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

[aspirant]

The Latin grammar should be revealing enough. Any Latin grammarians among us?

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:

 

[fisherman_carl]

Something else about this prayer that always puzzled me a little.

This line - “poor banished children of Eve” - what does that mean exactly. Is the author a political refuge? Why are we banished if we have been purchased with the blood of the Lamb and have peace with God through faith in Christ Jesus (Rom 5:1-2)?

“And after this our exile…” - what exile are we referring to here?

 

[nuntym]

Something else about this prayer that always puzzled me a little.

This line - “poor banished children of Eve” - what does that mean exactly. Is the author a political refuge?

It comes from the Book of Genesis, when Adam and Eve, and thus all of mankind, were cast out, banished, from Eden, or from Paradise, because of Original Sin.

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:24[/BIBLEDRB]

Why are we banished if we have been purchased with the blood of the Lamb and have peace with God through faith in Christ Jesus (Rom 5:1-2)?

“And after this our exile…” - what exile are we referring to here?

Well, we ARE still here, exiled on Earth, still fighting our way towards Paradise, our true home.

 

[aspirant]

Adam and Eve, and thus all of mankind, were cast out, banished, from Eden, or from Paradise, because of Original Sin.

Yep.

Well, we ARE still here, exiled on Earth, still fighting our way towards Paradise, our true home.

The first epistle of Peter, for example, refers to Christian readers as exiles:
“And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.”
“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.”

Elsewhere the NT talks about us not belonging here, too. We are citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, but here we have no lasting city.

 

[Josh128]

Interesting analysis of the Latin wording, and I agree that that understanding is likely how it was originally intended, regardless of my reservations about it.

In my brief research of its history, I also read from the CE that the original prayer read “Salve Regina Misericordia”, and didn’t even include the word “mater”. This to me is indisputable proof that the author indeed referred to Mary, and not Jesus, when calling her the “queen of mercy, our life our sweetness, and our hope”. One could make the argument that he if he didnt originally intend to call her the mother of these things, that he meant to call her the queen of these things, but based on the analysis of the Latin above, coupled with Luthers objections to the phrase, I think its safe to conclude that the traditional understanding is the same as the original understanding.

That still doesnt resolve my reservations about the phrase though-- and we cant simply write off the reservations simply because Luther had similar objections to the prayer. While it may be popular sometimes around here to villify Luther, we must never forget that despite of some of his more heretical views, he did indeed have some valid objections, and this seems like one of them.

Now taking the above into consideration, Fr. Serpas new response only adds more questions-- is he simply saying its OK to understand the prayer in the new meaning, or is he saying he thinks thats how it SHOULD be understood? Does he think the traditional understanding is wrong or does he now have reservations about it as well?

 

[nuntym]

Interesting analysis of the Latin wording, and I agree that that understanding is likely how it was originally intended, regardless of my reservations about it.

In my brief research of its history, I also read from the CE that the original prayer read “Salve Regina Misericordia”, and didn’t even include the word “mater”. This to me is indisputable proof that the author indeed referred to Mary, and not Jesus, when calling her the “queen of mercy, our life our sweetness, and our hope”. One could make the argument that he if he didnt originally intend to call her the mother of these things, that he meant to call her the queen of these things, but based on the analysis of the Latin above, coupled with Luthers objections to the phrase, I think its safe to conclude that the traditional understanding is the same as the original understanding.

Interesting analysis and research, Josh

That still doesnt resolve my reservations about the phrase though-- and we cant simply write off the reservations simply because Luther had similar objections to the prayer. While it may be popular sometimes around here to villify Luther, we must never forget that despite of some of his more heretical views, he did indeed have some valid objections, and this seems like one of them.

Valid objections they may be, but it seems that the Catholic Church really has no problems with this prayer, as it is one of the four Marian anthems, or antiphons, used in the official prayer of the Catholic Church, the Divine Office.

Now taking the above into consideration, Fr. Serpas new response only adds more questions-- is he simply saying its OK to understand the prayer in the new meaning, or is he saying he thinks thats how it SHOULD be understood? Does he think the traditional understanding is wrong or does he now have reservations about it as well?

Only one way to find out, I guess: ask him again!

 

[nuntym]

Yep.

The first epistle of Peter, for example, refers to Christian readers as exiles:
“And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.”
“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.”

Elsewhere the NT talks about us not belonging here, too. We are citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, but here we have no lasting city.

Thanks aspirant

 

[aspirant]

we cant simply write off the reservations

Since the reservations are based on bad philosophy, I have no problems writing them off.

Luther’s difficulties with the prayer were, no doubt, based on the same bad philosophy. He was devoted to philosophical Nominalism, which is ultimately incompatible with Catholicism.

is [Fr. Serpa] simply saying its OK to understand the prayer in the new meaning, or is he saying he thinks thats how it SHOULD be understood? Does he think the traditional understanding is wrong or does he now have reservations about it as well?

Only Fr. Serpa can answer these questions; I don’t think we have enough information about his views to reasonably speculate.

 

[Canto]

There is nothing wrong with calling Mary our life, sweetness and hope though this could be hyperbole as Fr Vincent notes.These things refer to Mary in the Salve Regina but they could refer to Jesus too. Maybe the writer meant the prayer to have the double meaning.

Mother of Mercy
Mother of Life
Mother of Sweetness
Mother of Hope
Mother of Jesus

St Paul says 1 Thes ch2

19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of glory? Are not you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? 20 For you are our glory and joy.

Literal version of the Latin

Hail, Queen, mother mercy:
life, sweetness, and hope our, hail.
To you cry exiled children Eve.
To you sigh, morning and weeping in this tear valley.
See, therefore, advocate our, those your mercy eyes to us turn.
And Jesus, blessed fruit womb your, us after this exile show.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary. Amen.

Put together in English

Hail, Queen, mother of mercy:
hail, our life, sweetness and hope.
To you we cry as exiled children of Eve.
To you we sign, morning and weeping in this tearful valley.
Therefore, our advocate, turn to us those merciful eyes of yours.
And Jesus, the blessed fruit of your womb, after this our exile show to us.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary. Amen.

So the common version in use is very accurate - I notice some version don’t include the second salve

 

[fisherman_carl]

Yep.

The first epistle of Peter, for example, refers to Christian readers as exiles:
“And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.”
“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.”

Elsewhere the NT talks about us not belonging here, too. We are citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, but here we have no lasting city.

Okay, so my understanding is we are no longer strangers or sojourners to God through Christ Jesus but we are strangers to this land. we are in this earth but we are not of it. Also, our salvation is not complete as our bodies still die and we have not returned to paradise (garden of Eden).

 

[aspirant]

Okay, so my understanding is we are no longer strangers or sojourners to God through Christ Jesus but we are strangers to this land. we are in this earth but we are not of it. Also, our salvation is not complete as our bodies still die and we have not returned to paradise (garden of Eden).

Yep. (What’s in store for us is much better than Eden, though. )

 

[Josh128]

Since the reservations are based on bad philosophy, I have no problems writing them off.

Luther’s difficulties with the prayer were, no doubt, based on the same bad philosophy. He was devoted to philosophical Nominalism, which is ultimately incompatible with Catholicism.

Only Fr. Serpa can answer these questions; I don’t think we have enough information about his views to reasonably speculate.

Can you give another example of how nominalism is incompatible with Catholicism? Is this a reference to the belief of the true presence/transsubstatiation?

On Father Serpas views, you are correct, we dont have enough info to speculate, but from his recent post we do have enough information to be CERTAIN that he is OK with the “new” understanding that I presented to him. I haven’t had time to get back with him yet, but I still intend to.

 

[aspirant]

Can you give another example of how nominalism is incompatible with Catholicism?

This is a very deep topic. A million examples are possible (e.g. theologies rooted in philosophical nominalism tend to assert that God chooses arbitrarily whether actions are morally licit or illicit), but to really understand all the ins and outs requires more information than could be adequately conveyed on a forum like this. Daniel Sullivan’s An Introduction to Philosophy: The Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition has some weaknesses, but would probably be useful to getting the lay of the land. Frederick Copleston’s history of philosophy would also be useful, but it’s a much bigger undertaking.

There are some articles of varying value here and there online, like Carl Olson’s “What’s In a Name?,” Mark Brumley’s “Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work,” and this “Calvinism & Arminianism’s Common Problem.”

from his recent post we do have enough information to be CERTAIN that he is OK with the “new” understanding that I presented to him.

It would be more accurate to call it “a new prayer loosely based on the Salve Regina” rather than an understanding of the Salve Regina itself. I would agree with Fr. Serpa that there’s nothing theologically wrong with it, it’s just not what the Salve Regina says.

 

[banjo]

HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope!

rosary-center.org/howto.htm

Mercy is capitalized, as are proper nouns. Mary is, of course, the mother of Jesus who is mercy itself. One could now read this sentence as, HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Jesus, our life, our sweetness and our hope! Viewed this way, life, sweetness and hope obviously refer to Jesus.
In a reference to St. Robert Bellarmine, Rev. John A. Hardon, S.J. wrote, “It is not enough to believe. With God’s grace, which means reflection and prayer, you must understand what you believe.”

therealpresence.org/archives/Saints/Saints_005.htm

Thanks for starting this thread!

This won’t fly. I have to refute my own post for in the final analysis I believe “our life, our sweetness and our hope” are addressed to Mary and I have no problem with that. If one says ‘I love baseball, I love my parents, I love God’ the sense of the word love can’t be the same in all three cases. To me it is the sense intended by the author when the Salve Regina was composed and I think the suggestions along this line have been expounded by several posters on this thread. We all know that Mary is not divine.

 

[aspirant]

We all know that Mary is not divine.

:yup:

 

[Lief_Erikson]

banjo:

We all know that Mary is not divine.

But she sure is divinely graced!

 

[Coder]

I think that the terms “life”, “sweetness”, and “hope” should only be used for God. Certainly we would agree that when speaking of Mary these words do not have the same meaning as when speaking of Jesus. Perhaps some of these prayers come from the laity and maybe if the Magisterium further defines the doctrines regarding Mary, then they may provide some guidance on proper limits in praying to Mary. Perhaps with contemplation and better understanding I will have a different perspective. I love and honor Mary.

In fact, we can ask Mary to pray to Jesus to give us guidance on how it is proper to address her and I plan to do that.

 

[JaredR]

I think that the terms “life”, “sweetness”, and “hope” should only be used for God. Certainly we would agree that when speaking of Mary these words do not have the same meaning as when speaking of Jesus. Perhaps some of these prayers come from the laity and maybe if the Magisterium further defines the doctrines regarding Mary, then they may provide some guidance on proper limits in praying to Mary. Perhaps with contemplation and better understanding I will have a different perspective. I love and honor Mary.

In fact, we can ask Mary to pray to Jesus to give us guidance on how it is proper to address her and I plan to do that.

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.

 

[Coder]

I figure that if I am fine with a husband telling his wife she is his “everything,”

Even our everyday language we should choose our words carefully but I do understand that context is important. However, when we say this to Mary we are often kneeling in prayer so then we are already using these words in a context of prayer. We would not apply these terms to any other Saint in prayer even as a form of expression would we?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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.

Well said; it is indeed a love poem . Though it also is literally true, as a result of her Annunciation, her Divine Maternity, and her role as Mediatrix. All Christ’s Life comes to us through her, and all His grace that is our sweetness and hope. Christ is the spring, she is the riverbed, and the Holy Spirit is the river. The Holy Trinity is our Life, our Sweetness and our Hope, and so is Mary, by virtue of her role as Mediatrix. She brought all grace into the world when she chose to bring forth Christ and when she gave birth to Him who is all our Life, Sweetness and Hope. She also brings Him forth still in each one of us. Thus she is our Life, Sweetness and Hope, and so is Christ.

In fact, this role is true also on a mini-scale for each faithful believer. Each faithful believer becomes the life, sweetness and hope of those that they draw into closer unity with God. This is much, much more true for the Mediatrix, and it’s much, much more true of Christ . The Lord shares all Himself with us, including the ability to be His life, sweetness and hope for others.