Woman! or mother?

[N/A Gone]

my mom still has catholic paraphenalia around the house...

[phatcatholic]

my mom can beat up your mom! haha

[N/A Gone]

my mom is a black belt in tae kwon do

and she scares joey

[phatcatholic]

my mom cooks really well

[N/A Gone]

my roomate is a hotti

[cmotherofpirl]

Jesus is using it as a sign of respect and honor, and to signify an important moment.

[N/A Gone]

really? cause he sounds pissed and even scolds here alil

[Theoketos]

[b] Hour[/b]

[b]Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."[/b]

In this exegetical approach to understanding the meaning of Mary at the foot of the Cross the first path lies in understanding what the Gospel of John means by the word “hour.” The above passage is the first instance of the word “hour” in the Gospel according to John is in the context of the wedding of Cana. It must first be noted that both the words “hour” and “woman” come into play here. There also is a dual parallel that is the focus of chapter 19. At this time it is best to focus on the word “hour.”
Most important here is that Mary is asking for a certain time to come. Most scholars will say that this has something to do with the messianic mission of Christ. Carl Rahner gives an apt explanation. He says that St. John, the evangelist with the deepest feeling for messianic typology, is not going to merely report on what happened at a quite wedding in the country, but instead gives us a glimpse of revelation itself. Jesus responds to this urging for the hour that this is not that time.
Here a few questions arise. Is the statement of Jesus a rejection of Mary? And if it is rejection of Mary what kind of rejection is it? And finally if Mary is not being rejected what is?
There are some scholars that posit such a rejection exists and is explicitly a rejection of Mary. An example of this position is found in Raymond E. Brown, who is a preeminent modern scholar. Brown sees a connection to the wedding feast at Cana due to the presence of Mary and her being called “woman.” The word woman will be dealt with so on. At Cana, Mary as the physical mother of Jesus was rejected because Jesus knew His hour had not yet come; He still had the work of His heavenly Father to complete. Brown argues that John 19 is a reversal of the rejection of Mary at Cana because Jesus’ hour, not yet come at Cana, has come. Thus Brown sees the difference between the two hours solely in the way that Mary is treated. This would imply that the relationship between Mary and Jesus changes. This change further implies, according to Brown’s position, a negative treatment of Jesus by Mary.
To give credit to Brown, this hour that Christ speaks of happens on the cross. There is almost a universal patristic opinion of this that even the reformers follow. The position states that the cross is the hour that was not happening at the wedding of Cana. Augustine posits concerning the matter of the cross, “This, without a doubt, was the hour whereof Jesus, when about to turn the water into wine, had said to His mother, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.’” It is good to note that St. Thomas quotes this opinion of St. Augustine in his own commentary and includes Augustine again in the Golden Chain. Further still, this is position among a vast majority of exegetes, which in itself is a small miracle.
Brown does indeed deserve merit for the consideration of a type of rejection, and he mirrors the patristic opinion of Augustine. Augustine takes up the matter in his sermons on the Gospel of John. In his sermons he says that what looks to be a rejection of Mary is a rejection of His humanity as the source of His miracles, as His humanity is from Mary. Augustine for his part sees a dialectic between the allegiance to His weakness or flesh, which He received from Mary and His divine powers, by which He performs miracles. To quote Augustine paraphrasing Christ in order to explain Christ: "That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross."
However, both the patristics and modern scholars modify the idea that Jesus rejects Mary at Cana. Instead the rejection is of the hour and of the motivation that some might see if He were to perform miracles at the request of a secular power. Additionally, there is an emphasis on reverse action on the cross. This emphasis will lead to a greater honor of Mary being the spiritual mother of all the faithful.
Instead Brown sees a lack of such great reverence, and where such reverence exists, it is a result of later theologizing. Still it must be noted that Brown admits of a reverse in the rejection. A more detailed examination of Mary as spiritual mother does not fit here, but will come later. For now, it is good to return to the rejection of the hour as seen by St. John Chrysostom.
St. John Chrysostom sees a three-fold purpose in the rejection, and none of these purposes were to humiliate Mary. The first purpose fits well the current program. St. John Chrysostom catalogues the rest of the happenings of the word “hour” in the Gospel according to John. The words are not used in this place only, but in others also; for the same Evangelist says, "They could not lay hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come" (c. viii. 20); and again, "No man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come" (c. vii. 30); and again, "The hour is come, glorify Thy Son." (c. xvii. 1.) He then sets about the first meaning that all of these passage share. St. John Chrysostom explains, “Now Christ was not subject to the necessity of seasons, but rather settled their order, since He is their Creator.” The saint then gives a deeper meaning to the question of Jesus to His mother. Like St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom unfolds the meaning of Christ’s words in the Gospel by paraphrasing them.
“"I am not yet known to the company, nor are they even aware that the wine has failed; let them first be sensible of this. I ought not to have been told it from thee; thou art my mother, and renderest the miracle suspicious. They who wanted the wine should have come and besought me, not that I need this, but that they might with an entire assent accept the miracle. For one who knows that he is in need, is very grateful when he obtains assistance; but one who has not a sense of his need, will never have a plain and clear sense of the benefit."

This paragraph seen in context to the hour on the cross will lead to exciting consequences. For at this is the start of Mary bringing those who have no wine to her Son. Jesus then points out that this is not the time for her mission to be fulfilled. However, this hour can then been seen as a fulfillment of the initiation to this universal mission which comes at the foot of the cross. So the reversal first mentioned here by Brown is considered here, but it is not a rejection of Mary per se. The rejection is not even of the final hour to come. St. John Chrysostom’s final conclusion is that “she knew that His refusal proceeded not from want of power, but from humility, and that He might not seem without cause to hurry to the miracle; and therefore she brought the servants.” Therefore Mary is not rejected. The rejection lies in doing a miracle without the cause being plainly seen. And without the rejection of Mary per se, it is thusly easier to understand woman in a greater context, namely, Mary as the image of the Church.
Finally, the meaning of the hour of the cross must be examined. If the first hour at the wedding at Cana was not the hour in which something happens then the hour of the cross is. This will be done through an examination of what our Lord meant by Woman.


[b]Woman[/b]


[b]I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. [/b]

After the consideration of the various instances of the word “hour” in John the term “woman” cannot be seen as a rejection or humiliation of Mary. Further it must be mentioned, the use in derogatory current American culture should not be imputed onto Biblical usage. So if the title “woman” is not a word of rejection and it is has symbolic meaning, then it must be a title of honor.
Certainly the above texts shed light on what John means by the word “woman.” The Church claims that each has a Marian connection. Both deal with some sort of fulfillment, and so this connects the word “woman” to the word “hour.” Although neither exists in the Gospel according to John, both are intimately linked to it. The task here is to briefly connect the woman of the Gospel of John, the woman of Genesis, and finally the woman of Revelation. If this can be done it will thus be an easy task to posit Mary as image of the Church because clearly the woman mention in the beginning and end of the Holy Writ represent the Church.
To see that the woman in Revelation represents the Church the opinion of the patristics must be sought. St. Victourius see a connection between this woman and the Church. He states,
The woman clothed with the sun… is the ancient Church of fathers …which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people.

The most important point of St. Victourius is that the flesh of the Christ comes from the same flesh of the Church. The flesh of Christ is the flesh of His human mother, as we have seen above. Thus, the flesh of Mary the mother of God, is the flesh of the Church, by which God humbled Himself taking the form of slave. Feuillet adds a necessary caution to be considered along with this opinion. “The beginning of chapter 12 of the Apocalypse would be understood incorrectly if we insisted on seeing there only the Virgin Mary.” Feuillet then goes on to attach Mary to the woman of Revelation 12. He first posits that the sign of twelve stars symbolizes most dramatically the relation to the people of God by a link to the ideal Sion of the Prophets. Feuillet also argues that Isaiah 66:7, "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son,” as a clear link between Mary as daughter Sion and the birth of the Messianic people. And so the woman of Revelation is related to the woman of the Old Testaments.
Rahner again does a beautiful job linking the pertinent passages. He states that there is a messianic pattern in the three passages. Rahnes sees the following Messianic pattern: Genesis 3:15 is the revelation that through a woman the victory over the serpent will come. And clearly there is a link between the two serpents. The addition of the woman of John 2:4 is the mystical woman, by which the blood of Christ is prepared through the union of flesh and divinity, and this woman is Mary and the Church is also helpful, because it brings together the idea of what the people of God and the woman labor for. And finally it is the woman beneath the cross who fulfills these two women.
There exists another important exegetical link in John to the book of Genesis that helps to show Mary the mother of God is the new Eve. In the Gospel of John in the first chapter there is an illusion to the first days of creation, even beyond the first words of both “In the Beginning.” John 1:1-28 can easily been seen as analogy to the first day of creation in Genesis, especially with the contemplative nature of John. What especially makes this exegesis interesting is that in verse 29 the words “the next day” appear. They appear again in verses 35 and 43. And in the second chapter of the Gospel the words, “on the third day” appear. If this is truly an analogy of the author, then this day of the wedding at Cana corresponds to the seventh day, the day Creation was renewed. This correspondence then points to another renewal in which Jesus and Mary are the New Adam and the New Eve.
In Mary, de la Potterie sees joined further the imagery of Daughter Zion and that of the Church, making Mary the passage between the old and the new covenants. Considering Cana and its use of “woman,” de la Potterie sees the Church in her covenantal and spousal relationship to Jesus. The Church is given, then, as mother to all faithful. The hour of the Church, through its spousal relationship, becomes linked to the hour of Jesus, which is additionally the hour of Mary as “woman.” In her own hour, then, Mary is given as mother to the beloved disciple, and such maternity is a reflection of the Church’s maternal role.
Image of the Church
Arguments that divorce Mary from the image of the Church are mostly summed up in the section concerning what the word “hour” means. For the sake of clarity however it is good to recall that if Mary is rejected, then Mary as image of the Church may be rejected. However, if in some sense it is the timing of the “hour” that is rejected then Mary may not be the one who is rejected. Based on the above premises the following conclusion drawn out by scholarly sources are found true, namely: Mary is the image of the Church.
Today there seems to be a scholarly opinion that gives Mary a great honor at the foot of the Cross. De la Potterie sees a revelatory scheme in the scene at the foot of the cross which indicates the significance of the new relationship between the mother of Jesus and the disciple whom Jesus loved. It does not, de la Potterie argues, focus on their individual personalities, but what they represent, and so he rejects the idea of Mary being linked to Eve because this would focus on her individuality rather than the proper focus on her role as a representative of a larger group. It is good to affirm the individual representations of Mary and the disciples, but Potterie errors when he excludes the idea of universal relationship.
Mary is addressed in relation to the Church on the cross. Mary’s maternity is seen as a prototype of the Church’s own motherhood. At the foot of the cross, Mary was the only absolutely faithful disciple. The other disciples needed reassurance. In the resurrection accounts, both John and Mary Magdalene have their faith renewed (cf. Jn. 20:8, 20:11). And Peter in the appendix of John is asked to confess his faith three times (John 21:15-19). Moreover, as mentioned, Feuillet saw at Cana a connection between Jesus’ hour and the hour of both Mary and the Church. Mary was given her role of spiritual maternity before the death of Christ, and the Church was established by the death of Christ, so Mary’s role came before the establishment of the Church. It is thus, through her maternity, a foreshadowing of the Church’s maternity. Consequently, it also, in the author’s opinion, through the maternity of Mary that the Church is capable of maternity. So Mary is thus the source of all maternity. The true meaning of this spiritual maternity must then be discovered.
Spiritual Mother
As mentioned earlier Brown does not consider the role of Mary as spiritual Mother to be supported by Biblical exegesis. However, Brown rejects the idea that the scene of John is merely a gesture of filial piety, or only Jesus providing for His mother’s physical protection and care, but instead sees the scene focusing on the new relationship established between the mother of Jesus and the disciple whom Jesus loved, and “this new relationship involves the issue of how Jesus’ natural family was related to a family created by discipleship.” The symbolism thus hinges on the concept of Mary’s role in this family of disciples being defined through her becoming the mother of the beloved disciple. It is important to note as well that the disciples of Jesus are also at the wedding at Cana, but in the prior story there is not yet such an intimate connection. For Brown there is a connection between the Church “who brings forth children modeled after Jesus, and the relationship of loving care that must bind the children to their mother.” However, Brown rejects the idea of spiritual maternity as “the fruit of later theologizing upon the text.” Much of this is because he confuses what the word hour means. Brown admits that there are many later theologians that posit Mary as the Spiritual Mother of all faithful, but he posits that this is strictly a later interpretation, added too many centuries later for it to belong to the author’s intent (this interpretation is first documented in the 9th century with George of Nicodemia). The question then is that whether the full meaning of the canon has been known and understood for all time.
Feuillet also argues that Mary is given a role of spiritual maternity. According to John 16:21, the passion is linked to the birth pains of the woman, and so Jesus’ passion can be seen as the birth of a new world. Old Testament prophets associated this new birth with Sion. In Revelation, the woman represents Sion, mother of the Messiah, and Sion, mother of the messianic people, and also is seen as Mary, mother of the Messiah and mother of the messianic people, a sort of “double” maternity. Following such logic in Johannine texts, it would not be out of place to assign such symbolism to Mary, already referred to as “woman,” at the cross. As “woman,” Mary becomes the mother of the beloved disciple, and through his representation of all beloved disciples, she becomes the mother of all faithful, and can thus be seen in a role of spiritual maternity. This is reinforced by the revelatory formula used by Jesus, with the words “Behold…” a formula used elsewhere (cf. Jn. 1:20ff. 1:35ff.; 1:47) to reveal something beyond the physical. Mary becoming the mother of the beloved disciple and through him the mother of all beloved disciples is just such a reality beyond the physical.
Consequences and Conclusions
Mary as spiritual mother and image of the Church thus becomes the Mater Eclesia. According to Carl Rahner, “Mary contains in herself all the mysteries fulfilled in ourselves at our rebirth.” Mary then becomes as intimately tied to our salvation as the Church. The consequences are thus staggering. It is through the Church that the Holy Spirit brings us into the inner life of the Trinity. And so we can say that it is through Mary that the Spirit brings us into the inner life of the Trinity. While to the ears that are unaccustomed to hearing such things this can be harsh. But, if the hearer looks at something more than a gloss, the meaning of the statement becomes clear. Mary brought Jesus into the world. Her flesh was given to Jesus, so that by His flesh, He may redeem the world at the appointed hour, on the cross. Finally what ever that can be said about the Church can be said about Mary. So they both are immaculate, and both are created with the expressed purpose of the defeat of the dragon by bringing the people of God to her Son and the Son to the people of God.

[Socrates]

Thought I'd add that while addressing someone as "woman" sounds rude in English, in Hebrew/Aramaic, it was a term of respect.

[The Joey-O]

Revprodeji's mommy is scary, but a pretty decent cook. You should post the funny Tony pic.

[N/A Gone]

[img]http://x8e.xanga.com/f0d845716563119207076/z13814303.jpg[/img]