ROSARY: Who is "our life, our sweetness and our hope?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steadfast_love
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good posts. I understand Mary’s role, and most here do too-- it just doesnt change the fact that one must go to great lengths to explain / reconcile this phrase of the prayer (as evidenced by the posts on this thread) and it is still difficult to defend it against Protestant questions, especially in real time. There is also the danger of some Catholics misunderstanding the phrase as Mary being divine or having power apart from Christ.

I’ll concede that the traditional meaning can be acceptable if properly understood, but I also think there is no problem if an individual chooses to understand it using the alternate meaning or even say it with a few added "our"s to clarify that alternate meaning. So long as it avoids heresy, go for it, I say.
 
Josh128 said:
one must go to great lengths to explain / reconcile this phrase of the prayer (as evidenced by the posts on this thread) and it is still difficult to defend it against Protestant questions, especially in real time.
Click to expand...
Because Protestantism is so very, very distant from Catholicism when it comes to philosophical underpinnings, yes. People cannot be won over by mere soundbites. They deserve better.
Josh128 said:
There is also the danger of some Catholics misunderstanding the phrase
Click to expand...
If they are badly formed in the faith, yes. Someone who is badly formed in the faith can misunderstand almost anything. That’s why we all have a big responsibility to educate one another.
Josh128 said:
I also think there is no problem if an individual chooses to understand it using the alternate meaning
Click to expand...
I have no theological problem with your alternate version, it’s just not the actual Salve Regina.
 
Josh128 said:
Amazing-- Fr. Serpa went back and edited his response to me and now agrees with my view on it-- but I never got a notification that he revised his response!

I’m much more comfortable with this edited answer-- but it just confirms what I’ve said and what I was worried about in this thread all along-- here is an apologist priest who never realized the “problem” with (what seems to be) the traditional understanding of the prayer that millions of Catholics pray daily-- until it was brought to his attention. Even then, he gave a quick (and unsatifactory IMO) answer seemingly out of obligation, but apparently later realized that the question deserved more attention. At least he was honest in saying he never realized the implications of the prayer before, which I fear is the case with most Catholics that pray the Rosary.

This is why as a Church, we must never write off objections by others to things we do, just because “thats just how it is”. It really seems that some apologists seem to get offended when posed with certain questions or theories, and revert into this “recoil” mode. That sort of smugness has no place in the Church in my opinion. We must always be mindful of the dialogue and debate of the early Church and understand that constructive dialogue or debate is always valuable and many times fruitful. It is our duty as members of the Church to ensure we educate ourselves and others in understanding and living the Gospel.

Now, the question is, would the “new” understanding get approval from higher ups in the Church, would it be denied approval, or would it be written off without even being given proper attention by some? At least this is a good start.
as accurately as possible.
Click to expand...
To be honest, Fr. Serpa’s response is confusing to me. I don’t have any idea what he is saying. I know I’m not the brightest crayon in the box, but I think part of the problem is that when a CAF apologist answers “The Question of the Day” he/she is limited to a small amount of space. It would have been better if Fr. Serpa had had more room in which to reply.

Just my opinion, of course. 😉
 
JaredR said:
I figure that if I am fine with a husband telling his wife she is his “everything,” I am fine with calling Mary our life, our sweetness, and our hope. After all, she’s even more deserving of the exaggerated praise. This prayer is a love-poem, and that’s how I read it.
Click to expand...
A love poem? Yes, I agree. We do love Mary. Hyperbole? Very possible! 🙂

If Mary’s soul “doth magnify the Lord” we can surely magnify our love for her.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
aspirant said:
OK, I went and did the grammatical research myself. If a real Latin grammarian comes along, he or she should please correct this as needed. 🙂

In Latin, the first two lines of the Salve Regina are:

Salve, Regina, mater misericordiae;
vita, dulcedo et spes nostra, salve.

The nouns “regina” and “mater” in the first line are in the vocative case, meaning regina (queen) and mater (mother) are words for the person being addressed. “Misericordiae” is in the genitive case, indicating possession. It modifies mater, so the person being addressed in the first line is both queen and “mercy’s mother” or “mother of mercy.”

The question being asked here is whether the nouns vita (life), dulcedo (sweetness, delightfulness), and spes (hope) refer to the person being addressed (already known as regina and mater) or if they are being used the same way misericordiae is used, to modify mother (e.g. “life’s mother, sweetness’ mother, hope’s mother”).

And the answer is: they’re in the vocative case, not the genitive. Vita is the person being addressed, the same person previously called regina and mater.

So it is rightly translated to mean “Hail, queen, mercy’s mother; life, sweetness, and hope, hail!” rather than “Hail, queen, mercy’s mother, life’s mother, sweetness’ mother, and hope’s mother, hail!”

In the Salve Regina’s opening lines, Mary is the “life” being addressed.

:twocents:
Click to expand...
“Hail, queen, mercy’s mother; life, sweetness, and hope, hail!” That is very poetic and very beautiful. 🙂 It seems (to me) that not much is lost in the translation from Latin to English.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
Josh128 said:
Good posts. I understand Mary’s role, and most here do too-- it just doesnt change the fact that one must go to great lengths to explain / reconcile this phrase of the prayer (as evidenced by the posts on this thread) and it is still difficult to defend it against Protestant questions, especially in real time. There is also the danger of some Catholics misunderstanding the phrase as Mary being divine or having power apart from Christ.

I’ll concede that the traditional meaning can be acceptable if properly understood, but I also think there is no problem if an individual chooses to understand it using the alternate meaning or even say it with a few added "our"s to clarify that alternate meaning. So long as it avoids heresy, go for it, I say.
Click to expand...
You’re correct when you say it is difficult to defend it against Protestant questions. I was just in a thread that addressed praying to Mary in general (the OP is a Protestant) and it didn’t matter what the Catholics stated. Mary is dead, ergo we are not to speak to her; we believe Mary forgives our sins, etc. It’s frustrating, especially when the subject of Immaculate Conception appears.

I remember that not too long ago someone asked a moderator why we (as Catholics) don’t just admit that we worship Mary. Someone else (Catholic) referred to Mary as a goddess. So there is obviously some misunderstanding among both Protestants and Catholics about the role of Mary.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
nuntym said:
Why not? :confused:
Click to expand...
I could say that the prayer’s of Mary or a Saint can help us to have life and hope but only God ***is ***Life and only God is Hope. The term “our hope” for example, is exclusive by its nature, only one can be “our hope”. Consider the term “our Savior”, only one can be “our Savior”.

Also, Jesus indicated that as we think so we are. Mightn’t we condition our minds to associate Mary as our hope more than Jesus? Even though we don’t mean it that way maybe it can happen subconsciously. If someone prays the Rosary every day then about 300 times a year they will call Mary their Life and Hope and they might not pray this way to Jesus during that year. We have to be careful not to get carried away and this may be an example of the laity getting a bit away.

I propose that we translate it differently (if it’s a translation issue) or phrase it differently.
 
Coder said:
I could say that the prayer’s of Mary or a Saint can help us to have life and hope but only God ***is ***Life and only God is Hope. The term “our hope” for example, is exclusive by its nature, only one can be “our hope”. Consider the term “our Savior”, only one can be “our Savior”.
Click to expand...
That’s not true. What if two firemen went into a building to save people from the fire. Fireman #1 charged up the stairs, blasted the flames in the thickest part of the danger, and then grabbed the child from the house and hurried back down the stairs again. Fireman #2 never got closer than the stairs and he just did his job holding the hose.

The child would probably say, “Fireman #1 saved me!” But Fireman #2 also had an important role. Fireman #2 also was the child’s savior.

Many people today (note that I’m not in approval of Obama’s policies- it’s just an example) say, “Obama is our hope!” But at the same time, they’re depending on him having good, smart and effective people working for him. These people too are “their hope,” but they go unmentioned because Obama is the prominent one.

Nothing in Heaven is exclusive; one must shut that idea out. Jesus gives His glories and roles to His saints. He is the Savior; we are co-saviors, saving souls with, in and through Him because He gives us that role. He is our Hope. We too are hopes for the world around us, and Mary especially, for she is the Mediatrix and Queen Mother of the Church. We too are life, because He is Life. Everything He is and has, He shares with His Body. Even His divinity, which He shares with us in the Eucharist and which infuses our souls and unites us with God so that we are partakers in His divine life. The Early Christians referred to sanctification as “divinization,” not that we become God, but that we become deeply united with God in His life, spirit and soul. Even in His Flesh, Blood and Bone, through the Eucharist.

Nothing in Heaven is exclusive, everything is shared and poured out throughout the entirety of the Body. God is the preeminent giver, and He has given Mary a unique role above all the other faithful which is honored in the prayers of the Hail Holy Queen.
 
I do understand the graciousness of God in allowing us to share and it is truly wonderful.
Lief_Erikson said:
He is the Savior; we are co-saviors, …
Click to expand...
Then let us refer to Mary in a way that indicates that she is a cooperator in life and hope", God alone is the source of our hope.
 
Coder said:
I do understand the graciousness of God in allowing us to share and it is truly wonderful.

The let us call Mary our “co-hope”, God alone is the source of our hope.
Click to expand...
Saying she is our hope is not saying she is the first source of our hope. You can call her “co-hope” if you want to be technical each time you pray, though.

If a fireman saves me from a burning building, I can say, “you saved me and so did the technicians who made your helmet and the engineers who are working in the truck and the fireman who’s holding your hose . . . etc. . . .” Or I can just say, “thank-you for saving me!”

I’m not saying she’s the primary source of our salvation. Jesus is. But she plays a big secondary role and I’ll thank her directly for it.
 
Coder said:
The term “our hope” for example, is exclusive by its nature, only one can be “our hope”.
Click to expand...
This claim is rooted in Nominalist presuppositions I wouldn’t share.
Coder said:
I propose that we translate it differently (if it’s a translation issue) or phrase it differently.
Click to expand...
The Salve Regina prayer, in the original Latin, refers to Mary as “life, sweetness, and our hope,” as well as “queen, mercy’s mother.” This prayer has clear and longstanding ecclesiastical approval. It is indulgenced, appears in the Roman Breviary, and has been endorsed by Pope John Paul II: “Is it any wonder, then, that the soul feels the need, after saying this [Rosary] prayer and experiencing so profoundly the motherhood of Mary, to burst forth in praise of the Blessed Virgin, either in that splendid prayer the Salve Regina or in the Litany of Loreto? This is the crowning moment of an inner journey which has brought the faithful into living contact with the mystery of Christ and his Blessed Mother.”

There is nothing wrong with the Salve Regina as it is.
 
Coder said:
But the difference is that Fireman #1 didn’t save Fireman #2.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t matter. Both of them worked together to save the child. If Fireman #1 had saved Fireman #2 in the past as well, that wouldn’t make any difference to the scenario.
40.png
Coder:
Hi, yes, but as I pointed out before, prayer is a different matter.
Click to expand...
I haven’t followed everything in the thread. Which post did you talk about that in? Because I personally don’t see why prayer is a different matter.
 
Hi,
Lief_Erikson said:
That doesn’t matter. Both of them worked together to save the child.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Fireman #2 does nor derive his very being and existence from Fireman #1.
Lief_Erikson said:
I haven’t followed everything in the thread. Which post did you talk about that in? Because I personally don’t see why prayer is a different matter.
Click to expand...
It’s a previous post - #79. In prayer we are directing our minds towards heaven so we should use care in our speech.

It could be that I am too legalistic but currently I don’t think so. I know that some have indicated that it is a form of expression and I know that Mary works with God by His calling but I can only call God “our Life”. I’m not close minded about it and I plan to ponder about it and in fact pray to Mary about it.
 
We’re only disagreeing over linguistics, not about doctrines. I don’t have a problem with your calling Mary “co-hope;” that’s an accurate term too. Calling her “our hope” because through her all Christians receive salvation is just as valid, IMO, though it’s less technically precise than your choice of term. Do what you want :).

Praying to Mary about it sounds like a good idea too.
 
aspirant said:
This claim is rooted in Nominalist presuppositions I wouldn’t share.

The Salve Regina prayer, in the original Latin, refers to Mary as “life, sweetness, and our hope,” as well as “queen, mercy’s mother.” This prayer has clear and longstanding ecclesiastical approval. It is indulgenced, appears in the Roman Breviary, and has been endorsed by Pope John Paul II: “Is it any wonder, then, that the soul feels the need, after saying this [Rosary] prayer and experiencing so profoundly the motherhood of Mary, to burst forth in praise of the Blessed Virgin, either in that splendid prayer the Salve Regina or in the Litany of Loreto? This is the crowning moment of an inner journey which has brought the faithful into living contact with the mystery of Christ and his Blessed Mother.”

There is nothing wrong with the Salve Regina as it is.
Click to expand...
Amen. Very well said. Thank you. 🙂

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top