Follow
Protestants who interact with Roman Catholics in any capacity are often surprised to find that they believe Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. As Pope Pius XII explained in Munificentissiumus Deus in 1950—his “infallible” proclamation that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven—many Church Fathers have understood the Ark of the Covenant “as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary” (Munificentissiumus Deus, 26). Thus, David’s exclamation, “Arise, O LORD, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength” (Psalm 132:8), is taken to prefigure Mary’s bodily assumption into Heaven (Munificentissiumus Deus, 29). Catholic Answers explains in an article by Steve Ray that the Woman of Revelation 12:1 is Mary, and because John saw the ark of the testimony in the heavenly temple in the preceding verse (Revelation 11:19), it must mean that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant (Catholic Answers, Mary, Ark of the New Covenant). Steve Ray, former Protestant and now Roman Catholic apologist, tells us not to worry about the novelty of this Roman Catholic teaching on Mary. After all, he says, it is an apostolic teaching from the earliest days of Christianity:
“The understanding of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant is nothing new. It was taught and celebrated early in Christian history.” (Steve Ray, Ark of the New Covenant -Quotes from the Fathers).
The problem with Steve Ray’s claim is a familiar one: the teaching and celebration of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant originated in the latter part of the 4th century, and there is no evidence that it was proposed, believed or celebrated any earlier than that. “Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant” is something new indeed.
Perhaps the best illustration of the problem for Roman Catholicism is Scott Hahn’s attempt to load the doctrine with ante-Nicene antiquity. When Hahn, also a former Protestant, was concluding his talk entitled, “Mary, Ark of the Covenant,” an attentive listener noted that for all of his winsome defense of the belief, he had not yet actually proved that the Early Church believed what he was saying. The listener asked,
“Where do we find specific examples of Mary as Ark of the Covenant in the early Church?” (Answering Common Objections, A Closer Look at Christ’s Church, Mary, Ark of the Covenant, see “added notes”)
That is a very good question, and Hahn was prepared for it. He picked up a copy of Bernard Capelle’s Marian Typology in the Fathers and the Liturgy, and began to read it out loud:
“Ark of imperishable wood containing the manna, is a phrase that is taken from an ancient liturgy for the feast of the Assumption. This application of the Ark of the Covenant to the Blessed Virgin is very ancient. We find that already at the beginning of the 3rd Century in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome.” (Answering Common Objections, A Closer Look at Christ’s Church, Mary, Ark of the Covenant, see “added notes”)
Cappelle was citing Hippolytus (170 – 235 A.D) as if he really believed that Mary was the Ark, but here is what Hippolytus actually believed:
“And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: ‘My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness.’ But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On the Psalms, Oration on ‘The Lord is My Shepherd’)
That is plainly a reference to Christ as the Ark of the New Covenant. Capelle’s misreading is based on the ambiguity of a sentence elsewhere in Hippolytus in which he says,
“At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the ‘ark overlaid with pure gold,’ with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the ‘ark’ made manifest.” (Hippolytus, Fragments, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 6).
Does Hippolytus here refer to the Virgin, or to the Savior, as the Ark? Rome rushes in to assign the honor to Mary, and renders the passage in such a way as to make Mary the Ark, and even adds an extra reference for good measure:
“At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested.” (Livius, Thomas, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, (London: Burns and Oates, 1893) 77)
We hasten to note that in the original Greek, the words for “the ark” (“της κιβωτού … η κιβωτος”) actually only appear twice in that sentence (Migne, Patrologia Graeca 10, col. 648), but Rome takes the liberty of adding it a third time in English to force Hippolytus to support Mary as the Ark. But as we have shown above, Hippolytus has already identified Jesus—”the Saviour himself”—as the Ark, and then he continues in the very same paragraph, making it crystal clear that he thought Jesus’ “own body” was the Ark:
“And that the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body…”(Hippolytus, Fragments, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 6).
The context and the words themselves simply affirm that Jesus, born of a Virgin, was the Ark of the New Covenant. According to Hippolytus, Jesus’ own body was “the ark made of imperishable wood” and “overlaid with pure gold,” not Mary.
Hahn then proceeded in his citation of Capelle, and in the process revealed Rome’s real problem with the identification of Mary as the Ark—there is just no early evidence for it. Notice that in order to support his view that Mary is the Ark, Hahn had to cite a fifth century patriarch who thought that Mary was not the Ark, but the Holy of Holies:
“We find it in Antioch by the 5th Century in the writings of the Patriarch Severus who fits it into its entire context. He sees the Blessed Virgin signified by the Holy of Holies precisely because she contains the Ark of the Covenant made of incorruptible wood, etc.”
Attentive readers will note that if Severus thought Mary was signified by the Holy of Holies because the Holy of Holies contained the Ark, then Severus thought that Jesus was the Ark, not Mary. The significance of this problem for Rome’s apologists may be seen in the manifold references to the Ark in the Early Church. What is clear is that nobody seemed to realize that Mary was the Ark.
Irenæus (d. 202 A.D.)
Irenæus appears to have taught that the Ark referred to Christ’s body:
“For as the ark was gilded within and without with pure gold, so was also the body of Christ pure and resplendent… in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be clearly shown forth.” (Irenæus, Fragments, Fragment 8)
This particular citation is attributed to Irenæus by Leontius of Byzantium (c. 600 A.D.), but because Leontius does not mention which of Irenæus’ works he was citing (Schaff, Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, Fragment 8, n1, AnteNicene Fathers, Volume 1), we cannot certify the authenticity of the reference. In any case, based on teaching of those who came after him, it is certainly not an anachronism.
Tertullian (155 – 240 A.D.)
Tertullian taught that Christ was foreseen by the twelve stones “set up for the ark of the covenant,” the stones prefiguring the twelve apostles. “To him will appertain the event in whom is discovered the preparation for the same” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 13). The twelve stones erected for the Ark thus prepared, by way of type, for the twelve apostles selected by Christ.
Elsewhere, Tertullian mentions that “the ark of the testament,” along with the tabernacle, altar and candlestick “were figures of us (for we are temples of God, and altars, and lights, and sacred vessels)” (Tertullian, De Corona, chapter 9).
Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D)
As we noted above, Hippolytus was quite clear in what he thought the Ark signified:
“And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself.” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On the Psalms, Oration on ‘The Lord is My Shepherd’)
“And that the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body…” (Hippolytus, Fragments, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 6).
Victorinus (270 – 310 A.D.)
Victorinus interprets Revelation 11:19, and instead of seeing Mary’s assumption prefigured by the Ark in the heavenly temple, he saw the ministry of Christ:
“‘And there was seen in His temple the ark of the Lord’s testament.’ The preaching of the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins, and all the gifts whatever that came with Him, he says, appeared therein.” (Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, from the eleventh chapter)
Gregory Nazianzen (329 – 390 A.D.)
Gregory taught that when Christ was conceived in Mary, the Ark had finally arrived, or come to rest, which makes the Ark to signify Christ’s body, rather than Mary’s:
“Now then I pray you accept His Conception, and leap before Him; if not like John from the womb, [Luke 1:41] yet like David, because of the resting of the Ark.” (Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 38, On the Theophany, paragraph 17).
Ambrose (340 – 397 A.D.)
Ambrose uses the image of David dancing before the Ark as a figure for the way we should honor Christ:
“But the dancing is commended which David practiced before the ark of God. For everything is seemly which is done for religion, so that we need be ashamed of no service which tends to the worship and honouring of Christ.” (Ambrose, On Repentance, Book II, chapter 42)
John Chrysostom (349 – 407 A.D.)
Chrysostom, lamenting the sin of Theodore, seems to have Christ signified by the Ark within the “temple” of Theodore:
“This temple is holier than that; for it glistened not with gold and silver, but with the grace of the Spirit, and in place of the ark and the cherubim, it had Christ, and His Father, and the Paraclete seated within.” (Chrysostom, Two Exhortations to Theodore After His Fall, Letter I, paragraph 1)
Jerome (347 – 420 A.D.)
In his letter to Eustochium in praise of virginity, Jerome has the ark signifying “Christ’s spouse”—in this context, a virgin who is said to be espoused to Christ:
“Uzzah, when he touched the ark which it was not lawful to touch, was struck down suddenly by death. [2 Samuel 6:6-7] And assuredly no gold or silver vessel was ever so dear to God as is the temple of a virgin’s body. … Like the ark of the covenant Christ’s spouse should be overlaid with gold within and without; [Exodus 25:11] she should be the guardian of the law of the Lord. Just as the ark contained nothing but the tables of the covenant, [1 Kings 8:9] so in you there should be no thought of anything that is outside.” (Jerome, Letter 22, to Eustochium, paragraphs 23 & 24)
Elsewhere, Jerome sees the Ark to prefigure the holiness that is expected in a bishop and in those he ordains:
“If the Levite Uzzah was smitten merely because he tried to hold up from falling the ark which it was his special province to carry; [2 Samuel 6:6-7] what punishment, think you, will be inflicted upon you who have tried to overthrow the Lord’s ark when standing firm? The more estimable the bishop is who ordained you, the more detestable are you who have disappointed the expectations of so good a man.” (Jerome, Letter 147, to Sabinianus, paragraph 10)
Elsewhere, Paula and Eustochium, who had been taught by Jerome, taught that the Lord’s tomb should be venerated like the Ark because of what it once contained:
“The Jews of old reverenced the Holy of Holies, because of the things contained in it— the cherubim, the mercy-seat, the ark of the covenant, the manna, Aaron’s rod, and the golden altar. [Hebrews 9:3-5] Does the Lord’s sepulchre seem less worthy of veneration? As often as we enter it we see the Saviour in His grave clothes, and if we linger we see again the angel sitting at His feet, and the napkin folded at His head. Long before this sepulchre was hewn out by Joseph, its glory was foretold in Isaiah’s prediction, ‘his rest shall be glorious,’ [Isaiah 11:10] meaning that the place of the Lord’s burial should be held in universal honor.” (Jerome, Letter 46, Paula and Eustochium to Marcella, paragraph 5)
John Cassian (360 – 435 A.D.)
Cassian uses the figure of the Ark to refer to the Christian who meditates on the Scripture:
“Next you must by all means strive to get rid of all anxiety and worldly thoughts, and give yourself over assiduously or rather continuously, to sacred reading, until continual meditation fills your heart, and fashions you so to speak after its own likeness, making of it, in a way, an ark of the testimony, [Hebrews 9:4-5] which has within it two tables of stone, i.e., the constant assurance of the two testaments; and a golden pot, i.e., a pure and undefiled memory which preserves by a constant tenacity the manna stored up in it, i.e., the enduring and heavenly sweetness of the spiritual sense and the bread of angels; moreover also the rod of Aaron, i.e., the saving standard of Jesus Christ our true High Priest, that ever buds with the freshness of immortal memory.” (John Cassian, Conferences, Conference 14, chapter 10)
The view that Jesus was the Ark of the New Covenant actually continued beyond first three centuries. Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Cyril of Alexandria held to it, too, and Pope Gregory the Great thought that the Ark signified the church:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393 – 458 A.D.)
Theodoret, in his Dialogues, cites Hippolytus authoritatively on the topic of the Ark:
“Testimony of the Holy Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, from his discourse on The Lord is my Shepherd: ‘An ark of incorruptible wood was the Saviour Himself, for the incorruptibility and indestructibility of His Tabernacle signified its producing no corruption of sin.’ ” (Theodoret, Dialogues, Dialogue 1)
Cyril of Alexandria (412 – 444 A.D.)
Cyril states plainly that the ark signifies Christ:
“The ark then, Pallas, I feel, is the image and symbol of Christ.” (Cyril of Alexandria, de Adoratione in Spiritu et Veritate, Book 9 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 68, col. 597-598)
“Emmanuel, God-with-us, is presented in figure and image when scripture says: ‘And you will place the ark of the testimony in the tabernacle and cover it with the veil.’ [Exodus 40:3] … Then even the ark itself was a symbol of him.” (Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium, Book IV, (Migne, P.G. 73, col. 619-622))
Gregory the Great (540 – 604 A.D.)
Gregory had the Ark signifying the teaching ministry of the Church:
“Gentleness … mingled with severity … is well signified by that ark of the tabernacle, in which, together with the tables, there as a rod and manna; because, if with knowledge of sacred Scripture in the good ruler’s breast there is the rod of constraint, there should be also the manna of sweetness.” (Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, Book II, chapter 6)
“What but the holy Church is figured by the ark? To which four rings of gold in the four corners are ordered to be adjoined, because, in that it is thus extended towards the four quarters of the globe, it is declared undoubtedly to be equipped for journeying with the four books of the holy Gospel.” (Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, Book II, chapter 11)
“For what is the priestly heart but the ark of the covenant? And since spiritual doctrine retains its vigour therein, without doubt the tables of the law are lying in it.” (Gregory the Great, Register of Letters, Book VIII, Letter 30)
Clearly, all these writers saw that the Ark prefigured something. Some saw in the Ark a signification of Christ’s incarnation, others saw it to signify purity in thought and in life, others saw it to prefigure the Church. But there is one theme that consistently rises above all the others—the Ark signified Christ. And there is one signification that is conspicuous for its absence: Mary.
Thus, between the two teachings—Jesus as the Ark of the New Covenant vs. Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant—it is only the former that can lay claim to antiquity. There does not appear to be very much evidence in favor of the Roman Catholic view at all. In fact, so bereft are the first three centuries of any reference to Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, that Roman Catholicism would be completely empty-handed were it not for the alleged “testimonies” of Dionysius of Alexandria (late 2nd century – 264 A.D.), Gregory Thaumaturgus (213 – 270 A.D.), Methodius of Olympus (d. 310) and Ephraem the Syrian (306 – 373 A.D.). The problem for Roman Catholicism is that the “testimonies” of these men, like that of Hippolytus, have been tampered with in order to force them to see Mary as the Ark of the Covenant.
Dionysius of Alexandria
Dionysius is purported to have responded to Paul of Samosota in words that describe Mary as the Tabernacle:
“As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, so neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God’s Virgin Mother.” (Livius, p. 81, citing S. Dionysius of Alexandria, Respons. ad Quoest. v. Pauli Samos)
“Not in a servant did He dwell, but in His holy tabernacle not made with hands, which is Mary the Mother of God” (Livius, p. 81, citing Dionysius, Respons. ad Quoest. vii. Pauli Samos)
The most obvious problem with these citations from Dionysius is that he has Mary as the Tabernacle, not the Ark. But the larger problem, a problem acknowledged by no less than Cardinal Newman, is that Dionysius’ alleged response to Paul of Samosota is a forgery (King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England, (Oxford Universitiy Press, 2009) 139 – 140).
Gregory Thaumaturgus
Gregory Thaumaturgus is alleged to have written that Mary was the Ark:
“For the holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.” (Gregory Thaumaturgus (213 – 270 A.D.), First Homily)
The problem with this citation is that the Homilies attributed to Thaumaturgus are considered, even by Roman Catholics, to be spurious. Even Livius, who was attempting to find in the Homilies evidence of early devotion to Mary, conceded that the Homilies were “of doubtful genuineness” (Livius, p. 48n). Schaff, in his Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 6, lists them under doubtful or spurious works.
Methodius of Olympus
Methodius is alleged to have written that the Ark was an image and type of Mary:
“For if to the ark, which was the image and type of thy sanctity, such honour was paid of God that to no one but to the priestly order only was the access to it open, or ingress allowed to behold it, the veil separating it off, and keeping the vestibule as that of a queen, what, and what sort of veneration is due to thee from us who are of creation the least, to thee who art indeed a queen.” (Methodius of Olympus, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, Chapter 5)
The problem here is that Methodius’ Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna is so hopelessly compromised that it cannot be trusted. Parts of it appear to have been added later, and possibly have been confused and conflated with the works of a 9th century monk of the same name. Consider, for example, the fact that Methodius starts the oration by insisting that unlike the Ark of the Old Covenant, the Ark of the New Covenant can be touched, and that Ark is Christ:
“No second time is an Uzziah [Uzzah—2 Samual 6:7] invisibly punished, for daring to touch what may not be touched; for God Himself invites, and who will stand hesitating with fear? He says: ‘Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden.“ Who, then, will not run to Him?’ ” (Methodius of Olympus, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, Chapter 1)
Then for some unexplained reason, “Methodius” later in the same document changes his tune and says that, just like the Ark of the Old Covenant, the Ark of the New Covenant cannot be touched, and that Ark is Mary:
“For if to the ark, which was the image and type of thy sanctity, such honour was paid of God that to no one but to the priestly order only was the access to it open, or ingress allowed to behold it, the veil separating it off, and keeping the vestibule as that of a queen, what, and what sort of veneration is due to thee from us who are of creation the least, to thee who art indeed a queen.” (Methodius of Olympus, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, Chapter 5)
Because Methodius is corrupted beyond any realistic guarantee of ante-Nicene authenticity, Schaff gives this cautionary note about him:
“The Banquet [of the Ten Virgins] appears to me a genuine work, although, like other writings of this Father, it may have been corrupted. Tokens of such corruptions are not wanting, and there can be little doubt that Methodius the monkish artist and missionary of the ninth century has been often copied into the works of his earlier namesake.” (Schaff, General Note on Methodius, AnteNicene Fathers, Volume 6)
Clearly, “Methodius” can hardly be used as early support for the doctrine of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.
Ephraem the Syrian
Ephraem is alleged to have written that the Ark referred to Mary:
“With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib [i.e., Mary], a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon. For in that ark [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror.” (Ephraem the Syrian, Hymns on the Nativity, Hymn 3, cited in Livius,The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, p 66)
The problem with this citation is that Mary had to be edited into Ephraem’s work in order to force him to see Mary as the Ark. When Ephraem says “from the rib” there arose a power to cut off Satan as Dagon, he is referring to Eve and the promise of Genesis 3:15—a prophecy that even pope John Paul II acknowledges is a reference to Christ not to Mary (John Paul II, General Audience, January 24, 1996, paragraph 3). When Ephraem says “in that ark, a book was hidden” he is referring to “that ark” in the Dagon narrative of 1 Samuel 5:1-5, when the ark was placed in the temple of Dagon, and by its very presence, destroyed the idol. This is clear from the fact that Ephraem says “that ark” contained a prophecy of the Conqueror, i.e., the book of the Law (Deuteronomy 31:26). We note that Ephraem did not say “that ark” contained the Conqueror, but contained a written prophecy of the Conqueror in the book of the Law.
That Ephraem did not see Mary as the Ark may also be seen from Hymn 11 of his Hymns on the Nativity. Just when Ephraem should have identified Mary as the Ark that contained Jesus, he passes the opportunity by and instead has Mary as the Tablet of the Law that contained Jesus, apparently a reference to the “tablet of flesh” upon which the Word of God was written. He starts by setting up an Ark parallel:
“The woman ministers before the man, because he is her head. Joseph rose to minister before his Lord, Who was in Mary. The priest ministered before Your ark by reason of Your holiness.” (Ephraim the Syrian, Hymns on the Nativity, Hymn 11)
Here Ephraem could have said “The woman minsters before the man, Joseph rose to minister before Mary who contained Christ. The priest ministered before Your ark,” making Mary the Ark. But instead, he has Joseph ministering before Christ, as the woman ministers before man, and as the priest ministers before the Ark—making Christ the Ark. That Ephraem’s missed opportunity was intentional and not incidental is evidenced by the very next sentence in which he says that Mary is the Tablet in whom Christ was dwelling:
Moses carried the tables of stone which the Lord wrote, and Joseph bare about the pure Tablet in whom the Son of the Creator was dwelling. The tables had ceased, because the world was filled with Your doctrine.” (Ephraim the Syrian, Hymns on the Nativity, Hymn 11)
We cannot imagine a better opportunity for an early patristic writer to identify Mary as the Ark. That is, Ephraem should have written,
“Joseph rose to minister before Mary which contained Christ … The priest ministered before Your ark … and Joseph bare about the pure Ark in whom the Son of the Creator was dwelling.”
Just when Ephraim could have identified Mary as the Ark, he instead calls her the Tablet. As missed opportunities go, that was a big one.
Of course, we do not need to grasp at Ephraem’s understanding merely by his omission. Even Livius, who was only too happy to edit Mary into Ephraem’s 3rd Hymn on the Nativity, acknowledges what we suspected all along: Ephraem, when left to himself, actually expresses plainly that Jesus’ body was the Ark of the New Covenant:
“And Bezaleel made an ark of undecaying wood, a type of the Body of Immanuel, which is incorruptible and not soiled by sin.” (Livius, p. 76, citing Ephraem on Exodus 37).
In summary, there is a long line of evidence showing that from the earliest days of Christianity, there was a belief that the Ark somehow signified Christ’s incarnation, and to a lesser degree, the Church, and in the case of Paula and Eustochium, the Lord’s tomb. But the early evidence for Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant simply does not exist. If it were not for the forged, edited, compromised and corrupted evidence, Roman Catholicism would have no evidence at all for the antiquity of the belief.
We invite our readers to peruse Steve Ray’s compilation of “evidence” from the early church fathers in his document, Ark of the New Covenant -Quotes from the Fathers. Take note of how casually he attempts to backfill the ante-Nicene church with the novelty of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, including the forgeries and corruptions we noted above. For example, he places the testimony of Hesychius prior to Nicæa, i.e., “Hesychius (lived c. 300).” But even the Catholic Encyclopedia recognizes that Hesychius lived in the 5th century, not “c. 300” before Nicæa:
“Presbyter and exegete, probably of the fifth century. Nothing certain is known as to the dates of his birth and death (433?), or, indeed concerning the events of his life.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Heyschius of Jersusalem)
Ray also includes several quotes from Ambrose and Athanasius at the latter part of the 4th century, with the additional notation, “Int. opp.” which means “inter opera,” or literally “among the works.” The notation means that the cited reference is not certainly known to be from the church father, but has simply been found among his works.
The short story on Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant is that Roman Catholicism has a team of historiographical engineers and historical revisionists working around the clock to find valid evidence of the ante-Nicene antiquity of the doctrine, and there is no limit to their creativity and no bounds to their editorial skills. Surely, a breakthrough is expected at any moment. In their minds, if the Roman Catholic Church teaches it today, it simply must have existed somewhere in the early church. Until then, you are asked to trust Steve Ray’s assurances that the belief of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant “is nothing new” and “was taught and celebrated early in Christian history.” <wink, wink>
While Rome’s apologists continue their search for the lost evidence of Mary as the Ark, we commend to our readers our article on the topic: Was Mary the Mother of John the Baptist, Too? There is a reason the Scriptures do not speak of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.
TIM–
In light of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and the veneration of relics, I noticed in one of your quotations was stated:
“The Jews of old reverenced the Holy of Holies, because of the things contained in it— the cherubim, the mercy-seat, the ark of the covenant, the manna, Aaron’s rod, and the golden altar. [Hebrews 9:3-5] Does the Lord’s sepulchre seem less worthy of veneration? As often as we enter it we see the Saviour in His grave clothes, and if we linger we see again the angel sitting at His feet, and the napkin folded at His head. Long before this sepulchre was hewn out by Joseph, its glory was foretold in Isaiah’s prediction, ‘his rest shall be glorious,’ [Isaiah 11:10] meaning that the place of the Lord’s burial should be held in universal honor.” (Jerome, Letter 46, Paula and Eustochium to Marcella, paragraph 5)
The veneration of relics falls hand in hand with the veneration of the saints. The relics of the Crucifixion are most venerated–pieces of the True Cross (including the nails and the superscription), the spear point of the lance of Saint Longinus, the Shroud of Turin, the Sudarium of Oviedo, the Crown of Thorns, etc. There is no doubt that relics are a very important part of the veneration of the living history of Jesus and the saints. Even St. Mary Magdalene’s relics have a long history.
This in itself opens the door to an interesting puzzle: why is there an unusual absence of the relics of the most venerated saint of them all, the Virgin Mary?
Bob,
Your question assumes that the relics are all authentic, and then based on their authenticity, I am asked to wonder why there are no relics of Mary when we have so many other authentic relics from other saints.
But when veneration of relics was first introduced toward the end of the 4th century, the inability to authenticate them was part—only part—of Vigilantius’ objection. He referred to the relics as “the mysterious something or other which you carry about” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 5). And who can blame him? Ambrose claimed to have found in the 4th century the relics of 2nd century martyrs Protasius and Gervasius “lying hidden under the unnoted turf” still wet with blood (Ambrose, Letter 22, par. 5 & 11). Sure he did. 😉 But the first martyr, Stephen, when found, was nothing but dust and dry bones. Why am I to believe any of this about the relics to be valid when it is clear that for the preceding centuries, martyrs and other deceased were buried?
And what of Mary Magdalene’s relics? What is their pedigree?
Do you find that credible?
Am I really to weigh the significance of the dearth of Marian relics based on the “authenticity” of the Magdalenian relics? The 6th century is about the time the legend of the assumption began (EWTN: The Dormition of Mary). Does it really shock you that about the same time they “realized” that Mary’s tomb was empty, they were able to find relics of Magdalene but could not find relics of Jesus’ mother?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Your question assumes that the relics are all authentic… But when veneration of relics was first introduced toward the end of the 4th century, the inability to authenticate them was part…of Vigilantius’ objection…. And who can blame him? Ambrose claimed to have found…Sure he did. But the first martyr, Stephen, when found, was nothing but dust and dry bones. Why am I to believe any of this about the relics to be valid when it is clear that for the preceding centuries, martyrs and other deceased were buried?”
We all know that you don’t believe any “of this malarchy” about relics. You have made that crystal clear. But in the realm of those who do believe in the actual remnants of real people who walked the earth many years ago, there is a mentality of reverence to those objects who belonged to the special people mentioned in the Scripture. Even Scripture itself has a following of those who revere it as something from God and should be venerated. And the only reason you believe that Scripture is the word of God is because someone else told you it was. There is no physical evidence to prove it. So just play like there really is something to this relic thing, ok?
I take it you don’t believe that the Virgin Mary was forever virgin, or immaculately conceived, or even assumed into heaven. She was just a person just like everyone else. She was not a martyr like other of her contemporaries were but she was revered as the mother of Jesus and you must believe that she was buried as others were in the early church.
Now, that being said, other revered Christians’ graves were placed in sacred places and care was taken to preserve their tombs and mark the graves so that they could be remembered by many subsequent generations, even down to the very dusty and dry bones. Since Mary was such an important figure associated with Christ, one would think that she would be important enough that her relics would be preserved in a tomb well enough that she would be remembered as the important figure she was.
Tradition has it that Mary died and was placed in her tomb and then, after 3 days, her body was assumed into heaven. If that is not the case, then where are her bones, and why are they not venerating those as relics???
Would it be wrong to assume that you, Tim, believe the Roman Catholic Church is making this story up? Why do you think Mary’s tomb is empty?
BOB – all these wacky theories Tim writes about can only be true if the Church is being led by satan himself. You see, satan is smarter than God.
Also, we know it’s unheard of, and therefore unreasonable to assume that humans venerate mothers of important people much less the Mother of God!
Bob, you wrote,
That is correct. She would have lost her physical virginity in partu, and her sexual virginity rendering to Joseph the “due benevolence” that a wife renders to her husband (1 Corinthians 7:3).
I see no reason why I should believe that she was. Jesus touched lepers and whores (Mark 1:41, Luke 7:39), asked for a drink from an adulteress (John 4:7), asked for lodging from a tax collector (Luke 19:5), was adored by prostitutes (Luke 7:37-38), feted by sinners (Luke 5:29) and pursued by the ceremonially unclean, and He received them (Matthew 9:20, Luke 17:14). I see no reason why he could not receive lodging within a sinful woman or receive his first meal from a sinner. Nothing requires that she be sinless, and for 3 centuries nobody thought she was.
I don’t know why she would be.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. You appear to be describing a burial here, and I agree. That is what they did back then.
One would think a lot of things, but you are assuming something that is not true. The early church did not think that way. Here is what Evangelical Catholic Apologetics says about this:
So, no, I cannot grant “that she would be important enough…,” and therefore validate your assumption. You have to prove it, not just assume it.
You just made a leap from “preserve their tombs and mark the graves,” which was certainly done during the first 300 years, to “preservation of relics,” which was not done for the first 300 years. I can’t agree with you on that one. The data does not support your assumption.
That is a later tradition. Its origins are from after 400 A.D..
.
We have never found the Holy Grail, either. Does that prove that there was no Last Supper? We have never found the bones of the donkey Jesus rode on at His triumphal entry. But you know there was a Last Supper. And you know there was a donkey. How do you know these things if you cannot even find the relic of His cup or the bones of the donkey?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “We have never found the Holy Grail, either.”
It was never lost. http://www.catedraldevalencia.es/en/el-santo-caliz_historia.php
“Does that prove that there was no Last Supper?”
Does reading the Bible prove it?
“We have never found the bones of the donkey Jesus rode on at His triumphal entry. But you know there was a Last Supper. And you know there was a donkey.”
Does reading the story in the Bible prove it?
“How do you know these things if you cannot even find the relic of His cup or the bones of the donkey?”
See above for the cup. As far as the donkey is concerned, I’m relatively sure Jews didn’t bury the bones of a donkey in a grave or a tomb to memorialize it. There’s no writings much less anyone teaching that the Jews did, anyway. Which is why we believe anything to be true at all–someone has to teach us it is true. Unless we were there to actually experience it ourselves as eye witnesses, that is the only way.
How do you know about Calvinism?
TIM–
You also said: “She would have lost her physical virginity in partu, and her sexual virginity rendering to Joseph the “due benevolence” that a wife renders to her husband (1 Corinthians 7:3).”
Not necessarily. Joseph had a rather unusual relationship with Mary.
Protoevangelium of James (c. 150)
More from Steve Ray –
Why do Catholics call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant? Answering that question will take us on a thrilling journey through the Old and New Testaments.
For example, Luke wove some marvelous things into his Gospel that only a knowledgeable Jew would have understood—a Jew who knew Jewish Scripture and had eyes to see and ears to hear. One of the things he would have understood is typology.
We all know that the Old Testament is full of stories, people, and historical events. A type is a person, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something in the New Testament. It is like a taste or a hint of something that will be fulfilled or realized. Types are like pictures that come alive in a new and exciting way when seen through the eyes of Christ’s revelation. Augustine said that “the Old Testament is the New concealed, but the New Testament is the Old revealed” (Catechizing of the Uninstructed 4:8).
The idea of typology is not new. Paul says that Adam was a type of the one who was to come—Christ (Rom 5:14). Early Christians understood that the Old Testament was full of types or pictures that were fulfilled or realized in the New Testament.
Here are a few more examples of biblical typology:
Peter uses Noah’s ark as a type of Christian baptism (1 Pt 3:18-22).
Paul explains that circumcision foreshadowed Christian baptism (Col 2:11-12).
Jesus uses the bronze serpent as a type of his Crucifixion (Jn 3:14; cf. Nm 21:8-9).
The Passover lamb prefigures the sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor 5:7).
Paul says that Abraham “considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back” (Heb 11:19).
The Ark of the Old Covenant
God loved his people and wanted to be close to them. He chose to do so in a very special way. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The prayer of the people of God flourished in the shadow of the dwelling place of God’s presence on earth, the ark of the covenant and the temple, under the guidance of their shepherds, especially King David, and of the prophets” (CCC 2594). God instructed Moses to build a tabernacle surrounded by heavy curtains (cf. Ex 25-27). Within the tabernacle he was to place an ark made of acacia wood covered with gold inside and out. Within the Ark of the Covenant was placed a golden jar holding the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant (cf. Heb 9:4).
When the ark was completed, the glory cloud of the Lord (the Shekinah Glory) covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Ex 40:34-35; Nm 9:18, 22). The verb for “to cover” or “to overshadow” and the metaphor of a cloud are used in the Bible to represent the presence and glory of God. The Catechism explains:
In the theophanies of the Old Testament, the cloud, now obscure, now luminous, reveals the living and saving God, while veiling the transcendence of his glory—with Moses on Mount Sinai, at the tent of meeting, and during the wandering in the desert, and with Solomon at the dedication of the temple. In the Holy Spirit, Christ fulfills these figures. The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and “overshadows” her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus. On the mountain of Transfiguration, the Spirit in the “cloud came and overshadowed” Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and “a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!’” Finally, the cloud took Jesus out of the sight of the disciples on the day of his Ascension and will reveal him as Son of Man in glory on the day of his final coming. The glory of the Lord “overshadowed” the ark and filled the tabernacle. (CCC 697)
It’s easy to miss the parallel between the Holy Spirit overshadowing the ark and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, between the Ark of the Old Covenant as the dwelling place of God and Mary as the new dwelling place of God.
God was very specific about every exact detail of the ark (Ex 25-30). It was a place where God himself would dwell (Ex 25:8). God wanted his words—inscribed on stone—housed in a perfect container covered with pure gold within and without. How much more would he want his Word—Jesus—to have a perfect dwelling place! If the only begotten Son were to take up residence in the womb of a human girl, would he not make her flawless?
The Virgin Mary is the living shrine of the Word of God, the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant. In fact, St. Luke’s account of the Annunciation of the angel to Mary nicely incorporates the images of the tent of meeting with God in Sinai and of the temple of Zion. Just as the cloud covered the people of God marching in the desert (cf. Nm 10:34; Dt 33:12; Ps 91:4) and just as the same cloud, as a sign of the divine mystery present in the midst of Israel, hovered over the Ark of the Covenant (cf. Ex 40:35), so now the shadow of the Most High envelops and penetrates the tabernacle of the New Covenant that is the womb of Mary (cf. Lk 1:35). (Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, The Shrine: Memory, Presence and Prophecy of the Living God)
King David and Elizabeth
Luke weaves additional parallels into the story of Mary—types that could be overlooked if one is unfamiliar with the Old Testament. After Moses died, Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Joshua established the Ark of the Covenant in Shiloh, where it stayed for more than 200 years. One day the Israelites were losing a battle with the Philistines, so they snatched the ark and rushed it to the front lines. The Philistines captured the ark, but it caused them great problems, so they sent it back to Israel (1 Sm 5:1-6:12).
David went out to retrieve the ark (1 Sm 6:1-2). After a man named Uzzah was struck dead when he touched the ark, David was afraid and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months. We are also told that David danced and leapt in front of the ark and everyone shouted for joy. The house of Obed-edom, which had housed the ark, was blessed, and then David took the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6:9-14).
Compare David and the ark to Luke’s account of the Visitation:
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” (Lk 1:39-45)
Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. I have been to both Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided), and they are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.
When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Elizabeth uses almost the same words: “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Luke is telling us something—drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.
When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb—and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark. The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.
When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.
The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22).
It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.
The Old Testament tells us that one item was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant while in the Sinai wilderness: God told Moses to put the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inside the ark (Dt 10:3-5). Hebrews 9:4 informs us that two additional items were placed in the Ark: “a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded.” Notice the amazing parallels: In the ark was the law of God inscribed in stone; in Mary’s womb was the Word of God in flesh. In the ark was the urn of manna, the bread from heaven that kept God’s people alive in the wilderness; in Mary’s womb is the Bread of Life come down from heaven that brings eternal life. In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary’s womb is the true priest. In the third century, St. Gregory the Wonder Worker said that Mary is truly an ark—”gold within and gold without, and she has received in her womb all the treasures of the sanctuary.”
While the apostle John was exiled on the island of Patmos, he wrote something that would have shocked any first-century Jew. The ark of the Old Covenant had been lost for centuries—no one had seen it for about 600 years. But in Revelation 11:19, John makes a surprising announcement: “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.”
At this point chapter 11 ends and chapter 12 begins. But the Bible was not written with chapter divisions—they were added in the 12th century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative.
What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child” (Rv 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rv 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.
But does this passage really refer to Mary? Some say the woman represents Israel or the Church, and certainly she does. John’s use of rich symbolism is well known, but it is obvious from the Bible itself that the woman is Mary. The Bible begins with a real man (Adam), a real woman (Eve), and a real serpent (the devil)—and it also ends with a real man (Jesus, the Last Adam [1 Cor 15:45]), a real woman (Mary, the New Eve [Rv 11:19-12:2]), and a real serpent (the devil of old). All of this was foretold in Genesis 3:15.
John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote about this passage in Revelation:
What I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image unless there had existed a Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the “man-child” spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not “the Woman” an allusion to his mother? (On the Blessed Virgin Mary)
Later in the same chapter we read that the devil went out to persecute the woman’s other offspring—Christians—which certainly seems to indicate that Mary is somehow the mother of the Church (Rv 12:17).
Me – Tim you conclude with certainty that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon” on much less biblical support.
Mary, the Ark As Revealed in Mary’s Visit to Elizabeth
Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant Mary: Ark of the New Covenant
Ark-The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1-11).
Mary-Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39).
Ark-Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14).
Mary-John the Baptist – of priestly lineage – leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41).
Ark-David asks, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam. 6:9).
Mary-Elizabeth asks, “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43).
Ark-David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15).
Mary-Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary (Luke 1:42).
Ark-The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11).
Mary-Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).
Ark-The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:11).
Mary-The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Luke 1:39-45).
Ark-The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11). Mary-Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22).
Mary as the Ark Revealed by Items inside the Ark
Tim – as you can see, Mary as the arc of the new covenant can be explained using Scripture Alone.
I also find it interesting that you don’t address Steve’s biblical support and why his typology is unsound. You focus on early church writtings but ignore his argument from scripture
Thanks, CK,
The intent of this article was to show that that Steve Ray was wrong to claim that the belief could be traced to the earliest days of Christianity. I used his citations from the Fathers to show that what he was saying was not true.
In another article, one which I linked from this week’s article, called Was Mary the Mother of John the Baptist, Too? I address Steve Ray’s arguments from Scripture.
Thanks,
Tim
Fair enough.
Typical. You only address in detail Aaron’s Rod and basically ignore everything else that points to Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. All straight from Scripture.
I also find it humorous how you accuse Catholics of looking for Mary everywhere and don’t realize you do the same with identifying Rome as the antichrist.
I’m still baffled how you trust Rome to identify scripture for you. I guess you just have to make it work for you since all your conspiracy theories hinges on Rome being the antichrist.
CK–
Kudos! Go, man, go!
Tim-But as we have shown above, Hippolytus has already identified Jesus—”the Saviour himself”—as the Ark, and then he continues in the very same paragraph, making it crystal clear that he thought Jesus’ “own body” was the Ark:
Me-this is good… One who is honestly seeking truth should look at an authors body of work to get his true meaning and belief. Sadly you didn’t take this approach when addressing the Eucharist and Augustine. But I digress.
Ck.
I’ve explained al the Lucan stuff to Tim before but he sneezed it off because of his agenda.
I do appreciate Tim’s link to the Steve Ray stuff though. I had not seen it before and am thrilled by it.
Tim’s ploy is to imply that before Nicea the Church taught one thing and morphed into paganism immediately after. That theory predates Tim.
Anyway, here is a tidbit you should enjoy, speaking of the Ark knocking over an breaking the head of Dagon;
When Cortez got to Mexico City he was ushed into a horrible room full of idols of all kinds. The Aztecs even had statues of gods sodomizing other gods. They had pans of human hearts smoldering over coals. Blood splashed everywhere. It was a scene right out of hell.
Cortez erected a small statue of Mary amidst this ghoulish scene ( I think it was Our Lady of Remedios ). The Spanish left it there overnight and when they came back the next morning the idols of the demons had all been knocked over and shattered which infuriated the heathens.
Thanks Jim. I hadn’t heard that bit of history.
Yes, that is some interesting stuff from Steve Ray, which is why I posted it in the comments section for those lurkers who don’t click on the link.
Jim, you wrote,
I don’t believe I’ve ever taught that here. If so, would you let me know where? I will be happy to correct it.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
What exactly is the date you use? Wasn’t it the latter half of the 4th century? That would be just a couple of decades after Nicea right?
Jim, “immediately” means “occurring or done at once,” and I have never alleged that the Church became pagan immediately after the council of Nicæa in 325 A.D.. The latter part of the 4th century is not “immediately” after Nicæa.
Thanks,
Tim
Was it 350 or 351 A.D. then, Tim?
Tim,
You write, “I am a believer in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. I was once a follower of the visions of Mary at Fatima, Guadalupe and Lourdes, among others…”.
I was clicking on the list of topics you write about on the right hand side of your page to find something on “salvation by grace alone in Christ alone”.
I am curious to see what you have to say on the classic Protestant/Catholic issues of Sola Fides and Sola Scriptura.
I clicked on “Justification” only to find an attempted debunking of Sistser Faustina.
I then decided to see what you have to say on Tradition vs Bible Alone only to find an attack on the Eucharist.
I do remember you making a brief attempt ( for about a week? ) to address the Epistle of James. However, Nick put some hard questions to you and, if memory serves, you demurred answering at that time and took a rain check. That was about twoish years ago and I have been waiting for you to get around to finishing the discussion all this time. You have found time to write quite a bit on the Pope, Baptismal regeneration and the Book of Daniel but haven’t found time to finish the one Catholic/Protestant debate point ever found on this blog.
Tim, do you ever actually promote Reformation soteriology or the Bible Alone?
It seems like you have volumes to say on Catholic devotions, Sacraments, Mary and such but almost zero to say on where you stand on being a bona fide Protestant.
Do you define yourself by what you don’t believe or what you actually do believe?
We know you are no longer a follower of “Fatima, Guadalupe and Lourdes”. But what about your “salvation through faith in Christ alone”.
Are you really a Protestant or just an anti-Catholic?
Tim,
I’m sure I speak for others when I say it would be nice to read your “conversion” story. You know, how you went from being a bead infested, priest venerating devotee to Fatima and Lourdes to a follower of Christ.
Was it sudden or did it take years of prayer and questioning? Were you mentored by a John MacArthur as was Kelvin F.?
Was there a cooling off or transition period between being a zealous Catholic and prior to turning into a Calvinist? Were you a New Ager in that interim? An atheist? On drugs or booze?
Was it the iron clad consistency of the TULIP that did it? Or did you toy with arminianism for a while?
I am fascinated by the psychology of apostasy. Whenever I meet a J.W. over here I immediately ask if they had once been Catholic and what was it about the Trinity they found so unbelievable but why they found the Michael=Jesus line so believable? I ask why they mistrusted their own parents and catechists but believed two frumpy strangers who happened to ring their doorbell out of the blue.
Perhaps some of the lurkers might find your testimony moving. You know, like that of Alberto Riviera or Fr. Chuck Chiniquy.
I remember Waltz’s own very moving testimony how , when he was a teenager still enslaved to the Romish system, he was forced to pull a rope to ring a bell calling the romish sheep to Mass. This simple event was enough to cause the scales to fall from Waltzes eyes. He then turned to all things Scottish for succor ( I did not say. “sucker” ) and has been pleased to have escaped from the Harlot ever since.
So, could you share your story with us? I promise not to guffaw, snicker or wink at CK. You know you can trust me to handle your feelings with the same consideration you and Falloni would mine.
Tim,
Could you pin it down to three doctrines that you realized were bogus that drove your out of being a deeply devoted to Fatima and Lourdes into Protestantism?
Was it the lax morality of the Catholics you knew?
Or did you go away to university and listened to the lectures of atheists professors that caused you to question the Faith of your boyhood. After losing all belief and drifting into sex, drugs and rock n’ roll, you found yourself wandering aimlessly through life when you met a Christian. There was something about the cut of his jib, the confidence he had, the gleam in his eye that made you curious . When he told you a he was a Christian, you snapped back with, ” Don’t give me that God stuff! I was raised Catholic and I know God is a hoax!”, he ( let’s call him, “Ted” ), said, ” Tim, if you were raised Catholic, you never knew the Jesus I know. You were taught to worship statues, not Jesus”.
You told him you didn’t want to hear it but accepted the little pocket edition of the Gideon Bible he offered you.
You went home that night confused and angry. All night the memories of glow in the dark crucifixes and idols, priests molesters and nuns with giant rulers to spank you with , kept flooding in. You thought your head was going to burst.
But there was something about what Ted had said you couldn’t shake. He had said, ” Your Catholic Jesus is bread. The real Jesus is in not”.
You got out of bed and staggered across the room to where your the Bible Ted had given you lay on the floor where you had cast it. Never having seen a Bible as a Catholic lad, you picked it up and you opened it to, ” Call no man Father”.
Suddenly, you fell to your knees weeping. Everything Ted had told you was true!
That night, you gave yourself to the Lord.
Jim,
I was born, baptized and raised Roman Catholic. Except for kindergarten and the first half of 4th grade, I attended Roman Catholic schools through 6th grade. St. Patrick’s in Carlsbad, CA, and Our Lady of the Angels in Worcester, MA. My family often prayed the rosary together after dinner, attended the stations of the cross, and went to expositions of the sacrament, sometimes arriving early at church to adore the Eucharist. I received all the sacraments through confirmation, and really thought I was going to be a priest. When we lived in Massachusetts we spent many a summer day at the monastery at Still River, and I spent a whole summer there between my 8th & 9th grade years in Junior High School. I had my scapular and my miraculous medal, which I wore faithfully. I also had my own rosary, which I prayed faithfully. And I was deeply devoted to the visions of Mary. Since I as a child I was an altar boy and often assisted at Mass. When I was in college, I was in a discernment group for young men considering the priesthood, attended several discernment retreats, met weekly with other men who were considering the calling, and frequented Regis University in Denver for various retreats and other gatherings. I attended several “Teens Encounter Christ” retreats through a local Catholic ministry, and one summer I spent my spring break at Conception Seminary in Missouri as I continued considering the priesthood. One night at dinner, I announced to my family that I would be leaving college and would begin attending Regis to study for the priesthood the next fall. I never actually followed through on that, and instead finished my degree at the University of Colorado.
I moved to Huntsville, Alabama to take a job with NASA, and had every intent of joining one of the several Catholic Churches there. But I fell in with a very kind group of people at Calvary Bible Church and even though I was deeply and personally offended that they did not believe Catholics were Christians, and even though I wore them out with my arguments for the rosary, transubstantiation, papal infallibility, purgatory the immaculate conception, the assumption, etc., etc., etc… they received me kindly and loved me. Because of their kindness, I remained, attending bible studies and church services weekly. The Bible was preached verse by verse and over the course of the next eight months I was immersed in the Scriptures. Not only was I involved in various studies in Acts, 2 Samuel, 1 John and Romans, but I was also deeply engaged in personal study as well. I was captivated.
I remember one Sunday morning suddenly realizing during the sermon that God had punished Jesus on the Cross in my place, so that there was no need to punish me. I was amazed at the magnitude of the Sacrifice He had made in my place, and the love He had for me, personally. That He had purchased me, and at great cost and had become sin in my place, and by faith had transferred to me His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). All the sins, the immorality, the idolatry and error of my past had been taken away that fateful day at the cross, and not only that, but all of my future sins as well. I was so taken with the realization of what Christ had done for me, that I went from person to person at church that Sunday morning telling them the good news, only to realize that, until that morning, I was the only one there who had not realized it.
I had been born again. He saved me by the preaching of the Word, and faith had come by hearing.
By the grace of God I continue walking in Him by faith, learning to walk in His statutes.
Tim
TIM said: “By the grace of God I continue walking in Him by faith, learning to walk in His statutes.”
I knew it! Faith is never alone. Faith is accompanied by obedience!
TIM said: “I moved to Huntsville, Alabama to take a job with NASA, and had every intent of joining one of the several Catholic Churches there. But I fell in with a very kind group of people at Calvary Bible Church.”
I like their mission statement.
http://www.cbchsv.org/about-us.html
These guys are solid, non-charismatic, premillennial dispensationalists–real Dallas Theological Seminary kinda folk. One of my favourite pastors is Tommy Nelson with Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas. This guy can teach the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament better that anyone I have ever heard.
I can see why your faith literally exploded with these guys. Why did you leave?
Tim,
You say you “fell in with” a Calvary Chapel who dis not regard you as a Christian, and demeaned Catholic doctrines while intending to join the local Catholic community. How was that possible?
Isn’t that a bit like saying you are going to run to the store to grab a loaf of bread and copping a dime bag of heroin from a street dealer instead?
You say they “received you kindly”. Sounds like a bunch of vampires had you over for dinner and had you for dinner.
Sounds like you had already strayed from the Faith long before you had even met them. Despite your deep devotion to Marian apparitions, you certainly could not have seen your Faith as the Pearl of Great Price, not if you opted to go to Calvary Chapel instead of Mass.
There is no way, in my entire life, have I attended a Protestant service when I should have been attending a Catholic one, say on a Sunday morning.
You had, undoubtedly, been warned about reading material contrary to the Faith and going to Protestant services but, for some reason, chose to disregarded the dangers to your Faith and do so anyway.
Ever been curious as to what the attraction to crystal meth is? Or heroin or crack cocaine? Ever think about trying it just one time to see what could be so addicting about it?
Anybody willing to gamble their life away by dabbling with narcotics is already in need of help, long before the first fix.
Had you never met nice Catholics? Were these Protestants kinder to you than your parents had been?
I know some pretty good Protestant folks. But that has zero to do with doctrine. Nice as they are, they have no history behind them. And nice as they are, nobody should ever be bamboozled into believing such circular reasoning as Bible Alone.
What could these nice Protestant folks you just happen to have fallen in with out of the blue have told you to lose your deep devotion to the miracles of Lourdes, Fatima and Guadalupe?
I bet I could have one them over into my camp.
I clicked on a sight earlier today and see you became an Arminian before finding the true gospel of Calvinism.
Sorry Tim, but like I suspected, you converted away from the Catholic Church more than toward Protestantism.
I bet I could have “won” them over.
Why did you stick around when you felt your faith was slipping? Even Mormons and Witnesses know to travel in pairs so one can drag the other one out of a losing argument or situation where their commitment is wavering.
It doesn’t sound like you Faith was taken from you. It seems like you threw it away without a whimper.
Tim,
Your story still doesn’t explain your zealous anti-Catholicism. Why not just live out your life quietly as a Protestant?
Just because these folks you fell in with were so swell, how does that prove the Catholic Church morphed into the harlot in the latter half of the 4th century?
As for Church Smith and Calvary Chapel, you have got to be kidding!
oops again,
Chuck Smith ( the late ).
Anyway Tim,
http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/
So, your new friends taught you that the early Church was made up of scores of independent local house churches and storefront chapels presided over by democratically elected elders.
They practiced believers Baptism only and that by immersion only. It was an ordinance and not a Sacrament.
The Lord’s Supper was also an ordinance to commemorate what Christ had done once for all and again, not a Sacrament. It could be called a sacrifice but that meant a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, not propitiation.
Mary was an unwashed peasant woman, ignorant of the OT scriptures. She was used mightily bu God as an incubator for the Messiah who would save her from her many sins though.
Over time, those independent little churches coalesced into a megachurch. The elders of Rome grabbed power from the other churches and concocted the Sacramental system. Mary morphed into a goddess.
The nice Jewish carpenter rabbi became the three headed Trinity Deity.
Well, of course you don’t agree with the Jesus part, but the rest is correct, right?
Jim,
Calvary Bible Church is not affiliated with Calvary Chapel.
Thanks,
Tim
oh.
Tim,
“I was amazed at the magnitude of the Sacrifice He had made in my place, and the love He had for me, personally. That He had purchased me, and at great cost”
How could you have been such a zealous Catholic and not known this?
“and had become sin in my place, and by faith had transferred to me His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). ”
The Bible doesn’t teach this, Tim.
“All the sins, the immorality, the idolatry and error of my past had been taken away that fateful day at the cross,”
Immorality? A Devote of Mary was leading an immoral life? Loose sex, dope, stealing?
“and not only that, but all of my future sins as well.”
Then you don’t say the Lord’s Prayer, do you?
The Church in Alabama says,
“K. Christian Conduct
We believe that any form of sexual immorality, such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, pornography or any attempt to change one’s sex, or disagreement with one’s biological sex, is sinful and offensive to God”
But it also says your guys don’t have to worry about losing salvation because, as you say Tim, all your future sin has been taken away too.
If all present and future sins are forgiven, why does it matter if one worship idols now or in the future? Tim you should only focus on bringing people to Jesus. Everything else seems irrelevant.
Tim,
Were these the first Protestants you had ever gotten to know?
My nephews grew up in Spain and never saw anything but Catholics until their early twenties. When they did, one of them was fascinated and started wanting to attend a Protestant church on Sunday rather than going to Mass with the fam. I think he was more interested in bucking parental authority than religion of any sort.
He eventually met a girl and moved in with her. He is now happily shacking up and hates all mention of God.
Tim,
Your mission is to equip Christ’s sheep of the dangers of Romanism?
Why is that even necessary? They are elect, their sins wiped out on Calvary two thousand years ago. Jesus took care of things then, He doesn’t need your filthy rags to help Him, does he?
Tim,
“<I have been known to be a rabid Calvinist at times, trying to get people (mostly Arminians) to grasp the concept that the future is as fixed as the past, and the mere perception of freedom is not proof of it. "
And you say you work for NASA?
Is Savonarola saved? The Wesley Brothers? Bob? We you saved as an Arminian?
Did your anti-Catholicism increase when you flipped to Calvinist?
calvary bible church says,
We reject the current “modern” teachings and practices concerning the gifts of tongues and healing on the basis that these teachings and practices are unbiblical and not the work of the Holy Spirit. (John 3:5-8, 16:7-11; John 14:16,17; 1 Corinthians 12:7-11,12; Ephesians 4:30, 5:18)
Really? On what authority does CBC reject or condemn the practices of other Protestant churches? They go by the Bible Alone too.
Tim,
CBC says,
“The Scriptures also teach the establishment and continuation of local churches, groups of redeemed individuals joined together for worship, instruction, fellowship, and service ”
This would not be the “MY CHURCH” we see established in Matt 16, would it?
These little local churches, does the Holy Spirit guide them all equally? Is one over the other one? Could any one settle doctrinal disputes that break out in another one? Did they agree on all points of doctrine?
How did they violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and coalesce into one Romish, whorish mega church within such a short period of time?
Can you trace this system down through history for me? Could you identify one or some of these little storefront churches for me? Could you name any teachers or teachings?
Did these churches have Bibles? How many per community? Could most of the folks read? Could they afford their own hand copied scrolls of the Bible? Were these Bible churches in agreement on the canon?
Were these little churches united in rejecting the Marian doctrines? Did they all have the same doctrine of the Lord’s Supper?
Were these churches aware on one another?
Tim,
As a Calvinist, do you pray for your children to be elect? What if one or some of them are made so the Potter can display His justice?
How do you feel about that? And your wife, is she good with a god who makes men for hell?
When you were a Catholic, you believed Mary was proclaimed mother in the order of grace for every man, woman and child( and angel ) that has ever lived.
Now, as Calvinist, you don’t even believe Jesus died for all men.
You have really made spiritual progress, haven’t you Tim.
You went from believing in a God of Love to different god, huh?
And we can thank those good and loving folk at CBC for your coming to see God hates most men as He did Esau, huh?
Tim,
I ran across a quote from St. Ambrose on the internet today about Mary being the Ark. That is not to take away from your quote saying Christ was the Ark.
But why do you do that Tim? You must be aware of both quotes but you try bamboozling people into thinking Ambrose made only the one statement?
Is that the kind of honestly you acquired at CBC?
( I still want to know about the “immorality” you turned from when you turned into a Protestant. I am dying to know about the immoral lifestyle of someone who was as devoted to the Fatima message as you say you were. )
Jim,
You asked,
You may note, upon a closer reading of my original post, I stated that Ray includes other citations that are allegedly from Ambrose, but that it cannot be certain that Ambrose is the author of them because they are only found “among his works”:
Then, if you go to the link I provided for Steve Ray’s citations of the church fathers (Steve Ray, Ark of the New Covenant -Quotes from the Fathers), you’ll find that Steve Ray himself acknowledges that very thing of the Ambrose citation,
You may also recall that I encouraged readers to read all of Ray’s citations.
Thanks,
Tim
But those quotes probably are from Ambrose, yes?
Tim,
I am so taken with your testimony. I can’t leave it alone.
You wrote,
” remember one Sunday morning suddenly realizing during the sermon that God had punished Jesus on the Cross in my place, so that there was no need to punish me”
Good Grief, Tim! God punished Jesus? I am unaware of this. Could you actually show me where the Bible says this?
Did the pre-nicean or the post nicean, later half of the 4th century, fathers teach this?
At what point did the Romish Whore digress from this? Is Anselm the culprit?
Okay, I have a doctor’s appointment so I gotta run.
Tim,
What I said of Ambrose can probably be said of the other fathers too. My point remains, the same one I accused you of months ago. You rely on hints, innuendo, implications, etc. etc.
The fact that a Father applied something to Christ does not mean he did not apply it to Mary.
You also imply that the Fathers were not Catholic when it comes to Marian doctrine.
Your obsession with “the latter half of the 4th century” is dishonest.
Your whole delivery is dishonest.
That is interesting Jim. Steve Ray cites something for which the author is uncertain, and says “but there’s nothing to say it isn’t Ambrose.” Steve Ray cites Methodius of Olympus from a document that is hopelessly compromised and probably dates from the 9th century. Steve Ray cites Dionysius of Alexendra from a document that is known to be fraudulent. Livius reads Ephraem of Syria who does not sufficiently identify Mary as the Ark, and so Mary has to be edited in.
But in your eyes, because I do not toe the Roman Catholic line, I “rely on hints, innuendo, implications, etc. etc.”
You also write,
Do I? I’ll let the Evangelical Catholic Apologetics association do the talking:
Your frustration, Jim, is not that I am “misrepresenting” the Early Church or even that I am “corrupting” the data. Your frustration is that it is Rome who does all the things of which I am accused, and you are being confronted with the fact that Roman Catholicism was a latecomer, and was founded a full three centuries after the Apostles. I won’t join you in your Protest against the Church of the apostles.
Now, I believe you were going to tell me which Pope said that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Who says a Pope has to say O.S. is infallible in order for it to be infallible? ( Didn’t I just explain this to you a week ago? Or was that Ken Temple? You guys are all alike ).
You have a quote from the Evangelical Catholics on Mary’s holiness.
I do too:
“The universal witness of the Church, from Pentecost until today, has always professed that Mary was without sin.”
So, why didn’t you post BOTH quotes?
Like I said Tim, you are a big fat fibber. A fibber by omission but still a fibber.
Tim,
O.S. ( like Humane Vitae ) fits all the criteria for an infallible statement.
Remember what they were?
This is why I can’t trust Tim’s quotes. His goal is to win the argument not get to the truth. The truth doesn’t need help. Lay it ALL out Tim.
Sure, Jim. We’re not citing the same source, are we? My citation was from ECA’s electronic summary of Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M (1911 – 1990), and William Bernard Ullathorne, O.S.B. (1806 – 1889), which I cited in A Significant Turning Point. It is Ullathorne and Carol who agreed that there just isn’t enough support in the Early Church to support Pius IX’s proclamation that the Church has always held to Mary’s sinlessness.
You were simply citing Mark Bonocore, a contributor there, and his summary of the Roman Catholic position, not an actual summary of the actual history of the doctrine.
It is Bonocore’s stated position that Ullathorne and Carol could not support from the Early Church Fathers.
Just look at Bonocore’s summary statement:
Bonocore dates the Ephraem support to his 27th Nisibene hymn which is dated after 360 A.D., not “c. 350” A.D.
Late 4th century and beyond? That’s the “the earliest days of the Church”?
Oh, wait, Bonocore cites Irenæaus, too, but he can’t do so without interpolating the data and inserting his later Roman Catholic beliefs: “St. Irenaeus uses “virginity” as a sign of sinlessness”.
The problem is, when you get to the experts, they cannot agree with Bonocore on that point. Back to Carol and Ullathorne:
Of course there is a lot in Irenæus about Mary’s condition. You can see it and more at A Significant Turning Point. As Roman Catholic scholars well know, there are a lot of “stray private opinions” (Tertullian, Origen, Irenæus, Basil, Chrysostom, Hilary of Poitiers) about Mary’s sinfulness prior to the end of the 4th century, but not a lot of evidence for her sinlessness.
But for some reason, Bonocore left those citations out…
What Rome cannot figure out is how the Early Church writers could go 300 years completely unaware of their “obligation to represent the Mother of God as utterly sinless.” Yes, that’s a puzzler.
Despite the evidence, Bonocore summarizes,
Mmmmm, hmmmm. Sure it was.
Thanks,
Tim
R.C Sproul Jr. says God is the author of sin and evil. Defend what your fellow Calvinist says!
“I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)
Jim, I never said a pope has to say Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible for it to be considered infallible. I am only responding to your statement that the pope said it was infallible. Which pope said so?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said to Jim: “I never said a pope has to say Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible for it to be considered infallible. I am only responding to your statement that the pope said it was infallible. Which pope said so?”
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”–John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Sounds infallible to me.
Wisdom is applied to Christ. Wisdom is also applied to Mary. It is not an either/or.
Tim,
By the way, you were not sitting in a Catholic church, where you should have been, on that momentous Sunday morning when you realized Jesus had been punished in your stead.
You had already left the Church. You did not hear this heretical and blasphemous nonsense and then decide to jump ship. You were already gone or you would not have skipped your Sunday obligation and decided to go listen to Protestant propaganda one sunny Sunday morning.
Be honest, Tim. Nobody has ever left the Church because Protestant doctrine is more biblical or logical.
Tim,
Are you being cute? Which pope said it was infallible?
Well, which pope promulgated it?
Hey, let’s talk about your belief system for a bit, eh Tim?
The good Calvinist folk you have teamed up with taught you that we Catholics mistakenly believe our own interior sanctification saves us but the Bible says it is forensic justification through an alien righteousness reckoned to our accounts by faith, yes?
But doesn’t Titus 3:5 actually say we are saved by regeneration? Doesn’t it say our renewal by the Holy Spirit saves us?
Check it out Tim, the words “Baptism, renewal, Justification, heirs” are all there in that one little passage. Just like Trent says.
C’mon Tim, we have been talking death wafer and trashing Mary’s Virginity for years now. Let’s take a hiatus and have you defend your superior belief system for a while.
Kevin is not here to bogart the show so you can take your time and really show us how biblical your religion is.
Tim, I ‘m dying to have you develop that business about the Father punishing Jesus on the cross in your stead.
And while you are at it, since we are both old altar boys, teach me where the Bible teaches limited atonement.
If you can’t think of any Bible passages to do so, maybe you could do so from your other area of expertise, the Fathers of the first three centuries, you know, the ones before the Whore rose up in the latter half of the 4th century.
C’mon Tim, show us how you don’t need Kevin to defend Calvinism with his death wafer slurs. You know why you are a Calvinist, don’t you?
You have proven ( tsk tsk, wink wink ) my religion to be a hoax. But that doesn’t establish yours to be the right one. Until you give me some positive evidence for your system, I am floating around in limbo, I can’t go back to worshiping idols and bread after your debunking them. But I have no reason to come on over to your camp until you throw me a line.
Jim, you asked which pope promulgated Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The answer is John Paul II. You also said Ordinatio Sacerdotalis “fits all the criteria for an infallible statement.”
Are you saying that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was promulgated as an ex cathedra statement?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
What difference does it make to you if the Pope you reject made an official “from the chair” statement or if, as head of the Church, made a statement reiterating the constant teaching of the Church?
Just to bring this little smokescreen to an end, O.S. was the latter. But, if memory serves, liberals, always wanting to parse and loophole Church teaching, started asking the kind of questions you are asking so someone asked the pope if he had intended to speak infallibly and he said he had indeed. Now, can we move on?
You see Tim, obedient children don’t sit around asking each other what degree of authority their father had used when he told them not to play with matches in the house or not to watch cartoons after bedtime. They just obey.
Now, let’s get back to you explaining how you could have been saved as an Arminian without even knowing the true ( Reformed ) gospel.
Jim, you asked,
The difference it makes is that the Roman Catholic Church differentiates between the two in exactly those terms:
The problem is that nobody can tell for sure if he’s exercising infallibility, and if he is, nobody knows for sure what kind he is exercising. After you claimed confidently that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible because it met the criteria for infallibility (that is, it met the strict criteria for “ex cathedra” (extraordinary) infallibility as outlined at Vatican I in Pastor Æternus), you then changed your mind and decided that it was simply a restatement by a pope of a belief that had already been declared infallibly (ordinarily) by the church, and not an extraordinary—ex cathedra—statement.
You say (ostensibly to bring this “smokescreen” to an end), between the two options—a “from the chair” statement or … a statement reiterating the constant teaching of the Church—it is the latter.
But the folks at EWTN said it was the former, on the grounds that it absolutely meets the criteria of an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium, an ex cathedra statement according to Vatican I:
At least that’s what EWTN thought in 1994.
But in 1995 Cardinal Ratzinger had to issue a clarification in October 1995, saying that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was “in the deposit of faith,” but that John Paul II had not been exercising extraordinary papal infallibility, but was just restating an ordinary infallible teaching. In other words, it was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, not the extraordinary magisterium.
Now both claims are available at EWTN, for good measure, because even they don’t know which kind it is.
But the Catholics over at US Catholic noted that Cardinal Ratzinger does not have the authority to declare something to be infallible, and therefore, we cannot be certain that Ratzinger’s affirmation of infallibility was itself infallible. After all, extraordinary infallibility does not extend to the college of cardinals. Besides, according to their interpretation, John Paul II had not even used the right formula, and therefore it was clear (to them) that he had not intended to speak infallibly:
So one Catholic says it is a restatement of an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and therefore not an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium, and another Catholic says it absolutely is an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium, because from the wording it is clear that John Paul II intended to make it obvious, another Catholic (Jim) goes back and forth because he does not know, but another Catholic says that John Paul’s wording did not signal an infallible pronouncement, and had he intended to speak infallibly, he would have made it clear that he was doing so.
Bob has probably given the best answer so far:
That’s about the sum of it. Infallibility is in the ear of the hearer and each Catholic makes a determination on the infallibility of the teaching based on his own private interpretation. And this expansive diversity of opinion within Rome is because nobody can figure it out.
I seem to recall one Cardinal Newman saying that there is no revelation if there is no one who can definitively state that which is revealed. Based on the Roman Catholic response to the confusion about whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is, or is not, in the deposit of faith, Roman Catholicism still is not sure whether the exclusive ordination of men is “revealed” or not. Sure, each one is persuaded in his own mind—the very thing Papal Infallbility was supposed to solve! Oh, if only there was an infallible authority who could clarify such things!
The smokescreen, Jim, is not in my question. The smokescreen is in your summary of why it just doesn’t matter whether you can tell that a papal statement is infallible or not:
Yes, of course! And that’s why Roman Catholics still don’t kneel on Sundays before the Eucharist, Roman Catholics deny transubstantiation and Roman Catholics deny that 1 Maccabees is in the Canon of Scripture. Because they don’t question their popes—they just obey them!
I know, I know, Jim. These guys weren’t speaking infallibly at the time. I get it. But that does raise an interesting question: When you are not exercising blind, filial, abject submission to every word that drops from the lips of the pope, how do you tell the difference between the ones that are the actual instruction to the church in the pope’s role as universal shepherd who is to confirm the brethren and which you are supposed to obey, and the other ones you can disregard as his private opinion?
Yes, that is the question. If only there was an infallible bishop in Rome who could sort that out for you.
I can already hear the objections from Roman Catholics—”Tim, don’t you know that everything the pope says is not infallible, and that he only speaks infallibly in very special occasions? You Protestants just don’t get infallibility!”
Jim, I’m pretty sure Roman Catholics don’t get infallibility.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Judging by your short and sweet remark about God being author of all, including sin and evil, could I therefore assume you are a deist? With all the churchy talk of course. They taught that “whatever is, should be”.
The Calvinist schools of New England morphed first into deism and then pantheism. This is a logical step after blurring the distinction between good and bad.
Where along the ladder do you see yourself at the present time?
Do you still see God as a person or more of a force?
Everything is predetermined for you, right?
Tim,
If I were as ignorant as the sheep at Calvary Bible Church where they all ooh and awe over you for having once been a Catholic but escaped and got yourself saved, I would gather that Juniper Carol, Ullathorne and maybe even Bonocore might stand with you against the Pope when it comes to Mary’s sinlessness.
Like I said Tim, innuendo, hint, seed dropping, half truths, and implications are your trademark.
About a year ago I corrected you on certain statements of the Fathers on Mary’s vainglory/fear/scandal. I also remember telling you that Mary’s sinlessness is tied into her title of Perpetual Virgin. You must have forgotten so I won’t bother repeating myself.
So, let’s get back to dissecting your belief system ( or systems ).
You hated the Church when you first got saved as an Arminian, right? It didn’t stated when you swam Lake Geneva, did it?
Like I have said all along, your problem with the Church is not intellectual. It is emotional and spiritual. You are first and foremost an anti-Catholic. You are a Protestant only second.
Timothy,
Shame on you. You caused me to actually get up out of my chair and walk into the next room to get my copy of Ullathorne’s work on the Immaculate Conception.
Opening it I immediately see (pg 93) that Origin, one of your favorite unbelievers in Marian prerogatives, actually said, “Mary, of all women, had never been infected with the serpents poisonous breath”.
He also has addresses your concern about the Ark.(pg 94)
In the chapter on Joachim and Anna, Ullathorne brings out how the Catholic Church had to put down heresies about Mary that wanted to elevate her not only above the sinless state but actually wanted to make her angelic or superhuman. Other heresies wanted to deify her by offering sacrifices to her. The Church had to contain popular devotion. She never had to rouse the faithful into praising her. Just the opposite.
Okay, enough of Ullathorne.
How is it Tim, when you go cherry picking quotes from the Fathers, Ullathorne or even Bonocore, you never actually lie by commission ( not that I know of, not for sure anyway ). But you sure seem to lie by omission. You imply things that the speaker did not mean to say or your draw conclusions and put words into their mouths.
I think this is same same pattern used in your stuff on the Papacy and Baptismal regeneration, yes?
That is why you are a Big Fat Fibber. ( I think you know exactly what I am talking about, eh Tim? )
Jim, you wrote,
Here’s what Ullathorne actually said:
“Amongst the works,” or inter opera, has been a matter of some discussion of late, has it not? Because “amongst the works” means that the work cannot certainly be attributed to Origen. So no, Ullathorne did not attribute that statement to Origen.
So Origen writes, in a work known to be his, “If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord’s Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if ‘all have sinned and lack God’s glory’ … then Mary too was scandalized at that time” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7), which speaks clearly of Mary’s sins, and I am to take that as a stray private opinion.
But a work not known to be attributed to Origen says “She was not infected by the poisonous blasts of the serpent.” And I am to conclude from this citation that Origen held unswervingly to Mary’s sinlessness?
As to Ullathorne’s treatment of the Ark, he simply says it signifies both Jesus and Mary, but he cites no father other than John of Damascus (676 – 787 A.D.). In what way did you think Ullathorne addressed my concerns?
In any case, you say I am a big fat fibber. Such things must be proven, Jim, not merely alleged.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “So Origen writes, in a work known to be his, “If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord’s Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if ‘all have sinned and lack God’s glory’ … then Mary too was scandalized at that time” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7), which speaks clearly of Mary’s sins…”
It actually does not speak of Mary’s sins. It speaks of the perception of others that she sinned. Her scandal at the Cross was that others thought that Jesus was her illegitimate son. That is the contradiction that Origen was speaking about. To the non-believers, it contradicts the foretelling of the virgin birth in Scripture. Believers know Jesus was not a bastard child, so to them, there is no contradiction in the prophets.
Bob, Origen was speaking of Mary’s infidelity to Christ, using the same term to describe Mary’s reaction as Peter’s:
Thanks,
Tim
Exactly! Mary knew that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not a man, but no one else knew that except Joseph. That stigma of being labeled with infidelity will tear her to pieces, knowing that infidelity was not the case, but instead her complete fidelity to God. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary described as anything else. Nor in Tradition for that matter. She was the Lord’s handmaid in complete submission to Him. The “blade of uncertainty” that cut’s Mary was in the hand of those who perceived her as an infidel and Jesus as her bastard son.
That is the contradiction that Origen talks about.. The prophets did not foretell of what they perceived of Mary and Jesus, but what she and Jesus really were. No one wanted to believe the truth about them. At His trial and subsequent crucifixion, the entire nation of Israel looked upon Jesus as a fraud. It is no wonder her heart was pierced.
Tim,
Please explain your eureka moment, when you first realized Jesus had suffered for your sins. It was when you skipped Mass and went to a Protestant service instead, right?
You say you had been so devoted to the Rosary as a Catholic and had even recited it as a family. Only the Joyful and Glorious Mysteries? Never the Sorrowful?
Had you never done the Stations of the Cross or attended a sermon during Holy Week?
Wasn’t there at least one crucifix on your wall at home?
No picture of the Sacred Heart? The nuns never told you about making reparation or “offering up little sacrifices?
Hmmmmm?
Was it at that same sermon you first heard the “good news” that Jesus had suffered only for the elect? And that the Father poured out his wrath on Jesus instead of you?
Didn’t that sound weird? You did believe in the Trinity, right? You know, the doctrine that says Jesus and the Father have one will.
Did the preacher appeal to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah? Or how Jesus “was made sin”?
Did the minister talk about Jesus being imputed a sinner so his righteousness could be reckoned to your account? Didn’t that sound fishy? Have you ever considered going back and checking that out with what the Bible actually says?
JIM–
You said: “You see Tim, obedient children don’t sit around asking each other what degree of authority their father had used when he told them not to play with matches in the house or not to watch cartoons after bedtime. They just obey.”
I like that. Could not have said it better myself. Wasn’t it the Serpent who raised doubt?
Gen 3:1ff Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman,
“Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”
And the woman said unto the serpent,
“We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”
And the serpent said unto the woman,
“Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
Who wants to be told what they can and can’t do, right? Give me liberty or give me death! Anything else is un-American. 😉
And speaking of words from the Chair of Peter, Scott nails it.
http://scottericalt.org/laudato-si-is-a-hard-teaching-and-we-must-accept-it/
Bob,
Thanks for the link. I see this Scott fellow has written a bit on Calvinism and the Fathers too. Looks interesting. I think he used to blog here, for a week or so.
Tim,
Look at the pot calling the kettle black.
You merely allege Jesus did not die for all. You merely allege he was imputed to be a sinner so you could be imputed righteous. You merely impute the Father punished Jesus in your stead. You merely allege we are saved by Faith Alone.
Your mere allegations fly in the face of scripture. Your mere allegations are not supported by the Fathers of the pre-350 A.d. Church either.
TIM and JIM–
So when there is nothing mentioned in the writings of the Early Church Fathers about this belief or that belief or that doctrine or this dogma, isn’t that an argument from silence? Could it be that a certain belief was in existence all along, but didn’t get written about until someone challenged it? That seems to be the MO of the Church when it comes to defining doctrine.
Bob,
Absolutely. Otherwise there would have been an outcry from the faithful when the innovation was introduced.
Tim,
I distinctly recall addressing the statements made by Chrysostom, Tertullian and Origin before so I see no need to repeat myself.
Rather, I am going to need you to explain something you said in your very moving conversion story. You said all of your future sins are forgiven.
Could you explain this in detail? I mean, if this forgiveness was meted out on Calvary, that would mean you were forgiven before you existed as I know you are not 2,000 years old.
If this forgiveness was applied to you at the moment you came to faith, and faith follows regeneration in your system, why don’t you just say you are saved by regeneration? ( Titus 3:5 )
I asked you a few days ago but can’t find your answer about the Lord’s Prayer. Do you need to ask for forgivenss for daily sins if they have already been wiped out on Calvary? Do you merely ask for forgiveness out of gratitude for already being forgiven?
How can I get in on this offer to have my ( as yet ) un-committed future sins forgiven?
Can I remain a Catholic or do I have to join your church? Why would my sin of unbelief (today ), forgiven 2,000 years ago on Calvary, bar me from this forgiveness?
Oh, I almost forgot,
Which of the PRE-350 A.D. Fathers talked about this forgiveness of future sins?
Shucks Tim,
Should I even be hoping to get in on this offer to have all my future sins forgiven? Am I, Jim, blogger extraordinaire and Portuguese riviera boulevardier, even given the offer? Or are only the already elect invited to this exclusive party?
If I am invited, should I make my act of Faith today or wait until the Spirit regenerates me?
HA!
Tim! You did not study the Fathers and conclude they were not Catholic when it came to the issue of Mary ( or the Eucharist, Papacy or Baptism ).
Your problem with this and all other doctrines stems from your having embraced this devilish system that renders everything but election superfluous.
Of course, even before becomeing Deformed, you had rejected the Faith as an Arminian. Calvinism just tied things up nice and neat for you.
Tim,
I see your blockbuster on Mary, “Quite Contrary”, is available by free PDF download all over the internet.
Why? Won’t anyone buy it?
All your hard work and talent.
Has anyone bothered to click on the free download? I haven’t and won’t. I am not interested in the freebie. Not even for apologetics reasons.
You can’t give it away, can you Tim?
Jim,
You’ll get no argument from me. There is an extremely limited market for what I do.
Thanks,
Tim
What exactly is it that you do Tim?
Tim, I understand you are a Presbyterian. You believe in baptizing babies.
If Baptism doesn’t regenerate, why do it? Baptists make more sense that Presbyterians.
Unless the baby is elect. what good does it do?
Tim,
What turned you from Arminianism to Calvinism?
You could have remained a Catholic Church hater as an Arminian. Dan Corner and the late great Dave Hunt are examples of anti-Calvinist /anti-Catholics. You could have stayed an Arminian and hated the Eucharist and Mary just as you do now as a Calvinist.
Was it the good news of positive reprobation? Limited atonement? That God withholds grace from some and passes them over?
Surely it wasn’t the Preservation of the Saints. Dave Hunt believed in OSAS.
So, it had to be the idea that God does not love all men and that Jesus did not die for all. That must be what attracted you. right?
Have you sat your children on your knee and explained to them just how much Jesus loves some children.
( I know you haven’t as it would terrify them. An innocent child can see how horrific your belief system is ).
Jim,
I became a Calvinist because I studied the Scriptures. I have taught my children the absolutely sovereignty of God, Who bows to nothing, no not even to man’s perception of his own “free will,” and who would in vanity protest against his own Maker for daring to violate his “rights.”
Yes, I believe that God has ordained everything whatsoever that comes to pass, and that His foreknowledge is not because He can see the future but rather because He ordained it from eternity past. Yes, I teach my children to fear this God, for the Lord has commanded me to do so:
You have also observed,
Jesus said, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” (John 17:9)
Paul wrote, “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:14)
Paul wrote, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:22-25)
Jesus died for His people. Since the Word cannot return to the Father without accomplishing the purpose for which He sent Him (Isaiah 55:11), then we may safely conclude that Jesus came to save whom He was commanded to save—not one more, not one less.
You continued,
Paul wrote, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Isaiah prophesied, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
… he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; … He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:5-11)
Paul said, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:28)
Do they?
Do they?
You say that you worship a different god than I do. You will get no argument from me.
Tim
Jim wrote:
“Have you sat your children on your knee and explained to them just how much Jesus loves some children.
( I know you haven’t as it would terrify them. An innocent child can see how horrific your belief system is ).”
Where exactly does Scripture teach that all children are innocent of sin? Does this mean that if they are innocent of sin, and have no sin, all children live forever and no children die?
As an extremely warped Catholic Jim, I assume you teach all your followers that no children ever die unless they are murdered and none by natural causes. I assume you teach that sin has nothing to do with death in any of us. That all children never die, and all men do not die if they choose not to sin (it is a free choice right Jim?).
Waiting for your cute one liners that are taking you to hell due to your testimony in rejecting the one true Christ.
Walt,
“Waiting for your cute one liners that are taking you to hell due to your testimony in rejecting the one true Christ.”
Yes, my one liners are cute. Thank you for noticing.
How can I not reject the one true Christ? I am not regenerate, right? Blame God, not me.
Don’t you find it strange that you, a monergist, castigate me when you believe I have no free will to accept Christ anyway. Castigate the Lord if you want to assign blame to the only free agent in the universe.
Blame the puppet master, not the poor dumb puppet.
Do you and Kelvin just enjoy feeling superior to we poor unregenerate slobs? Boasting like the rich pharisee for being favored to not be like the lowly publican.
Rejoice in being elect, good Walt! You were chosen by the potter out of the mass of damned clay and fashioned into a vessel for noble use. I am but a chamber pot. Can a chamber pot change its spots?
Why rant and preach randomly? Confine your message to the elect only as only they can, like Lydia, respond. Don’t cast your seeds on my rocky ground.
Throw your pears before me and, swine that I am, I will just gulp them down and belch and fart them out into the air.
Tim,
“I became a Calvinist because I studied the Scriptures.”
NO WAY JOSE!
You would never have found Limited Atonement in the scriptures unless you were tutored.
And you would never have found man being unable to choose between right and wrong either as it’s all over the Bible.
You would never have found positive reprobation unless you were looking for it already.
And you would not have found man saved ( regenerated ) before being able to believe either.