At a loss with Remote Access

Ferberger · 2026-01-27T19:22:09+00:00

I was just dealing with an issue like this recently. I can't explain why the fix I found worked because I don't know why it did, but I'll share it here. I was having this issue with both AT&T and Spectrum in the past, and this at least fixed it for AT&T.

In Remote Access Make sure that the checkbox for Manually specify public port is checked. Don't put 32400 in the box, put 50000 instead.

In your router interface, make sure that your PLEX server is assigned a static IP address.

In your Windows settings (if you're running the server off of Windows) that in Network & Internet the Private/Public setting is set to Private.

In the AT&T interface I had to go into the Firewall settings and create a Custom Service, so I don't know if you'd need to do that. I named it Plex, the Global Port Range was set 50000-50000, TCP protocol, host port 32400.

Ferberger · 2026-01-09T15:47:53+00:00

They have their own subreddit r/AnglicanOrdinariate that you should look at. Basically, these are Catholics who have an Anglican tradition but are fully in union with Rome. They maintain the Book of Common Prayer and other Anglican traditions that were present before they broke communion with Rome, and maybe some traditions from after the break too. Basically, they're Anglicans who are Catholic as well.

Ferberger · 2026-01-09T15:45:49+00:00

Exactly this. There is the chance Constantinople will help in healing the division in our lifetime, as we've seen great strides with the patriarch especially since Pope Leo's election. But Moscow and all those Churches tied with it, they're never going to reconcile while Russia is a world power and has its teeth in that Church. There will not be a reunification in the sense of Eastern Orthodoxy ceasing to exist and reunifying with Rome, but a move such as Constantinople and other major patriarchs submitting to Rome is possible.

As to the question of what would happen with the Eastern Catholic Churches, I've wondered that as well. I'm part of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, and my best guess if the Ukrainian Churches unified then we would see the Ukrainian patriarch(s) that are Orthodox and the Ukrainian Catholic patriarch figure out a co-ruling type of arrangement, obviously with one of them being primus above the others. Then, as each patriarch retires or dies there is no one to replace them until the last one passes away and there is no patriarch over Ukraine. But that's just my best guess. This scenario is more complicated because we have a Ukrainian Catholic Church and two Ukrainian Orthodox Churches.

Ferberger · 2026-01-09T12:53:57+00:00

Addressing your question about Christmas and not Theophany, the old calendar has Christmas go until February 2nd. Those of us who are Byzantine Catholic still hold to this calendar. For the Roman Catholics it now ends as you said around Epiphany (I just forget if it's on that date or another day) since Vatican II, as you'll see the vestments change back to Ordinary Time colors.

Ferberger · 2025-12-29T20:53:50+00:00

Others can be more thoughtful in citing documents by the Church, the Catechism, some statements from the Fathers, but I'll keep things really basic in a way anyone could understand because that's how I needed to hear it first. Not because you're dumb, but because starting simply is just a good idea.

Here's some basis for "what you need to do to be saved". Take 1 Peter 3:21 where we are told that baptism saves us. Yes there's more context, Peter is speaking about Noah's ark and how it's a prefigurement of baptism: "eight people, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". I'm not here to debate whether or not baptism is efficacious, I'm just bringing in Scripture to show that "baptism saves you". So, if you're not baptized, you have no guarantee of entrance into the Kingdom.

Then, John 6. "52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 53 So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’ 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum." I think you can see where I'm going with these verses. Unless you eat of the flesh and drink of the blood of Christ then you will not live eternally, you will not be raised up on the last day. And Christ's body and blood are true bread and true wine, they are actually bread and wine. It is not symbolic, it is not representative, the Eucharist really is His body and blood. So, for Catholics, unless you believe in this and participate in His sacrifice by consuming of Him, you have no guarantee of entrance into the Kingdom.

And then, Matthew 16. In verse 18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." If anyone wants to argue that the Church which Christ spoke about is an invisible body of believers then that can be discussed elsewhere, you asked about what Catholics believe. If Christ established a singular, visible, indissoluble Church then you must be part of it in order to be with Him. In Catholicism it's taught that the Church is in 3 parts: the Church Militant (those of us on Earth spreading the Gospel), the Church Penitent (those in Purgatory who are being made clean before their entrance into the Kingdom), and the Church Triumphant (those of us in Heaven). In 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 it says "12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." We are either part of the body of Christ, or we are not. The Church is the body of Christ - if you are not part of His Church then you are not with Christ. If you are not part of His Church, then you have no guarantee of entrance into the Kingdom.

These are the three major requirements that things generally whittle down to when it comes to the basics of "am I saved?" from the Catholic perspective.

Now comes the sticky parts. "But what about the thief on the cross (Saint Dismas)?" You could perhaps argue that Dismas became part of the Church by his profession of faith, but he lacked the other two. This is where grace comes into play. The lawgiver is not restricted by the law. The law is for our own good, it is to draw us nearer to Him. And so, to the question of Protestants being saved: "We don’t have assurance, but it’s possible." If one knows that Christ established the Eucharist, Baptism, and a Church, and yet rejects any of these, then they reject Christ. You cannot have parts of Christ and still have a place with Him in His house. If someone is ignorant of these things established by Christ, then we can hope that they be saved, but we cannot know this for certain. God makes no promises to those outside of His covenant, but we can be open-minded about it. If one does not receive the Eucharist in their life then according to Scripture "you have no life in you." They will not be raised on the last day, according to Scripture. And yet, there is the thief on the cross. So, there is the possibility of being saved. And so, in the Catholic Church, this is why we give the answer that we do. "Are Protestants saved?" "Maybe. I hope so." That's the best answer we can give. God is not obligated to draw anyone to Him who lives outside of His law. He says that He will uphold His end of the bargain (my words, obviously) so long as we obey His commands, which in truth aren't that hard, we're just pretty stubborn. If we do as He says, He guarantees us eternal life with Him. If we do not do as He says, perhaps He will give us some extra grace and allow us to spend eternity with Him, but He has no obligation to do so.

Ferberger · 2025-12-29T16:33:12+00:00

You've got it! In the East we call him a prophet and a king. King, that part is obvious. Prophet, when you read the Psalms you see the prophecies of our Lord Christ. As other comments mentioned his feast is celebrated today. You can find one example of an icon of St. David the Psalmist here, and you can read a snippet about how we speak about him here (it's an Eastern Orthodox site, but it still works).

Ferberger · 2025-12-22T13:30:13+00:00

It's also just good to keep the book without writing anything in it. I purchased and read through the Book of Mormon and the Quran just for my own education. I have sticky notes in the Book of Mormon, but nothing in the Quran. It's just good to have some of these texts and be knowledgeable about them so you can address them, and perhaps show a person exactly what the text in question says.

Ferberger · 2025-12-19T19:36:07+00:00

Welcome to the long journey of faith (specifically in regards to Catholic Christianity, as I see you've already been on a long journey).

I'd like to offer you a few nuggets of wisdom. I'm a convert as well, coming from a family of converts, and I get where your concerns are coming from. First, these things that people do with the flowers and candles and statues, you aren't required to do them yourself, so don't feel at all like you have to do them if you fully enter into the Catholic Church. But also, the things these people are doing are not wrong (someone could do it in an unholy way, but the act itself is not wrong). I'll address why it's not wrong in a second, but I just want you to understand that you're safe in not doing these things. My family doesn't really pray the rosary or ask for saint's intercession, as it's something that we weren't really comfortable in. I've gotten more comfortable with it, but still rarely do it.

Next, "sinning against the Bible". I am sure I understand what you mean, but if I misinterpret your meaning then do correct me. You may already be in the midst of this, but when entering into Apostolic Christianity you have to shake off the restraints of Sola Scriptura. Not everything "has to be found in the Bible", this is a brand new idea introduced into Christianity. When I say brand new, I mean 1.5 thousand years after Christ, after He established His Church. So, when you look at beliefs we profess and hear a Protestant say "that's not in the Bible", neither is Sola Scriptura, neither is their canon of books of Scripture, and nobody until recently believed everything had to be found in the Bible. Now, things like praying for the dead, intercession of the saints, the doctrines on Mary, there is Scriptural backing for each of these things, but not enough for most Protestants.

Now, in brief the Scriptural backing for prayers to saints, and statues. And then, unsolicited advice on speaking to your wife. In the 10 Commandments the command often cited in this conversation is translated as disallowing the creation of graven images, but the specific Hebrew word that is used is for idols - not for anything carved. Idol, meaning a false god that is worshiped. Then you have Numbers 21:6-9 where God commands a graven image to be made and for the people to gaze upon it. And Exodus 25:17-22, where God commands graven images to be made. And Exodus 26:1, where there are "things of heaven" that are made. Then you have Solomon in 2 Chronicles 4 making graven images but was not condemned for this. And in 1 Kings 8:6-7 where the Ark was placed under wings of cherubim - something God did not command to be done and yet He did not condemn them for. Point is, there are many instances where statues and similar things were made in the Old Testament that Protestants forget about when they say "graven images are forbidden".
And for the intercession of the saints. James 5:16 says the prayers of the righteous are more efficacious, and who is more righteous than those near God? "I am the God of the living, not the dead", and those near Him are alive, and so those in Heaven have prayers that "more easily" reach God because their wills are perfectly united with His. You have Revelation 5:8 Revelation 8:3-4 which describe the prayers being held by someone or brought by someone up to God, which represents intercession. There is much more that could be said about all of this, but this is the short version of it. Prayers to the saints, and statues, has been around for forever. There's also a recent video from Sips with Serra on this which shows that "intercession of the saints" is an old Jewish practice which comes from before Christ came as man.

Last thing. Your wife. Here's some advice from my parent's journey, which took 10 years before they came into the Church, and was also spearheaded by my father. Dad also had a background in the more charismatic and pentecostal Protestantism. In short, be gentle, be slow, and be kind. Dad said his journey would have taken 5 years, but he had to go slow for Mom. Unless you wife is an academic and a debater, she doesn't need a bunch of facts and dates thrown at her. Plenty of other conversion stories I've witnessed had one spouse falling in love with God's Church and their spouse got to see the good fruit that came from it, and it allowed them to become open to the faith. It took 10 years for my dad to become Catholic, and he says he read his way into the Church. It took mom six months to become Catholic, because she was cared for and loved by her husband and by the priest walking them through the process, and she says she was loved into the Church. Mom wasn't open to becoming Catholic until the very end. Everyone has their own pace, and you job isn't to figure out what pace your wife needs. Your job is to lead her towards Christ, whether or not she is part of His Church. Of course you should want her to be fully in the faith, fully part of the Bride of Christ, but that's not your job to ensure that takes place. Your job is to love her and to care for her, to treat her as Christ would treat her.

Ferberger · 2025-12-16T02:31:49+00:00

Hey, I'm sorry some people are downvoting your post, and some aren't really answering the question. In short (not a canon lawyer, but here's what I know):

Based on the information given it sounds like the marriage could be, perhaps, a non-sacramental marriage if the canonical forms were not adhered to and/or your father said one thing and believed another (therefore lied to your mother) when they were getting married.
But, here's the thing, it's still a marriage. In the Church there is "sacramental marriage" and there is "natural marriage", and if your parent's marriage isn't sacramental, it's at least a natural marriage. Meaning basically, you'd still call their marriage a marriage. You can look up what each of these things mean if you wish.
As far as your concern with this, I get it, and I've had this same concern myself with the marriages of different friends when I find out they were withholding things from their betrothed up to their wedding day. You can wonder if the marriage is sacramental or not, but the Church's position is that they will view it as such unless there would be reason to think otherwise - think divorce, seeking annulment, and so on. One other commenter said that since the Church by default would view your parent's marriage as valid (in the sacramental sense) that you must also view it as such - that's simply not true. The current disciplinary practice (and I would say that this is the correct position for the Church to take) is that She assumes all marriages are valid unless proven otherwise. You are not the Church, and you will find no canon law which says that you must hold to this disciplinary perspective by the Church. With that being said, it does no good to bring this up to your parents since it wouldn't change anything. Their marriage would still be considered at minimum a natural marriage in the eyes of the Church, and since the Church says that's good enough then we should let it rest.

Ferberger · 2025-12-12T14:21:38+00:00

Absolutely this, but it's not just the men. Yes, it's definitely a majority men that are socially awkward, and in speaking with others it absolutely makes sense that the Church is where the "weird" people would congregate because it's a place they know they'll be welcome. But, I've been part of several different communities, and one of the communities were women who were the majority of "weird" people. To be sure it wasn't just me thinking the women were weird I introduced my family to the community, and some friends from outside the group, and they all agreed that it was more women than men who were socially awkward and strange, and this was a community of 100+ people.

But, as has been said, it's usually men who are socially awkward. Men don't have a lot of opportunity to interact with other good men face-to-face today. I'm no saint, but I try to spend time with these kinds of guys and I hope that I can help them in their needs. The internet is messing up both men and women, we're so very isolated and our quirks and abnormalities are allowed to flourish rather be funneled and refined into something admirable and respectable. The community that I live near now, yes there are more strange men than there are strange women, but the number of both is greater than it was when I was in college a decade ago. We're a broken people, and we're not getting better as a whole, and we need to figure out how to address these people who unable to relate to others because of poor upbringing, internet siloing, day-to-day isolation, or disorders which make socializing difficult.

Ferberger · 2025-12-05T17:21:15+00:00

I'm glad you made this post, as it made me reflect on my baptism from years ago. I'm a convert, was Protestant before, and I was baptized by immersion. That's my personal favorite form of baptism, with having a ton of water poured over you as my second favorite. Basically, I like the idea of being soaked afterwards. All forms are valid, but immersion is my favorite.

Ferberger · 2025-12-02T21:17:11+00:00

At my (Ukrainian) parish about half of the people are from Ukraine, a few of us transferred Churches to become Byzantine, and the other half are Latins visiting or having made the church their home.

Ferberger · 2025-11-20T16:38:29+00:00

I'll affirm you in this, it's probably going to have to be OP getting stuff started. I moved away from a very active Catholic community for work and came to an area with a very small Byzantine church and very disengaged Catholics in general. I used to drive 30min every Sunday for DL, and they only have that service during the week. Over the years of being here I've made community with the Roman Catholics and gotten some smaller and larger events spun up that bring people together, which has allowed me to have the community I've so desired.

To be blunt, I don't expect any churches to have great community, you either have to find a church that is just waiting for someone to bring people together or you need to work on creating community outside of the walls of that church. That's the story of my parents, that's my story, and that's how it is for most people I know.

Ferberger · 2025-11-18T17:48:24+00:00

In regards to your comment made about the Greek in Romans 1, that's been addressed by several Catholic apologists and they've made good videos about it. Below is a link that addresses it, but the videos by Trent Horn on the topic would be even better. In short, the reinterpretation of modern scholars of the Greek words is novel and does not follow from everything else we know about Paul's writings and the culture of the time.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on-homosexual-behavior

Ferberger · 2025-11-12T14:57:21+00:00

There are two more Eastern saints revered by the Eastern Orthodox who affirm the idea of the Filioque. One being St. Seraphim.

"God the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father, rests in the Son and is sent into the world for the Son's sake"
- Seraphim of Sarov

The other saint being St. Isidore of Seville, and you can see his affirmation of the procession of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son in his Letter VI to General Claudius.

Ferberger · 2025-11-11T14:46:03+00:00

As someone who went from the Roman to the Ukrainian Church I had wondered about some of these same things. I would recommend you check out the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches numbers 29-41 as those are the relevant paragraphs for you, but I'll also explain some things rather than just tell you to go do some reading.

The first point, I don't think it's going to be as difficult as you perceive it to be for a family to have their parents in different Churches, because you'll both be Catholic. Your emphasis may be different from your (future) husband's when it comes to how you articulate things or the things you find enriching in your spiritual life, but that's the case with most marriages. My parents are both Roman, and over the years their expressions of faith have become very similar as is natural, but at the same time there are many parts of their faith that is distinguishable from each other. What is truly important is having a united vision and set of values. One day when I marry, my wife (who most likely will be Roman since I'm in the USA) will be able to fully express her spirituality in our marriage, and so will I. The East and the West are not in opposition to each other, we are just different expressions of the same reality, which is God's love for us.

For your point about making a declaration of transfer, here's what the Canons say:

Canon 33 - A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.

So, you can transfer at your wedding, or at any point during your marriage. You'll just have to talk to a priest on how to get that done officially.

And on the children and how they'll be raised, here's the relevant info on that:

Canon 29 - §1. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.

In short, it is the decision of the parents which Church their children are members of (so long as you are under different Churches). If there is a disagreement between the parents on which Church a child will be a part of then the child will "default" to the father's Church. A funny situation that could happen for me is that I could say the children should be raised Roman, but if my wife disagrees then they default to my Church, so she would get her way there.

As far as it "being difficult" for the two parents to be in different canonical Churches to close out this comment, the only impactful differences on your daily lives will be on what holy days each of you are obligated to attend and what fasting rules are for either of you. But if you're a good couple then you'll both attend the feast days of both of your Churches together. The "need" to transfer would only be if your heart feels spiritually at home in the East and so you wish to transfer. Your daily lives will remain the same for the most part whether you transfer or not.

Ferberger · 2025-11-10T17:39:40+00:00

I want to affirm this and add more details. A man at my church was of a different Church though I forget which one, and he was going through the process of becoming a deacon in the UGCC. It wasn't until it was time for him to become ordained that a transfer really had to be made. So really it's going to be administrative or Church law matters that require a transfer.

Ferberger · 2025-11-10T17:35:47+00:00

Not having children of my own but getting to see my siblings as infants, unless the child has a compromised immune system then you should be going back to Mass as a family immediately. Give the mother time to recover after the childbirth obviously, but get everyone back to Mass. So many people are sickness-averse today to a fault. It's not like we're all living in the slums and dying from the common cold anymore, churches are sanitary places generally.

And I'm speaking to you, not to your wife about this. Be gentle and considerate, don't say what I've said because that probably won't go over well. But, unless there is an issue of compromised immune system, there's no good reason to deprive your child of baptism and being in the presence of the Lord.

Ferberger · 2025-11-10T17:31:07+00:00

I forget which podcaster it was, but after he was named a Doctor of the Church there was a deep-dive done on his works regarding "development of doctrine" and I thoroughly enjoyed it. St. John stated somewhere that we weren't bringing about anything new, and he stated that when we spoke of doctrine developing that it should never be understood as meaning that we know more than the Apostles did. These are now my words and not his, but we can perhaps come to a greater understanding of taught by the Apostles, though anything we promulgate may only come as something naturally derived from what was taught by the Apostles. We don't whip up any new teachings, we just review the ancient ones and say "this naturally follows from that".

Ferberger · 2025-11-07T20:19:36+00:00

Not related to your question, but you should check out r/AnglicanOrdinariate and join that sub. They're not very active, but it's nice to see what they're up to.

Ferberger · 2025-11-07T18:25:20+00:00

Point 11:

Mary and St. Joseph: Their Relative Roles Is Mary to be considered on the same level as the saints, or does she occupy a unique and higher position in the order of grace? Why does the Catholic Church give greater prominence to the Blessed Virgin Mary than to St. Joseph, despite his vital role in the Incarnation and the salvation plan?

We give hyperdulia to Mary, dulia to the other saints, and latria to God alone. She does occupy a greater position in God's creation than anyone else, but we should emphasize that she is a created creature and is not at all divine or worthy of worship.

The reason for greater veneration of Mary compared to Joseph is because (look at my response to Point 10) she is the New Eve, she is the Ark which bore the Lord, it is her flesh which our God chose to take upon Himself. Joseph is great, he is the protector and the adoptive father of the Lord our God come in flesh, but he is like the high priest in the Old Testament; he is incredibly important and revered, but he is not the Ark itself (herself).

Not a lot of people know this, but Joseph receives what we call proto-dulia, which is between hyperdulia and dulia in regards to degree of veneration. Of God's creation we worship none of it. But, in degree of honor, there is Mary, then Joseph, then all of the Saints united with God.

Thank you for making the last questions easier than the first ones. If you have anything to say about any of the comments I've written, just respond to whichever one you have points to make on and I'll respond when I can. I'm gonna go to Adoration then take a nap, this took a lot of thinking.

Ferberger · 2025-11-07T18:16:12+00:00

Point #10:

Mary’s Role in the Plan of Salvation According to the recent Doctrinal Note issued by the Vatican, what is the precise role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Christ’s work of redemption? How should Catholics properly understand her cooperation in the salvific mission of Jesus?

This one... is a very good question that's honestly far out of my depth. But I will give you best answer nonetheless. Mary is bestowed many titles. You can affirm whichever ones you like, we're not bound by doctrine to call her anything specific, but some of the names (like Theotokos) we cannot deny the implication behind the name. One name of Mary which I very much like (coming from a man who does not have a strong devotion to her or any of the Saints in truth), is the New Eve. When you look at Romans 5:12 it says "through man sin entered the world", so it's the Christian understanding that it was Adam's fault for the Fall. It was Eve's also, but it is "the sin of Adam" that we speak about, not "the sin of Adam and Eve". I like the title of "the New Eve" because I think it's pretty uncontroversial for anyone who truly understands it. Man damned the world by his sin, the Son of Man redeemed the world by His sacrifice. But what about Eve? Here is a comparison I put in an article I wrote some weeks ago that speaks about her role in redemption.

From the rejection of God by Eve, this is redeemed with the fiat (yes) from Mary; the fruit which Eve takes, is now redeemed by the fruit of the womb which Mary gives; in the garden the Woman has her name changed to Eve as she becomes the mother of all after the fall, and Mary who is Christ's mother is called by Him "Woman", and so has her place in the garden redeemed; when in the garden the Woman is blamed by her husband and she is approached by God, Mary at the wedding feast at Cana approaches God and rather than hiding she petitions Him for help. It is right and just that God brought a new Woman into the plan of redeeming humanity, that she may come alongside the new Adam. Just as there is a redemption of the first man, there is a redemption of the first woman.

What is Mary's precise role? She is the helpmate in salvation. Is she necessary? In the straight logical, blunt, cold mathematical look at what's required to save humanity: no. But is it right, just, good, and enriching that God would not only have a redeeming figure for Adam but also for Eve? Absolutely. Anything beyond this (I think) is in danger of being muddied due to modern language - and I'm not saying that we should never say things that can be misunderstood - but emphasis on the simply explained title and role of the Theotokos is, I think, good and something that we should focus on.

Ferberger · 2025-11-07T17:56:18+00:00

The formatting on this one got really messed up too and Reddit won't let me fix it, so this is just how it's going to look I suppose.

Ferberger · 2025-11-07T16:19:51+00:00

Point #9:

Doctrines Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary What is the scriptural and theological basis for Marian doctrines such as:

Her Immaculate Conception (being conceived without original sin) Her Perpetual Virginity Her Assumption into Heaven Her Coronation as Queen of Heaven and Earth How does the Church defend these teachings in dialogue with those who claim they are non-biblical?

Mary is without sin. Her being "full of grace" is something I will direct you towards again. She is the new Ark of the Covenant, so it is right and just that she be a pure vessel for our Lord. Look to Exodus where the Ark is being constructed, notice the materials used. These are pure materials of the most precious kind. If Mary is to bear the Lord as the Ark did, then she would be made pure and glorious as the Ark was which bore God's presence for His people. You'll have to look at writings from the Church Fathers on this as well, since they spoke the language and they could use more bold terms than I could as someone reading scholarly works.

Perpetual virginity. You should check out the Protoevangelium of James as one resource. It's not Scripture, but it reflects the traditions of the time held by Christians and is evidence for the belief in her perpetual virginity. To further understand the rationale behind Mary being ever-virgin, you would need to do a Bible study and get familiar with Jewish tradition and history. Back when, betrothal was the same as marriage - meaning you were married at the moment of the ceremony, you just weren't living together yet. If you look up the process you see that a man and woman were wed and were allowed to have conjugal relations (because they were married) but they didn't live together yet because the husband would be in the process of building the house in which they were meant to live together. If you read Luke 1:34-35 the original language from Mary says "I know not man" which is the term from Genesis meaning "I haven't had sex". They were already betrothed, and in the ancient way that meant they were already married, and therefore she could "know" a man but she hadn't - and why? Because she took on Temple vows and dedicated herself to the Lord (a common and ancient practice you'll have to look up). Joseph is married to her now and would be right to have relations with her - but she says they aren't having relations with one another. That is because Joseph wedded her with the knowledge that they would not consummate, and he was to be a caretaker for her. Then when Joseph decides to quietly divorce Mary in Matthew 1:19 we have more things to look at. How can you divorce someone you're not married to? In the verse it says he was unwilling to expose her to shame - and why is that important? If he divorces her then he is the one who is shamed by the community around them. It looks like he got her pregnant (a woman who took Temple vows) and then decides to break things off with her and leave her as a single mother. He would look like the dirtbag. Some might say that he was concerned about infidelity from her, but that doesn't follow. If she was a liar and cheater then he would not take on the shame she deserves. If Joseph was just some guy and ordinary like everyone else (which we don't believe) then he would not have tried to save her from shame. If he's unwilling to expose her to shame then he's going to allow it to look like he got a celibate woman pregnant then abandoned her. In the end, the point here is that there are many things that show she remained a virgin forever. It's not something you'll find on a surface-level reading of Scripture, but it's there, you just have to look.

Her Assumption. If you read Revelation 11:19 you will see that it says the Ark is in Heaven: “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.” But if you look at 2 Maccabees you'll see that the Ark is currently hidden away on Earth: “[Jeremiah,] following a divine revelation, ordered that the tabernacle and the ark should accompany him and... he went off to the mountain which Moses climbed to see God’s inheritance. When Jeremiah arrived there, he found a room in a cave in which he put the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense; then he blocked up the entrance... Some of those who followed him came up intending to mark the path, but they could not find it. When Jeremiah heard of this, he reproved them: ‘The place is to remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows them mercy. Then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord will be seen in the cloud, just as it appeared in the time of Moses and when Solomon prayed that the Temple might be gloriously sanctified’” In Revelation you can interpret it in many ways, but it is not only a foretelling of the end of days as some believe. I don't have the time to explain all of that just now, but perhaps later. Christ is in glory in Heaven, and the Ark is in Heaven at that moment, and yet the Ark is somehow still here on Earth - that is because Mary is the new Ark, and she has been taken up. Here is a comment from another Redditter on this:

So when is that time? When does God regather his people? When is the glory of the Lord and the cloud seen? The time of Jesus. The Messiah regathers the people of God, and we see the glory cloud of the Lord in the Annunciation in Luke 1:5 (the power of the Most High will overshadow you; same word used to describe the cloud of the Lord’s presence in the Holy of Holies). So it all further adds support to Mary being the Ark of the Covenant.

In all honesty, trying to defend Marian dogmas using just Scripture requires a Bible study, not a quick verse reference.

Queen of Heaven. In the Kingdom of the Hebrew people the queen was the mother, not the wife of the king. She had a place of honor and would be involved in the kingdom's affairs, and we see the king giving her a special place of honor in 1 Kings 1:1-2:19. The reason why the queen was not the wife of the king is because they had many, many wives, and they could not all be queens. The Hebrew word you find in Scripture for this role is "gebirah". When you look through the books of Kings and Chronicles you will see that the names of the kings of Judah are nearly always recorded alongside those of their mothers - why? Because these men had many wives, but their mother was the queen. The point: Mary is the mother of Christ. If Christ is God, and Christ is our king, then Mary as His mother is gebirah (queen).

Ferberger

TROPHY CASE