作者：黄克镳

有关童贞受孕的一些反省：意义与事迹




导言

「童贞玛利亚」可说是信友们对圣母最常用的称呼；宗徒信经中圣母已被称为「童贞玛利亚」(ex Maria Virgine)；从古代开始圣母便被誉为「卒世童贞」(1)。教会有关圣母终身童贞的训导在内容上包括三部份：即圣母童贞受孕(Virginitas ante patum)，耶稣的诞生不损圣母的童贞(Virginitas in parter)，以及耶稣诞生后圣母仍终身保持童贞(Virginitas post partum) (2)。由于篇幅关系，本文只讨论第一点：圣母童贞受孕。

童贞受孕的信理很多世纪以来一直受到信友们的尊奉，圣母童贞受孕常被视为毫无疑问的事实；直至上世纪基督教自由派神学才开始对这信理产生疑难，有些基督教学者把童贞受孕视作一种纯粹的「神学解释」(theologoumenon)，目的是为了表达一些神学意义，与历史事实无关(3)。天主教学者对这问题的公开讨论是在梵二之后，荷兰主教团出版的「新的教理」(一九六六)，论及圣母童贞受孕只给予精神意义的解释，对历史事实略过不提，虽然也不否定(4)。不少国家的神学界都对这问题提出讨论，那些否定童贞受孕历史性的学者，大都以「神学解释」一词去注解这奥迹(5)。但也有不少着名的圣经学者和神学家，却认为「神学意义」与「历史事迹」并非对立；反之，童贞受孕固然有深远的神学意义，但它的意义是来自历史事实的基础(6)。

诚然，以往对于圣母童贞受孕的解释，通常只注重生理的事实，把它视作圣母个人的特恩，目的是为了保存她的完美；又或只把童贞受孕看作一个奇迹，以证明基督的超越性。这些解释往往未能把童贞受孕的深送意义表达出来，原来童贞受孕的首要意义是有关基督本人的，其次是关于救恩的意义，正是在有关基督与救恩的意义范围内，才显示出它对于圣母的意义。为了对一件事物加以重视与欣赏，必须认识它的意义。本文第一部份将从基督救恩与圣母本人三方面去反省童贞受孕的神学意义;但如上文所说，意义与事迹的连系是一个关键性的问题，本文第二部份将从新约有关资料，探讨童贞受孕的历史性。

甲．童贞受孕的神学意义

一．关于基督的意义──基督是天主子

圣母童贞受孕的意义首先是关于基督的，这从宗徒信经中也可看出：「我信其因圣神降孕，生于玛利亚的童身。」童贞受孕原来正是为了显示的天主性，表明祂是天主子的身份。圣经学者认为新约基督论有它渐渐发展的过程，新约中所表达基督是天主子的信仰也可分为几个不同的阶段，以基督的生平来说，这些阶段是从后向前发展的，即复活、受洗、受孕与诞生、以及先存这四个阶段(7)。宗徒们初期的宣讲集中于基督的圣死与复活，以及祂即将来临;在开始时，对于基督为天主子的信仰是与复活的奥迹紧密相连的;是由于复活的奥迹，他们才宣称基督为天主子;宗徒大事录记载保禄在会堂的宣讲，在论及基督的复活时他引用圣咏第二篇：「你是我的儿子，我今日生了你」(咏2：7)(8)。宗徒的宣讲渐渐也包括基督生前的言行，特别是祂的传教事迹。同时，圣史们都相信这位在复活时被显示为天主子的基督，在传教生活中已经是天主子，于是四部福音(若望间接叔述)都记到耶稣受洗的事迹，宣示他们对基督天主子的信仰为当时圣神以鸽子的形象降临在祂身上，并且天父亲自作证说：「你是我的爱子」(谷1：11)(9)。这便是玛尔谷福音的开端，他没有继续往前写下去(10)。玛窦与路加的记载却再往前走一步，也叙述耶稣的诞生与童年事迹，这两位圣史也进一步宣称他们对天主子的信仰，明白宣认耶稣从受孕开始便是天主子，他们认为耶稣与生俱来的天主子的身份，正好在童贞受孕这事迹中显示出来。最后，若望福音虽没有记载耶稣的童年事迹，却给我们揭示了有关天主子奥秘的最后启示：即先存的天主子。基督是圣言降生成人，这圣言从永恒便与天主同在，是父的独生子。除了若望福音外，对于先存天主子的信仰也可以在一些新约书信中找到(11)。

以上简略地介绍了新约有傀天主子信仰发展的四个阶段，现在要详细些看看童贞受孕与天主子信仰的关系。童贞受孕的叙述可以说是玛窦与路加有关耶稣童年记述的中心事件，两位圣史都指称这事迹显示出基督是天主子的身份。在玛窦的记载中，这位因圣神受孕于玛利亚的是「厄玛奴尔：天主与我们同在」(1：23) (12)，「祂要把自己的民族，由他们的罪恶中拯救出来」。路加也清楚指出：「那要诞生的圣者将称为天主的儿子」(1：35)。假如新约作者把圣咏第二篇引用于基督的复活与受洗的奥迹，现在应用在祂的童贞受孕与诞生便更有真实感，对着这位因圣神、天主的德能、受孕于童贞玛利亚胎中的耶稣，天父诚然可以说：「你是我的儿子，我今天生了你」(咏2：7)(13)。

有关天主子信仰发展的前三个阶段(复活、受洗、诞生)，我们看到已经在玛窦与路加两部福音中和谐地配合起来;但有些学者指出新约没有把童贞受孕与天主子先存的讯息联合起来;神

学家潘宁博(W.pannenberg)更认为这两个讯息根本格格不入，互相排斥(14);可是，即使新约作者并未把两个奥迹连在一起，第二世纪的教父，如安提约的依纳爵，即已把它们合并起来，永恒的天主圣言因圣神降生于童贞玛利亚(15)。可是这两个奥迹可以天衣无缝地联合在一起。

从玛窦与路加的记述告诉我们，耶稣因圣神受孕一事正好表示祂是天主子;现在我们要作一神学反省，看看天主圣子降生成人的奥迹，是否必须透过童贞受孕的方式实现;换言之，天主圣子既以天主为父，假如祂要降生成人，是否根本不可能有一位世上的父亲?有关这问题，神学家的意见不一，有些认为天主子降生成人的奥迹与童贞受孕有必然的关连。巴达沙(H.U.vor Balthasar),认为基督既是天父的儿子，祂不可能出生于一位人世的父亲;否则，祂对天父那种绝对服属的关系将会产生困难(16)。贾洛(J.Galot)也指称天主子降生成人，应在降生的奥迹中即启示祂主子的身份;因各种受孕，生于童贞圣母，正是基督身为天主子的标记，使祂作天主子的事实在历史及血肉中显示出来;祂既是天主的儿子，降生时也该直接生于天主(17)。另有些神学家，其中也包括赖辛格(J.Ratzinger)，却认为这两个奥迹的关连不是绝对的。赖辛格认为天主子的身份是形而上的事实，在降生时，即使基督生自人世的父亲也不能影响祂天主子的地位(18)；虽然如此，赖枢机仍肯定两者之间有一种极深入，甚至彼此不可分离的适宜性(19)。以上的问题可说只是一个理论性的问题，事实上在救恩史中，天主的确选定了圣子因圣神受孕以降生成人的方式，即使这不是必然的途径，至少显出是天主上智安排中最适当的途径。

有关圣三的神学告诉我们，父是一切的根源，子的基本意义是接受者，祂从父那里接受祂的存在、生命与一切，又本能地怀着感恩与孝爱之情，整个地归向天父;天主子降生成人，除了要把人类提升到子的地位外，同时也要将圣三内父子间极密切的关系启示给我们;圣子愿意藉着降生的奥迹，将祂在永恒中与父的密切关系，以人的方式在历史中生活出来，使我们能看见、能体会并参与祂和父的密切关系。

若望福音序言的最后一节正好和序言第一节前后呼应，序言开端说：「在起初已有圣言，圣言向着天主」(1：1);序言最后一节论及降生成人的基督时说：「从来没有人见过天主，只有那向着父怀的独生者，身为天主的，他给我们详述了」(1：18)。正如天主子永恒投向天父，祂在世生活时也不停的归向天父;因此祂不但以言语，更以整个的存在和全部的生活将有关圣三的奥秘给我们详述了(20)。其实四部福音所介绍的基督，其最显着最深刻的特点可说是祂对父绝对的归属;祂深深意识到自己整个由父而来，又要回到父里去(21);祂以极亲切的 「阿爸」(abba)称呼天父，这是犹太教中创新的称呼(22)。这种对于父的归属使基督一生向父完全信赖以及无条件地交付，直至死在十字架上的一刻。基督这种整个地归属于父的意识可说是祂心灵最基本的要素。

基督固然兼有天主性及人性，但祂的心理与意识是统一不分割的;假如除了天父外，耶稣还有世上的生身之父的话，那么当祂在心中说「阿爸」时，这称呼的对象便会产生混淆。祂一面意识到自己完全出自天父，但又意识到自己人性的生命也来自世上的父亲，那么，祂内心对天父那种唯一无二的绝对归属岂不受到影响?或许有人反驳说，我们不也是这样吗？一面完全属于天父，但却也来自世上的父亲，这对于我们跟天主的关系也没有什么影响。可是我们不该忘记，虽然基督把祂和父的密切关系显示给我们，愿意我们参与，但我们和父之间的关系跟基督与父的关系有着基本的分别(23);因为天主子的全部意义在于「生自父」，为了使基督的人性也分享这种唯一无二的子的意识，祂降生成人时也该「生自父」，而没有另外一位世上的父亲。

总括来说，降生奥迹与童贞受孕虽然不是绝对连在一起，但实际上，因圣神受孕生于童贞女的事实，最能显示基督从永恒生于父的奥秘。虽然从形而上说，人性的父亲并不妨碍基督是天主子的身份，但从心理上看，这对于基督那种完全归属于父的深切意识却不无困难。

二．关于救恩的意义──救恩是来自天主的恩赐

救恩是天主的恩赐，从创世之始天主便决意把人类提升到恩宠的境界，使人作祂的儿女，分享祂的生命，这一切都是白白的恩赐。人类始祖却违背天主的计划，拒绝了祂的恩宠和友谊，把人类禁锢在罪的领域;就如同在天主与人类之间筑了一堵高高的围墙，人单凭自己的力量，绝对无法超越这围墙，唯一的希望是来自天主。

原祖父母违命吃禁果，企图升至与天主相等的境界;人类苦心建造巴贝尔塔，冀盼凭人的努力直冲天际;这一切都是徒劳无益，化为泡影。但人类这种趋向天主，希望与天主接近的愿望，原来并非不好;反之，这愿望是天主所赋，深深植根于人心灵的深处，不可阻遏。可是天主却愿意人以受造者的身份接受救恩;人类经年累月修建巴贝尔塔所未能达至的理想，顷刻间，由于天主降生成人，便使这天人合一的愿望圆满实现。在救恩的事件上，天主不需要人苦苦经营，只要求人把心灵开放，以精神贫穷的心态去接受祂的恩赐。

恩能与救援是天主白白的恩赐，降生奥迹更是恩宠中的恩宠，是绝对不可思议的恩赐。童贞受孕的奥迹正好表明降生奥迹是纯粹出于天主主动的恩赐，这恩赐不来自自然规律的发展，也不来自人的意愿、能力或工作的成果;这恩赐只能来自天主的决策以及圣神的德能，是纯属「由上而来」的恩赐;在人方面所需要的只是童贞女那种虚怀若谷，完全开放与接受的态度。(24)

天主赐给人的救恩在若望福音中称为人的重生，使人成为天主的子女。这「重生」在希腊文指的是「由上而生」：「人除非由上而生，不能见到天主的国」(若3：3)(25)。关于信徒「由上而生」的事实，在若望福音的序言已经谈及：但凡接受基督，信他名字的人，天主给他们权能，好成为天主的子女;「他们不是由血气，也不是肉欲，也不是由男欲，而是由天主生的」(1：13)。有关这句经文，从古代至今曾有很多的争论，争论点在于不清楚圣经原文是单数或复故(『他』或『他们』);假如是复数，这经文便是指信徒们的重生;假如原文是单数，那么便是指基督的童贞受孕。经文的两种读法各有相当充份的历史根据(26)。那些主张单数的学者当然很珍视这句经文，因为在这里可以找到若望福音有关童贞受孕的声明;上文曾提及潘宁博的疑难，认为天主子的先存性无法与童贞受孕的记述配合;但假如这节经文是单数的话，那么不必等待教父们，若说本人早已把这两个奥迹联合在一起：永恒的圣言，不经血气或人欲，却藉天主的德能，生于童贞女(27)。

从另一方面说，假如原文是复数的话，那么这经文也很能发挥童贞受孕的意义。我所说救恩是从上而来的恩赐，人必须「由上而生」才能进入天国;若望序言那节经文说明信仰基督的人，将成为天主的子女;他们的重生不是由于人的意愿、欲望或能力，而是藉天主的「能力」、「由天主而生」。若望序言的经文用于复数时表示恩确生命的诞生不是由人而来，却是由上而来的恩赐。基督徒的恩宠生命是以基督的生命以及祂天主子的身份为根源与模型;基督徒有两次诞生：本性生命与恩宠生命的诞生，第一次是由人而生，第二次却是由天主而生。但基督在时间中却没有这两次的诞生，因为祂无须也不能重生;在受孕的第一刻祂便是天主子，兼有人性与天主性的生命。假如恩宠生命的特色是「由上而生」，那么，基督本人既是恩罢生命的根源与模型，为了使这原始模型具有圆满的象征意义，基督本人在降生时当然更应该是「由上而生」或「由天主而生」的(28)。因此，若望序言的经文用于复数时，本来描述信徒灵性的诞生，但也间接描述基督本人──恩宠生命之源──的真实诞生：「不是由血气，也不是由肉欲，也不是由男欲，而是由天主生的」。由此可见，若望序言这句经文，不论用于单数或复数，都显示基督童贞受孕的奥迹。

说恩宠的生命不来自血气与人欲，这并不是说血气与肉欲有什么不好;男女婚配是天主创造时的计划，基督更把它立为圣事 ;可是恩宠的生命却超出了人的意愿与能力，只可以「由上而生」，是天主白白的恩赐。这个世纪基督教伟大神学家巴尔特(K．Barth)虽然承认婚姻之爱的崇高，但认为自然生殖不能充份表达恩宠与降生奥迹的超然性;在自然生殖中，人意识到自己的本能，意志主动的抉择以及自己的创造力，这一切跟恩宠及降生奥迹纯粹 「由上而来」的性质不符合;在自然生殖中存有自我满至的爱(eros)，不能适当地达降生奥迹那种白白施予的无我之爱(agape)(29)。可能有人不同意巴尔特的说法，但我却认为他对于降生奥迹是白白的恩赐这端道理，有很深入的见解。

三．关于圣母的意义──童贞玛利亚是信徒的典型

以上两节反省了童贞受孕对于基督及救恩的意义;童贞受孕一面显示基督是天主子，一面也表明救恩，尤其降生奥迹，纯属由上而来的恩赐;正是在这有关基督与救恩的意义中，我们才可以瞭解童贞受孕对圣母本人的意义，近代圣母论喜欢从模型或典型的角度认识圣母，梵二称童贞圣母为教会的典型，神学家拉内(K.Rahner)则称圣母为成全的基督徒及基督宗教的典型(typical expression of Christianity)(30)。拉内问基督宗教的核心要素究竟在于什么，他的答案是：基督宗教的精义在于天主白白地施与恩宠，并期待人以开放的态度去接纳祂的恩宠;基哲宗教的精华即在于此。假如我们同意这解释的话，那么，无可否认，圣母便是基督宗教的完美典型(31)。

拉内非常强调，圣母为天主之母的奥迹不应只视作一件生理的事实;圣母怀孕与产生耶稣，除了是生理的现象外，更是一件灵性上，与自由意志、心理及整个人有关的事迹(32)。圣母同意作天主之母格外表现出她对天主的信德及服从;在圣母以身体怀孕降生的圣言之前，她首先藉信德以心灵孕育了天主的话(33)。教宗若望保禄在「救主之母」通谕强调圣母是信德的典型;通谕指出佳播天使向圣母的祝候正好与圣妇依撒伯尔的赞颂前后对应(34)，天使称圣母为「满被圣宠者」，(路1：28)报告圣母蒙天主之拣选，作祂圣子的母亲;依撒伯尔却说：「那信了由上主传于她的话必要完成的，是有福的」(路1：45)。天使的喜讯显示天主给予圣母的恩宠，依撒伯尔的赞颂表示圣母如何以信德回应这恩赐。

圣母的童贞与她作天主之母的使命是密切连合一起，两者不可分开的;圣母之所以是童贞正因为天主拣选她以贞女的身份作圣子的母亲。童贞受孕一面表明降生奥迹纯属天主的恩赐，同时也显示圣母的信德和绝对回应的态度。依照自然规律，男女配合以产生生命，阳性属主动，阴性属被动;虽然在婚姻生活中彼此对于对方都有同样的权利，但女子始终是处于接受的地位，必须从男人接受才能产生生命。圣母童贞受孕的意义即在于天主愿意她不寄望于人，不依靠人的意愿及能力，以完成作母亲的使命;却要她一心仰望于主，只盼从主那里接受一切;这种一无所恃，全心信靠主的态度，正是心灵的童贞，即对主的恩宠完全开放的与接受。

这种心态并不简单，石女生子在旧约是视为天主破格的恩赐，但童贞生子却是史无前例的奇迹，单凭天使的说话，圣母便该信这空前的奇迹将在她身上发生;而这奇迹在别人面前又是无法解释的，她的未婚夫若瑟将有何反应?四周的人又将说些什么？(35)圣母对这一切也无瑕顾虑，只须知道这是天主的计划，这位童贞女坚信天主自会在她身上完成自己的计划，于是她毫无保留地回应：「看，上主的婢女，愿照妳的话成就于我吧!」(路1：38)。圣母这句话正表达了童贞的精神意义，即对天主绝对信赖，完全开放的基本态度(36)：假如缺乏了这内心的态度，身体的童贞也没有什么意义。但转过来说，假如在圣母身上没有童贞受孕的事实，她也没法有那种一无所恃，整个寄托于立约深刻经验。在圣母身上精神与肉体的童贞是紧紧联在一起，彼此映射，相辅相成的。

圣母童贞的心态也由她的赞主曲中充份流露出来：「我的灵魂颂扬上主……因祂垂顾了祂婢女的卑微……全能者在我身上行了大事……祂从高座上推下权势者，却举扬了卑微贫困的人;祂会使饥饿者饱餐美物，反那富有者空手而去……」(路1:46－53)。是圣母精神与肉体的童贞使她一面看到自己的卑微贫乏，一面却满怀信心，颂谢上主在她身上所显示的慈爱与大能。

圣母深深瞭解她的童贞是与天主之母的使命紧密相连的，为此，她不但以童贞受孕，而且在耶稣诞生后也终身保持着童贞，把自己的整个生命完全贡献于作天主之母的使命。从教会初期直至今天，圣母的童贞启发了无数的基督徒。在旧约石生育的女子被视为天主的欲罚，受到众人的轻视。童贞圣母的榜样光照了为天国守童贞的意义：即别无旁骛，一心仰赖向往天主，任由天主处理的态度。在教会内一部份的信徒蒙召以身心的童贞把自己奉献给天主，目的格外是为了使童贞的标记在教会内历代相传，使全体信徒在圣母及独身者身上看到这童贞的标记，因而也培育童贞的心态，即那种一无所恃，而全心所赖归向主的态度。圣母的童贞也告诉信徒们，为了天国的缘故，即使世上极美好及有价值的事物，也是可以放弃或提升的(37)。

1.The perpetual virginity of Mary was explicitly defended by Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and others.

2.Paul IV, in the Bull "Cum quorumdam" (1555), condemned those who denied the virginal conception and who taught that Joseph was the father of Jesus. The Pope ended with the assertion that Mary's virginity was threefold, "before birth, in birth and perpetually after birth" (DS 1880). Cf also the third canon of the first Lateran Council (649) which, though not an ecumenicalCouncil, was ratified by Pope Martin 1. The canon reads： "[Mary] in the fullness of time and without male seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit God the Word himself, who before all time was born of God the Father and incorruptibly brought him forth, and after his birth preserved her virginity inviolate. "(Mansi 10,1152).

3.Cf D.F. Strauss, DOS Leben Jesa kritish bearbeitet (Tubingen, 1835) I, p-75. "Theologoumenon " , in our context, means the transition of a purely theological concept into a seemingly historical narrative (cf R.E. Brown et al. (eds.), Mary in the New Testament, London, Chapman 1978, p. 124, n.273). It is different from the meaning given in： K. Rahner and H.Vorgrimler, Concise Theological Dictionary (London, Bums & Gates 1983@) p.497. The English-Chinese Vocabulary of Dogmatic Theology, published by Fu-jen Catholic University, Taiwan, (1985) follows Rahner's explanation.

4.The wording of the New Catechism was ambiguous and the Commission of Cardinals recommended that the words should indicate that Our Lady was always "adorned with the honour of virginity" which was "supremely in accord with the mystery of the Incarnation" (AAS 60, 1968, 688). The Supplement to a New Catechism puts it thus： " Jesus was not procreated by the intervention of man. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born from a young woman who was full of grace and chosen by God to be the Holy Mother of his Son."

5.For a Survey see M. O'Carroll, "The Virginal Conception. Some di Mariologia (Milan, Ed. Paoline 1986) pp. 1418-1424.

6.Cf F. Courth, "Historisch oder theologisch： eine falsche Alternative. Dogmatische Uberlegungen zum Problem der Jung-frauengeburt", in Theologie und Glauben 68 (1978) 283-296; R.Laurentin, "Sens et historicity de la conception virginale", in Studio medwevalia et nwriologica P. Carolo Balic OFM dicata (Rome, Antonianum 1971) pp. 515-542.

　

7.For a brief sketch see R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, Double-day 1977) pp. 29-32. For an extended treatment see, R.H. Fuller, The Foundation of New Testament Christology (London, Collins 1969). Readers must be aware of Fuller's functional and somehow adoptionist interpretation of the earlier stages of NT Christology.

8.Cf Acts 13：32-33

9.The first part of Ps 2：7 is echoed here.

10.To say that Mark bears witness to Jesus' divine Sonship through the episode of the baptism does not mean Mark held the view that Jesus became God's Son only at His baptism. Cf R.E. Brown et al. (eds.), op. cit., p.90 n.l88.

11.E.g. in some chtistological hymns: Ph 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20; Heb 1:1-4

12.Matthew keeps the title of Is 7：14： "Emmanuel： God with us". That it is equivalent to "Son of God" can be seen from Mt 2：15.

13.In view of their obvious christological concern some scholars deny that the Evangelists intend to present the virginal conception as historical fact. Cf R.H. Fuller, op. cit., pp.195f. This difficulty will be dealt with in part two of this article.

14.W. Pannenberg, Jesus - God and Man (London, SCM 1968) p. 143. Pannenberg argues that the account of the virgin birth intends to say that "Jesus first became God's Son through Mary's conception.

15.Cf Ignatius, Magn. 8,2; Eph 19,1; also Aristides, Apology 15:1;Justin, Apology 1,21 and 33. Cf also O. Piper, "The virgin Birth: The Meaning of the Gospel Accounts", Interpretation 18 (1964) 132.

16.Cf H.U. von Balthasar, "Concepito per opera dello Spirito Santo, nato dalla Vergine Maria", in AA. VV., lo credo. Riflessioni teologiche sulla professione di fede (Assisi, Cittadella 1977) pp.37-39.

17.Cf J. Galot, "La conception virginale du Christ". Gregorianum 49 (1968) 658f： "La maternite virginale par l'Esprit-Saint constitue le signe de la filiation divine, sa manifestation dans la chair II fallait encore qu'en tant qu'homme, il soit Fils de Dieu, engendre dans sa nature humaine, directement par Dieu."

18.Cf J. Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (London, Search Press, 1969) pp. 205-213.

19.Idem, Die Tochter Zion. Betrachtungen uber den Marienglauben der Kirche(Einsiedlen,Johannes V. 1987) p.50, n.g.

20.Cf I. de la Potterie, La verite dans Saint Jean (Rome, Biblicum 1977) vol. I, pp. 228-239. In these pages the author examines the profound meaning of the first and the last verse of the Johannine Prologue. The expression "eis ton kolpon toupatros" (1：18) forms an inclusion with the phrase "pros ton Theon" (1：1) at the beginning of the Prologue. Both prepositions "pros" (1：1) and "els" (1:18), when govering the accusative case, must be understood dynamically as meaning "towards". Hence, the two verses refer respectively to the eternel Word as always turned "towards" God the Father and the historical Jesus as constantly turned "towards" the bosom of the Father. It is precisely through this unique relationship towards his father that Jesus reveals the secret of the Father to us during his earthly life.

21.Concerning the consciousness of the historical Jesus, I follow the explanation given by K.Raher in his article, " Dogmatic Reflections on the Knowledge and Self-Consciousness of Christ", in Theological Investigations, vol.5 (London, Darton 1966) pp. 193-215. Cf also J.H.P. Wong, "Karl Rahner on the Conscious-ness of Jesus： Implications and Assessments", sianum 48 (1986) 255-279.

22.J. Jeremias has done a thorough study on the use of this address to the Father; ctAbba. Studien iw neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Gottingen, Vandenhock & Ruprecht 1966)

23.For this reason Jesus always makes a distinction between "my Father" and "your Father" and never, not even once, confuses the two.

24.Cf K. Rahner, Mary Mother of the Lord. Theological Meditations (New York, Herder and Herder 1963) p.69. There Rahner points out that Mary's virginity and the origin of Jesus without an earthly father signify one and the same thing, not in words, but in actual existence： "God is the God of freely bestowed grace, who cannot be drawn down from on high by all our endeavours, whom we can only receive as the inexpressibly freely given gift of himself."

25.The Chinese version is taken from the Chinese Bible translated by The Studium Biblicum O.F.M. in Hong Kong. The text of RSV reads, "unless one is born anew", but in a footnote it states, "or from above". The original Greek "anothen" literally means "from above".

26.The reading in the plural is found in all the important Greek manuscripts; but the earliest date of these manuscripts does not go beyond the fourth century. Instead, the singular reading is found in citations of the Fathers of the second century or the beginning of the third, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus. Origen knows both readings. Irenaeus and Terullian openly critcize the Gnostics for altering the text from singular to plural. For a discussion see A. Serra, "Vergine", in Nuovo Dizinario di Mariologia, pp. 1431

27.For contemporary theologians and scripture scholars who defend the reading in singular see： J. Galot, Eire ne de Dieu： In 1,13 = Analecta biblica 37 (Rome, Biblicum 1969); P Hofrichter, Nicht aus Blut sondern Monogen aus Gott geboren (Wurzburg, Echter 1978); 1. de la Potterie, "La Me re de J6sus et la conception virginale du Fils de Dieu", Marianum 40 (1978) 41-90

28.The absolutely "from above" character of the Incarnation is stressed by K. Rahner, op. it.,pp.67f： "The actual realization of the Incarnation of the Son of God is the absolutely free and Incalculable mystery of divine grace, and as such, stems not from below but entirely from above."

29.Cf K. Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark 1956) vol. 1, part 2, pp. 192ff

30.K. Rahner, op. cit., pp.36f. Rahner calls Mary the "typical expression" of perfect Christianity (p.37)precisely because she is its "actual realization"(p.36).

31.As absolute response to God's grace Jesus Christ is of course the most perfect model of Christianity. But at the moment of the Incarnation, the conscious human response to the offer of grace is made through the consent of Mary, representing the whole humanity.

32.K. Rahner, op. cit., p..55

33.Cf LG 53; Augustine, De sancta virginitate, III, 3;Sermo 215, 4;Sermo 196, 1.

34.Cf Redemptoris Mater, n.12.

35.The charge of illegitimacy probably did occur. Cf R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp. 534-542： "The charge of Illegi- timacy".

36.Cf K. Rahner, op. cit., pp.66f： "Her will to virginity is in a true sense fully comprised in the readiness of the blessed Virgin to decrees of God's holy will, in whatever form; it was implicit in her freedom and her love as she said： Behold the handmaid of the Lord."

37.K. Rahner believes that the virgin Mary has important messages for all Christians, i.e., the virginal attitude of total dependence on God's grace, and the ability to renounce even good things of this world for the sake of the kingdom. Cf Idem, op. cit., pp. 70f.

乙．童真受孕的事迹

本文第一部份反省了童贞受孕的三种基本意义，即有关基督、救恩及圣母本人的意义。在讨论这些意义时，我们同时指出意义与事实之间的密切关系，两者是难以分解的;可是今天却有不少学者以「神学解泽」(theologoumenon)的理念去注解圣母的童贞受孕;认为这是圣经作者编作的故事，藉以表达一些神学讯息，本身并非真实的历史事迹。本文第二部份便要讨论这问题， 研究童贞受孕的历史性;这部份将分析一些新约有关的资料，探讨有关童贞受孕叙述的历史价值。

新约关于童贞受孕的记载可见于玛窦及路加有关耶稣童年事迹的叙述;很多世纪以来，这些童年事迹一直被视为历史事实，随着近代圣经批判学的发展，学者才开始对这些叙述的历史价值提出讨论(38);这讨论当然也涉及童年叙述中的主要事件，即圣母的童贞受孕。对童年叙述历史价值的疑难，特别由于玛窦与路加叙述彼此有很多的分歧，不能两者全是历史事迹;同时，某些学者认为在这些叙述中，两位圣史大概无意写历史，他们只不过引用旧约的经文或题材，配合在耶稣身上，以证明祂是默西亚、天主子。至低限度可以说，圣史们的用意是神学意义重于历史事迹(39)。本文讨论有关童年叙述的历史问题时，在探讨童贞受孕的历史性。有关童贞受孕的问题时，目的在于探讨童贞受孕的历史性。有关童贞受孕的问题，我对圣经学者布朗(R.Brown)提供的资科，以及美国新约学者(包括不同教派) 关于圣母的研究小组所讨论的结果，颇感兴趣，下文将特别引用些资料作为讨论题材(40)。

首先，两部福音有关耶稣五年的叙述固然很有出入，但也有不少相同的主要资料;如：玛利亚许配给若瑟，但圣母怀孕时他们尚未同居;若瑟是达味的后裔;玛利亚受孕并非来自若瑟;玛利亚因圣神受孕;耶稣在大黑落德时代诞生于白冷;耶稣在纳匝肋长大……等(41)。我们还可以注意到，这些相同的资料，除了最后两点之外，都集中于玛窦第一章十八至廿五节;上述圣经学者们同意在这段记载里，有不少早于玛窦福音的传统资料，这些资料也包括童贞受孕的传统(42)。除了这些基本上的相同点外，玛窦与路加的童年叙述有很多不相同的题材，即在报导相同的资料时，他们所采的方式也很不相同;例如在叙述童贞受孕时，玛窦是以若瑟为中心，路加却以玛利亚为主。这些相同与相异的地方显示出圣史在编写时找到相同的基本资料，但由于不同的神学观点及编辑手法，加上写作对象的不同，于是两个童年叙述便有不同发展和表达。我们很有理由相信那些相同的资料，是圣史编写福音前已存在的古老传统，也是童年叙述的基本历史资料(43)。

有关童年叙述的另一疑难似乎更为严重，即认为玛窦与路加在这些章节里无意写历史传记，只是把一些旧约的题材或经文应用在耶稣身上，以证明祂是默西亚和天主子。事实上，在玛窦前两章的叙述里，差不多每次都引用一句旧约经文，并指明这经文如何在耶稣身上应验了;可是我们也不可因此结论说，玛窦记载的事迹都是他虚构的故事，藉以证明古经有关默西亚的预言在耶稣身上的应验。反过来说，我们也可以说有些事迹的记述来自已经存在的资料，而玛窦看到某些旧约经文与这些事迹贴合，因此便引用了。路加在叙述关于约翰诞生及基督诞生的预报时，大概采用了古经预报诞生的模式;但这也不是以断定这两次预报诞生的内容不是路加之前的资料，至于采用古经预报诞生的模式，那只是路加处理历史资料的一种编辑方法。

的确，两位圣史在童年叔述中运用了不少旧约的经文或题材，作为引证或表达的方式，但关于我们要讨论的中心课题，即圣母童贞受孕的内容，他们的记述却是创新的;这内容不能来自古经。前面已提及，按照旧约的看法，生儿育女是上主的祝福，不生育的女子视作上主的惩罚。旧约对于童贞的意义，既不瞭解，更不重视，根本没有人期待默西亚将生于童贞女。不错，玛窦引用了依撒意亚先知书有关童贞女攘孕生子的预言(依7：14)，但这是他依据希腊译本的创新解释，在他以前的经师们对这句经文从未有过这种注解(44)。不但童贞受孕的观念不能来自古经，而且为了传达这讯息，玛窦在记载耶稣的族谱时，迫于打破旧约族谱的常规，另采不同的写法。按犹太习俗，族谱只载男人的名字，父生子、子生孙，被生者成了产生者，这样历代相传下去;可是传到若瑟时，玛窦不得不转变写法，以表明耶稣不是若瑟所生的「．…‥玛堂生雅各伯，雅各伯生若瑟，玛利亚的丈夫，玛利亚生耶稣，他称为基督」(1：15-16)(45)。假如玛窦在这里写 「若瑟生耶稣」，那么族谱便更通畅，而且族谱要指明耶稣是达味之子的主旨，也更为清晰;但为了忠于童贞受孕的讯息，玛窦不惜更改犹太族谱的传统写法。

路加在圣母领报的叙述中，大概采用了旧约预报诞生的模式，可是童贞受孕的课题却超出了旧约的思想，不能取自古经。也有些学者认为玛窦固然明显地叙述童贞受孕的事迹，但路加却不然;只凭路加的记述，说玛利亚在领报后，与若瑟透过普通夫妇的关系而产生耶稣，也无不可(46)。布朗却不以为然，他指出路加的记述所要说明的是玛利亚不但在领报时，是一位「不认识男人」的童贞女，而且也是以童贞的身份怀孕了耶稣(47)。布氏所持理由特别在于约翰诞生与耶稣诞生两奇迹的比较;路加记载了这两个诞生的预报及诞生的情况，在这些记述中耶稣的地位常在约翰之上;假如约翰 「在上主面前是伟大的」(1：15)，耶稣却纯粹地「将是伟大的，并被称为至高者的儿子……天主的儿子(1：32,35)。约翰诞生的奇异处在于父母已双双年老，依撒伯尔又是素不生育的，这可由路加对两人的描述(1：7)及匝加利亚的疑难中(1：18)看到。假如耶稣超出约翰之上，那么祂的诞生也该有一个比石女生子更大的奇迹，那便是童贞受孕。关于这一点，路加用这样透过对玛利亚是童贞女的称谓(1：27)以及她所提出的疑难(1：34)表达出来。路加对于耶稣不是若瑟所生的信念，也可从基督族谱的开端显示出来：「．…‥人都以他为若瑟的儿子」(3：23)。

在讨论童贞受孕有关基督的意义时，我们简略介绍了新约基督论发展的四个阶段，指出童贞受孕在玛窦与路加的心目中，表明了耶稣从受孕之始便是天主子的身份，因此，童贞受孕对有关基督的信仰有重大的意义。不少学者便断定是为了表达对于基督的信仰，两位圣史便创作童贞受孕的叙述，以表明这神学意义;即视童贞受孕为一种与事实无关的「神学解释」。布朗认为这疑难是有关童贞受孕的关键性问题，他同意两位圣史记载童贞受孕是为了神学上的理由;但同时认为圣史们也无法超越他们的时代背景，编作童贞受孕的题材(48);这课题是没有先例的，如上文所说，它超出了旧约的思想范围。或说旧约中天主称国王为自己的儿子(咏2：7)，但人们都知道谁是国王的父亲，而且他之所以成为国王，正因为真是出自王室的后裔;所以古经称国王为天主之子与童贞受孕的内容截然不同。

童贞受孕的叙述既然不能出自旧约，支持童贞受孕是 「神学解释」的学者便认为它的出处是希腊罗马神话，或一些非犹太宗教的信念。依据这些神话或民间宗教，往往以为国王是神之子，是由神所生的;这观念可能影响了圣史，使他们记述达味之子默西亚也不经男人，而是由天主子所生的。经过学者们的研究，认为这种说法也不能成立，因为童贞受孕的记述与外教神话故事有根本的分别;依照神话故事的叙述，是由男性的神与人间女子发生性关系而产生神之子的，实际上并非童身受孕(49)。圣史的叙述中却没有这种关系的描述，却是圣神(在犹太文是阴性的)以创造力使玛利亚以童贞受孕，产生耶稣(50)。

本文研究童贞受孕的历史性时，多次引用了布朗及美国新约学者研究小组的资料;他们讨论的结果是：童贞受孕的叙述不是圣史们所编造，藉以表达一些神学意义，如上文所指出，这种圣史编作故事的主张曾遇到重重的困难;合理的解释该是圣史们写作时已经找到有关童贞受孕的更早传说，他们便依据这传统，以各自的编辑方法记叙下来(51)。可是，布朗及研究小组把福音的资料分为三个阶段：福音记述，福音前传统，以及真实的历史事迹。他们认为有关童贞受孕的福音记述可以上溯至第二阶段，即福音以前的传统资料，但封认为按照目前圣经批判的研究结果，并未能由第二阶段进至第一阶段，因此他们的结论是：童贞受孕的福音前传统资料，究竟是否属于历史事迹，这一点仍是个悬疑的问题，有待新约学者继续研究(52)。他们附加说：信徒们由于初期教父的作证以及教会训遵的权威，当然有理由相信童贞受孕历史事迹(53)。

我认为布朗及研究小组提供的资料有不少可取之处，但我却不同意他们的最后结论，即有关童贞受孕历史性的悬疑。他们列出充份的理由，指明圣史无法创作童贞受孕的故事;那些支持圣史编造故事的意见者，必须面对很多严重的难题;因此布氏等合理地把福音报导的资料带前一步，承认福音前有更早的传统。但是，假如这些福音前传统，并非真实的历史事迹，那么便是编造出来的 ，这样一来，同样的难题又出现了，那个首先编作童贞受孕传统的人，不是面临两位圣史所无遇到的同样困难吗?如布氏等所说，童贞受孕既非出自旧约，也不来自希腊罗马神话，或非犹太宗教;那么，即使有人愿意表达神学意义，也难以超越他的时代背景，创作童贞受孕的观念。我相信那些把童贞受孕的福音叙述带到福音前更早传统的理由，也可以合理地把这些更早的传统带到历史事迹的层面。

在讨论历史文件的价值时，史家的可靠性是一个重要的因素。布朗既同意两位圣史找到有关童贞受孕的更早传统资料，他们也接受这传统，并把它视作历史事迹记载下来(54);那么，圣史们刻意的见证应受到更大的重视。诚然，福音包括不同的文学体裁，但历史当然是其中主要的体裁;虽然福音的主旨不在于写耶稣的生平传记，但一般学者们都接受福音基本上的历史可靠性。童贞受孕是童年叙述的主要事件之一，假如我们接受福音一般的历史可靠性，也同意童年叙述具有某些基本的历史资料，那么当然也应该接受童贞受孕叙述的历史性。

布朗有关童贞受孕的历史性的悬疑，如着名圣母神学家罗冷丹(R.LaurentIn)指出，可能由于他太轻易地忽略了圣母本人是某些童年事迹资料来源可能性(55);事实上，有关童贞受孕的事迹，只有圣母本人才知可以告诉我们，而路加在童年叙述中也两次提及圣母「把这一切事默存在自己心中」(2：19：51);罗氏认为学者应更认真考虑这两句经文的含义(56)。谈到圣母是路加童年叙述的资料来源时，布氏及研究小组表明，不该以为路加在童年记述中写了圣母的回忆录，但不否认路加曾接受了一些有关耶稣诞生的历史资料，并相信这些资料也包括童贞受孕的传统(57)。当我们说圣母是某些童年事迹的资料来源时，我们也不是指路加给我们写了圣母的回忆录，而是指一些基本的历史资料是由她而来的。为了结东本文的第二部份，我的结论是：布朗及新约研究小组提供的资料本来可以带来一个更积极的结论，不必把童贞受孕的历史性视作一个悬疑不决的问题。

38.The full title of R.E. Brown's book reads, The birth of the Messiah. A commentary of the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. In Brown's treatment, priority is given to theological message over the propblem of historicity, though without omitting altogether questions of source and historcity, The following is an example of a different approach to the infancy narratives by a well-known Mariologist, R. Laurentin, Les Evangiles de l' Enfance du Christ. Vertie de Noel au-dela des myths (Paris Desclee 1982)

39.Cf R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp.37f.

40.Special references will be made to the following works: R.E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (London, Chapman 1974); hereafter as Virginal Conception; R.E. Brown et al. (eds.), Mary in the New Testament. The Latter bears the subtitle: "A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars" and is the outcome of the studies made by an interdenominational group of NT scholars in USA.

41.Cf R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp.34f.; Brown lists eleven points shared by the Two infancy narratives. Cf also A. Feuillet, Jesus and His Mother; according to the Lucan Infancy Narratives and according to St. John (Still River, St Bede's Publications 1984)Pp.l55f.

42.Cf R.E. Brown et at. (eds.), op. cit., pp. 87f

43.Cf R.E. Brown, "The Birth Of the Messiah", p.34: "Since it is genrally agreed among scholars that Mt and Lk wrote independently of each other, without knowing the other's work, agreement between the two infancy narratives would suggest the existence of a common infancy tradition earlier than either Evangelist's work- a tradition that would have a claim to greater antiquity and thus weigh on the plus side of the historical scale. " Cf also Mary in the New Testament, p.111 and n. 234

44.Virginal Conception, p.53 Mary in the New Testament, p.92. This is not ot deny that Matthew was convinced of giving the right meterpretation to his text of Isaiah. We should admit that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Matthew has brought forth the fuller meaning (sensus plenior) hidden in his text of the Old Testament.

45.Cf R. Laurentin, "Concepito dallo Sprito Santo. La Critica. L'esegesi e il senso", in AA. VV., La Madre del singore = Parola Spirito e vita no. 6 (Bologna, Dehoniane 1982) pp. 76-78

46.Cf J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Viriginal Conception". Theological Studies 34 (1973) 541-575. Fitzmyer considers four reasons for believeing that Luke intends a virginal conception iin his account. But all these four reasons are said to be inconclusive.

47.Cf R.E. Brown, "Luke's Description of the Virginal Conception", Theological Studies 35 (1974) 360-362; Mary in the New Testament., pp. 120f.

48.Cf Idem, Virginal Conception, p.31, n.37. In footnote 26 on p.25, Brown proposes three objections against the view of the virginal conception as a "theologoumenon".

49.Cf Ibid., p.62. Brown points out that the supposed "parallels" consistently involve a type of hiers gamos where a divine male impregnates a woman. There is no virginal conception in the real sense. Cf also, Mary in the New Testament, p.93, n.l96.

50.Cf R. Laurentin, Les Evangiles de l'Enfance du Christ, p.476; L. Legrand, "Fecondite Virginale selon l'Esprit dans ie Nouveau Testament", Nouvelle Revue Theologique 84 (1962) 785-805.

51.Cf Mary in the New Testament, pp.95; n.37 (see n.48 above) 124f. For a similar view see also Virginal Conception, p.31,

52.Cf Mary in the New Testament, toe. Cit. For the same conclusion, see also Virginal Conception, pp.66f.

53.Cf Mary in the New Testament, p.96

54.Brown holds that Matthew and Luke accepted the virginal conception as historical, though we cannot be certain of the source of their information; cf Virginal Conception, p.31.

55.R. Laurentin, art. Cit., in La Madre del Singore, p.81

56.Ibid. Laurentin refers to A. Serra's recent study on these two verses which, as the author points out, contain the formula indicating the transmission of a memory; cf A. Serra, Sapienza e contemplazione di Maria secondo Lc 2, 19.51b (rome, Marianum 1982). Cf also, A. Feuillet, op. Cit., pp.67-73.

57.Mary in the New Testament, p.lll and n.234

结论

以往论及圣母童贞受孕时，往往只注重生理的现象;其实这是一个具有丰富含义的奥迹，我们应该从救恩史的角度看这奥迹。童贞受孕一面与圣母作天主之母的使命紧紧相连，同时也与降生奥迹密切联合;因为正是在童贞玛利亚的怀中，因圣神的德能，圣言成了血肉;童贞受孕正是圣言降生所采的方式。童贞受孕不但是降生的方式，也充份把这奥迹的深邃意义显示出来：那位降生成人的基督是由父所生的子;降生奥迹是由上而来的白白恩赐，不是人力所能获致的;玛利亚以毫不保留的回应代表人类接受了这恩赐。

童贞受孕不但有丰富的神学意义，也是的真实事迹;它不是一个空洞的标记，却是真实的标记，是意义与事实的合一(58)。如同梵二启示宪章所强调的这正符合天主启示的基本方式，即在救恩史中以行动及言语配合起来，互相解释证实(59)。若只有事迹，没有注解，则令人无法瞭解救恩事件的意义;但若只有注解，没有事迹作基础，注解便沦为「空谈」（flatus vocis），不能产生救恩的效果。假如言语与事迹组合成为启示的经纬(60)，那么，待时期一满，启示达致高峰，当圣言降生的奥迹实现时，圣史的言语竟与事实分歧了？降生奥迹是基督宗教的基础，不但降生奥迹是否属实有绝对的重要性，就是降生奥迹所采的方式，既与这

奥迹结合不可分离，因此也有极大的重要性。圣史既刻意为这童贞受孕的方式作证，我们岂可忽视他们作证的言词？在降生奥迹中，天主圣言进入历史，成了血肉;从此，言与血肉，意义与历史结下不解之盟。可是偏有人说，就在叙述这降生奥迹的当时，圣史作证的言语竟与事实无关;那将是历史中最大的讽刺。

基督徒的信仰承受自宗徒与初期教父的信仰，这信仰由教会一直传承下来。如神学家拉内所说，教会的宣讲应以圣经为最高准则;但我们也该相信，在同一圣神持续的引导下，教会恒常的宣讲也表达了圣经真正的意义(61)。那么，历代传诵的宗徒信经所声明的条文-「我信其因圣神降孕，生于玛利亚的童身」-应该是圣经意义的可靠解释。在讨论童贞受孕的历史性时，我格外引用了布朗等学者的研究资料;我认为那些资料相当可靠;但可惜在结论时，他们把童贞受孕的历史性视为一个悬疑的问题;我却相信凭他们提供的资料应该得到一个更积极的结论。

最后，让我们静默片刻，观赏一下路加圣史有关圣母领报的叙述。这叙述的深度与美不次于受难史的迫真感人;事实上，两段叙述都曾启发了无故宗教艺术的杰作，提供了祈祷默观的无价宝藏。在圣母领报简朴的叙述中，天使的祝侯与圣母的回答前后呼应。「万福，蒙受恩宠者!」是的，一切都来自主的恩宠;「看!上主的婢女……」，我们唯一可作的便是毫不保留的接受与回应。天主白白地赐恩宠给人，并等待人以开放的态度去回应;这便是基督宗教的基本意义，童贞玛利亚便是基督宗教的典型与标记(62)。这标记该是清晰可见的，为此玛利亚不但在心灵上是童贞，也在具体的存在中是童贞;在圣母身上，童贞的意义与事实、精神与肉体的童贞，应该配合一致，这才是真实的标记。因此，拉内指称玛利亚不但被蒙召在心灵上培养童贞的态度，还须以她具体的存在，及全部生活把童贞的心态表明出来;「为此圣母是精神与肉体上的童贞，是唯一及绝对地任由天主措置的」

作者：陈满鸿、罗国辉

甲、前言

自中世纪以来，圣母及圣人的瞻礼，或以教理为主题的庆典取代常年期主日的倾向日益严重。教会在历史中虽多次删除一些次要的圣母或圣人瞻礼，以免常年期太多中断，但在每次去芜存菁的努力之后，新订的瞻礼又陆续出现。有时已取消的纪念又再恢复。于是，礼仪年历一次又一次的被填满(1)。

在本世纪初，罗马礼的圣人瞻礼在一年三百六十五天中占了二百三十天。到一九五零年更增至二百六十二天(2)。其中有不少圣母的节日或纪念。从消极方面来说，这现象使人觉得感恩礼的目的就为敬礼圣人，常年期仿似「空隙」，甚至主日也充塞着圣人的瞻礼，或以「教理」为主题的庆典(如：圣三主日等)，以致为大多数教友，主日感恩礼变成了他们学习要理的机会，而忽视了主日的唯一内容乃庆祝基督的逾越奥迹。

梵二大公会议后礼仪年历的改革，强调主日的特殊地位，原则上，主日即基督复活的庆祝，让排除其他任何庆祝(3) (除了一九七零年罗马弥撒书所列的几次例外)。至于在礼仪年的平日安插圣母及圣人的节日，无非是因教会在他们身上，体会到基督救恩的效果(4)，从而效尤他们在现世与基督同受苦难，同享光荣，藉着基督、归向天父。不过，敬礼圣母及圣人该避免混淆礼仪年的运作。因为教会愿意「在一周年内，发挥基督的全部奥迹，从降孕、诞生，直到升天、圣神降临，以至期待主的光荣再来」(礼仪宪章102节)。

基于以上的原则，革新后的礼仪年历删去了不少次要的纪念日，取舍方面按照着礼仪宪章所训示的，看是否有历史的实际根据，是否与普世教会有关而定(5)。凡无从稽考的人物，附会的传闻，抽象的次要教理主题，或与普世教会无关的纪念，都应取消或降为可有可无的纪念(6)。

圣母在圣人的庆节中，由于她与救世大业有不可分割的关系，而且她反映了最完美的救恩效果，是普世教会的母亲，与每人有关，放在礼仪年中所占份量远超过任何圣人(7)。

但在历史上也不乏虚构或建基于感倩化的敬礼，甚或混淆着迷信因素的圣母敬礼；删除这些「纪念」或予以降级是合理的。同时并非每个圣母庆节与我们的信仰生活都具同等价值与意义(8)。从敬礼圣母的历史资料中，我们足以分辨出各庆节历史根据的强弱，以及与基督救恩事件关连的多寡和轻重。历史根据的功用，是帮助我们判断某一庆节在救恩史上的地位及在我们信仰生活中的意义。

一九七零年罗马弥撒书所保留的圣母庆节共十五个，为明晰起见，各按月份及日期先后为序表列于后：

乙、梵二后圣母瞻礼日期

日期         瞻礼名称   类别

一月一日     天主之母   节日

二月二日  献耶稣于主殿  庆日＊

二月十一日   露德圣母  任选纪念

三月廿五日 预报救主降生节 (圣母领报) 节日＊

五月三十一日  圣母访亲   庆日

五月／六月    圣母圣心 (五旬节后第二星期六) 任选纪念

七月十六日    嘉模圣母   任选纪念

八月五日    圣母大殿祝圣日 (圣母雪地殿) 任选纪念

八月十五日   圣母蒙召升天 节日

八月廿二日    圣母元后    纪念

九月八日      圣母诞辰节  庆日

九月十五日    圣母痛苦    纪念

十月七日       玫瑰圣母   纪念

十一月廿一日  献圣母于主殿 纪念

十二月八日    圣母始胎无玷 节日

注：有＊者(献耶稣于主殿及预报救主降生) 在一九七零年罗马弥撒书中列为基督的节日，由于这两日与圣母的关系密切，且在起源上又与圣母有关，故仍包括在本表及以下的介绍内。


(1)中世纪瞻礼的繁多，早引起十六世纪宗教改革者的非议，天主教方面。亦于脱利腾大公会议前后作出努力减少瞻礼的数目，可惜努力不成功。公议会后教宗比约五世核准之日课及感恩祭典内之圣人瞻礼确比前大大减少，即一年只占158个。但至本世纪初已增至二百多个。教宗庇护十世(1903 14) 曾呼吁减少圣人瞻礼数目，结果适得其反。教宗保禄六世于1969年核准罗马礼年历时，在牧函中指出太多的枝节庆祝已导致救恩奥迹内容之减损。牧函中亦指出其前任教宗比约十世，比约十二世及若望二十三世均试图「清理」礼仪年历。可见罗马礼年历之再整理已属多年来之渴望及努力。[参阅Apostolic Letter Approval of the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the New General Roman Calendar, Pope Paul VI, 1969.　

United State Catholic Conference (USCC): Roman Calendar: Text and Commentary, 1973. Chapter2, Sect 1.

(2)统计数据采自A. Adam, The Liturgical Year, New York. 1980, pg. 209.

(3)主日地位原则上不该被其他瞻礼长期取代之；训示见一九六九年罗马礼年历准则一章六节。又礼仪宪章106节称主日为最优先的庆节。　

新经及早期教会的聚会亦以主日为中心。〔参阅玛廿八、1，谷十六、9，路廿四、1，若廿、1，格前十六、2，宗廿、712，经外文件见安提约基亚依纳爵证言，主张基督徒该守主日而非守安息日(Ad Magnesios 107)，112年Bithynia地方总督Pliny the Younger上书罗马皇帝Trajan，报导基督徒主日聚会(Epistolarum lib. 10, 96) 犹斯定(+165年) 叙述主日之擘饼礼(1 Apologia, 67)；为当守的日子(Didascalia Apostolorum 23)。〕

(4)参阅礼仪宪章111节，又1970罗马弥撒书圣人通用颂谢词之(一)。

(5)参阅礼仪宪章111节，又一九六九年罗马礼年历准则49节。

(6)于一九七０年罗马弥撒书中圣人瞻礼或敬礼日之取舍属则见USCC Roman Calendar: Text and Commentary, Chapter II，Sect. 1. 总括来说，敬礼式或主题式的瞻礼大大减少，存在之真实性不确之「圣人」不列入礼书，除非有古老之圣堂以之命名。古代之殉道者及圣人较优先被列，以外，一些罗马礼以外的东方礼教会圣人亦受重视，务求使所列之圣人有代表性及普世性。至于次要或地方性之瞻礼，则列入个别教区及个别修会之庆祝内。

(7)参阅教会宪章66节。

(8)圣母敬礼式的日子被削减，主要是为了使圣母在救恩工程中与圣子的关系更突出，故教会较重视属于后者的瞻礼，如预报救主降生及献耶稣于圣殿。圣母生活中的重大事迹亦受重视，如始胎无玷，圣母圣诞，访亲，蒙召升天等。这些庆祝以事件为主而非庆祝抽象主题。

丙、早期教会圣母瞻礼的发展

敬礼圣母现存最早的考证纪绿，是在纳匝肋相传为圣母宅址遗迹所发现约二至三世纪的石刻：上有「万福玛利亚」字样(9)；又三世纪的一份埃及纸卷上写有赞美圣母的圣诗：「天主之母，我们投靠妳仁慈的荫庇，当我们陷入诱惑时，请勿拒绝我们的呼求，但救拔我们脱离危险，无玷者！万福者。」(10) 可见在二至三世纪时，基督徒已有圣母敬礼和祈祷的雏型。

由个别基督徒或小团体式的敬礼推展为大规模的庆祝、或订立圣母纪念日，耶路撒冷是重要的发源地。耶路撒冷自古已是主要的朝圣地，基督徒往吊与基督生活有关的事迹，在重要的或相传的地点建筑圣堂并举行礼仪。故古代教会不少节日或敬礼，皆源于耶路撒冷，后来才传入西方罗马。

本章分两部份，分述源自耶路撒冷及罗马的圣母敬礼发展。

(一) 源自耶路撒冷的圣母庆节

这些庆节的起源，大多与救恩事迹所在地有关；但在演变中，有了信理定断的成份，并在庆祝的重点及日期上屡有迁移，这从以下各庆节的分述中可见一斑。

一、圣母蒙召升天节 (八月十五日)

在耶路撒冷与白冷之间的启迪玛(Kathisma)，相传是圣母临近产期与若瑟赴白冷登记途中曾歇息的地方，在厄弗所大公会议(431年) 之前，该地已在八月十五日庆祝「玛利亚天主之母」节，诵读有关耶稣诞生的福音(路二．1-7) (11)，说明了圣母敬礼的背景是以救恩史基督奥迹为主流。

厄弗所大公会议基于肯定耶稣是真天主又是真人，宣认玛利亚为天主之母的信理。此后圣母敬礼便在各地蓬勃发展起来。约于第五世纪末期，耶路撒冷也在八月十五日庆祝 「天主之母」节，不过地点是在革责玛尼山园附近，相传为圣母墓地所在之处举行，且在其上筑有圣堂。于是，八月十五日原为天主之每节，在耶路撒冷渐渐变成为「圣母安眠节」。莫理斯皇帝(Maurice) 在位期间(582-602)，将此庆节引申到他所辖治的范围(12)。

圣母安眠节(Dormitio) 在七世纪传入罗马，教宗息泽伍一世(Sergius I, 687-701) 加上游行庆祝(13)，七世纪中叶的罗马福音选读集称之为「圣玛利亚生辰」(Natale S. Mariae)，即生于天上的纪念日(14)；另一本七四０年的福音选读集则称之为「圣玛利亚安息节」(Solemnitas de pausatione S. Mariae) (15)；七五０年受法国影响的罗马礼书改称为「玛利亚蒙召升天节」(In adsumptione S. Mariae)。但祷文内容乃一般纪念圣母的通用祷文而已(16)。

实际上圣母去世升天的史料并不详尽，出现在五世纪的一本伪经「童贞玛利亚升天录」(De transitu Mariae Virginis) 始有圣母去世，及身体灵魂一齐升天的描述(17)，其后的教父则在讲道中屡有提及，尤其是若望．达玛森(+749) 更将之发扬光大(18)。到第七至第八世纪时，罗马额我略礼书在弥撒游行前的祷文阐释了「圣母蒙召升天」的思想：「主啊！今天为我们是可敬的节日，天主圣母在这天接受了暂时的死亡；你的圣子、我们的主由她诞生，所以她不能为死亡的锁链所困扰」(19)，但其他祷文都只是含蓄地提及圣母的去世，和现今在天国里为我们代祷(20)，或一般性的纪念圣母的祷文而已。

中世纪时期，有关圣母肉身是否升天有不同的见解(21)，伪热罗尼莫书信谓圣母身体不朽，但是否已升天则缄口不言(22)，伪奥斯定训导录(23) 及乌苏阿殉道录(24) 认为圣母尸体下落不得而知，不愿把传奇予以肯定。许多隐修院的公共祈祷都采用乌苏阿殉道录，而伪热罗尼莫书信则被列入日课经本里。

持相反说法的，是十二世纪托名奥斯定的一篇匿名论着，依据理性相信圣母身灵升天(25)。此意见在十三世纪后为士林学派神学家接纳。圣多玛斯认为出于土而归于土的咒诅不牵涉玛利亚，因为地灵魂肉身一起蒙召升天(26)。教宗圣庇护五世于一五六八年改革日课经时，把怀疑圣母身灵升天的伪热罗尼莫书信删去，而代之以承认圣母身灵升天的着作(27)。但圣母是否身灵升天的意见在民间仍有争辩。

历经若干争辩之后，至教宗本笃十四世(1740-1758) 宣布玛利亚升天为可靠意见。第一次梵蒂冈大公会议时，曾有约二百位主教签名要求订定圣母蒙召升天为信道，但未议决。一九四六年教宗庇护十二征询全球主教的意见，在几乎一致同意下，遂于一九五零年十一月一日，颁定「童贞玛利亚灵魂肉身蒙召升到天国的荣耀」为信理(27)。

历史上此一争论的重点不在玛利亚是否蒙召升天，而在她的肉身是否也升天；这争论的基础是灵肉二元说，倘若我们采用另外的(或圣经) (28) 的人学观点，则这些争论也许不存在。

一九七零年罗马弥撒书圣母蒙召升天节的颂谢词说明了圣母蒙召升天的教会性及末世意义：「童贞玛利亚今日蒙召升天，是你教会要达到圆满境界的开端和形象，也是你子民在人生旅途中，确切希望和安慰的凭证。」故此，圣母蒙召升天给我们揭示了基督逾越奥迹在人身上的最完美效果，鼓励我们去分享圣母所达到的光荣，一如在集祷经所谓：「你赐给了你圣子之母灵魂肉身天国的光荣，愿我们也以天国为人生目标，得与她同享荣福。」(29)

二、预报救主降生节 (三月二十五日)

三月二十五日在第二、三世纪间，被视为春分，亦是天主创世的纪念日，部份地方教会也以此日作为基督苦难圣死，战胜罪恶?真光克服黑暗的日子(30)。虽然后来以春分月圆后首主日为复活节的传统确立了(31)，但十二月二十五日已被视为基督诞生的纪念日(32)，故此倒数九个月(三月二十五日) 便自然成了基督降孕母胎的日子(33)。在第六世纪，东方已盛行这庆节(34)。大约于第七世纪传到罗马，仍称预报救主降生节(Annuntiatio Domini)。教宗息泽伍(687-701) 为它添加求恩祷文和游行(35)，其他西方教会也称这节日为「基督降孕」(Conceptio Christi)，「圣玛利亚领报及我们的主耶稣基督的苦难」(Denuntiatio S. Mariae et passio Domini Nostri, Jesu Christi) 等(36)。自七世纪到一九七零年，罗马弥撒书当日所用的领主后经，也反映了这节日的背景和内容：「天主，求你将圣宠倾注在我们心中，我们既因天使的传报，得知你圣子降孕人世，愿我们仰赖祂的苦难及十字圣架，获享复活的光荣。」(这经文也用于三钟经；今日仍用于罗马弥撒书将临第四主日集祷经，这经文说明了整个降生救赎的奥迹，一方面纪念基督降孕(真光进入世界)，另一方面则纪念基督的苦难逾越(真光战胜了黑暗) (37)。

西班牙的陶来多(Toledo) 会议(656年) 鉴于三月二十五日常遇四旬期或圣周，故改在圣诞前八天，即十二月十八日庆祝(38)。米兰礼最初已在将临期最后主日庆祝预报救主降生，到了九世纪才接纳加上三月二十五日的庆祝(39)。东方教会在都伦(Trullan) 会议(692)则坚持即使三月二十五日预报救主降生节遇上圣周五，依然如常举行圣祭庆祝(40)。接罗马礼的习惯，若三月二十五日遇上圣周最后三天，或复活节八天庆期，则预报救主降生节便改在复活第二主日后的星期一举行。

已见于七世纪沿用到一九七零年的罗马传统，三月二十五日的主题「预报救主降生」也重复于将临期第三遇冬季斋期星期三的福音(当日选读路一：26-38；星期五选读路一：39-47) (41)，可见三月二十五日的瞻礼，核心是庆祝圣子降生救赎世人的奥迹；这天本是主的庆节(42)，但也不忽视玛利亚与天主的计划合作，成为救主之母的角色。可惜自中世纪后，三月二十五日只侧重「圣母领报」，忽略了圣子降生救世计划中天主的拣选与主动，致变成纯粹庆祝圣母的事件。一九七零年罗马弥撒书将此节日正名为「预报救主降生节」，重申此日是主的节日，庆祝天主圣子降孕母胎。同时在将临期最后主日也重读预报救主降生(甲年及乙年) 或访亲(丙年) 的福音。

一九七零年罗马弥撒书当日的祷文强调圣子降孕母胎，是真天主真人，并祈求分享祂的神圣生命(集祷经及领主后经)，颂谢词则提到圣母以信德接受基督降生救世，居我人间的讯息，天主藉此履行了祂的许诺，使万民的期待得到实现(43)。

从历史上，可以看出很多地方教会并不太执着三月二十五日的日期，日期可以改动，但重要的是庆祝基督降生救世的奥迹，即使在将临期重复圣子降孕母胎的读经，也可说是必须的。圣言降生在我们心内，需要人的合作与接受，而圣母玛利亚也就是最佳的典范。

三、献耶稣于圣殿节 (二月二日)

按犹太传统，妇人生产男孩后四十天应到圣殿取洁(肋十一：1-8)。同时，首胎男婴应祝圣于天主(出十三：2)，然后以献礼赎回。

这节日早在公元四百年的耶路撒冷在二月十四日庆祝，因为当时以一月六日主显节为主的圣诞，四十天后即二月十四日，纪念玛利亚若瑟带领耶稣上耶路撒冷献给上主，在圣殿遇到西默盎及亚纳的事迹(路二22-40) (44)。在六世纪中叶，皇帝Justinian因消灾祈福而通令全国庆祝；在君士坦丁堡(拜占庭礼) 称之为「相遇节」(Hypapante) (45)。迟至七世纪中叶才传入罗马；罗马礼既以十二月二十五日为圣诞，「相遇节」便在二月二日举行；七世纪末教宗息泽伍加上游行(46)。

其实，东方礼早于五世纪中叶已有烛光游行(47)，但动机欠详，或许始因是取自路二32，表示基督是「异邦的光明，以色列的荣耀」。但罗马八至九世纪在这节日游行时穿黑色祭披(48)，一五七零年罗马弥撒书改为紫色；而君士坦丁堡传统则赤足游行，可见有补赎的性质；但是否为对抗异教徒在二月份举行的狂欢节，尚待讨论(49)。至于祝圣蜡烛，始于第十世纪的德国(50)。

七五零年受法国影响的罗马礼书称这日为「圣母玛利亚取洁节」(in purificatione S. Mariae) (51)。但七、八世纪的额我略礼书仍称之为「相遇节」，在圣母堂庆祝(Hypapante ad S. Mariam) (52)。此节日本来就与基督降生奥迹有着密切的关系，直到八世纪后，「圣母取洁」才渐渐成为通用的名称，「相遇节」便慢慢被弃不用；弥撒经文虽然沿用路加福音二：22-40不变，然庆祝的重点却转到圣母身上。直至一九七零年罗马弥撒书才正名为「献主(耶稣于圣殿) 节」(In praesentatione Domini)，重申此日属于主的节日。弥撒前仍保持祝圣蜡烛及持烛游行进堂(53)，游行进堂时穿白色祭披，咏唱西默盎圣歌，或其他赞颂基督是世界的光的圣诗；集祷经仍沿用七至八世纪时罗马的祷文：「全能永生的天主，正如你的唯一圣子取了我们的肉躯，今天奉献于圣殿；我们恳求你，使我们也能同样(保持) 身心纯洁，奉献于你的尊威台前。」(54) 这祷文清楚指示当日庆节的意义，要求我们也献出自己，在基督内实行天主的救世计划。领主后经则继续发挥与基督相遇的含义：「愿我们所领的圣事，在我们中完成你圣宠的工程；你曾成全西默盎的愿望，使他在去世前亲眼看见基督；求你也赐我们在生活里迎接基督，来日获得永生。」

这庆节的含义，正如颂谢词所说的，是纪念基督往圣殿里把自己奉献给天主，祂与西默盎相遇，满足了人类对救恩的渴求，显示自己就是万邦的光明。今天我们也在圣言及圣事的标记中与基督相遇，并指向在天上的彻底相遇。

四、圣母诞辰节 (九月八日)

第五世纪中叶，耶路撒冷圣殿以北靠近羊门的水池，据传是耶稣治愈病患(若五1-19) 之处，建有圣堂(55)。九月八日为该圣堂祝圣纪念日。又相传该堂是筑在玛利亚父母的宅址，玛利亚在那里诞生，故奉献给圣母。到第六世纪，九月八日便成了纪念圣母诞生的日子(56)。

这节日在第七世纪传入罗马，同列为当时圣母四大庆节之一，正如其他三大庆节一样，被教宗息泽伍辅以游行礼(57)。

一九七零年罗马弥撒书订九月八日为庆日；当日的进台咏、集祷经及领主后经清楚指出，因为玛利亚生育了人类的救主基督，所以圣母的诞辰也给世界带来救恩的曙光和希望。福音则诵读耶稣的族谱和若瑟领受天使报喜，(玛一1-16, 18-23) 为指出耶稣是因圣神降孕，生于玛利亚之童身，是真天主真人(58)。玛利亚的诞生，和若翰的诞生，都是件「前躯」，为天主所拣选，准备基督的来临。

五、献圣母于圣殿纪念日 (十一月廿一日)

耶路撒冷第三座敬礼圣母的圣堂建于圣殿原址之入口广场，于五四三年十一月二十一日祝圣(59)。后来按伪雅各伯福音第七章传说圣母三岁时被献于圣殿，被圣殿的贞友们抚养(按旧约的传统这是不可能的) (60)；于是「传说」便在该圣母圣殿实地庆祝。十一月二十一日便成为献圣母于圣般的纪念日，于第八世纪已流行于东方。一一六六年皇帝Comnenus定为公众假日。十二世纪传入英国，十四世纪Philippe Mezieres为增强东西方教会的关系而在西方极力提倡这节日，一三七二年教宗额我略十一世(1370-1378) 允其所请而把这节日纳入法国亚味农的宗座礼仪。其后西斯笃四世(1471-84)1把这节日引入罗马，且定为假日。庇护五世(1565-1572) 于改革弥撒书和日课经时，不允列入礼仪书，因所纪念的事件纯属传闻，但西斯笃五世(1585-1590) 在一百八五年却又重新恢复，且扩展给全罗马礼教会(61)。一九七零年罗马弥撒书虽仍保留了该纪念日，幸而祷文只字不提献圣母于圣殿事件，且采通用的圣母经文，以避免附会传说(62)。

(二) 源自罗马的圣母庆节

一、圣母大殿祝圣纪念日 (八月五日)

圣母大殿于四零零至四三零年间建于罗马的尼斯奎林山，在教宗西斯笃三世(432-440)任内落成，时厄弗所大公会议(431) 刚宣布「天主之母」信条。教宗把新落成的大殿奉献给圣母，这是西方第一座奉献给圣母的大殿。该圣殿的壁画，尤其拱门上的细石镶嵌画，主要是表达圣母在基督救世工程内的角色(63)。教宗西斯笃三世开始于圣诞前夕在该大殿内仿白冷山洞所筑的小堂内祈祷，并主持弥撒，成为子夜弥撒的起源(64)。

约十三世纪后，关于圣母大殿的起源另有一个传说：谓在三五二年八月四日至五日晚上，圣母梦示罗马贵族若望，要在尼斯奎林山有积雪之处建堂(其时是夏天，积雪乃表示奇迹)，于是教宗黎贝留(352-366) 按圣母所示而建堂。这传说使圣母大殿亦称为圣母雪地殿；八月五日便成为所谓的「圣母雪地殿祝圣纪念」，并列入一五七零年罗马弥撒书(65)。一九七零年弥撒书采用「圣母大殿祝圣纪念日」一名而弃用「雪地」传说，且改为随意纪念的日子(66)。

圣殿是纪念和举行基督奥迹的场所，放八月五日严格来说是属于圣堂祝圣的周年纪念，它被列入礼仪年历，主要是因为圣母大殿是西方第一所奉献给圣母的大殿。至于弥撒的经文，只是采用圣母通用经文而已。

二、天主之母节 (一月一日)

一月一日为罗马新年，教会早已有「远避偶像」(ad prohibendum ab idolis) 的补赎、斋戒及弥撒(67)，以对抗异教徒在该日对辰纳斯(Janus) 神的狂欢。其后在七世纪时早已把一月一日订为天主之母的纪念日(圣玛利亚诞辰Natale S. Mariae)，在圣母堂举行弥撒(68)。这是最早源起于西方的圣母节日。其后罗马从东方引进了二月二日的「相遇节」、三月二十五日的「预报救主降生节」、八月十五日的「安眠节」及九月八日的「圣母诞辰节」，且教宗息泽伍为这四个节日添加了游行，于是一月一日的纪念，便相应地渐渐式微。

七五零年受法国影响的罗马礼书只有圣诞后第八日的弥撒(In Octabas Domini)，祷文内容与圣诞有关，但颂谢词却提及了圣母的地位说：「耶稣基督是婴孩又是天主，由贞女又是母亲诞生。」(69) 七至八世纪罗马额我略礼书在圣诞后第八日的集祷经(今日仍沿用)，祈求说：「天主，你藉圣玛利亚的童贞生育，赐给了人类永远得救的洪恩，我们既由她承受了生命之源、你的圣子、我们的主耶稣基督，求你也使我们体验她的代祷。」(70)可见罗马礼确在庆祝基督降生奥迹中纪念天主之母，且藉此重申基督是真天主真人的信德。

西班牙礼于第七世纪时渐渐于圣诞后第八天(一月一日) 庆祝耶稣受割损(路二21)，这耶稣受割损的纪念日渐渐传入高卢礼，然后一五七零年罗马弥撒书采纳了圣诞后第八天 「主受割损」(In circumcisione Domini et Octava Nativitatis) 的称谓，但祷文没有改变，只不过把以往的福音(路二21-32) 缩短为(路二21)。

一月一日的庆祝虽屡经转折，但始终不失在当天纪念圣母的色彩，除了弥撒经文外，当天大日课的对经也反覆提及基督降生的奥迹和玛利亚为天主之母的角色，例如以下对经：「多么神妙的交易，人类的创造者取了有灵的肉躯，生于童贞女，不由人道而生，而将自己的天主性赐给了我们。」「梅瑟看见焚而不毁的荆棘丛，是妳保持童贞的标记，令人赞颂不止。天主之母，请为我们代祷。」(71)。一九七零年罗马弥撒书改革回到历史根源，重申一月一日，即圣诞后第八天，为圣母的节日，庆贺她作天主之母。一月一日遂正名为「天主之母节」。(Sollemnitas S. Dei Genetricis Mariae) (72)

圣诞期的庆祝，本来就充满基督降生救世奥迹的意义，很自然的在阐释那诞生的是真天主真人时，提及玛利亚是救主之母的角色；她服从了天主的旨意，因圣神怀孕，给世界诞生救主；故天主之母节是与基督降生奥迹相连的庆祝，也是属于圣诞期的庆祝内容。

事实上，罗马礼不仅在圣诞期，也在将临期纪念圣母，即是以基督的事件作为礼仪年历的中心，旁及圣母与天主的救世计划合作，例如一九七零年之前将临期第三周冬季斋期星期三便诵读预报救主降生的福音，星期五诵读圣母访亲(73)，一九七零年罗马弥撒书改在将临第四主日纪念以上事件，作为圣诞的准备，且在将临期第二式颂谢词中提及 「圣母以无比的慈爱抚育了基督」(74)，可以看出敬礼圣母不固定在任何一佰日子上，而是随着礼仪年历庆祝基督的救世工程时，标榜出圣母参与了基督的救世使命，与天主的救世计划合作。

(9)J. BRIAND. La chiesa primitiva Nei ricordi di Nazaret, Jerusalem, 1976, pp. 23 26, 在相傅圣母住宅的地方，有KEMARIA字样刻在柱基上，明显地是把「玛利亚」的名字加在天使报喜时所说「万福」之后，这可能是当时敬礼圣母的一个见证。A. G. MARTIMORT, The Church at Prayer, Vol. 4, (New Edition), collegeville, 1986, p. 130.

(10)译自C.BERSELLI, G. GHARIB, Sing the Joys of Mary, Slough, 1982, p. 39.

(11)按417至438年间，亚美尼亚礼选经集的记录；这选经集的英译见J. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels to the Holyland, Jerusalem, 1981, p. 274.　

至于为甚么选定八月十五日作为圣母的节日，则不得而知，但按四至五世纪的叙利亚文伪经「圣母升天录」(De Transitu Mariae) 说宗徒们定了一月廿五日，五月十五日及八月十五日作为圣母的节日，可能当时在叙利亚已有上述的圣母纪念日。　

到了六世纪时，Coptic教会在一月廿一日纪念圣母，而高卢Tours则在一月十八日，不一月份的圣母庆节是纪念圣母为天主之母的(Mariae Teotokos) 在七世纪的Bobbio弥撒里，当天有两台弥撒，一为纪念圣码利亚(S. Mariae Solemnitate) 另一台为圣母蒙召升天 (in adsumptione S. Mariae) 且载有受伪经影响的赞美诗，描述圣母身灵升天，后来的高卢弥撒书里则没有了第一台弥撒，而只保留了第二台弥撒纪念圣母蒙召升天。七世纪时的Luxeuil选经集也以一月十八日为圣母蒙召升天节。　

M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 248 250. K. A. H. KEFLLNER, op. cit., pp. 235 237.

(12)J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 131; 特别是注：3; M. RIGHETTI, Storia Liturgica, Vol. 2, Milano, 1946, pp. 247 250; K. A. H. KELLNER, Heortology, ,London 1980, pp. 235 237, J. M. O'CONNOR, The Holy Land, Oxford, 1980, pp. 88 90.

(13)当时仍然保存 "DORMITIO" 的称号；Liber Pontificalis, Vol. 1, p. 376, 381.

(14)Wurzbrug Comes福音选读集，A. Adom, op. cit., p. 215; M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 251.

(15)A. G. Martimort, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 135, note 11; M, RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 247.

(16)Sac. Gelasianum, No. 993 996, 也见L. Bruylant, Les oraisons du Misssel Romain, Vol. 1, Louvain, 1952, p. 133的祷文沿革，但安K. A. L. KELLNER, op. cit., p. 238所载的630年Rheims的Sonatius主教已称这节日为Assumptio, (P. L. 80, 446)

(17)关于「圣母升天录」的各种版本和纪录可参阅(Trans. M. R. James,) The Apocryphal New Testament, "The Assumption of The Virgin", Oxford, 1969, pp. 194 227.

(18)奥脱着，天主教信理神学，下册，光启台湾，1967, pp. 345 347; K. A. L. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 235 237.

(19)Sac. Gregorianum, No. 658 660, 是前夕弥撒；No. 661 664是当日游行及弥撒，NO. 661游行的祷文曾于1951年教宗庇护五世宣布圣母蒙召升天的信理的，在宗座典章Manificentissimus Dei中所引用。

(20)Sac. Gregorianum, No. 663; No 660提及纪念「圣母的安息」。其余的祷文则只是一般性纪念圣母的祷文而已。又在一九五０年前，八月十五日的福音竟是选用一般圣女节日的章节：路十、38 42(玛尔大和玛利亚)，这福音选读也用于米兰礼，西班牙礼及东方礼。 M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 252.

(21)以童身的德行作为脱免罪污，获享不朽之身的想法，早已见于第二世纪，如Martirologia Geronimiano称圣若望的去世为蒙召升天(Adsumptio Johannis) M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2. p. 252.

(22)Ep.9: Cognitione, (Paschase Radbert +865); 奥脱，天主教信理神学，p. 346.

(23)Sermo, 208; Adest nobis, (Ambrosius Autpertus +784); 奥脱，天主教信理神学，p. 346.

(24)USUARD +875, 奥脱，天主教信理神学，p. 346.

(25)Ad interrogata, 奥脱，天主教信理神学，p. 347.

(26)Expos. Salut. Amg., p. 347.

(27)梵二前的日课经，有诵读Sermo S. Joanis Damasceni, 及Homilia S. Petri Canisii. Breviarium Romanum, Ex Decreto S. S. Concilii Tridentini Restitutum, Edito Prima Juxta Novam Typicum, Ratisbonae, 1952. 奥脱，天主教信理神学，p. 347.

(28)参阅圣经神学辞典，光启，台湾，1978，见「人」，「神(气)」，「肉体」，「灵魂」，「身体」，「复活」，「升天」。

(29)Missale Romanum, Ex Decreto Sacrosancti Cecumenici Concilii Vaticani II Instauratum Auctoritate Paul, PP. VI Promulgatum, Editio Typica, Vaticanis, 1970, pp. 596 597.

(30)Tertullian, Adversu Judaeos, VIII, 18; A. Chupungco, The Cosmic Elements of Christian Passover, Roma, 1977, pp. 26 37, 49 54; M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, PP. 50-52.

(31)尼赛亚大公会议(325年) 的决定；罗国辉，踰越，香港，1987, pp. 110 111; A. G. Martimort, op. cit., Vol. 4, PP. 33 34.

(32)最早记有以十二月廿五日「无敌太阳神节」作为「基督生于白冷」的纪念日是354年的日历，LP 1: 11; A. G. Martimort, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 78, p. 119.

(33)西方礼书中：P. 385, G. 850的纪录称」这天为「向天主圣母(玛利亚)报喜及主苦难日」；而H143, P. 385, G. 850. M. 575, 即今日将临第四主日集祷经，也即三钟经的结束祷文的内容也反映这传统。一方面纪念耶稣降孕，另一方面纪念耶稣的苦难。P. Bruylant, op. cit., Vol. 2, No. 575. 为那些不采用十二月廿五日为圣诞节的亚美尼亚礼，则在四月七日(一月六日倒数九个日) 纪念天使向玛利亚预报基督降生的事件。K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 232 233.

(34)Bishop Abraham of Ephesus 的讲道，(PO 16: 442 47) 引用于A. Adom, op. cit., pp. 152 153 note 56; L. Duchesne, op. cit., p. 272 note 3, p. 576; K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 232 234.

(35)Liber Pontificalis, I (ed. L. Duchesne), Paris, 1886, p. 371 376. 按L. Duchesne, Christian Worship, London, 1923, p. 273, note 1, 大额我略时候，罗马仍未有，「圣母圣诞」，「圣母安眠」，「圣母献耶稣于主殿」及「预报救主」等节日。

(36)这日在西方教会的不同名称可见P. Bruylants, Les oraisons du Missel Romain, Vol. 1, Louvain, 1952, pp. 89-90; 特别注意N: 十一至十二世纪的罗马拉特郎隐修院，仍称它为「预报救主」(Annuntiatio dominica); K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., p. 231; 自额我略礼书(Sac. Gregorianum) No. 143至1970弥撒书所用当日的领主后经也反映出这节日的古老传说：降生和救赎。一六三七年的中国版刻画曾把这节日称为「圣母领上主降孕之报」，见「敬礼圣母汇编」，香港圣母年筹委会及教区礼仪委员会合编，1987, p. 136.

(37)见注33。

(38)K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 232 233, Missale Mixtum (PL LXXXV. 170, 734) 在十二月八日及三月廿五日两次庆祝这节日。

(39)M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 264 266.

(40)J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 96; M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 264 266; K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 231 232.

(41)见A. Nocent, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 1, collegeville, 1977, pp. 169 170, 的重整。

(42)见米兰礼一贯的传统和罗马礼最早的记载如Liber Pontificalis.

(43)罗马弥撒书，1970, pp. 538-539。

(44)J. Wilkinson, op. cit., pp. 127 128, 也见于当时的亚美尼亚礼读经集，J. Wilkinson, op. cit., pp. 262 263. Egeria游记载有圣祭，但仍未有烛光游行；按J. A. Martimort, op. cit., p. 88, note 32, 烛光游行是约在450年所加上的。

(45)K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 173 174, J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit.. Vol. 4, pp. 88 89.

(46)Liber Pontificalis, Vol. 1, p. 376, 称之为Dies S. Simeonis, quod Ypapanti Graeci appellant. K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp.175, 228-230, L. Duchesne op. cit., pp. 273, note 1.

(47)J. A, MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 32在note 32提及Cyril of Scythopolis的记载。

(48)Ordo XX, M. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani, Vol. 3, Louvain, 1974, pp. 235 236.

(49)J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 89; K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., p. 175 176; J. A. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy, London. 1980, pp. 145 146.

(50)PRG 2: 6 9; P. Bruylants, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 80 81可见这些经文的用处和年代。

(51)Sac. Gelasianum, 829 831, 集祷经中纪念基督带着我们的人性进入圣殿，其他祷文与圣诞的主题有关，但全部都没有提及圣母。

(52)Sac. Gregonanum, 123 127; 祷文内容是有关基督降生及祂带着我们的人性进入圣殿等，除了领主后经外，便没有提及圣母了，但领主后经(No.126) 也曾用于将临期四季斋期，星期六及卸白衣主日，而在这些情况中，则没有了「藉卒世童贞玛利亚的转祷」这句话。见P. Bruylants, op. cit., Vol. 2, No. 928. Sac. Greg., No. 124仍在今日用作集祷经。

(53)祝圣腊烛的两式祷文，都以基督为真光，祂照耀了信众的心灵，而祈愿追随真光的人，都能进入永恒的光明之中；故此手持烛光，唱着西默盎圣歌进入圣堂，确有末世意义，意味着在基督中我们已把握着天国永光的希望。

(54)罗马弥撒书，1970, p. 525, Sac. Gregorianum, 124.

(55)J. M. O' Connor, The Holy Land, Oxford, 1980, pp. 22 23.

(56)J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 131; A. ADOM, The Liturgical Year, New York, 1981, p. 217. Rado, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp.1349 1350; M. Righetti op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 263 264, note 136歌颂圣母诞辰的圣诗首见于Romanes Melodos约六世纪中叶的作品，这圣诗也取材于伪雅各伯福者。七世纪的S. Sophronius也为这圣堂而写了圣诗。(Anacr. 20, P. G. 87/3, 3821 3824).

(57)Liber Pontificalis. Vol. 1, pp. 376, 381.

(58)1570年弥撒书中的祷文也有相同的观念；1570年弥撒书中的福音也是玛一．1 16。

(59)J.M. O' Connor, op. cit., PP. 55 56。

(60)有关伪雅各伯福音记载「圣母被献于圣殿」可参看(Trans. M. R. James), op. cit., pp. 38 49, "Protoevangelium" 特别是P.41。

(61)A. ADOM, op. cit., PP. 221 222; J. A. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, P. 131, P.140; M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 266; L. Bruylant, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 165; K. A. H. KELLNER, Heortology, London, 1908, pp. 265 266.

(62)罗马弥撒书，1970 p. 644。

(63)G. Bovinin, Mosaici paleocristiani di Roma (Secoli III VI), Bologna, 1971, pp. 145 185; 这些壁画取材于圣经，但也有些取材于所谓「伪经」，但要明白这是当时的热心习惯和表达方式。

(64)M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 53 55; A. C. Martimort, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 83.

(65)A. G. MARTIMORT, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 141, 特别是note 27; Blue Guilde Rome and Envirouns, London, 1985, pp. 194 196.

(66)罗马弥撒书，1970，P. 586。

(67)这弥撒已见于Sac. Gelasianum, No. 54 56; 但早自奥斯定已在当日的讲道中(讲道词198 Tours (567) 会议，Toledo (663) 会议也先后加上补赎，斋戒和祈祷。直到七世纪才以「天主之母」庆节取代之：但献礼经和颂主后经仍存于1570弥撒书，见Sac. Greg. No.83 84, M. 711及588. M. RIGHETTI, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 67 68.

(68)Wurzburg的书信集(560 590年) 没有记录，但Wurzburg 的福音集(645年) 载有这天是Natale S. Mariae 圣玛利亚诞(辰)，福音是路二．21 32，见Nocent, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 250的重整，M. Righetti, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 68 69.

(69)Sac. Gelasianum, No. 48 53; No. 53有抗拒偶像的语句，其余则直接与圣诞节有关；No. 51的颂谢词则有提及基督是婴孩又是天主从贞女又是母亲而诞生。

(70)当时已改在由「万神庙」改建的S. Mariam ad Martyres举行；十二世纪时教宗Callisto II (1119 1124) 改在S. Maria Trastevere 举行，M. Righetti, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 69. L. Bruylants, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 10 11, Vol. 2, No. 440, 771及588, N0. 440是集祷经，今日仍沿用；No.588在不同场合也可加上「因某某圣人的代祷」一句，故在九世纪后的礼书，在纪念圣母的弥撒中，都加上「因童贞天主之母荣福玛利亚的代祷」的说话；No. 711没有提及圣诞也没有提及圣母；No. 711及588的经文一直沿用到1970 K. A. H. KELLNER, op. cit., pp. 165 166, 于714至731年的S. Genevieve的选经集，仍称这天是Natale S. M; 到了十一世纪，一些弥撒仍以这天为圣母的节日，L. Bruyiants, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 10; 十二世纪Bernard of Constanza的记录仍称该天为圣母的节日，见M. Righrtti, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 69.

(71)(1568) 所根据的传统，且今日仍然使用。「多么神妙的交易……」可能受了良一世，亚历山大利亚的济利禄等教公的讲道所影响，A. Nocent, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 214, note 154, 155. 同样在圣诞日课经传统的许多对经，在歌颂降生成人的天主时，也提及圣母玛利亚的角色，比方在夜祷(Noctuno) 中的对经：「今日天上的君王为我们诞生了，生于童贞女，召叫那沦亡的人重回天(国)」。(这对经现在还应用)。又比方：「万福！玛利亚、天主之母，保全着童贞，今天为我们生产了世界的救主」(这对经今日已没有采用了) 等。

(72)罗马弥撒书，1970，pp. 162 163。

(73)冬季斋期的选经已见于六至七世纪的罗马选经集，且冬季斋期可能也是最早的将临期平日礼仪，也可能早已存在于四至五世纪。选经重组可见A. Nocent, op. cit., Vol 1, pp. 168 173.

(74)罗马弥撒书，1970，PP. 132，394。

丁、中世纪圣母瞻礼的发展

在纪念圣人的历史中，首开先例是古代的殉道者，接踵而来的是纪念宗徒、圣母及圣人圣女。圣母敬礼的开端已在上文记述。其后的演变是不断趋向于节日的激增，以圣母或其他圣人为名目的纪念纷纷在东方礼、罗马礼及其他地方教会的团体中出现。在敬礼圣母方面，罗马礼直到十四世纪仍只庆祝传统的圣母四大瞻礼(圣母蒙召升天、圣母诞辰、预报救主降生及献耶稣于圣殿)。其实这四个瞻礼中只有前两个可算是圣母的庆节，后二者为基督的庆节。一直至十四世纪，罗马才钦定一些地方教会或修会团体所推广的圣母庆节。

一、圣母始胎无玷 (十二月八日) 节日

这一纪念源自入世纪希腊拜占庭教会已有纪念玛利亚的母亲圣妇亚纳的怀孕，故属于后者的庆日，十二月八日之选择，是因为东方礼教会已经于九月八日庆祝圣母圣诞，倒数九个月即十二月八日，便是圣母成胎之日。按伪雅各伯福音，亚纳长久荒胎，后得天使报喜，因天主施恩而怀孕圣母。该节日于十一世纪传入英国。

十二世纪初，圣安瑟莫的弟子艾特玛，宣称玛利亚在成胎之始即不受原罪沾染。在这时期前后的神学家，如圣伯尔纳多、伯多禄隆巴、圣文德、圣多玛斯等都不赞同，因为他们认为人人需要救恩与圣母无染原罪两个肯定是互相矛盾的。换言之，大多数神学家强调基督救恩之重要与必要性，意味着圣母也需要救恩，但民间团体大多都接受圣母不受原罪玷污的「假设」。

终于，方济会神学家董思高以「先赎论」阐释了以上所提的棘手问题。董思高的思想是人灵之被圣化无须晚于人成孕之始，成孕于先而圣化于后只属概念上的先后，玛利亚在母胎成孕之始已有可能蒙基督救赎之恩。他根据士林哲学一句格言：「天主能作的，且作了更好，所以祂就作了」。于是他宣称「先赎」是最佳的救赎方式，基督以此方法救赎祂的母亲是很恰当的，故祂就这样做了。这理论同时解释了人人需要救恩及圣母蒙受特恩的问题。

方济修会率先接纳了这理论并把圣母始胎无玷列入修会的节日，以后圣母始胎无玷的道理与庆祝日渐普及。一四七六年为方济会士教宗西斯笃(1411-1484) 予以核准用于罗马礼仪年历。一七零八年教宗格肋孟十一世(1700-1721) 推广为普世教会庆祝。一八五四年教宗庇护九世(1846-1878)，经谘询全体主教后，正式钦定圣母始胎无玷为信理。

从圣母始胎无玷的争论过程中，我们看出圣母敬礼不能纯属感情，而当以正统的神学为依据，但信友在感性上的反应能够先于理论，而神学家为维护基督救恩的重要性也作了不少努力。从亚纳的敬礼转移到圣母的敬礼，最后以基督为中心是这敬礼的进展过程。这节日也是礼仪上的一句名言最佳的佐证：即教会的祈祷就是信理的内容(lex orandi, lex credendi)。

当天的选经反映了该节日的意义，第一篇读经(创三9-15) 预示「女人」的后裔与蛇的后裔间的仇恨，此为救恩许诺的开端。答唱咏及第二篇读经(弗一3-12) 赞扬天主的救世工程，福音是预报救主诞生之一片段(路一26-38)，标榜圣母与天主的救世计划合作。感恩礼三篇祷文都重申圣母因天主之「先赎」免于罪污，而祈求天主也使祂的子民脱免罪恶。

二、露德圣母 (二月十一日) 任选纪念

一九零七年始有这纪念日，称为无玷荣福童贞玛利亚显现节(In Apparitione B. Mariae Virg. Immaculate)，纪念圣母于一八五八年二月至七月间向圣女伯尔纳德一连串的显现，五十年后之二月十一日，即圣母在露德第一次显现的日子，教宗庇护十世(1903-1914)订为庆日。一九七零年罗马弥撒表改为随意纪念的日子，易名为露德圣母纪念日(B. Mariae Virginis de Lourdes)。

名称更易的意义，是削减「显现」本身的重要性，因为「显现」本身并不普及，且在信仰上不是必要的。重要的是圣母本身，及她给世人的讯息。但我们要注意的是圣母的讯息并不增加基督启示的内容，而是提醒世人她圣子曾给我们的教导。

露德现已变成为着名的朝圣地，朝圣者终年不绝，在圣母显现的山洞上筑了一个三层的圣殿及广场，另有水池及一座地下圣殿(称庇护十世圣殿)。圣母的讯息是劝导人多祈祷，作更深的悔改及多从事爱德服务。这些都在露德朝圣地很具体的表达。为我们的信仰生活，露德的重要性不在于显现或病愈奇迹本身，而在于使人感染悔改，祈祷及爱德的精神。该纪念日的集祷经也包括脱免罪恶束缚的呼求。

三、圣母访亲 (五月三十一日) 庆日

这庆日起源当溯至公元四六九年，希腊拜占庭礼于七月二日纪念圣母的一件外衣被保存在君士坦丁堡郊区的一座小堂内。当天读经是圣母往访表姐依撤伯尔，及她的赞主曲。一二六三年方济会将此节日列为修会的庆祝日期，易名为圣母访亲纪念日，并推广作为圣母的庆日。一百年后教宗乌尔朋六世(1378-89) 为获圣母眷顾结束分裂(教宗三胞案)而核准该纪念日，继位教宗波尼法九世(1389-1404) 于一三八九年再重申此项核准。分裂结束后的公会议于一四四一年正式钦定为节日，并颁大赦予该日的礼仪辅礼员，因为在分裂期间，反教宗者没有接纳该庆节。一九七零年罗马弥撒经书遂将此节日安置在五月三十一日庆祝，即在预报救主降生及圣若翰诞生之间，以对照路加福音的记载。

此日感恩祭的祷文特别提及圣母顺从圣神的爱德精神。集祷经开始谓：「天父，你感召了玛利亚怀着你的圣子往访依撒伯尔，求你使我们顺从圣神的指引，常能与她一齐赞美你。」献礼经亦谓：「天父，求你使我们的献礼中悦于你，一如你接受了玛利亚的爱德……。」领圣体后经则论及尚在母胎的若翰因主基督的到访而欢跃。

可见圣母访亲的内涵，是玛利亚顺从圣神，爱人行动的德表，另方面是她怀着基督的含义，预示着基督的来临给人类带来救恩的喜乐，这也是当天读经的中心思想。

四、圣母圣心 (五月／六月) 任选纪念

敬礼圣母圣心源于十七世纪圣若望犹定(St. John Eudes) 的推动，但至十九世纪才较普遍被接受。首先是奥斯定修会于圣母升天后的主日举行圣母圣心弥撒，其后被采用于罗马教区。一九四二年世界第二次大战期间，教宗庇护十二奉献世界于圣母圣心，为祈求和平，再加上圣母于一九一七年在葡国花地玛的显现被当地主教调查属实，一九四四年教宗庇护十二世(1939-1938) 遂钦定圣母圣心为采用罗马礼地区的瞻礼，庆祝日期为八月二十二日，即圣母蒙召升天节后第八日。

一九七零年罗马弥撒书把这庆日降为随意纪念的日子，并移至耶稣圣心瞻礼的次日。即五旬节后第二主日后的星期六。而八月二十二日改为圣母元后纪念。

这样一来，圣母的纪念就更合逻辑，因为圣母元后纪念日刚好在圣母蒙召升天后八日，可当作为圣母蒙召升天庆祝的延续。至论圣母圣心移至耶稣圣心瞻礼的次日，更显出圣母与基督的关系，圣母的心无非是基督的心的反映，她是她圣子最完美的门徒。

当日的集祷经：「你圣母圣心是圣神的寓所，也求天主使我们堪当成为祂光荣的宫殿。」这祷文提出了圣母圣心敬礼的意义：基督充满圣神，祂的母亲也由于作了基督徒的典型而充满圣神，而今日我们所祈求的，也是同一圣神的恩赐。

五、嘉模圣母 (七月十六日) 任选纪念

嘉模圣母纪念日(Our Lady of Mt. Carmel) 原是十三世纪嘉模修会(Carmelites，另一译名叫加尔默罗修会) 的重要日子，该修会由一群隐修者在巴肋斯坦嘉模山创立，其会规于十三世纪得教会批准。相传于一二五一年七月十六日该会之会长西满史托(Simon Stock)在神视中见到圣母给他一块圣衣，这就是让修会推广圣母圣衣的起源。

其后该会被迫离开圣地，迁移到西方。为了迁移时的种种困难得以解决，遂定立七月十六日为修会的圣母纪念日，时为一三七六至一三八六年间。教宗本笃十三(1774-1730)于一七二六年把这纳入罗马礼仪年历。一九七零年罗马弥撒书把七月十六日的纪念日降为随意纪念的日子。

该日感恩礼集祷经引出了嘉模山更普遍的意义：「上主，求你因童贞圣母玛利亚的代祷……叫我们抵达天上的圣山?你圣子基督的面前。」在旧约里，山是天主显现的标记，厄里亚先知曾在该山居住，力斥假先知的虚伪(列上十八19-20)，保卫了以民的信仰。自古以来均有基督徒来此山朝圣。嘉模圣母纪念日，叫我们追溯来自该山的以民信仰历史渊源，并指向天上的圣山熙雍的耶路撒冷。

六、圣母元后 (八月二十二日) 纪念

自中世纪以来，已有不少修会团体及在教会的祈祷中，尊玛利亚为天使、诸圣人及世人之后。至十九世纪才有这瞻礼。一八七零年西班牙及拉丁美洲于五月三十一日庆祝圣母诸圣者之后瞻礼。一九五四年十一月一日圣母年闭幕时，教宗庇护十二世把五月三十一日定为全教会庆祝圣母为天地元后的日子一九七零年，罗马弥撒书把它移至八月二十二日(圣母蒙召升天后第八日)，以显出这节日与圣母升天的关系(见上文)，地位则为纪念日。

当日的进堂咏引用圣咏四十四篇第十节：「王后佩带敖非尔金饰，在你右边侍立」。集祷经提到天主把圣母给我们作母亲及母皇，使我们赖她的转求，获享天主子女的荣耀。换言之，圣母为天地母后虽是一种尊称，但这无非是为「侍奉天主」及为世人代祷。

七、圣母痛苦 (九月十五日) 纪念

前称圣母七苦节，起源于中世纪修会团体纪念圣母在十字架下的哀恸，以后扩展为纪念圣母一生所受的各种苦难。「七」字在十五世纪开始应用，因当时人爱用这数字，与圣母七乐相应。一七三七年本笃十三世(1724-1730) 制定「童贞玛利亚七苦节」，在苦难主日前的星期五庆祝，以示圣母痛苦与基督痛苦的关系。

于是时，圣母之仆修会已于一六六七年获罗马准许于九月份的第三主日庆祝圣母七苦节。其后于一八一四年教宗庇护七世(1800-1823) 被放逐法国获释，就把这九月份第三主日的圣母七苦节推广至全教会作为谢恩。一九一三年教宗庇护十世(1903-1914) 把这节目移至九月十五日举行。

一九七零年弥撒书取消了苦难主日前星期五的纪念，以免重复，并把九月十五日易名为圣母痛苦节，地位为纪念日；而九月十四日则是光荣十字架庆日。

圣母痛苦节在今日的礼仪中与十字架有关，即基督首先被钉在十字架上，吸引众人皈依祂，而基督徒的生活也要继承十字架的精神，而十字架不独有痛苦的一面，同时更是光荣及胜利的象征；圣母玛利亚正好是基督徒追随基督，分担祂救世劳苦的模范。

该日的集祷经提到圣母分担基督的苦难，求主使我们也能同样去作。第一篇读经引用希伯来书第五章，论基督从苦难中学习了服从。

为我们今天，「七」这字已不重要，重要的是作为基督徒，藉十字架达到完美的人生过程，而圣母则是我们这方面的模范。

又值得一提的，就是圣母痛苦的继抒咏，即着名的Stabat Mater，大多数音乐学者推定歌词为十三世纪一位方济嘉布遣会士所作，历代音乐家部会为它谱曲。圣母痛苦这题材的普及性及受爱戴程度由此可见。

八、玫瑰圣母 (十月七日) 纪念

这节日起源的远因与诵念玫瑰经有关。玫瑰经的主要推动者是道明修会，他们组织玫瑰经团，鼓吹多诵念玫瑰经，然而这节日的建立，却是西方一连串胜仗的「感恩」。

这节日最初名为「胜利之母节」，由教宗庇护五世(1565-1572) 于一五七一年制定，为纪念奥国在立本陶(Lepanto) 地击退土耳其军；该次胜利被认为是诵念玫瑰里的效果。继位教宗额我略十三世(1572-1585) 于一五七三年把这节日易名为玫瑰圣母节，作为罗马市的当守节日。一个半世纪以后，欧洲又再在彼得瓦顿(Peterwardein) 对土耳其战争获得胜利，教宗格肋孟十一世(1700-1721) 在一七一六年遂把玫瑰圣母节扩展至整个教会，以表感恩，规定在十月份第一个主日庆祝。日后教宗庇护十世在一九一三年把这节日改回原来的十月七日，即立本陶战役的胜利纪念日。一九七零罗马弥撒书将该日子保存不变，给予「纪念日」地位。

是日感恩礼的祷文已完全没有战役胜利的谢恩色彩，集祷经及领主后经均提到耶稣的降生、苦难和复活奥迹，刚好是玫瑰经的三份，也是基督奥迹的精华，故这天的意义在于玫瑰经所纪念的基督奥迹，而圣母是确实的参与者。

九、其他圣母节日

除以上在今日罗马弥撒书所载的圣母节日外，还有不少与圣母有关的节日，其中有些已渐渐式微，有些属地方性的庆祝，有些则已完全取消了。从十七世纪开始，这等庆祝有如雨后春笋；它们既然都属历史沿革的一部份，这里就择录一些较为人所熟知的作一简介：

(1) 圣母圣名节最早期在西班牙庆祝。初时是日课形式，一六八三年九月十二日波兰军解放维也纳，教宗依诺森十一世遂把圣母圣名节列内罗马年历，在圣母诞辰节后的主日举行。其后教宗庇护十世把这日移至九月十二日。然这节日是重复圣母诞辰的意义的。

(2) 慈爱圣母节这日原是慈爱修会(Order of Mercedarians) 的庆节，该修会创于十三世纪，致力赎回欧洲被回民战败被掳的基督徒。该修会大约在十七世纪开始庆祝慈爱圣母节 (Our Lady of Mercy)。

(3) 圣母母性节 (Motherhood of Mary)这节日为教宗庇护十一世于一九三一年钦定，为纪念厄弗所大公会议一千五百周年，十月十一日是当时被认定为该会议闭幕的日子(其实不确)，让次会议宣称圣母为天主之母，圣母母性节则定在该日。一九七零年罗马弥撒书恢复了一月一日的天主之每节。为免重复，便取消了十月十一日的纪念。

(4) 中华圣母庆节这庆日为中国地方教会的庆日。一九二四年六月十八日，上海全国主教会议决议将中国奉献给圣母，一九四一年，教宗庇护十二世为中国地方教会钦定中国之后庆节。在今日礼仪年历中，让节名为中华圣母节，并移至五月第二主日前之星期六，即母亲节前一天庆祝。

圣母是教会之母，也是全人类之母，「中华圣母」的意义，自然从属于以上意义，在此不必另赘。

(5) 其他从十七世纪至二十世纪钦定的圣母纪念还有很多，比如：十二月十八日圣母预产期纪念；一月二十三日圣母圣若瑟结婚纪念；四月二十六日善导之母纪念；五月二十四日圣母进教之佑纪念；六月二十四日永援之母纪念；十一月二十七日显灵圣牌纪念等。

如众周知，目前不少圣堂或教会学校机构仍以上述之名称命名。这些节日虽已从一九七零年罗马弥撒书中取消，但罗马无意取消个别有关团体或地区对这些节日的庆祝。


总结

玛利亚的敬礼日虽然很多，但不是每个节日为我们都有同等的意义。从历史中我们得知早期的节日多与基督或圣母的事迹有关。比如源自耶京的圣母蒙召升天节，圣母诞辰节，献圣母于圣殿节等，都是于圣地睹物思人，纪念在当地所发生的事迹。献耶稣于圣殿节，及预报救主降生节，是以基督诞生的庆日计算而定，即十二月二十五日倒算九个月为预报救主降生，圣诞后第四十日为献耶稣于圣殿。圣诞后第八日为天主之母的纪念，是圣诞期庆祝的一部份。圣母大殿纪念则因为圣母大殿是西方最早奉献给圣母的圣殿。

以上早期教会的圣母敬礼日期，是可更改的，因为庆祝的对象不是某地点及某时间，而是救恩事件本身，并在意义上与基督救世奥迹密切相连，且其中一些庆祝，根本上该称作基督的庆节。

中世纪以后的庆节，有些原是地方性或修会性的庆祝，而扩展至全教会，有些则是得圣母助佑之谢恩，或立节日作纪念，有些更是抽象的主题，为庆祝加于圣母的热心名衔，如：圣母圣心，慈爱圣母，永援之母，善导之母等。理论上，这些加诸圣母身上的尊称，数目可能超过一年的日子。一九七零年罗马弥撒书中，大部份抽象的主题性庆祝或纯地方性的庆祝，均已删除，表示敬礼圣母该特别着重有历史根据的救恩事件，使我们在庆祝之时，更深的领会并投入基督的救世工程之内。

在中世纪，圣母始胎无玷是圣母庆节发展中最重要的一环，就圣母成胎而言，是一个事件的庆祝，所经历的神学争辩，则更深入显出基督救恩的意义。不过在礼仪中，我们并不从神学争辩的胜负作为庆祝的对象。

但中世纪是礼仪走下坡的时候，道听途说的传闻及混有迷信成份的敬礼遂窜入礼仪。人们舍本逐末，忽略了礼仪的真谛，舍基督的奥迹于脑后，而专门着眼于一些可有可无或纯对圣母的尊称的庆祝。这些庆祝都很实际：如求战胜，求圣母的各种助佑，但问题不在这些敬礼的合理与否，而在礼仪与纯度不一的民间热心敬礼的撕混。

可幸的是，经过历史的考验，那些纯属热心敬礼而混入礼仪的纪念或次要的节日大多已不再存在。每一个时代的需要不同，过去吸引人的一些表扬圣母德行的枝节名目，或出于穿凿附会的庆祝，如圣母结婚节，劳来德圣母节(传说天使把纳匝肋圣母的屋搬到义大利劳来德镇)，圣体圣母节，谦逊圣母节等，已不再吸引人注意。敬礼圣母基本意义今日重新显露出来；圣母的敬礼或纪念日常是与基督的普世救恩有密切关系的事迹。

节日的不断累积，使历史上节日包袱越来越重。事实上教会每一次礼仪改革，必定包括重订礼仪年的节日，把次要的纪念日删除。而另一方面，各修会团体或地方教会亦不断的将地区性庆祝争取成为普世教会的庆祝，过程尤具政治性，而罗马教会往这方面则相当保守，不会轻易接纳，否则今日的圣母节日更琳琅满目，年中天天更换他庆祝不完。即使如此，今日保留下来的仍相当多。我们可以从历史的发展脉胳预测今后仍会有新订的圣母纪念日出现。而每一个时代，我们都要辨别那些日子值得广扬，那些日子是属次要，那些日子已不合时代需要。在这方面，历史研究是有效的工具，帮助我们作出合理的决定，以保信仰的核心讯息，避免信仰外表化的倾向。

最后，礼仪年是基督救赎奥迹随着日子及节期一步一步披露的恩宠时刻，是救恩史在此时此地的具体实现；在教会内是绝对没有独立的圣母礼仪年的，故圣母各纪念日在礼仪年中的安排，并不按时间的逻辑先后(部份除外)，而是安置在以基督奥迹为主的时节中，作为彰显基督救恩的从属庆祝。

作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio



MARY AS THE SANCTUARY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT－

SACRARIUM SPIRITUS SANCTI




1. Introduction

"As for May she treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart" (Lk 2:19,51). The Virgin Mary who was directly involved in the event of the incarnation never lost sight of any mysterious happenings in her life but kept them all in her heart that. as it were, a greater desire be induced in her to reach all the full depth of the descent of God, descendit de caelo. In fact the grace she received far surpasses all other creatures, both in heaven and on earth and was called the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit (Sacrarium Spiritus sancti) because by receiving the Word of God in her heart and in her body she gave Life to the world (1). Many in later generations who were in search of God (quaerere Deum) followed the examples of the humble Virgin by meditating upon the same marvels that God has achieved.

The Holy Scripture as divinely inspired is precisely a record of God's words and deeds (2). Meditation on the Scripture thus offered the beginnings of the eternal vision of God. This is especially true in the monastic culture (3). A reverent approach to the text, careful consideration of every detail of expression and cultivation of a quiet receptiveness which allows the Holy Spirit to speak in a man's heart as it will, all these had long been the traditional features of the "holy reading" (lectio divina) of the monastic life (4). Regarding the Marian title "Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti", we confine ourselves to a presentation of a lectio divina of a twelfth-century abbot, Rupert of Deutz (5). To be more precise, we are going to present some of his reflections (on this title) taken from his treatise On the Works of the Holy Spirit (6) which was the fruit of his prayerful meditation.

The twelfth-century has been considered a period of theological renewal (7). It witnessed the first stirrings of scholasticism and a flowering of the patristic traditions, specially, among monks. Many great authors belonged to this period like Anselm of Laon (d.1117), Rupert of Deutz (d.1129), Hugh of St Victor (d.1141), Abelard (d.1141), William of St. Thierry (d.1148). St. Bernard (d.1153), Gilbert of Poitiers (d.1154). Peter the Venerable (d.1156), Peter Lombard (d.1160) and so on (8). Among them Rupert of Deutz is considered the founder of biblical theology (9). Whatever one may think of the accuracy of this title it does bear witness to the fact that his writings had a great influence on monastic theology (10). Besides, he was also a "Mystiker" (11) and was endowed with the special gift of understanding the Scriptures. He did not deny the value of human learning, but simply they cannot be compared with "a visit from on high" (vistatio ab altissimo) (12) and he claimed himself among those who were privileged to have the gift of understanding with which he could do nothing but keep writing (13). Obviously this visitatio ab altissimo has enriched his lectio divina so much so that his commentary was intended to be a help for his readers to have an initial contact with divine mysteries (14).

What then is lectio divina? It means a text itself to be read, a selected passage or a lesson taken from the Scripture. In the Middle Ages as in antiquity, the reading involved the participation of body and mind. The readers had to pronounce the words they saw them, listening to the words pronounced and hearing the so-called "voices of the pages". It is a real acoustic reading: legere and audire. At the same time the lectio is accompanied by meditatio. The mind should think of the words read. It implies the thinking of a thing with the intention of doing it: in other words, to prepare oneself for it, to prefigure it in the mind, to desire it, in a way, to do it in advance－briefly, to practice it. This results in more than a visual memory of the written words. What results is a muscular memory of the words pronounced and an aural memory of the words heard. The meditatio consists in applying oneself with attention to this exercise in total memorization; it is, terefore, inseparable from the lectio. It is what inscribes, so to speak, the sacred text in the body and in the soul. This repeated mastication of the divine words is sometimes described as spiritual nutrition. In this case the vocabulary is borrowed from eating, from digestion, and from the particular form of digestion belonging to ruminants. For this reason, reading and meditation are sometimes described by the word ruminatio which will lead to the depths of the words and taste of their flavour (in ore cordis). The way of uniting reading, meditation and prayer, this "meditative prayer" as William of St. Thierry calls it, had great influence on religious psychology. It occupies and engages the whole person in whom the Scriptures take root, later on to bear fruit. It is this deep impregnation with the words of Scripture that explains the extremely important phenomenon of reminiscence whereby the verbal echoes so excite the memory that a mere allusion will spontaneously evoke whole quotations and, in turn. a scriptural phrase will suggest quite naturally allusions elsewhere in the sacred books. Each word is like a hook, so to speak; it catches hold of one or several others which become linked together and make up the fabric of the expose. The monastic lectio is aimed at meditatio and oratio. It is a prayerful reading. Obviously lectio divina is one of the principal occupations of the monk as described in the Rule of St. Benedict. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to know, to learn, and for some. to teach. In fact literature is a conditioning factor of Benedictine life (15).

  (1)See Lumen Gentium 53: Virgo enim Maria, quae Angelo nuntiante Verbum Dei corde et corpore suscepit et Vitam mundo protulit (...) ut sit Genitrix Dei Filii (...) sacrarium Spiritus Sancti quo eximiae gratiae dono omnibus aliis creturis, coelestibus et terrestribus, longe antecellit.

(2)See Dei Verbum 2: Placuit Deo in sua bonitate et sapientia Seipsum revelare et notum facere sacramentum voluntatis suae (cf eph 1:9), quo homines per christum, Verbum camem factum, in Spiritu Sancto accessum habent ad Patrem et divinae naturae consortes efficiuntur (cf Eph 2:18; 1Pt 1:4). (...)Haec revelationis oeconomia fit gestis verbisque intrinsece inter se connexis, ita ut opera, in historia salutis a Deo patrata, doctrinam et res verbis significatas manifestent ac corroborent, verba autem opera prociament et mysterium in eis contentum elucident.

(3)LECLERCQ J., The Love of Learning and the Desire for God. A Study of Monastic Culture (New York－Fordhanm Univ. 1982, repr. 1985) 71-86. This is a translation from L' Amour des lettres et le desir de Dieu: Initiation au auteurs monastiques du moyen age (Paris 1957); EVANS G. R., The Language and Logic of the Bible. The Earlier Middle Ages (Cambridge Univ. 1984); SPICQ C., Esquisse d' une histoire de 1' exegese latine au Moyen Age (Paris 1944).

(4)See EVANS G. R., o.c. 13; LECLERCQ J., o.c. 15-17, 72-73; 212-217; ROUSSE J.－SIEBEN H. J.－BOLAND A., Lectio Divina et Lecture Spirituelle, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite t. 9 (Pris 1976-77) 470-510; Von SEVERUS E. －SOLIGNAC A.－GOOSSENS M.－SAUVAGE M.－SUDBRAK J., Meditation, in Dictionnaire de Spirtualite t. 10 (Paris 1977-80) 906-934.

(5)Rupert of Deutz (ca. 1075-1129) was born and brought up in the environs of Liege. During his adolescence he had a series of mystical experiences and was convinced he had been granted the gift of understanding the Scriptures. As zealous Gregorian reformer he refused ordination until his simoniacal bishop had been reconciled to Rome (1106). As a biblical theologian he wrote many biblical commentaries and had not a few controversies with the secular clergy of Liege, the school of Laon, the Canon Regulars. He was appointed Abbot of Deutz near Cologne in 1120 and died March 4, 1129.　

Further details on his life can be found in MAGRASSI M., Teologia e storia net pensiero di Ruperto di Deutz (Roma 1959); ARDUINI M. L., Contribute alla biografia di Ruperto di Deutz, in Studi Medievali 3 ser. 16 (1975) 537-582; EADEM, Neue Studien uber Rupert von Deutz, Siegburger Studien 17 (Siegburg 1985); VAN ENGEN J., Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley 1983).

(6)The De Operibus Spiritus Sancti (abbrv. Spir) belongs to the third part of Rupert's most comprehensive exgetical work De sancta Trinitate et Operibus eius, in HAACKE Rh. (ed.). Corpus Christianorum Continuatio MedMevalis (abbrv. CCCM) 21-24 (Turhnolti 1971-72). The whole work contains 42 books in three parts. It deals with the greater part of the Bible, associating the Three Persons of the Trinity with the principal epochs of history: the Father with Creation (in part one from book I to book 3), the Son with Redemption (which begins already with the expulsion from Paradise and culminates in the Incarnation in part two from book 4 to book 33) and God the Holy Spirit active through His seven gifts from the Incarnation to the Last Judgment in part three from book 34 to book 42). The thirty-two books in the first two parts deal with differnt Old Testament books except one with the Gospels. When Rupert comes to Part three De Operibus Spiritus Sancti on the works of the Holy Spirit he draws freely from the whole Bible. It can be taken as an independent unit. Rupert follows the Augustine's influential tripartite division of salvation-history (ante legem, sub lege, sub gratia). These nine books deals with the Holy Spirit who is at work through His seven gifts. The history of the Church is organized in seven epochs corresponding to the seven gifts though without defining clearly their time divisions.

(7)See the stimulating volume of BENSON R.L., －CONSTABLE G. (eds). Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Oxford 1982). Especially CONSTABLE G., Introduction xxvii: "By their self-imposed chronological limits, the authors imply that the renaissance was mainly bracketed in the century from the 1060s or 1070s to 1160s and that the early twelfth century was its center of gravity",

(8)See LECLERCQ J., The Renewal of Theology, in BENSON R.L－CONSTABLE G. (eds), o.c. 68-87, here 69-70.

(9)See SPICQ C., o.c. 117

(10)See LECLERCQ J., The Love of Learning and the Desire for God 218: Rupert "is the source par excellence for traditional monastic theology".

(11)HAACKE Rh., Die mystischen Visionen Ruperts von Deutz, in Sapientiae Doctrina: Melanges de theologie et de litterature medievales offerts a Dom Hildebrand Bascour O. S. B. (louvain 1980) 68-90.

(12)See De gloria et honore Filii hominis super Matthaeum XII ed. HAACKE Rh. CCCM 29, 386: Ego quamvis et ipse nonnullos in disciplinis scholaribus patres habuerim, et in libris artium liberalium non segniter studiosus exititerim, hoc profiteor quia vistatio ab altissimo melior roihi est quam decern patres huiusmodi.

(13)IBID., CCCM 29, 384: (...) cito subsistit inundans ilia vis amoris paulatimqu decessit; ego autem os meum aperuit et cessare quando scriberem nequaquam potui, et etiam si velim, tacere non possum.

(14)See Spir 1, 2 24, 1823-24: Verum speculandae huius gratiae via recta legitimusque ordo, tune demum nobis servabityr, si gratiae principem et largitorem, mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominern Iesum Christum prius cognoverimus.

(15)See note 4.

2. Mary－Sanctuary of the Holy Spirit (Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti)

The title in this work first appeared in the seventh chapter of book one (Spir 1. 7) when the incarnation of the Word is mentioned as the first act of the Holy Spirit. The Word though pre-existing should now take human flesh in the Virgin's womb and be generated by her. Since Mary is a creature and could not achieve this alone, then the Holy Spirit comes upon her and the power of the Most High overshadows her that the incarnation be achieved. Rupert actually repeats what the Gospel has narrated but only put it in a nice poetical way that reflects, nonetheless, his theological vision of history and the destiny of men.

The Latin word Sacrarium indicates a place destined for ceremonies of worship or a sacred dwelling of divinity where divine secrets or sacred things pertinent to divinities are to be reserved (16). Rupert has used it as a bridge term to describe the highest point of the continual descent of tanscendent deity into immanence which had already initiated in the first moment of creation and which pointed to the summit of the Virginal conception of the Word. It is an adapted term to provoke ideas like God's plan {propositum Dei), revelation, indwelling of divinity, worship of God, Church, sanctification of man, and so on. In sum it is a reassertion of the classical interpretation of the "exchange" {commercium) by which the Son of God became what we are in order that we might become what he is－sons of God in the Son. The underlying motif in all these concepts is Rupert's theology of salvation-history (17). At the heart of history is the event of the incarnation which took place in the Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti. the Blessed Virgin.

2.1 Mary and the Synagogue:

The Preparation of the IncarnationThe outreach of the Word to the world has already taken place ever since the very moment of creation. Rupert expresses this idea by putting the words of Ps 44:1-2 in the mouth of the Father: "My heart overflows (eructavit) with a goodly theme (verbum bonum); I address my verses (opera) to the king; my tongue (lingua) is like the pen (calamus) of a ready scribe"(18). Verbum bonum obviously is associated with the second divine person. The world is not only created in Him but also for Him (propter quod) that He may reign over all peoples. God intended all along to have the Word assume a concrete, earthly role in the divine plan for all peoples independent of the fall of humanity. Just as the first man should dominate all the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that move on earth by virtue of his rationality; so the Incarnate Word will reign over all peoples by virtue of His divine majesty (19). Man is to be the Lord of the world, but God the Lord of all men through the Incarnate Kingship of the Word. This has always been the plan (propositum) of God. The Word's assumption of the flesh constituted no new plan on God's part. That is to say the incarnation is unconditional. All that was "new" yet not unforeseen was attributed to the fall of man which required that the Incarnate Word, rather than opting for other possibilities, should assume a servile humanity of Adam. namely, a mortal body which was to undergo the suffering of sacrifical death in order to requite God's righteousness (20).

The unfolding of the divine plan is always in a progressive form (a minore ad majus) and every part of sacred history marks a incrementum of light. Thus the divine plan has taken a more explicit shape in the history of the chosen people (21). By quoting Ez 16:4ff, Rupert recalled the misery of the people born in the state of sin just like a poor girt born in the dirt of blood. The misery was represented by the slavery in Egypt whence the Lord brought her and made a covenant with her decorating her with the Law. This passage like many others in the Scripture demonstrated that the love of God towards the chosen people his likened to that of a husband for is bride (sponsa Dei) (22). This great love of God will be further made tangible in the incarnation.

"Would it be a joke or fictitious play on words, spoken without thinking seriously, from the Father of alt wisdom whose immense great love is the Holy Spirit? Far from this! Actually He wanted to be the husband of rational humanity, that is to generate from her His own Son. In fact He began doing this, when He revealed this here and there and when He sent Moses and the prophets. God, the husband and spiritually God the Holy Spirit chose some souls from the people proven by faith. They were admitted to by embraced chastely by the husband. Then by the impetus of His love, namely, of the Holy Spirit, God－the husband－infused His own seed from His inner self, His Word from the depth of His heart to the chosen ones. Then the Word of Truth received by them opened their mouths and took up their corporeal voices that they might prophecy for Him and provoke faith from the listeners". (23)

In this way Rupert shows that the love of God is not only confined to the Synagogue－the chosen people, but extended to all humanity as such (vir esse intendebat rationalis creaturae humanae). Or to speak in another way, the Church in the largest sense embraces all men in different times and places (24). To be the husband of humanity means that God wants to generate His own Son together with her. In fact the "infusion" of the divine seed is expressed in the prophetical charism, that is, a spiritual conception of the Word (Conceptio in mente) in the chosen people (sponsa Patris).

Since God spoke to man through man. He adopted human languages. Obviously all transcendence of divine truth cannot be enclosed in earthly speaking. Thus Rupert warned us "not to let the apparent use of the similes attenuate the reality of truth. In fact whatever the truth-telling holy Scripture speaks to us about the love of God or God, the lover, is always true and constant. However due to the limited situations of our flesh similes are to be used. These similes with respect to the constant truth are nothing but shadows or transitory images. For us. earthly beings, the earthly things came to be known immediately and deemed as the reality and the 'reality' itself as similes. On the contrary the latter is reality, the former are similes which will pass away with respect to the permanent" (25). Hence to call the Synagogue sponsa Patris is a metaphorical way of talking about the intimate relation between God and man. What matters here is not the term itself but the relation that constitutes the entire reality.

Now the "reality" which will come true is that God loved so much humanity that He wanted to generate His own Son out of her and now in Mary God will bring His plan to completion (cause completa). Just as the conceptio in mente has taken place in the chosen people, above all, among prophets, so Mary, before her physical conception (conceptio in ventre), has had also the spiritual conception (conceptio in mente). In this sense Rupert is not only audacious enough to call Mary the bride of the Father (sponsa Patris) but also the best of the chosen people (pars optima ecclesiaeprioris). There are two reasons for which Mary became the best. First in the moral order Mary in an excellent way manifested her faith or "fiat" before the proposal of God (26). Faith is the pre-condition of (conceptio in mente) (27). Her faith thus furnished the best dwelling for God (descendit de caelo). Secondly, in the ontological order, it is the physical conception (conceptio in ventre) that brings, as it were in a retroactive way, her conceptio in mente to fullness. Let us now examine this two-fold conceptio more in detail.

2.2 Conceptio in mente

As the Virgin was the chosen sponsa Dei Patris and the pars optima God loved her to the utmost. But how (quornocto)? Rupert's technical use of "how" is usually intended to lead the readers to rise from the "letter" to the "spiritual sense" of the reality. Then elegantly he puts his meditated "how" in this way:

"God, the Father, (...) was her husband (...). How all his interest, all his fruit, all his affection, all his love. all his power and generating force were brought together upon this Virgin when the fullness of time came? Only the Virgin herself who had experienced this knew best (...). The holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. We have only heard of these words but she was the first to hear and by believing what she had heard. In her fervent belief she opened her mind and mouth saying, 'Behold, the handmaid of the Lord, let it happen to me as you have said'. At once, according to the word of the angel, the Holy Spirit came over her and through the open doors of faith penetrated in her. Where? First in the sanctuary of her chaste breast (Sacrarium pudici pectoris), then in the temple of the sacred and immaculate womb (templum sacri et incorrupt! uteri). In the dwelling of the breast the Spirit made her the prophetess and in the womb, the mother" (28).

By relating the image of "open doors" (ianuae apertae) to the assent of faith, Rupert describes the penetration of the Holy Spirit which is the love of God (Amor Dei) and which entails the conceptio in mente of the Word in her heart. Thus Mary became the prophetess. Her prophetical dignity is far beyond all other prophets insofar as her conceptio in mente is the last and the most important preparation for the conceptio in ventre. In fact the beatitude of all other prophets derives from their relations to this sanctuary of God. To express this. Rupert employs the prophecy of Isaiah, "'I approached the prophetess then she conceived and gave birth to a Son' (...). Rather we have no doubt that all the holy prophets, Moses for the first, had approached this prophetess! All came to her: the particuler prophecies of alt and every single special grace came together upon this prophetess at the moment of the coming of the Holy Spirit over the virgin. Isaiah, indeed all the prophets, believed themselves blessed because they were well aware of bringing something of the good Word to this sanctuary of the Holy Spirit" (29).

Hence in this way the Virgin Mary "received the full grace of the Holy Spirit and conceived the whole Word of God. first in the spirit then in the womb (prius mente quam ventre concipiens)"(30).

The word "approach" (accessi) together with "conceive" and "give birth" does convey the meaning of sexual intercourse which, however, is used to express "intimate knowledge" in another way. The prophecies are the fruit of the conceptio in mente of the prophets. The sum total of all these prophecies points to nothing but the coming of the Messiah－the incarnation of the Word. However all these prophecies would not be fulfilled, were it not for the believing assent of the Blessed Virgin. In such a way the prophecies give expression to the immense richness of this sanctuary of the Spirit but it is the opening of the doors of this dwelling that renders all the prophecies dynamic, vital and fulfilled. The dynamic outreach of the divine transcendence through the prophecies arrives at its summit and fullness in the Virgin's conceptio in mente.

2.3 Conceptio in ventre

Like many other prophets conceptio in mente requires both faith of the person concerned as pre-condition and assistance of the Holy Spirit. In fact for the fiat of the Virgin Mary the Spirit came upon her. However for the conception in ventre it requires something more which is expressed by the greeting of the Archangel Gabriel, "Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus". Rupert further specified the fullness of grace (gratia plena) in terms of the overshadowing of the power of the Most High that guarantees the second generation of the Son of God (31). This power (virtus altissimi) is nothingbut the Holy Spirit Himself, the Spirit of love (32).

"What did this fragile girl receive or conceive? She was so fragile not by her sex but by her mortal nature. In spite of this, she conceived the true Word of the Lord. the true substance of the Word, out of the best substance of God the Father before whom even the angels trembled (...). It is precisely the power of the Most High, the power of performing great wonders that makes her female nature ready for the coming of the Word"(33).

Now Rupert turns his attention to the Incarnate Word who constitutes the real content of the conceptio in ventre. Though the conceptio in ventre is by virtue of the Holy Spirit. Rupert made it clear that it is not the Spirit who generates (Spiritu generante). The Son generated is not the Son of the Spirit. The conceived one is not due to the generatio but operatic Spiritus sancti. The child to be born will be called holy (sanctum), the Son of God (Filius Dei). Rupert following John 1:1 affirms that what the Virgin conceives has pre-existed long before, holy (sanctum) by ageless essence {antiqua essentia), and has always heen the Son of God. The fact that he is now called the Son of God manifests the name of God who was not yet known as the Father who generated this Son not by adoption of grace (non adoptione gratiae) but by his very nature (proprietate naturae) (34).

For Rupert the holy (sanctum) is the sanctifying holiness (sanctitas, qua sancti omnes sanctificantur)and is now born as the holy of the holy (sanctus sanctorum). He was not conceived or born in the sin of Adam and then sanctified by the accidental holiness. Definitely not. It was the immaculate Virgin (incorrupta Virgo) that conceived this essential holiness (essentialiter sanctum) by virtue of the Holy Spirit (35). Rupert is well aware that the "sanctifying holiness" is to be conceived or born in the immaculate Virgin, though without making it explicit that it is this "sanctifying holiness" which had sanctified her long before this conception. However it is important to note that the conceptio in ventre does not only point to the revelation of the heavenly Father but also the sanctification of all humanity. In fact a few lines later he associated this holy one called the Son of God with the New Man of St. Paul: The first man became a living soul (animam viventem) and the second has become a life-giving spirit (spiritum vivificantem) (36).

Now by his comparison between the New Man and the old man, Rupert tries to draw a picture of the New Man. God made man out of the soil of the earth which was not blessed, while for the heavenly man God blessed the Virgin. He quoted the words of the archangel Gabriel "blessed are you among women" (benedicta tu in mulieribus) and Ps 84 "Lord, you have blessed your land" (Benedixisti. Domine, terram tuam). Thus the New Man was not made of the soil of the ground (cte limo terrae) but of the "blessed earth" which unlike the first is the living, sensible, rational and above all. faithful. Precisely because of this faith, it becomes capable of receiving the Holy Spirit and the seed of God (37). We should not think that Holy Spirit is a better and wiser maker (artifex) than the Father, though the New Adam conceived by the work of the Holy Spirit is better than the old one; because the New Adam is made of a better land that is more similar to the divine reason (divinae rationi vicinior) (38).

The first man was created in the image (adimaginern) and likeness (ad similitudinern nostram) of God. imago means the reason which distinguishes man from other creatures in the world (39). Similitudo is the participation in the Holy Spirit (40). The first man was supposed to pass from imago to similitudo. He could have by his free and rational activities entered into loving communion with God from a natural life to a supernatutal one. These activities are nothing but the imitations of God's goodenss (41). However the first man failed. Now comes the second Man in whom the similitudo is the Holy Spirit Himself and the imago Dei invisibilis is the Son of God. They both join together in the very womb of the Virgin. Then by way of reminiscence (42), Rupert refers this fact to Ps 84:11: "Faithful love (misericordia) and Loyalty (veritas) join together. Saving Justice (iustitia) and Peace (Pax) embrace". These divine attributes personified are referred to the Holy Spirit (misericordia -pax) and the Son (veritas - iustitia). "Loyalty (veritas) will spring up from the earth" (Ps 84:12) points to Christ's humanity and "Justice (iustitia) will lean down from heaven" (Ps 84:12) to His divinity (43). In this way the New Man is by far the most perfect of all men.

Rupert's identification of the similitudo with the Holy Spirit obviously depends heavily on the Latin structure of Gen 1:26: "Faciamus hominern ad imaginern et similitudinern nostram". The possessive adjective "our" {nostram) is attached to similitudinem not to imaginem. This enables him to say that "our likeness" (similitudinem nostram) refers to the Spirit of the Father and of the Son (44). Such a heavy dependence on the Latin version in exegesis today sounds perhaps far-fetched, yet the analysis of the Latin structure for medieval exegetes was itself one of the techniques to discover the "key" to other passages. It is an effective evocation of biblical images and a device to break through the prison of the letter so as to arrive at the spirit of the word. Of course the similitudo of the New Man reinforces the concept of the overshadowing of the Spirit and thus fits in squarely with that fo the sacrarium Spiritus Sancti.

2.4 Mary and the Church: The Continuation of Incarnation

Within the framework of the "unique Church" as the entire humanity, the conception in ventre does not only render Mary the pars optima ecclesiae. the sponsa Patris but also the model of the new Church, the bride of the Son of God (exemplar iunioris ecclesiae sponsae Filii De;) (45). The Holy Spirit who in or from the womb of the Mary has worked for the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God will also be at work in the womb of the Church through the life-giving baptism of grace for the re-birth of many sons of God. It is not without reason that we distinguish the Old Synagogue which is the bride of the Father from the "New" Church which is the bride of the Son. It is clear that the Synagogue of that time did not recognize the Son of God and thus could not be said to be His bride; God was only revealed to a few through the Spirit of prophecy and was hidden from the rest (46). The distinction between Mary as sponsa Patris, par excellence, and the Church as sponsa Fitii enables Rupert to draw a close parallel between the womb of Mary (uterus Mariae) and that of the Church (uterus Ecclesiae).

First of all. the Church in a large sense an be identified with the entire humanity yet has a special task of conceiving the Word who wanted to be incarnated. For Rupert that pregnant woman in labour described in Rev 12 is to carry out this task and hence the image is formally applied to the Church (47) but inclusively also to the Virgin Mary who has shared the pain of childbirth. Rupert did not tackle this point in one explicit place, but if we put together the scenes he depicted in different passages, a close-up picture of the Church-Mary can be seen in this woman. "Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman robed with the sun standing on the moon. and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant, and in labour, crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth"(Rev 12:1-3). Rupert explained in detail that this woman is the Holy Church. According to the Scripture, once she was found in her nudity because of the sins of the first parents but now is robed with the sun, that is, Christ, the sun of justice(...). The moon under her feet means renouncement of worldly goods. On her head a crown of twelve stars means that at the beginning the Church is embellished with twelve apostles (48). She is pregnant with the good Word of God in her heart by virtue of the Spirit of God's love. She preaches out of great love and cares only for the generation of the spiritual sons (49). The labours of the Church are due to the confrontation of the evil one which has begun a lasting battle (50). However the presence of Mary on Calvary shows her involvement in the same "labours", namely, the painful childbirth which is different from that of the joyful childbirth in Bethlehem. Rupert decribes this by images. Under the cross "a sword pierced through the soul of the blessed Virgin and Mother of God" (51). At the same time John the beloved disciple was there "to drink the cup of the Lord's passion"(52). The "drinking" marks a new life of John as one of the twelve stars of the nascent Church and as a son entrusted to Mary. Later as apostle and evangelist he was granted the admirable visions with which he wrote of the inexpressible mystery of the Incarnate Word in the Book of Revelations. (53). Then in his letter he was able to testify to the three human witnesses of Christ's baptism: the Spirit, water and blood (54). The blood of Christ was poured out with water from his side and thus washed away all the sins of those who have faith (55). In another passage He was likened to a little golden bag of God, namely the fullnes of the Holy Spirit. This bag was torn by the passion and from thence overflows (procedere) the Spirit for the forgiveness of sins (56). The passion is His own baptism by which Christ Himself was glorified (57). In this way the glorified Christ－the husband of the Church (sponsus ecclesiae) by His blood, water and Spirit renders fecund the womb of the Church.

Secondly, both Mary and the Church enjoyed the same divine fecundity of the Holy Spirit. "The divine omnipotence that came upon Mary and overshadowed her that the only begotten Son of God might be conceived and born of her, is the same omnipotence that comes over the waters and endows them with fecundity so that the sons of God may te re-born of them. The source of the natural water is rendered life-giving and becomes the womb of the Church and the womb of grace" (58). In this way Mary becomes the exemplar of the New Church, because the same Spirit that first came upon and dwelled in her will also does the same for the regeneration of the children of God in the womb of the Church.

Thirdly, since Mary herself is neither detached from nor stands above but is always within the Church, her fecundity empowered by the Holy Spirit renders fecund the motherhood of the Church in generating sons of God. Rupert again resorts to the image of Rev 12:1-2 so as to show that the entire Church through Mary who forms pan of the Church gives birth to Christ in flesh with a loud cry of desire and of lasting expectation (59). In this way the divine fecundity of the Spirit enables both of them to generate the same Christ but at once in different senses. Mary gave birth to the Only Son of God, while the Church to sons in the Son. By the message of the archangel Gabriel and the overshadowing of the Spirit Mary gave birth to the Only Son of God who, pre-existing in eternity, assumed the flesh from her; whereas the Church by the preaching of Gospels (praedicatio evangelorum) and the life-giving washing (lavacrum vivificum) (60) generates the children of God who in their corrupted humanity are re-formed in the divinity of Christ (61). Just as the message of Gabriel requires faith from the Virgin, so does the preaching of Gospels require it from the listeners. To put it in another way, the Church thus becomes the Mother of God, at least in a mystical way, precisely because on the one hand her most excellent member Mary has generated the Son of God and on another the Church herself through her generates sons in the Son. It is from Mary, the sacrarium Spiritus sancti, the Church first, mente gravida, then utero gravida, attains the divine fecundity and generates the sons of God. When the Virgin was giving birth to the Incarnate Son, it was the whole Church in her giving birth. When the Church is giving birth to the sons, it is Mary in the Church giving birth to them. In Mary the Church becomes Mother of the God-man and in the Church Mary becomes mother of all. A mutual penetration, almost an exchange of functions, takes place between one and another. Thus Mary by virtue of her motherhood of the Son becomes the mother of all sons (62).

As the Church has assumed the task of generating the children of God (63), she has to face the challenges of the evil one (64). It is the Incarnate Word Himself who has to carry on the process of incarnation and bring it to fullness (65) and become the sanctifying holiness of all who are born of this woman. The fullness of the incarnation, from which we are invited to attain initially in this world (66) through the sacraments, will be realized in the resurrection of the body. On that day the Word in the heart of the Father will fully be present in our body (67) in such a way that the Spirit dwelling corporally in the Incarnate body will also dwell in us (68).



  (16)The Latin Word "Sacrarium" derives from "Sacer" (sacred, holy) and "Arium" (a suffix denoting a place). The Greek is "Ieroteion", "hagionbema". It means a temple, a sanctuary of a church, sacristy, treasure-room, chapel, sacred order; the inner part of the temple or the altar where the pyx for the consecrated bread is placed. See Du CANGE F. C.－HENSCHEL G. A. F.－FAVRE L., Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis 10 vols = Standard Edition of L. FARVRE (Niort 1882-87, repr. Paris 1937-38); FORCELLINI A.－CORRADINI F,－PERIN J., Lexicon Totius Latinitatis 4 vols (Patavii 1864-69); NIERMYER J. F., Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus. A Medieval Latin－French/English Dictionary with Abbreviationes et index fontium by Van de KIEFT C. (Leiden 1976, repr. 1984).

(17)Rupert did not discuss theoretically the historical interpretation of salvation but he simply took it for granted. Every divine truth is to be grounded on historical events. His work of De sancta Trinitate et operibus eius covers the whole span of salvation-history. He managed to construct a sucession of epochs according to the Holy Scripture which is a record of divine work. However he could only manage to illuminate the early period on one side and the end of time on the other: the vast period between the patristic age and the present remains undifferentiated. For this argument see MAGRASSI M., o.c.

(18)Spir 1,12: CCCM 24:1835: Eructavit cor meam verbum bonum, dico ego opera men regi. Lingua mea calamus scribae velociter scribentis? Neque enim tantummodo intelligendum est de creatione mundi, ubi Pater verbum eructabat, creando quidpiam, dicendo: Fiat (...).

(19)See Spir 1, 12: CCCM 24, 1835: Ergo ilium (Adam) praeesse iussit piscibus, volucribus et bestiis, videlicet dignitate rationis; istum (Christum) autem populis, scilicet auctoritate divinae maiestate.

(20)See Spir 2, 6 CCCM 24,1868: multum tibi debemus nos, Deus Christe, quia homo factus es, at tu econtra multum nobis debes, homo Christe, quia propter nos Deum assumptus es. Nam nisi fuissemus nos peccatores, causa cur tu assumi in Deum deberes, nulla fuisset. Confortenetur, inquam, nec enim id solum attendere debent, quod tantae dignitatis Dominus propter tarn indigna servilium personarum delicta, tantis affectus est iniuriis et ipsa morte, morte autem crucis.　

Note that Deus Christe and Homo Christe means the same Incarnate Word, Son of Mary, hence these words are not addressed to the pre-existing Word. The plan of Incarnation was already established in eternity (ante omnia omnia saecula: Spir 1,8: CCCM 24, 1829), but the concrete way of incarnation as now de facto is conditioned by the fall of humanity. Further explanation can be found in MAGRASSI M., o.c. 229-232.

(21)See Spir 1, 8: CCCM 24,1829: causam (...) in ea (Maria) perficere.

(22)See Spir 1, 7: CCCM 24, 1828: Multa eiusmodi sunt in Scripturis ... ubi vinim sive maritum eclesiae sive ecclesiae sive synagogae sese Deus esse asserivit.

(23)Spir 1, 7: CCCM 24, 1829: Numquid laetabunda aut ludicra levitate et non cum certae rei pondere haec loquebatur omnis sapientiae Pater Deus, cuius est amor magnus et immensus, hic Deus, hic Spiritus sanctus? Absit hoc! Actu quippe vir esse intendebat rationalis creaturae humanae, id est Filium sibi ex ea generare, quod et facere iam incipiebat, cum haec et haec diceret, cum Moysen et prophetas mitteret. Electas nimirum et probatae plexibus castis, spiritualiter Deus Spiritus Sanctus admittebat, et impetu huius amoris sui, huius Spiritus sancti, semen suum de secretis suis, Verbum suum de proftindo cordis sui incutiebat illis.

(24)See also MAGRASSI, o.c. 91.

(25)Spir 1, 7: CCCM 24, 1829: Rem veritatis non extenuet et suspicio affectatae similitudins. Nam revera quaecumque sancta et veridica Scriptura nobis de amore Dei vel amante Deo loquitur, tarn vera tamque constantia sunt, ut potius haec nostra camalia, de quibus similitudines ducuntur, illis constantis veritatis queadam quasi umbrae vel transitoriae imagines sint. Verum quia nobis, qui de terra sumus, prius ista terrena in notitiam venerunt, idcirco istae res, illae autem rerum similitudines aestimantur; revera autem ilia res, istae vero rerum similitudines sunt, quae et illis permanentibus transeunt.

(26)Spir 1, 8: CCCM 24, 1829: per huius beatae Virginis uterum camem fidei ante omnia saecula proposuerat.

(27)See Spir 1, 11 CCCM 24, 1833: propter fidem ... seminis Dei perceptibilis.

(28)Spir 1,8-9: CCm 24, 1830: Pater (...) vir eius erat (...) Tpta autem tails viri utiliats, totus fructus, ominis affectuis, totus amor, tota virtus ac generandi vis, quomodo ubi venit plenitudo temporis in iam dictam Virginem se contulerit, ipsa quae experta est melius novit, nos autem audivimus tantum verba aeterne mandata memoriae, verbe Gabrihelis archangeli dicentis: Spirtius sanctus suerveniet in te et virtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Ideoque et quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius Dei. Verba, inquam haec nos audivimus tantum, illa autem et prior audivit et auditui credens continuo quod audierat experini meruit. Ubi enim bene credula menten suam st os suum aperuit, ut diceret: Ecce ancilla Domini, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum, moxs iuxta dictum angeli hic Spiritus sanctus superveniens in eam per apertas fidei ianuas sese infudit. Quo autem sese infudit? Nimirum prius in sacrarium pudici pectoris, deinde in templum sacri et incorupti uteri; on donum pectoris, ut prophetissam faceret; in uterum, ut materm efficeret.

(29)Spir1, 9: CCCM 24, 1830-31: Et acessi ad prophetissam, et concepit et peperit filium. Num autem solum istum ad hanc prophetissam accessisse putamus, aut quornodo accedere potuerit miramur? Immo sanctos omnes prophetissam accessisse non dubitamus. Omnes omnino ad illam convenerunt, omnium enim et singulorum divisivae gratiae, particulares prophetiae, in istam prophetissam sirnul convenerunt, sirnul Spiritu sancto superveniente concurrerunt, Et beatum se Isaias, immo beatos se omnes prophetae sancti non immerito crediderunt, quod hoc modo ad istam prophetissam accessuros se sese noverunt, quod ad istud Dei templum, ad istud Spiritus sancti sacrarium quidpiam Verbi boni sese afferre cognoverunt.

(30)Spir 1, 9: CCCM 24, 1831: haec Virgo (...) plenam sancti Spiritus gratiam suscipiens, totum Dei Verbum, Deum Verbum prius mente quam ventre concipiens.

(31)See Spir 1, 9: CCCM 24:1831: Ad exponendam eius gratiae plenitudinem parum fuerat dixisse: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, nisi addidisset, et virtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi.

(32)See Spir 1, 9: CCCM 24,1831: virtus, inquam, altissimi. id est idem ipse Spiritus sanctus, Spiritus amoris obumbravit ei.

(33)Spir 1, 9: CCCM 24, 1831: Quid enim puella fragilis non modo sexu sed et conditione mortalitatis suscepit aut concepit, nisi validum Verbum Domini, validam substantiam Verbi, de optima substantia Dei Patris, quern tremunt angeli? (...) Opportune igitur obumbrabit illi virtus altissimi, virtus miraculonim potens. fernineam substantiam Deo Verbo conciliare valens.

(34)See Spir 1, 10: CCCM 24, 1832: Condpies enim de sancto quidem Spiritu, sed non generante sancto Spiritu. COnceptus iste Spiritus sancti non generatio, sed operatio est. Caro de came Virginis, non de ipsa erit substantia Spiritus sancti. Et notandum quod non dixit sanctum vocabitur aut erit, neque dixit Filius Dei erit, sed vocabitur Filius Dei quod nascetur ex te. Quod enim Virgo concepit iamdudum erat, et antiqua essentia sanctum erat, Filiue Dei erat. Restabat hoc solum ut vocaretur quod erat, et ipsa vocatione dum vocatur Filius Dei manifestaretur nomen Dei, quod nondum notum erat, non quo dicitur Deus, sed quo Pater Filii vocatur. Vocabitur,iaquam, Filius Z) ei, quod iam est, non adoptione gratiae sed proprietate natureae.

(35)See Spir 1, 10: CCCM 24, 1832: unum autem sanctum id est sanctitas, qua sancti omnes sanctificantur. Hoc sanctum est iste sanctus sanctorum, quern non in delicto praevaricationis Adae concepturn vel natum sanctitas accidens sanctificavit, sed essentialiter sanctum Virgo incorrupta de Spiritu sancto concepit.

(36)See Spir 1, 10: CCCM 24, 1832: Vocabitur ergo, id est invocabitur ab omni saeculo hoc nomine quod est Filius Dei, Filius altissimi. Ecce haec est illa nova creatura, ille novus homo, de quo apostolus: Primus, ait, homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de caele caelestis. Item: Factus est primus homo Adem in animam viventem, novissimus vero in spiritum vivificantem.

(37)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1833: Ecce autem in ista caelestis hominis factura nova dicit archangelus, immo qui in archangelo loquitur Spiritus sanctus: Benedicta tu in mulieribus. Et psalmista per propheticam hue adductus gratiam succinit et dicit: Benedixisti, Domine, terrain tuam. Amplius autem et in hoc terra ista praepollet, quia terra Domini est. Non enim illic dixit Scriptura: Formavit igilur Deus hominern de limo terrae suae, sed benedixisti, ait, Domine terram tuam, et recte. Qualis enim ilia, et qualis terra ista? Terra ilia nullo modo seminis Dei perceptibilis, utpote irrationalis, insensibilis, inanimata, immobilis. Terra autem ista animata, sensibilis, rationalis, et quod optimum est, fidelis, et propter fidem Spiritus sancti et seminis Dei perceptibilis.

(38)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1833: Non ergo melior aut sapientior est artifex Spiritus sanctus, quam Deus Pater, licet novus iste Adam, qui de Spiritus sancti operatione conceptus est, melior atque dignior illo sit vetere Adam, quern fecit Pater, sed melior terra, melior et divinae rationi vicinior a Spiritu sancto materia sumpta est.

(39)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1834: Homo...ad imaginem Dei, quia factus est rationalis.　

Spir 7, 13: CCCM 24, 2062: Rationalitas quippe hominis in eo eat quod ait: faciamus hominem ad imaginem, sive creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam.

(40)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1834: similitudinern Dei, ad quam non pervenit homo, nisi participatione eius, id est Spiritus sancti.

(41)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1834: est bonitatem Dei.

(42)The rumination of certain words or sentences often provokes imagination or association of other verses in the scripture. The memory, fashined wholly by the Bible and nurtured entirely by biblical words and the images they evoke, causes them to express themselves spontaneously in a biblical vocabulary. Reminiscences are not quotations, elements of phrases borrowed from another. They are the words of the person using them, they belong to him. Perhaps he is not even conscious of owing them to a source. Moreover, this biblical vocabulary is twofold in character. First, it is often poetic in essence. Sometimes it has greater value because of its power of suggestion than because of its clarity or precision; it hints at much more than it says. But for that very reason it is the better suited to express spiritual experience which is completely impregnated with a mysterious light impossible to analyze. Furthermore, though lacking in precision, this vocabulary is endowed with a great wealth of content. See LECLERCQ J., The Loving of learning and Desire for God 75-76.

(43)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1834-35: Convenerunt igitur beatam Virginern similitude atque imago Dei invisibilis, obviaverunt, sicut in psaimo canimus, misericordia et veritas sibi, iustitia et pax osculatae sunt. Veritas quippe et iustitia secundum Scripturarum auctoritatem vera sunt nomina huius imaginis, id est Filii Dei. Misericordia et pax pia sunt vocabula huius sumilitudinis, id est Spiritus Dei. Itaque quod dictum est: Misericordia et veritas obviaverunt sibi, hoc repetitum est dicendo: Iustitia et pax osculatae sunt. Dicendo deinde, veritas de terra orta est, et iustitia de caelo prospexit, removit impietatem blasphemiae dicentis quia Christus ex Maria initium sumpsit. Etenimunus idemque Dei Filius secundum carnern quidem de terra ortus est, sed secundum divinitatem prius de caelo prospexit.

(44)See Spir 1, 11: CCCM 24, 1834: notandum quod non dictum sit, faciamus hominem ad similtudinem et imaginem nostram, sed ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.

(45)See Spir 1, 8: CCCM 24,1829: Sic autem beata Virgo, prioris ecclesiae pars optima, Dei Patris sponsa esse meruit, ut exemplar quoque fuerit iunioris ecclesiae sponsae Filii Dei, filii sui.

(46)See Spir 1, 8: CCCM 24,1829-30: Qui enim Spiritus sanctus in utero vel de utero eius incarnationern operatus est unigeniti Filii Dei, ipse utero vel per uterum ecclesiae, per vivificum lavacrum gratiae suae muitorum operatunis erat regenerationern filiorum Dei. Unde nobis suo loco plenius dicendum erit. Nec vero ab re ita distinguimus, ut praecedentem ecclesiam Patris sequentis Filii sposam esse dixerimus. Nam quern virum non cognoverat, eius coniux synagoga dici vel esse non poterat. Constat autem quia Dei Filium illius temporis ecclesia non cognoscebat; nam excepto quod paucissimis per prophetiae Spiritum revelabatur, de cetero Deus absconditus erat.

(47)There are two significant places in which Rupert comments on the woman in labours in Re 12. Spir 6, 14: CCCM 24, 2027; 8, 13 CCCM 24, 2089.

(48)See Spir 6, 14: CCCM 24, 2027: Mulier nempe ista, sancta ecclesia est, mulier quondam nuda nuditate ilia, quam in primis parentibus per peccatum accidisse sancta Scriptura denotat, nunc autem amicta non amictu qualicumque, sed amicta sole, id est Christo sole vero sole iustitiae. (...) Et luna sub pedibus, id est mutabilitas bonorum temporalium in contemptu eius (...) omni mundo abrenuntiare, (...). In capite eius, id est initio eius, corona stellarum duodecim, decus est apostolorum duodecim.

(49)See Spir 6, 14: CCCM 24, 2027: Quid enim erat mulierem in utero habere et clamare parturientem et crucian, ut pareret , nisi habere in corde bonum Dei verbum de Spiritu amoris Dei conceptum et praedicare per magnum caritatis affectum et nimium sollicitari progeneratione filiorum spiritualium?

(50)See Spir 6, 14: CCCM 24, 2028: mulier in utero habens, dum cruciaur ut pariat, tacere non potest, iratus est diabolus, et contra illam consurrexit in bellum.

(51)See Spir 6,12: CCCM 24,2025: ubi beatae Virginis et genitricis animam gladius pertransivit.

(52)Spir 6, 12: CCCM 24, 2025: Stabat autem, ut iam dictum est, cum ea (Maria) iuxta crucern isto (lohannes) quoque dilectus, et siquidem credis, ipse quoque mente vulnerabantur. Quapropter, ut credimus, non caret omnino magni huius honore praeconii, quod et ipse biberit calicern Domini.

(53)See Spir 4, 10: CCCM 24, 1950: lohannes apostolus et evangelista ex verbis suis cognoscitur, (...) istum discipulum Dominus lesus ceteris altius diligens (...) aperuit illi nirsus singulariter secreta caeli, ut videret visiones admirabiles, quas et digessit libro qui inititulatur Apocalypsis, in quo tot paene sacramenta, quot verba sunt, scriberetqiie illud altum et hominibus inenarrabile Verbi Dei, Del incarnati mysterium.

(54)See Spir 3, 10: CCCM 24, 1907: lohannes autem: Quia tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus, aqua et sanguis (...) sermonis auctoritas, procul dubio divina est.

(55)See Spir 1, 27: CCCM 24, 1854: Fusus est sanguis christi atque cum sanguine aqua pariter de latere eius cucurrit, et quia fidem habuerant, eonim omnium peccata lavit.

(56)See Spir 1, 27: CCCM 24, 1855-56: At vero ubi Dei Filius semetipsum hominern exhibuit hominibus, et qui sacculus auro Dei, id est plenitudine plenus huius Spiritus sancti, scissus est tormento passionis, illinc extunc processisse vel procedere hunc eundem Spiritum sanctum in remissionern peccatorum. nullus ambigit, nemo diffidit, nullus dubitat nisi infidelis.

(57)See Spir 3, 3: CCCM 24, 1906: baptismate suo Christus, id est passione sua est glorificatus.

(58)Spir 3, 9: CCCM 24, 1912: Qui enim divina omnipotentia sua in Mariam supervenit, et obumbravit illi, ut conciperetur et nasceretur ex ea unigenitus Filius Dei, ipse eadem omnipotentia supervenit aquis, et eis fecunditatem tribuit, ut renascantur ex eis filii Dei. Fons aquae elementaris hoc superveniente vivificatus, fit uterus ecclesiae, uterus gratiae.

(59)See Spir 8, 13 CCCM 24, 2089-90: Mulier (...) in utero habens et clamabat parturiens, et cruciatur ut pariat (...) Ouamvis enim iuxta querndam altiorem sensum semel hoc factum sit, tamen el hodie fit, et fieri non desinit usque ad finern saeculi, semel videlicet hoc factum est, quando universa patrarehanim et prophetarum electorumque omnium ecclesia per Mariam Virginern, quae eiusdem ecclesiae portio est, Christum in came peperit, cum magno clamore magni desiderii et diutinae expectationis.

(60)See Spir 2, 12: CCCM 24, 1875-76: IsteDominus est,cuius manus haec fecit, Dominus, inquam, cuius in manu est amima omnis viventis et spiritus universae carnis, hominis immo cuius tanta est potestas, ut de lapidibus homines facere possit. Propter quod dicit: Data est mini omnis potestas in caelo et in terra, Euntes docete omnes gentes, bapyizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.　

Spir1, 8: CCCM 24, 1830: ipse (Spiritus sactus) de utero vel per uterum ecclesiae, per vivificum lavacrum gratiae suae multorum operaturus erat regenerationem filiorum Dei.

(61)See Spir 1, 15: CCCM 24, 1838: Tandem fomiatum istum (Christum) ab illo (Adam) formato discemimus, non tantum in eo quod istum Spiritus sanctus de virginea came, ilium autem formavit Dominus Deus de limo terrae, verum et ipsa formationis dictione, Dicimus namque quia formatus ille formatus tantum, hie autem formatus et ipsa forma est.　

Spir* 6, 14: CCCM 24, 2027-28: Universi ordinis praedicatonim quoscumque Spiritus sanctus misit, qui ordo vere mater ecclesia est, universi ordinis eorum talis est intentio, talis affectus, ut spirituales parere filios et Cristum formare valeant in suis auditoribus.

(62)The title of Mary as the Mother of the Church is not an easy one. At the first sight it may seem that Mary as Mother is not within the Church. It is the ingenuity of Rupert to explain Mary as member of the Church but at the same time the Mother of the Church. This coincides with the expression of Paul VI, "lgitur ad Beatae Virginis gloriam ad nostrumque solacium, Mariam Sanctissiman declaramus Matrem Ecclesiae in the closing speech of the third session of the Vatican II in 1964; see AAS 56(1964) 1016 (Enchiridion Vaticanum I 306*); and the same in his Solemnis professil fldei (30 iunii 1968) AAS 60(1968) n.15 (Enchiridion Vaticanum III 551).

(63)See note 59. Spir 8, 13, 2089-90: Quamvis enim iuxta querndam altiorem sensum semel hoc factum sit, tamen et hodie fit, et fieri non desinit usque ad finern saeculi, semel videlicet hoc factum est, quando universa (...) ecclesia per Mariam Virginern, quae eiusdem ecclesiae portio est, Christum in came peperit, cum magno clamore magni desiderii et diutinae exspectationis.

(64)See Spir 8, 13: CCCM 24-2090: Tunc stetit draco ante mulierem, ut cum peperisset, statim devoraret filium eius…

(65)See Note 61. The New Man Christ is the forma and imago according to which the new humanity is to be re-formed. That is to say that the divinity of Christ descendit de caelo is going to embrace all humankind.

(66)See Spir 1, 27: CCCM 24, 1854: Sane cum hie Spiritus sanctus plenus dicitur, eodem dicto nos ad hauriendum invitamur. Item cum dicit ille alius testis pleni huius: Et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, nos ad accipiendum, nos ad haruienendum provocamur.

(67)See Spir 9, 24: CCCM 24, 2125: Vita igitur illa hic a praedicta resurrectione prima incipitur, quia videlicet nunc in tantum vivimus, in quantum beatam Trinitatem cognoscimus, illic autem in resurrectione secunda perficietur, quando vel ex quo facie ad faciem Deum Patrem et Verbum Patris in corde eius et in came nostra, sanctumque utriusque Spiritum in utroque videbimus. Ipsi gloria et imperium in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

(68)See Spir 1, 2: CCCM 24, 1823: Haec duplex gratia resurrectionis animarum et reovationis corporum. haec gemina resurrectio mortuorum, nunc nobis ruminanda atque tractanda est, in laudem et gloriam eiusedm Spirtus sancti, Det et Domini nostn, cuius emissio per Christum nostras iam animas vivere fecit, et corpora vivificabit (…) inquit apostolus (…) Quod si spiritus eius (Christi) qui suscitavit Iesum a mortuis, habitat in vobis, qui suscitavit Iesum a mortuis, convivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra propter inhabitantem Spiritum eius in vobis.

3. Conclusion

Behind the exegesis of Rupert, there lies a strong historical sense. He constantly, though not explicitly, applied his notion of predestination very concretely to sacred history. From the very beginning God had a plan (propositum) whereby those whom He had called He would also save and exalt (Rm 8:29-30) by way of the Son's incarnation. The Devil sought to frustrate God's plan but without success. God's plan remains unchanged but the Incarnation of the Word had to assume a fallen humanity. To prepare this incarnation God the Father chose the "girl born nude in the dirt of blood" (Ez 16) to be His bride. Thus the conceptio in mente began to take place in the chosen people, and in particular, among the prophets. Just as all Scriptures tend towards Christ the Word, so also alt prophecies converge upon Mary, the "physical" bearer of that Word. In her the plan (propositum) was to be brought to fullness. Thus she became the sponsa Patris. par excellence and at the same time the sacrarium Spiritus sancti.

The use of sacrarium reminds us that the Word, who as the most precious seed is kept in the innermost and heart of the Father Creator, reaches out to humanity through Divine Love, the Holy Spirit. Since humanity was corrupted by sin, the Word goes deep down to its depth (kenosis) in order to renew it completely with the power of the Spirit. In accordance with the saving design of the Father, He took up the human flesh from the virginal immaculate womb. Thus the Virgin Mary becomes an abode in which dwells the divine fecundity, that is, the seed of the Father and the love of the Holy Spirit. From the virgin this fecundity will extend itself to the entire Church, namely, humanity, that she may generate spiritual sons in the Son. The whole incarnation process has still to take place in the Church and in her very heart, namely, the sacrarium spiritus Sancti.

Right at the beginning of the twelfth-century, the Church because of the political situation tended to take up a juridical countenance and the devotion to Mary tended to be isolated from an ecclesial context. Rupert, instead, by way of his lectio divina. following tradition, reminds us that Mary is in the Church, and Church in Mary by virtue of the incarnation of the Word. Her dignity as Mother and Virgin becomes object of our filial veneration and her virtue becomes that of our imitation.

by Michel Gourgues, O. P.translated by Fr. Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti, S.D.B.


MARY, THE MOTHER OF OUR FAITH

PART ONE

MARY, THE "WOMAN" AND THE "MOTHER" IN JOHN

by Michel Gourgues, O. P. (1)




I. THE MOTHER OF JESUS IN JOHN

The mother of Jesus, whom the fourth Gospel never mentions by name, appears in this Gospel four times: 1. in the episode of Cana (2:1-11); 2. in the short summary that follows (2:12) "After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brethren and his disciples; and there they stayed for a few days"): 3. in a question concerning the origin of Jesus in 6:42 ("Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"); 4. finally, in the episode of the cross, in 19:25-27.

A. Designations in John 2:1-5 and 19:25-27

In the episode of Cana (vv. 1-5) and in the episode of the cross, the evangelist designates Mary in three ways: 1. three times as "his mother" (he meter autou, in 2:5 and twice in 19:25); 2. twice as "the mother" (ten metera. in 19:26a).

In each of these two pericopes (2:4 and 19:26b), the evangelist reports the unusual appellation by which Jesus addresses his mother: "woman" (gynai). In 19:27a, John reports Jesus' words to the beloved disciple present at the foot of the cross: "Behold, your mother!".

The meaning of this formula has been and still is very much discussed. Almost all the possibilities must have been envisaged. It is thus, for example, that Mary has been seen as the symbol of Israel's tradition and heritage transmitted to the Church and to the Christians represented by the beloved disciple. According to others. Mary is rather the symbol of the Christians of Jewish origin accepted by the Christians of Gentile origin, symbolised by the disciple. More popular and more ancient is the interpretation which sees Mary as the symbol of the Church, mother of the believers. Still another interpretation appeared more recently (11th century in the West) but became very influential later on: Mary is the mother of the believers not so much as a symbol of the Church as rather in her personal and individual capacity. Hence the idea of spiritual motherhood, sometimes associated with, and amplified by, that of co-redemption.

What we want to say here is that the content of Jn 2:1-5 is of primary importance for the interpretation of the formula of Jn 19:27a. At the same time, bringing these two pericopes face to face permits us to account for the meaning of the appellation "woman" which is present in both.

B. ''This, the first of his signs" (2:11) / "It is finished" (19:30)

Commentators have for long. had the habit of putting together the scene of the cross and that of Cana. The fact already noted that Jesus in both cases uses the same appellation to address his mother supports this combination. But there are additional supporting elements:

1. The time indication of Jn 2: 1-11 is the moment when the "hour has not yet come" (2:4) and we are made to assist at the inauguration of Jesus' mission. On the contrary, in 19:25-27, the hour has come: Jesus' death on the cross, the first stage in the process of exaltation-glorification, is now imminent. We have here. therefore, on the one hand the beginning of the mission, on the other hand the end of the mission, the account of the first and of the last "action" of Jesus.

2. The same actors appear in both accounts: Jesus, his mother and his disciples－the group in 2:1-11, a representative in 19:25-27. At the beginning of his mission, Jesus manifests his glory for the first time in the presence of his mother; the latter is still present when Jesus at the end of his mission has arrived at the hour of full glorification.

These similarities lead some to conclude that, in the intention of the evangelist, the scenes of Cana and of the cross must form something like a grand inclusion enclosing the whole of the Gospel witness. Perhaps this is to push things too far. However, it is difficult to think that the author did not set up any connection between two scenes that are so similar and correspond to the beginning and the end of Jesus' mission.

Let us then see first the data concerning the mother of Jesus in Jn 2:3-5, in order later to show how they can illumine those of Jn 19:25-27.



(1)Nouvelle Revue Theologique 108 (1986) 174-191. In my translation I omit all the rich bibliographical notes. Thess can be easily retraced by referring to the original article. I have transferred most of the other notes into the text of my translation. I have given indication of this transfer each time in the notes that follow.



II. AT CANA (2:3-5): FROM MOTHER TO WOMAN

Let us first of all give a look at the text. setting out it in three columns and pointing out the structural components which will be explained below.　


Introduction

On the third day there was a marriage at Cana and in Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there;

        
2 Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.        
  A
　

   B   C
  INITIAL SITUATION
　
(Need expressed)   CHRISTOLOGICAL REVELATION   REACTION

(the mother)

3 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine". 4 And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My Hour has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
  A'   B'   C'
  TRANSFORMED SITUATION

(Need satisfied)
   CHRISTOLOGICAL REVELATION   REACTION

(the disciples)

6 Now six stone jars were standing there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 11a This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; 11b And his disciples believed in him.
7 Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim.        
8
He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it.        
9 When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."        

A. Components of 2:1-11

The account begins (w.l-2) with the indications of the circumstances of time ("the third day") and of place ("at Cana in Galilee") as well as with the mention of the actors on whom it will then focus attention. These actors are mentioned in the following order: the mother of Jesus (v.1b), Jesus himself (v.2a), then the disciples (v.2b).

It is in this same order that these "agents" intervene in the story. While vv.3-5 describe the initiative of Jesus' mother in approaching him, vv.6-11 describe at greater length the intervention of Jesus himself and its impact on the disciples.

To tell the truth, if the story narrated only the intervention of Jesus' mother and that of Jesus himself, it could limit itself to verse 3. Followed by verses 6-10, (4) In this case we would obtain a story still complete in itself, endowed with its own coherence and dynamism: the initial situation of lack and need, expressed through the intervention of the mother (v.3), is transformed by the intervention of Jesus (vv.6 10). In other words, the need pointed out by Mary is met by the change worked by Jesus of the water into wine. All the essential elements of the miracle are present.

However, note carefully: the presence of verses 4 5 and 11 shows that John is not so much interested in the miracle itself, with its marvelous character. Rather, he is interested in its meaning. The initial situation and its transformation are the occasion of a Christological revelation which provokes a reaction on the part of the privileged witnesses, the mother and the disciples of Jesus. On the one hand, the mother's request (2:3) induces Jesus to reveal something regarding himself and his mission (2:4). This revelation, in turn. entails a reaction on the part of Mary (2:5). On the other hand, the description of Jesus' intervention (2:6-10) is followed by the statement of its Christological meaning (it is a semeion by means of which Jesus manifests his glory [2:11 a] and by the mention of the disciples' faith reaction (2:11b).

The Cana story, therefore, presents a characteristic structure entailing the twofold repetition of three parallel terms, thus:　

A
Initial Situation
(Impasse Expressed)
(2:3) A'
Transformed Situation
(Impasse Overcom)
(2:6-10)
B
Christological Revelation
(2:4) B'
Christological Revelation
(2:1 1a)
C
Reaction (of Jesus' mother)
(2:5)
C'
Reaction (of Jesus' disciples)
(2:11b)

It seems to me that the discovery of this structural parallelism will prove to be of primary importance for the interpretation of the main elements of the text.

Let us see now the content of verses 3-5, i.e. the sections of the text corresponding to the letters A (Initial Situation). B (Christological Revelation) and C (Reaction) in the diagram above.

B. Initial Situation (2, 3)

"They have no wine" (2:3b). How should we understand this remark made by the mother of Jesus?

Three main interpretations can possibly be envisaged.

1. Mary's remark does not entail any particular expectation; she is only taking stock of a pitiful and embarassing situation. Somehow this is the attitude of the paralytic of Bethzatha in chapter 5, who does not express any expectation with regard to Jesus, but only gives an account of his difficulties:

Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is troubled, and while I am goinganother steps down before me. (5:7)

2. The mother of Jesus expects that he will do something to solve the problem. Aware of the embarassing nature of the situation, she is thinking of some practical solution that is within the scope of man's mind and action. This is more or less the case in Jn 6:5. where, before a crowd that has nothing to eat. Jesus starts considering a solution of this kind: "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?". V.6 will tell us that he is actually putting Philip to the test,

3. The mother is expecting from her son a miracle that is going to transform the situation.

Sticking to the data of the text and trying to dovetail with the perspectives of John himself, it seems that we should reject the first and the last interpretation and that consequently the second is to be preferred.

a. Mary's reaction as expressed in v.5 ("Do whatever he tells you") shows that she expected something from Jesus at the very moment that he seemed to have expressed a refusal to intervene (v.4). A fortiori, Mary's first observation (v.3) must have given expression to an expectation.

b. Ought we, however, to see in it the expectation of a miraculous intervention? Not necessarily. Such an expectation would involve a "displacement" within the context of John's presentation of the event. That is, since Jesus has not yet performed any sign (cf. 2:11 a), it would be necessary to suppose that his mother knows already that he has a power he has not yet manifested, all the more so since he has not yet "manifested his glory" (2:1 la). As yet. it is not known who he truly is and, consequently, what he is able to do by reason of his identity.

c. It is a frequent fact in Jn that the expectations expressed with regard to Jesus are at first situated on a purely human level. Let us take some examples. Jesus tells Nicodemus that it is necessary to be born anothen (an adverb which can at the same time mean "from above" and "anew") in order to see the kingdom of God (3:3), Nicodemus, however, at first understand Jesus' words in a human and natural sense (3:4). Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman about the gift of living water (4:10), but also she (mis) understands in a purely material sense (4:15). In the same way, at first the official at Capernaum approaches Jesus as a mere healer or wonder-worker (4:47). In the same way, too, as we have already seen, when Jesus asks the paralytic whether he wants to be healed, the latter envisages only such a healing as can be obtained by a plunge into the pool (4:6-7). So also, when Jesus speaks to the Jews about the bread which he can give them (6:32-33), the Jews think about material bread and not about the bread of life who is Jesus. That they do not have in mind this higher meaning is shown by their reaction in 6:41. Finally. Martha, the sister of Lazarus, expresses the expectation that Jesus will do something (11:22). However, she does not expect the miracle of the resurrection, a miracle which Jesus is able to work (cf. 11:23-24).

In all these cases, the interlocutors of Jesus remain on a purely human level. The object of their requests or of their expectation does not transcend this level. Jesus, instead, places himself on a different level. Could it not be the same here?

d. Yes. Jesus' reply in verse 4 shows that there is a shortfall between the level of Mary's expectation and the level on which Jesus intends to place his intervention.

C. Christological Revelation (2:4)

"O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come". This is the way Jesus' reply (2:4) must be literally translated. Its interpretation has not yet ceased to embarass the commentators. Let us begin with the last part of the reply, which seems easier to clarify.

"My hour"

Which hour is it? The hour of undertaking his mission? The hour of "showing himself to the world", according to the formula of 7:4? The hour of working a miracle? All these suggestions contradict the meaning usually given by John to the "hour" of Jesus. In fact. the hour of Jesus is the hour of the glorification, which glorification is indissolubly linked with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The "hour", therefore, is the hour of the death-resurrection, the hour when Jesus has "to depart out of this world to the Father" (13:1). Does this mean that the public ministry which precedes the death-resurrection is not important? Does it mean that Jesus essentially has come to die and to rise again? Rather than answer these questions straightaway, we should try to place ourselves within John's perspective. Within this perspective we see that the hour of the total glorification is the hour of the death-resurrection. This glorification, however, is anticipated through Jesus' carrying out of his ministry (cf. 12:28; 13:31-32; 17:10.22). In particular, it is anticipated through the "signs". This fact is expressed in different ways in at least three passages. The first passage is the conclusion of the Cana story:

This, the first of his signs. Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory (2: 11a)

In chapter 11 there is a twofold mention of God's glory and Jesus' glorification in connection with a "sign", the reanimation of Lazarus:

But when Jesus heard it he said,"This illness is not unto death;it is for the glory of God,so that the Son of God may be glorified by meansof it (hina doxasthei)" (11:4).

Jesus said, "Take away the stone".Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him."Lord, by this time there will be an odour,for he has heen dead four days".Jesus said to her.Did I not tell you that if you would believeyou would see the glory of God?" (11:39-40).

We can see, then. that in 2:4 Jesus is saying that the moment of manifesting his glory has not yet come. (Jesus thinks of the glory-manifesting sign because his mother's request has led him to do so). Jesus sees the situation as implying an anticipation of the hour of his total glorification. This interpretation is derived from the Johannine understanding of the "hour". It is confirmed by the parallelism that we have noticed between v.4 and V.11a: verse 11a, speaking of the manifestation of Jesus' glory, clarifies the meaning of the "hour" mentioned in 2:4b. In other words, the Christological revelation which follows upon Jesus' intervention (2:7-10) clarifies the Christological revelation which had followed upon Mary's request (2:3).

"What have you to do with me? "

The meaning of the first part of Jesus' reply－"what have you to do with me?"－is also clarified. As we have already seen, the mother of Jesus implicitly expressed her hope for an intervention by Jesus (v.3), who somehow is asked to solve an embarassing problem, but in a way, so to say. all too human and material. By evoking the prospect of his "hour", Jesus indicates that he situates himself on a higher level. He rejects the type of solution expected by his mother. Or better "it is not so much a refusal as a comment which opens up some of the deeper implications of the event" (B. Lindars) (2). Jesus accedes to his mother's request, but on another level: by accomplishing a "sign" that will reveal his glory. However, the hour of the glorification has not yet come.

The reply "what have you to do with me?" makes us recall the reply given by Jesus in Mt 20:22 to the mother of the sons of Zebedee:

"You do not know what you are asking"

Or, to remain within the confines of John, the reply made by Jesus to the Samaritan woman in 4:10:

"If you knew the gift of God "

It is as if Jesus were saying: You are asking me to do something, to find some solution on the level of human endeavours, but you do not suspect the depth of your request. If I must intervene it will not be in this way. And if I intervene in the way that I should (i.e. by accomplishing a sign), I would be going against the plan of God ("my hour has not yet come").

Without really intending it and realizing it, the mother of Jesus is taking the initiative in an order of realities which properly pertain only to God and his plan of salvation. Is not this the meaning of Jesus' response, indicating that his mother and himself are not on the same level? As in all the other passages mentioned above in B c, a "displacement" takes place in 2:4. From the context of material realities we are projected into the context of spiritual realities.

"Woman"

It is possible now also to understand the unusual way Jesus addresses his mother {gynai, "woman"). Mary is called to leave the human level on which, as mother, she can claim authority over her son. She is asked to place herself on the level of faith and of the salvific plan of God, where her influence and her privileged position are no longer decisive. On this level, Mary finds herself a "woman" like all others. It should be noticed that Jesus in the Gospel of John always addresses women in this way. Cf. 4:21; 8:10; 20:13,15. It is clear from the context that there is not the least hint of disrespect in this way of addressing women. All the same, it is striking that Jesus addresses thus his mother! Neither the Bible, nor Jewish literature, nor, apparently, Greek literature provide another example of a son thus addressing his mother. So at least say the scholars who have investigated this point. (3) This unusual way of addressing one's mother as "woman" should, therefore, be understood in a theological context. Other contexts, like psychology, rules of propriety or human customs, are incapable of explaining it. Now the theological meaning is this: from now on, Jesus says, the fundamental relationship is that of faith. In the order of God's design to be carried out (the "work" of which Jesus speaks in the Gospel of John), "flesh and blood" count for nothing. Not even Mary's motherly relation is an exception. It does not confer any privileged status. We are here in perfect harmony with the Synoptic data of Mk 3:35 and parallels: "Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." Also Lk 11:27-28: "A woman said to him, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it! '."(4) Once the hour of accomplishing God's plan has come (the hour that will culminate in the glorification), Mary the mother must somehow make place for Mary the woman called to faith.

D. Reaction (2:5)

Is it not precisely Mary's faith that finds expression in the command reported in 2:5: "His mother said to the servats, 'Do whatever he tells you'."? It seems to me that a good number of indications favour this interpretation.

1. In the first place, there is the immediate context. We have just seen that Jesus' response in v.4 denotes a "displacement", a leap from the human level－on which rests Mary's initial intervention－to the level of faith. Does not the fact that Mary persists in her expectation show that she has entered into the new perspective evoked by Jesus' response?

2. Given the fact that, as we have already seen, v.11 b illumines the sense of its parallel v.4, can we further infer that there is the same relation of parallelism and mutual illumination between v.11b and v.5? If so, Mary's reaction (2:5) must be inserted in the line of faith, like that of the disciples (2:11 b).

3. In 2:1 la the sign of Cana is explicitly related to those which will follow ("This [was] the first of the signs"). But in the accounts of the signs that follow John is interested in the reactions of the witnesses in so far as these have something to do with faith (or non-faith: cf. 5:36-40; 6:26; 9:37-41; 11:26-27.45; 12:11,18,37). (5) After all. it is just this link "signs-faith" that is underlined in the conclusion of the Gospel: "These [signs] are written that you may believe" (20:31). Now 2:5 speaks about the reaction of the mother of Jesus. Of itself this detail is not indispensable for the progress of the story. It means that it must be understood in relation to faith.

4. In 2:4 Jesus practically tells us that he has no intention of working a sign. But then he immediately does work a sign (2:6-10). There are other instances in the Gospel of John where Jesus at first refuses to act, then reverses his refusal or reluctance to act because he has been faced by a manifestation of faith. The best example of this is the second sign of Cana (cf. 4:47-50). Everything happens as if faith, which is "the work of God" (6:29), played the role of a "signal" which conveys in some way to Jesus the will of Him who sent him.

5. There are also in the Gospel of John instances in which, when a request is made to Jesus, Jesus himself so to say "increases the measure". Secondly, the one who has made the request opens himself up to this new perspective. Finally, Jesus intervenes in a way that surpasses the level of initial expectation. This is the case, for example, in the story of the reanimation of Lazarus, where the same elements as in 2:1-11 are recognizable:

A
Level of expected intervention 11:21-22 / 2:3
B
Superior level on which the should take place 11:23-26 / 2:4
C
Reaction of faith 11:17 / 2:5
D Intervention
11:39-44 / 2:7-10

All these indications lead us to see in the attitude reported in Jn 2:5 a reaction of faith. Without perceiving exactly Jesus' intentions, Mary has understood the "change of level" demanded by her son's response. She accepts to let herself be placed on this level from now on and professes her total trust in Jesus. V.5 bears witness to a "displacement" in the level of Mary's expectation and to a faith which entails an opening up to the unknown. When in Lk 1:38 Mary replies to God's messenger: "Let it be to me according to your word", she has some idea of what is going to happen (cf. 1:30-37). In Jn 2:5, instead, she has only a presentiment that something new is going to begin. In this new beginning all happens according to a plan beyond her comprehension. Mary professes her readiness to collaborate with this plan, even though she does not know clearly how it will be carried out in practice: "Do whatever he tells you". In short, in Jn 2:3 Mary had made her request as a mother: in 2:5 she reacts as a believer.

Notice here the affinity of the attitude of Jesus and Mary with their attitude in Lk 2:49-51: "And [Jesus] said to them [his parents], 'How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?' And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them[ ]; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.''(6)

If this interpretation is correct, it means that in the eyes of the evangelist the attitude expressed in 2:5 enjoys considerable importance. Somehow, it is Mary's faith that sets everything in motion. It is the presence of this faith that prompts Jesus to work the inaugural "sign". This sign will allow him to manifest his glory and to undertake the fulfilment of the work received from the Father. In some way, the faith of Mary is at the origin of the mission.

It is possible that , as some authors think. John places Mary's faith in relation with the faith of Israel. This relation comes to light if we approach the formulation of Jn 2:5 ("Do whatever he tells you") to that by which the people of old expressed his acceptance of the first covenant (Ex 19:8; 24:3-7: "All that the Lord has spoken we will do"). This aspect, however, is not essential for our purpose.(7)

  (2)Ibidem, note 7.

(3)Ibidem, notes 8 and 9.

(4)Ibidem, note 10.

(5)Ibidem, note 12.

(6)Ibidem, note 13.

(7)Ibidem, note 14.

III. AT THE CROSS (19:25-27): FROM WOMAN TO MOTHER

Let us see now how the data we have gathered from the Cana event can shed light on the event of the cross.

Unlike Cana. the scene described in 19:25-27 is not completely peculiar to John. Like the two scenes that precede it in the Passion Narrative (19:19-22 and 19:23-24). it contains a core common also to the Synoptics. To this core peculiarly Johannine elements are attached:

Mt 27:55-56 Mk 15:40 Lk 23:49 Jn 19:25-27
55 40 49 25
There were also many women there, looking on from afar There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were And all his acquaintances and the women stood at a distanc But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
56     26
among whom were      
Mary Magdatene, and Mary the mother of James and Josph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disci- ple whom he loved, standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
      27
Then he said to the disciple. "Behold, your mother! " And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

The common core is admittedly very small: the moment Jesus dies, there are some women present, among them Mary Magdalene (also in Mt and Mk) and Mary the wife of Clopas, perhaps the same Mary that is also the mother of James and Joseph, mentioned in Mt and Mk. In the remainder there are only differences:

1. While in the Synoptics, the mention of the women follows upon the description of Jesus' death, in John it precedes it.

2. While in the Synoptics the women stand at a distance, in John they stand "by the cross".

3. The most important difference consists of course in the content of w.26-27. unknown to the Synoptics: on the one hand, the presence of the Beloved Disciple; on the other hand. the words of Jesus to this disciple (v.27) and to his own mother (v.26). It is our task now to examine these elements peculiar to John.

A. "Behold, your son!" (19:26)

The Crucified first of all addresses his mother: "Woman, behold your son!" (ide ho hyios sou).

A good number of modem exegetes, actually toeing the line of some Fathers of the first centuries, hold that John has merely reported a manifestation of provident attachment and a very natural demonstration of filial piety. At the moment of his death. Jesus entrusts his mother to the protection of a disciple of his. The latter will be able to take good care of her. when the death of her son will have left her by herself.

No quarrel about the fact that this is the primary sense of what is being related. But over and above this primary sense, does this account have also a symbolic meaning? Is it not necessary to look for a deeper theological meaning? There are at least two indications that we should do so.

1. The context

The majority of the events recounted in 19:16-37, besides a primary meaning, have also a symbolical import and a theological meaning. This is the case, for example, with the episode of the division of the garments (19:23-24) which comes immediately before our pericope. This episode reflects a custom of the times: the spoils of those condemned to death belonged by right to the soldiers or to those who fulfilled the function of executioners. John lingers over this apparently trivial event longer than the Synoptics (Mk 15:24 and parallels). If he does so. it is because he has his own purpose: he intends to affirm something with regard to Jesus' identity. Thus, applying to Jesus in v.24 the formula of Ps 22, the evangelist doubtless intends to show that in Jesus the figure of the "righteous persecuted" is perfectly realized. Ps 22 is the supplication of such a persecuted righteous one. The preceding episode (19:17-22) had presented Jesus as Messianic king. The divided clothes episode intends to show that this Messianic king has attained to the glory of royalty only by passing through the experience of rejection, persecution and death. So this episode further affirms a theological truth, that very same truth which Jesus had affirmed in 12:23-24:

"The hour has comefor the Son of man to be glorified.Truly, truly, I say to you,unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies,it remains alone;but if it dies,it bears much fruit."

Similarly, the following episode of Jesus' death (19:28-30) concludes with the remark: "When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished'; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." It is true that this last expression is equivalent to the simple" he breathed his last". However, John's manner of speaking shows that the evangelist certainly does not limit himself to this first meaning. Actually, the formula "gave up his spirit", on the one hand. makes use of the noun to pneuma, which can mean both the vital breath and the Holy Spirit; on the other hand, it uses the verb paradidomi, "to transmit". There is no doubt that this verb is more meaningful than the verbs "to expire" (ekpheo) and "to yield" (aphiemi) used in the same context by Mark (15:37) and Matthew (27:50). Moreover, there follows immediately the narration of the "pierced side", from which flow water and blood (19:31-34). This episode can be linked with the saying of 7:38 ("Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water"). In this saying the evangelist sees a prediction of the gift of the Spirit. This gift, according to the Fourth Gospel, is consequent upon Jesus' "glorification" (7:39). But, as we have seen. Jesus' glorification is connected with his death-resurrection. It follows that by writing paredoken to pneuma, John must mean that the gift of the Spirit was already anticipated through the death of Jesus.

Let us take another example. After saying that the soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus, the evangelist remarks: " these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, 'Not a bone of him shall be broken' " (19:36) This passage certainly preserves the memory of a historical fact. namely, the custom of breaking the legs of the crucified (19:33). This custom is attested also by other contemporary sources. Nevertheless, in the light of Scripture, the evangelist discovers the deep meaning and import of an apparently unimportant event. Without this deep insight this event probably would have passed unnoticed. The retelling of this event offers John the occasion of identifying Jesus no longer with the "righteous persecuted" (as in 19:24), but with the paschal lamb. This is all the more plausible since John sees Jesus as "the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (1:29). In addition, the evangelist takes pains to note in 19:14 that it was about the sixth hour when Jesus was handed over to be crucified. This was the very moment when there began in the Temple the immolation of the lambs to be used for the celebration of the paschal meal (cf. 18:28). In this implicit way, John proclaims a datum of faith: this crucified, whose legs the soldiers will not break is the true and definitive paschal lamb, whose death brings salvation to his people.

All this compels us to conclude that, if the scene of 19:25-27 has only a literal sense devoid of all symbolic import, this scene would be the only one in the context not to carry any symbolic meaning."'

2. The presence of the Beloved Disciple

The "beloved disciple" is the one whom Jesus indicates to Mary as her "son" in 19:26. This disciple is named as such ("beloved") five times in the last part of the Gospel (chs. 13-20) and in the appendix (ch. 21 ). These mentions appear in the account of the last supper (13:23), of the crucifixion (here in 19:26-27), of the coming to the tomb (20:2), finally in the second ending in 21:7 and 21 :20. Four times out of five－the only exception is found in our passage here in 19:26-27－the Beloved Disciple is together with Peter. There are three other passages, all subsequent to the ones just mentioned, where there is mention of "this disciple" (21:23,24) or of "he who saw it" (19:35). In six other passages there is question of "the other disciple" or "another disciple", also unnamed and always associated with Simon Peter. Such is the case in the Passion Narrative (18:15,16) when Jesus appears before Caiaphas, and in the Resurrection Narrative (20:2.3,4,8). In 20:2 this "other disciple" is identified with the disciple whom Jesus loved:

[Mary Magdalene] ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."

Note should be taken of the fact that in certain passages the person and the experience of this disciple possess, in the eyes of the evangelist, a symbolic value. John sees in him the representative and the model of the believers. This is suggested especially in 19:35:

He who saw it has borne witness－his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth－that you also may believe

" that you also (kai hymeis) may believe": this formula suggests that the situation and the attitude of the Beloved Disciple have a value of anticipation and of standard-setting with respect to all the believers. In like manner, the promptness with which the same disciple believes on Easter morning－"he saw and believed" (20:8)－and recognizes the Risen One (21:7), must also have exemplary value.

We have. therefore, every reason to see the symbol of the ideal believer in the disciple who in 19:25-27 accompanies the mother of Jesus to the foot of the cross.

B. "Behold, your mother!" (19:27)

What is then the meaning of the formula: "Behold, your mother!" in 19:27?

Adhering to the Gospel data, it seems to me that two explanations can be entertained.

1. There is a passage in John which reveals certain affinities both with the Cana episode and with that of the crucifixion. It is Jn 16:20-21 :

Truly, truly, I say to you,

you will weep and lament.but the world will rejoice;you will be sorrowful,but your sorrow wilt turn into joy.When a woman (he gyne) is in travail she has sorrow,

because her hour (he hora autes) has come (elthen);but when she is delivered of the child.she no longer remembers the anguish,for joy that a human being is born into the world.

As in Jn 2:4 a and 19:26b, there is question here of a gyne (woman). As in 2:4b and 19:27 the hour (hora) is mentioned. Of course, here the hour is that of the woman and not, as in the other two cases, that of Jesus. This notwithstanding, this hour of child-bearing appears to be the symbol of the hour of Jesus' death: the disciples will be afflicted by the departure of Jesus just as a woman is plunged into sorrow when the hour has come to give birth to her child. In other words, in Jn 16:20-21, Jesus foretells to his own that at the moment of his death they will be like a woman at the moment of child-bearing. So that we can say that this woman-in-child-bearing symbolically or allegoricaily stands for the community of the disciples.

Given the points of contact between Jn 16:21 and 2:1-11 and 19:26-27, could we not apply the same symbolism to the mother of Jesus? At Cana, where the "woman" Mary places herself in the midst of the disciples, the "hour" has not yet come; in 16:21 Jesus speaks to the disciples of an hour which is coming soon and which will be like the hour of the "woman" who has to bring her child to light; in 19:26 the "woman" hears Jesus telling her: "Behold, your son!", at the very moment when the "hour" has finally arrived. Possibly, these points of contact answer to an intention of the evangelist. In 19:26 he describes the situation of the mother of Jesus in terms that are reminiscent of the situation of the woman in 16:21: John possibly wants us to see in the mother of Jesus a symbol of the Church, i.e. the community of the disciples. The noun "mother" absolutely used (i.e. without modifiers) in 19:26 tells in favour of this interpretation. In fact. if we translate this verse literally, this is the result: "When Jesus saw the mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to the mother. 'Woman, behold, your son! '" Mary is no longer viewed as the mother of Jesus, but as the symbol of the ecclesial community, as "the mother" of the faithful.

2. the second explanation is simpler but, in my view. it is even better suited to John's perspective. This interpretation results from the juxtaposition of the crucifixion scene to that of Cana.

We have seen that in 2:5 the reaction of the mother of Jesus is to be understood as a faith reaction. Having heard her son's reply (2:4), Mary raises herself somehow to the higher level of faith and correspondingly transforms the nature of her expectation. Confronted with this act of faith. Jesus works his first sign (2:5), thus inaugurating his mission and giving rise to the faith of his disciples (2:11). Thus Mary is the one who was the first to believe (2:5), the one whose faith preceded the faith of the disciples (2:11). Is it not in relation to this fact that in Jn 19:27 she can be designated as the mother of the Beloved Disciple? The latter, as we have seen. is the symbol of the ideal believer. Mary has heen the first to believe. She has believed from the very start. She has believed to the end. In fact, she is still there, at the foot of the cross, at the moment when the mission of Jesus is accomplished. Is it not precisely in this way that she is the mother of the faithful represented by the Beloved Disciple? Mary is the mother in this sense, that she has been the first to believe, she has been the one whose faith has, so to say, launched the mission which now is being achieved at the cross.

＊＊＊＊＊＊

Cana is the moment when the hour has not yet come, the moment when the mission is going to begin. There Mary. the mother, must give place to Mary, the woman, called to the leap of faith. The cross is the moment when the hour has come. the moment when the mission comes to an end. Mary, the faithful "woman", becomes again mother, but this time in the order of faith, in which order she has accepted to situate herself from the start. At Cana, insofar as she is the human mother of Jesus, Mary somehow loses a son. At the cross, insofar as she is a believer, Mary finds a multitude of sons. She has followed Jesus faithfully from beginning to end, from the first foreboding of the hour to its final accomplishment. No wonder that she finds again multiplied "a hundredfold" that which she had accepted to renounce. But she finds again all this because she believes.

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A011D2.htm

http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A011D3.htm

by Michel Gourgues, O. P.translated by Fr. Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti, S.D.B.

MARY, THE MOTHER OF OUR FAITH

PART TWO

MARY, THE "WOMAN" AND THE "MOTHER" IN JOHN: A RESPONSE




In his last encyclical letter entitled "Redemptoris Mater" number 21, Pope John Paul II has given us a rich explanation of the significance of Mary's presence at the wedding feast of Cana as related in Jn 2:1-12. In the middle of his meditation on this intriguing episode, the Pope asks himself: "What deep understanding existed between Jesus and his mother? How can we probe the mystery of their intimate spiritual union?". The Pope answers these questions saying: "The fact speaks for itself", and then in a very articulate manner he goes on to show that the Cana event reveals the new dimension, the new meaning of Mary's motherhood once Jesus begins his public ministry. This new kind of motherhood is concretely manifested in a. Mary's bringing man's needs within the radius of Christ's messianic mission and salvific power; b. Mary's wishing the messianic power of her Son to be manifested; c. Mary's presenting herself as the spokeswoman of her Son's will. Finally, the Pope concludes saying: "At Cana Mary appears as believing in Jesus. Her faith evokes his first 'sign' and helps to kindle the faith of the disciples."

It is said of St. Thomas Aquinas that in writing the Summa Theologiae, in the body of the article he usually presents first the reasons of other thinkers with whom he feels he can agree and only at the end does he present his own position, the one which he thinks is decisive for the resolution of the problem in hand. I don't know whether Pope John Paul followed the same method in writing his encyclical. Anyhow, it seems to me that the two sentences with which he concludes article 21 are decisive for the understanding of Mary's person and role as envisaged by Jn 2:1-12.

Michel Gourgues's article "Mary. the 'woman' and the 'mother' in John", which I have just translated, in my opinion is an excellent exegetical demonstration of the validity of John Paul's concluding analysis of Mary's role in the Cana event. The original article having been written in French, and so being only relatively accessible to interested readers here in the Far East, I think I have done a useful thing in translating it into English and having it translated into Chinese. It seems to me that the strength of this article lies in the way the author uses the total context of John's Gospel to throw light on the meaning of particular passages. This is an exegetical method which is highly recommendable and easy to use. It only requires a deep familiarity with the text of the whole Gospel. This familiarity is available to anyone who finds it worthwhile to spend some time in reading and re-reading the Gospel.

In this article, however, there are a few points which. I believe, could be improved upon. One point has to do with the structure of the Cana narrative. Another point has to do with the analysis of Mary's expectation as expressed in her sober observation: "They have no wine". After reading the encyclical letter "Redemptoris Mater" I feel that the latter point calls for further consideration. It is especially these insights inspired by the encyclical that I would like to share with the readers.

I. THE STRUCTURE OF JOHN 2:1-12

Michel Gourgues has made a valuable contribution to the study of the structure of the Cana pericope by detecting the thematic correspondence between w.3-5 and 6-11. However, in his article this correspondence is based mainly on considerations of thematic content, without the support of the more decisive linguistic indications. While making an effort to provide support for Gourgues' interesting suggestion, I think I have found a better way to account for the structure of Jn 2:1-12, which at the same time strengthens Gourgues' basic contention that v. 11 is crucial for the interpretation of w.3-5. I shall present the structure that I have found, proceeding in steps:

1. The inclusion formed by vv.l-2 and 12

Gourgues' structure omits v.12. However, there are dense correspondences between vv.l-2 and 12: "the mother of Jesus" (v.1) = "his mother" (v.12): "his disciples" (v.2) = "his disciples" (v.12): "on the third day" (v.1) = "for a few days" (v.12); cf. also the geographical data in v.1 ("at Cana in Galilee") and in v.12 ("down to Capernaum"), which correspond to each other by a relationship of opposition.

These vocabulary correspondences require that v.12 be included in the structure of the Cana pericope as its proper conclusion. Together with vv.l-2 it constitutes a fine spatio-temporal inclusion. We know that the phenomenon of "inclusion" is typical of chiastic structures. These structures, in turn, are typical of narratives that have had a pre-history of oral transmission. Many, if not most. biblical narratives are structured chiastically.

2. Also a theological introduction-conclusion

Vv. 1-2 and 12 fulfil the function of introduction and conclusion of the Cana pericope. However, they are not the only introduction and conclusion. V.11 has also a strong conclusive character. So much so that Gourgues takes it to be the only conclusion of the Cana narrative. The fact is that vv.l-2 and 12 act as spatio-temporal introduction-conclusion, as we have seen. V.11, instead, is clearly a theological conclusion. We are led to ask, then, whether, besides a theological conclusion, there is not also a theological introduction. I think we should answer this question in the affirmative: vv.3-5 are such a theological introduction.

Are there any vocabulary indications of such a theological introduction-conclusion? I think there are. For example, notice how in vv-3-5 the mother of Jesus is mentioned twice. This double mention sets vv.3-5 closer to the spatio-temporal introduction (vv.1-2) and conclusion (v.12), where she is also mentioned, than to the body of the narrative, where Mary does not appear. Similarly, the mention of "Cana in Galilee" and "his disciples" in v.11 places this verse also closer to the spatio-temporal introduction, where "Cana in Galilee" and "his disciples" are also mentioned, as well as to the spatio-temporal conclusion where "his disciples" are mentioned again.

One more thing to be noticed, however, is that there is not any verbal correspondence between vv.3-5 and v.11 themselves, i.e. between the theological introduction and the theological conclusion. This is a curious phenomenon, which nevertheless is not uncommon in chiastic structures. It is the phenomenon I like to call "a chiasm within a chiasm."

This needs a few words of explanation. Perhaps the best way to explain is to diagram the relationship between vv.1-2, 3-5. 11 and 12. First, let us draw these relationships as they result for the order of succession of these verses in the narrative, thus:　

1-  3-
2  5  
    
11  12

The resulting "X" figure is the reason why this kind of relationship between parts of a narrative is called "chiasm" (i.e. crosswise effect). If, instead, we draw the relationships holding among these verses on the basis of the vocabulary correspondences, we obtain a diagram which reveals a non-chiastic, non-inverted effect:

1-  3-
2  5  
︱  ︱
11  12

Now. this change from chiasmic to non-chiasmic in the vocabulary correspondences produces the effect of a "chiasm within a chiasm" This will be evident if we combine the two diagrams above, thus:

1-  3-
2  5  
    
11  12

This doubly chiasmic phenomenon locks these introductory and concluding verses in an indissoluble whole. Together they provide the Cana narrative with a spatio-temporal-theological introduction and conclusion.

Are there other examples of this phenomenon in the NT? Of two examples I know, one occurs in John's Gospel chapter 5. It is now recognized that the first part of Jesus' speech (Jn 5:19-30) is chiastically structured.(1) In this chiastic structure, vv.21 and 26 (parallel vocabulary and theme: Judgment) appear in an inverted order, thus constituting a chiasm within a chiasm. The second example is found in the Letter to the Hebrews, which is increasingly recognized as having been written according to a wonderfully consistent chiasmic structure. Within this structure, the corresponding sections 3:1-4: 14 and 11:1-40 (theme: Jesus the trustworthy high priest demands our trust), and 4:15-5:10 and 12:1-13 (theme: Jesus the high priest who shares our sufferings demands our endurance in suffering) appear in inverted order, thus, again, constituting a chiasm within a chiasm.

These other examples strengthen our conclusion that in the Cana pericope vv.3-5 and 11 are strictly connected with the introduction in vv.1-2 and the conclusion in v.12. This connection is not one of repetition, but rather one of theological reflection and explicitation. In vv.1-2 and 12 the time. the place and the "dramatis personae" of the event are presented. In vv.3-5 and 11 the deep significance of the mutual interaction of these persons at this time and in this place in highlighted. At the centre of this mutual interaction stand Jesus, his mother and the disciples.

3. The correspondence between w.3-5 and v.11

Now we have to look more closely at the relationship between vv.3-5 and v.11. In both cases there are three affirmations being made. This fact is obscured in Gourgues's structure, since he lumps together the first two parts of v.11 under one single heading: "Christological Revelation". He thus distinguishes only two parts in v.11, namely 11a and 11b. In reality v.11 contains three parts, to be thus labelled:

11a (= Gourgues' 11a, first part)

11b (= Gourgues' 11a second part)

11c (= Gourgues' 11b)

My contention is that v.11a should be dealt with on its own, and not together with the following, even if it is true that v.11b explicitates the meaning of the term "sign" used in 11a. In fact, 11a, the first part of v.11, acts as a short recapitulation of the preceding narrative in vv.6-10. As such. it represents everything that has been said in vv.6-10. Hence, it should belong to the first section of Gourgues' structure ("Transformed Situation") and not to the second ("Christological Revelation"). It is clear that, even though I take issue with Gourgues on his division of v.11, I am not shaking the validity of his analysis but only sharpening it. The threefold structure of vv.3-5 and v.11 stands. The three affirmations in vv.3-5 correspond to the three affirmations in v.11. The correspondence is excellently expressed by the titles given by Gourgues to each of the three sections: "Initial Situation" (Need expressed) －"Transformed Situation" (Need Satisfied); "Christological Revelation"－"Christological Revelation"; "Faith Reaction of the mother of Jesus"－"Faith reaction of Jesus' disciples".

4. The central position of vv.6-10 in the structure

Unlike Gourgues, I leave vv.6-10 out of the threefold structural correspondrnce. They enter the correspondence only through v.11a which recapitulates vv.6-10. Withdrawing these verses from the threefold correspondence allows us to see the fine balance existing between vv.6-8 and vv.9-10.

vv.6-8 could be entitled: "Jesus, the servants, the water", while the title of vv.9-10 could be: "The steward, the bridegroom, the wine". Vv.6-8 narrate in the plainest terms the acts leading up to the working of the "sign" at the hands of Jesus. Vv.9-10 relate the bewildered reaction of the steward of the feast.

Interestingly, the miracle itself is not related, but only its preparation and the reaction to it. The miracle happens between 6-8 and 9-10. It is passed over in silence with a genius-like stroke of narrative economy.

In these verses no mention is made either of the mother of Jesus or of his disciples. Their presence belongs to the salvific preconditions and to the salvific aftermath of the event. They are the "faith actors" of the event. That is, the significance of their presence is totally relative to their attitude towards Jesus. In this perspective, their presence is decisive. Instead, regarding the actual working of the sign, the only presence that is decisive is that of Jesus.

This is the meaning of the absence of Mary and the disciples in 6-10. On the other hand, the important hermeneutical contribution of the threefold correspondence between w.3-5 and v.11 is to show that the "faith actors" (the mother of Jesus and the disciples) are essentially related not only to Jesus, but also between themselves. The faith of the disciples is essentially related to the preceding faith of the mother of Jesus!

To conclude this part. here is the text of the Cana pericope, disposed insuch a way as to reveal the neat, chiastic structure:　

1 A On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee. and the mother of Jesus was there;
2   Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples
3   When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine".
4   And Jesus said to her,
  B "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."
5   His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
6   Now six stone Jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
7   Jesus said to them,
  C "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim.
8   He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast," So they took it.
9   When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew),
  C'  
10   the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely . then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
11   This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee,
  B' and manifested his glory; and his disciple believed in him.
12   After this he went down to Capernaum,
  A' with his mother and his brethren and his disciples; and their they stayed for a few days.

It will be noticed that the words underlined are the linguistic indicators of the phenomenon of "inclusion" which is characteristic of chiastic structures. The process of inclusion at the end starts in B', but is completed only in A' with the mention of " his mother" and the indications of time and place corresponding to those given in A. Hence, verse 12 should be included as an integral part of the Cana story. Parts B and B' deal with the initial situation and the aftermath of the event. Parts C and C' are the account of the actual event: Jesus' interaction with the servants in C, leading up to the steward's reaction in C' to the miracle, already a fait accompli.

The Cana story is a strikingly sober and neatly structured narrative.



1.The chiastic structure of this passage was first discovered by J. Forbes in his The Symmetrical Structure of Scripture (T.&T. Clark: Edinburgh 1854) 69. I found this reference in K. E. Bailey, Poet and Peasant (Eeardmans; Grand Rapids 1976) 62 note 44. This chiastic structure has been confirmed by the study of A. Vanhoye, "La composition de Jean 5:19-30" in Melanges B. Rigaux (Gembloux 1970) 259-274.

II. THE NATURE OF MARY'S EXPECTATION

In II, B, Gourgues studies the nature of Mary's expectation as reflected in her remark to Jesus: "They have no wine". He envisages three possibilities: 1. Mary expects nothing; 2. Mary expects Jesus to solve the problem in a natural way; 3. Mary expects Jesus to solve the problem in a miraculous way. Gourgues' conclusion is that "we should reject the first and the last interpretation and [...] consequently the second ought to be preferred".

I agree with Gourgues' rejection of the first possibility, but I disagree with his rejection of the last. In particular, the reason adduced by Gourgues to justify the rejection of the third possibility seems to me highly problematic. Gourgues says: "Such an expectation [of a miracle] would involve a 'displacement' within the context of John's presentation of the event. That is, since Jesus has not yet performed any sign (cf. 2:11 a), it would be necessary to suppose that his mother knows already that he has a power he has not yet manifested, all the more so since he has not yet 'manifested his glory' (2:1 la [our 2:11b!]). As yet it is not known who he truly is and, consequently, what he is able to do by reason of his identity."

It is with these affirmations that I would like to disagree. True, Gourgues states this only in respect of "the context of John's presentation of the event", not with regard to the actual knowledge that Mary may have had. It is a question of understanding what John the evangelist wants to say, not to discover what Mary actually knew. Even allowing for this restriction, however, Gourgues' position seems to me to be untenable.

On the one hand. I agree with Gourgues that it is not necessary to say that Mary expects Jesus to perform a miracle. The literary economy of John's narrative does not demand us to do so. I would even say that it does not encourage us to do so. But this is not to say that it does discourage us from doing so. The fact is that the literary economy of John's narrative is neutral with regard to the nature of Mary's expectation. In a while, we shall try to prove this. For the time being, let us say that the possibility that Mary may be expecting her son to work a miracle cannot be ruled out.

1. The difference between miracle and sign

In fact, Mary's possible expectation of a miracle does not necessarily involve a "displacement" within the context of John's presentation of the event, as Gourgues claims, the displacement would happen if Mary were expecting a "sign". But she may be expecting only a miracle. John distinguishes between a "sign" and a miracle. A miracle is a wonder-work, like. for example, a sudden cure. A "sign" in John's Gospel is a wonder-work with universal salvific significance. This universal salvific significance makes the difference between a miracle and a sign. A miracle can be approached with mere curiosity or out of a dire sense of need. A sign can be approached only through faith.

In expecting a miracle, Mary is not anticipating (and so "displacing") the challenge Jesus will issue to her in v.4. This challenge maintains all its abruptness and forcefulness, even if Mary is expecting a miracle. Jesus in v.4 challenges his mother to make the leap from the expectation of a clever or, possibly, even miraculous solution of a family problem, to the expectation of a "sign". The rest of John's Gospel can help us to see how this is so.

In 4:46-54, the account of the "second Cana sign", Jesus issues the very same challenge to the Capernaum official who has asked him to heal his son. But here Jesus does so in two steps: First, he reacts nervously to the official's request: "Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe!" (4:48). Here the meaning of "sign" is specified as "wonder". This is the only case in which in John "wonder" is added to "sign". "Sign" in John has a manifestly ambivalent value: it is positive, if it leads to faith in Jesus; it is negative, if it fails to do so. A "sign" fails to do so, when it is perceived not as a "sign", but merely as a miracle, as a "wonder". Hence, it is clear that the addition of "wonder" here is meant to show that Jesus reacts nervously to "signs" negatively understood, to "signs" as "wonders". There is the same veiled negative connotation to the word "sign" in Jn 2:18,23-25; 6:14,30; 11:47; 12:18.

Next, the official from Capernaum repeats his request for a "wonder": "Sir, come down before my child dies." (4:49). Jesus' nervous reaction has not attained its purpose of raising up the official's faith to the level of a true "sign". Hence Jesus tries again, challenging the official to a higher form of faith. Through this higher faith the official must know that Jesus does not need to "go down" at all, he does not need to be in a hurry to forestall the imminent death of the child ("before my child dies", the official had said). That is why Jesus tells him: "Go; your son will live." (4:50). John immediately remarks that Jesus was successful in his second attempt: "The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way." (4:50)

In 6:25ff. Jesus again draws the same distinction between "signs" and "(miraculously) eating one's fill". To the people who ask him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?". Jesus answers, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves." (6:26)

In 12:40 Jesus reacts to Martha's difficulty in raising herself up to the level of true salvific faith, exclaiming: "Did I not tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?". Martha had been expecting a miraculous cure of her brother. But this is not what Jesus expects us to expect of him!

All these other examples make clear that even if Mary is expecting a miracle she is not causing a "displacement" in the Johannine narrative. To think that Jesus can work a miracle, this is not yet the fullest form of faith. The only adequate form of faith, the faith elicited by Jesus' Christological challenges, is to believe that Jesus can work and wishes to work "signs" of a universal salvific significance. To this higher level of faith does Jesus invite his mother in 2:4, and Mary promptly responds.

2. Mary may be expecting a miracle

a. Hints at Jesus' virginal conception in the Gospel of John

Having dealt with the literary problem of whether Mary's possible expectation of a miracle is consonant with John's presentation of the Cana event, we must deal now with a more basic question, namely: is it possible, apart from the literary economy of the narrative, that Mary actually might have expected a miracle? Searching for an answer to this question, we shall be given a welcome opportunity to fathom a little the mystery of Mary's relationship to her son, Jesus. To answer this question, we cannot rely. as we have done just now, on examples drawn from other parts of the Gospel. In fact, the case of Mary expecting a miracle is unique, because she does so before Jesus has worked any miracle at all. In the case of other people expecting Jesus to work a miracle, we can say that Jesus was already famed as a miracle-worker. Not so with Mary at Cana: "This [was] the first of the signs Jesus did" (2:11)! To find an answer, we have to go deeper.

Before Cana, Mary had already experienced God's miraculous power in the mysterious event of her virginal conception of Jesus. Jesus is the child of an unheard-of miracle. There is at least an echo of this wonder in John's insistence on the "virginal" character of our own re-birth as children of God in 1:12-13 : " 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". It is a known fact of textual criticism that verse 1:13 is read in the singular, and thus referred to the Word, by some of the earliest Church Fathers, like Irenaeus and Origen (in their Latin translations) and Tertullian. In the singular, this verse would be a probable Johannine reference to the fact of the virginal conception of Jesus, other possible Johannine references to this fact are the irony underlying 6:42 and the malicious insinuation present in 8:41.

In 6:42 Jesus listeners ask themselves, "Surely this is Jesus son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know. How can he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" In the context of the Bread of Life Discourse as well as in the context of the whole Gospel, it is clear who the Father of Jesus is. The self-assurance of Jesus' listeners with regard to their knowledge of his father and mother produces a sense of irony in the reader. The irony, however, concerns only the "father" part of the question. The mother of Jesus, in fact, has already appeared in 2:1-12. There is no irony about Jesus being known as the son of Mary. The irony is about people thinking Jesus as the son of Joseph, when Jesus has always been speaking of God as his Father. This is one of the typical traits of John the evangelist: he uses irony to reveal awareness of basic facts of Jesus' life. Another example of such a procedure is the question about Jesus' Davidic descent in 7:41-42: "Would the Christ come from Galilee? Does not scripture say that the Christ must be descended from David and come from Bethlehem, the village where David was?". The questioners take it for granted that Jesus is not from Bethlehem and use this supposedly certain fact to argue against Jesus' Messianic character. But John and the readers of his Gospel know full well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Thus the questioners' argument is turned against themselves. Hence the irony-effect.

In 8:41 it is not a question of irony but of malice, in the context of an extremely harsh confrontation between Jesus and "the Jews who had believed in him" (8:31). Jesus tells them: "You do what your father did" (8:41a). The "father" meant by Jesus is the devil! (cf. 8:44). The Jews retort: "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. " The first meaning of their reply is that they are not idolaters. In the OT (just as in the NT Apocalypse of John), fornication is the standard image for idolatry. However, in the context of the heated exchange between the Jews and Jesus, this expression may carry an outrageous insinuation with regard to Jesus' virginal conception. Of course, this insinuation presupposes that the Jews are acquainted with the fact of Jesus' unusual conception. This would go against the implication of the question posed in 6:42. Hence, the presence of this insinuation in 8:41 is not certain. We may conclude, therefore, that in John there are at least some hints at the reality of Jesus' virginal conception. The lack of a clear-cut statement of the virginal conception in John is made good, for the enquiry in hand, by the explicit statements present in the other Gospels. (2)

In particular, the material offered by Luke allows us to use the fact of the virginal conception to get a glimpse of the inner workings of Mary's heart. The miracle of the virginal conception is for Mary a "sign", interpreted as such by the divine revelation accompanying it, of Jesus' divine sonship. From the very beginning of her union with Jesus, Mary knows him as the Messiah and the Son of God. Of course, she knows him as such through faith, which is a form of knowledge, but an obscure form of knowledge.

I cannot agree, therefore, with the following asertion of Gourgues in II.B: "As yet it is not known who [Jesus] truly is and, consequently, what he is able to do by reason of his identity". I think that this statement is faulty both with regard to John's literary presentation of the Jesus-event and with regard to Mary's actual knowledge of Jesus' indentity.

b. Mary's faith knowledge of Jesus begins with her virginal conception of Jesus!

The Cana event comes after the Johannine Prologue with its explicit profession of faith in the transcendent character of Jesus' identity. Moreover, in the rest of Chapter One disconcerting titles have been already attributed to Jesus: "He on whom you see the Spirit descend" (1:33), "Son of God" (1:34,49). " the Son of man [on whom] the heavens open and the angels of God ascend and descend" (1:51). As far as the literary economy of John's Gospel is concerned, there is no question that, at least for the reader, the mystery of Jesus' identity has already dawned upon us. But what about Mary?

Does John want to tell us that the reality of Jesus' divinity dawned upon Mary after the Cana event? I do not think so. As we have seen, there is nothing in John's Gospel to prevent us from relying on the contribution made by Luke's Gospel to understand Mary's mind and heart. At the moment of her virginal conception of Jesus, Mary is confronted with the very mystery of God. Faith is nothing but the placing of oneself unconditionally before the mystery of God revealing Himself. Mary at the moment of the Incarnation thus places herself before God in faith. Faith is man's answer to God who reveals himself. In the case of Mary, God reveals himself in a transcendent and unique way in the person of his Son and her Son Jesus. The virginal conception is the "sign" of this unique and transcendent revelation.

Of course, Mary's faith grew. It grew, indeed, but it did not change. All too often we hear explanations of the growth of Mary's knowledge of Jesus (or even of Jesus' own self-consciousness) which turn growth into a substantial change. But this is misunderstanding the true meaning of growth. If Jesus' self-consciousness was genuine self-consciousness, then it was consciousness of his divine self from the very beginning. This is true, even if his consciousness grew from the consciousness of a child to that of an adult. As a child, Jesus' consciousness of his divinity was the consciousness of a child, but still consciousness of divinity. As an adult. Jesus' consciousness of his divinity became the consciousness of an adult. Analogously, if Mary's faith was true faith, then it was knowledge (however obscure) of Jesus' divinity and humanity, from the very beginning. For this is what faith is: God-given insight into the true identity of Jesus. Mary's faith grew; there is no problem about that. But it was always the same plant that kept growing to its full stature. Through the growth process, a plant is identical with matter (the seed) to the height of a mighty tree (the oak). This is only an image of spiritual growth, but a valid image nevertheless. So that we may conclude that Mary's knowledge of Jesus did not change, but grew. A peasant's common sense can be of some help in understanding God's word.........

c. The growth of Mary's faith knowledge of Jesus

The Gospels and the Book of Acts provide us with enough material to detect the great strides forward in this unceasing process of growth. These great strides in Mary's growth in faith have well-known names: the Annunciation, the Visitation, the marvellous and tragic circumstances of the first Christmas, the Presentation of Jesus in the temple, the surprising 12 year old Jesus, Cana and the other encounters between Jesus and his mother during the public life, the Stabat Mater, 'the Resurrection), Pentecost.

The impression we get is that this growth took place "by leaps and bounds", so to say, rather than by a smooth, gradual development. Each of the great Christological-Marian Gospel events contain a tremendous challenge to Mary's faith. The Cana event is no exception. Mary is called upon to grow in faith, but by taking once again "the leap of faith". However, it is her very same faith that takes the leap!

After these reflections, it may be clearer how improper and inadequate are some rather common ways of describing Mary's knowledge of Jesus; ways which have, in my view, unduly influenced Gourgues' analysis of Mary's expectation:

a. Mary at Cana passes from ignorance of Jesus' true identity to an incipient knowledge of it. Strangely enough, this seems to be the way Gourgues understands the situation.

b. Mary passes from an all to human knowledge of Jesus to a more "Christian" knowledge of him.

c. Mary starts to grow from a "Low Christology" (Jesus as Messiah) understanding of Jesus to a "High Christology" (Jesus as Unique Son of God) understanding of Jesus'. (3)

Not at all. From the first moment of the Incarnation, coincidently with that very moment, Mary Knows her son in faith as the true Son of God. Christian faith is this or it is nothing. To counteract all these inadequate ways of understanding Mary's faith, let me quote a few sentences from number 17 of the encyclical "Redemptoris Mater":

"Faith is contact with the mystery of God. Every day Mary is in constant contact with the ineffable mystery of God made man, a mystery that surpasses everything revealed in the Old Covenant. From the moment of the Annunciation, the mind of the Virgin-Mother has been initiated into the radical "newnes" of God's self-revelation and has been made aware of the mystery. She is the first of those 'little ones' of whom Jesus will say one day: 'Father, ... you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes' (Mt 11:25). For 'no one knows the Son except the Father' (Mt 11:27). If this is the case, how can Mary 'know the Son'? Of course she does not know him as the Father does: and yet she is the first of those to whom the Father 'has chosen to reveal him' (cf. Mt 11:26-27: 1 Cor 2:11). If though, from the moment of the Annunciation, the Son－whom only the Father knows completely, as the one who begets him in the eternal 'today' (cf. Ps 2:7)－was revealed to Mary. she, his Mother, is in contact with the truth about her Son only in faith and through faith! [...] Thus even his Mother, to whom had been revealed most completely the mystery of his divine sonship, lived in intimacy with this mystery only through faith! Living side by side with her Son under the same roof, and faithfully persevering "in her union with her Son', she 'advanced in her pilgrimage of faith', as the Council emphasizes (LG 58). And so it was during Christ's public life too (cf. Mk 3:21-35) that day by day there was fulfilled in her the blessing uttered by Elizabeth at the Visitation: 'Blessed is she who believed'."

d. Yes, Mary may be expecting a miracle

After having stressed the true nature of Mary's knowledge of Jesus in faith, let us return to the nature of her expectation in the context of the Cana event. Mary in faith certainly knows Jesus not only as pure man, not only as wonder-worker, not only as Messiah, but also as Son of God in the strong Christian sense of the term. It is possible, therefore, that at Cana Mary is calling upon Jesus' Messianic power to come to the rescue of the newly-wed spouses in their sorry plight. If there is a limitation in Mary's expectation it consists in this: Mary expects Jesus to act as Messiah, as divinely authoritative Messiah, but merely to solve a private family problem. From this angle, even though Mary may be expecting a miracle, still we may call her expectation a human expectation. Jesus, instead, calls upon her to place herself on a higher plane before him: not the plane of private family affairs, however important and pressing they may be, but the plane of public universal salvific needs of mankind. It is to these needs that Jesus wants to cater through the public acts of his universally salvific power, the acts of "the hour", the "signs" that reveal his own and the Father's glory.

Considering again three possible ways of understanding Mary's expectation suggested by Gourgues, we may say that after all it does not make any real difference, whether we opt for interpretation 2 or interpretation 3. Both 2 and 3 have one important point in common: in both cases, Mary's expectation is below the level expected by Jesus. Now we know, however, that this divergence in level between Jesus and Mary should not lead us into denying the truly "Christian" quality of Mary's knowledge of Jesus.

3. A contrast not between material and spiritual, but between private-particular and salvific-universal

There is another statement of Gourgues which I would like to question. He concludes the paragraph discussing Jesus' pointed question "What have you to do with me?" thus: "From the context of material realities we are projected into the context of spiritual realities".

In my opinion this is not an adequate statement of the case. The divergence between Jesus and Mary is not a contrast between the material and the spiritual. Mary's expectation includes both material and spiritual elements. For example, her concern for the preservation of the joy of the marriage feast cannot certainly be described as "material". Rather, the contrast is between a particular human affair and the uiversal salvific plan of God. Even so, of course, the contrast is not an absolute one. For the universal salvific plan of God includes particular human affairs. We can say that God's plan of salvation becomes "incarnate" in concrete human events. However, Jesus is precisely asking Mary to see the universal salvific will of God in the particular event of the marriage feast. If Jesus acts, he is going to act in fulfilment of God's universal salvific will and not merely to solve the problem of a newly-wed couple. Somehow, the limitation of Mary's expectation does not lie in asking too much. It lies in asking too little! And this is true, even if, as I believe, she had been asking for a miracle!

Having stressed so much the "divergence" between Jesus and his mother revealed by Jesus' question: "What have you to do with me?", a further point should be made to obtain a more balanced appreciation of Jesus' meaning. That is, we must be careful not to give too negative an import to Jesus' sharp questions in v.4. I say "questions" in the plural because also the second part of v.4 probably ought to be translated as a question, thus: "Has my hour not now come?", so that the whole verse actually should run thus: "Woman, what have you to do with me? Has my hour not yet come?" (4)

Jesus is questioning Mary's relation to him. He questions this relation because of the hour (not yet come, if 4b is translated as a statement; somehow already come and not yet come, if 4b is translated as a question. A question, in fact. is neither an affirmation, nor a negation!).

"A question is a question". (5) Attention to this fact should help us to understand better the meaning of Jesus' questions in v.4. In v.4a Jesus is not denying Mary's relationship to him. He questions it. His questioning shows that there is a certain divergence of view between him and his mother. Now a question can have both a positive and a negative answer. It is typical of Jesus' questions in John's Gospel that the context of the whole Gospel provides both positive and negative answers to Jesus' questions. In the case of Jesus' question here, Jesus is denying the continued validity of a merely human mother-son relationship. At the same time. by this very question, Jesus is inviting Mary to enter into a new relationship with him on the plane of God's plan of salvation. Jesus calls on Mary to become the first believing woman in a fully salvific sense. Jesus is asking Mary to become the mother of all truly "Christian" believers.

Truly, Cana is a prefiguration of the Stabat Mater. At the cross, too, Jesus asks Mary to renounce considering herself his mother. He asks her to become mother of the disciple whom he loves. He asks her to become such insofar as she is the first "faithful" woman. The old Mary-Jesus mother-Son relationship is set aside; a new Mary-disciple mother-son relationship is established.

If we pass on to v.4b, there is additional room for wonder. Mary's remark about the lack of wine has given rise in Jesus' mind to the thought of the "hour" that will "manifest his glory". This fact is pointed out also by Gourgues, who, in a parenthesis, says: "Jesus thinks of the glory-manifesting sign because his mother's request induced him to do so". Gourgues does not stop to ask why this should be so. Moreover, Mary's remark not only kindles the thought of the "sign", but also that of the "hour". The two realities, naturally, are related. The sign manifests Jesus' glory. The hour is the hour of the glorification of the Son of man (12:23), The "hour" is in reality the "sign" par excellence, the Paschal Event that fully reveals the Father's glory in the person of Jesus.

Now we should stop and ask: Why should Mary's remark be capable of so much? Capable of stirring up the thought of the Paschal Event in Jesus' mind? Would it be capable of doing so if her request were totally within the confines of a purely human perspective? Does not Jesus' reference to the hour rather show that there is more to Mary's request than meets the eye? We must recognize that there is a depth in Mary's request that is difficult for us to fathom. I would propose that the following is a less inadequate assessment of Mary's expectation: Even though Mary's request does not match Jesus' expectation, still it has a depth which we are not able to fully understand.

This being the case, I further propose that the best exegetical attitude is one of silent pondering on things greater than us: "What deep understanding existed between Jesus and his mother? How can we probe the mystery of their intimate spiritual union?" (Redemptoris Mater, n. 21).



  2.This procedure is at odds with the one adopted in Mary in the New Testament, edited by R. E. Brown and others and regarded by many as a standard study of Mary in the New Testament. In my opinion, the exegetical method adopted in this book is unacceptable. It results in a minimalist, least-common-denominator type of exegesis. A typical example of the conclusions such a method leads to may be the following. Dealing with the origin of the Christian faith in the virginal conception of Jesus, the majority membership of the task force behind the book suggests that "the 'catalyst' for the notion [of Jesus' virginal conception] might have been that Jesus was born prematurely (i.e. too early after Joseph and Mary came to live together－cf. Mt 1:18, a 'fact' which was interpreted by his enemies in terms of his illegitimacy, and by Christians in terms of his having been miraculously conceived. The tenuousness of this hypothesis was acknowledged". This hypothesis is not merely tenuous, it is ludicrous and preposterous. It lays its proponents open to the reproach levelled by Dostoyevsky against "the scholars of this world" more than a hundred years ago: " They have only investigated the parts and overlooked the whole, so much so that one cannot help being astonished at their blindness" (The Brothers Karamazov, Penguin, Harmondsworth 1982, p. 199). Dostoyevsky was no exegete. But he was a Christian. He knew what he vas talking about. Here is an astonishingly perceptive comment of his on the Cana story: '"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him. They have no wine,' Alyosha heard. 'Oh yes, I nearly missed that, and I didn't want to miss it. I love that passage: it is Cana of Galilee, it's the first miracle Oh, that miracle, oh, that lovely miracle! It was not grief but men's gladness that Jesus extolled when he worked his first miracle－he helped people to be happy "He who loves men, loves their gladness"－that was what the dead man had kept repeating, that was one of his main ideas Without gladness it is impossible to live, says Mitya Yes, Mitya Whatever is true and beautiful is always full of forgiveness－that also he used to say' 'Jesus saith unto her. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatever he saith unto you, do it.' 'Do it The gladnes, the gladness of some poor, very poor people Yes, poor, of coure, if they hadn't enough wine even at a wedding Historians write that the people living by the lake of Gennesaret and in all those places were the poorest that can possibly be imagined And another great heart of the other great being, his Mother, who was there at the time, knew that he had come down only for his great and terrible sacrifice, but that his heart was open also to the simple and artless joys of ignorant human beings, ignorant but not cunning, who had warmly bidden him to their poor wedding. "Mine hour is not yet come"－he said with a gentle smile (yes, he certainly smiled gently at her) And, surely, is was not to increase the wine at poor weddings that he came down on earth. And yet he went and did as she asked him Oh, he is reading again.'" (Ibidem, p.424). Dostoyevsky's insight into the Cana event exercises a sobering influence on our exegetical investigations. What we consider a laborious breakthrough ("his Mother [ ] knew that he had come down only for his great and terrible sacrifice"), is taken by Dostoyevsky as the self-evident starting point of his reflection!

3.This oft-repeated and yet, in my opinion, inadequate expression of the facts seems acceptable even to such a careful thinker as J. Galot. Cf. his "Marie, premiere dans la foi" in Esprit et Vie 97 (1987) 385-391.

4.This is the first sentence of a study on Jn 2:4 by A. Vanhoye: "Interrogation johannique et exegese de Cana (Jn 2:4)" Biblica 55 (1974) 157-167. Most of the insights in this sub-section and the next section are derived from this study.

5.Ibidem, p. 157.

III. MARY'S FAITH RESPONSE

Here I would like to add a few remarks to the excellent comments made by Gourgues on the sigaificance of Mary's reaction to Jesus' challenge: "His mother said to the servants. ' Do whatever he tells you'."

Jesus called into question his mother's relationship with him. He did so the moment Mary had taken the initiative. It is as if Jesus let his mother understand that it was no longer the time for her to take the initative. Mary accepts being put into question. She accepts that the "natural" mother-Son relationship be set aside. From now on she does not try any more to exercise her motherly influence on her Son. On the contrary, she puts herself at the service of her Son. She places herself among the servants. In their midst, she invites them to collaborate with her Son: "Do whatever he tells you". She does not know what Jesus intends to do. But she is already at his disposal. She is ready to collaborate. But it is he who must take the initiative.

We are very far here from a certain traditional interpretation that sees Mary as ignoring Jesus' questioning and persists in asserting her will at all costs, bending to her will even that of Jesus! Of course it is not my intention to minimise Mary's power of intercession. No, it is only a question of perceiving the Gospel-indicated direction of this powerful intercession: Mary intercedes for us before Jesus and the Father "that their will be done"; at the same time she intercedes before us that we "do whatever he tells" us. At Cana "Mary not only gives her consent to the renunciation demanded by Jesus. She does more. She encourages others to the same unconditional docility. In doing so, she passes from her role as mother of Jesus according to the flesh to her role as spiritual mother of the faithful".(6)

Cana is Mary's second Annunciation. Not Gabriel, but Jesus himself calls his mother to a new mission. This new mission is inaugurated at Cana and culminates on the Cross: "Woman, behold, your son!"(7) The Crucifixion scene of Jn 19:25-27 describes the culmination of Mary's spiritual motherhood of the faith-ful Christians. Standing by the cross, Mary becomes the mother of our faith, because at that moment Mary's faith reaches its apex. "How great, how heroic then is the obedience of faith shown by Mary in the face of God's 'unsearchable judgments'!. How competely she 'abandons herself to God', without reserve,' offering the full assent of the intellect and the will' (cf. DV 5) to him whose 'ways are inscrutable' (cf. Rom 11:33)! And how powerful too is the action of grace in her soul, how all-pervading is the influence of the Holy Spirit and of his light and power! Through this faith Mary is perfectly united with Christ in his self-emptying. [...] At the foot of the Cross Mary shares through faith in the appalling mystery of [Jesus] self-emptying. This is perhaps the deepest 'kenosis' of faith in human history". ("Redemptoris Mater", n.18).

"When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?" (Lk 18:8). Mary, mother of Jesus and mother of our faith, pray for us!

　



6.Ibidem, pp. 165-166

7.The contemporary confessor of the faith, Mons. Ignatius Gong, Catholic Bishop of Shanghai, prefers to see the Cross rather than the Cana event as Mary's second Annunciation. In the pastoral letter of April 22nd, 1951, he writes: "To Mary, the words of Jesus on the cross, 'Woman, behold, your son!', were like a second Annunciation, the beginning of a second motherhood". (China Missionary Bulletin 3 (4) (1951) 659. (My translation from the French).


http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A011E1_1.htm

作者：嘉理陵



WHAT TO ME ...? (Jn 2:4)




The words of Jesus to Mary at Cana, as any commentary, and the pertinent bibliography (1) it quotes, will testify, are far from being adequately or acceptably elucidated. Opinions offered must be taken with a treatment of the question of the role that the whole Cana scene plays in the total Johannine dramatization of the story of Jesus. Opinions will thus be placed somewhere between an "ultramarianist" perspective which would see Jesus advancing his "hour" at the (supposed? / presupposed?) request of Mary, and an "antimarianist" perspective which would see Jesus rejecting either the (supposed? / presupposed?) request, or the suppositions behind such a request, or even the person of Mary in making the "request".

Exegetes rightly question the presuppositions or even prejudices of commentators who push to either extreme, to the detriment of veritable exegesis and the promotion of eisegesis. But if it is correct procedure to question the "abnormal" presuppositions grounding aberrant commentary, perhaps there are, even many, occasions when a critical realism would demand that, without having recourse to methodological doubt, exegetes might consider questioning the "normal" presuppositions which must be implicit in any "normal" exegesis of any text, in order to attempt to broaden the range of heuristic, and hermeneutic instruments necessary for furthering their work.

In dealing with the exegesis of the words of Jesus to Mary at Cana, we might say that the "normal" (and hence acceptable) presuppositions are inherent in or are supported by both the text and the context. If heuristically we desire to question these presuppositions, then we have to question, once more, the text and the context.

Textual Considerations

to her / autei

The fact that Jesus is speaking to Mary. and hence answering her supposed / presupposed / implicit "request", is. of couses, strongly grounded in the use of the dative case of the feminine singular personal pronoun autei ["to her"]. This dative is accepted as a dative of address, and the person addressed can be none other than Mary, something underscored by the vocative gynai. Woman! The normality of this is so imperative that to question it may seem to verge on the borders of abnormality already accepted above as aberrant. If Jesus is not speaking to Mary, then who is he speaking to?

Nevertheless, the range of use of the dative case in Indo-european languages and of its functional equivalent in languages of the semitic, hamitic, and other groups [whether in declensional "case" form or in prepositional form] is far more extensive than the dative of address and, indeed, is so extensive that grammarians are driven to create terminology to deal with its variations.

The dative of address, then, is one of many uses, and, I would submit (2), a wider familiarity with the use of "dative functions" in a wider variety of languages, would increase our sensitivity to the nuances of its use in the language of the New Testament, whether that "language" is understood as the written Koin6 Greek of the text or the supposed / proposed Aramaic cultural mindset behind the text. Perhaps, then, for the sake of argument, and for the furtherance of the range of our heuristic tools, we might suggest that there is a "dative of instigation". The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the verb "to instigate" as: "urge, incite...bring about". If (still very much in the realm of hypothesis) the autei of Jn2:4 could be taken as such a "dative of instigation", then the picture would change radically. But before proceeding further it is necessary to look at other words in the text.

Jesus said…

Bruno Snell, in his book on the making of the mind, quoted approvingly by Bernard Lonergan in Method in Theology (3) has demonstrated from a study of both language and painting the efforts of man to express experiential interiority in language which does not yet adequately possess all the panoply of a modern rational psychology. Could it be that the language of the New Testament is still at the stage of exteriorization, concretization of the rather more elusive and abstract concepts of interiority, whether that interiority is experienced in a more meditative mode ("Mary KEPT [syneterei. Lat. conservabat] all these things in her heart pondering {symballousa, Lat. conferens] them" [Lk 2:19]), or in a more spontaneous mode ("The Pharisees SAID in their hearts" [eipan en heautois'. Lat. dixerunt intra se]. [Mt 9:3])? Again, supposing this to be so for the sake of the hypothesis, and without for the moment further justification of all the details, then the whole passage would read something like [with variants in square brackets]:

"At Mary's instigation..."

["at the instigation of Mary's question"]

[or, much more simply: "at Mary's words"]

"Jesus reflected and said to himself:

"What has what you are saying to do with me?"

["What are you telling me in what you are saying?"]

[or, again much more simply: "What are you trying to tell me?" (4).]

Then the next words would become a reflective question (5): "Could it be that my hour has come?"

With the whole Johannine technique of "words of double significance" / "misunderstanding" / "inadequate understanding" in mind, we might find a great deal of light through a wider consideration of a distinction between "saying" and "telling" such as is implicit in the version offered here, a distinction implicit, almost even explicit, in many passages where the so-called "misunderstanding" technique is being employed or where symbolism is elucidated, or even straightforward speech is being explained, not only in Jn but in the rest of the New Testament as well [cf. Jn 3:26ff; 10:34ff: 13:22-30; 14:29f: 16:18ff, 29ff: 21:18f; 21:20-23].

If this all seems to fall into the temptation of "psychologizing" Jesus or Mary that Bultmann warns against in his commentary, still we have to risk the temptation in order to develop our understanding of the written objectifications of that human experience of inferiority which the Evangelists and their contemporaries were conscious of but did not always have an adequate psychological vocabulary at hand to express (6).



  (1)Unfortunately, at the moment of writing I cannot have recourse to a library, and hence can offer no specific references to authors cited in passing nor demonstrate in greater detail the viability of many of the assertions or suggestions made here, by, for example, detailed study of grammatical, syntactical or lexical occurrences of the suggested "dative of instigation".　

Those familiar with the literature will be able to see what is based on the work of others.　

There is always the question of the literary genre of such an essay: has it any exegetical value, or is it pure fancy and eisegesis? Let us say it is musings on the margins of the Gospel, even mutterings on the margins of the commentaries!－or, more seriously, an essay in an illative search for coherent meaning, whose context is wider than the text which provokes it. Where both deduction and induction fail us in the resolution of a particular crux in interpretation, hypotheses may be suggested and worked on, perhaps more profitably, by a courageous use of the illative sense.　

[A simpler and more devotional form of this essay will appear in Progressio, the publication of the Christian Life Community. Readers who would like copies of that form of the essay may have one by contacting me. I hope that there will be further opportunites to elaborate some of explicit and implicit suggestions made here.]

(2)Although not in command, at the moment of writing, of all the evidence, I have enough familiarity with the standard Biblical languages, European classical and modern languages, (including the less widespread languages of, for example, the Celtic group) and with non-European languages such as Chinese and Japanese, to make the suggestion at least as, but something more than, I hope, an educated guess.

(3)In the context of the present tentative suggestions, it would be worth exploring at longer range the relationships between inferiority and theory as realms of meaning, dealt with in Method in Theology, especially in what concerns their verbal objectification, and then elaborating the findings of such exploration in the form of heuristic and hermeneutic instruments.

(4)Or again, in a rather more colloquial form, current in certain places and situations: "What do I hear you telling me? / "Do I hear you saying ...?

If we prescind from, or discard, the colloquiality, the cultural frame and the modernity of this last suggestion, we are reasonably close to what is being suggested here.

(5)By "reflective question", I mean, of course, something quite different from the understanding of the sentence as a question discussed and rightly dismissed by Raymond Brown in his commentary.

(6)It does not seem a satisfactory solution to suggest that Mary's words, and hence, perhaps by implication, Jesus' words also, are only [?] part of the story-telling technique, as would appear to be Bultmann's solution, unless one elaborates this further in terms of the narrated narrative being the objectively expressed correlative of a lived narrative or "story", at least as far as that lived narrative or "story" is understood by the "literary" narrator. This same point was made, in reference to the Mary's words to the angel [Lk 1:33], though in very different terms, in an article by Auer in Revue Biblique over 30 years ago, "L' Annonce a Mane".

Contextual Considerations

The role of the Cana story in the Fourth Gospel is a debatable one, so that Raymond Brown in his Anchor Bible commentary assigns it a double function: that of closing the series of events in Ch.1 and of opening the "Cana cycle".

But we might suggest a slightly different view: Ch.1 in its entirety is introductory, and may be divided into two sections:

1:1-18－ a THEOLOGICAL introduction in which historical elements are intermingled.

1:19-51－ a HISTORICAL introduction is which theological considerations are intermingled.

In spite of the historical nature of 1:19-51 and the historicity which may be accorded the "events", these "events" might be seen, not as an integral part of the "story" of Jesus, but rather as a prerequisite prelude to that story as it is recounted by "John". The "introductions" are, it goes without saying, meant for the Reader rather than intended as detailing the early days of Jesus' ministry.

Beginnings

It may be accepted that a concern with "beginnings" played a part in the elucidation of the "Jesus" story. It would also be apparent that Mary played an integral part in the stories about the "beginning" both of Jesus [Mt 1-2; Lk 1-2] and of the Church [Acts 1:14]. Unless we can imagine the Johannine author or authors or school operating in a complete vacuum, it would be obvious that these ideas would also affect them.

Much is rightly made of the fact that in Ch.2 the Cana miracle is not called the "first" sign but the "arche" ["beginning" or even "principle"] of the signs. Without going unacceptably beyond the intention of the Gospel, we may see the whole life of Jesus as a sign, and Cana as its beginning. It would be important that Mary, "the mother of Jesus" would be involved in this beginning.

It would appear that the "beginning" which occurred at the message of the Angel also marked an end (7). A justification of this would require an analysis of the Lucan annunciation scene, of the function of John the Baptist in relation to Jesus etc. Suffice it to say here that it is not impossible that the "beginning" which was Cana should also mark an end. Again, looking beyond the limits of the present essay to much that has been said in terms of Israel as the vineyard of the Lord, (especially, perhaps, in reference to the prophecy of Isaiah), and the importance of this theme for an adequate elucidation of much New Testament imagery, for brevity's sake we may suggest:

Mary said THEY have no wine,

and by THEY she meant simply the young couple as hosts.

Jesus heard Mary say "THEY..."

but his understanding [would have] jumped to ISRAEL:

Israel has no wine…(8)

By implication, the context for an elucidation of the reaction of Jesus to Mary's words at Cana ought not to be confined to the " Sitz im Evangelium*", the context of the Gospel, but should be sought also in the " Sitz im Leben Jesu*", the life-situation of Jesus himself, which must, no matter how elusive the object of the investigation might be, pay some attention to Jesus' human search for the Father's will.

Unless we imagine Jesus coming from heaven with a timetable of his life in his head and a clear heavenly picture of his destiny in his mind and heart, we must (a view, of course, much more consonant with the reality of the self-emptying inherent in the Incarnation) accept the fact that, like all of us, he had to find his vocation, and to grow (in wisdom and grace) into an understanding and acceptance of the Father's will for him. It can be relatively easily demonstrated from the Gospels that Jesus appears to have found his vocation in the book of Isaiah. But again, all the modalities of that vocation had to be discerned in the living out of his daily life.

To gather, to begin to gather, disciples was one thing, to know when the "hour" of actually beginning the great sign of his total public life had arrived was another thing. We always look for "signs from heaven", and Jesus reminded us that we ought to discern the signs of the times. But one cannot discern in the abstract: one needs a context in which to discern, even a concrete question which has to be faced and answered through discernment.

Mary As Prophet

Following up and elaborating the suggestions made here, we may say that at Cana Jesus physically "heard" Mary speaking of the young couple's plight, but, in his discerning search for the Father's will, he "heard", in her voice and in her words, and in the lived "parable" of the young couple, the voice of the Father calling his attention to the plight of Israel. It was time to move - not in answer to a request for a miracle from his mother, not by "advancing" his "hour" at her "request". (Strictly speaking, from a language point of view, she made no request but simply a statement). It was time for him to move, in his own free response to the Father's call as that call was mediated for him by the circumstances of the wedding at Cana and by the words of Mary as an unwitting prophet, even the last of the prophets.

As Jessu could refuse to hear the voice of the Father in the "tempting" suggestion of his unbelieving relatives [Jn 7:1-11], so there is no a priori reason why he should not discern the call of the Father in the words of his Mother, especially against the background of a wedding feast which, pace a large number of exegetes, can scarcely, within the total context of the biblical imagery of marriage and of wedding feasts, be reduced merely to background. Mary, in the simple unwitting way that is true of most of us, because for Jesus the voice of the Father. As such, she stands at the end of the Old Testament as its last prophet, calling from the depths of Israel for the wine of redemption.

[Completed, 17th April, 1988]

  (6)It does not seem a satisfactory solution to suggest that Mary's words, and hence, perhaps by implication, Jesus' words also, are only [?] part of the story-telling technique, as would appear to be Bultmann's solution, unless one elaborates this further in terms of the narrated narrative being the objectively expressed correlative of a lived narrative or "story", at least as far as that lived narrative or "story" is understood by the "literary" narrator. This same point was made, in reference to the Mary's words to the angel [Lk 1:33], though in very different terms, in an article by Auer in Revue Biblique over 30 years ago, "L' Annonce a Mane".

(7)Briefly, it is this "end", and the transition implied in it, which is the basis for using "Ark of the Covenant" as a Mariological title.

(8)The Justification of such a suggestion cannot be textual, but only contextual in the wider sense accepted in the following paragraghs, plus an inherent [?] probability that Jesus' penchant for telling parables was an objective correlative of a subjective disposition, allowing him, we might hazard a guess, to see the parabolic value of much that surrounded him in his daily life: lilies in a field, fishing nets, etc., etc.,－a wedding in Cana? things said to him? His mother's words at Cana? There is the further context of interpretation as an ongoing search for inner coherence whether in the "lived" or the "narrated" narrative.　

Without wishing to attribute these suggestions, especially if entirely unacceptable, to anyone else, I might submit that, following up the suggestion made in note 6 through an exploration of narrative theology such as elaborated by John Navone's book on the Jesus Story, and the co-authored Tellers of the Word, etc, much illative and acceptable insight might be engendered into the role of the Cana story in the Johannine story of Jesus, and indeed into many other points in scripture.