Did Mary always fully understand her Son?

[Crown_of_Stars]

For instance, when Jesus in the synagogue said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Now even I can understand the context in which He would have meant this. I don’t take it that He was disowning them (although I still don’t know who His “brothers” were) I take it that what He was really saying was, “Yes, My mother and My brothers are here, but all of you are also My mother and My brothers if you believe in Me and hear My Father’s word and do His will.”
Is it a Catholic speculation, or only Protestant, that Mary might have sometimes not understood her Son? Is it disrespectful to think that She might have sometimes been confused by Him, or even, as I’ve seen it put, thought He’d “lost His mind” when He said certain things?
The only reason I’m asking is that, for my writing, I want to capture the depth of Mary’s mind, and somehow I don’t think She, or anyone else in His family (only those who were against Him) would ever have thought He’d “lost His mind.”
What is the true Catholic thing to make of this?

 

[Fiasco]

Mary didn’t understand when the boy Jesus stayed behind in the Temple, and she and Joseph went back to Jerusalem to search for Him.
Her words:
“My Son, why have You done this to us…” (Luke 2:43-50)
show that she was at least puzzled.

The brothers are all of us.
Our Lord had no biological brothers (or sisters: Mary is ever-virgin.), and that’s shown by His handing His mother into John’s care.

She had faith, though, in the ultimate outcome.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

Well clearly, due to the circumstances surrounding his birth, she obviously has an idea of who he was, though she may have not always had a full understanding of who he was until he started his ministry or during his passion or maybe even until after his resurrection.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . Is it a Catholic speculation, or only Protestant, that Mary might have sometimes not understood her Son? Is it disrespectful to think that She might have sometimes been confused by Him, or even, as I’ve seen it put, thought He’d “lost His mind” when He said certain things?
The only reason I’m asking is that, for my writing, I want to capture the depth of Mary’s mind, and somehow I don’t think She, or anyone else in His family (only those who were against Him) would ever have thought He’d “lost His mind.”
What is the true Catholic thing to make of this?

The main passage from scripture which is inferred is :

Mark 3:21 (NAB)

When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

But there are many other passages from scripture which might be indirectly applicable.

What follows is only my own limited opinion.

The first thing I would do, is to draw a line - a nice solid line : between our Blessed Mother not completely understanding something which Jesus said or did, and her ever thinking Jesus had lost his mind.

Mary could not have thought that Jesus had lost his mind. As Fiasco’s post states, the Blessed Virgin had faith in Jesus, and she is our perfect model of faith. Were we to believe that someone had lost their mind, it would simultaneously imply that we no longer had faith in that person. It helps to keep in mind that Jesus, as well as being Mary’s Son, was also her God.

Losing one’s mind is equivalent to insanity. When we say a person is insane, it means they have lost touch with reality. God is ultimate reality , because to exist, is of God’s very essence : “I AM who AM.”

Furthermore, in the prevalent thought of that time , it was not uncommon for people to think that insanity could be attributed, at least in part , to demonic activity (Luke 8:35).

So for Mary to believe Jesus was insane, would mean that she no longer had faith in Him. And if Mary had lost faith in Jesus during his public ministry, there is no way we would ever have seen our Blessed Mother at the foot of the Cross . . . where she remained with Jesus to the end. . . even after the disciples had fled.

Perhaps it could further be noted that it wasn’t “only those who were against Him” who thought Jesus’ thinking wasn’t clear. After Jesus’ discourse on the* Bread of Life* (John 6:50-68 ; DRV) , we are told that , " . . . many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him."

Jesus, as foretold in Simeon’s prophecy, was a “sign of contradiction.”

---

I personally see nothing disrespectful in thinking that perhaps Mary “might have sometimes not understood her Son” - at least, not completely. If we perfectly understood everything going on in our lives , where would be the room for us to exercise our faith . . . the room for us to say, “Lord, I don’t understand exactly what is happening in my life right now, but You do, and I trust in your goodness.”

As to whether Jesus ever “confused” His Mother : I suppose if we were splitting hairs, one might even be able to find or formulate an argument that an incident of this nature actually occurred just prior to Jesus’ incarnation/conception :

Luke 1:29,34 (NAB)

But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”

If we want to begin to “capture the depth of Mary’s mind”, we need to see what her response was :

Luke 1:38

Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.

Luke 2:51

He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and** his mother kept all these things in her heart**.

To have an inkling of the depth of Mary’s mind , we need to draw close to her Heart, to her Immaculate Heart where she pondered these things. We need to see her unwavering faith and then to ask her as our Mother, to have us share this same faith. Finally, we need to ask her to pray with us and for us. Praying the Holy Rosary is one of the best and most complete ways of accomplishing all of the aforementioned.

 

[James248]

For me it’s a flat out “NO!”

Just because she was without sin doesn’t mean she became an oasis of understanding.

 

[jcrichton]

For instance, when Jesus in the synagogue said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Now even I can understand the context in which He would have meant this…
Is it a Catholic speculation, or only Protestant, that Mary might have sometimes not understood her Son? Is it disrespectful to think that She might have sometimes been confused by Him, or even, as I’ve seen it put, thought He’d “lost His mind” when He said certain things?
…What is the true Catholic thing to make of this?

Hi!

Scriptures can sometimes seem confusing… the narratives about Jesus “brothers” or " sisters" are one example… were those passages written to intimate that Jesus had actual brothers and sisters as we understand the term today or was it to place us in the circumstance of the moment–Jesus belong to the tribe of David and the Word truly Became Incarnate and dwelled amongst us.

…were these relatives of Jesus Mary’s or Joseph’s children?

Let’s take it to the foot of the Cross:

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

(St. John 19:25-27)
Jesus, putting aside His Divinity, became as man in everything but sin.

Could Jesus hate and hold grudges without sinning?

If Mary (or Joseph) had additional children, could Jesus, at the moment of His Death, have the Authority to remove His mother from the custody of the other purported “children” and pass it to one of His Disciples? If He did so, would that not violate His “brothers’ and sisters’” rights to care for their aging mother? Wouldn’t Jesus be braking some cultural ethics or the fourth Commandment? Would His decision not cause strife between His family and the family of John? Is that the epitaph that God’s Just One would leave behind?

Further, where in Scriptures do we find any passage that states: Mary’s or Joseph’s “sons” or “daughters?”

Now, consider those passages (St. Mark 3:3; St. John 19:25-27) with:

17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

(Apocalypse 12:17)
Clearly Jesus had many siblings… but none of them were conceived by His Mom!

Now did the Virgin always knew everything about Jesus?

No. At age twelve He hit her with:

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.

(St. Luke 2:49-50)
…and just days after His Birth this took place:

27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:

29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss[d] your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”

33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. 34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

(St. Luke 2:27-35)
…still, there had to be a time when the Virgin and Jesus became so connected that she was able to place things, moved by the Holy Spirit, in their correct context:

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…

10 And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.

(St. John 2:3-11)
Clearly, the Virgin put everything on Jesus knowing not what He would do but that He had the Power to resolve the matter… ‘nothing is impossible to God!’

Mary’s understanding of Jesus differed from everyone else’s since those who were there at the Beginning were quite old and would have passed (including Joseph) by the time Jesus’ Ministry began (some thirty years later)… all others only knew Jesus from what they witnessed, heard, and what they believed from the popular consensus… the Virgin never questioned Jesus’ abilities or mental health.

…others… well, Jesus checked some at one particular time:

…19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners.

(St. Matthew 11:18-19)
…remembers these were haters and usurpers…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[James248]

You could say those brothers of Jesus were older.

Imagine this:

“Um, mom, your Son, he’s been doing weird stuff.”

“Your Brother, James. I’m sure He has a reason although I don’t know it.”

“He’s challenging the religious leaders. Some of our acquaintances say He’s crazy.”

“We need to know, Mom.”

“I’m sure He will fulfill His purpose. All we need to do is to support Him and put our trust in Him. He is God’s Son, is He not Joses?”

“We still need to talk to Him, Mom.”

“Alright, Simon. Take me with you. I long to see Him myself.”

 

[abucs]

Regarding the New Testament line about Jesus’ family trying to find him because they thought he ‘had lost his mind’.

I think this is a red herring. If one of my male family members was going around the Middle East challenging the brutal rulers and developing a large following I would also describe him as having lost his mind.

Not because he was literally insane but because of the obvious danger that the brutal authorities might grab him and his associates and torture and execute him…like … um… what actually happened.

Regarding Mary. I don’t think any of us have an absolute understanding of anything. There will always be some lack of knowledge. So the question becomes how much understanding our Holy mother had?

Regards.

 

[jcrichton]

Regarding the New Testament line about Jesus’ family trying to find him because they thought he ‘had lost his mind’.

I think this is a red herring. If one of my male family members was going around the Middle East challenging the brutal rulers and developing a large following I would also describe him as having lost his mind.

Not because he was literally insane but because of the obvious danger that the brutal authorities might grab him and his associates and torture and execute him…like … um… what actually happened.

Regarding Mary. I don’t think any of us have an absolute understanding of anything. There will always be some lack of knowledge. So the question becomes how much understanding our Holy mother had?

Regards.

Hi!

…the problem with the “if” and other premises is that they constantly leave out one pertinent factor: Divine Revelation!

…as opposed to the various inferences made through certain movies that depict the Child Jesus performing miracles… and the suppositions that things would just happen without His control and understanding… Jesus did not perform any marvelous and mind-bending acts as a child, teen, young adult or as an adult till the wedding at Cana.

…so in the absence of Divine Revelation, how could the Virgin Know that Jesus would take care of the problem with the wine?

This of course does not mean that Mary had Divine Knowledge or that she somehow Knew better than Jesus about HIs Own Power/Divinity… it only means that the mom was Given God’s Grace, through the Holy Spirit, to Know that Jesus could remedy the issue that arose… it also demonstrates why Jesus could not have had blood-siblings since He Loved His mom so much that, in respond to her humanity (Mary’s plea on behalf of the wedding hosts), He Began His Revelation to Israel prior to His determined moment… Love trumped over modals.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PJM]

For instance, when Jesus in the synagogue said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Now even I can understand the context in which He would have meant this. I don’t take it that He was disowning them (although I still don’t know who His “brothers” were) I take it that what He was really saying was, “Yes, My mother and My brothers are here, but all of you are also My mother and My brothers if you believe in Me and hear My Father’s word and do His will.”
Is it a Catholic speculation, or only Protestant, that Mary might have sometimes not understood her Son? Is it disrespectful to think that She might have sometimes been confused by Him, or even, as I’ve seen it put, thought He’d “lost His mind” when He said certain things?
The only reason I’m asking is that, for my writing, I want to capture the depth of Mary’s mind, and somehow I don’t think She, or anyone else in His family (only those who were against Him) would ever have thought He’d “lost His mind.”
What is the true Catholic thing to make of this?

Friend, might I suggest you NOT overthink this

READ Luke 1: 26-35
"[26] And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, [27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’ s name was Mary. [28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. [30] And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

[31] Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [33] And of his kingdom there shall be no end. [34] And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [35] And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

AND Luke 1:46-55
**"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.

**DOUAY BIBLE EXPLANATION **
[48] Shall call me blessed: These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.

[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."

This should answer your question

GBY

 

[Good_Fella]

For instance, when Jesus in the synagogue said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” … I take it that what He was really saying was, “Yes, My mother and My brothers are here, but all of you are also My mother and My brothers if you believe in Me and hear My Father’s word and do His will.”

We have the statement “Behold your mother and brothers ” occurring in Matthew 12:47 and Mark 3:32 preceding Jesus’ question. The theological theme in these two verses resembles that which we have in John 19:26-27: “Woman, behold your son”…“Behold your mother”. All three passages deal with what it means to be a “brethren of Jesus”. The gist of these passages is that the ties of obedience to the will of God take precedence over those of blood kinship. Although Jesus does not deny or intend to belittle his kinship with his mother, he nonetheless subordinates it to a higher bond of kinship that transcends all biological ties. Jesus regards his mother Mary as kin more for her faith in God than for their blood ties. He thinks of her as more blessed for her faith and charity than for being a nurturing mother. (Lk 11:27-28). Jesus is well aware that his mother Mary wasn’t chosen simply to help provide him with his humanity. God willed that she be intimately associated with him in his redemptive work. She must have been his most valued disciple. Anyway, what Jesus means to say is that the Kingdom of Heaven imposes demands on the personal commitment of the disciple, which must often supersede all natural family ties and even ethnic bonds. These two verses introduce the image of a new family which takes on an eschatological aspect and rises above the national bond that connects the group of listeners surrounding Jesus.

I believe these passages in Matthew and Mark are a prelude to our Lord’s intentions when he addresses his mother and the disciple from the Cross. It is not that she shall be like a mother to the disciple, but rather she will actually be his mother from then on in the Kingdom of Heaven, as he shall actually be her son as much as Jesus is physically, though in a spiritual way. In establishing this family of faith during his active ministry, Jesus begins to redefine Israel in the figure of Mother Zion. The nation shall no longer be defined by national boundaries or birth right, but by faith, while the New Zion, viz., the Church, shall extend beyond its borders and receive the Gentiles into God’s family kingdom.

The sorrowful scene at the Cross is replete with OT imagery and symbolism related to prophecy and the Judaic traditions. Isaiah 49:21, 54:1-3. and 66:7-11 carry the theme of Mother Zion in the midst of sorrow over the loss of her children, when suddenly she is given a new and large family restored in God’s grace which is cause for rejoicing (Lk 1:46-49; Zeph. 3:14-17). In the words of Raymond E. Brown (The Gospel According to John): “The sorrowful scene at the foot of the Cross represents the birth pangs by which the Spirit of salvation is brought forth (Isaiah 26:17-18) and handed over (John 29:30). In becoming the mother of the beloved disciple (The Christian), Mary is symbolically evocative of Lady Zion who, after birth pangs (interior sorrow) brings forth a new people in joy.” Paul D. Hanson (Isaiah 40-66) adds, “Zion is not destined to grieve because of the loss of the loss she has endured, viz., the death of her Son. Instead, she will be able to compare her former desolation with the bustling activity of returnees (from exile) filling her towns and cities.” According to the author, the three-fold references to the children represent repopulated Zion. The returnees from exile foreshadow all believers in Christ who have been freed from the bondage of sin and the oppression of death, having been ransomed by the precious blood of Christ.

The imperative “Behold” (hinneh) is sometimes used as a “predicator of existence”, something that looks to a new state of being (the redefinition of Mary’s motherhood). The hinneh clauses emphasize the immediacy of the situation (the crucifixion), and they may be used to point things out for the sake of clarification (It is at the foot of the Cross that Mary’s motherhood should be redefined.). “Behold (here is) Bilhah, my servant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and that I too can have a family by her” (Gen 30:3). Significantly, most hinneh clauses occur in direct speech. They introduce a fact or something actual in itself on which a subsequent statement or command is based and must be closely paid attention to. What Jesus said to the Disciple was “Here is your mother,” meaning she was as much of a mother to him as Bilhah was a servant of Rachel – and Mary the handmaid of the Lord (Lk 1:38). Since Mary could not have become the Disciple’s mother in a physiological way, but nonetheless his actual mother, she obviously became his mother spiritually; someone he could personally relate to, and not just a metaphor. The Disciple accepted Mary as his very own mother – “TOOK HER TO HIS OWN” – and did not merely regard her as the mother of a dear friend who needed to be looked after in his home after he departed.

Is it disrespectful to think that She might have sometimes been confused by Him, or even, as I’ve seen it put, thought He’d “lost His mind” when He said certain things?

Mary wasn’t a woman of clear sight, but of faith. She was kept much in the dark so that she could genuinely trust God.

:heaven:

 

[jcrichton]

We have the statement “Behold your mother and brothers ” occurring in Matthew 12:47 and Mark 3:32 preceding Jesus’ question. The theological theme in these two verses resembles that which we have in John 19:26-27: “Woman, behold your son”…“Behold your mother”. All three passages deal with what it means to be a “brethren of Jesus”. The gist of these passages is that the ties of obedience to the will of God take precedence over those of blood kinship. Although Jesus does not deny or intend to belittle his kinship with his mother, he nonetheless subordinates it to a higher bond of kinship that transcends all biological ties. Jesus regards his mother Mary as kin more for her faith in God than for their blood ties. He thinks of her as more blessed for her faith and charity than for being a nurturing mother. (Lk 11:27-28). Jesus is well aware that his mother Mary wasn’t chosen simply to help provide him with his humanity. God willed that she be intimately associated with him in his redemptive work. She must have been his most valued disciple. Anyway, what Jesus means to say is that** the Kingdom of Heaven imposes demands on the personal commitment of the disciple, which must often supersede all natural family ties** and even ethnic bonds. These two verses introduce the image of a new family which takes on an eschatological aspect and rises above the national bond that connects the group of listeners surrounding Jesus.

I believe these passages in Matthew and Mark are a prelude to our Lord’s intentions when he addresses his mother and the disciple from the Cross. It is not that she shall be like a mother to the disciple, but rather she will actually be his mother from then on in the Kingdom of Heaven, as he shall actually be her son as much as Jesus is physically, though in a spiritual way. In establishing this family of faith during his active ministry, Jesus begins to redefine Israel in the figure of Mother Zion. The nation shall no longer be defined by national boundaries or birth right, but by faith, while the New Zion, viz., the Church, shall extend beyond its borders and receive the Gentiles into God’s family kingdom.

The sorrowful scene at the Cross is replete with OT imagery and symbolism related to prophecy and the Judaic traditions. Isaiah 49:21, 54:1-3. and 66:7-11 carry the theme of Mother Zion in the midst of sorrow over the loss of her children, when suddenly she is given a new and large family restored in God’s grace which is cause for rejoicing (Lk 1:46-49; Zeph. 3:14-17). In the words of Raymond E. Brown (The Gospel According to John): “The sorrowful scene at the foot of the Cross represents the birth pangs by which the Spirit of salvation is brought forth (Isaiah 26:17-18) and handed over (John 29:30). In becoming the mother of the beloved disciple (The Christian), Mary is symbolically evocative of Lady Zion who, after birth pangs (interior sorrow) brings forth a new people in joy.” Paul D. Hanson (Isaiah 40-66) adds, “Zion is not destined to grieve because of the loss of the loss she has endured, viz., the death of her Son. Instead, she will be able to compare her former desolation with the bustling activity of returnees (from exile) filling her towns and cities.” According to the author, the three-fold references to the children represent repopulated Zion. The returnees from exile foreshadow all believers in Christ who have been freed from the bondage of sin and the oppression of death, having been ransomed by the precious blood of Christ.

The imperative “Behold” (hinneh) is sometimes used as a “predicator of existence”, something that looks to a new state of being (the redefinition of Mary’s motherhood). The hinneh clauses emphasize the immediacy of the situation (the crucifixion), and they may be used to point things out for the sake of clarification (It is at the foot of the Cross that Mary’s motherhood should be redefined.). “Behold (here is) Bilhah, my servant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and that I too can have a family by her” (Gen 30:3). Significantly, most hinneh clauses occur in direct speech. They introduce a fact or something actual in itself on which a subsequent statement or command is based and must be closely paid attention to. What Jesus said to the Disciple was “Here is your mother,” meaning she was as much of a mother to him as Bilhah was a servant of Rachel – and Mary the handmaid of the Lord (Lk 1:38). Since Mary could not have become the Disciple’s mother in a physiological way, but nonetheless his actual mother, she obviously became his mother spiritually; someone he could personally relate to, and not just a metaphor. The Disciple accepted Mary as his very own mother – “TOOK HER TO HIS OWN” – and did not merely regard her as the mother of a dear friend who needed to be looked after in his home after he departed.

Mary wasn’t a woman of clear sight, but of faith. She was kept much in the dark so that she could genuinely trust God.

:heaven:

Hi!

I fully concur with the highlighted statement as Jesus clearly demonstrates the Heavenly demands on us:

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

(St. Luke 14:26)
…all human relationships must be subordinate to the Divine relationship or as St. Paul put it: ‘all we do we do for and in Christ.’ (paraphrased)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi!

I fully concur with the highlighted statement as Jesus clearly demonstrates the Heavenly demands on us:

…all human relationships must be subordinate to the Divine relationship or as St. Paul put it: ‘all we do we do for and in Christ.’ (paraphrased)

Hi! :tiphat:

Yes, Mary’s relationship with the Divine superseded any natural and moral relationship she had with Jesus as the mother of the Son of Man. Her Divine Maternity was a call of discipleship that required tremendous faith in God’s providential goodness. She could only be the mother of Jesus by first and foremost being the handmaid of the Lord. Mary never planned on having any children of her own with her husband Joseph (Lk 1:34). So, after she received the good news from the angel Gabriel, she understood that she would be no ordinary mother, but God’s servant. From the moment Mary pronounced her fiat, she knew that her maternity wasn’t something that she was naturally entitled to, but rather a supernatural gift for the purpose of fulfilling the Divine will. Mary’s motherhood received its raison d’être in the humble alignment of her will with God’s mysterious will. And, of course, what God desired of Mary wasn’t all that clear to her. She had to do much pondering in the depths of her soul, especially when Simeon said to her while Jesus was still an infant: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against, and a sword will pierce through your own soul also, that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed” (Lk 2:34-35). Mary must have been puzzled by what Simeon told her. Until this moment, what the angel Gabriel had said must have still been resounding in her soul: "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk 1:32-33). The Jews did not identify the Messiah with Isaiah’s suffering servant. I can imagine Mary asking herself how it was that the long-awaited Messiah could be a sign that was spoken against while he reigned in his everlasting kingdom. She would eventually have to see for herself once Jesus started his public ministry and made deadly enemies with the scribes and Pharisees. And all the while, she would keep silent and continue to trustfully ponder on God’s plan as it gradually unfolded to her and reached its climax on Golgotha.

I believe that Mary finally saw at the foot of the Cross all her Divine motherhood essentially denoted. Until the passion, I don’t think she even bothered her Son with countless questions, but rather kept pondering in the quiet solitude of her soul on all that had transpired , always trusting in the Divine will without waver as a true disciple of the Divine Son should. On Golgotha, Mary understood how necessary it was for her to stand before the Cross and unite her anguish with that of her beloved Son. When our Lady freely consented to be the mother of our Lord, she had in fact presented her body as a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God. Her fiat was in and of itself a sublime act of worship, since it expressed her desire to be united with God in love so that the Messiah should enter the world in such an unexpected way. Thus, when her Son’s hour had finally arrived, Mary clearly saw, that as God’s handmaid, she would have to sacrifice her motherhood for the sins of the world. All that her Son spoke of in allusion to his mission must have come back to her in translucent light (Matt 16:21; Jn 3:14-21). Because of the suffering her Son would have to experience for man’s sins, she saw that she also would have to suffer as a means of repairing man’s broken relationship with God. And this involved presenting the fruit of her womb back to God. Mary could grasp the meaning of Simeon’s words only by having to stand at the foot of the Cross, the culmination of her presentation in the Temple. Since the Mother must be bought together with man with the price of the child she would carry in her womb, so she must glorify God with her own body for the redemption of the world to be complete (cf.1 Cor. 6:20).

It was for the glory of God that the Son gave himself for man’s sins and to deliver him from the evils of suffering and death (Gal 1:3-5). He glorified his Father by offering his body as a living sacrifice in total submission to His will because of his love of the Father. He offered himself to God in his humanity and as head of the human race to undo the sin of Adam and appease the Father. The Mother was chosen to offer her body as a living sacrifice to God in union with that of her Son out of that same love of God whom sin offended. It was necessary that she, too, submit to the will of God, even if it meant having to make the sacrifice of offering the fruit of her womb to God for the sins of the world, which she would make if she truly loved Him and was grieved by the sins which offended Him.

Jesus chose to take up his cross together with his mother so that we all should take up our crosses with her in union with the Son, if we hope to be saved and share in the glory of our Lord and Saviour (2 Tim 2:11). Unless Mary obediently submitted to the will of God in faith and love at the Annunciation, she would never have had to face Golgotha, because then God would not have become man. God willed with necessity, that to reconcile the world to Himself, the ‘woman’ should be at enmity with the serpent and crush its head by her faith in charity and grace together with her offspring in his enmity with the serpent’s offspring who wished to put him to death (Gen 3:15; Matt 2:13;12:34; 23:33).

PAX
:heaven:

 

[jcrichton]

Hi! :tiphat:

Yes, Mary’s relationship with the Divine superseded any natural and moral relationship she had with Jesus as the mother of the Son of Man. Her Divine Maternity was a call of discipleship that required tremendous faith in God’s providential goodness. She could only be the mother of Jesus by first and foremost being the handmaid of the Lord. Mary never planned on having any children of her own with her husband Joseph (Lk 1:34). So, after she received the good news from the angel Gabriel, she understood that she would be no ordinary mother, but God’s servant. From the moment Mary pronounced her fiat, she knew that her maternity wasn’t something that she was naturally entitled to, but rather a supernatural gift for the purpose of fulfilling the Divine will. Mary’s motherhood received its raison d’être in the humble alignment of her will with God’s mysterious will. And, of course, what God desired of Mary wasn’t all that clear to her. She had to do much pondering in the depths of her soul, especially when Simeon said to her while Jesus was still an infant: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against, and a sword will pierce through your own soul also, that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed” (Lk 2:34-35). Mary must have been puzzled by what Simeon told her. Until this moment, what the angel Gabriel had said must have still been resounding in her soul: "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk 1:32-33). The Jews did not identify the Messiah with Isaiah’s suffering servant. I can imagine Mary asking herself how it was that the long-awaited Messiah could be a sign that was spoken against while he reigned in his everlasting kingdom. She would eventually have to see for herself once Jesus started his public ministry and made deadly enemies with the scribes and Pharisees. And all the while, she would keep silent and continue to trustfully ponder on God’s plan as it gradually unfolded to her and reached its climax on Golgotha.

I believe that Mary finally saw at the foot of the Cross all her Divine motherhood essentially denoted. Until the passion, I don’t think she even bothered her Son with countless questions, but rather kept pondering in the quiet solitude of her soul on all that had transpired , always trusting in the Divine will without waver as a true disciple of the Divine Son should. On Golgotha, Mary understood how necessary it was for her to stand before the Cross and unite her anguish with that of her beloved Son. When our Lady freely consented to be the mother of our Lord, she had in fact presented her body as a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God. Her fiat was in and of itself a sublime act of worship, since it expressed her desire to be united with God in love so that the Messiah should enter the world in such an unexpected way. Thus, when her Son’s hour had finally arrived, Mary clearly saw, that as God’s handmaid, she would have to sacrifice her motherhood for the sins of the world. All that her Son spoke of in allusion to his mission must have come back to her in translucent light (Matt 16:21; Jn 3:14-21). Because of the suffering her Son would have to experience for man’s sins, she saw that she also would have to suffer as a means of repairing man’s broken relationship with God. And this involved presenting the fruit of her womb back to God. Mary could grasp the meaning of Simeon’s words only by having to stand at the foot of the Cross, the culmination of her presentation in the Temple. Since the Mother must be bought together with man with the price of the child she would carry in her womb, so she must glorify God with her own body for the redemption of the world to be complete (cf.1 Cor. 6:20).

It was for the glory of God that the Son gave himself for man’s sins and to deliver him from the evils of suffering and death (Gal 1:3-5). He glorified his Father by offering his body as a living sacrifice in total submission to His will because of his love of the Father. He offered himself to God in his humanity and as head of the human race to undo the sin of Adam and appease the Father. The Mother was chosen to offer her body as a living sacrifice to God in union with that of her Son out of that same love of God whom sin offended. It was necessary that she, too, submit to the will of God, even if it meant having to make the sacrifice of offering the fruit of her womb to God for the sins of the world, which she would make if she truly loved Him and was grieved by the sins which offended Him.

Jesus chose to take up his cross together with his mother so that we all should take up our crosses with her in union with the Son, if we hope to be saved and share in the glory of our Lord and Saviour (2 Tim 2:11). Unless Mary obediently submitted to the will of God in faith and love at the Annunciation, she would never have had to face Golgotha, because then God would not have become man. God willed with necessity, that to reconcile the world to Himself, the ‘woman’ should be at enmity with the serpent and crush its head by her faith in charity and grace together with her offspring in his enmity with the serpent’s offspring who wished to put him to death (Gen 3:15; Matt 2:13;12:34; 23:33).

PAX
:heaven:

Hi!

…we can see the humbleness and obedience of both the Virgin and Joseph as they accepted what was Revealed to them without questioning God’s Revelation and Purpose!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[hu324b]

How about I reword the question - did Jesus leave his mother wallowing in inignorance of who he was and why he came. Or did he explain it clearly to her.

 

[jcrichton]

How about I reword the question - did Jesus leave his mother wallowing in inignorance of who he was and why he came. Or did he explain it clearly to her.

Hi, HU!

…clearly there is a development… the Divine Child must grow into adulthood and the mother of the Divine Child must grow into full understanding… at first the Virgin is going on Revelation ('Immanuel, Jesus, Holy, Son of God, the stumbling stone for many, your heart pierced, My Father’s Business…); the next time Jesus is shown in public is at the beginnings of His Ministry–here, without resorting to a secret language the Virgin relies on her Knowledge of Who Jesus Is and pleads for His Intercession: resolve the wine issue, Son… since that is the very first miracle that Jesus performs, the Virgin had to have been Inspired by the Holy Spirit to compel Jesus to do what she Knew He could (‘for nothing is impossible to God.’); so at this particular time… His mom knows the Power of the Son but not what He is doing/going to do.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Good_Fella]

How about I reword the question - did Jesus leave his mother wallowing in inignorance of who he was and why he came. Or did he explain it clearly to her.

If Jesus wished to explain everything clearly to his mother Mary, he would have had the angel Gabriel disclose God’s entire plan to her at the Annunciation before she gave her consent. Since Luke doesn’t record this, we can assume that Mary’s fiat inaugurated a journey of faith. Our Lord desired that she had to walk in faith and seek deeper understanding in her relationship with him. Pope St. John Paul ll said that the mysteries surrounding the events in the life of Mary’s Son, viz., his disappearance for three days to preach in the temple at the age of twelve, served to renew Mary’s fiat. From the time of her Son’s lowly birth in a cave to his passion and death on the cross, Mary had to walk in darkness to prove her trust in God’s will. Each time Mary was called to renew her commitment to God in the wake of trying circumstances, she grew in grace and in the knowledge of the divine truth. This is how all Christians must journey in their pilgrimage of faith. Mary had to be kept in the dark if she could truly and meritoriously offer her co-operation with God by a renewal of commitment. Paul tells us that “faith is confidence in what we hope for, evidence of what we do not see” (Heb 11:1). To her merit, in participation in the merits of her Son, Mary believed that “God works for the good to those who love him” (Rom 8:28), and she never lost hope that all things would work out for the greater good to those who place their trust in God, even when she had to flee to Egypt with the infant Jesus because of Herod’s decree. Mary couldn’t have had the faith that she was required to have or grow in grace by renewing her fiat if she wasn’t kept in the dark. And without faith, Mary couldn’t have made temporal satisfaction to God for the sins of the world in union with her divine Son’s eternal satisfaction.

The gift of the Divine Maternity demanded that our Blessed Lady be a woman of faith and of hope. The primary purpose of her Divine call would have been defeated if by some gnosis Mary was enlightened with all the fulness of the divine mysteries. In the event that she was, Mary would have simply known what was divinely real. But God willed that she should gradually come to understand what should be believed in by the sanctifying light of faith. The circumstances surrounding her Son’s life which she was drawn into caused Mary much heartache and sorrow for the reason that she was kept in the dark. The sacrifices Mary was called to make in union with the great sacrifice of her Son in reparation for mankind’s sins couldn’t have been made if she possessed all Divine knowledge. The angel didn’t appear to Mary only so that God could become man. God welded a chain of trying events that would purposefully lead Mary farther beyond the natural role of motherhood so she could better put herself in the service of her divine Son’s mission and be associated with him in the redemption.

---

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” - Luke 11, 27-28***

There is no supernatural merit in hearing the word of God and obeying Him without placing genuine trust in Him and hoping in His promises. If Mary had what God infallibly knew given to her in complete measure, the theological virtues of faith and hope she should possess couldn’t have been, if she had evidence of what is divinely real rather than an understanding of what should be divinely real. Not unlike her Son, Mary was made perfect by having learned obedience to God through suffering (Heb 5:9). She couldn’t have proved her fidelity to God and been humbly obedient to Him if by some gnosis she received a clear vision of the fulfillment of the Divine promises. Instead of journeying on a pilgrimage of faith, she’d be simply going through the motions. Thus, she wouldn’t be in the position to really suffer at all with any redemptive value. Nor could she offer up her body to God as a living sacrifice. But since Mary was made perfect by having learned obedience through suffering, God established her to be the Mother of the Church. Mary acquired a saving office at the instant she declared her fiat in “faith working through love” (Gal 5:5-6). And it continued without wavering despite the many sorrows she had to endure on the road to Calvary as an essential part of it. Because of her unshakable faith and hope in charity and grace, Mary did not lay her saving office aside when she was assumed body and soul into Heaven. Therefore, the Church invokes Mary under the titles of “Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix”. By her “manifold intercession in Heaven she continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation” (cf. Lumen Gentium 62:8, 14-17).

“The Lord has founded Zion,
and the needy among his people
will find refuge in her.” - Isaiah 14, 32

:heaven:

 

[turtle18]

Let’s look at the words of Elizabeth when the Blessed Mother came to visit her…“Blessed are you who believed that was was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”

Now just because you believe something doesn’t mean you fully understand. I believe in the Resurrection…but I don’t fully understand it (from a spiritual level I do but not so much a theological or scientific perspective.)

Now, multiple times in the Bible Jesus warns his apostles that he is going to be crucified, die and would rise on the third day. He also talks about “taking up your cross and following Him.” I would suspect Mary heard those words as well or they got back to her. I think of all the things Jesus said, that is probably why his family members said He was out of His mind. That would have been so stunning for anyone to hear, perhaps especially Mary…because she knew He was God and that His kingdom would have no end. So how do you get from Point A to Point B here? It has to be trust. We do not understand God–God’s ways are not our own.

 

[PJM]

How about I reword the question - did Jesus leave his mother wallowing in inignorance of who he was and why he came. Or did he explain it clearly to her.

READ Mt 16: 16-17
“[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”

Jesus didn’t have too, in addition to Luke’s Chapter 1 & 2 accounts Mary clearly KNEW that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah [GOD]

This would have been further ingrained my The Fathers DIRECT revelations as He did for Peter]

GBY

Patrick

 

[Good_Fella]

Let’s look at the words of Elizabeth when the Blessed Mother came to visit her…"Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."

And we also have the words of Jesus himself addressed to the doubting Thomas.

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." - John 20, 29

Now just because you believe something doesn’t mean you fully understand. I believe in the Resurrection…but I don’t fully understand it (from a spiritual level I do but not so much a theological or scientific perspective.)

And it’s because we can’t fully comprehend what our minds are able to grasp that we must believe.

Now, multiple times in the Bible Jesus warns his apostles that he is going to be crucified, die and would rise on the third day. He also talks about “taking up your cross and following Him.” I would suspect Mary heard those words as well or they got back to her… So how do you get from Point A to Point B here? It has to be trust. We do not understand God–God’s ways are not our own.

Thomas saw the risen Jesus, but because he still couldn’t fully understand how it was possible, he could only believe Jesus must have risen by trusting his physiological senses rather than the word of God.

Mary, on the other hand, was truly blessed, for she believed in what was spoken to her by the Lord. Without having to ask her Son so many questions, typical of a person who is anxious for lack of certain knowledge and understanding, and thus lacking in trust, she must have put 2+2 together after word of what Jesus foretold about himself may have gotten back to her. I can’t help but imagine that the OT Messianic prophecies then became clear to her by the sanctifying light of faith, and only to her by the light of the Holy Spirit in honour of her maternal dignity and her moral participation in the hypostatic order of the incarnation. And, even so, Mary must have chosen to remain silent in her humility and quietly contemplated on what she now believed should be in the depths of her soul. Our Blessed Mother is the perfect model of what the interior life of a Christian ought to be: a soul at rest and perfectly still in the presence of God, never anxiously questioning the Divine will, but always calmly disposed to listen to what God might have to say at the appointed moment. What must have concerned Mary most was that she should always love God and remain in His love by abiding by His word, regardless of how obscure and mysterious it could be.

“The interior life is for all the one thing necessary. It ought to be constantly developing in our souls; more so than what we call our intellectual life… The interior life is lived in the depths of our soul; it is the life of the whole man, not merely of one or other of his faculties. And our intellectual life would gain immeasurably by appreciating this; it would receive an inestimable advantage if, instead of attempting to supplant the spiritual life, it recognized its necessity and importance, and welcomed its beneficial influence- the influence of the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity) and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.”
Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Three Conversions in the Spiritual Life

:heaven: