letters from our readers

Co-redemptrix, Si!
Papa, Si!

Editor: I write in response to Mr. Miller’s article, “Mediatrix, Si! Coredemptrix, No!” (February 2001). Since my allotted 600 word response to his 7-page critique of the pamphlet, Mary, Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate does not permit a point by point response, allow me to suggest just three of the foundational difficulties found within his article.

Beneath the ubiquitous criticisms of the Coredemptrix chapter, from alleged intentionally mistranslated Latin terms to misrepresentation and misinterpretation of papal texts using the title “Coredemptrix,” lies in the author’s claim that both the papal Magisterium’s repeated use of the term “Coredemptrix” and the doctrine of Marian Coredemption somehow does not mean exactly what the author himself translates the word “Coredemptrix” to mean: “a woman who buys back people from slavery with the Redeemer.”

Although entirely subordinate and dependent upon the Redeemer, Mary, the New Eve, actively participates in the redemption of humanity. To deny such is to deny consistent Patristic teaching, for example, St. Irenaeus: “Mary was the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race” Ad. Haer. I, 3, 22, 4; and obvious papal teaching, for example, of Benedict XV: “together with Christ, she redeemed the human race” (Inter Solidicia).

2. The author makes a distinction between “theandric action” and human action, but then commits the grave error of rejecting any human participation in theandric action — in ways similar to classic Protestant theology from Calvin to Barth. This leads him to reject the legitimacy of the title “Coredemptrix” for Mary and “coredeemers” for all Christians, once again putting himself in direct opposition to the repeated papal usage of both terms by John Paul II and Pius XI. Mr. Miller fails to recognize that certain levels of subordinate participation actually do partake in the character of the main action, as with a pilot and copilot in flying; as with a Redeemer and Coredemptrix in redeeming.

Let the clear teaching of John Paul II settle the issue:

The collaboration of Christians in salvation takes place after the Calvary event, whose fruits they endeavor to spread by prayer and sacrifice. Mary instead co-operated during the event itself and in the role as mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of mankind” (emphasis author’s, G. Aud., 9 April 1997).

Although Our Lady alone participated in “objective” redemption as the Coredemptrix with and under the Redeemer in the acquisition of the graces of Calvary, all Christians must actively participate in subjective redemption, the release of the infinite graces merited by the Redeemer. To uncategorically refuse humanity any active participation in theandric, divine activity is to misunderstand the Christian nature of grace, mediation, and the scriptural mandate to all Christians to “make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his Body, which is the Church” (Col. 1:24); and to be “co-workers” with God himself (1 Cor. 3:9).

3. The author’s difficulty with the theological legitimacy of the title “Coredemptrix” puts him at odds with far greater 20th century minds and hearts than my own as reflected in my small pamphlet, including John Paul II, Pius XI, St. Pius X, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Frances Cabrini, St. Edith Stein, St. Leopold Mandic, St. Gemma Galgani, Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, Blessed Josemaria Escriva, Blessed Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, and numerous others. Papacy and sanctity combine for a powerful ecclesial witness to the Marian doctrinal truth of Coredemptrix.

Concerning the legitimate usage of the title Coredemptrix, as well as a potential definition of such Marian title, let us agree jointly to submit to the better judgment of the Holy Father, with a constant readiness in humility to respond to the manifest mind of the pope (see LG 25) with a “Si, Papa!”
Dr. Mark Miravalle
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Steubenville, Ohio

Michael J. Miller replies:

Editor: 1. “The Blessed Virgin Mary is the cause of salvation,” is true in the same way that “salvation is from the Jews” is true. These statements, though richly suggestive and spoken with great authority, are not “scientific”; out of context neither one yields an unambiguous theological truth. They can be interpreted correctly so as to be consistent with Catholic doctrine, but that requires elucidation. Exactly what does “cause” mean here? Formal cause? Does “from” mean “a gift from”?

The term “Coredemptrix” has been used in a few papal documents in describing Our Lady’s association with Christ’s redemptive work. What, precisely, does “Coredemptrix” mean? My article looked at the etymology of the term to determine what, at the very least, this proposed title for Our Lady claims (“Woman who redeems with the Redeemer”). My criticism of the Coredemptrix chapter in Dr. Miravalle’s booklet dealt with questions of methodology, but the main argument was that the proposed title is unclear, unsuitable and unnecessary.

Unclear. When the term “Coredemptrix” was debated by theologians in the mid-twentieth century, some proponents (Dillenschneider, Michael O’Carroll) understood it to mean that Mary actively participated in “objective redemption” (i.e., conquering sin and death). Many others argued that Mary’s actions assisted “subjective redemption” only, that is, the application of Christ’s all-sufficient redeeming merits to souls in need. (In Inter Sodalicia, an Apostolic Letter of Pope Benedict XV to a sodality that prayed for the dying, “Coredemptrix” is used in a restricted, meticulously qualified sense implying “subjective” rather than “objective coredemption”.) Still other theologians rejected the term as contrary to the faith. Catholic theologians do not agree on what the term means. How can it be placed before the Universal Church as a “title”?

2. Unsuitable. Christ’s humanity, the instrumentum salutis, is by definition an essential component of all theandric acts. “The Word was made flesh.” I do not “reject any human participation in theandric action,” as Dr. Miravalle charges. “And dwelt among us,” signifies that human beings are saved through encounters with the God-man, encounters that demand an active response through faith.

Nevertheless, the initiative in and the “title” to redemption remain God’s, exclusively. I did not draw this theological line: Vatican II did. “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer” (LG 62). The Council Fathers go on to allow for “a manifold co-operation” in Christ’s “unique mediation . . . which is but a sharing in this one source.”

I agree that the cooperation of Mary, “the handmaid of the Lord,” in Christ’s saving work is momentous and unique (“pre-eminent”). I simply disagree with the position that the actions and privileges of Our Lady are accurately summed up in the unqualified statements, “Mary redeems objectively” and “Mary is the Coredemptrix.”

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical for the Marian Year, “Mother of the Redeemer,” meditates on each stage of Mary’s “pilgrimage of faith”; the encyclical is also a carefully nuanced commentary on Chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium. The Holy Father studiously avoids predicating “redemption” of Our Lady and instead expounds her role as Mother and Mediatrix. “[Mary’s] cooperation is precisely this mediation subordinate to the one mediation of Christ” (RM 39).

Unnecessary. The Catholic Church already has terminology from the theology of grace and mystical theology to cover the many modes of human cooperation with God’s salvific will. The traditional vocabulary is preferable to an amorphous notion of “co-redemption” which changes meaning depending on the context. The Holy Father, in his 1988 encyclical, has developed with theological precision the concept of Mary’s unique “maternal mediation” (RM 38-41).

3. Papa locutus est: ait “Mater Redemptoris.”
Michael J. Miller
Glenside, Pa.

Mary’s role is different

Editor: I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate over giving the Blessed Virgin Mary the title “Coredemptrix” as it is being played out in the pages of HPR. As a non-theologian I have found the arguments on both sides to be illuminating and worthy of prayerful thought. This is certainly true of Michael Miller’s article in your February issue. He is quite correct in pointing out the necessity of carefully defining exactly what would be meant by this title lest Mary’s role be seen as co-equal with that of Christ in the redemption of mankind, something which, I believe, no reputable theologian is proposing.

However, I found two aspects of Mr. Miller’s article to be disturbing. The first concerns his attempt on page 27 to imply a separation between the actions of Christ when acting as man and when acting as God. While it is true that some actions of our Redeemer seem more “human,” such as working as a carpenter in Nazareth, and some more “divine,” such as giving sight to the blind, it must be remembered that Our Lord is but one person, not two. The Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 taught that virtually all actions in the public ministry of our Divine Redeemer are the actions of both God and Man — a separation is not possible, and to attempt such steers dangerously close to the heresy of Nestorianism.

On page 28 Mr. Miller makes a much more serious error. Here he compares Mary’s offering of her son on the cross to “the way lay people offer the Eucharist to God the Father when they reverently attend Mass.” In truth, Mary’s offering that day, and for all eternity was very different from that of any other person. The body being offered that day on Calvary was “flesh of her flesh and bone on her bone.” By means of Mary’s fiat on Annunciation Day the Blessed Virgin became connected to the redemption of mankind in a way far more intimate than that possible for any other human being. On Good Friday Mary had something of herself to offer to God. This makes Mary’s role in our redemption qualitatively different than that of even the greatest saint. Should this difference be recognized by giving her the title “Coredemptrix”? Perhaps not, but Michael Miller has not made a definitive case against doing so.
Hank Hassell
Falgstaff, Ariz.

It is God’s will

Editor: It seems to me that Mr. Miller, and scores of intellectuals like him, tend to see more than four sides to a square (see February 2001).

If all would look at what actually happened and refrain from attempts to see through or around the event, the doctrine of Mary Coredemptrix becomes quite clear. It is God’s will. He could have redeemed us in any fashion he wished, but he chose to have the Redeemer come to us through Mary and without Mary’s consent he (Jesus) could not come to us.

If Mary had said no, and she could have, there would have been no redemption.
Alan E. Fricke
Medford, New York

A contradiction?

Editor: Michael J. Miller unwittingly involves himself in a contradiction when he acknowledges Our Lady’s title “Mediatrix of All Graces” but opposes her title “Coredemptrix.” Our Lady is Mediatrix not only by distributing graces but by her acquisition of these graces through her cooperation with her divine Son in the work of our redemption. Instead of Mediatrix, Mr. Miller means that he accepts Our Lady’s title of “Dispensatrix of All Graces.”

Furthermore, he fails to observe the crucial distinction between merit de condigno (out of strict justice) and merit de congruo (out of charity). This distinction is illustrated by Pope Saint Pius X in his Encyclical Ad Diem Illum. “Mary,” he wrote, “united to Christ in the work of salvation merited de congruo for us what Christ merited for us de condigno.”

In his Three Ages of the Interior Life the celebrated Garrigou-Lagrange provides the following comment: “The common teaching of theologians, thus sanctioned by the sovereign Pontiffs, has for its principal traditional basis the fact that Mary is called in all Greek and Latin tradition the new Eve, Mother of all men in regard to the life of the soul, as Eve was in regard to the life of the body. It stands to reason that the spiritual mother of all men ought to give them spiritual life, not as the principal physical cause (for God alone can be the principal physical cause of divine grace), but as the moral cause by merit de congruo, merit de condigno being reserved to Christ.”
James Buckley, F.S.S.P.
Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary
Denton, Nebr.

Magistra, Si! Coredemptrix, Si!

Editor: In response to the article by Michael Miller in the February 2001 issue I have the following considerations. First of all, I believe that his article lacks both a truly Catholic theological foundation and also the force of literary persuasion. He ends up defeating himself because the logic and analogies he employs are neither persuasive nor applicable. For example, it seems rather odd that he began his case with a story that defeats his very argument, namely, he seems to approve of William F. Buckley Jr. when he (Buckley) wrote an article criticizing Blessed John XXIII for his use of the word Magistra to describe the Church. As is obvious, Buckley was wrong. Thus, from the very beginning Miller’s argument is resting on a foundation that has proven to be false.

Theologically, Miller’s argument is just as weak, if not weaker. Being against the formulation of a dogma defining Our Lady as the Coredemptrix is one thing, but being opposed to the theological truth of this title is another. The fact remains that an understanding of Our Lady as Coredemptrix has been a part of Catholic theology for many centuries. In essence, Miller is not criticizing Dr. Mark Miravalle. Miravalle is nothing other than a faithful theologian who seeks to bring to the realization of the universal Church an ancient Marian teaching. Rather, and quite ironically, Miller gives the impression that he is uncomfortable with what the Church, as Magistra, has been teaching about Our Lady’s role as Coredemptrix.

Furthermore, it seems that Miller does not have a sufficient understanding of redemptive participation. He painstakingly goes through an analysis of the theandric redemption, but ends up with conclusions that are more Protestant than Catholic. Likewise, his employment of certain analogies in the hope of proving that Our Lady is not the Coredemptrix is misleading. For example, no one ever suggested that a surgical nurse is to be considered a co-surgeon. Miller is right in stating this, but he is wrong in considering it comparable to the role of Mary at the foot of the Cross. At the Cross Mary suffered with her divine Son. She fully participated in the act of redemption. Unlike the surgical nurse who has no participation in the act of operating, Mary, at the foot of the Cross, was spiritually crucified with her divine Son, making her action that of Coredemptrix.

Lastly, I commend Miller for his correct understanding of the truth of Our Lady as the Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate. However, I do pray that like Frank Duff, founder of the Legion of Mary, of which Miller is a member, he comes to realize the theological truth about Mary’s role as Coredemptrix. In the meantime, I will continue to pray for the proclamation of the fifth Marian dogma!
Brother Donald Calloway, MIC
Washington, D.C.

Latin or the vernacular?

Editor: We are informed that Protestant church attendance is up because Catholics who have left have been reading more scripture. But as Cardinal Ratzinger has reminded us, the Bible is profoundly Catholic. I don’t know how many times in reading the Bible I have come across a text that prompts a Protestants-can’t-be-reading-the-Bible thought.

Unlike the letter writer (see February 2001, p. 6), I miss the Latin very much, for it encouraged a feeling of mystery and awe, which we have largely lost in the vernacular. It is beyond me how anyone can leave the Eucharist, Christ’s greatest gift to us, and a profound mystery.
William J. Quinn
West Chester, Pa.