Mary and the Problem of Christian Unity

We are living in a remarkable age. As we approach the third millennium of Christianity in the year 2,000, we are watching a world in extremes. Amid the rapid onslaught of secularization and irreligion, we find hordes of people seeking solace in religion.

Amid the ravages of war and violence, we find the comfort and love of those who care for the poor and disadvantaged. Amid the lightning pace of modern life, we find souls searching for deeper meaning by retreating to monasteries and ashrams for solitude.

Two of the most powerful inspirations in late twentieth century Christianity are the drive toward greater unity among Christians of widely differing backgrounds (ecumenism) and the rapid growth of Marian devotion all around the world. This century has seen unprecedented efforts to bring together Christians who have been separated by misunderstanding and prejudice. And just when the ecumenical movement on a formal level seemed moribund, a new surge of grassroots ecumenism is finding ways of bringing together Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians. Whatever the outcome of these efforts, the air of this last decade of the second millennium is filled with the scent of Christian unity. It seems that Christians are grasping every opportunity to reconcile their doctrinal differences and to find the sweet savor of "brothers dwelling together in unity" (Ps 133: 1).

If this is an age of ecumenism, it is equally a Marian era because no century since the birth of Christ has witnessed such an outpouring of devotion to the mother of Jesus. As many observers note, reported apparitions and locutions have multiplied, leading numerous Christians to an unprecedented devotion to the humble handmaiden of the Lord who was privileged to bring the world its Redeemer. In tandem with these grassroots movements, there is a monumental effort within the Catholic Church for the Pope to define as dogma Marian doctrines that have long been present in the Church (Mediatrix, Coredemptrix, Advocate). Whether or not the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church decides to act, there is unlikely to be any diminishing of devotion to the mother of Jesus.

On the other hand, many non-Catholic Christians are mystified by such devotion to Mary. Some feel strangely drawn to honor her, but are afraid of falling into excessive focus on Mary to the exclusion of Jesus. To others, Marian devotion borders on the blasphemous. To still others, Catholics are idolaters. It is not an overstatement to say that no expression of historic Christianity has ever placed Mary in such a high position of honor as has the western Catholic tradition. And even though the Eastern Orthodox Churches have long honored Mary as the Mother of God, they do not have fully developed mariologies as the Western Church has.

The juxtaposition of ecumenical and Marian movements seems odd at best. On the surface, it appears that Mary would be the last subject chosen in an ecumenical dialogue. One might think that all the areas on which common agreement might be achieved should be addressed first, and then deal with the thorny question of Marian doctrine. Better to leave Mary until last. However, I am now convinced that questions about Mary must be addressed up front if any true ecumenism is ever to be achieved.

On a purely human level, no genuine friendship can ignore beliefs which are central to one party while those same beliefs are at best questionable to the other. Further, it is not completely honest for Catholics to pretend that Marian doctrines and devotions are not important and central to our lives. We ought to state openly that the Catholic faith does not allow the Church to ever change its defined dogmas about Mary. On the other hand, we must admit that not everything that goes on under the term Marian devotion is necessary or beneficial for the Church.

What can talk about Mary do to promote the cause of ecumenism? The answer depends on what we mean by ecumenism. One definition, and the one most common, sees ecumenism as a process of negotiation between different churches whereby one church gives up some aspect of its faith and the other partner relinquishes its claim to some of its distinctives. This process proceeds through a number of steps until a lowest common denominator is reached. The result is a church or some other official body which has a reduced form of faith and practice so that it might accommodate each respective member. This has largely been the pattern of ecumenism in the United States and the Western world for the better part of this century. In my judgment, such attempts have been a monumental failure. Mary cannot help with this type of ecumenism. The other definition of ecumenism is not founded on the concept of negotiation, but on seeking together the truth of God’s revelation. It begins with confessing that we don’t apprehend God’s truth completely, and that we must always seek to have the mind of Christ. In this conception, unity of heart and mind does not come from negotiated agreements, but from all parties, recognizing and embracing the objective truth of God.

It is a commonplace that married couples do not achieve success by each giving fifty percent to their marriage, but by each giving one hundred percent of themselves. In the same way, Christian unity comes from full commitment to searching for truth in a spirit of humility. Ecumenism begins with recognizing that unity already exists in God, that Christ is the center of unity, and that the Holy Spirit is the operative agent in bringing Christians together. Mary has everything to do with this kind of ecumenism.

Mary: The Sign of Unity ?
How can Mary help in promoting Christian unity? Many may feel the weight of disunity among Christians and long for a greater oneness in Christ, but can Mary really give us that greater oneness? Mary has been a source of division between Catholics and Protestants for a long time. What good will focusing on Mary bring? How can Christians be one when the very Marian devotions so precious to Catholics are viewed as idolatrous by Protestants? To human eyes, it seems that almost any other Christian doctrine would be better suited to bring unity than doctrines of Mary. And if we think of Mary just as a set of doctrines, that would be true. But Mary is more than a set of doctrines. Mary is a person. She lived her life on this earth as the mother of our Lord with her own character, mind, and idiosyncrasies. These things are true regardless of what we believe about her. Mary is what she is apart from our beliefs.

There is one unmistakable fact that we must remember about the real Mary—the Son of God lived in her womb for nine months. This is how Mary can be an instrument of unity. She united the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, with His human nature in her own body. Mary united more than any human being has ever united. She united God and man in the small confines of her own womb. Ponder this amazing reality. In Mary’s womb, heaven and earth were joined, not as two separate realities, but perfectly united in the one person of the Son of God. No wonder it says that "Mary treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart" (Lk 2:19). It is a reality beyond words.

Mary was the instrument of unity for the body of Jesus Christ and this is why Mary has long been thought of as mother of the church. The church is the body of Christ and Mary was the mother of Christ’s body, both physically and mystically. It is clear from Scripture that Jesus Christ is the key to unity among Christians, but the one Savior Jesus Christ would not be what he is—the perfect God-man—without Mary’s being the means of uniting His divine and human natures in one person.

Mary’s example of obedience and discipleship also forms the foundation of unity. Mary gave herself unreservedly to Jesus her Son. Every Christian wants to be an obedient disciple of our Lord and needs examples of obedience to do so. Mary was filled with grace, and this allowed her to listen to the commands of her God without delay. Mary was on earth what every Christian will become in heaven, filled with grace. Obedience means a readiness to say YES to God, a spirit of humility that says "Let it be" (fiat). Unity cannot be achieved through negotiation. It must come through obedience to the apostolic teaching given by Jesus to Paul and the other apostles. Without a willing spirit, we can never achieve God’s desire for unity. Mary’s life of obedience and discipleship calls us to unity with God through obedience.

The unity we seek is not human but divine. Its source is the divine life of Christ the Redeemer. It is that unity for which He prayed when He said, "Father, that they might be one." This kind of unity doesn’t come from each group of Christians giving up some belief or practice for the sake of unity; it comes from each individual or group submitting to the authority of Christ and from the work of the Holy Spirit bringing oneness where it is humanly impossible. Like salvation itself, Christian unity is not within the grasp of human power. All we can do is open ourselves to the ministry of the Spirit to produce the unity that is impossible through negotiation.

It is because Mary has been such a stumbling block for Christians that a fuller embracing of her person and role will achieve a greater unity than we might expect. If we view Mary apart from Jesus, then Mary cannot help us. Yet she was never meant to be seen apart from her Son. Just as the Magi found Jesus "with his mother" (Mt 2:11), so we find Mary involved with her divine Son, cooperating in His work and plan.

We cannot solve the problem of how to be one in Christ. Not by negotiation, not by one or the other side caving in. But God can solve our problems. God specializes in the impossible, just as He once said to Mary (Lk 1:37). If the Holy Spirit can form within the womb of the Virgin Mary a new entity—the unique Godman—then He surely can bring together Christians divided by history, suspicion and misinformation. Perhaps it’s time for us to stop trying to be unified and let God do what we have failed to do. No one can see precisely how this will happen, but we know it won’t happen without embracing the fullness of salvation in Christ himself.

Mary and the Unity of the Trinity
The unity we seek does not result from negotiated agreements. Our Christian unity must be founded on truth. It must be unity of heart and mind, a permanent oneness that is not shaken by the changing tides of custom and culture. The New Testament concept of unity is nothing less than union with the Holy Trinity. Jesus our Lord prayed that the oneness of His disciples would resemble and flow from the oneness experienced by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: "That they all may be one, Father, as you are in me and I in you that they may also be one in us" (Jn 17:21). Jesus Christ does not want our unity to be like his and the Father’s. He wants our unity to be the same as He and the Father have.

Mary is both a sign and an instrument of the unity coming from the Holy Trinity because she bears a unique relation to each member. Let’s see how Mary is related to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. First, however, a word of caution. In A.D. 431 the ancient Christian Church defined Mary as the Mother of God because the Church wanted to protect the full divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. This title, Mother of God (or better Godbearer), asserted that the child in Mary’s womb was nothing less than fully God and fully man. But the title Mother of God never has been nor should be interpreted to mean that Mary is the mother of the Trinity. Mary bears a distinct relation to each member of the Trinity, but she is not the mother of the Father, nor of the Holy Spirit.

Mary is the daughter of the Father.
When Mary proclaims herself the handmaiden of the Lord (Lk 1:38,48), she is declaring her filial obedience to the will of God. The love she has for the heavenly Father shows itself in her desire to be His vessel of bringing salvation to the world. What better sign of unity than this act of submission to the will of God? If we only follow Mary’s lead, we will find ourselves united in heart as her heart was united with the heavenly Father’s heart.

Mary did not negotiate with God, bargain with Him nor seek a compromise. She acknowledged her dependence on His grace and sought to perform His bidding. The will of the Father is unity for us who profess His Son. We will have unity only when we have submitted ourselves to the Father as Mary did.

Yet Mary is more than a sign. She is an instrument of unity. How is this true? Without her obedience the Savior would not have been born. Some Christians think that if Mary had refused Gabriel’s invitation to bear the Savior, God would have found another woman. There is not the slightest evidence in the New Testament for this view. Mary freely gave herself to God’s will of giving the world its Savior. By her instrumentality Mary united the Father to the world through His Son. In a profound sense, Mary united us to the Father through the Son. And that is how we will find a greater degree of unity today. By seeking to imitate her obedience and by seeking submission to the same Father through the Son she bore.

Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Gabriel proclaimed that the Holy Spirit would come over her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her (Lk 1:35). This is the language of marital love (see Ruth 3:9; Zeph 3:17). Mary was united with the third person of the Trinity in order to give flesh to the second person. As the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she gave her body to the service of God so that she might receive the fullness of God. And so Mary is a sign of how we too must seek to be filled with the Holy Spirit to do the will of God (cf Eph 5:18). It is the Holy Spirit who brings Jesus Christ today just as He brought the divine Christ to the womb of Mary (cf. Jn 14:17,18). When we are filled with the Spirit as Mary was, we are united to Jesus and we become more united with one another. Mary’s union with the Holy Spirit brought us the Son who poured out the Spirit that we might be united with both Son and Spirit. Her union brings about our union.

Mary is the mother of the Son.
Through her, Christ’s divine and human natures were united into the one person that would save us from our sins. As Jesus’ mother, Mary signals that our unity will only be in and through her Son. When Paul says that Jesus was "born of a woman ... that we might receive the adoption" (Gal 4:4,5), the apostle implies that true unity comes only from being members of the same family—the same family in which Jesus is the firstborn Son.

We cannot be members of many different families that have a tolerance for one another’s beliefs and worship. No doubt tolerance for cultural and historical differences is essential, but that is still not the New Testament ideal of unity. Unity means being in the same family as Jesus ("one Lord"), having the same content of belief ("one faith"), living in the same Church body ("one baptism"). Only then can we be sure that we have the same "God and Father of all, who is over all, through all and in all." See Ephesians 4:4-6.

Mary: God’s Woman of the Hour
Now is the time for unity among Christians. As we approach the beginning of the third millennium since Christ’s birth, we see an almost unprecedented call to unity. Christian leaders the world over have caught a glimpse of Christ’s will that "they may be one, Father, as you are in me and I in you" (Jn 17:21). The desire for unity is laudable and ought to be pursued with vigor. Yet the only unity worth pursuing, the only unity that will last is the unity that already exists in the Holy Trinity. This kind of unity is not something we achieve. It is something given to us as a gift. This unity is infused in our souls and expressed by oneness of mind and heart (doctrine and love).

Truth without love is barren and sterile. Unity without truth is empty and fruitless. Jesus was a kind and compassionate man who proclaimed the truth. The Lord who wept over Jerusalem’s obstinacy (see Mt 23:37-39), and who was moved with compassion over the "sheep without a shepherd," (Mk 6:34) is the same Lord who said that the truth of His words would not pass away (Lk 21:33). If Jesus is our Lord, then we must follow with equal vigor His truth and love.

Insistence on truth at the expense of unity will not do, nor will embracing unity at the expense of truth. Truth and unity are equally ultimate. Yet even now, we must realize the impossibility of reconciling truth and unity with human schemes and ingenuity. The only way to have unity is by having unity in Truth. The truth that brings unity is Jesus Himself who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6). The truth Jesus gives is the complete teaching of His will as expressed in and through the Church of the apostles.

The Church is Jesus’ idea and institution; it is part of the will of Jesus. And it is Christ’s Church that wrote and gave us the Holy Scriptures and the truths of faith passed down from generation to generation. Obedience to Jesus means obedience to Jesus’ Church. It is no accident that Christians have spoken of the Church as our mother for centuries. Classic Christianity spoke this way: the one who wants God as a Father must have the Church as a mother. Why is it necessary? Because Jesus is nurturing our faith through our mother, the Church. And that is why Mary is so important.

Jesus is our model but we must remember that even our Lord learned some of His commitment to truth and compassion from His mother. All we have to assume is that Mary lived her own words to see that this is true. She loved truth enough to consent to Gabriel’s invitation to bear the Son of God (Lk 1:38). She was filled with compassion enough to see God’s "mercy from generation to generation" (Lk 1:50). Mary was a woman of truth and love. Her commitment to God’s truth and love lead her to the unity of the Son of God. Her submissive heart that willingly embraced God’s truth and her devoted love for God brought about the unity of Christ’s human and divine natures into the perfect unity of His one divine person.

So Mary’s commitment to truth and unity is both our model and the means of our unity. She modeled our path to unity by her embrace of the divine Son within her womb. We must embrace Him too. Mary is also the means of our having unity because without her act of submission to God we would not have the one Savior who can unify us.

It is time to lay down our defensive postures, to lay aside our personal and political agendas, to give up our dearest visions for the Church and to embrace the complete will of Christ. I believe that if we could simply be like Mary on that day when Gabriel came to her, we could then say with her, "Let it be done to us according to your word" (Lk 1:38). Perhaps, she could say with us:

Lord, we are your servants.
Heal our divisions and
Let Your Son reign as Lord within.
Let Your Word dwell within us
And make us one.

NOT so fast . . .

But just as Peter was protected from writing error when he penned his epistle so were the Councils protected from error when called to defend the faith against heresy.

I find NO Biblical support for that . . . any more than the religious rulers in Jerusalem were protected from being children of satan . . . though admittedly, Pentecost was after that.

However, Paul's writings were after Pentecost. And he exhorted MANY congregations about error that Holy Spirit did not protect them from. And, the degree to which they ignored Paul's exhortations, they were not protected.

The fantasy of the RC magicsterical being automatically, in all respects theological protected by Holy Spirit from all error is an utterly outrageous fantasy with no Scriptural AND NO HISTORICAL support at all.

THE TRUE UNRUBBERIZED HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EDIFICE MAKES THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

Personally, I think that is by God's design. IF ORGANIZATIONS PLUS GOD whether God in Holy Spirit to leaders or God via Holy Spirit collectively . . . regardless--it would have been sufficient in Moses' time--no rebellion--but there was. Even Aaron helped with the golden calf.

After Pentecost--the same--and in SPIRIT FILLED CONGREGATIONS as with the Corinthians.

I think God makes thereby a vivid object lesson point for all Creation . . . ONLY DAILY DIALOGUE; DAILY TAKING THE FLESH TO THE CROSS; DAILY SURRENDER; DAILY ABANDONMENT; DAILY CONFESSION AND REPENTANCE; DAILY FEEDING ON THE WORD; DAILY WORSHIP; DAILY SUBMISSION TO GOD'S HIGHEST AND GOD'S COMMUNICATIONS TO US--KEEP ANY INIDIVIDUAL AND ANY GROUP OUT OF ERROR. NARROW IS THE WAY.

I think there's ABUNDANT though not screamingly glaring evidence in the New Testament that God had a dim view of organized political structured formal groups to get anything right. AS PAUL MAKES CLEAR IN CORINTHIANS--THE HOLY SPIRIT IS EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE OF EACH AND EVERY MEETING. Boy has that been left in the dust by virtually all congregations of every partiuclar Christian club brand.

You may believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church, we do not.

OF COURSE I DON'T BELIEVE HOLY SPIRIT ABANDONED THE CHURCH! SHEESH. What a false assertion.

NEITHER do we believe that Holy Spirit turned the church leadership or congregations into mindless slave robots doing 100% only His bidding at any particular level.

This is why we differ so greatly in so many of our beliefs. Many Protestants believe there is no visible Church.

BALDERDASH. We believe the visible church is not synonymous with, equal only to THE RC EDIFICE!!!

That each believer is given the Charism to be protected against the error of heresy.

I don't know any Protty that believes that. I've heard of some that do but I don't know any personally. Y'all don't like Prottys telling you what you believe--yet here you feel quite comfortable telling us what we believe. That old RC EDIFICE DOUBLE STANDARD STRIKES AGAIN! Disgustingly so.

That all Biblical passages need no interpertation by anyone outside of the reader.

HOLY SPIRIT DID PROMISE TO LEAD EVERY BELIEVER FOLLOWING HIM CLOSELY INTO ALL TRUTH. HE PROMISED THAT. Protty's didn't. God did. We trust Him to keep His promises IN HIS WAY AND IN HIS TIME AND TO WHATEVER DEGREE, SPEED ETC. HE CHOOSES TO DO SO.

You would never, ever agree on the Catholic definition and understanding of Church. Because of this you are unable to separate the acts of sinful men within the Church from her claim to having the fullness of Truth.

YEAH, when the RC Edifice claims to have a seamless purity and homogeneity in doctrine, dogma, leadership etc. from the gitgo [while History demonstrates that's plainly false] and MANY EXAMPLES THROUGH THE CENTURIES OF CHANGES AND WHOLESALE ERROR AND HERESIES AND CORRUPT MAGICSTERICALS AND CORRUPT EVIL POPES . . .

WELLL DOH! YEAH! the claim of infallibly pure doctrine, dogma etc. is wholesale laughable and brazen hogwash on it's face. Any 4th grader can see that the rationializations and hoops the RC Edifice expects folks to jump through WITH THEM only leads to deeper and deeper depths of convoluted nonsense in Alice's rabbit hole.

I do appreciate your effort to inject some reason from your side. I just have to note . . . the effort seems to have failed miserably on a list of counts--reasonableness being but one of them.

rollo””Please use reading comprehension next time.””

Your insults prove what spirit is leading You’

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption naturally go together ,as does the probable future dogma of Mary coredeemer

rollo-””I Could quote other early Church fathers about the ASSUMPTION but the day is winding down.””

You could twist the writings of the early church fathers for sure. They do NOT say that Mary's body and soul were NOT taken to heaven.

There is no historical writings showing us Mary was buried or put in a tomb either. This is very rare, as annalex pointed out to you

There is plenty of scriptural typology that coincide with the writings of the early Christians

The Blessed Mother fulfills many Biblical Old Testament Typological Prophecies, She is the New Eve. The Daughter of Zion,The perfect fulfillment of the Church and the Ark of the New Covenant.

All of this is verified in scripture typology along with the writings of the early Christians

God Created Ark Of Covenant WITHOUT STAIN

Here is a comparison of Old Testament Ark “verses” New Testament Mary who is the “Immaculate” Ark of the NEW COVENANT

A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark (Exodus 40:34-35; Numbers 9:15) = Type is
“And the angel said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’” (Luke 1:35)

Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11) = Type is
Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:26, 40)

King David asked “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) = Type is
Elizabeth asked Mary, “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

David Leaped and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14 - 16) = Type is
John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived (Luke 1:44)

Even the Early Christians saw this.
Some examples....

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

Mary is the Daughter of Zion .

The important thing point out is that in the OT (esp. Isiah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, etc..) there are Messianic prophecies known as the Daughter Zion prophecies which tend to have a similar form. They begin with something like, “rejoice, O Daughter of Zion, for the Lord your God is in your midst..” and continue on with Messianic prophecy. The form of Gabriel’s Annuniciation to Mary matches the form of the Daughter Zion prophecies. This indicates on the one hand that these prophesies are fulfilled with the words of Gabriel which announce the Messianic expectation as being fulfilled at that time.

The prophets words were a foreshadowing of the Annuniciation. Gabriel called Mary Kecharitomene, which I believe captures the essence of Daughter of Zion and points beyond it. Basically Mary is being presented in Luke I & II as representing not just the perfect embodiment of the virtues of what it means to be Israel, she is presented as a certain personification of Israel. She stands in as Israel proper, and the language used throughout the narrative suggests the concept of “corporate personality” which is part of Hebrew thought. There are allusions and types in Luke I & II which further support this (themes and structure in the Magnificat, allusions to Abraham to which this concept of corporate personality applies, Simeon, Judith, etc..). Also, this understanding of what Luke I & II presents about Our Lady is an interpretive key to understanding certain passages in a deeper way (for example Simeon’s prophecy).

It also ties in with themes in John’s writings and sheds light upon them. The thematic parallels between John-Rev & Luke-Acts are many so it’s no surprise that this aspect of Luke I & II would mesh well with John.

The Importance of Kecharitomene

Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28), is Mary,s purpose ,it is Her essence and being in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the “woman” of the Father. As the spouse of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20), in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the “woman” of the Holy Spirit. As the mother of the Son (Luke 1:31), in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the ‘woman’ of the Son. The virgin from Nazareth, clearly then, is “woman” to all the three divine Persons who is GOD. She is aptly the ‘blessed among women’ (Luke 1:42). The Blessed Virgin Mary is the “woman” of GOD. The Son of Man never called her “mother”, not even once while He interacted with humans, because it will not be in keeping with His divinity or with the Oneness and Indivisibility of the Holy Trinity. The virgin from Nazareth is not the mother of the Holy Spirit and she, obviously, is not the mother of the Father

Luke 1:28 Uses the word “Kecharitomene: to describe Mary,s function,essence and being

The original Greek was kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charis, grace. St. Jerome translated it into Latin as gratia plena, “full of grace.” In Greek the perfect stem denotes a completed action with a permanent result. Kecharitomene means completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. The Protestant Revised Standard Version translates Lk 1:28 as “highly favored daughter.” This is no mere difference of opinion but a conscious effort to distort St. Luke’s original Greek text. Had Mary been no more than “highly favored,” she would have been indistinguishable from Sarah the wife of Abraham, Anna the mother of Samuel, or Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, all of whom were long childless and “highly favored” because God acceded to their pleas to bear children. But neither Sarah nor Anna is described as kecharitomene in the Septuagint, a translation by Jewish scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Nor does Luke use it to describe Elizabeth. Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth.

The word “kecharitomene” is a perfect passive participle of the verb “charitoo.”

Some have argued that this says nothing unique about Mary since Saint Stephen, just before he is martyred for the faith, is said to be full of grace in Acts 6:8. However a different word form is used to describe Saint Stephen. In the Greek the conjugated form of “charitoo” that is used to describe him is “charitos” not “kecharitomene” that is used in reference to Mary.

Saint Luke does not use Mary as her name in Luke 1:28 He Changes it to “Kecharitomene” this is a new name , and we all know that name changes in Scripture are significant - Abram (Hebrew “father”) to Abraham (”father of multitudes), Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter, etc.

This describes her very essence and being.

Mary, is named “kecharitomene” - because she is full of grace-full of perfection

Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God, because she was perfect in obeying the will of God. She would not betray her divine husband for the sake of a man. The marriage between Joseph and Mary took place in the divine plan in order to protect the publicity of the holy virgin announced in the Holy Scriptures who would give birth to Emanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14)

Joseph was a chaste man, who respected Mary highly since he was given revelations about Mary and Jesus by the angel of God (Matthew 1:20), he accepted the special holy mission to help the promised Messiah and his mother.

Mary is the New Eve (More Typology)

Old Testament Eve- Verses New Testament Mary

Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25 = Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42

There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25 = There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34

There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17 = There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35

There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13 = There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38

A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17

There was pride, Gen 3:4-7 = There was humility, Luke 1:38

There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7 = There was obedience, Luke 1:38

There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20 = There was redemption, John 19:34

Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19 = Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28

She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22 = She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15

Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24 = Approached the “Tree of Life”, John 19:25

An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24 = An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9

Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15 = The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7

Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1 = Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5

Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8 = Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34

The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27

The Early Christians saw this very clear...

“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155)

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

Mary was PRESERVED from all stain of original sin at her creation so that she would be a “New Creation”, the “New Eve”

Lastly,It is NOT fitting that the Mother of God should bring shame to Her divine son.Therefor.God preserved Mary from any personal sin,whether mortal or venial.
Through the Grace of God,which was infused into her soul at the moment of her conception,at the very instant He created her soul and united it to her body. He did it in virtue of the merits of Christ.
No descendant of Adam receives the Grace of God except through the merits of Christ.
The Mother of Christ was no exception to this law of Grace.
Like every other human being who is descended of carnal generation from Adam,the blessed virgin Mary need to be redeemed by the blood of Christ,But wheras every other human being needs to be cleansed from the stain of original sin-which has contracted by way of carnal generation from Adam-the Virgin Mary did NOT need to be cleansed from original sin.Through the Grace of Christ she was preserved from the stain of sin.

Mary is closer to Christ than any other human being,because He took flesh from her and dwelt in her womb.
The closer one is to Christ,the source of all Grace,the greater degree of Grace one receives from Christ. Mary,therefor,received from Christ a fullness of Grace not granted to any other creature.

Her Immaculate Conception made her worthy to be Mother of God

That is how I have been led to believe the scripture I posted from Leviticus. I.E. I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers unto the third and forth generation of them that hate me.

My first reaction was to think, "This is only to the fourth generation..." But really, if one considers the cascading effect... This part of your position is perfectly plausible...

It is to the third and forth generations so it happens even faster than with just the forth. Remember how fast the life spans of the successive generations decrease as corruption takes its toll.

[...] I was reminded by some of the scriptures I read that the fall did not happen when Eve tasted the fruit. It happened when Adam did. By one man’s sin, Adam, sin entered the world.

It is true that the blame is laid primarily upon Adam, but the curse fell first upon the serpent, then upon Eve, and lastly upon Adam... I will have to think about it a bit more... But this too shows promise.

The serpent, Satan, is a fallen angel. His fall only affected him and those who follow him. Eve strengthens my contention. She sinned and it only affected her as far as we can tell by the text. It was when Adam sinned that sin was accorded to all mankind.

[You suggest that because the impetus to sin is removed from Him, his actions of free will, obeying the Father, caused Him to live a sinless life, thus breaking the bonds of sin for all?]

The sin’s of the fathers part makes it all possible. Fallen man has more than an impetus to sin, he has no choice but to sin.

This part bugs me. I find it difficult to believe. I offer Cain and Able:

The difference shown between Cain and Able is all about choosing to do right before God. Able by his choice, did the right thing, Cain did not. For your construct to work, Able cannot have the free will to do good before God (he cannot help but sin), or he is some sort of automaton contrived for the part he plays.

Cain and Able were 1^st generation. The curse had no effect on them. Free will allowed Able to please God and Cain to kill him because of jealousy. Free will was a necessity in the design of man but it was also its weakness. Cain and Able show the extreme as to how differently free will can effect people.

I can pull hundreds of examples from the Old Testament of people blessed for doing the right thing- Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and etcetera... Many, many people who would seem to have the free choice to do good. If man had no choice but to sin, then how are these explained?

True, the Bible speaks of Godly people but they were not sin free and were doomed to hell without Christ’s work and them accepting it. The godly ones, I purpose, are individuals whose ancestors chose to follow God so their free will was not completely gone. All but Enoch and Noah are post flood. We know how evil Noah's contemporaries were. The sin nature had corrupted them to the point that God started over with one family.

The only thing that has kept post flood mankind halfway civilized is the Jews trying to follow the law God gave them. You don’t have to leave this hemisphere to find human sacrifice still being carried out when Christians came ashore 1500 years after Christ was on earth. It is still being carried out today under the guise of honor.

The free will was over powered by the sin nature. No one could gain Heaven on their own. That is why God sent Jesus.

Well, yes, but such is still the case. Even among Christians, the sinful nature persists. I see sinful nature as being a poison infecting mankind. But free will is intrinsically part of what we are. It is always our choice to do evil or good. If it is not our choice, it is not our fault. To punish us would not be just.

God believes that as well and is the reason he sent Jesus. He only asks us to admit our sinfulness and except Christ’s payment for those sins and let Him adopt us back into His family.

[The courts of Heaven must be satisfied, to be sure, but it is my reckoning that the sinless life of Christ was the deal breaker, though the word of God (Prophecy) had to be fulfilled in Him too (God could not break His word).]

The sinless life of Christ was the deal maker not breaker.

I meant the deal that gave Satan dominion over the earth- That was nullified, or broken, the minute mankind produced sinless fruit.

We are saying the same thing. I just like to think of it as God winning, taking that dominion back, more than Satan losing it. lol

My point is that the Courts of Heaven had to have apples for apples. Adam lost salvation for man. Christ had to be exactly like Adam to make what He did legal. He had to be capable of the same failings or the contest would not have been fair and/or legal. When He was tempted by Satan, He had to be just as able as Adam to capitulate or it was meaningless.

This I agree with entirely. It does not seem right that Christ would have an easy time of things. It diminishes what He did to say such a thing. I am not convinced that it needed to be exactly the same. It would be acceptable (in fact likely, in my mind) if God was at a disadvantage. I am still not convinced the sinful nature was removed from Christ. If He were more likely to capitulate when tempted, the verdict would still have meaning.

Did my answers help or hinder?

Oh, helped I am sure. I just don't necessarily agree (yet)...

If Christ was indeed removed from the curse of Adam, His body an holy chalice without sin or flaw, death would not find Him, because death is part of the curse. It stands to reason thereby, that He was born into the curse, just like the rest of us, and that He succeeded where we all have utterly failed, in spite of that curse.

You are forgetting one thing. Christ died by choice. Father, Your will be done. He sweat blood just thinking about being separated from the Father. This makes it even more (What ever superlative you want to insert here.) what he did for us.

Yes, He chose. but there is a distinction between choosing to go to His death, and choosing to let Himself die. I don't think that distinction can be defined, but again, the evidence points to a man in the flesh. He could be tempted. He felt hunger. he felt exhaustion. If all these, is it such a stretch to suppose he died just like anyone else?

Christ is the innocent Lamb with no blemish or stain that God needed to atone for our sins with His blood and death. God asked and He said; “yes”. He tasted death for us so we wouldn’t have to. He had to die to make God’s plan complete.

He had to die while innocent to payoff that part of the curse for us. The death also allowed Him to be resurrected to fulfill Prophecy and to assure us the Father would do the same for us.

That is certainly true. but the curse is a propensity, not sin itself.

This is the first part of my reply. Please keep in mind if I misunderstood anything you said I apologize and gladly accept your correction.

• But just as Peter was protected from writing error when he penned his epistle so were the Councils protected from error when called to defend the faith against heresy. I find NO Biblical support for that . . . any more than the religious rulers in Jerusalem were protected from being children of satan . . . though admittedly, Pentecost was after that.
Do you mean you find no Biblical support for my statement about Peter or about the Councils? If you mean the latter I will answer that those Protestant churches of the Reformation do believe the Creeds have authority. Meaning what they teach is true and a person who rejects those teachings can rightly be accused of heresy. This authority is not equal to Scripture which of course has primacy of authority in establishing the doctrines of such Protestant churches. They accept the Creeds because what is found in them can be supported in Scripture. I will gladly be corrected by I don’t think these Protestant churches believe the Creeds teach what is right because a group of men just happened to luck out and get it right. Rather what the Creeds teach is true because they can be linked to inspired and inerrant Scripture which gains its inerrancy and inspiration from the Holy Spirit. I have to admit I can not remember which Councils are accepted by the Churches of the Reformation. I think it is either the first 5 or the first 7. And remember I am speaking of all persons together in Council not individuals. So your comparison to the leaders in Jerusalem falls short. But I will contend I do not think this Charism existed in the OT for the simple reason there was no Church in the OT. And this was something promised by Christ to His Church. And I use that in a much broader sense than the Catholic definition of Church.
However, Paul’s writings were after Pentecost. And he exhorted MANY congregations about error that Holy Spirit did not protect them from. And, the degree to which they ignored Paul’s exhortations, they were not protected.
Congregations are not the same as individual Churches independent of any ecclesiastical authority. As such they do not have the protection from teaching error that I mentioned. Anymore than the parish of St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis is protected from practicing base heresy. But your statement brings to mind something else. By what authority did Paul exhort these congregations? No doubt they too read scripture. They probably examined them and felt their interpretation was valid. So why was their interpretation condemned by Paul? And why does no one argue that they would have been justified in starting their own Church? Could it be that Paul ( who termed himself one of the Apostles) did have the authority to discern what was orthodox and what was heresy? If he did where did this come from? Was it of natural or supernatural orgin?
The fantasy of the RC magicsterical being automatically, in all respects theological protected by Holy Spirit from all error is an utterly outrageous fantasy with no Scriptural AND NO HISTORICAL support at all.
Ok that is a whole other thread topic. So let us just agree to disagree on this one. But will you grant that the Scripture is a source of authority in both Catholic and Protestant churches?

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.