Dogmas of MARY 4 Marian Dogmas Explained (With Karlo Broussard)

The Catholic Dogmas of MARY. There are 4 Marian Dogmas, and in this video we explain the 4 dogmas with Karlo Broussard. Find out more about these dogmas from the Bible and history. Follow Catholic Truth below.

Follow Karlo Broussard:

SUPPORT: We only exist because of the generosity of our Patrons!

FOLLOW CATHOLIC TRUTH:
- Instagram: Catholic_Truth_Official

APOLOGETICS TRAININGS:

NEW AGE BOOK: Counterfeit Spirituality (Yoga, Reiki, Astrology, Law of Attraction, etc.)
Also see Barnes & Nobles, etc.

Related Searches: dogma definition catholic, dogmas of the catholic church

[fultoneth]

Warriors of the true Church ‼️ Karlo, Tim Staples, Trent Horn, Jim Akin, Bryan,

[gregd]

Thanks for the great job you do, Bryan. I’ve learned a lot from your channel.

[patrickho]

I've ALWAYS told my Catholic & Protestant friends, God has given us free will, if Mary at her own will had said no to Angel Gabriel, we'd probably might not have Christianity as we know today, another lady might or may not have assumed the role. We honour her in the highest BECAUSE she said yes. Period

[floraricemamul]

Good morning from here everyone🙏🙏🙏💯❤Mary Virgin forevermore

[Triniforchrist]

This is awesome teaching, Catholic teaching is on a different level, as does the early Catholic church fathers

[charlesadair]

Not a Catholic here, but I love how you explained these dogmas ! Great Video!

[peterhenryzepeda]

It’s interesting because the Protestant “Reformation” had nothing to do with the Marian dogmas. Yet, today it’s hard to find a Protestant who holds the Marian dogmas. It’s sad because the Marian dogmas should not be a source of division.

[LuminousTwinHearts]

Beautifully said both of you.. 🙏📿✝️❤️💙💚🧡💛💜🤍

[erin]

I got so many helpful pieces of information here, new ways of looking at or explaining the Blessed Mother to others, and I just want to thank you both so much for this! It’s not often that I get so much useful information in one video and it was wonderful! Thank you again for your important work!

[HillbillyBlack]

Does it not seem odd that the current established 4 Marion dogmas are listed in The Protoevangelium of James and Pseudo-Matthew which is rejected by the Roman Catholic church?

[light]

Adopted male/female of a family called each other brother/sister.

[joshuabridges]

That’s great that a book says Jesus said something. The inspired writers of scripture said brother. They specifically used the Greek word for biological brother. There is a Greek word for cousin (which was used for Elizabeth, the cousin of Mary). So many catholic teachings are based on the “church fathers”. The Apostle Paul said to search the scriptures to see if these things are so.

[valentineeyumsama]

Two quick questions:

1) The scene of the woman in Rev 12:1-2, is it a prophetic vision yet to happen or has it already happened?

2) If u say the woman in that chapter (12) is Mary, then when in the life of Mary did she flee into the wilderness for 1, 260 days as we r told in Rev 1:6?

Thx Bryan for ur objective questions, great job!

Please tell ur guest that there are no exceptions to the rules of God. No one is above the law of God even God himself else He’ll be a liar!

[brianfarley]

I would say Scripture does tell us that Jesus DID NOT have blood brothers. Dr. Brant Pitre lays this out very well in his book The Jewish Roots of Mary. Every Catholic should read it. In fact Jesus explicitly in the book. Here’s a little excerpt from it:

Jesus himself actually uses the word for “cousins” or “relatives” to describe his so-called brothers and sisters. Reread the evidence from Mark, this time paying attention to Jesus’ final statement: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own cousins (Greek syngeneusin), and in his own house.” (Mark 6: 3–4) 37 The word I have translated here as “cousin” (Greek syngeneus) is from the same Greek root as the angel Gabriel’s reference to Elizabeth as Mary’s “cousin” (Greek syngenis) (see Luke 1: 36 KJV, Douay-Rheims).

The Gospels themselves explicitly state that the so-called brothers of Jesus are in fact the children of another woman named Mary. In order to see this clearly, all we need to do is compare the identities of the “brothers” of Jesus in the account of Jesus’ ministry in Nazareth with the accounts of the people present at his crucifixion and burial. For the sake of convenience, I will focus on the evidence in the Gospel of Mark, paying close attention to the names of Jesus’ “brothers”: He went away from there and came to his own country… And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “… Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6: 1–3) And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last… There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him. (Mark 15: 37, 40–41)”

On the one hand, the Gospel of Mark indisputably identifies “James” and “Joses” as two of the “brothers” (Greek adelphoi) of Jesus (Mark 6: 3). As any Greek dictionary will tell you, the most common meaning of the word “brother” is the same as in English: “a male from the same womb.” 26 On the other hand—and this is crucial—the Gospel of Mark also provides solid evidence that the same two men, “James” and “Joses, ” are the sons of a different woman named Mary. This other Mary is mentioned three times in the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. At the crucifixion, she is called “Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses” (Mark 15: 40). At Jesus’ burial, she is called “Mary the mother of Joses” (Mark 15: 47). On the morning of the resurrection, she is called “Mary the mother of James” (Mark 16: 1). Who is this woman? Obviously, Mark would never refer to the mother of Jesus as “the mother of James and Joses, ” or “the mother of James, ” or “the mother of Joses, ” especially when he has already referred to Mary as Jesus’ “mother” twice in his Gospel (Mark 3: 31, 32). 27”

The Other Mary = Mary the Wife of Clopas When it comes to the identity of the brothers of Jesus, the Gospel of John also provides an important clue to the identity of “the other Mary” who was present at the crucifixion: But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19: 25–27)”

This account of Jesus’ death provides us three more significant insights into the relationship between Jesus, Mary, and his “brothers.” First, notice that John identifies the second woman at the cross as “his mother’s sister, Mary” (John 19: 25). 39 Although it’s easy to miss the point, this verse provides important support for the word “sister” (Greek adelphē) being used to refer to someone other than a blood sister. It seems extremely unlikely that Mary’s parents would have given both her and her sister the name Mary. However, the text makes perfect sense if John is using the word “sister” to refer to a close relative of Jesus’ mother. Second, and even more important, when John refers to this woman as “Mary the wife of Clopas” (John 19: 25), he gives us an important clue to the identity of “the other Mary” referred to by Matthew and Mark. If John is referring to the same Mary that Matthew and Mark say was present at the crucifixion and burial of Jesus—Mary the mother of James and Joses—then we have further evidence that James and Joses are not the sons of Jesus’ mother. Nor are they the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. 40 Instead, they would be the sons of another man—a man named Clopas. 41 Third and finally, but by no means least important, in John’s account, Jesus gives his mother, Mary, to the Beloved Disciple to have as “his own” mother (John 19: 26–27). I cannot stress the point enough: If Mary would have had any other children at the time of the crucifixion, it would have been unheard of for Jesus to give his mother to one of his disciples. In an ancient Jewish context, to fail to care for one’s aging parents was a grave sin—one that Jesus himself describes as a capital offense (see Mark 7: 9–13). 42 Thus, the most plausible explanation for why Jesus takes such pains in the midst of dying to make sure his mother is cared for by the Beloved Disciple is that Mary has no other children. He is her only son. Once again, we could just stop here. If we only had the evidence of the New Testament we’ve just surveyed, it would be enough to confidently conclude that the so-called brothers of Jesus are in fact his close relatives, the children of Mary and Clopas, relatives of Jesus’ family. However, the New Testament is not the only relevant historical evidence we possess. We also have evidence for the identity of Jesus’ brothers from ancient church history—evidence that is often mysteriously ignored.”

The “Brothers” of Jesus = The First Bishops of Jerusalem According to the ancient Christian historian Hegesippus—who was apparently the first person to write a “history” of the Church—two of the so-called brothers of Jesus (James and Simon) also happened to be the first two bishops of Jerusalem. 43 Furthermore, they were widely known to be Jesus’ “cousins”! Consider the following testimony from Hegesippus, which is quoted by Eusebius in his fourth-century history of the Church: The same writer [Hegesippus] also [writes]… as follows: “After James the Just had suffered martyrdom for the same reason as the Lord, Simon, his cousin, the son of Clopas, was appointed bishop, whom they all proposed because he was another cousin (Greek anepsion) of the Lord. (Hegesippus [2nd century A.D.], quoted in Eusebius, Church History, 4.22) 44 After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Simon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin (Greek anepsion), as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph (Greek adelphon tou Iōsēph). (Hegesippus [2nd century A.D.], quoted in Eusebius, Church History 3.11.1–2) 45 Amazingly, the testimony of Hegesippus that the so-called brothers of Jesus were in fact his “cousins” (Greek anepsioi) is frequently just ignored by scholars who assert that Mary had other children. 46 But in the face of such historical evidence, this is unacceptable. James and Simon, two of the so-called brothers of Jesus, were not obscure figures in the early Church. In fact, they were the first two bishops of Jerusalem and some of the earliest martyrs. More important, they were known to be “cousins” of Jesus. Notice here that Hegesippus’ identification of James and Simon as Jesus’ cousins is stated simply as a matter of historical fact. There is no evidence that he is attempting to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity. To the contrary, Hegesippus is simply reporting the history of the bishops in Jerusalem. 47 Now, if Hegesippus is right, then the earliest historical evidence we possess jibes perfectly with the New Testament evidence we saw that the so-called brothers of Jesus—James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude—were in fact the children of another woman named Mary (Mark 6: 1–3 15: 37, 40–41; cf. Luke 24: 10). It also makes perfect sense if this “other Mary” is the same woman who is called the “wife of Clopas” (John 19: 25):”

This, I would suggest, is the simplest and most historically plausible solution to the mystery of the “brothers” of Jesus. Again, the best explanation for the ancient Christian claim that the “brothers” of Jesus were his cousins is that the brothers of Jesus were actually his cousins. 48”

— Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah by Brant James Pitre



They are related as cousins to Jesus and are the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas

[georgepierson]

The Protoevangelium of James
“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen
“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son, ’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

Didymus the Blind
“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan
“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I
“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine
“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius
“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria
“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I
“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

[mpress]

Marian wisdom can also begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God).

Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle.

As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8).

Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process.

In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary "ego" death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld, her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle.

Mary Magdalene's anointing and wiping of Jesus's feet with her hair can then be seen as head to tail (toe) imagery as she descends her matriarchal head to his patriarchal feet, thus reenacting the high understanding of the divine cyclical process. (John 12:3)

To carry the Ankh (now the female symbol ♀️) was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle.

Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society. Ganesha (like the elephant) wears God's cyclical nature on his face.


"See all women as mothers, serve them as your mother. When you see the entire world as the mother, the ego falls away. See everything as Mother and you will know God." - Neem Karoli Baba

[dannymoore]

Trivia question: where was the last reference (chronologically) to Mary? Acts 1:14. Like John the Baptist in John 3:30, once her role was accomplished she faded with no further scriptural references. Why does the RCC put such an emphasis on Mary's unscriptural role that they have created for her? This is heretical.

[James]

Marian Dogmas

Mary is the New Eve (Gen 3:15, Luke 1:28 -1:38, Jn 2:4, Jn 19:26, Gal 4:4, Rev 12:1, Rev 12:17)

Immaculate Conception:
As Eve was created sinless, the New Eve was born unstained by original sin. How can the New Eve be inferior to the old?

ASSUMPTION OF MARY:
If Adam and Eve had obeyed God, they would have entered heaven body and soul. Since the new creation is the fulfillment of the failure of the old, Jesus, the New Adam, and Mary, the New Eve, obeyed God perfectly. Because of their perfect obedience, Jesus and Mary entered heaven body and soul.

CO-REDEMPTRIX:
Both Adam and Eve sinned but it was Adam's sin that caused the downfall. Nevetheless, Eve was Co-Transgressor as she played a vital part in man's downfall. In a similar manner, although Jesus' obedience redeemed man, Mary was Co-Redemptrix as she played a vital role in man's redemption. In Luke Ch 1, God draws a parallel between Eve and Mary. Eve listens to a fallen angel, sins, and tempts Adam who brings the fall of man. Mary listens to an Angel, accepts God's plan, gives birth to Jesus who is the redeemer of man.

MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES:
Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces because Mary gives birth to Jesus who reconciles man to God so we can receive God's grace.
Also through Mary's intercessory prayers, we receive God's grace as displayed at the wedding at Cana when Mary asked Jesus for help and he truned water into wine. It is not Mary's grace, but God's grace that we receive through Mary's intercession.

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant (Ex 40:34-35, Lk 1:35), (2 Sam 6:1-11, Lk 1:39), (2 Sam 6:14, Lk 1:43), (2 Sam 6:15, Lk 1:42), (2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:43), ( 2 Sam 6:11, Lk 1:56), (2 Sam 6:11, Lk 1:39-45), (Ex 16:33-34, Ex 25:16, Num 17:10, Heb 9:4), (Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1)

Prefigured in Jephthah's daughter (Luke 1:34, 38 Judges 11:35-39)

EVER VIRGIN:
No man could touch the Ark (2 Sam 6:7). Similarly no man could touch Mary the New Ark of the covenant. Mary's viriginy upholds the divinity of Jesus. The Ark's main purpose was to bring the presence of God to his people. Similarly, the New Ark's main purpose was to bring the prescence of Jesus (God/Man) to the world. Sacred vessles set aside for God, cannot be used for normal use. Like a goblet used in worship cannot be used to drink wine at dinner. Simiarly Mary's womb set aside to bring God's prescence into the world cannot be used for normal use.

Luke 1:34, 38 was alluding to Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11 who accepted the will of her father and was ever virgin. Likewise because Mary accepted God the Father's will, she became ever virgin. Her womb dedicated to God, could not be used for normal activity.

[dannymoore]

Rev. 12:1 is a symbolic representation of Israel. Mary is not named here.

[humblepiuspeter]

I suggest you to make a video about pope Benedict i think you didn't make catholic truth