Posted on 04/27/2008 6:33:53 PM PDT by markomalley
Catholic Answers has some interesting ways of grabbing your attention. By placing the beginning paragraph or two of the lead article of their monthly magazine, This Rock, on the very cover of the work, they draw your attention into reading the rest of the article. True to form, the December, 1991 edition sported Pat Madrid's article, "Ark of the New Covenant" with the interesting lead in, "His face stiffened, and his eyes narrowed to slits. Until now the Calvary Chapel pastor had been calm as he `shared the gospel' with me, but when I mentioned my belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception, his attitude changed." Using a "real-life" backdrop for the presentation of some particular topic is another fine writing tool used by the folks at Catholic Answers. As you continue to read about this encounter, you discover that our author, Pat Madrid, is going to provide Biblical support for his belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. He writes of his encounter with the Protestant pastor,…
The greatest effort in typological interpretation by Mr. Madrid comes in his attempt to parallel the Ark of the Covenant and Mary. The first parallel he draws has to do with the fact that God took such great pains to make sure the Ark was properly constructed. He says,
God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.Does this kind of interpretation bear the weight of investigation? While we admit the force such things carry with those who already accept these doctrine, we point out that there is no way to test the interpretation. We can easily point out absurdities to which the parallel can be pushed--for example, must Mary have been stolen by God's enemies for a time, so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing? Who was Mary's Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:3-8)? Madrid draws a further parallel between the three months the ark was with Obededom and the three months Mary was with Elizabeth. What, then, is the parallel with David's action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the ark had taken six steps (2 Samuel 6:13)? See, Mr. Madrid feels free to pick and choose what aspects of Mary's life he wishes to parallel in the ark, and which he does not--there are no rules in this kind of interpretation, and it can lead to just about any conclusion. Pat seems to recognize at least some of this, for he says,Granted, none of these verses "proves" Mary's Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.We are left wondering at Mr. Madrid's definition of "biblical evidence," but we are glad to see that he recognizes that all that has come before does not "prove" the Immaculate Conception. One will believe that doctrine only if one believes that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible and has an authority that does not need Scriptural basis. It seems that, sadly, Mr. Madrid accepts Rome's claims.There is one other item that needs to be addressed in this article. Madrid says,
The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1- 17, where she is called the mother of all "those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus" (verse 17). The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old Testament's description of the ark and the New Testament's discussion of Mary's role.We are forced to wonder again as to how Mr. Madrid is defining the phrase "early Christians." If we take "early" to mean "prior to the year 400," we find that he has no basis for his statements. It is plain for all to see that the entire concept of the Immaculate Conception is missing from the earliest patristic sources--indeed, Mary does not enter into the picture for quite some time, entering first because of the Christological controversies, and only later, under the impulse of asceticism and monasticism, as a central figure in her own right. But, for the first four centuries, the "Virgin Mother" for Christians was not Mary, but the Church. The woman in Revelation 12 was not Mary, but the Church as well (see Hippolytus, _On Christ and Antichrist_, 61, in ANF, V:217). Indeed, one will find controversies brewing over the concept of the Immaculate Conception a thousand years later, when the Dominicans and the Franciscans were at each other's throats over the issue. At the time, the "infallible authority" remained silent, following a middle course between the two sides. As late as the nineteenth century we find the Roman Catholic bishop Milner saying,The Church does not decide the controversy concerning the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and several other disputed points, because she sees nothing clear and certain concerning them either in the written or unwritten Word, and therefore leaves her children to form their own opinions concerning them (cited in Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, p. 182).So even tradition fails our Roman Catholic apologist in attempting to find a basis for the Immaculate Conception. The simple fact is that this doctrine is a very late development, a part of Roman Catholic teaching, officially, for less than 150 years. It has no Biblical basis, nor does it have foundation in the early writings of the Church. It was a hotly debated topic for centuries, and no "infallible Pope" dared schism by exercising his infallibility to end the argument until the nineteenth century. It is one of many Marian doctrines that, as a whole, not only greatly detract from the true, Biblical presentation of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, but which promote clearly false concepts in the minds of faithful Catholics everywhere. Given the results of our review, it seems clear that Pat Madrid's "examination" of the "biblical evidence" for the doctrine with the Calvary Chapel pastor took a very short period of time.A Biblical Basis for the "Immaculate Conception"? A Review and Rebuttal of Patrick Madrid's Article "Ark of the New Covenant" by James White.
Hmmm. Too bad someone didn't stop [save] her from committing the sin of lying to her son in this part of Luke 2:
"43And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it ... And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.... 48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, 'Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49And he said unto them, 'How is it that ye sought me? Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?'"
Mary knew that Joseph was not Jesus' father but she referred to him as his "father" anyway. Was this not a lie??? Was this the first time she did so or had she been doing so for quite some time which explains why she didn't understand his rebuke of her words.
So -- to claim that she never sinned is a prefabrication [sin] -- a prefabrication of the Marian sort -- but a prefabrication [a sin] nonetheless.
Oh but I am sure that the Marian casuists amongst you will casually explain this away since sin is not sin when Mary or Marianists commit it.
The Greek word used to describe the grace which Mary was filled with is "Charitou." The KJV translates this as "highly favored."
The Greek word in the passage you cite means in no way "divine blessing" or "favor." It is translated in the KJV as "faith," and can also be translated as "conviction (of the truth)."
Not only are the words completely different, but neither the primary translation (grace) or either synonyms (divine blessing, favor) are at all reasonable!
Oh please! It is not a lie to call someone filling the human role of father by that term. Adopted fathers are called that and it is a not a ‘lie’. It is a job description.
Of course it happened. And if I make an over generalization about it that does not make me a liar or competely wrong. He addressed that stuff in the article. Did you read it?
List then
List then
a job description??? Is that all it is??? And how about if the adoptive child knows who his [her] father really is??? Apparently both Luke and Jesus disagree with you on that point:
"43And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it ... And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.... 48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, 'Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49And he said unto them, 'How is it that ye sought me? Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?'"
She stood corrected. Jesus knew who his Father was and it wasn't Joseph.
If the phrase had been “brides of Christ,” I would say yes. The bride of Christ is a singular. It does not refer to any woman OR any man. It is a metaphor for a singular entity, the Church.
You’re not seriously going to argue that “sons of Men” ISN’T intended to refer only to males, are you?
I agree with all you say, the poster I had responded to had mixed up IC with the Virgin birth. Not a Catholic , and now I am reminded why one should'nt expound on another's dogma.
All he's saying is that Mary was obedient and thus can be seen as the cause (not the source, the cause - her obedience) of salvation whereas with Eve (and Adam), they were disobedient and the cause of our fall. I hate to burst your bubble, but Protestants believe this too.
There's nothing in Iraeneus' statement that supports any current, modern, Catholic doctrine about Mary (the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, prayers to her, that she can "intercede", etc, etc, etc).
Again, I repeat my challenge (because Catholics so often appeal to the church fathers and the early church as the basis for their apostolic succession and authority, etc): show me one source, pre-4th century - prior to Constantine and Christianity being the official religion of the Empire - that can be used as a foundation for any of the aforementioned doctrines. (it's been a while since I was reading the early church fathers and looking for these sources, but I believe there was zero before you reach the about the 6th century).
You won't find it, because it's not there, and that means it isn't from Scripture, it isn't from the early church fathers or tradition, and it isn't historical. That means it is an invention of the Church, created whole cloth, pulled out of thin air. And it was created in the way I described in my prior post, up above on this thread
There is nothing, as I've said before, prior to the 4th century and Christianity becoming the religion of the Empire, in the writings of any of the early church fathers that in any way promotes any current, Catholic, Marian doctrine or could really even be seen as the basis for it. Once she was declared "Theotokos", and the religion becomes the religion of the Empire, then you see all the pagan influence - the worship of goddesses - become established in the Church as they begin to latch on to Mary. Combine that with the belief that God (and Jesus) are harsh, judgmental kings - who one cannot possibly go to in prayer, themselves - and you see the need for the gentle, feminine, "mother" figure to go to God and "intercede".
Again, show me something in writing from the early church fathers, prior to the 4th century, that in any way promotes Mary as the Immaculate Conception, speaks of her Assumption, shows that she was an object of prayer or that anyone thought she should be prayed to and could "intercede", and I'll take it all back. As a matter of fact, I don't believe there's anything to even indicate that anyone thought she didn't have normal relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, either.
Just because an event is described slightly different from one writer to another, does not mean either one is wrong or that the event happened twice. But it is hard to argue that the Bible is 100% literal when many there are many parables and a great amount of symbolism used. The Bible is 100% true, but not 100% literal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.