Answering an argument against Catholic Marian Typology

I gave this answer on Facebook, but I figured I'd also share it here; I am addressing this blog post that was shared on Facebook. 

Romans 5:14 is typically taken as signifying that Adam is the type of Christ i.e. Jesus is the 'new Adam'; but clearly there are some rather obvious differences between Adam and Christ, Christ is sinless, Adam sinned, Christ is a divine person, Adam a human person, etc. the article you link points out dissimilarities between Mary and the Ark, but if I can do the same with a type we know the bible itself aproves, then this is no counter argument. 

The author does not adequately address this argument, they grant that types have limits, but say that some people will see types where there are none, and insists that the Catholic typology regarding Mary is one such type. The argument he gives is essentially that Jesus is the more suitable type for the Ark, because the Ark is the most important thing in the temple, and that the temple is the type of Jesus; he is wrong on both accounts. 

(He also makes a third argument, namely, the idea that Mary was only temporarily the Ark, since Jesus was only temporarily within her, this too is an error, and will be addressed bellow.)

'The Church' is the type of the temple, hence St. Paul himself speaks of us as a living temple, Jesus as the chief corner stone, St. Paul says that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, St. Peter says that each of us are living stones being brought together to make a spiritual temple. Now the Christ does say that his own body is a temple, but then Paul says that the Church is the body of Christ, so that of course, Christ's body is the temple, and we are the temple, there is no contradiction here, for we are baptized into Christ as the chief cornerstone; but it remains, the temple at large is the body of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ resides within. 

More deeply into the temple then is the Ark of the covenant, the archetype of the temple, and so Mary is the archetype of the Church, as she held Christ in her, so we are to hold Christ in us, as we share him in the Eucharist, and as we live in love of him, as Mary did so perfectly; but it remains that the Ark of the covenant was never what was most important within the temple; rather, it was what was 'within' the Ark that was most important; that was the heart of the temple, within this ark was the jar of manna, which is the 'bread from heaven', the staff of Aaron, and the stone tablets of the covenant which were God's very words; but then, who is the 'bread of heaven' but Christ himself, when he said over the bread at the last supper "this is my body, which will be given up for you" and is Christ himself not the word of God, and is his blood not the blood of the new covenant as he said over the wine at the last supper: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you", and the staff of Aaron which signified God's chosen priest, who is Jesus but the eternal priest, in the order of Malchezadek? So then it was not the Ark that was most important, but what was within the Ark; so likewise the Ark is not a type of Jesus, but rather the more important things that were within it is his type, namely the bread from heaven, the tablets of the laws, and the staff of Aaron; but these most holy things were contained in something good itself, and this is the Ark of the covenant, and so as Mary held Jesus in her womb, then she too is the Ark of the covenant. 

And of course, that Jesus left the womb does not stop Mary from being the Ark any more than removing the manna, tablets, and rod would stop the Ark from bieng itself; the Ark would retain that title in light of the purpose it surved, and so too does Mary retain the title, as is rightfully hers.