A Pre-Vatican II Theology of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces

After Mercier's death, his disciples who continued the movement for the definition of Mary's universal mediation, included a Belgian Canon, Joseph Bittremieux (1878-1950), two Belgian Commission members-Benedict Merkelbach, O.P. (1871-1942), and Joseph Lebon (1879-1957)-and a Spanish Commission member, José-Maria Bover, S.J. (1877-1954).¹ Reacting against the theological excess of Joseph Lebon's description of Mary's grace being independent of Christ, Heinrich Lennerz (1880-1961), a German Jesuit, and Werner Goossens (1899-1949), a Belgian priest, were two notable opponents to the definition after Mercier's death.² Through the 1940's and 1950's, the mediation movement gained well-known Mariologists such as Franciscans Carlo Balić (1899-1977) and Juniper Carol (1911-1990), as well as Gabriele Roschini, a Servite of Mary (1900-1977), who all maintained Mary's dependence on Christ.³ In January of 1959, Pope John XXIII announced his decision to hold the Vatican II Council. His announcement marks the end of this pre-Vatican II history.

In summary, from 1896 to 1958, the theologians' idea was developed by Cardinal Mercier into an organized movement for

the dogmatic definition for the Marian title "Mediatrix of All Graces." He had obtained a feast day and inspired theologians to continue this movement after his death. But what theology did the promoters use to promote their cause?

A Theological Argument Used by the Pre-Vatican II Mediation Movement

Since a dogma is understood to be a divinely revealed truth, any argument for a dogmatic definition must demonstrate that the teaching is found in either scripture or tradition, or ideally found in both, and at least not contradicted by either one. After establishing that the doctrine is divinely revealed, then the promoter must show that it was a good or "opportune" time for a dogmatic definition of that doctrine. Therefore, the movement's supporters tried to demonstrate that Mary's universal mediation of grace was contained in scripture and tradition, and that the definition of this doctrine was indeed opportune.

Although the mediation proponents made many different arguments, this paper will analyze only their Associate argument that corresponds with the conference theme of "Coredemptrix, therefore Mediatrix of all graces," as the following section will show.⁴ This analysis will articulate the logical steps of this argument and try to give that approach's interpretation of Mary as mediatrix of all graces before concluding with a brief evaluation.

THE ASSOCIATE OF CHRIST

The associate argument used the patristic soteriology of a "return by the original path" (recirculatio) or "recapitulation"

or "reheading" (recapitulatio) whereby God redeemed man by a reversal of the original sin:

1) Christ is the New Adam who reversed the sin of the first Adam to redeem all men (cf. Romans 5:12-20).

2) In the original sin, the first Adam had Eve as a God-given, subordinate helpmate or associate.

3) The New Adam, Christ, had Mary as a New Eve, a God-given, subordinate helpmate or associate in the redemption.

4) Christ's redemption was accomplished in two phases: the meriting of all grace here on earth ("the objective redemption") and the distribution of all grace from heaven ("the subjective redemption"). His redemptive work included the mediation of all graces for all people for all times.

5) Therefore, Mary was and remains a subordinate associate, indissolubly united to Christ and therefore cooperating actively, directly, and/or immediately in all His redemptive work: the meriting of all grace on earth, the distribution of all grace from heaven, and the mediation of all graces for all people for all times.

6) Therefore, as Christ's associate, Mary was and is the subordinate mediatrix of all grace.⁵

Theologians distinguished two phases of redemption to explain how Christ died to redeem everyone in the objective redemption; but not everyone goes to heaven because each person must accept the grace in the subjective redemption in order to be saved in the subjective redemption. This associate argument demonstrated first that Mary was associated with Christ in the objective redemption, and then used Bossuet's argument that God's gifts are without repentance, i.e., God's freely chosen ways are unchanging.⁶ Therefore, these proponents held that the associate in the objective redemption was also the associate in the subjective redemption. They named Mary's cooperation in the redemption her coredemption and called her the coredemptrix.⁷

This associate argument defined Mary's mediation as an active, direct, and formal cooperation in the redemption wrought by Christ, both by her coredemption on earth and her distribution of graces in heaven.⁸ Bover explained that since the degree of one's mediation depended on the degree of one's association or union with Christ, Mary's mediation is also unlimited, immediate, and universal, because by her unique reception of the Holy Spirit in her Immaculate Conception, Mary's sinless association to Christ was unlimited.⁹ From this perspective, Mary's mediation extended with Christ's to all times, all people, and all objects whether or not Christ or Mary are explicitly

invoked or acknowledged.¹⁰ Mary's intercession was the same in nature, but different in degree than the other saints, because Mary's intercession was sinless, most powerful, and universal in time and object, and because Mary interceded by right, not just in fact.¹¹

The proponents used the "principle of association" holding that Mary was inseparably associated, in a proportionate way, with her Son in His redemptive work.¹² These supporters thought this inseparable association was God's plan from the beginning as revealed in Genesis 3:15, namely, God's announcement to the serpent in the Garden of Eden that there would be a Woman, and her seed, who would crush the head of the serpent.¹³ According to this principle, Christ was an ontological and moral mediator, as king, head, priest, and redeemer, by his de condigno merit, satisfaction, sacrifice on the cross, and his blood as the price of the redemption. Since Mary, by grace, participated in Christ's mediation, she was the queen, secondary head, associate to Christ's sacrifice, and coredemptrix, by her comerit, cosatisfaction, co-offerring the sacrifice and the price of the redemption. Therefore, Mary was also an ontological and moral mediator.¹⁴ However, the proponents disagreed over what kind of cooperation Mary had with Christ in the redemption. Most proponents held that Mary cooperated in our salvation in at

least one or more of these four ways:¹⁵ 1) by her free consent to the Incarnation;¹⁶ 2) by her all-powerful intercession;¹⁷ 3) by her compassion at the foot of the cross;¹⁸ and 4) by her merit.¹⁹ The issue of Mary's merit led the associate proponents into controversy because they disagreed over the meaning of Pius X's teaching that Mary merits for us de congruo what Christ merited for us de condigno.²⁰ The Thomistic definitions of de condigno as the strict equality between dignity of person and reward, and de congruo as the congruous or appropriate reward for human beings who, by grace, had performed supernatural acts, meant that, for a Thomist, only Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, was capable of meriting de condigno the infinite satisfaction required for sin, and Mary's merit had to be de congruo.²¹ However, Lebon thought that if Mary's merit were only de congruo, then her merit would be non-essential, her participation in the redemption only remote, and her mediation not universal.²²