Hello and welcome to a Masterclass in Mariology. This is Dr. Mark Miravalle. I am joined by my colleague and dear friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, as we are going through a, again, Masterclass or what we might call a graduate-level seminar regarding the truths about Our Lady. So in the course of this series, we'll go through Our Lady in Scripture, Our Lady in the Patristic Era briefly, the medieval elements of Our Lady, and the teachings of the masters, great doctors of the Church. We'll talk about the Marian dogmas, the Marian doctrines, the Marian devotions, and even some of Our Lady in private revelation to give you that which many of you have reported to us is not attainable in your area, and that is a full John Paul II whole truth about Mary perspective on Our Lady. So, Robert, thanks for joining us today. Welcome to you.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mark. I learn a great deal on these programs as well. Those who teach learn.
Absolutely. Yeah, we thank God. It's a total gift. So we're now going to go to our second session on Mary in the New Testament. In session one, we essentially dealt with the Gospel of Luke and the infancy narratives. They're so incredibly rich, and we're going to hit one last Luke reference before we today in this session move into the infancy narratives regarding as revealed in Matthew, and then perhaps time permitting, some entry into John as well. But, Robert, before we get into the infancy narratives of Matthew, let's say a brief word about Luke 11:27. This is the reference of the woman from the crowd that says, you know, to Jesus, blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that gave you suck. And Jesus responds, at least in most translations, blessed rather, we'll talk about that word in a moment, are those who hear the word of God and keep it. So can you initially engage us into that passage? And then, thankfully, we have a wonderful commentary by St. John Paul II in Redemptoris Mater on this passage as well. So please, Robert. 
Yes, well, thank you very much. Well, this is the passage that Luke 11:27. And he said, as he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that you sucked. But he said, blessed rather, or blessed indeed, are those who hear the word of God and keep it. So I know you're familiar with different translations. Maybe you could say something about that word, rather. Yes. 
In fact, there was a Catholic-Lutheran dialogue conference that happened in the United States in the South. And both scholars agreed that the Greek menoun is not best translated, not most accurately translated rather, but “yes, but even more so”. So it's not negating the first blessing, but saying, yes, you know, the womb that bore you, the breasts that gave you suck. But yes, but even more so. Now, St. John Paul II, I think, has a typically brilliant commentary on saying, this is classically where Jesus is trying to establish that the kingdom of God is more important than just typical blood relation. And so he does this several times, you know, who is my mother and brother, those who hear the word of God is sister, mother, brother to me.
Well, that means either Jesus has a pretty massive blood family, anybody who believes in baptism, or he's making a point about the spiritual priority of hearing the word of God. But John Paul will be quick to say that the blessing of the woman coincides with Mary, because Mary is the first to hear the word of God, and to keep, that Jesus' blessing, that is to say, is in fact, has the same object, herself. 
Yes, exactly. May I read from St. John Paul II? Please do. The passage here, so he raises the question is, is Jesus thereby distancing himself from his mother according to the flesh? Does he perhaps wish to leave her in the hidden obscurity which he herself has chosen? If this seems to be the case from the tone of these words, one must nevertheless note that the new and different motherhood, which Jesus speaks of to his disciples refers precisely to Mary in a special way. Is not Mary the first of those who hear the word of God and do it? And therefore, does not the blessing uttered by Jesus in response to the woman in the crowd refer primarily to her? Without any doubt, Mary is worthy of blessing by the very fact that she became the mother of Jesus according to the flesh. Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breast that you sucked, but also and especially because already in the annunciation she accepted the word of God because she believed it, because she was obedient to God, and because she kept the word and pondered it in her heart. 
Yeah, that's beautiful. I mean, who could dare say they kept the word of God more than the woman who gave the word flesh? That's the mother. I mean, it's simply a singular factor that no one can come close to. No one sane can come close to saying that they kept the word as Mary kept the word. So, it is a both. It is a praise of Our Lady, and it is also a testimony to the superiority of the word of God, even to blood relation, but in this case, it's a both and, not an either-or. Exactly, and if I may, there's another passage in Mark's gospel that deals with this, and there's a very disturbing interpretation given because Mark has this passage, then he went home and the crowd came together again so that they could not even eat, and when his friends heard it they went outside to see him for they said he is beside himself, or another translation, he's out of his mind, and some interpreters, and I heard this actually once from a Catholic priest, saying Mary was among those who thought he had gone out of his mind, and then when he has the same passage, you know, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it, you know, he's further distancing himself from his mother. 
This is an atrocious misinterpretation, and that even a priest would promote this. I asked Father Dennis Kulandes Dasami, the rector of the Marianum, about if he had ever heard of this. He says yes, it's a Protestant interpretation, but not all Protestants hold it.
Right, I mean it's intellectually catastrophic to think that the human creature that was so completely conformed to the word made flesh would then make a break and think I'm questioning his sanity. That's a position that has to be questioned deeply, because it doesn't have any, talk about out of context. First of all, it doesn't mention Mary at all.
I mean it's a complete injection into the text. Secondly, the idea that the New Eve would start wondering if the New Adam was entirely sane, it rips to shred any concept of biblical continuity regarding the revelation of Our Lady. 
Yes, it is. So we not only need to critique it, we need to reject it. It's just outrageous.
Right, and I think for many their response will be, never heard of it, and would never buy it if I did hear of it. But that's, I mean, we'll see a similar type of, you know, rather grotesque misinterpretation when we get to Cana, for those some Protestant theologians to say, well, this was a clear case of Mary sinning, because Jesus had to correct her. Well, if Mary sinned, then Jesus confirmed the sin by doing exactly what Mary asked. That's also ludicrous. 
So, but let's go to Matthew's infancy narratives, and let's start, if we can, Robert, with Matthew 1:18, and then soon followed by Matthew 1:25. So, the betrothal, and then soon followed by what is commonly called the ordeal of Joseph concerning the virgin birth. Yes, well, I have the text here, the Catholic New Revised Standard Version, Matthew 1:18. Now, the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way, when his mother, Mary, had been betrothed to Joseph before they came together. She was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit, and her husband, Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. So, that's the setting here.
Right, those are the two verses, and there's, you know, short from the material that's in between, but let's deal first with betrothal and marriage in Jewish tradition. Do you want to speak to that, Robert? Yes, well, you notice it says, her husband, Joseph, they were already, in a sense, married. So, sometimes we think they were just engaged, and so on, but betrothal here was the, really, a marriage contract had been there, but then when they lived together, you know, they consummate the marriage. So, that was just assumed, that when they would live together, but they had not yet lived together, and so they are, the contract, the marriage bond has been established, and then Mary, it says, conceives a child, a son, of the Holy Spirit, but Joseph didn't know this, so we're going to get to that next. Right, and so, remember that even today with Orthodox Judaism, betrothal is marriage part one. So, it's not our engagement, you know, if we break engagement, you have tears, and you have to send back some presents.
In Jewish breaking of betrothal, you have to get a writ of divorce, and that's even present-day Judaism, and so it is marriage part one. It typically would take the husband from six months up to a year to prepare a place, to get a home, to furnish it, to start the vegetables, etc.
You know, it's not our concept of urban living, and so that was commonplace, three to six months, even up to a year. So, in that first stage, Mary is then conceived by the Holy Spirit, conceived, of course, with our Lord and Savior, and then you have what's called the ordeal. And, you know, I can present the two, you know, principle takes on this, the theories on this. You know, one is, and, you know, let me quickly make reference to the mystical tradition, which kind of has a consensus with this. Now, again, mystical tradition, when I make reference to that, I'm talking about, you know, saints, and mystics, and blesseds, who have received, you know, private revelation. Is that a source of revelation in terms of comparable description tradition? Absolutely not, but if they all have a consensus, the odds that they'd all have it wrong is also rather improbable. So, on that level, it is typically seen that after Mary is with Elizabeth in Ain Karim for three months, Joseph goes to bring Our Lady. Our Lady wouldn’t be traveling by herself, and it's then that Joseph sees that she's with child. She's now in her fourth month, and for those next couple days, even some of the fathers say, you know, Joseph grayed in the temples. It was so much pain for him to not know what this was about. So, these are the two major theories. One is more the theory of Saint Bernard, which is saying Joseph knew it was the Messiah, but he didn't feel himself worthy, and so he sought to divorce quietly, to separate quietly. 
The second is Suarez's, a few others before Suarez, but Suarez, and that's what he calls stupefaction. That is, Joseph didn't know what to do. He knew he was married to the lily of the temple, and he knew Our Lady's virtue. He also couldn't deny the baby, and so the stupefaction went on until the angel came. 
Now, I would just note, and you know, certainly want to hear your opinion on this too, but I strongly support the second Suarez on this, because the angel doesn't come and say, Joseph, don't worry. You are worthy. You can do this. You have the grace to do this, because if worthiness was the issue, then that would have to be the answer of the angel, but instead the angel explains where the baby comes from. It's of the Holy Spirit. So again, the Church allows both positions, but I think the fact that Joseph didn't know what to do, just like oftentimes in our lives, we don't know quite what to do. Had to wait on the Lord, and then Jesus, you know, the angel, if you will, brings that answer. So I favor the stupefaction position of Suarez, based on the angel's response. 
Yes, I've come around to that position. I mean, I'm a great admirer of Francisco Suarez, but the point is, it doesn't negate the possibility, or I think the reality, that Joseph knew Mary was so pure and holy. That's why he's stupefied. How could this happen?
And so he might have felt unworthy already to be in a bond, in a marital bond, with such a pure woman, and now this happens. She's with child. So he's really stupefied, but God comes to the rescue through the angel. So maybe I could read that passage.
And it begins this way, and she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit, and her husband Joseph, being a just man, dikaios is the Greek, upright, just, and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. All this took place. Well, we'll get to that. 
Well, and again, I'm glad that you read it for this emphasis as well. You know, Jewish law had two options for Joseph. One is to have Mary stoned to death, because in marriage part one, betrothal, that's before they come to live together, and therefore that would imply infidelity. And so Joseph could have her stoned to death, or two, if he separates quietly, Joseph incurs upon himself some of the, quote, guilt for the presumed illegitimate child, which of course is not the case. But I just want to point out that scripture calls Joseph the just man in the moment of his greatest test, his greatest labor, and that is to say because Joseph chose to not have Mary stoned to death. He chose to suffer with Mary, even though he knew, of course, the child was not his. So it's not, I mean, there's many times Joseph could be called, as you say, just holy, righteous, but it's revealed right when he chooses to suffer with Our Lady, rather than have his own self justified and have Mary stoned to death, which of course was permissible in Jewish law. 
Yes, exactly, and later on in the tradition, as the tradition grew, the holiness and the importance of Joseph, especially in the late Middle Ages, started to impress itself upon many of the faithful, you know, and you have Jean Gerson later, Teresa of Avila, Saint Francis de Sales, and Francisco Suarez, they all saw how the importance of Joseph, that really he has a role to play in what Suarez calls the order of the hypostatic union, because in a way, he would have had to receive abundant graces because of such an important role to play to be the guardian of the Redeemer, and the guardian and witness of Mary's holiness and virginity. 
That's right, and that's straight up Saint Thomas. We get grace according to our vocation, and we're going to talk about this more as we enter the arrival of the Magi. This is, you know, Matthew 2:11, and then the flight of the Holy Family, that through this effort, through these events, through these, you know, critically important things that have to happen for the safety of the Holy Family, God the Father sends the angel to Joseph. Now, so for example, at the arrival of the Magi, and there's always this expression, the child with Mary, his mother, the angel says. He doesn't say to Joseph, your child and your wife, and so there's an implicit virginity even there, Robert, that, you know, the child with Mary, his mother, and then the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt.
Take the child and his mother and flee into Egypt. Then the return, again, Joseph is instructed to rise, take the child with his mother, so three times it's the child with his mother, but it also bespeaks the sanctity of Joseph. 
Now, it's very clear that in the hierarchy of sanctity, Joseph comes in third out of a race of three. You've got Jesus, the Word made flesh, and then you have the Immaculate Conception, and then you have Joseph, but God honors the, to use the expression classically, the headship of Joseph. Joseph is head of the Holy Family, and I think of fathers, husbands and fathers say, yeah, but, you know, my wife's holier than I am, and so I let her do the spiritual stuff. It's not a question of holiness. It's a question of vocation. Wives may well be holier than many husbands, but that's not the issue, because obviously Jesus and Mary were holier than Joseph, so it's God the Father's confirmation of St. Joseph's role as head of the Holy Family, and that has, you know, important ramifications for families today as well. 
Exactly, exactly. He's like the shadow of God the Father, and there's the heavenly Trinity, and then there's the earthly trinity, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph in that order, but I, you know, some later on in the middle, late Middle Ages, Father Jean Gerson and Bernardine Busti thought that Joseph was actually purified of original sin in his mother's womb, like John the Baptist was, and St. Alphonsus Liguori believed this, so it's not Church teaching. It's not doctrine, but it certainly may be held. 
Yeah, and there's a, I think there's a very much appropriateness to it, and, you know, people sometimes look awry at the argument of fittingness. Fittingness is more than just, you know, it fits nicely. It means it's appropriate with the whole providential order of things, and if John is sanctified in the womb, which, you know, he was, so certainly Joseph, who has yet a higher call than John, would receive those graces, and again, the mystical tradition confirms what the authors you mentioned for the Middle Ages, that Joseph was sanctified in the womb. Even one source says, you know, a moment after conception, so just to be clear for our listeners and viewers, we're not saying Joseph's immaculately conceived. We're saying that in virtue of his vocation, he would have received the graces necessary, and in a hierarchy, if it's given to John, it would most certainly given to Joseph, who is, as Suarez would say, second only to Our Lady in terms of relation to the hypostatic order. 
Suarez says Mary has an intrinsic relation to the hypostatic order, so we'll think Joseph is the first with an extrinsic relation to the hypostatic order, the most proximate, and that's why when you say the shadow of God the Father, I think you can very much maintain and defend that no other human being more resembles, especially in the paternity of God the Father. Now, in terms of sanctity, obviously it's Our Lady, but not in terms of paternity. So, if you want the clearest icon of all creatures of God the Father, it's Saint Joseph. I mean, that's a staggering truth. 
Exactly, and you know, we have the word dulia, you know, veneration or honor, so the tradition says Mary, among all creatures, is worthy of hyperdulia, the highest veneration you could give to a creature, but then there's a tradition saying after Mary, Joseph deserves proto-dulia, the first veneration or honor after Mary, and of course Pope Pius XII made it clear in his encyclical Fulgens Corona that Mary's privilege of being immaculately conceived in her mother's womb is unique. There's no one else who had that, but we could piously believe that Joseph was purified, like Saint John the Baptist, purified of original sin in light of the great munis, or office, or responsibility he was to take. He had to receive graces, as Saint Thomas notes, commensurate or proportionate to his high calling.
Yeah, that's right, and so when when Pius IX, blessed Pius IX, declares Saint Joseph the Patron of the Universal Church , that means he has a role beyond any other individual saint after Our Lady, and as much as we love the little flower in Saint Maximilian and Padre Pio, and we should, Saint Joseph has a primacy. That's what protodulia means, first among dulia. We'll talk about, you know, we'll treat Saint Thomas in a following program about his treatments of latria, dulia, and hyperdulia, because they're very important, because sometimes Protestant Christians or others think that Catholics give Mary an adoration that's true only to God. Well, Catholics clearly don't, and this was clear in Thomas's writing back in the 13th century. So, but at the same time, Joseph has this primacy, and, you know, it is developed in the Middle Ages, and, you know, we're talking a little bit about Saint Joseph, but I'm not gonna apologize for that, because this is the spouse of the mother, and this is someone we need to know, you know, as we need to know Our Lady as well, but, you know, Augustine says beautiful things about Joseph, as does Saint Thomas, when Augustine says that Joseph is the virgin father of Jesus, and that he has a moral paternity, and this is very important, because it's a mutual presentation and preparation for the Word, that Joseph's paternity was also part of that in the writings of Augustine, and then Thomas picks it up and goes even further with the moral dimension of Joseph's authentic, although non-biological, fatherhood. 
Yes, no, exactly, and this is such a strong tradition. Saint Jerome also held that Joseph was a virgin, and, you know, as our friend Father Elias, Mary, a Franciscan of the Immaculate, once said, well, you know, who would God choose to be the foster father of his son, and also the, you know, the companion and the husband of Mary? He would choose someone of high holiness and purity, because he's going to be living with, you know, the blessed is she among women, so I do believe that, and Saint Paul VI actually approved a prayer, or he once referred to the virginal marriage of Joseph and Mary, so he himself believed it, and we have the testimony of many, Saint Francis de Sales and so many others held that he was this. 
What happened is there's this apocryphal gospel, the proto-gospel of James, that has Joseph come as an elderly widower with children. This was a way to try to explain the brothers and sisters of our Lord, but we know we don't have to do that, because she is a virgin, ever virgin, that's the dogma of the Church, but this remained even an artwork that Joseph was often painted as an old man, and then it started to change around the 16th century. 
Right, well, you know, it was picked up by Saint John Chrysostom, and, you know, such a prominent voice of the East, but, you know, he defended this idea of Joseph having a previous marriage, and that, you know, in that way explaining the brothers of the Lord, and then also the age, but in both of those, Robert, what you're doing is you're replacing Joseph's virtue with secondary circumstance, which didn't happen.
There's no evidence of Joseph having a previous marriage. In fact, there's a small, a strong tradition that Joseph was virginal, and that's why oftentimes he's depicted by the lily. Sometimes it's the lot that blossoms, but other times it's the lily, and then secondly, it's not age, but it's virtue that respects the virginity of Our Lady. So those are two, I think, unfortunate, apocryphal things that have entered some of the fathers, but they've never been accepted by the Church , and of course the stronger tradition is that Joseph was virginal, and Joseph obviously didn't have previous children, and that he was not ancient of days. One apocryphal writing has him as 180, another has him as 120, and now you don't need age to respect Joseph's virtue in protecting the Virgin of Nazareth. 
That's right, that's right, and Suarez even says, well, if he was so old, you know, how was he a model of chastity, you know, it was such an old man, and, you know, who might have been previously married. No, he's a great model of chastity, he's a great model for men, you know, to pray. If you know of people who have trouble with the sixth and ninth commandments, pray to Saint Joseph. He'll come to the aid of men, especially, and so for young men, too. 
Also, he goes to Egypt, the flight to Egypt, and people had to believe that he was the real father, you know, because Mary's virginity was kept quiet, and so people had to believe he was the real father. If he was some old, you know, octogenarian, people would be skeptical. 
Yeah, that would be the grandfather of Jesus, but they wouldn't think of him as the father. It's another thing that Thomas says, even Joseph's presence obscures Satan's searching of the world for the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, for the virgin with child. Well, Joseph's presence does not lend itself to seeing Mary as the fulfillment of that. That wasn't to be revealed until God wanted it revealed, and so Joseph even protects in that dimension.
And as you say, the great Therese of Avila saying she never asked Saint Joseph for something that she did not receive, even the challenge of Saint Teresa saying, you know, if you've not yet experienced the intercession of Saint Joseph, go to him with something meaningful and watch the power. So I like, I mean, it's kind of a deduction from Augustine's mystical body, but what Saint Joseph was to Jesus, Saint Joseph is to every member of his body. That means you and me, that we all need spiritual fathers. We need exactly what Joseph provided for Jesus while he was on earth for our well-being. That's why Pius IX declares him the patron of the universal Church . That's a universal fatherhood that I think we desperately, the Church needs it today, men need it today, families need it today. 
So I think all this is coming forward from the revelation of Joseph, who of course is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Joseph in all these powerful ways. I mean, if you think of all the patriarchs of the Old Testament, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph is greater than all of those, and so that bespeaks his sublime sanctity and why we should receive him in our hearts. 
That's right, and Pope Francis has revealed that he says a special prayer to Saint Joseph every day, and of course Saint John XXIII is to be recognized as the one who said his name should appear in the Roman canon, and it does, and we remember Saint Joseph at every Mass now in the Latin Rite, and maybe it was just this, we've already touched upon this, but all of this was done, you know, the revelation and Joseph's name is told that his name will be Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins, and also Mary was told in the Gospel of Luke his name will be Jesus, and then there's this added prophecy fulfilled in the Gospel of Matthew referring back to Isaiah 7:14, Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel, which means God with us, and when Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him. He took his wife, but he knew her not until she had born a son, and he called his name Jesus. Now, of course, some people say, well, that means he knew her not until, but as Saint Jerome shows, there's so many other uses of until that do not imply at all a loss of virginity. 
Right, both those words, you know, Matthew 1:18 and Matthew 1:25, before they came together and until those both theologically and grammatically simply mean things that have not yet taken place. You know, Micah, the daughter of Saul, had no children till the day of death, second statement, but does that mean she had children after her death?
Yeah, yeah, before and until simply establish what has not yet taken place. It doesn't have a relevance, direct relevance, to what takes place afterwards. That's simply what the words are.
So good, that's excellent. Let us go now, at least begin the Gospel of John, and I want to begin John's Gospel with this, perhaps less appreciated, but a beautiful insight, which was really promulgated anew and afresh by Father de la Potterie, the great biblical scholar, the Belgian scholar from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and this is John 1:13, and the prologue's reference to the means by which we receive Jesus, and with the three negations. So could you start us with that text and a commentary, please, Robert? 
Yes, yes, well, this is the way it's usually translated, but then I'll tell you how Father de la Potterie and others say it really should have been translated, and the early witnesses testified to this, but it said, and he came to his own, and his own people received him not, but to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. So the ones who are born not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, are, it's plural in this, that it's us, those who are, you know, members of the faithful, but Father de la Potterie and others say early testimony shows that it was in the singular, it would have been translated this way, or he, the word, was born not out of human stock, or of blood, or bloods, or of the urge of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God himself.
So that it's referring to his birth, that he's born without the flow of blood, miraculously, and without any concupiscence, because it's a virginal conception, and so it refers to him, and I have Father de la Potterie's book here, and this is what he gives, this is another way, he is born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but he was begotten of God, and then he points out that the earliest citations of this by Church fathers, very early Church fathers, all had the singular, that is referring to Jesus's holy birth, his birth is holy, and miraculous, and so he mentions Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and also in Alexandria, in Egypt, so in other words, this was spread around, you have Tertullian in northern Africa, Justin in Palestine, and Hippolytus in Rome, so it was in France, yeah, and so it was widespread, and we do know the rector, president rector of the Marianum, Father Denis Kulandaisamy, who was originally from India, and he's a Servite, a servant of Mary, he did his doctoral thesis on this subject, and he provided a list of scholars who became convinced of the singular interpretation, and some of them are kind of surprising, because they weren't even orthodox, I mean, they weren't sound, but Alfred Loisy, who was excommunicated, believe this, the Protestant exegete Adolf von Harnack, who certainly we would not find reliable on so many things, but then these are names we would remember, Karl Rahner, Jean Gallo, Ignace de la Potterie, you know, as we said, Ariste Serra, you know, taught at the Marianum for many, many years, Salvatore Carrella became convinced in 1994, and then Joseph Ratzinger, 1995, came around, Stefano de Fiores, 2006, so quite an array of scholars came to be convinced that this was the original text. 
Right, and, you know, and the bearing for us here is that, you know, in a certain sense, you know, how can you say that, you know, certainly in an extended remote analogy, those negations can be true of Christians, but in reality, we were born of blood, you know, bloodless in a spiritual sense, you could say, but these refer, I mean, the fact that this is referring to Jesus, and, you know, when you've got Irenaeus and the doctors of the Church, and these fathers all the way up through the middle of the third century, you have to say, well, there's a little bit of a whoops translation that happens after that, but, you know, these are the apostolic fathers, and what does it speak about Our Lady? It's saying that this text does have an implicit reference to the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, which is Virginitas in partu, and also, you know, the dimension of Mary having a Holy Spirit pneumatological conception in ways that we simply don't.
So it all makes perfect sense, but it was really De la Potterie in a major way that brings this to the foreground. It's also nice when a guy named Joseph Ratzinger confirms it as a future holy father. So anything more on that, Robert, that you wanted to share? If not, we'll move on to Cana.
Yeah, well, I think I would just stress the whole mystery of her giving birth and remaining a virgin, and I mean, when we talk about the dogma of the threefold virginity, we'll get into this more, but nothing's impossible for God. If a virgin can conceive, a virgin can give birth.
Right, and in fact, if you want one woman to be perfect mother and perfect virgin, you not only have to tolerate exceptions, you have to expect exceptions, because otherwise it cannot be. And so this is a conatural dimension, let alone a supernatural dimension of what takes place.
Well, let's go to Cana, because Cana is so remarkably rich, and if we can focus specifically on John 2:4 and John 2:5, but perhaps you can read to us the foundational text, of course, starting in John 2, verses 1 and following up through 10. Yes, yes, well, it's a very powerful passage. On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 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, oh 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.
Now six stone jars were standing there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding 20 or 30 gallons. Jesus said to them, fill the jars with water, and they filled them up to the brim.
He said to them, now draw some out and take it to the store to the feast. They took it.
When the store of the feast tasted the water, now become wine, and did not know where it came from, though his servants who had drawn the water knew, the store to the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, every man serves the good wine first, and then when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now. This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.
So let us, because again, it's so rich and massive here, and we only have a few minutes left, but let's focus, if we can, on John 2:4. Mary says they have no wine. And again, as St. John Paul II says, that's really an existential statement. They have no wine, but it's almost saying they have no salvation. They need more. So the wine is always symbolic, eventually, of the blood that Jesus is going to offer for us at Calvary. But then I think this is one of the most mistranslated passages in the entire New Testament, and I always wonder why, because the Greek and the Latin are identical. When Jesus says to Mary, what to me and to you? So, quid mihi et tibi in the Latin, or amoi kai soi in the Greek.  But it's, what is this to us, to me and to you? These other translations kind of give the idea, why does your concern affect me? It's almost like Mary's pestering him with something of hers that doesn't, I don't know how they get that. Because again, the Greek and the Latin are so painfully clear. What to me and to you? And it starts with woman, mulier, right? Gynai, in the Greek, woman. So that identifies Mary with the woman of Genesis. Exactly. What, so that's a New Eve reference. Woman, what to me and to you, in virtue of our mission. 
And Sheen has a beautiful passage on this. I'll just summarize by saying, Jesus is essentially saying to Mary, look, if I do this, we are now on the fast road from Cana to Calvary. You know where this is going to go. And I find it remarkable, Robert, the holy boldness of Our Lady. That after, in the best possible sense, that after Jesus says, what to me and to you, and dare I say, even some of the mystical tradition has Jesus with a half smile as he's saying this. Far from a rebuke. That Mary turns away and then says her final words of scripture, do whatever he tells you. So she clearly mediates, and this has to be of the Holy Spirit. Can you imagine the humble handmaid on her own deciding when it was time for Jesus to start a public ministry? This is of the spirit that Mary takes this call and has the boldness to bring Jesus into the path of Cana. 
So this has Co-redemptrix all over it. He's bringing him to Calvary. Co-redemption and also mediation. You know, the St. John Paul II in Redemptoris Mater says that at Cana in Galilee, there are shown only one concrete aspect of human need, apparently a small one of little importance. they have no wine, but it has a symbolic value. This coming to the aid of human needs means at the same time bringing those needs within the radius of Christ's messianic mission and salvific power. Thus there is a mediation. Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs, and sufferings. She puts herself in the middle. That is to say she acts as a Mediatrix, not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. This is mediation. She mediates between the needs of humanity and the power of her Son. 
Yeah, she is the mediatrix or the mediator. I have to say as a brief comment, Robert, there was a document by the U.S. Catholic bishops, I think it was in 1968, Behold Your Mother, and in there, written by a Mariologist, we don't have to bring up his name because I don't think this is a positive light, but he basically says Mary never puts herself in between Jesus and us. Well, John Paul II says the opposite, which is the term mesitis in Greek literally means a go-between, but it's not a physical mediation. See, with physical mediation, if you get, you know, you got two tables and you want to get a table, but you have to pull them apart. It's the opposite in spiritual mediation.
It's a unifying, and that's what the mother does by, and she doesn't put herself in between, God has put her in between Jesus and humanity. And so she's mediating as the New Eve with the New Adam, and it has everything to do with Calvary. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Simeon. It's all about the mother's role in mediation as the New Eve Co-redemptrix with the New Adam, divine Redeemer. 
And you know Vatican II speaks about that indissoluble bond between Jesus and Mary, and you know, St. Louis de Montfort says it beautifully, you are, O Lord, always with Mary, and Mary is always with you. So really when, you know, there is that ti emoi kai soi, gynai, you know, what of you to me, because they both share the same mission. And so it also shows Mary's intuition and union with Christ, and also her incredible intercessory power.
If she can intercede to bring about a miracle through the power of her son, this is why she's called, she has suppliant omnipotence as the Queen Mother, as Popes have, Benedict XV and John Paul II have affirmed. She has this omnipotence of intercession.
And yes, so clearly. Again, I think of, I think of Fulton Sheen's clip about how Marriott Fatima uses the sun as if it were a trinket on her wrist to, you know, come down to show that she has power over the source of atomic energy, so that later she can also intercede to prevent man from destroying himself through the same type of atomic energy. And that's her role now. 
We talk about things like Akita, which we'll talk about at the very end of the class, of our master class here, a very strong prophecy about, you know, a new flood, fire falling down from the sky, taking out a great part of humanity. Well, that's the power of the woman. And that's why the woman of Genesis is connected with the woman of Cana, because this mission is now taking its next step. And that's connected to the woman of Calvary, because that's where it's going to reach its high point, as we'll talk about in our next program. And that's where we're going to have the woman of Revelation, where the whole world is going to know she's crowned with the 12 stars, because she's the woman clothed with the sun. And that's why St. Paul talks about her in Galatians 4, as God chose this woman to be central in the mission of redemption, because God becomes man through this woman. So it's this whole powerful theme of redemption that God wanted a woman involved. And it's so clearly shown at Cana, again, with this, what to me and to you? What is this to us? But Mary's intercession makes it the right time. Our lady doesn't do anything out of time. She said, my hour has not yet come. Well, it has now come because of Mary's faith. Mary's faith has made the time right for Jesus to enter his public ministry. When people don't see the role of the mother in this, it's hard to understand, because it's so existentially massive in the plan of redemption.
You know, I think of one of the messages given at Pontmain in France in 1871.
It was like a banner up in the sky, and they read it. My Son allows himself to be touched or moved. And so, Mon Fils se laisse toucher. He allows himself to be touched or moved. So who could move him more than his mother? 
That's exactly it, which is very first cousin to what she says at La Salette, which is, I'm holding back the hand of my son in justice. And some people don't like that. So that sounds like, you know, mean Jesus and nice Mary. No, she's doing that because she's not God. She doesn't have justice. She doesn't judge. But she is the mother of mercy, and it pleases Jesus that she's holding back his hand in justice by her prayers and by our prayers.
That gets the whole, again, we'll talk about at the end of the course, on Fatima and reparation, and the fact that our prayers really console the heart of God, and they also console Our Lady's heart, which is wounded at every moment by the sins and sacrifices of humanity, of which today it's rather ubiquitous. 
That's right. That's right. I mean, that's it. That's why Saint Pius X, in his great encyclical, Ad diem illum in 1904, spoke about the woman in Revelation wailing in pain. We'll talk about this. But he said, what pain is this? And he said, it's the birth pangs Mary feels in heaven, seeing so many of the children, spiritual children, her children, and those of her son lost to sin. So she's praying and interceding with compassion, feeling in her heart, birth pangs for the growth of the Church, even from heaven as our great mother. 
And for those who say, well, you can't have the beatific vision and experience suffering at the same time, we know that's not the case because of Jesus on the cross. That's right. It's theologically possible, but I think these are explained by the role of Jesus as head of the body, and the role of Our Lady as mother of the body, with a special, quote, privilege to suffer with her body. What kind of mother would it be if she sees her children in pain and suffering, but she's indifferent, she's cold-hearted? So as it's said of Jesus, his suffering will continue to the end of time. So too with Ratzinger, quoting Pascal, so too is that true of Our Lady because of her role as mother. You can't have that role without participating in the suffering, which again, at the end of time, that will be free for them. But until that time, they suffer with us. 
Well, Robert, that is fantastic. I'm so grateful for your constant inclusion of great texts and insights. Any final words you want to say about Cana that you think is of need and expounding? 
I think there's deep spiritual meaning behind it, that this takes place at a marriage, you know, in the midst of a marriage. Well, really, the human race begins with the union of the marriage of Adam and Eve, and then they're married, but they fall. But here's the New Adam and the New Eve in the midst of a wedding, and it's really a type of, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, a spiritual union between God and the human race, but through the mediation of the mother. 
That's beautiful. Well, thank you, Robert, and thank you all for listening. We will continue in our next segment with Mary, Our Lady in the New Testament, Part 3, where we will talk about John 19, Our Lady at the foot of the cross, the reality of Pentecost, Acts 1:14, and then moving on to Galatians 4:4, and then concluding with Revelations 12:1. So thanks be to God. There's so much richness of Our Lady in Scripture, and once again, thanks for joining us with a Masterclass in Mariology. God bless you all.