Does The Church teach that Mary IS the Ark of the Covenant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Autumn_Smoke
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Autumn_Smoke

Guest
I understand the similarities between Mary and The Ark. But I was just curious if the Church teaches that Mary has become the Ark in all of its fullness. Would this be an official Church teaching?

Thank you.
 
See Catechism of the Catholic Church 2676. Official Church Teaching.
 
Obviously, Mary is not the literal box the Israelites carried around and later kept in the Temple. But she is the Ark of the New Covenant in the same way that John the Baptist was Elijah returned – not literally, but in terms of role in the divine plan.
 
She’s the “new” Ark of the Covenant because she carried Christ in her womb. Yes.
 
Autumn_Smoke said:
I understand the similarities between Mary and The Ark. But I was just curious if the Church teaches that Mary has become the Ark in all of its fullness. Would this be an official Church teaching?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Tim Staples explains, following Scott Hahn’s analysis that Revelation 11:19 …

And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

… speaks of the Ark of the Covenant and then the next verse says …

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;

It’s easy to miss that connection because that next verse is Rev. 12:1, a new chapter, but the original text wasn’t broken into chapters so it would have followed directly.

This is biblical evidence for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin also. Elsewhere the bible speaks of the “souls of those slain” or “the spirits of just men” in heaven, but with Mary she is a woman with crown on her head and moon under her feet. So, she is bodily present in heaven.
 
Autumn_Smoke said:
I understand the similarities between Mary and The Ark. But I was just curious if the Church teaches that Mary has become the Ark in all of its fullness. Would this be an official Church teaching?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
There is similarity but not the same.
 
Reuben_J said:
There is similarity but not the same.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your answer. I was hoping to see at least one answer like this, because I’ve personally thought that Mary is not the whole of the Ark in all of its fullness and rich symbolism, but just a part of it, because to me, the Ark speaks much about God, about Mary, and about Jesus, and about God’s complete plan of salvation. Is that along the lines of what what you’re meaning?

But I didn’t know if that was against church teaching, and I wanted to know if my ideas were wrong according to the church.
 
Autumn_Smoke said:
Thank you for your answer. I was hoping to see at least one answer like this, because I’ve personally thought that Mary is not the whole of the Ark in all of its fullness and rich symbolism, but just a part of it, because to me, the Ark speaks much about God, about Mary, and about Jesus, and about God’s complete plan of salvation. Is that along the lines of what what you’re meaning?

But I didn’t know if that was against church teaching, and I wanted to know if my ideas were wrong according to the church.
Click to expand...
The Ark of the Covenant was a box made out of wood, covered by gold.
Some believe it still exists in Ethiopia.
In any case, Mary is not the same as that gold-covered box that held the tablet, staff and manna.
Mary is the greater Ark for Who she carried.
Just as Jesus is the greater Temple, than that of Solomon.
But yes, symbolism is different for Mary and the Old Testament Ark.
 
Autumn_Smoke said:
Thank you for your answer. I was hoping to see at least one answer like this, because I’ve personally thought that Mary is not the whole of the Ark in all of its fullness and rich symbolism, but just a part of it, because the Ark speaks about God, about Mary, and about Jesus. Is that what you’re meaning?

But I didn’t know if that was against church teaching.
Click to expand...
Hi.

I love Mary but not a fan of Marian devotion, however the argument that Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant is pretty convincing and I could not actually fault anything in it. It is good for teaching but Catechism notwithstanding that casually mentions her as the Ark, I am not sure that this is really the Church official teaching.

If I figure correctly, this is more popular with the devotion people and perhaps quite a new idea of people like Scott Hann. Again, not that I thought it is flawed or wrong, just that the Church would not proclaim this officially but it is alright for individual belief.

Of course the Bible does not categorically say it like for example, Jesus is the new Adam. I was taught that the Book of Revelation is of apocalyptic genre and therefore one cannot guarantee the specific meaning of the apocalyptic vision.

The premise that Mary is the new Ark is alluding to the old Ark which contained the tablets of the Ten Commandments. Thus the dwelling place of the Word of God which was made flesh in the NT, and Jesus has perfected the Ark in Mary, which I thought is not correct as the Word of God is Jesus which was not the content of the Ark.

You see the Church would not say something like that officially but only so far it is good for teaching, not the teaching itself.

God did not live in the Ark, no matter how holy it was. The Jews were pretty offended if we tell them that they believe the Lord God lived in the Ark. It was holy because it contain the tablets and therefore to be respected and honored.

Mary, on the other hand is the Mother of Jesus, so though you can draw parallelism there, they are not the same.

I could be wrong though and no offense is intended to anyone who believe otherwise and besides I like the parallelism. 😉
 
reggieM said:
The Ark of the Covenant was a box made out of wood, covered by gold.
Click to expand...
What’s really cool, is that Jewish history says that the Ark was actually made from 3 different boxes of 3 different sizes that would fit one into the other. The outer box and the inner box were covered in gold, but the middle box was wood only.

What neater symbolism of our belief in the Trinity; and the middle box being left as wood only—the 2nd person of the Trinity who was crucified on the wood of the cross.
 
Reuben_J said:
Hi.

I love Mary but not a fan of Marian devotion, however the argument that Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant is pretty convincing and I could not actually fault anything in it. It is good for teaching but Catechism notwithstanding that casually mentions her as the Ark, I am not sure that this is really the Church official teaching.

If I figure correctly, this is more popular with the devotion people and perhaps quite a new idea of people like Scott Hann. Again, not that I thought it is flawed or wrong, just that the Church would not proclaim this officially but it is alright for individual belief.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m currently having a disagreement with someone at church who insists that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. His whole life is Mary, though, and I think that’s all he can see. I’m not going to continue to argue with him, but neither can I 100% agree with him. I would agree that like the Ark, God’s presence came down upon Mary, and that the items in the Ark are representations of Christ and Mary held Jesus within her. But there is so much more to it than that…so much more.
Reuben_J said:
Of course the Bible does not categorically say it like for example, Jesus is the new Adam. I was taught that the Book of Revelation is of apocalyptic genre and therefore one cannot guarantee the specific meaning of the apocalyptic vision.

The premise that Mary is the new Ark is alluding to the old Ark which contained the tablets of the Ten Commandments. Thus the dwelling place of the Word of God which was made flesh in the NT, and Jesus has perfected the Ark in Mary, which I thought is not correct as the Word of God is Jesus which was not the content of the Ark.
Click to expand...
Reuben_J said:
You see the Church would not say something like that officially but only so far it is good for teaching, not the teaching itself.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I needed to hear that.
Reuben_J said:
God did not live in the Ark, no matter how holy it was. The Jews were pretty offended if we tell them that they believe the Lord God lived in the Ark. It was holy because it contain the tablets and therefore to be respected and honored.
Click to expand...
My particular problem is that the Jewish people would see the Ark as the Throne of God, and God’s presence on His throne, and would also say it portrays our unworthiness in entering God’s presence. Mary has not taken her place on God’s throne.
Reuben_J said:
I could be wrong though and no offense is intended to anyone who believe otherwise and besides I like the parallelism. 😉
Click to expand...
same for me.
 
Autumn_Smoke said:
What’s really cool, is that Jewish history says that the Ark was actually made from 3 different boxes of 3 different sizes that would fit one into the other. The outer box and the inner box were covered in gold, but the middle box was wood only.

What neater symbolism of our belief in the Trinity; and the middle box being left as wood only—the 2nd person of the Trinity who was crucified on the wood of the cross.
Click to expand...
That is cool. I had not heard of that before. Thanks!
 
Autumn_Smoke said:
Yes, I’m currently having a disagreement with someone at church who insists that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. His whole life is Mary, though, and I think that’s all he can see. I’m not going to continue to argue with him, but neither can I 100% agree with him. I would agree that like the Ark, God’s presence came down upon Mary, and that the items in the Ark are representations of Christ and Mary held Jesus within her. But there is so much more to it than that…so much more.
…
Thank you, I needed to hear that.
Click to expand...
Hi. I take it he is someone close to you. If I were you I would encourage him to devote to Mary because it is good for the spiritual growth. If one is into devotion, one would go deeper into its spirituality but which is not binding on other Catholics.

I was responding to your thread asking whether Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant is an official teaching of the Church. I would think not but nevertheless good for teaching. I would probably use the argument to explain to Protestants but nevertheless know that it is private explanation.
Autumn_Smoke said:
My particular problem is that the Jewish people would see the Ark as the Throne of God, and God’s presence on His throne, and would also say it portrays our unworthiness in entering God’s presence. Mary has not taken her place on God’s throne.

same for me.
Click to expand...
You can say it that way and there was pretty much about the Ark beginning with Moses when he put up a tent for it and God descended like a cloud until the Book of Kings up to the diaspora to Babylon when the temple was destroyed and the Ark lost forever.

The former btw are in the daily readings of the mass last couple of weeks ago.

When God made the Covenant with Moses, ‘I am your God and you will be my people’, God was with them tangibly and the Ark was the physical presence that proved that Covenant, a legal document if you may.

Thus as long as they kept the ‘agreement’ and hold to the ‘document’, God protected them and they won battles. By worshipping other gods, they kept aside their God and as a result they lost and were destroyed.

Then God gave us a New Covenant – Jesus.

That is in nutshell to the long narrative of the Bible.

The explanation of Mary as the new Ark is alluding to this parallelism and that is why it is beautiful. They are parallels but not the same.

Probably because it is hard to equate Jesus when he was in the womb with the content of the old Ark.

God bless.
 
Reuben_J said:
Hi. I take it he is someone close to you. If I were you I would encourage him to devote to Mary because it is good for the spiritual growth. If one is into devotion, one would go deeper into its spirituality but which is not binding on other Catholics.

I was responding to your thread asking whether Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant is an official teaching of the Church. I would think not but nevertheless good for teaching. I would probably use the argument to explain to Protestants but nevertheless know that it is private explanation.

You can say it that way and there was pretty much about the Ark beginning with Moses when he put up a tent for it and God descended like a cloud until the Book of Kings up to the diaspora to Babylon when the temple was destroyed and the Ark lost forever.

The former btw are in the daily readings of the mass last couple of weeks ago.

When God made the Covenant with Moses, ‘I am your God and you will be my people’, God was with them tangibly and the Ark was the physical presence that proved that Covenant, a legal document if you may.

Thus as long as they kept the ‘agreement’ and hold to the ‘document’, God protected them and they won battles. By worshipping other gods, they kept aside their God and as a result they lost and were destroyed.

Then God gave us a New Covenant – Jesus.

That is in nutshell to the long narrative of the Bible.

The explanation of Mary as the new Ark is alluding to this parallelism and that is why it is beautiful. They are parallels but not the same.

Probably because it is hard to equate Jesus when he was in the womb with the content of the old Ark.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all your comments. I will see where this conversation leads with my friend. Praying for understanding and peace for both of us.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top