The Truth about Mary

A Theological and Philosophical Evaluation of the Proposed Fifth Marian Dogma

Dillard

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781498275507
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

In recent years a powerful grassroots movement has emerged calling for the papal definition of a fifth Marian dogma declaring the Blessed Virgin Mary to be Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate. There has also been strong opposition to any such definition for various reasons. In The Truth about Mary, Peter Dillard clarifies this debate by providing a rigorous analysis of each thesis contained in the proposed dogma and determining whether a formal definition is appropriate at this time. The resulting theological and philosophical evaluation will be helpful to readers seeking a better understanding of what is at stake in a controversy that has far-reaching ramifications for the future of the Church.

chapter 1

Mary as Co-Redemptrix Part I: Preserved from the Fall

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. defines the term “Co-Redemptrix” as follows:

A title of the Blessed Virgin as co-operator with Christ in the work of human redemption. It may be considered an aspect of Mary’s mediation in not only consenting to become the Mother of God but in freely consenting in his labors, sufferings, and death for the salvation of the human race.1

In the remainder of his entry for this term, Hardon writes:

As Co-Redemptrix, she is in no sense equal to Christ in his redemptive activity, since she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by her Son. He alone merited man’s salvation. Mary effectively interceded to obtain subjective application of Christ’s merits to those whom the Savior had objectively redeemed.2

This second passage contains assertions which proponents of a fifth Marian dogma find objectionable. We shall return to these points of contention later. For now, let us focus on the first passage, since the claims it makes and distinctions it draws are accepted by all parties to the dispute.

By “the work of human redemption” is meant the freeing of all human beings from the penalties due to Original Sin.3 This work begins with the Incarnation of the Word in human flesh, in the person of Jesus Christ, and continues through Christ’s ministry on Earth, culminating in his suffering and death on the Cross at Calvary. Mary first cooperates with Christ in the work of human redemption by freely consenting to become the Mother of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. Her initial consent is sometimes referred to as her “fiat.” Mary subsequently cooperated with her Son throughout his earthly life by bringing him as an infant to be purified in the temple, raising him in holiness, and assisting him as an adult in his ministry. Finally, Mary cooperated with Christ by consenting to his suffering and death and experiencing intense maternal suffering on his behalf, sometimes referred to as the “transpiercing” or “transfixing” of her soul at Calvary.

Beginning in the early twentieth century, a number of papal documents include passages which focus on Mary’s cooperation with Christ in the work of human redemption. In his 1904 encyclical Ad Diem Illum Pope Pius X writes:

We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace—a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated with Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces.4

The notions of merit de condigno, or condign merit, and merit de congruo, or congruous merit, will occupy us in the next chapter. In the passage above, the mind of Pius X does seem to be that in cooperating with Christ, Mary in some way co-merits what Christ merits for us—namely, our redemption from Original Sin.

Pope Benedict XV comes close to describing Mary as co-redeemer in his Apostolic Letter Inter Soldalica of March 22, 1918:

She suffers with her suffering and dying son, almost as if she would have died herself. For the salvation of mankind, she gave up her rights as the mother of her son and sacrificed him for the reconciliation of divine justice, as far as she was permitted to do. Therefore, one can say, she redeemed with Christ the human race.5

Benedict XV stops short of saying that Mary’s suffering and sacrifice of her maternal rights in any way merited the salvation of mankind. Pope Pius XII, in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis, understands Mary’s maternal sacrifice as a kind of offering:

It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother’s rights and her mother’s love were included.6

Like Benedict XV, Pius XII does not speak of Mary’s offering in terms of merit. Although he doesn’t use the term “Co-Redemptrix,” in his 1950 papal bull Munificentissimus Deus, in which he defines ex cathedra the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII does refer to Mary as “the noble associate of the divine Redeemer.”7

Pope John Paul II used the term “Co-Redemptrix” in several addresses he made during his pontificate. In his General Audience of September 8, 1982 he said, “Mary, though conceived and born without the taint of sin, participated in a marvelous way in the suffering of her divine Son, in order to be Co-Redemptrix of humanity.”8 John Paul II does not elaborate upon the manner of Mary’s participation in her Son’s sufferings. On January 31, 1985, in Guayaquil, Ecuador, he remarked that “As she was in a special way close to the cross of her Son, she also had a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”9 Again, the Holy Father does not expand upon the special way Mary was close to Jesus on the Cross or the privileged experience she had of his Resurrection. The term “Co-Redemptrix” also occurs in some of John Paul II’s other addresses.10

What is the precise nature of Mary’s cooperation with Christ in the work of human redemption? In cooperating with Christ, did she co-merit with him our salvation? In exactly what sense is Mary Co-Redemptrix? These deeper theological questions are left unanswered by the foregoing papal statements. Humbly and reverently, let us apply human reason in an attempt to find some answers.

Disambiguation and the order of evaluation

We begin by distinguishing two senses in which Mary can be considered Co-Redemptrix:

(1) Mary is instrumental Co-Redemptrix, in that by virtue of her Immaculate Conception she cooperated preeminently with Christ by giving him a human body free from the penalties due to Original Sin which he then used to accomplish the work of human redemption.

(2) Mary is meritorious Co-Redemptrix, in that her maternal sufferings on behalf of her son’s suffering and death co-merited with Christ human redemption.

One possible position is that Mary is neither instrumental Co-Redemptrix nor meritorious Co-Redemptrix. I will set this possibility aside, since even if the term “Co-Redemptrix” is rejected our faith teaches that, by her Immaculate Conception, Mary cooperated with Christ at least by giving him a body untainted by Original Sin. I will also set aside the possibility that Mary is only meritorious Co-Redemptrix, since no one who maintains that she is meritorious Co-Redemptrix denies that she is also instrumental Co-Redemptrix. We are then left with two possible theses:

(T1) Mary is instrumental Co-Redemptrix but not meritorious Co-Redemptrix.

(T2) Mary is both instrumental Co-Redemptrix and meritorious Co-Redemptrix.

Our disambiguation of “Co-Redemptrix” has ramifications for any proposed fifth Marian dogma proclaiming that Mary is Co-Redemptrix. The proposed dogma may be understood as proclaiming Mary to be merely instrumental Co-Redemptrix, or as proclaiming her also to be meritorious Co-Redemptrix. Consequently, someone who denies (T2) may still advocate a fifth Marian dogma proclaiming (T1).11

These observations impose a certain order on our evaluation of the proposed dogma:

Stage A: Is there an adequate theological basis for the proposition that Mary is instrumental Co-Redemptrix?

Stage B: If so, then is there a viable philosophical model for the truth of this proposition?

Stage C: If so, then is this proposition sufficiently distinct from previous formal definitions or definitive teachings?

Stage D: Is the proposition that Mary is meritorious Co-Redemptrix sufficiently distinct from previous formal definitions or definitive teachings?

Stage E: If so, then is there an adequate theological basis for this proposition?

Stage F: If so, then is there a viable philosophical model for the truth of this proposition?

A necessary condition for the formal definition of a dogma containing (T1) to be justified is that there are affirmative answers to the questions at stages A through C and a negative answer to at least one question at stages D through F. A necessary condition for the formal definition of a dogma containing (T2) is that there are affirmative answers to the questions at all the stages from A to F. In either case, fulfillment of the requisite conditio...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Mary as Co-Redemptrix Part I: Preserved from the Fall
• Chapter 2: Mary as Co-Redemptrix Part II:Getting Marian Mathematics Right
• Chapter 3: Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces:Reflecting upon the Mirror of Justice
• Chapter 4: Mary as Advocate:The Guarantee of Divine Aid
• Conclusion: A Plea for Marian Moderation