Replies

FK: "Mary did not yet believe."

[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:

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.

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. :)

FK, +John Chrysostom postulated that Mary migh have sinned at the wedding, although the Church as a whole rejected his opinion. In fact, even his own Divine Liturgy, which is served most of the year in Eastern Orthodox and Eastern-rite Catholic churches, most deifnitely proclaim that she was pure in every sense.

I wonder if that was added to his liturgy ex post facto, as it is not part of the Divine Liturgy of st. Basil, which preceded Chrysostom's (and is still used on special days in Eastern Orthodox and, I preusme, Eastern-rite Catholic churches).

I also do not see sacramental connection between water and wine at the wedding, as both were used for wholy unsacramental purpose. The bread, water and wine used in the Eucharistic Mystery are specifically selected, prepared and blessed for that purpose.

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.

She believed before she understood; this is the model for all believers. Belief is what we do, not what we think. She did what god asked her to do from Annunciation to the Pentecost. This is perfect faith.

here she is chastising our Lord and Savior. Perhaps this is the better example of her possible sin.

This is a possible interpretation, that she is chastising Christ, yes. The literal text is "why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing". This is a complaint, not necessarily a chastisement. However, if it is, it is consistent with her role as a parent. In fact, St. Luke informs us that Christ was obedient to his parents (v 51), hence it is not possible to read sin into this.

Mary did not have understanding at the Temple, but now it is potential blasphemy to say she still didn't have it at Cana?

Oh, no, I was merely referring to the tone in which you describe the Cana miracle as "waving hands in the air". I agree that we are not told directly if Mary knew what exactly the miracle was going to signify; we do however know that she requested it, form Christ's reaction, and we know that it marked the beginning of Christ's ministry.

How can you assume Mary was asking for a miracle?

Unless you assume that Jesus traveled with a wine supply, she was. Supermarkets on every corner were not invented yet.

What is the significance of "the two" sacramental substances in this context?

The miracle led to the disipleship (v.11) and the disciples of Christ are sustained with water and wine, -- baptism and the Eucharist.

Is there no joy in that in itself without needing to give Mary credit for the assist?

Is the question "where do you find veneration of Mary in the gospel?" or is it "why don't you read the gospel in the same way I like to read it?". If it is the former, then I answered it. Here is an episode where Mary is an important participant, and that leads to the formation of the Church. We take it as a whole, and rejoice over the entire whole. You read and discard the implications you don't like, -- that is your choice, and we have ours.

You mean that I am intolerant because I don't read the relevant scriptures the same way you do?

I mean, you turn a blind eye to aspects of the scripture your pastors tell you to be blind to. Faulty mariology is faulty Christology.