times on previous occasions.
In either case it does not indicate Mary was sinless no matter how much catholics want it to mean that.
What is unique in this passage is the announcement of Christ to be born.
That should be the focus.....not Mary.
Exactly.
"However because it is used one time does not make it unique in that sense. There are around 400 words (iirc) that are used one time in the NT."
Even if there are 400 words which are used only one time in the NT (which may very well be true) there is only one word which is used only onetime in the entire history of the Greek language --- in all of its literature, classical, Koine and contemporary --- with the sole exception of commentaries on Luke 1:28 itself. I's unique. And it's used, in its one and only instance, by an Archangel-Messenger who is the Ambassador of God. This angelic intelligence, herald of the Divine Presence, has access to all words fitting for his announcement to Mary, and yet has to invent a new one in order to address the handmaid Mary fittingly. Thank of that.
"Your attempt at the Greek, while commendable, is based on an incorrect application of the Greek as I've noted too many times on previous occasions."
Your opinion against mine, or --- to be more fair to you and to me as well --- your experts against my experts, since I don't think either of us personally claims to be a world-class Greek scholar.
I have great respect for recent scholarship (I'm using that in a broad sense: say, the last 500 years) from people whose first languages were English or German. The work of men like James Strong, an American, English-speaking mid-19th century mayor, railroad organizer, translator and Methodist, are of ongoing value. Yet I would have an even more abiding interest in the scholarship of the men of 1500, 1600, 1700 years ago whose first language was Greek, and who lived immersed in the cultural assumptions and mental habits of an ancient Christian culture. St. John Chrysostom, for instance, richly feeds my conviction that with the "Kecharitomene," we are dealing with something truly astounding.
Strong is wonderful for analysis, Chrysostom for synthesis. Strong gets the taxonomy of words; Chrysostom, I would say, "gets" the Word.
"What is unique in this passage is the announcement of Christ to be born."
What is unique in this passage is the announcement of Christ to be born of God and the Theotokos, the lady He blessed and with whom He chose to have His Holy Child, and called "Kecharitomene." That should be the focus. This is not just some arrival, not even just some arrival from Heaven, it is the Incarnation. God assumes a human nature, God assumes flesh, the Word is made flesh--- from the flesh of Mary. From the Daughter of Zion who is blessed because she heard the Word of God, and kept it.
BTW, I read the article on catholic encyclopedia online. So many errors and so many "we want it to be".
To say it is not used anywhere else in greek is suspect as this is in the perfect participle verb. It is not an unusual verb in greek.
But I know that doesn't fit catholic dogma.
But I know that doesn't fit catholic dogma."
That Catholic Church does not have "dogmas" on the subject of Greek grammar.
Sheesh.
But if you come across "Kecharitomene" in any context other than a commentary of Luke 1:28 you let me know, OK? Because nobody else , to my knowledge, has been able to find one.
In fact, one of my points is that Jerome's translation "full of grace" ("gratia plena") is not an ideal rendering of "Kecharitomene", nor even a very adequate one. I would say the Angelic Salutation goes somewhat beyond that.
It's not that one can be "fuller than full," but that Greek, highly inflected language that it is, denotes so much more in a single word which has past, perfect, continuing, nominative, and feminine indicators all combined in one word.
Latin is not as inflected as Greek is, and English even less so. That's why a really adequate translation would take a rather fuller phrase than "highly-favored one" or even "full of grace."
What is the root word that forms κεχαριτωμένη?
What is the definition?
Which is the psychology seen often seen behind Mary worship, in which she is portrayed as the compassionate mother, holding back the judgment of God, whom the Holy Spirit only makes the direct object of all the prayers in the Bible to Heaven, expect by pagans.
Or that for some other reason, it is said that one would be better off praying to Mary than the Son, whom the Holy Spirit presents as thr only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) who alone is said to ever live to do son,(Heb. 7:25) and is supremely qualified to do so, (Heb. 2:18,19; 4:15)
Such "Christianized" paganism can be expected when Scripture is made subject to an church, versus the church being subject to it.
Which is ludicrous.
Would Mary answer a prayer that God would refuse to?
If God won't answer it, then Mary would be going against the will of God in doing so. Is that what Catholics really want? Is their idea of a heavenly Father who loves to give good gifts to His children, really one of a reluctant, hard hearted, miserly Father? It would appear so.
So if the Father Himself would answer it, why not go right to Him as Jesus taught us to? And if He wouldn't, why go to someone else to override Him?
Source: Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek NT, Revised Edition, Warren C Trenchard, 1992
and Paul clearly states that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
No; Paul does NOT say that.
2 Corinthians 5:8 (KJV)
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
I; too; am WILLING to be absent from my body and with the Lord; but what I will is not necessarily what is going to happen.
(NIV)
We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
Again; I'd PREFER this as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.