@
27:27 – “Not only, according to the
Gospels, was Mary greatly blessed but, we also find that Mary was ‘highly
favored’ by God. Notice what we find, in Luke chapter 1 and verse 28 – and we
are using the New King James Version…Now there’s one version of the Bible that
gives a different translation, and that is, the Douay version of the Roman
Catholic Church. It actually is a translation that is based on the Latin
Vulgate which was translated by Jerome…around the year 325, approximately. In
the Latin Vulgate it translates instead of ‘highly favored one,’ it translates
‘gratia plena’ which means ‘Mary full of grace.’ And the idea is that Mary is
full of grace and therefore she’s a dispensary of Grace…she can pour out and
give Grace to the people that come to her after her Assumption into heaven,
supposedly.”
Let’s start off with the obvious and address Mr.
Bohr’s (and all other Protestants) misuse of the term we hear in Luke 1:28. To
begin with, the Greek term used here for Mary is κεχαριτωμενη, or kecharitomene - it’s the perfect past participle of the word χαριτόω,
or charitoo. As such, the perfect past
participle denotes the fact that the action has already taken place or has been
completed; according to Strong’s
Concordance, it has a possible meaning of “to make graceful,” or to “peruse
with grace.” Another interesting fact is that this word is only used twice
in all of the New Testament, once in Luke 1:28 and then the second time in Ephesians
1:6, which states:
To
the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the
beloved.
The Greek word for grace that is used here is translated as εχαρίτωσεν or, echaritosen, a direct variant of the
word charitoo. How interesting then is it that the root
word of kecharitomene is used
to denote the grace of Christ? Additionally, it is from the word charis, which can also mean grace, that we get the word charisma and, for all of us
Catholics out there, this is where we get the word chrism for the 3 types of oils used in baptism, confirmation and the
anointing of the sick in order to bestow the Holy Spirit!
Much to Mr. Bohr’s credit, he easily nails the fact
that the early Church used the phrase “full of grace” as early as 325 A.D.,
compared to the New King James Version, which Mr. Bohr has chosen to use
Scripture passages from, and which was originally published in 1982.
This not only gives weight to the historicity of Catholic belief, since the
Church has viewed Mary as being “full of grace” for over 1,680 years but, it
solidifies the relatively new view of Mary that Mr. Bohr is so intent on
portraying. Indeed, Saint Jerome did translate kecharitomene as “full of grace” when he penned
the Latin Vulgate, and in doing so, he established what the early Church
taught, understood and believed when it came to Mary and her special role in
the economy of salvation. Mr. Bohr has no wiggle room here when it comes to debating
what the Catholic Church as ALWAYS taught in regards to Mary, therefore a
distinction has to be made: do we use a version of Sacred Scripture that has
been around for over 1,600 years (Latin Vulgate) from a church that’s close to
2,000 years old or, do we use another version of Scripture (NKJV) that has been
around for 30 years and in use by a Protestant denomination that has existed
for only 150 years?
Moreover, Protestant versions of early bibles
conclusively demonstrate that non-Catholic Christians of the 16th
century believed that Luke 1:28 was properly translated as “full of grace.”
Protestant biblical translator and theologian John Wycliffe, who’s handwritten
English bible manuscripts was completed in the late 14th century, also
translated kecharitomene as being
“full of grace.” Same with William Tyndale who is
credited with publishing the first English bibles in 1526. His
translation of kecharitomene, is
more in line with Catholic teaching than that of most non-Catholic Christian
bibles of today. Ironically, when King James authorized his version of the
bible in 1604, Tyndale’s version was one of the official reference materials to
be used for proof reading the text of this new version of the Bible!
Additionally, Mr. Bohr makes the audacious and bold
statement that because we Catholics believe that Mary is full of grace, that
she has become a depot of grace which “she pours out” to people who come to
her. This is an absolutely abhorrent view of what the Catholic Church teaches
about Mary as well as the communion we share with the Saints in heaven. No
other reference need be mentioned here as much as the Vatican II’s Dogmatic
Constitution document, Lumen Gentium, which states
unequivocally in paragraph 60 the following (with my emphasis):
There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the
apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man
Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all". The maternal duty of
Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of
Christ, but rather shows His power. For all the salvific influence of the Blessed
Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine
pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests
on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no
way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the
faithful with Christ.
Properly translated, Mary can only bestow
Christ’s blessings because Christ - as the one and only mediator - allows it to
be so. Mary DOES NOT have the power, by her own accord, to give out any
sort of grace, blessing, merit or salvific action, only Christ has that power
and He can choose how, when, where, and through whom, He channels His grace.
The same is true for our communion with the Saints, CCC
# 957 (with my emphasis):
…we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather,
that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the
whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion
among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the
saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all
grace, and the life of the People of God itself.”
Therefore, Catholic teaching dictates
that Christ is the true source of all grace; Protestantism does not contradict
this self-evident truth instead, Protestants tend to LIMIT the ability of
Christ – as our one and only mediator – to use His grace through the Saints
and, more specifically, His beloved mother. The real question is not if Jesus
uses Mary, the angels, and Saints but, if Christ does have the ability to use
them to fulfill His will, why wouldn’t he?
Bonus point of truth:
The first King James Bible, published in 1611, included all of the Apocryphal
works that so many non-Catholic Christians say are not inspired. If the bible
says not to add or take away (Deuteronomy
12:32 & Revelation
22:18-19) what does this say for those Protestants that exclusively use the
KJV?
@ 29:02 – “Now,
Luke chapter 1 and verse 30 underlines the fact that she found grace in the
eyes of the lord, she found favor, she doesn’t give favors…In actual fact, the
bible makes it very clear that there is only one who is full of grace and that
is, Jesus Christ. Notice John chapter 1 and verse 14…”
As stated above, when the angel Gabriel refers to
Mary as kecharitomene, it doesn’t
mean that she was filled with grace/favor at that moment because it denotes
that fact that Mary already had grace even before the annunciation. Therefore
Mary ALWAYS HAD this merited grace by virtue of who she was to be, namely, the
Mother of God. It wasn’t that she somehow “found” grace, because in Luke’s
Gospel, there are no works or actions that Mary had done - up until verse 30 -
to merit any favor or grace from God and, by solely that measure, we must
conclude that Mary already had and was filled with grace. It is precisely
because she was filled with God’s grace from the moment of her conception that
we can say she was not only impeccable but redeemed as well. In Romans 6:14,
Paul states:
For
sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under
grace.
As part of Pauline theology, this notion of grace as
a means of undoing sin abounds in St. Paul’s writings. Paul states repeatedly
that it is through the grace of Christ that sin is undone (see Rom.
5:17, Rom.
5:20-21 and, 2Tim.
1:9). The same can also be said for death, in Ephesians
2:8-10 we see that it is by the grace of God that we are saved. St. Paul continues
to repeat this message several times throughout the New Testament (see Eph.
2:5, Acts
15:11 and, Titus
2:11;3:7).
Therefore, if the grace of Christ removes sin and death, does it not make sense
that Mary – who was full of His grace (literally) – was entirely expunged of
sin and consequently saved as well? This is the point that all Protestants
ironically fail to grasp since most non-Catholic denominations claim to receive
justification by “grace alone,” or, sola
gratia.
I say it is ironic due to the fact that this is
exactly the same means by which Mary, who was gratia plena, was compulsorily redeemed and perfectly chaste her
entire life. The concept is the same it’s just that most Protestants (as stated
earlier) LIMIT Christ to confirm to their personal beliefs in light of personal
interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Hence, if Mary did find favor with God, it
was from all time. And, if such grace preceded her birth, then one cannot argue
the fact that her favor within God’s grace was much more than that of any other
of God’s creatures.
Mr. Bohr states that the bible mentions that there
is “only one who is full of grace,” that being, Jesus Christ and goes on to
quote John 1:14. However, Mr. Bohr ignorantly omits – as he is prone to do –
that there is in fact one other person that the bible says is “full of grace.” Acts
6:8 says the following:
And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought great
wonders and signs among the people.
Wait a minute, I’m confused! Mr. Bohr said that
“only one” person was filled with grace but, Acts 6:8 says that there is also
another person who is filled with grace, St. Stephen, the Protomartyr.
Interestingly enough, just
one verse earlier, St. Stephen is noted to be among the number of
faithfully obedient men in Jerusalem. Obedient, faithful AND filled with grace?
Smacks strikingly similar to the characteristics of Mary, doesn’t it?
Why would Mr. Bohr not mention this passage, that
there is in fact a human being that was also filled with grace? The reason is
simple, because if we can establish that a human can be filled with grace, per
the Bible, then we can easily apply that concept to Mary! This is the slippery
slope that Mr. Bohr does not want to tread on, because if a simple human being
can be filled with grace then how much more would Mary - who Jesus Christ chose
and loved from the beginning of time - have been filled with such grace?
In case there be any question about a “difference”
of grace in these two passages, according to the Greek Concordance, the
word that is used in both Acts 6:8 and in John 1:14 is χάριτος, or charitos. In
other words, the same word used to describe Jesus as being full of grace, also
describes St. Stephen as having been filled with grace. Therefore, when Mr.
Bohr asks at the 29:59 mark, “who is the one ‘full of grace?’” He is only half
right in saying that it is Jesus because the Bible also states that Stephen was
full of grace as well.
@
30:12 – “Another interesting
characteristic about Mary, is that Mary knew her bible, she knew the Old
Testament Scriptures…You can imagine Jesus sitting on the knee of Mary as Mary
reviewed the stories of the Old Testament which pointed to the Messiah…we find
very clearly that Mary had a very good knowledge of the Old Testament and she
shared this knowledge with Jesus…”
Mr. Bohr correctly states that Mary knew her Old
Testament Scripture – not “her bible,” he also correctly states that Mary
extensively uses Old Testament passages in her Magnificat.
@
32:33–33:34 - Mr. Bohr waxes lyrical about the fact that the
Gospel nativity scenes are centered around Jesus and not Mary.
As I stated here
at 7:06 (second paragraph), the New Testament is centered around Christ – not
Mary. There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise; this would be like
reading St. Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth and being astonished that
Judas Escariot isn’t mentioned once in this epistle.
@
33:53-35:18 – “Do you know that Mary also suffered with Jesus?...Some people believe
that Mary was actually co-redemptrix with Jesus, co-redeemer, because she
experienced suffering and agony…but does this raise Mary to the level of co-redemptrix?...”
@
40:47- “Mary did not understand the
Scripture that spoke about the Messiah…”
This is a really interesting shift in Mr. Bohr’s
view about Mary’s Scriptural aptitude! Just moments ago, he commented about how
well Mary knew her Old Testament Scriptures but now, that Mary is confused as
what her son has told her, well, that’s because she didn’t know her Scriptures!
The fact of the matter is that Mary also “ponders in her heart” the meaning of
Gabriel’s visit in Luke
2:19
as well as in Luke
2:51.
This doesn’t mean that Mary didn’t know her scriptures so therefore she had to
into deep contemplation as Mr. Bohr so succinctly put it - as he reads yet
another passage from Desire of Ages -
but, what this demonstrates is the Christian discipline to trust in God even if
you don’t understand what it is that He wants from you or is asking of you.
@ 43:04-45:12 – Mr. Bohr describes the Wedding at Cana.
There are certain things here that Mr.
Bohr chooses to gloss over when it comes to the Wedding feast that Mary and
Jesus both attended. For starters, Mr. Bohr unashamedly refuses to take the
Gospel of John within its proper context. Ironically, of all of the 4 Gospels,
it is in the Gospel of John that we have certainty as to how Mary is to be
viewed; indeed, the Gospel of John reflects the view of the St. John the
Apostle so therefore, we have a more intimate look at who Christ is and, in his
first miracle, John explicitly tells us a lot about relationship between Jesus
and Mary.
In John 1:1, we read:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.
This instantly harkens any Christian
reader back to Genesis 1:1, which states:
In the beginning, when God created the
heavens and the earth…
Here we see John cleverly using biblical
typology. He is insinuating that, much like the creation narrative in Genesis,
here too we have a type of “new creation” or “new beginning” that God is
fulfilling and, a thorough reading of John chapter 1, gives us many instances
that parallel Genesis:
In Genesis
1:2, we see that the Spirit of the Lord hovered over the waters and,
in John
1:32-33, we take notice that St. John (the
Baptizer) makes particular mention that when he was baptizing Jesus with water,
the Spirit came upon Him.
Genesis
1:3-4, describes how God created the light and
separated it from the darkness. In John
1:4-5, Jesus
is described as the light of the human race which no darkness can overcome.
Genesis
3:7, the man and the woman use fig leaves to hide their nakedness. In
John
1:48, Jesus tells Nathaniel that he saw him “under a fig tree.” *
However, there are 4 distinct instances
that elude with 100% certainty to Jesus’ coming into this world as a type of “new
creation.” Specifically speaking, there are 3 different verses in the first
chapter of John, these being verses 29, 35 and 43, that directly point us to
the story of Creation. In John 1:29 we read:
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said,
"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
In John 1:35, we are told:
The next day John was there again with two of his disciples…
And, finally, John 1:43:
The next day he decided to go to Galilee, and he found Philip. And Jesus said to
him, "Follow me."
Do we notice anything similar in these 3
different verses that per chance parallel the creation narrative of the book of
Genesis? Of course we do! We can easily see that by John using the phrase, “the next day,” he is mimicking the creation of days by God in
Genesis chapter 1! This is yet another parallel implored by John to draw his
readers attention of who Christ is and, as we shall shortly see, why this “new
creation” or, “new beginning,” is so important for the Christian to understand.
In the same manner that we have seven
days laid out in Genesis chapters 1 & 2, John also goes about laying out
seven days in the beginning of his Gospel. As I’ve already mentioned above, we
can see that John has laid out 4 days in the first chapter: there is a FIRST
DAY that occurs before John
1:29 and then, a SECOND DAY
occurs when we first hear “the next day”
at verse 29. At John
1:35, we again are told that there is another “next day” thus signifying a THIRD DAY, and then, there is one more
“next day” at John
1:43 thereby denoting a FOURTH DAY. As we continue reading John’s
Gospel, we come to chapter 2 in which the
very first verse reads as follows:
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the
mother of Jesus was there…
So what do we have? In John chapter 1,
we are told of 4 days in which the character of Jesus is slowly revealed to us
and then, at the start of chapter 2, we are told that, three days afterwards,
there was a wedding feast at Cana. Three days after the fourth day would be the
SEVENTH DAY, that is, the Sabbath. In Genesis the Sabbath is the final step of
creation in which God makes a Covenant with all of His creatures, thereby
making it holy, perfect and – most importantly - His. Suffice it to say that
the same thing is going on in the Gospel of John on this new seventh day that
John has laid out for us and, there is one big similarity between what John
writes and the book of Genesis when it comes to Mary.
At the 43:22 mark, Mr. Bohr made
particular mention at the fact that Jesus called his mother “woman” when he said, “he’s not being disrespectful, this was a
common way of sons addressing their mothers.” Mr. Bohr is simply trying to
get away from the fact that this so-called “common way” of speaking, is
actually alluding to a higher purpose in the Gospel of John. One way that this
is illustrated is by the simple fact that NO WHERE in the Gospel of John is
Mary ever once mentioned by name, every time she appears she is always
addressed as “woman,” moreover, if in
fact sons calling their mother woman
was common, why didn’t any other 3 evangelists ever have Jesus calling Mary
women in their Gospels? Additionally, the name Mary is used 15 times to denote
women in John’s Gospel, second only to Luke who uses the name Mary 17 times. So
it wasn’t like John was a stranger to that name and yet, never once is it used
as a name for Jesus’ mother!
The reason behind this is a simple one
that, apparently, Mr. Bohr either chose to ignore or completely dismissed. By
his current track record of the previous 2 posts, I’m guessing the former is
the case. The reason why Mr. Bohr chooses to reject the reality of why John
uses the term woman for Mary is
because at this Wedding feast, Mary is symbolically seen as the New Eve. Let me explain.
From the onset of the Book of Genesis,
the woman of the creation narrative is never named she is only referred to as
“woman” or, “the woman,” indeed, Adam calls her woman because “she came out of
man” (Genesis
2:23). It isn’t until Genesis
3:20, after the expulsion from Eden, that we finally find out that the
woman’s name is Eve. If in fact John is attempting to depict Jesus’ coming as a
new creation or new beginning by explicitly setting up parallels between the
story of Creation and his Gospel, then without a doubt, Mary has to be a New Eve since we can clearly see that we
have 7 days and a woman in both stories. If Mary is the New Eve, then surely Jesus is the New Adam. As St. Paul tells us in 1
Corinthians 15:20-22:
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits
of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall
all be made alive.
And so it is written, The first
man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Who is the New Adam? Jesus Christ Himself. Who is
the New Eve? Mary! Mr. Bohr HAS TO deny this parallelism because to
call Mary the New Eve is to give Mary
certain characteristics that do not conform with the SDA (nor Protestant) view
of Mary. Here are a couple of glaring similarities:
In the creation
narrative in Genesis the two primary characters are a man and a woman. At the
Wedding feast at Cana the only two characters named are Jesus and his mother -
not even the bride nor the bridegroom of the wedding are ever mentioned.
If the first Adam let
the serpent convince him and the first Eve to sin at a tree. The New Adam fulfills
what the first Adam couldn’t do and He fulfilled it at a tree (the cross) with
the New Eve there with Him.
If the first Eve was
set against the serpent (Genesis
3:15), then it is the New Eve’s
seed that is destined to crush the head of the serpent.
As stated above, the
woman in Genesis is given a name only AFTER she has been cast out of Eden and
God’s good graces, by John not ever mentioning Mary by name, he is conscientiously
and purposefully depicting Mary as the antithesis of the first Eve.
If the first Adam
sinned, then the New Adam, Jesus Christ, was sinless. In the same manner, if
the first Eve sinned, then the New Eve has to be sinless as well.
It’s for that last
reason that Mr. Bohr intentionally doesn’t go any further than what the words
say in the John’s Gospel at the Wedding feast. Because if he were to dive
deeper into Scripture, instead of superficially reading words, he would HAVE TO
come to this conclusion and this is exactly the same conclusion that the Early
Church Fathers arrived to:
…and that 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
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient,
saying, Behold the handmaid of
the Lord; be it unto me
according to your word. But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin…
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; so that the former ties be cancelled by the
latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in
fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the
second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first.”
…why is Christ called Adam by the apostle,
unless it be that, as man, He was of that earthly origin? And even reason here
maintains the same conclusion, because it was by just the contrary operation
that God recovered His own image and likeness, of which He had been robbed by the devil. For it was while Eve was
yet a virgin,
that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice
of death… As Eve had believed the serpent,
so Mary believed the
angel. The delinquency which
the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.
“Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary.”
Speaking of St. Justin, St. Ireneaus
and Tertullian, Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman writing his Letter to Doctor Pusey in 1865 – right
around the time of the invention of the Seven Day Adventist church - said the
following regarding the Early Father’s view of Mary as the Second Eve:
“Now what is especially noticeable in these three writers, is,
that they do not speak of the Blessed Virgin merely as the physical instrument
of our Lord's taking flesh, but as an intelligent, responsible cause of it; her faith and obedience being accessories to the Incarnation, and
gaining it as her reward. As Eve failed in these virtues, and brought on the
fall of the race in Adam, so Mary by means of them had a part in its
restoration. . . . not to go beyond the doctrine of the Three Fathers, they
unanimously declare that she was not a mere instrument in the Incarnation… they
declare she co-operated in our salvation not merely by the descent of the Holy
Ghost upon her body, but by specific holy acts, the effect of the Holy Ghost
within her soul; that, as Eve forfeited privileges by sin, so Mary earned
privileges by the fruits of grace; that, as Eve was disobedient and
unbelieving, so Mary was obedient and believing; that, as Eve was a cause of
ruin to all, Mary was a cause of salvation to all; that as Eve made room for
Adam's fall, so Mary made room for our Lord's reparation of it; and thus,
whereas the free gift was not as the offence, but much greater, it follows
that, as Eve co-operated in effecting a great evil, Mary co-operated in
effecting a much greater good.”
So, there we have it. Proof
positive from, not only a biblical stand point but a historical one as well,
for the reason as to why the Catholic Church HAS ALWAYS viewed Mary in such a
special light and as the New Eve which, therefore, makes her mother to us all.
This is why we as Catholics believe that Mary is our spiritual mother; The fact
of the matter is that when Jesus gives up his mother to His beloved disciple in
John
19:27, right
before giving up His spirit at the cross, it is actually St. John himself who
tradition has it was the beloved disciple! How much more powerful does this
make Mary in John’s Gospel if he is telling us that Christ gave him His mother
moments before He died?
Think about that, if Mary doesn’t have an
extra special place in God’s grand scheme, why did John, unlike the other
evangelists, even mention this? Why would St. John need to point out that the
woman of the “new creation/beginning,” is now his mother if not for that fact
that now she is in fact our new spiritual mother? Therefore, as modern day disciples of Christ,
He has commended His mother to be ours as well - just like he commended her to His
disciple close to 2,000 years ago.
*Although
the fig tree can be interpreted as a symbol of Messianic peace (see Micah
4:4 & Zechariah
3:10), the use by the evangelist aptly coincides with Genesis.
End of Part 3
