Coredemption and Maternal Mediation of the Immaculate "Reparatrix of the Human Race" according to de Montfort

3. The Status questionis and the Conflicting Interpretations

After the magisterial study by Professor Manfred Hauke,¹ it is not necessary to insist on the importance of the doctrine of Saint Louis-Marie de Montfort on the theological and pastoral work of Cardinal Mercier (1851-1926) on the universal mediation of Mary. If the cause of the canonization of Louis-Marie and that of the dogmatic definition of the mediation of Our Lady were so intimately associated in the perspective of the Cardinal Primate of Belgium, it is obviously because he recognized, in the message of Montfort, a profound understanding of the mystery of Marian mediation.

A little later, in a series of articles published in 1940 and 1941, G.M. Roschini maintained that in the thought of Grignion de Montfort "the Most Holy Virgin cooperated directly and immediately in the objective redemption."² But an opposite opinion was expressed, for example, by the Spanish mariologist García Garcès who held that there is nothing in the writings of our author which necessarily causes one to speak of coredemption in the strict sense.³

The Italian Montfort Father Alberto Rum, in an article published on the occasion of the first centenary of the discovery of the Treatise on True Devotion (1842-1942), commented on the thought of Montfort by employing the term "Coredemptrix" without any hesitation.⁴ Likewise, the Montfort Father J.-M. Hermans held, in a thesis published in 1947 that, according to Saint Louis-Marie de Montfort, whom he considered one of the greatest doctors of Marian mediation, the Virgin Mary cooperated in the acquisition of the graces of which she is the Dispensatrix.⁵

The Dominican M.-Th. Poupon, in his magisterial summa montfortana entitled Le poème de la parfaite consécration à Marie, also published in 1947, on the occasion of the canonization of the saint, consecrated four chapters to the mystery of Mary's mediation and vigorously developed the "fullness of Marian coredemption"⁶ as it flows from the writings of Father de Montfort. Shortly after the canonization, the Italian Montfort Father Luigi Giuliani published a thorough study in which he employed a rigorous argumentation which led him to the following conclusion:

It seems to us possible to affirm with all certitude that Saint Louis-Marie de Montfort held the thesis of the cooperation of Mary in the objective Redemption, not only indirect or mediate, but also immediate, moral and physical, which manifests itself principally by her consent and by her participation in the same redemptive acts accomplished by Christ Jesus. All of which is expressed in brief, concise, but clear, clean and sure formulas which allow no doubt about the thought of the Saint himself.⁷

During the Marian Year of 1954, the Montfort Father J.M. Hupperts presented Montfort's Marian spirituality in a fine synthesis on his doctrinal foundations, in particular on Mary's mediation as Mother of the Redeemer and New Eve, Coredemptrix of the human race both in the acquisition of the graces and in their application.⁸ Finally, in his doctoral thesis defended at the Angelicum in 1958 on Consécration à Marie et promesses baptismales selon Louis-Marie de Montfort, the Montfort Father J.-M. Bonin held that it was impossible not to see in the writings of Montfort the sole affirmation of a mediate cooperation of the Holy Virgin in our regeneration.⁹

In his magisterial work on Marian coredemption published in 1950, the Franciscan Juniper B. Carol reported that mariologists are still disputing on the subject of Grignion de Montfort's thought on Marian coredemption.¹⁰ He took note of the contrasting judgments of Roschini and García Garcès, but not having at hand all of the works of Saint Louis-Marie, Carol concluded by affirming prudently but positively, that Montfort probably would have approved of the present opinions on the immediate cooperation of the Virgin in the objective Redemption.¹¹ Subsequently claiming the authority of Juniper B. Carol to affirm, as does Patrick Gaffney in an article in the Handbook of the Spirituality of St. Louis Marie de Montfort, "it is highly doubtful that he [Montfort] can be aligned with those who uphold immediate, formal coredemption,"¹² seems to us inexact and excessive. Quite evidently the post-conciliar history of the theological reading of Grignion de Montfort, despite the exceptional authority of the Marian and Montfort-oriented magisterium of Pope John Paul II, presents many negative traces of the "hermeneutic of discontinuity and of a break with the past" very appropriately denounced by Pope Benedict XVI.¹³

More recently, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the canonization, the Italian Montfort liturgist Corrado Maggioni presented a rich exposé highlighting the trinitarian, christological and ecclesial dimensions of the mystery of the Redemptive Incarnation according to Saint Louis-Marie de Montfort. If Father Maggioni takes into account certain divergences in the interpretations among the commentators, he himself doesn't seem to adopt a position which is clearly identifiable.¹⁴ On the contrary, Sr. Maria Francesca Perillo in her doctoral thesis, Maria nella mistica-La mediazione mariana in santa Veronica Giuliani, considers that the reading of the writings of Saint Louis-Marie oblige one to adopt the conclusions of Roschini and Giuliani.¹⁵ Our prolonged exposure to all of the writings which compose the Montfort corpus leads us very clearly to this same conclusion, confirmed by the witness and the pontifical magisterium of John Paul II.

Since the latter explicitly attributes to his reading of Grignion de Montfort his having so profoundly grasped that genuine devotion to Mary flows from a profound understanding of the mystery of the Redemption, it would be at the least surprising that Saint Louis-Marie should not be considered as a servant of the understanding and belief in the "altogether unique cooperation" (LG, 61) of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the work of the Savior. Since Marian devotion "not only addresses a need of the heart, a sentimental inclination, but that it also corresponds to the objective truth about the Mother of God,"¹⁶ how could the spirituality of Montfort not contain a sharp sense and a profound understanding of the mystery of the cooperation of the Virgin Mary in the work of the Redemption and of her maternal mediation?

If it were not rooted in a genuine understanding of the coredemption accomplished by the Virgin Mary herself, the "science of the Love of Jesus in Mary" proposed by Grignion de Montfort would not be so productive in the fruits of holiness which it has been since the Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin was discovered.

This is why it is important to show that the writings of Saint Louis-Marie contain a theology lived and inspired by the mystery of the active, immediate, formal and subordinate cooperation of the Virgin Mary in the entire work of the Redemption: in order to establish that all the "fixed points" of Marian coredemption are clearly present in the thought of our missionary.¹⁷ In order to do this, we must consider the entire opera omnia of our author, the poetic works as well as those in prose, the letters as well as the treatises, without forgetting Notebooks, the Prayer for Missionaries and the other prayers, as well as the text of the Consecration of onself to Jesus Christ, Wisdom Incarnate, through the hands of Mary which contains this supplication so powerfully significant with regard to our purposes: "O admirable Mother, present me to your dear Son as his slave now and for always, so that he who redeemed me through you, will now receive me through you." (Love of Eternal Wisdom #226).¹⁸