Saint John - Chapter 2
 |
| Cana. Shepherd's Historical Atlas, 1923 |
And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.
[2] Vocatus est autem et Jesus, et discipuli ejus, ad nuptias.
And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage.
[3] Et deficiente vino, dicit mater Jesu ad eum : Vinum non habent.
And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
[4] Et dicit ei Jesus : Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? nondum venit hora mea.
And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.
William R. Shepherd (1871–1934) [Public domain]
[5] Dicit mater ejus ministris : Quodcumque dixerit vobis, facite.
His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece.
[7] Dicit eis Jesus : Implete hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt eas usque ad summum.
Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
[8] Et dicit eis Jesus : Haurite nunc, et ferte architriclinio. Et tulerunt.
And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it.
[9] Ut autem gustavit architriclinius aquam vinum factam, et non sciebat unde esset, ministri autem sciebant, qui hauserant aquam : vocat sponsum architriclinius,
And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom,
[10] et dicit ei : Omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit et cum inebriati fuerint, tunc id, quod deterius est. Tu autem servasti bonum vinum usque adhuc.
And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.
[11] Hoc fecit initium signorum Jesus in Cana Galilaeae; et manifestavit gloriam suam, et crediderunt in eum discipuli ejus.
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.
Notes
[1] Et die tertia nuptiae factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae, et erat mater Jesu ibi.And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.
The following is the sequence of these days in the life of Christ.
6 Jan: He was baptized by John in the thirty-first year of his age, on the 6th of January, as the tradition of the Church declares. On the same day, after dinner, He retired into the desert, where He fasted forty days.
7 Jan - 15 Feb: Fast. This fast thus began on the 7th of January, and ended on the 15th of February. Then he returned to Nazareth, where He abode fifteen days.
1 March: Directly afterwards, that is to say, on the fifty-sixth day after His baptism, as S. Epiphanius says (Hœres. 51), or the 1st of March, the Jews sent messengers to John the Baptist, to ask him whether he were the Christ or not?
2 March: The day following, on March 2, Jesus came to John, when he pointed Him out with his finger, saying, Behold the Lamb.
3 March: On the 3d of March, John repeated this testimony before two of his disciples, of whom Andrew was one.
4 March: On the morrow, or March 4, Jesus went into Galilee, where He called Philip. Since this was the second day from the coming of Andrew with his brother Peter to Christ,
5 March: it must have been on the third day, or March 5, when the wedding-feast took place. Wherefore S. Epiphanius, in the place already cited, says that it took place on the sixtieth day from Christ’s baptism. However, the same Epiphanius, contrary to the rest of the Fathers, and the general consent of the Church, says that Christ was baptized on the 8th of November. This would bring the marriage at Cana to the 6th of January, or the same festival of the Epiphany, on which thirty years previously the Magi had been led by a star to worship Christ at Bethlehem. He adds that in memory of so great a miracle as this conversion of water into wine, even in his own time, on the 11th of the month Tybus, which answers to our 6th of January, certain fountains ran with wine. He testifies this of the fountain of Gerasa in Arabia. He says that he himself had drank of the fountain of Cibyris in Caria thus turned into wine on the day and hour when the miracle was wrought. He says that many in Egypt bear the same testimony with regard to the Nile. What Epiphanius says has led some to think that it was in the thirty-second or following year of Christ’s ministry, and on the 6th of January, that the marriage-feast and the miracle took place. But the chronological table given above shows this to be a mistake.
You will say then, Why did God renew the miracle of the conversion of water into wine yearly on the 6th of January? I reply, because the Church commemorates the miracle on that day, though it did not actually take place upon it. For the Church wished to celebrate on the same feast of the Epiphany, or manifestation of Christ, the three miracles by which Christ first made Himself manifest to the world: the first, the leading of the Magi by a star; the second, His baptism, when the Father’s voice was heard like thunder, This is My Beloved Son; the third, the turning water into wine. Two of these miracles happened on the same day of the month, or the 6th of January; the third, two months afterwards, or the 6th of March. When therefore the Church sings, on the Feast of the Epiphany, “To-day water was made wine,” it is as though she said, “To-day is this event recalled to the memory of the faithful.” So S. Austin and Baronius.
As a parallel to this miracle, in many places of the West at the season of the Passover, when solemn baptism was wont to be conferred in the Church, copious streams of water have been known to flow out of a dry and arid font or fountain (fonte) to be used at the baptism. This was done, not because it was the day when Christ was baptized, but because of the solemn baptism then conferred by the Church.
[2] Vocatus est autem et Jesus, et discipuli ejus, ad nuptias.
And Jesus also was invited,[2] and his disciples,[3] to the marriage.[1]
[1] Marriage, Syriac, Feast, sc. of a marriage. You will ask, Whose marriage was this; and who was the bridegroom? Bede, Ruperti, Lyra, S. Thomas, and others, think that the bridegroom was S. John the Evangelist. They are influenced by the authority of S. Augustine, who says on this passage, “The Lord called John from the wave-tossing tempest of marriage.”
But I say that this bridegroom was not S. John. For S. John was always a virgin, and never married to a wife. For this reason he was most dear to Christ, and was “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” a Virgin loving a virgin. He would never have broken his purpose of virginity by marriage; yea, he would never have thought of breaking it: but he remained constant to his purpose all through his life. This is the teaching of SS. Ignatius, Jerome, Augustine, and others. Wherefore, what S. Augustine has said, as quoted above, is to be understood not of marriage entered into, but of marriage about to be entered into, or rather that he might have entered into, and which, according to the custom of his nation, he ought to have entered into. Christ called the youthful John to Himself, that he might not think of marriage.
With more probability, Baronius, following Nicephorus (Hist. I. 8. c. 30), thinks that the bridegroom at this marriage was the Apostle Simon, who was surnamed the Cananite from Cana. And Baronius adds from the same Nicephorus that the place where the marriage was celebrated was adorned by a famous church built there by S. Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great. As soon as Simon had seen this miracle of Christ at his wedding, he bade farewell to his bride and the world, and followed Him, and was chosen to be one of His twelve Apostles. This was the reason why Christ came to this wedding; and by coming, indeed, honoured marriage; but by calling him to Himself, He showed that celibacy and the apostolate were better than marriage.
Tropologically, a holy soul by faith, hope, chastity, and charity is like a bride married to Christ. She becomes the bride of Christ, who, leaving all the allurements of the world, transfers her whole love to Christ, and for Him covers and veils her head, that is, her mind, and all her senses, so as to converse with Him continually above the clouds in heaven, and dedicates and consecrates her whole self to Him. With this idea the etymology of nuptials, as given by Festus, most admirably agrees. Some he says derive nuptiœ from the Greek, for the Greeks call a bride νύμφη. S. Isidore, however, derives nuptiœ from obnubere, to cover, because women when married were accustomed to cover their head with a veil. An unmarried woman, on the contrary, was called innuba, or one whose head was not covered.
Such a bride of Christ was S. Dympna, virgin and martyr, who, on account of her beauty, being asked in marriage of her father, an Irish king, fled into Brabant, and was beheaded by her own father at a town called Geel, not far from Antwerp. Thus she died a noble martyr for chastity. Therefore those who are possessed, and visit her sacred relics, are delivered from the devil. I myself once visited her shrine, and did her reverence.
 |
| Cana. Shepherd's Historical Atlas, 1923 |
And the Mother, &c. “She was invited as a friend by those who were celebrating the marriage,” says Euthymius. For Simon the Cananite, who was the bridegroom, was the son of Cleophas, the brother of Joseph the husband of the Blessed Virgin. There is no mention of Joseph in this place, nor subsequently; for he was now dead, as S. Epiphanius (Hœres. 78), Baronius, and others gather from the silence of this passage.
William R. Shepherd (1871–1934) [Public domain]
[2] Jesus also was called, as the cousin of the bridegroom. “Jesus being called,” says S. Chrysostom, “was present at the marriage, not having regard to His dignity, but to our profit.” He was present (1.) to pay respect to His kinsfolk, and to honour their nuptials by His presence. 2. To give an example of humility, in being present at the marriage of poor people. As S. Chrysostom says, “He who did not disdain to take the form of a servant, was not ashamed to be present at the wedding of servants.” Or, as S. Augustine says (de Verb. Dom, Serm. 41), “Let man blush to be proud, since God became humble. Behold, He came to the marriage, who, when He was with the Father, instituted marriage.” 3. That by the miracle He might make Himself known to His disciples, and show them that He was the Messiah. 4. That He might give His sanction to marriage, and sanctify it by His presence, and so condemn the Encratites, and the followers of Tatian, who were to arise in after times, and revile marriage as a filthy invention of the devil. So SS. Austin, Cyril, and Bede. Hear what this last says (Hom. in Domin. 2, post Epiph.): “If there were any fault to be found with wedlock, duly and chastely celebrated, the Lord would not have been present at a marriage. Good is holy wedlock, better is the continence of widowhood, best of all is perfect virginity. Thus Christ was born of a virgin; He was blessed by the prophetic lips of the widow Anna; He came an invited guest to a wedding.”
[3] And His disciples. You will ask, Who were these disciples? For Jesus did not gather together His apostles until after the imprisonment of S. John the Baptist: and this had not then taken place.
I reply, it is probable they were Nathanael and Philip, and perhaps Andrew and Peter. For they had visited Jesus three days before, and for a time adhered to Him as their Master; though afterwards they went back to their fishing until they were called to the apostolate.
[3] Et deficiente vino, dicit mater Jesu ad eum : Vinum non habent.
And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
And when wine failed, Greek, ὑστερήσαντος, was deficient, because the bridegroom, being poor, had only provided a little, the Mother of Jesus, &c. As though she said, “Our relations, the bride and bridegroom, have no wine. Consider their modesty, O my Son, that they be not put to shame before their guests. I know Thou art able to do this, for Thou art the Son of God, and it is becoming both to Thy kindness and Thy providence, so that by now performing a miracle Thou mayest make manifest both to Thy disciples and all the guests that Thou art the Messiah.” So S. Cyril.
Observe the modesty of the Virgin. She does not bid, or even ask. She does not say, My Son, provide wine for them. She did not doubt that Jesus in His providence and love would provide it. Hear what S. Bernard says (Serm. 2, de B. Virg.): “Those words of hers are a most sure index of innate meekness, and virgin modesty. Accounting the reproach of others her own, she could not bear it; she could not profess ignorance of the wine having failed. When indeed she was reproved by her Son, forasmuch as she was meek and lowly in heart, she neither answered again, nor yet despaired. She only bade the servants do what He told them.”
Moreover, the Mother having a certain confidence that she would obtain, here tacitly asks her Son to procure wine. During the thirty years that they had lived together in close companionship she had learnt from Him that He had been sent by the Father, that, by His heavenly doctrine and miracles, He might convert men to Himself and God. It is impossible to doubt that when Christ bade good-bye to His Mother, when He was going to John’s baptism, and after that to enter upon His office of preaching, He had expressly told His Mother the same. Wherefore, she deeming that the present was a fitting occasion for Jesus, by a miracle, to gain authority and belief in Himself, fearlessly asked for a miracle, not doubting that Christ would perform it, and by so doing would gratify His Mother and His relations, and would advance His own office and dignity.
[4] Et dicit ei Jesus : Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? nondum venit hora mea.
And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.[1]
And Jesus saith, What is it to Me and to thee, &c. Meaning, What have I to do with thee in this matter? (Quid mihi teeum in hac re est negotii?) Observe, the Blessed Virgin did not out of ostentation, or in an untimely, unbecoming, or indiscreet fashion ask this miracle of her Son, as S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius think: but out of necessary charity and piety, as SS. Cyril, Bernard, and others say. Therefore there was no blame attaching to her. Therefore Christ did not really blame her. And yet He seems to reprove her, that He might teach, not her, but us, that in things pertaining to God, and miracles, parents have no right or authority. They must not be done in accordance with their affections and desires, but only for God and charity’s sake. The meaning, therefore, is this, “Thou, O Mother, in this matter, art not My Mother, but as it were another woman. For, from thee I have received human nature, not Divinity. It belongs to My Divine nature to work this miracle, not in accordance with thy desires, and those of relations, but in accordance with the will of God My Father. According to that will I shall work, when the hour and time decreed by God shall come.” Hear S. Augustine on this passage: “The word woman is used simply to express the female sex.” “He, as God,” says Euthymius, “said not ‘Mother,’ but ‘woman.’ ” “He means,” says S. Bede, “that He had not received in time from His Mother the Divinity by which He was about to perform a miracle, but that He had It eternally from the Father.” “He means to say,” says the Interlinear Gloss, “What is there in common between My Divinity and thee My Mother according to the flesh?” “Thou didst not beget, or produce (genuisti) My Divinity, which works the miracle,” says S. Augustine. S. Chrysostom adds, “He speaks thus, lest the miracle should seem to be the result of collusion. He should have been asked by those who needed the wine, not by His Mother.”
[1] Mine hour, &c., i.e., when I may appropriately work this miracle. I wish to wait a little while until the wine has wholly failed, that all the guests may perceive the miracle more clearly, and that all may know that I have wrought it, and so may believe in Me. For he who does not experience the need, will not greatly feel the necessity. So S. Chrysostom. The same S. Chrysostom gives another explanation: “Mine hour is not yet come, because I proposed to work My first miracle in Jerusalem, the capital of Judea: nevertheless at thy prayers, O My Mother, I will change My purpose, and will do it here in Cana of Galilee.”
S. Augustine gives another explanation, to the following effect: The hour of My passion is not yet come, in which I will show what I have to do with thee My Mother, that indeed I have of thee truly assumed man’s nature, and that I am thy Son. When in the weakness of My human nature, of which thou art the Mother, I shall hang upon the cross, then I will acknowledge thee. For He commended her then to His disciple.
[5] Dicit mater ejus ministris : Quodcumque dixerit vobis, facite.
His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
Moreover, in these words of the Virgin her meekness, piety, charity, prudence, faith, constancy, and greatness of soul wonderfully shine forth.
[6] Erant autem ibi lapideae hydriae sex positae secundum purificationem Judaeorum, capientes singulae metretas binas vel ternas.
Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece.
Purification: by which the Jews according to their traditions were accustomed at their feasts ceremonially to wash their hands, if they happened to touch anything unclean at the table. (See S. Mark 7:3.)
Tropologically, S. Bernard expounds thus (Serm. I, in Domin. I, post. Oct. Epiph.): The six waterpots are the six purifying virtues of the soul. “The first waterpot, and the first cleansing, is in compunction, of which we read, that in the very hour in which the sinner shall groan, I will no more remember all their iniquities. The second is confession; for all things are washed by confession. The third is the giving of alms; for we read in the Gospel, ‘Give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you.’ The fourth, forgiveness of injuries; for we say when we pray, ‘Forgive us our debts, for we also forgive those who are indebted to us.’ The fifth is affliction of the body; for we pray that we, being purified by abstinence, may sing glory to God. The sixth is obedience to the commandments: even as the disciples heard what may we too deserve to hear, ‘Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.’ ” He then applies the rest as follows: “They are filled with water, that they may be kept in the fear of God, since the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life.” Then he adds: “But by the Divine power the water is changed into wine when perfect love casts out fear. Now the waterpots are said to be of stone, not because of hardness, but for steadfastness; for they contained two or three firkins apiece.”
Two or three firkins—Greek, measures. This measures was the same as the Hebrew ephah, or bath.
[7] Dicit eis Jesus : Implete hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt eas usque ad summum.
Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
Jesus saith, &c. S. Chrysostom asks, “But why did not He Himself fill the waterpots with water, and then turn it into wine?” He gives the right answer, saying, in order that He might have them as witnesses to the miracle who had drawn the water, lest any fraud or trickery should be supposed.
To the brim: lest, if any vacant space were left, Christ might have been supposed to have poured wine on the top of the water, which might have communicated the flavour of wine to the water underneath.
[8] Et dicit eis Jesus : Haurite nunc, et ferte architriclinio. Et tulerunt.
And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it.
And Jesus saith, &c. Draw out of the great waterpots, and pour into smaller vessels, and carry it to the master of the feast, and let him judge how good the wine is. As Christ said this, He in one moment by His Almighty power changed the whole of the water in the six waterpots into wine. Listen to Nonnus: “Suddenly was the miracle wrought; and the water, changing its colour, flowed with a ruddy glow instead of its own pale colour, and was changed into purple wine.” As S. Cyril says, “What is difficult to Almighty God, or why should not He, who called all things into being out of nothing, much more easily change one thing into another?”
From this conversion of water into wine, the Fathers prove the conversion of bread and wine in the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ. And they add that it seems to be a greater miracle for Christ to turn water into wine than wine into blood. For wine is nearer akin to blood than water is to wine. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 4), S. Cyprian (Epist. cont. Aquar.), S. Irenæus (l. 3, c. 11). S. Isidore of Pelusium asks (l. 1, Epist. 393) why Christ willed this to be His first miracle? He gives the answer mystically, that it was because He wished to supply what was wanting to the Law. “For the Laws,” he says, “only baptized with water, but He perfected the sacred initation with His own Blood, joining both in Himself, and uniting the Law with grace.” For water was the symbol of the old Law, which purified all things by water, but only with a corporeal cleansing. But wine is the symbol of the Blood of Christ, which, being shed upon the cross, cleanses souls. For Christ changes wine into His own Blood in the Eucharist. Christ, therefore, by changing water into wine at the beginning of His preaching, signified that He was about to change the Law of Moses, which was as cold and insipid as water, into the Gospel of His grace.
Master of the feast. S. Gaudentius says, that when marriages were celebrated amongst the Jews, a priest was assigned to preside over the proper ceremonies. The same person took care of conjugal modesty and ordered the provision for the feast, and the ministers; wherefore he was called the master, or governor of the feast. Christ therefore orders that the water which had been made wine should be borne to this master of the feast, because he by his office was a most sober and responsible person, and also well skilled in the flavour of wine. Therefore he was the best able to judge of the excellence of this wine, and to make known Christ’s miracle unto all.
They bore it. It is probable that Christ turned the water into red wine, both because red wine is the only kind used in Palestine, and also that it might be the more evident that the water had been changed into wine. They bore then with joy, gladly obeying, and contributing their part to this miracle of Christ. For their prompt obedience in drawing the water contributed not a little to this miracle.
[9] Ut autem gustavit architriclinius aquam vinum factam, et non sciebat unde esset, ministri autem sciebant, qui hauserant aquam : vocat sponsum architriclinius,
And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom
When the governor of the feast, &c. Tasted: he did not give credit entirely to the smell and ruddy colour, but he tasted, and found that it was the very best and most excellent wine. For tasting was the surest way of judging.
[10] et dicit ei : Omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit et cum inebriati fuerint, tunc id, quod deterius est. Tu autem servasti bonum vinum usque adhuc.
And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.
And when men are inebriated (Vulg.), well drunk (Eng. Vers.), i.e., exhilarated. For intoxication in Scripture often means a liberal draught which gladdens the mind, but does not deprive it of the use of reason. For if these guests had been really drunk, surely Jesus would never have turned water into wine for them, for then He would have assisted and encouraged their drunkenness. Much rather would He have put a stop to their potations, and sent them home. And the Blessed Virgin would have done the same.
Then that which is worse: because, when the stomach is filled with wine, it is a poor judge of the quality. This is a type of the deceitfulness of the world, which at the beginning presents things that are fair to the eye, and afterwards brings in what is vile and worthless, and so deceives and deludes its lovers.
But thou hast kept, &c. Hence it is plain that this wine was most excellent as being the work of Christ, and therefore Divine. For the works of God are perfect. Thus the loaves which Christ multiplied to feed the four thousand were as sweet as manna. And S. Chrysostom says that the limbs of those persons which Christ restored became stronger than they were originally.
All these things were wisely ordered by Christ, so that the miracle might be perfectly well attested. For the master of the feast called the bridegroom, and asked him from whence was this wine. He replied that he knew nothing about it. Then, learning from the servants the sequence of what had been done, they came to the waterpots, and found them all full of the best wine. Where upon they burst forth in praise of Jesus as the author of the miracle, and their benefactor, and made known what had been done to all the guests. Jesus, avoiding vainglory, retired, first admonishing them to use this wine with moderation, to the praise of God, with giving of thanks to Him.
[11] Hoc fecit initium signorum Jesus in Cana Galilaeae; et manifestavit gloriam suam, et crediderunt in eum discipuli ejus.
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.
Beginning. From hence the Fathers gather passim that this miracle was absolutely the first which Christ publicly wrought. This is the refutation of the book on the “Infancy of the Saviour,” condemned by Pope Gelasius, which was forged by the heretics; and in which it is related that Christ publicly wrought miracles when He was yet a boy. Yet there is no reason, says Maldonatus, against our thinking that Christ may have wrought miracles privately before, and may by them have assisted the poverty of His parents. It might seem as if His Mother, animated by the recollection of such, had here asked for, and expected, a similar miracle. But Christ could have relieved His Mother’s wants by some special providence short of a miracle.
You will ask why Christ willed this to be His first miracle? I reply, because it was especially appropriate to the time, the place, and the persons. For wine is the most noble beverage, which makes glad both God and man (Judges 9:13). Wherefore Noah, immediately after the Deluge, discovered wine, and was a type of Christ here making wine. Again, Christ by this miracle showed that He is the self-same Being who, year by year, does the same thing in the vines by converting their watery sap into wine. “The only difference is,” as S. Chrysostom says, “that in the vine-tree He effects by a process extending over a considerable time what He did at the marriage in a moment.” For what else is wine but water changed by the rays of the sun?
The symbolical reason is, because wine is the most fitting symbol of the grace, charity, devotion, fervour, strength, with which Christ indues His own. Whence S. Bernard says (in Sentent.), “The wine in the cup of God has a threefold colour. It is red in the long-suffering of the saints. This made Isaac glad in his sickness. It is white in the recompense of the just. With this was Noah inebriated. It is black and sour in the damnation of the wicked. Of this Jesus tasted, but would not drink.”
Allegorically, the reason was because this marriage represented the marriage union of Christ with human nature, which took place in His Incarnation. Wherefore it was celebrated on the third day, that is, in the third stage of the world. For the first state was the law of nature, the second was the law of Moses, the third is the law of Christ. It was done in Galilee of the Gentiles, because Christ calls all the Gentiles to His marriage with our humanity. Also it was done in Cana of Galilee, i.e., in the transmigration of the possession, or the Christian people, which is Christ’s possession, bought with His own Blood, and therefore it passes from earth to heaven. In His possession Christ gives wine, i.e., the doctrine and grace of the Gospel, which makes glad and inebriates the soul. Here also He changes wine into His Blood in the Eucharist.
Tropologically, the reason was that by these nuptials and by wine He signified the union, and as it were the marriage of our soul, through grace and charity, with God. The Mother of Jesus was there, that is, virginal chastity, and the simple faith of the disciples of Jesus, such faith as when humbly acknowledging the wine of our devotion and fervour is failing, we entreat Him to bestow it upon us. Then He changes the insipidity of our soul into the good wine of His heavenly grace, by which we refresh and inebriate, not only ourselves, but others, and make them to glow with the love of God.
Anagogically, the marriage of the Lamb will be perfected in heaven. There Christ will give us new wine and Divine nectar. He will inebriate us out of the fatness of the house of God. and will give us to drink of the torrent of His pleasures.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam
No comments:
Post a Comment