Thursday, March 16, 2017

Luke 1:28 And Roman Catholic Mariology

  • Introduction:
          -Roman Catholics spend much time arguing (off the basis of Luke 1:28 in the Latin Vulgate) that the Greek word "Kecharitomene" (translated into English as "full of grace") means that Mary was conceived without sin and remained in the same manner (sinless) throughout her entire life on earth.
          -Luke 1:28 is the foundational supporting beam used to lay the grounds for Roman Catholic Marian theology. But if Mary was a sinner like everybody else, then every building block of this absurd belief system would collapse like a line of dominoes because each doctrine presupposes the necessity of her allegedly uncorrupted nature.
  • The Application Of Common Sense:
          -The best description that we get about Mary from the pages of the Bible is that she is "the Lord's servant" (Luke 1:38). No other biblical descriptions of her character exist. It is therefore an untenable position to go from describing Mary as being an instrument by God to accomplish His purpose to being a woman who was conceived without sin, ascended into heaven without physical death, and having the power to save people from their sins. Furthermore, Luke 1:28 never sanctions the use of random titles to exalt Mary, permits us to offer prayers to her or build statues of saints to bow before, and fails to mention anything about future apparitions. In summary, too much doctrinal weight has been laid on this passage of Scripture.    
          -The context reveals important sayings of Elizabeth, Mary, and the Angel Gabriel. However, nothing is said about Mary's alleged "sinlessness." Furthermore, we need to ask why Gabriel would announce the important message of Mary's birth so many years after the occasion took place (when she was a fully grown woman)? Both the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were proclaimed before their birth dates. The Bible as a whole is prophetic in nature, that is, foretells the coming of important events or individuals. It would be very strange to make a prophecy of an event after the fact that it has already happened. The context of Luke chapter one is all about the conception of Jesus. In other words, all characters mentioned in this context point to the coming of Jesus, not to Mary His mother. She found favor with God (Luke 1:30). Hence, to read the idea of Mary's alleged immaculate conception into this passage is contextually invalid. 
  • Not Found In The Original Greek Manuscripts:
          -The phrase "full of grace" is derived from a faulty translation of Jerome in his fourth century Latin Vulgate. Also, the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church has derived its doctrine from a corrupted Latin translation (not the Greek original). Interestingly, most modern-day Catholic Bibles do not have the rendering "full of grace". Examples of reputable translations ignoring the term would include the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.
  • Admissions From Official Roman Catholic Sources On The Greek Term "Kecharitomene":
          -"But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma." (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Immaculate Conception”)
          -"The words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation “full of grace” might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378) 
  • "All Generations shall call me blessed..." (Luke 1:48):
          -While Roman Catholics point to the fact that Mary said that all generations would call her blessed for what God has done through her, the context of the passage is solely about the conception of Jesus. The Roman Catholic interpretation totally misses the point of Mary's inspired statement. It is not as if she was intending that all people of future generations honor her by means of erecting statues, offering prayers, or by doing the dozens of other superstitious activities that the Catholics of modern Roman Catholicism do. In other words, she did not make this statement to try making a permanent reputation for herself so that people would "never stop venerating her." She was simply saying that God had used her as an instrument to bring His Son into the world and proclaiming that the message of salvation would never be lost. The conception of Jesus has forever changed the course of history. This context points us to God, not Mary. He was the One who was ultimately doing the work. Simply acknowledging Mary's purpose does not translate into a justification of Marian doctrines. Having respect for Mary does not require that one idolize her. The Roman Catholic Church has inflated views of Mary and assigns roles that Scripture simply does not ascribe to her. Would it be permissible to argue that all Christians are conceived without a sin nature just because God calls them "blessed" (Matthew 25:34)?

9 comments:

  1. Without that Latin mis-translation, RCC wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Of course they don't have the leg to stand on anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Brother Jesse, the crux of the Protestant issue is that the devil has blinded and wounded you Protestants, as he himself is wounded and blind, wounded and blind with pride, so that you Protestants are an anti-idolatrous police, because the devil in his pride that you Protestants have also contracted such vice does not want to honor God made man in Jesus Christ and what is most fearful to him, the devil, he in no way wants to honor a pure creature, a person like the Divine Mary, For it is a temptation of pride to the angels to find themselves, and they are greater and better than we men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for demonstrating you have not argument except name-calling. Mary is NOT divine -- she is not a goddess. It is your prideful papism which attacks those who tell the truth about the RCC.

      Delete
    2. Dear Brother Gleen, Mary Our Lady and Mother, mine and yours, even if you do not want Her as Mother and Lady, because Jesus is our brother, He is the firstborn among many brothers and Mary is Our Lady, because a Mother is Lady of their children, except for evil children, because they rebel. But Mary is divine, even in the sense that Christ Himself gives to gods in the Bible, for those who proclaim the Word have been called gods. And Mary was deified by His holiness from the immaculate conception until it was taken by God in body and soul into heaven. I did not swear at you, my dear brother, I was just pedagogical, I was sincere, but not aggressive pedagogical. Mary loves you, the Roman Catholic Church is the only one Church of Christ, come to the truth. Kisses in the heart.

      Delete
    3. João Emiliano Martins Neto,

      Mary could not be our mother because she did not give birth to us. Your comments are nothing but pure speculation and mysticism.

      It is painfully obvious to anyone whose minds have not been tarnished by the ecumenical tentacles of Rome that you worship Mary.

      Scripture does not give her any supernatural roles or abilities. Your reasoning is just as valid as a three dollar bill; fabricated out of thin air.

      I have already systematically examined how Roman Catholic Mariology conflicts with biblical teaching:

      https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/search?q=mary

      Delete
    4. João Emiliano Martins Neto,

      Mary is only the mother of Jesus, and of course Jesus' half-brothers/half-sisters who are noted in Scripture.

      The pope has no authority to deify anyone. You are worshiping an idol you call Mary, but the Mary of the Bible is NOT the Mary of Papism, as I adequately prove here:
      https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/mary-mother-of-church-is-not-mary-of.html

      Delete
  3. João Emiliano Martins Neto,

    It is precisely because of statements like these that we Protestants have such a difficult time not seeing Roman Catholic saintly veneration as idolatry:

    "...the devil, he in no way wants to honor a pure creature, a person like the Divine Mary."

    We should be on our guard against idolatry because God absolutely detests such. It is not as though He was telling some joke when He said that He is a jealous God. Those who keep putting Him to the test will not be left unpunished. Look at the example of the Jews in the Old Testament.

    Prideful would be the Church of Rome calling itself the one true church. There exists an element of irony in so-called Christians persecuting other professing Christians (which took place during the middle ages). Prideful would be the Church of Rome setting aside the Word of God for the sake of human traditions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. 928/5000
      Dear Brother Jesse,

      I think Protestantism has in principle itself the disease and vice of pride. Protestantism If we look at the history of the last five hundred and two years in the world from Western Europe, Protestantism was the first morbidity that spawned other morbidities such as the Thirty Years War that gave the west secularism or the privatization of religion. Protestantism gave the world revolutions like the French Revolution, in a sense. Protestantism gave us romanticism as an outlet for the mechanistic world that began with the idea of enclosing God in a book called the Bible. Finally, there is so much evidence for analyzing the history of the proud principle of Protestantism. Protestantism still contradicts what the first Pope St. Peter says in his catholic letter from the Holy Bible that Scripture is not of a particular interpretation as you Protestants do.

      Delete
  4. João Emiliano Martins Neto,

    There are many things that could be said about your response because it is so full of untruths.

    You accuse non-Catholics of pride when they are simply seeking to submit to the ultimate authority of Scripture. Church history is important for giving us wisdom in interpreting Scripture and we should be humble in listening to it.

    But we should never exalt the church’s thoughts above God and His Word. It is not humble to pretend that there are no contradictions between Roman Catholic tradition and Scripture.

    The Thirty Year War was a very sad thing, but Catholics and Protestants are to blame for that.

    Secularism and privatization of religion is a product of intellectual autonomy form the enlightenment. Protestant have always held that the intellect must bow before God’s revelation.

    I think that you misinterpret Peter. He is simply telling us that the writers of Scripture are not giving their own opinions. They wrote authoritatively under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The verse is not commenting on one having his or her own interpretation of Scripture.

    ReplyDelete