RnMomof7 wrote:
“There is NO typology of Mary in the OT..the Typology all points to Christ and the cross..NOT TO MARY.”
Well, to be fair and accurate, there is typology of Mary in the OT ... but, and let us make this very clear, its purpose is to point to Christ. The minute such things are used to elevate her above humanity itself a line has been crossed.
Yes, Mary would be called blessed among women, for she is the one to whom the types of Sarah and Hannah, for example, pointed.
And so too would John the Baptizer be called the greatest prophet of those born to women.
And so too were Capernaum and Bethsaida exalted to heaven.
But let us understand in each of these cases that what is said of them has nothing to do with some intrinsic virtue in them, and everything to do with their proximity, their closeness, to the long-promised Christ. He would be the seed of woman, but only Mary would bear Him. He would be proclaimed by each and every prophet of the OT, but only John would touch Him, point to Him, and call Him the “Lamb of God,” for all Israel to behold. He would dwell among His people, but only Capernaum/Bethsaida would be His hometown when He was revealed as the Christ. Thus each is exalted, as it were, above all other women in the Messianic, all other prophets, and all other cities or towns of Israel, respectively. So, you see, it really is all about Christ, even when the typology points indirectly through someone or something else to Him.
In the same way, for example, the crossing of the sea by Moses and Israel was a type (i.e. there is a typology here) of baptism, as Paul explicitly teaches, as also was the crossing of the Jordan, as also was the baptism of Naaman in the Jordan, as also was the priests’ washing of themselves before entering the tabernacle or temple (i.e. into the presence of God) etc. etc. But all these point not to baptism qua baptism, but to the Christ through the medium of the baptismal type/antitype.
One can find many, many such types in the Old Testament, not just the typology of Mary. But Romanists focus on Mary especially, because in the end they do desire to exalt her beyond even what God has done ... and, inevitably, as the expense of the glory of the Christ. And this is reflected in the worship and devotional life of millions of Catholics, even if it is said to be unintended or not official Catholic teaching. They are doing it because they are not stupid. They get what the Vatican has been saying all these years no matter their denials to the obstreperous Protestants.
Why, all these typologies are important and the Church teaches them all. The "focus" on Mary is often the result of the Protestant attacking especially the typologies associated with Mary, and devotion to Mary in general. Naturally, if 90% of what a Catholic apologist has to confront is mariophobia then his responses would be focused on what the attack is about, Mary. I'd much rather discuss the foundational heresies of Protestantism and the foundational orthodoxies of Catholicism, than aspects of venerating one saint or another.
Thank you, again for thoughtful posts on Mariology, especially since they are not clearly motivated by any desire to defend the Catholic Church. It is nice to have an opponent able to reason.
When catholics speak of types they point to things like the ark .. which is clearly a type of Christ
When I speak of types and shadows I look to Noahs ark ,Moses, the blood over the door posts, the priesthood, the sacrifice of the lamb Jacobs ladder , the manna in the desert , the jewish holidays, like passover, a huge one is the temple, the sprinling of blood etc. ect. ect.
There are many OT figures that show us part of the character of Christ like Jonah, Melchizedek , Joshua and Boaz...
Seeing Sarah or Hannah as "types" is a non essential difference, what is essential is attributing a type of Christ to Mary because it is blasphemy