The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[EricFilmer]

Utterly amazing that of the 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000+ denominations in this world, it is always the big, bad, old Catholic Church that must be wrong. But, how to prove this? Ah! We will take the bible, then violate it by privately interpreting it, to “prove” that “Me and my bible” are right. That same bible teaches that Pride, Ego, and Arrogance are not a good foundation for a set of beliefs - and this is precisely why we have those 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 denominations - all of whom use the same bible to disagree. Inconceivable!

Well said! Your post reminded me of a quote from the novel Father Elijah:

“One wonders if he has examined the problem raised by the specter of the world
in which everyone has become his own pope or ayatollah,
in which everyone has become infallible - everyone, that is, except the Pope of Rome.”

-Michael D. O’Brien, Father Elijah: An Apocalypse (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1996), 45.

 

[EricFilmer]

I’m still no closer to understanding why she had to be sinless in order to be the God-bearer and therefore no closer to seeing why she would be an exception to the “all have sinned” clause.

Regarding this matter, I think you have been asking honest questions, and I have no issue with anyone seeking to understand a certain concept. But I think it is also worth noting that what either of us thinks is feasible is not the “litmus test” for truth. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception can be true without someone understanding it.

Why? And where does scripture say Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant? I realize the fathers made this connection. But did any of the inspired authors make this connection?

It is a poetic comparison of the Ark of the Covenant of the Old Testament to the womb of Mary in the New Testament. Both “arks” represent the dwelling place of God among the human race. I really don’t see why this needs to be a problem for any Christian.

And where in Scripture does it say that John wrote the 4th Gospel? None of the ancient manuscripts actually cite any of the authors of the gospels - they each wrote anonymously. So shall we stop referring to the author of the 4th Gospel as “John” because it is not in Scripture?

One way would be for God to simply create for Himself a human nature free from the effects of Adam’s sin. We might call this the “immaculate conception” of Jesus in the womb of Mary.

At the risk of sounding snobby, God could also have made grass yellow, and he could have made cows bark, but he didn’t.

If only the pure can beget the pure, then why not posit that Anna, Mary’s mother, was also immaculately conceived? After all, “how can purity be brought forth from impurity” (your words)? But then if Anna had to be sinless in order give birth to a sinless Mary, then Anna’s mother had to be sinless too and so on.

You seem to see the Catholic Church as having a bunch of theologians who one day said, “Hey, how about we declare Mary as being sinless? That sounds cool, doesn’t it?” and then they set about trying to come up with an argument to back it up. God did not make Anna sinless, but he made Mary sinless. Simply put, that’s how he chose to do it. Sure, “Why not Anna, too?” is a good question, but the only answer is, “God knows.”

You Catholics say that God intervened at the conception of Mary…

No, God said this.
It is revealed by God through Sacred Tradition and defined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church with the guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit that this definition would be free of error.

…but there’s nothing in scripture to support that claim…

And there is nothing in Scripture to support the claim that all Christian doctrines must be supported by Scripture.

…and a lot indeed that contradicts it.

No Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture, but only your personal interpretation of it. And unless you are going to claim that your personal interpretation of Scripture is infallible, I do not see why either of us should think this is an issue.

Are you saying that the Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is invalid because it contradicts your personal interpretation of Scripture? If you are not actually saying this, then fine. But if you are actually saying this then you are acting as if you deem yourself infallible, even if you don’t verbally make such a claim.

As far as I can tell, the only credible way for a Protestant to claim a Catholic doctrine is erroneous is to demonstrate where it clearly and objectively contradicts something in the Bible. “Objectively” means that it is not simply a difference in interpretation or opinion. I have not seen in this thread, or elsewhere, a Scripture citation that the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception clearly and objectively contradicts. If I missed it then please quote it.

Why not just posit an intervention at Jesus’ conception?

Because that’s not the way God revealed he did it through Sacred Tradition.
Catholics do not “posit” doctrine - we accept what God has revealed.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I take it that your support for this assertion is in the following quote:

And therefore…

Filling in some of the blanks here, it sounds like this is your argument:

Because Mary is the God-bearer she is a plausible exception to the “all have sinned” clause because she was chosen by God to be, the God-bearer.

Hmmm… Sounds a little circular to me.

I’m still no closer to understanding why she had to be sinless in order to be the God-bearer and therefore no closer to seeing why she would be an exception to the “all have sinned” clause.

Why? And where does scripture say Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant? I realize the fathers made this connection. But did any of the inspired authors make this connection?

One way would be for God to simply create for Himself a human nature free from the effects of Adam’s sin. We might call this the “immaculate conception” of Jesus in the womb of Mary.

If only the pure can beget the pure, then why not posit that Anna, Mary’s mother, was also immaculately conceived? After all, “how can purity be brought forth from impurity” (your words)? But then if Anna had to be sinless in order give birth to a sinless Mary, then Anna’s mother had to be sinless too and so on.

You Catholics say that God intervened at the conception of Mary, but there’s nothing in scripture to support that claim and a lot indeed that contradicts it. Why not just posit an intervention at Jesus’ conception?

Nothing in Scripture, eh?

Please explain away all of that.

God bless!

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Flatly wrong. Here’s why (and yes, I wrote this):

If you had read posts 180 and 183, you’d see that I agree that “all” doesn’t have to mean “all without exception,” and that I specifically allowed for the possibility that Paul isn’t thinking of those below the age/incapable of reason. So forgive me if I don’t respond to your post point by point.

What I did say is that Paul probably didn’t regard Mary as an exception to the “all have sinned” clause. The reason why is that Paul is speaking of both Jews and Gentiles. All humanity can be divided into those two categories in Romans. Neither Jews with the Law, nor Gentiles apart from it (but who know its demands naturally), actually do what the Law requires. Therefore “all” – without distinction – “sin and fall short of the Glory of God.” Exceptions are possible, but have to be argued. But would Mary be one in Paul’s thinking? Probably not. She is a Jew, who knows the law, and therefore belongs to one of the two categories of humanity who sin.

I will address this point as well:

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Okay…

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people?

Yes–that’s just what he said. The purpose of quoting the psalm was to biblically support his doctrine of the universality of sin. Remember that Paul could say of himself, “as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Philippians 3:6). Outwardly, Paul kept the Law. But inwardly he was still a sinner. The law made him “sinful beyond measure” according to Romans 7. Many people could claim to be blameless in his day (e.g., the rich young man, “all of these [commandments] I’ve kept from my youth,” and the Pharisees are even said to have “righteousness” by Jesus (cf, Matthew 5:20). But he also called them “whitewashed tombs.” In other words, there is an extrinsic righteousness based on the law, and therefore many people can be called righteous in this sense. But every single one of them is still a sinner whose righteousness must surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees. The only way that can happen is if they receive a “righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9).

Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

The question is would Paul have regarded Joseph, Zechariah, Elizabeth and the company of the righteous as being sinless? (Of course not.) Paul’s point in quoting the psalm is not to deny that there are holy people whom God has graced, but rather to argue that whether keepers of the law or not, all people still sin. For everyone can keep the law and yet find a way to sin even while keeping the law. That’s Paul’s major insight in Romans 7.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

Yes, it can. Even if we take the “all” qualitatively rather than quantitatively, the burden of proof rests with the Catholic to show why Mary would be an exception since Mary was a Jew who knew the demands of the law. She certainly fits into the category of people of whom Paul says, “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Romans 3:9). “We Jews” certainly includes Paul. Why wouldn’t it include Mary?

 

[Jenny4Him]

Hello,

When I read this, I thought, "is there any chance this guy would grant the possibility that a Christian could agree with Elizabeth (“blessed are you among women”) without agreeing with, say, that Mary was immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven? Until 1854, no Catholic was required to believe the former, nor the latter until 1950. And yet lots of people, Catholics included, still called her “blessed” even though they may have denied those dogmas.

I’m always taken back when Catholics interpret criticism of their ideas (such as the Catholic Marian dogmas) as criticism of Mary herself. I do hope you understand that no one is directing his/her criticism at the one of whom scripture says, “all generations will call blessed.”

Our criticism is directed at the church that has elevated its traditions to the level of scripture and then threatens anathema to anyone who would deny those traditions. But more specifically, we’re directing our criticism toward the arguments used to justify those traditions since they seldom have any basis in what we do know to be true–inspired scripture–and sometimes seem to even contradict scripture.

For example, claiming Mary is sinless seems to contradict the universality of sin stated in “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 6:23). The “all” doesn’t seem to admit of a special exception for Mary. Perhaps Paul doesn’t envision some categories of humans in the “all”–say, perhaps, children too young to be accountable for their sin or severely retarded people lacking the faculties to understand what is sin, etc. But since the context of Romans concerns two categories of people, Jews and Gentiles, and since Mary was a Jew, then Paul almost certainly would have included Mary in the category of sinner. So pending an explicit exception clause in scripture, Mary belongs to the category of sinner, just like everyone else. That, biblically speaking, is the clear truth we have to obey. When a tradition comes along that contradicts scripture, we’re supposed to reject that tradition, not elevate it to a dogma.

Very good explanation and I would add that Mary stated the following in Luke: “My God and My Savior” So Mary herself affirms Romans 6 and we could add Romans 3 and Ephesians 2 among others.

Only righteous people need not a Savior; the unrighteous are in desperate need of a Savior and Mary fits into the category the rest of human-kind fits. Jesus said; “I have not come to save the righteous, but sinners” Praise God because I am one of those sinners to whom He has set His love on.

 

[Church_Militant]

By the way, Miguel, if it wasn’t true, why would the Church propose that Mary was ever virgin? Afterall, there is no sin for a married woman to have sex with her husband. And what is the benefit of Mary being sinless to the church if it wasn’t actually truly revealed? What would be the motivation of the Catholic Church to say these things?

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

There’s way too much evidence in the New Testament that Jesus had step siblings as my blog article points out.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why? And where does scripture say Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant? I realize the fathers made this connection. But did any of the inspired authors make this connection?

Absolutely. Luke was all over this…but you have to understand the imagery which would have been obvious to the Jews of his day. This should help:

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant Proved from Scripture

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. Those who ate of this bread still died. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, the bread of life which came down from heaven. Those who eat of this bread will live forever. (John 6:31-41)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the staff of Aaron which had budded as proof as his priesthood. (Number 17:1-9)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, our high priest, Himself. (Hebrews 4:14)

The ark of the Old Covenant was overshadowed by the glory cloud. (Exodus 40:34-35)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:35)

The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea. (2 Sam. 6:1–11)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea. (Luke 1:39)

A man touched the ark of the Old Covenant to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
–Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

The ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months. (2 Sam. 6:11)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:11)
–In the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, the word blessed is used three times; surely Elizabeth’s house was blessed by God. (Luke 1:39–45)

The ark of the Old Covenant returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple. (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22)

Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:14)
–John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. (Luke 1:41)

David shouts in the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:15)
–Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary, the Ark of the Old Covenant. (Luke 1:42)

The ark of the Old Covenant disappeared, and no trace of it can be found anywhere on earth.
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was assumed bodily into heaven by God at the end of her earthly life, and no trace of her can be found anywhere on earth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You Catholics say that God intervened at the conception of Mary, but there’s nothing in scripture to support that claim and a lot indeed that contradicts it. Why not just posit an intervention at Jesus’ conception?

God chose to do it differently. However, there is scriptural evidence to support the Immaculate Conception for those that have ears to hear it.

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

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.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you had read posts 180 and 183, you’d see that I agree that “all” doesn’t have to mean “all without exception,” and that I specifically allowed for the possibility that Paul isn’t thinking of those below the age/incapable of reason. So forgive me if I don’t respond to your post point by point.

What I did say is that Paul probably didn’t regard Mary as an exception to the “all have sinned” clause. The reason why is that Paul is speaking of both Jews and Gentiles. All humanity can be divided into those two categories in Romans. Neither Jews with the Law, nor Gentiles apart from it (but who know its demands naturally), actually do what the Law requires. Therefore “all” – without distinction – “sin and fall short of the Glory of God.” Exceptions are possible, but have to be argued. But would Mary be one in Paul’s thinking? Probably not. She is a Jew, who knows the law, and therefore belongs to one of the two categories of humanity who sin.

I will address this point as well:

Okay…

Yes–that’s just what he said. The purpose of quoting the psalm was to biblically support his doctrine of the universality of sin. Remember that Paul could say of himself, “as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Philippians 3:6). Outwardly, Paul kept the Law. But inwardly he was still a sinner. The law made him “sinful beyond measure” according to Romans 7. Many people could claim to be blameless in his day (e.g., the rich young man, “all of these [commandments] I’ve kept from my youth,” and the Pharisees are even said to have “righteousness” by Jesus (cf, Matthew 5:20). But he also called them “whitewashed tombs.” In other words, there is an extrinsic righteousness based on the law, and therefore many people can be called righteous in this sense. But every single one of them is still a sinner whose righteousness must surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees. The only way that can happen is if they receive a “righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9).

The question is would Paul have regarded Joseph, Zechariah, Elizabeth and the company of the righteous as being sinless? (Of course not.) Paul’s point in quoting the psalm is not to deny that there are holy people whom God has graced, but rather to argue that whether keepers of the law or not, all people still sin. For everyone can keep the law and yet find a way to sin even while keeping the law. That’s Paul’s major insight in Romans 7.

Yes, it can. Even if we take the “all” qualitatively rather than quantitatively, the burden of proof rests with the Catholic to show why Mary would be an exception since Mary was a Jew who knew the demands of the law. She certainly fits into the category of people of whom Paul says, “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Romans 3:9). “We Jews” certainly includes Paul. Why wouldn’t it include Mary?

It does not matter what Paul would have thought at the time about Mary, her parents, John the Baptist, or anyone else. He wrote inspired scripture, and as an apostle, he was protected by the gift of infallibility in his teaching capacity, but that does not mean that every theological thought that entered his mind was inspired…just as a pope may privately entertain theological error also. I find that Paul has not made any judgment about Mary one way or another. He may have known nothing of the Immaculate Conception, and that’s okay…doctrine develops over time. I think God had Paul focused on Christological issues, don’t you?

For the purposes of our discussion, what does matter is that Paul’s phrase, “all have sinned”, has been shown to have possible meanings OTHER THAN literally “all”; consequently, this passage of scripture cannot be used to disprove the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Church_Militant]

Very good explanation and I would add that Mary stated the following in Luke: “My God and My Savior” So Mary herself affirms Romans 6 and we could add Romans 3 and Ephesians 2 among others.

Only righteous people need not a Savior; the unrighteous are in desperate need of a Savior and Mary fits into the category the rest of human-kind fits. Jesus said; “I have not come to save the righteous, but sinners” Praise God because I am one of those sinners to whom He has set His love on.

Which does not at all specify the fact, (which the Catholic Church teaches) that the Blessed Virgin was saved by Christ’s sacrifice, but that it was applied to her at conception because of her unique place in the plan of salvation.

If the ark of the Covenant was pure and so holy that to touch it was death, then how much more so would be the ark of the New Covenant wherein was carried the incarnate Son of God?!

Even your own scriptural citation lends itself to the idea that Mary was immaculately conceived.

"Jesus said; “I have not come to save the righteous, but sinners”

If this is true, (and we know it is!) then Our Lord is speaking of His mother (and possibly others) as one of those righteous who were already saved.

 

[Jenny4Him]

A general comment about this discussion; after reading through part of this thread it really boils down to the question of divine authority. The Catholic church or the Scripture because of the contradictions; both cannot be true. Mary called Jesus her Savior before He was born; and I do not think anyone would dare dispute that the biblical Savior saves from the penalty of sin and thus calling Jesus Savior is an admission of being a sinner. So it is a matter of choice as to whom one deems as a divine authority. My very limited understanding of Catholic teaching is that their teaching is at an equal level or “authority” with Scripture, but that is impossible if the two are in conflict, which is obvious from this discussion that there exists conflict.

 

[StTommyMore]

I see you are clinging to the unscriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I cling to the fact that we are to submit to the magisterium. Interesting that Sola Scriptura is not in the Scriptures but obedience to tradition is, don’t you think?

 

[Jenny4Him]

I see you are clinging to the unscriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I cling to the fact that we are to submit to the magisterium. Interesting that Sola Scriptura is not in the Scriptures but obedience to tradition is, don’t you think?

If you make a claim such as that you must first define what Sola Scriptura is and what it is not, then you must prove the claim is false and not on this thread since this thread has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

 

[Jenny4Him]

Which does not at all specify the fact, (which the Catholic Church teaches) that the Blessed Virgin was saved by Christ’s sacrifice, but that it was applied to her at conception because of her unique place in the plan of salvation.

If the ark of the Covenant was pure and so holy that to touch it was death, then how much more so would be the ark of the New Covenant wherein was carried the incarnate Son of God?!

Even your own scriptural citation lends itself to the idea that Mary was immaculately conceived.If this is true, (and we know it is!) then Our Lord is speaking of His mother (and possibly others) as one of those righteous who were already saved.

That is what the Catholic church teaches; that is fine - you are Catholic right? The Scripture doesn’t teach that.

 

[placido]

Miguel,
The argument about the word “until” has many pitfalls and you have fallen into at least one.

What many non-Catholics fail to take into consideration is “why” the inspired writer used the word “until” … he was not at all interested in what transpired after Jesus’ birth. He was rather showing that Joseph is not Jesus’ biological father BECAUSE Joseph “did not know her” until the son was born. That proves that Joseph is not Jesus’ father … whatever happened after Jesus’ birth is not of concern to the writer.

placido

 

[Randy_Carson]

A general comment about this discussion; after reading through part of this thread it really boils down to the question of divine authority. The Catholic church or the Scripture because of the contradictions; both cannot be true. Mary called Jesus her Savior before He was born; and I do not think anyone would dare dispute that the biblical Savior saves from the penalty of sin and thus calling Jesus Savior is an admission of being a sinner. So it is a matter of choice as to whom one deems as a divine authority. My very limited understanding of Catholic teaching is that their teaching is at an equal level or “authority” with Scripture, but that is impossible if the two are in conflict, which is obvious from this discussion that there exists conflict.

There are no contradictions between Catholic doctrine and scripture…only misunderstandings of one or the other by those who THINK such contradictions exist.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you make a claim such as that you must first define what Sola Scriptura is and what it is not, then you must prove the claim is false and not on this thread since this thread has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

See post #218 for the scriptural proof you deny.

 

[StTommyMore]

If you make a claim such as that you must first define what Sola Scriptura is and what it is not, then you must prove the claim is false and not on this thread since this thread has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

Actually it is quite easy. First, since all of you separated brethren are insisting on Scriptural evidence, then Sola Scriptura is very pertinent to this thread. Sola Scriptura, asI understood it when I was an IFB, was that all matters of doctrine and practice must be found in the Bible. I cannot prove a negative, so all you have to do is provide one verse that establishes Sola Scriptura. Scripture does speak highly of tradition handed down from the Church (1 Thess 2:15)

 

[Jenny4Him]

Which does not at all specify the fact, (which the Catholic Church teaches) that the Blessed Virgin was saved by Christ’s sacrifice, but that it was applied to her at conception because of her unique place in the plan of salvation.

If the ark of the Covenant was pure and so holy that to touch it was death, then how much more so would be the ark of the New Covenant wherein was carried the incarnate Son of God?!

Even your own scriptural citation lends itself to the idea that Mary was immaculately conceived.If this is true, (and we know it is!) then Our Lord is speaking of His mother (and possibly others) as one of those righteous who were already saved.

One problem you have and others have to is that you are focusing on a single aspect of the OT Ark of the Covenant and transcending to the womb of a human being. If that human being correlates with every aspect of the OT ark of the Covenant, the you can have an apples to apples comparison, but not on a single aspect. I can go out on my husbands boat and claim I am on Noah’s ark; both ride on water and float, but there is no comparison.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

A general comment about this discussion; after reading through part of this thread it really boils down to the question of divine authority. The Catholic church or the Scripture because of the contradictions; both cannot be true. Mary called Jesus her Savior before He was born; and I do not think anyone would dare dispute that the biblical Savior saves from the penalty of sin and thus calling Jesus Savior is an admission of being a sinner. So it is a matter of choice as to whom one deems as a divine authority. My very limited understanding of Catholic teaching is that their teaching is at an equal level or “authority” with Scripture, but that is impossible if the two are in conflict, which is obvious from this discussion that there exists conflict.

Jenny4Him, please watch this,

youtube.com/watch?v=0aU18v-tl8I

and tell us how the Church contradicts what the Scriptures truly say about Mary.

The more I learn about Scripture and the teachings of the Church, the more I can see that the “contradictions” between the two are actually not. Maybe in time, if you try to understand the teachings of the Church and what the Church understands about the Bible, you will find that, too.

God bless!