In that essay he posits the one verse that Catholics use for Mary’s sinlessness. If, somehow, charis or any of it’s derivatives meant to be sinless Stephen and many others would also have been sinless. The use of the word kecharitōmenē first of all never means “sinless” and comes from the word “charis” which only indicates that grace was given to Mary. Again, no definition of those words denote sinlessness. The lengthy attempt at trying to get to sinlessness by Catholic apologists is simply wrong. Never do they prove that the terms mean sinlessness.
That concept of sinlessness of “the queen of heaven” and the “mother of god” is most definitely of pagan origin. Most of the symbolism, vestments, rituals, and holy days the RCC has incorporated into it’s religious practices goes back to Babylonian paganism and has never been instituted by God. In fact, God said not to worship Him with anything taken from pagan practice.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God:
You think the RCC doesn’t admit that it has taken pagan rituals, symbols, etc?
“We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendor of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; but they were common to almost all cults” (Catholic Encyclopedia, III, 246.)
“When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs...the god, Woden, in Norse Mythology, descends upon the earth yearly between December 25th and January 6th to bless mankind...But pagan though they be, they are beautiful customs. They help inspire us with the spirit of 'good will to men', even as the sublime service of our Church reminds us of the ‘peace on earth’ which the babe of Bethlehem came to bestow” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 140).
Catholics can’t deny that the RCC has incorporated pagan practices into its practices. The RCC itself admits that it does. The RCC refuses to hear the words of the Lord as did the Israelites.
“As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.” (Jer.44:16-17)
It's true that "grace" per se doesn't automatically mean "sinlessness" --- however, "full of grace", because it is plenary, is incompatible with sinfulness. That's why I consider this line of reasoning assertoric but not apodictic: being full of grace is simply incompatible with sinfulness and compatible with being sinless. This is not a proof, but an inference based on converging lines of evidence.
I don't know that it can be proved by Scripture. I need only say this: it is not disproved or excluded by Scripture; and it is compatible with Scripture.
It is proved by the belief and teaching of Christ's Church.
I know that makes your hair stand on end, but that's because you take a (relatively) minimalist view of the Church, as I understand it --- seeing it as not much more than a fellowship, with guidance by the Holy Spirit to be sure, but no sure court of appeal when you and your brethren seem "guided" in divergent ways.
Catholics take a (relatively) maximalist view --- seeing the Church as exercising all the powers expressed in "he who hears you, hears Me; and he who hears Me hears the One who sent Me" --- the powers of binding and loosing, and receiving the Holy Spirit in a unified way (John 14:26), as an ordered body and not just a collection of cells.
That is, we tend to put the Church-authority language of the NT in bold; you, perhaps, are not so inclined.
This leads also to a relatively robust idea within Catholicism about the "Development of Doctrine", likewise a robust belief in Jesus' sovereignty over cultures, so that all the good things in cultures are brought to subjection to Him, and serve Him (1 Cor 15:27-28; Eph. 1:10, 22; Col 1:20) --- because he is the Master of all things and can use them to His purpose.
This has to do with the purification and usability of the resources of human cultures; it does NOT mean the adoption of pagan concepts which are incompatible with Christ.
Think of it. If all things in human cultures were unusable, we could not speak English (based on pagan language) or or even use the Greek terms (another pagan language.) We could not speak of Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or of January, February, March; nor could we call Christ the Logos (a word heavily indebted to pagan philosophy), nor wear wedding rings (who authorized that?) Nor be married in church (is that in the NT?) nor do any of a million things which are not explicitly mentioned n Scripture, but which are part of human culture, cleansed of their pagan associations and-- as Paul says -- being subjected to Christ.
That's enough for now. It's getting late. My husband baked me a potato, so that's my agenda now: potato, and bed.
G'Night, Cynical Bear!