No, this explanation is a common error. The assumption of a rebuke does not, apparently, give proper consideration to the Hebrew behind the Greek, nor the Hebrew family relationship, nor the fact that she knew He would do the miracle, nor the fact that He did the miracle. It does fit the anti Mary/Miriam tradition though and is quite common in some circles. The Catholics have this right.
Judges 11:12 And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land?
1 Kings 17:18 And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?
2 Kings 3:13 And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the LORD hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab.
2 Chronicles 35:21 But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.
Then what of this which you also packaged here with all the rest --- "nor the fact that she knew He would do the miracle"?
WHEN did she know?
I do not believe nor shall ever believe "Catholics" have things right when (or if) it is read into the text that she went to Jesus requesting a miracle, and he obeyed and performed one, as if on demand.
IF we are to be reading things into the text, considering the overall setting up to that point;
It is more like she was speaking openly of her own concern -- and the reaction that produced in her son, him speaking in a sense somewhat forcibly to her, was not expected by her, and frankly -- took her by surprise. She may have even been thinking --- "you and those you have with you could maybe slip out, and if you hurry -- come back with some wine" for this once-in-a-lifetime for the couple being wed -- event? But that's just speculation, isn't it?
It was if while she was speaking of what was indeed a problem in her own mind and cultural understanding (a wedding party not having enough wine --- in Judaism of that era that would have been something of a big deal, a "bad sign" as it were) was not at the same time consciously herself presenting that before Jesus as deliberate request that he do something to remedy the situation, particularly that he should perform a miracle!
Yet in His reaction --- we can indeed gather a sense from what scanty text we do have concerning this, that it was as if there had been a sudden change of demeanor in her son...he was serious, and did include mention of it being before "His time" (which can hold meaning all it's own, in context of weddings & Israel, and the symbolism towards those subjects which had been used previously in Scripture -- and what He himself would do towards the chosen Bride -- which is Israel & the Church) and it does seem to me, that Mary sensed there was suddenly an impending *something* that would transpire -- she likely as not knew not what precisely, as in He would actually be turning water into wine -- BUT -- she grasped the significance of His manner of reply to her --- herself possibly sensed having stirred within Him a great power, that had until then been largely dormant, still & quiet, until then in His life expressed/demonstrated in more pedestrian and ordinary gracefulness, perhaps.
It was likely as not also by the spirit that she said what she did to the servants, for it is clear enough at that juncture that she was aware of Jesus having been stirred to action -- and by the spirit? -- she became aware that this action would involve or need include the servants -- and that Jesus would be telling them "what to do". Perhaps -- after His response to her, it then became revealed to her that He would be in some way miraculously remedying the lack sufficiency for marriage feast wine -- but it is seriously doubtful she knew beforehand, while this miracle holds hidden blessing for many even unto this day, if they but have eyes to see the continuing promise of it...
That's more the real message here -- not to open the door for later generations inter-act with "Mary" from heavenly realms -- so that she as spirit entity can "show them he Son" or "pray for them, and most certainly not for her to hear prayers-- then answer those from on high, herself -- which is inclusive of the sort of activities in realm of spirit which are often attributed to "Mary" which go far beyond veneration.
I guess one has to have lived through God having given them revelation which was meant to apply immediately to some real world goings-on to be able to better grasp how inspiration from God does seem to always include necessary or needful information -- suddenly -- one just knows what they just previously did not know, and can be given sense of what to say, or what to do, what others are thinking (if that matters and could effect the outcome) which they lacked organized summary information for previously, with these things coming by way of Spirit and even all at once -- not limited to flesh & blood mind or mental process -- but rather as something of an over-ride of the more usual and mundane thinking processes and results. At least such as that (in rough outline) is along lines of my own experience...
Yet none of the visible elements of the miracle at the wedding of Cana equates with ourselves needing to go through "Mary" unto this day, directing prayers to her by name, for her to then pass those on to Jesus -- who then passes those further on to the Creator, whom was and is Jesus Christ's own Father in every sense of that word Father.
In fact, we are instructed by this same Jesus (whom Mary, it is oft repeated within RCC settings -- said "do whatever He tells you") to in this manner pray ---to who? ---> Our Father.
Jesus included there to pray in his name though still instructing us all that our prayers be addressed to --->Our Father whom is in Heaven.
Then let's do that, and not direct prayers to other entities believed or perceived by ourselves to be in heaven, including angels, or the one individual human being that is mother of His earthly incarnation, whom herself was/is a created being, as are all human beings -- other than Christ Himself who was something of both earthly and heavenly (having come down from heaven) yet in his flesh partaking also of having been "created" after the flesh being son of Mary, but the Only Begotten Son after the flesh & Spirit both, even at the same time.
Yet this Only Begotten Son -- we are not instructed to direct our prayers towards, either.
Jesus told them in John 16:23
Although two chapters previously (as we today encounter those) He is attributed to having said in John 14:16
with the following verse 17
So -- he prays the Father to send us the Spirit of truth, even the Holy Spirit.
Note there -- that He tells of sending none other, not Elijah to prophesy, not John the Baptist to prophesy Christ and then baptize also, not father Abraham to comfort us and visit with us, gaining there for himself also further confirmation of his 'descendents' not only after the flesh, but by the spirit as it were --- being as numerous as the stars of the sky, nor does Christ say he will send king David, or Solomon in his wisdom to directly advise us.
But somehow, now "Mary", other departed saints, and even angels too will do things of that nature?
No, other than in special circumstances, like those times which God the Father sends angels as heavenly messengers -- none of that other type of thing I have just outlined is found precedence for in the OT.
And in the NT --- when (or should I say if) one reaches towards mention of that basket of prayers which in revelatory vision John saw saints presenting to the Most High God (in effort to justify directing prayers towards any other than "Our Father", whom is our Father in Heaven by spirit of adoption) ---- still does not equate with ourselves being instructed or shown to address or direct our prayers to those same saints --- who then present those as second-hand offering of sorts unto God the Father.
They (saints in heavenly realm/kingdom) may hear prayers (some prayers?) and themselves be moved by them, having those prayers be on their own wavelength so to speak --- but we do not know that those saints and that basket of prayers were NOT prayers addressed to the Creator in the first place(!) though it does appear to me that Roman Catholics seem to argue that we should or could address prayers to saints, instead of God, in order for our prayers to find their way into that basket of prayers (being offered not "to saints" -- but to God) which John wrote that he saw in revelatory vision.
For that sort of idea to be valid (pray to saints, in order to have those entities then further pass along the prayers) one would need ignore a great deal which is written of elsewhere in the texts, and is found in Jewish religious tradition of that bygone era, and far too fully set aside all of that which Jesus Christ, when He was walking in the flesh and speaking plainly enough face-to-face, explained.
Set aside the superstitious approach which reads into Hebrew revelatory visions (even those of the Apostle John, if we can accept that he was the one whom wrote the book of Revelation) the religious methodology of Greco-Roman reasoning and understandings, which then cannot escape populating heavenly realms with spiritual entities which can act -- even upon their own authority or get-go.
That sort of thing is the very kind of religious setting that God lead Abram out from, and is contrary to monotheism.
Look around -- is there monotheism to be found anywhere else on the planet among "religions" which does not trace it's root back to the God of the Hebrews?
If one desires to value and lean upon "tradition" then let us not so fully set aside the traditions from which we ourselves (as for our Christian religion) came from.
He sent His disciples not out "into the world" but sent them instead unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel.(Matthew 10: 5-6)
He said of himself that He was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24)
Monotheism, my FRiend.
Not subtly disguised (all dressed up in 'Christian' clothes!) polytheistic pantheon of spirit beings -- even if there are indeed angels, and saints also, the claims being those other-than-actually God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and earth (themselves created beings) function much as junior god & goddesses themselves, having specialties assigned to them such as particular causes, occupations, endeavors, troubles or worries, etc.
To hear Roman Catholics tell it (some of them, anyway) if the ministering and working of the Holy Spirit be sensed as "feminine", then that's not the Holy Spirit --- but is instead "Mary".
Can you not see the theological problem with persons assigning the workings of the Holy Spirit to Mary?
Other than Christ quite possibly not have been fully "rebuking" his own earthly mother at the wedding in Cana, this "the Catholics have it right" jazza-matazz is not only incorrect -- but leads to even greater and serious theological errors -- with no real end in sight.
The scholastic 11th-thru however many centuries later, "Cathedral of the Mind" can cook up all sorts of 'sounds good' blarney. The results of those endeavors cannot be regarded as truly apostolic -- as taught by Christ and the Apostles.
Something's got to give. And it won't be me giving up to folk-tales and fables, regardless of how such types of thinking have incrementally over the centuries crept in and made place for themselves...
Jesus alone. (one of the five inter-locking, interdependent solas of the Reformation)
As Peter, whom Roman Catholics claim was the first pope declared;
That looks like an "ex-cathedra" statement. How could it NOT be???