Dear Della, respectfully, I have been following the OP’s thread here and I think you are maybe getting a bit confused with what he is saying in some of your responses.
Certainly Mary had this role, but Joseph also. We can’t negate his contributions and make it all and only Jesus and Mary.
As to what prompted Jesus as a young child to understand who he was, we cannot know that, but learning about the Messianic passage may have been a catalyst.
This is what he was suggesting I think from following his posts.
She may have done that, but girls were not taught to read and write, only the boys. I see Mary’s role being more as making connections from what she’s heard as one of the women looking on in the synagogue. Her Magnificat is filled with biblical references and imagery. She remembered what she heard and “pondered it in her heart.” Jesus was no doubt like her in that regard, only he had a knowledge and connections that, as one of the Godhead not even Mary could have grasped.
This is true. People learned through oral recitation. I tend to agree with friardchips here in that He would have had to learn some of the OT not just pick things up randomly. Parents would definitely have educated their children as much as they could.
Not so much the wrong way around, but it makes it sound as if Jesus might not have known all he knew without Mary. I don’t think we can say that. God certainly wished that Jesus be conceived and born of Mary and brought up in a family, but this dependence was not an inherent necessity of his being. Mary’s connection to Jesus was limited while she was on earth because she could not know all that he knew nor anticipate all that he would do. I think we have to be careful how far we can stretch the bond between Mother and Son while they were on earth lest we turn Mary into something she wasn’t–Jesus’ mentor, as if he needed a mentor.
I don’t think for a moment friardchips even suggested that Mary taught Jesus anything that His Father would have taught Him or even suggested that Jesus’ being was somehow reliant on Mary?! Respectfully, in charity, this is putting words in the OP’s mouth. We have to be careful on online discussion not to do that. I think it is fairly clear from the OP’s posts that He understands that Christ is Christ and Mary is Mary. I don’t want to be horrible but this does seem to misunderstand the OP’s point of view somewhat.
Here is an example of stretching the connection between Mother and Son too far, IMHO. Christ’s submission had nothing to do with Mary’s example, if that’s what you’re saying. I think the most we can say about any connection is that without Mary’s fiat we’d have had no Jesus who would submit his human will to that of his Father’s. Jesus didn’t need Mary, she needed him, just as we do.
With respect, in all charity and goodwill, it seems that you may have misunderstood the OP’s reasoning here.
He is not saying that Jesus needed Mary in the supernatural way as God; the OP is in my view quite clearly stating that the bond between Mary and Jesus is unbreakable, and so from conception to the ‘fiat’, to Jesus’ life and ministry, there is an unbreakable thread of divine intervention between them that means Mary is inextricably tied to the service of her son as Mother. And because of this unbreakable bond of love the Motherhood of Mary can be found in the Son. Jesus was utterly put into her hands as a baby: vulnerable, delicate and needing nurturing and if we deny Our Lady’s full role as Mother we deny Christ. And so, following this, we can say that to see Christ is to see in Our Lady a perfect resemblance, as much as anyone could, a clear pointer towards her Son. Because she said that her soul MAGNIFIED the Lord. From this alone, the OP is clearly trying to state that Mary’s very existence in every breath, word, action, thought, look, smile, was to serve Jesus as Mother and perfect Apostle.
Not pointless if it helps iron out this point. We have to be careful not to ascribe to Mary that which she did not do and did not possess. She did not teach Jesus to be submissive to God nor did she possess divine knowledge of Jesus’ mission–at least not fully. Her response to Jesus after finding him in the Temple is proof she wasn’t always as “in tune” as we might think. She learned as Jesus grew up who he was in a fuller way, and perhaps he shared some of his mission with her by explaining some of his decisions/actions. But she was the learner and Jesus the teacher in all things that pertain to the divine will.
The OP never said that Mary taught Jesus to be submissive but rather reminded Him of His human behaviour. I think we have to assume that Jesus when He was a boy was still a boy but one with a mission. He taught in the Temple but He should have told His Mother where HE was. To say Our Lady was not in tune is not fair because what else is a Mother supposed to do but care for the whereabouts of her son? If you said earlier that she did now know everything that her son was doing, which the OP never suggested she did, then why was she ‘out of tune’.
I’m sorry but it seems in good faith that you are not really following the OP’s line of thinking here. Maybe he was not clear and so he might even apologise for that at some point.
God bless.
