Non-Catholic Christians: What bias did you have about the Catholic Church, and...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone else think that Mary died in Eusbius? I’m not talking about catholics, but Protestants, do they understand this is the catholic position? that she left Jerusalem with the apostle john… That’s why he is the only one who mentions the assumption.
I’m not sure if that’s part of protestant teaching or not… for myself, I’ve never ever heard of it. But I’d never heard of the assumption til I started learning about Catholicism… I was scred enough my all things marian lol…that nearly sent me over the edge.

To my knowledge, I’ve not heard of it as the assumption is not part of teaching either.

Take care, S 🙂
 
Actually, I consider myself better informed on Catholicism than 80% or Catholics.
Good for you but do you understand it? 👍
I don’t have a problem with a branch of Christiany having an authoritative, unifying leader. I disagree with the “incapable of being incorrect” part. Just because I have historically gotten 100% on a math test does not mean I am incapable of being incorrect in math.
The teaching authority of the Church, the Magisteriums (The Bishop in union with the Pope is infallible when teaching faith and moral issue. The leaders of the Church are not impeccable but can sin since the Church is made up of believers who are sinners. The Holy Spirit is consider the Soul of the Holy Spirit. The divine element of the Church. The Holy Spirit preserve the Church from teaching erroneous doctrines. This is clearly stated in Matthew 16:18 “The gates of hell shall not prevail from it.” Not to mention, Jesus said to Peter, “whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven.”

The teaching authority of the Church stems from Jesus Christ because he gave the Apostles authority, and this authority was pass down to their successors. This is more so in the Council of Nicea which condemned the heresy of Arianism, and defined the Trinity doctrine.
I agree with Mary the mother of God. I don’t have a problem with the assumption of Mary if you take it as an extra-Biblical account of the miraculous in the early church (much like the appearance of St. Ignatius to the faithful after his martydom). Why this should be “must believe” dogma is beyond me.
I don’t consider it extra-biblical. The assumption can be implied in the Book of Revelation 12, “1 And 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.”

We Catholic believed this woman as Mary, second the Christian history shows that early Christians believed in it, and these Christians were taught by the Apostles.

There other books that describe the Assumption of Mary but these books contain certain truths but the Church itself did not list it as part of Canon of Scripture in the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of Carthage 396.
Without getting into arguing, it appears that the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity ones go against the simplest reading of Scripture
I have discuss this in other threads in this forum. It involves the typography of the Old Testament and New Testament. In this case.

In the OT, the Ark of the Covenant contain the stone tablet with are the written Word of God.

In the NT, Mary is the TYPE of the New Covenant (established by Jesus). Since she carried Jesus in her womb, the Word of God. She became a living tabernacle. John, who was in Elizabeth’s womb leap for joy when the Mother of the Lord greeted his mother. It doesn’t go against Scripture. Since the Ark of the OT is pure so too Mary is preserved from sin by God.

Mary being ever Virgin is a misunderstanding. In the original Hebrew and Aramaic there is no word for cousin. So instead, the Gospel writers used brother or sister. Catholic Answers as a tract on this subject.
 
Catholic Answers Tract:
Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: “I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl” (4:9).

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.
See comments on communion of saints regarding the practice of submitting prayer requests to Mary.
I don’t have a problem in principle as I do believe that communion is more than just symbolic.
It is more than symbolic.

My only issue is relating John 6 to communion. The issue with John 6 proves real presence. This issue has been discuss in other threads. You can look up that topic.
No problem. That is how you guys do church.
Great
Sometimes I wonder what exactly is the difference between Catholic purgatory and non-Catholic judgement seat of Chris is. It seems to me they both start with the same Scripture in respect to the same theological question.
Ok. No issue there.
Somehow the practice of asking prayer requests from people who are spiritually alive but physically dead seems creepy to me.
I’m not sure taking prayer requests is something those who are spiritually alive but physically dead do.
Early Christians practice it, Orthodox Christians practice it and Orthodox Jews still pray for the dead. It was never an issue for Christian West until the Reformation. Prior to the Reformation, all Christians used the Catholic Bible. In it contains Maccabees 1 and 2 and talks about Judas Maccabees praying for remission of sins for the dead soldiers.

It is also a common practice by early Christians as 157 A.D. Even the Bible has it look a these passages in the Book of Revelation.

Rev. 1:4, Rev. 5:8, Rev. 6:9-1, Rev. 8:3-4 the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood “on those who dwell upon the earth.” These are “imprecatory prayers,” which are pleas for God’s judgment (see similar prayers in Psalm 35:1; 59:1-17; 139:19; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; 18:19; Zech.1:12-13). This means that the saints in heaven are praying for those on earth, and God answers their prayers (Rev. 8:1-5). We, therefore, ask for their intercession and protection.
 
In addition, here are the quotes of the Early Church Fathers,

“[T]hat it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples! The centurion then, seeing the strife excited by the Jews, placed the body in the midst of the fire, and consumed it. Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.” Martyrdom of Polycarp 17,18 (A.D. 157).

“[Appealing to the three companions of Daniel] Think of me, I beseech you, so that I may achieve with you the same fate of martyrdom.” Hippolytus of Rome, On Daniel, 11:30 (A.D. 204).

“As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours.” Tertullian, The Crown, 3 (A.D. 211).

“Nor is that kind of title to glories in the case of Celerinus, our beloved, an unfamiliar and novel thing. He is advancing in the footsteps of his kindred; he rivals his parents and relations in equal honours of divine condescension. His grandmother, Celerina, was some time since crowned with martyrdom. Moreover, his paternal and maternal uncles, Laurentius and Egnatius, who themselves also were once warring in the camps of the world, but were true and spiritual soldiers of God, casting down the devil by the confession of Christ, merited palms and crowns from the Lord by their illustrious passion. We always offer sacrifices for them, as you remember, as often as we celebrate the passions and days of the martyrs in the annual commemoration. Nor could he, therefore, be degenerate and inferior whom this family dignity and a generous nobility provoked, by domestic examples of virtue and faith. But if in a worldly family it is a matter of heraldry and of praise to be a patrician, of bow much greater praise and honour is it to become of noble rank in the celestial heraldry! I cannot tell whom I should call more blessed,–whether those ancestors, for a posterity so illustrious, or him, for an origin so glorious. So equally between them does the divine condescension flow, and pass to and fro, that, just as the dignity of their offspring brightens their crown, so the sublimity of his ancestry illuminates his glory.” Cyprian, To Clergy and People, Epistle 33(39):3 (A.D. 250).

“I am also of opinion that there were many persons of the same name with John the apostle, who by their love for him, and their admiration and emulation of him, and their desire to be loved by the Lord as he was loved, were induced to embrace also the same designation, just as we find many of the children of the faithful called by the names of Paul and Peter.” Dionysius of Alexandria, Books of Promises, 5 (A.D. 257).

“Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:9 (A.D. 350).

“Thus might you console us; but what of the flock? Would you first promise the oversight and leadership of yourself, a man under whose wings we all would gladly repose, and for whose words we thirst more eagerly than men suffering from thirst for the purest fountain? Secondly, persuade us that the good shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep has not even now left us; but is present, and tends and guides, and knows his own, and is known of his own, and, though bodily invisible, is spiritually recognized, and defends his flock against the wolves, and allows no one to climb over into the fold as a robber and traitor; to pervert and steal away, by the voice of strangers, souls under the fair guidance of the truth. Aye, I am well assured that his intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God, now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay which obscured it, and holds intercourse naked with the nakedness of the prime and purest Mind; being promoted, if it be not rash to say so, to the rank and confidence of an angel.” John Chrysostom, On the Death of his Father, Oration 18:4 (A.D. 374).
 
Conclusion; Nothing in the Catholic Church teachings regarding faith issues and moral is contradictory to Scripture. In fact the it was the Church who canonized Scripture in its full context, but this is another topic. We Catholics here seek only to correct any misunderstandings Non-Catholic Christians have.

Many of these misunderstanding are taken out of context, and are untrue. Many Catholic Converts who were taught Anti-Catholic teachings were proven wrong. What they thought was Catholic teachings was incorrect. Like praying to Mary and claiming that we give her more honor to God.
 
I would agree with the above post in the main…

but I would add that it may be helpful in the long run for Catholics to be aware that misconceptoins develop for a reason…they are not just simply illogical.

They may be due to Historical reasons, due to recent histories concerning the Catholic church (especially in Ireland and the recent sex scandals), they may be due to the person being unable to understand latin phrases and attributing suspicion to them… to misinterpreting language etc etc…

I think it’s important to know, not just what, the misconceptions are… but more importantly why.

S
 
I would agree with the above post in the main…

but I would add that it may be helpful in the long run for Catholics to be aware that misconceptoins develop for a reason…they are not just simply illogical.

They may be due to Historical reasons, due to recent histories concerning the Catholic church (especially in Ireland and the recent sex scandals), they may be due to the person being unable to understand latin phrases and attributing suspicion to them… to misinterpreting language etc etc…

I think it’s important to know, not just what, the misconceptions are… but more importantly why.

S
Yes, through the sins of the Reformation, the misconception about the Catholic Church developed. For example, the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther, and John Calvin believe that Mary is Ever-Virgin, and give her a high regards. As the years went by mainline Protestantism reject any Marian doctrine.

The Reformation did brought about change within the Catholic Church and remove the selling of indulgences. I think the Reformers were wrong by rejecting the authority of the Church and only kept the Bible.

If I had my way, I would discuss the problems rather than form my own Church. A good example of this is St. Francis of Assis time, the Church leaders were living immoral lives. Instead of rejecting the Church, he reformed it from within.

St. Francis heard a voice.

"Go, Francis, and repair my house, which as you see is falling into ruin."

He did just that. He founded the Franciscan Order. He preached repentance, told others how to live the Gospel.

newadvent.org/cathen/06221a.htm -St. Francis of Assisi
.
 
If I had my way, I would discuss the problems rather than form my own Church. A good example of this is St. Francis of Assis time, the Church leaders were living immoral lives. Instead of rejecting the Church, he reformed it from within.
I take your point…and maybe in a different world it would make complete sense…

but today we do have two churches, regardless of the rights and wrongs… soa dialohue has to be had and to do that both sides need to understand not just what the others position or opinion is… but also why it is as it is before they can ujnderstand one another.

S
 
We don’t twist it. The Catholic Church had always held those ancient belief for 2,000 yrs. The doctrines we have remain consist. Compared that with Protestantism with many doctrines and belief. It is not a unified belief.

The Magisterium of the Church has been consist. Protestantism have only been around since 1517 A.D. If it comes to twisting Scripture, it is the Protestantism.
Scripture is the INSPIRED word of God … your sacred tradition, which is the life’s blood of your religion, and from which stems your heretical dogmas and doctrines, is NOT. That is the reason you cannot find the immaculate conception, the assumption, the infallibility of the pope or purgatory mentioned or even hinted at in Scripture.

They are diametrically opposed to the word of God. The RCC, by way of their sacred tradition, simply brings that which “never was” into “always has been”. Very clever.

Charlye
 
Scripture is the INSPIRED word of God … your sacred tradition, which is the life’s blood of your religion, and from which stems your heretical dogmas and doctrines, is NOT. That is the reason you cannot find the immaculate conception, the assumption, the infallibility of the pope or purgatory mentioned or even hinted at in Scripture.
I already pointed it to you that these beliefs are ancient part of Christianity.

The Assumption of Mary:

The Assumption is stated in Revelation 12: “The Woman appeared in heaven clothed with the sun.” This woman is Mary because this woman gave birth to a male child who is Jesus.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is show in the typography of the OT and NT.

The Ark of the Covenant in contain the Word of God. Mary is the type of Ark, since she carried Jesus in her womb so she became a living tabernacle.

Since God wanted his Son to redeem the world, he wanted a woman to be perfect. She had to be holy.

When Moses had encounter God in the burning bush, “Take off your sandal for the ground you are standing is Holy.”

Second in before Revelation Twelve, there appear in heaven the Ark of Covenant.

Immaculate Conception also come from Luke 1:27-30

To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

The Papal Infallibility is in Matthew 16:18.

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And** whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth**, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

In the Catholic tradition binding and loosing is the teaching authority of the Church, and Jesus built his Church upon Peter. When the Pope speaks infallibility it is the teaching authority on faith and moral issues.
They are diametrically opposed to the word of God. The RCC, by way of their sacred tradition, simply brings that which “never was” into “always has been”. Very clever.
Christian history show that it is Catholic. Second, where is alter call in the Bible? I give a Catholic answers but like most Protestant you just ignore it, and I base this on history and scripture.
 
I already pointed it to you that these beliefs are ancient part of Christianity.

The Assumption of Mary:

The Assumption is stated in Revelation 12: “The Woman appeared in heaven clothed with the sun.” This woman is Mary because this woman gave birth to a male child who is Jesus.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is show in the typography of the OT and NT.

The Ark of the Covenant in contain the Word of God. Mary is the type of Ark, since she carried Jesus in her womb so she became a living tabernacle.

Since God wanted his Son to redeem the world, he wanted a woman to be perfect. She had to be holy.

When Moses had encounter God in the burning bush, “Take off your sandal for the ground you are standing is Holy.”

Second in before Revelation Twelve, there appear in heaven the Ark of Covenant.

Immaculate Conception also come from Luke 1:27-30

To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

The Papal Infallibility is in Matthew 16:18.

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And** whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth**, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

In the Catholic tradition binding and loosing is the teaching authority of the Church, and Jesus built his Church upon Peter. When the Pope speaks infallibility it is the teaching authority on faith and moral issues.

Christian history show that it is Catholic. Second, where is alter call in the Bible? I give a Catholic answers but like most Protestant you just ignore it, and I base this on history and scripture.
also why do protestants reject the fact that the apostle John had the deutrocanon and was under the impression it was part of the holy word from god?

I guess it’s probably because the apostle John believed that “nothing unclean will enter heaven” implying Purgatory the place where we get clensed(Him having possession of the deutrocanon is hardly coincidental, keep reading), the assumption and heavenly coronation of Mary(Which only he could have possibly known about because she left Jerusalem with him, remember Jesus commandment “Woman this is your son, son this is your mother.”), and that seven angels stand before the throne of god presenting “the prayers of the saints”… Which is a direct reference to “I am david, one of the seven angels who stand in the presence of the most high and present the prayers of the saints” from the book of Tobit. YES the book of TOBIT!!!

The Apostle John probably would have been labeled “Catholic” today.
 
also why do protestants reject the fact that the apostle John had the deutrocanon and was under the impression it was part of the holy word from god?
I can’t answer this for the protestant church… but as an individual I would answer: I didn’t reject it, I didn’t know.

S
 
I already pointed it to you that these beliefs are ancient part of Christianity.
They may be an ancient part of your religion, but they are not the inspired word of God. Do you even know what that means … the inspired word of God!!

What’s interesting to me is …

It wasn’t until 1854 that the immaculate conception was declared, by Pius IX, to be dogma that had to be believed by RCrs. This was the only one, incidentally, to be declared so without benefit of council. Which is also interesting since the church’s ancient teaching was that a general council is supreme in faith and discipline and that a pope speaking independently of council may well err in faith. Look up the Councils of Constance. The early church fathers were all opposed to the immaculate conception. They honored Mary’s conception, not her sanctification.

The pope, also Pius IX, didn’t declare himself to be infallible until 1870 … but he infallibly enacted the dogma of the immaculate conception in 1854. Am I the only one getting a little dizzy here? As Peter DeRosa, a former priest and Dean of Theology at Corpus Christi College in London, so aptly writes … papal infallibility “seems to have less to do with truth than with control”.

Pius XII finally got around to dogmatizing the assumption of Mary in 1950. This man was obsessed with Mary and made it his special contribution, seeing that it was only “fitting” that Mary should be assumed into Heaven. Human, fallible hogwash. It is interesting to note that even with his special blanket of infallibility, the pope was unable to say whether or not Mary died.

Twist and spin all you want. Scripture does not document these heretical dogmas. They are the unwritten, unscriptural ramblings of prideful men used only to usurp God’s holy word.

Charlye
 
They may be an ancient part of your religion, but they are not the inspired word of God. Do you even know what that means … the inspired word of God!!

What’s interesting to me is …

It wasn’t until 1854 that the immaculate conception was declared, by Pius IX, to be dogma that had to be believed by RCrs. This was the only one, incidentally, to be declared so without benefit of council. Which is also interesting since the church’s ancient teaching was that a general council is supreme in faith and discipline and that a pope speaking independently of council may well err in faith. Look up the Councils of Constance. The early church fathers were all opposed to the immaculate conception. They honored Mary’s conception, not her sanctification.
A belief common amongst Christians as early as 235 A.D.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

Much like the Trinity doctrine was not profess until 325 A.D in the Council of Nicea.
 
II. Mary’s Immaculate Conception
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).
 
40.png
charlye:
Twist and spin all you want. Scripture does not document these heretical dogmas. They are the unwritten, unscriptural ramblings of prideful men used only to usurp God’s holy word.

Charlye
Twist and spin… I caution you AGAIN by calling these doctrine heretical dogmas go against FORUM RULES # 7 which states, Non-Catholic members are expected to respect the beliefs of Catholic members.

By calling these dogma heretical is against the FORUM RULES.
 
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is an ancient Christian Church tradition. Behind it is the typography of the OT and NT.

Mary is consider by the ECF to be “The Ark of the New Covenant” or type of Ark since she in her womb bear Jesus, the Word of God. Just as the Ark is pure so too Mary.

For it is Mary that Jesus has flesh and blood. Try to think if Mary had sin, do you suppose Jesus’ flesh would also be tainted by sin?

I also like to point out in the Book of Exodus. When Moses approached the Burning bush, God told Moses.

Exodus Chapter 3 verse 2-5.

2 And the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he saw that the bush was on fire and was not burnt. 3 And Moses said: I will go and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the Lord saw that he went forward to see, he called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said: Moses, Moses. And he answered: Here I am. 5 And he said: Come not nigh hither, put off the shoes from thy feet: for the place whereon** thou standest is holy ground. **

Do you suppose that God would allow a sinful woman to be the Mother of His Son? Jesus is the Word made flesh. He is Holy. It only made theologically sense that God preserve Mary from stains of original sin and was perserved from commiting actual sin.
 
Hey, it means “all”, in the sense of “everyone in general”. I mean, babies haven’t sinned, have they, or severely retarded people who don’t know what they’re doing. It’s like in Mark chapter 1, where it says John the Baptist baptized all the people of Jerusalem. Or like 1 Corinthians 15:22, where St. Paul says “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” But not all people have died (like Enoch, right, or Elijah), and not all will be made spiritually alive by Christ, because some people will choose to go to hell.

But the key thing with Romans chapter 3 is to look at the context. Read chapters 1 and 2 to see where Paul is going with his argument here. He spends the first part of the letter saying that both Gentiles and Jews are equally guilty before God. He’s answering the objections of those Jews who think that they are right with God just because they are Jews and have the Law as their guide. He says that both Jews and Gentiles are under the power of sin. That’s what he means by “all”, he means Jews and Gentiles together; it’s not just Jews that benefit from the work of Christ, it’s all people, men of all nations.

And Mary’s the mother of God. Maybe she doesn’t count either. The point is, Paul really doesn’t mean no one’s righteous, with no exceptionsor qualifications. If he did, then we’ve got a problem with a contradiction in Scripture, because Luke 1 verse 6 says that Zechariah and Elizabeth “were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless”.

But it makes a lot more sense when you realise what Paul was really doing when he says “None is righteous, no, not one”. He’s actually quoting from Psalm 14. Maybe we should have a look at that?

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one."

There’s your quote. That Psalm is about people who have turned away from God. It’s all of them who are not righteous. And the Psalm is written about Jews, which is why Paul quotes it, because it shows his readers that Jews aren’t automatically righteous just because they’re Jews. But keep going.

See, it also talks about God’s people, the ones who are righteous. Like Mary was.

So you see once you look at Romans chapter 3 in context, it really doesn’t become a problem for the Catholic idea about Mary being kept free from sin by God’s grace.
 
In this article I hope to relate to you the Biblical texts that show Mary, our Blessed Mother to be theArk of the New Covenant, and all that that teaches us about her role in the Church today.

At the annuciation the angel Gabriel declares to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.(Luke 1:35)"Compare this with Exodus 40:34 Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. The language obviously is not the same, but the meaning certainly is. If you can picture what is happening in both scenes, the imagery is identical. Just as the glory of the Lord overshadowed and dwelt in the Ark, so does the glory of the Lord overshadow and dwell in the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The second set of texts to look at are Luke 1:43 and 2 Sam 6:9:

And David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” 2 Sam 6:9 (RSV)

And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Luke 1:43 (RSV)

The similarities here are obvious. both passages repeat the same message, i.e. “How can I be so graced as to be the presence of Holiness”. David is referring to the Ark, and Elizabeth to Mary. The Ark was the holiest created thing in the Old Testament, likewise Mary is the holiest created being of the New Testament!

Now, let’s look at the next two texts:

And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Ba’ale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, 2 Sam 6:2 (RSV)

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, Luke 1:39 (RSV)
 
Originally Posted by Catholic Apologetic Network

Note the same terminology is used here ‘arose and went’! In both cases it is a journey to the hill country. These passages by themselves show little, but coupled with all the others, definitely show a connection. Try these two:

And the ark of the LORD remained in the house of O’bed-e’dom the Gittite three months; and the LORD blessed O’bed-e’dom and all his household. 2 Sam 6:11

And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her home. Luke 1:56

Again you see unmistakable parallels drawn. Both the Ark and Mary stayed in the hill country for three months. You could also say that just as O’bed-e’dom and all his household was blessed by the presence of the Ark, so too, was Elizabeth and her household blessed by the presence of ‘the mother of the Lord’.

Our final two texts:

15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn. 2 Sam 6:15

44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. Luke 1:44

According to respected scholar James Akin, the greek word used here is “anafametzen” which means ‘shouts of joy’. The word is rarely used, and only in connection with a liturgical celebration, and then only when the Ark of the Covenant is present. It literally means “to cry aloud, to proclaim, or to intone” This is a very powerful witness then, to Luke use of this word. If it is only used in liturgy, and only when the Ark is present, then what else could it mean except that Mary truly is the Ark of the New Covenant!!

To understand the repercussions of this Bible truth, we must first understand what the function of the old Ark was. A cursory study of the Old Testament reveals a number of things about the Ark. First, it, as I stated before, was the holiest object created. This is evidenced by the death of the Israelite who touched the Ark, to keep it from falling, and was struck dead. Second, whenever the Ark was present, blessings were also present (2 Sam 6:11). Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Israelites carried the Ark with them into battle. And lastly, what was contained in the Ark? The rod of Aaron (shepherds staff), the tablets of the Law, and Manna(the bread from Heaven).

Therefore, with Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant we can draw some interesting conclusions from the truths of the old Ark in the previous paragraph.

First, Mary is the holiest created being in the New Covenant! Second, when the new ‘Ark’ is present, so too will the blessings be present! Third, I’d say that as the Israelites had the old Ark lead them into thier battles, so too, are we to have the new ‘Ark’ lead us into all our spiritual battles. And lastly, when for nine months Mary carries Jesus in womb, what did she carry but the true Shepherd, “who will rule the nations with a rod of iron”(Rev 12:5), the True Law of God, and the real Bread from Heaven of which "if a man eats he will not die, but live forever(John 6:58).

Yes, Mary is indeed the “Ark of the New Covenant”!! And because she is explains some of the Marian doctrines. Just as the old Ark was made perfect as a dwelling place for the Most High, so too, was the new Ark made perfect (Immaculate Conception) as a dwelling place for God.

As we see in Rev 11:19-12:1 "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; " That’s right, the ark of the New Covenant in all her splendor in Heaven (the Assumption)!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top