Audio only:
Joe reviews the Vatican’s latest document on Mary, “Mater Populi Fidelis.” Some Catholics are concerned that age-old titles of the Blessed Virgin (Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix) are being banned. Is that actually the case?
Transcript:
Joe:
Welcome back to Shameless Popery. I’m Joe Heschmeyer and I want to explore some controversial Marian titles and the Vatican’s recent intervention into whether we should use these kind of terms or not. And the two in particular I want to focus on are the terms whether we should call Mary Co-Redemptrix and whether we should call her Mediatrix or sometimes Mediatrix of all graces.
And as I said, the Vatican specifically what’s called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith, it was the CDF before DDF now just released a document called Mantra Popule Fidelis warning against those two titles in particular, it’s particularly averse to Coem Trix. And we’ll get into all of the details of why, what we can’t say about Mary’s role and unpack a little more theologically nuanced understanding of the role Mary has and what we should and shouldn’t say about her. I will say already I’ve seen some triumphalistic posts from Protestants who claim this is a doctrinal reversal, that this is something that Rome once claimed was true with divine authority and all of that is just not true. I had someone spamming my page on Facebook just saying, did you see the Vaticans changing the status of Mary flip flop bunch? And it’s like, no, not really.
As we’re going to see the things the DDF is now saying are very consistent with things Bill Francis said that Benedict the 16th said, et cetera, and that there’s good reason for it. That this is not a case where this substance is at issue. This is a case where we are trying to articulate a true thing with some language that risk being misleading, confusing, and even spiritually dangerous. If you want a much better, I think Protestant take on it, I would recommend I just watched Dr. Jordan Cooper’s video, a Protestant theologian’s thoughts on the Vatican’s new document about Mary. It’s short. It’s to the point he explains what it does and doesn’t say and why he likes it and I think he does a good job with it. So let me offer my own kind of 2 cents on it. I also like the document. I think it’s really good.
Those titles were things where it’s like this. If somebody takes 10 minutes to explain what they do and don’t mean by it, then you say, yeah, okay, that’s all right. But if you’re using a title that requires you to do that every time, maybe find another way to say what you’re trying to say. That’s what I’ve thought for a long time and that’s very much what Cardinal Fernandez says. So I know a lot of Catholics are upset or disturbed by the document, afraid that it is this kind of flip-flop people are claiming it just isn’t. It’s just saying what are smart ways of talking about Mary? What are ways that are more precise? What are ways that are less scandalous? And let’s use these because we have better language to use. So why does the document exist? I think I’ve kind of explained that already.
But on the positive side, modern popular Dels, which means again the mother of the faithful people of God, it’s the document is called that because we want to remember Mary is viewed with affection and admiration by Christians because since grace makes us like Christ Mary is the most perfect expression of Christ’s action that transforms our humanity. I love that framing that if you want to understand why Mary matters, you should know two things. Number one, that the goal of the Christian life is to be made like Christ. And number two, that we believe that he does that in no creature more than he does it in Mary. Remember, Jesus is not himself a creature. He doesn’t experience this same process. He doesn’t have faith. He is a divine person with the human nature which is different than Mary, who is this disciple, this faithful follower who is transformed.
And so as the document says, she is the feminine manifestation of all that Christ grace can accomplish in a human being. So notice this way of framing explains why we care about Mary by explaining that we care about Jesus and what Jesus wants to do for every one of us. And two Corinthians three says exactly this in verse 18. And we all with unveiled faith beholden the glory of the Lord are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the spirit that the Christian message is not simply that will be part of a list that makes it to heaven and that heaven will just be like pleasure and joy. The Christian message is something much more radical than that, that we are being transformed to be like Christ, that when we see him, we’ll see him as he is because we’ll be like him or we’ll be like him or we’ll see him as he is as first John three says.
So that’s pretty significant. And so Mary has this special role and so there are a bunch of titles from Mary in the early church, but as the document notes some of those titles, even some of the ones we find in say the church fathers for instance, are not always being used very precisely. Sometimes their meanings kind of change or get misunderstood over time. So the mere fact that a saint uses a term doesn’t automatically mean that we should use that term today. And there’s plenty of examples of this in other areas of theology where maybe the way a doctrine was originally articulated, we can in hindsight say there are better ways of articulating that and we share the same faith as the people who came before us, but we might find that there’s better terminological issues. You could, for instance, St. Cian, there’s kind of a famous controversy in the way he uses terms like nature and describing the trinity.
He doesn’t have kind of a frame of reference nature and person, I don’t remember all of the details with it, but he’s using terms in a way that if understood one way is completely correct and orthodox and understood in another way would be heretical. And the problem is the language kind of evolves. And so what meant one thing to him sounds very different even a century later. And so we should be mindful of that when we’re using any kind of precise terms or when we’re using any kind of devotional terms. It might be misunderstood as making theological claims we don’t want to be making. So the DDF goes on to note that beyond the just these terminological issues, these can also lead to a mistaken understanding of what Mary’s role is, that we don’t want to become that kind of caricature where we say, oh, Jesus is too tough or He is not powerful enough, so I’m going to go to Mary instead.
And so we want to make sure our language doesn’t risk scandalize anyone into either thinking that’s what we believe or having the ordinary layperson in the pews come away thinking that’s what they’re supposed to believe. Those would be bad results. So we’re warned to kind of watch out for the bad repercussions that imprecise language can have in terms of Christology, ecclesiology and anthropology that we can misunderstand the role of Christ, of the church and of the human person. The main problem in interpreting these titles is precisely, this is the heart of what the document is trying to capture. What is the meaning of Mary’s unique cooperation in the plan of salvation? So notice we want to say on the one hand, yes, Mary does have a unique way that she cooperates in the plan of salvation. And if you’ve never noticed that, I hope that at the end of this video you’ll have a clear sense of that.
And if not, go read the document. I think you’ll really come away with a clear sense of it. But number two, given that unique cooperation, how do we still preserve Christ’s soul mediation? So we want to keep these two things in view. On the one hand, Christ is our soul mediator. And on the other hand, Mary has this special role of cooperating in the work of salvation. And in a broad sense, everybody is going to cooperate in the work of salvation. So I guess one way, this isn’t how the document frames it. Here’s how I would frame the issue that there are these two strands in scripture. And a way to approach this would just be to say, can your neighbor save you? Well, it depends entirely what you mean by that. If you mean we don’t need Jesus anymore, we just need our neighbor, then obviously not and can’t save another person in that sense after all.
As Acts four says, there is salvation and no one else for, there is no other name under heaven given un meaning by which we must be saved. But on the other hand, there’s a way of talking about our neighbor saving us or us saving our neighbor that is perfectly orthodox and indeed perfectly biblical. So for instance, verse 23 of the epistle of Jude says, convince some who doubt save some by snatching them out of the fire. So obviously your role in snatching your neighbor out of the fire isn’t the same role that Jesus has in dying on the cross for your neighbor, but there is clearly some sense in which we can talk about saving others and in fact, even of saving ourselves as well. St. Paul in one Timothy chapter four says, take heed to yourself and to your teaching. Hold to that for by so doing, you will save both yourself and your heroes.
You can see these two strands together in one Timothy chapter two. On the one hand, we’re all told to offer up prayer and intercession, and then just a few verses later, we’re told there’s only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ. So you could say, well, look, all of us are called to stand in the gap between God and man. This is part of our intercession. Or you could say only Jesus is because he’s the one mediator between God and man. Well, who’s right about that? Well, it depends what you mean and that’s what we have to kind of carefully navigate. What is Mary’s role in salvation and what is the role more broadly for every individual, but particularly for Mary because she has this special, this unique role in salvation. That’s what the whole first part of the document lays out, and I like how biblically it lays it out.
If you are someone who’s maybe exploring the Catholic church for the first time, or this is something you struggle with and grapple with and maybe some of the really flowery highfalutin language that the document warns against has turned you off to this. And you’ve heard Catholics speak about marrying a way, you find something between saccharin and heretical idolatrous even. Well, I hope you’ll approach at least giving a read to this first part of mantra Popule because I think it does a good job of making a good biblical case that yeah, Mary actually has a very important and unique role. It starts by making a distinction. When we talk about Mary’s cooperation in the role of salvation, we mean both the objective redemption that historically she plays this really important role and then the influence she currently has that those two things are distinct, but they’re obviously interconnected.
So when it comes to first century, her role in redemption, it is well attested. The document says in the scripture because we start not only just with the New Testament evidence, but going all the way back to the Old Testament, Genesis chapter, verse 15. Now if you’ve watched this channel, I love this passage and have talked about it several times, but it’s good to see the Vatican explicitly just saying that Mary is the woman who shares in the definitive victory over the serpent in Genesis three 15. So in Genesis three, Eve is known as woman and in the curse put on the serpent, God says that he’ll put enmity strife division between you and the woman that is between the serpent who we know to be the devil and the woman and between your seat and her seat. Now on its surface, that might sound like it’s just about Mary, excuse me, eve verse Satan.
But we know that something deeper is going on. I’ll explain why in a second. Our first clue is actually right after that he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise and seal where you say, okay, who is that about? Well, it seems to very clearly be about Jesus Christ. Well, who’s son is Jesus? Well, Mary’s son, but it’s more clear actually in the expression her seed because the seed was normally measured through the man Zara. In Hebrew, it is a term both for offspring but also for semen. And in fact, the word seed has that function in Latin as well. And this was pretty common back when people didn’t really understand how babies were made. They thought of it like planting a seed. And so the fact that Jesus is described as Mary the woman’s seed rather than the man’s seed seems to clearly be a reference to the virgin birth that it’s not.
I’ll put enmity between you and the man and between your seed and his seed, her seed language is pointing to Marion to the virgin birth. And I think we can show that biblically if you believe in the virgin birth, if you believe that Jesus is the person foretold in Genesis three 15, and that is absolutely how the early Christians saw it. Then it follows that this is a prophecy not only of Jesus but of Mary and the virgin birth as well. It seems to me something else follows from that as well. Revelation 12 ties itself to Genesis three in a special way. It refers to the devil as the dragon and the ancient serpent. And so it’s the only other time we see the kind of serpent language used for the devil in just this way. And the devil is presented at war with a woman, and this woman is described as the mother of the one destined rule, the nations of the rod of iron.
It seems very clearly to be once again the mother of Jesus. And in Revelation 12, verse 17 we’re told the dragon was angry with the woman. So imagine my own commentary here, but I think Genesis three 15, you should link that with Revelation 12 because Revelation 12 seems to go out of its way to connect these two parts of the Bible that is talking about the fall of Satan. And he is talking about this event that involves him being mad at the woman and the woman is supernaturally protected. He can’t go now after her, and so he goes after her children as well. We’re going to get into that half in a few minutes, but that gives us our first indication. Mary actually matters in the biblical story. She’s not a bit character and this is supported when we see things. For instance, when Jesus addresses Mary as woman both at the wedding feast of Cana and then at the cross and at the wedding feast of Cana, there is this nod towards the hour, his hour has not yet come, which is then fulfilled of course on the cross.
So you’ve got to put a few pieces together here. You got to put together John two in John 19 with what we’ve already seen from Genesis three. But in Genesis three, Eve goes from being named woman to being named Eve, which means mother, mother of the living. And in John 19, Jesus goes from describing Mary as woman to presenting her as mother. And that’s exactly what the DDF points out, that Mary has renewed her cooperation, she’s renewed the yes, the fiat in the enunciation. She has simply cooperated with him laying down his life. She’s not asking him to come down from the cross, she’s not doing any of this. She’s being present as a faithful disciple in a way that virtually none of his other disciples were. And in this moment, the beloved disciple, the other person to show up, the one from the 12, he entrusts Mary to the beloved disciple and it would be a mistake to take a very superficial reading of this.
Now, one sense of that of course is just the pragmatic that Mary doesn’t have any of their children, and so it makes sense to make sure that she is seen to because she’s going to be a widow, but there is something much deeper, much richer going on because you don’t need to record that as one of the final words of Jesus if he’s just figuring out the practical logistics. We don’t get details of how they packed food for the journeys when they packed food for the journeys because those aren’t relevant details. This was a relevant enough detail that this is one of the few moments from the hours that Jesus was on the cross that has come down to us in scripture. Why?
Well, the next verse gives us an added reason to take that seriously as the DDF knows, it’s only after he entrusts Mary as mother of the beloved disciple that Jesus sees it all is now fulfilled that this was the final thing he had to do before giving up his spirit. You can read in John 19 for yourself that this is the case. And so it’s not a stretch to see the beloved disciple as a stand and for all of the beloved disciples that, and that of course ties in very neatly with what we already saw from Revelation 12, that Mary’s motherhood is given to all of us and that’s why John can later say that Mary’s children are all of those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. So this is again, just biblically we can see that Mary has this really special role.
Then you look at how the early Christians kind of considered these things and they were principally concerned with things like her divine motherhood. She’s theotokos, she’s mother of God, her perpetual virginity, her perfect holiness is one who is free from sin throughout her life, her role as the new Eve. And then they also reflected upon her association with Christ’s redemption in the context of the mystery of the incarnation, that there is this radical moment where the angel Gabriel presents the plan of salvation to Mary and she is freely given the opportunity to say yes, let it be done unto me according to thy word. And she does. And that in this, yes, she actually plays a role in the incarnation. You and I can say we’ve offered nothing to Christ in his redemption. He’s offered everything to us. We’ve offered him literally nothing. Mary gives him his humanity, she gives him her body, she gives him her motherhood. She actually has something to offer and none of us can say the same, which is really a radical thing to think about in terms of Mary’s role.
So as the DDF says, marries yes to Gabriel’s message. So the word of God might become flesh in her womb, opens for humanity the possibility of divinization. This is based on a much deeper concept sometimes called theosis that God became man so that man can become God. It’s getting back to that very first point that the document started From that we are made to be like Christ, but the way we are made to be like Christ is part of this story of redemption that begins with the incarnation. And Mary has this really critical role to play in the incarnation. She is not some IVF surrogate. And if that’s your understanding of Mary, that is a woefully inadequate and unbiblical one, she’s the true mother of the second person of the holy Trinity. That’s incredible. And he takes his human nature through her for this reason, the DDF goes on to say, Saint Augustine calls the virgin cooperate in Christ’s redemption.
So you can see how she’s cooperating and this is actually something that early Christians were pretty emphatic on. Even when you read the stuff about Mary being the New Eve, you read for instance about how Mary unties the knot of Eve’s disobedience by her obedience that’s in 180, that’s as old as our knowledge of the four gospels. So super early on you have this recognition that Mary Biblically has this really important role to play at the Annunciation at the cross and throughout the whole story. But the document said Augustine was emphasizing both Mary’s action at Christ’s side as well as her subordination to him. Notice cooperate doesn’t suggest she’s equal to him. She’s cooperating with him for Mary cooperates with Christ. So the faithful may be born in the church for this reason. We can call her the mother of the faithful people of God mantra her popule Fidel.
And this cooperation is something that the church has endorsed, for instance at the Second Vatican Council, where it talks about how Mary isn’t just a passive instrument in the hands of God, but she’s someone who freely cooperates in the work of human salvation through her faith and her obedience in this cooperation is present not just in Jesus’ early life and we see it in an obvious place, misconception and his birth, but then later on his death and resurrection. But is also true throughout the life of the church that Mary continues to have this kind of maternal intercession and she cooperates with trying to bring about God’s will on earth as it is in heaven. And hopefully that doesn’t sound pagan or idolatrous because that’s literally the Christian calling. All of us should be doing that. All of us should be cooperating in our own ways.
Mary’s called to cooperate in a pretty obvious and special way, in a unique way. St. Paul six talks about how in Mary everything is in reference to Christ and is dependent upon him. It was with a view to Christ that God the Father from all eternity chose Mary to be the all holy mother and adorned her with gifts of the spirit granted to no one else. And if you want to understand predestination, look at Mary. If you want to understand Mary, think about predestination. But the point of all of this is that grace is preparing Mary for this special role, not just for her own good, but because of this unique role she’s to have in relation to her son. And so the document goes on and say Marries yes isn’t just a precondition for something that could have been accomplished without her consent and cooperation.
Her motherhood is not only biological, nor is it passive in nature, but it is a fully active motherhood that is joined to the salvific mystery of Christ as an instrument willed by the Father and his plan of salvation. Hopefully your understanding of your human biological mother is not that she was simply a vessel who bore your genes and body hopefully recognize this, a human person with agency and will hopefully you have the kind of relationship where she’s advocating for you and fighting for you and wants a good for you. And that’s no less true of our mother in faith. She is the guarantee that Jesus is truly man, right? This is what I said before, it’s important that he is born of a woman as St. Paul points out in Galatians four. And it’s important as the first council of NAIA reminds us and the council of emphasis really draws I think to its fullest clarity, is that she is a theotokos, the God bearer all of this matters.
She bears God in her womb and she ensures that he is not just God, but also man through her. Yes. Not that she can do that by her own power. Hopefully that’s obvious, but through her, yes. So that’s the kind of background given that we’ve got a bunch of different titles people use for Mary, and this has been a longstanding practice. You give a lot of honorary titles, you have a lot of anything from pet names to devotional titles, et cetera, but some of them are trying to express this true thing that she cooperates in the redemptive work of Christ. And there are two that the document wants to focus on because they’re problematic coem tricks and media tricks. So let’s talk about them both what they are trying to say, which is true and why we should approach terms like this with caution. So number one, coem tricks should we call Mary Coem tricks?
And the document begins by starting with the history. Where does this title come from in the first place? And it comes from the 15th century. Coem tricks first appears as a kind of corrective to the invocation Trix. So you would have Jesus as redeemer in Mary Astrix. So Coem tricks was trying to at least be like, well, let’s not do anything weird there. But redeem tricks itself wasn’t originally meant to say Mary’s equal to Christ. It originally came from the title Mother of the Redeemer, which I think most people would actually not find offensive at all. So the title sort of evolves from the 10th century to the 15th century in a pretty natural way where it’s not trying to make Mary equal to Christ, but it starts to, people start using the shortened form in a way that is confusing. St. Bernard talks about Mary’s role at the foot of the cross and this then gives rise to the title.
And the first time it appears apparently is his 15th century hymn from Salzburg, which hopefully is mentioned in the footnote and the prayer goes or the hymn goes like this, loving, sweet and kind altogether undeserving of any sorrow. If you hints forth, chose to weep as one suffering with the redeemer for the captive sinner, you would be coem. So that’s what it’s saying. It is a fascinating little prayer. I think it would be fair to say the author does not think Mary is equal to Christ, but this is where the title’s coming from it then dies out. Although the designation Rex persisted throughout the 16th and 17th century, it disappeared entirely in the 18th century having been replaced by Coem trx then in the first half of the 20th century, theologians start to unpack what do we mean? What do we not mean by this?
And there are even popes who’ve used the title Coem without giving any real elaboration on what they mean by it. However, it typically seems to mean one of two things. Number one, it’s in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood that in as much as she’s mother, she made possible the redemption that Christ accomplished, or number two, in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive cross. And that’s what we saw in that hymn Vatican two refrains from using the title for a combination of dogmatic, pastoral and ecumenical reasons. Nevertheless, JP two used it at least seven times, particularly relating this title to the value of our sufferings when their offered together with the sufferings of Christ to whom Mary is united, especially at the cross. So notice he’s using coem tricks in terms of Mary’s union with Christ while talking about how all of us can be united with Christ that we can share in the sufferings of Christ.
And this is a biblical theme laid out in Colossians one. We’re going to get back to that in a second so you can see what he does and doesn’t mean by the title. And that Mary shares in the sufferings of Christ is hopefully something we agree on. Again, Colossians 1 24, which we’ll look at in a few lays out that we can share in the sufferings of Christ and if anyone can, it would be strange to say, but Mary doesn’t, Mary who was at the cross who felt all that with the intense agony of an eyewitness. So you have this history of it sort of arising naturally and being used in a way that doesn’t get subjected to really critical examination sometimes even used by popes, but not in a way where they’re defining it or using it in a very precise way. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wild jpy to his pope interestingly is asked about whether terms like Dentrix or metrix of all graces were acceptable.
And he said no. And the reason he said no is that the precise meanings of these titles isn’t clear. And we haven’t done good theological reflection on the doctrine. The doctrine is not mature. A defined doctrine of divine faith belongs to the deposit of faith that is to the divine revelation conveyed in scripture and apostolic tradition. And it’s just not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in either scripture or apostolic tradition. What are you trying to say about Mary when you call her emx or when you call her metrix of all graces? What are you trying to say there? That is consistent with the biblical data and with the apostolic tradition. And then later in 2002, he publicly voiced his opposition to the title Coem tricks by saying it departs too much from the language of scripture of the fathers and gives rise to misunderstandings.
So he goes on to say everything comes from him Christ as a letter to the Ephesians and the letter to the Colossians in particular tell us Mary to is everything that she is through him. The word Cox would obscure this origin. So Ratzinger doesn’t deny that people are trying to say something good and true and beautiful. That’s true. They might have good intentions, there might even be valuable aspects in the proposals to use the title. But he insisted these terms are these truths I should say, excuse me, are being expressed in the wrong way. And then since he referenced Ephesians and Colossians, let’s unpack what that means a little bit. That there’s a unique redemptive centrality of the incarnate sun in such a way to leave no room to add any other form of mediation. For every spiritual blessing is bestowed in Christ. Ephesians one, three, we are adopted as sons and daughters through him one five in him we have been graced one six, we have redemption through his blood one seven and his grace has been lavished on us.
Ephesians one, eight in him we have obtained an inheritance having been predestined. Ephesians one 11 in him, all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell Colossians one 19 and for him and through him God willed to reconcile all things. Colossians one 20. So that’s the pictures one of all. Grace being given to and through Christ, such praise for the unique place of Christ calls us to situate every creature in a clearly receptive position in relation to him the DDF says, and to exercise careful Reverend caution whenever proposing any form of possible cooperation with him in the realm of redemption, the document then adds. Pope Francis was against the term emx because Mary didn’t wish to appropriate anything her savior of her son for herself. She never presented herself as a cos savior, but rather as a disciple. And it goes on to say, while we were able to extend its effects in the world, neither the church nor Mary can replace or perfect the redemptive work of the incarnate son of God, which was perfect and needs no additions.
Now there’s a reference there about our ability to extend the effects of the cross in the world and it cites to Colossians 1 24, which I promised I’d get back to. This is one of those critical passages for how do we speak about this? Well, because St. Paul says, now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s affliction for the sake of his body that is the church, that there is a sense in which Mary, in which all Christians are able to unite their sufferings to Christ and in some way continue the cross. But he calls making up what’s lacking in Christ’s affliction, which the Vatican is careful to say like we are not saying that the cross is not good enough. We are rather reading this is saying we can extend the effects of the cross in the world by uniting our sufferings to him.
So paragraph 12, the DDF says, given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of redemption, here’s a critical line. It is always inappropriate to use the title Coem tricks to define Mary’s cooperation, that strong language because it is saying prior usages of it were probably not prudent and that includes times Popes used it. So it’s a strong kind of declaration. At the very least it is pointing out that you’re not going to use that in defining things that this is. If you want to say what is Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of salvation, the answer to that is not going to be Cox, that’s too misleading of an answer. The title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can thus create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith for there is salvation and no one else for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved as what we already saw.
Acts four verse 12. So that’s the first reason we don’t want to use the term cover dericks because it risks undermining or appearing to undermine the unique IC mediation that Christ has. There’s no other name, nobody else, it’s just him. But there’s a second reason offered. And this one strikes me as maybe the more relevant one because I think someone could say, but we’re not meaning to undermine Christ’s mediation when we say Coates, we don’t deny Christ is the unique redeemer. We just mean Mary has this special role of cooperating. But the DDF reasonably points out when an expression requires many repeated explanation to prevent it from strain, from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the people of God and becomes unhelpful. Like if you have a title that you want to give or you’ve got a doctrine or you’ve got something else or you have a theory you want to lay out.
But whenever people hear it, they come away thinking you’re saying something heretical, even if you are not, go find a different way of saying that, right? If you are constantly having to explain coem tricks doesn’t sound like what it sounds or it doesn’t mean what it sounds like media atrix doesn’t mean what it sounds like. Find another way of expressing the true thing you want to express. In this case, the DDF says the expression code does not help extol Mary is the first and foremost collaborator in the work of redemption and grace. For it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man our salvation who is the only one capable of offering the father of sacrifice of infinite value, which would not be a true honor to his mother that you don’t want to give a term that sounds like Jesus and Mary were crucified for you.
Now I know nobody using code Trics means to say that, but I also know it can sound like you’re saying something like that without doing a lot of extra work to explain what you are and aren’t meaning Mary instead directs us to Christ and says, do whatever he tells you. So if we want to honor Mary as handmade, it should be in this way that is clearly referential towards Christ. That is our honor of Mary is as someone who points us to Christ. Like when St. Paul says, be imitators of me as I am of Christ, your imitation of Paul should never get in the way of your imitation of Christ. You imitate Paul precisely because he imitates Christ. Likewise, we’re devoted to Mary precisely because of her devotion to Christ. So so much for Cox, I’m happy that the Vatican has interceded to intervene.
Excuse me, to clarify that it’s not a very helpful term because even though I can unpack a, it’s not technically heretical, it’s just one of those times where it’s like why would you do that to yourself? So what about metrix? This one has an older history. It’s a little more complicated, but it also is going to be problematic. So you can find church fathers focusing on mediation at least as far back as the sixth century. And we find expressions from people like St. John DAMing about Mary’s media and then it happens in the West in more frequent use starting in the 12th century. It’s not formally articulated as a doctrinal thesis until the 17th century. So it’s just kind of something people say about Mary and then they start to focus more precisely what do we mean when we call her this? In 1921, there was a cardinal Archbishop who asked the Pope to then Benedict the 15th to issue a dogmatic definition of Mary’s universal mediation. He did not however approve a feast with its own mass in the office of Mary Metrix. So he permitted some liturgical expression of this idea.
So if this is something that I think we could say, there’s some role as we’re going to see that Mary is clearly a metrix. Why is it controversial? Well, many of you probably already know because there’s a very famous biblical passage, one Timothy chapter two verses five to six. The biblical statement about Christ’s exclusive mediation is conclusive. Christ is the only mediator for there’s one God and there’s one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all. So if by mediation we mean in the narrow sense, something like giving yourself as a ransom for sinners to unite them to the Father Christ and only Christ fits that description. And I think that’s obvious to hopefully everyone, the church has clarified this unique place of Christ in light of the fact that he is the eternal and infinite son of God, hypothetically united with the humanity. He assumed this is exclusive to Christ’s humanity and the consequences that derive from it can only be properly applied to him in this precise sense. The incarnate word’s role is exclusive and unique that if by mediation you mean what St. Paul does in First Timothy two, that only applies to Christ, but we should be, and therefore of course we should be very careful about referring to Mary as Metrix because that would seem to deny that thing that only applies to Christ.
Therefore it’s helpful. The document says to specify the range of its value as well as limits in terms of this title and the kicker here, the critical part is that we actually use mediation in a broader sense as well. And so sometimes by mediation we just mean cooperation assistance or intercession like a mediator in a legal sense helps two parties come to an agreement. And if you mean in kind of a broad sense of helping to bring about peace, you don’t bring about the peace of God and man the way God and men the way that Christ does by dying on the cross. But you might at a local level bring about peace between God and men by converting your neighbor in the way. Scripture clearly talks about saving your neighbor. We already saw those passages from Jude and from Paul and in those senses, yeah, there’s a certain way we can talk about mediation there because you’re actually bringing about, you’re restoring this kind of piece. And so because we now use the term mediation in this broader sense, not just to mean like the ransom not just to mean the cross, it’s inevitable that of course it’s going to be applied to Mary in some subordinate sense. If we can say everybody in the Christian life mediates salvation in a certain kind of sense, well then clearly when we’re using the term in that way, Mary would fit that bill used in that way. It doesn’t intend to add any efficacy or power to Christ’s unique mediation as true God and true man.
On the other hand, it is clear that Mary has a real mediatory role in enabling the incarnation as well. So not just in the way all of us have this role of helping to hopefully bring others to God, but Mary has this special role of bringing God to us through the incarnation since the redeemers be born of a woman. We’ve already seen that. But this isn’t just a biological mediation. Mary is active, she’s asking questions, she is saying yes, she’s giving what’s called her fiat, the let it be done to me according to thy word. She thus through her response opens the gates of the redemption that all humanity had awaited and that the saints described with poetic drama. There’s some beautiful reflections on this on the whole world waiting as Gabriel has presented this message and waiting to hear if Mary is going to say yes.
Similarly at the wedding phase of Cana, we find her in a kind of mediating role because she’s presenting the needs of the newlyweds to Jesus and then she’s instructing the servants to follow Jesus’s direction. So you’ll notice Mary’s bringing people to Jesus and then she’s bringing the message of following Jesus to other people that looks mediatory in the way we use it in that broader sense. Moreover, in doing this, her request launches his public ministry in the gospel of John. So it seems to be showing that Mary does have this clear kind of role Vatican two in their terminology. Typically when they’re talking about mediation, they mean Christ, but they sometimes mean Mary in a clearly subordinate manner. They prefer a better set of language. They don’t say better in the document, but I’m going to say better a different terminology. One centered on cooperation or maternal assistance.
So the advantage of those kind of titles that Mary cooperates with Christ Mary is our mother who assists us, those kinds of things. They’re less prone to be misunderstood in a heretical way. And so there’s language about Mary’s manifold intercession and her maternal help and that those aspects are what defines these specific nature of Mary’s cooperation and Christ’s action through the spirit. And so the document says strictly speaking, we cannot talk of any other mediation and grace apart from that of the incarnate son of God. Therefore we must always recall and never obscure the Christian conviction that must be firmly believed as a constant element of the church’s faith regarding the truth of Jesus Christ, son of God, Lord and only Savior who through the event of his incarnation death and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfillment and which has in him its fullness and center. And that’s obvious, right? This is the CDF document written by Cardinal Rader Domino about how you can’t just treat other non-Christian religions as equally valid or something because Christ is the center of the whole thing. Well, similarly, we don’t want to have an expression that would give anyone reason to think we don’t think Christ is the center of the whole thing.
I want to jump later in the document. This is actually in talking about Mary’s role as mother of grace, but I think the things being said are really relevant to talking about her as metrix of all graces. So in paragraph 53 it says, no human person, not even the apostles or the blessed virgin can act as a universal dispensary of grace. And here I think Thomas will be very pleased with this portion of the document because of how much it relies on St. Thomas Aquinas and kind of his theology of grace in explaining and articulating how we think about grace. Only God can bestow grace and he does sow through the humanity of Christ since the man Christ possessed supreme fullness of grace as being the only begotten of the father. So although the blessed virgin Mary is preeminently full of grace and mother of God, she like us is an adopted daughter of the Father.
And then Dante is quoted as calling her daughter of your son a beautiful expression that Mary is both the mother of Jesus and in a spiritual sense the daughter of Jesus, she cooperates in the economy of salvation by a deprived and subordinate participation. And Vatican two is actually very clear about this as well. I just want to mention that therefore any expression about her mediation and grace must be understood as a distant analogy to Christ and his unique mediation in the perfect immediacy between human being and God and the communication of grace, not even Mary can intervene. That’s just not the way grace works. Neither friendship with Jesus Christ nor the Trinitarian and dwelling can be conceived as something that comes to us through Mary or the saints. Now look, I want to again caveat there is one sense you could talk about bringing someone into friendship with Christ, that you introduce someone to Jesus and the Vatican is not denying that.
But when we talk about the Trinity dwelling within your heart, it’s not that the Trinity dwells within your heart through Mary, that would be a mistake. Then you would be presenting Mary in this way that she starts to seem like more of an obstacle than an avenue to God, that you actually have this immediate indwelling of the Holy Trinity within your soul. If you’re living in a state of grace, you actually have a personal friendship with Jesus Christ, God willing, and Mary can help you appreciate that, but she doesn’t give you that. It’s not something that comes to us through her in that way.
In any case, what we can say is that Mary desires is good for us and she asks for it together with us. The liturgy, which is also Lex grin, that is the law of belief. There’s an old expression, the law of worship is the law of belief. How you worship, how you pray expresses what you believe. So the liturgy allows us to reaffirm this cooperation of Mary not in the communication of grace, but in her maternal intercession. So Mary can’t just give you grace, just like when you go and present the gospel to someone else. You can’t just give them the grace of faith, but you can do things like prepare them as much as you can and pray for them so they’ll be open to receiving the graces that God wants to give them. And so on.
Paragraph 67 says, some titles such as metrix of all graces have limits that do not favor a correct understanding of Mary’s unique place. In fact, she, the first redeemed could not have been the metrix of the grace that she herself received. And that’s a great point that if you think of Mary simply as the media trix of all graces, you can miss the fact that Mary is herself saved. She is herself the recipient of divine grace. Now she’s saved before ever falling into sin. That’s true, but she’s nevertheless saved. She’s a recipient of grace. And as the DDF says, this isn’t a minor point, it reveals something central. Even in Mary’s case, the gift of grace precedes her and comes from the absolutely free initiative of the Trinity in view of Christ’s merit. Like all of us, she did not merit her justification by a preceding action of her own, nor does she do so by any subsequent action.
And if you’ve ever read the formulation of the church’s dogma around the immaculate conception, this is very much the spirituality that is in view of the merits of Christ that Mary is preserved from original sin, not that she doesn’t need Christ or that she’s, she’s the one. Everything is being dispensed through, she is receiving and she’s receiving because of Christ. So even in Mary’s case, her friendship with God by grace is always freely bestowed. Her cherished figure is the supreme testimony of the believing receptivity of one who more than anyone else opened herself with hostility and complete trust to Christ’s work. And at the same time stands as the greatest sign of the transforming power of that grace that Mary shows us what radical trust in God looks like and shows us what Christ wants to do for believers of transforming us to be like him.
Paragraph 68 says, on the other hand the title media tricks of all Graces risks presenting Mary as the one who distributes spiritual goods or energies apart from our personal relationship with Jesus Christ. And look, I understand I get why a lot of Protestants are rejoicing to read this either because they think this is somehow a reversal of Catholic teaching or if they have a better understanding of Catholicism because they’re just happy to see Catholics talk about the need for our personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the fact that Mary is not a substitute for that. Nevertheless, the document does say, okay, so if we’re using grace in the precise sense, that wouldn’t be inappropriate because Mary is not the media trix of all of those graces. Nevertheless, the term grace is when seen in reference to Mary’s maternal help at various moments in our lives can have an acceptable meaning.
There can be a way where you mean that that is not false, the plural form graces express, all the aids, even material that the Lord may grant us when he heeds his mother’s intercession, that if Mary prays for something and God gives it at her request, Mary has in a certain sense dispen those graces, not in a way that cuts you off from Christ, not in a way that cuts off the intimacy of your union with Christ, but just that she has interceded for it, that she has won those graces for you through her intercession. These helps in turn prepare our hearts to open God’s love in this way. Mary’s mother has a presence in the daily lives of the faithful that is far greater than the closeness any other saint could have, that she has this maternal relationship with you that isn’t the same as other saints have.
They’re our brothers and sisters who’ve gone before us, but Mary is given to us as a mother through her intercession. Mary can implore God to grant us those internal impulses of the Holy Spirit that are called actual graces. These are the aids given by the Holy Spirit that operate even in sinners to prepare them for justification and then encourage those already justified by sanctifying grace to further growth. It is in this specific sense that the title Mother of grace must be understood. So let’s summarize all of that. I’ve been reading as recently as last night, prince Caspian with my two oldest who are five and four, and we came upon this critical moment in the book, and I’m sorry I might be spoiling a little bit Prince Caspian. It’s so worth the read. Anyway, there’s this moment where Nick, a brick, one of the characters, they’ve cried out for help for the four humans who come into their world, the four humans were the ancient kings and the world of Nia.
And it seems like their call has not been heated because the humans haven’t showed up yet the humans have in fact arrived, but it’s taken them a while to get there. So unbeknownst to the character speaking, they are basically at the door. And so Lewis I think is showing us something about the difference between the saints and pagan deities or false gods in this back and forth dialogue. So Nick Arick has despaired Aslan, who’s the obvious Christ figure isn’t going to answer their request. And neither are the great kings who represent these four humans in an allegorical sense represent the saints. Nico Brick says, as I was saying, we’ve tried one link in the chain of old legends and it has done us no good. Well, but when your sword breaks, you draw your dagger. The stories tell of other powers beside the ancient kings and queens, how if we could call them up.
Now, Nico brick has turned traitorous as will become clear. But truffle hunter who is a badger doesn’t matter. But he is says, if you mean Aslan, it’s all one calling on him and on the kings they were his servants if he will not send them, but I make no doubt he will, is he more likely to come himself? And this is a critical theology that there’s no contrast between calling upon Christ and calling upon the saints because it’s all one. Because the saints are the servants of Aslan. They’re the surface of Christ. In contrast, Nico Arick recognizes this. He says, no, you’re right there. Aslan and the kings go together, either Aslan or is dead or he is not on our side or else something stronger than in him holds him back and maybe he wouldn’t be our friend anyway. So he said, you may drop Aslan out of the reckoning.
I was thinking of someone else. He has a nefarious plan to try to conjure up the white witch who is obviously wicked. I mention this to say, I think many times in Catholic Protestant discussion and just the way we talk about Mary and talk about the saints, we should be clear whether we mean that the saints are the great kings and queens of old who are servants of the high king, the ultimate high king Jesus Christ, or whether we’re trying to suggest there’s some kind of rival power the way the white witch is. I know enemies, opponents of Catholicism hear that second thing and they’re wrong to hear it, but I think the Vatican is right to say, what is our language expressing and suggesting if a term is going to sound like that, maybe you should find another way of saying it so that you don’t mislead either the innocent laity or those outside the church who might not understand, or that in using this expression you’re articulating a kind of convoluted theology of grace yourself.
So for all those reasons, I actually really like the kind of warning, don’t use Dentrix in metrix of all graces. There’s probably better ways of saying what you are trying to say like mother perpetual help, where you just mean she helps us and she helps us by interceding. Not that all grace literally comes to us through Mary. There’s a lot more in the document I get why people were, I don’t know, rattled by it, shaken up by it. But I think the document is well worth the read. I think it is beautifully written and much clearer than some other documents I’ve seen Cardinal Fernandez Wright, and so I really do recommend it as something that might be a good spiritual read to renew your appreciation for Mary’s unique role, but also to give more definition to that so we have in mind a more theologically accurate and precise understanding. For Shameless Popery, I’m Joe Heschmeyer. God bless you.