To mediate all Graces - what does it mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hesychios
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
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.
It’s not blasphemous at all. The “co” refers to with Jesus, not with us. I think I have a good understanding of the Coredemption since I’ve done a fair amount of reading on it. Here’s what Fr Peter Damian M Fehlner, FFI says:In that sublime alliance of the hearts Jesus and Mary, Redeemer and Coredemptrix, together merit de condigno the same work, our salvation, according to an order willed from all eternity.So Jesus and Mary together merit our salvation. He writes further:In conclusion: we may say that, in virtue of the divine salvific counsels ordaining a most perfect redemption, our Lady as Coredemptrix is included with Christ, the One Mediator. Under him she merits de condigno all which he merits, except the grace to be the Immaculate Mother of God and Coredemptrix. This is precisely what preservative redemption in the full sense means in so far as it differentiates her cooperation with the Savior from that both of men and of angels: to be able to be actively engaged with the One Mediator in the historic work of salvation: as his Mother and as ours, both at its initiation and at its consummation, and therefore both before and after that consummation. She is therefore the link, or as St. Bernard put it, the neck, uniting Head and Body of the Church, only on the assumption that she alone is the Coredemptrix, not only offering, but in some way part of the sacrifice of Christ.
Once we realize that the compassion of Mary, like her Son’s suffering, is that of a public person, then the title, “Sorrowful Mother,” and its universal acceptance in the faith and devotion of the Christian people, is revealed to be a synonym of Coredemptrix.
So Mary merits at the Cross everything that her Son merits except the grace to be the Immaculate Mother of God and to be Coredemprix. Mary, like her Son, is a public person and so her suffering is redemptive. And she not only offers her Son’s suffering but is in some way part of his sacrifice.

Here’s the full paper of Fr Peter:

voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

I should note that some theologians disagree with Fr Peter as to the nature of Mary’s merit. This is noted in Fr Peter’s paper.
 
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”.
The term Mediatrix is extremely poorly chosen if it specifically denies she is a mediator, because the basic definition of mediatrix is a female who is a mediator. That is just what the suffix -trix means. Are we sure it denies that she is a mediator or is it just that it does not subtract from Christ’ mediation?
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
It’s not blasphemous at all. The “co” refers to with Jesus, not with us. I think I have a good understanding of the Coredemption since I’ve done a fair amount of reading on it. Here’s what Fr Peter Damian M Fehlner, FFI says:In that sublime alliance of the hearts Jesus and Mary, Redeemer and Coredemptrix, together merit de condigno the same work, our salvation, according to an order willed from all eternity.So Jesus and Mary together merit our salvation. He writes further:In conclusion: we may say that, in virtue of the divine salvific counsels ordaining a most perfect redemption, our Lady as Coredemptrix is included with Christ, the One Mediator. Under him she merits de condigno all which he merits, except the grace to be the Immaculate Mother of God and Coredemptrix. This is precisely what preservative redemption in the full sense means in so far as it differentiates her cooperation with the Savior from that both of men and of angels: to be able to be actively engaged with the One Mediator in the historic work of salvation: as his Mother and as ours, both at its initiation and at its consummation, and therefore both before and after that consummation. She is therefore the link, or as St. Bernard put it, the neck, uniting Head and Body of the Church, only on the assumption that she alone is the Coredemptrix, not only offering, but in some way part of the sacrifice of Christ.
Once we realize that the compassion of Mary, like her Son’s suffering, is that of a public person, then the title, “Sorrowful Mother,” and its universal acceptance in the faith and devotion of the Christian people, is revealed to be a synonym of Coredemptrix.
So Mary merits at the Cross everything that her Son merits except the grace to be the Immaculate Mother of God and to be Coredemprix. Mary, like her Son, is a public person and so her suffering is redemptive. And she not only offers her Son’s suffering but is in some way part of his sacrifice.

Here’s the full paper of Fr Peter:

voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

I should note that some theologians disagree with Fr Peter as to the nature of Mary’s merit. This is noted in Fr Peter’s paper.
If this were dogma I would stop my journey right now. This is nonsense. What biblical or patristic support do you have for such ideas?

Mel
 
40.png
Pug:
The term Mediatrix is extremely poorly chosen if it specifically denies she is a mediator, because the basic definition of mediatrix is a female who is a mediator. That is just what the suffix -trix means. Are we sure it denies that she is a mediator or is it just that it does not subtract from Christ’ mediation?
Mary’s role as Mediatrix uses the feminine form of the word, so as to indicate that her role is the feminine role of assistant to Christ our Mediator. The use of a Latin word as a theological term has the advantage of allowing the word to be given a specific definition apart from what would be the common meaning of the word in each language. Mary’s role as Mediatrix is substantially different than Christ’s role as Mediator; use of a separate word, “Mediatrix,” clarifies this difference. The feminine word Mediatrix implies both that the person is female and that the role is a feminine role. Mary’s role as Mediatrix is not to Mediate for us before God, but to assist Christ in His role as our Mediator before God. The Virgin Mary participates in Christ’s work of Mediation, but she does not, in any way whatsoever, act as an Mediator herself.

And for all you protestants who are about to object. NO Christ does not NEED her assistance. It is a GIFT. And the Gift is for US.

Glory to God.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
It’s not blasphemous at all. The “co” refers to with Jesus, not with us. I think I have a good understanding of the Coredemption since I’ve done a fair amount of reading on it. Here’s what Fr Peter Damian M Fehlner, FFI says:In that sublime alliance of the hearts Jesus and Mary, Redeemer and Coredemptrix, together merit de condigno the same work, our salvation, according to an order willed from all eternity.So Jesus and Mary together merit our salvation. He writes further:In conclusion: we may say that, in virtue of the divine salvific counsels ordaining a most perfect redemption, our Lady as Coredemptrix is included with Christ, the One Mediator. Under him she merits de condigno all which he merits, except the grace to be the Immaculate Mother of God and Coredemptrix. This is precisely what preservative redemption in the full sense means in so far as it differentiates her cooperation with the Savior from that both of men and of angels: to be able to be actively engaged with the One Mediator in the historic work of salvation: as his Mother and as ours, both at its initiation and at its consummation, and therefore both before and after that consummation. She is therefore the link, or as St. Bernard put it, the neck, uniting Head and Body of the Church, only on the assumption that she alone is the Coredemptrix, not only offering, but in some way part of the sacrifice of Christ.

Once we realize that the compassion of Mary, like her Son’s suffering, is that of a public person, then the title, “Sorrowful Mother,” and its universal acceptance in the faith and devotion of the Christian people, is revealed to be a synonym of Coredemptrix.

So Mary merits at the Cross everything that her Son merits except the grace to be the Immaculate Mother of God and to be Coredemprix. Mary, like her Son, is a public person and so her suffering is redemptive. And she not only offers her Son’s suffering but is in some way part of his sacrifice.

Here’s the full paper of Fr Peter:

voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php

I should note that some theologians disagree with Fr Peter as to the nature of Mary’s merit. This is noted in Fr Peter’s paper.
I agree with Melcior on this one. That is a bunch of nonsense. Marys pierced heart may open the hearts of many but she did NOT merit REDEMPTION for us. ONLY Christ merited de condigno according to Pope St Pius X.

Christ, as the Church teaches, "conquered the enemy of the human race alone"
 
This doctrine should not, and probably will not, be defined until several things occur. First, the doctrine must become dissociated from private revelations. Second, the doctrine must be freed from numerous serious theological errors which plague most writings on this topic. Third, the correct understanding of this doctrine must spread throughout much of the Church, so that the definition can be planted as a seed in well-prepared fertile soil. The currently-popular version of this doctrine is distorted and deficient. This version cannot be infallibly defined as is, because it is full of errors. If the correct doctrine were defined at a time when most promoters of the doctrine are in error, many would reject the infallible definition and the authority of the Sacred Magisterium. When faced with a choice between rejecting their own errors and rejecting the authority of the Church, too many persons would choose to reject the Church. That is why it would be imprudent to define this true doctrine prematurely—because so many persons, who seem to be devout, are significantly lacking in faith.

Perhaps it would be wise for the Church to issue a document on this doctrine first under the Ordinary Magisterium. Then the faithful could discuss the doctrinal points in such a document, and arrive at an increased understanding, in preparation for a future infallible pronouncement. The doctrine of Mary as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix may be infallibly defined by the Sacred Magisterium whenever the Holy Spirit wills. This true teaching, in its correct form, does not come from private revelation, nor from theologians, nor from special interest groups. This true doctrine comes from God alone.
 
Mel,

I certainly hope this doctrine does not stop your journey. However, I suggest you become aware of the doctrines of the Catholic Church as the Teaching Church herself understands them before you decide to accept or reject them. It is not the opinions of the Taught Church that really matters (myself included). That’s why I attempt to give support from the Teaching Church when it seems appropriate.

FYI to Hesychios, Mary’s role as co-redemptrix is part of her role as Mediatrix. That’s why Dr. Ott includes the discussion of co-redemptrix within the chapter under the heading “The Mediatorship of Mary.”

Mel, you said:
The claim cannot be backed up with any scripture or Catholic dogma for that matter.
I disagree. It may not be fides definita but Mary’s co-operation in the Redemption is disussed in Dr. Ludwig Ott’s book, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *as dogma.

According to Dr. Ott,
Mary is designated meditarix of all graces in a double sense:

1. Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. (sent. certa)

2. Since Mary’s Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation. (Sent. pia et probabilis).
Dr. Ott asserts that #1 is a “certain teaching” (sententia certa) of the Church, which for Catholics is no longer a matter of “free opinion.” While not *de fide, *it requires of Catholic there religious assent. On the other hand, #2, according to Ott, is “pious and probable teaching” (sententia pia et probablis) which is within the field of free opinion and does not require relgious assent.
 
metal1633,

You stated:
Mary did not merit redemption for us with Christ.
Pope St. Pius X in the Encyclical Ad diem(1904) states: "**Since she excels all in sanctity, and by her union with Christ and by her adoption by Christ for the work of man’s salvation, she merited for us *****de conguo, *****as they say, what Christ merited ****de condigno, **and is the first minister of the graces to be bestowed."

**
**
 
Pug,

The word “mediatrix” is based upon ancient Latin. You ought to attempt to understand it in that context, not by projecting modern English meanings unto it.
 
St. Mary the Mediatrix in Scripture and Tradition:

In Luke 1:38, Mary said “be it done to me according to thy word.” Her *fiat *to the angel Gabriel was a deliberate co-operation in giving the Redeemer to the world through her obedience.

At the Wedding Feast at Cana, her request of her Son resulted in a miracle and increased the faith of Jesus’ disciples.

On the Cross, Christ stated (John 19, 26): “Woman behold thy son, son behold they mother.” The Church interprets this passage as Christ giving Mary to all his beloved disciples as the spiritual mother.

St. Ephrem (d. 373) said of Mary, in a prayer ascribed to him: “After the Mediator thou art the mediatrix of the whole world” (Oratio IV ad Deiparam. 4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast). St. Irenaeus (ca. AD 189) stated: “Mary … by her obedience became the cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race.” (Adv. haer. III 22,4). St. Jerome said: “By a woman the whole world was saved” (Tract. de Ps. 96). In other words, the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix is of such antiquity that it pre-dates the canonization of Scripture. It is based upon the spiritual motherhood of Mary for all Christians, which is supported by Scripture.

Like her intercession at Cana, Mary continues to participate in the distribution of grace by her maternal intercession in heaven. “The implication of this is not that we are obliged to beg for all graces through Mary, nor that Mary’s intercession is intrinsically necessary for the application of the grace, but that, according to God’s psitive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Christ is conferred on nobody without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary.” (Ott, ibid, 213)

Pope Leo XIII: “From the great treasure of all graces, which the Lord has brought, nothing, according to the will of God comes to us except through Mary” (*Octobre mensi, *1891)

Pope Pius X calls Mary: “the dispenser of all gifts, which Jesus has acquired for us by his death and His blood” (Denzinger 1978 a)

Pope Benedict XV declared: “All gifts which the Author of all good has deigned to communicate to the unhappy posterity of Adam, are, according to the loving resolve of His Divine Providence, dispensed by the hands of the Most Holy Virgin” (AAS 9, 1917, 266)

St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) stated: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Holy One … nobody can receive a figt of grace except through thee … O Most Chast One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast, cite by Ott, ibid., p. 214)

Others notable Catholics who have asserted that Mary is the univeral dispenser of grace by her intercession in heaven include St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bernardine of Siena, St. Peter of Canisius, St. Alphonsus Liguori.
 
Regarding Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces by her co-operation in
the Incarnation (cf. Luke 1:38) …

By the will of God, the incarnation and subsequent redemption of mankind was dependent upon her *fiat, *her assent.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “At the Annunciation the concurrence of the maiden was awaited as a representative of all human nature” (S. th. III 30, 1)

Pope Leo XIII: “To a certain extent she (Mary) represented the whole human race” (Denzinger 1940 a)

Pope Pius XII: “[Mary] offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love like a new Eve for all children of Adam” (Denzinger 2291)

Pope John Paul II:
“Mary goes before us and accompanies us. The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the ‘yes’ of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption; …Crucified spiritually with her crucified son (cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she “lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth” (Lumen Gentium, 58)…In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church; her maternal heart shared to the very depths the will of Christ ‘to gather into one all the dispersed children of God’ (Jn. 11:52). Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity…In fact, Mary’s role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son” (1985 Papal Address of Pope John Paul II in Guayaquil, Ecuador)
 
What is the latin meaning of the suffix -trix, then? I had genuinely thought the basic idea in latin was “she that does whatever”, like spectatrix, she that looks at or observes a thing, or apostatrix, *she that apostatizes.
:confused:
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
metal1633,

You stated:
Pope St. Pius X in the Encyclical Ad diem(1904) states: "**Since she excels all in sanctity, and by her union with Christ and by her adoption by Christ for the work of man’s salvation, she merited for us *****de conguo, *****as they say, what Christ merited **de condigno, and is the first minister of the graces to be bestowed."
And you think this contradicts me? It AGREES with me. de condigno merit is a the source of Grace. de congruo merit leads to Grace. Only de condigno elicits Divine acceptance. de congruo is the result. Christ merited de condigno according to Pope St Pius X.
 
40.png
Melchior:
If this were dogma I would stop my journey right now. This is nonsense. What biblical or patristic support do you have for such ideas?

Mel
I wouldn’t dismiss something as nonsense just because it is unfamiliar to you. I’m sure that the Jews would have thought that Jesus being God was nonsense. Here’s a paper which includes the patristic support for the Coredemption:

voxpopuli.org/book_1_2.php

And here are two papers which include the scriptural support for the Coredemption:

voxpopuli.org/book_1_5.php
voxpopuli.org/book_2_3.php

I hope you get a chance to read all of them.
 
metal1633,
40.png
metal1633:
And you think this contradicts me? It AGREES with me. de condigno merit is a the source of Grace. de congruo merit leads to Grace. Only de condigno elicits Divine acceptance. de congruo is the result. Christ merited de condigno according to Pope St Pius X.
In an earlier post, you said “Mary did not merit redemption for us with Christ.” This is wrong, or at least ambiguous. If you would have said, “Mary did not merit de condigno, but did merit de congruo” then you would have represented Pope St. Pius X and the Catholic position more accurately.

Of course de congruo merit leads to grace. That’s the point. If one agrees with Pope St. Pius X, St. Mary merited de congruo, while on earth, the grace for all mankind. She did this through her co-operation in the incarnation, ministry, and redemption of Jesus Christ. This is certain teaching (sententia certa) of the Catholic Church. It is not among the field of free opinions, according to Dr. Ott.

Furthermore, Ott states:
The possibility of meriting for others is based on the friendship of God for the just, and on the communion of saints. More effective than such merit is prayer for others.
What is of free opinion, is whether or not man receives grace apart from Mary’s actual intercessory prayers in heaven. According to Dr. Ott, it is a pious and probable teaching (sent. pia et probablis), that no grace is conferred without Mary’s intercessory co-operation in heaven. This is asserted as well by popes (Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII).

It is in the above sense that Mary is designated mediatrix of all graces. Her co-operation in the Redemption is a part of that de congruo merit. Her de congruo merit derives also from her co-operation in the Incarnation and ministry of Christ.

If I’m wrong, please show me where. This is part of what I’m studying in my post-grad course right now, and any clarification would be helpful.
 
Fr Peter Damian M Fehlner, FFI says:
In that sublime alliance of the hearts Jesus and Mary, Redeemer and Coredemptrix, together merit de condigno the same work, our salvation, according to an order willed from all eternity.
With all due respect for Fr. Peter, he is incorrect. Pope St. Pius X states Mary’s merit was de congruo.
 
Pug,
The term Mediatrix is extremely poorly chosen if it specifically denies she is a mediator
It doesn’t deny she is a mediator. It specifically states that she is. All of the just are “co-workers with God” (1 Cor 3:9). Mary’s role was unique, however, as it was her fiat, not any other’s, that untied the knot of Eve’s disobedience.
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
St. Mary the Mediatrix in Scripture and Tradition:

In Luke 1:38, Mary said “be it done to me according to thy word.” Her *fiat *to the angel Gabriel was a deliberate co-operation in giving the Redeemer to the world through her obedience.

At the Wedding Feast at Cana, her request of her Son resulted in a miracle and increased the faith of Jesus’ disciples.

On the Cross, Christ stated (John 19, 26): “Woman behold thy son, son behold they mother.” The Church interprets this passage as Christ giving Mary to all his beloved disciples as the spiritual mother.

Hello Dave,
With all respect these recollections are too vague and broad to be supportive of a specific role of Mediatrix. They support a lot of nice general feelings in us about Mary, including gratitude and love.
St. Ephrem (d. 373) said of Mary, in a prayer ascribed to him: “After the Mediator thou art the mediatrix of the whole world” (Oratio IV ad Deiparam. 4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast). St. Irenaeus (ca. AD 189) stated: “Mary … by her obedience became the cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race.” (Adv. haer. III 22,4). St. Jerome said: “By a woman the whole world was saved” (Tract. de Ps. 96). In other words, the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix is of such antiquity that it pre-dates the canonization of Scripture. It is based upon the spiritual motherhood of Mary for all Christians, which is supported by Scripture.
I take these quotes to be supportive of Mary’s role in the one-time event of saying “yes” to bearing the child Jesus, our Lord and Saviour. I cannot find anything here supporting the idea of an ongoing role for Mary in space and time.
Like her intercession at Cana, Mary continues to participate in the distribution of grace by her maternal intercession in heaven.
This sounds to me like conjecture. Up until this point, everything you have stated here can be interpreted differently than you maintain. I still see all of these comments as supporting Mary’s role in the one-time event, and this (one-time event) as a result of the Christological controversies wherin the nature of Christ was still under debate.
“The implication of this is not that we are obliged to beg for all graces through Mary, nor that Mary’s intercession is intrinsically necessary for the application of the grace, but that, according to God’s psitive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Christ is conferred on nobody without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary.” (Ott, ibid, 213)
Ditto for Ott, he clearly states that this is an implication, which means that his point is not clearly stated. Ott is (in my opinion) coloring these earlier events and statements with the perspective of a modern European. Telescoping history and imagining that these quotes and ideas support his expanded viewpoint, which these statements were not intended to address.

I am troubled by what seems to be a contradiction in the statement, I wonder why other people don’t see it?

He says "nor that Mary’s intercession is intrinsically necessary and then says: “the redemptive grace of Christ is conferred on nobody without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary.” which doesn’t make sense to me, it sounds like: “it is intrinsically necessary but I don’t want to say that directly”.
Others notable Catholics who have asserted that Mary is the univeral dispenser of grace by her intercession in heaven include St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bernardine of Siena, St. Peter of Canisius, St. Alphonsus Liguori.
Can you provide the actual quotes that would support this? It is not that I doubt your contention here, but the actual quotes would help.

Your quotes from the Popes and St Germanus are duly noted, thank you, I had to snip the section for lack of space though. 🙂

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top