Lo and Behold... a debate

[Quietfire]

When we find ourselves in times of trouble Mother Mary comes to us, speaking words of wisdom....


If the old Ark was the architype of the New Ark, the best thing to do is see how the Isrealites viewed the old Ark to see how we should view the New Ark. Included are some Scripture chapters and verses to check out...

1 Chronicles 16:4..Priests 'ministered before' the Ark, showing it a special reverence. It was a mere object. Mary is more deserving of our veneration.
1 Chronicles 16:37-38...More than 70 people were assigned to "minister before" and protect the Ark. Thats an impressive display of devotion.
1 Chronicles 29:20...Those who bow down while addressing Mary are simply bowing down and prostrating themselves before the Lord and before the Queen.

Meditate on those and I will give more later

Pax

[desertwoman]

So Mary is the ark of the New Covenant? I'm not going to lie to you, I"m still confused about this, but I shall re read what was given to me and come back with some questions.

The problem that I have with the IC is that Mary was conceived without sin since everyone human being born has original sin. How could this be, and how could she still remained sinless?

Here are some scriptures that always got to me about praying to Mary. Its the famous "rebuke" comments that Jesus made to Mary: Luke 11. 27-29.

This verse gets me everytime cause it seems like a flat out rebutle.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Mar 22 2006, 08:10 PM']So Mary is the ark of the New Covenant?  I'm not going to lie to you, I"m still confused about this, but I shall re read what was given to me and come back with some questions.

The problem that I have with the IC is that Mary was conceived without sin since everyone human being born has original sin.  How could this be, and how could she still remained sinless?

Here are some scriptures that always got to me about praying to Mary.  Its the famous "rebuke" comments that Jesus made to Mary:  Luke 11. 27-29.

This verse gets me everytime cause it seems like a flat out rebutle.
[right][snapback]918498[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Mary was not born with original sin, God is her Savior, and she was saved from original sin. I really do suggest an in-depth study on this through a work, like Dr. Hahn's "Hail, Holy Queen".

27* As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" 28* But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"

29* * When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, "This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.

How is this a 'flat out rebuke'. I see Jesus teaching a lesson about obeying the will of God, not about Mary.

[journeyman]

Reading with interest

Luke 11:27-27

27
8 While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed."
28
He replied, "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."

8 [27-28] The beatitude in Luke 11:28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus; see the note on Luke 8:21. Rather, it emphasizes (like Luke 2:35) that attentiveness to God's word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.

[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke11.htm"]From the NAB[/url]

[HisChild]

Like I said before, it would be profane for something (in this case, someone) impure to carry our Lord, the Sacred. That's why she was born without sin. A good analgoy would be the 'new wine in new wineskins' story.

As for Luke 11: 27-29, a good summation is found in the footnotes one of my Bibles, which says that The beatitude in verse 28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus. Rather, it emphasizes that attentiveness to God's words is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.
See Luke 2:35, Mary herself will not be untouched by the various reactions to the role of Jesus.

Hope that helps. God bless you

[Quietfire]

[quote]27
8 While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed."
28
He replied, "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."[/quote]

I had the same problem with some verses of Scipture that seemed to (how shall I describe delicately?) lessen the role of women in general. Here is the problem DW...not [b]one[/b] of these verses was ever viewed as a belittlement of women, nor ever called into judgement [i]until[/i] (and I stress..[u]until[/u]) Calvin and Luther and the likes. Lets be honest here, I have found nothing in Catholic works that proves Calvin and Luther to be right. The Church has always, from it's earliest time, shown this specific verse to mean that Jesus not only confirms his mothers blessedness, but also means to state that in addition, blessed is he (or she) who hears the word of God and observes it. In other words, Jesus knows his mom is blessed, after all, He is God, but also, in addition to the fact that she is blessed, she also said yes! to God's word.

Otherwise Jesus would have said something like, "oh no, no, no. Blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe." Now, considering she is the perfect vessel that carried and bore God in the flesh, (because nothing imperfect could do such a thing) doesnt it make sense that Jesus isnt smacking her down here, otherwise if you read it that way its like he's saying that the fact that she bore him dont mean nothing, and we know better.

I will refer to the Hitchcock Bible which has fantastic foot notes on this..(mine is 150 years old)

and I quote...
Our Savior here does not wish to deny what the woman said, but rather to [b]confirm[/b] it; indeed how could he deny, as Calvin impiously maintained, that his mother was blessed? By these words he only wishes to tell his auditors what great advantages they might obtain by attending to his words. For the Blessed Virgin, as Saint Augustine says, was more happy in having our Savior in her heart and affections than having concieved him in her womb.


Dont be led astray by words and such that were written by those who had a dislike for the Church. Listen to the truth. And think on this for a moment.
Elizabeth, who in receiving Mary for a three month visit, bowed to Mary upon arrival with a strong statement. The statement is obvious, but what most people dont think on is the fact that she [i]bowed[/i] to Mary. This would have been considered sooooo wrong in that time, yet she did it. Why?

I will give a one hint. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
In the OT, one always bowed before the Ark of the Covenant.

Pax

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 22 2006, 01:36 PM']A word of caution: Gary Wills isn't exactly a reliable source.
[/quote]

Now, Gary Coleman....there's a name you can trust.

[desertwoman]

I found the book Hail, Holy Queen and another book by Sparrow called Blessed Among Women.

So I will begin reading these.

I'm still trying to understand and grasp all the info, but I will have to let all of this meat digest for a while.

One thing I finally understand after hours of meditation is that Mary would have to be born without sin in order to carry the God-Man, our Lord and Savior Jesus. For is she was with sin, then she wouldn't have been favored amongst women.

Now the thing thats getting me is the concept that she didn't have any other children after Jesus and she didn't sin after the birth of our savior.

I think I'm also still trying to understand Mary being the New Ark. Does this also mean that she is the New Eve?

[HisChild]

Yes, well wouldn't that make sense though? Through Eve's no and Adam's defiance, we gained original sin and lost our connection, if you will, to heaven. Through Mary's yes, and Jesus' obedience, we've gained that salvation, the bridge from earth to heaven.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Mar 27 2006, 08:35 AM']Now the thing thats getting me is the concept that she didn't have any other children after Jesus and she didn't sin after the birth of our savior.[right][snapback]923555[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]If you had the perfect child, literally the God-man, would you really have need for any other children? The Holy Family was utterly complete with the three of them.

[quote]I think I'm also still trying to understand Mary being the New Ark.  Does this also mean that she is the New Eve?[/quote]
That is another typology applied to her, yes.

[desertwoman]

The thing that gets me with her not having any other children is because she is married.

Wouldn't she be obligated to fullfill her maritial role? Or was she barren after carrying our Lord?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Mar 28 2006, 09:10 PM']Wouldn't she be obligated to fullfill her maritial role?  Or was she barren after carrying our Lord?
[right][snapback]926244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The marital role does not necessitate sexual intercourse unless the spouse (here St. Joeseph) "requests" it. St. Joseph, while her husband, respected her as the Ark of the New Covenant, etc... and so both remained celibate in their marriage.

[HisChild]

She was also consecrated to the Lord, from the time she was a little girl. She could have taken that pretty seriously. And because St Joseph was such a wonderful and holy Jewish husband, I'm sure he took that just as seriously.

[Era Might]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Mar 27 2006, 10:35 AM']I think I'm also still trying to understand Mary being the New Ark.  Does this also mean that she is the New Eve?
[right][snapback]923555[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes!!!

This is probably the most ancient Patristic treatment of Mary, as the new Eve. It was drawn out from St. Paul's characterization in Romans of Jesus as the new Adam.

St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp, who in turn was taught by St. John the Apostle, wrote in the late second century:

[quote]The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosened by Mary's obedience. The bonds fastened by the virgin Eve through disbelief were untied by the virgin Mary through faith.[/quote]

In the same way that Eve was first tempted, and said no, leading to the sin of Adam, Mary was the first to say "yes", leading to the birth of Christ. This is why it was fitting for Mary to be preserved from original sin. She was to be the mother of all the spiritually living, those reborn with the divine life of God, whereas Eve, because of her disobedience, was the mother of all the dead, those deprived of God's divine life.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Era Might

[desertwoman]

Hey everyone, sorry I havent responed to all the questions as of yet, but I"m really enjoying the book Hail, Holy Queen (even the title makes me start singing the song from Sister Act and then I pop in the movie).

I'll be out of town for a minute, so I shall return and the book will be finished.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Mar 31 2006, 06:13 AM']Hey everyone, sorry I havent responed to all the questions as of yet, but I"m really enjoying the book Hail, Holy Queen (even the title makes me start singing the song from Sister Act and then I pop in the movie).

I'll be out of town for a minute, so I shall return and the book will be finished.
[right][snapback]929511[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Take your time. If you rush these things you will skip over important parts.

[Tarcisius]

Has anyone read Miravalle's book about the 5th Marian Dogma, Id like to know what everyone thought.

[desertwoman]

Hey folks. Still learning and mediating on the subject at hand.

I actually started to pray to Mary, but I feel guilty in a sense. I've even been talking to a priest and some friends about the issue. Her is a convo we had.

One of the other issues that I'm having problems discerning it the immaculate conception. How can she be sinless?
[b]It is not so much about Mary as it is about God. From a theological basis, could God be conceived in a womb of sin? But more importantly on a scriptural basis, the angel Gabriel declared unto Mary: "Hail Mary, full of grace" indicating that she was full of grace and without sin. And she remained to be perpetually virgin "up until" the time the Gospel was written. Many Protestants think that means that she was a virgin "until that time" but that doesn't mean that she lost her virginity after "that moment." When someone asks, "has your infant sinned," we know that an infant is not able to sin as an infant and is prone to sin but, if we answer "not yet" does not mean that we know for a fact that the infant will sin or will not sin either. For all we know, the child could die before reaching an age of committing sin. When it comes to Mary, the Apostles - except maybe for John - did not see much of Mary. But at the time of the Gospel being "said" (it was written much later), she had remained a virgin and it was not likely that the Mother of Jesus Christ would have had another husband after Jesus died, rose, and ascended. It is important that Mary was without sin when she was conceived or Jesus would have been conceived in a sinful womb.
She would have passed this sinfulness on to Jesus. That is also why we believe that she remained sinless from her birth. We believe that her parents must have been good people - not sinless - but good so that they merited the gift of a sinless child as well as being able to raise a child who would not sin and grow up to become the Mother of God.
[/b]
I understand the logic that she is highly favored among women and that for our Lord to be born into this world he had to come through a vessel that is pure (I guess this is where the typology of Mary being the ark of the new covenant comes in to play).

But what happens after Jesus is born? How come she didn't have any other children and wouldn't she be forsaking her marriage vows with Joseph for not consummating the marriage? Plus, her accession into heaven I haven't read anywhere. I know that accession happens (i.e. Enoch and Elijah) to us , but wouldn't it be written or mentioned in the Bible as well?

[b]Can you imagine any man wanting to have Mary as his wife having "become" the Mother of Jesus Christ, the founder of a great following, even God Himself? The other "brothers" of Jesus were more likely to have been what we call "cousins" as they did not have this term. Elizabeth was a "relative" as they did not have the tendency to differentiate siblings from close cousins who lived in the same community as other members of the larger family. But Elizabeth lived away from Mary's family. As far as consummating the marriage, it was God's Will that Joseph take Mary & Jesus in order for Jesus to be in the line of David and, thus, be called "Son of David." Her Assumption into Heaven is not a matter of salvation but rather a teaching that the body of Mary being sinless would not know decay. One of the Psalms which is more about Jesus says: "For you will not leave my soul among the dead, nor let your beloved know decay." The Lord having spared her soul from sin also spares her sinless body from the decay of death which is the wages of sin which does not apply to her.[/b]

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1002783' date='Jun 10 2006, 10:17 PM']I understand the logic that she is highly favored among women and that for our Lord to be born into this world he had to come through a vessel that is pure (I guess this is where the typology of Mary being the ark of the new covenant comes in to play).

But what happens after Jesus is born? How come she didn't have any other children and wouldn't she be forsaking her marriage vows with Joseph for not consummating the marriage?[/quote]
i don't think we can know for sure [i]why[/i] she remained a virgin, we just know that she did. there is a tradition which says that Joseph was late in years when he was betrothed to Mary, so sexual relations may not have been an option. others say that Mary gave her entire self to the Lord, so Joseph respected her singular devotion. it could have also been that mary remained a virgin so that her life could be a constant testament to the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth. as far as forsaking your marriage vows, paphnutius said earlier in the thread that, as long as the husband never demands to collect on his right, she is not negligent for refraining. also, as i understand it, the marriage was thought to be consummated once the man took the woman into his home, which Joseph surely did.........they just never had sex once that happened.


[quote]Plus, her accession into heaven I haven't read anywhere. I know that accession happens (i.e. Enoch and Elijah) to us , but wouldn't it be written or mentioned in the Bible as well?[/quote]
well, to be more theologically precise, we should refer to her "assumption" into heaven. the word "ascension" (and perhaps "accession" as well) implies a rising into heaven by one's own power. this is what Jesus did. he ascended into heaven. however, mary was assumed into heaven. we use this word instead b/c it implies being raised by another, which is what we believe. mary did not rise body and soul into heaven by her own power, but was instead raised into heaven by the Son.

as for the evidence from scripture, first note that the concept of the assumption is not anti-biblical. we will all experience the resurrection of the Body when Jesus comes again (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+5%3A28-29§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=11&NavCurrentChapter=11"][b]John 5:28-29[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A39-40§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5"][b]6:39-40[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+11%3A24-25§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]11:24-25[/b][/url] and [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+Corinthians+15§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=15&NavCurrentChapter=15"][b]chapter 15[/b][/url] from 1 Corinthians to name a few). likewise, Mary was not the only one to experience this before the second coming. as you pointed out, Enoch ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+5%3A24§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5"][b]Gen 5:24[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Heb+11%3A5§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5"][b]Heb 11:5[/b][/url]) and Elijah ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=2+Kings+2%3A11-12§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=heb&NavGo=11&NavCurrentChapter=11"][b]2 Kings 2:11-12[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+Mac+2%3A58§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=2ki&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2"][b]1 Mac 2:58[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Sirach+48%3A4%2C9§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=48&NavCurrentChapter=48"][b]Sirach 48:4,9[/b][/url]) were assumed into heaven. Paul suggests that a third man may have been as well ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=2+Corinthians+12%3A2-3§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=2co&NavGo=12&NavCurrentChapter=12"][b]2 Cor 12:2-3[/b][/url]) and Matthew speaks of "many bodies of the saints" who were raised from the tomb after Jesus' resurrection ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mat+27%3A52-53§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=11&NavCurrentChapter=11"][b]Mat 27:52-53[/b][/url]). so, the principle is scripturally sound. we have left only to answer the question, "did this happen to Mary?"

as far as explicit references go, this can be neither confirmed [i][b]nor denied[/b][/i]. i find nothing in scripture, explicit or otherwise, that condemns the teaching. what i do find, however, are several verses that seem to point to it, at least implicitly [from the RSV, unless otherwise noted]:

[b]Psalm 45:9[/b] daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.

[b]Psalm 132:8 [/b]Arise, O LORD, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.

[b]Isaiah 60:13[/b] The glory of Lebanon shall come to you, the cypress, the plane, and the pine, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.

[b]Song of Solomon 3:6 [/b]What is that coming up from the wilderness, like a column of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant powders of the merchant?

[b]So 8:5 [/b]Who is that coming up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?

[b]Rev 11:19-12:1[/b]
[b]19 [/b]Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. ....
[b]1 [/b]And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars

i acknowledge full well that the surface intention of these verses is not to support the Assumption. however, even the NT writers themsevles, when quoting the OT, were fond of seeing in various passages a meaning not originally intended by the author. the messianic verses in particular are treated this way. look at them ([url="http://scripturecatholic.com/messianic_prophecies.html"][b]here[/b][/url]). you'll notice that the majority of them were first about a king, or some holy object, or a prophet speaking about himself. but the NT writers saw them as pointing to Christ.

and so it is w/ these verses about Mary. though on the surface they speak of other things, the Church sees in them certain forshadowings about Mary's assumption. why? b/c just as the NT writers saw in the OT what they believed about Christ, the Church sees in the OT what she believes about Mary. Her beliefs come from the Sacred Deposit she has received, and the ECF's testify to this

of course, you may then wonder why a more explicit reference is not given. i think this is actually quite understandable. why? well, for one, mary was probably still alive when most of the NT was written! (so, of course, they wouldn't have known how her life ended). also, the writers of the NT were concerned primarily with faith in Jesus Christ and in recording the events of his life. actually, the deaths of many holy NT men and women are not recorded. for example, it is only from tradition that we know that Peter was crucified upside down. the nature of the deaths of the majority of the apostles is not recorded in Scripture. we cannot expect Scripture to record explicit statements beyond its breadth and intended purpose. it is simply not meant to be a catechism, which is why we also draw from the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

i hope that answers your questions.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[desertwoman]

So is this the reason why Tradition is important instead of sola scriputra?