Refuting C.Pio on Mary and the Ark of the
Covenant Parallelism
It is either a Fallacy, a simple Joke or both.
[Mr. Soliman's word are in Red]
[Mr. Soliman's word are in Red]
Before we
respond to the second counterargument of C. Pio on kecharitomene, we
shall deal first to one of his articles that an anonymous poster has requested
me to respond to. It's about Mary being the the Ark of the New Covenant (read here).
This is a classic case of Moving the goal post fallacy, wherein when Person X makes a claim
and Person Y refutes it but, Person X moves on to a new or revised Post without
responding to Person Y’s refutation.
Mr. Soliman earlier claims that Catholics are inconsistent
in applying the TERM (full of grace) between two persons [between Mary and
Stephen], by refuting
his baseless belief and challenging him to show-cause (proof) to substantiate
his claim of Catholic misapplication of one term, he quickly moves on to the
other claim (without giving an outright answer raised by his opponent).
He wrote before:
But now, Mr. Soliman sings a new song: [W]e shall deal first to one of his articles that an anonymous poster has requested me to respond to.
Contrary to the one he first wrote: One of the articles of C.Pio that the anonymous
reader wishes me to respond, is about the
Greek word “Kecharitomene”
Basically, C.
Pio (and other Roman Catholic apologists like him) draws a parallel between the
events that had happened to the Ark of the Covenant in 2nd Samuel 6:2 to 14 and
the events that had happened to Mary during Christ's conception in Luke
1:39-45, 56. Their conclusion therefore, having what is seemingly similar
between the two, is that Mary is the Ark
of the New Covenant.
Who’s who in other Roman Catholic Apologist who typifies
Mary as a New Ark of the Covenant? One famous Roman Catholic Apologist who
draws parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant is no other that
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373). He is considered to be a renowned
Christian theologian, a Church Father, the chief defender of Trinitarianism
against Arianism in the First Council of Nicaea. He is
also celebrated by many Protestants (I don’t know if Mr. Soliman is included to
this group) who label him "Father of The Canon" because he is the
first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use
today. This defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century
heretics once wrote:
"O noble
Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal
in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures
shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are
greater than them all O [Ark
of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which
is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in
which divinity resides" [Homily of the Papyrus of Turin]
This parallelism is used to support the
Immaculate Conception since the Ark of the Covenant contains pure materials so
that the Lord can dwell in the midst of His people, Mary is likewise has to be
pure (sinless) so she can be a worthy vessel for the incarnate Son of God. TRUE! This is
what Athananius of Alexandria saw, which he passed-down to generation next to
him [2Tim.2:2] all the way down to the current age.
This is also
called as typology wherein certain people, objects, or events in the Old
Testament are said to be a pre-figuration of things in the New Testament.
In fairness there are valid typologies like the one presented in Galatians
4:21-31.
Typology was taken from the Greek word tupos (type) and was first coined by
Apostle Paul. This term “type”
specifically appears in Romans 5:14, where Apostle Paul calls Adam a “type” of Christ:
Yet death
reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the
transgressions of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Christ himself gave some sample of typology;
in Matthew 12:40, Jesus teaches us that the story of Jonah and the great
fish is a prefiguration of Jesus in the tomb (and his resurrection).
For just as
Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the
Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Other good examples are John 3:14 [the bronze
serpent is a type of Christ] and 1Peter 3:19-21 [the Flood is a type of baptism].
However,
typologies can be misapplied most especially when an interpreter of the Bible
is subjective. The one presented by C. Pio is one of the subjective
misapplications.
If I am wrong and Mr. Soliman is right in accusing me of
being subjective misapplications in showing Mary parallel with the Ark of the
Covenant, so MUST with Athananius, the great first
defender of Christ’s divinity against the second-century heretics, the
"Father of The Canon" for being the first person to identify the same
27 books of the New Testament that are in use today against all Gnostic Gospel
(eg. Gospel of Judas etc) that deceived Early Christians. But anyways,
to whom shall we believe, to Mr. Soliman or to Athananius the man guided by the
Holy Spirit and was proven to be in him?
I say it
misapplied because the parallelism is selective. C. Pio does not seem to
present us a counterpart […]
The parallelism is SELECTIVE? In John 3:14, Christ
typified the bronze serpent to prefigure his redemptive act on the cross, BUT
he did not mention that this bronze
serpent was DESTROYED [2Kings18:1-19]. So using the premise of Mr. Soliman,
Christ is guilty of misapplication.
We can also
counter C. Pio's parallel chart of Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant
(actually it is parroted once again from his foreign sources) by presenting a
just-as-absurd typology on Mary's husband Joseph
An old style Straw-man fallacy. He simply ignores my
actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated and misrepresented
version and he is suggesting to draw conclusion according to his
own-unheard-typology-which-is-truly-absurd: THIS IS NO LONGER a FALLACY THIS IS
a CLEAR JOKE (LOL).
By the way, he mentioned that I parroted this typology
from foreign sources; yes I admit, but I am sure Mr. Soliman also knew that
Christian teachings plus the Bible (the one used by Mr. Soliman itself) is not
originated here in the Philippines, It came from foreign sources.
Regarding the position of the Virgin Mary in the economy of God, it cannot be a comparison between her and other human being for she surpasses all. An example suffices my theses: one may say that my mother is or deserves a veneration beyond that of my brothers deserve. Now, regarding the Mother of God, she deserves veneration beyond human comprehension so, there is the problem with our separated brothers; lacking the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they will never apprehend this mystery for three reasons: they insist that we, Catholics, worship Mary. They believe that the real Church of Christ is the one that surfaced in 15717 AD. In addition, that the real Church is only biblical. The first premise is wrong; the worship of Mary, the second premise it has no biblical or traditional bases. Finally, without the Holy Tradition, the bible becomes useless. I said in my last post: arguing with these people is a waste of time for, their only source is their imagination; without the Holy Spirit they are blind to interpret the real essence of the bible. Protestants are ecclesiastical reunions without the sacraments. Their only sacrament is their blindness to accept with humility the dignity of the Mother of God; mother of all the living. God bless
ReplyDeleteGod bless you too :)
ReplyDeleteI notice that you left untouched the last paragraph of Gerry Soliman’s post. Don’t get me wrong, I mean why?
ReplyDelete