Skip to the text
Ember
PT

Chapter VI. Mary’s Universal Mediation during her Earthly Existence

We shall sce first of all in what this mediation consists and what are its principal characteristics. After that we shall examine the two ways in which Mary exercised her mediation during her life on earth, by her merits and her satisfaction.

Article I Mary’s UNIVERSAL MEDIATION IN GENERAL

Our Holy Mother the Church approved during the pontificate of Benedict XV the proper Mass and Office of Mary, Mediatrix of all Graces.1 Many theologians consider that the doctrine of Mary’s universal mediation is sufficiently contained in the deposit of revelation to be one day proposed solemnly as an object of faith by the infallible Church. It is taught by the ordinary magisterium of the Church through the liturgy, through encyclical letters, through pastoral letters, in preaching, and in the works of theologians approved by the Church. Let us see first what is meant by this mediation and then enquire if it is affirmed by tradition and proved by theology.

What is meant by Mary's Universal Mediation?

St Thomas says, speaking of the mediation of the Saviour (Ila, q. 26, a. 1): ‘It pertains to the office of a mediator between God and men to unite them.’ That is, as he explains

  1. Cf, the decree of January 21st, 1921, of the Sacred Congregation of Rites: ‘De Festo Beatae Mariae Virginis Mediatricis omnium gratiarum.’ in the following article, the mediator offers to God the prayers of men, and most particularly, sacrifice which is the principal act of the virtue of religion, and distributes as well to men God’s sanctifying gifts, light from on high and grace. There is, thus, a double movement in mediation: one upwards in the form of prayer and sacrifice, and the other downwards in the form of God's gifts to men.

The office of mediator belongs fully only to Jesus, the Man-God, Who alone could reconcile us with God by offering Him, on behalf of men, the infinite sacrifice of the Cross, which is perpetuated in Holy Mass. He alone, as Head of Mankind, could merit for us in justice the grace of salvation and apply it to those who do not reject His saving action. It is as man that He is mediator, but as a Man in Whom humanity is united hypostatically to the Word and endowed with the fulness of grace, the grace of Headship, which overflows on men. As St Paul puts it: ‘For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave Himself for a redemption for all, a testimony in due times’ (I Tim. ii, 5-6).

But, St Thomas adds (loc. cit.): ‘there is no reason why there should not be, after Christ, other secondary mediators between God and men, who co-operate in uniting them in a ministerial and dispositive manner.’ Such mediators dispose men for the action of the principal Mediator, or transmit it, but always in dependence on His merits.

The prophets and priests of the Old Testament were mediators of this kind, for they announced the Saviour to the chosen people by offering sacrifices which were types of the great sacrifice of the Cross. The priests of the New Testament may also be spoken of as mediators between God and men, for they are the ministers of the supreme Mediator, offering sacrifice in His Name, and administering the sacraments.

The question arises, is Mary, in subordination to and in dependence on the merits of Christ, universal mediatrix for all men from the time of the coming of the Saviour, in regard to obtaining and distributing all graces, both in general and in particular? Does it not appear that she is? Nor is her role precisely that of a minister, but that of an associate in the redemptive work, in the words of St Albert already quoted.

Though non-catholics answer the question with a denial, the christian sense of the faithful, formed for years by the liturgy, which is one of the voices of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, has no hesitation in maintaining that, by the very fact of her being Mother of the Redeemer, all the indications are that Mary is universal mediatrix, for she finds herself placed between God and men, and more particularly between her Son and men.

Since she is a creature she is, of course, altogether below God Incarnate. But at the same time she is raised far above men by the grace of the divine maternity, which is of the hypostatic order, and by the fulness of grace which she received even from her Immaculate Conception. Hence, the mediation attributed by the liturgy and ca christian sense of the faithful to Mary is, strictly speaking, subordinated to that of Jesus and not co-ordinated; her mediation depends completely on the merits of the Universal Mediator. Nor is her mediation necessary (for that of Jesus is superabundant and needs no complement): it has however been willed by God as a kind of radiation of the Saviour’s mediation, and of all radiations the most perfect. The Church regards it as most useful and efficacious to obtain from God all that we need to lead us directly or indirectly to salvation and perfection. Last of all, Mary’s mediation is perpetual and extends to all men, and to all graces without pe ices ieee whatever.

The above is the precise sense in which universal mediation is attributed to Mary in the liturgy, in the Feast of Mary Mediatrix, and by the theologians who have recently treated the question at great length.

The Testimony of Tradition

Mary’s mediation was affirmed in a general and implicit way from the earliest centuries by the use of the titles, the

New Eve, the Mother of the Living. There is all the more’ reason for so understanding tradition in that the titles were attributed to her not solely because she gave birth TR to the Saviour but because she co-operated morally in His redemptive work, especially by uniting herself very intimately to the sacrifice of the Cross.? From the 4th century onwards, and notably in the sth century, the Fathers affirm clearly that Mary intercedes for us, that all the benefits and helps to salvation come to us through her, by her intervention and her special protection. From the same time too she is called mediatrix between God and men or between Christ and us. Recent studies have thrown much light on this point.3

The antithesis between Eve, cause of death, and Mary, cause of salvation for all men is repeated by St Cyril of Jerusalem,4 St Epiphanius,5 St Jerome,® St John Chrysostom.7 The following invocation of St Ephrem deserves to be quoted in full: ‘Hail, most excellent mediatrix of God and men, hail most efficacious reconciler of the whole world.’8

St Augustine speaks of Mary as mother of all the members of our Head, Jesus Christ. He tells us that by her charity she co-operated in the spiritual birth of all the faithful who are

  1. Cf. St. Justin, Dial., 100; P. G., t. VI, col. 711; St Irenaeus, Conir. haer., IIl, xxi, 4; V, xix, I: P. G., t. VII, col. 958 sqq., 1175; Tertullian, De carne Christi, 17; P. L., t. Il, col. 782.

  2. Cf. Bittremieux, De mediatione universali B. Mariae Virginis, 1926; Marialia, 1936; Dublanchy in Dict. de Théol. Cath. also Marie Médiatrice in La Vie Spirituelle, 1921-22. Bover, S.J., La Mediación universal de la Segunda Eva en la Tradición patristica, Madrid, 1923-1924. Frietoff, O.P., Maria alma socia Christi mediatoris, 1936. Merkelbach, Mariologia, 1939, pp. 309-323. Génevois, O.P., La maternité spirituelle de Marie en sainte Irenée, Revue Thomiste, 1935. Galtier, S.J., La Vierge qui nous régénère, Rech. de sc. rel. 1914.

  3. Hom. in sanctum Pascha, 2; P. G., t. LV, col. 193 and in Gen., M, hom. XVII, I; P. G., t. LIII, col. 143.

  4. Opera omnia, edit. Assemani, Rome, 1740, t. Ill, graecolat., col. 528 sqq., 531 s99., 551; in Lamy’s edit. II p. $47 and t. I, proleg., p. xlix.

‘Christ's members.’ St Peter Clhrysologus says that Mary is the mother of all the living by grace whereas Eve is the mother, by nature, of all the dying.10 It is evident that he considers Mary as associated with the divine plan for our redemption.

From the 8th century we may quote the Venerable Bede.11 St Andrew of Crete calls Mary Mediatrix of grace, dispenser and cause of life.12 St Germanus of Constantinople says that no one has been saved without the co-operation of the Mother of God.13 The title of mediatrix is given by St John Damascene also, who asserts that we owe to her all the benefits conferred on us by Jesus.14

In the 9th century we find St Peter Damien teaching that nothing is accomplished in the work of our redemption without her.15 The teaching of St Anselm,16 Eadmer,17 and St Bernard in the 12th century is the same. St Bernard speaks of Mary as: gratiae inventrix, mediatrix, salutis restauratrix saeculorum.18

From the middle of the 12th century the explicit affirmation of Mary’s co-operation in our redemption becomes quite common. Her co-operation is looked on as consummated by her consent to her sacrifice at the Annunciation, and its accomplishment on Calvary. Among names that may be cited are those of Arnold of Chartres, Richard of

  1. Homil. I in fest. Annunc. and hom. I in fest. Visit.; P. L., t. XCIV. col, 9, 16.

  2. In Nativit. B. M., hom. IV, and in Dormit. S. M., Il; P. G., t. XCVII, cols. 813 and 1108.

  3. In dormit. B. M., hom. I, 3, 8, 12; Il, 16; P. G., t. XCVI, cols. 705, 713, 717, 744.

  4. Ep. 174; P. L., t. CLXXXII, col. 333; Super Missus est, hom. IV, 8; P. L., t. CLXXXII, c. 83.

St Victor, St Albert the Great,19 and Richard of Saint- Laurent. St Thomas seems to be of the same opinion.?° It is found quite explicitly.in St Bernadine of Siena, St Antonine,21 Suarez22, Bossuet,23 and St Alphonsus. St Grignon de Montfort is one of those who, in the 18th century, did the most to spread the doctrine by bringing out its practical conclusions.24

In the encyclical Ad Diem Illum, Pius X stated that Mary is the all-powerful mediatrix of the world before her Son: ‘Totius terrarum orbis potentissima apud Unigenitum Filium suum mediatrix et conciliatrix.’ The title of mediatrix has been consecrated by the institution of the feast of Mary, Mediatrix of all graces, on January 21st, 1921.

Theological Arguments

The theological arguments invoked by the Fathers and still more explicitly by theologians are principally the following:

Mary deserves the title of universal mediatrix, subordinated to the Redeemer, if she is an intermediary between Him and men, presenting to Him their prayers and obtaining benefits from Him for them. But that is precisely Mary's role. For, though a creature, she reaches by her divine maternity to the frontiers of the divinity, and she has received a fulness of grace which is intended to overflow on us. She has, too, co-operated in saving us by consenting

  1. Mariale, q. 42. He terms Mary the coadjutrix et socia Christi.

  2. He says that on the day of the Annunciation Mary gave her consent in the name of all humanity, loco totius humanae naturae. Cf. also his Expos. Salut. Angelicae.

  3. He terms Mary adjutrix nostrae redemptionis et mater nostrae spiritualis regenerationis. Summa Theol., part IV, tit. XV, c. xiv, 2.

  4. In Ilam S. Thomae, t. II, disp. XXIII, sect. I, n, 4. He shows from tradition that Mary merited de congruo what Christ merited de condigno. This is also the teaching of John of Cartagena, Novatus, Chr. de Véga, Théophile Raynaud, etc.

  5. 4th sermon for the Feast of the Annunciation. Cf. also the index to his works under the word Marie.

  6. Treatise of True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, chs. I and IL freely to be the Mother of the Saviour and by uniting herself as intimately as possible to His sacrifice. We shall see later that she has merited and made satisfaction for us, and we know from the teaching of the Church that she continues to intercede for us so as to obtain for us all graces that contribute to our salvation. These different offices pertain to the exercise of her maternity, as we have already seen.

Thus Jesus is the principal and perfect Mediator, in dependence on Whose merits—and they are superabundant and sufficient of themselves—Mary exercises her subordinate mediation.25 But Mary’s mediation has nevertheless been willed by God because of our weakness and because God wished to honour her by allowing her the exercise of causality in the order of salvation and sanctification.

The work of redemption proceeds therefore entirely from God as First Cause of grace, entirely from Jesus as principal and perfect Mediator, and entirely from Mary as subordinate mediatrix. These three causes are not partial and co-ordinate —as are three men who drag the same load—but total and subordinated: the second acts under the influence of the first, and the third under the influence of the second. An example which may make the point clear is that of the fruit which proceeds entirely from God the Author of nature, entirely from the tree, and entirely from the branch on which it grows. It does not proceed in its different parts from different causes: neither is our redemption the work in part of the Divinity, in part of the Humanity, and in part of Mary.26

  1. jon merits needed no complement on the part of Mary; that is why she is compared in the mystical body to the neck which unites the head to the members. She is compared also with an aqueduct through which grace passes to us.

  2. For the moment we are attributing to Mary only moral causality which, as we shall see, is exercised by merit, satisfaction and intercession. However, it is probable, as we shall show later, that she exercises a physical instrumental = as well in the spiritual order for the transmission and production of the graces which we receive through her, This is no more than a simple probability, but we believe it cannot be denied with running the risk of diminishing Mary’s influence, which must be greater than is commonly believed. Cf. infra pp. 203-215.

It is worth noting how becoming it is that Mary who was redeemed by the Saviour in a most excellent manner and preserved from all sin, original and actual, should co-operate in this way in our justification and our final sap

Mary’s mediation is of a much higher order than that of the saints, for she alone has given us the Saviour, she alone was so intimately united to the sacrifice of the Cross, she alone is universal mediatrix for all mankind and (as we shall see later) for all graces in particular—even for that grace which is of all the most particular, the grace of the present moment which assures our fidelity from instant to instant.

We shall grasp this universality better when we shall have seen that Mary merited de congruo everything that Jesus merited in strict justice, that she made satisfaction (ex convenientia) for us in union with Him, and that as regards the application of the fruits of the redemption, she continues to intercede for each one of us, and more particularly for those who invoke her, so that of all the particular graces granted to us, none are granted de facto without her intervention,

Article I Mary’s Merits For Us Nature and Extent of Her Merits

The exercise of her functions as universal mediatrix was not confined for Our Lady to the period of her glory in heaven: she exercised them on earth, as far as the acquisition of grace was concerned, by co-operating in our redemption by her merits and her satisfaction. In that she followed the example of Jesus Who was Mediator during His life on earth, most of all by His death on Calvary: in fact, His mediation on earth was the foundation of His mediation in heaven, whence, by His intercession, He transmits to us the fruits of His sacrifice.

MARY’S MERITS FOR US 179 The Three Kinds of Merit

Merit in general means a right to a reward: the meritorious act confers a right to a reward even though it does not itself produce it. Supernatural merit—which presupposes habitual grace and charity—is a right to a supernatural reward. It is distinguished from satisfaction, which has as purpose to expiate the insult offered the Divine majesty by sin and to render God once more propitious. It is distinguished also from prayer, for even a sinner in the state of mortal sin can pray with the help of actual grace. Besides, unlike merit, prayer appeals not to the divine justice but to the divine mercy. Even when a person is in the state of grace the meritorious value of his prayer should be distinguished from its value considered precisely as prayer. Considered as prayer—that is, from the point of view of impctratory value —it can obtain grace, such as that of final perseverance, which cannot be merited in the strict sense of the term.

There are three kinds of merit. The highest kind, which was that of the Incarnate Word, is merit which is perfectly and fully worthy of a reward, perfecte de condigno: the act of charity of the God-Man, since it is the act of a divine Person, is at least equal in value to the reward, even when evaluated in strict justice. Even when the reward was not for Himself, but for us, Jesus could still merit it in strict justice since He was Head of the human race through the fulness of grace which had been given Him that we might all receive of it.

The second kind of merit is that of the person in the state of grace. It is a dogma of faith27 that every person in the state of grace and endowed with the use of reason and free will, and who is as yet a member of the Church militant, can merit an increase of charity and of eternal life with a merit commonly termed de condigno. The force of the term (which may be translated literally ‘of worthiness’) is that such a person is capable of performing acts which are really worthy of a supernatural reward, not in the sense that they are fully

  1. Council of Trent, Session VI, can. 32: Denz. 842, equal in value to it, but in the sense that they are proportionate to it since they proceed from habitual grace which is the germ or beginning of that eternal life which God has promised to those who keep His commandments. Merit de condigno is a right in distributive justice, though not in the full rigour of justice. The connection between merit de condigno and justice throws light on certain texts of scripture such as those in which eternal life is spoken of as a crown of justice,28 a retribution made according to each one’s work,29 or the recompense of a labour which God could not pass over. 30

A person in the state of grace cannot, however, merit grace de condigno for another—for example, the conversion of a sinner or another’s advance in charity. The reason is that Christ alone has been constituted Head of the human race to regenerate men and to lead them to salvation.3! In other words the merit de condigno of the just, and even of Mary, is incommunicable. One person can, however, merit grace for another by a lower kind of merit—that known as de congruo proprie, or merit of becomingness. Merit de congruo is founded on charity or friendship with God rather than on justice: theologians say that it is founded on the rights of friendship, in jure amicabili. St Thomas explains it thus: “Since a man in the state of grace does God’s will, it is in keeping with the proprieties (or rights) of friendship that God should do his will in saving another person (for his sake)—although it can happen that at times there will be an obstacle on the side of de other person.’32 In this way, a good christian mother, for example can, by her good works, her love of God and of her neighbour, merit the conversion of her son de congruo proprie. St Monica obtained the conversion of St Augustine by that kind of merit as well as by her prayers:

  1. Cf. Acts iv, 12: “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.’ Cf. also Ia Hae, q. 114, a. 6.

MARY’S MERITS FOR US 181 ae son of so many tears’, said St Ambrose, ‘could not be ost.

This third kind of merit is that of Mary in our regard. It should be noted that it is merit in the proper sense of the term since it is founded on the rights of friendship and presupposes the state of grace in the person meriting. The reason why it is truly and properly merit, and not something else or something less, is that the idea of merit is analogical, and admits therefore of differing senses which bear some proportion to one another. Thus there are, lower than the merits of Christ, and lower than the merits whereby the just man merits for himself, the merits de congruo proprie, founded not on the rights of strict equality of justice, nor even on the rights of distributive justice, but on the rights of friendship.33

There is a fourth member of the merit group which is merit in an improper sense of the term. It is that of the sinner in the state of mortal sin who prays to God under the impulse of an actual grace, His prayer has impetratory value; it addresses itself to God’s mercy and not to His justice, and it is founded not on the rights of friendship but on the actual grace which moves the sinner to pray. It is merit de congruo improprie—merit of becomingness in the wide or improper sense.

Mary’s Merit de Congruo for Us

Once the nature of merit de congruo has been explained, it is at once evident that Mary could merit for us de congruo just as any mother can merit for her children. Hence, it is in no way astonishing that from the 16th century on theologians have taught that Mary merited for us de congruo proprie all that Jesus merited for us de condigno. Suarez is very explicit. He shows, by appealing to a wide tradition, that though Mary merited nothing for us de condigno, since she was not constituted head of the Church, she co-operated in

33- The term merit de condigno has sometimes been translated as merit properly so called. This is a mistake, since it implies that merit de congruo proprie is not properly merit at all.

our salvation by her merits de congruo.34 John of Cartagena,35 Novatus,36 Chr. de Véga,37 Théophile Raynaud,38 George of Rhodes,39 all teach the same as Suarez. Later theologians follow this teaching also. Among the 19th and 2oth century theologians the following may be mentioned: Ventura, Scheeben, Terrien, Billot, Lépicier, Campana, Hugon, Bittremicux, Merkelbach, Friethoff, and all those who have written in recent years on the universal mediation of the Blessed Virgin.

We may conclude this list of authorities with the words of Pius X in his encyclical Ad Diem Illum, Feb. 2nd, 1904: ‘Mary... since she surpasses all creatures in holiness and union with Christ, and since she has been associated by Him with the work of salvation, has merited for us de congruo, as it is termed, all that Christ merited for us de condigno, and is the principal minister in the distribution of graces.’40

As has been remarked4! there is a double difference between Mary’s merit de congruo for others and that of ordinary souls in the state of grace. The first difference is that Mary merited all graces, and not some only, in that way. The

  1. In Iam P. S. Thomae, t. I, disp. XXIII, sect. I, no. 4: ‘Quamvis B. Virgo nec nos redemerit, nec aliquid de condigno nobis meruerit, tamen, impetrando, merendo de congruo, et ad incarnationem Christi suo modo co-operando, ad salutem nostram aliquo modo co-operata est.... Et eisdem modis saepissime sancti Patres B. Virgini attribuunt, quod nostrae fuerit salutis causa.’ He then proceeds to quote St Irenaeus, St Augustine, St Fulgentius, St Anselm, St Bernard, St Germanus, St Ephrem, St Peter Damien, Richard of St Victor, Innocent III, in support of his thesis.

  2. Opera, t. VI, pp. 224 sqq. Raynaud stresses the point that the redemption as accomplished by Jesus is of an infinite and superabundant value and does not need any complement from Mary’s side.

  3. Disp. theol. schol., tr. VIIL, De Deipara virgine Maria, t. Il, p. 265, Lyon, 1661. George of Rhodes states that Mary merited for us de congruo all that Jesus merited for us de condigno.

  4. Denz. 3034. Concerning this text cf Merkelbach, Mariologia, p- 328. 41. Merkelbach, ib., p. 329.

second is that she merited the acquisition of grace as well as its application, since, by her union with Jesus on Calvary, she had a share in the act of redemption itself even before interceding for us in heaven.

The doctrine expressed by Pius X in the words quoted just now are ae an application to Mary of the commonly received doctrine regarding the nature and condition of merit de congruo proprie. Some theologians look on it as morally certain; others as a certain theological conclusion; others as a truth formally and implicitly revealed and capable of being defined as a dogma of faith. In our opinion, it is at least a certain theological conclusion. We shall return to the point later (pp. 217-222).

What is the Extension of Mary's Merit for Us?

To answer this question it is enough to recall what Jesus has merited for us, since Mary has been associated with Him in the whole work of redemption and since the theologians —and their teaching has the authority of Pius X to support it—teach in general that Mary merited de congruo all that Jesus merited for us de condigno.42 But Jesus merited in justice all the graces required that all men should really be enabled to observe the commandments, even though in point of fact they do not observe them. He merited also all efficacious graces and their effects—that is to say, the effective accomplishment by men of the divine will. He merited finally for the elect all the effects of their predestination: their christian vocation, their justification, dha final perseverance, and their eternal glory.43

  1. Under the Old Dispensation graces were given—as it were on credit—in view of the future merits of Jesus, with which were associated those of Mary. Thus, Mary’s merits de congruo extended by anticipation to the just wi the Old Dispensation.

  2. Cf. Ila, q. 24, a. 4, and the commentaries. Though we cannot merit our fina! perseverance for ourselves (it can be obtained by prayer, the value of which is distinct from merit, as we have shown). Our Blessed Lord has merited it in justice for those who will persevere and Our Lady has merited it also de congruo.

It follows that Mary has merited all these same graces de congruo and that she ae for their application now in heaven and distributes them.44 y% yA

The foregoing points show in what an elevated, intimate and all-embracing manner Mary is our spiritual mother, Mother of all men. We can suspect too what her care must be for those who are not content to invoke her at distant intervals but who consecrate themselves to her that she may lead them to intimacy with Jesus, as St Grignon de Montfort explains so admirably in the following extract from his Treatise on True Devotion.

Treatise, Ch. I, a. 2: ‘Mary is necessary for men that they may arrive at their final end. (Devotion to Mary is not therefore a work of supererogation, as is devotion to any particular saints: it is necessary, and when it is true, faithful and persevering, it is a sign of predestination.) That devotion is still more necessary for those who are called to special perfection, and I do not think it possible that anyone can arrive at intimate union with Our Blessed Lord and perfect fidelity to the Holy Ghost without a great spirit of union with Our Blessed Lady and of dependence on her assistance . . . | have said that this will happen especially towards the end of the world . . . because then the Most High and His Holy Mother will need to form great saints. ... These saints great, full of grace and zeal, will be chosen to oppose the enemies of God who will rage on every side, and they will be singularly devout to Our Lady, enlightened by her, nourished by her, led by her spirit, sustained by her and kept under her protection, in such wise that they fight with one hand and build

  1. It follows from the principles enunciated in this section that Jesus has merited for Mary all the effects of her predestination, except the divine maternity. The reason for this exception is that to merit it would be equivalent to meriting the Incarnation, that is, to meriting Himself. Among the graces He merited for Mary are included: her initial fulness of grace, her preservation from original sin, all the actual graces by which the initial fulness was increased, final perseverance, and glory.

with the other. ... That will arouse many enemies, but it will also yield many victories and much sos to God.’

This noble spiritual doctrine, the fruits of which we see daily more clearly, is the normal consequence, on the level of contemplation and intimate union with God, of the doctrine admitted by all theologians: that Mary has merited de congruo all that Jesus has merited for men de condigno, and especially has she merited for the elect the effects of their predestination.

Article III Tue SUFFERINGS OF Mary As Co-REDEMPTRIX How Did Mary Make Satisfaction For Us?

The purpose of satisfaction is to repair the offence offered to God and to make Him once more favourable to the sinner. The offence offered by mortal sin has about it a certain infinity, since offence is measured by the dignity of the person offended. Mortal sin, by turning the sinner away from God, his final end, denies in practice to God His infinite rights as the Supreme Good and destroys His reign in souls,

It follows from this that only the Incarnate Word could offer to the Father perfect and adequate satisfaction for the offence of mortal sin.45 For satisfaction to be perfect, it must proceed from a love and oblation which are as pleasing to God as, or more pleasing than, all sins united are dis- leasing to Him.46 But every act of charity elicited by Jesus had these qualities for His Divine Person gave them infinite

  1. It is easier to knock down than to build up. The offence’ of a creature’s morta! sin has a certain infinity from the side of the Person offended, whereas the creature’s love 1s limited because of the limitations of its principle. Besides, mortal sin destroys the life of grace, and once that has been lost. we cannot be restored to it by ourselves.

satisfactory and meritorious value. A meritorious work becomes satisfactory (or one of reparation and expiation) when there is something painful about it. Hence, in offering His life in the midst of the greatest physical and moral sufferings, Jesus offered satisfaction of an infinite and superabundant value to His Father. He alone could make satisfaction in strict justice since the value of satisfaction like that of merit comes from the person, and the Person of Jesus, being divine, was of infinite dignity.

It was, however, possible to associate a satisfaction of becomingness (de congruo) to Jesus’ satisfaction, just as a merit of becomingness was associated to His merit. In explaining this point, we shall show all the more clearly the depth and depth and extent of Mary’s sufferings.

Mary offered for us a satisfaction of becomingness (de convenientia) which was the greatest in value after that of her Son.

When a meritorious work is in some way painful it has value as satisfaction as well. Thus theologians commonly teach, following upon what has been explained in the previous section, that Mary satisfied for all sins de congruo in everything in which Jesus satisfied de condigno. Mary offered God a satisfaction which it was becoming that He should accept: Jesus satisfied for us in strict justice.

As Mother of the Redeemer, Mary was closely united to Jesus by perfect conformity of will, by humility, by poverty, by suffering—and most particularly by her compassion on Calvary. That is what is meant when it is said that she offered satisfaction along with Him. Her satisfaction derives its value from her dignity as Mother of God, from her great charity, from the fact that there was no fault in herself which needed to be expiated, and from the intensity of her sufferings.

The Fathers treat of this when they speak of Mary ‘standing’ at the foot of the Cross, as St John says (John xix, 25). They recall the words of Simeon, ‘Thy own soul a sword shall pierce’, and they show that Mary suffered in proportion to her love for her crucified Son; in proportion also to the cruelty of His executioners, and the atrocity of the torments inflicted on Him Who was Innocence itself.47 The liturgy also has taught many generations of the faithful that Mary merited the title of Queen of Martyrs by her most painful martyrdom of heart. That is the lesson of the Feasts of the Compassion of the Blessed Virgin and of the Seven Dolours, as well as of the Stabat Mater.

Leo XIII summed up this doctrine in the statement that Mary was associated with Jesus in the painful work of the redemption of mankind.48 Pius X calls her ‘the repairer of the fallen world’49 and continues to show how she was united to the priesthood of her Son: ‘Not only because she consented to become the mother of the only Son of God so as to make sacrifice for the salvation of men possible, but also in the fact that she accepted the mission of protecting and nourishing the Lamb of sacrifice, and when the time came led Him to the altar of immolation—in this also must we find Mary’s glory. Mary’s community of life and sufferings with her Son was never broken off. To her as to Him may be applied the words of the prophet: My life is passed in dolours and my days in groanings. To conclude this list of Papal pronouncements we may refer to the words of Benedict XV: ‘In uniting herself to the Passion and Death of her Son she suffered almost unto death; as far as it depended on her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be said that with Him she redeemed the human race.’50

  1. Cf. St Ephrem, Oratio ad Virginem; St Ambrose, De Instit. Virg., c. 7; Epist. 25 ad Eccles, Vercell.; St Bernard, Sermo de Passione, Sermo de duodecim stellis, Sermo Dom. infra Oct. Ass.; St Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 42; St Bonaventure, Sermo I de B. V.; St Laurence Justinian, Sermo de nativ. Virginis.

  2. Encycl. Jucunda Semper, Sept. 8th, 1894: “Consors cum Christo existit laboriosae pro humano genere expiationis.’

  3. Encyc). Ad diem illum, Feb. 2nd, 1904: “Reparatrix perditi orbis.’

  4. Cf. Denz. 3034, no. 4. In this same place reference is made to the words of Pius XI: ‘Virgo perdolens redemptionis opus Jesu Christo participavit’, and to a decree of the Holy Ofice praising the custom of

The Depth and Fruitfulness of Mary's Sufferings as Co-Redemptrix

Mary’s sufferings have the character of satisfaction from the fact that like Jesus and in union with Him, she suffered because of sin or of the offence it offers to God. This suffering of hers was measured by her love of God Whom sin offended, by her love of Jesus crucified for our sins, and by her love of us whom sin had brought to spiritual ruin, In other words, it was measured by her fulness of grace, which had never ceased to increase from the time of the Immaculate Conception. Already Mary had merited more by the easiest acts than the martyrs in their torments because of her greater love. What must have been the value of her sufferings at the foot of the Cross, granted the understanding she then had of the mystery of the Redemption!

In the spiritual light which then flooded her soul, Mary saw that all souls are called to sing the glory of God. Every soul is called to be as it were a ray of the divinity, a spiritual ray of knowledge and love, for our minds are made to know God and our wills to love Him. But though the heavens tell God’s glory unfailingly, thousands of de turn from their Creator. Instead of that divine radiation, instead of God’s exterior glory and His Kingdom, there are found in countless souls the three wounds called by St John the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life: living as if there were no desirable love except carnal love, no glory except that of fame and honour, and no Lord and Master, no aed except man himself.

adding after the name of Jesus that of His Mother, our Co-Redemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The same Congregation has indulgenced (Jan. 22nd, 1914) the prayer in which Mary is addressed as Co-Redemptrix of the human race. Cf. Dict. de Théol. Cath., art. Marie, col. 2396: ‘Since the word “Co-Redemptrix” signifies of itself simple co-operation in the work of redemption, and since it has received in the theological usage of centuries the very precise meaning of secondary and dependent cooperation .. . there can be no serious objection to its use, on condition that it be accompanied by some expression indicating that Mary’s role in this co-operation is secondary and dependent.’

Mary saw all that evil, all those wounds in souls, just as we see the evils and wounds of bodies. Her fulness of grace had given her an immense capacity to suffer from the greatest of evils, sin. She i ie as much as she loved God and souls: God offended by sin and souls whom it rendered worthy of eternal damnation. Most of all did Mary see the crime of deicide prepared in hearts and brought to execution: she saw the cont paroxysm of hatred of Him Who is the Light and the Author of salvation.

To understand her sufferings, we must think too of her love, both natural and supernatural, of her only Son Whom she not only loved but, in the literal sense of the term, adored since He was her God. She had conceived Him miraculously. She loved Him with the love of a virgin— the purest, richest and most tender charity that has ever been a mother’s. Nor was her grief diminished by ignorance of oyog that might make it more acute. She knew the reason for the crucifixion. She knew the hatred of the Jews, His chosen people—her people. She knew that it was all for sinners.

From the moment when Simeon foretold the Passion— already so clearly prophesied by Isaias—and her compassion, she offered and did not cease to offer Him Who would be Priest and Victim, and herselfin union with Him. This painful oblation was renewed over years. Of old, an angel had descended to prevent Abraham’s immolation of his son Isaac. But no angel came to prevent the immolation of Jesus.

he

In his sermon on the Compassion of Our Lady, we read the following magnificent words of Bossuet: ‘It is the will of the Eternal Father that Mary should not only be immolated with the Innocent Victim and nailed to the Cross by the nails that pierce Him, but should as well be associated with the mystery which is accomplished by His death. . . . Three things occur in the sacrifice of Our Saviour and constitute its perfection. There are the sufferings by which His humanity was crushed. There 1s His resignation to the will of His Father by which He humbly offered Himself. There is the fruitfulness by which He brings us to the life of grace by dying Himself. He suffers as a victim who must be bruised and ; iei He submits as a priest who sacrifices freely; voluntarie sacrificabo tibi (Ps. liii, 8). Finally He brings us to life by His sufferings as the Father of a new ee sae

‘Mary stands near the Cross. With what eyes she contemplates her Son all covered with blood, all covered with wounds, in form now hardly a man! The sight is enough to cause her death. If she draws near to that altar, it is to be immolated there: and there, in fact, does she feel Simeon’s sword pierce her heart. . . .

‘But did her dolours overcome her, did her grief cast her to the ground? Stabat juxta crucem: she stood by the Cross. The sword pierced her heart but did not take away her strength of soul: her constancy equals her affliction, and her face is the face of one no less resigned than afflicted.

‘What remains then but that Jesus Who sees her feel His sufferings and imitate His resignation should have given her a share in His fruitfulness. It is with that thought that He gave her John to be her son: Woman, behold thy son. Woman, who suffer with me, be fruitful with me, be the mother of my children whom I give you unreservedly in the person of this disciple; I give them life by my sufferings, and sharing in the bitterness that is mine your affliction will make you fruitful.’

In the sermon, of which the paragraphs I have quoted are the opening, Bossuet develops the three main points outlined and Ke that Mary’s love for Jesus was enough to make her a martyr: ‘One Cross was enough for the wellbeloved Son and the mother.’ She is nailed to the Cross by her love for Him, Without a special grace she would have died of her agony. P at gave birth to Jesus without pain: but she brings the faithful forth in the most cruel suffering. ‘At what price she has bought them! They have cost her her only Son. She can be mother of christians only by giving her Son to death. O

THE SUFFERINGS OF MARY AS CO-REDEMPTRIX Ig!

agonising fruitfulness! It was the will of the Eternal Father that the adoptive sons should be born by the death of the True Son. . .. What man would adopt at this price and give his son for the sake of strangers? But that is what the Eternal Father did. We have Jesus’ word for it: God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son (John iii, 16). ‘(Mary) is the Eve of the New Testament and the mother of all the faithful; but that is to be at the price of her Firstborn. United to the Eternal Father she must offer His Son and hers to death. It is for that purpose that providence has brought her to the foot of the Cross. She is there to immolate her Son that men may have life. . . . She becomes mother of christians at the cost of an immeasurable grief... .’ We should never forget what we have cost Mary. The thought will lead to true contrition for our sins, The regeneration of a has cost Jesus and Mary more than we can ever

3 We may conclude this section by noting that Mary the

Co-Redemptrix has given us birth at the foot of the Cross by the greatest act of faith, hope and love that was possible to her on such an occasion. One may even say that her act of faith was the greatest ever clicited, since Jesus had not the virtue of faith but the beatific vision. In that dark hour when the faith of the Apostles themselves seemed to waver, when Jesus seemed vanquished and His work annihilated,‘Mary did not cease for an instant to believe that her Son was the Saviour of mankind, and that in three days He would rise again as He had foretold. When He uttered His last words ‘It is consummated’ Mary understood in the fulness of her faith that the work of salvation had been accomplished by - His most painful immolation. The evening before, Jesus has “instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice and the christian priesthood; she sees now something of the influence the sacrifice of the Cross will exercise. She knows that Jesus is the true Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world, that He

“> is the conqueror of sin and the demon, and that ın three days He will conquer death, sin’s consequence. She sees the hand of God where even the -most believing see only darkness and desolation. Hers was the greatest act of faith ever elicited by a creature, a faith higher than that of the angels when they were as yet in their period of trial.

Calvary saw too her supreme act of hope at a moment when everything seemed lost. She grasped the force of the words oka to the good thief: “This day thou shalt be with me in paradise’; heaven, she realised, was about to be open for the elect.

It was finally her supreme act of charity: so to love God as to offer His only Son in the most painful agony: to love God above everything at the moment when He tried her in the highest and deepest of her loves, even in the object of her adoration—and that because of our sins.

It is true that the theological virtues grew in Mary up to the time of her death, for these acts of faith, hope and charity were not broken off but continued in her as a kind of state. They even expanded in the succeeding calm, like a river which becomes more powerful and majestic as it nears the ocean. The point which theology wishes to stress is not that of Mary’s subsequent growth in the virtues but the equality between her sacrifice and her merits at the foot of the Cross itself: both her sacrifice and her merits were of inestimable value and their fruitfulness, while not approaching that of Christ’s sacrifice and merits, surpasses anything the human tongue can utter. Theologians express this by saying that Mary made satisfaction for us de congruo in proportion to her immense charity, while Jesus made satisfaction de condigno.

Even the saints who have been most closely associated with the sufferings of the Saviour did not enter as Mary did into the most secret depths of the Passion. St Catherine de Ricci had every Friday during twelve years an ecstasy of pain which lasted twenty-eight hours and during which she lived over again all the sufferings of the way of the Cross. But even such sufferings fell far short of those of Mary.

Mary’s heart suffered in sympathy with all the agony of the Sacred Heart to such a point that she would have died of the experience had she not been especially strengthened.

Thereby she became the consoler of the afflicted, for she had suffered more than all, and patroness of a happy death. We have no idea how fruitful these sufferings of hers have been during twenty centuries.

Mary’s Participation as Co-Redemptrix in the Priesthood of Christ

Though Mary may be termed Co-Redemptrix in the sense we have explained, there can be no question of calling her a priest in the strict sense of the word since she has not received the priestly character and cannot offer Holy Mass nor give sacramental absolution. But, as we have seen already, her divine maternity is a greater dignity than the priesthood of the ordained priest in the sense that it is more to give Our Saviour His human nature than to make His body present in the Blessed Eucharist. Mary has given us the Priest of the sacrifice of the Cross, the Principal Priest of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Victim offered on the altar.

It is more also, and more perfect, to offer her only Son and her God on the Cross as Mary did, by offering herself with Him in community of suffering, than to make the body of Our Lord present and to offer It on the altar as the priest does at Holy Mass.

We must affirm, too, as has recently a careful theologian who has devoted years to the study of these questions5! that ‘jt is a certain theological conclusion that Mary co-operated in some way in the principal act of Jesus’ priesthood, by giving, as the divine plan required, her consent to the sacrifice of the Cross as it was accomplished by the Saviour’. In another context he writes: ‘If we consider only certain immediate effects of the priest’s action such as the eucharistic consecration or the remission of sins in the sacrament of

penance, it is true that the priest can do certain things which Mary, not having the priestly power, cannot. But to look at the matter so as not to compare dignities but merely particular effects which are produced by a power which Mary lacks and which do not necessarily indicate a higher dignity. 52

But even if Mary cannot, for the reasons given, be spoken of as priest in the strict sense of the term, it remains true, as M. Olier has said, that she has received the fulness of the spirit of the riesthood, which is the spirit of Christ the Redeemer. That is the reason why she is called Co-Redemptrix, a title which, like that of Mother of God, implies a higher dignity than that of the christian priesthood.53

Mary’s participation in the immolation and oblation of Jesus, Priest and Victim, cannot be better summed up than in the words of the Stabat Mater of the Franciscan Jacopone de Todi (1228-1386).

The Stabat Mater manifests in a singularly striking manner that supernatural contemplation of the mystery of Christ crucified is part of the normal way of holiness. In precise and ardent words it speaks of the wounding of the Saviour’s Heart and shows the intimate and persuasive manner in which Mary leads us to Him. Not only does Mary lead us to the divine intimacy, in a sense she produces it in us: that is what the repetition of the imperative ‘Fac’ in the following strophes brings out:

Eia Mater, fons amoris, O Thou Mother! Fount of Me sentire vim doloris love! Fac, ut tecum lugeam. Touch my spirit from above, Make my heart with thine accord! 52. Ib., col. 2366.

Fac ut ardeat cor meum

In amando Christum Deum,

Ut sibi complaceam.

Fac ut portem Christi mortem,

Passionis fac corsortem

Et plagas recolere.

Fac me plagis vulnerari Fac me cruce inebriati, Et cruore Filii.

Make me feel as thou hast felt;

Make my soul to glow and melt

With the love of Christ my Lord.

Let me, to my latest breath, In my body fear the death Of that dying Son of thine.

Wounded with His every wound,

Steep my soul till it hath swoon’d

In His very blood away.

—Fr Caswall

This is the prayer of a soul which, under a special inspiration, wishes to know ın a spiritual way the wound of love and to be associated in these painful mysteries of adoring reparation as were John and the holy women on Calvary— and Peter, too, when he shed his bitter tears. Those tears of adoration and sorrow are what the Stabat asks for in the following strophes:

Fac me tecum pie flere, Crucifixo condolere, Donec ego vixero.

Juxta crucem tecum stare, Et me ribi sociare In planctu desidero.

Let me mingle tears with thee,

Mourning Him who mourn’d for me,

All the days that I may live.

By the cross with thee to stay. There with thee to weep and ray, Is all I ask of thee to give. —Fr Caswall

196 MARY'S UNIVERSAL MEDIATION AND OUR INTERIOR FIFE

Mary exercised therefore a universal mediation on earth by meriting de congruo all that Jesus merited de condigno and also by okie similar satisfaction in union with Him. For both Jesus and Mary, the mediation exercised on earth is the foundation of that now exercised in heaven of which we shall speak in the next chapter.

Chapter 7 of 11