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

[RyanML]

The above is the explanation I got yesterday in the “Ask an Apologist” section. So in a nutshell, Fr. Serpa here is saying it does refer to Mary, but its an exaggeration, not to be taken literally, i.e. ITS NOT TRUE. Ok then-- when is the memo explaining this supposed to go out to everyone who prays the Rosary?? Obviously only a few people here on this thread (including myself) realized that it is NOT true, and pointed out the err in saying/interpreting it that way. The rest basically just posted a few brief words (seemingly smugly) proclaiming that it does refer to Mary, without offering up anything about knowing it to be “untrue” (because they didn’t know, or simply were not being honest with themselves/us). This is disturbing if even many knowledgeable Catholics don’t consider the implications of what they are saying? If we are charged by Jesus to not pray “empty or babbling” prayers, why even say something deep down we hold to not be true??

Are we to blindly accept it without question (and try to convince others to do the same) simply because we are Catholic? I think not-- if one looks at the history of the Church and the Fathers, thats NOT what they did-- hundreds of years of debate and dialogue under the guidance of the Holy Spirit yielded the doctrines we hold today.

This is 100% not an attack on Mary or her honor WHATSOEVER-- its an attack on spiritual ignorance. Mary absolutely is our Mother and is to be honored and venerated. She is the Mother of our mercy, life, sweetness, and hope (Christ). She obviously is Queen of All Saints, and surely her prayers for us carry a special significance. In any case, she should UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ever be elevated to Christs level, be it by true belief, hyperbole, exaggeration, or empty utterings.

I propose a simple, single word change to the Hail Holy Queen to better convey the true meaning, and not an “exaggeration”, which does not in any way take from the honor due to Mary, yet avoids a potentially damaging understanding of Mary’s role. –

…mother of our mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope…

No matter how I try to justify it, I can’t in good conscience continue to use the traditional wording. I suggest everyone who prays the rosary really take a moment and seriously consider this…

I understand your reservations about this prayer. I have wondered about it myself many times. But I can not see taking issue with the Church’s traditional title of Mary as “Mother of Mercy”. She is the mother of Mercy itself (Jesus Christ) and is herself, mirroring the mercy of her Divine Son, most merciful.

If we take Mary’s life and live it so that we are living in the spirit of Mary, are we not living the Gospel? If we look to our Mother’s sweetness and compassion, which is but an imitation of her Son’s, and make it our own, are we not loving with the love of Jesus? And if Mary, in her assumption and crowning in glory, is a sign of what we are called to receive, then is not looking to her as the hope of a fallen race simply recognizing that which Christ came to accomplish by his death and resurrection and which we will be rewarded with if we persevere to the end?

It’s like the old prayer, “Heart of Mary, be my salvation”. Obviously Mary is not the author of our salvation and, of herself, cannot save us. Only in Christ do we have salvation. But God has given Mary an important role as Mother of the Church, to bring souls to him. I think if we understand these titles of our Lady in the sense of “to Jesus through Mary”, then they make more sense.

Just my two cents!

In Christ,
Ryan

 

[aspirant]

It might be used in the same way as the colloquial phrase of affection “you are my life” (may be said to a close friend but more often a spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend).

Yes.

Dr. Martin (who I respect and feel genuinely loved Christ, God rest his soul) seemingly pinned down Fr. Pacwa on this VERY SAME topic. To paraphrase Dr. Martin:

“I’m sorry, but Mary is not our life, our sweetness, and our hope-- JESUS is our life, our sweetness, and our hope”

Fr. Pacwa really didnt have a comeback for this

I think the real problem is that this isn’t best addressed with a snappy soundbite. The underlying problem is that Protestants view the world through the lenses of late-medieval philosophical Nominalism while Catholicism is rooted in ancient philosophical Realism.

From a Protestant perspective, Mary cannot be our hope because Jesus is our hope. Philosophical Nominalism forces an either/or: Either Jesus is our hope or Mary is our hope, it is not possible for both to be true.

From a Catholic perspective, Mary can be our hope precisely and only because Jesus is our hope and Mary is a living member of Christ. Philosophical Realism allows a both/and: Because Jesus is our hope, and only because Jesus is our hope, it is possible for Mary to be our hope.

These differences are rooted in radically different philosophical worldviews. It’s very difficult to address this sort of difference in a limited debate format.

Of course, one of the difficulties of being a modern Westerner-- whether Protestant or Catholic-- is that Nominalist philosophical presuppositions have been instilled in us from the moment we began to understand words. Yes, these days even Catholics grow up imbibing the philosophical presuppositions on which Protestantism, not Catholicism, are based.

That’s why so many Catholics think Protestant ideas, like Dr. Martin’s, sound reasonable. But if we really engaged the world from a Realist stance rather than a Nominalist one, Dr. Martin’s objections would simply fall into meaningless pieces. We would hear Dr. Martin say “I’m sorry, but Mary is not our life, our sweetness, and our hope-- JESUS is our life, our sweetness, and our hope,” and we would respond, “That’s a false dichotomy, brother.”

 

[Josh128]

I understand your reservations about this prayer. I have wondered about it myself many times. But I can not see taking issue with the Church’s traditional title of Mary as “Mother of Mercy”. She is the mother of Mercy itself (Jesus Christ) and is herself, mirroring the mercy of her Divine Son, most merciful.

If we take Mary’s life and live it so that we are living in the spirit of Mary, are we not living the Gospel? If we look to our Mother’s sweetness and compassion, which is but an imitation of her Son’s, and make it our own, are we not loving with the love of Jesus? And if Mary, in her assumption and crowning in glory, is a sign of what we are called to receive, then is not looking to her as the hope of a fallen race simply recognizing that which Christ came to accomplish by his death and resurrection and which we will be rewarded with if we persevere to the end?

It’s like the old prayer, “Heart of Mary, be my salvation”. Obviously Mary is not the author of our salvation and, of herself, cannot save us. Only in Christ do we have salvation. But God has given Mary an important role as Mother of the Church, to bring souls to him. I think if we understand these titles of our Lady in the sense of “to Jesus through Mary”, then they make more sense.

Just my two cents!

In Christ,
Ryan

Thanks for the thoughtful response Ryan. I totally agree with you and the teaching of the Church that Mary is the “mother of mercy (Christ)”, and I also believe she is the mother of our life, sweetness, and hope (Christ) and I’m sure you don’t disagree. I can also agree with the rest of what you said in principle, but regardless of how we try to reconcile it, I think that the traditional understanding of the prayer to mean Mary IS our life, sweetness, and hope is very dangerous for those who do not understand that it is not to be taken literally-- dangerous both in a practical and spiritual sense.

It is dangerous in a practical sense because if a studied, pius man such as Fr. Dr. Mitch Pacwa allowed himself to basically be caught up on this argument in a live debate, offering no real answer on the spot, how much more do you think the average lay Catholic would be caught up if pressed by an evangelical protestant on the same question? How many Catholics do you think have been or will be lured away from the Church or have doubt planted in their hearts because of that very same question?

It is also very dangerous in a spiritual sense because if a person truly believes that Mary is our life, sweetness, and hope, with or without regard to Jesus they are entering into the realm of blasphemy/heresy. It may not seem like a big deal, but remember how big a deal Arianism was? Yet when you look at it, it varied from the traditional understanding of Christ by just one little caveat. Without Jesus, Mary is nothing. Because of Jesus, Mary is also our mother, and by extension surely she can be our sweetness, like our biological mothers, but she cannot be our life and our hope-- that MUST be Jesus. I just think this distinction is a big issue for the common lay person who has not been made aware of this, yet faithfully prays the rosary. Sure, Jesus may understand or may not mind, but should we really be presuming that/ taking that chance?

I think the traditional rendering of the prayer can be understood to mean what it SHOULD mean (Jesus), literally, but I think either the insertion of “our” before “mercy”, or the removal or “our” from the rest of the sentence makes it much more easy to understand, without the confusion…

 

[RyanML]

Thanks for the thoughtful response Ryan. I totally agree with you and the teaching of the Church that Mary is the “mother of mercy (Christ)”, and I also believe she is the mother of our life, sweetness, and hope (Christ) and I’m sure you don’t disagree. I can also agree with the rest of what you said in principle, but regardless of how we try to reconcile it, I think that the traditional understanding of the prayer to mean Mary IS our life, sweetness, and hope is very dangerous for those who do not understand that it is not to be taken literally-- dangerous both in a practical and spiritual sense.

It is dangerous in a practical sense because if a studied, pius man such as Fr. Dr. Mitch Pacwa allowed himself to basically be caught up on this argument in a live debate, offering no real answer on the spot, how much more do you think the average lay Catholic would be caught up if pressed by an evangelical protestant on the same question? How many Catholics do you think have been or will be lured away from the Church or have doubt planted in their hearts because of that very same question?

It is also very dangerous in a spiritual sense because if a person truly believes that Mary is our life, sweetness, and hope, with or without regard to Jesus they are entering into the realm of blasphemy/heresy. It may not seem like a big deal, but remember how big a deal Arianism was? Yet when you look at it, it varied from the traditional understanding of Christ by just one little caveat. Without Jesus, Mary is nothing. Because of Jesus, Mary is also our mother, and by extension surely she can be our sweetness, like our biological mothers, but she cannot be our life and our hope-- that MUST be Jesus. I just think this distinction is a big issue for the common lay person who has not been made aware of this, yet faithfully prays the rosary. Sure, Jesus may understand or may not mind, but should we really be presuming that/ taking that chance?

I think the traditional rendering of the prayer can be understood to mean what it SHOULD mean (Jesus), literally, but I think either the insertion of “our” before “mercy”, or the removal or “our” from the rest of the sentence makes it much more easy to understand, without the confusion…

I see where you are coming from, but I think the solution is quite simple.

If we praise Mary as “our life, our sweetness, and our hope” in the context of Mary as intercessor then that cannot, in any way, detract from Jesus Christ. It’s like when the Orthodox pray “O Holy Theotokos, save us!” they do not mean that our salvation is found in Mary. They mean that through the prayers and guidance of the Mother of God we might persevere and come to salvation. I don’t think there is anything more to it than that. When I pray “our life, our sweetness, and our hope” I am simply entrusting to our Mother all that I need for my salvation, that she might obtain those graces through her prayers.

In Christ,
Ryan

PS - I can understand the fear of ignorance among Catholics and Protestants alike. In this case, what is needed is better catachesis.

 

[Monica4316]

This is a very interesting topic…

Hail Holy Queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope!

Is she the mother of mercy, mother of our life, mother of our sweetness and mother of our hope?

I think it could be taken either way

Mary is the Mother of Jesus who is Mercy, our life, sweetness, and our hope.

But she is also those things because she leads us closer to Jesus and because she loves us and prays for us.

God bless

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Great posts, Ryan and Aspirant .

This Marian title, “Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope,” reflects her role as Mediatrix of All Graces, which is the same as her role as Ark of the New Covenant. In truth, as many have pointed out here, all of this can be explained simply by looking at the Annunciation. She bore Jesus, Who is our Mercy, Life, Sweetness and Hope. Consequently she is the Mother of all these .

At the same time, as she is also Mother of the Church, the Body of Christ, she is our life quite literally. Spiritual life came to us through her, for all the graces of Christ’s Passion run through the riverbed of Mary’s sufferings at the foot of the Cross. She is the Mother of Christ Incarnate, and hence she is the Mother of Christ’s Body as well, because Christ and His Body are one. Hence our life quite literally came from her in the beginning and continues to come from her as we experience the life of God through her today.

St. Louis de Montfort covers all of this quite brilliantly in “True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin.”

She is our life because Life came from her and continues to come from her throughout our lives in Christ on Earth and in Heaven. His whole Incarnate self came from her womb on Earth and His whole Body comes from her today as well.

She is also perfectly united with Life, with whom she was perfectly physically united with on Earth when He was in her womb, and as she was All-Holy, she was also always perfectly spiritually united with Him. The union between the Immaculate and Sacred Hearts was beyond human description and knowledge in its splendor and depth even on Earth, but now that the two are in Heaven, as Mary’s Assumption and Coronation have glorified her, this union has utterly transcended us. It is impossible to imagine the brilliance of the union between Jesus’ and Mary’s Hearts.

Mary is wholly submissive to her Son and He is wholly submissive to her, because they are perfectly united in heart, mind, soul and strength. As the Old Testament rulers of Judah portrayed, the Queen Mother is at the right hand of the King and the King bows to the Queen Mother.

God gave Israel all the graces He gave it through the Ark of the Covenant. He gives the New Israel all the graces He gives it through the Ark of the New Covenant. These graces include our mercy, life, sweetness and hope. So she is truly their mother and God their Father, since these graces, and all other graces, came to us through Mary and from Mary, the product of her unity with God. The Medieval theologians used the references to Wisdom to relate to Mary. They believed Sirach 24 refers to her as one true meaning when it says:
Sirach 24:24-26:

24 I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope.

25 In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue.

26 Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my fruits.

This mystery of the Ark of the New Covenant is truly a divine and holy mystery. We do well always to praise her from whom our Life, Jesus Christ, Who irreplaceably is our one Redemption, Rock and Salvation, comes to all the world.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Simply put… and I don’t know where to verify this… but I read/learned that we say the phrase “Our Life, Our Sweetness, and Our Hope” because of the Catholic belief that Mary is the dispenser of grace… that grace flows though her and all grace comes from/through her. Its a term of endearment mostly, but I think if Father Serpa really said that it was to be ignored then he just didn’t say what he meant correctly.

I think I read somewhere we believe this because of the custom that in ancient Jewish kingdoms, the mother of the king (who was the queen.. not the woman married to the king like you would see in European kingdoms) would see the subjects and they would in turn petition her first before asking the King for any favors.  It was by her yes or no that you got to speak with the King or were granted favors.  She would be the one to present the petitions to her son the King.

I’m not certain about this. So if anyone out there knows I’m wrong, let me know.

That’s why she is our life our sweetness and our hope -She is Our lifeline to the King.

Some other Catholic titles of Mary include: Gate of Heaven, Ark of the Covenant (She held God in her womb), Seat of wisdom… (there is much more)

Simply put, if Jesus is Our King, She is Our Queen!

 

[Havard]

Interesting sidenote, the motto of the University of Notre Dame is Vita Dulcedo Spes, which is Latin for life, sweetness, hope.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/NotreDameSeal.svg/300px-NotreDameSeal.svg.png

 

[fisherman_carl]

Hail, Holy, Queen… This prayer I don’t really pray because of uncertainty in what it means. I want to read Scott Hahn’s book called Hail, Holy , Queen though. I do pray the rosary but I omit that one prayer because I see Jesus as my life and hope. I have hope in Jesus for my Salvation. I have hope in Mary for her prayers/intercession. I’m not sure what it means to say someone is your life. I think all life comes from God. So I would say Jesus is my life since all life comes from him. As far as sweetness, that could be both Jesus and Mary.

I did some research on this prayer on the internet but did not find much.

 

[JaredR]

“Never be afraid of loving the Blessed Virgin too much. You can never love her more than Jesus did.” – Saint Maximilian Kolbe

Mary is our Queen–our beautiful, kind, compassionate Queen. She is our life, our sweetness, and our hope. Honoring Mary does not exclude Jesus any more than praising a lovely piece of art excludes the artist.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

“Never be afraid of loving the Blessed Virgin too much. You can never love her more than Jesus did.” – Saint Maximilian Kolbe

Mary is our Queen–our beautiful, kind, compassionate Queen. She is our life, our sweetness, and our hope. Honoring Mary does not exclude Jesus any more than praising a lovely piece of art excludes the artist.

Praise God.

 

[Josh128]

Fisherman Carl:

Hail, Holy, Queen… This prayer I don’t really pray because of uncertainty in what it means. I want to read Scott Hahn’s book called Hail, Holy , Queen though. I do pray the rosary but I omit that one prayer because I see Jesus as my life and hope.** I have hope in Jesus for my Salvation. I have hope in Mary for her prayers/intercession. I’m not sure what it means to say someone is your life. I think all life comes from God. So I would say Jesus is my life since all life comes from him. As far as sweetness, that could be both Jesus and Mary.**

I did some research on this prayer on the internet but did not find much.

Thanks everyone for the responses. Carl above pretty much summarizes how I feel about it. Especially on the part about hope and life–while I said earlier Mary could be our sweetness, our hope belonged to Jesus-- but I also agree that our hope is ALSO in Mary every time we pray for her intercession. So hope and sweetness are OK to say in that context only-- but Mary should never be (and while it might seem self evident to most of us here, I guarantee there are many thousands of Catholics who are or can be ignorant of this and tread dangerous waters because of it) our hope APART FROM Christ. We can’t pray to Mary and think “Well, Jesus might not grant this, but if Mary does it will be so” without undermining our Lord in some way.

Sweetness and hope are one thing, but I still have a problem calling Mary my life, precisely because I am wary of undermining Jesus in some way if I do so. True, I suppose it can possibly be rationalized if we are to say “I want to live my life as Mary did, I want to emulate her”, or “since Jesus IS my life Mary must also be, because she gave him life.”, but to me these are still slippery slopes because as Christians we are called to live our lives as Jesus did, to emulate him, and we KNOW from the Gospel of John 14:6 that Jesus is the life, and while Mary did give him earthly life as his mother–we must never think this was done apart from Jesus, The Almighty Father, and the Holy Spirit. We must remember the ONLY part Mary played in and of herself in giving life to Jesus was saying “Yes, to me be as it pleaseth God”. She was only special because she was chosen by God to be special, right?

As far as the philosophical differences between how Protestants and Catholics view things, I think you have a sensible point there, but unfortunately your average lay person (probably 95% of the time or more)is not studied in the realm of philosopy, and does not understand those differences. They will be caught up if pressed to explain it. Someone earlier said the catechesis on this needs to be updated, and I agree 100%, because most Catholics are not being taught how to understand the prayer correctly.

I dont think anyone here has denied that Jesus is our life, our sweetness, and our hope, and because of that I don’t think I am wrong if I choose to pray the prayer in terms of calling Mary the mother of our life, rather than our life-- if I choose to do so. I understand that Jesus is submissive to Mary and Mary to her son, and that their wills are one and the same, but I still recognize that Jesus has the ultimate power and authority. I will pray the prayer as I see fit but will continue to meditate on it, and perhaps one day I can in good conscience accept the traditional understanding of it. Pray for me.

God bless!

 

[aspirant]

Sweetness and hope are one thing, but I still have a problem calling Mary my life, precisely because I am wary of undermining Jesus in some way if I do so.

cough

As far as the philosophical differences between how Protestants and Catholics view things, I think you have a sensible point there, but unfortunately your average lay person (probably 95% of the time or more)is not studied in the realm of philosopy, and does not understand those differences. They will be caught up if pressed to explain it.

Fortunately, one does not have to be able to explain it in order to believe what’s true. Of course it’s better if one can do both, and I think you’d be surprised how many people can, in fact, do just that in much simpler language than I’ve done, but many Catholics continue to believe what’s true whether they can explain it or not.

 

[fisherman_carl]

… but Mary should never be our hope APART FROM Christ. We can’t pray to Mary and think “Well, Jesus might not grant this, but if Mary does it will be so” without undermining our Lord in some way.

Excellent Point! We can’t pray to Mary assuming she operates apart from Christ or is superior to Christ. For Mary must operate in the will of her creator, for she is a creation, in order to be acceptable to God. To pray to and receive a response from Mary therefore is to receive a response from Christ since Mary operates on behalf of Christ.

 

[banjo]

Hail, Holy, Queen… This prayer I don’t really pray because of uncertainty in what it means. I want to read Scott Hahn’s book called Hail, Holy , Queen though. I do pray the rosary but I omit that one prayer because I see Jesus as my life and hope. I have hope in Jesus for my Salvation. I have hope in Mary for her prayers/intercession. I’m not sure what it means to say someone is your life. I think all life comes from God. So I would say Jesus is my life since all life comes from him. As far as sweetness, that could be both Jesus and Mary.

I did some research on this prayer on the internet but did not find much.

fisherman,
I have this book. On page 162 Hahn writes, “When it comes to explaining the Blessed Virgin Mary, having a lot of love is more important than having a lot of answers. …] Know from the start that you don’t have all the answers-but your Savior does, and He loves His mother.”
Personally I look at it this way, I trust the Church. The Salve Regina was in use by A.D. 1135. In almost nine centuries the Church has not viewed this prayer as giving Latria to Mary.

 

[LittleSoldier]

In the opening line of Hail holy Queen, we praise *someone *for being “our life, our sweetness and our hope.” Who is it? Jesus or Mary?

At first glance I thought that it was Mary since the prayer is addressed to her, but now that I’m getting accustomed to the syntax of Catholic prayer, I’m starting to wonder… is it Jesus?

It would be Mary if the opening line was a list of her attributes.
Hail holy Queen, mother of mercy, (Mary you are also) our life, our sweetness and our hope.

But it would mean Jesus if the phrase described what a fine child Mary was the mother of.
Hail holy Queen, mother of (Jesus, who is) our life, our sweetness and our hope.

So, in this prayer, who is our life, sweetness and hope: Mary or Jesus?

Thanks in advance!

It’s Mary, of course. It reads “Hail holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope…”, not “Hail holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, Jesus our life, our sweetness, and our hope…”

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thanks everyone for the responses. Carl above pretty much summarizes how I feel about it. Especially on the part about hope and life–while I said earlier Mary could be our sweetness, our hope belonged to Jesus-- but I also agree that our hope is ALSO in Mary every time we pray for her intercession. So hope and sweetness are OK to say in that context only-- but Mary should never be (and while it might seem self evident to most of us here, I guarantee there are many thousands of Catholics who are or can be ignorant of this and tread dangerous waters because of it) our hope APART FROM Christ. We can’t pray to Mary and think “Well, Jesus might not grant this, but if Mary does it will be so” without undermining our Lord in some way.

Sweetness and hope are one thing, but I still have a problem calling Mary my life, precisely because I am wary of undermining Jesus in some way if I do so. True, I suppose it can possibly be rationalized if we are to say “I want to live my life as Mary did, I want to emulate her”, or “since Jesus IS my life Mary must also be, because she gave him life.”, but to me these are still slippery slopes because as Christians we are called to live our lives as Jesus did, to emulate him, and we KNOW from the Gospel of John 14:6 that Jesus is the life, and while Mary did give him earthly life as his mother–we must never think this was done apart from Jesus, The Almighty Father, and the Holy Spirit. We must remember the ONLY part Mary played in and of herself in giving life to Jesus was saying “Yes, to me be as it pleaseth God”. She was only special because she was chosen by God to be special, right?

As far as the philosophical differences between how Protestants and Catholics view things, I think you have a sensible point there, but unfortunately your average lay person (probably 95% of the time or more)is not studied in the realm of philosopy, and does not understand those differences. They will be caught up if pressed to explain it. Someone earlier said the catechesis on this needs to be updated, and I agree 100%, because most Catholics are not being taught how to understand the prayer correctly.

I dont think anyone here has denied that Jesus is our life, our sweetness, and our hope, and because of that I don’t think I am wrong if I choose to pray the prayer in terms of calling Mary the mother of our life, rather than our life-- if I choose to do so. I understand that Jesus is submissive to Mary and Mary to her son, and that their wills are one and the same, but I still recognize that Jesus has the ultimate power and authority. I will pray the prayer as I see fit but will continue to meditate on it, and perhaps one day I can in good conscience accept the traditional understanding of it. Pray for me.

God bless!

I think the question in the OP should be asked of a priest. I changed a prayer once, thinking that what I was doing was being more specific and the prayer was better for it. I mentioned it to my parish priest and he told me I was wrong - that I needed to say that particular prayer the way it was worded.

I’m just throwing this in because it happened to me and I believe (I could be wrong and often am) that the Rosary is being said for Mary and that the prayers are specific. It could just be that if you say the prayer differently then you are not saying the Rosary, which is of course not something anyone has to pray, but if you do pray it, it should be prayed correctly. If what I just wrote made any sense, please ask your priest what the prayer means, who it refers to, and if it’s OK to change it.

At any rate, if he says it’s OK to say it the way you are, then you won’t need to be concerned anymore.

Hope this helps!!

 

[LilyM]

This is an old thread, but I can’t help re-emphasising that there is NOTHING wrong with calling Mary ‘our life, our sweetness and our hope’.

Don’t many of us use these terms for people other than Jesus?

Don’t husbands and wives sometimes say their spouse is their whole life? Don’t parents sometimes say the same of their children? I’m sure the word ‘sweetness’ is used by many amorous and loving couples and families to describe each other.

Don’t people who believe in the policies of President Obama or of John McCain during the Presidential candidate, sometimes say that their pet candidate for office is ‘our hope’ - meaning ‘our hope for a better America’, of course?

Is saying these things about the people around us in any way take away from Jesus who is SUPERLATIVELY our life, sweetness and hope? Surely not. So why does anything we say about Mary - short of calling her divine or a goddess - detract from Him?

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is an old thread, but I can’t help re-emphasising that there is NOTHING wrong with calling Mary ‘our life, our sweetness and our hope’.

Don’t many of us use these terms for people other than Jesus?

Don’t husbands and wives sometimes say their spouse is their whole life? Don’t parents sometimes say the same of their children? I’m sure the word ‘sweetness’ is used by many amorous and loving couples and families to describe each other.

Don’t people who believe in the policies of President Obama or of John McCain during the Presidential candidate, sometimes say that their pet candidate for office is ‘our hope’ - meaning ‘our hope for a better America’, of course?

Is saying these things about the people around us in any way take away from Jesus who is SUPERLATIVELY our life, sweetness and hope? Surely not. So why does anything we say about Mary - short of calling her divine or a goddess - detract from Him?

Mary has been given numerous titles: “Queen of Heaven,” “Queen of the Angels,” “Queen of Heaven and Earth,” etc. I also see no problem with “Our Life, our Sweetness, and our Hope.” My parish church is called “Saint Mary, Our Lady of the Dunes” (it’s in a seaside community where there are many sand dunes). It’s another title, given out of honor and respect for someone we love so much.

I see a problem with changing the prayers of the Rosary. I changed a prayer in the Rosary myself and was told by my priest that I shouldn’t do this - not because it’s wrong to change a prayer, but that the way I changed it was wrong. And it was just one line he said was wrong. He’s a priest; I’m not. I took his advice because I trust him. I know he could be wrong, but I still think he knows more about this prayer than I do, so why not do what he says? I certainly feel more comfortable praying the Rosary in the way he said was appropriate.

I don’t know about the prayers used in the Rosary, but aren’t some of them from Our Lady herself?

 

[Josh128]

Mary has been given numerous titles: “Queen of Heaven,” “Queen of the Angels,” “Queen of Heaven and Earth,” etc. I also see no problem with “Our Life, our Sweetness, and our Hope.” My parish church is called “Saint Mary, Our Lady of the Dunes” (it’s in a seaside community where there are many sand dunes). It’s another title, given out of honor and respect for someone we love so much.

I see a problem with changing the prayers of the Rosary. I changed a prayer in the Rosary myself and was told by my priest that I shouldn’t do this - not because it’s wrong to change a prayer, but that the way I changed it was wrong. And it was just one line he said was wrong. He’s a priest; I’m not. I took his advice because I trust him. I know he could be wrong, but I still think he knows more about this prayer than I do, so why not do what he says? I certainly feel more comfortable praying the Rosary in the way he said was appropriate.

I don’t know about the prayers used in the Rosary, but aren’t some of them from Our Lady herself?

Perhaps I could ask a priest about the wording change, or even the meaning change without the wording, to make sure its not “wrong”, but I think its pretty self evident that referring to Mary as the mother of " our life, sweetness, and hope" in terms of those 3 things = Jesus Christ, cannot be wrong, just different from the norm. I may do so regardless and share the results here with everyone.

Although I didn’t ask about the wording change, I did receive a response from a priest, Fr. Serpa (see previous posts on this thread) on the meaning of calling Mary “our life, sweetness, and hope” rather than meaning Jesus, and he responded that it’s acceptable because it’s a hyperbole, an exaggeration. This is seemingly at odds with some others views here that it is not necessarily an exaggeration.

The real issue is, if the understanding is so convoluted that an apologist priest gives one answer, lay apologists give different, possibly conflicting answers with the priests answers, a reknowed Jesuit priest and scholar is hard pressed to explain it in simple terms, and differences in philosopical concepts are invoked by others to explain it, isn’t it pretty self evident that that poses a problem?? Quite simply, the meaning behind prayers should not be so difficult to understand or explain, in my opinion. If a priest with 8 years of seminary and another 8 of collegiate biblical or theology study has problems explaining it, something should be done that hasn’t been done-- at the very least, the official Church teaching on this should be updated and/or clarified. If we don’t understand what we are praying, as Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew 6:7, then it is empty and we shouldn’t do it.