Anti-Catholic delusion

A friend called my attention to an article dated September 2, written by Mr. Gerry Soliman.

Although I am busy, I will give a few moments for this:

[Mr. Soliman’s words are in red while my answers are in black]

I was referred by an anonymous reader who is asking me to respond to two articles in the blog, "The Catholic Point", which is run by a certain C. Pio.  The anonymous reader gave a comment that we Christians were wrong on what the [Roman] Catholics are saying.  I'm getting the impression that this anonymous reader is C. Pio.  But in any case, I promised to give a response and I intend to fulfill it. (emphasis mine)

We call that, Cognitive dissonance! Lol

click image to enlarge

  

So he was responding to the request of certain anonymous. Let me check if this certain anonymous really wishes him to respond on my article Kecharitomene

Certified LIAR! Two articles were mentioned Kecharitomene is not included.

Sigh! More mocking.

My simple analysis:

Now in a serious side:

(a) C. Pio made a comparison on the term full of grace between Luke 1:28 and Acts 6:8. We will skip the chart and proceed with his analysis:

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

And I suppose that in John 1:14 (pleres charitos) we can conclude that Christ only became full of grace when he came to Earth and that he wasn't full of grace before that. But we do know that Stephen wasn't sinless at his birth.

Mr. Soliman in the first place, failed to observe the so called Objective of Negation. Instead of being committed to his points by proving his argument correct and rendering mine to be false, Mr. Soliman hide himself to the phrase I suppose therefore any rebuttal to be made to refute his unsound-proof using his Do-it-yourself-theology kit he will directed us to something: that’s why I told you, I suppose meaning a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal.  So responding to his assumption is totally useless because even he, himself is not sure on his premise. [Because in Negation You have only two options: YES I AFFIRM and NO THIS IS WRONG BECAUSE....]

But for the benefits of other readers, let us strike-down the word suppose and let us focus on his dilemma using my argument that “pleres charitos” which literally “filled up with grace” which is obviously not in the perfect passive participle tense; meaning at that moment, he was full of grace.

According to Mr. Soliman this is wrong because this would make Christ became full of grace ONLY when he came to Earth. But to follow what Mr. Soliman’s analysis against the interpretation of the term, is to fall under the ancient heresy called Gnostic Docetism heresy an error concerning the nature of Christ (according to this heretical teaching, Christ’s Human Nature is SEPARATE from his Divine Nature)

We must first note that:

(a)   Christ is Truly God and Truly Man (Hypostatic Union)

(b)   God and God alone can bestow grace and He alone is the source of Grace [Ephesians 4:29; 1 Peter 4:10]

Now, speaking of Christ’s Incarnation (the word became flesh and dwelt among us); in John 1:14 the author state that he (Christ) was full of grace; the question now is, when is that moment when Christ is full of grace?

A simple answer: First we have to consider the hypostatic Union of  Christ: Christ is (a) Truly God and Truly Human [John 1:1] and (b) God is the only source and the giver of Grace; Therefore Christ at the moment of his conception; He was already full of grace. We cannot separate Christ’s Human Nature in his Divine Nature (or the Hypostatic Union). Second, context really matters: you don't have to take verse 14 without considering the other verses (preceding verses) by reading it in a proper context, John 1:1-14 Christ who became flesh and dwelt among us, truly God, that in the beginning was with the Father is Full of Grace! [or prior to his incarnation in the beginning he was already full of grace]. That's why he is the same YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW!

In Acts 6:8, again the word is not in the perfect passive participle tense; it expresses momentary action or denoting that the state of grace did not began in past time; Therefore, Stephen was not full of grace at each and every moment of his life, but only at that moment in which God is declaring he was full of grace. He is not immaculate conception!

(b) We are just exposing the inconsistencies when Roman Catholics used the term full of grace. In this case, the rules changed on Stephen since she isn't Mary. Keep in mind that anything is acceptable to Rome as long as it is supportive of their doctrines.

Mr. Soliman is delusional! He skipped the chart that I posted then he repeats his non-sense allegation that We, Catholics are inconsistence when we used the term full of grace. Let me remind him the fact that Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts was written not in modern English, it was written in Greek! And may I correct him that these two verses Luke 1:28 and Acts 6:8 although same writer; still used two different Greek Terms.

[I will repost here what he skipped and let him check if both verses have the same term full of grace]

We must then, go back to the original Greek texts and let see if both verses the same word “full of grace”.

[Luke 1:28] Kai eiselthon pros auten eipen, "Caire, kecharitomene!, ho Kurios meta sou."

[Acts 6:8]  Stephanos de plērēs charitos kai dynameōs epoiei terata kai sēmeia megala en tō laō

Are they the same? Obviously, not.

"Pleres charistos" [Acts 6:8]	"Kecharitomene" [Luke 1:28]
The word “grace” came from the Greek word charis

In order for Mr. Soliman to know the magnanimity of the term kecharitomene used by St. Luke to Mary, I will dissect it for him:

Dissecting the Greek word Kecharitomene

Kecharitomene is what biblical scholars call Hapax Legomenon, it is unique in the bible! No other Character was address by this term (suggesting that the person (Mary) is unique compare to the other biblical characters)

chairó, kecharitomene! 

When Gabriel appears to Mary, the first words he says to her are " chairó, kecharitomene!".

(a) χαίρω

The word chairó means “hail”. This is not an ordinary salutation; it is a cry of joy.

The word that follows is kecharitomene, this term is not an adjective. Angel Gabriel did not use the term to describe Mary; He did not say “chairó Mary, kecharitomene”

What he says to her “chairó, kecharitomene!”. Mary was called with a single term: not the name "Mary," but the word kecharitomene. Therefore, kecharitomene is a name or a title (pronoun).

So what is kecharitomene [κεχαριτωμένη] and what makes it a unique term?

(b) χαριτόω

The root word is charitoo [χαριτόω], verb an action word which means "to grace”

(c) κε

The prefix on charitoo is κε, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense. This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action. The action which brought about the state in which Mary is, in other words, was completed before Gabriel's greeting. Gabriel is viewing the finished results.

This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be "you are graduated." "Are" indicates a present state, "graduated" shows that the state is the result of a completed past action.

(d) μένη

The suffix on charitoo, μένη [mene], makes this a passive participle. "Passive" means that the action is performed on the subject, in this case Mary, by another agent. The verb is "grace" and the implied subject is Mary. The passive usage means that "someone graced Mary," rather than "Mary graced." The implied "someone" is God. "Participle," in this case, means that the word has properties of both a verb and a noun.

The common problem today, Gabriel only uses one word to refer to Mary, but most English translations do not. Kecharitomene is extended from one word to two or three. No English translation retains all of the aesthetically pleasing alliterative qualities and possible word-play of the Greek's "Chaire, kecharitomene!"

[for Catholic reader: Please read (Blessed) Pope John Paul ll BLESSED VIRGIN WAS FILLED WITH GOD'S GRACE]

Going back to Mr. Soliman’s high-level analysis:

1. Context tells us that Mary was kecharitmone because she was favored (charis in Luke 1:30) by God to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ.  It's not because God made her sinless from birth.

Really? The reasons Luke choose KECHARITOMENE for Mary is that the phrase can, in itself, distinguish time, agent and continuity.

Being a perfect, passive, participle Title, therefore it denotes:

(a) the state of grace began in past time,

(b) it is a completed and accomplished action,

(c) its results continue into the present,

(d) that the verbal title is received by Mary from an outside agent.

In other words: "Having been Graced with all Grace both past present and future." Now, if one is graced with all Grace not only now, but in the past, and in the future, that is there is no more Grace they can possible have, what does that imply? It means from conception, which means Mary was saved before ever falling in to sin! [read my article Mary’s Immaculate Conception]

2.  There are other words in the Bible which are in the past perfect tense.  Take for instance "beloved" in 1st Thessalonians 1:4 which is egapemenoi in past perfect tense Greek.  Are we to conclude that their belovedness already started from birth?

What is this? Straw-man fallacy?

3. Perfect tense of a participle doesn't indicate what period the condition started and how long will it last.

I do not know if Mr. Soliman is joking or not here. (lol) [by the way Mr. Soliman used the term favored instead of grace in translating the Greek word: Charis. So let us used what he was suggesting]

kecharitomene is in the Greek perfect passive participle tense, denoting that the state of favor began in past time, by a completed action (hence "fully" accomplished), whose results continue in the present, meaning that at each and every moment she was favored by God. There never was a time that she was not highly favored of God; therefore she could never sinned because this would have caused her to no longer be in God’s favor.

Again, perfect passive participle tense indicate what period the condition started (a) the condition began in the past time, (b) It is a completed and accomplished action and (c) its results continue into the present.

Part II Answers to his response