All Graces
I'm sure that many of you have heard the news that 5 cardinals have petitioned the Pope to make an ex cathedra pronouncement declaring a fifth Marian dogma, that Mary is Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces.
annabellissima and I spent yestserday evening doing a bunch of web-reading on the subject. We're both ok with the title of Co-Redemptrix when understood properly*, and the title of Mediatrix of Graces is in Lumen Gentium and we are ok with that, also when understood properly*. However, it is the "All Graces" part that had left us both feeling uneasy. Most of the articles that we read really fell short for us. Most of them (even Fr. William Most's arguments) seemed to employ a certain amount of theological hand-waving to make theological and rational support for "Mediatrix of Graces" mean "Mediatrix of all Graces." The others seemed to be rather heterodox to us, talking about Mary's suffering at the foot of the cross as a co-Passion. They seem to practically or actually make Mary's role causative of Grace, a source of Grace, not just participatory.
However, there are a couple of ways to look at it that make a certain amount of sense.
The first is that when Jesus gave Mary to the disciple, He made her the spiritual mother of all the Church. As our spiritual mother, she pleads in constant intercession on our behalf, and therefore all Graces that we receive are, in a way, touched by her intercession, her particular role in Christ's mediation. There is one weakness in this way of thinking about it though. When you look at the ordinary magesterial support for Mary's motherhood, it speaks of Mary's motherhood of the *Church.* But if this way of thinking about Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces is correct, it must mean that only members of the Church receive Grace. But we know this doesn't work. It is baptism that joins one to the Church - whether of water, blood or desire - and even the desire for baptism is a Grace (interestingly enough, it was Fr. Most's writings that made this clear for me). So, Mary must be mother to *all the world*, not just the Church, for this understanding of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces to work.
The second is that as Theotokas, as God-bearer, Mary brought Christ into the world, and with Christ came all Graces. In this way, Mary's participation in the Incarnation, and thus Christ's Mediation, means that she participates in the mediation of *all* Graces. However, of course, there is a hangup to this way of thinking about it as well. It is dependent on the idea that all Grace entered the world through the Incarnation and Passion, that there is no Grace in the world but that Grace which was merited by Jesus' infinite sacrifice. I could accept this idea, that Grace entered the world through the event of the Incarnation/Passion and flows forward and backward in time. All Grace, even that which proceeds the historical event of the Incarnation/Passion, comes into the world through that event. I can accept this idea, but I don't see anything in scripture or tradition that proclaims this.
Of course, this is all apart from whether or not a pronouncement should actually be made. Just because something is true does not mean that it merits being elevated to the level of dogma and the obligation of belief that accompanies it. Personally, I don't think it should. I don't see the doctrines as being particularly central. I also think that such a dogmatic declaration would create Ecumenical, inter-religious and evangelical problems. Also, I think that Mariolatry is a genuine problem in the Church and such a pronouncement would just exacerbate the problem. Even if the doctrines are what is defined and the titles simply applied to those doctrines, people are going to misunderstand it, both non-Catholics and Catholics (I've already seen it all around, there is already wide-spread misinterpretation of this ideas by Protestants who believe that these titles essentially make Mary the fourth person of the Trinity).
* Co-Redemptrix is a pretty simple. The idea is that Christ's Passion is the source and cause of our redemption; however, God used many people to play a role in that historical act of salvation of the world - some laudatory, some quite not - and God uses many people in all ages to play many roles, great and small, in salvation. These roles are not causative, they do not bring about salvation, but merely play a subordinate role in Christ's redemption. In this way, many people could be called Co-Redeemers ("One with the Redeemer"), but since Mary's role was so exemplary and singular, it merits an actual title. So, Mary does not actually save us, but God, in His mercy and love, had her play a role in what *does* save us.
* Mediatrix is a little more difficult given Timothy: ("There is but one Mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus.") She is a mediatrix of graces because of her unique role in the Incarnation and because of her singular intercession as spiritual mother of the Church. She mediates, but in a subordinate way to the one Mediation of Christ. Christ is the *one* mediator, and there is no other mediator, but Christ's mediation *includes* others in a subordinate role. Some writers used the term Co-Mediatrix rather than Mediatrix and that seems to make this somewhat more clear.
cross-posted to badsede
annabellissima and I spent yestserday evening doing a bunch of web-reading on the subject. We're both ok with the title of Co-Redemptrix when understood properly*, and the title of Mediatrix of Graces is in Lumen Gentium and we are ok with that, also when understood properly*. However, it is the "All Graces" part that had left us both feeling uneasy. Most of the articles that we read really fell short for us. Most of them (even Fr. William Most's arguments) seemed to employ a certain amount of theological hand-waving to make theological and rational support for "Mediatrix of Graces" mean "Mediatrix of all Graces." The others seemed to be rather heterodox to us, talking about Mary's suffering at the foot of the cross as a co-Passion. They seem to practically or actually make Mary's role causative of Grace, a source of Grace, not just participatory.
However, there are a couple of ways to look at it that make a certain amount of sense.
The first is that when Jesus gave Mary to the disciple, He made her the spiritual mother of all the Church. As our spiritual mother, she pleads in constant intercession on our behalf, and therefore all Graces that we receive are, in a way, touched by her intercession, her particular role in Christ's mediation. There is one weakness in this way of thinking about it though. When you look at the ordinary magesterial support for Mary's motherhood, it speaks of Mary's motherhood of the *Church.* But if this way of thinking about Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces is correct, it must mean that only members of the Church receive Grace. But we know this doesn't work. It is baptism that joins one to the Church - whether of water, blood or desire - and even the desire for baptism is a Grace (interestingly enough, it was Fr. Most's writings that made this clear for me). So, Mary must be mother to *all the world*, not just the Church, for this understanding of Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces to work.
The second is that as Theotokas, as God-bearer, Mary brought Christ into the world, and with Christ came all Graces. In this way, Mary's participation in the Incarnation, and thus Christ's Mediation, means that she participates in the mediation of *all* Graces. However, of course, there is a hangup to this way of thinking about it as well. It is dependent on the idea that all Grace entered the world through the Incarnation and Passion, that there is no Grace in the world but that Grace which was merited by Jesus' infinite sacrifice. I could accept this idea, that Grace entered the world through the event of the Incarnation/Passion and flows forward and backward in time. All Grace, even that which proceeds the historical event of the Incarnation/Passion, comes into the world through that event. I can accept this idea, but I don't see anything in scripture or tradition that proclaims this.
Of course, this is all apart from whether or not a pronouncement should actually be made. Just because something is true does not mean that it merits being elevated to the level of dogma and the obligation of belief that accompanies it. Personally, I don't think it should. I don't see the doctrines as being particularly central. I also think that such a dogmatic declaration would create Ecumenical, inter-religious and evangelical problems. Also, I think that Mariolatry is a genuine problem in the Church and such a pronouncement would just exacerbate the problem. Even if the doctrines are what is defined and the titles simply applied to those doctrines, people are going to misunderstand it, both non-Catholics and Catholics (I've already seen it all around, there is already wide-spread misinterpretation of this ideas by Protestants who believe that these titles essentially make Mary the fourth person of the Trinity).
* Co-Redemptrix is a pretty simple. The idea is that Christ's Passion is the source and cause of our redemption; however, God used many people to play a role in that historical act of salvation of the world - some laudatory, some quite not - and God uses many people in all ages to play many roles, great and small, in salvation. These roles are not causative, they do not bring about salvation, but merely play a subordinate role in Christ's redemption. In this way, many people could be called Co-Redeemers ("One with the Redeemer"), but since Mary's role was so exemplary and singular, it merits an actual title. So, Mary does not actually save us, but God, in His mercy and love, had her play a role in what *does* save us.
* Mediatrix is a little more difficult given Timothy: ("There is but one Mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus.") She is a mediatrix of graces because of her unique role in the Incarnation and because of her singular intercession as spiritual mother of the Church. She mediates, but in a subordinate way to the one Mediation of Christ. Christ is the *one* mediator, and there is no other mediator, but Christ's mediation *includes* others in a subordinate role. Some writers used the term Co-Mediatrix rather than Mediatrix and that seems to make this somewhat more clear.
cross-posted to badsede