“Reckless”
The Bible is clear that no man was “all holy” except Jesus. Also, this comes dagerously close to elevating Mary to someone who should be worshipped and prayed to...both a no-no in the Bible.
“After reading Hoehner’s arguments on the death of Christ (Friday crucifixion, Nisan 14 or April 3, AD 33), I wrote to him and suggested that another argument that Jesus died on Nisan 14 and that he presented himself to the nation on Nisan 10 was that it fulfilled the typology of Exodus 12:1–6. To my surprise and delight, Hoehner wrote back! And he politely pointed out that my argument could only be brought in as tertiary evidence, for although Jesus did indeed fulfill the typology of the OT, as historians we must look at the evidence that is of a historical nature—that is, evidence that both Christians and non-Christians would embrace—and we must also recognize that typological fulfillment often went in various directions, preventing us from cherry-picking in support of a view. For example, Jesus was not a year old when he died; he was not killed by fire but by crucifixion, etc. In other words, typology can be used in a confirmatory manner for historical study, but not as primary or secondary evidence. It’s what one brings in when discussing the results of one’s investigation.” (Triablogue )
…
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
Let me get this straight, the ark is seen in heaven in chapter 11 and the woman is pictured as being on earth in chapter 12. Yet the mere proximity of these two images allegedly connects Mary with the ark? Curious interpretative approach.
… appear to be linked in the same context in other place:
Appearances apparently are deceiving. Let’s play a game of “We can make the Bible say anything we wish cuz we are the One True Church®.”
Benedict XVI did not even omit to provide a sacrifice to this de facto goddess. It is reported that, "In a gesture of filial love, the Pope then offered the Madonna a golden rose." One is reminded immediately of the similar offerings presented by the Philistines to the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, particularly given Catholicism's claim (or at least the claim of her apologists) that Mary is the "ark of the New Covenant." ( Mary Worship Still Alive in Catholicism)
This very homily has been cited to prove the antiquity of the festival of the Annunciation, observed, in the West, March 25. But even Pellicia objects that this is a spurious work. The feast of the Nativity was introduced into the East by Chrysostom after the records at Rome had been inspected, and the time of the taxing at Bethlehem had been found. See his Sermon (a.d. 386), beautifully translated by Dr. Jarvis in his Introduction, etc., p. 541. Compare Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 164, and Justin, vol. i. p. 174, this series. Now, as the selection of the 25th of March is clearly based on this, we may say no more of that day. Possibly some Sunday was associated with the Annunciation. The four Sundays preceding Christmas are all observed by the Nestorians in commemoration of the Annunciation.…
Another difficulty in the works of the early Fathers is that many of them are held to be spurious and unauthentic, whilst the genuineness of others is disputed. I leave the discussion in all cases to the judgment of learned critics. My general rule has been to make my quotations from writings the authenticity of which is commonly acknowledged. Sometimes, however, I have cited works of doubtful genuineness, or which, at any rate, were not written as we now have them by the Fathers to whom they are attributed, but whose date, as assigned to them by critics, falls within the first six centuries, to which period I confine myself. When I quote from a doubtful or unauthentic work, or depart exceptionally from this general rule, I note the fact.
…
"These homilies are of doubtful genuineness."
Ark of the New Covenant bump!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my Catholic Apologetics and the Defense of the Faith ping list:
Please ping me to Catholic threads where I can help defend our common faith!
As the Ark of the Covenant contained the commandments, the “written Word of God”, so Mary, for nine months contained the Son of the living God- the “Word made flesh”.
The title “Ark of the New Covenant” makes sense to me!
Answering in the negative, Aquinas quotes Augustine, "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain." (Summa Theologica, III Question 35 Art. 6). Aquinas goes on to state:
I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (Q[28], A[2], Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according toIsa. 35:1, 2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."
Yet in the description of the woman in Rev. 12 we read, "Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth."
It’s simple really: the Ark carried the Words of God. We are told by St. John that Christ is the Word of God made flesh. Mary carried Christ in her body. Therefore, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.
Thank you for honoring Mary with this post on Christmas Eve. Sad that some feel the need to denigrate her even on this night. At the very least, she was Christ’s longest and most faithful follower, who endured uncertainty, hardship and exile on His behalf, before anyone else believed in Him. Surely she deserves honor for that alone.
Except that she’s so much more.