To mediate all Graces - what does it mean?

[Hesychios]

Greetings all,

I would like you erudite scholars to help define what mediation of all Graces actually means. I will make no secret of my own difficulties with the idea. With your help I may resolve some of them. I include a poll to help us see where the population stands on this subject.

First: is this idea binding upon all Catholics? Has it been dogmatically defined by Council or Pope? The way it is sometimes explained to new Catholics and inquirers it is as if this is already considered sound doctrine by the church, is it? Is this something I should be teaching people who inquire about the Faith?

Second: What is the actual meaning of the term, as close as possible? In other words, what does mediating all Graces actually mean to usl. A poster on another thread was kind enough to attempt to explain this idea to me, but I am looking to clarify what has been said and possibly flesh it out with some examples.

Third: What is the origin, or first mention of the theory of Mary mediating all Graces? I would like to know the earliest possible reference to this idea as it is actually commonly put forth these days.

Your contribution to this discussion would be greatly appreciated!

 

[jimmy]

I am not sure exactly ehat it means but I know it is not a dogma.The one thing that doesn’t seem right about it though is the word all. I can’t see how she is the mediatrix of ALL graces.

 

[Juxtaposer]

jimmy:

I am not sure exactly ehat it means but I know it is not a dogma.The one thing that doesn’t seem right about it though is the word all. I can’t see how she is the mediatrix of ALL graces.

Yeah. What the heck… Now that would be elevating Mary to God. That’s insane! She’s a human being! I don’t care if she is the mother of Jesus. She intercedes for us; that’s it. I’m sure grace comes from that intercession, but not nearly all of it! Pretty soon you’ll be telling me that Mary died on the cross… (that was just for emphasis).

 

[tuopaolo]

Mary suffered as much as Jesus at Calvary and in doing so she together with Jesus merited in some way our Redemption.

Everything is possible to God!

 

[Juxtaposer]

tuopaolo:

Mary suffered as much as Jesus at Calvary and in doing so she together with Jesus merited in some way our Redemption.

Everything is possible to God!

And this means that Mary mediates all graces? How do you know that Mary suffered JUST AS MUCH as Jesus? Did Mary take on the sin of the world? Was she the one who’s limbs were nailed to wood? I’m sure she suffered greatly, a sword pierced her heart, but it simply can’t be that she suffered as much as Jesus.

 

[MariaG]

First of all, this concept needs to be put in context with all of it’s writings. Not having that available, I can tell you it probably is along these lines.

Christ is our Saviour and through Him we receive all Graces. This first statement must alwasy be considered true and nothing said after changes this first statement. But because Mary said yes to God and brought Him forth from her womb, (even though we know the only reason Mary is anything is because of Christ), it is through Mary we received Christ. Therefore, it is through Mary, (because of Christ) that we receive all Graces.

This is usually how these things are worded. It is in no way putting Mary equal to Christ. It is more showing what perfect obedience to God brought the world.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[metal1633]

First. You whole post is based on a false premise. There is a great deal of misunderstanding in this area. Let me try to clear some of it up.
Mary is not a Mediator. The proper theological term is “Mediatrix”.
Pope John Paul II: “Beside the merciful Heart of Christ, we venerate the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of grace and of salvation.”
Pope John Paul II: “mediatrix of mercy” and “…she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother.”
Pope Pius X: “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.”
There are more but this is suffucient to show that her Title is “Mediatrix”, not “Mediator”.
It is not possible to understand the Virgin Mary’s role as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix, et cetera, without first understanding that God gives different roles to men and women. Eve was created to be a helper to Adam. "Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’ " (Gen 2:18). Similarly, the Virgin Mary was created to be a helper to Jesus Christ. "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. " (Lk 1:38). Women are created to be helpers to men. “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” (1 Tim 2:11-13). The Virgin Mary fulfilled this Scripture in her whole life, especially in her relationship with her Divine Son Jesus Christ. Jesus taught in the Synagogues on the Sabbath; Mary was silent. Jesus taught the Apostles and the other disciples and the crowds; Mary did not teach, but only listened. Jesus led and Mary followed.
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus….” (1 Tim 2:5). Therefore, Mary’s role as Mediatrix cannot be that of a female mediator. The feminine role called “Mediatrix” is to be a helper to the Mediator. Christ mediates between God and humanity; Mary participates in Christ’s mediation, but she herself does not mediate. And Mary would not have the role of Mediatrix at all, except that Christ exercised His role as Mediator perfectly in her case. When Christ taught the crowds, Mary did not stand at His side and add her own words to His Word. When Christ led the Apostles, Mary was not second in command. Mary’s role is not a reduced version of Christ’s role. Mary assists Christ in His work as Mediator, not by doing any mediating herself, not even with and under Christ.
How does Mary assist Christ in mediation? By giving birth to our Mediator. By the prayers and sufferings of her whole life. Mary offers her whole life and her whole self to God, as both a prayer and a sacrifice of the highest order, united to the supreme prayer and sacrifice of the life and death of Jesus Christ, for the sake of all those for whom Christ mediates. In this way she is the Mediatrix of all Grace.
Is it binding on Catholics? Yes. “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.” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.
The earliest referance I could find to the word “Mediatrix” in referance to Mary is from Pope Leo XIIIth Encyclical Letter, Dall’alto dell’Apostolico Seggio, 15 October 1890. That doesnt mean that the doctrine or idea didn’t exist prior to Leo. Although it seems he coined the term “Mediatrix”.

 

[tuopaolo]

Juxtaposer:

And this means that Mary mediates all graces?

I was responding to your comment about Mary dying on the Cross. But actually because of her being the Coredemptrix, she also merits her role as Mediatrix of all graces. She lowered herself in humility and obedience and in suffering with her Son and Lord and thus God raised her up to glory. As Jesus says, she who humbles herself shall be exalted.

How do you know that Mary suffered JUST AS MUCH as Jesus?

Some people actually think that she suffered more than Jesus. I’m not one of those people though. How do you know that she didn’t suffer just as much as Jesus? The Church seems to teach that she suffered the same as Jesus. From the Catechism, paragraph 964:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: “Woman, behold your son.”
So Mary endured with “her only begotten Son” “the intensity of his suffering.”

Did Mary take on the sin of the world?

No.

Was she the one who’s limbs were nailed to wood? I’m sure she suffered greatly, a sword pierced her heart, but it simply can’t be that she suffered as much as Jesus.

How do you know this? Spiritual suffering can be just as great or even greater than physical suffering. Mary was and is Jesus’ mother. She would have experienced untold suffering in her heart seeing her Son suffer so much.

Consider what St Gemma Galgani says:

“truly, then, when she sees Him being crucified… that poor Mother was transfixed by many arrows… Therefore my Mother was crucified together with Jesus.”
**
“Oh wicked sinners, stop crucifying Jesus, because at the same time you are also transfixing the Mother.”
**
"Oh my Mother, where do I find you? **Always at the foot of the Cross of Jesus… Oh what pain was yours!.. I no longer see one sacrifice only, I see two of them: one for Jesus, one for Mary!.. **Oh my Mother, if one were to see you with Jesus he would not be able to say who is the first to expire: is it you or Jesus?**"
**
**“What compassion you show me, oh my Mother, to see you so every Saturday at the foot of the Cross!.. Oh! I no longer see one Victim only, but there are two.”
It seems that St Gemma saw Jesus and Mary’s suffering to be about the same.

About the “Dogmatic” Constitution on the Church … “Dogmatic” there is not meaning to say it is dogmatic in the sense of being infallible.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

It seems that St Gemma saw Jesus and Mary’s suffering to be about the same.

Can’t use private messages to prove dogma. Saints are not infallible.

 

[tuopaolo]

Well saints aren’t infallibe but they are surely reliable and trustworthy. I would hesitate to disagree with a Saint on a matter such as this. Saints are holier than we are and so we would expect them to be more knowledgeable about divine matters than we do. Dismissing what they say as being non-infallible wouldn’t be right. Instead of trying to find a way to permissably disagree with a saint, why not humble your soul and accept a saint’s teaching?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

Well saints aren’t infallibe but they are surely reliable and trustworthy. I would hesitate to disagree with a Saint on a matter such as this. Saints are holier than we are and so we would expect them to be more knowledgeable about divine matters than we do. Dismissing what they say as being non-infallible wouldn’t be right. Instead of trying to find a way to permissably disagree with a saint, why not humble your soul and accept a saint’s teaching?

I stand by the Teachings of the Church which teaches us that private messages are not part of the deposite of faith and we are not required to believe them.

As this is not really a teaching from this Saint, it is a private revelation, I do not see where the Church tells me to follow it.

As for the thrust of this thread. I really am against limiting the way God works. This is why I find the idea of Mary being the Mediatrix of all graces problematic.

 

[Melchior]

tuopaolo:

Mary suffered as much as Jesus at Calvary and in doing so she together with Jesus merited in some way our Redemption.

Everything is possible to God!

This statement is mindblowingly wrong. This is the type of thing that Protestants are protesting and keeps them form the Catholic Church. Somethings are so wrong on their face that it makes all Catholic apologetics against Protestants seem silly.

I seriously want to know how this is not a blasphemous statement?

Mel

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mel,

Melchior:

This statement is mindblowingly wrong.

By whose authority to you claim it to be wrong?

I seriously want to know how this is not a blasphemous statement?

I seriously want to know why it is? If you ever watched your child suffer, you’d understand what it means.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mel,

I understand your reaction. However, I also have a similar reaction to “faith alone” as it is explicitly contrary to what Scripture says. Without explanation, sola fide can mean many things, not all of which are contrary to Catholic teaching. For example, Catholics teach we are justified by faith working in charity or “formed faith” (fide formata), so if one means *sola fide formata, *then a Catholic can accept it. Without the context of further explanation, such things may seem quite heretical.

Consider the context in which co-redemptrix is asserted:

Mary’s co-operation in the Redemption

The title Corredemptrix=Coredemptress, which as been current since the fifteenth century, and which also appears in some official Church documents under Pius X (cf. D 1978 a), must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (1 Tim 2, 5). As she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by Christ, she could not of herself merit the grace of redemption of humanity in accordance with the principle … (The author of an act of merit cannot be a recipient of the same act of merit). Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the Redeemer, and under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him. … Christ alone truly offered the scrifice of atonement on the Cross; Mary merely gave Him moral support in this action. … Indeed, this is expressly laid down by the Holy Office (1916, 1927). **Christ, as the Church teaches, “conquered the enemy of the human race alone (solus)” **(D 1711); in the same way, He alone acquired the grace of Redemption for the whole human race, including Mary. , The statement of Pope Pius X in the Encyclical “Ad diem illum” (1904): … (The blessed Virgin merits for us *de congruo *what Christ merited *de condigno) *is, as the present tense “promeret” shows, not indeed to be taken as referring to the historical objective Redemption, which occurred once and for all, but to her ever-present, intercessory co-operation in the subjective redemption. (Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *p. 212-213, emphasis added)

Understood correctly, I find nothing blasphemous or wrong about it.

 

[GoodSamaritan]

By whose authority to you claim it to be wrong?

Well, considering all we have to go on that Mary suffered as much as Jesus is private revelation and not Cathechetical teaching, the authority would be the Church. I find it suspect that Mary suffered as much as Jesus, to say the least. NOBODY has suffered in the same way or as much as Jesus did that day. Still, there is not any consensus regarding this, even in private revelation.

St. Alphonsus di Liguori wrote:

**“And now, to say all in a few words: God, to glorify the Mother of the Redeemer, has so determined and disposed that of her great charity she should intercede on behalf of all those for whom his divine Son paid and offered the superabundant price of his precious blood in which alone is our salvation, life, and resurrection.” **

The price that Jesus paid is clearly greater than that of Mary and Liguori makes it clear when he calls the price ‘superabundant’.
Just My Two Cents.
GS

 

[metal1633]

Melchior:

This statement is mindblowingly wrong. This is the type of thing that Protestants are protesting and keeps them form the Catholic Church. Somethings are so wrong on their face that it makes all Catholic apologetics against Protestants seem silly.

I seriously want to know how this is not a blasphemous statement?

Mel

That IS a blaphemous statment and shows a real lack of understanding of what the title Co-redemptrix means. CO means WITH. Mary did not merit redemption for us with Christ. CO in Co-redemtrix is in relation to US. She is WITH Us on the road to redemption. She is not a redeemer. Jesus is the Redeemer. She, by her prayers for US, is WITH us, leading US to Christ. She is not helping HIM redeem us. She is helping US find redemption.

 

[Melchior]

itsjustdave1988:

Mel,
By whose authority to you claim it to be wrong?
I seriously want to know why it is? If you ever watched your child suffer, you’d understand what it means.

By what authority is the claim made? I can at least challenge it with scripture. The claim cannot be backed up with any scripture or Catholic dogma for that matter.

Come on, Dave. I think you know what I mean. I am certain my good Catholic mom would have trouble with the ambiguity of such a statement. Does it mean Mary also died for our sins? It is dangerously close to making Mary equal with God. It is this kind of statement that is careless and theologically dangerous. It is the kind of thing that Protestants read and are turned off by. Just as many Catholics are. This is one of those areas where Catholics need to own up to certain ideas that demand criticism. One cannot be to harsh on us Protestants when such unsupported things are said.

And you cannot simply pull the “by what authority card” if it is not part of scripture or tradition. Which it is not.

Mel

 

[Melchior]

itsjustdave1988:

Mel,

I understand your reaction. However, I also have a similar reaction to “faith alone” as it is explicitly contrary to what Scripture says. Without explanation, sola fide can mean many things, not all of which are contrary to Catholic teaching. For example, Catholics teach we are justified by faith working in charity or “formed faith” (fide formata), so if one means *sola fide formata, *then a Catholic can accept it. Without the context of further explanation, such things may seem quite heretical.

Consider the context in which co-redemptrix is asserted:
Understood correctly, I find nothing blasphemous or wrong about it.

Dave,

Ok. I hear what you are saying. But I think when someone makes such a statement they sure as heck better qualify it. If not it merely looks like an attempt to raise eyebrows.

Thank you for your explanations.

Peace,

Mel

 

[Melchior]

metal1633:

That IS a blaphemous statment and shows a real lack of understanding of what the title Co-redemptrix means. CO means WITH. Mary did not merit redemption for us with Christ. CO in Co-redemtrix is in relation to US. She is WITH Us on the road to redemption. She is not a redeemer. Jesus is the Redeemer. She, by her prayers for US, is WITH us, leading US to Christ. She is not helping HIM redeem us. She is helping US find redemption.

Thanks, Metal.

That puts me at ease. I appreciate it.

Mel

 

[Hesychios]

Greetings all,

I would like to remind everyone that this thread is not about Mary as Co-Redemptrix.

It is about Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces. One cannot rely upon an undemonstrated claim to support another claim, it actually weakens the argument anyway. I would like to see the role or Mediatrix of all Graces explained in plain language based upon arguments from Scripture, Patristic literature, Conciliar decrees or church Canons (or something as reputable).

If we need to start a thread on Mary as Co-Redeemer one of us can do that, if the two ideas are linked inextricably, it would be a good idea for someone to show us when or how these two ideas were introduced into the common mindset of some practicing Catholics.

I am only trying to be fair about this, if the idea has legitimacy reasonable arguments should make that clear to everyone!

Thanks