Jesus Christ. Alpha and Omega

Sunday, October 14, 2012

The Marian Significance of Cana (John 2: 1-11)

Rev. Stephen Hartdegen, O.F.M.,

In the gospel narrative, Mary, the Mother of Christ, enters the scene of her Son’s public ministry only three times: once at Cana (Jn. 2, 1-1 1); again, among a great crowd outside a house in Galilee when it was said, "Behold, thy mother and thy brethren are outside seeking thee" (Mk. 3, 32); and a third time when she stood at the foot of the cross on Calvary (Jn. 19, 25-27). On three other occasions, though she does not appear, reference is made to her: once by the woman who exclaimed, "Blessed is the womb that bore thee" (Lk. 11, 27), after witnessing Christ’s power over the evil spirit; again when Jesus was rejected at Nazareth by His townsmen who offensively asked, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?" (Mk. 6, 3); and a third time when the Jews murmured about Christ for calling Himself "the bread that has come down from heaven," and said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then does he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?" (Jn. 6, 42). Twice when Mary was referred to as His Mother, Jesus extolled fulfillment of His Father’s will as being a motherhood of a higher order than that brought about by the natural tie of flesh and blood (Mk. 3, 34-35; Lk. 11, 28).

These scenes and references, though small in number, are quite revealing as regards Our Lady’s relationship both to Christ as Messias and to the messianic people. The significance of Cana, which is our present concern, is far-reaching not only because it is the first manifestation of a new and public relationship to Christ, but also because it helps us understand more clearly the final scene in which the dying Savior bequeaths to Mary the spiritual motherhood of redeemed mankind. To appreciate the Marian significance of the Cana narrative a proper understanding of the text and context is a necessary prerequisite.

The account of the marriage feast at Cana stands at the beginning of Our Lord’s public ministry. Mary was present. Jesus and His disciples were also invited. In the midst of the festivities Mary observes that the wine has failed, and at once foresees the embarrassment to which the bridal pair are sure to be exposed. In her maternal solicitude she calls the situation to the attention of her Son, seemingly with the assurance that He will alleviate the embarrassment. In answer to her statement, "They have no wine," she is told, literally, "What is it to me and to thee, woman? My hour has not yet come." Despite this answer, Mary seems confident of favorable action and addresses herself to the attendants, "Do whatever he tells you." Jesus orders the six water jars used for rites of purification to be filled with water. This He changes into wine and then directs that the wine be drawn out and taken to the chief steward. The latter, not knowing whence the wine came, regards it of superior quality, remarking that, contrary to custom, the bridegroom has not served the good wine first but reserved it till the last. The evangelist concludes the narrative with the words: "This first of his signs Jesus worked at Cana of Galilee; and he manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him." The concluding sentence is the climax of the narrative and the key to the Messianic and Marian significance of Cana.

From the literary standpoint the account of the marriage feast is a simple, unembellished narrative. As with each of the seven miracles specifically mentioned in the fourth gospel prior to the Passion, reference is made to its intended effect of engendering faith in Christ. Unlike the others, however, the two Cana miracles are not followed by discourses on the symbolism of the miracle as, for example, the discourse on the Bread of Life which followed the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes, or the Savior’s words on the resurrection and the life in connection with the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The simplicity of the account is no doubt due to its source, Our Lady herself, who in her own quiet and discreet way became the occasion of the miracle without drawing any attention to herself but only to her Son.

I. Some Problems of Interpretation1

1. Mary’s Request

First among the problems in the Cana narrative is the nature of Mary’s remark, "They have no wine." For Boismard, Brunet, Maeso, and Van den Busche, Mary’s words to her Son merely imply common concern or anxiety over the embarrassment of lack of sufficient wine. For Braun, Gächter and Deiss, Mary does not ask for a miracle explicitly but for relief from embarrassment for the bridal pair by some natural means; for Migliorini, Mary’s words are an observation which Jesus accepts as a command from His Mother. For Galot, Ceroke and many others, Mary’s words in the light of the context imply a request for a miracle.

Mary’s statement, "They have no wine," is neither a mere womanly observation of the bridal couple’s impending embarrassment nor anxiety over it with a hint to her divine Son to supply or have supplied in a natural manner a quantity of wine that might relieve the embarrassment. Certainly it is not a demand of her Son that wine be supplied by whatever means. It is an expression of sympathetic concern for the spouses, implying a delicate request of Christ to manifest His divine power in their behalf with full faith in His power, and confidence that He would perform a miracle, yet without any restriction of His complete freedom of action.

It cannot be objected that the request for a miracle is a gratuitous assumption. To expect that Jesus who had no material means would Himself furnish a supply of wine in a natural manner would be still more gratuitous. The expectation of an extraordinary means is to be gauged from Our Lord’s reply, "My hour [for beginning to manifest my Messianic power] has not yet come"; from Mary’s command to the attendants, "Do whatever he tells you"; and from the fact that Our Lord did actually work a miracle in response to Mary’s plea for assistance from Him. We cannot view Mary’s part in this event as the mere natural reaction of a sympathetic woman, without any religious import, without any thought on Mary’s part of invoking His messianic power. Her supernatural faith in the power of her Son which inclined her to expect faith and obedience even of the attendants, indicates further that her words were no mere observation of an embarrassing situation, no mere hint to obtain more wine to prolong the festivities, but a tactful request to alleviate the need of the bridal couple by the power with which He was endowed in His public ministry. The same faith on Mary’s part moves the "power of the Most High" to accomplish the miracle of the Incarnation in her, as the witness of her cousin Elizabeth clearly demonstrates: "Blessed is she who has believed, because the things promised her by the Lord shall be accomplished."

2. "What is it to me and to thee."2

Interpretations of this response of Jesus range from the notion of hostility to that of complete agreement. It occurs frequently in Sacred Scripture, also in Greek and Latin literature. In Judges 11, 12, the exact counterpart of the Cana passage, literally "What to me and to you," "What have you against me that you should come to fight with me in my land?"3 The implication is that there is nothing in common between Jephte and the king of the Ammonites that would justify the latter in coming to take Israel’s land by force.

In 2 Sam. 16, 10, "What have I in common with you, O sons of Sarvia,"4 King David rejects the offer of Abisai, the son of Sarvia, to defend him by beheading Semei who had cursed the king. Cf. also 2 Sam. 19, 23. In 3 Kings 17, 18 the widow of Sarepta asks Elias, "What have I to do with you, O man of God? Have you come to me that my iniquities should be remembered, and that you should kill my son?"5 The same phrase and the same sense is found in 4 Kings 3, 13 and in 2 Par. 35, 21. In the former passage the prophet Eliseus shows his opposition to the king of Israel with the words, "What have I to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and your mother." In the latter passage, Nechao, king of Egypt, who came to Charcamis by the Euphrates to fight, tells Josias, king of Juda, through a messenger, that he did not come to fight against him. Moreover he warns him not to fight, "What have I to do with you, 0 king of Juda?. . .

Forbear to do against God who is with me, lest he kill you." Cf. also 4 Kings 9, 18f; Os. 14, 9; Jer. 2, 18. In all these instances of the Scriptures a negative, never a positive, answer is expected to the rhetorical question, as Gächter rightly remarks.6

In Mt. 8, 29, "What have we to do with you, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?" and in the parallel passages, Mk. 5, 7, Lk. 8, 28, also in Mk. 1, 24 and Lk. 4, 34 the same negative answer is expected, meaning that we have nothing in common. In Mt. 27, 19 the wife of Pontius Pilate warns her husband concerning Christ, "Have nothing to do with that just man."

The formula under consideration has the same sense in its frequent occurrences in classical and koine Greek, as well as in that of the Hellenistic period, besides in classical and in later Latin.7

The preponderance of evidence concerning the biblical as well as extra-biblical use of the formula "Quid mihi et tibi" clearly indicates a lack of common bond between persons relative to the particular situation found in the context. Though the question is formulated positively, a negative reply is expected.

If then we turn our attention to the passage in question, "Quid mihi et tibi?"8 the sense is, "What have I to do with you" or "What is there common to us" uttered in a tone of friendliness in this context, not of reproof. The context shows that Jesus is now engaged in His public ministry. The authority Mary had over her Son in His hidden life no longer constitutes the bond, that is, no longer exists in His public ministry. This is not to be taken as an affront any more than other passages of the Gospel in which Our Lord clearly shows the difference between natural and supernatural relationship to Him, e.g. "Who is my mother and who are my brethren? Whoever does the will of my Father, he is my brother and sister and mother." (Mt. 12, 48, 50). When Mary and Joseph found the boy Christ in the temple after they had sought Him three days sorrowing and asked, "Son, why hast thou done so to us?", He replied, "Did you not know that I must be about my Father’s business?". Jesus’ reply was meant to inform and to teach, not to reprove. He had just reached the legal age of responsibility for fulfilling the Law. In His Father’s designs He was to manifest even to the doctors of the Law in the temple the true wisdom and knowledge of the Law and its purpose.

3. Woman

In the Greek text the equivalent of "woman" is in the vocative case. Wackernagle’s treatise on some ancient forms of address contains numerous examples of this usage in Greek antiquity: (a) a husband to his wife; (b) a man to any woman, spoken with deference and respect; (c) as an address to women of royalty; (d) of servants to their mistresses; (e) an honorable address commonly used toward women.9

In the gospels Our Lord addresses the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4, 21), the woman taken in adultery (8, 10), Mary Magdalen (20, 15), the Canaanite woman (Mt. 15, 28), and the woman suffering from a curvature (Lk. 13, 12) with the same term "woman." Certainly the use of the term implies honor and respect in each instance. The same is true of Jn. 2, 4 and 19, 26. The difference in the last two instances from all the other examples cited is the fact that Our Lord is not addressing just any woman, stranger or well known, but His own Mother. Since the Johannine use is without parallel, the exact nuance is still difficult to determine. Neither in antiquity nor today does the usage prevail of a son addressing his mother as "woman."10

Jesus surely used this designation purposely. This change from the name "mother" to woman at this time would seem to indicate that Jesus did not wish the relationship of natural motherhood and authority to be the basis of Mary’s dealings with Him in His public life and ministry of salvation. If anything, the address "woman" instead of "mother" confirms our interpretation of "Quid mihi et tibi?" Recalling that later in His ministry Jesus said, "Who are my mother and my brethren? . . . Whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother,"11 we may infer that faith and adherence to His Father’s will, rather than natural motherhood and authority are to be the bases of the relationship of Mary and Jesus in Our Lord’s ministry of salvation. This is also in accordance with His teaching, properly understood, that "if anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, yes and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."12

Considering the fact that Our Lord did heed His Mother’s request, even to the extent of working His first miracle, the title "woman" with which He addressed her must in some way be related to His public ministry. Father Gächter considers the title to have had a messianic import deriving from the messianic context of Our Lord’s response, "My hour has not yet come."13 While subscribing to this messianic implication of Christ’s deliberate and special use of the title "woman" in response to His Mother’s request, Galot maintains that the messianic use was only implicit, and that as far as Mary was concerned, the substitution of "woman" for "mother" signified for her that Jesus did not wish to consider the natural title of mother in her regard. He considers that Mary understood this address of Our Lord to have a broader intent, without knowing precisely what intent, and that this address was rather a messianic orientation than a clearly formulated messianic expression.14 In the relatively small number of instances in which Mary appears, or is referred to, in Our Lord’s public ministry, Jesus seems persistent in setting aside her natural relationship of mother, even when He was dying on the Cross. It may rightly, therefore, be inferred that He wished only His messianic relationship toward Mary to prevail in His entire public ministry. What this relationship is, seems also capable of more precise determination. The performance at the beginning of His ministry, and at Mary’s request, of His first miracle to which the beginning of the public manifestation of the glory of His messiaship was attached, and the bequest at the close of His ministry which Jesus made of His Mother to redeemed mankind through the beloved disciple, inclines us to the conclusion that the address "woman" was a counterpart of the designation of Himself as "Son of man." Both "Son of man" and "woman" would indicate in the first place that both belonged to the ordinary race of human beings, but also that both enjoyed an altogether and singular position, Christ, that of Son of God and Messias besides mere man, and Mary that of "the woman" in God’s plan of salvation, i.e. the Mother of the messianic people.

4. My hour has not yet come.15

This text is usually regarded as the key to the understanding of the Cana narrative. The term "hour" in St. John’s Gospel may refer to: (a) a moment of time, e.g. "the tenth hour" (1, 39); (b) a short time, e.g. "a while" (5, 35); (c) the time for something to take place, e.g. "when the time for them has come you may remember" (16, 4); the emphasis is more on what happens than on the time it happens; (d) a new phase of Christ’s messianic work, already begun, or still to begin, e.g. "the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth" (4, 23). In many instances, "hour" refers to the death, resurrection and Ascension of Christ (13, 1; 17, 1f); in others it refers to the time of Christ’s passion and death. In 7, 30 "they [the Jews] wanted therefore to seize him [to put him to death, cf. v. 20] but no one laid hands on him because his hour had not yet come." Cf. also 8, 20; 12, 23, 27.

In Jn. 2, 4 "my hour" refers to a time for doing something pertaining to the messianic work of Christ. The context as well as the general framework of the gospel must determine the sense of "my hour" in this passage. Cullmann considers it to be a reference to the time or hour for changing wine into the blood of Christ at the Last Supper. Brunet considers "the hour" to mean the time of Christ’s death when His power to work miracles will cease. At present He possesses that power. Braun, Gächter and Van den Busche understand "my hour" to refer to Christ’s death. When it comes, Mary will again find Jesus submissive to her. In this way Jesus draws Mary’s attention to spiritual rather than temporal realities to be concerned about. Boismard regards "the hour" as that of Christ’s glorification, exaltation, the hour of returning to the Father. The hour of miracles whereby Jesus manifests His glory is the beginning, or complement of the full manifestation of His glory through His resurrection. Ceroke understands it to be the hour of miracles which Jesus is awaiting as soon to take place. Others16 understand Our Lord’s reply to be, not a declaration, but a question: "Has not my hour come yet?" This solution finds the word "yet" difficult to explain, and still more difficult the Savior’s previous question, "What have I to do with you?"

Unlike the texts alleged which refer to Christ’s passion, the context of Jn. 2, 4 does not contain any immediate reference whatever to the passion and death of Christ. Such a reply would have been unintelligible to His Mother by whom it was intended to be understood.

The evangelist’s remark in the context of the Cana narrative, "This first of his signs Jesus worked . . . and he manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him," indicates that the "hour" in question is to be understood of the time of beginning to manifest His glory through the messianic power of miracles. True, it is the beginning of this hour or time which will continue, as the remainder of the gospel shows, through further such manifestations until it reaches its climax in the final and complete glorification of Christ in the miracles of His resurrection and Ascension (cf. Jn. 13, 1; 17, 1f).

A difficulty still remains to be solved: if Christ’s hour of manifesting His glory through His messianic power of miracles has not yet come, and if He is unwilling to permit any intervention of Mary on the basis of the ties of natural motherhood, why then does He commence that "hour" almost at once by working a miracle and thereby manifesting His glory?

Though Mary’s request is not to be granted on the basis of natural motherhood, it can be granted, and in reality is granted on the basis of divine faith. If flesh and blood in themselves have no part in the messianic kingdom, faith is the very foundation of the kingdom and the beginning of new life in the kingdom. It was altogether fitting that the first of Christ’s followers to manifest this faith in His divinity should be His own Mother. Because she believed that those things were fulfilled which were "promised her by the Lord" (Lk. 1, 45), the Son of God became man in her womb. "The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. And we saw his glory—glory as of the only-begotten of the Father—full of grace and truth" (1, 14). Again, because of her faith in Christ’s divinity, and her willingness to put aside the authority deriving from her natural maternity, Christ begins His "hour" of manifesting His divinity.

The hour of Christ, otherwise seemingly decreed to begin under different circumstances, is now freely willed by the Father and His co-equal Son to commence at once in response to the humble request of the woman whose faith, by the will of the Father, brought His Son from heaven to earth at Nazareth, and whose faith is again instrumental in having Him publicly manifested to others at Cana.

Since the term "hour" refers not so much to the time as to the event which begins or continues to take place, there is no contradiction in Our Lord’s repudiation of natural relationship as the motive for asserting His divinity, while quickly granting the request that persists on the basis of perfect faith in the same divinity.

The Chanaanite woman was also refused her request for curing her daughter as she invoked Jesus’ natural relationship as son of David, only to be told that He "was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But the faith and perseverance of the woman who came and worshiped him, saying "Lord, help me," and again, "Yes, Lord, even the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table," drew an immediate favorable response of the miraculous cure of her daughter. "Jesus answered and said to her, "Woman, great is thy faith. Let it be done to thee as thou wilt" (Mt. 15, 22-28).

The "hour" of Christ then in this context is understood to mean the time for beginning the public manifestation of His glory through the messianic power of miracles as a means of

accomplishing His work of salvation. This hour now begun would reach its fullness in the glory resulting from the Passion, namely, the resurrection and return to the Father.

5. Mary’s Word to the Attendants

"Do whatever he tells you." The text implies that Mary expected Jesus to tell the attendants what to do, without implying that she knew what He would tell them. The indetermination of what Jesus would command lies in the use of the indefinite relative pronoun. It is expected that He will give some order to the attendants. We noted above that this confidence, even assurance, which Mary manifests concerning the intervention of Jesus cannot be construed as a hope that He would obtain wine through some natural means provided directly or indirectly by Himself. Such action on her part would have had little bearing on His messianic work. Through her faith in the messianic power of her Son, Mary confidently expects that Jesus will assist the bridal couple by this power. She manifests her own strong faith, and by exacting obedience of the attendants, also tests their faith, or rather inspires faith in them. The faith of Mary is all the more marvelous because she does not importune Jesus beyond her original request, yet perseveres in believing and trusting for help from Him.

The efficacy of prayer was well known to Mary. The angel’s assurance at the hour of the Annunciation that Mary had found favor with God continued throughout her life. She was further assured at that time that "nothing is impossible with God" (Lk. 1, 37). It was her faith in the same divine omnipotence that is so richly rewarded at the commencement of Jesus’ public life just as it was rewarded at the beginning of His hidden life. It causes Christ’s hour of supernatural manifestation of His power to benefit the disciples of Jesus with the beginnings of divine faith.

II. Theological Significance of the Cana Narrative

In the light of our understanding and interpretation of the Cana narrative, of its text and context, the broad features of Marian significance stand forth in bold relief. These features can best be arranged and presented according to the influence which Mary had over the various persons or classes of people who attended the marriage feast. First and foremost is Christ Himself. During His hidden life attention was focused on His humanity and on Mary’s motherhood according to the flesh. In commencing His public life attention must be drawn to His divinity veiled by His humanity, and to a new relationship of Mary to Christ since she is not the mother of His divinity.

Mary’s motherhood, therefore, must not be a hindrance to acceptance of, and belief in Christ’s divinity since she is not the mother of His divinity. Yet it pleased God that Mary’s association with her divine Son should not be limited to the mysteries of Christ’s hidden life. There was to be a new relationship of Mary to Christ in this new phase of His life, namely, His public ministry. This new relationship is well expressed both by referring to the inadequacy of the natural bond or relationship alone. "What have I to do with you?" and by the use of the new title "Woman." By this title Mary is placed among the common ranks of all women who follow Him through faith in His divinity, but more than this, because of her perfect faith in His divinity, she is given first place as the woman through whose influence Jesus worked His first miracle and thereby manifested the glory of His messianic power so that others too might believe in Christ through the benefit of her intercession. Mary thus becomes the close associate and collaborator with her Son in achieving the work of His public ministry, namely, the manifestation of His office as Messias and Son of God. Her function as collaborator is demonstrated by the part she played in bringing about the performance of Christ’s first miracle and the accomplishment of its purpose, belief in Him on the part of the disciples.

Though the hour, that is, the time for beginning Christ’s public manifestation of His glory, could have been later, and under different circumstances, in reality it begins at Cana during the marriage feast, through Mary’s intercession, with the consent of the Father and the Son.

In the light of the gospel of St. John, this new relationship of Mary becomes even clearer. In the "hour" of Nazareth and of Bethlehem Mary’s personal relationship of Mother of Christ is revealed. Since the Word, first and foremost, was born "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God," we see here the first manifestation of His glory "as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (Jn. 1, 14).

Cana is then the scene of the second phase of Christ’s manifestation of glory which in turn prepares the way for the third and final scene. At the "hour" of Calvary, when through His words "Woman, behold thy son; Son, behold thy mother" (Jn. 19, 26 f) Jesus reveals the fullness of Mary’s role, seen less clearly and through the sign of the first miracle at Cana, but now in the fullness of her office of Mother of all the redeemed, of the Woman through whom countless others come to "receive," i.e., believe in Christ, and who also are born now, "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God" sharing through Mary in the very life of her Son of whose fullness of grace we have all received. But the hour of Calvary would be meaningless as an hour of glorification without the necessary complement of Christ’s Resurrection and return to the Father where Mary’s relationship to Christ in glory continues through endless ages.

Having just referred to Mary’s spiritual motherhood at Calvary, we need but see its relation to the hour of the manifestation of Christ’s glory at Cana, according to the text, "He manifested his glory and his disciples believed in Him" (Jn.

2, 11).

While the faith of the disciples in Christ’s messiaship is directly related to Christ’s miracle at Cana, Mary’s part in obtaining this miracle applies also the effects of the miracle. She is therefore the instrumental cause of their faith in the messiaship of Christ, and of the beginning of their faith in His divinity. And since even the beginning of faith in Christ’s divinity is also the commencement of the new life of grace, we see here the beginning or sign of Mary’s spiritual motherhood.

The purpose of the entire gospel of St. John is contained in his epilogue: "Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in his name" (Jn. 20, 30).

Christ’s purpose in performing His miracles is no different from the evangelist’s purpose in recording them: "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing, you may have life in his name." Christ’s own words express the same thing: "If you are not willing to believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father" (Jn. 10, 38).

The Cana narrative also reveals the function of Mary in relation to the attendants. We have seen their confidence in Mary and their willingness to obey Christ’s command after being disposed to do so by Mary, "Do whatever he tells you." This role of Mary of disposing people to obey, and through obedience to come to believe in Christ, is another phase of collaboration in the messianic activity of her Son.

The bridal couple also experience the benefits of Mary’s presence through the dignity she brought to the marriage

feast, and the relief of their embarrassment to fulfill satisfactorily their hospitality toward the marriage guests.

Thus, the ordinary things of human life, even material things, are not beneath the sphere of Mary’s care and influence, nor are they to be excluded from entering the sphere of the life of the spirit.

III. Marian Significance in the Universal Framework of the

Economy of Salvation

The Marian significance of the Marriage Feast of Cana extends still further when viewed in the universal framework of the economy of salvation. In this way the Cana narrative expands into new dimensions which enhance Mary’s role in the messianic work of salvation.

In the relationship of Mary to Jesus in His public ministry, a relationship of the "woman" who collaborates with Him in His work of salvation, we recognize the New Eve. The first Eve, through disobedience and pride in wishing to be like God, disfigured the image of God in herself and became the instrumental cause of her husband doing the same. Thus the whole human race was involved in sin and death. Mary, on the contrary, with firm faith in Christ as Messias and Son of God, submits completely to His will and that of the Father. She is thus made the instrument in directing mankind back to God by belief in the messiaship of His Son (and incipiently, at least, in His divinity) and by obedience to His will. This submission to Christ through faith and obedience elevates men and disposes them for the restoration of what was lost through the first Adam, influenced by the first Eve. We have already seen how Mary’s faith and complete adherence to God’s will disposed her to become the Mother of the Messias at Nazareth and the Mother of redeemed humanity on Calvary.

The Savior’s use of a wedding feast to introduce His messianic work is an appropriate and altogether fitting concrete expression of His own later teaching concerning the king who prepared a wedding and its accompanying feast for his son (Mt. 22, 1-13). The wedding in the parable is the marriage between divinity and humanity in Christ. The manifestation of Christ’s glory to the guests and the benefit to them of the beginnings of faith in Christ is the feast or banquet. Again the symbol of the water jars for ritual purification is seen by some authors as a type of the marriage feast of the Old Covenant which is no longer able to supply its guests with refreshment, and is therefore to be replaced by the wedding feast of the New Covenant. At this feast the Bridegroom furnished an unlimited supply of the wine of new life. Christ is the source of supply and Mary becomes the channel through which this new life flows.

The fullness, indeed the consummation of the Bridegroom’s love, for His bride, the Church, occasions another banquet, a further development of the first. At this banquet of the Last Supper Jesus gives to His guests the drink of His own blood, supplied at the cost of His very life. It is the life-giving wine that will never fail because it is His Blood which is shed for the life of the world.

Mary was not present at the banquet of the Last Supper. Presence at this table was reserved to Christ’s priests. Her part in it, however, is soon to be made clear, for just as her intercession obtained the miracle of the wine at Cana, her presence at the foot of the Cross, and her share in Christ’s passion, helped to obtain for all Christ’s followers the saving gift of His life-giving Blood of the Eucharistic’ banquet held the evening before in anticipation of the fruit of His passion and death on the morrow.

Through Mary, Christ’s miracle at Cana introduces to the world the beginning of the public manifestation of His divinity which till then was hidden from the world by the humanity

which Mary gave to Christ. This public manifestation also marks the beginning of the revelation of the mystery of the union of divinity and humanity in Christ, within the framework of the historic, yet also symbolic, occasion of the wedding feast at Cana. The presence of Christ, God and Man, sanctified human marriage and engendered what was destined to develop into the mystical marriage between Christ and the Church through His sleep of death on the Cross. The banquet of this marriage we have seen to be the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood.

Through the role of the Woman the personal marriage of Christ in the Incarnation took place at the hour of Nazareth; at the hour of Cana the presence and mediation of the Woman brought about the beginning of the public manifestation of the mystery of Nazareth, and at the same time planted the seed of the mystical marriage of Christ with mankind; at the hour of Calvary the Woman is not only present at the consummation of Christ’s mystical marriage with redeemed mankind through His saving death; she is not only a co-operator in providing the Eucharistic banquet; indeed she is the first fruits of the redemption, and as such becomes the Mother of all the redeemed. As this banquet continues through the temporal life of the Church, the Woman continues to use her intercession until the full and lasting manifestation of Christ’s glory takes place when "the marriage of the Lamb" will have come and His spouse, the Church triumphant, will have prepared herself "clothed in fine linen" of just deeds, and all will rejoice to hear the welcome, "Blessed are they who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb," where the Mother of Jesus, and indeed the Mother of all the just, will ever be (Ap. 19, 7-9).

REV. STEPHEN HARTDEGEN, O.F.M.,

Holy Name College, Washington, D. C.

END NOTES

1 Cf. F. M. Braun, O.P., La Mere des fidèles (3rd ed., Paris, 1954) 49-74; A. M. Brunet, Les noces de Cana, in ER 8 (1952) 9-23; C. Charlier, Les noces de Cana, in BVC 4 (1953-1954) 81-86; 0. Cullmann, Les sacrements dans l’évangile johannique (Paris, 1951) 37-40; P. Gächter, S.J., Maria im Erdenleben (Munich, 1953) 155-200; J. Jeremias, Jesus als der Weltvollender (Gutersloh, 1930); R. Schnackenburg, Das erste Wunder Jesu (Freiburg-i-Br., 1951) 46; P. Boismard, O.P., Du baptême a Cana (Paris, 1956); II. Van den Busche, Het Wijnwonder te Cana, in CG 3 (1952) 1-33; D. G. Maeso, Una leccion de exegesis lingüistica sobre el pasaje evangélico de las bodas de Caná, in CB 11 (1954) 352-364; L. Deiss, Marie, fille de Sion (Paris, 1959) 216-226; B. L. Migliorini, O.F.M., Annosa questione. "Nondum venit hora mea," in PM 31 (1956) 138-139; C. P. Ceroke, O.Carm., Jesus and Mary at Cana: Separation or Association?, in TS 17 (1956) 25; J. Galot, S.J., Marie dans l’évangile (Paris, 1958) 98-160.

2 Ti emoi kai soi, gynai.

3 Mah-li wäläk.

4 Mah-li weläkem.

5 Mah-li wäläk.

6 Gächter, op. cit., 176.

7 Ibid., 173-174.

8 Ti emoi kai soi.

9 J. Wackernagel, Über einige antike Anredeformen (Göttingen, 1912) 25-26.

10 Cf. E. Power, "Quid, mihi et tibi, mulier? Nondum venit hora mea," in VD 2 (1922) 130.

11 Mk. 3, 35.

12 Lk. 14, 26.

13 Gachter, op. cit., 190.

14 Galot, op. cit., 126.

15 Oypö ëkei ë öra moy.

16 Cf. Boismard. op. cit., 156f.; 3. Michl, Bemerkungen zu Johannes 2:4, in Bibl 36 (1955) 492-509.

Reprinted with permission from the Marian Studies vol. 11, 1960.
Electronic Copyright © 2000 Immaculate Mediatrix On-line
New Bedford, MA, USA

....

Taken from: http://www.marymediatrix-resourceonline.com/library/files/scholastic/ss1_cana.htm

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The Forgotten Virtue: Pathway to Holiness

Fr. William Casey

God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble. (1 Peter 5:5) In this revealing talk, Fr. Casey shares how wisdom and blessings come through a healthy cultivation of the virtue of humility, and he equips us to be vigilant in avoiding that often subtle temptation and danger to the soul, which is pride. He shows how humility allows us to see things, and ourselves, as they truly are, and how pride makes us prone to serious mistakes, both in our spiritual and practical lives. At the end of this presentation is a bonus segment from Confession by Fr. Larry Richards.

....

Taken from: http://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/the-forgotten-virtue-pathway-to-holiness

Other Recommended Titles:

Thursday, September 13, 2012

The Cosmic Centrality of Jesus Christ the Alpha and the Omega

CHRIST - PANTOKRATOR

Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, S.T.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gospel announces in its inimitable style of controlled wonder that Christ raised people from the dead when the occasion called for it. Paul suggests that Christ did even more than raise up people who had died. He implies that it was Christ who decided upon our creation, upon our coming to life in the first place. Ashen corpses sprang to life, glazed eyes opened and blinked, when Christ called out: "Talitha kumi;" or, "Young man, I say to you, arise;" or "Lazarus, come forth." Paul excites our wonder equally by his fleeting revelation that God brought life to our bodies in the first place through Christ Jesus, 'ere time began. We know indeed that the human nature of Christ did not exist outside of its causes before the happy event of the Incarnation; before that historic moment celebrated by the entrance song of the Second Sunday after Christmas: "When peaceful silence lay over all, and night had run half of her swift course, your all-powerful word, O Lord, leaped down from heaven." Yet we also know that the Church recognizes that Christ worked even before His birth into the confines of time. The prime example of this is Mary's Immaculate Conception: before Christ was conceived, He already sanctified His Mother. "By a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of the human race" (DS 1641) she was conceived Immaculate. Indeed, all peoples since Adam who received grace, received it through Christ (see e.g. Heb 11:39-40; Reading, Liturgical Hours, Holy Saturday). And Paul tells us that the spiritual Rock from which the Israelites drank during their desert wanderings was none other than Christ (1 Cor 10:4).

Peter informs us that Christ was active in the Old Testament prophets through the Spirit which He gave to them: "They investigated the times and the circumstances which the Spirit of Christ within them was pointing to, for he predicted the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories that would follow" (1 Pet 1:11). In other words, the Spirit, whose salvific works were to be merited by Christ to do the works of salvation in the Old Testament times, did not wait to do these works until Christ was born in time. The gifts of the Spirit, still to be merited by Christ, were already inspiring the prophets who foresaw Christ's life.

AT BIRTH CHRIST KNEW HIS PAST RECORD

Christ's comprehensive knowledge of the universe from the time of the Incarnation made Him humanly aware of the work which His soon-to-be-acquired merits had already done in the past; we likewise conclude that He offered Himself freely to accept God's will in this respect retroactively (cf. Heb 10:5-7; 5:7). St. Thomas observes that Christ, in His created human nature, comprehended the entire cosmos by way of the beatific vision, and by the light of created infused knowledge (see Summa Theologica III, 9:3; 10:2-3; 11:2,5; see discussion in THE PRIEST, Sept. 1993). His knowledge thus comprehended all things created from the beginning of time; this necessarily included, therefore, all the salvific activities which He had been performing, through the power of the Spirit, long before He saw the light of day in Bethlehem. He recognized and approved now, after His birth, all the works which He already performed since the beginning of time. He Himself was the raison d'etre of this universe into which He now entered with a human body and soul.

CHRIST: THE ALPHA AND OMEGA OF CREATION

Paul instructs us that God made our existence take its origin in Christ Jesus as our Alpha; that God created all things in and through the First Born, the Incarnate Christ; through that same Christ who is now fully in charge of this universe; who, when He will finalize His work of submitting the cosmos to Himself, will deliver it back to God: "When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will [also] be subjected to the One who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all" (1 Cor 14:28).

By means of His beatific vision and His infused knowledge Christ was perfectly aware that this universe had always been His own, that He is now its steward and has always been so; He could interface His beatific vision and infused knowledge with His experiential human awareness. The music of eternity now flowed to the beat of rhythmic time; His direct view of God was background to events experienced by His senses as He marched over the hills of Galilee.

At last on earth itself, Christ now embraced with His free will the events in which God had already engaged Him before time began. He did this in the light of the beatific vision which ever bathed His created mind, a vision in which all creation was displayed; He could call to the console of His experiential awareness His infused knowledge of the cosmos, and focus strands of this light on this or that event to enhance cerebral awareness. He experienced daily events with human perceptions, whose meaning He evaluated in the brighter lights of vision and infused knowledge.

The teachings of Thomas about Christ's knowledge fit smoothly into the insight of Paul who wrote to Timothy that Christ "saved us and called us to a holy life ... according to his own design and the grace bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before time began" (2 Tim 1:9). A closer look at the passage allows us to see a line of progression from the design initiated by God, to the elaboration of that design performed in Christ Jesus. "... secundum propositum suum, et gratiam, quae data est nobis in Christo Iesu ante tempora saecularia." The Propositum (in Greek "prothesin") is attributed to God, and the gratia (Greek "charin") is described as mediated to us in Christ Jesus. God proposes, but works out the proposal in the context of the consenting Christ. The manifestation in time, of events prefabricated in eternity, aroused wonder in Paul:

Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has bestowed on us in Christ every spiritual blessing in the heavens! God chose us in him before the world began, to be holy and blameless in his sight, to be full of love...

God has given us the wisdom to understand fully the mystery, the plan he was pleased to decree in Christ, to be carried out in the fullness of time: namely to bring all things in the heavens and on earth into one under Christ's headship (Eph 1: 3-4;9-10).

The creation decision, then, is of God, and its actualization is done with the by-standing cooperation of the God-man. God, then, decided upon our individual creation not in the context of a mindless universe, but "in Christ Jesus before time began." Christ is the Alpha as well as the Omega of creation. Nothing happened in this universe except through Christ's engagement.

This passage of Paul is not a misprint of Sacred Scripture, but is a key to a more profound understanding of Christ Jesus as Pantokrator, the One to whom we owe not only our salvation, but our lives. Paul wrote to the Ephesians in the same euphoric outpouring: "For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them" (Eph 2:10). The Christ Jesus in whom we were created is assuredly here the Incarnate Christ, the God-man. It is the same Christ who was born in Bethlehem, who died on the cross. Somehow God fashioned us within the framework of Christ, of His knowledge and free choice. We are creatures who have been planned beforehand in Christ, a plan which was made even before Christ was born at Bethlehem.

Paul dwells on this mystery in the Letter to the Colossians: "For in him [in the God-man] were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible" (Col 1:16). That Paul here refers to the God-man may not be entirely clear, yet in the context that seems to follow. A few lines on down Paul describes the very same subject functioning as the "Head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18).

CREATOR BY DIVINE POWER: DESIGNER IN FORESEEN HUMAN NATURE

The author of Hebrews ascribes to the God-man the creative wisdom and power of the Son of God, without distinguishing technically between Christ's powers as Creator and Redeemer: He is equally the reflection of the Father's glory, and the Redeemer who cleansed us of our sins:

In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, who is the refulgence of his glory, the imprint of his being, who sustains all things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, as far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Heb 1:1-4).

We see in the passage that the Christ who redeemed us is also the One through whom God created all things. He, who now reigns at the right hand of the Majesty on high, is the same Christ through whom God created the cosmos. He is as superior to Moses, as the "founder of the house has more honor than the house itself" (Heb 3:3). Hebrews does not spell out in technical or theological terms what may be the meaning of the phrase "through whom he created the universe."

We know, however, than only God can create, because drawing existence out of nothing requires divine power; God cannot delegate the task of creation to any creature. Neither would the Son of God create things through His human powers, that being impossible. We assume therefore that the meaning of "creating the universe in Christ," means first of all that the Son created all things with the Father and the Spirit; and secondly that when Father, Son, and Spirit created, they first set forth the Key to the rest of creation, namely Christ in His human nature; and then shaped the cosmos in accord with the model or blue print of its First Born, namely Christ. Christ in His human nature is creation's Alpha; all other things come from God through Him. The sky would be the roof which the God-man Christ should like to see; the earth should produce the flowers and seeds which Joseph would name for Him; the Mother who should bear Him and love Him should be the Woman, the co-Redemptrix, who would trample the head of the serpent with Him. God, in carrying out creation, measured all things to accord with the needs and plans and wisdom and will of Christ, the God-man. This God-man was already at God's side in eternity, even though His manifestation in time was not yet perceived by creatures who are time-bound.

We might, therefore, distinguish the WORK of creation which is done by God only, by Father, Son, and Spirit, one divine power; and the SHAPING of this creation, a task in which Christ participates with His human wisdom and free choice. And so we may dare to paraphrase John 1:3 to describe this joint action: "All things came to be through him [through God]; and without him [Christ] nothing came to be measured and put into shape."

A passage of Proverbs presents a magnificent description of personified Wisdom present to God during the work of creation. We see here a vision of Christ standing at God's side to give shape to the cosmos while God commands it into being:

When he established the heavens I was there when he marked out the vault over the face of the deep; When he made firm the skies above, when he fixed fast the foundations of the earth; When he set for the sea its limit, so that the waters should not transgress his command; Then was I beside him as his craftsman, and I was his delight day by day, Playing before him all the while, playing on the surface of the earth; and I found delight in the sons of men (Prov. 8: 27-31).

Christ, knowing that He was God's craftsman, the One who always stood by to give proper shape to the cosmos, knew well all the secrets of creation and the deepest yearnings of the human soul. His advice will always be best, because this Master Architect knows the purpose of all things made. In the Gospel Christ could only weep when Jerusalem did not take advantage of His coming, (cf. Lk 20:41 ff.). It is the artist weeping when insensitive people ignore the beauty and limpid rationality of His cosmos. The Church, on the contrary, does its best to make up for the world's insensitivity, by recognizing Christ's unique cosmic centrality when blessing the Easter Candle on Holy Saturday:

Christ yesterday and today the beginning and the end Alpha and Omega all time belongs to him and all the ages to him be glory and power through every age and ever. Amen.

ADAM'S GRACE: GRATIA DEI OR GRATIA CHRISTI?

That God constituted our Adam and Eve in the state of holiness and justice before their Fall is a dogma of faith, firmly fixed into the platform of belief on which we stand. That Christ came to redeem us after the Fall is also central to our faith. But whether it was Christ the God-man who gave Adam and Eve their initial gifts of holiness and justice before the Fall, is a celebrated controversy among theologians, both giants and amateurs.

One side of the controversy claims that God decreed the Incarnation of Christ only subsequent to the pre-view of the Fall of Adam and Eve; the logic of this view implies that Adam and Eve owed nothing to Christ for their original gifts of holiness and justice, and that their relations with Christ began only after their sin, when Christ was decreed to redeem them.

The other party affirms that Christ is first, last, and forever the King and Lord of the universe; that Christ gave the original gift of holiness and justice to our first parents; and that He took it upon Himself to redeem them after they had lost His initial endowment. This party makes Christ to be the first step in the divine decree of any creation whatsoever. As Blessed Duns Scotus (d. 1308) expressed it subtly in this lapidary sentence, God decided to receive glory from outside of Himself, to be given to Him by none other than the God-man. And for this purpose He decreed first the Incarnation, then the universe by means of which the God-man would return glory to God:

God first loves himself; secondly, He loves Himself for others, and this is an ordered love; thirdly, He wishes to be loved by the One who can love Him in the highest way—speaking of the love of someone who is extrinsic to Him; and fourthly, He foresees the union of that nature which must love Him with the greatest love even if no one had fallen (Opus Par. III, d.7, q.4; see Pancheri-Carol, The Universal Primacy of Christ, Christendom Publications, 1984, p. 35).

By no means does either party of this theological controversy deny Christ's Kingship in the present world, which is the world after the Fall. From the moment God decreed that the Son should become Incarnate, whether He decreed Christ as a response to Adam's sin, or whether God made Christ to be the first step in the order of any and all creation; in either case, Christ alone is now Lord and King of the Universe.

I have trouble with disputants who make Christ a "Johnny-come-late" into the universe. My trouble begins as follows. I seem to be God's "second choice." God really wanted His first plan to succeed, which was a world without Christ. But Paul announced that you and I were chosen and created "in Christ."

Would we have been left out of the banquet of life if Adam had not sinned, and if Christ had not been decreed? We who are taught by the Church to pray:

Praised by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has bestowed on us in Christ every spiritual blessing in the heavens. God chose us in him before the world began to be holy and blameless in his sight. (Liturgy of the Hours, from Eph 1:3-5).

If God had a first plan which then failed; a plan by which He supposedly created Adam and Eve and constituted them in holiness and justice without the mediation of Christ (gratia Dei); then it follows that we, who are now created "in Christ," may be God's "second choice;" we were not considered in the first and foiled plan. Would we have been created at all if the first plan had succeeded? If God planned that universe originally without Christ as its Alpha and Omega; and if, as Paul says, you and I, who are now God's handiwork "created in Christ Jesus;" then would God have created you and me at all within the framework of a supposed Christless universe? By winning this argument, theologians may have to confess that they are God's "second choice."

Furthermore, the controverted theory of a once-planned Christless universe has a flaw which appears quite absurd: we should be obliged to thank Adam and Eve for offending God by their sin, the sin which then made our creation possible by occasioning God's second choice. Scotus, with a wry sense of humor, notes that if Christ would not have become incarnate unless Adam sinned, then the Son of God should have been sorry if Adam obeyed, but glad if he sinned. "Christ would have rejoiced over Adam's prevarication, since He would have owed His Incarnation to it" (cf. Ordinatio, III, d.7; cited in Pancheri-Carol, p. 39).

A second thought raises grave doubts about a so-called plan for a Christless universe. Trent defined, in 1546, that God constituted Adam in holiness and justice (DS 1511); we necessarily conclude from this dogma the further truth that God also revealed Himself to our first parents. It would be absurd for God to destine Adam and Eve for eternal life in heaven, without revealing to them that it is He Himself who calls them to heaven; and without revealing to them the original "ten commandments of the Garden of Eden." The first chapters of Genesis tell beautifully the story of God's revelation to our first parents.

In the beginning He created the heavens and the earth; He made the light, the dome of the sky, the expanded seas and the dry land; He made every kind of plant and the fruit trees; also the lights in the dome of the sky, both the greater one to govern the day and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars; He made the waters teem with life, and the skies He filled with all kinds of winged birds; then He made cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds; finally He said:

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground. God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen 1: 26-28).

Genesis contains more basic initial instructions: God planted for man a garden and kept company with him there; He showed man how to work, gave him the command to do good and avoid evil, and joined them in monogamous marriage. Even though it is not likely that God gave these instructions to our first parents in this exact form, we do have to accept that God most certainly revealed Himself to our first parents in a manner which enabled them to know God, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and so to merit being happy with Him forever in the next.

This primeval revelation, we believe, was given in its basic form to our first parents as part of the package of the gift of holiness and justice. For God, in His Wisdom, would not elevate them to the supernatural state without providing them with suitable instructions about the nature of that state, and their corresponding duties. This theological implication that the God who elevated our Adam and Eve, also instructed them with revelation, is strangely missing not only in the documents of Trent, but, so far as I know, in the relevant theological and anthropological literature which treats of the origin of the human race, and of our salvation. Yet this theological conclusion by itself is sufficient to refute all the arguments which imply that man evolved in religious belief from polytheism to monotheism. Decidedly our Adam was monotheistic, because God revealed Himself to him when He called him to an eternal destiny in heaven.

Brighter minds than my own may see their way clear to assert that this first grace given to Adam was gratia Dei, not gratia Christi; logically they must also assert that the first revelation was also revelatio Dei, not a revelation mediated by Christ. By their logic we should then divide the text of Genesis into two parts: Part One, the revelation made by God to Adam before his Fall, that is, before Christ was decreed; Part Two, the revelation made to Adam after the Fall when Christ was decreed after Adam had sinned.

To me it appears that the Scriptures are best explained by assuming that the original grace, and the original revelation, were mediated to Adam by Christ who had been decreed from the beginning of creation, without reference to the foreseen sin of Adam; that it was Christ who elevated our Adam and Eve with the original supernatural gifts of holiness and justice; who also saved them after the Fall; who also governed the world from above until the fullness of time came when He appeared in Person in Bethlehem, and wrought our redemption in Jerusalem. The whole of Scripture appears to point in that direction more than to the other (but see Thomas ST III,1,3, who leans to the opinion that the Scriptures appear to teach that Christ came in response to the need for Redemption as occasioned by Adam's sin).

Solomon saw in the Spirit that Personified Wisdom - read Christ - shepherded Adam from the beginning, at the time of his creation, and lifted him once more after the fall:

She (Wisdom) preserved the first formed father of the world when he alone had been created; And she raised him up from his fall, and gave him power to rule all things (Wis 10:1-2).

We ought not attach theological precisions to this poetry attributed to Solomon - probably not really his - but we see how fittingly this passage expresses what we already find to be reasonable; namely that Christ guarded Adam from the beginning.

CONCLUSION

We offer Christ faint and inadequate praise if we honor Him as the Redeemer whose function is reductively spiritual, but fail to recognize Him as ruler of the cosmos. We view Christ narrowly if in our small minds we consign His Kingship to the sacristy and church, but keep Him out of the marketplace. For He is now King of the universe, whether He came in response to the sin of Adam, or whether He stood by to assist in the design of the cosmos in the first place. In either case, the cosmos is His from end to end, from sea to shining sea, from plain to mountain, from pole to pole and around the circle of the equator; to Him belong all government, His are the workings of the economy, His the psychology of the human mind, His any true statistics compiled by demographers and sociologists; His is the art of medicine insofar as it is not abused by unprincipled manipulators of His creation; He is Master of culture, of human dress and styles, of the dance, of poetry, of art, of drama, entertainment, the circus; of tourism, of diplomacy, even of just wars; He has been active in all human history which belongs to Him; His are the times past, present, AND future; His is the key which opens the door when men pass from this world to the next.

In principle we refrain from coercing people to practice the true religion; but we also recognize the principle that both Church and State belong equally to Christ. To do justice and honor to Christ, we must endeavor to help Him shape the State to conform freely to His eternal laws. Individuals, families, nations, the United Nations, Village Earth - all owe their existence to Christ, all are obliged to obey Him, to keep His laws, and to conform themselves to truth. Individuals are bound to do this individually, collectivities are also bound to do this collectively. For Christ is not our Redeemer only; He is the Pantokrator, the almighty ruler of the cosmos, the One "through whom (God) first created the universe" who "sustains all things by his powerful word" (Heb 1:2,3).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published in Faith & Reason, Fall 1994.

Reprinted with permission from Fr. Zimmerman.

Further of his writings may be found at

http://zimmerman.catholic.ac/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electronic Copyright © 2000 EWTN

All Rights Reserved

Provided Courtesy of:

Eternal Word Television Network

5817 Old Leeds Road

Irondale, AL 35210

www.ewtn.com

HOME-EWTNews-FAITH-TELEVISION-RADIO-LIBRARY-GALLERY-CATALOGUE-GENERAL

ESPAÑOL

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Other Recommended Titles:

Seven Deadly Sins - Seven Lively Virtues

Pursuing Holiness - Lessons from St. Francis de Sales

Becoming The-Best-Version-of-Yourself

Why Is There Hell? What You Should Know About It!

The Hidden Power of Forgiveness

Searching the Scriptures: The Gospel of John

Seven Reasons to be Catholic

The Truth

The Seven Levels of Intimacy

The Face of God

Thursday, September 13, 2012