Are You More Blessed Than the Virgin Mary?

Desiring God ^ | 12/15/2010 | Jonathan Parnell

[RnMomof7]

In the sermon descriptively entitled, “That Hearing and Keeping the Word of God Renders a Person More Blessed Than Any Other Privilege That Ever God Bestowed on Any of the Children of Men,” Jonathan Edwards writes: The hearing and keeping the word of God brings the happiness of a spiritual union and communion with God. ‘Tis a greater blessedness to have spiritual communion with God and to have a saving intercourse with him by the instances of his Spirit and by the exercise of true devotion than it is to converse with God externally, to see the visible representation and manifestations of his presence and glory, and to hear his voice with the bodily ears as Moses did. For in this spiritual intercourse the soul is nigh unto and hath more a particular portion than in any external intercourse. ‘Tis more blessed to be spiritually related to Jesus Christ—to be his disciples, his brethren and the members—than to stand in the nearest temporal relation, than to be his brother or his mother. Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus, ed. Nancy Guthrie, 57.

[Judith Anne]

There you go again with the legal/illegal pronounciation of BLESS ED.

[RnMomof7]

Am I lying? Is not it “Hail Mary full of grace ‘BLESS ED ‘ are you....”

Not blessed by God but BLESS ED

[bkaycee]

Am I lying? Is not it “Hail Mary full of grace ‘BLESS ED ‘ are you....”

Not blessed by God but BLESS ED

That's how I used to say it! BLESS ED

[Judith Anne]

Lots of people I’ve prayed with say “blest” Either is correct. What difference does it make? The meaning is the same, both ways.

Pretending there is a difference in meaning is more of the anti-Catholic rhetoric we’ve all come to expect.

[Judith Anne]

PS, please don’t ask me if you are lying. While I might have an opinion, I wouldn’t offer it.

[Cronos]

Ossetian (Ирон æвзаг, Iron ævzag or Иронау, Ironau), also sometimes called Ossete is an East Iranian language spoken in Ossetia, a region on the slopes of the Caucasus Mountains.

The earliest known written sample of Ossetian is an inscription which dates from the 10th to 12th centuries CE and was found near the River Bolshoi Zelenchuk at Arkhyz. The text is written in the Greek alphabet, with special digraphs.

—ΣΑΧΗΡΗ ΦΟΥΡΤ ΧΟΒΣ
ΗΣΤΟΡΗ ΦΟΥΡΤ ΠΑΚΑΘΑΡ
ΠΑΚΑΘΑΡΗ ΦΟΥΡΤ ΑΝΠΑΛΑΝ
ΑΝΠΑΛΑΝΗ ΦΟΥΡΤ ΛΑΚ
ΑΝΗ ΤΖΗΡΘΕ

This transliterates as:

—Saxiri Furt Xovs
Istori Furt Bæqætar
Bæqætari Furt Æmbalan
Æmbalani Furt Lak
Ani čirtī

The only other extant record of Proto-Ossetic are the two lines of "Alanic" phrases appearing in the Theogony of John Tzetzes, a twelfth-century Byzantine poet and grammarian:

—Τοῖς ἀλανοῖς προσφθέγγομαι κατά τήν τούτων γλῶσσαν
Καλή ημέρα σου αὐθεντα μου αρχόντισσα πόθεν εἶσαι

Ταπαγχὰς μέσφιλι χσινὰ κορθὶ κάντα καὶ τ’άλλα
ἂν ὃ ἒχη ἀλάνισσα παπὰν φίλον ἀκούσαις ταῦτα
οὐκ αἰσχύνεσσι αὐθέντρια μου νὰ μου γαμὴ τὸ μουνί σου παπᾶς

τὸ φάρνετζ κίντζι μέσφιλι καίτζ φουὰ σαοῦγγε

[Cronos]

Tulu is a Dravidian language spoken by 1.95 million native speakers (1997). Separated early from Proto-Dravidian, Tulu has several features not found in Tamil-Kannada. For example, it has pluperfect and future perfect, like French or Spanish, but formed without an auxiliary verb.

The Dravidian languages have been found mainly in South India since the start of the common era. Speculations regarding the original homeland being a mythical sunken continent called Kumari Kandam, or the Indus Valley Civilization are largely discredited in academic circles (though the similarity of the language Brahui, spoken in Baluchistan, Pakistan – what was once part of Indus Valley – to Dravidian languages has yet to be explained).

[1000 silverlings]

lol, probably didn’t even eat her cakes

[Cronos]

Actually, I'm not suggesting anything of the same -- there is a difference between opinion and doctrine. Just as in the LCMS there is a solid detailed list of doctrine, but different LCMS members may have varied opinions or may behave different -- however, just by observing the said LCMS member(s) we cannot come to a judgement call on the basic dogmas of that Church

In terms of dogma, the LCMS has a fixed one which is bound to all members, but may have some folks who do not completely let's say "understand" it and some who do not follow it. This is similar to the SBC, to Catholics, to Orthodox etc.

To take a concrete example -- Clinton and Carter were/are Southern Baptist IIRC, yet the actions of both do NOT mean that by seeing what they did or what they believe in, we should jump to the wrong conclusion that that is SBC teaching.

Similarly observing a few Catholics and even having one's experience does NOT mean that that is the doctrine (quite the contrary) and does NOT mean that ALL believe the way she has observed

Also, to end with, I've been in a few parishes -- across the US, in the Middle East, in Asia, in Western Europe and now in Poland and my experiences across this wide range of countries and multiple parishes and many Catholics -- my experiences differ considerably from metmoms. Note that experiences can differ -- as I pointed out, if a foreigner only lived in Manhattan and judged all Americans to be like Manhattaners, they would be jumping to a wrong conclusion -- and to opine about the US constitution based on this interaction would be completely incorrect. Ditto for any religious group that is more than a few hundred strong

[1000 silverlings]

uh ya ya.... we’re all shook up...

[Cronos]

I very clearly pointed out in post 148 do note that we have many Protestants who believe the same as we do that Mary was filled with grace more than other creatures. Lutherans and Traditional Anglicans believe the same as we do, so painting all Protestants with a broad brush isn't quite correct.

1. Note -- I did not state that we agree on all doctrine, just on one specific point that Mary was filled with grace more than other creatures

2. Do you as a Lutheran agree with that SPECIFIC statement or not?

[Cronos]

post 152 may differ from what you believe, but let's take it step by step

1. We Christians here in Christ's Church, the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church believe that Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Our God saved Mary, His created being, His mother.

2. We believe that Mary being a daughter of Adam and Eve would have been faithed to have the same "stain" from Original Sin. you believe in that "stain", too, correct?

you agree so far, correct?

3. Mary in the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) when she is bearing Jesus Christ -- NOTE: Jesus has not been born yet, He has not yet (in our space-time) been the sacrifice on the Cross she says my spirit rejoices in God, my right NOW Saviour

4. Note: Mary does not say "my spirit rejoices in God, my future Saviour", but she says "in Deo salvatore meo,", "my current Saviour",

This is based completely on what scripture has said -- a Mary bearing the unborn baby Jesus, bearing God, Jesus Christ, does not call Him her future savior, but calls Him her NOW AT THAT POINT IN TIME Savior, clearly indicating that Christ had already saved her even before His saving sacrifice on the Cross

5. Mary clearly indicates that God (Jesus Christ) has already saved her. How is that possible if he has not yet been on the Cross or even been born yet?

6. This very clearly indicates that Mary needed a savior too and her Savior saved Her somehow even before He was born

7. The only conclusion is that somehow before His work on the Cross, Christ already saved his created being, His mother, mary.

8. The logical conclusion is He protected her from sin and in fact "saved" her from sin even before He was born.

If you disagree with this, that's your own free will to do so. However, it is clear -- Mary was saved before the sacrifice on the Cross by her Savior, her son, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ.

[Cronos]

Cronos (quoting boatbums quoting the bible :-P): “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” —> that does not say “MORE” blessed are those.....

Pres :He saw, then believed. Doesn't take anything but having one's eyes opened. Jesus doesn't say he was blessed at all! Blessed are those WHO have not seen and yet believe.

1. So do you think that St. Thomas was not blessed?
2. This is still a passage about St. Thomas, not anyone else, so to conjecture that all the Apostles who did see and did believe were not blessed is quite incorrect.

[Judith Anne]

Clear. Excellent.

Thanks. ;-D

[Cronos]

1. At all times it is indicated that she is a created being, a highly favored one, but a human creature nonetheless.
2. the question was about sole mediator between God and man and very clearly you can see that

The schema of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith, drafted for the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), includes the unique mediation of Jesus Christ as one of these principal mysteries: "Truly, therefore, Christ Jesus is mediator between God and man, one man dying for all; he made satisfaction to the divine justice for us, and he erased the handwriting that was against us. Despoiling principalities and powers, he brought us from our longstanding slavery into the freedom of sons."

There is also quite a difference -- God is the only one who grants something, any saint can only pray for this and for us to be favored by God who alone can grant this

[Cronos]

What they fail to grasp is that that Judaism is not the faith of the Old Testament fathers, not at all.

That's not completely correct. i'll agree with you that Pharasiism is probably dating to post-Exile times, but that's only elements -- modern Judaism is a continuation of the faith of the OT. Why would you say otherwise? really?

[Cronos]

The angel saluted Mary by calling her kecharitomene, which Jerome quite accurately translated as gratia plena, "full of grace". (kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle of charitoo, "to grace".)Kecharitomene means "already completely graced as an accomplished fact".

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter").

Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit.

Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the "continuance of a completed action";(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) "completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem."(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." This becomes clearer when we examine other New Testament examples of verbs in the perfect tense:(The next three examples are taken from Blass and DeBrunner, 175-176.)

1. "He has defiled this sacred place" (Acts 21:28)--their entrance in the past produced defilement as a lasting effect.

2. "The son of the slave woman was born according to the flesh" (Gal. 4:23)--the perfect with reference to an Old Testament event can mean it retains its exemplary effect.

3. "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" 1 Cor. 9:1, Acts 22:15)--that Paul has seen the Lord is what establishes him permanently as an apostle.

1. "God spoke to Moses" (John 9:29)--the Pharisees hold that the Mosaic Law still and always holds.

2. "It is finished" (John 19:30)--the work of redemption culminating in the passion and death of Christ is complete and forever enduring .

3 "He rose on the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4)--unlike Lazarus who was raised from the dead but must die again, Christ rose to everlasting life.

4. "All things have been created through him and for him" (Col. 1:16)--all creation continually exists, upheld by God (this is the teaching of God's universal providence and also the refutation of deism).

Here are examples, like kechari-tomene, of perfect participles in the New Testament:

1. "To the praise of his glorious grace, which he bestowed on us in his beloved"(Eph. 1:6)--Christ is perfectly, completely, endlessly loved by his Father.

2. "Blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:42)--Christ is perfectly and endlessly blessed by God.

Because Luke 1:28 uses the perfect participle kecharitomene to describe Mary, CRI is wrong to say there is nothing in this verse to establish the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. One word of one Bible verse does not prove the doctrine, but kecharitomene proves the harmony of the doctrine with Scripture.
using the resources that Latin does have, Jerome expresses the root meaning of charitoo by the Latin noun gratis ("grace," "favor") and the amplitude and completeness of the Greek perfect tense by the Latin adjective plena ("full"). The Latin phrase does not well connote permanent condition, as the Greek perfect participle does.
Remember again, Mary is not by her own power, virtue, or merit sinless. It was not her merits but those of her Son which were applied to her

[Cronos]

that’s pretty sad that in your time they did not, however in all of the parishes I’ve been to, there are bible study classes, and one is recommended to start the day by reading a passage. Though, as I said, I grew up in the 80s and 90s and moved around the world in the 90s and 00s so my experiences reflecting a modern world would differe from your own experiences.

[Cronos]

I said Again — that is your experience. I have had different — and since I’m 32, I could assume that this may be due to a generational difference as well — check the modern Church, do listen to a confirmation class nowadays.

This is not theology but relating to experience.

[wmfights]

Great post, thanks.