Newsletter #46 – Our Lady of Mount Carmel USA

Dear Friends and Benefactors, 01/27/2021

“The Mother of Jesus saith to Him: They have no wine.” (John 2:3).
Saint John is the only one of the Evangelists who narrates, with great detail, the circumstances that occurred at the marriage feast at Cana of Galilee. As Father Leen explains “In The Likeness of Christ”, Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist notes apparently trivial circumstances, as, for example, the procedure of the waiters, the number of water pots, their capacity and finally the remarks made on the quality of the wine by the master of the feast. To Saint John, writing in his old age and looking back over the long series of years that had passed, and analyzing the gradual development of the Church, the happenings at this marriage, an ordinary event in the social life of the Jews, had a significance that escaped the minds of the other inspired historians of the life of the Savior. For them, probably, the miracle at the marriage was but one miracle among many others less striking than most, perhaps, and certainly not containing any elements that would invest it with a special importance. This is not surprising. Those who live close to historical events cannot see them in their true perspective nor can they mark their bearing on other happenings which with them constitute an important cycle in the history of mankind. Saint John was much better circumstanced than the others, to see the great importance that this miracle, of the changing of the water into wine, had as revealing and stressing a factor of the highest significance in the economy of the Redemption of mankind. The chosen disciple had lived for many years after the crucifixion with the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus: he had seen the influence she exercised on the growth of the Church and in the distribution of graces that contributed to that growth. In the light of this experience he saw and understood the meaning of the combination of circumstances that attended the miracle at Cana. He saw why it was not wrought by Our Lord Jesus Christ through a sentiment of pity for a suffering revealed to Him by the sufferers themselves, as in all other cases. Of all the miracles in the Gospel, this is the only one in which the Blessed Virgin Mary intervenes. Saint John grasped the full import of this intervention. He saw why it was pre-ordained that this intervention should take place. It shed light for him on the whole economy of the Redemption. In that light stood revealed to his spiritual wisdom the place of Our Lady in that scheme of divine mercy. The mode of the miracle manifested clearly to him the active part to the lot of “The Woman” in the working out of the salvation of mankind. In the fact that Mary had with Christ her definite part to play in the accomplishment of the marvelous change of water into wine, Saint John traced the working out of the primeval prophecy which linked forever and inseparably “The Woman” with her seed in the work of the restoration of mankind. “And the Lord God said to the serpent: I will place enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” (Genesis 3:15). It was the Blessed Virgin Mary’s word – the word of “The Woman” – that was, for the first time, unloosed the divine power of which Satan was presently to feel the effects and the manifestations of which would be the first indication to him of the approaching collapse of his empire. Understanding clearly in light of subsequent events and in virtue of his prophetic insight, that the peculiar significance of the miracle at Cana lay in its being not only a showing forth of the divine power of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but also in its revelation of the role of Immaculate Mary as co-operating in the work of her Son, Saint John dwells on it in a very expressive manner. Having completed his narrative of the events that transpired at the feast, he underlines the fact that no (public) miracle had, in the life of the Savior, preceded this one of the changing of water into wine. “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested His glory.” (John 2:11). Having occasion, somewhat later on, in his narrative to make mention of Cana, his mind again reverts to the miracle that took place at the marriage feast. “He came again therefore into Cana of Galilee, where He made the water wine.” (John 4:46).
In itself, as a work of power, this miracle at Cana is not to be compared with other wonders related by Saint John the Evangelist, as for instance, the raising of Lazarus from the tomb; yet it is clear that it was, for Saint John, one marked with characteristics that singled it out and gave it a place apart from all the others. In the light of ancient prophecy and in the experience of the actual fulfilment of these prophecies in the gradual development of the Church, Saint John understood that the wonder wrought at Cana was invested with a special supernatural significance belonging to none of the other miracles. These were done to prove the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, or to show that the seal of the divine approval was set on His teaching: the incident at Cana over and above this purpose had that of revealing the essential part that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, plays in the economy of the Redemption, and the providential place that she occupies in the life of the Church.
It is remarkable that whilst, on the whole, the life and actions of the Blessed Virgin Mary are left in profound obscurity by the sacred writers, this obscurity is not unbroken by flashes of light. She is, at times, given prominence by the Evangelists and invariably at what may be called the pivotal moments in the life of the Savior. What is more, when she does appear, it is always with full light thrown on her, the other persons in these scenes (except, of course, her Divine Child) standing in comparative shadow. On each occasion, she is the central figure. The attention of the reader is necessarily fixed on her. She dominates the situation. Even in the presence of the great Archangel Saint Gabriel, during the whole of that momentous dialogue on which turned the destinies of mankind, the eyes, as it were, are fixed and the attention of all ages focused on the face of the Blessed Virgin. It is clearly understood that it is her word that will determine the denouement or final outcome of this most dramatic situation in the history of mankind since the Fall. The brilliant Archangel, as a dignified but yet obsequious messenger, moves on the outward rim of that strong circle of light in which is thrown into powerful relief the figure of the maiden of Nazareth. One has but to contrast this scene with all others in Sacred Scripture in which angels appear to men. The difference is striking and obvious. No matter how great and holy be the human being who is favored with the presence of the heavenly visitant, it is the person of God’s messenger that dominates the situation.
When the hour of the Nativity comes, it is Our Lady, who, unaided by any human helpers, gives the Savior to mankind and who on mankind’s behalf offers the immediate ministrations that the helpless Infant needs. Saint Joseph is there: he is master of the household, but still he remains in the dim and shadowy background. “And it came to pass when they were there, her days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her first-born Son, and wrapped Him up in swaddling clothes and laid Him in a manger.” (Luke 2:6-7). When the shepherds came in haste to see “Christ the Lord,” Whose Birth had been announced to them, it is not stated simply that they found the Child, but that “they found Mary and Joseph and the Infant lying in the manger.” And lest this might be thought to be a characteristic of Saint Luke and due to the special devotedness to the Virgin, which tradition attributes to him, there is the same note in the narrative of Saint Matthew. Narrating the arrival of the Three Kings, he says: “And entering the house, they found the Child with Mary His Mother. And falling down they adored Him.” (Matthew 2:11). It is as if the Evangelists were inspired to represent the Virgin in the attitude of holding forth and presenting the Savior to the whole Gentile world, present in the persons of these Three Wise Men. There is no mention of the foster-father of Jesus in the scene. And yet immediately afterwards when there is question of protecting the life of the Child and saving Him from a pressing danger, it is Saint Joseph to whom the angel appears, and it is Saint Joseph who is the chief person in the tragic flight into Egypt. “And after they were departed, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: Arise, and take the Child and His Mother, and fly into Egypt: and be there until I shall tell thee. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the Child to destroy Him. Who arose, and took the Child and His Mother by night, and retired into Egypt: and he was there until the death of Herod: … But when Herod was dead, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph in Egypt, saying: Arise, and take the Child and His Mother, and go into the land of Israel. For they are dead that sought the life of the Child. Who arose, and took the Child and His Mother, and came into the land of Israel. But hearing that Archelaus reigned in Judea in the room of Herod his father, he was afraid to go thither: and being warned in sleep retired into the quarters of Galilee. And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew 2:13-23). It is interesting to observe how naturally the person of the foster-father of Jesus assumes, in vigorous and decisive actions, the chief role throughout the whole of this episode. When it is a question of preserving Jesus for His life-work, it is Saint Joseph who holds the principal place, but when it is a question of that life-work itself, then it is that the Blessed Virgin Mary steps into prominence. That she is necessarily involved in, and has a definite part to fulfil in the work of breaking the power of Satan and redeeming mankind, is unmistakably stressed in the totally unexpected sequel to the Presentation in the Temple, after the forty days of the Purification had passed by. These six weeks of bliss were for Mary a pathetic preparation for what awaited her when Joseph and herself had carried out the requirements of the Mosaic Law in regard to the Child. The devout Simeon, filled with the prophetic spirit, took the Infant in his arms and said to Mary His Mother: “Behold this Child is set for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel and for a sign which shall be contradicted; and thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.” (Luke 2:34-35). It is not possible to read these words without being filled with pity for the young Mother, who was thus tragically enlightened as to the future that awaited the Child. Yet there was some comfort – even if a bitter comfort – for the heart of a Mother in the prophet’s words. The fate of the Child was a tragic one: yet He would not be alone in enduring it. It was unmistakably shown that the Mother herself should share the Child’s fate and be caught up in the same tragic destiny. The logical sequence of Simeon’s phrases clearly reveals that an indissoluble link bound Mary and Jesus together in the great struggle which was to issue in the undoing of the primeval curse. “Behold this Child is set for a sign which shall be contradicted … and thy own soul a sword shall pierce.” The great contradiction was to envelop both. The Passion of the Child was to have, as its counterpart, the compassion of the Mother. Here again Mary is central and the tragic figure. The light is turned full on her. There is not a word addressed to Saint Joseph nor is there any mention of his name. He had no part to play in the great drama which the prophecy dimly and in outline foreshadowed. Again, when the days of childhood had passed and Jesus, for reasons that are for us inscrutable, but which certainly had a bearing on His Messianic mission, withdrew Himself from His parents for three days, it is Mary, not Joseph, who addresses Him a loving remonstrance after their agonizing search had ended by finding the Boy in the Temple conversing with the doctors of the law. “And seeing Him, they wondered. And His Mother said to Him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing.” (Luke 2:48). The reply and the actions of Jesus were enigmatic for both His parents. The actions appeared to contradict the words. “And He said to them: How is it that you sought Me? Did you not know, that I must be about My Father’s business?” (Luke 2:49). By logical implication, these words would seem to signify an intention on the part of Jesus to persevere in some course on which He had embarked and a denial of the right of His parents to seek Him out and withhold Him from it. On the other hand, He assents to Mary’s implied request that He should return with herself and Saint Joseph to the shelter of their home in Nazareth. He seems to oppose and yet to comply with her desires. “And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them.” (Luke 2:51). Our Lady, not being given at this moment insight into the meaning of this mysterious occurrence, turned it over constantly, in all its details, in her mind, striving to probe its depths. “And His Mother kept all these words in her heart.” (Luke 2:52). Did the light dawn on her eighteen years later when there took place another event which constituted a close parallel to this one of the Three Days’ Loss and its sequel? Did she understand that, as it was in the plan of Divine Providence that her prayer should inaugurate the public life of her Divine Son, so also was it decided that her gentle pleading should close the door on that mysterious hidden life that was to be the divinely ordained preparation for the Three Years’ Ministry? It was at the prayer of “The Woman” that were disposed the different parts of the scheme by which the Redemption was to be worked out, as it was by the words and actions of “another woman” that was determined the course of events that precipitated the downfall of mankind. The incident at Cana is but an instance of the prevalent antithesis between Mary and Eve. Mary’s “Fiat”, at the Annunciation, gave Jesus to men: her gentle complaint secured the long years of seclusion and preparation for combat: her request at Cana inaugurates the life of conflict: and finally, on Calvary the redemptive sacrifice was not accomplished until she had signified her acceptance of that sacrifice and surrendered her Child to death on behalf of mankind.
It is worthy of note that it was not, apparently, on His own account but on account of His Mother that Jesus was present at the wedding festivities at Cana. It is most likely, that were her presence not looked for by the bridal couple, He would not have been there. It was to Mary that the invitation had been issued in the first instance. “And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the Mother of Jesus was there.” Most probably she was asked to the feast because of some relationship between her and the wedded pair, and because her practical help and advice would be needed in the arrangements to be made for the festivities. A woman of her years, experience and capacity would be of invaluable assistance on an occasion of the kind. After having mentioned that the Mother of Jesus was present, Saint John continues, saying: “And Jesus also was invited and His disciples, to the marriage.” The logical sequence shows that the disciples were bidden to the feast, out of compliment to their Master, and the Master Himself, out of compliment to His Mother. Mary is the door by which the Savior enters on His public career. As the feasting progressed it began to appear that, as often happens in households when unusual numbers are gathered together, a miscalculation had been made. The supplies provided for the guests began to run short. Mary, who, most probably, had had a hand in the preparations and arrangements, was the first to perceive the menace of an awkward and, for the young spouses, a humiliating situation. Her woman’s sympathy and solicitude were aroused. How was the danger, she asked herself, to be averted?
We who read the narrative in the light of subsequent events, and are influenced by the knowledge thereby acquired, take it as being a very normal and natural thing that Mary should, in her difficulty, turn to her Son and ask for a miracle. The occasion seems to us to call for this. And yet a little reflection suffices to show that her action was a complete departure from what had been the customary in her relations with Jesus. For thirty years she had lived with her Son and, during all that time, nothing but everyday human means had been taken to cope with the necessities that arose from time to time. By daily toil, the needs of the household had been supplied. Frequently, at Nazareth, there would be the usual interchange of good offices between neighbors – the customary mutual borrowings and lendings to meet special and transient necessities. In the present crisis, the normal thing for Our Blessed Mother would have been to enlist the services of kindly neighbors to save the situation. Yet she did not do this, but turned to her Son, saying, “They have no wine.”
What moved Our Lady to take this step? Moved by the divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost, she addressed herself to Christ, confident that, somehow – very likely she was not quite clear as to what steps would actually be taken – Jesus would do something to meet the difficulty. She expected that something would happen – she knew not what. All that was definite was her perfect confidence that her anxiety on behalf of her friends would be relieved. Mary, on this occasion, knew perfectly well that Jesus had neither money nor means to command an immediate supply of wine – yet she trusted Him to find a way out of the impasse. She does not ask for a miracle: she simple lays bare a pressing need, and leaves the rest to His discretion. This is an admirable way of praying. One merely exposes the wants of one’s soul before the Lord and having unfolded them before Him, one expectantly and confidently fixes the gaze of the spirit on the divine countenance. The unformed and unphrased petition is more eloquent than the most perfectly framed discourse.
Mary’s touching and mute appeal is met, apparently, with a rebuff. Jesus said to her: “Woman, what is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.” The words are strange and mysterious, but not more mysterious than the ones pronounced eighteen years previously in the Temple. At that time, as is expressly stated by the inspired writer, the words of Christ were not understood by His Mother. Those words gave her food for deep and constant thought. Now, on this occasion, there is no hint given that she failed to grasp the meaning underlying her Son’s rejoinder. On the contrary, everything that ensued demonstrates that she clearly seized what the answer to her unspoken petition involved, how it would be granted and the principle of action behind Jesus’ strange way of assenting to her request.
There is neither harshness nor disrespect in the words of the Savior. “Woman” is a title of honor and reverence and has the same force as that mode of address so frequent in Greek tragedies – “O Gynai”, that is, Lady or Mistress. “What is that to Me and to thee” is an expression that occurs frequently in Sacred Scripture both in the Old and in the New Testament. Some examples are found in Judges 11:12; III Kings 17:18; IV Kings 7:13; Luke 8:28. While having in all cases the same meaning substantially, this meaning is invested with varied “nuances”, according to circumstances, such as the tone of voice of the speaker, the situation which calls forth the remark, the emotion the speaker is suffering from and the rest. Taking the residue of meaning, which is left after abstracting from all these accidental differences, the sense seems to be something like this. He who employs this peculiarly oriental locution wishes to convey to his interlocutor that the grounds on which the latter is basing or intends to base a certain course of action, and which, in his opinion, justify such a course, either do not exist at all or, if they exist, do not justify the action taken or intended to be taken. The person that utters the remonstrance says in effect to the other: “You are doing (or as the case may be, are about to do or have done) an action, and you judge yourself entitled to do so on certain grounds: in actual fact you are wrong in acting as you do, because the grounds do not exist or are not of such a nature as to leave you blameless if you take this course.” The words have, always, a note of remonstrance. But the remonstrance bears on the principle of action primarily, and by way of consequence only on the action itself. Hence, it is that it implies a refusal – though not necessarily. The words ordinarily imply a refusal, because, if the reasons which are thought to exist for taking certain steps do not really exist, then, of course, these steps should not be taken. But if the speaker insinuates that, though the grounds of action erroneously considered to be present are not really present, still there are other grounds discoverable which could justify the action in question, then the words do not intimate a refusal, but the necessity for a change in the principle of action. This is the situation at the feast of Cana. The Blessed Virgin Mary, listening only to the promptings of her tender interest in, and pity for the awkward situation in which her friends are placed, and accustomed to the docility of her Son where her wishes are concerned, approaches Him as she was accustomed to do during the thirty years of the hidden life. Without expressly asking for a miracle, she implicitly does so. For her unspoken request could not be granted without a miracle. Up to that moment, the ‘motive’, that moved Our Lord Jesus Christ in all the actions He did for His Mother, was ‘deference’ to that Mother’s wishes – deference to her, who, as His Mother, had the right to direct and order His doings. However, in the few days since He had emerged from the obscurity of Nazareth, a definite change in their relations had taken place. Obedience to His Mother was the principle of the actions of His home life. Miracles belonged to His public life. In the public life, the controlling and directing influence – postulating obedience on His part – belonged to His Father in Heaven, not to His Mother on earth. A miracle was part of the “being about His Father’s business” and could be wrought only at the time, place, occasion and in the circumstances determined from all eternity by God, His Father. “My hour is not yet come,” He said. Christ meant the hour marked in the eternal decrees. The shortage of wine had become acute. It was the perception of that shortage that moved Our Lady to speak. Our Lord perceived it on the instant it had become apparent to the servants. This knowledge of the acute want does not stir Him to action. The hour of need – that is, the moment when the need was felt – was not the hour of Divine Providence. Some other circumstance distinct from the need, and over and above, was required if Christ was to act. THAT CIRCUMSTANCE WAS THE INTERVENTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. When that intervention had taken place, the hour, decided on from all eternity, had come.
A ray of divine light revealed all this to the Mother of the Savior when His words ceased to sound in her ears. She grasped the change that had taken place. When she had begun to address Him, it had been in the old manner. When His words ended, she knew that her request was not refused but granted in entirely new conditions. She realized that the words of her Son were not to her dishonor, but rather to her exceeding great honor. It flashed on her, in an instant, that, though she could not command a miracle as Mother, the miracle would, nevertheless, be conceded to her as all-powerful intercessor. She understood, in the instant, that the hour, marked in the Divine Decree for the intervention of that all-powerful intercession of hers, had now sounded. It stood revealed to her that the Almighty, in His eternal regard for her, linked indissolubly the inauguration of her Son’s public career with her prayers. As the decree of the Incarnation hung on her Fiat, so the decree of the miracle, that ushered in the life of power of the Incarnate God, was suspended to her words of intercession. The “hour of Jesus” had not come, having regard to the mode in which the Blessed Virgin Mary began her petition – that is, in regard to the ideas of things which were in her mind when she said: “They have no wine” – the hour had come if regard be had to the enlightenment as to her role in the economy of Redemption, that was imparted to her at the words of Christ. The hour had not come (to use a theological formula) “in sensu composito” with the idea which Our Lady had, at the outset, of the part that fell to her to play in saving the situation at the wedding feast: it had come “in sensu composito” with the knowledge that was given her of the part of tremendous import that was actually hers in this incident. Her real part in this miracle was one that her humility had hidden from her until the moment that, with her Son’s words, came the illumination of the Holy Ghost, disclosing the inner meaning of things. It stood revealed to her that the miracle was due to her in her capacity of “Omnipotent Suppliant”, “Mediatrix of All Graces”.
That the Blessed Virgin Mary perfectly understood this time, and was not at a loss, as at the Finding in the Temple, is proven or shown by her prompt and decisive action. It is to be noted that it is not Christ, but Our Lady, who speaks to the servants, in the first instance. She becomes the central figure – always excepting, of course, her Divine Son. She issues commands as being mistress of the situation. She was perfectly instructed by the Holy Ghost as to the fact that her request had been granted, and as to the grounds on which it was granted. She was enlightened, also, as to what should be done preparatory to the working of this great miracle.
This changing of water into wine is the first of that long series of benefits that mankind has obtained from the providence of God through the intervention of the Blessed Virgin Mary. These benefits belong to the natural, as well as to the supernatural order. She has a heart full of sympathy for all the sorrows and miseries that afflict the children of Adam. She is not one who is alive only to ills of a moral and spiritual nature, while remaining insensible to those which are of a purely temporal kind. She is ready to succor men even in their temporal necessities, but in so doing, she aims at making her beneficent actions a means of drawing souls to her Divine Son. Her function is to distribute to men the benefits of the Redemption and thereby secure their happiness. It is for this she labors. It is the part in the work of salvation that has, from all eternity, been assigned to her by God. The Almighty having once determined to give the Redeemer to man by the Immaculate Virgin, the plan of the imparting of the Divine Gifts never undergoes a change. Mankind having obtained, through her, the inexhaustible fountain of all grace, continues to receive, through her intervention, all the different applications of that grace, as well in the temporal realm as in the spiritual. It is impossible to use terms which exaggerate the power of the intercession of Mary on behalf of mankind. She holds the key to the Divine treasury – that treasure that is filled to overflowing with the merits of her Divine Son. To her care is committed the distribution of the contents of the treasury. It is her prayers that unlocks it. Her Son cannot refuse her anything. Her love for man, so far from being diminished by her elevation to Heaven, acquires, on the contrary, a greater perfection. To secure men’s welfare, temporal and spiritual, she will leave nothing untried that lies within the vast limits of the Divine Will concerning the children of Adam. She never hesitates to demand any grace, whatsoever it be, compatible with the known intentions of God. These intentions, as regards to the human race, are fully revealed to her, as being Mother of the Redeemer and called upon with Him to co-operate in the work of Redemption. Her power over the Heart of God always remains a power of intercession. Nevertheless, the Blessed Virgin Mary has in certain sense a right that her intercession should be favorably received. As Bossuet explains in his third sermon on Our Lady’s Nativity: “Because the Incarnate God is Son of Mary, and it is the duty of every son to cherish his mother, what is liberality on His part towards others becomes an obligation as regards the Virgin Mary.” The right, that the Mother of Jesus has to be loved by Him, involves a right to have her prayers heard and her desires fulfilled.
O Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces, pray for us.

AVE MARIA!
Father Joseph Poisson

P.S. If you would like to be added to our subscription list, please reply to the general email below with your phone number, contact information, and what major city you are near as well.
(Ourladyofmtcarmelusa@gmail.com)

Consecration of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel to Immaculate Heart of Mary
http://ourladyofmountcarmelusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Consecration-to-Immaculate-Heart-by-Our-Lady-of-Mt.-Carmel-SSPX-Marian-Corps.pdf

Featured Sermon
Given By His Excellency Bishop Pfeiffer

Posted in Newsletters and tagged Father Joseph Poisson