M
mgrfin
Guest
I was in error. The Litany of Loretto, (Litany of the BVM) composed in 1587 contains the appellation: “Ark of the Convenant”.
peace.
- Status
peace.
A
apophasis
Guest
I’ll take my prerogative. It’s not a straw man. The argument is based on consistency. Theologically they have to provide proof that a Biblical covenant changed from being a “promise” to a “Person.”
If Jesus, the Mediator of the N.C. is considered Himself the N.C., then how is it not that Moses, the mediator of the O.C., should not himself be considered the O.C.?
And so consequently, if Mary is called the “ark of the N.C.,” having carried Jesus in her womb, logically speaking, then, Moses’ mother should in turn be called the “ark of the O.C.” having carried Moses in hers.
It’s not a straw man, it’s pointing out a theological flaw in the title “ark of the New Covenant” based on the false notion that a Biblical covenant somehow changed from being a “promise” to a “Person.”
Did Jesus ever say, “I am the New Covenant?” Certainly He said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” But this He said in reference to His substitutionary, sacrificial death on our behalf and personal belief in what He accomplished there for us.
One can’t just assign that title to Mary and simply ignore the problems attached to it. Nor can one argue back, “I didn’t say Moses was the O.C.” He doesn’t have to. Consistency demands it.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
PCM, there is no point in answering your question, since it’s obvious you are in a state of denial. Your pseudo-reasoning makes it clear. Or it could be you suffer from a severe reading comprehension disability, if not a low I.Q. Forgive me if I sound uncharitable, but I prefer to be objective and intellectually honest.
The other day a man saw a fortune-teller who looked at his palms. She told him that he was going to die from lung cancer in a year. He was shocked by the terrible news and exclaimed: “How shall it be, because I don’t smoke!.”
The next time you meet someone who hasn’t smoked all his life ask him if he intends to smoke in the future? I bet he’ll consider your question very strange.
If I were your high school English teacher, I would’ve failed you.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
M
Mt_28_19_20
Guest
M
Mt_28_19_20
Guest
Well, if “the bravest (and or stupidest) of men isn’t going to want to “touch”” Mary because she is the new Ark of the Covenant, how much more so would men and women not want to touch Jesus? Did Mary touch Jesus? Did Joseph touch Jesus? Did Peter touch Jesus? A woman came up and touched His cloak!
Luke 8:43-44 “And a woman who had a hemorrhage for twelve years, and could not be healed by anyone, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak, and immediately her hemorrhage stopped.”
Did Joseph never touch Mary because she was the Ark of the Covenant? Would a kiss be permissable? Would anything that was consistent with the Ten Commandments be permissible?
God bless,
Michael
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Wouldn’t it be more proper to say that Joseph would have refrained from touching Mary not out of fear but out of respect for God?
M
Mickey
Guest
The promise is the Word. And the Word was made flesh. And the Word was carried in the womb of the Virgin Mary–the Ark of the New Covenant.
Revisionists can deny it all they want, but it does not change the simple truth.
Revisionists can deny it all they want, but it does not change the simple truth.
A
apophasis
Guest
The “promise” of the New Covenant is not that the “Logos” would become flesh. Nor does John state that the New Covenant was God. Those who claim it does would be the “revisionists.”The promise is the Word. And the Word was made flesh. And the Word was carried in the womb of the Virgin Mary–the Ark of the New Covenant.
Revisionists can deny it all they want, but it does not change the simple truth.
M
Mickey
Guest
Jesus Christ establishes the New Covenant. Without Christ, there is no New Covenant. Hence, the Virgin Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant for she carried in her womb the God-Man who establishes the New Covenant. 
A
apophasis
Guest
She carried in her womb the “Mediator” of the New Covenant. Not the New Covenant itself:Heb 9:15 “For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were {committed} under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”Jesus Christ establishes the New Covenant. Without Christ, there is no New Covenant. Hence, the Virgin Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant for she carried in her womb the God-Man who establishes the New Covenant.
Heb 12:24 “…and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than {the blood} of Abel.”
M
Mickey
Guest
Christ cannot be separated from the New Covenant, as much as revisionists as yourself may try.
In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
M
Mt_28_19_20
Guest
Then, would we think it proper that Joseph would refrain more so from touching Jesus not out of fear but out of respect for God?
If Joseph refrained from touching Mary, was this limited to certain types of touching? Would holding hands, or caressing her cheek fondly be permitted? Do we have any statues that show Jesus, Mary, and Joseph physically touching? Or as long as the touching was consistent with the ten commandments that was permittted?
God bless,
Michael
M
Mickey
Guest
It is important to recover the proper veneration of Mary which the apostolic Church has always held, because she is the great example. This veneration is beautifully expressed in an Orthodox hymn that poetically recounts Gabriel’s first encounter with Mary, who was about to become the Ark of the New Covenant, the throne of God, the flesh which gave flesh to the Word of God:
**Awed by the beauty of your virginity
and the exceeding radiance of your purity,
Gabriel stood amazed, and cried to you, O Mother of God:
“What praise may I offer you
that is worthy of your beauty?
By what name shall I call you?
I am lost and bewildered,
but I shall greet you as I was commanded:
Hail, O full of grace.” **
Fr. John Hainsworth
**Awed by the beauty of your virginity
and the exceeding radiance of your purity,
Gabriel stood amazed, and cried to you, O Mother of God:
“What praise may I offer you
that is worthy of your beauty?
By what name shall I call you?
I am lost and bewildered,
but I shall greet you as I was commanded:
Hail, O full of grace.” **
Fr. John Hainsworth
M
Mt_28_19_20
Guest
Didn’t Joseph notice the same radiance of purity? Or was this hidden from his eyes when the Angel told him not to be afraid?
I’m really not sure how to reply concerning that “Orthodox” hymn.
Are we to think that Gabriel, the messenger of God, was lost and bewildered when he saw Mary? I can understand being lost and bewildered when first seeing God. Yet this is God’s messenger, being lost and bewildered after serving God for how many years?
And after all those years of service, he wasn’t sure what name to call her (“By what name shall I call you?”), are we to think he actually was thinking of improvising, instead of “but I shall greet you as I was commanded: Hail, O full of grace”?
The praise belongs rightly to God. Let’s not even give the appearance of Mary worship.
God bless,
Michael
H
HailMary
Guest
Mt 28 19_20, with all due respect, you are completely mis-understanding this hymn if you see any Mary worship or hints of it.
I am NOT Orthodox but they do bestow noble and beautiful reverence and honor to the august Virgin (minus the Original Sin part), and I would argue that this hymn only compliments how we see her.
M
Mickey
Guest
Oh for cryin’ out loud–chill out!!! It is a beautiful and traditional Orthodox hymn which emphasizes the veneration due Our Lady. We worship the Holy Trinity–we venerate Our Lady and the Saints. Sheesh!
H
HailMary
Guest
If you’d like to have some commentary on why the Angel Gabriel responded this way, please consider:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643780&postcount=14
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643781&postcount=15
God Bless
M
Mt_28_19_20
Guest
HailMary,
Code:
Am I completely mis-understanding? I'm not saying there is definitely Mary worship intended. However, I certainly think hints of Mary worship are reasonable to see as possible interpretations of that hymn. Especially when one considers the angel Gabriel whose feast day we recently celebrated, and his role as God's messenger angel. Luke 1:19 "The angel answered and said to him, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news." So, this Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, was lost and bewildered at the sight of Mary's virginity and purity?God bless,
Michael
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
There is much biblical evidence that Mary remained ever a virgin after the birth of Jesus, and that by Joseph’s willing consent.
I just woke up from a nap, so if I’m not as thorough as I could be, please forgive me.
We know Mary and Joseph had no other children at least until the return from Egypt. Jesus would have been about 3 or 4 years old at this time.
Mary the wife of Cleophas is called the virgin Mary’s “sister” in the gospel of John’s crucifixion scene, so we know that the scripture writers used “brother” and “sister” at times to mean more than mere uterine siblings. No woman would name both daughters Mary. Mary of Cleophas was the BVM’s sister in the sense that she was the wife of St. Joseph’s uterine brother Cleophas (according to early church historian Eusebius who had access to ancient historical records of these people, records that no longer exist). Well, Mary Cleophas was the mother of James the Less and of Joses, two of the “brothers” of the Lord. Also, according to Eusebius, Cleophas was also the father of Simon, the last bishop of Jerusalem before the Roman invasion in 70 A.D.
“James, Joses, SIMON” that’s three of the brothers of the Lord.
At the crucifixion, NONE of the brothers and sisters of the LORD are at the foot of the cross with their alleged “mother” in any of the four gospel accounts. Not one of them was there to comfort their grieving mother as her firstborn was being murdered.
Remember, now, that this was passover, when his brothers and sisters would most certainly have come up to Jerusalem for the feast, yet not one of them felt obliged to comfort their alleged “mother”, Mary, at the cross. In ancient Judaism this would have been considered an unforgivable insult to one’s mother, not to mention an absolutely heartless thing to do your mom.
So yes, there is much in scripture that indicates Mary had no other children of her own.
The oldest historical tradition in the ancient church is that Joseph was a widower in his 40s with several children already when he took Mary into his care. This would go a long way to explaining why Joseph disappears from the scene before Jesus begins his ministry: he was dead from old age.
Also, Mary bore God the Son of God in her womb, not some ordinary baby. She conceived by the very Spirit of God, who overshadowed her. Once that information had been shared with St. Joseph, a righteous Jewish man who stood in awe of God,
there is no way that Joseph could ever have looked upon Mary as a common woman ever again, whatever his original betrothal intentions might have been. By the overshadowing of God and her carrying the very Son of God in her womb, Mary had become
“hallowed ground,” so to speak.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
I just woke up from a nap, so if I’m not as thorough as I could be, please forgive me.
We know Mary and Joseph had no other children at least until the return from Egypt. Jesus would have been about 3 or 4 years old at this time.
Mary the wife of Cleophas is called the virgin Mary’s “sister” in the gospel of John’s crucifixion scene, so we know that the scripture writers used “brother” and “sister” at times to mean more than mere uterine siblings. No woman would name both daughters Mary. Mary of Cleophas was the BVM’s sister in the sense that she was the wife of St. Joseph’s uterine brother Cleophas (according to early church historian Eusebius who had access to ancient historical records of these people, records that no longer exist). Well, Mary Cleophas was the mother of James the Less and of Joses, two of the “brothers” of the Lord. Also, according to Eusebius, Cleophas was also the father of Simon, the last bishop of Jerusalem before the Roman invasion in 70 A.D.
“James, Joses, SIMON” that’s three of the brothers of the Lord.
At the crucifixion, NONE of the brothers and sisters of the LORD are at the foot of the cross with their alleged “mother” in any of the four gospel accounts. Not one of them was there to comfort their grieving mother as her firstborn was being murdered.
Remember, now, that this was passover, when his brothers and sisters would most certainly have come up to Jerusalem for the feast, yet not one of them felt obliged to comfort their alleged “mother”, Mary, at the cross. In ancient Judaism this would have been considered an unforgivable insult to one’s mother, not to mention an absolutely heartless thing to do your mom.
So yes, there is much in scripture that indicates Mary had no other children of her own.
The oldest historical tradition in the ancient church is that Joseph was a widower in his 40s with several children already when he took Mary into his care. This would go a long way to explaining why Joseph disappears from the scene before Jesus begins his ministry: he was dead from old age.
Also, Mary bore God the Son of God in her womb, not some ordinary baby. She conceived by the very Spirit of God, who overshadowed her. Once that information had been shared with St. Joseph, a righteous Jewish man who stood in awe of God,
there is no way that Joseph could ever have looked upon Mary as a common woman ever again, whatever his original betrothal intentions might have been. By the overshadowing of God and her carrying the very Son of God in her womb, Mary had become
“hallowed ground,” so to speak.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes.
- Status