IV. Nature and Modalities of Mary’s Coredemption

The advocates of Mary’s Coredemption sensu proprio are morally unanimous on the following phases of the doctrine: 1. Our Lady’s free consent to become the Mother of the Redeemer as such constituted a true, formal co-operation in the Redemption; 2. Together with Christ and under Him, Mary satisfied (at least de congruo) for the sins of mankind, thus removing the obstacle to our reconciliation with God in actu primo; 3. Together with Christ and under Him, Our Lady merited (at least de congruo) the reinstatement of the human race in the friendship of God in actu primo; 4. Together with Christ and under Him, Our Lady offered up the divine Victim to the Eternal Father, particularly on Calvary, for the reconciliation of man with God in actu primo; 5. Our Lady’s merits and satisfactions, pre-eminently those resulting from her bitter compassion, were accepted by the Eternal Father together with the merits and satisfactions of Christ as having the nature of a secondary ransom or redemptive price for our liberation from the slavery of Satan; 6. Any one of these functions, and a fortiori the combination of them, confers on Our Blessed Lady a strict right to be styled “Co-redemptrix” of the human race sensu vero et proprio.

The area of disagreement is not as wide as it might appear on the surface. It may be reduced to the three following points: 1. the nature of Mary’s coredemptive merit; 2. the nature of her sacrifice; and 3. the nature of her influence or causality with reference to the redemptive actions of Christ.

As regards the first point, it may be well to recall that merit, meaning “a right to a reward,” is generally divided in condign and congruous. The former supposes an equality between the meritorious action and its reward; the latter is based on fittingness coupled with the generosity of the one granting the reward. Condign merit may be of two kinds: either ex toto rigore justitiae, if there is equality not only between the meritorious work and the reward, but also between the persons giving and meriting the reward; or ex mera condignitate, if the latter equality is wanting. (2)

While theologians are agreed that Christ alone merited our Redemption de condigno ex toto rigore justitiae, they are divided as to the nature of Our Lady’s coredemptive merit. The majority still believes that hers was only a merit de congruo, inasmuch as it was fitting that God should reward her unique co-operation with the Redeemer in our behalf. (3) A second group proposes that it be designated by a new name, namely, merit de digno or de super-congruo. (4) This would differ from our merit, not in species, but in degree, and also insofar as the object of Mary’s merit is the Redemption itself, while the object of our merit is only the application of the Redemption. Others, finally, uphold the theory that Our Lady merited our Redemption de condigno; not, of course, ex toto rigore justitiae, but only ex mera condignitate, in the sense explained above.

Condensed in a few words, the reasoning supporting this last theory is this: Our Lady was not a mere member of the Mystical Body; she co-operated in our Redemption in an official capacity, as a public person, as a representative of mankind. Specifically, since God had predestined her to regenerate the human race to the supernatural life of grace, her merit in the acquisition of that grace must have had an “ecumenical” character in behalf of the whole Mystical Body. In this sense we may speak of her merits having an intrinsic ordination to the salvation of all. Furthermore, dignified to an ineffable degree by her singular grace and the divine Maternity, her merit must have been likewise proportionate to the reward to be received. If this utterly unique function of Mary in the redemptive economy was the result of a positive divine decree, then surely God owed it to Himself to reward her merits not only out of fittingness, but in justice.

This opinion, which until a few decades ago was looked upon with considerable suspicion, (5) is now finding increasing support among contemporary theologians. True, the reasoning process varies according to authors, (6) but their conclusions coincide with the one indicated above, which, incidentally, expresses also our personal preference on the subject.

The second point of divergence concerns the nature of Mary’s co-operation by way of sacrifice. That Our Lady had a positive share in our Redemption through her offering of the Victim on Calvary is clearly taught by recent Pontiffs (7) and, of course, admitted by all. The disagreement begins when theologians attempt to determine whether or not that offering constituted a sacrificial act sensu proprio. The question is particularly delicate because of the related discussion concerning the so-called priesthood of Mary. A good deal has been written in recent years in an effort to clarify the issues involved and to reconcile conflicting opinions; unfortunately, the noble endeavor has not been wholly successful.

In view of the multiplicity of terms employed by the various authors in this connection, it is difficult to group their views under clearly defined headings. In general, however, two currents of thought are easily discernible. The first, represented by such well-known writers as Seiler, Petazzi, Sauras, and Llamera, claims that Our Lady’s oblation constituted a sacrificial and sacerdotal act in a true and proper sense. (8) They explain that, while Mary did not receive the sacramental character of Orders, nevertheless she was invested with a true priesthood, analogous to the substantial priesthood of Christ and far superior not only to the mystical priesthood shared by all Christians, but also to the ministerial priesthood of those properly ordained. If we believe Prof. Bover, Mary’s elevation to the divine Motherhood was already an “ordination to the priesthood.” (9) According to Sauras, her “ordination” was constituted by the unique grace of her spiritual maternity, analogously to the capital grace of the Savior. (10)

The other current, diametrically opposed to the first, reflects the views of the majority. Among the more articulate representatives of this trend we may mention Garcia Garces, Roschini, and Friethoff. (11) They readily agree with their adversaries that Mary’s oblation on Calvary, so often recalled in recent papal documents, constituted a true co-operation in the Savior’s redemptive sacrifice; but they emphatically deny—and rightly so—that this co-operation shared the formality of a true and proper sacrifice. The fundamental reason for this position would seem to be that, in order to offer a sacrifice sensu proprio, one must be a priest sensu proprio, and Our Lady was not. Her priesthood is of the same kind as that of all the baptized, although of a higher degree because of her singular grace and dignity. Perhaps it is for this very reason that the Holy See has repeatedly frowned on the use of the title “Virgin-Priest” as applied to the Blessed Virgin. (12) Incidentally, this controversial title, so tenaciously vindicated by some, does in no way help our proper understanding of Mary’s share in the sacrifice of her Son. It adds nothing but confusion to an already difficult and thorny question. In our humble opinion it should be banished from our Catholic literature, both theological and devotional. The extremely cautious attitude of the Holy See in this respect should be a warning to all. (13)

As mentioned before, the third point of discrepancy concerns the modality of Mary’s immediate co-operation with Christ in the Redemption itself. A survey of contemporary theologians discloses at least three different approaches in this connection. According to some, Our Lady not only did not place any obstacles to prevent the redemptive mission of her Son, but she also encouraged, entreated, and urged Him to lay down His life for our salvation. This moral causality on her part exerted an immediate influence on the will of Christ and directly determined the positing of His redemptive acts. This seems to be the position of Merkelbach, Seiler, and Strater. (14) Merkelbach, for example, writes that “as the Son was moved to obey the command of His Father (to suffer and die), so He could not help being influenced likewise by His Mother’s consent. . . . Through her consent and desire, Mary morally influenced her Son and disposed Him to accomplish the Redemption of the human race….” (15)

According to a second group of theologians, (16) Our Lady’s immediate co-operation should be explained rather in the sense that her own merits and satisfactions were accepted by the Eternal Father together with (and subordinate to) the merits and satisfactions of Christ for the selfsame purpose: the reconciliation of the human race in actu primo. In other words, the total effect was produced by the joint causality of the Redeemer and the Coredemptrix; both acquired a right to the graces which would save all men; both constituted (though in a different way) the total principle of salvation. Hence, Our Lady’s co-operation was redemptive, not because it directly influenced and determined Christ’s redemptive will or His theandric actions, but rather because the actions of Christ conferred a redemptive value on Mary’s co-operation, thus enabling it to concur in the production of the same effect. (17)

A third theory, not necessarily incompatible with the second, was proposed a few years ago by the Hungarian Jesuit, Tiburtius Gallus. According to the distinguished theologian, the Blessed Virgin, being the true Mother of Christ, had a strict right to protect her Son’s life from unjust aggressors. By surrendering this right, she removed an impediment to her Son’s sacrificial immolation, and thus furnished the material principle for the redemptive act. The obedience of Christ to His Father’s will decreeing His sacrifice has a twofold causality: first, by a priority of nature, it elevates and actuates Mary’s obedience for the same purpose; second, it becomes, together with Mary’s obedience, the efficient cause of the entire redemptive work. Hence, our Redemption depends on Christ’s renunciation as a formal element, and on Mary’s renunciation as a material element. The latter, Gallus explains, is not merely accessory; it is necessary inasmuch as it is required by divine disposition. The two elements constitute one single moral cause of the Redemption. Furthermore, since Christ’s obedience imprints its soteriological character on Mary’s co-operation, her merits in our behalf become coredemptive de condigno, and not merely de congruo. (18)

If we were to express our personal preference in this delicate question, we would say that, while the first and third theories are not devoid of appealing features, nevertheless, the second seems better calculated to safeguard the reality of Mary’s Coredemption, without in the least compromising the intangible rights of the unique Redeemer.

V. Difficulties and Solutions

In the course of the foregoing exposé we have had occasion to recall that, while the doctrine of Our Lady’s Coredemption enjoys the support of most contemporary theologians, nevertheless there are some authors who still find it difficult, if not altogether impossible, to conciliate this teaching with other irrevocable data of divine revelation. Their difficulties and pointed observations deserve a fair and dispassionate hearing at this time. The formulation of adequate answers and solutions should furnish us with an additional opportunity to shed further light on some of the apparently nebulous issues involved.

The first objection is based on Sacred Scripture, particularly on the well-known text of St. Paul: “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all.” (19) That the Apostle is here openly proclaiming the oneness of the Redeemer to the exclusion of any other, acting even in a secondary capacity, is clear from the parallelism which he establishes with the oneness of God. Just as the oneness of God is incompatible with the existence of secondary gods, so is the oneness of the Mediator (Redeemer) incompatible with the existence of secondary mediators or redeemers. So argues Prof. Werner Goossens. (20)

The objection is not new. It has been raised—and answered—countless times, particularly since the sixteenth century. It may be observed, in general, that if the oneness of the Mediator were as absolute as Goossens contends, it would exclude likewise the mediatorial activity of all the saints in the sphere of the subjective Redemption. Quod nimis probat, nihil probat. Even in the light of the parallelism stressed by the author, one could perhaps point out that, just as the oneness of God does not exclude our sharing His divine nature through sanctifying grace, neither does the oneness of the Mediator exclude an analogous participation of Our Lady in His mediatorial role. (21) That St. Paul is here speaking only of the principal and self-sufficient Mediator is evident from the fact that he himself elsewhere bestows this very title on Moses. (22) Besides, if the Pauline passage had the exclusive sense claimed by Goossens, would the Magisterium of the Church, the sole official interpreter of Holy Scripture, allow the vast majority of theologians to continue teaching the doctrine of Mary’s Coredemption? Surely, the Popes would have at least sounded a note of warning. Instead, they have repeatedly shown favor to the doctrine, as we indicated above.

A second difficulty springs from the undeniable theological axiom: Principium meriti non cadit sub merito, that is to say, the principle or cause of merit cannot be the result or effect of merit. The implications of this axiom, which have been fully exploited in recent years, particularly by Prof. Lennerz, may be summarized as follows: In order to co-operate in the Redemption, Mary must first be redeemed and in possession of grace which will render her co-operation acceptable to God. Now that redemption of Mary, that grace conferred on her, is, of course, the effect of Christ’s redemptive work. Therefore, the latter must have been already completed before Mary received its effect. If so, how could she aid Christ in producing something which was already produced”? (23)

The answer generally given to the above objection was that Our Lady had been redeemed in a very unique manner, namely, through a preservative grace which enabled her to co-operate with her Son at the time He was bringing about our Redemption. To which Father Lennerz promptly retorted that this was nothing but a subterfuge which left the original difficulty intact. The reason is simple. If Mary received a preservative grace at the time of her Immaculate Conception, it was in view of the future merits of Christ; it was because the future merits of the Savior were foreseen by God and applied to Mary by anticipation. Obviously, this presupposes that the Redemption was foreseen as having been already accomplished; now, since Mary had not as yet co-operated therein, the Redemption would still be incomplete, still unfinished. In which hypothesis the same Redemption would have to be considered as accomplished and unaccomplished at one and the same time, which is contradictory and absurd. (24)

Father Lennerz’ reasoning, which, incidentally, has now been popularized for the benefit of English-speaking readers by Canon George D. Smith, (25) made a profound impression in some quarters. It constitutes, admittedly, the gravest speculative difficulty militating against Our Lady’s Coredemption. Nevertheless, the advocates of this doctrine do not consider it insurmountable. An adequate solution may be formulated as follows:

The alleged contradiction indicated by Lennerz presupposes that we postulate one and the same Redemption as being complete and incomplete under one and the same respect. Now this supposition is false. In our theory, when the Redemption was applied to Mary it was already complete as regards herself only; it was still unaccomplished as regards the rest of mankind. Once Mary has received the effect of Christ’s Redemption, she is able to co-operate with Him in the Redemption of all others. Is this perhaps equivalent to introducing two Redemptions, as Canon Smith fears? Not at all. There is only one Redemption for Mary and for the rest of men. But in that one Redemption we may distinguish two signa rationis, as the Scholastics would say, two modes of operation taking place at one and the same time, but made possible only by a priority of nature. In this hypothesis, Christ redeems Mary, and her alone, with a preservative Redemption; then, together with her, in signo posteriori rationis, He redeems the rest of mankind with a liberative Redemption. This, we repeat, does not correspond to two numerically distinct Redemptions, but rather to a twofold intention on the part of the Redeemer; and this twofold intention, in turn, corresponds to a twofold acceptance of the Redemption on the part of the Eternal Father: first, with a logical priority, God deigns to accept Christ’s Redemption for Mary alone; then, once Mary is redeemed, God accepts Christ’s Redemption with Mary’s co-operation for the rest of the human race. (26) Since the redemptive value of Christ’s whole life was eternally present in the mind of God, there is no room for a chronological “before” and “after” which would, of course, compromise the absolute oneness of the objective Redemption.

At this juncture the adversaries point out that the above solution, while unassailable in itself, is nevertheless a gratuitous hypothesis without any basis in the sources of revelation. To which Father Dillenschneider rightly answers: “It is not at all necessary that this explanation find a formal support in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, provided that it be not opposed by either, and that it be justified by the belief, sufficiently accredited in the Church, concerning a direct cooperation of Mary in our objective Redemption. Now, such a belief does exist, and it would be vain to deny it. This being so, if the thesis of Mary’s immediate Coredemption is sufficiently warranted, and we feel that it is, then the explanation which shows its harmony with the preredemption of the Immaculate Virgin is likewise warranted.” (27) The same author further recalls that when the Franciscan Duns Scotus (d. 1308) had recourse to his “preredemption” theory in order to reconcile the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with the dogma of the universality of Redemption, he could not claim any scriptural or traditional data in its favor. And yet, his explanation was accepted and definitively introduced in Catholic theology for the good reason that it alone solved the major difficulty of trying to harmonize the dogma of universal Redemption with the living tradition of the Church relative to Our Lady’s original sanctity. (28)

Still reluctant to endorse the doctrine, the adversaries have recourse to a further objection. Granted, they say, that, theoretically, the thesis involves no contradiction. In point of fact, however, we are faced with the following serious dilemma: either Mary’s co-operation adds something positive to the Redemption wrought by Christ, or it does not. If it does, it would enhance the value of Christ’s merits and satisfactions, which is unthinkable. If it does not, then it is superfluous and useless. In either case it should be discarded.

We reply: Since the merits and satisfactions of the God-man possessed an infinite value and a superabundant efficacy, they could not possibly be enhanced by those of Our Blessed Lady. Nevertheless, her co-operation, without being an intrinsic “addition” to the work of her Son, constituted a new title in the eyes of God for the granting of pardon to the human race. Her merits and satisfactions are accepted by God as an integral part of the universal redemptive economy, as a positive contribution made by a purely human representative of mankind. As such they become a new reason moving God (humanly speaking) to cancel our debt in actu primo.

In this connection Father Dillenschneider borrows an example from Christology to illustrate the point. We know, he writes, that from the first moment of the Incarnation and in virtue of the Hypostatic Union, the God-Man had an initial exigency to the glorification of His body. On the other hand, we know that this bodily glorification was also merited by His sacred Passion and death. Now, are we to suppose that this merit argues to a deficiency in the previous connatural right to glorification? Not at all. After the Passion, the bodily glorification is due to Christ by a twofold title: the Hypostatic Union and the infinite merit acquired through His sufferings. (29) Something similar may be said concerning the reconciliation of the world in actu primo. It is granted by God in view of a double title, without the implication that one of them (constituted by the Marian element) betrays any deficiency in the other.

We have an analogous situation in the sphere of the subjective Redemption. Whenever we co-operate with divine grace to perform some salutary act, our co-operation adds nothing to the intrinsic value of Christ’s grace. On the contrary, the former is entirely dependent upon the latter. And yet, that share of ours is not at all superfluous and useless; indeed, it is necessary to produce the salutary act because God has decreed that the work of our sanctification should be not only divine but human as well. “Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te justificat sine te.” (30) If this is possible in the realm of subjective Redemption, why not also in the order of objective Redemption? Is not the divine element in one case as incapable of being intrinsically enhanced as in the other?

It may be asked further: Why did God decree to grant our reconciliation in view of this twofold title? The answer would seem to lie in the very nature of the redemptive alliance between God and the human race. That alliance is frequently described in Sacred Scripture as a mystical espousal. Since the Redeemer’s bride is the community of the redeemed, it is fitting that the latter be actively represented on Calvary at the climax of this mystical marriage. Now, if we know from the living tradition of the Church that Our Blessed Lady is both the intimate associate of the Savior in the entire process of salvation and also the prototype of the community to be redeemed, is it not reasonable to suppose that God wished her actively to represent that community at the most solemn moment of the spiritual nuptials? (31) Is not Mary’s official function as the New Eve to offer atonement for our sins together with the New Adam? (32) And if almighty God Himself freely appointed her to that official role, did He not owe it to Himself to accept her meritorious co-operation as a new title for our Redemption in actu primo?

A final attempt was recently made by Father Lennerz to weaken our position. If God—he wrote in substance—freely decreed not to accept Christ’s Redemption without Mary’s co-operation, the latter must be said to belong to the very essence of the redemptive work. In this event, the work of Christ alone, without Mary’s co-operation, is not sufficient to redeem the human race. (33)

The above reasoning, based as it is on an obvious equivocation, is not at all conclusive. Its underlying weakness is the author’s confusion of that which is necessary with that which is essential. Our Lady’s co-operation is hypothetically necessary because it was decreed by God, but it remains nonessential. Hence, God accepts Christ’s merits and satisfactions as an essential element of our Redemption, and at the same time He deigns to accept Our Lady’s merits and satisfactions as a nonessential (though necessary), secondary, and totally subordinate element of the same Redemption. The point here is that God’s acceptance does in no way alter the intrinsic nature of either element.

Having disposed of these speculative stumbling blocks, let us now turn our attention to a difficulty of a more practical character: the one sometimes raised against the title “Coredemptrix” itself. In the opinion of some, this title had better be banished from Catholic theology for the following reasons. First of all, it is a “novelty,” unknown before the past century. (34) Then again, the very nature of the word is apt to mislead the uninitiated, to engender confusion in the minds of those who are less enlightened and even merely prejudiced. After all, the prefix “co” in the word Coredemptrix does seem to place Our Lady on an equal footing with her Son in the redemptive economy. (35) Finally, it has the disadvantage that it can only be explained by being explained away. (36)

Since we have on previous occasions, and indeed quite at length, vindicated the legitimacy of this Marian title, an answer per summa capita would seem to suffice at this time.

First of all, the fact that a word is new does not necessarily militate against its legitimacy, especially if it is used to convey an old idea. There was a time in history when words like transubstantiation, omoousios, theotokos, and others were new, and yet they were subsequently consecrated by ecclesiastical usage. Second, it is not correct to state that the title “Coredemptrix” was first introduced in Catholic theology during the nineteenth century. Actually, it can be traced back to at least the fourteenth century in a liturgical book preserved with other manuscripts at St. Peter’s in Salzburg. (37)

As regards the structure of the term “Coredemptrix” we may point out that the prefix “co” is the exact equivalent of the Latin cum which means “with,” not “equal,” as every grammarian knows. For this reason St. Paul could rightly say that we are God’s “co-workers” in the process of our sanctification, without in the least equating the efficacy of God’s grace with that of our own co-operation. (38) Besides, if the prefix “co” means “equal,” what then does the word “co-equal” mean? Hence we see no justified fear that the title “Coredemptrix” will mislead and confuse the less enlightened and the prejudiced. A sensible way to prevent that confusion would seem to be to instruct such people so as to make them more enlightened and less prejudiced.

Last, the claim that the expression “Coredemptrix” can only be explained by being explained away does not correspond to actual facts. If by that term we meant only that Our Lady brought the Redeemer into the world and that she now intercedes for us in heaven, we surely would be explaining it away. But when we style Mary our Coredemptrix we mean exactly what we say, namely, that “she together with Christ redeemed the human race.” (39) It is true, of course, that this apparently bold statement must be understood and explained in a sense which is compatible with other undeniable truths of our Catholic faith; that is to say, we must emphasize that Our Lady’s share in the redemptive process was entirely secondary, nonessential, and subordinate to the unique causality of the Savior, to whose merits she owed the very possibility of being His partner. But we ask: Is that “explaining it away”?

We have an analogous case in connection with the word “infallibility,” to mention but one example. Etymologically, as it stands, this term means simply inability to err. When we apply it to the Holy Father we must, of necessity, narrow down its meaning to a highly restricted and specific area. Once the required limitations are clearly drawn, it is obvious that the Pope can err on a variety of subjects. Now we ask: When a Catholic theologian thus explains Papal infallibility, is he merely “explaining it away”? Not at all. The Church has a perfect right to select any term she deems suitable to convey a given doctrine, and to attach to that term a specific and restricted meaning. Something similar may be said concerning the title “Coredemptrix” which has been widely used in the Church for several centuries, and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Holy See in recent years. (40) In our humble opinion, this fact alone more than sufficiently warrants its legitimacy.

Conclusion

The expose undertaken in these pages has been an attempt to familiarize our readers with the very essence of the Catholic position relative to Mary’s role in the process of man’s Redemption, and with the theological justification of that position. We have not only surveyed contemporary attitudes and opinions on this question; we have also inquired into the past, searching the written and spoken word of God. Such an investigation is necessary in order to ascertain whether and to what extent the Catholic teaching of today may be considered an authentic development of the original data furnished by the sources of revelation, or rather a deviation from, and a corruption of, that primitive deposit of divine truth. The final decision on this point must be left, not to the professional theologians (much less to the historian), but solely and exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church. The theologian may, to be sure, evaluate the result of his investigation and formulate positive or negative conclusions accordingly; but these must always be of a tentative nature, always subject to the final judgment of the Ecclesia docens. In the absence of a definitive and infallible pronouncement of the Magisterium concerning Our Lady’s Coredemption, we have endeavored to discover at least the “mind” of that teaching authority as represented by recent Pontiffs. If our interpretation of their repeated utterances on this vital problem is sound and objective, then it would seem safe to conclude that the current doctrine of Mary’s direct co-operation in the objective Redemption bears the unmistakable mark of a genuinely Catholic truth authentically developed from the original deposit of revelation. Incidentally, this conclusion is quite generally accepted among contemporary theologians, although it is not always formulated in so many words.

May we now advance a step further and speak of the doctrine’s definability? Several eminent scholars have declared themselves favorable in this respect. (41) We can think of no solid reason militating against their stand. Indeed, if our appraisal of the copious testimonies gathered here and elsewhere is valid and cogent, then the extant data constitute an overwhelming array of evidence pointing to the revealed character of this doctrine. Theologians may and will, of course, debate the further question as to whether it was revealed formally or only virtually. While such discussions are undoubtedly legitimate and often fruitful, nevertheless, it is well to bear in mind that the solution of this question is not at all necessary in order to proceed to a dogmatic definition. The course adopted by the Supreme Pontiff with regard to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption is an evident proof of it. Whether or not the Vicar of Christ will some day consider our doctrine sufficiently well established to be proclaimed an article of Catholic faith remains, of course, pure conjecture; but it is our fervent hope and humble prayer that the decision will be made in a not too distant future.

This article was excerpted from Mariology, vol. 2, Bruce Publishing, 1957.

Notes

(1) In Joan., tract. 98, 2.

(2) We follow the subdivision of condign merit proposed by Father M. Llamera, O.P., in Alma Socia Christi, Vol. 1 (Romae, 1951), p. 245. Cf. also M. Cuervo, O.P., La cooperation de Maria en el misterio de nuestra salud…, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 2, 1943, pp. 137-139.

(3) Cf., among others, C. Friethoff, O.P., De alma Socia Christi Mediatoris (Romae, 1936), pp. 75-77; R- Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 516-519; M.J. Nicolas, O.P., La doctrine de la Coredemption dans le cadre de la doctrine thomiste de la Redemption, in Revue Thomiste, Vol. 46, 1947, pp. 26-27.

(4) Cf. C. Dillenschneider, Pour une Coredemption bien comprise, in Marianum, Vol. n, 1949, pp. 242-245; D. Bertetto, S.D.B., Maria Corredentrice (Alba, 1951) p. 106; G. M. Roschini, O.S.M., On the Nature of the Corredemptive Merit of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in Marianum, Vol. 15, 1953, pp. 278-287.

(5) Cf. for example, the recriminations of E. Amort, Controversia de Revelationibus Agredanis… (Augustae Vindelicorum, 1749), pp. XXIX-XXX.

(6) Cf. J. Lebon, Comment je conçois, j’etablis et je defends la doctrine de la Mediation mariale, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol. 16, 1939, pp. 674-678; A. Fernandez, O.P., De Mediatione B. Virginis secundum doctrinam D. Thomae, in La Ciencia Tomista, Vol. 38, 1938, pp. 145-170; C. Balic, art. cit.; L. Colomer, O.F.M., Cooperation meritoria de la Virgen a la Redencion, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 2, 1943, pp. 155-177; M. Cuervo, art. cit.; J. A. de Aldama, S.J., Cooperation de Maria a la Redencion…, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 2, 1943, pp. 179-193; E. Sauras, O.P., Causalidad de la cooperation de Maria…, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 2, 1943, pp. 319-358; F. Vacas, O.P., Maria Corredentora pudo merecer de condigno ex condignitate, in Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas, Vol. 18, 1940, pp. 719-729; M. Llamera, O.P., El merito maternal corredentivo de Maria, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 11, 1951, pp. 83-140. On the lively discussion conducted by Father Llamera on this point at the recent International Marian Congress in Rome, cf. Alma Socia Christi, Vol. 1 (Romae, 1951), pp. 243-255.

(7) Cf. above, footnotes 14, 18, 23 in Part I.

(8) H. Seiler, op. cit., pp. 14-32, 131, 138 ff.; G. M. Petazzi, S.J., Teologia Mariana (Venezia, s.a.), pp. 43-45; E. Sauras, Fue sacerdotal la gratia de Maria? in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 7, 1948, pp. 387-424; M. Llamera, Maria Madre Corredentora…, ibid., pp. 166-167.

(9) J. M. Bover, S.J., Maria Mediadora universal… (Madrid, 1946), pp. 351-354.

(10) E. Sauras, O.P., art. cit., p. 424.

(11) N. Garcia Garces, C.M.F., Cooperation de Maria a nuestra Redencion a modo de sacrificio, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 2, 1943, pp. 195-247;. id., La Santisima Virgen y el Sacerdocio, ibid., Vol. 10, 1950, pp. 61-104 (an excellent refutation of Llamera’s views); G. M. Roschini, L’essenza del sacrificio eucaristico . . . (Roma, 1936); id., Ancora sull’essenza del sacrificio eucaristico . . . (Rovigo, 1937); id., La Madonna secondo la fede e la teologia, Vol. 2 (Roma, 1953), p. 406; C. Friethoff, op. cit., pp. 139-149.

(12) Cf. R. Laurentin, Le probleme du sacerdoce marial devant le Magistere, in Marianum, Vol. 10, 1948, pp. 160-178. On the whole question of Mary’s “priesthood,” cf. the prodigious investigation undertaken by Laurentin in his Maria, Ecclesia, Sacerdotium; essai sur le developpement d’une idee religieuse (Paris, 1952), and his Marie, l’Eglise et la sacerdoce; etude theologique (Paris, 1953).

For a sound and objective evaluation of Laurentin’s views on the subject, cf. N. Garcia Garces, C.M.F., Maria, la Iglesia y el sacerdocio, in Ephemerides Mariologicae, Vol. 5, 1955, pp. 429-443.

(13) In L’Ami du Clerge, 1928, p. 49, the editors state that they have been requested “by orders from above” to make a public declaration to the effect that “the Holy Office has expressly forbidden the attribution of this title (Virgin-Priest) to the Blessed Virgin.”

(14) B.H. Merkelbach, O.P., Tractatus de Beatissima Virgine Maria . . . (Parisiis, 1939), p. 342; H. Seiler and P. Strater, De modalitate Corredemptionis B. Mariae Virginis, in Gregorianum, Vol. 28, 1947, pp. 293-336, esp. pp. 320-323.

(15) Merkelbach, loc. cit.

(16) D. Bertetto, Maria Corredentrice (Alba, 1951), pp. 23-24, 94-95, 142; R. Gagnebet, O.P., Questions mariales, in Angelicum, Vol. 22, 1945, pp. 169-171; M.J. Nicolas, O.P., La doctrine de la Coredemption dans le cadre de la doctrine thomiste de la Redemption, in Revue Thomiste, Vol. 47, 1947, 20-42; C. Dillenschneider, Le mystere de la Coredemption mariale . . . (Paris, 1951), pp. 159-160. On the somewhat fluctuating position of Dillenschneider, cf. the very pertinent observations of A. Rivera, in Ephemerides Mariologicae, Vol. 3, 1953, pp. 500-501.

(17) In his article De cooperatione qualificata in delictis officialibus, in Periodica de re morali, canonica, liturgica, Vol. 38, 1949, pp. 321-342, the eminent canonist F. Hurth, S.J., suggests the following explanation: Christ alone was charged with the official function to bring about our Redemption through the sacrificial offering demanded by God. He alone (not Mary) wrought our salvation. Mary’s will in no way “influenced” or “determined” the will of her Son to fulfill His redemptive mission. Nevertheless, the Savior deigned to assume His Mother’s will into His own, thus fusing it, as it were, with the internal element of His official function as Redeemer. In this sense we have a true coredemptive co-operation on the part of Mary, without in the least encroaching on the unique prerogative of her Son (cf. esp. p. 339). Father Dillenschneider (op. cit., pp. 14-16) fears that in this theory Our Lady’s Coredemption is diluted almost to the point of losing its very essence. He forgets that in some sections of his book (for example, pp. 17, 60, 88) he himself seems to reduce Mary’s co-operation to the fact that she shared (though officially) in the redemptive fiat of her Son. In all fairness to him, however, we must note that elsewhere (pp. 148-152) Dillenschneider admits considerably more than the mere “co-operation by consent.”

(18) T. Gallus, Ad, B. M. Virginis in Redemptione cooperationem, in Divus Thomas (PL), Vol. 51, 1948, pp. 113-135; id., Mater Dolorosa “principium materiale” Redemptionis objectivae, in Marianum, Vol. 12, 1950, pp. 227-249. To the objections of Dillenschneider against this theory (op. cit., pp. 24-25), Father Gallus has replied recently in a lengthy and noteworthy article: Ad “principium materiale” Redemptionis objectivae, in Divus Thomas (PI.), Vol. 57, 1954, pp. 230-261.

(19) 1 Tim. 2:5. Cf. also Acts 4:12.

(20) W. Goossens, De cooperatione immediata Matris Redemptoris ad redemptionem objectivam (Parisiis, 1939), pp. 30-31.

(21) Cf. Bertetto, op. cit., p. 77; Crisostomo de Pamplona, O.F.M.Cap., Solution de las dificultades contra la Corredencion mariana propiamente dicha, in Estudios Marianos, Vol. 3, 1944, pp. 237-240.

(22) Cf. Gal. 3, 19.

(23) Cf. H. Lennerz, De Beata Virgine, ed. 3 (Romae, 1939), p. 233.

(24) Lennerz, Considerationes de doctrina B. Virginis Mediatricis, in Gregorianum, Vol. 19, 1938, pp. 424-425.

(25) G. D. Smith, Mary’s Part in Our Redemption, rev. ed. (New York, 1954), pp. 92-99.

(26) Cf. F. Tummers, Het mede-verdienen van de h. Maagd in het verlossingswerk, in Bijdragen van de philosophische en theologische Faculteiten der Nederlandsche Jesuiten, Vol. i, 1938, pp. 81-103, esp. p. 93; ibid., pp. 99-101, the author endeavors to explain further how Our Lady could merit the Redemption which was actually the principle of her own merit. In his view, Christ’s Redemption was the cause of Mary’s merit only per modum causae finalis, while Mary’s merits caused the Redemption per modum causae efficientis. Hence, he thinks, the famous objection based on the axiom “principium meriti non cadit sub merito” automatically vanishes. For a critique of this solution, cf. Lennerz, art. cit., pp. 442-444. In his turn, the learned professor of Louvain, Msgr. J. Lebon, proposed a still more radical and novel solution, which may be summarized as follows: Our Lady was both a private and a public person. As a private person, the principle of her merit was indeed the gratia Christi; as a public person, however, the immediate principle of her merit was a gratia Dei, a special grace which did not flow from the Cross and which, therefore, enabled her to merit the Redemption itself. For Lebon the very fact that Mary was the Mother of the Redeemer as such, gave her a true right over the life of the Victim. Her free renunciation of these rights (joined with the renunciation by Christ of His rights over His own life) constituted, by divine disposition, a direct participation in the redemptive act itself. Cf. also the solutions advanced by J. M. Dover, in Redempta et Corredemptrix (Marianum, Vol. 2, 1940, pp. 39-58), and by R. Gagnebet, in Difficultes sur la Coredemption: principes de solution? (In Alma Socia Christi, Vol. 2, 1952, pp. 13-20, esp. pp. 16-18).

(27) Dillenschneider, Pour une Coredemption bien comprise, in Marianum, Vol. n, 1949, pp. 109-110. Cf. H. Seiler, op. cit., pp. 123-131, esp. p. 129.

(28) Dillenschneider, Le mystere de la Coredemption mariale…. p. 162.

(29) Dillenschneider, Marie au service de noire Redemption…. pp. 356-357.

(30) St. Augustine, Sermo 169, cap. 11, n. 13; PL, 38, 923. Cf. Ch. de Koninck, La part de la personne humaine dans l’oeuvre de la Redemption, in Laval Theologique et Philosophique, Vol. 10, 1954, pp. 44-53.

(31) Dillenschneider, Le mystere de la Coredemption mariale . . . , p. 135. Cf. R. Laurentin, Notre Dame et la Messe au service de la paix du Christ (Tournai, 1954), pp. 44-45.

(32) Pius XII, cf. above, footnote 30 in Part I.

(33) H. Lennerz, De cooperatione B. Virginis in ipso opere Redemptionis, in Gregorianum, Vol. 28, 1947, pp. 577-578; also Vol. 29, 1948, p. 141.

(34) Thus Pohle-Preuss, Mariology, 5th ed. (St. Louis, Mo., 1926), pp. 122-123, where we are informed that the term was “invented” by Castelplanio (died in 1872) and Faber (died in 1863).

(35) Thus A. Michel, Mary’s Coredemption, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 122, March, 1950, p. 184.

(36) L. E. Bellanti, S.J., Mary, Coredemptrix and Mediatrix, in Our Blessed Lady, Cambridge Summer School Lectures for 1933 (London, 1934), p. 214.

(37) Cf. above, footnote 85 in Part I. On the history and usage of the term “Coredemptrix” cf. Laurentin, Le titre de Coredemptrice. Etude historique, in Marianum, Vol. 13, 1951, pp. 396-452.

(38) 1 Cor. 3:6-9. Cf. Carol, The Problem of Our Lady’s Coredemption, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 123, July, 1950, pp. 32-51, esp. pp. 34-37.

(39) Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter sodalicia (March 22, 1918), in A.A.S., Vol. 10, 1918, pp. 181-182.

(40) Cf. A.S.S., Vol. 41, 1908, p. 409; Vol. 5, 1913, p. 364; Vol. 6, 1914, p. 108. Cf. Carol, The Holy See and the Title of “Coredemptrix” in The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. 37, April, 1937, pp. 746-748.

(41) Cf., for example, E. Druwe, S.J., La Mediation universelle de Marie, in Maria. Etudes sur le Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), p. 566; C. Friethoff, op. cit., pp. 4-5, 226-227; J. Bittremieux, De Mediatione universali B. M. Virginis quoad gratias (Brugis, 1926), p. 229; J. Lebon, art. cit., pp. 680-681; F. X. Godts, C.Ss.R., De definibilitate Mediationis universalis Deiparae (Bruxellis, 1904); P. Villada, S.J., Por la definicion dogmatica de la Mediacion universal de la Santisima Virgen (Madrid, 1917), pp. 194-195; and countless other authors who teach the same thing, at least equivalently, by their endeavor to show that the thesis is implicitly contained in the sources of revelation, and taught by the Magisterium. In our work De Corredemptione . . . (pp. 589-607) the reader will find numerous statements of bishops who think along the same lines. Particularly worthy of note is the Votum dogmaticum which Bishop J. Th. Laurent, Vicar Apostolic of Hamburg, submitted to the Vatican Council for a definition (cf. p. 593). More recently, on November 26, 1951, a formal Postulatum was presented to the Holy Father by His Eminence, Emmanuel Cardinal Arteaga, Archbishop of Havana, and the entire Cuban hierarchy, requesting the dogmatic definition of Our Lady’s Coredemption, and of her universal Mediation. The document itself is dated October 6, 1951. Since we are privileged to possess a copy of the original (which has not been made public), we can vouch for the fact that the petition urges the Holy Father to define the doctrine of the Coredemption in exactly the same sense vindicated throughout this paper. This represents the first time in history that a step of this nature has been taken by the hierarchy of any country.

“The Lady of all Nations is now permitted to come in order to banish Satan. She comes to announce the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will only now descend upon the earth. But you should say my prayer, the one I gave to the world. Every day and every moment you should think of the prayer the ‘Lady of All Nations’ gave to the world at this time.”

On Friday, March 18, 2011, Texas visionary and stigmatist, Mrs. Janie Garza (also with ecclesiastical approval) received from Our Lady the instruction to re-circulate the May 31, 1955 Amsterdam message throughout the world, as an urgent appeal from the Mother of all Peoples to all the nations to now once again pray daily the Prayer of the Lady of All Nations for a new decent of the Holy Spirit in our in own troubled world situation.

The global crises prophesied by the Lady of All Nations in this 1955 message are now upon is. The Lady of All Nations wishes to bring unity and peace to the world, but it will only happen through the coming of the Holy Spirit as the fruit of our praying the prayer of the Lady of All Nations, and ultimately the proclamation of the dogma of Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

Please find below the “Prayer of the Lady of All Nations” as revealed on February 11, 1951, and the full text of the May 31, 1955 Amsterdam Message. Please do your part in bringing forth a New Descent of the Holy Spirit and a new unity and peace for the world by daily praying this powerful Prayer of the Lady of All Nations:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father,

send now your Spirit over the earth;

let the Holy Spirit live in the hearts of all nations,

that they may be preserved from degeneration, disaster, and war.

May the Lady of All Nations, the Blessed Virgin Mary,

be our Advocate. Amen!

May 31, 1955 Message of the Lady of All Nations

(During Benediction in the church of St Thomas Aquinas.) The Lady says, “Say my prayer.” But because of emotion I am unable to say the prayer at once. Then the Lady says again, “Say my prayer” and she herself starts prompting the prayer” “Lord Jesus Christ..” and makes me continue it.

Now the Lady waits a short while, looks in front of Her and then begins to speak.

“I am standing here as the Lady of All Nations, the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate…”

Here the Lady breaks off; then, as if addressing an invisible crowd in front of Her, begins to speak as follows:
“I have promised to come today, 31st May. The Mother, the Lady of All Nations, is standing here before you. She wants to address the nations today. Listen carefully to my words…”

“I have come to warn the nations: Satan is not yet banished. Nations be warned against the false prophets. The Lady of All Nations is allowed to come every year. She promised to give her sign-this sign has now been given…I said I shall come back, but in a public place. Well then, Nations, this instrument hears the voice of the Lady, so that she may convey Her word to you.”

Here the Lady waits a while, then says,
“Satan is not banished yet. The Lady of All Nations is now permitted to come in order to banish Satan. She comes to announce the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will only now descend over this earth. But you should say my prayer, the one I gave to the world. Every day and every moment you should think of the prayer the Lady of All Nations gave to this world at this time.
How thoroughly Satan holds the world in his clutches, only God knows. He now sends to you, to All the nations, His Mother, the Lady of All Nations. She will vanquish Satan, as has been foretold. She shall place her foot upon Satan¹s head. Nations do not be deceived by false prophets, listen only to HIM, to GOD, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
For the same…Father …is the same…Son (very slowly and with pauses). -
The same… Father and Son …is the same Holy Spirit.”

Then the Lady waits a long time and says,
“You will have to endure a great deal as yet in this century. You, nations of this era, do realize that you are under the protection of the Lady of All Nations, call upon Her as the Advocate; ask Her to stave off all disasters; ask Her to banish all degeneration from this world.
Degeneration breeds disaster. Degeneration generates war. You should ask by means of my Prayer to eject it from this world; you do not know what great value and power this prayer boasts before God! He will grant the requests of His Mother, when She comes to plead for you as Advocate.”

Here the Lady waits a long time before she goes on:

“Great events are impending. You, young people, will see enormous changes; it is the Lady of All Nations that tells you this. She will protect you. She will reign in this age…in this age, in this world, over all Nations, as the Lady. This will be a time of stupendous and awesome inventions; so that even your pastors will stand amazed and will tell you; we too are at our wits’ end. Then take to heart the words the Lady spoke to you on 31st May. The Father knows, and permits, all that will come and pass in the world.”

“Know well that the Holy Spirit is nearer than ever. The Holy Spirit will come now only, if you pray for His coming. He has always been ready; now, however, the time has come.”

“The world has lost its bearings? Well then, nations, put your trust in your Mother, who has never yet forsaken her children. She is allowed to come to you under this new title: Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.”

“Why do you not ask your Holy Father to pronounce the dogma the Lady demands?”
(The Lady pauses during the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. The Lady joins her hands together for a moment, while before and after this, Her hands are extended as in the picture. Directly the Blessing is over, She continues),

“Once the dogma has been pronounced, the Lady of All Nations will give her blessing…Then the Lady of All Nations will bestow peace. She will help you when this dogma has been proclaimed.”

“Great things are about to happen. The world is in the throes of degeneration.
Nations, be mindful of the daily miracle given you by the Lord Jesus Christ. He gave it to you, so that you might experience it every day. Do you realize what it is you are going without?”

“Nations, I told you I would come to summon the peoples and bring succour to my children-the apostles and all the nations. Well, the Lady has now come.”

“You must lead your children to the Lord Jesus Christ; you must teach them again how to pray, just as the Lady of All Nations teaches you to say her prayer. The Lady asks you, parents, to teach your children this prayer. Bring your children back to the Sacrifice! Let all nations come back to the Sacrifice!”

“And when I say ‘nations.’ I mean thereby my white and especially My black sheep, standing about Me. White people, do concern yourselves with the black peoples*; they have to be led towards the Lord Jesus Christ; they have to be shown the way to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

….”When you begin to ask the Holy Father for this dogma, the Lady will fulfill her promise and true peace will come. True peace, nations, that is the kingdom of God. God’s kingdom now is nearer than ever. Understand these words well.”

“It is really and truly the Mother, the Lady of All Nations, who is telling you this. Here then is my admonition: do not listen to false prophets. Listen only to your shepherds, to those who lead you the right way, to the voice of conscience…to a ‘Higher Being’ – this I say for the benefit of those who do not belong to the true Church.”

“You members of the Church of Rome, appreciate your great, your own great happiness. Realize what it means to belong to the Church of Rome! Do your actions bear this out? Your Mother, the Lady of All Nations, may come to you once a year under this new title; later this will change. Understand my words well when I say: make sure that every year the nations will be assembled around this throne, before this picture. This is the great favour that Mary, ‘Miriam’ or ‘the Lady of All Nations’ is allowed to bestow on the world.”

“I said: She will come back; she will speak to her Apostles. Now the Lady is addressing you first: all you, nations, stand by your Apostles; do not make things so difficult for them. Offer your children again as a sacrifice to the Lord.”

“Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, your Lady understands you, your Lady will help you in all your difficulties; your Lady will assist you. In her name ask the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, who will come now more fully than ever.”

“The kingdom of God is nearer than ever, I said. – Nations, do you realize what that will mean? Are you aware, nations, that the responsibility lies on you? You, men who hold higher positions in this world, do not lead your children astray; do not misguide the least of my children; you are responsible before your Lord Jesus Christ (and the Lady repeats with emphasis), you bear the responsibility.”

“I said a minute ago: alarming inventions will be made. God permits this; but you, nations, can make sure that it does not result in disaster.”

“Nations – I implore you – the Lady entreats you; mark it well: the Mother of God has never entreated you in this way before.”

Now the Lady waits again before She says,
“To spare you from falling a prey to alarming inventions, nations, the Lady begs you, now, today, do ask the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that He may protect His people and may restore unity among them. Unity is what His people must achieve, they must be one, and over them, the Lady of All Nations. One Community, nations, I stress these words: One Community!”

“Take thought of the future.” (and now the Lady seems to smile)

“No… the Lady does not say: provide for your material future. Try to understand the reason of my coming on this day. The Lord Jesus Christ has selected this great day for the Lady of All Nations.
Her mission is to establish unity among her nations. She is sent to make one great Community of her nations. To gather all nations into one Community, that is the task set before the world in this present time, which I have heralded repeatedly. Again and Again, I have spoken of this time in private. Well now, this time has come.”

“Satan is not banished yet- it is for you to see to that, you, people of the Church of Rome. Remember your Sacraments; they still exist! You, Christian people, by your example bring others to Him, to the daily Miracle, to the daily Sacrifice.”

“In this way the words ‘From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed,’ will be fulfilled. Today this message of the Lady of All Nations goes out over the world. I said, ‘I will comfort you’. Nations, your Mother knows what life is like; your Mother is familiar with sorrow. Your Mother knows what the cross means. Whatever you suffer in this life, your Mother, the Lady of All Nations, suffered before you. She has shown you the way in Her own person.”

The Lady waits a moment and adds very slowly,
“But She went up to the Father, She returned to Her Son. You too nations, go to the Father along the way of the cross; you too go to the Son along the same way of the cross; the Holy Spirit will help you to do this. Implore Him now. I cannot repeat this often enough to the world: have recourse to the Holy Spirit now.”

(The Lady said this very slowly, stressing every word).

“You will obtain help. Go back to the Church. Return to the Community. Look after my other sheep, those that go about, intent only on pasture.”

“Do you know what this signifies – going about for pasture only?” (this too the Lady said with emphasis). “Above all, strive for unity among the nations. That is what the Lady of All Nations has come to tell you today. She will not forget you. You are as yet unable to appreciate my words.

“‘My signs’ – I said- ‘are inherent in my words’. Your Mother will comfort you.
When the time of the Lord Jesus Christ has come, you will see that false prophets, war, discord and dissensions, will disappear. Now the time is ushered in. The Lady of All Nations is saying this.”

Then the Lady slowly disappears.

* Historically, a majority of Christians have been “white people,” or of European descent; whereas now, they need to bring the Gospel of Jesus to all peoples of color, including those in Africa and Asia who have not yet been exposed to Christianity. It can also perhaps refer to a greater contemporary openness of the peoples of Africa and Asia to the Gospel message than to present day Europe and the West.

Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins – “The Proposed Marian Dogma: the What and the Why”

Dr. Mark Miravalle – “Are You Afraid of Mary Co-Redemptrix?”

Dr. Richard Russell – “Messages of War and Peace in the Lady of All Nations”

Lady of All Nations – “You Must Petition the Holy Father for this Dogma”

Lady of All Nations – “The Outcome is Already Assured”

Lady of All Nations – “Theologians; Fight for this Dogma”

Lady of All Nations – “Petition the Holy Father that True Peace May Come”

St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe († 1941)

The coredemptive thought of St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe is of great value for several reasons. He was our contemporary, and more importantly, was a great mystic and Marian theologian, besides being such an extraordinary apostle and missionary of the Immaculate as to be called the “Fool of the Immaculate,” (5) and to be defined by the Ven. Fr. Gabriel Allegra, his contemporary, as an “Apostle of the end times,” (6) recalling the thought of St. Louis Mary Grignon de Montfort. (7)

First of all, it must be stated that St. Maximilian was not only diffusing and defending the truth of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s universal Mediation, but was writing, praying, and ardently longing for the solemn dogmatic definition of Mary as Mediatrix of salvation (Coredemption) and Mediatrix of all graces (Dispensatrix). As a matter of fact, as soon as he knew that Pope Benedict XV had named three commissions of study on the definability of Marian Mediation, he wrote an article in which he exhorted all to pray “so that our Most Holy Mother might hasten the moment of the Solemn proclamation of this her privilege.” (8)

In addition to the eternal predestination of Mary with Christ according to the celebrated Franciscan thesis, (9) St. Maximilian too based the Holy Virgin Mary’s coredemptive and distributive Mediation on the biblical-patristic foundation of Mary as the New Eve. Reflecting, as such, on the original fall of Adam and Eve, our first parents, St. Maximilian maintains that “from that moment God promised a Redeemer and a Coredemptrix saying: ‘I will place enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and her Seed; She shall crush thy head.’” (10) “The Fathers and Doctors of the Church,” writes the Saint again, “proclaim that She, the second Eve, repaired that which the first had ruined; that She is the channel of the divine graces, She is our hope and our refuge; that we receive the grace of God through Her.” (11) One easily reads here the equivalence between the Reparation and the Coredemption, in parallel with the devastating action of the Eve of old with the salvific action of the New Eve: both Eves presented as protagonists, respectively, in the fall and ruin of humanity (the first Eve), and in their ransom and salvation (the second Eve).

It is clear from the writings of St. Maximilian that for him the most certain truth, the most secure and unquestionable doctrine, and therefore the least needy of demonstration, was that of Marian Coredemption; whether because of the very clear reference to the devastating work of the first Eve neutralized by the reparative work of the second Eve (Mary), or because of the very life of Our Lady utterly bound, spent, and consumed in an indivisible union with that of her divine Son in the work of the universal Redemption from beginning to end, that is from the Annunciation to the Crucifixion, from Nazareth to Calvary.

On the other hand, it seemed to St. Maximilian that the doctrine most in need of in-depth theological elaboration was that of Marian Mediation, the distributing of all graces, which is consequent to the Coredemption and which he links above all with the mystery of the ineffable union between the Holy Spirit and the Immaculate Virgin, a spousal union which creates a perfect collaboration in the distributive economy of all graces for the salvation and sanctification of men. (12)

All that aside, St. Maximilian did render an account of the complexity of things surrounding Marian Coredemption which were in the process of being clarified and developed. He wrote that, “It is clear that our relationship with Mary Coredemptrix and Dispensatrix of graces in the economy of Redemption was not understood from the beginning in all its perfection. But in these, our times, faith in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s mediation is always growing more and more each day.” (13)

As for his thought specifically on the Coredemption, however, we can say in summary that St. Maximilian, by reasoning and reflecting, profoundly grasped both the expressly Christological value of Marian Coredemption and the pneumatological value of Mary’s mediation of all graces; he affirms that “Mary, as Mother of Jesus the Savior, becomes Coredemptrix, while as Spouse of the Holy Spirit she takes part in the distribution of all graces.” (14) Fr. Domanski writes that according to the Mariological thought of St. Maximilian, it was the plan of God “that His own Mother, the Immaculate, should take part in the work of the Redemption, as she had likewise taken part in the work of the Incarnation.” (15) And the demonstration which St. Maximilian took from a study of Bittremieux affirms that “… as the first Eve, with truly free actions, contributed to our ruin, in that she exercised a real influence, so also Mary, with her own actions, collaborated in the reparation…: in this is contained, by now in a most clear manner and properly speaking, an authentic mediation.” (16)

The doctrine of St. Maximilian is presented as logical and luminous in its solidity of method and development: “In the thought of Fr. Kolbe,” writes Fr. Iammarrone, “Christ is the only universal Mediator between humanity and the Father… Mary is chosen by God as Mother of the Son and thus Mediatrix of grace because she must accompany Him inseparably in the realization of the Redemption. Son and Mother labor together in originating the life of grace (Redemption and Coredemption) and in distributing that life to men.” (17) Always retaining the complete subordination of the Mother with respect to the Son, the biblical-patristic reference to the first Eve with the first Adam once again pointedly and precisely indicates the camp of the opposing operations: that is, the operation of our ruin, which had as its absolute and primary operator the first Adam, with the first Eve as its relative and dependent co-operator, and the operation of our salvation, which had as its absolute and primary Operator the second Adam, Jesus, with the second Eve, Mary, as its relative and dependent Co-operator.

This, according to St. Maximilian, is the plan of God. “In the divine plan of salvation,” writes again Fr. Iammorrone, “Mary is the New Eve who collaborates together with the New Adam, Jesus her Son, in the Redemption of man. In Fr. Kolbe’s thought Mary’s cooperation is subordinate to that of Christ the Redeemer, but it is immediate and proximate, active and direct… Mary, in the thought of Fr. Kolbe, participated in the Redemption in the objective sense (that is in the acquiring of salvation with her own proper activity united and associated to that original activity of the Son) and she participates in the Redemption in the subjective sense, that is in the distribution of the graces of salvation to each person in the course of time right up to the coming of the Lord in glory,” and in this way “Mary fully realizes her maternity with her maternal compassion on Calvary.” (18)

From his thought taken as a whole, it is obvious that for St. Maximilian such doctrine on Mary’s coredemptive and distributive mediation of grace is well founded and solid. And regarding his personal experience, it cannot be considered anything less than superlative, recalling his terrible martyrdom in the deathcamp of Auschwitz, which assimilated him in an extraordinary way to the coredemptive offering of the Blessed Mother. No one, in fact, is so close and so similar to the Coredemptrix as the martyr. The supreme glory of the Coredemptrix, in truth, is precisely that of being the Queen of the Martyrs. Even in this St. Maximilian has left us his orthodoxy (the doctrine on the Coredemptrix) which is perfectly united with his orthopraxy (the most concrete imitation of the Coredemptrix, that of shedding one’s own blood).

Master and Model of the doctrine and spirituality of Marian Coredemption: this is St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe. (19) Consequently, concerning the coredemptive and distributive mediation of Mary, one can say that, according to St. Maximilian, there is not much to discuss, but rather there is much need to pray so that the Immaculate “might hasten the moment of the solemn proclamation” of this dogma on the part of the Church.

Fr. Stefano Manelli, FI, is Founder and Minister General of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. He is internationally known for his distinguished preaching and biblical, Mariological scholarship. His biblical Mariology has recently appeared in English under the title: All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed.

Endnotes

(1) Insegnamenti di Paulo VI, Rome, IT, 1971, vol. IX, p. 909.

(2) Cf. L’Osservatore Romano 8-9, XII, 1982.

(3) It is sufficient to cite the weighty volume of the Acts of the International Congress held at Rome in 1984: La Mariologia di san Massimiliano M. Kolbe, Rome, IT, 1985.

(4) This is one of the conferences held at the International Mariological Symposium “Maria Corredentrice. Storia e Teologia,” celebrated at Castelpetroso, IT, Sept. 8-12, 1997, where twenty theologians coming from every part of the world participated (cf. S.M. MANELLI, Cronistoria del Simposio con rilievi, spunti e riflessioni, in Corredemptrix in Annali Mariani, 1966, Castelpetroso, 1997, pp. 133-171). The conference of Fr. L. IAMMORRONE, Il mistero di Maria Corredentrice in san Massimiliano Maria Kolbe, is found in AA.VV., Maria Corredentrice, Frigento, IT, 1999, vol. II, pp. 219-256.

(5) One can profit from reading the life of this apostle synthesized by S.M. MANELLI, “Folle dell’Immacolata,” Frigento, IT 1990, 120 pages.

(6) G. ALLEGRA, Apostolo degli ultimi tempi, in Miles Immaculatae 18 (1982), pp. 156-162.

(7) Ibid., pp. 160, 162.

(8) ST. MAXIMILIAN MARY KOLBE, Scritti, Rome, IT 1997, n. 1029 (quotations abbreviated: Scritti and the margin number).

(9) “The participation of Mary in the redemptive work of her Son,” writes Fr. Iammarrone, “is founded, according to Fr. Kolbe, in the eternal decree of Mary’s predestination together with her divine Son.”: L. IAMMARRONE, work cited, p. 221; cf. also pp. 223-247.

(10) Scritti, 1069.

(11) Scritti, 1029.

(12) Cf. H.M. MANTEAU-BONAMY, La dottrina mariana di p. Kolbe. Lo Spirito Santo e l’Immacolata, Rome, IT, 1977; G. BARTOSIK, Rapporti tra lo Spirito Santo e Maria come principio della mediazione mariana, negli ultimi scritte (1935-1941) di s. Massimiliano Kolbe, in Miles Immaculatae 27 (1991), 244-68.

(13) Scritti, 1229.

(14) Ibid.

(15) G. DOMANSKI, Il pensiero mariano di P. Massimiliano M. Kolbe, Rome, IT 1971, p. 38.

(16) J. BITTREMIEUX, De Mediatione universale B.M.V., in Scritti, 1.c.

(17) Work cited, p. 237.

(18) Ibid., pp. 244, 245, 246.

(19) Certainly very little has been written on the coredemptive spirituality of St. Maximilian, coredemptive insofar as he was a martyr and one who suffered (illness of tuberculosis and always generous in sacrifices without number). There would indeed be much to discover and write in order to deeply comprehend the vital bond which united the Holy Martyr to the mystery of the Immaculate in her universal, coredemptive mission, and in order to make our own the school of life and Marian spirituality in a coredemptive key which he has left us, so that we might be ever closer and more faithful children of her whom Jesus gave us on Calvary, not only as Mother, but also as Coredemptrix, or, even better yet, as Mother Coredemptrix, that is, He has left the Coredemptrix as our very own Mother.

The goal of this study is to strike a happy balance between sources and reflection on the sources so as to arrive at a concise and correct understanding of Catholic doctrine on Marian mediation here and now in the economy of salvation. Our point of departure will be an elaboration of the problematic in the formularies whereby it has been handed on in the Church. Thereafter, via a reflection on the sources of this doctrine, both remote and proximate, we will point out in a brief, summary conclusion how the traditional speculative questions arise and what is their significance for theology and for the life of the Church (6).

Although, as Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, archbishop emeritus of Bologna, Italy, often shrewdly repeats, a good theologian should strive to say new things, demonstrating that they are old. For us, however, who do not believe ourselves able to say new things, it is enough to explain the old things with order and clarity, so demonstrating them to be forever new. For the truth never grows old and never passes out of style. This is especially the case with such venerable terms as maternal and mediation, especially at a time when so many of the feminist persuasion (not all women, nor always women) want to erase them from the human vocabulary. Such a project, were it ever to be successful, would bear consequences of immeasurably tragic proportions for everyone. Between the human family and such success of the serpent-dragon there stands only one secure bulwark: the Woman, the maternal Mediatrix.

The Problematic of Marian Mediation

In theology, the term mediation is employed in a variety of senses to designate basic dimensions of the economy of salvation. These various senses, though clearly denoting distinct aspects of the work of salvation, are all interrelated, whether we are speaking of the mediation of Christ, and therefore of Christ as Mediator, or of the mediation of his Virgin Mother and therefore of Mary as Mediatrix, or of the mediation of the Church and therefore of that found in the sacramental-hierarchical order (ministerial graces linked to a stable office in the Church), or of the mediation of members of the Church and therefore of their active cooperation in the work of salvation via the ministerial charisms or graces of all kinds bestowed on them (gratiae gratis datae).

The reason for this is very simple: in the eternal counsels of the Father (cf. Eph 1:3ff.) all these various dimensions of a single economy of salvation were willed in correlation to one another within the unity of the predestination of Christ to be Head of the new creation, a creation to be realized concretely or in the execution of the divine counsels in history via what from the days of St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus of Lyons has been called “recapitulation.” The absolute predestination of Christ as incarnate Son of God, to be Head and Savior of his body, the Church and of all his members, constitutes what is commonly known as “the order of the hypostatic union.” To that order, in a special way, belongs one of the saved, the Immaculate Virgin, Mother of the Savior-Word incarnate, “pre-eminent member” of the Church according to Vatican II. This unique and non-repeatable relation to Christ as Head in the order of the hypostatic union arises from what is called by Bl. Pius IX and Pius XII “the joint predestination of the incarnate Word and Mother of God in one and the same decree” (7).

To understand Catholic doctrine on Marian mediation, it is necessary from the start to grasp this essential point: Mary, because Mother of God, belongs as no other creature to the order of the hypostatic union, foundation of all saving mediation, perfect or subordinate. Therefore, by the merits of Christ she is incomparably holy. Therefore, in a way unique to her (cf. Lumen Gentium, 56-58, 60-62) she is able to cooperate actively with Jesus, the one Mediator of God and man: as his Mother, as our Co-redemptrix, and as our Mediatrix and Advocate. Mary’s mediation is the divinely appointed means by which the whole of creation and in particular the human family is recapitulated in Christ the Head, and so enjoys the blessings willed by the Father and gained for us by Christ in his stupendous work consummated on Calvary. Or in the words of St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, the mediation of Mary crystallized in her fiat is the high point where all the love of the Blessed Trinity appropriated to the Holy Spirit meets all the love of creation, a juncture which brings to pass the Incarnation and economy of salvation (8).

Evidently all these themes cannot be treated in a single chapter of a single volume devoted to the whole of Mariology. Nonetheless, to understand the specific theme of this chapter, one dealing with the maternal mediation of Mary here and now, a few general considerations are necessary. These bear on 1) Mary’s active role of intercession with Jesus (ascending mediation), and 2) her direct, active role in the distribution of all the graces of salvation (descending mediation). Both roles are extensions of her unique participation as Co-redemptrix in the sacrifice of Calvary in which she participated as Co-redemptrix, a sacrifice perpetuated in the mystery of the Eucharist (descending mediation). The first role is more properly called advocacy, and the second mediation in the restricted sense.

Sacred, Revealed Use of the Term

As a term with a very specific theological sense (and not merely ethical-political), mediator, or intermediary, is found five times in the New Testament, always in the Pauline corpus. These are the passages in question:

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained by angels through an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one; but God is one (Gal 3:19-20).

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself up as a ransom for all (1 Tim 2:5-6).

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises (Heb 8:6).

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant (Heb 9:15).

… and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant … (Heb 12:24).

We may summarize the thought of St. Paul in these passages on the theological meaning of Mediator thus: It designates both 1) an office or responsibility rooted in and made possible by the Incarnation of the Son of God, not only in virtue of his divinity, but of his humanity as well (cf. 1 Tim 2:5), and 2) the major act of that office or ministry, viz., the redemptive sacrifice together with its fruit, the Church, the reconciliation of the saved with God in the one Body of Christ, the Head.

In all but one of these texts (Gal 3:19-20) the term mediator is ascribed expressly only to Christ. But in view of its ascription to Moses and to angels under the Old Covenant one can hardly affirm a priori that the presence of mediators other than Christ is excluded in affirming the unicity and sufficiency and excellence of the mediation of Christ, at least on biblical grounds. This is an observation crucial to any understanding of the traditional teaching of the Church on the mediation of Mary and of the Church itself. Deny the title Mediatrix to Mary as did Luther and the Protestant Reformation and nothing is left of the other mediations in the Church, that is, our active cooperation as “collaborators” in the distribution of the fruits of Christ’s sacrifice. Biblical grounds for the denial are claimed, but none are apparent, except on the assumption of extra-biblical premises of a theological or philosophical kind (individualism, combined with nominalism and voluntarism), not shared by the Tradition of the Church.

The texts just cited make clear that the title is that of an office, how the office is defined and what is the basis for the exercise of such an office in making one two who are not only separated, but in a condition of hostility (cf. Eph 2:11ff.). The creature alone, in particular man after the fall into original sin, cannot successfully resolve the problem of division between Creator and creation. But if the role of Mediator belongs radically to one all-sufficient person, this in itself is no necessary bar to the inclusion of others in a subordinate role, anymore than the existence of God excludes the possibility of a creation which does not compromise the all-sufficiency and transcendence of God.

At the level of theory the observation is perfectly valid. Unfortunately, it is not immediately effective in dealing with popular objections to the very concept of Marian mediation in theology, viz., that by definition participation in the one work of mediation compromises the uniqueness of Christ as one Mediator. Why this is so, but also what can be done to get beyond the impasse at the pastoral level, can be illustrated from a reflection on an analogy frequently used to justify the classic Protestant position: only Christ is Mediator in the proper sense. Mediation, in particular sacerdotal mediation, it is claimed, must be likened to bridge-building between earth and heaven. Indeed, the Latin version of Hebrews translates the Greek word for high priest (archiereus) as pontifex, or bridge builder. Perhaps a kindred Greek word, architect, or head builder, in addition to the title of the head priest: Pontifex, and also head-builder of bridges over the Tiber River in Rome, may have suggested the choice. In any case the objection to the Catholic doctrine about Mary goes like this: if two bridges are necessary to cross a stream, then neither by itself is sufficient. And if one is all-sufficient, then the second can hardly be described as functionally necessary to mediate the gap between the two sides of a single stream or abyss.

The answer very simply is to distinguish between two kinds of sharing in a single role or perfection: spiritual and material, qualitative and quantitative. It is perfectly true that sharing in a single patrimony by way of inheritance by several heirs requires a division of the patrimony with no one single heir being master of all. So, too, in the case of physical mediation represented by the example of the two bridges, neither bridge can be described as fully adequate, as Christ is described in the passage from 1 Timothy 2:5, if the work must be equally divided. Bridge building, political mediation, etc., because quantitative realities, cannot be absolutely perfect, shared or not shared.

Christ, on the other hand, is said to be perfect as one Mediator. This kind of unity is spiritual, and only spiritual mediation can reconcile God and man. The perfection of spiritual mediation, not being subject to division as in the case of sharing in a material good, is not affected by the number of other persons who participate in that perfection dependently on, or in subordination to, the one who possesses this absolutely. By way of example, neither the perfection of my thought nor that of my love is diminished by the fact that others share my thoughts and my love. And again, not every inheritance is material. The heavenly patrimony of those redeemed by Christ, is real, but spiritual, hence shared by many, yet not divided. Our Lord himself made this point in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard: the same denarius, God himself, undivided, is the wages of all. Failure to make this distinction is a sure sign of pride (cf. Mt 20:1-16). Why can there not be a “spiritual bridge,” viz., a mediation in which many are involved according to a certain order, yet leaving the mediation undivided?

There is a still more important observation crucial in the teaching of St. Paul: viz., that mediation involves not merely God, but someone who is also man, a creature. As St. Bonaventure so clearly saw (9), human nature by definition is mediatory, and hence that nature in its most perfect state, viz., in the God-man, is enhanced by the participation of others in this mediation, above all by Mary Immaculate. All this is foreshadowed by the formation of man as male and female. Human nature is first fully mediatory in Adam, and for that reason is also mediatory in Eve, who does not detract from, but underscores the nobility of God’s image (10).

Simply put, the reply to the objection drawn from the analogy of two bridges is simply to say that it is only a metaphor, and does not clarify the essential difference between Christ as one Mediator and those associated with him in the work of mediation. Each bridge is an insufficient means of mediating a distance before they are united as one. With Christ his mediation qua man is perfectly one before shared by others. With the participation of others there remains but one mediation, as the thought and love of Christ remain perfect, no matter how many share his thoughts and affection; but there are many persons active in that mediation according to a certain order in relation to Christ, the one Mediator. This is true of Mary in a unique and non-repeatable way because of her fullness of grace in view of the divine and spiritual maternity. And this is what Scotus means in calling Mary Immaculate qua Immaculate the most perfect fruit of the most perfect redemption by a most perfect Redeemer. Christ’s one mediation would not be perfect unless he could so save one of his members so as to cooperate actively in the work of salvation of all others, viz., as maternal Mediatrix (11).

Profane Usage

The term mediator, like its cognate pontifex (Latin translation for Christ as high priest in Hebrews), is not exclusive to the Bible. In ancient times both terms enjoyed a distinctive meaning in a profane or secular context, in the case of mediator one still familiar to most Western societies. This usage was hardly unknown to St. Paul and without doubt had some influence in his choice of terms to describe systematically the distinctive, perfect, all sufficient and absolutely necessary role of Christ in our salvation.

The classic Latin Lexicon, edited by Forcellini, defines the term mediator in the following words: “One who interposes himself, as a mean or point of convergence (intermediary) between dissidents in order to settle disputes.” A similar definition is found in the Lexicon of Grimm: “One who intervenes between two (others) in order to procure peace, establish or re-establish friendship, form a pact (covenant, or federation) or sanction an alliance.” In common language, a mediator is a person who performs the distinctively moral action of pacification with regard to two parties in opposition to or apart from one another by providing a common focus (univocal) for the unity of two entities once simply different, but not joined or analogous to one another within a single pact.

It is not hard to see why such a term should be employed by the Apostle Paul to explain the work of salvation and redemption. Christ’s work as priest and victim of the New Covenant is like that of a mediator who, as the old Roman pontifex threw up bridges across the Tiber River to unite or make one the two separated shores, bridges the gap between creature and Creator, between sinner and the heavenly Father, effectively making it possible for the distant creature, for the alienated sinner, to find himself not only reconciled with God or on God’s side of the great abyss (cf. Lk 16:26), but become himself active in the process of salvation as a subordinate cooperator. This is because as a genuine mediator Christ shares something with both parties: the godhead with the Father and manhood with the family of Adam. Hence, he is the mean or common ground where the parties to be reconciled can meet as friends rather than enemies or mere servants (cf. Jn 15:15).

There are, however, evident differences between the sacred and profane uses of this term and the concept standing behind it. As noted above, mediation involves an office and its exercise, the ethical-social dimension, and ontological or non-ethical basis of this office, the so-called mean.

First, the office of mediator and its exercise. In the profane order of the ancient world, as in modern secularized societies, mediation was and is a highly sophisticated and relatively successful activity when only temporal discord is involved. But wherever profound ethical and religious issues are at stake, e.g., in marriage-family discord, or in discord over religious activities or basic principles of right and social-political-economic philosophy, mediation can often be a dismal failure, if permanent resolution of discord and establishment of harmony is any criterion (12). Whereas, the mediation of Christ Jesus, according to Hebrews, is a raging and permanent success, not only in relation to the pagan religions, but to that of the mediators of the Old Testament dispensation.

Second, the mean or ontological platform for the exercise of a mediatory office. In the case of mere human mediation in the profane order, there is nothing particularly unique about the mediator in relation to each of the parties in dispute. He is a man, and so are they. What the human mediator shares with one party rather than another pertains to personal character and ability to persuade both parties within an already existing social polity. Where such a pre-existing polity, wherein the contending parties are already united at least in principle, if not in practice, does not exist, and must therefore be established, as especially is the case of man in the state of fallen nature, then no mere man can succeed in mediating between an offended Creator and a sinful creation.

With this we can readily see what the Incarnation introduces into our fallen world: a new and adequate platform or “ontological mean” where the offended and offenders can be fully reconciled, a solid rock on which to establish an order of peace (cf. Mt 7:24-27, conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount). In a sense specifically theological, that of a foundation for the economy of salvation, this rock is the order of the hypostatic union.

St. Thomas, therefore, in his classic definition of theological or religious mediation, clearly indicates two elements: the office (in the ethical-social order) and the mean (or foundation in the ontological order): “Properly speaking, the office of Mediator is to join together and unite those between whom he mediates; for extremes are united in the mean” (13). The “mean” in this case is the hypostatic union of man with the divine person of the Son: because incarnate, therefore Mediator. Because Mary uniquely belongs to the order of the hypostatic union because she is Mother of this divine Person, she therefore shares the one office of redemptive Mediator with her Son. Because Mother, therefore Mediatrix. Like her Mediator Son, their one work of mediation is consummate in redemptive sacrifice. And through her the Church and her members in varying ways can also exercise a genuine part in the mediation of grace won by the merits of the one Mediator of all, the man Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim 2:5-6).

Mary Mediatrix in the Proper, Theological Sense of Mediation

In addition to the commonly cited profane examples, which only foreshadow the perfection or essence of mediation in Christ Jesus, there is another example of mediation in the natural order, all but forgotten in modern times, but expressly cited by such a great of theology as is the Seraphic Doctor, St. Bonaventure (14). This example is drawn more from a metaphysical consideration of human nature as uniquely formed by the Creator on the sixth day; hence, it is not an example bearing primarily on the social order, but on the very character of any mediation as such within the order of creation.

Among all the various creatures, and grades of perfection among them, there are two basic categories of creatures: those purely material and hence prope nihil (near nothing), and those purely spiritual like the angels, hence prope Deum (near God). That both dimensions of creation be not distant and in opposition, but united to form a single universe, ultimately to be recapitulated by the incarnate Word, the Creator personally formed (hence not by an evolutionary process) a creature, part spiritual and so near God and part corporal and so near the material creation, or near nothing. The saint expressly says that there is such a created being, by nature mediatory. This creature, by nature mediatory, is man, or human nature. Thus at the ontological level, prior to any activity, man or Adam (formed from the virgin earth) is a mediator: indeed within the universe, but nonetheless in a religious as well as merely juridical sense as in all the previous examples drawn from the social-political-economic spheres.

But this is not all the Seraphic Doctor tells us. The Creator made man male and female. Each shares in a distinct way, yet fully, in a single mediatory nature: first Adam and then under, but also with Adam, Eve. The mediation of Adam, not as private person but head, is in the public order, drawing all dimensions of the universe, but in particular the human, to the love and service of the Creator. Further, Adam mediates between the private realm of the family and person and the public context wherein the human family is situated, thus being true center of the universe. In this sense Adam is a type of Christ, like Noah, Melchizedek, Moses, and so many others after him, the family of Adam being intended by the Creator to foreshadow the Holy Family.

But Eve is also a mediatrix, a type of Mary as mother of the new humanity, for no being can call itself human unless descended from Adam and incorporated into the human family through the maternal mediation of a woman, a mediation unique to her, in no wise detracting from the primary mediation in Adam, even though absolutely necessary for Adam to realize his headship over the human family. Not only St. Bonaventure, but St. Thomas as well insist that the formation of Adam and Eve in view of the divine institution of the “mystery-sacrament” of marriage was for the sake of Christ and the Church, Christ and Mary, even before sin, a point quite explicit in St. Paul, Ephesians 5:32 (15). Christ mediates between the Creator-Father and his creation, whereas Mary, in subordination to him, mediates between the new Head of the human family and the members incorporated into him. With that it becomes clear why the one mediation of the one Mediator, the (new) man Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim 2:5) does not exclude, but according to the divine counsels of salvation must include in an altogether unique way that of the (new) Eve who is also the (new) virgin earth, from whom and by whom is also formed the new Adam-Mediator of the new and everlasting Covenant. Mary is our Mediatrix with Christ, because wonder of wonders she is Mother of God (16).

St. Bonaventure provides us one other observation helpful in understanding why the mediation involved in the new and everlasting Covenant involves a Mediator, and under him a Mediatrix. The divine nature, being perfectly one, is not mediatory (cf. Gal 3:19-20). But one divine person of the three stands in relation to the other two as a “middle person”: i.e., one of the personal characteristics of the Son is to be “mediatory” (17). Hence, it is altogether appropriate that if the Incarnation of a divine person is for the sake of mediation, the second person should become incarnate. St. Paul (Gal 3:20) also seems to allude to the non-mediatory character of the divine nature. Hence, if the Word is to mediate between God (the Father) and the masterpiece of his creation, man, and so with the rest of creation (cf. St. Paul, Rom 8:18-25), the hypostatic assumption of a human nature becomes imperative—so that a divine person can mediate in a human way. But the way of assuming such a nature hypostatically is through the mediation of a mother, the only way of being a man like us, because such is only possible via descent from Adam in being born of a Virgin Mother (cf. Lk 3:23-38). The virginal conception and birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mother, the “new virgin earth,” assures both the divinity and humanity of the Child, hence his office of Mediator in our history. In virtue of her holiness and of this contribution to effecting the economy of salvation, Mary also belongs to the order of the hypostatic union and ipso facto shares the mediation of Jesus, distinctly, subordinately, but also properly, as no other of the saved. Here lies the importance of the Eve-Mary typology for the doctrine of Marian mediation.

With this it also becomes clear why in the Franciscan school the maternal mediation of Mary is first considered in the broad sense: neither vague nor metaphorical, but truly proper, in the same sense as it is understood first in the God-man. As he is unique Mediator, first because the mediatory or middle person of the Trinity, and second because he is the new man or Adam, fully capable of doing what the first Adam alone could only indistinctly foreshadow, so Mary is the unique Mediatrix, because she can do what the first Eve could also only indistinctly foreshadow: truly unite, incorporate into the New Adam all the dispersed children of Israel. The particular or more specialized aspects of Mary’s mediation in the economy of salvation, either in the types foreshadowing her, or in herself historically, all depend on this primordial fact, her fullness of grace in Christ as the Immaculate Virgin Mother, as Christ’s mediation rests uniquely on the grace of the Incarnation. The mediation of Mary is not apart from, outside of or independent of Christ, because she is also saved by him, redeemed preservatively to be Immaculate from conception. That unique sanctity permits her, under him, but also with him, to participate as no other person can, in the work of mediation proper to Christ. Thereby a new platform or basis for the exercise of diverse salutary activities by the redeemed (all in one way or another collaboration in the work of mediation) within the New Covenant is secured. Mary’s precise position and role is to provide the basis for our link with the New Adam, or New Head, and so our cooperation with him in the communion of saints. Therefore she is called “our Mediatrix with Christ, as he is our Mediator with the Father” (St. Bonaventure, III Sent., d 3, p 1, a 1, q 2).

The Difference between Mediator and Mediatrix in the One Work of Mediation

In this integral, moral and theological sense cited above, Mary is the Mediatrix of all creatures, angels and men, because God, in Christ, has assigned this function to her in order to reunite all creatures, above all the rational and free creatures, to Christ. In and through Christ the saved, qua members of his body formed by Mary, are recapitulated and so united to the Father (cf. 1 Cor 15:28). The saved are members of Christ’s body in being born spiritually of the Woman, just as all men naturally have Adam as their head and the origin of their humanity through a woman, and not otherwise. In herself Mary, without sin, possesses the human nature of Adam that unites her to sinful humanity, the spirit that unites her to the angels, and the fullness of grace that brings her into union with the God-man and so brings him into union, not with a generic humanity, but with that precisely first headed by Adam. Through Mary, Christ descends from Adam as well as Abraham (cf. Christ’s genealogy recorded by Luke 3:23-38). Therefore, through Mary, he is our Savior and Mediator. We go to him in the same way he comes to us, viz., through Mary. By reason of the integrity of her human nature and the fullness of grace she is superior to all men. She is superior also to the angels by the sole reason of her fullness of grace. She is inferior to God because of the finite manner in which she possesses both this grace and this nature. This Mediatrix brings the grace of God, viz., that of the redemptive Incarnation, to men and angels, and she brings the redeemed natures of angel and man to the incarnate Mediator, who brings them to the Father.

As for man, he is not only separated from God, but is also inimical toward him by reason of original and actual sin, which is an affront to God. The mediation that reconstructs the unity between God and man must, therefore, also merit in order to obtain the remission of fault and satisfy in order to remit the punishment. The angel must also consider himself redeemed, though in a more sublime manner in a certain sense, because the good angels have been granted perseverance in grace and the grace of being preserved from sin in view of the merits of Christ and Mary.

Now, while the merit of Christ in the order of mediation is absolute, that of Mary is relative, because it originates in Christ and is exercised in conjunction with his.

In this broad, all-inclusive sense, the title of Mary Mediatrix includes the coredemption, the distribution of all graces, and her infallible intercession. This is the sense intended by those cardinals, bishops and theologians who, when they were assembled in Fatima in 2005, signed a petition to the Pope asking for the dogmatic definition of Mary Mediatrix, Co-redemptrix, Dispensatrix of all graces, and Advocate (18).

That Mary’s mediation is said to be derived by participation and by analogy from the mediation of Christ is a doctrine clearly taught by St. Paul in his epistles (19). Based on this conclusion it is evident that Christ’s mediation, when consummated on Calvary, involves two aspects, the first ascending and the second descending: 1) redemption, continued in his intercession during the time of the Church, above all in the Eucharistic mystery as sacrifice (cf. Heb 9:23ff.; 1 Jn 2:1); and 2) the acquisition of grace, succeeded by its distribution in the time of the Church, especially in the Eucharist as communion (cf. Heb 12:18ff.; 13:9-15). The two moments are strictly tied to each other, because redemption is the basis for intercession and the acquisition of grace for its distribution. The same is true, servatis servandis, for Mary’s mediation.

Also from St. Paul’s doctrine is derived the Christocentric vision of the universe, which becomes, as a logical consequence, also Mariocentric. “All things were created through him and for him” (Col 1:16), but also through her and for her, as exemplary cause, because she is willed with Christ “uno eodemque decreto” by God (Bl. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus). If Christ and Mary are the center of creation, they are even more so in the order of grace that they have acquired through the work of the redemptive sacrifice. Therefore all creatures, both earthly and heavenly, have their raison d’être in Christ and Mary, and they receive their sanctifying grace and beatific glory from Christ through Mary.

Mediatrix in the Restricted Sense of Distributrix of Graces After Calvary

St. Bonaventure identifies three moments in the maternal mediation of Mary, taken in the broad sense: the moment of begetting the price of our salvation, the moment of paying that price on Calvary, and the moment of distributing the price of salvation which she possesses in the time of the Church (20). It is to this last phase of her mediation that the title “Mary, Mediatrix of all graces,” is commonly referred. When recent popes (like Benedict XVI in his homily for the Annunciation, March 25, 2006) (21) refer to the Marian principle at the heart of the Church, they refer precisely to this third aspect of Mary’s work as Mediatrix in the economy of salvation, one realizing the final phase of her maternal vocation, that of spiritual Mother of the redeemed and of the Church.

As immediately consequent on the coredemption, as it were its continuation, this mediation has two aspects. The first is one of intercession whose high point is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. One need only reflect on the Communicantes prayer of the Roman canon to grasp that the intercession of all the saints united to that of Christ passes through and depends upon the unique intercession and presence of Mary in the sacrifice of Christ, as John Paul II makes so clear in his Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, under the heading “Woman of the Eucharist” (22). Mary, as Immaculate Spouse of the Holy Spirit, is invoked in primis in every Eucharist, that is before and above all other saints, including the apostles. Because she is the Immaculate and so Spouse of the Holy Spirit, invoking her in this way is an aspect of the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit. Without Mary and the Holy Spirit, no Incarnation, and hence no Real Presence.

The other aspect is that of distribution of the graces acquired in the sacrifice of Calvary. This, too, has its highpoint in the Eucharist at Communion. In the worthy communicant is him who first dwelt in the immaculate womb of the Virgin Mother, so that like the Word incarnate the Christian might fully become a child of Mary and so child of the Father, on both counts perfectly conformed to Christ, perfectly incorporated into him. There is no grace, no charism, no aspect of sanctification which does not involve the maternal mediation of Mary here and now. This is perfectly logical when we recall that Mary is Spouse of the Holy Spirit at the Incarnation and at Pentecost, at the birth of the Savior and at the birth of the Church, that is, she is Spouse of him by whose working the whole Christ, Head and Body, comes to be. In other words she is Mediatrix par excellence.

Theological Meaning of the Title of Mediatrix: Sources of the Doctrine

The title of Mediatrix means that Mary possesses a dignity intermediate between that of all other creatures and that of the incarnate Son by reason of her fullness of grace. This intermediate dignity fits her to carry out the role of maternal intermediary entrusted to her by God the Father to reunite man to his Son, our Mediator with the Father, by means of the coredemption, the dispensation of all graces and intercession (23). Such mediation is carried out, not apart from, but in Christ, in dependence upon him. It is a necessary aspect of the economy of salvation, said to be hypothetical, not absolute necessity: necessary not because God could not have done otherwise, but because God has so willed, and has so willed because this is the most perfect, orderly or rational way to accomplish our salvation. It is this aspect of the saving counsels of God, implicitly present in such classic passages as Ephesians 1:3-14; Galatians 4:4-7; Philippians 2:5-10, and Hebrews 10:5-10, which is witnessed in Scripture without the title Mediatrix, and in Tradition with the title, and in modern times expressly incorporated into the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church.

Sacred Scripture

As has been already noted, Scripture never explicitly attributes the title of Mediatrix to Mary (24). That is not surprising, because neither does it ascribe to her the titles of Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, or ever-Virgin, nor does it attribute the Assumption to her, all of which titles are defined dogmas. Nor, moreover, does the word Trinity, the most important dogma of our faith, appear in Scripture; the term consubstantial, which forms part of the dogmatic definition of Nicaea, is absent; the same is true of hypostatic union, real presence, transubstantiation, pontifical infallibility, etc. If we had to delete all of the words and their related concepts that do not explicitly appear in Sacred Scripture from Catholic dogma, we would first have to annul 2,000 years of Church history. Why, therefore, has God not revealed everything in an explicit manner in Scripture? Bl. Duns Scotus responds:

I say that it is more pleasing to understand something if it is hidden under some literal sense rather than if it were stated expressly. … Moreover, Origen, in his Homily on Noah’s Ark, affirmed: “It seems that Sacred Scripture has maintained an appropriate silence regarding those things whose discovery reason would show as consequences of those truths (directly revealed in Scripture). Therefore many necessary truths are not explicitly related in Scripture, although they are contained there virtually, as conclusions within the principles; the work of the Doctors and commentators was useful for defining these conclusions” (Ordinatio. Prologus, n. 122-123).

The very clear, although implicit, biblical basis for the mediation of Mary beside her Son is found in the association of Mary with Christ, central theme of the history spanning both Old and New Testaments, from the Protoevangelium (Gen 3:15) to the book of Revelation (Rev 12).

Regarding mediation in the restricted sense of dispensation of all graces, the biblical passages in which theologians have discovered the basis for the doctrine are the following:

a) Genesis 3:15: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.

The woman is Mary, by exclusion and by identification. By exclusion, because it cannot be Eve, as she could never appear as a victorious enemy of the serpent, but instead as his victim, first in the fault and then in the punishment. By identification, because Mary is the only woman who fully realizes enmity and victory over the serpent. Enmity and victory over Satan always signifies the work of the redemption, accomplished by Mary and by Christ, the firstborn of her offspring. Associated with Christ in the redemption in the first phase, Mary is associated also in the redemption in the second phase, that is, in the distribution of the acquired graces.

b) 1 Kings 18:44: And at the seventh time he said, “Behold, a little cloud like a man’s hand is rising out of the sea.” And he said, “Go up, say to Ahab, ‘Prepare your chariot and go down, lest the rain stop you.’”

This is the cloud that Elijah caught sight of on Mount Carmel which brought rain after a long drought. Here the cloud has been viewed as a symbol of Mary and the rain as a symbol of the graces Mary brings.

c) Luke 1:28: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.

If it is true that from his (Christ’s) fullness have we all received, grace upon grace (Jn 1:16), it is also true that we have received it by means of Mary’s fullness of grace. The passive participle kecharitomene (full of grace) is used to indicate a permanent fullness par excellence. This is what St. Francis had an intuition of when, in his Salute to the Virgin, he gave this description of her: “On you descended and in you still remains all the fullness of grace and every good.” Why has God filled the Virgin Mary with his grace if not in order for her to communicate this grace to others who, by their nature, are devoid of them?

d) Luke 1:38: And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word.”

Mary’s fiat is her free and personal assent to the redemptive Incarnation, of which she is defined as the “handmaid,” and the fulfillment of which is realized in the regeneration of men into the life of grace. It matches the fiat of her Son: I come to do your will (cf. Heb 10:5-10). Both are efficacious as acts of mediation, because each, though distinctively, is contained within the order of the hypostatic union as willed by the Father as the radical foundation for saving mediation. Through her fiat, Mary mediates to the world Jesus Christ, the Mediator, and the Author of all grace. The title, “Mediatrix of all graces,” is rightly and uniquely ascribed to Mary in virtue of her mediation of the Savior alone.

e) Luke 1:43-44: And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.

Here Mary’s physical presence brings the grace of Christ’s presence to Elizabeth, who prophesies, and to the Baptist, who exults with joy in his mother’s womb. The joy consequent on Mary’s mediation, a joy which is a foretaste of that of heaven, contrasts sharply with the sadness consequent on the mediation of the first Eve and the expulsion from paradise. As Eve in fact mediated tragedy for the human family, Mary mediates the presence of the Savior and salvation, even to those such as John enclosed in his mother’s womb. It is she who mediates the working of the Holy Spirit, and therefore it is she who at the most intimate reaches of the human heart guarantees faith, as it is she who is the prime evangelist and sign of the presence of the invisible Savior-God, she who is Mother of “the Lord” or Yahweh, who spoke to Moses from the burning bush as Christ speaks to us from Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. The importance of Mary’s Visitation to Elizabeth in the revelation of the mystery of Marian mediation, specifically the distribution of all the blessings of salvation, cannot be underestimated.

Further, the mediation of Jesus and Mary, inseparable and related to one another according to a typology established by the Creator in the formation of the first man and woman, is also shown here in its anti-types. It is the mediation of Mary which brings the Mediator to us and enables us to be united to him and so enabled by him to return to the Father’s house. The basis for a Mediator and Mediatrix within a single work of mediation is also clear: what the theologians have come to call the order of the hypostatic union embracing the incarnate Word and the divine maternity. It is this order which defines concretely the basis of the work of mediation or salvation.

f) Luke 2:35: And a sword will pierce through your own soul also, that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.

The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple (cf. Lk 2:22-40) further clarifies the bases of this mediation: not only Mary’s vocation as Mother of God, but her role as Co-redemptrix in the realization of the redemptive sacrifice which secures the “salvation of his people.” Mary’s role as Advocate (intercessor) and Mediatrix (distributrix of the blessings won on Calvary) is a continuation of her role as Co-redemptrix outlined in the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple: to the Father and to the Church (represented by Simeon and Anna).

g) John 2:3-5: When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Again Mary’s physical presence carries with it the physical presence of Christ with his divine power. The Lord’s words, which express a certain distance between him—who was about to perform an act as God—and his Mother (who always remained simply a creature), make us understand that, if it had not been for her, he would not have worked the miracle. Curiously, those who reject the concept of Marian mediation as revealed will affirm the difference between the Creator Son and created Mother. But they seemingly fail to realize that the difference and distance between the Word incarnate and the rest of us is even greater if Mary is not Mediatrix. From this comes the need of a Mediatrix between ourselves and our Savior, as well as a Mediator between ourselves and the Father. Mary by her physical presence as Mother of God enables us also to be present to him who is our Mediator with the Father. This is what is so clearly communicated by this event at the beginning of our Lord’s public ministry. He, the bridegroom, is Savior-Mediator of the Church, the bride represented by the newly wed couple. The role of his Mother at this marriage feast for the groom is that of one who arranges this great marriage covenant, that is to say, she is the Mediatrix. Cana reveals the Mother of Jesus as physical and moral (willed) Mediatrix between Jesus and humanity, in the midst of its wants and needs. As John Paul II explains, she acts as a “mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother” (25).

h) John 19:26-27: When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

John’s presence at the feet of the crucified Redeemer engages the mediation of the Mother, from whom John receives the fruit of the redemption. In the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucaristia, John Paul II teaches that in every Mass the reality of Marian mediation is re-presented for the benefit of believers, of beloved disciples who, like John, assist at the sacrifice of the Redeemer and Co-redemptrix.

The radical structure of Marian mediation observed in all the foregoing texts is here proclaimed by our Savior himself, revealing precisely its immediate grounds in the unique part Mary played as Mother and Co-redemptrix in the redemptive sacrifice of Calvary. In effect, Jesus reveals and proclaims his Mother as maternal Mediatrix between himself and us: both the entire Church and each disciple personified here in John, and in a special way those who are successors of the apostles and their immediate associates, the priests. And he insists that we make use of her mediation, because by his will it is a necessary aspect of Christian life. Hence, our first obligation as disciples is to take Mary into our homes. Mary is our Mother in the order of grace; her spiritual maternity is the fruit of her love and suffering on Calvary. What is said here in principle, is shown in the next text from Acts to be operative from day one of the Church, and in Revelation 12:1ff. to be a raging success, for as Co-redemptrix Mary merited to be assumed and gloriously crowned as Queen of heaven and earth, precisely to act efficaciously on earth as maternal Mediatrix. The Woman of Revelation 12:1ff., who is first of all the Mother of the victorious Savior Jesus, swept up to heaven, must be pondered in conjunction with Revelation 21:1-4, where the woman is the heavenly Jerusalem descending from heaven on earth. The Church is the new and glorious Jerusalem or Daughter Zion descending from heaven, because in some unique way Mary Immaculate is the Church as its “pre-eminent” member. Through the dynamic presence of the Immaculate Mediatrix, the Church becomes the Immaculate Bride of her Savior and Head (cf. Eph 5:21-32) (26).

i) Acts 1:14: All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Here Mary is Mother of the infant Church. In the Apostolic Church she was the Mother of Jesus, almost a living sacrament of his presence. The intercession of the Church rises to God through Mary’s prayer, and the grace of the Holy Spirit descends upon men because of this prayer and this intercession. The ancient Church Tradition clearly confirms this understanding of the central role of Mary in the Church: that of intercession (ascending mediation) and that of distribution of graces (descending mediation), particularly that of sustaining and quietly guiding all Christians in the understanding and living of their faith. “And they continued steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles and in the communion of the breaking of the bread and in the prayers” (Acts 2:42), all this in the presence of Mary Mediatrix. For this is what above all the Pentecost scene illustrates: the permanent, “pre-eminent” place of Mary in the midst of the apostles and faithful as maternal Mediatrix.

From all these passages of Scripture there surfaces repeatedly a Marian mode according to which God works our redemption. St. Bonaventure tells us (Breviloquium, p. IV, ch. 3) that the mode of the Incarnation is Marian, viz., through the virginal maternity. The one whom Mary begets is our Mediator, the price of our ransom; hence the mode of our redemption is Marian. It is Mary, says the same Seraphic Doctor who begets that price in Nazareth, pays that price on Calvary, and now possesses that price as Mediatrix of all graces (cf. Collationes in septem donis Spiritus Sancti, c. 6). The two major features of this last, intercession or ascending mediation, and distribution of graces or descending mediation, are clearly indicated as fact, even if not expressly explained. Meditating on these passages, Bossuet rightly concludes that “Mary’s charity is the general instrument of the operations of grace” (27).

Teaching of the Church Fathers

The Eve-Mary parallelism, already put in evidence by St. Justin (+165), is the leitmotiv of patristic Mariology, as it developed during the course of the first eight centuries of the Christian era (28). Its foundation is in the economy of salvation established by God and implicitly revealed by him in Sacred Scripture. The first to single out the Marian characteristic of this salvific economy was St. Ignatius of Antioch (+110): “Our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan” (29). It is the first Marian fruit of patristic reflection on the biblical datum.

The Mariology of St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+202) is the wonderful result of the fruitful encounter between the Eastern tradition, from which he came, and that of the West, in which he exercised his episcopal ministry. He developed the antithetical Eve-Mary parallelism and was the first to attribute the title of “Eve’s advocate” to the Virgin (30). The concept of mediation is contained in the term Advocate because, according to St. Irenaeus, as Advocate, Mary performs the role of Mediatrix of reconciliation between the just divine Judge and the guilty Eve. The Devil, on the other hand, is the one who accuses Eve before God and requests her condemnation (31).

Origen (+254) interprets the episode of the Visitation as an example of the Virgin’s mediation. Her journey took place so “that she might communicate some of the power she derived from him (whom) she had conceived, to John, yet in his mother’s womb” (32). In a text attributed to Origen but not recognized as authentic by the critics, the title of Mediatrix appears for the first time: “All human creatures have been renewed through Mary … Mediatrix of life” (33).

The prayer Sub Tuum Praesidium, written in Egypt in the third century: “Under your mercy we take refuge, Mother of God, do not reject our supplications in necessity. But deliver us from danger. (You) alone chaste, alone blessed” (34). This ancient prayer, with minor variations, is found from time immemorial in the antiphonary of the Roman, Ambrosian, Byzantine and Coptic liturgies (35). The intercession ascending toward God (do not reject our supplications) and the descending mediation that brings God’s help to men (deliver us from danger) is clearly seen.

In the ancient Cimitero Maggiore (Main Cemetery) on the Via Nomantana in Rome, there is the depiction of the Virgin Mary in a position of prayer, of intercession, which dates back to the fourth century.

The doctrine of mediation recurs often in the authentic scripts of St. Ephraem (+373), the great Doctor of the Syriac Church, or in scripts simply attributed to him by tradition. He does not use the term itself, but equivalent expressions: “The human race … depends upon your patronage and has you alone as its refuge and defense. … Your prayer, in fact, is powerful with your Son” (36). She has received an unlimited power from God: “You are true Mother of God, and therefore you are powerful” (37).

In the celebrated hymn Akathistos, attributed to St. Romanos the Melodist (+560), Mary’s help is invoked in various ways: “By your invincible power, deliver me from every kind of danger” (38); “Deliver all from every evil, and save from future suffering all who cry to thee. Alleluia” (39).

Theoteknos, bishop of Livias (sixth century) is the first in the West to use the title Mediatrix: “She has departed for heaven as our Mediatrix … and because she is certainly accepted by God, she obtains spiritual graces for us. During her time on earth she watched over us; she was like a universal providence for all her subjects. Now in heaven, she remains an impregnable defense, interceding for us with her Son and God” (40). Except for the literature ascribed to pseudo-Ephraem, this is the first time that the title of Mediatrix is explicitly attributed to Mary in a text the author of which is known with certainty.

Patristic Mariology reached its zenith with the three great Eastern homilists of the eighth century. They are St. Germanus of Constantinople (+733), St. Andrew of Crete (+740), and St. John Damascene (+749). Besides using the term Mediatrix explicitly, they study the doctrine of her universal dispensation of graces in depth.

For St. Germanus the Most Blessed Virgin Mary is the “manifest Mediatrix of all goods” (41); “no one obtains a grace by mercy except through you, who were worthy to harbor God himself in your womb” (42). “You cannot not be answered from the time that it pleased God to dwell with you, like a son with his true and irreproachable Mother. … And because of this the Christian people, recognizing its miserable state, entrusts its prayers to you so that you may present them to God” (43).

St. Andrew of Crete appeals to Mary “Mediatrix of law and grace” (44). St. John Damascene illustrates the doctrine of Mary’s mediation with a splendid biblical image: “As Jacob saw the ladder uniting heaven to earth … so you also, fulfilling the role of mediatrix become a stairway for God who descends to us so that he might assume our weak nature and join and unite it to himself” (45); “You are the perennial source of the true light … the cause of all our goods … (from heaven) you bless the world, you sanctify the universe” (46).

Theological Development: Medieval, Post-Tridentine and Neo-Scholastic Epochs

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (+1153) stands out among the large group of writers who in the twelfth century affirm Mary’s mediation. His doctrine is clear and precise: “God has willed that we should have nothing that would not pass through the hands of Mary. … Do you also desire someone to intercede for you with him? Run to Mary” (47). Mary is defined by the Mellifluous Doctor as the “aqueduct” through which all graces flow from God to men. The works of St. Bernard influenced the entire subsequent Mariology during the Middle Ages.

Pseudo-Albertus Magnus asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary “is numerically full of all graces, which, numerically, pass through her hands” (48).

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (O.Min., +1274) writes explicitly that “every grace comes to us through Mary’s intervention” (49).

St. Bernardine of Siena (O.Min., +1444) affirms that “all gifts, virtues and graces of the same Holy Spirit are administered by her hands to whomever she desires, when, in what manner, and to what degree she wishes” (50).

The universal mediation of all graces is common doctrine among the post-tridentine theologians: Francisco Suárez (S.J., +1617), St. Robert Bellarmine (S.J., +1621), Ven. James Olier (+1657), St. John Eudes (+1680), Henry Boudon (+1702), Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (+1704), Pierre de Berulle (+1629), to mention only a few. It is one of the major themes of the golden age of Spanish Mariology, the seventeenth century, notable not only for works of theological erudition, but also for one of the greatest and most influential works of Mariology in a contemplative key, The Mystical City of God, by the Ven. Mary of Jesus of Agreda (+1665) (51). St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort (+1716), with his timeless work, True Devotion to Mary, is another outstanding figure in the history of this doctrine. In the seventeenth century the Jansenistic influences gave rise to a certain diffidence toward the Marian cult and everything in Mariology which seems to, in their opinion, overly exalt the Virgin’s excellence. The first major representative of this minimizing current was the Rhinelander Adam Widenfeld, with his Monita salutaria (1673), whose publication gave rise to violent polemics. In Italy the authoritative spokesman of this critical current was the famous historian Ludovico Antonio Muratori. St. Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori (+1787) responded to his anti-Marian theses so effectively, above all with his superb book The Glories of Mary, that they were not given credence again until our days.

In the twentieth century the doctrine of Mary’s universal mediation gained the universal consent of theologians. First-rate monographic studies demonstrate the inclusion of the doctrine on Mary’s mediation into the patrimony of Catholic faith and illustrate its wonderful conexio dogmatum. Among these the studies of Godts (52), Bittremieux (53) and Lepicier (54) stand out.

By initiative of Cardinal Desiré Mercier (+1926) (55), archbishop of Malines-Brussels, the international movement for the proclamation of the dogma of Mary Mediatrix of all graces was born. On January 12, 1922, in response to the Belgian Cardinal’s request, Benedict XV (+1922) granted to all dioceses of Belgium the Mass in honor of Mary Mediatrix of all graces, to be celebrated on May 31. In November 1922, Pius XI (+1939) instituted three commissions—one Roman, one Spanish and one Belgian—to study the definability of Marian mediation. The documents of the Spanish and Belgian commissions have been recently published in the periodical Marianum, both with a positive conclusion in support of the doctrine’s definability (56).

Notes

(1) Aa. Vv., Mary at the Foot of the Cross. Acts of the International Symposium on Marian Coredemption, 6 vv., Academy of the Immaculate, New Bedford, MA, 2001-2007. The six volumes (together, over 3,000 pages) report the acts of the symposia held in England annually from 2000 to 2005, thereafter in Fatima. A seventh volume is in the course of publication. The symposia and the publication of their acts are under the direction of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (Academy of the Immaculate, New Bedford, MA). The unique role of Mary as maternal Mediatrix in the Church rests proximately on her position as Immaculate Co-redemptrix on Calvary; hence the importance of these studies for our theme.

There are, in addition, two other events of great importance regarding studies on Marian coredemption:

1) Il Simposio internazionale sul mistero di Maria Corredentrice, Shrine of Castelpetroso (Italy), September 8-12, 1996, promoted by his excellency Msgr. Ettore Di Filippo (+2006), archbishop of Campobasso-Boiano (Italy) and president of the Bishop’s Conference of Abruzzo-Molise.

2) Il Simposio sul Mistero della Corredenzione Mariana, held at Fatima May 3-7, 2005, promoted and directed by the following cardinals: Telesphore Toppo, Luis Aponte Martínez, Varkey Vithayathil, Edouard Gagnon, Ricardo Vidal, Ernesto Corripio Ahumada. Acts: Maria: “Unica Cooperatrice alla Redenzione” – Mary: “Unique Cooperator in the Redemption,” Academy of the Immaculate, New Bedford, MA, 2005, 583 pp.

(2) M. Miravalle:

1) Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbara (CA) 1993, pp. 80;

2) Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations. Towards a Papal Definition?, Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbara 1995, 325 pp.

3) Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations II. Papal, Pneumatological, Ecumenical, Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbara 1997, 329 pp.

4) Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations III. Contemporary Insights on a Fifth Marian Dogma, Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbara 2000, 272 pp.

Mark Miravalle, Professor of Mariology at the University of Steubenville (Ohio), has also edited the volume Aa. Vv., Mary Co-redemptrix. Doctrinal Issues Today, Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbara 2002, 274 pp. In addition, he is the author of two excellent monographs on this subject: The Dogma and the Triumph, Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbara 1998, 152 pp.; “With Jesus”: The Story of Mary Co-redemptrix, Queenship Publishing, Goleta, CA, 2003, 252 pp.

(3) Aa. Vv., Maria Corredentrice. Storia e Teologia, CME, Frigento 1998-2005, 7 vv. Of particular interest is the study on our specific theme in M. Hauke, La mediazione materna di Maria secondo papa Giovanni Paolo II, in op. cit., vol. VII, 2005, pp. 35-158.

(4) For example, A. Escudero Cabello, S.D.B., La cuestión de la mediación en la preparación del Vaticano II, LAS, Rome 1997, 422 pp.; B. Gherardini, La Corredentrice, ed. Vivere, Rome 1998, 408 pp.; M. Hauke, Maria “Mediatrice di tutte le grazie.” La mediazione universale di Maria nell’opera teologica e pastorale del Cardinale Mercier, Eupress FTL (Faculty of Theology of Lugano)—Reggiani SpA (Varese), Lugano, Switzerland—Varese, Italy 2005, 212 pp.; D. Lacourture, Marie Médiatrice de toutes les grâces, ed. des Béatitudes, Saint-Amand (France) 1997, 324 pp.; J. Ferrer Arellano, La Mediación Materna de la Inmaculada. Esperanza Ecuménica de la Iglesia, ed. Arca de la Alianza, Madrid 2006, 318 pp.; J.D. Miller, Marian Mediation: Is it True to Say that Mary is Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate?, Academy of the Immaculate, New Bedford, MA, 2004, 168 pp; J. Schug, O.F.M. Cap., Mary, Mother, St. Francis Chapel Press, Springfield, MA, 1992.

(5) For example, J. Galot, S.J., Maria: mediatrice o madre universale?, in La Civilità Cattolica, 147/1 (1996) 213-225; J. Galot, La mediazione di Maria: natura e limiti, ibid., 148 (1997) 13-25; P. Siano, F.I., Uno studio su Maria Santissima ‘Mediatrice di tutte le Grazie’ nel magistero pontificio fino al pontificato di Giovanni Paolo II, Immaculata Mediatrix, 6 (2006) 299-356. See also the articles of Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner in the periodical Immaculata Mediatrix for the years 2001-2003; J. Schug, O.F.M. Cap. and M. Miravalle, Mary Coredemptrix: The Significance of Her Title in the Magisterium of the Church, in M. Miravalle, ed., Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Foundations. Towards a Papal Definition?, op. cit., pp. 215-246.

(6) Historically, the mystery of Mary, in one way or another, is at the very heart of many theological controversies since the foundation of the Church. That this is so is no reason to question the certainty of that mystery as an article of faith, for we believe, as do the apostles and their successors, in the Christ, the Son of the living God, born of the Virgin Mary. Rather, division over this mystery arises from the centrality of Mary with Jesus in the mystery of salvation, and the on-going struggle between the Woman and the serpent-dragon (cf. Gen 3:15 and Rev 12:1ff.) which accounts for the violence of the controversy at times. Today the controversy continues about the question of the Woman’s active role in the work of redemption, viz., the maternal role of Mary qua Mediatrix. A good introduction to these controversies can be found in Miravalle, “With Jesus”: The Story of Mary Coredemptrix, cit.; and to the type of atmosphere leading to denial of Marian mediation and the title Mediatrix cf. G. Morrissey, For the Love of Mary. Defending the Church from Anti-Marianism, Brooklyn NY 1999. On the historical background cf. M. Hauke, Mary, “Mediatress of Grace.” Mary’s Universal Mediation of Grace in the Theological and Pastoral Works of Cardinal Mercier: Supplement to Mary at the Foot of the Cross IV, New Bedford, MA, 2004. For the bearing of the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater on the problematic cf. J.F. Bifet, La mediación maternal de Maria. Aspectos especificos de la enciclica “Redemptoris Mater,” in Ephemerides Mariologicae 39 (1989) 237-254; E. Llamas, La mediación maternal de Maria en la enciclica “Redemptoris Mater,” in Estudios Marianos 61 (1995) 149-180.

We can be quite sure of her triumph, precisely because as maternal mediatrix Christ entrusted, consecrated, the entire Church and each member to his Mother, the Woman foretold in Genesis 3:15 and revealed in glory in Revelation 12:1ff. But we cannot be sure of our share in that victory, unless we understand clearly and accept in practice the universal mediation of Mary in the Church and in the lives of each and every member, actual and potential. In practice, this means we must engage in true devotion to the Virgin, as St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort calls our basic response to the mystery of Marian mediation here and now, or live total consecration to the Immaculate, as St. Maximilian M. Kolbe defines the same basic response.

(7) Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854; Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, November 1, 1950, in AAS 42 (1950).

(8) St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, Scritti d Massimiliano Kolbe, Rome 1997, n. 1318. This profound essay, an example of contemplative theology of the highest order, was dictated by the saint only hours before his final arrest by Gestapo, Feb. 17, 1941. Unfortunately, there exists no satisfactory English translation to date.

(9) St. Bonaventure, Breviloquium, p. II, in particular chapters 2 and 9.

(10) More technical discussion of this issue is carried out via use of the terms “transcendental” and “predicamental” participation, the first denoting sharing in a spiritual perfection, the second sharing in material goods. Mediation par excellence is a form of metaphysical analogy, in the first instance the reconciliation of like and unlike. Cf. J. Ferrer Arellano, Marian Coredemption in the Light of Christian Philosophy, in Mary at the Foot of the Cross II, New Bedford, MA, 2002, pp. 113-150. The effective recognition of the real difference between these two forms of predication requires a discussion of the relation between analogy and univocity in metaphysics, a point clearly recognized by Bl. John Duns Scotus, especially in regard to matters touching the will and the person, such as mediation. Analogy in order to mediate requires a mean or the “univocal.” Here are two key texts from his commentaries on Book I of the Sentences: “Teachers who speak of God and of God’s knowable attributes employ univocity in their manner of reasoning, even if they reject the word” (Rep. Par. I, d 3, q 1, n 7); and “Analogy would be useless if those truths that are evident in creatures were not attainable by the same reasoning as those which are attributed to God in an eminent degree” (Ord., d 8, p 1, q 3). Mediation is precisely one of these perfections classed by Scotus as “pure perfections” only accessible via “metaphysical univocity,” and therefore permitting participation without diminution of unity. On the difference between simple perfections and simply simple, or pure perfections cf. W. Hoeres, Die Wille als reine Vollkomenheit nach Duns Scotus, Munich 1962. Unfortunately there is nothing comparable in English. The classic Protestant position on Christ alone as Mediator rests on a wrongheaded denial of these basics of sound metaphysics, and leads straight to the monophysite theory of salvation excluding human cooperation in any form at any level, even of subordinate good works. Marian minimalism among Catholics in regard to the title universal Mediatrix heads in the same direction.

(11) For an introduction to the thought of Scotus on Marian mediation and its relation to the absolute predestination of Christ, cf. Maximilian M. Dean, F.I, A Primer on the Absolute Primacy of Christ. Blessed John Duns Scotus and the Franciscan Thesis, New Bedford, MA, 2006.

(12) Witness the quasi-universal practice of divorce today, a moral-religious plague if ever there was one. Modern forms of mediation, e.g., psychological therapy-counseling in many cases, are about as successful as the ancient Roman pontifices as religious mediators. Their bridges over the Tiber were masterpieces of engineering; but neither ancient nor modern technique suffices to resolve the problem of sin, social discord, and death.

(13) Summa theologiae, III, q 26, a 1.

(14) Breviloquium, p. II, chapter 9. On the contributions of St. Bonaventure to an understanding of the concept of Marian mediation cf. P.D. Fehlner, Immaculata Mediatrix—Toward a Dogmatic Definition of the Coredemption, in Mary Corredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate. Theological Foundations II, Santa Barbara, CA, 1997, pp. 259-329; Idem, Il Mistero della Corredenzione secondo il Dottore Serafico San Bonaventura, in Maria Corredentrice. Storia e Teologia, vol. II, Frigento 1999, 11-91.

(15) St. Bonaventure, III Sent., d 1, a 2, q 2; II Sent., d 23, dub 4; for a parallel text in St. Thomas, Summa Th., II, II, q 2, a 7. Cf. P.D. Fehlner, Redemption, Metaphysics and the Immaculate Conception, in Mary at the Foot of the Cross V, New Bedford, MA, 2005, pp. 186-262, here p. 234.

(16) St. Bonaventure writes: “Whether we speak of the (Word) becoming man, or of the Woman becoming Mother of God, we are speaking of realities beyond what is due to or comprehensible by a mere creature” (III Sent., d 4, a 2, q 2). The same mysterious character belongs to the titles Mediator and Mediatrix.

(17) St. Bonaventure, Collationes in Hexaemeron, col. 1, nn. 12-17. The middle position of the Word in the Trinity is the basis for his role in creation, and for the appropriateness of his Incarnation for the work of recreation and recapitulation, viz., a work of sacerdotal and sacrificial mediation. Inseparable from this at its every moment is the Virgin Mother Mediatrix. Cf. P.D. Fehlner, F.I., Immaculata Mediatrix—Toward a Dogmatic Definition of the Coredemption, in Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate. Theological Foundations II, Santa Barbara, CA, 1997, pp. 259-329.

(18) Cf. Aa.Vv., Maria: “Unica Cooperatrice alla Redenzione” – Mary: “Unique Cooperator in the Redemption,” New Bedford, MA, 2005.

(19) Cf. I. Bover, Pauli doctrina de Christi Mediatione Mariae mediationi applicata, in Marianum, 4 (1942) 81-90.

(20) St. Bonaventure, Collationes de septem Donis Spiritus Sancti, col. 6. Cf. P.D. Fehlner, Il mistero della Corredenzione secondo il Dottore Serafico San Bonaventura, in Maria Corredentrice. Storia e Teologia II , Frigento 1999, pp. 11-92.

(21) Cf. Pope Benedict XVI, homily at the ordinary public consistory for the creation of new cardinals, March 25, 2006.

(22) Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Ecclessia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003, chapter six.

(23) It is in this all-inclusive sense that the title of Mediatrix is taken in the petition that the cardinals and bishops united at Fatima in 2005 addressed to the Pope. Cf. Aa.Vv., Maria: “Unica Cooperatrice alla Redenzione” – Mary: “Unique Cooperator in the Redemption,” op. cit. This delineation of the all-inclusive sense is essentially that of St. Bonaventure, Collationes in Hexaemeron, col. 6.

(24) For the biblical foundation of all of dogmatic Mariology, including the doctrine on Marian mediation, see S.M. Manelli, F.I., All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed: Biblical Mariology, Academy of the Immaculate, New Bedford, MA, 2005, 442 pp.; I. De La Potterie, S.J., Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant, New York, 1992; P.C. Landucci, Maria Santissima nel Vangelo, Ed. San Paolo, Rome 2000, 537 pp.

(25) Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptoris Mater, March 25, 1987, 21.

(26) On the patristic development of this point cf. H. Rahner, Our Lady and the Church, New York 1961. Within the context of a contemplative Mariology see Ven. Mary of Agreda, Mystical City of God, in particular The Coronation (part III, in the complete English version, vol. 4: a good introduction is available in E. Llamas, The Ven. Mary of Agreda and the Mariology of Vatican II, New Bedford, MA, 2006). The pattern of Marian mediation embedded in the Bible continues from the earliest days of the Church as a fixed context, within which from the sixth century the title Mediatrix will commonly be ascribed to the Virgin Mother. Further, the ecclesio-typical aspects of active Marian mediation are clearly shown to depend on the Christo-typical, in a proximate fashion on Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix.

(27) Bossuet, Homily III on the Conception of the Virgin.

(28) Cf. St. Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone, n. 100, in PG 6, 709-711a. For the patristic foundation of Marian mediation, see L. Gambero, S.M., Maria nel pensiero dei Padri della Chiesa, Ed. Paoline, Alba (Cn) 1991 (English version: Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999); G. Roschini, O.S.M., Maria Santissima nella Storia della Salvezza, vol. II, Ed. Pisani, Isola del Liri (Fr), pp. 171-179, 209-222; L. Cignelli, O.F.M., Maria Nuova Eva nella patristica greca, Assisi 1966; Testi mariani deli primo millennio, ed. G. Gharib, E. Toniolo, L. Gambero, G. Di Nola, Roma 1988-1993, 4 vv.

(29) St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, 18, 2, cit. by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville (Minn.) 1970, p. 18 (n. 42).

(30) St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses, V, 19, 1; Demonstratio praedicationis apostolicae, 31, 33, cit. by B. de Margerie, Mary Coredemptrix in the Light of Patristics, in Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations, op. cit., p. 9.

(31) Cf. G. Jouassard, Le rôle des chrétiennes comme intercesseurs auprès de Dieu dans la chrétienté lyonnaise au second siècle, in Revue des sciences religieuses, 30 (1956) 217-229; M. Jourion, Aux origines de la prière d’intercession de Marie, in Etudes Mariales, 23 (1966) 37-42.

(32) Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 6, 49, in GCS, IV-57, p. 27. (English cit. in A. Menzies, ed., Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 9, 4th ed., 1897, p. 375.)

(33) Pseudo-Origen, in Florilegium casinense, 2, p. 154, 2c.

(34) Translation from the original Greek. The papyrus that relates this prayer is property of the John Rylands Library of Manchester (England). Published in the critical edition of M.C.H. Roberts, Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester, vol. III, Manchester 1938, p. 46. See also La mariologia dei Padri. Età pre nicena, LAS, Roma; G. Giamberardini, O.F.M., La mediazione di Maria nella Chiesa Egiziana, Cairo 1952, 124 pp.; G. Giamberardini, Il culto mariano in Egitto, 3 vv., Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem 1974-1978. English translation cit. by J.D. Miller, Marian Mediation: Is It True to say that Mary is Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate?, op. cit., p. 58; Maria Francesca Perilla, F.I., Sub Tuum Praesiduum. Incomparable Marian Praeconium, in Mary at the Foot of the Cross IV, New Bedford, MA, 2004, pp. 138-169.

(35) Cf. P.F. Mercernier, L’antienne mariale la plus ancienne, in Le Museon, 53 (1939) 229-233; Mercernier, La plus ancienne prière à la Sainte Vierge, in Les Questions Liturgiques et Paroissales, 25 (1940) 33-36.

(36) St. Ephraem, Opera, Ed. Assemani, vol. III, p. 532-533.

(37) Ibid, p. 526.

(38) Hymn Akathistos. Cf. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I, Robert Appleton Co., 1907.

(39) Ibid.

(40) Theoteknos, Homily on the Assumption, n. 9, in A. Wenger, L’Assomption de la Très Sainte Vierge dans la Tradition Byzantine du VI au X siècle, Paris 1955, pp. 289, 291.

(41) St. Germanus of Constantinople, Homily 2 on the Dormition, in PG 98, 357.

(42) Idem, Homily on the Dedication of the Virgin to the Temple, in PG 98, 380-381.

(43) Idem, Homily 2 on the Dormition, in PG 98, 352b.

(44) St. Andrew of Crete, Sermon 4 On the Birth of Mary, PG 97, 865A. English cit. in “Appendix IV: English Translation of Chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium,” Marian Studies, Vol. XXXVII (1986), p. 248, note 15.

(45) St. John Damascene, Homily 1 On the Dormition of the B.V. Mary, 8, PG 96, 712bc–713a. Cf. “Appendix IV: English Translation of Chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium,” art. cit.

(46) Ibid., 716c. 717a.

(47) St. Bernard, In Vigilia Navitatis Domini Sermo 3, in PL 183, 100. Cf. P. Haffner, The Mystery of Mary (Wiltshire, England: Anthony Rowe Ltd. 2004), p. 258.

(48) Pseudo Albertus Magnus, Mariale, p. 164.

(49) St. Bonaventure, Opera omnia, vol. IX, p. 641a. On Marian mediation in St. Bonaventure cf. L. Di Fonzo, Doctrina Sancti Bonaventurae de Universali Mediatione B. Virginia Mariae, Rome 1938; P.D. Fehlner, Il mistero della Corredenzione…, cit. St. Bonaventure is rightly considered the “Doctor of Marian Mediation,” so profound and so many are his insights, so systematically thought out. Alone among the great Doctors of the thirteenth century, his teaching is at once a witness to the riches of the preceding tradition and a key to the subsequent development of Mariology in the West, particularly with Scotus. For the clinching argument for the Immaculate Conception in Scotus (and in the Bull of definition, Ineffabilis Deus, of Bl. Pius IX) rests on the concept of a most perfect redemption by a most perfect Redeemer. What makes that redemption most perfect is clearly expounded by St. Bonaventure in terms of Marian mediation, whence the need of a unique sanctity or fullness of grace in Mary as the ontological “mean” of her office between Christ and us.

(50) St. Bernardine of Siena, Homily on the Nativity of the B.V. Mary, chapter 8, cit. by M.J. Scheeben, Mariology, vol. II (New York: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 271. St. Bernardine is another great “Doctor of Marian Mediation,” particularly as a foundation of Catholic spirituality. The substance of his teaching is doubtless what Scotus might have written, had he not died so young.

(51) By way of introduction to the theological value of this work and the significance of the golden age of Spanish Mariology in particular cf. E. Llamas, The Ven. Mary of Agreda and the Mariology of Vatican II, New Bedford, MA, 2006.

(52) F.X. Godts, C.Ss.R., De definibilitate Mediationis universalis Deiprarae, Brussels 1904, 451 pp.

(53) J. Bittremieux J., De mediatione universali B.M. Virginis quoad gratis, Brugis 1926.

(54) A. Lépicier, O.S.M. (Card.), L’Immacolata Corredentrice Mediatrice, Rome 1928.

(55) Cf. M. Hauke, Maria “Mediatrice di tutte le grazie.” La mediazione universale di Maria nell’opera teologica e pastorale di cardinale Mercier, op. cit.

(56) G. Besutti, O.S.M., La mediazione di Maria secondo gli studi di due Commissioni istituite da Pio XI, with introduction by I.M. Calabuig, O.S.M., Marianum, 47 (1985) 37-174. Dr. Manfred Hauke is presently conducting detailed archival research seeking to locate the mysterious, elusive report of the Roman Commission.

Mary’s universal mediation has been the object of the unchanging ordinary Papal Magisterium for at least the past three centuries and therefore must be considered Catholic doctrine, definitive tenenda, not dogmatically defined, but certainly definable (57). Despite this fact, a certain debate exists among some Mariologists today concerning the legitimacy and significance of the title Mediatrix of all graces. Those who deny its legitimacy generally also deny Mary’s coredemption, thus witnessing the logical nexus linking these two truths (58).

Pope Benedict XIV (+1758) describes Our Blessed Lady as the “heavenly stream which brings to the hearts of wretched mortals all God’s gifts and graces” (59).

Pope Pius VII (+1823) calls Mary the “Dispensatrix of all graces (gratiarum omnium dispensatricem)” (60).

Bl. Pius IX (+1878) places his hopes in the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, she who “with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world. … (She) who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers” (61).

Leo XIII (+1903) writes that “with equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. Thus as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no man goes to Christ but by his Mother” (62).

In another encyclical, Leo XIII explains that in the vocal recitation of the Rosary we address first the Father who is in heaven and then the Virgin Mary. “Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which we have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: ‘Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us’” (63). At the end of the encyclical the Holy Father, citing the authority of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, reaffirms that God has given us a “Mediatrix” in Mary, willing “that all good should come to us by the hands of Mary” (64).

In Leo’s Encyclical Adiutricem populi, we read that the Blessed Virgin Mary, “who was so intimately associated with the mystery of human salvation is just as closely associated with the distribution of the graces which for all time will flow from the redemption. … Among her many other titles we find her hailed as ‘Our Lady, our Mediatrix,’ ‘the Reparatrix of the whole world,’ ‘the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts’” (65).

And in his Encyclical Fidentem piumque we read:

Undoubtedly the name and attributes of the absolute Mediator belong to no other than to Christ, for being one person, and yet both man and God, he restored the human race to the favor of the heavenly Father: One Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all (1 Tim 2:5-6). And yet, as the Angelic Doctor teaches, there is no reason why certain others should not be called in a certain way mediators between God and man, that is to say, in so far as they co-operate by predisposing and ministering in the union of man with God (Summa, p. 3, q. 26., a. 1, 2). Such are the angels and saints, the prophets and priests of both Testaments; but especially has the Blessed Virgin a claim to the glory of this title. For no single individual can even be imagined who has ever contributed or ever will contribute so much towards reconciling man with God. She offered to mankind, hastening to eternal ruin, a Savior, at that moment when she received the announcement of the mystery of peace brought to this earth by the angel, with that admirable act of consent in the name of the whole human race (Summa. p. 3, q. 30., a. 1). She it is from whom is born Jesus; she is therefore truly his mother, and for this reason a worthy and acceptable “Mediatrix to the Mediator” (66).

St. Pius X (+1914), in the Encyclical Ad diem illum, writes:

It cannot, of course, be denied that the dispensation of these treasures is the particular and peculiar right of Jesus Christ, for they are the exclusive fruit of his death, who by his nature is the mediator between God and man. Nevertheless, by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the Mother and the Son, it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be the most powerful Mediatrix and Advocate of the whole world with her divine Son (totius terrarium orbis potentissima apud unigenitum Filium suum mediatrix et conciliatrix). The source, then, is Jesus Christ. … But Mary … is the channel, or, if you will, the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head—we mean the neck. … We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace—a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption … she is the supreme minister of the distribution of graces (princeps largiendarum gratiarum ministra) (67).

Pope Benedict XV (+1922), in the Apostolic Letter Inter sodalicia (March 22, 1918), affirms the role of Mary Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix at the foot of the Cross of her Son:

Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother’s 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. Consequently … the graces which we receive from the treasury of the redemption are distributed, so to speak, by the hands of this sorrowful Virgin (68).

In the context of the canonization of St. Joan of Arc, Benedict XV observed that “every grace and blessing comes to us” by means of Our Blessed Lady. Therefore, besides the intercession of the saints, “one must include the influence of her whom the Holy Fathers greeted with the title, Mediatrix omnium gratiam” (69).

On January 12, 1921, the Holy See received the requests of Cardinal Mercier (archbishop primate of Belgium) and of the Belgian bishops, approving the Mass and Office of the Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary Mediatrix of all graces, established on the date of May 31. The liturgical celebration of this feast was granted to the dioceses of Belgium and to all dioceses and religious orders requesting it (70).

With the Apostolic Letter Sodalitatem Nostrae Dominae, Benedict XV granted plenary and partial indulgences to the Sodalizio di Nostra Signora della buona morte (Association of Our Lady of a Happy Death); he also granted indulgences for the day of May 31, Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary “Mediatrix of all graces” (71).

Pius XI (+1939) calls the Virgin Mary the “Mediatrix of all graces with God” (72); he writes that Christ has associated Mary with himself as “minister and mediatress of grace” (73); he makes reference to the most efficacious patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary “Mediatrix of all graces” (74); he establishes the Blessed Virgin Mary of graces of Mount Philerimos as the principal patroness of the Archdiocese of Rhodes; and, in the related document, the Blessed Virgin is called “Mediatrix of all graces” (75).

Pius XII (+1958) very often makes use of the titles Mediatrix omnium gratiarum, gratiarum omnium apud Deum sequestra, and other similar expressions (76). In the Encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam, Pius XII wonderfully illustrates the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s universal mediation:

Certainly, in the full and strict meaning of the term, only Jesus Christ, the God-man, is King; but Mary, too, as Mother of the divine Christ, as his associate in the redemption, in his struggle with his enemies and his final victory over them, has a share, though in a limited and analogous way, in his royal dignity. For from her union with Christ she attains a radiant eminence transcending that of any other creature; from her union with Christ she receives the royal right to dispose of the treasures of the divine Redeemer’s kingdom; from her union with Christ finally comes the inexhaustible efficacy of her maternal intercession before the Son and his Father. Hence it cannot be doubted that Mary most holy is far above all other creatures in dignity, and after her Son possesses primacy over all. …

For if through his humanity the divine Word performs miracles and gives graces, if he uses his sacraments and saints as instruments for the salvation of men, why should he not make use of the role and work of his most holy Mother in imparting to us the fruits of redemption? “With a heart that is truly a mother’s,” to quote again our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, “does she approach the problem of our salvation, and is solicitous for the whole human race; made Queen of heaven and earth by the Lord, exalted above all choirs of angels and saints, and standing at the right hand of her only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she intercedes powerfully for us with a mother’s prayers, obtains what she seeks, and cannot be refused.” On this point another of our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII, has said that an “almost immeasurable” power has been given Mary in the distribution of graces; St. Pius X adds that she fills this office “as by the right of a mother” (77).

Bl. John XXIII (+1962) granted the title and privilege of minor basilica to the church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary Mediatrix of All Graces, Sultana of Africa, located in the locality of Lodonga, in Uganda. In the text of the related apostolic letter there are three references to the “Mediatrix of all graces” (78).

The Mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Second Vatican Council

On November 21, 1964, after an editorial work of about four years (if we include the preparatory work before the Council), Paul VI promulgated the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, the eighth chapter of which is entirely dedicated to the Mother of God and of men (79). Before arriving at this definitive text, there was no shortage of lively discussions on the title of Mediatrix. Many bishops asked for its dogmatic definition, but others were opposed to it for various reasons, not the least of which were those of an ecumenical nature (80).

Among the Fathers of the Central Preparatory Commission of the Second Vatican Council, 16 expressed reservation with the Marian title of Mediatrix (81). The use of the title would damage the ecumenical dialogue with the Protestants (82). Archbishop Alter (Cincinnati, Ohio), with cardinals Koenig (Vienna, Austria) and Godfrey (Westminster), echoed these sentiments (83). Instead of mediation, Cardinal Montini preferred to speak of the Blessed Virgin’s spiritual maternity, her regality and her intercession (84).

Fr. Paolo Siano rightly observes in his above-cited article that there was, in this attitude, a kind of opposition to the pontifical thought, because, almost on the morrow of the conclusion of these discussions, July 23, 1962, Bl. John XXIII approved the new Missal which contained the Holy Mass to the Beata Maria Virgo omnium gratiarum Mediatrix (Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all graces) (85).

During the Second Vatican Council, particularly in the third session held in 1964, there was a lively discussion on various Mariological themes, and there was also a discussion on the title of Mediatrix (86). Such a title was commonly accepted by everyone, but a few, including cardinals Alfrink, Léger and Bea, who preferred it to be omitted from the official documents of the Council in order to promote ecumenism toward Protestant Christians (the great majority of whom rejected the title then and continue to reject it presently) (87). There were, in fact, rumors that the Protestants were threatening to break off all ecumenical dialogue if the title of Mediatrix were to be inserted into the conciliar dogmatic constitution. Meanwhile, 310 Council Fathers desired an authoritative, extraordinary and dogmatic pronouncement by the Council in favor of Mary’s mediation-coredemption (88). To reconcile the two parties it was decided to insert the title of Mediatrix into the Marian document of the Council, but also to include adequate explanations to respond to Protestant objections and to omit all examination regarding the nature of this mediation.

The Protestant “observers” invited to the Council were not satisfied, but they did not break off the dialogue (89). The omission of the title, in fact, would have cast a shadow upon the preceding Ordinary Magisterium and could have perhaps diverted the ecumenical dialogue from the level of truth to the level of political ambiguity. It could have contributed to “maintaining rather than dissipating the ambiguous” at the service of a “mistaken ecumenism” (90).

Fr. Carlo Balić (O.F.M., +1977), one of the original drafters of chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium, provides a suitable response to those who wish to interpret the Council as the moment of departure from the preceding Mariological tradition: “The Council has not mitigated or deprived the concept of the mediation of the Virgin of its content in the sense in which in which it has been propagated by the theologians of our (twentieth) century” (91).

In examining the conciliar text of No. 62 of Lumen Gentium, we read the following:

Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator (92).

That is why, in the Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary is also invoked under the title of “Mediatrix.” The Council document cites other magisterial documents as proof of the complete catholicity of the title: Leo XIII, Adiutricem populi; St. Pius X, Ad diem illum; Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor; Pius XII, Nuntius Radiophonicus (in AAS 38 (1946) 266).

In order to prevent an interpretation of Marian mediation as “mere” intercession, many Council Fathers proposed the Marian title of “Dispensatrix of all graces,” already fully accepted by the Magisterium and perfectly in conformity to common Catholic doctrine. The Doctrinal Commission replied that the Council text did not intend to deny this doctrine (93). Therefore, the Second Vatican Council does not at all repudiate the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix of all graces (94), a doctrine also clearly taught in the papal documents expressly cited by the Council text.

Paul VI (+1978): He preferred to speak of Mary as our intercessor (95) with Christ rather than as Dispensatrix of graces (96), but this is a question of a different emphasis, not of a denial. Still, Pope Paul VI was certainly less inclined to speak on these subjects than his predecessors, from Leo XIII to Pius XII.

By a faculty granted by Paul VI, Cardinal James Lercaro, assisted by the Secretary Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, approved and confirmed the “Proper” of the Masses of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, for use in the Italian provinces (97), in which is found the Mass of “Mary Most Holy Mediatrix of All Grace,” a feast of third class, on the date of May 8 (98).

In the Apostolic Exhortation Signum Magnum, Paul VI recalls that Mary, assumed into heaven, assists her still-pilgrim children:

She makes herself their Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix. Of this intercession of hers for the People of God with the Son, the Church has been persuaded, ever since the first centuries, as testified to by this most ancient antiphon which, with some slight difference, forms part of the liturgical prayer in the East as well as in the West: “We seek refuge under the protection of your mercies, Oh Mother of God; do not reject our supplication in need but save us from perdition, O you who alone are blessed.” … Therefore, as each one of us can repeat with St. Paul: “The Son of God loved me and gave himself up for me,” (Gal 2:29) so in all trust he can believe that the divine Savior has left to him also, in spiritual heritage, his Mother, with all the treasures of grace and virtues with which he had endowed her, that she may pour them over us through the influence of her powerful intercession and our willing imitation. This is why St. Bernard rightly affirms: “Coming to her the Holy Spirit filled her with grace for herself; when the same Spirit pervaded her again she became superabundant and redounding in grace for us also” (99).

At the end of the apostolic exhortation the Pope remembers the 25th anniversary of the “consecration” of the Church and of the human race to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and exhorts “all the sons of the Church to renew personally their consecration to the Immaculate Heart of the Mother of the Church” (100).

In his letter to Cardinal Suenens, archbishop of Malines-Brussels, on the occasion of the Marian International Congress of May 13, 1975, Paul VI writes:

In confirmation of these reflections, we are happy to recall the testimony that also the Fathers and Doctors of the Eastern church, exemplary as they are in the faith and in worship of the Holy Spirit, have borne to ecclesial faith and the cult of the Mother of Christ, as the mediator of divine favors. Their affirmations, however surprising, should not disturb anyone, since it is understood and sometimes clearly mentioned in them that the source of the Virgin’s mediating action is dependent on the action of the Spirit of God. So, for example, St. Ephraem exalts Mary in these superlative tones: “Blessed is she who has been made the source for the whole world, emanating all goods” (S. Ephraem Syri hymni et serm., ed. Th. Lamy Malines, 1882-1902, II, p. 548); and again: “Most holy Lady … the only one that has been made the dwelling of all the graces of the Holy Spirit” (Assem. græc. III, 542). St. John Chrysostom sums up Mary’s salvific work in the following stupendous eulogy: “A virgin chased us out of paradise; thanks to the intervention of another virgin, we have found eternal life again. As we were condemned by the fault of a virgin, so we have been crowned by the merit of a virgin” (Expos. in ps. 44, 7: PG 55, 193). They are echoed, in the eighth century, by St. Germanus of Constantinople, who addresses the following moving invocations to Mary: “You, oh pure, excellent and most merciful Lady, comfort of Christians, … protect us with the wings of your kindness; guard us with your intercession, giving us eternal life; you who are the hope of Christians that does not deceive. … Your gifts are innumerable. For no one, unless through you, oh holy one, obtains salvation. No one, unless through you, is delivered from evil. Who like you, in agreement with your only Son, looks after mankind?” (Concio in sanctam Mariam: PG 98, 327).

This traditional faith, which is common both to the Eastern and to the Western Church, found authoritative confirmation in the teaching of our great predecessor Leo XIII, who, while he published numerous encyclical letters to promote the cult of the Mother of God, invoked especially under the title of Queen of the Holy Rosary, also dedicated a long document encyclical to the exaltation, even more excellent, of the Holy Spirit and promotion of his worship (Enc. Divinum illud munus, May 9, 1897; Acta Leonis, Vol. XVII, pp. 126-128) (101).

John Paul II (+2005) brought the title of Mary Mediatrix of all graces back into favor, despite the reticence of a few theologians who appealed to a restrictive interpretation of conciliar Mariology (102). Pope John Paul II used the title “Mediatrix of all graces” literally at least seven times in his addresses (homilies, discourses, angelus, etc.) (103), according to the research conducted by Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins, Dr. Mark Miravalle, Don Manfred Hauke (104), and Fr. Paolo Siano, F.I. (105)

On other occasions John Paul II used the expressions “Universal Mediatrix of all grace” (106), “Mother of all graces” (107), “Dispensatrix of all grace” (108), giver of “all grace” (109), “Mediatrix of all grace” (110), and “Mediatrix of graces” (111).

In the Marian Encyclical Redemptoris Mater (March 25, 1989), the Pontiff of Totus Tuus illustrates in an in-depth manner the theology of Mary’s maternal mediation.

In the “Parish Priest’s Prayer to Mary Most Holy” contained in the appendix to the Instruction of the Congregation for the Clergy, The Priest, Pastor and Leader of the Parish Community (August 4, 2002), Our Blessed Lady is also invoked with the title “Mediatrix of all graces” (112).

Contained in the Collectio missarum de beata Virgine, approved and promulgated by John Paul II on the occasion of the Marian Year (113) is a Mass of the Virgin Mary Mother and Mediatrix of grace; in the preface of this Mass, we read that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary carries out “a maternal role in the Church: of intercession, of pardon, of prayer and grace, of reconciliation and peace” (114). The Virgin Mary is “Mother of mercy and handmaid of grace” (115). The title of Dispensatrix of grace reappears in other eucological texts of the same Collectio Missarum (116).

As proof that the title of Mediatrix, in the broadest sense, includes that of Co-redemptrix, John Paul II did not hesitate to use the former as well as the latter term. In his article cited above, Fr. Siano has identified a seventh Woytylian text in which the title of Co-redemptrix appears (117), complementing the other six references previously “discovered” by Msgr. Calkins.

Pope Benedict XVI has recently continued the overall succession of papal writers on Our Lady’s role as Mediatrix of all graces. In his May 11, 2007, homily in which he canonized the Brazilian Franciscan, Fr. Antônio de Sant’ana Galvão, O.F.M., Benedict XVI uses the extraordinary foundation of the Marian mediation of every grace of the redemption in a generous manner somewhat reminiscent of St. Bernard, St. Louis-Marie and St. Maximilian: “There is no fruit of grace in the history of salvation that does not have as its necessary instrument the mediation of Our Lady” (118).

Benedict reiterates the essence of Marian mediation as he continues: “Let us give thanks to God the Father, to God the Son, to God the Holy Spirit from whom, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, we receive all the blessings of heaven” (119).

The Nature of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Influence in the Application of the Redemption

The fact of this mystery of the maternal mediation of Mary here and now, both as intercession and as spiritual begetting of Christ within the minds and hearts of all believers, since the golden age of scholastic theology (thirteenth century), has led to a great deal of speculation on the nature of this mediation and the type of causal influence exercised directly and immediately by a human person on the souls of other men, such as in fact is ascribed to the Virgin Mother as Mediatrix of all graces. Neither the terminology employed by the representatives of various schools of theology, such as the Thomistic and Scotistic, even within the same school is uniform, nor are the concepts behind the terminology uniformly defined. Hence for those not fully informed about these discussions the significance of the speculation is hard to grasp. Nor is it necessary for all to grasp it in order to appreciate the meaning and importance of the maternal mediation of Mary here and now.

Briefly, those who follow a Thomistic orientation tend to stress the importance of what is called “physical-instrumental” causality to appreciate in some way the mystery of this mediation and its relevance to many practical, spiritual, pastoral, missionary dimensions of Christian life. Those of the Scotistic persuasion tend to stress more the moral, exemplary, meritorious aspects of causal activity to illustrate not merely the intercession (advocacy) of Mary at the throne of grace in heaven where she is gloriously assumed, but also the unique personal, or voluntary, features of her direct action in the Church and on souls for the distribution of all graces. Without doubt valid points are made by both approaches, and neither exhausts the subject, nor can pretend to do so (120).

With Pope John Paul II, however, a certain impulse was given to reopening these speculative discussions, not only on the very nature of mediation in Christ and Mary as a unique form of causality (on which rests that of the sacramental order), but also of others, not much discussed in the speculative realm since the middle ages. I refer here to the role of Mary as Mediatrix in the sacramental order and the manner in which she directly and immediately touches the heart of every one of her spiritual children (121). Both Pope John Paul II and his successor, Benedict XVI, have spoken of the Marian principle of the Church and the unique place of Mary at the very heart of the Church (122). This is simply another way of talking about Marian mediation, but it is also a way of setting study of grace and free will, and still more the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church and in every believer in the state of grace, in a radically Marian context. St. Maximilian M. Kolbe does more than hint at all this in speaking of transubstantiation into the Immaculate, as she is transubstantiated into the Holy Spirit, in order to “mediate” in the order of conversion and sanctification (123).

That these discussions should continue is not something otiose. Not only do the metaphysical insights of Christian philosophers help us to enter more profoundly into the understanding of an extremely important feature of our faith, one in the thirteenth century described as the very foundation and primary character of the spirituality of St. Francis of Assisi (124), and repeated again in our times by St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, this time however in reference to the spiritual and intellectual life of the Church: Mary, mother and teacher (125), but the very effort to undertake such speculations bears fruit in the form of a deepened appreciation of the basic themes of Christian philosophy. A medieval English Benedictine Abbot, Odo of Canterbury, an older contemporary of St. Francis, in a homily preached around the year 1200, called not Aristotle, but Mary our philosopher and added also our philosophy (126). For the love of wisdom cannot merely be an abstraction, but of that person who is Wisdom incarnate, the Way, the Truth and the Life, loved as only the Virgin Mother can know and love the Wisdom who became her Child.

Conclusion

With the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater (March 25, 1987) of John Paul II, a step forward has been taken in the theological comprehension of Mary’s mediation in the light of her maternity. The excellent theological intuition of the Pope is completely summarized in the simple and effective title of Mary as maternal Mediatrix. What is maternity if not an excellent form of mediation from every point of view, in particular the personal and spiritual? We could define it as the feminine mode of collaborating with God in the generation of the natural and supernatural life of persons. Since it puts the woman in an intermediary position between God, source of life, and the child, who receives it, in which she unites the two extremes (God and the child) to each other, this maternal collaboration is true mediation. Evidently, understanding of the maternal mediation of Mary which touches both heaven and earth is crucial not only in the spiritual order, but wherever fundamental questions of human existence arise, whether personal or social, familial or political. Without some essential reference to the mystery of Mary, attempted resolutions of such problems can only end in human tragedy, and betrayal of our dear Savior.

But while the mother is always a mediatrix, not every mediation is maternal. Christ, in fact, is Mediator but not mother; Mary, instead, was maternal Mediatrix before being physically mother, because her mediation was completely oriented and preordained, from the moment of conception, to the divine-human maternity. When the woman collaborates with God in procreation, she is always a mother. She is a natural mother if mother of a natural life, a supernatural mother if mother of a supernatural life, divine Mother if mother of the divine Life. And supernatural maternity is true maternity not only and not so much by analogy to natural maternity, but above all by its reference to the exemplar (or analogatum princeps—major analogue), or to Mary’s divine-human maternity, in which every maternity, natural and supernatural, finds its own incomparable perfection.

Reflection on the theological concept of mediation found in the Pauline corpus and serving as a kind of profound synthesis of all aspects of the mystery of salvation as this is grounded in the order of the hypostatic union, viz., of the joint predestination of Jesus and Mary, illumines the profound insights of the late Holy Father. In turn these enable us to see that there is nothing inherently contradictory in insisting on the unicity and sufficiency of Christ’s mediation and at the same time affirming his Mother as our maternal Mediatrix. And that seen, the mystery of Marian mediation appears everywhere in Scripture and Tradition, in the liturgy and in sacred art, sometimes with, sometimes without the title. Nor will we be inclined to underestimate the importance of this mystery, practically as well as speculatively. This is but another way of saying that the presence of Mary here and now is crucial to our understanding and love of Christ, to our sharing in the fruits of redemption. Mary is our Mediatrix with Christ as Christ is our Mediator with the Father. Put in the more humble language of the street: know Mary, know Jesus; no Mary, no Jesus. That is the bottom line making the difference between heaven and hell. That is why true devotion to Jesus means total consecration to the Immaculate Mediatrix, why we can never say enough about Mary, why we can never be too devoted to Mary (127). For she is our Mother, the Immaculate Mediatrix, ever sustaining us as disciples of her Son.

Notes

(57) We will follow the outline of the positive historical study of Fr. Paolo M. Siano, F.I., which may be consulted upon further inquiries. P. Siano, F.I., Uno studio su Maria Santissima “Mediatrice di tutte le Grazie” nel magistero pontificio fino al pontificato di Giovanni Paolo II, op. cit.

(58) Cf. A. Apollonio, F.I., Il “calvario teologico” della Corredenzione mariana, Presentation of Fr. Paolo M. Siano (pp. 3-6), Casa Mariana Editrice, Castelpetroso 1999, pp. 43. Standing out, unfortunately, among the voices contrary to the Marian title of “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all Graces” is that of Salvatore Perella, O.S.M., Virgo Ecclesia facta. La Madre di Dio tra due millenni. Summa storico-teologica, Miles Immaculatae, Anno XXXVII, fasc. II, 2001, pp. 357-434. See in particular pp. 408-410.

(59) Benedict XIV, Bull Gloriosae Dominae, 1748, Op. Omnia, v. 16, ed. Prati, 1846, p. 428, cit. in Our Lady: Papal Teachings, trans. Daughters of St. Paul (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1961), p. 26, n. 4.

(60) Pius VII, Ampliatio privilegiorum ecclesiae B.M. Virginis ab angelo salutatae in cenobio Fratrum Ordinis Servorum B.M.V. Florentiae, A.D., 1806, § 1, in J.J. Bourassé, Summa Aurea de laudibus Beatissimae Virginis Mariae, Dei Genitricis sine labe conceptae…, Tomus VII, Paris 1862, col. 546.

(61) Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854, in R. Spiazzi, O.P., ed., Maria Santissima nel Magistero della Chiesa. I documenti pontifici da Pio IX a Giovanni Paolo II, Massimo, Milano 1987, p. 38.

(62) Leo XIII, Encyclical on the Rosary Octobri mense, September 21, 1891, in H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, bilingual edizione, ed. Peter Hünermann, EDB, Bologna 1996, n. 3274. Abbreviation: Denz. The entire text of the encyclical is in Acta Sanctae Sedis (ASS), 24 (1891-1892) 193-203.

(63) Leo XIII, Encyclical on the Rosary Iucunda semper, September 8, 1894, in ASS 27 (1894-1895) 179.

(64) Cf. ibid., pp. 183-184.

(65) Leo XIII, Encyclical Adiutricem populi, September 5, 1895, in ASS 28 (1895-1896) 130-131. in R. Spiazzi, ed., Maria Santissima nel Magistero della Chiesa. I documenti pontifici da Pio IX a Giovanni Paolo II, Massimo, Milano 1987, p. 60 (ASS 28 (1895-1896) 130-131).

(66) Leo XIII, Encyclical Fidentem piumque, September 20, 1896, in ASS 29 (1896-1897) 206 (Denz. 3320-3321).

(67) Pius X, Encyclical Ad diem illum, February 2, 1904, in ASS 36 (1903-1904) 449-462.

(68) Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter sodalicia, March 22, 1918, in R. Spiazzi, op. cit., p. 87 (Denz. 3370). English translation cit. in Papal Teachings: Our Lady, op. cit., p. 194, nn. 267-268.

(69) Benedict XV, Decree of April 6, 1919, cited by Hauke M., Maria “Mediatrice di tutte le grazie.” La mediazione universale di Maria nell’opera teologica e pastorale di cardinale Mercier, art. cit., p. 64. English translation cit. by M. Hauke, Mary, Mediatress of Grace: Mary’s Mediation of Grace in the Theological and Pastoral Works of Cardinal Mercier, Supplement to Mary at the Foot of the Cross IV, op. cit., p. 52.

(70) Cf. ibid., pp. 67-72.

(71) Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Sodalitatem Nostrae Dominae, May 31, 1921, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) 13 (1921) 345.

(72) Pius XI, Apostolic Letter Galliam, Ecclesiae filiam, March 2, 1922, AAS 14 (1922) 186.

(73) Pius XI, Encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor, May 8, 1928, AAS 20 (1928) 178.

(74) Pius XI, Encyclical Caritate Christi compulsi, May 3, 1932, in AAS 24 (1932) 192.

(75) Pius XI, Apostolic Letter Rhodiensis archidioecesis, October 4, 1934, in AAS 26 (1934) 545-546.

(76) Pius XII, Apostolic Letter Claverenses dioecesis, August 5, 1942, in AAS 34 (1942) 364; idem, Apostolic Letter Beatissimae Virgini, August 15, 1942, in AAS 34 (1942) 365; idem, radio message Benedicite Deum caeli, October 31, 1942, AAS 34 (1942) 317; idem, radio message Bendito seja o Senor, May 13, 1946, AAS 38 (1946) 264; idem, Apostolic Letter Hungaricae gentis, March 25, 1948, AAS 40 (1948) 499; Id., Apostolic Letter Maximo Nos, October 10, 1949, AAS 44 (1952) 808; idem, Apostolic Letter Imaginem Beatae, July 31, 1950, AAS 43 (1951) 111; idem, Apostolic Letter Caelorum Reginae, July 31, 1950, AAS 43 (1951) 79; idem, Apostolic Letter Mirum sane, July 31, 1950, AAS 43 (1951) 156; idem, radio message Quando lasciate, December 8, 1953, AAS 45 (1953) 849-850; idem, Apostolic Letter Eadem ratione, June 30, 1954, AAS 47 (1955) 710; idem, radio message On the occasion of the fourth centenary of the foundation of the city of Sao Paolo, Brazil, September 7, 1954, AAS 46 (1954) 546; idem, Apostolic Constitution Sedes sapientiae, May 31, 1956, AAS 48 (1956) 354, in D. Bertetto, ed., Il Magistero mariano di Pio XII. Edizione italiana di tutti i documenti mariani di Pio XII, (Rome: Edizioni Paoline, 1960), p. 641; idem, Apostolic Letter In vitae huius, January 4, 1958, in AAS 51 (1959) 159.

The Latin feminine noun, sequestra, -ae, is equivalent to mediatrix. Cf. L. Castiglioni – S. Mariotti, Vocabolario della lingua latina. Latino-Italiano, Italiano-Latino, (Rome: Loescher Editore, 1990), p. 1040.

(77) Pius XII, Encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam, October 11, 1954, in AAS 46 (1954) 635-637.

(78) Cf. John XXIII, Apostolic Letter Beatissimam Virginem Mariam, May 26, 1961, in AAS 65 (1961) 150-151.

(79) Cf. G. Besutti, O.S.M., Lo schema mariano al Concilio Vaticano II. Documentazione e note di cronaca, (Rome: Edition Marianum—Libreria Desclée, 1966), pp. 183-185.

(80) For the story of Chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium, see E. Toniolo, O.S.M., La beata Vergine nel Concilio Vaticano II, Centro di Cultura Mariana “Madre della Chiesa,” Rome 2004, 453 pp.

(81) Cf. G. Besutti, Lo schema mariano del Concilio Vaticano II, op. cit., p. 22. Among this group was the Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal John Baptist Montini, who declared “inopportune, indeed, harmful” the presentation of the title of Mediatrix, since—as the illustrious cardinal explained—in the first place, “the term Mediator must be attributed solely and exclusively to Christ” according to St. Paul’s teaching (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).

(82) Cf. Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Series II (Preparatoria), Volumen II: Acta pontificiae Commissionis Centralis praeparatoriae Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani, Pars IV: Sessio septima, 12-19 Iunii 1962, Vatican City 1968, p. 777, cited by A. Escudero Cabello, La cuestión de la mediación mariana en la preparación del Vaticano II, Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, Rome 1997, pp. 251-253.

(83) Cf. A. Escudero Cabello, op. cit., p. 251.

(84) Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Series II (Preparatoria), Volumen II: Acta pontificiae Commissionis Centralis praeparatoriae Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani, Pars IV: Sessio septima, 12-19 Iunii 1962, Vatican City 1968, p. 777, cited by A. Escudero Cabello, op. cit., p. 260.

(85) Proprium Sanctorum pro aliquibus locis, 8 maii Beatae Mariae Virginis omnium gratiarum Mediatricis, in Missale Romanum ex decreto SS. Concilii Tridentini restitutum Summorum Pontificum cura recognitum, editio typica, Typis Plyglottis Vaticanis 1962, pp. (159)-(160).

(86) Cf. G. Besutti, Lo schema mariano del Concilio Vaticano II. Documentazione e note di cronaca, Rome: Marianum-Desclée, 1966; G. Roschini, O.S.M., Maria santissima nella storia della salvezza, vol. II, (Isola del Liri: Pisani, 1969), pp. 111-116; idem, La Mediazione mariana oggi, (Rome: Pontificia Facoltà Teologica “Marianum” – Istituto di Mariologia, Edizioni “Marianum,” 1971), pp. 47-49; A. Escudero Cabello, S.D.B., La cuestión de la mediación en la preparación del Vaticano II, LAS, Rome, 1997; E. Toniolo, O.S.M., La beata Maria Vergine nel Concilio Vaticano II, Centro di cultura mariana “Madre della Chiesa,” Rome, 2004, 453 pp.

(87) For a Protestant defense of Mediatrix, cf. J. Macquarrie, “Mary Co-redemptrix and Disputes over Justification and Grace: An Anglican View,” Mary Co-redemptrix. Doctrinal Issues Today, pp. 139-150, and C. Dickson, “Mary Mediatrix: A Protestant Response,” Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological foundations III. Contemporary Insights on a Fifth Marian Dogma, pp. 181-184.

(88) This is the number that results from the examination of the written requests preserved in the Council archive. Obviously an even greater number must be presumed, because, while everyone who submitted the written requests were in favor, not everyone who was in favor submitted a written request, as is always the case with contingent matters. Cf. A. Escudero Cabello, La cuestion de la mediación mariana…, op. cit., p. 88. According to Fr. Roschini, the written requests numbered about 400 (cf. Roschini G., La Mediazione mariana oggi, Pontificia Facoltà Teologica “Marianum” – Istituto di Mariologia, Edizioni “Marianum,” Rome 1971, p. 47).

(89) They could not reasonably justify the imposition of their Protestant beliefs upon an essentially Catholic ecumenical council.

(90) C. Journet, De la Vierge Marie et la Collegialité, in Nova et vetera, 2 (1965) 109.

(91) C. Balić, O.F.M., El Capitulo VIII de la Constitución “Lumen Gentium” Comparado con el Primer Esquema de la Beata Virgen Madre de la Iglesia, Estudios Marianos, 27 (1966) 169.

(92) Vatican II Council, Costituzione dogmatica Lumen gentium, November 21, 1964, n. 62.

(93) Cf. Roschini G., Maria Santissima nella storia della salvezza, vol. II, op. cit., p. 202.

(94) Besides the Protestants and Jansenists, included among those who deny this doctrine are a few modern ecumenists and all modernist ecumenists. Critical opposition is widespread: even some of the writings of Abbot Laurentin are infected by this criticism (cf. R. Laurentin, La Vergine Maria. Mariologia postconciliare, Rome: Edizione Paoline, 1973, pp. 302-304).

(95) Cf. Paul VI, Letter for the 750th Anniversary of the Indulgence of the Portiuncula, July 14, 1966, in Encicliche e discorsi di S.S. Paolo VI, vol. X, May-August 1966, (Rome: Edizioni Paoline, 1967), p. 256; idem, address to a group of Hungarian pilgrims, in Encicliche e discorsi di S.S. Paolo VI, vol. XXIII, January-December 1972, (Rome: Edizioni Paoline, 1973), p. 299; idem, Apostolic Letter Le Memorie apostoliche, May 2, 1974, in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. XII, 1974, p. 500; idem, general audience, May 14, 1975, in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. XIII, 1975, p. 502; idem allocution to the participants of the International Marian-Mariological Congress, May 16, 1975, in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. XIII, 1975, p. 522; idem, address to German-speaking pilgrims, August 15, 1975, in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. XIII, 1975, p. 854.

(96) Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Christi Matri, September 15, 1966, in Enchiridion Vaticanum. Omissa 1962-1987, Supplementum I, EDB, Bologna 2000, n. 94, p. 87; idem, General audience, May 30, 1974, in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. XI, 1973, (Vatican City: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1974), p. 475.

(97) Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutione de Sacra Liturgia, Prot. N. 3577/65, in Proprio dei Santi dell’Ordine dei Frati Minori Cappuccini, (Turin-Rome: Casa Editrice Marietti—Centro Nazionale T.O.F. Cappuccini, 1966), p. (2).

(98) Proprio dei Santi dell’Ordine dei Frati Minori Cappuccini May 8th (Mass of) “Maria SS. Mediatrice di ogni grazia,” in Messale Romano quotidiano, 1966, pp. (50)-(52).

(99) Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Signum magnum, May 13, 1967, 2.5, in Enchiridion Vaticanum, vol. II. 1963-1967, (Bologna, Italy: EDB, 1992), pp. 987, 999.

(100) Ibid., 8, in Enchiridion Vaticanum, vol. II, p. 1003.

(101) Paul VI, Lettera al Card. Leo Jozef Suenens in occasione del Congresso Mariano Internazionale – La Vergine Maria nell’opera dell’umana Redenzione, May 13, 1975, in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. XIII, 1975 (Vatican City: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1976), pp. 495-496. English cit. by P. Siano, Mary ‘Mediatrix of All Graces’ in the Papal Magisterium up to the Pontificate of Paul VI, to be published in Mary at the Foot of the Cross VII: Coredemptrix, Therefore Mediatrix of all Graces. See note 1.

(102) Cf. S. Perrella, Maria Serva del Signore e della Redenzione. Tra richieste e approfondimenti, in Miles Immaculatae, fasc. 2, July-December 1998, pp. 262-263; T. Sennott, “Mary Mediatrix of All Graces, Vatican Council II and Ecumenism,” Miles Immaculatae, fasc. 1-2, 1988, pp. 151-167.

(103) John Paul II, Allocution, in L’Osservatore Romano, Monday-Tuesday, January 18-19, 1988, p. 1; idem, L’Osservatore Romano, Monday-Tuesday, April 11-12, 1988, Supplement n. 84, p. IV; idem, in L’Osservatore Romano, Monday-Tuesday, July 2-3, 1990, p. 5; idem, in L’Osservatore Romano, Saturday, June 29, 1996, p. 5; idem, Apostolic Letter Amor Noster, April 30, 1980, in AAS 72 (1980) 384-385; idem, Apostolic Letter Frequentissimae dioeceses, in AAS 79 (1987) 437.

(104) Cf. M. Hauke , La Mediazione materna di Maria secondo Papa Giovanni Paolo II, in Aa. Vv., Maria Corredentrice. Storia e Teologia. VII, Bibliotheca Corredemptionis B.V. Mariae, Casa Mariana Editrice, Frigento 2005, pp. 86-88. Concerning these passages of Pope John Paul II (in which he makes reference to the Mediatrix of all graces or other similar expressions), Don Hauke makes reference to Msgr. Calkins (cf. Hauke, op. cit., p. 86, note 107). On Mary “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix” in the Marian Magisterium of John Paul II, see also Msgr. Calkins’ recent study, A.B. Calkins, ed., Totus Tuus. Il magistero mariano di Giovanni Paolo II, preface by Msgr. Carlo Caffana, archbishop of Bologna, (Siena, Italy: Edizioni Cantagalli, 2006), pp. 242-245, 306-319. (Msgr. Calkins has also recently presented the results of his study in English at the 7th Annual Symposium on Marian Coredemption: Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces in the Papal Magisterium of Pope John Paul II, to be published in Mary at the Foot of the Cross VII: Coredemptrix, Therefore Mediatrix of all Graces. See note 1.) In other pronouncements, Pope John Paul II has emphasized Mary’s singular cooperation in the Redemption (cf. ibid., pp. 217-227).

(105) Art. cit.

(106) John Paul II, Allocution, in Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, vol. 1, 1978, (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1979), p. 250.

(107) John Paul II, Allocution, in L’Osservatore Romano, Monday-Tuesday, September 19-20, 1994, pp. 6-7.

(108) John Paul II, Allocution, September 26, 1982.

(109) Cf. M. Hauke, La Mediazione materna di Maria secondo Papa Giovanni Paolo II, p. 86.

(110) John Paul II, Allocution, Wroclaw, Poland, June 21, 1983.

(111) John Paul II, Homily, in L’Osservatore Romano, Sunday, August 26, 2001, p. 5.

(112) Congregation for the Clergy, Il presbitero, pastore e guida della comunità parrocchiale, Istruzione del 4 agosto 2002, Figlie di San Paolo, Milano 2002, p. 82. (English: “Parish Priest’s Prayer to Mary Most Holy,” in (an appendix to) Congregation for the Clergy, The Priest, Pastor and Leader of the Parish Community, Instruction of August 4, 2002 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002), pp. 53-55.)

(113) Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Decree, prot. N. 309/86, August 15, 1986, in Conferenza Episcopale Italiana, Messe della Beata Vergine Maria, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano 1989 (3rd reprint), pp. X-XI.

(114) Messe della beata Vergine Maria, op. cit. p. 101. (English cit. by A.B. Calkins, “Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate in the Liturgy,” in Mary Coredemptrix Mediatrix Advocate: Theological Foundations. Towards a Papal Definition? ed. M. Miravalle (Santa Barbara, CA, Queenship, 1995), p. 89.)

(115) Ibid.

(116) Messa di Santa Maria Madre del Signore. Prefazio, in Messe della Beata Vergine Maria, op. cit., p. 66; Messa di Maria Vergine regina e madre della misericordia. Prefazio, in op. cit., p. 128; Messa di Maria Vergine Madre della Divina Provvidenza. Prefazio, in op. cit., p. 131.

(117) John Paul II, general audience, Saluto agli ammalati, December 10, 1980, in L’Osservatore Romano, Thursday, December 11, 1980, p. 2.

(118) Benedict XVI, homily at canonization Mass of Fr. Antônio de Sant’ana Galvão, O.F.M., May 11, 2007, n. 5.

(119) Ibid., n. 6.

(120) For general historical information on this question see J. Schug, Mary Mother, cit.; I. Gomá y Thomás, Estudios y escritos pastoralos sobre la Virgen, Barcelona 1947. For a classic exposition of the neo-Thomistic pre-conciliar Mariology cf. G. Roschini, De natura B.M. Virginis in applicatione redemptionis, in Maria et Ecclesia, vol. II, Rome 1959, pp. 223-295; also P. Parrotta, La Mariologia di Gabriele Roschini, Lugano 2002. For a recent approach from a Scotistic point of view, see P.D. Fehlner, F.I., Mater et Magistra Apostolorum, in Immaculata Mediatrix 1 (1/2001) 15-95; Idem, De Metaphysica Mariana Quaedam, in Immaculata Mediatrix 1 (2/2002) 13-42; Idem, Scientia et Pietas, in Immaculata Mediatrix 1 (3/2001) 11-48; Idem, Io sono L’Immacolata Concezione. Adhuc quaedam de Metaphysica Mariana, in Immaculata Mediatrix 2 (2002) 15-41. Significant contributions to a renewed Thomistic approach have been made by the Spanish metaphysical Mariologist, J. Ferrer Arellano, La Mediación Materna de la Immacolada. Esperienza Ecumenica de la Iglesia, Madrid 2006. See also his Marian Coredemption and Sacramental Mediation, in Mary at the Foot of the Cross III, New Bedford, MA, 2003, pp. 70-126; Idem, The Immaculate Conception as the Condition for the Possibility of the Coredemption, in Mary at the Foot of the Cross V New Bedford, MA, 2005, pp. 74-185.

(121) Cf. especially the Spanish Dominican, A. Bandera, La Virgen María y los Sacramentos (Madrid 1978), and above all the recent study of Serafino M. Lanzetta, F.I., Il sacerdozio di Maria nella teologia cattolica del XX seculo. Analizi storico-teologica, Rome 2006. In English, cf. J. Samaha, The Sacerdotal Quality of Mary’s Mission. Mother and Associate of Christ the Priest, in Immaculata Mediatrix 2 (2002) 197-207.

(122) Benedict XVI, Homily for the Solemnity of the Annunciation, 2006, insists on the central importance of the Marian principle of the Church, viz., the maternal mediation of Mary at the heart of the Church, and in particular its pastors, and affirms that this mystery was repeatedly underscored by his predecessor, John Paul II, in accord with his motto, Totus tuus.

(123) For texts of St. Maximilian on this subject, see P.D. Fehlner, F.I., St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, Martyr of Charity, Pneumatologist. His Theology of the Holy Spirit, New Bedford, MA, 2004.

(124) St. Bonaventure, III Sent., d 3, p 1, a 1, q 2 : “The Virgin Mother is our Mediatrix with Christ as Christ is our Mediator with the Father.”; Henry d’Avranches, Legenda versificata S. Francisci, in almost the same words describes the spirituality of St. Francis of Assisi.: Analecta Franciscana, vol. X, Quaracchi 1941, pp. 405-491, here p. 445.

(125) See Fehlner, Mater et Magistra Apostolorum, op cit.

(126) Odo of Canterbury, Maria Christianorum Philosophia, ed. by J. Leclercq, in Mèlanges de science religieuse 13 (1956) 103-106.

(127) Cf. St. Bonaventure, III Sent., d 3, p 1, a 1, q 1, ad 4: Mariae nullus nimis potest esse devotus.

I see a bright light and then I see the Lady standing before me. She says,

I am the Lady, Mary, Mother of All Nations. You may say: The Lady of All Nations or Mother of All Nations, who once was Mary. I come on this very day to tell you that this is who I wish to be. The people of all countries shall truly be one.

Then, without saying anything, the Lady remains standing in her usual posture and is looking at me continuously. Then she says, “The entire world is undergoing upheaval, but the worst thing is that the people of this world are being brought into upheaval.” Then it is as if the Lady is walking along the globe and I see that the whole world is in confusion and entering into upheaval.

The Second Vatican Council

“I am bringing you here,” says the Lady, and suddenly I am with her above Italy. I see the Vatican and then I enter St. Peter’s together with the Lady. We walk through the central passage and halt near the middle of St. Peter’s. On either side I see scaffolding, benches mounting up in tiers. Upon those benches I see many cardinals and bishops wearing white miters. (2) The Lady says, “Watch closely; these are the bishops of all countries.”

Now I see the Pope seated, wearing the tiara. He is sitting at the far end of the central passage. I see some clergy standing about him. In one hand he is holding a scepter, and from the other he is raising two fingers in the well-known position. He has a large, thick book before of him. The Lady says,

Listen carefully, child. Changes have already been made, and others are in progress. I, however, want to bring the Son’s message. The doctrine is right, but the laws can and must be changed. I want to tell you this on this very day, for the world is undergoing great upheaval—nobody knows in which direction. That is why the Son wants me to bring this message.

The Pains of the Cross

And now suddenly I am standing before a large Cross. While looking at it, I am seized with terrible pains. I get muscle cramps from head to foot. It is as if all the muscles in both of my arms are contracting, causing me to clench my fingers. It is as if my head is split asunder, and I get a feverish feeling as if my head would burst. All this together causes me to weep. I can bear it no longer and ask the Lady whether it might pass. Then she smiles. It lasts for another moment and then everything is gone. Then the Lady says to me, “Let everyone come back to the Cross; only then can there be peace and tranquility.”

The Prayer Is Given

While I am still standing with the Lady before the Cross, she says, “Repeat after me.”

To me this is a little bit strange. I think to myself, “But I already repeat everything she says!” But suddenly I see the Lady become even more beautiful than she already was. The light which always surrounds her becomes much brighter and brilliant, such that I can hardly bear to look into it. She now raises and joins her hands, which she otherwise always holds down. Her face becomes so heavenly, so sublime; one simply cannot express it in words. Her figure grows even more translucent and so beautiful that I look at it in rapture. Then the Lady says, “Pray before the Cross”:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Father,
send now Your Spirit over the earth.
Let the Holy Spirit live
in the hearts of all nations,
that they may be preserved
from degeneration, disaster and war.
May the Lady of All Nations,
who once was Mary,
be our Advocate.
Amen.

The Lady says this prayer so beautifully and impressively—no one in the world could do it as she did. She stresses the word “now” in “send now Your Spirit” and “all” in “Let the Holy Spirit live in the hearts of all nations.” She also pronounces the word “Amen” so beautifully and solemnly. While still standing in front of the Cross, I pray it, repeating the words the Lady recited to me. It is as if the words are imprinted in my mind. I now see them written in large letters.

The First and Greatest Commandment

The Lady continues,

Child, this is so simple and short that everyone can say it in one’s own language, before one’s own crucifix; and those who have no crucifix say it to themselves. This is the message which I want to give this very day, for I am now coming to say that I want to save souls. All of you, cooperate in this great work for the world. If only every child of man would try to live up to this for oneself.

And then the Lady raises a finger and says, “Especially in the first and greatest commandment, Love.”

I now see this word written in large letters. “Let them begin with that,” the Lady says. Then I see a certain group of people; the Lady looks at them very compassionately and says, “And then the little ones of this world will say: how can we begin with that? For it is the great ones who do this to us.”

The Lady says this very lovingly, as if she had great pity on the people around her. But then the Lady’s face changes, and she says very emphatically, “And then I say to the little ones: if you practice Love among yourselves in all its refinement, even the great ones will not have a chance. Go to your crucifix and say what I recited to you, and the Son will answer it.”

The Fight Concerning the Spirit

Then the Lady says to me,

A great natural disaster will again take place.

The great ones of this world will always disagree with one another. People will seek here and there. Watch out for the false prophets. Seek and ask only for the true Holy Spirit. For it is now a war of ideas. The fight no longer concerns races and peoples; the fight concerns the spirit. Understand this well.

The Laws Can Be Changed

Then the Lady folds her hands. I now see the Pope with cardinals and bishops. Then the Lady says, as if speaking to the Pope,

You can save this world. I have said more than once: Rome has its chance. Seize the present moment. No church in the world is built up like yours. But move with the times and insist upon your modern changes concerning religious, priests, seminarians, and so on and so forth. Keep an eye on that. Carry through with it to the smallest detail! The doctrine remains, but the laws can be changed. Let the people of this world benefit more from the Remembrance of my Son.

Then the Lady says to me, “I showed you in the dream how the practice of frequent communion can be carried through. This I tell you for the Netherlands and for all countries in which it is not so.”

Countries of Europe America

“For Germany I want to say: they shall work hard, hard in this country to bring the people, who have strayed far, far away, back to this center, the Cross. Priests are too few, but lay people are many. Conduct a great campaign among the laity to call them forward for this goal. Work here above all with great love and charity. The great ones of Germany shall help and not turn away from the Church. Deutschland jedoch liegt mir sehr am Herzen. Die Mutter Gottes weint über die Kinder Deutschlands. (3)

For France, Belgium, the Balkans and Austria, I say the following: do not let yourselves be brought to the wrong spirit.

For Italy I say: great ones of Italy, do you know your task?

To England I say: I will come back, England.

To America I say: do not push your politics too far; and seek the True Spirit. I am glad that America is better disposed to the faith at the moment.”

Africa—Asia—We Are Taking Care of Them

“For Africa I say: say that I would like to have a seminary there. I will help the Dominicans. Tell this to your spiritual director. Tell him also that the Son is content with his work and guidance. Tell him that he should be more courageous in carrying through with these matters. I only want to make use of you to carry through with the will of the Son in this time. Indeed, I want to ask you, child of man, to help people as much as possible. I shall give you strength and support for this. Your spiritual director is chosen for helping you in this work only. Everything else can stay as it is. He will understand me.

Further, I would like to say to all Eastern and Asian peoples, whether they know the Son or not: We are taking care of them.”

This Time Is Our Time

Then the Lady points at the globe again and says, “This time is Our time.”

“You, child, are only the instrument for passing these things on. You shall do this. Yes, there are enough proofs—in what I said today, too. Say that I wish to be: The Lady of All Nations.”

The preceding message was taken from The Messages of the Lady of All Nations, The Lady of All Nations Foundation, 1999.

Notes

(1) The visionary received this message in Germany.

(2) Later, when the visionary saw pictures of the Second Vatican Council on television (1962-1965), she recognized them to be the images described here.

(3) “My heart is greatly concerned for Germany. The Mother of God weeps for the people of Germany.” Our Lady said these two sentences in German, rather than in Dutch.

In this May 31, 1954 message from the Lady of All Nations (ecclesiastical approval, May 31, 2002, see “Church Approves Apparitions of the Lady of All Nations” article), Our Lady calls both theologians, bishops and the faithful to “work and ask for this dogma. You should petition the Holy Father for this dogma.” She also explains that the titles Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate are “three concepts in one,” that is three aspects of her one role as spiritual Mother of all humanity. Our Lady then gives the seer a vision of the proclamation of the dogma by the Holy Father in St. Peter’s Basilica and states “my prophecy that ‘all generations will call me blessed’ will be fulfilled more than ever once the Dogma has been proclaimed.” – Ed.

“Here I am again. The Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate is now standing before you. I have chosen this day—on this day the Lady will be crowned. Theologians and apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, listen carefully. I have given you the explanation of the dogma. Work and ask for this dogma. You should petition the Holy Father for this dogma. The Lord Jesus Christ has done great things and will give all of you even more in this time, in this twentieth century.”
On This Date

“On this date the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate will receive her official title as ‘The Lady of All Nations.’ Mark well, these three concepts in one. These three.”

Now the Lady shows me three fingers and moves her other hand around herself, and then it is as if a haze, a radiant veil, is coming about her.

“And now I let your theologians see these three concepts, these three concepts in one act. I say this twice because there are some who want only one concept. The Holy Father will agree to the former. You, however, shall help him to get there. Understand all of this well.”
The Day of the Lady’s Coronation

Now, all of a sudden, it is as if I were standing with the Lady above the dome of a big church. As we enter, I hear the Lady say, “I am taking you there. Relate what I let you see and hear.”

We are now in a very big church, in St. Peter’s. I see lots of cardinals and bishops gathered there. Then the Pope enters. It is a Pope I do not know. He is being carried in a kind of chair, but later he continues on foot. People cheer; the choir begins to sing. Now the Holy Father is announcing something in a language I do not understand, while holding up two fingers.

All at once the Lady stands on the globe again. She smiles and says, “Child, thus have I let you see what is the will of the Lord Jesus Christ. This day will in due time be the ‘Coronation Day’ of His Mother, the Lady of All Nations, who once was Mary.”
The Lady Stayed with Her Apostles

Now the Lady remains standing without saying anything, as she gazes far into the distance. This lasts a while and then she says, “And the Lady stayed with her Apostles until the Spirit came.”

While she says this, that peculiar change comes over her face again; it is as if she were speaking from out of former times. I see priests and other people standing about her, as she says, “So also may the Lady come to her apostles and nations throughout the whole world, in order to bring them the Holy Spirit again and anew. For before great decisions, the true Holy Spirit must always be invoked.”

Now the Lady pauses again for a moment, and then she says very strikingly, in a low voice, “And Mary stayed with her Apostles.”

Now I see the Lady seated in a hall, surrounded by people from former times wearing long garments.

All Nations Will Call Me Blessed

Then the Lady looks in front of herself, as if into the distance, and says very clearly and slowly, “My prophecy that ‘all generations will call me blessed’ will be fulfilled more than ever once the Dogma has been proclaimed.” The Holy Father knows his time. He will prepare and accomplish this before he is taken up among Us. On this day all nations will call me blessed. I have come on this day so that they”—and the Lady points about her—”will bear witness that the Lady of All Nations really and truly said this.”

The Sign of the Lady of All Nations

“I said: Church of Rome, I will come only a few more times. By this the Lady of All Nations wanted to say to you: only a few more times before the proclamation of the dogma. Mark this well. And this is the sign: under this title, the Lady of All Nations may come every year among her children, among her apostles, among all nations.”

The Word, the Voice of Their Mother

“I have come to the world in various ways.” Now the Lady looks at the globe and shakes her head with a sad look on her face.

“Now I ask: has this had any effect? The Lord Jesus Christ wants to grant yet another great favor to the world, and that is the word, the voice of their mother, the Lady of All Nations. By means of this instrument in a small country which is on a downward slope, the Lady of All Nations will give her motherly admonitions and consolations each year. Later on this will cease.

Child, they will believe you. I am here. I shall assist and help you. The image must be placed in public. Ask this of your bishop. He shall consent to having the image brought forth. (1) He shall consent to the building of the church, the one I showed you. Everyone shall fight for this. Tell that to your spiritual director. I will help both him and the others, too. It is my prayer—tell that to your bishop. He shall consent to this. No, child, do not be afraid.”
Peace Will Follow the Dogma

Now the Lady gazes before herself again, and it takes a while before she continues,

“From now onwards all nations will call me blessed.

The Lady of All Nations wishes for unity in the true Holy Spirit. The world is covered by a false spirit, by Satan. Once the dogma, the final dogma in Marian history, has been proclaimed, the Lady of All Nations will grant peace, true peace, to the world. The nations, however, must pray my prayer, together with the Church. They shall know that the Lady of All Nations has come as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. So be it.

I will return, as I promised today, but in public.”

This frightens me terribly, but the Lady says, “No, child, do not be afraid. So be it.”
Kneel Down Humbly Before Your Creator

The Lady pauses for a long time, and then she starts speaking again,

“Now I speak to the nations of the entire world: apostles and nations, kneel down before your Lord and Creator and be grateful. This world’s science has made people forget gratitude. They no longer know their Creator. Nations, be warned. Kneel down humbly before your Creator.”

The Lady says this with immense reverence and devotion. She falls to her knees and bows her head so deeply that it nearly touches the ground. “Implore His mercy and He is merciful. Doesn’t He give you proof of it in this time? May the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be with you all the days of your life. May the Father and the Son bring you the Lady of All Nations.”
All People

“No matter who or what you are, I may be for you: the Mother, the Lady of All Nations.”

Then the Lady gazes far into the distance, as if she were looking for people. It is as if she really wants to draw all people towards her, people who belong to our Church, people who do not belong to our Church and even people who do not belong to any church at all.

“See to it, nations, that those who are in need—and by this I also mean spiritual need—are brought to the Lady. Work among the others with my prayer.” The Lady pauses for a moment and then says, “The Lady will return every year.”

And then she slowly goes away.

Notes

(1) Though initially refused, permission was later given to have the painting of the Lady of All Nations placed in public. On December 19, 1954, the painting was solemnly installed at St. Thomas Church on Rijn Street.

In the October 11, 1953 message of the Lady of All Nations (ecclesiastical approval, May 31, 2002, see “Church Approves Apparitions of the Lady of All Nations” article), Our Lady speaks of the purpose for her visit: “to warn the world, the Church of Rome, and all peoples of degeneration, disasters and war. The world is living in degeneration. Disasters are yet to come. The peoples are still living in war.”

Our Lady goes on to say, “the Lady of All Nations will be allowed to bring peace to the world, yet she must be asked for it under this title.” She then speaks of the need to pray the prayer in preparation for “the great work” to begin: “Then the great work will begin—the crowning of Mary, the proclamation of the dogma of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. First, however, let the Church and the nations invoke Mary under the new title and pray her prayer so that degeneration, disasters and war may be staved off from this world.” – Ed.

I see the Lady standing there. She says, “Mary, ‘the Lady of All Nations,’ has been sent today, in order to warn the world, the Church of Rome, and all peoples of degeneration, disasters and war. The world is living in degeneration. Disasters are yet to come. The peoples are still living in war.”

Again the Lady, with that thoughtful expression, says very slowly and distinctly, “The year 53 is the year in which ‘the Lady of All Nations’ must be brought to the world.”

For a long time the Lady stands silent, and then resumes,

The Lady of All Nations will be allowed to bring peace to the world, yet she must be asked for it under this title. “The Lady of All Nations” will assist the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome—the Community—should invoke Mary, the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the new title: “the Lady of All Nations.” They should say My prayer against degeneration, disaster and war, and spread it among all peoples. I shall help the Church of Rome—the Community. The nations should call on Me under this title.

A thoughtful silence follows. Then the Lady says with emphasis, “The Lord is the Redeemer of all nations. Mary, the Mother, was from the beginning chosen as Co-redemptrix. She became Co-redemptrix at the departure of the Lord Jesus Christ to the Father. She became the Mediatrix and Advocate of all people.”

The Lady now waits for a moment and then continues, “Because Mary was destined to be the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, She comes now into these times, as ‘the Lady of All Nations.’ Because Mary will be given the title of ‘the Lady of All Nations,’ She has come under this title in different places, in different countries.”

With a thoughtful expression the Lady then says,

The Lady, who must bring peace, came and gave Her prayer in the country where Satan had reigned. The Lady, who is bringing peace, gave Her words through an instrument from a country where peace was always desired. “The Lady of All Nations” is not destined for one country and one place, but is meant for the whole world, for all nations. This picture will go to Amsterdam, however, and that at the end of ’53. It will be placed in a chapel or church. Later, it will be transferred to the church of “the Lady of All Nations.”

My directions for this I have already given and they should be strictly adhered to. “The Lady of All Nations” has a few more messages to give. Her time is almost at an end.

After a moment’s silence the Lady continues very distinctly and slowly,

Then the great work will begin—the crowning of Mary, the proclamation of the dogma of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. First, however, let the Church and the nations invoke Mary under the new title and say Her prayer so that degeneration, disasters and wars may be staved off from this world. If they do this, the peoples of Europe will heave a sigh of relief after ’54.

Now the Lady casts Her eyes over the globe on which She stands, saying, “Then the world’s great task will come.” The Lady looks about Her and pointing to the sheep, says,

Look at My black sheep: White sheep, beware! Now there is yet time for you all to co-operate in order to achieve unity.

Church of Rome, “the Lady of All Nations” will only come a few times more. She keeps on warning against false prophets. Ponder the messages the Lady has given you. Sacristan of the Pope, hand these messages on.

Now, lifting up Her index finger as if in warning, the Lady says,

Holy Father, you have a great task to fulfill before you will be received among Us. Again I exhort you: do carry out the plans you have drawn up. See to the last dogma—the crowning of the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. In ’54, you are to announce this new title to the nations. Let your care extend to the countries in which the Lord Jesus Christ is persecuted. This can and shall become a great world movement, at the head of which Mary will stand as “the Lady of All Nations.” I shall help. I shall, through My Lord, be able to heal the nations.

Then the finger goes down again and the Lady, resuming Her well known attitude, waits a little before She adds,

And now I speak to your Bishop: you should understand why I speak to the Holy Father and his Sacristan. This movement is not for one country only, but for all nations. Do your part in your own country, however, for the spread of the prayer and these messages. Mary takes the responsibility. You know She said that the painting would be placed under the care of the Dominican Fathers. You know that She said the donations should not be used only for the Dominicans, but for all the needs of the church as well. Introduce Mary as “the Lady of All Nations” into your country. There the great world movement will originate. The time has now come and it is very short. Mary stands here as the Mother who wants to help Her children. Ask and She will help you—under this new title.

Now the Lady disappears slowly.

In Ida Peerdeman’s Eucharistic Experience of May 31, 1973 (ecclesiastical approval, May 31, 2002, see “Church Approves Apparitions of the Lady of All Nations” article), Our Lord warns his Church of the great dangers ahead, “Rome, keep watching, your enemy lies in wait,” but counsels his faithful not to despair, “Maintain your faith in Me,” and to “rally and unite in the name of ‘the Lady of All Nations.’” Our Lord further commands the nations to build a church to honor the Lady of All Nations: “Build here a Chapel for ‘the Lady of All Nations.’ This is your commission,” and promises that “the world will receive its blessing from this place.” – Asst. Ed.

At the Consecration I saw an enormously bright “Light” coming over the altar and the priest.

At the Elevation of the Sacred Host, It began to live. I had an awareness that “the Lord” was present. I heard:

“Ye, nations, kneel before your Lord, He is here.”

At the elevation of the Chalice I saw a glorious Cross hovering over it and a sort of letter “A” appeared to the left and a letter “O” to the right of it. Then I had a heavenly vision.

In front of me I saw a dragon with several heads and I counted seven of them, each with its own character. Together they formed one big muzzle, which opened suddenly and vomited something.

I saw that is was all vipers they vomited. Lying about between them were lots of eggs, which they themselves gobbled up. It was a nasty and horrible sight, and I felt a nausea in my heart. I heard:

“You, brood of vipers, woe to you.”

The world was black and I heard inwardly:

“The world is going all to pieces in many ways and must be saved.”

After this the whole image was washed away out of sight like a mass of mud. Then there was a shower and I noticed that it was raining Manna. It dropped on the ground and was eagerly picked up. After this a plain came to my view, and in its center I saw a kind of tower. It looked as if someone threw a lasso—but I heard inwardly “cincture”—around that tower and pulled it down. And only a heap of rubble was left.

While I stood watching, it seemed that years were passing and again I saw a plain on which this time a new tower was under construction. When it was ready, it was much nicer and higher, and stood beaming in the sunlight.

In a flash, a rock stood in front of me and in the soil next to it was a staff with a snake. Water and fire appeared round about it. I heard a clock striking with very sonorous strokes, and I counted twelve. Next I saw another Rock, much higher and more impressive. And from heaven a staff with a brass snake came down. It landed exactly next to the Rock, and four books were laid in front of it. I heard:

“You are My Rock.

“In the same way as the seed sprouts in the soil, you will make the Church, the Community flower again. And you, My shepherds and apostles, are you discouraged and defeated? Maintain your faith in Me.

“Understand well that knowledge does not proceed from man but from the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. He alone gives knowledge and wisdom, for nothing takes its rise from man himself. Stand firm and let no one mislead you. I have shown you the image of the vipers. Keep it in mind.

“Rome, keep watching, your enemy lies in wait.

And ye, peoples, rally and unite in the name of ‘the Lady of All Nations.’”

Then I heard:

“Follow Me.”

And I saw a radiant blue sky with a large white cloud. This opened and I was taken up again into the Kingdom, but this time it was much more heavenly than before. I have no words for it, it was just heavenly, great. When I saw “the Lord” in all His glory, I heard:

“As you see Me, so do you see the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and Me.”

I also saw the crowned Lady in Her heavenly splendor. And I heard heavenly music.

Then I saw a lion, a bull, an angel and a big eagle coming in front of this heavenly throne. They bowed low before that heavenly scene. Now I saw coming glorified people of various races. They too bowed most reverently before this throne. Once again, it is impossible for me to describe how stirring and heavenly this scene was.

After that I was returned to my first condition, but this grieved me so much that tears poured from my earthly eyes. I heard:

“Join hands, ye nations. Widen your circle around Her. Build here a Chapel for ‘the Lady of All Nations.’ This is your commission.”

And I saw that the painting from the Chapel was being carried as in procession through the streets. We arrived in a large square where the majestic church was standing. Many peoples were represented there, and all joined the procession and entered the church.

In the church I heard:

“Now here is ‘the Community of all Nations,’ the world will receive its blessing from this place.”

Then everything faded out of sight. I had the Sacred Host still unconsumed on my tongue. And I said: “My Lord, who am I, that I am allowed to witness this? I thank you.”

This article was excerpted from Eucharistic Experiences, Queenship, 1996, Vision of March 25, 1973.