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

Today, many commentators on the writings of Montfort make a point of repeating that Louis-Marie de Montfort never made use of the word coredemptrix in his treatises even though his reading of authors like F. Poiré and P. Grenier would have made him familiar with the term:⁶ "Montfort," writes P. Gaffney for example, "never employs the word coredemptrix-and assuredly of set purpose-in any of his writings, for fear of being poorly understood by Calvinists and also by the Catholics of his time. Nonetheless, Mary's unique role in the redemption is clearly maintained by the missionary."⁷

If this last affirmation leaves no doubt, the previous one merits a few clarifications and nuances. First of all, the reading of the biographies of Grignion de Montfort do not lead one to think that our missionary was preoccupied in the least to be understood by the Calvinists. If he did not make use of the adjective co-rédemptrice in his writings (below it will be necessary for us to bring other nuances to bear on this subject), this was assuredly not to placate the partisans of the Reformation. Rather, it is of notable importance to recall that the year of Louis-Marie Grignion's birth (1673) coincided with that of the publication, in Latin at Ghent in 1673, then in French at Lille the following year, of the Monita salutaria B. V. Mariae ad cultores suos indiscretos, the celebrated "pamphlet originating from the rigorist milieu hostile to the Jesuits,"⁸ from the pen of a jurist of the Rhineland named Adam Widenfeld (1618-1678). His Salutary Advice of the Blessed Virgin to her Indiscreet Devotees [Avis salutaires de la Bienheureuse Vierge à ses dévots indiscrets] contains, among other things, the sadly celebrated formula: "Beware of taking away from God in order to honor me as did the Collydirians ... Do not call me Salvatrix and Coredemptrix."⁹ The resonances of this controversy are recognized in the works of Grignion de Montfort, notably on several pages of the Treatise on True Devotion evoking, without the slighest possible doubt, the error of the Jansenists as well as of the Avis salutaires of Widenfeld:

These people seldom speak of your Mother or devotion to her. They say that they are afraid that devotion to her will be abused and that you will be offended by excessive honor paid to her ... These critical devotees are for the most part proud scholars, people of independent and self-satisfied minds, who deep down in their hearts have a vague sort of devotion to the Holy Virgin. However, they criticize nearly all those forms of devotion to her which simple and pious people use to honor their good Mother just because such practices do not appeal to them. ... These false devotees, these proud worldly people are greatly to be feared. They do untold harm to devotion to Our Lady. While pretending to correct abuses, they succeed only too well in turning people away from this devotion (TD 64; 93).

Whatever may have been the motives, perhaps linked to this polemical context, because of which Grignion de Montfort did not use the adjective coredemptrix in his treatises, scientific precision and concern for objectivity oblige us to call attention to two mentions of this qualifier in a manuscript not destined for publication but which, nevertheless, is a part of the corpus of Monfort's writings: we speak of the Notebook [Cahier de Notes] already cited.¹⁰ This "ample collection" (TD 41) contains at least three citations meticulously copied by Louis-Marie which demonstrate his evident interest in the doctrine of Marian coredemption.

The most holy Virgin is the mother of all the children of the Church: 1st) because she is the Mother of the Savior ... ; 2nd) because she is the Spouse of Our Lord, his companion and his Coredemptrix in the work of our salvation. She was in labor to bring into the world her spiritual children particularly on Calvary, where Our Lord as Father and Mary as Mother brought them into the world (N 91).¹¹

Numerous pages of this Notebook (pp. 296-302) are taken up with copying the responses of the lay writer Pierre Grenier to the objections of the Avis of Widenfeld. On the coredemption, Saint Louis-Marie took careful note of this fundamental principle of Grenier:

Jesus Christ is the only principal Cause of our Redemption ... The Holy Virgin is one of the most noble instrumental causes. The Cross is revered in a special way as the principal instrument of the Redemption, after the Holy Virgin. Why not the Holy Virgin?¹²

And finally Montfort noted on the top of a page of his Cahier de Notes, a chapter title from the book of Grenier: "Redemptrix or Coredemptrix" (N 298).¹³

It is evident that the question which Saint Louis-Marie de Montfort was posing was not at all to know if the Virgin Mary had cooperated or not in an entirely unique way in our salvation, but rather to know in terms of this cooperation, as unique as it is certain, if it is more appropriate to describe the Virgin Mary as "Redemptrix" or else as "Coredemptrix"! Let us not forget that up to and including the Grand Siècle, it was towards the term Redemptrix which the preference was inclined; thereafter the theologians would more and more use the word Coredemptrix.¹⁴ Montfort had chosen to devote all of his ministry to the poorest of his time to whom he wished to preach a sure doctrine in a language which had met the test. Seeing that the other learned men of his time were still hesitating between the term Redemptrix and that of Coredemptrix, he abstained from using the one or the other in his treatises which are the reflections of his sermons. To interpret today, the absence of the word Coredemptrix in the treatises of Montfort, as a deliberate refusal of this word to express the unique association of Mary in the work of salvation sets up, in our opinion, one more minimalist postconciliar anachronism among so many others.

One should further note that if the term Coredemptrix, which figures twice in the Cahier de Notes, is not found again in the major writings of our author, on the other hand, he did not hesitate in any way to make use, on several occasions in his treatises, of the titles of "Mediatrix" (LEW 223; TD 28, 55, 86; SM 36) and of "Advocate" (TD 55, 150; SM 36, 56) of which the traditional usage was confirmed by the Second Vatican Council (cf. LG, 62). In number 86 of the Treatise on True Devotion, Saint Louis-Marie, in a certain way, unites these two titles of Mediatrix and of Advocate, in affirming that "To go to Jesus, we should go to Mary; she is our Mediatrix of intercession" (TD 86).¹⁵ The actual role of intercession which is that of the Virgin Mary, is the result of her entire contribution to the economy of salvation and especially her collaboration in the work of Redemption on Calvary.¹⁶

In this regard, it is essential to state that Montfort made use not only of the titles of Mediatrix and of Advocate, but also that of "Reparatrix" (cf. TD 28, 175):

Such is the will of almighty God who exalts the humble, that the powers of heaven, earth and hell, willingly or unwillingly, must obey the commands of the humble Virgin Mary. For God has made her queen of heaven and earth, leader of his armies, keeper of his treasures, dispenser of his graces, worker of his wonders, restorer (reparatrix) of the human race, the mediatrix on behalf of men, destroyer of his enemies and the faithful associate in his great works and triumphs (TD 28).

Mary is the Virgin most faithful who by her fidelity to God repairs the losses caused by Eve's unfaithfulness. She obtains fidelity to God and final perseverance for those who commit themselves to her (TD 175).

As employed by Montfort, this title of Reparatrix to which Msgr. Calkins has recently devoted a specific and very well documented study,¹⁷ is found already among certain Fathers of the Church and Doctors of the Middle Ages, and was subsequently adopted by several Popes (Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X and Pius XI).

The idea that Mary, united to her Son, repairs or restores the fallen world is an assertion which Montfort had met in the writings of Poiré and Crasset.¹⁸ In his Cahier de Notes, Saint Louis-Marie had carefully noted a citation-the fruit of his good reading-which he sometimes attributed to Saint Anselm, sometimes to Saint Bernardine, but which, in fact, comes from De excellentia Virginis Mariae of Eadmer of Canterbury: "Incomparabili pietate haec promeruit, ut reparatrix perditi orbis dignissima fieret" [By an incomparable piety She merited these things, that She might become the Reparatrix of a fallen world].¹⁹ It was in taking inspiration from this same formula that Pope Saint Pius X, who was also a fervent admirer of the Treatise of Grignion de Montfort, employed the title of Reparatrix in his Encyclical Ad diem illum (1904).²⁰

For François Poiré, the author of the Triple Couronne, from which Grignion de Montfort knew very well how to profit, the holy Fathers did not content themselves to call Mary "Reparatrix simply for having brought the Reparator into the world; they passed much beyond and considered the most sacred Virgin as Mother and as Spouse of the Father of the world to come; they recognized in her a certain power, by which she united her free consent and agreed upon delivering her Son and her Spouse for us, thus cooperating in a very special way in our salvation and our redemption."²¹

From the linguistic point of view, as Msgr. Gherardini has judiciously remarked, the word "Reparatrix" is not less bold than the word "Coredemptrix"-much to the contrary:

'Coredemptrix' is one thing, another again is Redemptrix, Salvatrix, Reparatrix: these are titles which have been used and which could sound still more dangerous in terms of provoking fear, because they insinuate the idea of the exclusivity and salvific autonomy of Mary, or at the least of a parallel task with respect to that of Christ, Redeemer, Saviour, Restorer. 'Coredemptrix' connotes instead a person not already operating autonomously, but rather in collaboration.²²

And from the doctrinal point of view, as Fathers Miotto and Manelli have clearly emphazised, it is necessary to highlight the double equivalence "between the Reparatrix with reference to the Coredemptrix, and the Dispensatrix of all gifts with reference to the Mediatrix of all graces."²³

6. Conclusion

An indissoluble union of doctrine and experience, the teaching of Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort contains a valuable contribution on the mystery of the association of Mary to the sacrifice of Jesus, her participation in the mediation of Christ and, as advocate, in the intercession of Jesus. The Marian doctrine of Montfort can then contribute not only to a coherent presentation of devotion, but also to the place of Mary in worship and doctrine, and thus to a more profound understanding of the mystery of the "absolutely unique" cooperation (cf. LG, 61) of Mary in the Redemption. When Pope John Paul II chose to make use, on several occasions, of the word "Coredemptrix" in texts which involve the ordinary papal magisterium, he was not unfaithful in any way to the thought of him from whom he borrowed his episcopal motto Totus Tuus. In Saint Louis- Marie de Montfort as in Pope John Paul II, the contemplative understanding of the mystery of Marian coredemption and mediation is integrated and controlled by a splendid theology of motherhood: "As Mother," Father Léthel recapitulates, "Mary is intimately present in the coming of the Son into the world in the Incarnation and his return to the Father in the Redemption."²⁴ May the cause of the beatification and canonization of the Servant of God John Paul II (1920-2005) and the cause of the doctorate of Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort (1673-1716), promote more, thorough studies of their eminent contributions to the deeper appreciation of this truth and, thus, also serve the cause of a future dogmatic definition, as solemn and precise as possible, of Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.

This article was excerpted from Mary at the Foot of the Cross – VII: Coredemptrix, Therefore Mediatrix of All Graces, Academy of the Immaculate, 2008.