- Status
G
Good_Fella
Guest
What you highlighted doesn’t support or even connect with your contention that Mary had to be reminded of who her Son was and that he had a divine mission to accomplish. But I agree with you that Mary may not have known how Jesus would complete his mission, unless he had already confided with her during their hidden years together. Mary couldn’t have known all that there was to know about her Son’s redemptive work without having it divinely revealed to her, since she was only human. If this is what you mean, fine, but you still haven’t explicated the cited text.
.’ The Mother then asked for a miracle; but He, as it were, refuses to recognize the womb whence He had been born, when He is going to perform Divine works, saying in effect: 'That part of Me which works miracles You did not produce; You are not the mother of My Divinity. But because You are the Mother of My infirmity, I will recognize You then when that infirmity shall hang upon the Cross.’ For this is the meaning of the words, ‘My hour is not yet come.’ For then, in the hour of His infirmity, He acknowledged Her whom in truth He had ever known. Before He was born of Her, He knew Her in predestination; and before, as God, He had Himself created Her of whom as Man He was to be created, He had known His Mother. But for a certain period and in a mystery, He does not acknowledge Her, and by-and-by, at a certain period which has not yet arrived, He will again in a mystery acknowledge Her. He will acknowledge Her then, when that which She had brought forth was at the point of death"
(In Joann. Evang. Tr. viii, 9).
The Saint alludes to those words which Jesus spoke from the Cross, when He commended His Mother to the beloved disciple, saying to him, “Behold Thy Mother;” and the “hour,” therefore, during which He would not recognize His Blessed Mother, during which there would be “nothing to Him and to Her,” would be the whole period of His public ministry, from this first miracle in Cana to His death on Calvary. Another hour would come, when there would “be to Him and to Her;” the hour of His triumph at which time she might legitimately exert Her influence over Him and obtain from Him miracles on behalf of all her children. Jesus redefined Mary’s motherhood, when he said to his mother: “Behold your Son.”
:heaven:
J
James248
Guest
Then what does it mean?
His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, That in me which works a miracle was not born of you, you gave not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of you, I will recognize you at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross. This, indeed, is the meaning of Mine hour is not yet come.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
So far Jesus didn’t “recognize a human womb” which I think means he regarded Mary as more than merely his biological mother at the time, and that’s because he himself was a divine person. Mary became the mother of Jesus so that she would be associated with Jesus in his redemptive work, which required that he be divine. Until now, Augustine could mean, Mary had no idea that the redemption of mankind would entail Calvary and that what she asked at the wedding feast would lead to the cross. Jesus redeemed the world by his blood (the new wine) through his passion and death. So Jesus must have associated his mother’s request for wine with his passion and death. It was at the cross where Mary made temporal satisfaction to God for our sins in union with Christ’s eternal satisfaction by her sorrow (What to thee and to me). From the cross, therefore, Jesus publicly declared,in recognition of his redefined mother: “Woman, behold your son. Son, behold your mother.” On the cross, he formally ratified his mother to be the mother of all his disciples. As her spiritual offspring, we, too, don’t recognize her physical womb to be the source of our regeneration. But in a mystical sense, we do proceed from her womb. We are her seed in Christ. Mary became the mother of all Christ’s disciples at the precise moment when she said: “They have no wine,” but on this occasion only Jesus knew that she would be the mother of his Church by having asked him to replenish the wine for the wedding guests (a prefiguration of the marriage feast of the Lamb in the Apocalypse). It was by Mary’s solicitation that the cross loomed before the Mother and the Son, though at Cana Mary had no idea. Meanwhile, to suffer and die for the sins of the world, Jesus had to acquire his humanity from Mary before the two could collaborate in the redemption. (Both shared the same weakness for suffering.) This is how I see it. Surely, Augustine doesn’t mean to say that Mary was completely passive in the performance of Jesus’ first miracle which inaugurated his public ministry in the shadow of the cross. He did regard Mary to be the new Eve.
In his book Walking with Mary, Dr. Edward Sri points out that John presents the servants at the wedding feast as types of disciples. We read: His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5). Instead of using the Greek word duolois for “servants”, the Evangelist uses diakonois, the Greek word used for Jesus’ true disciples in the NT. For instance: “If anyone serves (diakonei) me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant (diakonoi) be also” (Jn 12:26). Hence, John is presenting Mary as the mother of all her Son’s disciples. And the first thing she has to say to all her children is: “Do whatever he tells you.” As our loving mother and caretaker of our souls, she is encouraging us to live our lives in perfect obedience to her divine Son. John’s gospel is far more mystical in flavour than are the synoptic gospels. The narrative of the Wedding Feast at Cana is allegorical in aspect, which Augustine was well aware of.
*
“Just see if it isn’t as I say. While the Lord was passing by, performing divine miracles, with the crowds following him, a woman said: Fortunate is the womb that bore you. And how did the Lord answer, to show that good fortune is not really to be sought in mere family ties? Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it (Lk 11:27-28). So that is why Mary, too, is blessed, because she heard the word of God and kept it. She kept truth safe in her mind even better than she kept flesh safe in her womb. Christ is truth, Christ is flesh; Christ as truth was in Mary’s mind, Christ as flesh in Mary’s womb; that which is in the mind is greater than what is carried in the womb.”
St. Augustine, Sermon 72, 7*
“There is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, so Life is born to us through a woman.”
Ibid., The Christian Combat 4, 22:2
:heaven:
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Agreed. Especially since it was something that she deeply pondered for decades. Because of this prophecy, Mary may even have identified Jesus with Isaiah’s suffering servant, though in Judaism this figure isn’t seen as being the Messiah. And Isaiah does speak of the Gentiles in what the Church considers to be Messianic prophecy. If Mary never discussed Simeon’s prophecy with Jesus before he left home, I see no reason why she couldn’t put at least most of the dots together by reflecting on the Scriptures. Perhaps she did, and Jesus knew it but kept silent, allowing the Holy Spirit to enlighten her as she grew in knowledge of the divine truth. Elizabeth knew that Jesus was the Son of God, being enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Mary didn’t tell her. So why shouldn’t the Spirit inform Mary, seeing how closely associated she was with Jesus in his work of redemption. Or better still, Mary may even have asked Jesus countless questions, and so she gradually learned things by her Son’s contained answers. I can’t imagine Jesus keeping his mother Mary completely in the dark, seeing she knew he was the Divine Messiah ever since the Annunciation and she had a vital role in God’s plan. She must have asked hundreds of questions during the hidden years, while her Son may have answered them, but reservedly.
:heaven:
G
Good_Fella
Guest
A span of 30 years isn’t exactly immediately, don’t you think?
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Mary certainly had much pondering to do considering how mysteriously God works. Nevertheless, Luke 2:23-35 reveals that our Blessed Lady had a vital role to play together with her Son in God’s plan of salvation. How much she understood of her participation we can never know for sure, but only speculate in vain. Yet the gospels reflect what the nascent church perceived about Mary. And it does appear, despite how much Mary knew, that the primitive church in the apostolic age saw her as having an active role in the redemption from the time of the Annunciation to even beyond Calvary, which the Gospel of John affirms in keeping with the Apostolic Tradition. By much pondering itself, the Church has increased in knowledge and understanding under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:12-13). At Cana and on Calvary (the start and end of his public ministry), where Jesus called his mother “Woman”, he certainly knew all that the Church would come to apprehend in time.
The Greek translation for “and a sword shall pierce your own soul” is ψυχὴν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία. The nominative noun ῥομφαία (a sharp blade) can be taken both literally and figuratively. Thus we have a play on words in this verse. Just as the Son’s body was pierced by a sharp blade when the soldier struck his side with his spear, so also should the Mother’s soul or heart be pierced by a sharp blade. Luke’s message is clear: God desired Mary to participate in her Son’s suffering to complete His plan, though Christ’s suffering alone was more than sufficient to make reparation for the sins of the world. The nominative noun is a metaphor for the shared anguish of the Son and the Mother which was required for our redemption. What Jesus merited in strict justice, Mary merited by her maternal right and friendship with God. Father Garrigou-Lagrange (Mother of the Saviour) tells us that Mary made temporal satisfaction to God for the sins of the world because she suffered for God whom sin offended, she suffered for her Son who died because of sin, and she suffered for humanity that was ravaged by sin. The pure love of Mary that predisposed her to feeling deep sorrow couldn’t but temporally propitiate God’s justice and appeal to His mercy on our behalf. The prophet spoke: “Now, why art thou drawn together with grief? Hast thou no king in thee, or is thy counsellor perished, because sorrow hath taken thee as a woman in labour” (Micah 4:9). Unless the Mother would make temporal satisfaction for the world’s sins against God, the Son would not make eternal satisfaction. So that the hearts of many shall be revealed, a sword should pierce Mary’s soul. Mary’s participation cannot be excluded in God’s plan of redemption. The truth of this revelation is underscored by the juxta-positioning of the Son’s external suffering and the Mother’s internal suffering. And it was God’s will that Mary should become our mother by having to suffer a mother’s love for all her children (Rev 12:1-5,17). Indeed, “God works for good to those who love him” (Rom 8:28).
I believe Jesus had his mother at the foot of the cross in mind when he said: “Whenever a woman is in labor she has pain, because her hour has come; but when she gives birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy that a child has been born into the world” (Jn 16:21). The sorrowful scene at the Cross contains 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). The prophet said: “Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end. Then all your people will be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendour” (Isa 60, 20-21). 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 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. Thus, the returnees from exile foreshadow all believers in Christ who have been freed from the bondage of sin and impending death, having been liberated by the blood (justification) and water (regeneration) that flowed from Christ’s side.
I pray therefore that you may not lose heart over my sufferings for you; they are your glory.
Ephesians 3, 13
:heaven:
P
PJM
Guest
OK
BUT the ONLY one chosen by GOD to be His Mother, out of BILLIONS of other choices
GBY
J
JM3
Guest
Acts 1:7 - But he told them, It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.
Not to know and not being able to tell are two different things, don’t you think?
A better translation:
John 2:4 - Jesus answered her, Nay, woman, why dost thou trouble me with that? My time has not come yet.
Reference Matthew 8:29, Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28, where the same Hebrew idiom is used.
If you had read The Mother of Christ Chapter X, pgs. 204 - 229, you would have a better understanding of what was happening.
P
PJM
Guest
Nicely done
Thanks:thumbsup:
K
kkollwitz
Guest
I imagine that Mary, unencumbered by sin, may have perceived all sorts of things that could at best be dimly sensed by sinners.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The fact remains. Jesus uses a Hebraism (mah-liy walak isah: Hebrew NT) when he asks his mother Mary “How does your concern affect me?” or “What does the wine have to do with us?” (What to thee and to me) which are implied in what he literally asks: “What would you have of me, woman?” meaning, “Would you like me to replenish the wine?”, for it is Mary who expresses her concern to Jesus when she says: “They have no wine.” But if he did replenish the wine, he would have to provide something even greater transmuted from wine, viz., his blood. Jesus is tacitly asking: “You do realize what you are saying, don’t you?” Then silence until Mary says to the servants: “Do whatever he tells you.” The innuendos that are contained in this Hebraic expression strongly suggest that Mary may have already been informed of the full scope of her Son’s salvific mission - his Father’s business. She at least knew who her Son was and that he had a divine mission to accomplish, however that might be.
Keep in mind that the narrative of Cana is a literary work, and as such all the characters have a significant role to play, including minor characters like the servants (diakonei) who, as I showed above, are rendered as types of disciples (See John 12:26). If Mary had no active role in her Son’s first and most important miracle, one with profound eschatological significance and prompted by her solicitation, John wouldn’t have included her involvement in the development of the story to its climax. He could have simply just left it at this: “On the third, day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding” (vv.1-2). And he would have continued writing something like this: ‘Jesus had noticed (not his mother) that the wine was gone’… “Nearby stood six stone water jars…Jesus said to the servants (without Mary having to first adjoin them what to do)…Fill the jars with water…” (vv.6-11). Yet, instead, we have Mary mediating (intervening) on behalf of the wedding guests (vv.3-5). Nor is this action of hers purely incidental. Nothing is incidental in Scripture or even in a well-written piece of literature. God Himself is telling us something important about Mary (sensus plenior) through the literary technique of the Evangelist. Our Blessed Lady is a major character in the story, and thus her role carries something very significant with it which has bearing on what the author is communicating to the reader. She isn’t mentioned just for the sake of scenic detail. That’s not the function of characters in any story. If Mary’s presence weren’t meaningful, and all the author was concerned with was the miraculous event and what it resulted in, the mother of our Lord would not have been included in the course of events leading up to the miracle and the start of Jesus’ public ministry in the shadow of the cross. Literary protocol presupposes this. And, so, Mary’s participation is actually an affirmation of the nascent church’s perception of her active collaboration with the Son in the redemption. Traditionally, Mary was seen as a mediatrix of grace. In the OT, the fruit of the vine (grapes/olives/figs) does symbolize God’s grace and the need to be rejuvenated by it. “Woe is me! For I have become as when the summer fruit has been gathered, as when the grapes have been gleaned; there is no cluster to eat, no first-ripe fig that my soul desires” (Micah 7:1). Anagogically, the Jews’ fall from grace and exile parallel mankind’s need for redemption.
“He was telling His mother that she was virtually pronouncing a sentence of death over Him. Few are the mothers who send their sons to battlefields; but here was one who was actually hastening the hour of her Son’s mortal conflict with the forces of evil. If He agreed to her request, He would be beginning His hour of death and glorification. To the Cross He would go with double commission, one from His Father in heaven, the other from His mother on earth.”
Fulton J Sheen, The Life of Christ
:heaven:
G
Good_Fella
Guest
On virtually all occasions when Jesus performed a miracle, he required a public profession of faith before he healed or exorcised someone. In all, the gospels record thirty-seven miracles of our Lord from among the countless ones he did perform. Here are several of them.
Jesus healed the royal official’s son of his sickness after the man publicly begged him in faith: "“Sir, come down before my child dies.” Jesus replied, "Your son will live.” The boy was cured of his fever at that precise moment, and that’s because his father had travelled all the way from Capernaum to Galilee to implore Jesus to heal his son (John 4:43-54). The father’s faith cured him.
Even when someone wasn’t capable of making a public declaration of faith, Jesus still required one to be made by intellectual assent before he would act. Jesus drove out an impure spirit from a man who was possessed by a demon only after it had declared in the synagogue: "I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” With that, “the impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek” (Mark 1:21-27).
There’s the Roman centurion, a Gentile, whose servant was gravely ill and about to die, so having heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to ask Jesus to come and heal his servant. Meanwhile, the servant had died while our Lord was going to the centurion’s home. Still, the centurion believed that Jesus had the authority to restore his servant to life. He sent his friends to meet Jesus and give him a message which amazed our Lord who responded: "“I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.” When the centurion’s friends returned to his home, they found the servant alive and well. Jesus acted upon the centurion’s message. The man believed not only that Jesus had the power to raise his servant from the dead, but also he could do it without actually being present in his house (Luke 7:1-10).
When a man with leprosy came and knelt before Jesus in public and cried out, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean,” our Lord reached out and touched the man, saying, ““I am willing. Be clean!” The leper was healed immediately. And as a further obligation of faith, the man was instructed to “go, show [himself] to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them”. Unfortunately, the man couldn’t contain all his excitement and instead went about telling everyone what Jesus did for him which, in a sense, was still giving public testimony. Of course, Jesus told the man not to tell the priests what he had done for him, but this was because our Lord wished to reserve this prerogative for himself at a later time when he would appeal to his works before the Pharisees in his revelation of himself (Mark 1:40-45; cf. Matthew 9:1-8).
There was a woman who had had a hemorrhage for twelve years. One day she was among a crowd, and as Jesus passed by she touched his cloak. Feeling that power had gone out from him, Jesus asked, “Who touched me?” This was a rhetorical question on his part that was meant to prompt the woman to reveal herself to him in public. In other words, she was called to give testimony to her act of faith. In fear and trembling, the woman ‘came and fell down before him’ and admitted that it was she who had touched him. Only then would Jesus say to her: “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your affliction” (Mark 5:25-34).
Thus, before Jesus would perform his first and most important miracle, not in compassion for the wedding guests in their want of wine, but rather for humanity in its want of grace, his mother Mary had to first profess her faith in him and trust in God, since it was on this occasion she knew that their relationship would radically change. When Jesus insinuated that she knew what she was really asking, that his hour had in fact arrived now that he would start his public ministry in the shadow of the cross, he wanted to hear her say “Yes” despite all the sorrow she would have to suffer, a sorrow far greater than that for not being able to provide a proper place for his birth and going into exile with him to Egypt. Jesus implicitly wanted a testimony from her as to whether she was just his mother or more importantly a disciple of his, whether she was prepared to go through with it all. Her response was what she adjoined the servants to do. What Jesus did before he approached the servants with his instructions was have his mother confirm her faith and renew her pledge to collaborate with God (Luke 1:38). And by doing so, her motherhood would be redefined as the Father intended and formally ratified by the Son on the cross (John 19:26-27). By her solicitation, in keeping with her calling, his mother Mary would be the mother of all her Son’s faithful disciples. “Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:28). Mary was more than a mother to Jesus. More importantly, she was a woman of faith, which she had to be if she were to be the Mother of the Church.
"Just see if it isn’t as I say. While the Lord was passing by, performing divine miracles, with the crowds following him, a woman said: Fortunate is the womb that bore you. And how did the Lord answer, to show that good fortune is not really to be sought in mere family ties? Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it (Lk 11:27-28). So that is why Mary, too, is blessed, because she heard the word of God and kept it. She kept truth safe in her mind even better than she kept flesh safe in her womb. Christ is truth, Christ is flesh; Christ as truth was in Mary’s mind, Christ as flesh in Mary’s womb; that which is in the mind is greater than what is carried in the womb."
St. Augustine, Sermon 72, 7
J
James248
Guest
Jesus didn’t require faith when he raised the widow’s son.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
I wrote that on virtually (just about all/most) all occasions Jesus required a profession of faith when he healed someone. In this particular instance, he simply acted out of compassion. ‘And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep” (Lk 11:13). Still, we read: ‘Soon afterward he went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him’ (7:11). What softened Jesus’ heart may have been the faith all these followers of his had in him. ‘And seeing the multitudes, he had compassion on them: because they were distressed, and lying like sheep that have no shepherd’ (Matt 9:36). Surely, Jesus desired that the widow and all the inhabitants of Nain come to believe in him. He was entering the town to preach the good news and proclaim the coming of God’s kingdom. Jesus did perform miracles so that all might believe in him (Jn 20:30-31). After what happened here, many people would come to see that physical death wasn’t nearly as sorrowful as spiritual death. Also, no faith was required of the servant Malchus after Peter cut off his right ear in the Garden of Gethsemane. But Jesus expected Peter to have faith when he shouted, “No more of this!” (Lk 22:51). Moreover, Malchus was the servant of the High Priest Caiaphas who would sentence Jesus to death for blasphemy. Perhaps Jesus also wished to send him one final reminder before the trial would begin: “The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep” (Jn 10:25-26). In any event, our Lord didn’t act out of compassion for the wedding guests because they had no wine to drink. He didn’t say, “Do not weep,” before giving the servants their instructions. Nor did Jesus act purely on his own initiative. He acted at his mother Mary’s behest for the sake of something infinitely more important than the want of wine. In these two other instances, nobody directly prompted Jesus to act, but faith was still part of the equation (See Matt 5:30;10:28). Our Lord’s compassion wasn’t only for the widow and the servant, but more importantly also for the lost house of Israel. All we have here are slight deviations from the norm.
:heaven:
- Status