Right. Except for Biblical evidence:
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Isn't there something like this in the CCC?
All Tradition is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
MDO: Right. Except for Biblical evidence:
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
There is a vital part of ordinary hermeneutics where you try to parse out what is being said in the text as narrative and distinguish the narrative from didactic value. It's like that old chestnut, "Judas went out and hanged hisself," combined with "go thou and do likewise." Now that's meant only in good fun, but you get the idea. What any two people say to each other in Scripture is not the end but only the beginning of getting to the didactic value. We agree on the principle of 1 Timothy 3:16-17, but don't forget that only comes about by "rightly dividing the word of truth."
The miracle of the wine at Cana was designed to show Jesus' authority to perform miracles on the natural order, in proof of His messianic claims. It is not designed to showcase that Jesus responded differently to Mary than to any other believer. If anything, the focus seems quite the opposite, that it demonstrates 1) Jesus was willing to mildly rebuke her for drawing Him into a public display of His power before the official beginning of His public ministry, and that 2) despite this loving rebuke, Mary knew what sort of person Jesus was, both in power and in character, and was confident He would condescend to help out anyway, in which she was correct. But note that He did the miracle in such a way that only the servants would know how it came about, and so He kept His low profile until the time was right, while providing a glimpse to the lowly servants of great things son to come.
Didactically, what can we get from this? First, that Jesus really is on His own schedule, and specifically disclaims here doing this miracle out of any sense of obligation, either to Mary, or to the people of the wedding party. Quite the opposite of any theory of special maternal influence. Some have thought what Jesus was saying is that this wedding was not his concern. No doubt Mary was there because she was a friend of one or both of the families, and she wanted the event to go well for her friends' sake. But Jesus had a much different sense of priorities, and He told her so rather bluntly.
Second, we see that we can have hope that He will respond when we seek His help, even in things that might seem unimportant in the grander scheme of things, not because we have any special pull, or any means of inducing in Him a sense of obligation, but because He is just that kind of generous, gracious, kind-hearted person, Who will hear and consider our requests, even if they aren't important to anybody but us.
Third, we see that His kindness in helping us with the little things will not in any way distract Him from His big picture objectives. He did not let this little "catering crisis" draw Him into His public ministry prematurely. One can argue at this point whether there are any events so small they don't influence the big things, but that's for Him to know and us not to worry about. And that's kind of the attitude Mary took. Who knows what a string of happy family moments led her to such confidence in His good will and power, and who knows how those memories might have served to ease the pain in later years of watching her son and those who followed Him treated so badly by the world. But in this moment she trusted Him, even after a rebuke, and it was worth it. Those who putt their trust in the Lord will not be disappointed.
Peace,
SR