Ex Cathedra Debate Windsor v. Rosenthal

Ex Cathedra Debate

David Rosenthal

Phase 2b - Rebuttal

I see that you have characterized the King James Version as a modernist version with a lesser rendering of Luke 1:28. However, While the version you are using was published in 1582 and 1610, the King James Version was published in 1611. Your characterization of the King James Version as a lesser rendition is an unsubstantiated opinion. Your characterization of the King James Version as a modernist version requires that the version you use also be characterized as a modernist version, since they are contemporaneous. And in the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the King James Version, a paragraph of which follows, the overall effect is to recommend it as accurate:

"It is generally admitted that the Authorized Version was in almost every respect a great improvement on any of its predecessors. So much was this the case that when Bishop Challoner made his revision of the Douay Bible (1749-52), which is now commonly in use among English-speaking Catholics, he did not scruple to borrow largely from it. Indeed, Cardinal Newman gives it as his opinion (Tracts Theol. and Eccles., 373) that Challoner's revision was even nearer to the Authorized Version than to the original Douay, "not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction". Nevertheless, there remained in the Authorized Version here and there traces of controversial prejudice, as for example, in the angel's salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the words "highly favoured" being a very imperfect rendering of the original. In such cases, needless to say, Challoner adhered to the Douay. Moreover, while in the Authorized Version the names of persons and places were usually given in an anglicized form already in use, derived from the Hebrew spelling, Challoner nearly always kept the Vulgate names, which come originally from the Septuagint. It is partly due to this that the Authorized Version has an unfamiliar sound to Catholic ears. The Authorized Version remained in undisputed possession for the greater part of three centuries, and became part of the life of the people. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, it began to be considered that the progress of science called for a new version which should embrace the results of modern research. The work was set on foot by Convocation in 1870, and a Committee was formed, in which the Americans co-operated, resulting in the issue of the Revised Version (1881-84). The Revised Version has never received any definite ecclesiastical sanction, nor has it been officially introduced into church use. It has made its way simply on its merits. But although at the present day it is much used by students, for the general public (non-Catholic) the Authorized Version still holds its ground, and shows no sign of losing its popularity." [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02141a.htm]

Regarding the version you prefer, that there was much good and patient work in it, none will deny; but it was marred by the perversion of certain passages, due to the theological bias of the translators; and was used on all sides to serve the cause of Catholicism. A version older than Douay also renders the phrase in Luke 1:28 as "highly favored," which is what the original Greek meant. The original Greek actually meant "highly favored," and not "full of grace."

I see also that you argue that grace is something other than favor. Grace, despite your definition, remains God's favor, enjoyed by sinful; people. Those who have sinned enjoy God's grace. Therefore, to say that Mary is full of grace does not in any sense define Mary as sinless.

While Mary has been highly favored, she is not more highly favored than other Christians who adhere to God's teaching, all of who will enjoy the privilege of being one with God's Spirit, according to the scripture: But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. [1 Corinthians 6:17]

Since the penalty for sin is death, God would never require any sinless person to pay the penalty, except in the one case of Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of the world, which Mary did not do 9although it is NOT correct to say that God required Jesus to die for the world, but only that Jesus agreed with God and collaborated in the act). Adam would not have died, if he had not sinned. Neither would anyone else. It is not up to you or I to determine whom God would require to pay the penalty for sin, but God has already made it known in the scriptures, so that speculation is unnecessary.

You say that those who do not fully accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin cannot validly call themselves "Catholic," "but nobody in the earliest generations of church history advocated that view, and dozens of church fathers and Roman bishops denied that Mary was sinless from conception onward." [http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?18341-Was-Mary-sinless-from-conception]

And perhaps you would accept as having some weight the argument of Augustine, who wrote of Jesus being the ONLY one born immaculate, which opinion clearly supports the assertion that the Immaculate Conception is in contradiction of scripture:

"Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: 'It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin's womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.' "[http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?18341-Was-Mary-sinless-from-conception]

Word Count: 958

Back to Ex Cathedra Debate Page

Back to ACTS Homepage