[RnMomof7]

We disagree here .. To my mind Sarah and Hannah were not types, they were actual women that were faithful to God and models for Mary and us..Mary actually said Hannah's prayer ...

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

[annalex]

Sarah and Hannah were not types

They werre historical people. But it is possible for a historical person to also be a type, as for example, Moses is both a historical person and a type of Jesus. I haven't read Belteshaxxar's post you are referring to, but your either/or permise here is wrong.

attributing a type of Christ to Mary [...] is blasphemy

Of course it is, -- and no one is doing that. She is connected to the Economy of Salvation in her historical riole as His mother, which is in itself big enough.