St. Irenaeus

[Singinbeauty]

Ok, so I am **reading some of the writings **of the early church fathers and came across what I have quoted below. I find it interesting and wanted both catholic’s and protestant’s views.

If you hit the link and it asks you to log in, it’s free. Good reading too.

therefore seventy tongues are indicated by number, and from The Syriac text is here corrupt and obscure. dispersion the tongues are gathered into one by means of their interpretation; so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. See. No. viii., which is the same as the remainder of this fragment. as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together.

It seems that the ark is Christ, whereas I am always hearing catholics say that it is believed that Mary is the ark.

Very curious as to your view of what St. Irenaeus is saying here.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ok, so I am **reading some of the writings **of the early church fathers and came across what I have quoted below. I find it interesting and wanted both catholic’s and protestant’s views.

If you hit the link and it asks you to log in, it’s free. Good reading too.

It seems that the ark is Christ, whereas I am always hearing catholics say that it is believed that Mary is the ark.

Very curious as to your view of what St. Irenaeus is saying here.

SinginBeauty,

In Catholic theology, Mary is the Ark and the Covenant is Jesus because Jesus said at the Last Supper, “This is Blood of the New Covenant.”

“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).

St. Ireneaus had called Mary the New Eve though, he made no refer to her as being the Ark. The other ECF seem to believe that Mary is the Ark.

 

[Singinbeauty]

That is A LOT to read… it may take me a bit but thank you for the response.

From first glance…

“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 says HE is the ark. Last I heard, Mary is a SHE. This would support the statement by Irenaeus of Christ being the Ark.

 

[Pax]

Even though an analogy has been drawn between Jesus and the Ark in the writings of Irenaeus, it is an awfully big stretch to conclude that the Ark does not also serve as a type for Mary. Scripture has great depth.

Adam is a type. Paul makes the connection by way of typology between Jesus and Adam. Adam is also a type for each of us. Adam is the first born and he is a type for us as adopted sons and daughters of God.

Likewise, the Ark can be a type in more ways than one. I would note, however, that Irenaeus is the only ECF that I know of that made the connection between Jesus and the Ark. The differences for purposes of typology are much closer between Mary and the Ark than Jesus and the Ark. The beauty of scripture is that we can gain something from both.

I hope this helps.

 

[Timothy_James]

S"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).

I wonder if these quotes are not fake. I cannot find these two very similar quotes anywhere, but on websites which exist for the sole purpose of being used to defend the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Please show me the full text from which these quotes are from. I cannot find them in any lengthy document, only in these short quotes.

BTW, all the other quotes you used to try to defend the immaculate conception are not from the Ante-Nicene fathers. I remember reading that John complained about this as well. He asked for Ante-Nicene quotes, and he was given Post-Nicene quotes. The reason Protestants put much weight on the Ante-Nicene quotes is because they were before the time of Constantine and the 4th century, when the Roman Church started its climb on the worldly latter.

These two quotes, which I cannot find anywhere except in apologist sites, are the only two which are supposedly Ante-Nicene.

 

[Timothy_James]

SinginBeauty,“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).

These two quotes are hoaxes. At least the second one is. Origen had no book that he wrote titled “Homily”. I checked every one of Origen’s books and I was not able to find this quote anywhere. At least when I do research I don’t present doctored evidence.

If you don’t believe me you can do the research yourself. Here is a Catholic website containing the writings of the ECF. Scroll down to Origen and look through every one of his books. Not one has this quote.

newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[Timothy_James]

SinginBeauty,

“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).

Actually, this first quote is real. But it is taken from a fragment of Hippolytus’ writings on the Psalm 22/23. As presented by Mannyfit and other Catholic apologists, it is taken completely out of context. It has no reference to Mary. It is speaking purely of the Lord himself. Here is the entire quote, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

On Psalm 22 or 23
From the Commentary by the Holy Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus, on The Lord is My Shepherd.

"And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness. But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold."

newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm

So you are wrong. The second quote does not exist, and the first one is a misquotation done on purpose to try to make it look as if Hippolytus is speaking of Mary, when he is not. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia makes that clear. The rest of your quotes are not Ante-Nicene. So in other words there is no backing for the Immaculate Conception or the veneration of Mary in the Ante-Nicene fathers.

 

[Redbaron998]

The second quote does not exist

Care to prove this?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Care to prove this?

It was based off faulty research. He brought it up in a different thread too. Tim though that the lists of works in newadvent were all of Origen’s works so when he didn’t find any of Origen’s Homilies he concluded that the work was made up. He did not realize that Origen wrote thousands of works and hundreds of Homilies and not just the 8 listed in newadvent.

God bless

 

[Redbaron998]

It was based off faulty research. He brought it up in a different thread too. Tim though that the lists of works in newadvent were all of Origen’s works so when he didn’t find any of Origen’s Homilies he concluded that the work was made up. He did not realize that Origen wrote thousands of works and hundreds of Homilies and not just the 8 listed in newadvent.

God bless

So can you give me the actual homily he said it in for future uses?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t find any contradiction here of Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant and Jesus being a type of the Ark.

Jesus humanity is symbolized from the Acacia wood, overlaid with Gold which symbolized his divinity and Kingship.

The blessed Virgin Mary housed the Word of God made flesh (Jesus) in her womb. Jesus is the substance of what made Mary the blessed Virgin His “Tabernacle” = Ark while in the womb of the blessed Mother Mary.

After Jesus is born, we have “emmanuel” = God with us = who tabernacled amongst our humanity. Now that Jesus is walking the earth “according to Ireanaeus” while not in the womb, Jesus is the Ark or New Temple of God that got destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days.

The commentary relates to Jesus himself after the revelation that the “Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. You have confused the Immaculate conception of Mary (purified) in order to be able to “Ark” house the Word of God (Jesus) made flesh in her womb, before giving birth to the Son of God “theotokos”, with the revelation of Jesus is God incarnate “Arked” with His full humanity while remaining fully divine after His birth.

Your commentary is dealing with Jesus two natures after His birth, which is a “type” of Ark in His humanity which housed His divinity, again dealing with his two natures in One body.

Understanding the revelation from your commentary dealing with Jesus “true presence” after His birth, not before His birth makes no contradiction to any of the Early Catholic church Fathers. Now reread your commentary in full context, it is not dealing with the begotten Son who was “Arked” tabernacled in Mary’s womb, but Jesus two natures in one.

Besides who would disagree with the Arch Angel Gabriel and John the baptist Mother St. Elizabeth who give witness to the “new Ark of the new covenant” in the blessed Virgin Mary. There speech is verbatim to the arrival of the presence of the Old Ark of the Old Covenant.

Ok, so I am **reading some of the writings **of the early church fathers and came across what I have quoted below. I find it interesting and wanted both catholic’s and protestant’s views.

If you hit the link and it asks you to log in, it’s free. Good reading too.

It seems that the ark is Christ, whereas I am always hearing catholics say that it is believed that Mary is the ark.

Very curious as to your view of what St. Irenaeus is saying here.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

So can you give me the actual homily he said it in for future uses?

I’m looking. He’s got over 100 Homilies on the Psalms alone

God bless you

 

[campeador]

I wonder if these quotes are not fake. I cannot find these two very similar quotes anywhere, but on websites which exist for the sole purpose of being used to defend the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Please show me the full text from which these quotes are from. I cannot find them in any lengthy document, only in these short quotes.

BTW, all the other quotes you used to try to defend the immaculate conception are not from the Ante-Nicene fathers. I remember reading that John complained about this as well. He asked for Ante-Nicene quotes, and he was given Post-Nicene quotes. The reason Protestants put much weight on the Ante-Nicene quotes is because they were before the time of Constantine and the 4th century, when the Roman Church started its climb on the worldly latter.

These two quotes, which I cannot find anywhere except in apologist sites, are the only two which are supposedly Ante-Nicene.

I’m sorry Tim, but the reason Protestants put much weight on the Ante-Nicene quotes is because Post-Nicene quotes seem too “Catholic”.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers:

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, subtitled “The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325”, is a collection of books in 10 volumes (one volume is indexes) containing English translations of the majority of Early Christian writings. The period covers the beginning of Christianity until before the promulgation of the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea. The translations are very faithful, but sometimes rather old-fashioned.

The series was originally published between 1867 and 1873 by the Presbyterian publishing house T. & T. Clark in Edinburgh under the title Ante-Nicene Christian Library, as a response to the Oxford movement’s Library of the Fathers which was perceived as too catholic. The volumes were edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. This series was available by subscription but the editors were unable to interest enough subscribers to commission a translation of the homilies of Origen.​

The second highlighted portion might help explain why you can’t find Origen’s homilies, however there is no question that Origen wrote homilies.

Peace.

 

[Formosus]

So you are wrong. The second quote does not exist, and the first one is a misquotation done on purpose to try to make it look as if Hippolytus is speaking of Mary, when he is not. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia makes that clear. The rest of your quotes are not Ante-Nicene. So in other words there is no backing for the Immaculate Conception or the veneration of Mary in the Ante-Nicene fathers.

I came across this beautiful quote from Origen a few years ago. I hope you enjoy it.

Origen:

No one can apprehend the meaning of it[The Gospel of John] except he have lain on Jesus’ breast and received from Jesus Mary to be his mother also. Such an one must he become who is to be another John, and to have shown to him, like John, by Jesus Himself Jesus as He is. For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, “Woman, behold your son,” John 19:26 and not “Behold you have this son also,” then He virtually said to her, “Lo, this is Jesus, whom you bore.” Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, Galatians 2:20 but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, “Behold your son Christ.” What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work,

from 1:6 of his commentary on John.

And this other quote I found just for this thread

Origen:

Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you,” Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women;

from his commentary on Matthew 10:17