The way Jesus spoke to Mary at the Wedding at Cana

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s discuss this. Since the requirements of the Covenant or Works were not met by Adam & Eve (both are to accountable for all of humanity being in the state of sin, and consider this: Do you think anyone has ever been more repentant for their actions? I don’t have a conclusive answer, but I rather doubt it), all of mankind has been plagued with sin. That’s why we needed a Savior who was not mere man. Mary was born through and through with sin, like all of us - save Jesus, who was different becaue He was fathered by the Holy Spirit, and He is therefore the only person to be both man AND God. He lived the perfect life, and died on the cross to appease the payment necessary for mankind’s sin - Hallelujah!

Mary is the vessel through which the Messiah was born, and neither the old ark nor Mary was “perfect, inside and out”. I’d like to hear where that is authoritatively stated, because this might be the root of where some of my RCC friends have been swayed to think Mary is their Savior.

You said “Sin is a result of our fallen nature – something Mary never experienced.” but she WAS a part of humanity, which suffers and groans in sin. Was she 1 of God’s elect? Surely, she is in the company of saints in heaven, all of whom sinned. All the saints were born into sin and could not escape sin;s punishment except from God’s undeserving grace.
Mary was saved by Christ from sin from the moment of her conception. There is no way that God could be born from sinful flesh. Mary was no mere vessel, but a true mother; she provided the human genetic material for Jesus, her son. Jesus was not created within her. He was begotten. Divinity united with humanity. This is how God became Man. When the He took flesh, He took it from Mary (with her consent). It is not possible for God and sin to unite therefore there could not be any sin in Mary - ever.
from the Catechism:
The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
Code:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135
492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137
493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
Kecharitomene
“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women” (Lk. 1:28). Some think that the Greek word for “hail” (chaire) represents the salutation Shalom, meaning “peace,” “prosperity,” in common use among the Jews. But the literal sense is chaire, “rejoice thou,” may be intended. For this exhortation is repeatedly found in the Prophets and rendered chaire in the Septuagint (Zeph 3:14-17; Joel 2:21’ Zach 9:9; Lam 4:21). In this supposition the very first word uttered by the angel suggests that he is a herald of spiritual happiness.

“Full of Grace” translates kecharitōmĕnē the perfect passive participle of charitŏō. It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state.[1] Verbs ending in ŏō, such as haimatŏō (turn into blood), thaumatŏō (fill with wonder), spodŏōmai (burn to ashes) frequently express the full intensity of the action. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.[2]
As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints. Scripture indicates that honor is due to these individuals (Matt. 10:41b). A special term was coined to refer to the special honor given to the Virgin Mary, who bore Jesus—God in the flesh—in her womb. This term, hyperdulia (huper [more than]+ dulia = “beyond dulia”), indicates that the honor due to her as Christ’s own Mother is more than the dulia given to other saints. It is greater in degree, but still of the same kind. However, since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.
 
So why did He speak that way to her in the first sentence of His dialogue with His mother? Also, why did He say His time had not yet come? Was He speaking of His time to be crucified? If so, why would He have said this in response to them being out of wine. Or was He saying it was not yet His time to perform His first miracle? If so, why did He do it right then?
The passage is not at all mysterious if you look at it through the lens of a typical human experience:

MOM: Take out the trash, will you?

YOU: But mom, I’m now…

MOM: (Gives you that look)

YOU: Uh, okay…
 
**
John 2:4 - Woman**

Q: Didn’t Jesus show his mother disrespect by calling her “Woman” in John 2:4?

A: The title “Woman” is not a sign of disrespect, it is the opposite – a title of dignity. It is a formal mode of speech equivalent to the English titles, “Lady” or “Madam.”

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

“The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatara, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it” (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).

Similarly, the Protestant Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan, states:

Jesus’ reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. ‘Woman’ (gynai) was a polite form of address. Jesus used it when he spoke to his mother from the cross (19:26) and also when he spoke to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (20:15)" (vol. 9, p. 42).

Even the Fundamentalist Wycliff Bible Commentary put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse,

“In his reply, the use of ‘Woman’ does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26)” (p. 1076).

The fact it is not a title of disrespect should be obvious from the fact that Jesus, as an obedient Son who fulfilled the Torah perfectly, would never have spoken irreverently to his mother. His perfect fulfillment of the Torah includes a perfect fulfillment of the command, “Honor your father and mother,” which in the literal Hebrew is “Glorify your father and mother.”

This is why the *corban *custom was so wrong – because it left one’s parents scrounging for food and money and thus publicly humiliated, violating the command to glorify your father and mother by seeing that they are not publicly shamed by being reduced to begging. To publicly speak irreverently of his mother is something that Jesus would never have been able to countenance. Actually, the way Jesus is using the term – at the two key junctures in John’s Gospel where Mary appears – is symbolic and emblematic of her role in redemptive history. Whereas Eve was the First Woman, Mary is the Second Woman, just as Adam was the First Man and Jesus was the Second Man (1 Cor. 15:47).
I’d always thought it sounded disrespectful for Jesus to call his Mother “woman,” too, so I like these explanations. I have to remind myself that their culture was so very different from ours.
 
Mary was saved by Christ from sin from the moment of her conception.
I respectfully ask, “Where this is stated in Scripture?” She did need a Savior from sin like all of humanity ever has needed. There is a (counter) point in Isaiah 42:8:
“I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.”
and note not to forget Exodus 20:4-5 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…"
hence bowing to Mary, though she be the mother of God, many would consider idol worship. This is a point of great divide betwixt Roman Catholics and Protestants. It seems there is no middle ground herein, yet both sides claim truth. I’d really love to hear some loving & genuinely helpful suggestions to conquer this divide. As always, love is what really moves people.

There’s the Magnificat in Luke 1:46-48:
"And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed.”
They shall call her “blessed”, as in a saint, not as the Savior or the path to the Savior. The path to the Savior is … the Savior! - who is Jesus, the Anointed One.
There is no way that God could be born from sinful flesh.
Again, I respectfully ask the couterpoint, “Where do you get this idea?” In Isaiah 7:14 we are told, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
Although the Bible states that Mary was “full of grace” and that “the Lord was with her”, she was not without sin in her life. If you counter this point, please provide Scripture reference(s).
Jesus was not created within her. He was begotten.
Begotten is the Godly portion of Jesus who was sired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was both 100% God AND 100% man. I’d say we agree herein, but this is certainly a complex issue to grasp. About the born/made/begotten point, C.S. Lewis said it well:
"We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man." (from “Mere Christiantiy”)

~Love to all the saints
 
No one is denying that Mary needed a savior. However, her needing a savior does not negate the fact that she was born {and lived a life} free from sin. The difference is that Mary was saved before it could even happen to her. She has always been full of grace. She is the new Eve, as shown in Genesis 3:15. Mary is the woman. If there is emnity between the woman and the serpant {Mary and Satan}, there is complete and total opposition. Therefore, Mary must be born free from sin and full of grace.
 
I respectfully ask, “Where this is stated in Scripture?”
This is an appeal to authority. Catholics look to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as our authority on various teaching - especially such as this. Sacred Scripture, a visible artifact, comes from the visible Church, for instance.
She did need a Savior from sin like all of humanity ever has needed.
Except, Mary did not sin.
There is a (counter) point in Isaiah 42:8:
“I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.”
and note not to forget Exodus 20:4-5 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…"
hence bowing to Mary, though she be the mother of God, many would consider idol worship. This is a point of great divide betwixt Roman Catholics and Protestants. It seems there is no middle ground herein, yet both sides claim truth. I’d really love to hear some loving & genuinely helpful suggestions to conquer this divide. As always, love is what really moves people.
One of the many things I love about the Catholic Church is that it writes down its teachings. So, if you want to say that Catholics worship Mary, then you ought to find an official description. Yet, when I look at the official teaching of the Catholic Church, I find the exact opposite of what you say.
CCC 971 “All generations will call me blessed”: “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” The Church rightly honors “the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . .** differs essentially** from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.” The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.
In my experience, asking for saints to intercede for us is a far bigger issue for Protestants that the honor we give Theotokos. Purgatory, etc. etc.
There’s the Magnificat in Luke 1:46-48:
"And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed.”
They shall call her “blessed”, as in a saint, not as the Savior or the path to the Savior. The path to the Savior is … the Savior! - who is Jesus, the Anointed One.
Why not look down just a little further in that reading and acknowledge the reality of what is written here??
Luke 1:52
He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but** lifted up the lowly.**
This seems fairly obvious to me, the worldly rulers are being cast down from their thrones, but the lowly (which you show is Mary above) is lifted. Hmm… lifted where? The throne, obviously. Christ is the King. Who is the Queen?
Again, I respectfully ask the couterpoint, “Where do you get this idea?” In Isaiah 7:14 we are told, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
Although the Bible states that Mary was “full of grace” and that “the Lord was with her”, she was not without sin in her life. If you counter this point, please provide Scripture reference(s).
Have you ever heard about Mary being the New Ark of the Covenant? Luke figured this out, and he spells it out with references to the Old Ark of the Covenant. Have you ever wondered why John the Baptist “leaps” while not yet born? Ever wonder why Elizabeth says the words, “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Does that sound similar to any Old Testament passages? Even wonder why Mary stayed with Elizabeth for three months?

Once you know Mary is the Ark of the new Covenant, you can then look at the Old Ark and compare it to the New Ark. You’ll see the importance for having a spotless New Ark there.
Begotten is the Godly portion of Jesus who was sired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was both 100% God AND 100% man. I’d say we agree herein, but this is certainly a complex issue to grasp. About the born/made/begotten point, C.S. Lewis said it well:
"We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.
Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man." (from “Mere Christiantiy”)
~Love to all the saints
Can you do me a favor and tell me what you think really happened in Fatima on October 13, 1917? I’d appreciate that.
 
No one is denying that Mary needed a savior. However, her needing a savior does not negate the fact that she was born {and lived a life} free from sin.
Again, this time to your statement, I respectfully ask, “Where is this (a life free from sin for Mary) stated in Scripture?”
Since we agree Mary needed a Savior, can we also agree that she needed te Saviour’s salvation from sin? Everyone since the Fall is born into sin - it’s truly a world plague.😦 This doesn’t take away from our adoration of Mary. She is a saint, yet the “sinless life” supposes a God-like quality and separate path to achieve heaven apart from Christ. Please elaborate and elucidate this foundational basis.
The difference is that Mary was saved before it could even happen to her. She has always been full of grace. She is the new Eve, as shown in Genesis 3:15. Mary is the woman. If there is emnity between the woman and the serpant {Mary and Satan}, there is complete and total opposition. Therefore, Mary must be born free from sin and full of grace]
  1. Does “it” in the 1st sentence reference sin?
  2. The foreshadowing of Christ is in Gen 3:15, but her (Eve’s) offspring includes Mary, who is born plagued by sin, and saved by her Son, following this portion of Romans 3:22-24 “For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus…”👍
  3. On your point, “Mary *must *be born free from sin”, is there any direct or categorical proof of this dogma which can be brought forth from Scripture?:confused: -since sacred Scripture directs/derives proper Theology, yes?
  4. As I’ve been able to determine (in 2 years of P/T Greek language studies) the greek word “kecharitomene” applied to Mary & used in the phrase in Luke 1:28, it literally means “one who has been graced”, not the verbiage “full of grace”, “pleres charitos”, which is used in John 1:14 and Acts 6:8, to describe Jesus and Stephen, respectively.😉
~Growth, patience and consolation be granted us to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus that we may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (a la Rom 15:5-6)
 
A little of an aside to the passage:

I think it shows that if Mary asks Jesus for a ‘favor’ or a grace, He will grant it if it is His will. Perhaps this is teaching us that we SHOULD go to Mary, and ask her to intercede for us.
 
Again, this time to your statement, I respectfully ask, “Where is this (a life free from sin for Mary) stated in Scripture?”
Since we agree Mary needed a Savior, can we also agree that she needed te Saviour’s salvation from sin? Everyone since the Fall is born into sin - it’s truly a world plague.😦 This doesn’t take away from our adoration of Mary. She is a saint, yet the “sinless life” supposes a God-like quality and separate path to achieve heaven apart from Christ. Please elaborate and elucidate this foundational basis.
There’s a popular analogy that’s used.
Scenario 1: Someone is walking in the woods and falls into a pit of mud. Another man comes by and pulls the person out – thus saving him from the mud pit.
Scenario 2: Someone is walking in the woods, and another man comes by. He warns the person of the mud pit – thus saving him from the mud pit.

Also, being free from sin does not suppose a God-like quality. The angels are free from sin, yet they are not God. Adam and Eve were created free from sin, yet they are not God. I don’t doubt that Mary probably had the temptation to sin; she just never gave into it. After all, Jesus was tempted in the desert, but he didn’t give into the temptations.
  1. Does “it” in the 1st sentence reference sin?
Yes; I apologize for not being clearer. :o
  1. The foreshadowing of Christ is in Gen 3:15, but her (Eve’s) offspring includes Mary, who is born plagued by sin, and saved by her Son, following this portion of Romans 3:22-24 “For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus…”👍
This is a common argument, but it falls flat. If all have sinned, that must include Jesus and Adam and Eve pre-fall. This simply cannot be so. Mary, as I said before, needed a savior. However, her being saved from sin came before it could ever happen. Mary is the woman, and this is further emphasized by Jesus addressing his mother as “woman.” Even at that time, it was highly uncommon to address one’s own mother as “woman.” However, Jesus was not being disrespectful. He was essentially telling her {and telling us} that Mary is the new Eve – just as Jesus is the new Adam.
  1. On your point, “Mary *must *be born free from sin”, is there any direct or categorical proof of this dogma which can be brought forth from Scripture?:confused: -since sacred Scripture directs/derives proper Theology, yes?
No, theology does not come from Scripture. Scripture did not come into play until at least 50-70 years after the death and resurrection of Christ if I’m not mistaken. Things were handed down orally. In fact, the Bible doesn’t record everything – as seen at the end of John’s gospel where it is noted that not everything Jesus did was recorded. Also, in the beginning of Luke’s gospel, we see that he is simply reaffirming what Theophilus was already taught orally. Theophilus didn’t learn anything new from Luke’s gospel. Yes, Scripture is highly important. However, to imply that everything must be in Scripture is simply not true. In fact, there’s no Scriptural evidence for sola scriptura. The Church gets its teachings from Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium. All 3 work hand-in-hand, and none contradict any.
  1. As I’ve been able to determine (in 2 years of P/T Greek language studies) the greek word “kecharitomene” applied to Mary & used in the phrase in Luke 1:28, it literally means “one who has been graced”, not the verbiage “full of grace”, “pleres charitos”, which is used in John 1:14 and Acts 6:8, to describe Jesus and Stephen, respectively.😉
This is a good point and just further points to how hard translating can be sometimes. kecharitomene is a word that translates as, “having already been filled with grace.” Mary is the only person to receive this title, given to her by God through Gabriel.
 
…being free from sin does not suppose a God-like quality. The angels are free from sin, yet they are not God. Adam and Eve were created free from sin, yet they are not God. I don’t doubt that Mary probably had the temptation to sin; she just never gave into it. After all, Jesus was tempted in the desert, but he didn’t give into the temptations…
Good points! Yet there are still no Sacred Scripture refrences - at all from anyone,

Not growing up in the RCC or ascribing to the notions you’re purporting, is it correct to assume your basis for these understandings is the RCC Catechism? Or is this from another document or teaching?
Regarding Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”
…This is a common argument, but it falls flat. If all have sinned, that must include Jesus and Adam and Eve pre-fall. This simply cannot be so. Mary, as I said before, needed a savior. However, her being saved from sin came before it could ever happen…
Rom 3:23 doesn’t fall flat when considering that Jesus, Who is God, isn’t included in that “all”, which means the entire world (not to be confused with all in the room, all in the building, or all in the city, etc.).
Are you saying that the RCC teaches that there are exceptions (other than Jesus) to the “all have sinned” direction of Scripture? Please hold off in replying until you read the next section.
No, theology does not come from Scripture.
**Did you mean to write this?!?!? ^ ** :confused: :eek:

I hesitated to reply thinking maybe you mistakenly wrote that & would edit it after re-reading it, but I don’t see anything yet. If not, do you realize that Theology means “the study of God” and that we study Him by His Word?

This is quite important: Does the RCC teach “absolute inerrancy of the Bible”?

Regardless of when it was writiten, we Christians confess that the Bible, God’s Word, was given through men and is flawless, correct?
 
Good points! Yet there are still no Sacred Scripture refrences - at all from anyone,
Well, you have ignored my post. Previously, I wrote:
Have you ever heard about Mary being the New Ark of the Covenant? Luke figured this out, and he spells it out with references to the Old Ark of the Covenant. Have you ever wondered why John the Baptist “leaps” while not yet born? Ever wonder why Elizabeth says the words, “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Does that sound similar to any Old Testament passages? Even wonder why Mary stayed with Elizabeth for three months?
Once you know Mary is the Ark of the new Covenant, you can then look at the Old Ark and compare it to the New Ark. You’ll see the importance for having a spotless New Ark there.
Luke is a scripture reference.
Not growing up in the RCC or ascribing to the notions you’re purporting, is it correct to assume your basis for these understandings is the RCC Catechism? Or is this from another document or teaching?
Sacred Tradition gives us both the teachings on our Blessed Mother and the knowledge of what Sacred Scripture is. Why do you believe, for example, that Luke is Sacred Scripture in the first place?
Regardless of when it was writiten, we Christians confess that the Bible, God’s Word, was given through men and is flawless, correct?
Protestants have a varied opinion on what the Bible really IS. (Well, Catholics probably vary too - but there are official Catholic teachings on this. And, yes, Catholic teaching says that it is the Word of God, and in fallible.) Since, as you say, the Bible was given to us through men, how can anyone today say that those men knew any better than anyone else? Why those particular men? All of this gets back to authority. In my experience, Protestants give the Bible authority - but in reality, in order to ascribe any authority to those writings, they must first ascribe authority to other people to decide what is to be included in the Bible.

Catholics believe that Jesus gave authority to Rock - and we get our (visible) Sacred Scripture through the (visible) Sacred Tradition, founded on the (visible) Rock.

In my experience, most Protestants say that the (visible) Bible is the product of an (invisible) catholic (universal) Church. I do not understand how the visible can come from the invisible.
 
Here is something I found here on Catholic Answers on one of the forums that I thought was worth saving so I copied it. I do not know the name of the person who posted it nor the thread or forum in which it was posted but it answers a lot of questions about Mary including devotions to her and why we pray to Mary and why we call her Queen of Heaven.

It is called, “Devotion to Mary”
Code:
                                          "Devotion to Mary"
"There are two incidents in the Gospels that seem insignificant or at most nice little human interest stories that have no relationship to the gospel message. They seem to be little sidebars to the main storyline. The two incidents are the mother of James and John asking Jesus to allow her sons to sit on his right and left and the story of the wedding feast at Cana. Here are the passages:

“35 And James and John, the sons of Zeb’edee, came forward to him, and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
[Mark 10:37-40] [RSV]

Matthew’s gospel has the mother of James and John making the request. [See Mt 20:20-23] The wedding feast at Cana is recorded in John‘s Gospel:

“1 On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. 3 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” [John 2:1] [RSV]

Now what do these events have to do with the gospel? Apparently nothing other than in the first either the mother of two of the Apostles or the two apostles themselves make a rather selfish request whereas in the second a request is apparently made but it is not a selfish request. So is that it? On the surface it seems so. But I was intrigued by the first one. Who does sit at Jesus left and right? In recalling the creed I know it states that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. That is also stated in Mark 16:19:

“So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.” [Mark 16:19][RSV]

So if Jesus sits at the Father’s right then the Father sits at Jesus left. No wonder neither James nor John could sit there. But who sits at Jesus right? The obvious answer is the Holy Spirit. But I could not find anything in scripture that stated that. So the question of who sits at Jesus’ right went unanswered.

Then there is the story of the wedding feast of Cana. Two things here I pondered. First, why is this in the scripture and second there seems to be parts of the conversation missing. The conversation as recorded by John is as follows: [NOTE: I added missing parts. They are in brackets}

Mary: “They have no wine.” [Can you do something?]
Jesus: “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” [but for
you I will.]
Mary: (to the servants) “Do whatever he tells you.”

Again a nice human interest story but so what? What does that have to do with the gospel message? Again outside of one request being selfishly and the other unselfishly there appears to be nothing.

Then one day while reading the Old Testament the old proverbial light bulb came on. The passage I was reading was :

“12 So Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established. 13 Then Adoni’jah the son of Haggith came to Bathshe’ba the mother of Solomon. And she said, “Do you come peaceably?” He said, “Peaceably.” 14 Then he said, “I have something to say to you.” She said, “Say on.” 15 He said, “You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel fully expected me to reign; however the kingdom has turned about and become my brother’s, for it was his from the LORD. 16 And now I have one request to make of you; do not refuse me.” She said to him, “Say on.” 17 And he said, “Pray ask King Solomon–he will not refuse you–to give me Ab’ishag the Shu’nammite as my wife.” 18 Bathshe’ba said, “Very well; I will speak for you to the king.” 19 So Bathshe’ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni’jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. 20 Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.” [1 Kings 2:12-25] [RSV]

For clarity Adoni’jah is David’s fourth son by his wife Haggith. He has a right to be afraid of Solomon as the usual practice when a new king was crowned was that the king did away with all his competitors. So Adoni’jah doesn’t want Solomon to see him lest he be hauled off and eliminated. Thus he approached Bathsheeba to make his request for him.

Continued next post
 
Continuing

The part that intrigued me was verse 19 -20:

“19So Bathshe’ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni’jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. 20 Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.”

Here King Solomon, a king of the line of David has his mother sitting at his right hand. But there is something else. Solomon says to his mother that he would not refuse her request. When I looked elsewhere in the OT I found that the queen in the Davidic kingdom was not the king’s wife but rather the king’s mother. Suddenly a lot of things that protestants object to in Catholicism made sense. Mary sits at Jesus right hand just as Bathsheeba did with Solomon and the other Davidic queens did with their sons. Jesus is of the line of David and has a kingdom which is heaven. Therefore his mother, following the Davidic tradition is the queen of the kingdom and thus when Catholics call her Queen of Heaven it does have biblical support. Intercessary prayers and devotions to Mary make a lot of sense, especially if the requests of the queen [Mary] will not be refused by the king [Jesus]."

At Cana both Mary and Jesus know the story of Solomon and Bathsheeba. Mary comes to Jesus with a request just as Bathsheeba did to Solomon. She knows Jesus will not refuse her request. Jesus knows also. Thus there are no parts of the conversation missing. Jesus responds to Mary’s request even though His time for public ministry had not yet come. Addressing her as 'Woman" was recalled by the Church Fathers as the same as Eve was called and was part of the reason why the Church Fathers called Mary the “New Eve.”
 
Good points! Yet there are still no Sacred Scripture refrences - at all from anyone,
Not growing up in the RCC or ascribing to the notions you’re purporting, is it correct to assume your basis for these understandings is the RCC Catechism? Or is this from another document or teaching?
Other users, including myself, have been referencing Bible passages.

And, yes, my basis from these understandings comes from the Catholic Church who is governed by the Holy Spirit.
Rom 3:23 doesn’t fall flat when considering that Jesus, Who is God, isn’t included in that “all”, which means the entire world (not to be confused with all in the room, all in the building, or all in the city, etc.).
Are you saying that the RCC teaches that there are exceptions (other than Jesus) to the “all have sinned” direction of Scripture? Please hold off in replying until you read the next section.
Why wouldn’t Jesus count in the all? Jesus is fully human {as well as fully divine}. Jesus was a part of the world. If there’s one exception to the rule, there can be other exceptions to the rule.
Did you mean to write this?!?!? ^
I hesitated to reply thinking maybe you mistakenly wrote that & would edit it after re-reading it, but I don’t see anything yet. If not, do you realize that Theology means “the study of God” and that we study Him by His Word?
This is quite important: Does the RCC teach “absolute inerrancy of the Bible”?
Regardless of when it was writiten, we Christians confess that the Bible, God’s Word, was given through men and is flawless, correct?
What I meant when I said that was that we cannot get the fullness of God’s teachings from Scripture alone.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible {i.e., all 73 books} is free from error. {I’m pretty sure this doesn’t count grammatical errors and the like, though. 🤷 } However, that does not make it the sole authority. The argument, “Where is that in the Bible?” doesn’t work because there is no biblical basis for sola scriptura.
 
This is taken from Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen’s book “Life of Christ”

*…He was telling His mother that she was virtually pronouncing a sentence of deaht 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 froces 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 commisssion, one from His Father in heaven , the other from His mother on earth.

As soon as He had consented to begin His “Hour”, He proceeded immediately to tell her that her relations with Him would be henceforth changed. Until then, during His hidden life, she had been known as the mother of Jesus. But now that He was launched on the worlk of Redemption, she would no longer be just His mother, but also the mother of all His human brethren whom He would redeem. To indicate this new relationship, He now addressed her, not as “Mother” but as the “Universal Mother” or “Woman.” What a ring those words had to people who lived in the light of the Old Testament. When Adam fell, God spoke to Satan and foretold that He would put enmity between his seed and “the Woman,” for goodness would have a progency as well as evil. The world would have not only the City of Man which Satan claimed as his own, but also the City of God. The “Woman” did have a seed, and it was her Seed that was standing now at the marriage feast, the Seed that would fall to the ground and die and then aprigh forth unto new life.
The moment the “Hour” began, she became “the Woman”; she would have other children too, not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. If He was to be the new Adam, the founder of a redeemed humanity, she would be the new Eve, and the mother of that new humanity. As Our Lord was a man, she was His mother; and a He was a Savior, she was also the mother of all whom He would save. John, who was present at that wedding, was also present at the climax of the “Hour” on Calvary. He heard Our Lord calling her “Woman” form the Cross and then saying to her, “Behold thy son.” It was if if he, John, was now the symbol of her new family. When our Lord aised the son of the widow of Naim from the dead, He said “Give him back to his mother.” On the Cross, He consoled His mother by giving her another son, John, and with him the whole of redeemed Humanity.

At the Resurrection He gave Himself back to her, to show that while she had gained new children, she had not lost Him. At Cana, the prophecy that Simeon had made to her in the temple was confirmed: henceforth, whatever inolved her Son would involve her, too; whatever, happened to Him would happen to her. If He was destined to go to the Cross, so was she; and if He was now beginning His Public Life, then she would begin a new life too, no longer as just the mother of Jesus, but as the mother of all whom Jesus the Savior would redeem. He called Himself the “Son of Man,” a title embracing all humanity; she would be henceforth the “Mother of Men.” Jues as she was at His side as He began His Hour, so would hse be at His side at its climatic finish.

When she took Him away from the temple as a boy of twelve, it was because she sensed that His Hour had not yet come; He obeyed he then and retuned to Nazareth with her. Now, He told her that His Hour had not yet come, but she bade Him begin it, and He obeyed. At Cana, she gave Him as a Savior to sinners; on the Cross He gave her as a refuge for sinners.

When He suggested that His first miracle would lead un erringly to His Corss and death, and that she would become henceforth a mother of Sorrows, she turned at once to the wine-steward adn said:
Do whatever He tells you… *

…There is more but too much to type. I suggest getting the book.
 
Hi 4most4christ, I am a convert and wanted to address a couple things that you have said.
Good points! Yet there are still no Sacred Scripture refrences - at all from anyone,
Not growing up in the RCC or ascribing to the notions you’re purporting, is it correct to assume your basis for these understandings is the RCC Catechism? Or is this from another document or teaching?
Much of what we are talking about here is the interpretation of various scriptures, so opinions are going to vary. Much can be gained about our understanding of Mary by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other documents such as Redemptoris Mater.

It is clear you have an expectation that we will provide a scriptural reference for everything that is being said; however, we do not follow the Protestant tradition of sola sciptura. I know that it seems logical to modern persons to assume everything we believe must be clearly spelled out in scripture. One of the things that convinced me of the error of that thinking is that nothing in the Bible points to sola scriptura or the idea that God is to be understood only by reading the Bible. In fact, the Jews passed on scripture orally for a very long time before it was written down, and in Jesus’ time most people did not read or write. They had to rely on what they learned orally, which is the same thing as Tradition. It was through oral Tradition, that the story of Jesus’ life, death and ressurection was first passed on for several decades before the gospels were written. So, eventually I came to realize that it was appropriate to give weight to what the Church teaches as Tradition when interpreting scriptures.
Rom 3:23 doesn’t fall flat when considering that Jesus, Who is God, isn’t included in that “all”, which means the entire world (not to be confused with all in the room, all in the building, or all in the city, etc.). Are you saying that the RCC teaches that there are exceptions (other than Jesus) to the “all have sinned” direction of Scripture? Please hold off in replying until you read the next section.
May I suggest that you are taking this scripture out of its proper context. In Romans 3, St. Paul was addressing those in the church who did not want to allow Gentiles to join them, believing that Jesus had come only to save the Jews and that Greeks and other Gentiles should not be admitted…or that they would have to convert and be circumcised in order to be admitted. The passage has nothing to do with Mary or her immaculate conception, and should not be used as a proof text for that. Please see excerpts from Romans 3, beginning at verse 9:
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written:…Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
You are raising excellent questions. God bless you.
 
Since we agree Mary needed a Savior, can we also agree that she needed te Saviour’s salvation from sin?
Yes, but this alone doesn’t preclude the Immaculate Conception, right?
She is a saint, yet the “sinless life” supposes a God-like quality and separate path to achieve heaven apart from Christ.
Two thoughts: first, Adam and Eve had this “God-like quality” that you assert (even though they failed to preserve it); you aren’t saying that Adam and Eve were gods, are you? 😉

Second, “apart from Christ” isn’t what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception asserts. Mary’s salvation was through Christ, like everyone else’s; hers was different in timing, though.
  1. The foreshadowing of Christ is in Gen 3:15, but her (Eve’s) offspring includes Mary, who is born plagued by sin, and saved by her Son, following this portion of Romans 3:22-24 “For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus…”👍
Not necessarily. Look at the context of Romans 3; the “all” being mentioned are Jews and Greeks, being treated as groups: “we have already brought the charge against Jews and Greeks alike” (Rom 3:9). Paul is asking whether Jews (with ‘circumcision of the heart’ (cf Rom 2:29)) or Greeks (salvation under the ‘law of nature’, ‘written in their hearts’ (cf Rom 2:14-15)) have any advantage, by virtue of their path to God. Paul asserts that the answer is neither have the advantage; all (Jews and Greeks alike) have sinned and fallen short. There is no distinction here between the two groups.

“Yet”, you might counter, “Mary is a Jew, too. So, see! She falls in the category of Jews ‘who have sinned and fallen short’!” But, Jesus is a Jew, too, right? So, since He is “like us in all things but sin,” maybe Jesus gets a ‘free pass’ – maybe He’s the exception to the rule! But, what about all those babies who were born – Jews and Gentiles alike – who died before they could personally sin. After all, Paul’s talking about personal sins committed by people! These babes couldn’t have sinned, could they have? So maybe they get an exception, too. And what about all those babies killed in the womb through abortion? They were Jews and Gentiles, but they never sinned! Hmm… to make your assertion about Romans 3:23 work the way you want it to, you have to make a lot of exceptions about what ‘all’ means…! 😉
  1. As I’ve been able to determine (in 2 years of P/T Greek language studies) the greek word “kecharitomene” applied to Mary & used in the phrase in Luke 1:28, it literally means “one who has been graced”, not the verbiage “full of grace”, “pleres charitos”, which is used in John 1:14 and Acts 6:8, to describe Jesus and Stephen, respectively.😉
I’m with you on this one. Kecharitomene is a far better description of Mary’s giftedness of grace than the Latin translation could ever hope to convey! The grammatical construction in the Greek says it all: at some point in the past, Mary was graced; that grace persists through the time that the statement was made; and the angel expects that grace to persist indefinitely into the future! It’s a far clearer theological statement than ‘full of grace’ could ever be! 👍
 
I respectfully ask, “Where this is stated in Scripture?” She did need a Savior from sin like all of humanity ever has needed.

Although the Bible states that Mary was “full of grace” and that “the Lord was with her”, she was not without sin in her life. If you counter this point, please provide Scripture reference(s).
I gave many references. All those numbers within the Catechism excerpts refer to Scripture references. If you go to the Catechism link(s) I gave, you can see them and look them up for yourself.

You say she sinned. Please prove it with Scripture references.

Yes, she did need a Saviour and the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not deny that, but states that salvation was applied to her at her conception. “The Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instance of her conception was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.”

The Angel Gabriel says, “Chaire, Kecharitomene” (Luke 1:28); he doesn’t use her name; he uses the perfect passive participle as a title, as her true name, the essence of Mary, who she really is. Perfectly and completely filled with the Grace of God, not just at the moment of her conception, but enduring for all her life. All of this is in that one word ‘Kecharitomene’. There is no English equivalent. Even using 3 words, ‘full of grace’ does not accurately convey the meaning.
When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
<…>
**The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. **In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
hence bowing to Mary, though she be the mother of God, many would consider idol worship.
Bowing is a sign of respect. It is not reserved for worship. Worship is an attitude of the mind, not a body position.
Begotten is the Godly portion of Jesus who was sired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was both 100% God AND 100% man. I’d say we agree herein, but this is certainly a complex issue to grasp.
~Love to all the saints
I was addressing the concept that Mary was a mere vessel, a surrogate so to speak, the claim that what was in her womb had nothing to do with her biologically, and that now that her function as ‘incubator’ for God is finished, she can be discarded. The embryonic Jesus was not created elsewhere and implanted in her womb like what happens with IVF. Mary conceived Him within her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit. She is His Mother, in every sense of the word.
Immaculate Conception
(this link also has proofs from Scripture)
Proof from reason
There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her. Again it is remarked that a peculiar privilege was granted to the prophet Jeremiah and to St. John the Baptist. They were sanctified in their mother’s womb, because by their preaching they had a special share in the work of preparing the way for Christ. Consequently some much higher prerogative is due to Mary.
27. Our Lady’s Sanctification
  1. The Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth. She who was to be the Mother of God was privileged above all others,and we know from the angel’s salutation (Luke 1:28) that she was “full of grace.” Scripture testifies that both Jeremias and St. John the Baptist were sanctified before their birth; Mary’s place was higher than theirs in God’s economy of redemption, and her privileges, therefore, cannot have been less than theirs. Therefore, Mary was sanctified before her birth.{-Mary was sanctified not only before her birth, but from the very beginning of her existence; she was preserved immaculate by God’s gift and grace, and thereby sanctified,from the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother.St. John and Jeremias had original sin removed from them before their birth; Mary never had the original sin at all; it was not removed from her; she was preserved from its taint.-}<…>
    . It is fitting that the Blessed Mother should be sanctified from the first. As noted above, Jeremias and St. John the Baptist were sanctified before their birth. Of Jeremias it is written (Jer. 1:5): “Before thou camest forth out of the womb,I sanctified thee.” And of St. John the Baptist scripture says(Luke 1:15): “He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.”
 
Indeed I do grasp the fact that she is not part of the Holy Trinity.
She is revered, venerated, adored, and a beautful saint, and we should understand she is not mankind’s Savior. Jesus is the only way.
Oh please :rolleyes:- you say this as if Catholic Christians believe that Mary is Divine … :o

Mary always points us to her Son - the Christ - the Messiah, the Incarnate God …

At the wedding feast in Cana - Jesus performs the duties of jewish bride groom.

The use of the term Woman for Mary - is related to her role as the new Eve … Eve the mother of all living … Mary, the mother of the Church - the mother of our elder Brother, the mother of those alive in Christ Jesus.

Remember The Gospel of John is highly symbolic, last to be written, a high theological theme is written throughout … Salvation history in parallel with Genesis … “*in the beginning … *”
 


About Rev. 12, “The Woman and the Dragon” - thats always been tricky, since it is mostly (though not always) an allegorical book. Yet reading it, we might view the allegory of humanly woman represents mankind where the dragon represent the symobl of evil as a seprent from the garden of Eden.
This passage doesn’t directly imply the woman is Mary …
Really - read Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 … [of course the original writings had no such divisions] … John sees the Ark of the Covenant [which has been lost to earthly eyes for centuries … do you not think that Jewish ears hearing John say he witnesses the Ark would get their attention?] … And how does John describe this Ark … A Woman clothed with the sun …

Now - what is the Ark? … How was it constructed - and Who designed it and to Whom’s specifications was it built? … What does the Ark hold/protect/carry? Who may or may not touch the Ark?

The Ark of the Covenant carried the stone tablets upon which God wrote His Commandments. The Ark carried the staff of the High Priest Aaron. The Ark carried Manna - the bread from Heaven that sustained the Israelite’s until they reached the Promised Land …

Mary - as the Ark of the New and Everlasting Covenant carried the Word Made Flesh - Jesus; Mary carried the High Priest - Jesus the Messiah, the heir to the Davidic Kingdom - the fulfillment God’s promise; Mary carried the True Bread from Heaven - the Body and Blood of Jesus - the True Food and True Drink - of which we must eat in order to have life within us [John Chapter 6] - The Heavenly Bread which sustains us in our time of exile here on earth until we are reunited with Jesus in Heaven …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top