Ark of the Covenant to be unveiled?

[xixxvmcm85]

Two questions come to mind (I’m a bit surprised nobody has yet brought them up):

1. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church has held claims to having the Ark of the Covenant in their possession for centuries. Why after so long do they now decide to show it to the world? What are their motives?
2. Are any scientists going to be granted access to the Ark? This is the most important question in my mind as there are numerous legends as to what happened to the Ark. Some still believe it’s under the Temple Mount, others believe the Knights Templar confiscated it and it’s lost somewhere in Europe. If scientists are not going be granted access to the Ark to properly date it, then I will refuse to believe it is indeed the Ark spoken of in Exodus.

 

[7_Sorrows]

there is another thread about this topic at CAF - i think it is in secular news.
there are some links to news articles and some good pictures.

if anyone is interested that is.

i also wonder why they have chosen this time to reveal it. perhaps a messenger has been sent from above.

this will be a remarkable moment.

 

[Eucharisted]

First off, this whole Revelations is kinda going off topic.

Second off, I’m going to be a hypocrite by helping it go off topic.

Third off, apocalypic visions have multiple interpetations, all of which are in light of the teachings of the Catholic Church, since John the Apostle is Catholic and the Bible was compiled by the Bishops of the Church. The woman in the sky vision is typically interpreted as meaning the following:

1. Mary the Mother of God
2. Mary as the Ark of the Covenant
3. Mary the Queen of Heaven
4. Mary the Mother of the Church
5. Holy Mother Church giving birth to Christians
6. Holy Mother Church triumphant (prefigurament of the New Jerusalem)

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Where does it say that the woman is the ark of his testament?

The "the ark of his testament was seen **in his temple**",

but the woman “appeared in heaven”.

Antonivs:

Testament = Covenant

The Church has believed that passage referred to the Theotokos (Term given to the Blessed Virgin Mary by the 1st Council of Ephesus) since the time St. John wrote it, and that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant because she CARRIED and GAVE BIRTH to Our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Although the Dogma of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary wasn’t defined until recently, with the exception of most Protestants, almost all Christians have believed in the Assumption of BVM since Apostolic Times.

The “Aron”, the Ark of the Covenant, was in the Holy of Holies, which was in God’s Holy Temple. Now, since the Blessed, Immaculate and Ever-Virgin Theotokos contained within her womb the Lord of the Universe, since He trusted her to say when He should do the One Sign that would lead to Calvary (See John 2:1-11), since He gave her to the Church as our Mother (See John 19:26-27), and since the old Covenant had been fulfilled with our Lord’s saving Death & Passion, the Blessed, Immaculate and Ever-Virgin Theotokos must be the Ark of the New Covenant.

Remember, the Revelation to St. John uses symbolic language to talk about the things of God to communities of Believers who are living under Persecution. The Revelation to St. John was written to a Church whose faith was undergoing a true “trial by fire”. The “Mark of the Beast” was probably a certificate issued when people PUBLICLY offered sacrifice TO the Emperor, and Roman Law under Nero probably required ALL THOSE selling goods or contracting their services to have one…

The questions may well be - Will we be as faithful and obedient as the Blessed Virgin Mary was? and, Will we be as faithful and courageous as they were?

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Two questions come to mind (I’m a bit surprised nobody has yet brought them up):

1. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church has held claims to having the Ark of the Covenant in their possession for centuries. Why after so long do they now decide to show it to the world? What are their motives?
2. Are any scientists going to be granted access to the Ark? This is the most important question in my mind as there are numerous legends as to what happened to the Ark. Some still believe it’s under the Temple Mount, others believe the Knights Templar confiscated it and it’s lost somewhere in Europe. If scientists are not going be granted access to the Ark to properly date it, then I will refuse to believe it is indeed the Ark spoken of in Exodus.

xixxvmcm85:

Aron = Ark of the Covenant

1. If it is the Aron - Because until now, it was necessary to keep it under wraps. and, Now, some necessity requires that it be revealed. Who knows, maybe the priest keeping guard got a vision saying it was “Time for ‘Aron’ to go home”. or, Maybe “Aron” told the Ethiopians, “Your services were no longer required.”
2. If you’ll recall, God very explicitly said he’d allow nothing that was unholy approach that most holy thing. If it’s the Aron, we’ll all know. According to the Holy Books, the Aron carried the priests who were supposed to carry it. That was part of the sin of David when he put the Aron in an oxcart - the Aron didn’t need an oxcart - It could carry itself and had no need of the priests to carry it - They were purely ceremonial.

There won’t be any doubt - We’ll know, because the Aron will practically float out on its own if it’s the Aron.

In that case, the scientists not only wouldn’t be necessary - They’ll be putting themselves, and their assistants, in mortal danger. Remember, the Ethiopians who were watching “Aron” were nothing if not holy. They were just the type of people God wanted hanging around the Aron.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[jimmy]

The Ecumenical Councils fossilized the faith? Can you explain your statement a bit more?

Blessings,
Marduk

I mean exactly what I said. I am not sure what you want me to explain. Dogmatizing everything fossilizes the faith. It makes it less dynamic and more static. It destroys mystery and consequently it becomes myth because in reality you are speaking of things that can’t be spoken of. When you have taken away a mans poetic licence or devotional spirit or whatever you want to call it then you have destroyed the faith. You can read every line of St. Ephrem’s hymns as if it is a dogmatic statement but you would destroy the meaning of the hymns and you would also miss the whole point of it being a hymn.

Some dogmas are necessary but don’t fall into the trap of thinking that it is our job or objective as Christians to define and dogmatize as much as we possibly can. This is one of the things I like about the Eastern Traditions, they are okay with a mystery being a mystery. They don’t need to define it.

 

[mardukm]

I mean exactly what I said. I am not sure what you want me to explain. Dogmatizing everything fossilizes the faith. It makes it less dynamic and more static. It destroys mystery and consequently it becomes myth because in reality you are speaking of things that can’t be spoken of. When you have taken away a mans poetic licence or devotional spirit or whatever you want to call it then you have destroyed the faith. You can read every line of St. Ephrem’s hymns as if it is a dogmatic statement but you would destroy the meaning of the hymns and you would also miss the whole point of it being a hymn.

Some dogmas are necessary but don’t fall into the trap of thinking that it is our job or objective as Christians to define and dogmatize as much as we possibly can. This is one of the things I like about the Eastern Traditions, they are okay with a mystery being a mystery. They don’t need to define it.

So if an issue unsettles the mind of the Church, then “there’s no need to define it” and we just let the Church fall into chaos because of the principle that dogmatizing fossilizes the faith?

In any case, the Church does not have to formally dogmatize something for it to be a dogma of the Church. A perfect example is the dogma of the Assumption. It is a formalized dogma in the Catholic Church, and not in the Orthodox Churches, but can you seriously believe that it does not have dogmatic standing in the Orthodox Churches nevertheless? Do you seriously think that an Orthodox Christian can publicly go around demeaning the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin without incurring ecclesiastical censure? There are many other things in the East and Orient which, though not dogmatized formally, have the status of dogma. Another example is the Essence and Energies distinction, which some EO have gone so far as to accuse Latins of being heretics for not formally believing in it. Another issue is Purgatory. The Catholic Church has a very general teaching on it with nothing specific. But it is the EO who are dogmatic about rejecting certain theologouna about it from the Latin Church.

Certainly, the East and Orient have a more apophatic theology than the West, and the Orient even moreso than the East. This accusation of “fossilizing the faith” because of dogmatization is an artifical and false distinction between the West and East/Orient, IMO, because the East/Orient are just as dogmatic about many things as the Latins are, beyond the dogmas promulgated by the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

But we digress.

Blessings

 

[jimmy]

I never said that dogma is limited to the first seven councils. What I oppose is this mentality that can’t see devotion or poetic language when it is right in front of them. Instead they see dogma. Mary as the Ark of the Covenant is an example. Irenaeus and some other early fathers called Mary the Ark of the Covenant therefore it is dogma. It is simply the opposite of protestantisms anti-tradition. It is the fossilization of tradition.

As I said, there are dogmas that are necessary but the west has gone beyond what is necessary. I agree that something doesn’t have to be declared dogma to be dogma. The divinity of Christ has always been dogma. The Incarnation and humanization of God has always been dogma. So has the Eucharist. And etc. On the other hand there is an idea of development in the west that encourages theologians to ‘penetrate the mystery’ until there is no mystery.

The west does not dogmatize based only on whether it divides the Church. The Immaculate Conception had nothing to do with divisions in the Church. Neither did the definition of the Assumption. The west has an obsession with developing dogma.

The assumption does not hold the same place in the east as in the west even if they celebrate it. It is simply a part of the life of the east. They have accepted it because that is how their tradition has developed. It is part of the way of life of the east. The west has taken it to another level though through its definition. You are under an ecclesiastical curse if you do not accept the definition, even if you do it privately. Maybe if you publicly denounced the dormition and assumption in the east you would be censured by your bishop but as far as I know if you privately question it you aren’t under any ecclesiastical curse. It remains a minor issue.

Purgatory is not part of the east. Maybe you might find a few eastern theologians who subscribe to some idea similar but it is nonsense to attempt to say that it is on the same level as in the west. You are mistaken if you think that a definition doesn’t make a difference. If that were the case then they would not have defined it.

 

[SonofMonica]

:slapfight:

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Mardakm & Jimmy:

May I ask… What does this discussion have to do with the Topic of the Thread? How does this debate relate to the “Ark of the Covenant to be unveiled today”?

As the link between the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Theotokos and the Ark of the Covenant was made by some of the Early Church Fathers, and as this doesn’t seem to need to be “Defined as Dogma”, could you leave that topic alone on this thread?

If the 2 of you believe this would edify the brothers, would you be willing to start and host a discussion of the issue you were discussing on another thread? Meanwhile, could you agree to stop that discussion on this thread?

Thank you.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

:slapfight:

Son of Monica:

Not very edifying to watch. Imagine what the unbelievers are saying!

I think we’re seeing a display of why St. Isaac of Syria didn’t like untempered Zeal…

In Christ, Michael

 

[xixxvmcm85]

xixxvmcm85:

Aron = Ark of the Covenant

1. If it is the Aron - Because until now, it was necessary to keep it under wraps. and, Now, some necessity requires that it be revealed. Who knows, maybe the priest keeping guard got a vision saying it was “Time for ‘Aron’ to go home”. or, Maybe “Aron” told the Ethiopians, “Your services were no longer required.”

Thanks for the speculation. It’s possible, but I’m hoping for a statement by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedos explaining their motives.

1. If you’ll recall, God very explicitly said he’d allow nothing that was unholy approach that most holy thing. If it’s the Aron, we’ll all know. According to the Holy Books, the Aron carried the priests who were supposed to carry it. That was part of the sin of David when he put the Aron in an oxcart - the Aron didn’t need an oxcart - It could carry itself and had no need of the priests to carry it - They were purely ceremonial.

I’m not sure if this is relevant considering that it’s going to be exhibited to the public. How close is “in its presence”? Would I, a presumably unholy sinner, be in danger for even being within 50 yards of the thing?

In any case, if the Tewahedos refuse to grant access to probing minds, then I’ll expect them to provide an explanation as to why. If their explanation is similar to yours, then I’ll expect the thing to do something as miraculous as you supposed.

I’m not getting my hopes up though. Fascination (and so subsequently conspiracy theories) about the Ark of the Covenant is nothing new, and as I addressed in my last post: wide-spread and varied. I’m not putting much stock into this, no more than I did during the Shroud of Turin hype.

 

[SonofMonica]

I think we’re seeing a display of why St. Isaac of Syria didn’t like untempered Zeal…

:clapping:

Well to this convert, the whole East vs. West thing seems to resemble coastal gang violence here in the U.S. moreso than it resembles any actual serious biblical or doctrinal discussion or scholarship. It just seems like a bunch of overgeneralization and attacks about the other’s nature. I present to you a skit:
a couple of typical East and West squabblers:

:nun1: “You all in the East are all X”

“Well the West is sooooo Y.” :byzsoc:

 

[xixxvmcm85]

:clapping:

Well to this convert, the whole East vs. West thing seems to resemble coastal gang violence here in the U.S. moreso than it resembles any actual serious biblical or doctrinal discussion or scholarship. It just seems like a bunch of overgeneralization and attacks about the other’s nature. I present to you a skit:

Our church shares the building with a Byzantine Catholic parish. Our Latin priest and the Byzantine priest actually provided the Latino youth who live in the ghetto with such a skit to demonstrate the stupidity of Mexican gang warfare. If I remember correctly, the Latin priest was the Norteño and the Byzantine the Sureño. In the end, one of the young ladies in the audience very correctly noted: “How stupid! You’re both Mexican!”

 

[antgaria]

SonOfMonica,

Let me echo others excitement about the awesome timing of that picture of yours in the post. As I clicked to go on to the next page, first thing that popped up was the photo. Hilarious! I almost fell of my seat.

To others who see typology as “mere poetry,” I think the great fathers of the East are frowning at you when you put it that way. Poetry and typology were used by these fathers to present in a dynamic way REALITIES. Their concept of theology was not some static thing, but theology was reality, and the relationship they presented in their poetry through typology were real relationships. I think you need to read St. Ephrem {and St. Narsai if you’re gonna go further to the East} more prayerfully.

In Him,
Anthony

 

[SonofMonica]

To others who see typology as “mere poetry,” I think the great fathers of the East are frowning at you when you put it that way. Poetry and typology were used by these fathers to present in a dynamic way REALITIES. Their concept of theology was not some static thing, but theology was reality, and the relationship they presented in their poetry through typology were real relationships. I think you need to read St. Ephrem {and St. Narsai if you’re gonna go further to the East} more prayerfully.

:tiphat:

 

[iona_scribe]

You’re not the only one…this raises alot of theological issues.

I thought the Mother of God was the fulfillment of the ark? Furthermore, now that the Church has become the “New Israel.”

Your question got me thinking and re-reading some scripture

The idea of the “New Israel” is very important, and maybe needs some clarification. We, the Church don’t “replace” Israel in the sense that God isn’t interested in Israel or the promises He made to their forefathers anymore. We are, as St. Paul describes it, branches grafted onto the tree of Israel. We live in spiritual continuity with the Old Covenant through the New Covenant. This is also not to say that the Jews can be saved outside of Christ somehow. (Interesting that the USCCB recently issued a clarification on this: catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60333

I found Romans 11:1-36 (especially verses 25-31) very interesting. It seems to say that a time will yet come when the Jews will come to faith in Christ.

This old “This Rock” also had interesting things to say about the relationship between Israel and the Church: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902chap.asp

Maybe if/when the Ark of the Covenant is revealed, it will be a sign that somehow leads all of Israel to faith in the Messiah. This is very exciting!

 

[mardukm]

Mardakm & Jimmy:

May I ask… What does this discussion have to do with the Topic of the Thread? How does this debate relate to the “Ark of the Covenant to be unveiled today”?

As the link between the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Theotokos and the Ark of the Covenant was made by some of the Early Church Fathers, and as this doesn’t seem to need to be “Defined as Dogma”, could you leave that topic alone on this thread?

If the 2 of you believe this would edify the brothers, would you be willing to start and host a discussion of the issue you were discussing on another thread? Meanwhile, could you agree to stop that discussion on this thread?

Thank you.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

You got me! Like I said at the end of my post “but we digress.”

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

To others who see typology as “mere poetry,” I think the great fathers of the East are frowning at you when you put it that way. Poetry and typology were used by these fathers to present in a dynamic way REALITIES. Their concept of theology was not some static thing, but theology was reality, and the relationship they presented in their poetry through typology were real relationships. I think you need to read St. Ephrem {and St. Narsai if you’re gonna go further to the East} more prayerfully.

In Him,
Anthony

Well put, as usual, brother Anthony. In the Alexandrine Tradition, allegory has a special place in theology as a means to understand deeper truths.

Blessings

 

[JohnT58]

No unveiling yet. Guess there was a bigger news story.