Understanding typology and Mariology

[Maniel]

I recently learned that most of the dogmas concerning Mary comes from typology of the OT.

Very little is said in the NT. That she is blessed, but that is said about many people in the Bible as far as I know. Jesus said to John that she is to be his mother. But that could easily be interpreted as a loving act, for him to take care of her. Like, it would seem normal to adopt one another in this way, as I understand, since she is about to be alone economically.

Mike Winger critiques a few examples of catholic typology. It is said, that God created the world in 6 days, and on the 6th day of Jesus ministry He says "Woman" to Mary. Thus indicating that He is referring to her as the new Eve. Even though it's a normal way of addressing the other person.

I'm not sure where I stand, what do you guys believe? I get the feel, that catholics are searching for symbols that could be made in a way, but seems far fetched somehow. Like, I could find similar patterns and make up my own doctrines if I wanted.

Trent Horn then accuse Winger for being inconsistent. That he does it freely with Jesus, but refuse to do it with Mary.

But Wingers point is that doctrine must be clear in NT before we can make typology of the OT.
Because NT says Jesus is Christ, that He is Lord, we can then affirm the typology of OT. But we cannot find clear doctrine in NT that Mary is Queen of Heaven, only if we somehow make a doctrine of these patterns that we search for.

So I don't understand Trent Horns debunking of Winger, that he is inconsistent when it seems he is comparing apples with oranges.

How do you guys defend the view of typology and the dogmas of Mary?

 

[Abaxvahl]

How do you guys defend the view of typology and the dogmas of Mary?

Typology and various allegories is just one way of reading Scripture among many other senses it is to be taken in. I know you'll receive a better answer but I personally do not defend it, it is just something that comes with the Church in my view, and by exposure one learns how to accurately do it (such as seeing the few places where Mary is mentioned in the Psalter or Wisdom literature). As far as I know all the old Churches do this, I was listening to some Coptic hymns the other day and they do it heavily, the Orthodox, Catholics, and others do it also. It would be interesting to see the history of it, but to me it is not something to defend. A certain number of issues to me are just settled by finding which Church is true and are not individually defended and this (that it is legitimate to read Scripture like this) is one of them.

I will add though that I think it is solid St. Luke compares Mary to the Ark of the Covenant in his Gospel and in the Magnificat/her receiving the Word being a model of disciples of Christ for all generations, I think this was directly intended by him (and since the Saints share in what is Christ's it further justifies that to me, if there is any justification).

 

[Maniel]

Thanks for your reply Abax, that is interesting. My friend who is catholic feels the same way, that he accepts the church and then the doctrines. I'm starting from the doctrines and then I want to accept the church. I might be wrong, but that's how I do it.

If you want to answer, what made you accept the catholic church in the first place?

 

[Abaxvahl]

Thanks for your reply Abax, that is interesting. My friend who is catholic feels the same way, that he accepts the church and then the doctrines. I'm starting from the doctrines and then I want to accept the church. I might be wrong, but that's how I do it.

If you want to answer, what made you accept the catholic church in the first place?

Some doctrines matter more than others to me for investigating whether or not a Church is true, namely their ideas about God (that it be Trinitarian), Apostolic Succession, and Ecclesiology. For the RCC the Papacy ultimately is all that matters, for if it's claims are false (and one investigates the Fathers and other things for this) then the whole Church is false, but if it is true then the whole is true and everything it teaches officially. I became Catholic because I was convinced from my looking at the Fathers that Apostolic Succession was necessary and the Roman Papacy was true. Others look at the same thing and become Eastern Orthodox for instance though, so I may very well be wrong and am currently discerning between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

 

[Maniel]

I see, that's something I want to take up in a new topic in a few days. I'm wrestling with some challenges that needs to be addressed before I can make the same jump as you.

But I wonder if most catholics feel the same way with typology and Mariology? That it only really makes sense, once you accept the catholic church to have the authority to interpret scripture? Am I starting in the wrong place, or could a person be convinced of the church through doctrines first?

 

[Abaxvahl]

I see, that's something I want to take up in a new topic in a few days. I'm wrestling with some challenges that needs to be addressed before I can make the same jump as you.

But I wonder if most catholics feel the same way with typology and Mariology? That it only really makes sense, once you accept the catholic church to have the authority to interpret scripture? Am I starting in the wrong place, or could a person be convinced of the church through doctrines first?

I think a person could be convinced of doctrines first, for they were not separate from my acceptance of the Church. I was impressed by the beauty of the whole vision which seriously limited the number of Churches I could even consider if they did not have a comparable depth of theology and history. So I think it is perfectly possible. I think it logically comes after though but I might be wrong on that, since these things were revealed to and in a community, and Scripture for sure can only be interpreted in that context since all of it was revealed in that context.

 

[prodromos]

If you search the forums for "Mary ark", you should find a number of threads where this has been discussed, although it has been a while so you may have to specify searching posts from January 2019 or earlier. The parallels between Mary and the Ark of the covenant are pretty clear.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

As mentioned, remember it is not just Catholics who hold Mary in high esteem, but also Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.

Even for Luther and the conservative Reformers, even though they rejected veneration, they still did hold Mary in high regard in regards to Christology.

God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother...She is the true mother of God and bearer of God...Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus. not two Christs. . .just as your son is not two sons...even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church, 1539).

 

[The Liturgist]

As mentioned, remember it is not just Catholics who hold Mary in high esteem, but also Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.

Even for Luther and the conservative Reformers, even though they rejected veneration, they still did hold Mary in high regard in regards to Christology.

God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother...She is the true mother of God and bearer of God...Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus. not two Christs. . .just as your son is not two sons...even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church, 1539).

While Luther correctly avoided Nestorianism, it looks like he may have inadvertently embraced the equally severe Christological heresy of Apollinarianism (the belief that our Lord had a human body and a divine soul).

 

[GreekOrthodox]

While Luther correctly avoided Nestorianism, it looks like he may have inadvertently embraced the equally severe Christological heresy of Apollinarianism (the belief that our Lord had a human body and a divine soul).

I doubt Luther messed up on that as the full quote reads:

For God and man are one Person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two persons, not two Christs, not two sons, not two Jesuses; just as your son is not two sons, two Hanses, two shoemakers, etc., even though he has two natures, body and soul, — body from you, soul from God alone.

So he is referring not to Christ but to a normal man named "Hanse"

 

[The Liturgist]

I doubt Luther messed up on that as the full quote reads:

For God and man are one Person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two persons, not two Christs, not two sons, not two Jesuses; just as your son is not two sons, two Hanses, two shoemakers, etc., even though he has two natures, body and soul, — body from you, soul from God alone.

So he is referring not to Christ but to a normal man named "Hanse"

Indeed, but surely we have one nature or physis only, the human nature, whereas in our Lord there is a hypostatic union of the human nature and the divine nature.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks for your reply Abax, that is interesting. My friend who is catholic feels the same way, that he accepts the church and then the doctrines. I'm starting from the doctrines and then I want to accept the church. I might be wrong, but that's how I do it.

If you want to answer, what made you accept the catholic church in the first place?

Here's the trick with what you are trying to do. You are in reality starting from your chosen church and their dogma of Scripture Alone, which you start applying to Scripture to come up with various other doctrines. But where did 'Scripture Alone' come from? Was that a critically chosen position? Is it actually obvious from Scripture alone or is it a position you got from elsewhere?

The Catholic position presumes that Jesus founded a Church and that Church was a teaching Church where you accepted the Church (on some decent evidence I grant) and that Church taught you the doctrines. In the beginning we didn't choose our doctrines from Scripture alone and then go hunting for a church that agreed with us. We became disciples of the Church and learned the teaching as it was taught. That was the early Church way, the New Testament way, and the Old Testament way. It was never customary until recently to figure out our own doctrines and then look for a church to fulfill that.

Sola Scriptura has it's problems. The big one is that we ALL bring traditions in at the beginning of pretending to follow Scripture alone. So how do you find the doctrines, by yourself, independent of whatever church you might accept as a result of the process? My opinion is that is impossible. That if you want to follow Jesus you have to go with His chosen band and see where that goes.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I see, that's something I want to take up in a new topic in a few days. I'm wrestling with some challenges that needs to be addressed before I can make the same jump as you.

But I wonder if most catholics feel the same way with typology and Mariology? That it only really makes sense, once you accept the catholic church to have the authority to interpret scripture? Am I starting in the wrong place, or could a person be convinced of the church through doctrines first?

One COULD be convinced of the Church by examining Scripture. It happens every day. Because the Bible is actually a very Catholic book. If you look at it non-superficially there are a boatload of verses that don't add outside of the Catholic Church. Find those and give them a look and you're Catholic from Scripture.

 

[prodromos]

One COULD be convinced of the Church by examining Scripture. It happens every day. Because the Bible is actually a very Catholic book. If you look at it non-superficially there are a boatload of verses that don't add outside of the Catholic Church. Find those and give them a look and you're Catholic from Scripture.

Ditto, but replace Catholic with Orthodox

 

[chevyontheriver]

Ditto, but replace Catholic with Orthodox

You know, when I say Catholic, at least half of the time I can just as easily say Catholic AND Orthodox. Somehow I wonder if you mean it like that. But you are right. While we were a unified Church that's how things worked. Nobody did the Sola Scriptura thing. Nobody until Arius even thought of doing that.

 

[concretecamper]

I recently learned that most of the dogmas concerning Mary comes from typology of the OT.

Very little is said in the NT. That she is blessed, but that is said about many people in the Bible as far as I know. Jesus said to John that she is to be his mother. But that could easily be interpreted as a loving act, for him to take care of her. Like, it would seem normal to adopt one another in this way, as I understand, since she is about to be alone economically.

Mike Winger critiques a few examples of catholic typology. It is said, that God created the world in 6 days, and on the 6th day of Jesus ministry He says "Woman" to Mary. Thus indicating that He is referring to her as the new Eve. Even though it's a normal way of addressing the other person.

I'm not sure where I stand, what do you guys believe? I get the feel, that catholics are searching for symbols that could be made in a way, but seems far fetched somehow. Like, I could find similar patterns and make up my own doctrines if I wanted.

Trent Horn then accuse Winger for being inconsistent. That he does it freely with Jesus, but refuse to do it with Mary.

But Wingers point is that doctrine must be clear in NT before we can make typology of the OT.
Because NT says Jesus is Christ, that He is Lord, we can then affirm the typology of OT. But we cannot find clear doctrine in NT that Mary is Queen of Heaven, only if we somehow make a doctrine of these patterns that we search for.

So I don't understand Trent Horns debunking of Winger, that he is inconsistent when it seems he is comparing apples with oranges.

How do you guys defend the view of typology and the dogmas of Mary?

the parallels between the OT and NT are amazing, aren't they. Too bad many dont see it.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Mary is Mother of God. Nothing greater than that can be said of her. All other Marian doctrines are a step down imo.

1) The Immaculate Conception: The Church Fathers weren't unanimous on Mary's sinlessness. I, personally, find it unnecessary and encroaching on Christ. At the very least, she had a deliberating will.
2) Ever-Virgin: Has ties to monasticism, but could be true. Most of the undivided Church believed it
3) Assumption: A late tradition; no unanimity.
4) Queen of Heaven/Mother of the Church: True enough but can take odd turns. More Medieval than Patristic.
5) Mediatrix/Co-Redemptrix: Heavily dependant on a Roman Catholic Soteriology.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Christ doesn't have a chosen band. Why do Catholics sound like Jews? 'We have Abraham for our Father'. Well, your Father is sitting in St. Peter's with his Pachamama idol.
The Church is where the Word is clearly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered, which includes Rome. But Rome in and of itself, is a bureaucratic, worldly hodge podge of politics and religion (just like the old Rome).

And unless you were born Catholic, you chose to become Catholic. You decided that your interpretation of Scripture or the Church Fathers or life, ie, 'your truth' led to Rome.

Here's the trick with what you are trying to do. You are in reality starting from your chosen church and their dogma of Scripture Alone, which you start applying to Scripture to come up with various other doctrines. But where did 'Scripture Alone' come from? Was that a critically chosen position? Is it actually obvious from Scripture alone or is it a position you got from elsewhere?

The Catholic position presumes that Jesus founded a Church and that Church was a teaching Church where you accepted the Church (on some decent evidence I grant) and that Church taught you the doctrines. In the beginning we didn't choose our doctrines from Scripture alone and then go hunting for a church that agreed with us. We became disciples of the Church and learned the teaching as it was taught. That was the early Church way, the New Testament way, and the Old Testament way. It was never customary until recently to figure out our own doctrines and then look for a church to fulfill that.

Sola Scriptura has it's problems. The big one is that we ALL bring traditions in at the beginning of pretending to follow Scripture alone. So how do you find the doctrines, by yourself, independent of whatever church you might accept as a result of the process? My opinion is that is impossible. That if you want to follow Jesus you have to go with His chosen band and see where that goes.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Christ doesn't have a chosen band.

Actually Jesus had a hand picked band of apostles.

My point was that picking up a Bible and deciding your doctrines and then picking a church is a bit backwards. Historically backwards and philosophically backwards. Historically backwards because it was the Church that taught Christ before the Bible was even a finished thing. If you wanted to learn of Christ the Church would teach you. Philosophically backwards because even before a modern person picks up a Bible they are affected by one tradition of interpretation or another and thus do not have a pure and independent inquiry into doctrines that they will later use to pick a supposed correct church from. A Sola Scriptura approach is going to have people joining all sorts of conflicting churches based on the truths the inquirers think they have found.

As to Pachamama, we threw that idol into the Tiber. And the reputation of pope Francis went right in the river with the idol. He still has the authority, but just as Jesus said to do what the folks sitting on the seat of Moses said but not to do as they did, we are doing the same.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Actually Jesus had a hand picked band of apostles.

Yes, but the RC doesn't have a monopoly on them.

My point was that picking up a Bible and deciding your doctrines and then picking a church is a bit backwards. Historically backwards and philosophically backwards. Historically backwards because it was the Church that taught Christ before the Bible was even a finished thing.

The Scriptures were finished within the first generation of the Apostles. What was questioned was the Canonicity of some books like Jude and Revelation.

If you wanted to learn of Christ the Church would teach you. Philosophically backwards because even before a modern person picks up a Bible they are affected by one tradition of interpretation or another and thus do not have a pure and independent inquiry into doctrines that they will later use to pick a supposed correct church from.

Sola Scriptura's original intent did not imply a lack of congruency with the Fathers (as the Lutheran Confessions are replete with their names and citations). Rather, SS is set over and against Papal authority and his councils, because they err. He was selling indulgences and condemned Luther for opposing him.

A Sola Scriptura approach is going to have people joining all sorts of conflicting churches based on the truths the inquirers think they have found.

There will always be a subjective element. It's the same when one reads the Fathers. Also, the inquirer may have found legit truths that he sees expressed more prominently in one Church than another and so decides to join the one which calls to him. As long as he is receiving the Sacraments and is hearing the Gospel, it doesn't matter. For example, a Church may technically believe the right things but if their liturgy (through abuse) has become heterodox and their charity lax, their right doctrine is a dead faith.
My point is, is that we all choose and we do so subjectively because we are individuals. We either choose to join or we choose to stay and this choosing requires interpretation of information.

As to Pachamama, we threw that idol into the Tiber. And the reputation of pope Francis went right in the river with the idol.

He reclaimed it and apologized to the heretics. Now he sits in God's house with that thing.

He still has the authority, but just as Jesus said to do what the folks sitting on the seat of Moses said but not to do as they did, we are doing the same.

Even a good Pope doesn't sit in Moses' seat. The old Covenant was temporary. Jesus was referring to the Sanhedrin. But we no longer follow their interpretation of the Law because Christ has died and resurrected. The Pope has the authority of a bishop. There is no divine office of Pope, no one annointed or ordained him as head over the universal Church. As head he has taken the place of Christ, because it is now being in communion with him rather than Christ alone which constitutes Catholicity.