The disciple’s path passes through Calvary

A feast together with the cross, but with a pascal toneThe first certain document about the emergence of a liturgical feast related to Mary’s sorrow comes from a local church. Indeed, on April 22, 1423, a decree from the Cologne Provincial Council introduced the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows in that region as reparation for the sacrileges and insults committed by the Hussites against images of the Crucified and the Virgin at the foot of the cross. The feast, titled *Commemoratio angustiae et dolorum beatae Mariae virginis* (Commemoration of the anguish and sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary), according to the terms of the conciliar decree, stated: «… We order and establish that the commemoration of the anguish and sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary, from now on, be celebrated every year on the Friday after the Jubilate Sunday (the third Sunday after Easter), unless another feast occurs on that day, in which case it shall be transferred to the following Friday». Furthermore, the decree precisely specified the moment of celebration: «… Around the anguish and sorrow she suffered when Jesus, with his hands stretched out on the cross and offered for our salvation, committed his blessed Mother to his beloved disciple». Additionally, the document specified that such a feast «… shall be celebrated only in choir, with the first vespers, matins, and third hour, and with the second vespers, according to the notes, history, and tomos composed for this same feast», words that seem to refer to liturgical texts prior to the council itself.What deserves to be underlined is that this is a feast centered on the scene at the Cross and the “commendation” (commendatio) of the Mother made by Jesus on the Cross to John, and that moreover, this remembrance or commemoration was attributed to the Paschal time. In 1482, Pope Sixtus IV composed and had inserted in the Roman Missal, under the title “Our Lady of Sorrows,” a Mass centered on the salvific event of Mary at the foot of the Cross. Subsequently, this celebration spread throughout the West with various designations and dates. In addition to the designation established by the Council of Cologne and that fixed in the Mass of Sixtus IV, it was also called: “Of the piercing of the heart of the Blessed Mary,” “Of the compassion of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” “Of the lamentation of Mary,” “Of the tears of the Blessed Mary,” “Of the spasms and pains of the Virgin,” “Of the seven sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” etc.As for the date, it varied from the Friday after the Sunday in Albis, or the first Saturday after the Octave of Easter, or the Friday after the second Sunday of Easter (not to forget the date fixed by the Council of Cologne, that is, the Friday after the third Sunday of Easter) up to the Monday, Friday, or Saturday after the Sunday of the Passion. In short, in the name, one moved from the commendatio to the septem dolores (that is, from the scene at the foot of the Cross to the various pains of Mary’s life) and, in the date, from the Paschal time to the Lenten time. Naturally, these transitions occurred gradually, although it is impossible for us to follow their development.On August 18, 1714, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, at the request of the General Prior of the Servants of Mary, granted that the “Solemn Commemoration of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” already celebrated in some provinces by special indult, be extended to the entire Order on the Friday of the Passion, with a double major rite. On April 22, 1727, Benedict XIII, also at the request of the Servite Order, extended the feast of the Seven Sorrows of Mary to the whole Latin Church and fixed it according to the Order’s date, on the Friday after the Sunday of the Passion. Thus, the unification of both the title and the date was achieved.The reference to the seven sorrows, stemming from an even older reference to the seven joys of Mary, dates back to the 14th century, although for a long time there was a lack of uniformity in determining the individual sorrows. In fact, there were several groupings, and it was not until around the end of the 15th century that the number seven, with the content that has remained until today, was solidified. The transition from “Piety” to “Seven Sorrows” did not occur without the influence of the Servants of Mary Order, which, however, established another feast on Mary’s sorrows in September to favor lay groups.Around 1500, it was customary to hold a meeting near the churches of the Servants of Mary for those enrolled in the “Companie of the Tabit of the Seven Sorrows” on the third Sunday of each month. A century later, these meetings began to take on a more solemn character with a procession, with the third Sunday in September being escorted. On July 9, 1668, the Holy See authorized the Order to solemnly celebrate this feast of the Seven Sorrows on the third Sunday in September. Furthermore, at the request of the General Procurator, Clement XI, by the bull “Iniunctae nobis,” he granted a plenary indulgence to all who visited a church of the Servants on the third Sunday in September.At the request of Philip V, the feast of the Seven Sorrows in September was extended to all Spanish domains on September 17, 1735. On September 18, 1814, Pius VII, a devoted devotee of Our Lady of Sorrows, in memory of the sufferings inflicted by Napoleon on the Church in the person of its head, extended it to the entire Latin Church, with the texts of the office and mass already in use among the Servants of Mary. With the liturgical reform of Pius X, who wanted to emphasize the Sunday, this September feast, in 1913, became fixed on September 15, the day it was celebrated in the Ambrosian rite, which already celebrated the Seven Sorrows on the octave of Mary’s Nativity.Regarding the feast of Good Friday, it was reduced to a simple commemoration by the 1960 rubrical reform. Otherwise, it consisted of two identical feasts in title and with equal Mass texts, except for the collect. The new Calendar of 1969, in addition to completely suppressing the commemoration of the Passion time and reducing the rank of the celebration from September 15 to a simple “memory,” also changed the feast’s title (Blessed Virgin Mary of Sorrows). There is no specific memory of the “Seven Sorrows,” but rather a desire to contemplate “the sorrow” of Mary in a more general way.One could agree with this latter change, although it seems more effective to move from “Our Lady of Sorrows” (almost a fruit of devotional piety) to “Mary at the Cross” (evidently a “salvific event” and thus worthy of a memorial celebration). Given that all the earliest manifestations of liturgical devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows, in addition to referring to Jn 19:25-27, also belong to the Lenten paschal season, we wonder if it would not have been appropriate to privilege, not the September feast, but the Passion feast (entered into the Roman Calendar a century earlier), thereby filling a gap regarding Mary’s explicit presence during the time of celebrating the paschal mystery.Thus, as the study of ancient sources led to the recovery of the solemnity of the Mother of God inserted into the Christmas cycle, the same study could have led to the recovery of a feast of the “compassion” of the Virgin to be inserted into the paschal cycle. Moreover, it seems to us that not only the historical events recalled, but also the document *Marialis Cultus* is on our side. In fact, the papal document, above all, enumerates this feast among “the celebrations that commemorate salvific events in which the Virgin was closely associated with the Son” and which have the liturgical rank of “feast.” It then outlines its content, stating that “the memory of the Virgin of Sorrows is a suitable occasion to relive a decisive moment in the history of salvation and to venerate the Mother associated with the passion of the Son and close to him, raised on the cross” (*Marialis Cultus* 7).This is the true content of the feast, that is, the effective presence of Mary at the culmination of redemption, and it is precisely this that the liturgical texts of the day highlight. Now, the historical salvific event should correspond to its mystical celebration throughout the liturgical year: why separate, in the celebration, what happened together in the history of salvation? If it was written: «Despite all adaptations, it is not easy to find a justification for Mary’s suffering in the liturgy: the theme itself, as it was thought in piety or devotion, takes on an eminently personal, private devotion aspect, and not a liturgical one», this happened by focusing on the term «Our Lady of Sorrows», almost a result of pious sentimentality, and not considering properly the feast’s content, centered in Jn 19, 25-27, and so well emphasized in Chapter VIII of the Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (cf. Lumen Gentium 58 and 61). If the celebration had been placed in the Paschal cycle, its full mystical density would have been more immediately perceived. Unfortunately, it bears the scars of historical lacerations between devotions and liturgy, awaiting better, more pascal solutions.From the celebrated mystery to the lived mysteryThe liturgical texts of September 15th had better fortune, as most of them are new formulations, though gathered from various sources and opportunely adapted. Indeed, this extensive replacement becomes a clear indication that a true correction was intended in the memory of Our Lady of Sorrows: from a predominantly sentimental devotional reading, an attempt is made to reach a vital mystical reading of Mary’s participation in the Son’s passion. Let us try to grasp it briefly.A) The Marian core of the feast, dependent on Christ’s mysteryFirstly, the Marian content of the feast is clearly linked to the mystery of Christ, with a clear dependence upon it. It seems that the Collect of the Mass, which precisely aims to “express the nature of the celebration,” focuses on the central theme: “O God, Thou didst will that Thy Mother, along with Thy Son exalted on the Cross, should be present in her suffering.” This refers to the climactic moment of our redemption, the salvific event of Calvary, to affirm that it has two subjects: along with Christ, His Mother. Unfortunately, the Italian text weakens the Latin expression *compatientem Matrem astare voluisti*, where it is more explicit that Mary not only “was present,” but also “suffered with” Christ, effectively collaborating in His redemptive work.Also, the expression *compassionem b. v. M. recolentes* from the prayer after the Communion is translated as “in the memory of the Blessed Virgin of Sorrows.” We believe, in fact, that the term “of Sorrows” does not fully capture the breadth of “compassion” and weakens it into a generic and vague feeling. All this is grounded in the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council (to which our text seems to allude), which states: “Mary, suffering with her Son, dying on the Cross, cooperated in a most special way in the work of the Savior” (*Lumen gentium* 61).Moreover, this happens by the will of the Father (“O God, Thou didst will”): the Son who dies on the Cross and the Mother who participates in that suffering constitute an act of obedience to the Father’s will, in direct harmony with His entire salvific plan. What we celebrate is not a secondary circumstance in the life of Jesus and Mary, but something central to the divine Father’s designs, as the same Council says: “Mary, not without divine design, stood at the Cross, suffering deeply with her Only-Begotten and associating herself, with a maternal spirit, to His sacrifice, consenting amorously to the immolation of the victim she had borne” (*Lumen gentium*).

58. The “passion” of Christ corresponds to the “compassion” of Mary: if the Son is “taken away in pain” (cf. Is 53, 3), his Mother becomes “multiduly afflicted” (cf. Lk 2, 35). If he is the “Servant of the Lord” suffering (cf. Lk 1, 38), she becomes the “Servant of the Lord” (cf. Jn 19, 25-27), suffering. This is the central mystery celebrated.

Now, both passages from the Gospel reading (Lk 2, 33-35 and Jn 19, 25-27) recall the historical event that the collection captured as an act of salvation: the first, in the form of a prophecy. The second, in the form of a full realization. In fact, “the sword” that Simeon prophesied to Mary will accompany her life, but will find its fulfillment above all in the tomb on Calvary. It is precisely the Gospel of John that highlights what the prayer over the offerings will affirm: Mary “was given to us as a most tender Mother at the cross of Christ.”

Her “compassion,” defined by the Gospel acclamation as a true martyrdom (“Blessed is the Virgin Mary, because, without dying, she merited, under the cross, the palm of martyrdom”), makes her a collaborator with the Son who, according to the first reading (Heb 5, 7-9), through his death “became the cause of eternal salvation for all who obey him.” With her pain, Mary, who until then was only the Mother of Jesus, becomes our Mother, Mother of all the faithful and of all those taken to salvation.

Exegetes note that structurally, the scene described by Jn 19, 25-27 underscores a transfer of belonging: the woman who was “the mother of Jesus” will henceforth, by the will of Jesus himself, be “the mother of the disciple.” With the title “woman” that Jesus uses on the cross, he constitutes his mother in the role of a New Eve, a new “mother of the living.” The Council of Vatican II states: “With reason the Fathers considered Mary, by her obedience, to be the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Therefore, many of the ancient Fathers, in their preaching, as Irénée affirms, untied the knot of Eve’s disobedience with Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound by her unbelief, the virgin Mary untied by her faith. And comparing her to Eve, they often call Mary ‘mother of the living,’ affirming many times: ‘the death of Eve through sin, the life through Mary through grace’” (Lumen Gentium, 56).

Further on, the same Council asserts categorically that Mary “suffering with her Son, dying on the cross, contributed in a most special way to the work of the Savior, with her obedience, her faith, her hope, and her ardent charity, to restore supernatural life to souls. Therefore, she became for us a Mother in the order of grace” (Lumen Gentium, 62).

(61) This spiritual motherhood, but real, won by Mary, as every motherhood is in pain, is the consequence of the central mystery celebrated and opens the way to another set of considerations.

Moving on to our implication in the celebration, let us remember that the scene in John 19, 25-27 also has a very high ecclesiological value. In fact, both people present at the cross have, in different ways, a relationship with the Church: Mary, the Mother of Jesus, becomes the mother of the disciple and all the disciples (and in this sense, it can be said that she becomes the Mother of the Church). In turn, the beloved disciple represents all the disciples of Christ, the faithful of the Church.

The last act of Jesus before his death was to form the messianic people, to found the Church, in the persons of his Mother and his beloved disciple. The liturgical texts refer to the Church, to us who celebrate this mystery, asking the Father to gather its fruits: «Make your holy Church, associated with Mary in the passion of Christ, participate in the glory of the resurrection» (Collect). This is a fundamental and vital request: to participate in the passion of Christ as the one who is mother and image of the Church, eagerly desiring to attain, as she did, the final glorification.

In short, it is asked to be associated, like Mary, to the whole pascal mystery of Christ, according to the exhortation of the Communion antiphon: «As you share in the sufferings of Christ, rejoice, so that you may also rejoice in the revelation of his glory». For those who have been baptized into the death and resurrection of the Lord, this is the way to revive their own baptism, and the celebration of the Eucharist, a memorial presence of the pascal mystery, is a guarantee of success.

This is also the aim of the petitions in the Liturgy of the Hours: «Our Savior, who willed your Mother at the foot of the cross united to the offering of the sacrifice, grant that we may, through her intercession, participate in the mystery of your passion and glory». «Good Jesus, who while hanging on the cross, gave John to your suffering Virgin as a mother, grant us the grace to live as his true children» (intercessions at Laudes). «You made Mary strong at the foot of the cross and filled her with joy at the resurrection of your Son: sustain us in the trials of life and strengthen us in hope» (intercessions at Vespers).

Conclusion

The historical development of the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, with its variations in title and date, reveals a real tension: on the one hand, the tendency to shift focus away from the paschal event, centered on the commemoration of the Mother to a more fragmented and devotional reading of the Seven Sorrows. On the other, the persistent need to return to the theological place of Mary’s pain, that is, to the Cross as a salvific event. When the celebration is fixed in September, there is a risk of separating, in the rhythm of the liturgical year, what in the history of salvation occurred as a unity: the passion of the Son and the compassion of the Mother. Memory can then lose its mystical density and become more easily a private act of piety, without imposing itself, by its own structure, as a communal participation in the paschal mystery.The liturgical reform, by preferring to contemplate “the pain” of Mary in a global way, opens an important possibility: to free the celebration from a narrow sentimentalism and recover the essential core, which is the effective presence of Mary at the side of the Son elevated on the cross, in obedience to the Father’s design. However, this recovery will be all the more fruitful as it explicitly allows itself to be guided by the evangelical data that underpins the feast: (John 19:25-27). There, the Church sees, simultaneously, the completion of the redemptive work and the establishment of a new, real and permanent bond between Mary and the disciples. Mary’s pain is not just a pain “over” Christ, but a pain “with” Christ, a participation that, without confusing itself with the unique action of the Redeemer, is assumed as a maternal cooperation in the plan of salvation, as proposed by the Church in Lumen Gentium (58 and 61).From this pivotal point, we arrive at a crucial understanding: liturgical celebration is not merely about recalling a past event, but it allows one to move from the celebrated mystery to the lived mystery. The Church, united with Mary, is called to enter into the same paschal dynamic: to suffer with Christ in order to rise with Him, to endure trials in hope, and to receive, as a spiritual motherhood, Mary’s maternal care as a principle of belonging and ecclesial communion. Thus, when the liturgy invites the Church, united with Mary, to participate in the glory of the Resurrection, it is not adorning the Marian cult, but rather indicating a discipleship path: the disciple’s journey passes through Calvary, and Calvary is fully understood only in the context of Easter.In summary, the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows attains its truth when read against its paschal horizon and its ecclesiological scope. Calvary is not merely the place of suffering, but it is the place of foundation: here, Christ’s obedient love is manifested to the extreme, and Mary’s maternal consent is given. Here, the Church is symbolically born, in the relationship between “the Mother” and “the beloved disciple.” Here, the faithful learn that pain, when endured in faith, does not lead to isolation but to fertility. Thus, to find a more pascal, explicit, and mystical placement for Mary’s memory at the Cross is not a rubrical detail, but a pastoral and spiritual imperative: to return celebration its power to form disciples who, with Mary, remain at the Cross and, with her, learn to expect the joy of Resurrection.Why does the disciple’s path pass through Calvary?Calvary is the indispensable path for the disciple because Jesus said: “If anyone wants to come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24). Mariology sees in Mary the first disciple who walked this path to the end: standing at the Cross (John 19:25), she did not flee from suffering but united herself with Christ’s sacrifice. This faithfulness on Calvary is the condition for paschal joy: without the Cross, there is no Resurrection, without Calvary, there is no Easter Sunday. Mary teaches the disciple that the path of the Cross is the path to life.What is the Mariological significance of Mary’s presence at the Cross in John 19:25?Mary’s presence “at the Cross” (John 19:25) holds deep theological meaning: she is not merely a passive witness but an active participant in Christ’s sacrifice. Traditional theology (Saint Bernard, Saint Bonaventure, Saint Louis Mary Grignion de Montfort) interprets this scene as the fulfillment of the “fiat” of the Annunciation: the same “yes” that welcomed the Incarnation now welcomes the Cross. The Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, 58) states that Mary, “suffering with the Unique One,” cooperates in a special way in the work of the Savior.How does Mary accompany the disciple on his path to the Cross today?Mary accompanies the disciple on the path to the Cross in three ways: as a praying mother (John 2:3, the model of Cana), as a teacher who shows how to unite suffering with Christ’s (Colossians 1:24), and as a fellow traveler who endures pain through her own experience. Devotion to the Rosary, particularly the Mysteries of Sorrows, invites contemplation of the Cross with Mary’s offerings: not to dwell on suffering, but to discover in it God’s love that transforms every Cross into hope of Resurrection.Deepen your knowledge of Mariology: If you desire to study Mariology with academic rigor, consider our Graduate Program in Mariology. Learn more about Marian Theology and approved Marian apparitions recognized by the Church.To deepen theological reflection on Mary at the Foot of the Cross and the role of the Calvary (Cross) in Christian faith, consult the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater by Pope John Paul II.