A Recent Discovery - Is This The Earliest Image of Our Lady of Sorrows?

I was recently contacted by my friend Fr. Andrew Marlborough, a priest based in England, who has written for the New Liturgical Movement in the past about items of interest that appear in auction houses throughout Britain and Europe. Before becoming a priest, his career was in the commercial art world.

This time, he wanted to know if I could shed any light on a recent purchase he had made, which, he was speculating, might be the earliest known example of an image of Our Lady of Sorrows, dating back over 1,000 years and possibly as much as 1,400 years. I could not offer any new information, so I open this up to New Liturgical Movement readers. It was described in the auction house as early Byzantine, but Fr. Andrew thinks it might be of Ottonian or Carolingian origin. Here is the object, followed by the letter he sent to me, with his description and thoughts. 

Fr Andrew wrote:

I recently purchased this small gilt-bronze roundel (7.5 cm diameter) at an auction in London. It was catalogued as 6th-8th century Byzantine and described as the Virgin Mary ‘grasping a long staff’. But I could see that it is clearly an early image of Our Lady of Sorrows. It is generally thought that this devotion developed between the 12th and 15th centuries. Therefore, it seemed a rather important object that could rewrite a chapter in the history of Marian iconography. I suspect the Byzantine attribution is wrong and that it is a little later, possibly Carolingian or Ottonian. If so, it could be one of the earliest depictions in art of Our Lady of Sorrows, if not the earliest.

As well as the question of dating, there is also the question of function. The auctioneers described it as a Byzantine phalera. These were decorative metal roundels which adorned the chest armour of soldiers or the harnesses of their horses in antiquity. This is possible, but I wonder if it may have been some kind of ornament for religious processions, pilgrimages, or for membership of a confraternity. Markings visible only on one side of the reverse suggest it has been used as a brooch. The amount of hand-finished detail on the roundel is impressive and finely executed. The use of gilding also indicates that it was a costly and highly prized object.

Stylistically, it seems more Western. This is supported by the fact that Eastern depictions of the Virgin Mary without Jesus are very unusual. The style of the sword/dagger may also help identify its date and origin.

I’d be grateful if anyone can shed further light on this.

He asks that anyone with information write to him at: andrew.marlborough@gmail.com.

Searching Out the Origins of St Louis de Montfort in 17th-century Spain

In between the two great Marian feasts of the first half of Advent — the Immaculate Conception on the 8th and Our Lady of Guadalupe on the 12th — it seems appropriate to make mention of a recent publication, Slavery to the Mother of God, that brings an important Marian devotional work to light for the first time in English.

Two 17th-century Observant Franciscan Friars, Fray Juan de los Angeles and Fray Melchor de Cetina, authored two works, Fray Juan’s Marian Slavery (1609) and Fray Melchor’s Exhortation toward Devotion for the Virgin Mother of God, for the sake of a Confraternity founded by the Conceptionist Nuns of Alcalá de Henares in Spain. This Confraternity was “exported” to Belgium and France by the Spanish, and from there exercised an influence on the French School’s “total consecration to Mary” as we find it in culminating in the much-better-known St. Louis de Montfort.

For those who are devotees of St. Maximilian Kolbe, the manner in which Fray Juan and Fray Melchor develop their theology of consecration will be familiar, as it is based on the Immaculate Conception and on the Absolute Primacy of Christ as emphasized in the Franciscan tradition (Bonaventure, Scotus). Interestingly, while St. Maximilian shows no indication of having come across these works, he not only arrives at the same conclusions as his two 17th-century confreres, but even develops the same formulas — a confirmation of the profound basis of this school of spirituality in orthodox Christology and Mariology. The conclusion they reach is identical: unlimited consecration to Mary, for the sake of unlimited attachment to Jesus.

A volume of Franciscan mystical writings that includes the two works under discussion here

In the words of Fray Juán de los Ángeles:

From whence comes so much honor to such an infamous title in the laws of the world [viz., slave]? From the Virgin Herself and of Her Most Holy Son. She took possession of it, at the same moment that the divine Word took possession of Her heart, and cast Himself into Her womb, and became Her Son. She willed that alongside “Mother,” which calls for infinite respect, there should walk beside it a title of so great humility, which denotes and proclaims subjection:Ecce ancilla Domini—behold, the slave of the Lord…. The works of the slave, and all his actions, belong to his owner (they are his possession), as does the person himself (who is his property): everything belongs to him who purchased him. Who more belongs to the eternal Father than Christ?

And in the words of Fray Melchor de Cetina:

God, because he is the greatest Goodness, must be loved above all things; but since, after God, the Goodness of his Mother is the greatest, She must be, after Him, the most loved. This is the Power that the Virgin, Our Lady, has of carrying away after Herself hearts captured by Her supreme goodness. And what greater sign is there than that they wish to imitate the ways of this heavenly Princess and follow her footsteps: “Keep Her ways with all thy power,” since they trace her footsteps from the first steps of life when she set foot on the ground, which was Her Immaculate Conception?

These two short works count as important forerunners and contributors to de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary, insofar as this Spanish Confraternity and the devotional literature it carried served as the foundation for the wave of enthusiasm that spread throughout Christendom in the seventeenth century under the banner of “total Consecration to Mary as Her slaves” (“totus tuus,” a motto re-energized by John Paul II in opposition to the anti-Marian spirit that, with the smoke of Satan, had entered the late twentieth-century Church).

The Franciscan Friars who prepared this translation sought to rescue these works from the oblivion to which historical circumstances had consigned them. Given that they were among the sparks that prompted a “revolution” in Marian spirituality, it seemed long past time to make them available. At this link, those who are interested may read the four-page preface to the book, which is available for purchase here.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s Substack “Tradition & Sanity”; personal site; composer site; publishing house Os Justi Press and YouTube, SoundCloud, and Spotify pages.

The Enduring Mystique of the Mother of God

by Margarita Mooney Clayton

Here is a another guest post by Margarita Mooney Clayton, the founder and Executive Director of Scala Foundation, a non-profit which has the mission of promoting beauty in education and the transformation of American culture. This piece will appear in the Christian magazine Comment in September; a sign, perhaps, that as Protestants search for authentic tradition and their Christian roots in order to bolster their churches against the attacks of today, there is a greater openness to a traditional understanding of role of Mary in salvation.

I chose the images for this post, and what struck me is how simple it was to draw on the rich tradition of images of Mary to illustrate the aspects of Mary that Margarita Clayton discusses. This is undoubtedly because her thoughts are inspired by the writing of Benedict XVI, which is turn rooted in scripture and holy Tradition.

She writes:

Doctrine and devotion. Practices and experiences. Doing and being. Mystery and Identity. Seeing and knowing. How do doctrine, images, story, and identity all come together in the journey of Mary?

After reading Benedict XVI’s Chapter 4, “Hail Full of Grace: Elements of Marian Piety According to the Bible,” in Mary: The Church at the Source, I saw more clearly that we are called to know Mary in our hearts, not just our heads. Whether we are already familiar with Marian doctrine and piety, or this entire topic is new to us, many people are curious about Mary. They are drawn to her image and her life story. Much of the history of Marian piety undoubtedly has a deep mystical element—personal revelations, pilgrimage sites, a profound sense of need for a mothering, nurturing figure.

In previous chapters of Benedict XVI’s book, he characterizes an activist view of the Church as masculine and a feminine view of the Church as a home.

The verbs associated with Mary like listen and ponder convey deep, slow, intuitive movement. Nouns associated with Her like seed and soil also point to depth, humility and patience. Caryl Houselander writes that Mary is like fugue—a musical term for repetition, interweaving, and bringing together.

The Annunciation, by Fra Angelico, Italian 15th century. 

Mary is a woman of prayer, a woman who knows what it is to pray. She is a model of prayer, and a prophet, a visionary… but a prophet and visionary who can be in the dark and have faith, not a visionary who flees from this life’s troubles.

Mary of the miracles.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, miraculously created, and through it, miracles of conversion occurred.

Mary of the sorrows.

Our Lady of Sorrows in the church of Vera Cruz, Salamanca, Spain, 17th century polychrome wood carving.

Mary at the cross.

Mary at the foot of the cross, with St John, to the left of the figure of Christ as we see it. Painting by David Clayton.

Mary slaying demons.

The Immaculate Conception, by Tiepolo. Italian 18th century

Mary encapsulates the paradoxical meanings of Christianity: the divine became human; matter can be made whole; suffering can free us; darkness contains light.

Studying Mary isn’t enough. We are called to know her, and through knowing her, to know her son, and therefore to know ourselves as God made us to be. How do we come to know Mary? One way is through prayer.

But studying Mary also has helped me to know her. As with any of the saints, Mary can seem distant, perfect, so close to God, so special to God. I can’t have that kind of intimacy with God, I often tell myself. Let me just use my head to learn the teachings of the church; let me just submit my body to the practices of the church and I’ll find peace and happiness.

Continue Reading this Article. . .

A Brief Reflection on the Latin Titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Our Lady of Lourdes, by Virgilio Tojetti, 1877

Lost in Translation #79

Our “Lost in Translation” series has focused primarily on the orations found in the traditional Roman Missal. In this essay, in honor of tomorrow’s feast of the Most Holy Rosary, we turn to the Latin titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and consider how surprisingly difficult they can be to translate. [1]

In English, the following three titles have the same grammatical construction: the Mother of Grace, Our Lady of the Rosary, and Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Each is in the genitive case, which in English usually suggests possession. These titles thus encourage the English speaker to think that in a special way Our Lady “belongs” to good counsel, Mount Carmel, and the rosary--and indeed she does.

Mother of Grace Shrine, Glandorf, Ohio

But we see a greater nuance in the original Latin, with three different grammatical constructions.

First, some Marian titles are in the genitive as in English, but in the calendar for the Proper of Saints, these are relatively rare and tend to be used only when it is clear that Mary is in some manner the source, conduit, or mistress of something else. Hence, when she is understood as the Mother or Queen of something or someone, the genitive is used (“Mother of Grace”, “Queen of the Angels”, etc.). But even here, curiously enough, the genitive tends to be eschewed in the Marian liturgical titles of her feasts. In the Litany of Loreto, Mary is addressed as the Mother of Good Counsel (Mater Boni Consilii) using the genitive, but for the feast of Our Lady of Good Counsel on April 26, the title is formulated in the ablative with the preposition a/ab, Beata Maria Virgo a Bono Consilio.

Pasquale Sarullo, “Our Lady of Good Counsel”, 1800

Which brings us to the second construction. Were we to translate this title literally, it would be “The Blessed Virgin Mary by Good Counsel.” The ablative case in Latin has a number of different meanings (manner, means, agency, etc.), but to make sense of this particular construction we need to turn to the late imperial Roman custom of designating an office or dignity with the preposition a/ab and the ablative case. The official in charge of secret correspondence, for instance, was designated as such with a secretis and a secretary as a manu (by the hand). [2] Marian titles with this construction, therefore, draw our attention to a particular office or dignity or patronage connected to Our Lady. Mary is not only the Mother of Good Counsel, she is also the Heavenly Administrator, so to speak, of Good Counsel, no doubt having got the job from her Spouse the Holy Spirit, who has gifts of that sort to give.

Other titles with this construction include Our Lady of the Rosary (a Rosario, Head of the Office of the Rosary?), Our Lady of Ransom (a Mercede, the Chief Ransomer), [3] Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal ([in Charge of] the Sacred Medal” [a Sacro Numismate]), and Our Lady of Perpetual Help (CAO [Chief Administrative Officer] of Perpetual Help [a Perpetuo Succurso]). One noteworthy example is the feast of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, where “Sacred Heart” is in the ablative (a Corde Jesu). If you want to meet Jesus’ Sacred Heart, you must first make an appointment with Its Mother, the Executive Administrative Assistant.[4]

Third, Marian titles involving place are in the ablative with the preposition de, e.g., B.V.M. de Monte Carmelo. One of the meanings of this construction is “with respect to, concerning.” On July 16, for example, we think of our Holy Mother with respect to Mount Carmel and the Carmelite Order. De can also simply indicate the origin or derivation of something. Apparently, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is straight from the Communion of Saints.

But de was originally a preposition of motion, and since most local motion, thanks to the laws of gravity, is usually downward, it came to mean “down from.” That meaning might be useful to keep in mind when one thinks about Our Lady appearing in mountainous regions such as Carmel. The Blessed Virgin is not simply Our Lady of Mount Carmel, but we can also imagine her as Our Lady coming down from the heights of Carmel to the nether lands where we dwell. And we can think metaphorically of her doing the same from Fatima, even though that part of Portugal only has an elevation of 1,168 feet. [5]

Our Lady of Mt Carmel, by Giuseppe Calì, 1879 

Other constructions present fewer difficulties in translating, but they are still interesting. Properties or characteristics of the Theotokos are usually in the genitive, as in “The feast of the Immaculate Heart of the B.V.M.”

Characteristics:

Immaculate Heart (August 22)

Maternity (October 11)

Holy Name (September 12)

Seven Sorrows (September 15)

Titles for anniversaries in the life or afterlife of the Virgin, on other hand, are constructed with the preposition in and the ablative case. The feast of the Immaculate Conception, for example, is literally “The feast on [the Anniversary of] the Immaculate Conception” (In Conceptione Immaculata, December 8). Other examples include:

Events:

Nativity (September 8)

Presentation (November 21)

Purification (February 2)

Annunciation (March 25)

Visitation (July 2)

Assumption (August 15)

The Dedication of St. Mary Major (August 5)--literally, the feast on [the Anniversary of] the Dedication of Saint Mary of the Snows (ad Nives)

The Apparition of Our Lady at Lourdes (February 11)--literally, the feast on [the Anniversary of] the Apparition of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin Mary (In Apparitione Beatae Mariae Virginis Immaculatae). The title was changed in the 1970 Missal to the “feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Lourdes” (Beatae Mariae Virginis de Lourdes).

Other feasts are put in the appositive. In the sentence “George, the plumber, unclogged my sink”, “my plumber” is in the appositive.

Appositives:

Mary, the Queen of All Saints and the Mother of Beautiful Love (May 8)

Mediatrix of All Graces (May 8)

Queen (May 31)

Helper of Christians (May 24)

Queen of the Apostles (Saturday before the Ascension)

Mother of Grace (June 9)

Mother of All Mercy (Saturday before the fourth Sunday of July)

Refuge of Sinners (August 13)

Mother of the Divine Shepherd (September 4)

Mother of Divine Providence (Saturday before the third Sunday of November)

Finally, there are two Marian feasts that celebrate the Blessed Virgin “under the title” (titulo):

The B.V.M. under the Title of Help of Christians (May 24)

The BV.M. under the Title of Help of the Infirm (Saturday before the last Sunday of August)

Certainly, no Anglophone’s soul is in danger because the nuances of these titles are lost in translation. But it is a good reminder of why the Roman Church retains Latin as her sacred language and why it is good to meditate on the original language in the quest for a greater understanding of the mysteries of our Faith.

Notes

[1] In this essay I draw from the Marian feasts that are on the General Calendar in addition to those that were permitted in certain locations or by certain orders. The patterns I trace, I should add, sometimes apply to other saints as well.

[2] I express my gratitude to Dr. David White for his assistance with these distinctions.

[3] Curiously, earlier twentieth-century editions of the Missal use the title B.M.V. de Mercede.

[4] In the Benziger edition of the 1962 Missal, reproduced by Roman Catholic Books in 1996, the feast is an option on May 8. Elsewhere it appears on May 30 or May 28.

[5] As far as I can tell, the feast of Our Lady of Fatima is not in the 1962 Missal, but it can be found in the 1970 Missal as the feast of the B.V.M. of Fatima (de Fatima) on May 13.