Immaculate Conception

[davewan]

Seems to me I once heard Scott Hahn talk about a couple of Old Testament scriptures that pointed to – or at least supported – Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception.

Of course, one was proclaimed at Mass today; Genesis 3:15. I know another is 1 Chronicles 15:14 which talks about the requirement that those who would carry the Ark of the Covenant be sanctified.

But the passage I cannot recall is one that Dr. Hahn mentions where an unsanctified man touches the Ark of the Covenant to prevent it from falling to the ground, but that because he was not sanctified, was struck down.

While I am not in a discussion or debate about the Immaculate Conception with anyone, I would like to have this passage of Sacred Scripture committed to memory. Can anyone help me?

Thanks,

  Dave

PS As this is my first post in the forums at Catholic Answers, Advent blessings to all!

 

[Kristina_P]

II Samuel 6 tells the story. I have to warn you, though, that while this whole “Mary is the new ark of the covenant” thing is beautiful and works great for Catholics and those who are already inclined to believe in the Immaculate Conception, it goes right over the heads of people strongly opposed to the doctrine. It’s a lovely parallel, and I believe it to be a true one, but it isn’t a strong argument to a staunch Protestant, who will only say that you’re quoting irrelevant texts and that of course Mary isn’t the new ark of the covenant, because it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible. This doesn’t make the Protestant foolish or irrational, it just shows that this is a concept that usually can’t be appreciated by someone who doesn’t already believe, or at least want to believe.

 

[davewan]

Kristina P.:

it isn’t a strong argument to a staunch Protestant, who will only say that you’re quoting irrelevant texts and that of course Mary isn’t the new ark of the covenant, because it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible. This doesn’t make the Protestant foolish or irrational, it just shows that this is a concept that usually can’t be appreciated by someone who doesn’t already believe, or at least want to believe.

First, thank you for the reference.

As to your point about trying to convince a Protestant of the veracity of how this passage supports Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception, I view my role as a very amateur apologist as that of the planter. I’ll plant the seed; the rest is between that person and the Lord. It’s not my job to convince, but rather back up what I believe. Jesus himself knew that some could not, or at least would not, be pursuaded. Sad, but reality.
Dave

 

[Kristina_P]

davewan:

First, thank you for the reference.

As to your point about trying to convince a Protestant of the veracity of how this passage supports Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception, I view my role as a very amateur apologist as that of the planter. I’ll plant the seed; the rest is between that person and the Lord. It’s not my job to convince, but rather back up what I believe. Jesus himself knew that some could not, or at least would not, be pursuaded. Sad, but reality.

Dave

Good. I just wanted to warn you, in case you got your hopes up. Expect some hostility over this argument from some corners, but open-minded people, even though they might not be convinced, will hopefully at least see the beauty in this continuity with the old covenant.