Monday, May 05, 2008

Today on Iron Sharpens Iron- ERIC SVENDSEN continues talking about: "MARY: Her Role & Status in the New Testament & Roman Catholicism."Listen Live to Iron Sharpens Iron Monday through Friday 3-4 PM via live-streaming on the Internet or in New York and Connecticut on WNYG 1440AM Christian Radio. Tune in now to WNYG using Real Player. PLEASE JOIN ISI ON THE AIR as a part of the live broadcast by CALLING IN WITH YOUR OWN QUESTIONS at:1-631-321-WNYG (9694) Monday through Friday, 3PM - 4PM.

Part one of Dr. Svendsen's interview can be heard here.

Part two of Dr. Svendsen's interview can be found here.


ERIC SVENDSEN, Evangelical apologist, debater, author and director of New Testament Research Ministries , will returns for PART 2 of a discussion on his groundbreaking, 334-page workhis groundbreaking, 334-page work WHO IS MY MOTHER?: The Role & Status of Mary in the New Testament & Roman Catholicism .

Renowned Biblical Counselor and scholar Dr. Jay Adams said of Eric's masterpiece: "Until this book there has been no definitive response to the many Roman Catholic myths concerning Mary. Here, at last, anyone looking for it may find more than enough help. Arguments, no matter how outlandish, are considered and refuted; every biblical reference is carefully examined and exegeted, and a devastating (but calm) counter-argument is presented. The book is scholarly, but not difficult to read. I highly commend it!"

50 comments:

J.R. Polk said...

The book is scholarly, but not difficult to read. I highly commend it!"

I'll second your commendation. I read it last year and can tell you it was hard to put down.

BJ Buracker said...

James, thanks for the link to this. I'm listening right now and am enjoying this. Please keep the links to interesting ISI coming!

Blessings,

BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections

Algo said...

I also enjoyed todays ISI with Eric Svendsen. I was hoping that some of the folks who disagree with his conclusions would have called in. I remember back when Eric was on The Bible Answer Man that he had several calls from Roman Catholics. It was very interesting to hear him interact with them.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Eric Svendsen has made some serious errors in his audio interview today when talking about the Blessed Mother. One in particular being the Blessed Virgin Mary as referred to as the Ark of the Covenant. He makes an absolute statement saying that no one in the early Church referred to her as such, and then says the whole thing is based off a mis-interpretation of the Gospel of Luke. He also says it is a modern invention of Roman Catholicism.

Mistake number 1.

There are several early Church writers who refer to Mary as the Ark, and they do not derive it from the Lucan texts. Hippolytus of Rome in the second century plainly refers to her as the Ark, This is taken from the commentary by the holy bishop and martyr Hippolytus, on his commentary on
Psalm 22 and 23...
"The Lord is my Shepherd."

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."

Where on earth Svendsen is getting his facts from is anyone's guess.

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in the third century refers to her as the Ark, as well as Chrysippus in the 4th century. He hardly knows his history since he has really committed a serious blunder here. There are more refutations to come on this interview. There are many errors in his statements and I am going to point out every one of them. In fact I think I will make a special page on my website just to blow his arguments out of the water. It is like shooting fish in barrel. In fact, I hope to get a transcript of this interview so I can systematically refute each statement he makes in writing.

Alberto said...

Well I have a doubt about Hipolito, because the cite said very clear that Jesus is the Ark not Mary.
And other cite of Hipolito he said:

"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....the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body" (On Daniel, 2:6)

You don´t have a clear undestanding of the other cite of Hippolytus, please understand Hippolytus wasn´t a Roman Catholic.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Yes he was a Catholic and he was born in Rome, and died reconciled with the Church a Martyr. You need to do some research. Read O'Carroll's careful research on the subject and come back when you understand it. You need to read the text before you make statements. Read it. Not to be rude, but it doesn't seem by reading your writing that you have a grip on the English language very well. Read the text carefully. I have given 3 examples that fly in the face of Svendsen's absolute statement.

Matthew Bellisario said...

The list is a vast one of early Christian writers that all disagree with Svendsen and his crippled reasoning blinded by his hatred for the Church. Why can't anyone be objective for once and read these writings and see that for one, Sacred Scripture is united to the full Gospel of Christ in Tradition, and that you are dismissing the ancient church and its beliefs as handed down by Jesus and His apostles? You just can't look at anything objectively.

Proclus of Constantinople, quoted Mary as the Ark in the 400s, as well as writing about her virginity in partu, yet another example. Oh and no real Christians believed that Mary was an ever virgin either right? We have writings from the 300's that talk about it. Zeno of Verona said, "O great mystery! Mary an incorrupt virgin conceived, after conception she brought forth as a virgin, and childbirth she remained a virgin." I guess that is a figment of Rome's imagination as well.

What about Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine? I guess they are dismissed as well, since they wrote about her virginity in partu as well. Pope Hormisdas in the 500s also proclaimed it.

Once again Hesychius said, "The Ark of thy sanctification, the Virgin Theotokos surely. If thou art the pearl then she must be the Ark." (O,Carroll 1982) Chrysippus said, "The truly royal Ark, the most precious Ark, was the ever-Virgin Theotokos......" Read Didymus the Blind in the 4th century he also taught Mary's perpetual virginity.

What about Jesus' other brothers from Mary? Oh yes that's another good one. Please.. Read Saint Athanasius of Alexandria in the 3rd century, he wrote about it saying that he had none! Who is misinterpreting the Gospel here? The Saints and the Church or Svendsen? If you are going to disagree with the Church at least have your facts straight. The evidence for Mary as the Ark, and her perpetual virginity cannot be dismissed as figments of Rome's imagination. None of these writers were gnostic heretics either. This is simply looking at historical Christianity objectively,and not through a painted lens.

J.R. Polk said...

Where on earth Svendsen is getting his facts from is anyone's guess.

Matthew,

I think I should ask you the same question. Your quote of Hippolytus makes no connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. You also name names but fail to provide citations. If they're anything like you Hippolytus quote then it's probably better that you don't. The "serious error" here is all yours.

BJ Buracker said...

Matthew,

When Alberto says that Hippolyus wasn't "Roman Catholic" I think he means that it is anachronistic to use that term to describe someone who lived over 1000 years before that term existed. It's like us claiming he believed in transubstantiation. That doctrine just wasn't fleshed out then. While he may have believed many things that are similar to modern Catholic teaching, that is different than claiming was Catholic in the sense that term carries with it today.

Furthermore, even if he did teach Mary was the Ark of the Covenant, which you'll notice that the quote you provided doesn't say, as Protestants, we ask, "So what?" Many Christians at the time taught some good stuff and some bad stuff. Just because many early Christians believed, 'x' does not mean, 'x' is true. A LOT of early Christians were Arians. Does that make Arianism true? Of course not. Some other guide must be used. Obviously, we look solely to the Bible.

I think you make a good point about Svendsen, though. I think he over-exaggerated the point. Given that this was a brief radio interview, I think it's best we excuse that particular error. I am sure he was not able to consult all of the sources in such a brief time. A similar mistake in the book would be less excusable, but I haven't read the book so I don't know if he does or not.

In Christ,

BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections

ree said...

Matthew,

I'm confused. You just posted the Hippolytus quote where he refers to the Lord Jesus as the Ark of the Covenant as evidence that he really meant that Mary was the Ark? Huh?

Alberto said...

Mattew said:

The list is a vast one of early Christian writers that all disagree with Svendsen and his crippled reasoning blinded by his hatred for the Church.

But I said that the list of early Christian writers that all disagree with Rome it´s bigger.
We don´t have any problem with this, but the catholic church has a big problem, because It is your doctrine apostolic tradition??, I suppose that if going to the past you will be aware of the tradition of the apostols, but I don´t find it.
I think that you didn´t undestand what Svendsen said, because no early writer, apostolic father, said nothing about Mary as the Ark.
When I said that Hippolytus wasn´t a Roman Catholic, I refer that he didn´t belive thing like, papal infabillity, the asumption of Mary and thing like these that you must to belive.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Furthermore, even if he did teach Mary was the Ark of the Covenant, which you'll notice that the quote you provided doesn't say, as Protestants, we ask, "So what?"

The problem is one of your heros Svendsen said that no one in the ancient church belived it that is what! I quotes 3 sources that did believe it, that is what. Svendsen made a commment that he cannot stand by historicly, thats what. He made a complete false statement thats what. And just because the term transubstantiation wasnt used doesn't mean that they did not believe that Christ did not become physicaly present at the Eucharist, thats what. It is useless talking to any of you about anything factual. I will write a well documented essay on this subject and post it on my website instead of posting on here.

Rhology said...

That'd be great, Matthew.
When you do so, make sure to explain where in that quote from Hippolytus you see Mary=Ark.
It says: And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself.

And citing one person in the 3rd and one in the 4th is not sthg that any serious person would consider as strong patristic support. Might want to find a few...dozen... more before you try to sell us this kind of idea.

And how many languages do you speak? Our brother Alberto is from México...let me know the next time you post an argument in a Spanish combox or some other language, K?

Peace,
Rhology

ree said...

I didn't listen to the interview with Eric Svendsen, but I'm quite familiar with his work, and I think it's pretty likely that he was referring to their being no one in the early church meaning the first couple of centuries. Dr. Svendsen doesn't deny that Marian dogma developed gradually and that, as the centuries passed, people said more and more exalted things about Mary.

Not only Hippolytus identify the Ark with Christ, not Mary, but so did Irenaeus when he said,

"so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both materials the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together." (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 48)

ree said...

This comment box needs an edit feature. Oh well, I don't think my errors made my post too unintelligible.

Alexander Greco said...

I do not have time to post anything substantial, but a few quick observations are in order:
1) I believe that Svendsen did say that Mary being identified as the ark is a modern idea. So, how does he define modern?
2) Saying that a Church Father is not a Catholic because they did not believe in Transubstantiation, or the Assumption, etc. is a poorly constructed superfluous argument. The fact is that our understanding of God's Revelation does develop over time, the same is the case that God did not give us His Revelation all at once, but over time. Whether or not someone understood the Eucharist within the terminology of substance and accidents is really outside the point. Was the basic understanding of the Eucharist that Jesus was present? Yes. Was he just spiritually present? No. (Of course protestants can make arguments against this, that would be perfectly legit.) The argument that they weren't Catholics because they did not understand the Eucharist to be transubstantiation (and it is at this point that you make the unfounded inference leap that they didn't or wouldn't believe it either), is just as absurd as would be the argument that those prior to the definition of Christ's hypostatic union were not Catholic in the post-hypostatic definition either...or that pre-Vatican II Catholics cannot be considered as the same as post-Vatican II Catholics. As long as they held to what was understood at that time as orthodox teachings, then they can also be considered as Catholics.

More after finals.

Rhology said...

Haha.
Actually, as long as they held to what was understood at that time as orthodox teachings, then they can also be considered as Reformed Protestants. Doesn't matter what they actually believed or how closely those beliefs match those of modern Reformed Prots, they were Reformed Prots. Just FYI.

J.R. Polk said...

The problem is one of your heros Svendsen said that no one in the ancient church belived it that is what! I quotes 3 sources that did believe it, that is what.

No . . . you didn't. You posted one quote that completely contradicted your position, and you 'named names' without any reference or citation. Hardly a slam dunk Matthew.

ree said...

I was just listening to the broadcast, and when the host asked Dr. Svendsen whether anyone in ancient times considered Mary the Ark of the Covenant, his response was, "None that I can find," leading to his statement that it's a "modern concept," referring to the typology arguments for Mary as the Ark of the Covenant. I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is incorrect.

Matthew Bellisario said...

No . . . you didn't. You posted one quote that completely contradicted your position, and you 'named names' without any reference or citation. Hardly a slam dunk Matthew.


Uhh yes I did can't you count? I said I posted 3 sources my friend, not quotes, count them. Lets count together now shall we....
1. Hippolytus of Rome
2. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus
3. Chrysippus

That was the first post, then I posted further,

4. Proclus of Constantinople
5. Hesychius
All of these referring to Mary as the Ark. Svendsen said that none of the early fathers believed it. I have proven that his statement is false. This is what is wrong with your arguments. You can't even admit when one of your own has made a mistake. You all try and skirt around the issue and avoid what the argument that is brought to you by trying to turn it in to something else. Is Svendsen correct in saying that none of the early church believed in Mary as the Ark, and that the teaching is a modern one? The answer is obviously no, it was believed by early church writers. Until you can be humble enough to admit when you have made a mistake you will never get anywhere in life. Svendsen made an incorrect statement, why can't any of you admit it? I guess it would just take too much pride out of you to admit that a Catholic pointed out an error in one of your apologists statements wouldn't it?

Here are 3 quotes for you now and not 3 sources, maybe you can tell the difference.

1. Hippolytus, "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."

2. Hesychius said, "The Ark of thy sanctification, the Virgin Theotokos surely. If thou art the pearl then she must be the Ark." (O,Carroll 1982

3.Chrysippus said, "The truly royal Ark, the most precious Ark, was the ever-Virgin Theotokos......"

Not that is 3 quotes, and we are back to the same point. Svendsen made an incorrect comment in front of everyone on his audio interview period! Do all you want to avoid the conclusion, but it is plain to see.

Rhology said...

Matthew,

Where in the Hippolytus quote do you see Mary referred to as the Ark, rather than Christ Himself?
Did you just miss the 3 comments asking questions to that effect?

Matthew Bellisario said...

If you can read English you can plainly see that the virgin and the Holy spirit is the Ark being referred to in the statement. Why once again do you avoid the conclusion that Svendsen made an incorrect statement? Haven't you been reading that over the last 10 posts?

Read the quote......"that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold."

If you can read you see that the Ark is the Virgin and the Holy Ghost. They are the Ark which is overlaid with the Purest gold which is the outward reference to the word of God....Read the comment. So... what about Svendsen and his comments? What about the other quotes I posted?

J.R. Polk said...

1. Hippolytus, "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."

Again, where is the Ark said to symbolize Mary in this quote?

2. Hesychius said, "The Ark of thy sanctification, the Virgin Theotokos surely. If thou art the pearl then she must be the Ark." (O,Carroll 1982

Throwing the names of of early Church writers out there without reference and quote is not citing a 'source'. This is the first time that you bothered to attach any information to a name. There's still a big problem here Matthew. Who in the world is O, Carroll? I imagine you're quoting some secondary source here. Why are you still refusing to provide 'primary source' information. Your quote of Hesychius is small and without context.

3.Chrysippus said, "The truly royal Ark, the most precious Ark, was the ever-Virgin Theotokos......"

You don't even bother to cite a secondary reference on this fragment you call a quote. Citations please.

This is very shoddy work Matthew.

Rhology said...

"And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself."

Matthew Bellisario is acting strangely, and I don't know what else to say. Roman Catholics often give to Mary what belongs to Christ alone, and here Matthew is doing so in an offbeat way. I guess old habits die hard.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Michael O'Carroll CSSp is one of the reference works. The book of reference is the Theotokos printed in 1982. he is a very well respected theologian.

I just pointed out the quote once again, why can't anyone read? I have posted several quotes now, by several early writers of the Church and yet not one can admit that Svendsen is wrong. A very sad state of affairs.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Read the quote......"that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold."

Ok, if you can't read it I cant help you.

J.R. Polk said...

No, what's truly sad here, Matthew Bellisario, is your refusal to provide primary source information which would allow everyone the opportunity to examine your "quotes???" in context. You are obviously graspinng at straws and you have wasted enough of everyone's time.

In His Service,
J.R. Polk
www.thomasboston.wordpress.com

ree said...

Matthew, this is getting scary.

Can you read the first sentence in the Hippolytus quote aloud? Once you've done that and gotten the proper frame of reference, then go to the sentence you keep emphasizing. Read aloud the first part of that sentence where it says, "But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity." Once you've done that, then continue on with the rest of the sentence until it becomes clear that the final clause you keep pointing out refers back to the subject of the sentence--the Lord Jesus Christ.

Unless you're able to complete this simple comprehension exercise, I don't see any point in engaging your other points because you've shown that you don't have ability to engage in even simple discourse.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Ok, how about this, I will strike my first quote as an erroneous quote. I stand corrected! I will however retain my other quotes, the source from which I provided, Michael Carroll Cssp, and his book which I sited as the source. So now what is your argument??? is Svendsen correct in saying that no one in the early church believed in Mary as being the Ark????? can you please answer the question?


Once again Hesychius said, "The Ark of thy sanctification, the Virgin Theotokos surely. If thou art the pearl then she must be the Ark." Chrysippus said, "The truly royal Ark, the most precious Ark, was the ever-Virgin Theotokos......"
(O,Carroll 1982)

Rhology said...

Oh, you're spoiling all my fun!

Now the question is simply why it took you so long to see. And why, given your behavior and bizarre attitude in this combox, anyone should have much confidence in what you say.

Peace,
Rhology

Matthew Bellisario said...

Rhology, grow up! So now you can't even own up to the evidence I quoted. You are something else. I answered your question and owned up to my error, what about you? What about the other quotes??? Is Svendsen correct or not. You see if you answer that he was wrong, then we can all say the same thing about him. he made a mistake, so why should we listen to anything else he has to say. What a pity.

Matthew Bellisario said...

So lets sum up the day shall we?? I made several quotes from the early church regarding Mary as being the Ark, refuting the statement Eric Svendsen made on his audio broadcast setting (Iron Sharpens Iron) that no one in the early church believed such a thing, and that is was a modern invention of the Catholic Church. One of the quotes I posted was in error and I was corrected, and I retained the other two I posted.

The other two were
Hesychius who said, "The Ark of thy sanctification, the Virgin Theotokos surely. If thou art the pearl then she must be the Ark." and Chrysippus who said, "The truly royal Ark, the most precious Ark, was the ever-Virgin Theotokos......"
(O,Carroll 1982 Theotokos)

I then asked if what Svendsen said was correct or not and got nothing but a dodging of the question. As we see from these other quotes, it is obvious that Svendsen was incorrect in his blanket statement. Even now after I have admitted my error, the attack is continued against my character, and the question I have brought forth is dismissed. And you call yourselves Christian?? I am very disappointed here.

Alexander Greco said...

Wait just a moment, maybe we should fact check everything before we just go dismissing. Here is a quote from another website which seems to identify the ark with Mary. First we need to find a more definitive translation (I am not saying that this one is by any means):

St. Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236)

“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....And the Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body” (S. Hippolytus, In Dan.vi., Patr. Gr., Tom. 10, p. 648) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).

Here we see that Mary is referred to as the Ark; and furthermore, the flesh that Jesus takes is from the Immaculate Virgin, the incorruptible Ark (Christ takes on the flesh provided by Mary). This is just a thought.

Source: http://64.233.169.104/custom?q=cache:rzngUN48jdMJ:www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/Documents/MaryArkPatristics.doc+Hesychius+on+mary+as+the+ark+of+the+covenant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

ree said...

Thanks for your acknowledgement about the Hippolytus quote. Now as for Dr. Svendsen, I already posted what he said after I listened to the broadcast. He said that he hasn't found any quotes from the early church that indicate this idea was present. He then indicated that the Ark of the Covenant arguments are a modern concept based on the lack of evidence from the early church and from the fact that there are early church fathers who correlate the Ark with Jesus. Unless I'm wrong, I do believe he was mistaken when he said that it was Basil who made this correlation, but he was speaking off the top of his head. We've already shown with primary source quotes that you can confirm yourself on the New Advent website among other places, that both Irenaeus (no insignificant church father) and Hippolytus (both of whom lived relatively close to the apostolic era) considered the Ark as a type of Christ

In regard to your other quotes, they seem to be cited from a secondary source. Without a primary source reference, it would be foolish for to take them at face value. Those of us who've interacted with RC apologists have learned that lesson firsthand.

If the quotes are, indeed, accurate, fair translations, etc., then it would show that some in the early church did make a correlation between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, and Dr. Svendsen would be incorrect in saying that this is a modern concept. I don't think he would have any problem admitting this as an error if he were proven wrong. But since the topic of his dissertation and his book is Mary in the New Testament and not Mary in the writings of the post-New Testament church, an error like this wouldn't be significant in regard to his credibility.

Dr. Svendsen did also go on to say that even modern RC scholars admit that the reading of the Ark of the Covenant as typological for Mary is an illegitimate reading of the text. I don't know his sources for this, but it's something you might consider significant enough to look into.

ree said...

Alexander,

Could you please provide a primary source for this. The quote where Hippolytus calls Christ the Ark is readily accessible, while the quote where he contradicts his own interpretation is inaccessible and obscure--much like all the other quotes correlating Mary with the Ark.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Finally someone admits that Svendsen is wrong.... amazing. But he gets a free pass on it doesn't he? While I have been mocked in the new blog post here. Do we see the difference here? Svendsen can go on the air and make up stuff off the top of his head that is wrong, and yet that isn't a problem.

Rhology said...

It may or may not be a problem (which remains to be seen), but your behavior here has made your credibility far from believable.

Matthew Bellisario said...

The sources are legit for these two quotes.

1.Hesychius (ca. 433) said, "The Ark of thy sanctification, the Virgin Theotokos surely. If thou art the pearl then she must be the Ark." De S. Maria Deip page 93 1464 homily on PS 131:8

2. Chrysippus (399-479)said, "The truly royal Ark, the most precious Ark, was the ever-Virgin Theotokos......" In S. Mariam Deip in PO 19,338

J.R. Polk said...

Chrysippus

“An ark truly royal, an ark most precious is the ever-Virgin Mother of God, an ark which received the treasure of entire sanctification. Not that ark wherein were all kinds of animals, as in the ark of Noe, which escaped the shipwreck of the whole drowning world. Not that ark in which were the tables of stone, as in the ark that journeyed in company with Israel throughout the desert; but an ark whose architect and inhabitant, pilot and merchant, companion of the way, and leader, was the Creator of all creatures, all which He bears in Himself, but by all is not contained” (Chrysippus, Orat. de laudib. Deip. (Blessed Virgin, p. 74).


Hesychius

“Arise, Lord, into Thy rest, Thou and the Ark of Thy sanctification, which is very evidently the Virgin Mother of God. For if thou are the pearl, with good reason is she the Ark” (Serm. V. De S. Maria Deip. Patr. Gr. Tom. 93, pp. 460-4) (Blessed Virgin, p. 227).


Thanks to Alexander we have something to work with here.

Matthew,

Notice the quote of Chrysippus above. He certainly refers ot Mary as "an" ark, but he makes it very clear that he is not speaking of the Ark of the Covenant. This is what happens when out-of-context quote fragments are used without primary source info.

As for Hesychius, he appears to be using the designation "ark" in the same, unspecific way Chrysippus does. Unless you can demonstrate why we should equate "the ark of thy sanctification" with the Ark of the Covenant, it would be irresponsible to assume it.

Algo said...

Mr. Bellisario
It's interesting that you keep moving forward in history. At this rate you will soon be quoting from the "church fathers" at Vatican 2. I thought this belief was 2,000 years old?

Matthew Bellisario said...

J R Polk said,
"Notice the quote of Chrysippus above. He certainly refers ot Mary as "an" ark, but he makes it very clear that he is not speaking of the Ark of the Covenant. This is what happens when out-of-context quote fragments are used without primary source info." and "As for Hesychius, he appears to be using the designation "ark" in the same, unspecific way Chrysippus does. Unless you can demonstrate why we should equate "the ark of thy sanctification" with the Ark of the Covenant, it would be irresponsible to assume it."


J R Polk, what then is Mary the Ark of may I ask? If Jesus is in the Ark, and Mary is the Ark, and Jesus is the New Covenant Himslef, then what does that make her the Ark of? Please let me know, I am interested in your answer.

J.R. Polk said...

Matthew,

1. You quoted me and then proceeded to ignore what I said.

2. I can't make heads or tails of your question.

Matthew Bellisario said...

J R, who is in the Ark if Mary is clearly being referred to as the Ark? You said that he, Hesychius is clearly not referring to her as the Ark of the New covenant. Where do you get this interpretation from? You haven't given any evidence to back up what you said. If Mary is an Ark, and she is being referred to as such by both of these early writers, then what else would she be the Ark of, if not Christ who was in her womb?

You said, As for Hesychius, he appears to be using the designation "ark" in the same, unspecific way Chrysippus does."

What is unspecific about it? They are both referring to Mary the Mother of God. Who is in her womb? I would think that would be Jesus, no? Who is Jesus? I think He is the New Covenant Himself coming into the world. In my reasoning, that would make her the Ark of the New Covenant. Please explain what else she could be, if not the Ark of the New Covenant. You can't just make statements like that without some sort of reasoning.

J.R. Polk said...

You said that he, Hesychius is clearly not referring to her as the Ark of the New covenant.

Do you mean Chrysippus? I never said that about Hesychius. The other problem is that after you make many references to the 'ark of the covenant', you are now inserting the word 'new' into the phrase. If we're still talking about 'the ark of the covenant', Chrysippus says plainly that he is not equating that with Mary. Read the quote I provided.

You said, As for Hesychius, he appears to be using the designation "ark" in the same, unspecific way Chrysippus does."

Allow me to quote myself in answer to your question. Read carefully. What I'm asking for is very plain.

I said:

"As for Hesychius, he appears to be using the designation "ark" in the same, unspecific way Chrysippus does. Unless you can demonstrate why we should equate "the ark of thy sanctification" with the Ark of the Covenant, it would be irresponsible to assume it."

In order for you to assert that Hesychius sees Mary as the antitype of 'the ark of the covenant' you must demonstrate how you know that 'the ark of thy sanctification' is the same as 'the ark of the covenant'.

J.R. Polk said...

***The last paragraph above should not be italicized as it is not part of my original quote. Sorry.

ree said...

Matthew,

First of all, until the quotes are verified and examined from a primary source, I wouldn't guess one way or the other whether I believe Dr. Svendsen was wrong.

Second, he wasn't making it up when he said that he hasn't found any quotes naming the Ark of the Covenant as a type of Mary from the early church. He hasn't found any, I'm sure.

Third, although you and your co-defenders of Rome do seem to be finding some relevant quotes, it's still very suspicious that none of these quotes are available even on New Advent--a Roman Catholic source that would be all too happy to make them available if they were available.

Fourth, not all mistakes are equivalent. The problem with you was not just that you made a mistake, but that you kept digging in your heels and insisting that you were right, despite the evidence in front of you--evidence that you, yourself, were the first to post. You even went so far as to insult and belittle those of us who didn't see it the way you did.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"As for Hesychius, he appears to be using the designation "ark" in the same, unspecific way Chrysippus does. Unless you can demonstrate why we should equate "the ark of thy sanctification" with the Ark of the Covenant, it would be irresponsible to assume it."

As I said earlier, it is not unspecific for me. Why shouldn't I equate her with it? I think it is irresponsible to to dismiss it without some kind of proof. It looks evident to me that they are both talking about the Virgin Mary, her as the "Ark" and Jesus in the Ark, thats looks specific to me. If not, explain why.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Here is another earlier writer who also speaks of her as being an Ark. Not that it will matter, but what the heck...

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (Wonderworker) (+ c.270):

"Come, then, ye too, dearly beloved, and let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, Most of the holy fathers, and patriarchs, and prophets desired to see Him, and to be eye-witnesses of Him, but did not attaint hereto. And some of them by visions beheld Him in type, and darkly; others, again, were privileged to hear the divine voice through the medium of the cloud, and were favoured with sights of holy angels; but to Mary the pure virgin alone did the archangel Gabriel manifest himself luminously, bringing her the glad address, "Hail, thou that art highly favoured!" And thus she received the word, and in the due time of the fulfilment according to the body's course she brought forth the priceless pearl. Come, then, ye too, dearly beloved, and let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, "Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the ark of Thy sanctuary."29 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. "Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest."

(The First Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary)

Complete homily found here.
http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/pat_stgregory_wonderworker_annunciation_01.shtml
Read it, it is quite an introspection on Catholic theology.

J.R. Polk said...

Matthew,

This is my last post in this thread.

Allow me to remind you of your original contention.

You said

Eric Svendsen has made some serious errors in his audio interview today when talking about the Blessed Mother. One in particular being the Blessed Virgin Mary as referred to as the Ark of the Covenant. He makes an absolute statement saying that no one in the early Church referred to her as such . . .


Thus far, none of your quotations have pointed to Mary as the antitype of the 'Ark of the Covenant'. Notice, "an" ark is not the same thing.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Its the same thing to me as I explained earlier. You have not convinced me otherwise.