Glaring Hiatus

[Robert_in_SD]

Please help me out here. Which ECFs are you referring to? Which ECF is the first recorded ECF to make the Mary-Ark connection?

St. Ambrose, for one, details several ways in which the Ark of the Covenant prefigured Mary: “The Ark contained the Tables of the Law; Mary contained in her womb the heir of the Testament. The Ark bore the Law; Mary bore the Gospel. The Ark made the voice of God heard; Mary gave us the very Word of God. The Ark shone forth with the purest of gold; Mary shone forth both inwardly and outwardly with the splendor of virginity. The gold which adorned the Ark came from the interior of the earth; the gold with which Mary shone forth came from the mines of heaven.” (de virgin., II, ii, 9, 10, P.L., XVI, 209 ff.)

There are also these:

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (+ c.270): “Come, then, ye too, dearly beloved, and let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the ark of Thy sanctuary’ [Ps. 131:8]. For the holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” ( The First Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary ).

Chrysippus (399-479): “The truly royal ark, the most precious ark, was the ever-Virgin Theotokos; the ark which received the treasure of all sanctification85 you and the ark of your sanctification; for when you shall have arisen and sealed the ark of your sanctification, then that ark will arise85″

Hesychius (ca. 433): “The ark of thy sanctification, the Virgin Theotokos surely. If thou art the pearl, then she must be the ark” ( De S. Maria Deip. ).

These Fathers were from the East. Having inherited a rich patrimony of Greek and Syrian theology, the eighth-century St. John Damascene refined oriental ark typology in three intense sermons on the Assumption.

“The apostolic band lifting the true ark of the Lord God on their shoulders, as the priests of old the typical ark, and placing thy body in the tomb, made it, as if another Jordan, the way to the true land of the gospel, the heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of all the faithful, God being its Lord and architect. Thy soul did not descend to Limbo, neither did thy flesh see corruption. Thy pure and spotless body was not left in the earth, but the abode of the Queen, of God’s true Mother, was fixed in the heavenly kingdom alone” ( Sermon 1 on the Assumption ).

“Today the sacred and living ark of the living God, who conceived her Creator Himself, takes up her abode in the temple of God, not made by hands. David, her forefather, rejoices” ( Sermon 2 on the Assumption ).

Clipped from this article

Hope it enlightens.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The author is not making the connection. You are interpreting him as making the connection. No other Scripture writer makes the connection. Why should I assume that Luke makes such inferences to the ark moving around Palestine? Where do the inferences stop? How close to the story of the ark must it be in order for it to be a parallel? As stated in my first post, there are no rules for such things. It becomes a wax nose that can be twisted any way the reader so imagines.

Really. No other scripture writer makes the connection? What about those cited above. More recently, what about Scott Hahn? Perhaps you should expand your list of scripture writers.

FantomScholar:

In such a situation, an explanation of the typology is not needed. The fact of the matter is John says “Behold the Lamb of God.” There is no one who says as Mary passes by “Behold, the Ark of the New Covenant.” As I said in my first post, the only typology we should infer from Scripture is that which Scripture directly infers.

No, but Elizabeth parrots the langauge of David and John (in her womb) leaps as Mary approaches bearing the Word of God. To say that is less than a “shout” to the Jews (and Christians) reading Luke’s Gospel is to go too far.

FantomScholar:

My reaction isn’t hostile because it’s Mary; but because it’s bad biblical interpretation. It would be just as negative if it were Paul under discussion. The early church fathers were prone to such allegorical fancies. Dispensationalist Protestants make the same mistake when they read Revelation and interpret the locusts as modern day attack helicopters.

The distinction is that the comparison is Old to New Testament; not Scripture to modern times. The early church fathers looked to the OT to understand what is revealed in the NT. And it is apparent that even the author of Luke engaged in that sort of typology … in his scriptural writings. If that’s bad interpretation, then let me be a “bad” biblical scholar just like Luke, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine.

FantomScholar:

If anything, Jesus is the bearer of the New Covenant, not Mary.

Yes, there are certainly typological comparisons to draw between the OT Ark and Jesus Christ as well, and the Catholic Church has a history of those comparisons too. What you seem to fail to understand is that it’s not an either/or analysis. It’s a both/and analysis. Just because shadows of Christ bringing the New Covenant to the world can be seen in the OT Ark, that does not reduce or negate the fact that shadows of Mary bearing the Word made flesh also can be seen in the images from the OT of the Ark.

FantomScholar:

You know, I am sure, that such typology is used for dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception.

Well, from the early beginnings of the Church, this is how the fathers have viewed the scriptures… knowing that what is foreshadowed in the OT is fulfilled in the NT. It is not illegitimate to support doctrines such as the Immaculate conception, or the assumption, by typological studies. But, to conclude that typology is the root of such doctrines is to come at the issue from a sola scriptura perspective, presuming that only the scriptures are reliable sources of doctrine. The Catholic Church is not fettered by those chains, and can look also to Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[Contarini]

If you choose to believe Sola Scriptura, that is perfectly fine.

I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura–at least that is not the term I would use, and I don’t think my view is different from that of many Catholics and Orthodox except that I have not been convinced that any present body of Christians is in itself the one true Church.

But many people *do *believe in Sola Scriptura because they have bought into the false assumption that to care about what Scripture says is to believe in Sola Scriptura.

I am not asking you to believe otherwise. I simply stated that the OP hints that because Paul did not state it in his Epistles…etc…

The OP does not say “because Paul did not state it therefore I’m not required to believe it.” The OP says “how do you explain the fact that Paul doesn’t state it?” That question doesn’t imply Sola Scriptura at all. Even if you think that Paul believed it and didn’t say it, that’s an answer to the question and does not make the question invalid or irrelevant.

Sola Scriptura, in all honesty, makes me chuckle. It is amusing for me to think about how all the Apostles and their students went around teaching with nothing. There would be no way for them to teach and nothing to teach with, as there was no “scriptura” to be solo about. I get this picture of Peter saying, “I am here to teach about something but I can;t because I do not have the Scriptura to do so yet, but if y’all come back in a few years, I will have a lot to say.”

Anyway, that is the picture I get when I think of sola scriptura.

Perhaps, if you want to talk about sola scriptura, you should acquaint yourself with what Protestants have traditionally meant by it–and I mean what the best traditional Protestant theologians have meant by it, just as you expect Protestants to base their arguments on what good Catholic theologians say and not on what some poorly informed layperson or heterodox theologian may say.

Sola Scriptura does not mean and never has meant “it is the essential nature of divine revelation to come in written form.” It means “all divine revelation has been written down.” It obviously was not true when Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, which is why 1 Thessalonians contradicts sola scriptura. I know Reformed folks who think that 2 Timothy was the last book of the NT to be written, which allows them to claim that 2 Timothy does teach sola scriptura. I find this highly implausible, but even this position admits that for most of the NT period sola scriptura was not yet true.

The doctrine really isn’t about the written nature of divine revelation, but about the complete and finite (in terms of extent) nature of divine revelation.

Catholics say that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Traditional Protestants say that it ended when all 27 of the NT books were written, and was sufficiently contained within those books plus the books of the Hebrew canon.

That’s all sola scriptura is. It’s a statement about fact, not a statement about possible modes of divine revelation.

Edwin

 

[SirThomasMore]

I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura–at least that is not the term I would use, and I don’t think my view is different from that of many Catholics and Orthodox except that I have not been convinced that any present body of Christians is in itself the one true Church.

Ok

But many people *do *believe in Sola Scriptura because they have bought into the false assumption that to care about what Scripture says is to believe in Sola Scriptura.

Ok

The OP does not say “because Paul did not state it therefore I’m not required to believe it.” The OP says “how do you explain the fact that Paul doesn’t state it?” That question doesn’t imply Sola Scriptura at all. Even if you think that Paul believed it and didn’t say it, that’s an answer to the question and does not make the question invalid or irrelevant.

Actually, it DOES relate to SS. The fact Paul does n ot state it is irrelevant and a red herring.

Perhaps, if you want to talk about sola scriptura, you should acquaint yourself with what Protestants have traditionally meant by it–and I mean what the best traditional Protestant theologians have meant by it, just as you expect Protestants to base their arguments on what good Catholic theologians say and not on what some poorly informed layperson or heterodox theologian may say.

I grew up Protestant. Have only been Catholic since 2003. I know what they teach.

Sola Scriptura does not mean and never has meant “it is the essential nature of divine revelation to come in written form.” It means “all divine revelation has been written down.” It obviously was not true when Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, which is why 1 Thessalonians contradicts sola scriptura. I know Reformed folks who think that 2 Timothy was the last book of the NT to be written, which allows them to claim that 2 Timothy does teach sola scriptura. I find this highly implausible, but even this position admits that for most of the NT period sola scriptura was not yet true.

The doctrine really isn’t about the written nature of divine revelation, but about the complete and finite (in terms of extent) nature of divine revelation.

Yes, I know…the key phrase is written down.

Catholics say that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Traditional Protestants say that it ended when all 27 of the NT books were written, and was sufficiently contained within those books plus the books of the Hebrew canon.

Yes, I know. That does not change my amusement in trying to see Peter teach something that was not written down.

 

[Contarini]

I would like to ask you about this particular sentence; I think it is on-topic. It has occurred to me that as a Catholic, and even just as a Christian, Mary’s perpetual virginity is the least-insane thing I am asked to believe. With my apologies for reverting to a more vernacular tone , What’s the problem?

First of all, I have huge problems with Mary’s “in partu” virginity. That’s the only part of the doctrine that I find practically impossible to believe. It appears docetistic to me.

My problems with the post partum virginity are less insuperable, but the idea still seems highly improbable in the context of first-century Jewish culture, and I worry that it stems from and reinforces the idea that sexual intercourse is intrinsically unholy.

I do not share the common exegetical objections. I find the “cousin” theory rather unconvincing, but even apart from the question of the perpetual virginity I think it highly likely that the “brothers and sisters” were Joseph’s children by a previous marriage.

In fact, I would say that if we accept as historical John’s account of Jesus entrusting Mary to John, then that is pretty strong evidence in favor of Mary having no other children (not conclusive, given Jesus’ words about abandoning family to follow Him), and that in itself provides some evidence for the perpetual virginity. So if anything I think the exegetical evidence works the other way round.

In favor of the PV, other than the sheer authority of tradition (including Protestant tradition until around the 18th century–in fact I have yet to see a scholarly study of how Protestants stopped believing in it), is the argument that the PV helped establish in Western culture the idea that women are not simply the property of their husbands.
Medieval theologians and canon lawyers were forced to develop a view of marriage based on consent rather than simply on intercourse largely because they believed that the paradigmatic marriage was a sexless one. (At least that’s one way to read the evidence.)

The above consideration is just one possible example pointing to the limitations of my 21st-century Western perspective. So I’m willing to accept the post partum virginity as part of the “whole package.” It’s the “in partu” virginity that (if taken as necessary doctrine by Catholics or Orthodox, as it appears to be however much they downplay it) actually counts against the claims of either of the possible “True Churches” in my mind.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The OP does not say “because Paul did not state it therefore I’m not required to believe it.” The OP says “how do you explain the fact that Paul doesn’t state it?” That question doesn’t imply Sola Scriptura at all. Even if you think that Paul believed it and didn’t say it, that’s an answer to the question and does not make the question invalid or irrelevant.

Actually, it DOES relate to SS. The fact Paul does n ot state it is irrelevant and a red herring.

You haven’t answered my point–you just keep repeating that it has to do with SS. This isn’t going anywhere.

It is always relevant, from a historical point of view, to ask “if writer X believed in idea Y, why doesn’t he talk about it”? There may be perfectly good explanations, but it’s a valid question. It’s not dependent on Sola Scriptura because it applies to non-inspired writings just as well as to inspired ones.

I grew up Protestant. Have only been Catholic since 2003. I know what they teach.

Given how many times I’ve heard this from ex-Catholics, it isn’t very convincing
And ex-Protestants have less excuse for setting themselves up as experts, given the divided and decentralized nature of Protestantism. You know what you were taught (and if you’re like most human beings, your memory even of that has already been affected by your present beliefs). You don’t necessarily know what Martin Chemnitz said in his Examination of the Council of Trent, just to name one particularly important work of traditional Protestant apologetics.

Yes, I know…the key phrase is written down.

Yes, I know. That does not change my amusement in trying to see Peter teach something that was not written down.

Well, since as I said above that is not what the traditional theory claims, your amusement is unfounded. The question is whether we have any access to those teachings of Peter that were never written down in one of the books later accepted as canonical, and if we do whether those teachings have the same authority as those that were written down in canonical Scripture.

Edwin

 

[SirThomasMore]

You haven’t answered my point–you just keep repeating that it has to do with SS. This isn’t going anywhere.

That was my point from the beginning

It is always relevant, from a historical point of view, to ask “if writer X believed in idea Y, why doesn’t he talk about it”?

Who says he didn’t?

Given how many times I’ve heard this from ex-Catholics, it isn’t very convincing

lol…that’s ok. It was not my goal to convince you. It was my goal to speak the truth. You are free to accept or reject the truth

And ex-Protestants have less excuse for setting themselves up as experts, given the divided and decentralized nature of Protestantism. You know what you were taught (and if you’re like most human beings, your memory even of that has already been affected by your present beliefs). You don’t necessarily know what Martin Chemnitz said in his Examination of the Council of Trent, just to name one particularly important work of traditional Protestant apologetics.

First, I did not set myself up as an expert. I simply said I know what Protestants teach before I was Protestant. In fact, I was planning on being a minister. Second, if I could handle law school and a bar exam, this ain’t so tough. Third, I do not have to know what Patrick Henry said in any given speech to know thatThe USA is a Democracy in a Republic. Likewise, I do not have to know what everyone has said to know what Sola Scriptura means. I am not sure if you are overestimating yourself, or understimating me, but neither is warranted. We are both just posters doing our best to post. There is no need to be condescending.

Well, since as I said above that is not what the traditional theory claims, your amusement is unfounded.

Actually, I founded it very easiy…lol

The question is whether we have any access to those teachings of Peter that were never written down in one of the books later accepted as canonical, and if we do whether those teachings have the same authority as those that were written down in canonical Scripture.

He could not teach, nothing was written down…lol

 

[Radical]

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (+ c.270): “Come, then, ye too, dearly beloved, and let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the ark of Thy sanctuary’ [Ps. 131:8]. For the holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” ( The First Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary ).

Thanks. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this work is considered spurious. From what else you have produced, would it be fair to conclude that in your understanding the earliest known (legitimate) record of the Mary-Ark connection would date to the end of the 4th century?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Thanks. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this work is considered spurious.

All due respect, if you are going to make a claim, or even sorta make a cliam like that, could you post your references so we might see who, exactly, considers it spurious?

 

[Radical]

All due respect, if you are going to make a claim, or even sorta make a cliam like that, could you post your references so we might see who, exactly, considers it spurious?

By all means…it is listed under dubious or spurious works at CCEL

 

[SirThomasMore]

By all means…it is listed under dubious or spurious works at CCEL

Thank you. See, it is important in this discussion to know that what you claim and cite is from Calvin College and is part of the Christian Reformed Church. They have a whole section on John Calvin.

Can you see where that might be important information to a Catholic? I mean, if a Calvanist says something Catholic is spurious, that holds little value, in most circumstances, to a Catholic.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert, with all due respect, you weaken the Catholic case when you make statements like this. You don’t need them. The analogies to which you point are obvious if one is reading with a Catholic lens. They clearly are not obvious to everyone, and telling people that they should see what they don’t see is not helpful.

Edwin

Point taken. Perhaps the better way to express my point is to say that other christians - for centuries - have seen the connection between Mary and the Ark, and that this group apparently includes the author of Luke, based upon the text of his Gospel. You are correct, however, that I do not know what is in FS’s heart. He may see the connection but not want to admit it, or it may be that he simply cannot see the connection because he is rooted in another school of thought. I will assume - thanks to your chastisement - that FS is stating in good faith that he does not see the connection, and that others of good faith may also not see it.

However, the connection being discussed has long been made by scholarly and pious men and women more capable than myself, as evidenced by your citation to the Eastern Marian prayer, supra, and your reference to Scott Hahn’s thoughts.

Thanks for keeping me honest.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Radical]

Can you see where that might be important information to a Catholic? I mean, if a Calvanist says something Catholic is spurious, that holds little value, in most circumstances, to a Catholic.

So, do you know if Catholic scholars hold the work to be spurious or if other scholars consider it to be spurious…I understand that you may be reluctant to trust any source that has a whole section on John Calvin, but that is really beside the point. As I asked before, please correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that work considered spurious?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Thanks. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this work is considered spurious.

By whom?

Radical:

From what else you have produced, would it be fair to conclude that in your understanding the earliest known (legitimate) record of the Mary-Ark connection would date to the end of the 4th century?

No. I would say the earliest record of the connection would date from the writing of Luke’s Gospel, circa 80 A.D.

If you are asking about whether or not there are other Church Fathers who have made reference to Mary as Ark, I believe there are, but I’m not sure of the earliest dating regarding the comparison.

Peace,
Robert

P.S. Gregory “The Wonder Worker” has his writing dated between 213-270, which would put that comparison at around the beginning to middle of the 3rd century.

 

[SirThomasMore]

So, do you know if Catholic scholars hold the work to be spurious or if other scholars consider it to be spurious…I understand that you may be reluctant to trust any source that has a whole section on John Calvin, but that is really beside the point. As I asked before, please correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that work considered spurious?

Your comments sort of misstate mine. I did not say your site was not be trusted due to a whole section on John Calvin. I said “cite is from Calvin College and is part of the Christian Reformed Church. They have a whole section on John Calvin”. So you see, the section of John Calvin was almost an afterthought. I would respectfully ask that, in the future, should you choose to quote, please do so in context. Would be so kind, sir?

 

[Radical]

By whom?

Kindly just tell us what you know in this regard as opposed to dodging the question…given your response I take it that you quoted the work w/o having any idea as to whether it is generally viewed as being spurious or legitimate…and I take it that SirThomasMore can’t assist you.

No. I would say the earliest record of the connection would date from the writing of Luke’s Gospel, circa 80 A.D.

what I am looking for is the earliest express connection that is available…and not one that requires special Vatican Visors to read in between the lines

 

[diana_leslie]

First of all, I have huge problems with Mary’s “in partu” virginity. That’s the only part of the doctrine that I find practically impossible to believe. It appears docetistic to me.

My problems with the post partum virginity are less insuperable, but the idea still seems highly improbable in the context of first-century Jewish culture, and I worry that it stems from and reinforces the idea that sexual intercourse is intrinsically unholy.

I do not share the common exegetical objections. I find the “cousin” theory rather unconvincing, but even apart from the question of the perpetual virginity I think it highly likely that the “brothers and sisters” were Joseph’s children by a previous marriage.

In fact, I would say that if we accept as historical John’s account of Jesus entrusting Mary to John, then that is pretty strong evidence in favor of Mary having no other children (not conclusive, given Jesus’ words about abandoning family to follow Him), and that in itself provides some evidence for the perpetual virginity. So if anything I think the exegetical evidence works the other way round.

I have not read all the posts, so I apologize if I state anything already said.

One thing that might shed light on the theology behind the virginity in partu doctrine is this: Catholics believe that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin at her conception. Since the pains of childbirth are a result of the Fall of Man, then Mary would be exempt from these; her virgin womb would stay intact. (Note: that does not mean she felt no pain in her life; it is simply a sign of her Immaculate Conception; labor pains are specifically called out in Genesis 3:16. It’s also a sign of her role as the New Eve, the Mother who obeys God; she is not punished as Eve was for her disobedience.)

Also, Isaiah 7:14–“Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” The virgin both conceived and bore a son.

Regarding the “step-brother” theory: Joseph was much older than Mary and it would make sense that he would have already been married at least once by his age.

For the post partum virginity, there are some extra-canonical texts that imply that Mary was a consecrated virgin given to the temple by her parents when she was only 12. The tradition claims that Joseph was married to her simply to be her guardian. I do not know these texts off the top of my head, but I can look them up if you like.

Also, to say Mary was ever-virgin does not in any way reinforce the idea that sex is un-holy. After all, Jesus was a virgin and he is our model. Does that mean that He makes it seem un-holy? Surely not.

You might look into Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to better understand the Church’s teaching on virginity and sex and the holiness of both.

I understand you may not agree with some of these Catholic understandings, but I just wanted to let you know how it tied together.

 

[Berean2]

Again, this thread is soley based on a faulty premise as Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura

Actually, any mention of Paul saying or not saying in the Epistles IS sola scriptura. As we do not accept Sola Scriptura, the OP is moot and irrelevant

Atticus/Sir Thom: I have found this thread a goldmine. I’m learning so much from the lively give’n take, and am especially grateful that people didn’t mock my bumbling phrasing (which I have twice mentioned since the OP), but that they have graciously been willing to not only provide info, but bounce around other fascinating, very much related concepts/insights. Perhaps for you, being Catholic and a lawyer, none of this is useful (i.e. it’s old hat for you), but for me, a member of the lowly laity (Protestant, no less), it is invaluable to have folks like Contarini and all the others, contribute here (I will be rereading this thread at least 2 more times, bec. there is so much to soak in and ponder); it’s like having my own mini-seminar!:bounce::aok: I’d also cherish whatever ***substance ***you yourself could offer. (Quidnunckism is less than profitable to me.)

 

[Non_Serviam]

I think I understand. What you’re trying to stop is people saying that they believe insert whatever belief you are challenging here because the Church says it is the truth?

I suppose one has to wonder where you discern what you believe then if you do not accept the teachings of the Church? From Berean2’s handle, I should imagine he takes it from Sacred Scripture. I imagine you do to, but wouldn’t assume so much with out asking. This being the case, one wonders about the original Bereans, where they learned the faith? Was it Scripture?

What I am trying o stop, is people who have a hodge-podge of ideas in their head and who assume, because they are Catholic that the church has placed its stamp of approval on all those theories. Just on this thread we’ve seen the ideas that the later Marian dogmas are a) taught as such by the Apostles, but not written down anywhere we can find until several centuries after or b) they are a “development in doctrine” growing out of the earlier dogmas but not appearing on the scene as full-blown dogmas until after centuries of reflection and consideration.

The two ideas are mutually exclusive, so both can’t be the position of the church (in fact neither has to be, the church can proclaim the dogma without detailing its pedigree, much like the decree on papal infallibility) but both are presented, uncritically, as the Catholic position.

That’s my point, if a Catholic believes something, the fact that the church claims to be infallible, doesn’t make their belief right, so they should be willing to offer evidence for it rather than state it as a fait accompli.

That was how Paul worked with the Bereans-he presented his teaching and they verified it in Scripture. It’s a good model.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Well, on RC grounds development of doctrine is seen as an unending process that leads to deeper and fuller understanding of the truth. With the exception of some ressourcement theologians like Louis Bouyer, who are much closer to the Orthodox (and in my opinion to the early Church), doctrinal definition tends to be seen in more positive terms than in the East. Many RCs don’t see why they should ever “stop”–they use the fact that the Orthodox stopped (at least in terms of dogma) as evidence against Orthodox claims to be the true Church.

Edwin

2 words “itching ears”

Doesn’t matter if it’s a Catholic, an emergent churcher, an Open Theist, a charismatic with prosperity gospel leanings or a good old fashioned liberal protestant-once you accept that doctrine is open-ended and able to be added to today, you end up with a mirror for a God and all the accompanying dangers.