Because the Incarnation is the means chosen by God to redeem the human race, Mary, as the Mother of the Incarnate Word, is intimately associated with the work of redemption. Theologians sometimes make a distinction between Mary’s remote cooperation in the work of redemption and her immediate cooperation (Haffner 2004: 191). Her remote cooperation is found in her yes to the invitation of the angel to be the Mother of the Word Incarnate (Luke 1:38). Her immediate cooperation entails her spiritual participation in the passion of Christ (compassio) and her subordinate offering of his sacrifice and her own to God (cf. Reynolds 2012: 246). A similar distinction can be made with respect to Mary’s mediation of grace. This, though, is sometimes put in terms of her mediation in a general sense as the Mother of Christ, the source of saving grace—mediatio in universali—and her mediation of all graces by means of her particular intercession from heaven—mediatio in speciali (Ott 2018: 229–31).
Mary’s remote cooperation with redemption is principally identified with her role as the Mother of the Redeemer. As such, she provides the human nature—the flesh and blood—that will enable Christ, the divine Saviour, to offer his sacrifice on the Cross in expiation for the sins ‘of the whole world’ (1 John 2:2). Mary’s remote cooperation in the work of redemption is also manifested by her union with her Son from the time of his conception in her womb ‘up to his death’ (Lumen Gentium 57). The Gospel of John 19:25–27 shows Mary at the foot of the cross where, according to Vatican II, she unites herself ‘with a maternal heart with His sacrifice’ and lovingly consents ‘to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth’ (Lumen Gentium 58). Mary’s union with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is the basis for her proximate or immediate cooperation with the work of redemption. As will be seen, the idea gradually developed that Mary—in a manner that is entirely dependent on and subordinate to Christ—cooperated in a congruous or fitting way in the objective work of redemption.
In addition to Mary’s remote and immediate cooperation in the objective work of redemption, she is also seen as active in the communication of graces to the faithful on earth as a heavenly Mediatrix and dispensatrix of grace. In this way, she not only cooperates in the objective redemption of the human race but also in the subjective redemption of individuals as a heavenly intercessor, Mediatrix, and spiritual Mother. While it is possible to understand Mary’s cooperation in the objective work of redemption as a form of mediation, the more common view is to understand her association with Christ in the objective work of redemption as Marian co-redemption and her association with Christ in the distribution of graces as an expression of Marian mediation.
Mary’s association with Christ in the work of redemption is foreshadowed in the ‘proto-gospel’ of Genesis 3:15. The ‘woman’ who is at enmity with the serpent foreshadows Mary, the new Eve, who will crush (or bruise) the head of the serpent by her obedience to God’s invitation to be the Mother of the Redeemer in Luke 1:38 (cf. O’Carroll 2000: 370–2). Mary is also seen as the ‘Mother of the living’ foreshadowed in Genesis 3:20 because, as Mother of the Saviour, she helps to bring the new life of salvation to human beings. The sword that pierces Mary’s heart (or soul) in Luke 2:35 is seen as a prophecy of her participation in the passion of her Son under the cross where she undergoes the labour pains of giving birth to the Church.1 Mary’s intervention on behalf of the wedding guests at Cana in John 2:1–5 points to her role as the Mediatrix between her divine Son and the faithful. In John 19:25–27, Mary is under the cross of her divine Son where she shares in his passion and offers him to the Father surrendering her maternal rights.2 In Acts 1:14 Mary is with the apostles in the upper room united in prayer awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit. According to John Paul II, there is a ‘unique correspondence’ between the Incarnation of the Word at the Annunciation (Luke 2:38) and the birth of the Church at Pentecost (Redemptoris Mater 24). Both events show the power of the Holy Spirit linked to Mary as Mother of Christ and Mother of the Church.
Revelation 12: 1–18 is likewise linked to Mary’s association with Christ in the work of redemption because it shows the woman at enmity with the Devil, symbolized by the Dragon. The passage, therefore, should be understood in conjunction with Genesis 3:15. The pains of childbirth of Revelation 12:2 are perceived by some as an indication of Mary as the ‘co-redeeming Mother who continues to suffer intensely in order to bring forth disciples in Christ Jesus’ (Miravalle 2003: 53).3
During the Patristic period, Mary’s association with Christ in the work of Redemption was primarily understood as that of the New Eve who collaborates with Christ, the New Adam, in bringing salvation to the human race. St Justin Martyr (†165) and St Irenaeus (c. 130–202) both highlight the Eve–Mary parallelism, and Irenaeus made this a prominent feature of his soteriology of recapitulation. As he writes: ‘By disobeying, Eve became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race. In the same way Mary … by obeying … became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race’ (Adversus Haereses 3.22).4
Eastern fathers of the Church such as St Ephraem of Syria (c. 306–373) and St Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403) affirmed Mary as the New Eve, and they acknowledged her important role in the work of redemption. St Ephraem says that God chose Mary to be ‘the instrument of our salvation’ (Opera Omnia III).5 St Epiphanius sees Mary as bringing forth ‘the Cause of Life’ to the human race just as Eve brought the cause of death (Adversus Haereses 1.3, t.2).6 St Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) is even more expressive when he exclaims that, through the Mother of God, ‘the devil is cast down from heaven’ and ‘the fallen creature is raised up to heaven’ (Homilia In Deiparam).7
By the fifth century, however, Mary began to be referred to more frequently as Mediatrix (mesiteusasa) by writers such as Basil of Seleucia (O’Carroll 2000: 240). The Byzantine Akathist Hymn (fifth–sixth century) expressed Marian mediation by referring to the Blessed Virgin as ‘the heavenward Ladder by which God came down’ and ‘the earthly Bridge carrying the earthborn unto heaven’ (Gambero 1999: 343). Byzantine authors such as St Andrew of Crete (c. 660–740) and St John of Damascus (c. 675–749) highlight Mary’s role as Mediatrix, and St Germanus of Constantinople (c. 635–733) affirms her universal mediation when he writes: ‘No one is saved except through you. … No one obtains the grace of mercy except through you’ (Homily on the Cincture).8
Various Church fathers have spoken of Mary’s suffering under the Cross, but the idea of her immediate co-redemptive role took time to develop (Reynolds 2012: 246–66). By the seventh century, there were various references to the Blessed Mother as she who redeems us with the Redeemer (Miravalle 2003: 78–9). St Andrew of Crete (c. 660–740) states that: ‘All of us have obtained salvation through her’ (Canon in Beatae Annae conceptionem).9 By the ninth century, Mary’s co-redemptive role became more explicit in Alcuin (d. 804) in the West and in St Tarasius (d. 806) and St Theodore the Studite (d. 826) in the East (Miravalle 2003: 79–80). The tenth-century Byzantine author, John the Geometer († c. 990) saw Mary’s suffering as playing a role in God’s plan of redemption (O’Carroll 2000: 204). John speaks of Mary suffering great evils for Christ and for us (Miravalle 2003: 81; O’Carroll 2000: 204).
During the medieval period, the association of Mary in the work of redemption became more pronounced, especially in the Latin West. The Blessed Mother’s role as Mediatrix of grace likewise received increased attention. In the tenth century, a French hymnal included in its litany of the saints an appeal to Mary in these words: ‘Holy redemptrix of the world pray for us’ (Miravalle 2003: 82). The term redemptrix was understood in subordination to Christ, the Redeemer, just as Mediatrix was understood in subordination to Christ, the one mediator (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5; Lumen Gentium 62; Miravalle 2003: 83). Nevertheless, by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries it became more common to speak of Mary as the Coredemptrix to show that she cooperates in the work of redemption with and under Christ (Laurentin 1951: 14–15). The use of co (derived from the Latin cum or with) was reflected in other medieval expressions about Mary such as she who ‘co-suffered’ with her Son and she who was ‘co-crucified’ with him (Laurentin 1951: 15). A liturgical hymn from Salzburg of the fourteenth or fifteenth century might be one of the earliest usages of the term Coredemptrix (Carol 1957: 399; Laurentin 1951: 15).
Many theologians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries recognized the Blessed Virgin as the associate of Christ in the work of redemption and the Mediatrix of all grace. St Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109), for example, writes: ‘For there is no reconciliation except the reconciliation you conceived, O Chaste One. There is no salvation except the salvation you bore, O Virgin’ (Oratio 52).10
Anselm’s close associate, Eademer of Canterbury (c. 1060–1130) speaks of Mary’s merit, and he also refers to her as ‘the reparatrix of the lost world’ (De excellentia Virginis Mariae 9).11
St Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) developed both Marian co-redemption and Marian mediation. He speaks of the Virgin Mary’s ‘offering the divine Victim in the temple for our reconciliation with God’ (Carol 1957: 397).12 Bernard also saw Mary making ‘satisfaction’ for the transgression of Eve’ (Homilia 2 super Missus est),13 and he introduced the notion of Mary co-suffering with Christ by means of her ‘compassion’ (cum passio) with him in her heart (Miravalle 2003: 86). In one sermon, Bernard asks: ‘If he [Christ] could die in the body, why could she not die with him in her heart?’ (Sermo infra Octavam Assumptionis 14–15).14
Bernard of Clairvaux referred to Mary as the ‘aqueduct’ of grace (De aquaeductu 4),15 a metaphor invoked by Pope Pius X in his 1904 encyclical, Ad diem illum (Denzinger and Hünermann 2012 [= DH]: n. 3370). Bernard believed that ‘God has willed that we should have nothing that would not pass through the hands of Mary’ (In Vigilia Navititatis Domini Sermo 3).16
Bernard of Clairvaux’s disciple and friend, Arnauld of Chartres or Bonneval († c. 1160) might have been ‘the first to propose formally the doctrine of Mary’s co-redemption in the Latin Church’ (Reynolds 2012: 274). Arnauld maintained that Mary, by the will of God, made a ‘moral contribution’ to the work of redemption (Gambero 2005: 150). Only Jesus offered a bodily immolation on Calvary, but Mary united her heart to her Son’s offering. There is a complete union of wills between Jesus and Mary, and so ‘there are not two distinct offerings to God for the salvation of humanity but one single oblation’ (Gambero 2005: 150). At Calvary, Christ presented ‘both his own offering and that of his Mother to the Father’ (Arnauld of Chartres, De laudibus Beatae Mariae Virginis).17 Like Bernard, Arnauld also saw Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces.
In the thirteenth century, St Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–74) highlighted the importance of Mary’s free consent at the Annunciation as needed for ‘a sort of spiritual wedlock [quoddam spirituale matrimonium] between the Son of God and human nature’ and, therefore, ‘through the Annunciation the consent of the Virgin in the place of all human nature [loco totius humanae naturae] was awaited’ (Summa theologiae III, q. 30, a. 1). St Bonaventure (c. 1217–74 affirmed Mary’s co-redemptive role by saying she ‘merited reconciliation for the entire human race’18 and she ‘co-offered the divine victim on Calvary’.19
St Albert the Great (c. 1200–80) saw Mary’s bridal union with Christ as the reason why ‘her cooperation in salvation extends to the whole process of human redemption’ (Gambero 2005: 229). The Mariale super missus est, now considered the work of ‘Pseudo-Albert’ (O’Carroll 2000: 298) affirms Christ’s wish to have Mary share in his passion by her ‘co-passion’ (Miravalle 2003: 96).
Bl. John Duns Scotus (1266–1308) understood the joint predestination of the Mother and Son as an expression of God’s plan for creation and redemption. Mary’s co-redemptive role is affirmed by other Franciscan authors such as the Jacopone da Todi (1230–1306) and Ubertino of Casale († after 1325). The Latin hymn to Mary known as the Stabat Mater is widely attributed to da Todi. This hymn is an invitation to draw near to the crucified Christ ‘though identification with his suffering Mother’ (Reynolds 2012: 287).
Ubertino of Casale recognized Christ as the only one capable of offering the perfect sacrifice in expiation of human sin, but he recognized Jesus as crucified ‘in his ‘Mother’s heart’ (Arbor Vitae 4.15).20 Ubertino also saw Mary as the ‘Mother of all the elect’, and the dispenser (dispensatrix) of ‘the treasury of the gifts of the Most Blessed Trinity’, so that ‘not even a drop of it or even the smallest grace is granted without first passing through Mary’s management [dispensatio]’ (Arbor Vitae 1.9).21 Urbertino believed Christ ‘has placed everything in the hands of his Mother as the dispenser of all graces’ (Arbor Vitae 3.6).22
Other fouteenth-century authors, such as Bl. John Tauler, O.P. (c. 1300–1361), St Catherine of Siena (1347–80), and St Bridget of Sweden (c. 1303–73) also highlighted Mary’s union with Jesus in his sacrificial offering as well as her mediation of grace. St Catherine of Siena extols Mary as the ‘Redemptrix of the human race’ because she provides flesh to the Word and unites herself to her Son’s sacrifice with ‘sorrow of body and mind’ (Oratio XI [1379]).23 In one of her ‘revelations’, St Bridget hears Jesus say: ‘Therefore I can well affirm that my Mother and I saved man, as it were, with a single heart—I, by suffering in my heart and flesh, and she with the suffering and love of her heart’ (Revelationes IX, c. 3).24 St Bridget also affirmed Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces (Gambero 2005: 279).
In addition to Latin authors, several Byzantine theologians of the fourteenth century highlighted the Blessed Virgin Mary’s co-redemptive role and her mediation of grace. Gregory Palamas (c. 1296–1356) affirms Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces when he states that ‘no divine gifts can reach either angels or men save through her mediation’ (O’Carroll 2000 163).25 Nicholas Cabasilas (c. 1320–96) speaks of Mary as ‘the fellow-worker of God’ (sunergos) and the ‘co-cause’ (sunaitios) with Christ of our sanctification (In Annuntiatione 4 and In Dormitione 13).26 Cabasilas sees the lance thrust into the side of Christ at Calvary as the fulfilment of Simeon’s prophecy in Luke 2:35 that a sword would piece Mary’s heart (In Dormitione 13).27 Theophanes of Nicaea († 1381), like Bernardine of Siena, speaks of Mary as ‘the neck of the Mystical Body of Christ’. He upholds Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces because ‘participation in the divine gifts’ that flow from the Son of God only come to angels and men through Mary (O’Carroll 1996; 232–3).
In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, references to Marian co-redemption and mediation of grace continued to flourish, and many references to these themes can be found in authors such as Jean Gerson (1363–1429), St Bernardine of Siena (1380–1444), St Antonius of Florence (1389–1459), and Bernardine de Bustis (1440–1513). Some important theological distinctions and developments acquire greater focus. Gerson, for example, recognizes that Mary’s participation was only ‘relatively necessary, along the lines of St Paul’s thought in Col 1:24’ (Gambero 2005: 285–6). St Bernardine of Siena (1380–1444) links Marian mediation to the Holy Spirit and the life of the Church. He believes that ‘all the gifts, virtues, and graces of the Holy Spirit are granted through her hands to whomever she wishes, when she wishes, and in the measure she wishes’ (De gratia et Gloria beatae Virginis, sermon 61).28 Bernardine also believes that because God relied on Mary to become incarnate, he grants her a type of universal maternal jurisdiction in the mediation of grace (O’Carroll 2000: 78). The fullness of grace is ‘in Christ as flowing from the head’, but Mary is ‘the neck’ by which this grace is ‘transfused … to the whole body of the Church’ (Quadragesimale de evangelio aeterno, sermo 51).29
Antonius of Florence attributes ‘a kind of priestly status’ to the Blessed Virgin Mary because she offered her Son to God the Father ‘for the salvation of the human race’ (Gambero 2005: 303). Bernardine de Bustis speaks of Mary’s merit in terms of fittingness [meritum de congruo] rather than merit by right [meritum de condigno], which would apply to her divine Son (Gambero 2005: 323). Nevertheless, Mary’s congruous merit ‘was transformed into a right of justice [meritum digni], because of her voluntary fidelity to God’s plan of salvation’ (Gambero 2005: 323).
In the sixteenth century, some Catholic humanists, such as Erasmus of Rotterdam († 1536) began to distance themselves from these Marian developments because they preferred biblical over scholastic language. Erasmus preferred the imitation of Mary’s virtues over theological themes of co-redemption and mediation of grace (O’Carroll 2000: 137). The Protestant Reformers rejected Marian co-redemption and mediation because Jesus is the only Saviour and the one Mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). Martin Luther (1483–1546), like Erasmus, preferred to uphold Mary as a model of virtues rather than a Mediatrix of grace, and he seemed also to reject Marian intercession (O’Carroll 2000: 228). John Calvin (1509–64) likewise forbad the invocation of Mary or the saints in prayer because Christ is the ‘sole Mediator’ (Institutes of the Christian Religion III 20.21).
In spite of Protestant opposition, Catholic theology of Marian co-redemption continued to grow in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This period is often considered ‘the Golden Age of Marian Coredemption’ (Carol 1957: 400). During this period, Mary was spoken of as the ‘Redemptrix’ or the ‘Coredemptrix’ with greater frequency (Laurentin 1951: 19; Miravalle 2003: 104–26); there were more than 300 references to the Coredemptrix doctrine and title during this period (Carol 1950: 198–480). Around 1521, the French author, Alain de Varènes calls Mary the ‘Coredemptrix’ (Laurentin 1951: 11), and the Jesuit, Alphonsus Salmeron († 1585), speaks of Mary as Coredemptrix multiple times (Miravalle 2003:106). A later Jesuit, Quirino de Salazar (1576–1646), affirms Mary as Redemptrix, Reparatrix, Mediatrix, and Coredemptrix (Miravalle 2003: 116). The Spanish mystic, Maria of Ágreda (1602–1665) refers to the Blessed Mother as the ‘Redemptrix’ (Miravalle 2003:121), and St Veronica Giuliani (1660–1729) refers to the Virgin Mary as the ‘Coadjutrix of the Redemption’ and ‘Coadjutrix of the whole world’ (Perillo 2001: 247–9).
In 1673, the German lawyer, Adam Widenfeld, wrote a pamphlet rejecting titles such as Salvatrix and Coredemptrix (Calkins 2007: 374). In 1677 Maximillian Reichenberger responded to Widenfeld defending Mary as Coredemptrix (Miravalle 2003:122). By the end of the seventeenth century, Widenfeld’s pamphlet was placed on the Index, and in 1690 one of its propositions censured (DH 2326).
In the seventeenth century authors such as Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), Pierre de Bérulle (1575–1629), Jean-Jacques Olier (1608–1657), St John Eudes (1601–80), Henri-Marie Boudon (1624–1702), and Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704) affirm Mary as Mediatrix of all graces (Appollinio 2007: 442). The Jesuits Salmaron, Suárez, and Salazar all distinguished between meritum de condigno—which belongs only to Christ—and meritum de congruo, which belongs to Mary (O’Carroll 2000: 306). In the eighteenth century, St Louis de Montfort (1673–1716) taught that Mary’s role as Mediatrix of all grace is totally dependent on the will of God because ‘she is infinitely inferior to her Son’ (Montfort 1996: 8–10, nn. 21–27). St Alphonsus Liguori (1696–1787) distinguished between Christ as the ‘only Mediator of justice’ and Mary as ‘the mediatress of grace’ through the will of God (O’Carroll 2000: 15).
From the mid-eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century the Catholic Magisterium provided ongoing support for Marian co-redemption and her mediation of grace. The Holy Office in 1747, however, rejected an Italian bishop’s request to add ‘Blessed Virgin Coredemptrix of the Entire Human Race’ to the prayers for the Stations of the Cross (Dodd 2012: 89–91). Mary’s universal mediation of grace, though, began to receive strong papal endorsement. In 1748, Pope Benedict XIV speaks of Mary as ‘the heavenly stream which brings to the hearts of wretched mortals all God’s gifts and graces’ (Benedict XIV’s bull, Gloriosae Dominae [1748]).30 Pius VII (r. 1800–23) referred to the Blessed Virgin as the ‘Dispensatrix of all graces’ (Carol 1957: 429). In his 1854 bull defining the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX speaks of Mary as ‘the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world’ (Trouvé 2001: 25). In his 1891 encyclical, Octobri mense, Leo XIII states ‘that absolutely nothing from this immense treasury of all the graces brought forth by the Lord … is imparted to us by the will of God, except through Mary’ (DH 3274).
Marian co-redemption began to receive more papal support. In Ineffabilis Deus (1854), Pius IX teaches that God predestined Mary to be the sinless Mother of the Incarnate Word so she ‘should have the most complete triumph over the ancient serpent’ (DH 2801). In his 1896 encyclical, Fidentem piumque, Leo XIII in reference to Mary says that ‘no single individual can even be imagined who has or ever will contribute so much toward reconciling man with God. She offered to mankind, hastening to eternal ruin, a Saviour …’ (DH 3321). In his 1904 encyclical, Ad diem illum, Pius X speaks of Mary as ‘the reparatrix of the lost world and the dispensatrix of all the gifts that our Saviour purchased for us by his death and by his blood’ (DH 3370). Mary does not have ‘a productive power of grace’ because ‘this is a power that belongs to God alone’; but she ‘merits for us de congruo (in a congruous manner) … what Christ merits for us de condigno (in a condign manner), and she is the supreme minister of the distribution of graces’ (DH 3370). Pius X also invokes the image of the aqueduct (from Bernard of Clairvaux) and the neck (from Bernardine of Siena) to describe how the Blessed Mother mediates grace to the members of the Church.
During the pontificate of Pius X (r. 1903–14) the Marian title, Coredemptrix, received official magisterial approval thus reversing the 1747 decision of the Holy Office. In 1908 the Sacred Congregation for Rites referred to Mary as ‘the merciful Coredemptrix of the human race’ (Acta Sanctae Sedis [ASS] 41: 409). In 1913, the Holy Office approved a prayer that invokes Mary as ‘our Coredemptrix’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis [AAS] 5: 364). In 1914 the same Holy Office sanctioned a prayer appealing to Mary as ‘the Coredemptrix of the human race’ (AAS 6: 108).
Benedict XV, in his 1918 letter, Inter Sodalicia, writes that Mary renounced her maternal rights and, ‘as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she, with Christ, redeemed mankind’ (AAS 10: 182). His successor, Pius XI (r. 1922–39) became the first Roman Pontiff publicly to refer to Mary as Coredemptrix, which he did on three separate occasions. On 30 November 1933 he said to some pilgrims from Vicenza, Italy: ‘By necessity, the Redeemer could not but associate his Mother in his work. For this reason we invoke her under the title of Coredemptrix’ (L’Osservatore Romano, 1 December 1933: 1).
Although Pius XII, as Cardinal Pacelli, spoke of Mary as Coredemptrix during a 26 April 1935 Holy Hour in Lourdes, France, he avoided this title during his 1939 to 1958 pontificate. He did, however, strongly affirm Mary’s association with Christ in the work of redemption, especially in his 1954 encyclical, Ad caeli Reginam, where he teaches that Mary ‘assisted in our redemption, by giving of her own substance, by freely offering [Christ] for us, by her singular desire and petition for, and active interest in our salvation’ (DH 3914). Pius XII also highlights Mary’s association with Christ in the work of redemption in his 1956 encyclical on the Sacred Heart entitled, Haurietis Aquas (DH 3926).
From the late nineteenth century up to the present, there have been consistent efforts within the Catholic Church to dogmatically define Mary’s co-redemptive role and/or her universal mediation of grace. During Vatican I (1869–70) the French bishop Jean Laurent asked for a dogmatic definition of Mary Coredemptrix’ (Miravalle 2003: 142), but this doctrine was not considered mature enough to define.
In 1896 the French Jesuit, René-Marie de la Broise, published an article suggesting a dogmatic proclamation of Mary’s universal mediation of grace (Dodd 2012: 51–2, 448). At the second International Marian Congress—held in Fribourg, Switzerland in 1902—two other Jesuits joined la Broise in promoting ‘the idea of a dogmatic definition of Mary’s role in the acquisition and distribution of grace’ (Dodd 2012: 448; cf. 53–5). In 1904, the Redemptorist, François Xavier Godts, published a 451-page book in favour of the definability of Mary’s universal mediation of grace (Hauke 2004: 11; Dodd 2012: 56).
In 1906 Mother Magdalen of Jesus, the Prioress of the Carmel of Uccle (near Brussels), revealed to Archbishop (later Cardinal) Désiré-Joseph Mercier of Mechelen (Malines)-Brussels that in prayer she had received a message that God intensely desires ‘the dogmatic definition of Mary’s universal mediation of grace’ (Hauke 2004: 14). Mother Magadalen would later, in 1919, write to Pope Benedict XV asking for the dogmatic proclamation (Hauke 2004: 19–20).
Cardinal Mercier, moved in part by Mother Magdalen’s revelations, became a strong advocate for the dogmatic definition of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces. In 1915 he coordinated four separate petitions to Pope Benedict XV (r. 1914–22) to proclaim this dogma. In 1919 Mercier submitted a draft for a new Mass and Office of ‘Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces’ to Cardinal Vico, the papal nuncio to Belgium (Dodd 2012: 94–5). Benedict XV responded favourably to this initiative, and on 12 January 1921 he approved the liturgical texts for the feast of ‘Beatae Mariae Virginis omnium gratiarum mediatricis’ [the Blessed Virgin Mary Mediatrix of all Graces] (Hauke 2004: 55–6). The pope established 31 May as the feast day, and he gave permission for its celebration to all the dioceses of Belgium and all other dioceses and religious congregations that request it (Hauke 2004: 59; Dodd 2012: 449).
In response to appeals by Cardinal Mercier, Pius XI (r. 1922–39) established three papal commissions—one in Belgium, one in Spain, and one in Rome—‘to study the definability of Mary’s universal mediation of grace’ (Dodd 2012: 449–50). The Spanish and Belgian commissions were favourable to a possible definition (Hauke 2004: 122; Dodd 2012: 181), but the position of the Roman commission has never been made known. Some believe the Holy Office ‘decided that the doctrine was not ready for definition’ (Dodd 2012: 183).
From the late 1920s through the 1950s, various Marian congresses held in Latin America, Canada, France, Spain, and the USA endorsed a papal definition of Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces (Dodd 2012: 451–3). Numerous books—such as a 1926 volume by Jacques Bittrimieux (1878–1950)—argued in favour of the definition. From 1945 to 1959 a Dutch visionary named Ida Peerdeman (1905–96) claimed to receive apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary asking for the dogma of Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. In 2002, the local bishop, Josef Marianus Punt, approved the supernatural character of these apparitions, but said they are not binding on the faithful. According to Catholic theology, private revelations can never be ‘the basis for a dogma’ (Dodd 2012: 460).
Although Pius XII, in his ordinary Magisterium, upheld both Marian co-redemption and her mediation of all graces, he chose not to define either of these doctrines infallibly. Instead, he decided to define the Assumption of Mary in 1950 (Dodd 2012: 258–9). After his successor, John XXIII (r. 1958–63), announced the Second Vatican Council, at least 310 bishops requested that Mary’s mediation of grace be defined (Dodd 2012: 271). The actual number, though, might have been over 500 (Besutti 1966: 17). There were also some fifty-four bishops who requested a formal statement or definition of Mary as Coredemptrix (O’Carroll 2000: 308). The preliminary draft, Schema pro Concilio Oecumenico, issued by the Holy Office in 1960 includes the definability of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces as one of the topics to be discussed as well as Mary as Coredemptrix (Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II 1960: 135–42).
These calls for dogmatic definitions at Vatican II, however, were forestalled by the desire of John XXIII not to have any new dogmatic definitions at the Council because of its primarily pastoral orientation (Calkins 2007: 387; see his chapter (IV.32) in this volume). From October 1960 until January 1962 the plan was to integrate the treatment of Mary into one of the longer documents of the Council (Jelly 1986: 45). In 1962, however, it was decided to prepare a separate document on Mary, which was approved by John XXIII on 10 November 1962 and distributed to the council fathers on 23 November of that year (Besutti 1966: 22; Jelly 1986: 47). This schema not only refers to Mary as ‘Mediatrix’ but ‘Mediatrix of all graces’ in n. 3 (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II 1971: 94).
The 1962 Marian schema affirms Christ as ‘the unique divine mediator and Redeemer’ but states that Mary ‘associated [consociavit] her work with and under him in accomplishing the redemption of the human race (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II 1971: 94). The schema avoids speaking of Mary as Coredemptrix, but the praenotanda gives this explanation:
Certain terms and expressions used by Roman Pontiffs have been omitted, which, although most true in themselves (in se verissima), may be difficult for the separated brethren (such as the Protestants) to understand. Among such words the following may be enumerated: ‘Coredemptrix of the human race’ [St Pius X, Pius XI]; ‘Reparatrix of the whole world’ [Leo XIII] … etc.’
(Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II 1971: 99).
The title Coredemptrix, however, appears in two footnotes of the 1962 schema. Footnote 11 states that ‘the compassion of Mary has a connection with the redemption in such a way that she may rightly be called Coredemptrix’ (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II 1971: 104). It also has an extensive footnote 16, which explains the history of the terms Redemptrix and Coredemptrix as applied to Mary (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II 1971: 108). The Marian schema was approved as a separate document on 23 November 1962, but a vote taken on 29 October 29 1963 favoured—by a narrow majority of 1,114 to 1,074—the inclusion the Marian schema in the Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (O’Carroll 2000: 352–3).
Like the 1962 schema, Lumen Gentium (LG) avoids the direct use of the Marian title, Coredemptrix. It does, however, contain some clear affirmations of Mary’s association with Christ in the work of redemption. LG 56 cites St Irenaeus, who states that Mary, ‘being obedient, became the cause of salvation [causa salutis] for herself and for the whole human race’. LG 58 teaches that Mary, at the foot of the Cross, united herself ‘with a maternal heart with [Christ’s] sacrifice’, and lovingly consented ‘to the immolation of this victim which she herself had brought forth’. Thus, although Christ is the one Saviour of the human race, Mary, by God’s will, associated herself with his sacrificial offering in a unique and singular way.
LG 62 includes ‘Mediatrix’ among various titles by which Mary is invoked in the Church, but Mary is not spoken of as the ‘Mediatrix of all graces’. Her mediation of grace is understood as a ‘manifold cooperation’ in ‘the unique mediation of the Redeemer’ (LG 62), and a manifestation ‘of the gift and role of divine maternity, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with his singular graces and functions’ (LG 63). Mary’s union with Christ in the mediation of grace finds particular expression in the life of the Church where she cooperates with ‘burning charity in the work of the Saviour in giving back supernatural life to souls’ (LG 61).
While Vatican II chose not to use the term, Coredemptrix, a number of theologians, including Jean Galot, S.J. and Georges Cottier, O.P. (the former theologian of the papal household), believe Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium affirms the doctrine of Mary as Coredemptrix without using the term (cf. Galot 1994: 236–7 and Cottier 2002). John Paul II’s subsequent use of the term ‘Coredemptrix’ shows that this title has not been abandoned since Vatican II (Calkins 2007: 398).
Vatican II also chose to avoid calling Mary ‘the Mediatrix of all graces’, but John Paul II used this title at least seven times (Appollinio 2007: 458). Benedict XVI also used the title toward the end of his pontificate. In a letter dated 10 January 2013, he commends the mission of Archbishop Zimowski to World Day of the Sick to ‘the intercessions of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mediatrix of all graces’ [intercessioni Beatae Virginis Mariae Immaculatae, Mediatricis omnium gratiarum].
Following Vatican II, the movement for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix of all graces seemed mostly dormant. The Marian Year proclaimed by John Paul II for 1987–88 helped to revive interest in Marian co-redemption and her universal mediation of grace. During the 1990s petitions for a dogmatic proclamation of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate were organized by a group known as Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici (Voice of the People for Mary Mediatrix), led by Dr Mark Miravalle, a permanent deacon and Professor of Mariology at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, USA. By 1997 over six million Catholics—including some 550 bishops and 45 cardinals—had signed the petition (Miravalle 2003: 2010).
Some Catholic theologians and bishops, however, manifested serious reservations about the wisdom of such a dogmatic proclamation. During the twelfth International Mariological Congress, held at Częstochowa (Poland) in August 1996, a group of twenty-three theologians—including three Orthodox, one Anglican, and one Lutheran—issued a statement advising against a dogmatic proclamation. Marian titles such as ‘Coredemptrix’ were described as ‘ambiguous’ and in need of greater study and clarification (L’Osservatore Romano, 4 June 1997: 10). The theologians also expressed ecumenical concerns about the proposed dogma (Dulles 2008: 257).
The judgement of this ad hoc group of theologians was not magisterial, and those favouring the dogmatic proclamation continued holding conferences exploring deeper aspects of Marian co-redemption and mediation. Six Catholic cardinals participated in a symposium from 3 to 7 May 2005 in Fatima, Portugal, on ‘Mary Unique Cooperator in the Redemption’ (Gagnon and Aponte 2005: x). Subsequently these cardinals petitioned Benedict XVI to proclaim Mary as the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity; the Coredemptrix with Jesus the Redeemer; the Mediatrix of all graces with Jesus, the one Mediator; and Advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race.
The calls for a dogmatic proclamation of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces and/or Coredemptrix have been criticized by theologians within and outside the Catholic Church. In the sixteenth century, the Protestants objected not only to Mary’s universal mediation of grace but to the invocation of Mary and the saints in prayer (Hauke 2004: 47). Some Catholic theologians, such as Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672–1750), raised doubts about Mary’s universal mediation of grace (O’Carroll 2000: 261). Most Catholic theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, believed that Mary’s universal distribution of grace was ‘certain’, and popes from the eighteenth century onwards also endorsed this position (Hauke 2004: 47).
The recent efforts to proclaim Mary as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces have raised ecumenical concerns. Some Protestants and Anglicans believe these titles put into question the ‘unique mediatorship of Christ or the sufficiency of his redemptive act’ (Dulles 2008: 256). Eastern Orthodox Christians—although more willing than Protestants to accept Mary’s co-redemptive role and her mediation of grace—generally oppose a papal proclamation of these as dogma (Dulles 2008: 256). Some Catholic theologians have also expressed reservations about the title Coredemptrix, including Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger (Ratzinger with Seewald 2002: 306) and Cardinal Gerhard Müller (Müller with Granados 2017: 133).
One objection to Mary’s mediation of all grace draws on 1 Tim. 2:5, which says there is ‘one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus’. Advocates of Mary’s universal mediation respond by noting that 1 Tim. 2:5 is only affirming Christ as ‘the principal and self-sufficient Mediator’, which is demonstrated by St Paul’s reference to Moses as ‘mediator’ in Gal. 3:19 (Carol 1957: 416). Others respond by pointing to ‘St Thomas Aquinas’ distinction between Christ’s perfect, principal, and independent mediation, and the mediation of others dependent on Christ’ (Dodd 2012: 303–4).31
Others object to Mary’s universal mediation of grace because she could not have mediated the grace she received that preserved her from all stain of sin. One response to this is that when Christ’s merits were applied to Mary to preserve her from sin they were complete with respect to her but not with respect to the rest of humanity. Her universal mediation of grace, therefore, refers to her cooperation with Christ in the redemption of all others (Carol 1957: 418). Another response is that Christ included two intentions during his passion on the Cross: in the one intention he redeemed his Mother and ‘gave over to her the entire fruit of the Redemption’ and, in the second intention, ‘in union with the Virgin’s will, he gained for us redemption’ (Hauke 2004: 124).
Some, however, object to the concept of Mary being the ‘Coredemptrix’ of her own salvation. One response is to propose two phases of Christ’s redemptive act. In one and the same act, as the primary Redeemer he redeemed Mary, but then in the second phase of the redemptive act, he included Mary’s secondary and dependent association with his offering. Christ, therefore, redeems humanity primarily by himself and then secondarily with his Mother in order to associate her as ‘the New Eve’ with his work of redemption (Dodd 2012: 314). None of this is by absolute necessity. Instead, it flows from Christ’s desire to associate his Mother with his work in redemption in a real but dependent way. Mary’s merit is not condign but congruous and dependent.
Others object to Mary’s mediation of grace during the Old Covenant as well as her mediation of sanctifying grace and the graces of the sacraments. Still others believe that Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces obscures the mediation of grace by the Holy Spirit and the Church (Dodd 2012: 300–45). The response is that Old Testament graces are mediated by the Incarnate Word by anticipation, and they, therefore, include the mediation of Mary, who is the Mother of the Word Incarnate. The same response applies to other graces that involve the mediation of Christ, viz. sanctifying grace and sacramental graces. If these graces come via the mediation of the Word made flesh, they necessarily involve the mediation of the Mother of the Incarnate Word. In response to the objection that Mary’s mediation threatens the mediation of the Holy Spirit or the mediation of the Church, theologians emphasize Mary’s intimate union with the Holy Spirit and the Church in the mediation of graces.
Some theologians believe clarification is needed as to whether Mary’s universal mediation of grace is found primarily in her cooperation in the Incarnation (mediatio in universali) or whether her mediation of all graces is by her direct intercession in heaven (mediatio in speciali). Mary’s universal mediation in the first sense would seem to be certain, but her mediation in the second sense some regard as only ‘pius and probable’ (Ott 2018: 229).
There is no doubt that Mary, as the Mother of the Redeemer, is associated with Christ in the work of redemption. There is also a strong tradition affirming her role as a Mediatrix of grace with and under her divine Son. Theologians are exploring the topics of Marian co-redemption and Marian mediation more seriously now. Whether the Catholic magisterium will respond with a dogmatic proclamation is difficult to predict.
With regard to the prospect of a dogmatic definition, there seem to be at present three basic groups of Catholics. In the first group are those who for theological and ecumenical reasons oppose or minimize the notions of Marian co-redemption and mediation of all grace. These especially object to the title ‘Coredemptrix’, and they think it is improper to speak of Mary as the ‘Mediatrix of all graces’. In the second group are those who accept Marian co-redemption and mediation of grace, but they believe these notions need more study and clarification before a dogmatic declaration can be made. In the third group are those who believe it would greatly benefit the Church to have either a formal statement or definition of Mary as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces. They believe there is a sufficient basis in Scripture and tradition for such a declaration. They also think such a declaration would help to clarify certain terms and concepts and also help the faithful know the full truth of Mary’s role in the mystery of redemption and her ongoing mediation of grace in the life of the Church.