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.
It seems like your implying that Mary had a hand in forming the church. Is this the impression you want to leave?
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.
Our churches are not autocratic hierarchies.
Are you now claiming that if we don't worship Mary we don't understand our Saviour?
Which equal more construing MARY TO BE EQUAL TO GOD. It flows out of RC's fingers in various actions and sentences in spite of declarations otherwise. Clearly, it's a deeply held UNBiblical belief.
You describe a blind faith, and true faith is not blind. We both know that all manner of the eventual damned DO all kinds of "good" things. Do they get credit in God's eyes for these? How can one believe without basic understanding? That doesn't make sense to me. Mary acknowledged God at the Annunciation, but she did NOT acknowledge Jesus as God early on. She had "faith", but it was not yet in Christ. And that's no slight to her, BTW. God delivers faith to His chosen at the time He appoints. Remember, during Jesus' ministry the gentile centurion had greater faith than Mary:
Matt 8:10 : When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.
---------------
FK: "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.
Jesus was being asked to solve a problem. Now, was the only possible way to solve it by miracle? I don't think so. This was wine-making country. I can't believe this was the first time that wine ran out at a wedding. What would a normal solution be? Find a neighbor, and go get his stash. I think this "could" have been handled by conventional means.
Here is an episode where Mary is an important participant, and that leads to the formation of the Church.
Mary's role here leads to the formation of the Church? What in the world is the connection? I'm sure at some time Joseph asked Jesus to help him make a table. Did that lead to the formation of the Church too? Even if you say that Mary was asking for a miracle, so did tons of people throughout His ministry. Do they get this credit also?
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.
This sounds like you believe that correct mariology is a part of central and core Christianity. Is that true? If so, is there any other human upon which we must have a correct understanding to understand God? You must understand that this is another in a long line of mixed signals that we Protestants get when you say that Mary is not worshiped, yet God cannot be understood without the correct view of her. If I thought that I had to understand Mary before I could understand God, then I would ABSOLUTELY worship her. I would have to go through her to get to God. There are some who believe that position is already taken. :)