Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Controversies
and
Doctrinal Questions
by Rev. Jean Galot, S.J.
Jean Galot, S.J. is a Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in
Rome. He is internationally known for his biblical and theological scholarship,
particularly in the area of Christology. He is a frequent contributor to L'Osservatore
Romano.*
The way to understand the cooperation of Mary in the re-demption has been the object
of many discussions among theologians. Some have expressed repugnance or advanced
objections against the terms "coredemption" and "Co-redemptrix." This current of
opposition has had as a result the abstention of the Second Vatican Council, which, in its
exposition of Marian doctrine, in chapter VIII of Lumen gentium (LG), avoided such
terms. The Council, in fact, abstained from wishing to settle questions which did not
seem sufficiently clarified and which remained sources of controversy. There is no
reason to be surprised by similar controversies, which arise in many sectors of theology;
in the past these characterized the development of Marian doctrine. Let it suffice to
recall the title of "Mother of God," opposed by Nestorius before being proclaimed by
the Council of Ephesus, and how the Immaculate Conception stirred up long and
animated discussions in the course of the centuries before being defined by Pius IX in
1854.
Regarding the coredemption, some theologians maintain their reserve or state doctrinal
fears. But we can affirm that, in a general manner, the cooperation of Mary in the
redemptive sacrifice finds an ever greater acceptance. We would like to clarify the
essential points of this doctrine, recalling the theological problems which have caused
the controversies and the solution given or which it is appropriate to give them.
The Second Vatican Council clearly recognized such cooperation. In commenting on the
response of Mary to the message of the angel, Vatican II affirmed that Mary
"devoted herself totally, as a handmaid of the Lord, to the person and
work of her Son, under and with him, serving the mystery of redemption,
by the grace of Almighty God" (LG, n. 56).
This places the accent on her continual union with Christ in the cooperation with his
work:
"She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ, she presented him
to the Father in the temple, shared her Son's sufferings as he died on the
cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience,
faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in restoring
supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the
order of grace" (ibid., n. 61).
Without using the term "Co-redemptrix," the Council clearly enunciated the doctrine: a
cooperation of a unique kind, a maternal cooperation in the life and work of the Savior,
which reaches its apex in the participation in the sacrifice of Calvary and which is
oriented toward the supernatural restoration of souls. This cooperation is at the origin of
Mary's spiritual maternity.
This last text has often been invoked in order to exclude both the coredemption and the
title of mediatrix applied to Mary. Some do not cease to recall the affirmation about the
unique mediator to combat the Marian doctrine. Nonetheless, as Vatican II has
underscored:
"the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives
rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source"
(LG, n. 62).
In her role of cooperation, Mary does not in any way enter into competition with Christ
and neither does she become another fount of grace next to him. She receives from the
unique Redeemer her aptitude to cooperate, hence Christ remains the unique fount. The
Council enunciates more precisely this truth, which is essential for understanding the
doctrine of the coredemption: the influence of the Virgin on the salvation of men
"flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his
mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it" (LG, n.
60).[9]
In the Letter to Timothy, clearly the principle of the oneness of the mediator does not
exclude participated mediations, since the author recommends prayers and intercessions
for all men, which is to say a mediation of intercession founded on the mediation of
Christ. Further, it is appropriate to recall that the affirmation of the unique mediator who
offers himself as a ransom for all simply transfers into terms consonant to the Greek
language the word of Jesus about the Son of Man who has come to give his own life as a
ransom for many.[10] Now, while enunciating his mission as that of the unique Savior,
Jesus desired that his disciples share his attitude of service and sacrifice. In this sense he
wanted their participation in his mission. It was not at all his intention to exclude any
participation.
Nevertheless, the doctrine of participation in the objective 9 On this participation in the
mediation of Christ according to the doctrine of the Council, cf. John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter Redemptoris Mater, n. 38. redemption had to face another objection. How could
Mary contribute to the objective redemption when she herself needed to be redeemed? If
she cooperates in such a redemption, it is because without her redemption is not yet
accomplished. But in the case in which such redemption is not yet accomplished, she
herself cannot benefit from it. The coredemption would suppose at the same time that
the redemption is in the act of being accomplished and that it is already realized,
something which is contradictory. The contradiction disappears when one understands
the particular nature of the foreseen redemption which pertains to the Co-redemptrix. It
is very true that Mary had to be ransomed in order to be able to collaborate actively in
the work of salvation. One must also add that this condition of being ransomed
contributes to give a sense to her cooperation: Mary is distinguished from Christ in her
contribution to the work, not only because she is a simple creature and because she is a
woman, but also because she has been ransomed. Her example helps us to understand
better that even those who need to be redeemed are called to a collaboration in the work
of redemption. In Mary, nevertheless, there is something unique: according to the Bull of
the definition of the Immaculate Conception, she has been ransomed "in a more
sublime manner."
This more elevated distinctiveness consists above all in the fact that Mary was ransomed
before the redemption of all mankind was effected and in order that it be effected with
her cooperation. The first intention of the redemptive sacrifice was concerned, according
to the divine plan, with the ransom of Mary, accomplished in view of our ransom. Christ
first ransomed his own mother, then with her collaboration the rest of mankind. Thus,
while she was associated in the sacrifice of Calvary, Mary already benefited, in advance,
from the fruits of the sacrifice and acted in the capacity of a ransomed creature. But she
truly cooperated in the objective redemption, in the acquisition of the graces of salvation
for all of mankind. Her redemption was purchased before that of other human beings.
Mary was ransomed only by Christ, so that mankind could be ransomed by Christ with
the collaboration of his mother. Hence there is no contradiction: coredemption implies
the foreseen redemption of Mary, but not the foreseen fulfillment of the redemption of
mankind; it expresses the unique situation of the mother who, while having received a
singular grace from her own Son, cooperates with him in the attainment of salvation for
all.
The consent of love to the immolation of the victim afforded for her the deepest union
with the redemptive sacrifice, meaning participation in the offering.
There is no reason to fear the affirmation of this offering, which is not a useless
repetition of the offering of Christ nor in competition with it. It does not put in question
the uniqueness of the sovereign offering of the Redeemer, rather it receives its reality
from it. Mary does nothing but to offer her own Son and to offer herself and her personal
pain only through her own Son. More particularly, the offering with which Mary is
united with the redemptive sacrifice is not a priestly offering, which would imply for the
mother participation in the priesthood of Jesus. It is a motherly offering, which has its
particularity which differentiates it from the priestly offering. Having a
maternal character, it is not a copy of the offering of Christ and has its own raison
d'être. It offers a specific contribution to the human aspect of the drama of the Passion.
This also clarifies the position of woman with regard to the priesthood. Mary is not
engaged in the priestly ministry, but, in her capacity as woman, she plays an important
and indispensable role in the work of salvation. She is profoundly engaged in the
redemptive sacrifice by maternal right and offers a cooperation so necessary to the
priestly work of Christ that the Father, in his sovereign design, required this feminine
presence in order to grant salvation to the world.
Coredemptive Merit
Wholly associated with the redemptive sacrifice, Mary is united to the merit of Christ.
With his offering the Redeemer merited the salvation of mankind. The maternal oblation
of the Co-redemptrix has equally had a universal meritorious value, but a value which
cannot diminish the proper effect of the priestly sacrifice of Christ. The Savior obtained
for all men a superabundance of grace which admits of no deficiency and which cannot
need a complement. Hence the problem: if Christ has merited all graces, what can be the
object of the coredemptive merit of Mary?
The doctrinal studies which admit a sort of fusion between the cooperation of Mary and
the redemptive activity of Jesus avoid the problem, so that the Mother and the Son form
only one principle of salvific efficacy without it being necessary to distinguish between
the part of the one and part of the other.[12] But such a radical way of conceiving of the
association of Mary in the work of Christ is very debatable because it cannot recognize
Christ as the unique Redeemer of mankind and because it tends to make of Mary a
redemptrix united to the Redeemer.
The majority of theologians who have reflected on the coredemption have sought that
which could distinguish the merit of Mary from that of Christ. They affirmed that Mary
merited by virtue of congruous merit [di convenienza], what Christ merited by condign
merit [di condignità].[13] Condign merit is based on a proportion between the
meritorious action and its object. Having the power of Savior, Jesus merited in strict
justice (de condigno) the salvation of mankind since there is a proportion between the
value of his redemptive offering and the benefits which revert to mankind. According to
many theologians, however, Mary's merit could only be of congruity [di convenienza]:
while not being proportioned to the salvation of mankind, it has been nevertheless
elevated by divine intervention to a superior level of efficacy; thus Mary was able to
contribute to meriting eternal salvation. The principle is often enunciated: "All that
Christ merited in strict justice (de condigno), Mary merited by congruity (de
congruo)," a principle adopted also in an encyclical of Pius X, with a slight modification
of perspective.[14] Sometimes Mary's merit has also been called "supercongruous" by
virtue of its exceptional excellence.[15]
Nevertheless such a solution which has been commonly proposed in order to indicate the
distinction between the merit of Christ and that of Mary, encounters a fundamental
difficulty: is not a merit which consists in obtaining by a lesser title what another merit
has already obtained superfluous? Why should one want to merit what has been acquired
by the merit of others? All which was merited by Christ in the redemptive work must not
and cannot constitute the object of another merit. The difficulty can be overcome only if
one considers with greater attention in what consists the merit of Christ. Christ has
merited with his sacrifice his glorious triumph; the first object of his merit is his
resurrection. Meriting his own glorification, he merited for mankind the grace which is
communicated by means of the power of the glorified Savior. The merit of Mary must be
understood in the light of this merit of Christ. With her participation in the redemptive
sacrifice, the Mother of Jesus merited her maternal power to collaborate in the
distribution of grace. She merited the redemption under a particular aspect: the grace
which reaches men by means of her maternal mediation. Here is the specific object of
her merit. Mary properly merits the modality in virtue of which grace assumes a
maternal aspect in order to be communicated to mankind. Thus is affirmed the difference
which exists between her role and that of Christ.
ENDNOTES
*Originally printed in the Italian in Civilta Cattolica, 1994; translated and reprinted with
permission of the author.
2. 61 Fathers had requested that the term "mediatrix" be omitted; cf. Acta Synodalia
Concilii Vaticani Secundi, vol. III, 8, 163, s.
5. Severinus of Gabala, Or. 6 de mundi creatione 10 (PG 54, 4); Saint Anselm, Or. 52, 7
(PL 158, 956 B); cf. J. Galot, Maria la donna nell'opera di salvezza, Roma, PUG, 1984,
362-364.
6. Cf. ibid., 266-269.
8. Id., De septem verbis Domini in cruce, 3 (PL 158, 1.694); Id., De laudibus B. M.
V. (PL 158, 1.726 s).
10. Cf. A. Feuillet, "Le logion sur la rançon," in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et
Théologiques 51 (1967) 374 s.