J
Jeanne_S
Guest
He can and he did!
- Status
R
rstrats
Guest
Jeanne S,
re: “He can and he did!”
Where did the Messiah’s mother make a request to her son, and where did He say that He would not refuse the request?
re: “He can and he did!”
Where did the Messiah’s mother make a request to her son, and where did He say that He would not refuse the request?
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Christ’s first miracle was performed at his Mother’s request…Cana.
Pretty sure this has already been mentioned in this and numerous other threads devoted to this topic.
J
James82
Guest
Hey Jamal,
The term ‘vessel’ is used widely in Catholic theology and is oft used by the Church Fathers themselves. There is nothing explicitly wrong with the term in and of itself. The problem would be in seeing the BVM as just a vessel. She is the Theotokos.
Those Protestants are right in saying that we are all saints (though I’m unsure that I would want to call myself that, I question the humility) in as much as St. Paul referred to the elect as saints…twice I believe. The problem is the puritan element which insists that we are all ‘the same’. It is quite clear that those the Church has deemed Saints (proper) have gone above and beyond in their calling as Christians and have merited by God’s grace a special place in the Church. It’s all quite reasonable and makes sense…at least to me.
J
James82
Guest
Well that’s odd…
It is written…“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said,** Blessed art thou among women**, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” Luke 1:41-42.
So while your fervency for the Word of God is admirable you can see that you have no basis for using the authority of Sacred Scripture to support your claims. Furthermore, to endeavour as such is gross heresy.
Hope this helps.
R
rstrats
Guest
Jeanne S,
re: “Christ’s first miracle was performed at his Mother’s request…Cana.”
Actually, it wasn’t. She simply made a comment: “They have no wine.” And to this the Messiah responded: “Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?”
re: “Christ’s first miracle was performed at his Mother’s request…Cana.”
Actually, it wasn’t. She simply made a comment: “They have no wine.” And to this the Messiah responded: “Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?”
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Haven’t we been through this debate already?
WhT you stated is correct.However,you didn’t complete the rest of the dialogue.
After Christ’s response to his mother,she then turns to the servants,saying…"do Whaterever He tells you.It was then that Christ turned the water into the best wine,it was then that he performed his first miracle .
What do I get the impression you are intentionally being obtuse about this?
J
James82
Guest
Also,
What you and the other poster are looking over is that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost when she spoke words of veneration concerning Mary and how **henceforth, all generations ** are to call her blessed.
So unless you deny the Triune nature of the Godhead, you can see that God Himself ordained such veneration. The onus then is not on Catholics to defend their veneration. The onus is on you to explain why you disobey that which was instituted by God!
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Actually you’re dead wrong on this because you choose to (mis)quote part of the verse in question. John 2:4 actually reads, **" And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” **So we have here Our Lord plainly stating that this was not the time for Him to begin His public ministry, and yet, because of Mary’s direct intervention (intercession in fact), we see that He really did begin that ministry with this miracle before His time had come. The passage even says that in verse 11. ***"***This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him. " Obviously, the Blessed Virgin already believed because her only comment was in verse 5 when she tells the servants the same essential thing that she has said in her every apparition over the centuries. ***“Do whatever he tells you.” ***
Now you can continue to believe what you have stated to us here, but it would not be wise to do so since we see here that it contradicts the very scriptures that you will no doubt appeal to as your final and ultimate authority. Good luck with that…
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
This is getting a little off topic but for the sake of responding… Truth is, there is a special place for those that are today among the Saints. The very fact that there are special people the Church lifts up specifically as Saints is really to show us that we’re all called to be Saints and called to become Saints and for all those who eventually enter the Kingdom of Heaven will be Saints. Here’s where the Protestants differ from Catholic Theology in the area of Saints:
Protestants believe that we’re all Saints NOW while Catholic theology basically says that we’re not yet but are called to become Saints… so we look at those we venerate as Saints, asking for their intercession that we might serve the Church and those around us in the same way that we too can follow Christ as these Saints followed Christ that we too learn what it means to be a Saint. These Saints lifted up and venerated as Saints, being given a special place of honor by God’s Grace absolutely true.
It’s just that we’re all currently in process, in the process of becoming Saints, in the process of sanctification, in the process of being transformed into the likeness of Christ. Protestant Theology is “Now but not yet Kingdom of God” because they believe we are sanctified in Christ now and are being sanctified. I’m not quite sure the exact theology of the Catholic Church on this. I believe our sanctification process is completed in purgatory, so the process of becoming Saints completed in our time in purgatory. So, that is why we wouldn’t elevate ourselves the place of all the Saints we venerate today.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I am one who tries as much as possible to agree with Non Catholic Christians, while not neglecting what the Church Teaches.
I think you are right in a sense that Mary was very simple, humble and direct in her approach to Jesus. She did not need to ask, but present Jesus with the situation! How profound this faith is! But do not conclude that she wasnt telling Jesus as a request, knowing that He is able to provide for our needs.
If you see her “comment” as a mere faithless and empty thought, then you are missing a profound approach to God with our needs. He knows what we want, we ought to bring only our needs to Him and offer our obedience to what He tells us.
Jesus asked what Mary’s part in Him is… she acted in professing to others to be obedient to Him. She did not try to convince Him anything. He knows all the answers to the questions He asked people. The questions were for their sake, not His own. Mary understood that, I believe.
R
rstrats
Guest
Church Militant,
re: “Now you can continue to believe what you have stated to us here…”
OK, thanks.
re: “Now you can continue to believe what you have stated to us here…”
OK, thanks.
G
Goya
Guest
In addition to Church Militant’s response, I’d also point out the following:
Ti emoi kai soi gynai?
Ti (what)
emoi (to me)
kai (and)
soi (to thee/you)
gynai (woman)?
Note the question is stated in the plural. IOW, what has their (wedding hosts’) problem (out of wine) to do with US (Christ and Mary); You and I; vis a vis my (our?) mission.
Clearly this is not a rebuke to her; it’s Christ resisting her request–for to acquiesce to her implicit request/suggestion–would be to compromise HIS timing, as to commencing His (their?) mission.
As for it not being a ‘request’–(call it a suggestion if you prefer)–it is unmistakably implicit via her simple observation–that obviously carried with it, more than just a pointing out of the obvious–this is easily discernible (in fact, undeniable)–by Christ’s response–no matter how you interpret it–for even if Christ rebuked her…what exactly was He rebuking, if not her implicit request/suggestion???
…and it’s further confirmed, by what He actually does afterward (i.e.–performs the miracle).
What prompted Christ to perform this miracle, if there was no implicit request/suggestion in Mary’s mere observation?
Your indoctrinated, protestant interpretation simply does not gel with what Christ does; His ACTIONS add all the clarity and confirmation needed here to dispense with the silly, instinctively anti-Marian interpretation championed by the poisoned protestant mind.
Back to the plurality of Christ’s comment…
and
among others.
Mary was at Christ’s side for 30 years prior to the wedding at Cana. He was her child. He learned much from her, and was obedient to her (Luke 2:51).
If Christ sought to rebuke His mother, or disdain her, or such…I suspect it would have come about much clearer than through the protestants’ anti-Marian, anti-Catholic acrobatic interpretation of scripture, that requires that we neglect that He actually performed the miracle…that She was present with Him at the Passion…at the foot of the cross…and at the Pentecost (to say nothing of the Nativity, and the 30 years prior to Christ commencing His ministry, etc…).
Finally, as I and others have pointed out, the reference to Mary as “woman” in the Gospels, serves as the nexus connecting the “woman” of Genesis (Eve to the New Eve), through the “woman” of the Gospels (explicitly, Mary, Mother of God), to the “woman” of Revelation (the woman ‘clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet…a crown of twelve stars…with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth’…).
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Additionally I would suggest that those who take issue with Mary’s place within the Catholic Church,read Pope JohnII’s encyclical"Redemptoris Mater"Mother of the Reedemer.
St.Pope John Paul. II had a very deep and abiding devotion to our Mother Mary. An example all of us would do well to emulate.
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
Even a Protestant cannot ignore the fact that inspite Jesus words, “my hour has not yet come” At Mary’s request he did what she requested. If it was a “rebuke” Jesus would not have performed the miracle. It would make a rebuke a moot point and a contradictory statement.
It is interesting though that Adam fell into sin at the request of Eve and at the request of Mary Jesus began his ministry. It is for this very reason I came to see Mary’s role as the New Eve making Original Sin theology as well as Mortal/Venial sin theology make sense including Mary’s role in our redemption make total sense.
Protestants don’t recognize Mary as the New Eve but does it make sense to have a 2nd Adam without a 2nd Eve? Absolutely not. In order for Mary to be truly the 2nd Eve she would have to be “full of grace” and purely a virgin and purely granted the grace to be conceived without the mark of original sin. Protestants ignore this because once you see this truth one has to seriously question Protestant theology.
When I saw this suddenly Catholic Theology made sense and suddenly I came to see the Protestant Dilemma that when following a Protestant theology to it’s logical conclusion stops short it’s more or less the theology that begs the question … “And…” I mean… Jesus is 2nd Adam…who ever thought that along with a 2nd Adam there’s beba 2nd Eve? It makes sense that in order to truly redeem man and woman there’d come a new man and a new woman.
It is interesting though that Adam fell into sin at the request of Eve and at the request of Mary Jesus began his ministry. It is for this very reason I came to see Mary’s role as the New Eve making Original Sin theology as well as Mortal/Venial sin theology make sense including Mary’s role in our redemption make total sense.
Protestants don’t recognize Mary as the New Eve but does it make sense to have a 2nd Adam without a 2nd Eve? Absolutely not. In order for Mary to be truly the 2nd Eve she would have to be “full of grace” and purely a virgin and purely granted the grace to be conceived without the mark of original sin. Protestants ignore this because once you see this truth one has to seriously question Protestant theology.
When I saw this suddenly Catholic Theology made sense and suddenly I came to see the Protestant Dilemma that when following a Protestant theology to it’s logical conclusion stops short it’s more or less the theology that begs the question … “And…” I mean… Jesus is 2nd Adam…who ever thought that along with a 2nd Adam there’s beba 2nd Eve? It makes sense that in order to truly redeem man and woman there’d come a new man and a new woman.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Agree,no disputing this!
G
Goya
Guest
Additionally I would suggest that those who take issue with Mary’s place within the Catholic Church,read Pope JohnII’s encyclical"Redemptoris Mater"Mother of the Reedemer.
St.Pope John Paul. II had a very deep and abiding devotion to our Mother Mary. An example all of us would do well to emulate.
Here is an excerpt:
vatican.va/holy_father/jo…-mater_en.html
(from section 3 Woman behold your son, paragraph 21).
Another great source that includes the above letter: Mary in the Church, by the USCCB, a compilation of several official Church documents on Mary:
This compendium of significant documents issued in recent years by the U.S. bishops and the papal magisterium provides an indispensable source of contemporary Church teachings on the Blessed Virgin Mary
books.google.com/books?id=GDgTqmbh2MkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=https://books.google.com/books?isbn%3D1574556010&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y04QVdG4NYfigwSDsYPoAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
That’s it!
Here is an excerpt:
vatican.va/holy_father/jo…-mater_en.html
(from section 3 Woman behold your son, paragraph 21).
G
Goya
Guest
Just to supplement some of the above…St. Irenaeus, from the 2nd century:
*“For just as the former [Eve] was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter [Mary], by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience.”
*
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. 5, 19.1 (c. 180 A.D.)
…and Scott Hahn’s take on Cana (an excerpt anyway):
*…So anyway, “Jesus said to her, 'Woman, what is it between you and me? My hour has not yet come.” Jesus is thinking that the best wine will be given at the hour. What does Mary say? Mary is assuming another posture, now. She is going to have to distance herself from her son as her son. Now he’s addressing her not as Mother, but as Woman. It sure connotes in my mind Genesis 3:15 and other key passages. Now all of a sudden, you are not just my mother anymore, what you are talking about in this miracle would initiate a whole new economy of salvation, woman, because that’s what she is to be, a New Eve, a Mother to all of the renewed and redeemed humanity. “Woman, my hour has not yet come.” What does she say, “Awe, come on, what are you going to do this for your mother, and now we’re friends.” No. She turns to the servants and says to them exactly what she says to us and all those who are truly devoted to our Lady, "Do whatever he tells you."
We should never allow ourselves to be so exclusively focused upon Mary that we don’t hear her primary utterance. Do whatever he tells us! That’s why Marian devotion does not take us away from Christ. It refocuses our eyes and our ears on whatever he tells us and that’s what she is passionately concerned about now as then. “Do whatever he tells you.” …
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/m.html
FWIW.*
*“For just as the former [Eve] was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter [Mary], by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience.”
*
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. 5, 19.1 (c. 180 A.D.)
…and Scott Hahn’s take on Cana (an excerpt anyway):
*…So anyway, “Jesus said to her, 'Woman, what is it between you and me? My hour has not yet come.” Jesus is thinking that the best wine will be given at the hour. What does Mary say? Mary is assuming another posture, now. She is going to have to distance herself from her son as her son. Now he’s addressing her not as Mother, but as Woman. It sure connotes in my mind Genesis 3:15 and other key passages. Now all of a sudden, you are not just my mother anymore, what you are talking about in this miracle would initiate a whole new economy of salvation, woman, because that’s what she is to be, a New Eve, a Mother to all of the renewed and redeemed humanity. “Woman, my hour has not yet come.” What does she say, “Awe, come on, what are you going to do this for your mother, and now we’re friends.” No. She turns to the servants and says to them exactly what she says to us and all those who are truly devoted to our Lady, "Do whatever he tells you."
We should never allow ourselves to be so exclusively focused upon Mary that we don’t hear her primary utterance. Do whatever he tells us! That’s why Marian devotion does not take us away from Christ. It refocuses our eyes and our ears on whatever he tells us and that’s what she is passionately concerned about now as then. “Do whatever he tells you.” …
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/m.html
FWIW.*
- Status