Dear Anthony:

Do not let a Baptist confuse you. We must remember that Baptist, and all protestants, suffer from a myopic disability which makes learning and properly understanding the Bible nearly impossible.

The Bible itself says that there is to be no private interpretations:

(2 Peter 1:20-21)  First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

A lot of people misinterpret the word "prophecy" in this passage. This is not talking about foretelling the future. Prophecy is more about "forth-telling", that preaching divinely inspired instruction or exhortation. Sometimes, but only sometimes, this might include predictions of the future. Thus, the whole bible is prophecy, that is, as the Bible states itself:

(2 Tim 3:16-17)  All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. 

Obviously, scripture cannot be profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteous when people take it upon themselves to privately interpret it. Such private interpretation, a tradition that exploded with Martin Luther, has brought us more than 32,000 Christian groups out there. Each of these groups think they have the correct interpretation straight from the Holy Spirit, yet they contradict each other on various points. The Holy Spirit does not have a forked-tongue. There is only ONE proper interpretation, and the charism and authority to ensure a proper interpretation was given by God to the Pope and Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the only Church that was established by Christ personally.

Yet private interpretations is what Protestants do on a daily basis. Protestants do not have legitimate Churches, but ecclesial communities. Jesus establish ONE Church, and that Church was under the leadership of the Pope who sits on the chair of Peter. This is proven, hands down, from the Bible and the Bible alone. I can prove this using the King James Bible. I know, because I was a Baptist minister for many years. I know exactly how this so-called "bible Christians" are so terribly ignorant of the Bible, and worse yet, how they often come up with truly screwy interpretations at times.

The various 32,000 denominations out there are all man-made. Such "denominationalism" is actually condemned in the Bible:

(1 Cor 1:10-13)  I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.  What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 

Christ said that we are to be ONE, with ONE faith, and ONE baptism. That faith was the Catholic Church, which I can prove, not only from history, but from the Bible. I can prove that from the Bible and the Bible alone.

When you have all these groups splitting away from Mother Church, there is no one who can definitively settle interpretative disputes since they have no Pope (which just means "father"), who has the mandate from God, to settle such disputes.

God does not want all this confusion. That is why he has always had a Magisterium, a Prime Minister, on this planet to interpret and protect the faith. Moses was a "pope". Jesus even mentions this in referring to the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23:2. Moses was the Pope of the Old Covenant. With a New Covenant a new chair of authority had to be established — the chair of Peter, which was established in Matthew 16 when Jesus said, "Simon, you are Kepha and upon this Kepha I shall build my Church. You see Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek. This the name he gave to Simon was Kepha, which means rock, and it was upon this Kepha that Christ built his church. This was further proven because Jesus quoted from Isaiah 22 when he told Peter he would have the keys to the kingdom. Jesus did not quote Sacred Scripture flippantly. Everyone who heard Jesus say this knew exactly what he was saying. He was making Kepha (Peter) the first Pope of the New Covenant.

Isaiah 22 is about the secession of the office of Prime Minister. No one disputes that. This is what Jesus was quoting from in Matthew 16. Let us take a look, with my comments in read:

(Isaiah 22:21-24) ...and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand [he is the Prime Minister for King Jesus with the delegated authority from the king]; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah [wherever you see the word "Father" is the Bible it is the word Pope, which is a transliteration of the Greek patēr and the Latin Pater]. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open [the symbols of authority given the the Prime Minister from the King]. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house [here the Prime Minister is to sit in the chair (throne) of authority]. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons [This Prime Minister will have the total weight of this authority given to him by God, in every aspect of ruling the kingdom on earth (the church)].

It is only the Pope and Magisterium of the Catholic Church that has this Prime Minister. and his successors, who has the charism and authority of the Holy Spirit to properly interpret Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the all aspects of faith and doctrine.

The various non-Catholic denominations have no such charism or authority.

What Protestants fail to understand is the the Church does not come from the Bible, the Bible comes from the Church. There was no "new testament" for decades after Christ died and rose again. There were disputes about which letters were inspired Scripture. It was not until the 4th Century that a list of inspired letters was settled upon by Catholic Bishops. The final and most definitive declaration of which writings belong in the New Testament and the Old Testament did not take place until the 16th Century.

Non-Catholics have the Catholic Church to thank for the New Testament. The New Testament was written by Catholic, vetted by Catholics, and distributed to the Faithful by Catholic.

What all this means is that the Bible cannot be properly interpreted without being informed by Sacred Oral Tradition. In fact one of the criteria to determine which letters went into the New Testament was whether or not those letters were consistent and upheld what had already been taught in Oral Tradition from the time before the New Testament existed.

Now to the question of Mary, Full of Grace.

Full of Grace is the interpretation that was given by the Church, the Patristic Fathers, and the early Saints. It is true that this is not clearly seen in the Greek text, but it is not totally hidden.

Even in the oft-used by Protestants, Strongs Greek Dictionary, the Greek word charitoō contains the idea of grace, and is derived from the Greek charis, which refers to Grace.

But, ultimately, people need to realize that whenever translating from one language to another there will be differences. Language usually does not translate perfectly.

This was the problem with Simon called Peter. Jesus said Kepha, not Peter, which makes the passage crystal clear that Simon was made the Rock to which the Church would be built. The problem is that rock in Greek is petras, a female name, meaning "rock". Obviously, Matthew and the other writers could not refer to Simon Kepha (Peter) with a girl's name. So, in translation from Aramaic to Greek, the writers had to give Peter a male name, petros, meaning "little pebble".

We have a similar problem in Luke 1:28. Anyone with intellectual honesty, a rare thing in the non-Catholic world, should understand the problem. St. Jerome did not mis-translate the passage, he enlightened the passage to its correct interpretation, as the Greek was insufficient to what had been Church teaching from the first century.

This term used by the Angel to Mary was unique. Never before was a greeting formed as a title. Mary was unique and she had to be unique for her womb was to be the the Ark of the New Covenant where our Lord would reside.

This fact explains all the Marian doctrines. She had to a Immaculately Conceived because she had to be free from Original Sin to allow her to live a sinless life. The Ark that would hold our Lord could not have any blemish. Like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, Mary and her womb had to be pure.

She had to give Virgin birth because the ark (womb) that was to hold our Lord, had to not only be pure, but be untouched. Remember the soldier who was struck dead because he touched the Ark of the Covenant to prevent it from falling into the mud. A noble gesture, but he did not have consecrated hands which which to touch this sacred object. 

She had to remain virgin, in perpetual virginity, because the Ark (womb) that held our Lord was sacred and that which has been made sacred by the touch of God can never be used for normal means, it must remain sacred (which means "set apart").

Finally, Mary had to be assumed into heaven because nothing sacred can be allowed to decay.

The only way that Mary can have all these graces is to be Full of Grace. Her souls was full of grace so that she could not sin, she could not sully the Ark which was her womb that held our Lord. It is absolutely required that Mary be full of grace. It is for all these reasons that the Scripture tells us that Mary will be blessed before all women and for all generations.

Then, finally, we have the term Mother of God in Scripture itself:

(Luke 1:41-43)  And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Now, when Elizabeth proclaimed Mary, "mother of my Lord", she was not saying that Jesus would be her landlord. "Lord" here is referring to God — "Mother of God".

It is crystal clear that Mary was full of grace. That is the correct interpretation, the interpretation of the Church Fathers, and remained the interpretation of the Church for nearly 2000 years. It is only when a bunch of arrogant people, acting like immature teenagers needing to demonize their parents as a justification for running away from home, did the man-made and false idea arise that Mary was not Full of Grace.

The Protestants who do not believe this fact about Mary can have their opinion. For myself I think I will go with God's opinion.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary

P.S. The following have articles concerning this:

• Catholic Answers
• Old Catholic Encyclopedia
• Catechism and here
• Biblical Evidence for Catholicism