Finding Jesus in the Temple:
48 And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father's business? 50 And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them. 51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart.
Believe she did:
38 ... Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.45 And blessed art thou [Mary] that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. 46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. 51 He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.
(Luke 1)
What the finding Jesus episode tells us that Mary did not understand (v.50). It tells us that Christ was obedient to Joseph and Mary (v. 51). And it tells us that Mary's faith never failed her despite the inability to understand: "his mother kept all these words in her heart". In this episode the Gospel teaches us, through the example of the Blessed Mother of God, to seek and believe Christ before we understand Him.
It is pure invention to suggest that this meant Mary was encouraging Jesus to wave His hands and produce some from thin air. Biblically, we have no idea if Mary "got it" at this point.
This is approaching blasphemy in tone, although I am sure you did not mean it that way. It is also wrong in substance. This is the entire exchange between Mary and Jesus:
1 And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. 4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.From v. 4 we know that Jesus understood her as interceding for a miracle. I suggest you follow His lead and understand her speech to Jesus in the same way He did. From v. 5 we see that Mary "got it" perfectly well. When your pastor tells you that, never mind John 6:55, the Eucharist is not salvific, may this be your response too: "Whatsoever [Christ] shall say to you, do ye".
I do not need to remind you that the miracle did happen, involved not "thin air" but rather the two sacramental substances, water and wine, and Mary's faith we see in v.5 lead to the faith of many in v. 11.
The blindness to scripture you exhibit is a direct consequence of mariophobia.
But, yeah, there's a difference between not believing and not understanding. I didn't get the argument so I went on to other parts of the battlefield.
One problem lies in our divergent definitions of "blasphemy."
According to New Advent, blasphemy seems to be a catch-all term for all things unseemly to the RC persuasion --
"Blasphemy - Signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem."
Thus, according to this definition, one could rightly say it is "blasphemy" to criticize Beethoven since he's certainly a person "worthy of exalted esteem."
Protestants tend to accept the more specific dictionary definition of blasphemy as follows in my Websters...
"Profane or contemptuous speech, writing or action concerning God, or anything held as divine."
And here we find our glaring theological difference -- you believe Mary to be divine while Protestants believe that to call someone or something "divine" when only the Triune God possesses divinity is itself "blasphemy."
[Story of] Finding Jesus in the Temple:... ........ [compared to ] 38 ... Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. ...
I disagree with you if you are saying that true belief is possible without even basic understanding. It is certainly true that God does things I do not understand, yet I have belief. However, my belief does not waiver back and forth on the basic IDENTITY of Christ. Clearly Mary did not understand who her Son was (at the Temple) in the way you do now. So, she did not yet believe as you do now. And this, BTW, is no rap against Mary. I'm sure she was perfectly saved by the time she left this earth, but that happened at some point later, when God had chosen it.
It seems odd to me that you have Mary as a true believer, sinless, yet here she is chastising our Lord and Savior. Perhaps this is the better example of her possible sin. But then, if her belief required zero understanding, then it would be pointless to apply any standards at all to her. No matter what she did or thought, she would be perfect and sinless because she was Mary. That's all.
FK: "It is pure invention to suggest that this meant Mary was encouraging Jesus to wave His hands and produce something from thin air. Biblically, we have no idea if Mary "got it" at this point."
This is approaching blasphemy in tone, although I am sure you did not mean it that way.
You just got through telling me that Mary did not have understanding at the Temple, but now it is potential blasphemy to say she still didn't have it at Cana? :) Pretty interesting parameters for blasphemy.
It is also wrong in substance. This is the entire exchange between Mary and Jesus:
From v. 4 we know that Jesus understood her as interceding for a miracle. I suggest you follow His lead and understand her speech to Jesus in the same way He did. From v. 5 we see that Mary "got it" perfectly well.
This is again pure invention. How can you assume Mary was asking for a miracle? She was asking for help, the way any mother might ask her son for help. Then, Jesus answered her. THEN "something" unknown happened. Then, Mary said what she said to the waiters. You are using the unknown part as your proof! :) Mary tells them simply to do Jesus' bidding. Based on verse 4, that might have been NOTHING. Or, it might have been "Go over to Hiram's house and raid his wine cellar. I'll square it with him later." Or, it could have been as it turned out. But we have NO WAY to assume for sure that a miracle was on Mary's mind at all. It's just not there. AND AGAIN (forgive the shouting :) this is no slam on Mary. Jesus did His miracles when He saw fit, not typically when others were expecting them. Does the Church really need your interpretation to show that Jesus obeyed the commands of Mary, etc., etc.? I really don't understand the "need" to go here.
I do not need to remind you that the miracle did happen, involved not "thin air" but rather the two sacramental substances, water and wine, and Mary's faith we see in v.5 lead to the faith of many in v. 11.
What is the significance of "the two" sacramental substances in this context? The Master of the banquet tells us clearly what the deal was here. It was a normal wedding feast. Some people got loaded. It doesn't occur to me to be drawing the type of comparisons that you might be here. .......... Plus, how in the universe do you tie verses 5 and 11 together? 11 ONLY glorifies Christ. Mary's faith led to the faith of NO ONE. God gives faith, not Mary.
I renew my question, why do you need to go here? Verse 11 says that Jesus did His miracle, and then His disciples believed. Isn't that enough? Is there no joy in that in itself without needing to give Mary credit for the assist?
The blindness to scripture you exhibit is a direct consequence of mariophobia.
You mean because I don't glorify Mary and raise her up to the same level you do? You mean that I am intolerant because I don't read the relevant scriptures the same way you do? You mean that I am a mariophobe because I don't support the Mary "agenda"? Hmmm. While they are wholly unrelated in fact, this nonetheless reminds me of a lot of other threads I have seen on FR. :)