Active Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

67 Excellent

About StayingPure

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Ask a Catholic! (i.e, me...)

    Ark of the new covenant I love the ark of the covenant argument to defend the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it explains the assumption too. Luke’s gospel tells us more about the mother of Jesus than any other book in the New testament. Most of this information is packed within his first two chapters, where Luke strings some of the most beautiful traditions we have about her life and mission. Let’s talk about the ark of the covenant for a moment: 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? 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. 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 (1 luke:56). 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. Although the Greek verb translated as “exclaimed†seems ordinary enough, it is hardly ever used in the bible. In fact, it is found only here in the entire New Testament. It’s presence in the Greek Old Testament is likewise sparse, appearing only five times. Why is this important? Because every time this expression is used in the Old Testament, it forms part of the stories surrounding the Ark of the Covenant. In particular, it refers to the melodic sounds made by the Levitical singers and musicians when they glorify the lord in song. It thus describes the “exulting†voice of instruments that were played before the Ark as David carried it in procession to Jerusalem ( 1 chron 15:28) ( 1 chron 16:4-5) and as Solomon transferred the ark to its final resting place in the temple ( 2 chron 5:13). Alluding to these episodes, Luke connects this same expression with the melodic cry of another Levitical descendant, the aged Elizabeth ( Lk 1:5). She too lifts up her voice in liturgical praise, not before the golden chest, but before Mary. Luke’s remarkable familiarity with these ancient stories enables him to select even a single word that will whisper to his readers that his young mother of the messiah is the ark of the new covenant. • 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. 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. 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. Psalm 132:8 Arise, LORD, and come to your resting place, you and the ark of your might. St Augustine: Chapter 42 [XXXVI.]— The Blessed Virgin Mary May Have Lived Without Sin. None of the Saints Besides Her Without Sin We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. St. Thomas didn’t reject the fact that Mary had no sin all he said Mary was cleansed of original sin in the womb, rather than conceived without original sin. He still did affirm she was sinless. I believe this was the position of the popes and other church fathers. Other quotes: "He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235). "This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244). I hope I've covered all the points. apologies if anyone is offended and let's keep the argument in here in good spirit
  2. Ask a Catholic! (i.e, me...)

    Perpetual virginity When the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and declared unto her that she was called to be the Mother of God, as we see recorded in Luke 1, her response would become the cause of the spilling of a whole lot of ink over the centuries: “How shall this happen, since I know not man?†(v. 34, Douay Rheims, Confraternity Edition). For Catholics this is an indication of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity. It’s really quite simple. If Mary and Joseph were just an ordinary couple embarking on a normal married life together, there would be no reason to ask the question. Mary would have known very well how it could be that the angel was saying she would have a baby. As St. Augustine said it: Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow (Sermon 225, 2). There was no such thing as engagement (as it is understood in modern Western culture) in ancient Israel. The text says Mary was “betrothed†or “espoused†(Gr.—emnesteumene), not engaged. Betrothal, in ancient Israel, would be akin to the ratification of a marriage (when a couple exchanges vows in the presence of an official witness of the Church) in Catholic theology. That ratified marriage is then consummated—in the normal course—on the couple’s wedding night. So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation. If this were an ordinary marriage, St. Joseph would then have had a husband’s right to the marriage bed—the consummation. For those who are not convinced “betrothed†equals “married†for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the “annunciation†of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph’s discovery of Mary’s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still “betrothed.†Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was “with child,†he determined he would “send her away privately†(vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged? Further, the angel then tells Joseph: Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24). Notice, Joseph took Mary “his wife,†indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be “betrothed.†“Betrothed†is obviously much more than “engaged.†Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be “betrothed†(see Luke 2:5). First, Joseph had already taken his espoused “wife†into his home and was caring for her. Second, Scripture reveals him to be her legal husband and to have travelled with Mary to be enrolled with her as a lawfully wedded couple and family. Third, she was called St. Joseph’s “wife†by the angel of the Lord… and yet, they were still referred to as betrothed. Referring to Mary and Joseph as “engaged†in the face of all of this evidence would be like calling a modern couple at their wedding reception “engaged†because they have yet to consummate their marriage. Once the fact that Mary and Joseph were already married at the time of the annunciation is understood, Mary’s “How shall this happen…†comes more into focus. Think about it: If you were a woman who had just been married (your marriage was “ratified,†but not consummated) and someone at your reception said—or “prophesiedâ€â€”that you were going to have a baby—that would not really be all that much of a surprise. That is the normal course of events. You marry, consummate the union, and babies come along. You certainly would not ask the question, “Gee, how is this going to happen?†It is in this context of Mary having been betrothed, then, that her question does not make sense… unless, of course, you understand she had a vow of virginity. Then, it makes perfect sense. One final thought: When Mary asked the question, "How shall this happen, since I do not know man," the verb to be (Gr.-estai) is in thefuture tense. There is nothing here that would indicate she was thinking of the immediate. The future tense here most likely refers to… the future. The question was not how she could conceive immediately. The question was how she could conceive ever. The angel answered that question for her. St Augustine’s Commentary on perpetual virginity: Saint Augustine famously interpreted the “closed gate†through which passed the “prince†in Ezek 44 as a type of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary is the closed city and the prince miraculously passed through the closed gate. Here is the beautiful passage from Augustine describing from Scripture why Saint Joseph and Saint Mary did not consummate their marriage: “This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it†(Ezek 44:2). What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this: “The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,†except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this – “It shall be shut for evermore,†but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.†Saint Augustine was one of history’s best Bible scholars and his interpretation of Ezekiel’s prophecy has been followed by the Catholic Church ever since. I can provide more quotes from early church if it’s needed.
  3. Ask a Catholic! (i.e, me...)

    Sorry I'm bad at taking quotes from the previous posts. But I hope I've covered all the objections mentioned above. Let's start with tradition: It is often alleged that the Catholic Church focuses on tradition rather than Scripture. That is simply not so. The Church focuses on Scripture and Sacred Tradition as they both flow out of the same divine wellspring, making up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation 2:9, 10). This is verified by the teaching of Scripture. Scripture speaks of two kinds of tradition. One is condemned, and the other requires belief. Paul tells us In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to "Stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Notice how Paul ranks oral tradition with written tradition equally. Why does he do that? He gives us the answer in 1 Thessalonians 2:13: "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God…" So the oral traditions and the written were both the word of God. No wonder Paul was pleased when the Corinthians accepted the traditions that he passed on to them. "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2). It is sometimes claimed that the oral tradition that Paul is speaking of is what he later put into Scripture. But the Bible nowhere says this. Bible Christians rely on Catholic Tradition. For instance, how do they know that the 27 books of the New Testament belong in the Bible? How do they know that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? His name doesn't appear in the manuscripts. How do they know that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? They know these things the same way that Catholics know them, because the Catholic Church tells us so. The canon of the New Testament at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) - 27 books chosen from 400 documents. So then, what type of tradition does Jesus condemn? Mark records the following statement made by Jesus to the Scribes and Pharisees: "You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'… but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, ‘what you would have gained from me is corban’ (that is, given to God), then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the Word of God through your tradition" (Mark 7:8-13). The Scribes and Pharisees were violating one of the commandments with their own tradition (tradition of men), and Jesus corrects them with the traditional interpretation (Sacred Tradition). The Apostles taught in the same manner and, according to the Bible, apostolic teaching was the standard in the early Church: "And they devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayers" (Acts 2:42). How can we recognize the traditions of men? Well, if they cannot be traced back to the early Church, they would have to be man-made. To believe otherwise would imply that God didn't get it right the first time. What Catholics call Sacred Tradition can be traced back to the early Church. Early Christians knew the importance of Sacred Tradition. In the year 200 AD Tertullian wrote, "Wherever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures and their explanation, and of all the Christian traditions" (The Demurrer against the heretics 19:3). A few decades later, Origen writes, "That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (Fundamental doctrines 1, preface: 2, circa 225 AD). It is only when we embrace Scripture and Sacred Tradition that we have the complete Word of God. And as Jesus once said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). Other passages if you want to use for tradition: John 20:30-31 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. John 21:25 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. 2 John 1:12 12 Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. 3 John 1:13-14 13 I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink;14 but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face. There is no doubt that scripture is infallible, but the question arises who interprets scripture? Is it meant for private interpretation? 2 Peter 1:20 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. I’ll use a simple argument for this, very basic one: Look at this sentence “I never said she stole my money†This sentence has 7 different meanings depending on the stressed word. I didn't say she stole my money - someone else said it. I didn't say she stole my money - I didn't say it. I didn't say she stole my money - I only implied it. I didn't say she stole my money - I said someone did, not necessarily her. I didn't say she stole my money - I considered it borrowed, even though she didn't ask. I didn't say she stole my money - only that she stole money. I didn't say she stole my money - she stole stuff which cost me money to replace. Imagine the interpretation of scripture that isn’t even written in English ( most protestants rarely refer to the greek or Hebrew) and compiled in various different languages; I think god would have a better plan then individual interpretation of scriptures. To make matters worse many of the protestant teachings have evolved over time. I believe within 10 years of the reformation there were around 50 denominations. Fast forward 500 years and you know the story. Whether Protestants like to admit it or not every single protestant or protestant denomination has his / her own traditions whether they follow their preacher or use certain websites to help them interpret scripture.
  4. Ask a Catholic! (i.e, me...)

    So It’s Palm Sunday and marks the beginning of Holy Week. Nine facts about Palm Sunday: I thought it would be a good time to share another video ( IMO one of the best videos on this subject) by Dr. Brant Pitre, Jesus & the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist PDF file to follow the video: "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old is unveiled in the New" (St. Augustine). Enjoy!
  5. This or That!

    Christmas French Fries : With ketchup or without Ketchup?
  6. Ask a Catholic! (i.e, me...)

    This is a great post and its just amazing to think when the 1.2 billion Catholics around the world do things the same way John 17:23: “I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.†Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Just as Ignatius of Antioch ( the closest disciple of john said in the first century) emphasized in the first century. Wishing everyone a blessed Advent( kinda late I know haha) 10 things about advent - Jimmy Akin
  7. This or That!

    Early Bird... If you had to pick a pet what would it be : Turtle or Parrot?
  8. This or That!

    I would pick Tacos! Strawberries Summer or Fall...
  9. Problems signing out

    I've had the same problem I have to click "sign out" a couple of times before it logs me off... Sometimes it doesn't and when I re-open the page again I'm still signed in.
  10. This or That!

    Beethoven... Wallpaper or paint?
  11. This or That!

    Had to search that up didn't know they were violinists I would pick both Great to see this thread is still active after so many months. Beach or Mountains?
  12. Who is your favourite saint?

    There are way too many to pick from.... In no particular order it would be St. Padre Pio, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua ( got to love the Franciscans ) St. Michael the archangel, St. Joseph, St. Rita of Cascia, St. Bernadette, St. Therese of Liseaux, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Francis Xavier. If you want to read the writings of the saints and great catholic Literature click the link below its got tons of free PDF files that would last a lifetime!
  13. hi, I'm new here :)

    Welcome to the site! Hope you enjoy your stay...
  14. This or That!

    Pie... Spend Leisure time outdoors or indoors?
  15. Ask a Catholic! (i.e, me...)

    Before I misplace these links again lol thought I would post them over here. What did the first century Christians believe? St. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome the 4th pope who is mentioned in Philippians 4:3, Justin Martyr, Saint Irenaeus of lyons They received the teachings from the disciples and their letters are still accessible if anyone wishes to read them.. You got to remember, back then they didn't have xerox or printing press (was invented 1448). Oral communication was the preferred mode of communication and everything had to be hand written. Clearly, in the first century, only if you were really rich you could purchase the bible or it was virtually impossible... You would have to use papyrus or Parchment (sheepskin / goatskin / calfskin)