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

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 La Broise, "Proposition," p. 11. Godts, Definibilitate, p. 51. Merkelbach, "Commissio Belgica," p. 158. Mercier, True Devotion, p. 11. José M. Bover, Catecismo popular sobre la mediacion universal de Maria (Lérida: Gráficos Academia Mariana, 1927), p. 31. Joseph Bittremieux, "De congruo promeruit nobis B. Virgo quae Christus de condigno promeruit," ETL 8 (1931), pp. 435-436. Rosch ini, Mariologia, p. 419. Therefore, Lebon started with St. Anselm's teaching that God made Mary a single principle with Christ to bring about the salvation of all so that, united to Christ's de condigno merit, Mary's merit was also de condigno.¹ Lebon and his student, Carlo Balić, used Benedict XV's teaching in Inter sodalicia, that, with Christ, Mary redeemed the world by sacrificing her maternal rights at the foot of the cross. Using a Scotistic definition of de condigno as an equality between work and the reward, Lebon and Balić said that Mary merited, in strict justice (de condigno) in proportion to her sacrifice, all the finite graces ever given to man.² Therefore, they thought Mary has a right to intercede in the distribution of all graces because they are the fruits of her merits.³

This Scotistic argument then split into two: 1) Balić who held that Mary's de condigno merit was dependent on her Son;⁴ and 2) Lebon who held that Mary's de condigno merit was independent of her Son because Mary's renunciation of her maternal rights "was, before God, on the same plane as the Son's renunciation; and in the same way associated with Christ by the divine will, Mary disposes immediately in paying the price of man's redemption without passing through the intermediary of Christ."⁵ Lebon thought that in her official capacity as the Mother of God associated to Christ's de condigno merit, Mary merited de condigno by the renunciation of her maternal rights, while as a private person, Mary's merit was de congruo for others and de condigno for herself.⁶

Thomists critiqued Lebon's position on several points. Bittremieux thought Lebon posited Mary as a second mediator with Christ, and thereby contradicted the truth of Christ's sole sufficiency, and Mary's dependence on the grace of Christ.⁷ Bittremieux contended that Mary's de congruo merit could have been sufficient to associate Mary with Christ as a single principle to redeem the world.⁸ Bittremieux thought Lebon misinterpreted the pope's statement that really meant Mary's merit was de congruo both as a private person and as the Redeemer's official associate.⁹ Later, Bittremieux proposed a distinction between Mary's de congruo satisfaction and her de condigno merit.¹⁰ Roschini thought that Mary's grace could not be both de condigno and de congruo.¹¹ Bittremieux and Roschini held that Lebon's concept of Mary's grace from God separate from Christ was impossible, because there can not be two different kinds of sanctifying grace-one from God and the other from Christ.¹²

Other Catholic theologians agreed that Lebon had erred in calling Mary's merit de condigno and independent of Christ. At the same time, the mediation proponents wanted to distinguish Mary's sinless and maternal merit from the merit of all other saints who merited only after original sin and with a brotherly or sisterly mediation. Therefore, the promoters searched for a more precise term for Mary's merit. At first Bittremieux suggested digno.¹³ Carol invented the term co-merit for Mary's merit.¹⁴ Roschini proposed calling Christ's merit excellent, Mary's merit coredemptive in her official capacity, and then Mary's private

merit and the merit of the rest of the saints either de condigno or de congruo as each case warranted.¹⁵

In evaluation, Lebon had set up Mary as an equal to Christ, acting independently of Christ. At the same time, Lebon stated that Mary could do this because of her association with Christ, thereby implying Mary's dependence upon Christ. Lebon's intrinsic self-contradiction seemed to be a misunderstanding of Mary's secondary causality as subordinate and dependent on Christ's, yet also essential by God's choice.

Balić's description of Mary's merits as de condigno and dependent upon Christ, flowed from his Franciscan and Scotistic point of view. As the Franciscan Minister General had proclaimed in 1939 to his order, Mary's universal mediation proceeded from her dignity as the Mother of God, as queen, and as the highest or most excellent being after Christ, and her mediation included three elements: 1) her absolute predestination as the Mother of God; 2) her work as coredemptrix in the acquisition of all graces, by her consent to the incarnation, and by her offering the sacrifice of Christ, the Redeemer; and 3) her real participation in the dispensation of each and every grace by the influence of her most efficacious prayers.¹⁶ Balić's use of Scotistic terms fit a Franciscan theology but clashed with Thomistic terminology.

Conclusion

The associate argument had both advantages and disadvantages for the mediation movement. On the positive side, the title of New Eve maintained Mary's unique importance as a subordinate associate to Christ, the New Adam. This title gave a basis for the proponents' claim of at least an implicit continuity of tradition for Mary's universal mediation. By 1959, Balić found theologians

agreed that Mary mediated all graces because she had been united to Christ in the redemption, the source of all graces.¹⁷

However, on the negative side, the associate argument had diverted the promoters onto the topic of coredemption that divided them.¹⁸ The proponents disagreed about how Mary's merit related to her mediation, due to different definitions for de condigno merit from Thomistic or Scotistic soteriologies. As Bover noted, depending on which soteriology a theologian held, he came to a different understanding of what Mary's mediation was.¹⁹ This confusion, combined with Lebon's well-known error of Mary's grace independent of Christ, was a theological quicksand that could not support a dogmatic definition before the Vatican II Council.

The study of the past is meant to teach us lessons for the present. Hopefully this paper has shown that the associate argument is a valid, theological argument when Mary's dependence on Christ is maintained. At the same time, this approach could be strengthened if the underlying soteriological differences could be resolved in order to clarify the meaning of Mary's mediation.

Thank you for your kind attention. May Mary, the New Eve and associate of Christ, pray for us!