Could Mary have sinned?

[KnightofChrist]

25 minutes ago, Peace said:

What do you do with Acts 6:8 ?

(RSVCE) And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

Unless you are attributing the inability to sin to Stephen as well, it would appear that being "full of grace" does not mean that one is incapable of sinning.

Thoughts?

The Greek words translated into English as "grace" in Acts 6:8 and Luke 1:28 are different.

 

=quote=
The Catholic Point: Kecharitomene

[...]

The word used in Acts 6:8 referring to Stephen is a different word from the one referring to Mary.

Here, Stephen is described as "pleres charitos" literally "filled up with grace" meaning at that moment, he was full of grace.

But the term used to Mary is "Kecharitomene" perfect passive participle of "charitoo" [charitoo (verb) comes from the same Greek root of “charis” - which means “grace” and charitoó means to fill or endow with grace] or in other words: "Hail, one who has always been full of grace"

To make it more clearer, "kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle tense of the verb meaning "to fill with grace," Because it is in the perfect participle tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace and there is no room for sin in her before the Annunciation, the implication being that she was the immaculate!

No other character in the bible was called kecharitomene except for Mary. The Angel Gabriel is not speaking his own words, rather he is delivering God’s message to her.

Luke 1: 28 "Hail, (kecharitomene: one who has always been full of grace), the Lord is with you. Blessed you among women."

So in Luke 1:28, Mary has always been and remains full of grace, and Stephen gets filled with grace only from a certain point in time [Acts 6:8] 

=/quote=

Edited December 14, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[Cam42]

7 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Greek words translated into English as "grace" in Acts 6:8 and Luke 1:28 are different.

 

=quote=
The Catholic Point: Kecharitomene

[...]

The word used in Acts 6:8 referring to Stephen is a different word from the one referring to Mary.

Here, Stephen is described as "pleres charitos" literally "filled up with grace" meaning at that moment, he was full of grace.

But the term used to Mary is "Kecharitomene" perfect passive participle of "charitoo" [charitoo (verb) comes from the same Greek root of “charis” - which means “grace” and charitoó means to fill or endow with grace] or in other words: "Hail, one who has always been full of grace"

To make it more clearer, "kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle tense of the verb meaning "to fill with grace," Because it is in the perfect participle tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace and there is no room for sin in her before the Annunciation, the implication being that she was the immaculate!

No other character in the bible was called kecharitomene except for Mary. The Angel Gabriel is not speaking his own words, rather he is delivering God’s message to her.

Luke 1: 28 "Hail, (kecharitomene: one who has always been full of grace), the Lord is with you. Blessed you among women."

So in Luke 1:28, Mary has always been and remains full of grace, and Stephen gets filled with grace only from a certain point in time [Acts 6:8] 

=/quote=

This.

[Peace]

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Greek words translated into English as "grace" in Acts 6:8 and Luke 1:28 are different.

 

=quote=
The Catholic Point: Kecharitomene

[...]

The word used in Acts 6:8 referring to Stephen is a different word from the one referring to Mary.

Here, Stephen is described as "pleres charitos" literally "filled up with grace" meaning at that moment, he was full of grace.

But the term used to Mary is "Kecharitomene" perfect passive participle of "charitoo" [charitoo (verb) comes from the same Greek root of “charis” - which means “grace” and charitoó means to fill or endow with grace] or in other words: "Hail, one who has always been full of grace"

To make it more clearer, "kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle tense of the verb meaning "to fill with grace," Because it is in the perfect participle tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace and there is no room for sin in her before the Annunciation, the implication being that she was the immaculate!

No other character in the bible was called kecharitomene except for Mary. The Angel Gabriel is not speaking his own words, rather he is delivering God’s message to her.

Luke 1: 28 "Hail, (kecharitomene: one who has always been full of grace), the Lord is with you. Blessed you among women."

So in Luke 1:28, Mary has always been and remains full of grace, and Stephen gets filled with grace only from a certain point in time [Acts 6:8] 

=/quote=

Thanks. My guess was that the words in the original language might be different. Is that difference present in every Greek manuscript, or only in some of them?

I am not sure if that really solves the problem with your argument, however.

Is it your position, then, henceforth from the moment when Stephen was "full of grace", that he was incapable of sinning? In other words, are we safe to assume that after Stephen was "full of grace" he was then incapable of sinning for the rest of his life?

It would seem that if the argument is that "full of grace" means "incapable of sinning", then the same would have to apply to Stephen, from the point in time that he was "full of grace". The only difference would be that Mary was made "full of grace" at Time A whereas Stephen was made "full of grace" from Time B.

If your argument holds then it would seem that you have to agree that Stephen was incapable of sinning from Time B. Is that what you assert?

Edited December 14, 2015 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

But the words mean two different things. We can't really continue to compare the two as though the two words for grace are the same. Stephen's grace was different from Mary's, because it was limited to a certain place and time, it was given for limited amount time for a because it was given for certain moment in his life, not his whole life, and his life did not last much longer after he preached the Gospel to the Jews in Acts. It is possible since he was in the state of grace as he preached the Gospel and was martyred soon after than he didn't sin in that time. But the way he was full of grace was different than the way Mary is full of grace.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

But the words mean two different things. We can't really continue to compare the two as though the two words for grace are the same. Stephen's grace was different from Mary's, because it was limited to a certain place and time, it was given for limited amount time for a because it was given for certain moment in his life, not his whole life, and his life did not last much longer after he preached the Gospel to the Jews in Acts. It is possible since he was in the state of grace as he preached the Gospel and was martyred soon after than he didn't sin in that time. But the way he was full of grace was different than the way Mary is full of grace.

I think that this is a good counter-argument. Thanks.

Is "the way" that Stephen was full of grace really different than "the way" that Mary was full of grace? It seems to me that the "time" Stephen was full of grace was different than the "time" that Mary was full of grace. I don't read Greek so I cannot say how it works. But based on what you wrote above, it seems that the root "charis" in both words is the same, so I don' t know if there is something fundamentally different about how they should be read, other than the fact that the tense (or time) that the grace occurs is different. I mean, in English if we compare the words "walks" and "walked" we are still talking about fundamentally the same thing, even if they are different words. The only difference is the tense. Thoughts?

As for as Mary being "full of grace" forever and Stephen's "full grace" being limited only to a particular point in time - is there anything really in the text itself that indicates that the "full of grace" state is something that lasts for all time, for Mary, and is limited to a specific period of time for Stephen? If one is "full of grace" at one point of time how does one then become "not full of grace" at another point in time? God just randomly decides to cut the grace off for no reason? I haven't come across any Catholic teaching where God cuts off grace that he has given to a person, except that we get cut off from grace when a person sins. But you say that "full of grace" means that a person cannot sin, so there seemingly would be no reason for Stephen to have sinned at the moment he became "full of grace", and thus would have remained incapable of sinning until his death. Does that not logically follow from your argument?

Regardless, I take it that your assertion is that for the brief period of time that Stephen was "full of grace" (lets say 3 hours) he was incapable of sinning during those 3 hours? That would seem to logically follow from your argument. Is that what you assert?

[Cam42]

I do speak Greek.  There is a fundamental difference.  So, Mary's grace was special and utterly different than the grace given to other men.  That includes Stephen.  The grace given to Stephen was given freely and remained with him until such time as he sinned again.  Remember, Stephen knew sin.  He had experienced it in his life and he was corrupted by it in his daily life.  He was freed from original sin by his baptism.  When God gave him the grace to accomplish his mission, Stephen had the ability to complete the mission with the will of God forefront in his soul.

Mary, on the other hand, never knew sin.  The grace given to Mary was given freely and remained with her for the entirety of her life.  Remember, Mary never knew sin.  She never experienced it in her life and she was pure from the beginning to the end.  She had no need to be baptized, and the grace God gave her remained with her and preserved her in her daily life.

Greek doesn't work like English.  The root may be the same, but the meaning is entirely different.  It isn't like walks v. walked.  It is closer to what we call a homonym.  An easy way to think of it is that some hunters fawn over fawns.  I can get deeper into it, but that speaks to the issue as simply as can be done.
 

[Peace]

26 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

I do speak Greek.  There is a fundamental difference.  

What is the fundamental difference? Take a look at this article.

http://jimmyakin.com/2005/10/kecharitomene_q.html

Apparently the same exact words that translate to "full of grace" are used for Jesus and Stephen. Are you saying that Mary had a type of grace that is fundamentally superior to the type of grace that Jesus/Stephen is said to have?

(Now, I don't think that Jesus was capable of sinning -  but that is because Jesus is God, which we can both agree that Mary is not - I hope!)

Apparently the word that you used does not even literally translate to "full of grace".

kecharitomene literally means "one who has been graced" or "woman who has been graced"

plErEs charitos literally means "full of grace."

Thoughts? If you are looking at how the words are literally translated, it would seem that Stephen/Jesus is the one that we should be talking about as incapable of sinning based on the text alone, not Mary.

Your argument seems to construe the meaning of the terms based on extrinsic facts (such as the fact that Stephen sinned) rather than on giving the terms a literal/plain meaning interpretation themselves.

Thoughts?

26 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

So, Mary's grace was special and utterly different than the grace given to other men.  That includes Stephen.  The grace given to Stephen was given freely and remained with him until such time as he sinned again.  Remember, Stephen knew sin.  He had experienced it in his life and he was corrupted by it in his daily life.  He was freed from original sin by his baptism.  When God gave him the grace to accomplish his mission, Stephen had the ability to complete the mission with the will of God forefront in his soul.

I agree that it is different insofar as the time that it was given is different. I don't think you have really presented anything convincing that would indicate that they are different in nature.

26 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Mary, on the other hand, never knew sin.  The grace given to Mary was given freely and remained with her for the entirety of her life.  Remember, Mary never knew sin.  She never experienced it in her life and she was pure from the beginning to the end.  She had no need to be baptized, and the grace God gave her remained with her and preserved her in her daily life.

 Sure. But I don't see what that has to do with how we interpret the meaning of "Full of Grace" in the Bible. It seems that a lot of your analysis puts the cart before the horse. You are going back to your old arguments again it seems.

26 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

Greek doesn't work like English.  The root may be the same, but the meaning is entirely different.  It isn't like walks v. walked.  It is closer to what we call a homonym.  An easy way to think of it is that some hunters fawn over fawns.  I can get deeper into it, but that speaks to the issue as simply as can be done.

Please do. For example, are there any non-biblical texts where those same terms are used, that would indicate a fundamental difference between the words (that is, a difference other than a difference in time)? If the term used for Mary is not used outside of scripture, then I don't think you can objectively interpret it as meaning anything beyond what the Church teaches.

You guys have my sympathy though. It is not an easy argument to make, and there is something to be said in trying.

[KnightofChrist]

15 hours ago, Peace said:

You guys have my sympathy though. It is not an easy argument to make, and there is something to be said in trying.

It's always easier to ask questions rather to answer them. How could the Immaculata commit a sin?

[KnightofChrist]

There is a difference not only in words in the Greek but how they are used. In Acts 6:8 and John 1:4 "plErEs charitos" is adjective, while Kecharitomene is a name and title given to Mary, like Simon was given the name Peter. So again the comparisons between the word used in Acts and the word used in Luke are not really comparable since they are actually completely different words, different meanings and used in different manners.

 

==quote==

Hail Mary: Kecharitomene, A Unique Word for a Unique Lady

[...]

Lectio difficilior potior, goes the old saying.  The stronger interpretation is the better one.  As Scott Hahn puts it in his notes on this part of the Gospel of Luke in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, "the best translation," and the one most in accord with the analogy of faith, "is the most exalted one,"  In other words, "full of grace" best fits the bill to translate kecharitomene, though Hahn acknowledges the word is not quite a perfect fit.

The reason why "full of grace" does not go far enough and so is not a perfect fit is that "full of grace" is the literal translation of the Greek πληρης χαριτος (pleres charitos).  That phrase is used to refer to St. Stephen, the first martyr, in Acts 6:8.  It is also used to refer to Jesus, the Word made flesh, in The Gospel of John 1:14. 

The same words ("full of grace"), it would appear obvious, ought not to be used to translate different Greek words (pleres charitos in Acts 6:8 and John 1:4 and kecharitomene in Luke 1:28).  This is what drives the "most highly favored" crowd.

This is particularly true in that in both Acts 6:8 and John 1:4, the words "full of grace" are used in an obvious adjectival sense, and not as a noun, even a proper name or title, which is the case in Luke 1:28. 

What the Angel Gabriel wants to communicate to Mary and to us is in the word kecharitomene is that Mary has a unique name, a unique title, a unique role in sacred history, and so--though human--is a unique being in the economy of salvation.

Mary is she whose very name, whose very title, whose very office, whose very person is to have been endowed with grace in anticipation of her role as Mother of God and Mother of the Church.
That's one reason why using "full of grace" does not go far enough.  It is remarkable--in fact it is of utmost importance--that kecharitomene is clearly used by the angel Gabriel--the messenger of the most High God--as a proper noun, as Mary's heavenly name.

continue reading...  

==/quote==

[Peace]

6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

It's always easier to ask questions rather to answer them. How could the Immaculata commit a sin?

By stealing. By killing someone. By worshiping an idol. Need I go through the rest of the commandments?

[Peace]

6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

There is a difference not only in words in the Greek but how they are used. In Acts 6:8 and John 1:4 "plErEs charitos" is adjective, while Kecharitomene is a name and title given to Mary, like Simon was given the name Peter. So again the comparisons between the word used in Acts and the word used in Luke are not really comparable since they are actually completely different words, different meanings and used in different manners.

OK. What does "Kecharitomene" mean then? Does the word translate to "Mary could not have sinned"?

What is your definition of it? You assert that it implies something fundamentally different than "full of grace" (pleres charitos). Please give us your definition of the word then. What does it imply above and beyond "full of grace" and what logical reason is for me to believe you if the Church has not told us that is what the word implies?

If the only time in history that Kecharitomene is used is the one reference to Mary in the Bible, then the word means exactly what the Church tells us it means, does it not? You can't tell me what the word means any more than you can tell me what word "bugdabugdaboo" means if Kecharitomene was only used one time in the history of the universe. You can only look at the context in which the word was used and make an educated guess at what the word means based on the surrounding context. But the Church has already done this - and She has not told us that the word implies that Mary could not have sinned. So how does this word "Kecharitomene" help your argument at all then?

Also, the words "big" and "large" are different words, but they fundamentally describe the same concept. Kecharitomene and pleres charitos may be different words, but they both fundamentally indicate "being graced" "one who is graced" or being "full of grace" do they not? If you cannot demonstrate how the words are fundamentally different in the concept that they describe, I don't see why it matters that you have different words. You are still faced with the issue that the fundamental concept, receiving grace, does not logically conclude that one is incapable of sinning (as in the case with Stephen).

Peace

[KnightofChrist]

16 hours ago, Peace said:

By stealing. By killing someone. By worshiping an idol. Need I go through the rest of the commandments?

But it's not that easy. If Mary, the Immaculata did any of those things it would be a contradiction and she would cease to be the Immaculata. Much like God, who is the Truth were to lie that would be a contradiction and God would cease to be the Truth. Immaculata is a name for Mary, it means sinless, so how does Sinless commit sin?

[KnightofChrist]

18 hours ago, Peace said:

OK. What does "Kecharitomene" mean then? Does the word translate to "Mary could not have sinned"?

What is your definition of it? You assert that it implies something fundamentally different than "full of grace" (pleres charitos). Please give us your definition of the word then. What does it imply above and beyond "full of grace" and what logical reason is for me to believe you if the Church has not told us that is what the word implies?

If the only time in history that Kecharitomene is used is the one reference to Mary in the Bible, then the word means exactly what the Church tells us it means, does it not? You can't tell me what the word means any more than you can tell me what word "bugdabugdaboo" means if Kecharitomene was only used one time in the history of the universe. You can only look at the context in which the word was used and make an educated guess at what the word means based on the surrounding context. But the Church has already done this - and She has not told us that the word implies that Mary could not have sinned. So how does this word "Kecharitomene" help your argument at all then?

Also, the words "big" and "large" are different words, but they fundamentally describe the same concept. Kecharitomene and pleres charitos may be different words, but they both fundamentally indicate "being graced" "one who is graced" or being "full of grace" do they not? If you cannot demonstrate how the words are fundamentally different in the concept that they describe, I don't see why it matters that you have different words. You are still faced with the issue that the fundamental concept, receiving grace, does not logically conclude that one is incapable of sinning (as in the case with Stephen).

Peace

I'm sorry but at very least you will have to admit error in trying to make the two Greek words to have the same meaning. They do not have the same meaning, Luke used a special and unique word for a reason, so that it would not be the same as any other word. Both Kecharitomene and pleres charitos are similar. But they are similar like two different fruits are similar but apples aren't oranges and Kecharitomene is not pleres charitos.

There are really no words for Kecharitomene that can be properly translated into English. "Fully Graced One" or "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace" or “you who were and continue to be full of and completed in grace”  is about the best ways we can translate it to English. I cannot see how someone who's name is Kecharitomene ("Fully Graced One") and Immaculata (Free from Sin) could sin, it makes no sense what-so-ever. Kecharitomene and Immaculata are two names by which the Church calls Mary.

The Church has told us what the word Kecharitomene means, directly and indirectly. One such example is Pope Saint John Paul II.

"The expression "Full of grace" is the translation of the Greek word Kecharitomene, which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely "full of grace", but "made full of grace", or even "filled with grace", which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the Blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a perfect participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness." - Pope Saint John Paul II, Blessed Virgin was filled with God's Grace {A.D. 1996}

How can Mary with a full, perfect, lasting grace commit sin? Again it makes no sense, she would then cease to be the Kecharitomene. The question is rhetorical, if someone has a full, perfect and lasting grace then they cannot sin, otherwise the grace would not be perfect and lasting or full.

We can also look to the Church Fathers to understand the meaning of and how Mary's being "full of grace" is unique and different.

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace 4, 36 {A.D. 415}

“As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 {ante A.D. 446}

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1{A.D. 244)

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption 5:6 {ante A.D. 650}

“Truly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali {ante A.D. 733}

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

I'm sorry but at very least you will have to admit error in trying to make the two Greek words to have the same meaning.

I already admitted that the words are different in some respects. I am still having trouble seeing how the fundamental concept (being graced or receiving grace) is different.

Quote

They do not have the same meaning, Luke used a special and unique word for a reason, so that it would not be the same as any other word. Both Kecharitomene and pleres charitos are similar. But they are similar like two different fruits are similar but apples aren't oranges and Kecharitomene is not pleres charitos.

They both have the same root. Apple and Orange do not. Now I know that you guys like to say that in Greek words that have the same root are completely unrelated, but I find that hard to believe. That is just not the way any language I have seen works, whether it be English, Spanish, or Japanese.

Quote

There are really no words for Kecharitomene that can be properly translated into English. "Fully Graced One" or "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace" or “you who were and continue to be full of and completed in grace”  is about the best ways we can translate it to English. I cannot see how someone who's name is Kecharitomene ("Fully Graced One") and Immaculata (Free from Sin) could sin, it makes no sense what-so-ever. Kecharitomene and Immaculata are two names by which the Church calls Mary.

 What part of Kecharitomene indicates "fully" or "completely, perfectly, enduringly"? Just wondering. Can you explain that to me? My take is that "charito" means "grace". What does "Ke" mean when you add it to a word? What does "mene" mean when you add it to the end of a word?

In the other phrase I take it that "pleres" means "fully" but what indicates "fully" in Kecharitomene ?

Quote

The Church has told us what the word Kecharitomene means, directly and indirectly. One such example is Pope Saint John Paul II.

"The expression "Full of grace" is the translation of the Greek word Kecharitomene, which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely "full of grace", but "made full of grace", or even "filled with grace", which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the Blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a perfect participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness." - Pope Saint John Paul II, Blessed Virgin was filled with God's Grace {A.D. 1996}

How can Mary with a full, perfect, lasting grace commit sin? Again it makes no sense, she would then cease to be the Kecharitomene. The question is rhetorical, if someone has a full, perfect and lasting grace then they cannot sin, otherwise the grace would not be perfect and lasting or full.

You make a pretty strong argument here I think. He certainly does seem to suggest that the grace that Mary received is something that could not be lost. Maybe you might actually convince me that you are correct.

If a grace is perfect and lasting does it mean that the grace cannot be rejected?

I mean, look at it this way. We all agree that Mary had a choice in choosing whether or not to become pregnant. If she cannot say no to the grace that God has given her, then how does she not become a robot? How does she really have a choice.

Quote

We can also look to the Church Fathers to understand the meaning of and how Mary's being "full of grace" is unique and different.

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace 4, 36 {A.D. 415}

“As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 {ante A.D. 446}

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1{A.D. 244)

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption 5:6 {ante A.D. 650}

“Truly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali {ante A.D. 733}

 

Yeah. All of these indicate that she was born free of the stain of original sin, which I agree with of course. Other than that, I don' think these help you too much. The St. John Paul II quote definitely helps your case though.

Need to get back to work but will try to add a little more to my response here later.

3 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

But it's not that easy. If Mary, the Immaculata did any of those things it would be a contradiction and she would cease to be the Immaculata. Much like God, who is the Truth were to lie that would be a contradiction and God would cease to be the Truth. Immaculata is a name for Mary, it means sinless, so how does Sinless commit sin?

Is this a Chicken / Egg thing though. Is she the Immaculata because she did not sin, or did she not sin because she is the Immaculata? I am guessing that the knowledge in the Church that she did not sin came before the term Immaculata was used, but I do not know.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I already admitted that the words are different in some respects. I am still having trouble seeing how the fundamental concept (being graced or receiving grace) is different.

I don't know how else to explain it. The word used for Mary is a noun, it is a name given to her by God through the Angel Gabriel. It defines her very being. She is in fact Full of Grace, that is who she is to God, her fullness in grace is so great that God named her Kecharitomene, and called on his Archangel to hail her as Kecharitomene, and the angel did so before ever calling her Mary. The word used for Stephen is used in a adjectival sense, he was not given the name Full of Grace, he was given a gift of grace for a moment, the moment he preached and taught the Jewish people about Christ. Perhaps comparing of the grace Stephen received to infallibility would help? Infallibility is a special grace that Apostles like Stephen had, it kept them free from error when teaching about faith and morals. But infallibility did not keep the Apostles free from all error all the time. It is a grace that exist only during certain moments in certain times. Also though the same word is used for Stephen in Acts as is used for Christ in John, Stephen wouldn't have the same grace as Christ for reasons that should be obvious. 

Quote

They both have the same root. Apple and Orange do not. Now I know that you guys like to say that in Greek words that have the same root are completely unrelated, but I find that hard to believe. That is just not the way any language I have seen works, whether it be English, Spanish, or Japanese.

Apple trees and Orange trees do share the same 'root' or ancestry, separated by tens of millions of years of course. Still both also share the commonality in that they are both fruits that grow on trees but both are very different. Perhaps Apples and Pears would be a better example. Both are in the same family, Rosaceae, however both are not the same. I'm not sure I every said Kecharitomene and plErEs charitos are completely unrelated, I do know I said they are completely different words. They do share the commonality of "grace" but the type of grace is different between the two, like apples and oranges or apples and pears. And as for words, "animal" and "animate" share the same root word in Latin, but animal and animate are very different.

Quote

 What part of Kecharitomene indicates "fully" or "completely, perfectly, enduringly"? Just wondering. Can you explain that to me? My take is that "charito" means "grace". What does "Ke" mean when you add it to a word? What does "mene" mean when you add it to the end of a word?

In the other phrase I take it that "pleres" means "fully" but what indicates "fully" in Kecharitomene ?

You make a pretty strong argument here I think. He certainly does seem to suggest that the grace that Mary received is something that could not be lost. Maybe you might actually convince me that you are correct.

If a grace is perfect and lasting does it mean that the grace cannot be rejected?

I mean, look at it this way. We all agree that Mary had a choice in choosing whether or not to become pregnant. If she cannot say no to the grace that God has given her, then how does she not become a robot? How does she really have a choice.

 

Quote

Need to get back to work but will try to add a little more to my response here later.

Is this a Chicken / Egg thing though. Is she the Immaculata because she did not sin, or did she not sin because she is the Immaculata? I am guessing that the knowledge in the Church that she did not sin came before the term Immaculata was used, but I do not know.

I'll answer these points later tonight or tomorrow. But it would be cool if you are now may be inclined to believe Mary could not commit sin.

Quote

Yeah. All of these indicate that she was born free of the stain of original sin, which I agree with of course. Other than that, I don' think these help you too much. The St. John Paul II quote definitely helps your case though.

Augustine teaches that Christ gave Mary such an abundance of grace that it would overcome sin in every particular. Sin in every particular, not just original sin. Origen and Theotokos of Livias both teach that she is immaculate, which means perfect, sinless. Germanus of Constantinople teaches that she has no affinity with sin whatever. I don't see how these teaches don't help me.

Edited December 16, 2015 by KnightofChrist