Mother Angelica on Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate

If you wish to order a copy of the Mother Angelica Live Classics show (entitled "This is a Wicked Age") from EWTN, it originally aired on August 17, 1997. She gives a really amazing apology and treats some objections caused by the erroneous Newsweek article.

Click here to listen...

Is it OK to Petition the Pope for a Marian Dogma?

One of the objections I hear often when talking with people who are uncertain about the movement for a dogmatic proclamation of Mary’s role in salvation history goes something like this:

I accept the doctrine of Mary’s role in redemption. And I accept that the definition of a dogma would be good for the Church. However, I don’t think it’s appropriate to petition the Holy Father for the proclamation of a dogma. After all, faith and morals are not decided by popular opinion.

This is true that doctrines of the faith are not settled by popular opinion. Popular opinion often errs in matters of faith and morals. So in that case, is it right to petition the Holy Father for another Marian dogma? Does this in some way restrict the spiritual freedom and discernment of the Holy Father?

Further, in a second counterargument some have compared the nature of petitioning the Holy Father for a Marian dogma with that of petitioning the Holy Father in favor of allowing wider use of artificial contraception. The argument goes:

What if millions of the faithful had petitioned Pope Paul VI ahead of the issuing of Humanae Vitae? Perhaps he would have changed the Church teachings.

First, a response to the latter objection, then we’ll look at the former.

Let’s look at the circumstances surrounding the birth of the Humanae Vitae document. In that case, the Holy Father called a commission of clergy and lay faithful to examine the question of contraception. The commission concluded that the Church should change her longstanding Tradition in light of the developments of the modern age. Pope Paul VI, however, disregarded their recommendation, but issued Humanae Vitae and affirmed the Church's constant Tradition. There is no reason to believe that had petitions been sent to the Holy Father (and they probably were) that he would have acted any differently in the case of Humanae Vitae, because in that case, the faithful would not have been acting in accordance with the true sensus fidei, or "sense of the faithful" (see, Donum Veritatis, a CDF document of 1990 also known as the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 35). The guarantee of infallibility protects the Sovereign Pontiff from error in faith and morals, no matter how many petitions he receives.

Another thing to consider: Marian coredemption is already the Church's present doctrine. This is and has been a matter of faith and morals from the beginning of the Church and was taught explicitly by St. Irenaeus in the second century ("Mary became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race," Against Heresies, quoted in Lumen Gentium, Chapter VIII, n. 56, Second Vatican Council). Contraception, however, has never been an acceptable practice in the Catholic Church. The doctrine on contraception has always been that it is forbidden. Marian coredemption and spiritual motherhood, on the other hand, has been Church doctrine from the beginning. So clearly the example differs entirely (petitioning for the definition of an already existing Marian doctrine; vs. petitioning to alter the moral teaching of the Church [as if such a change were even possible]).

Finally, with regard to our first objection as to whether a petition could prevent some sort of spiritual obstacle to the Holy Father, Church history offers the best answer to the first question.

The two most recently proclaimed Marian dogmas were promulgated by Bl. Pope Pius IX in 1854 (the Immaculate Conception of Mary) and by Pope Pius XII in 1950 (the Assumption of Mary into heaven). Both Popes were inundated with petitions from the lay faithful before the respective definitions. How did they respond? Negatively?

Quite the contrary. Some may find it surprising, but both Pius IX and Pius XII praised the petition drives. The popes thanked the faithful for assisting the discernment process and for their heartfelt desire to see these doctrines elevated to the level of Church dogma.

In fact, Blessed Pius IX described how the Church considered the petitions "most attentively with particular joy in our heart." Pope Pius XII called such actions "pious striving" that associated the faithful in a "wonderful way" with their bishops.

In light of this holy precedent set by our faithful brothers and sisters in Christ who have gone before us, we continue in this great tradition of beseeching the Holy Father for a dogmatic definition. It would be my joy to continue discussion on this topic if you are as yet unconvinced for the need or appropriateness or even the truth of such a dogma.

If you are convinced, then I invite you to join your more than 7 million Catholic brothers and sisters who have already sent in their petitions to the Holy Father asking that he solemnly define the doctrine that Mary is Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate – the Spiritual Mother of all humanity. To sign the online petition or for instructions on how to mail yours in today, go to FifthMarianDogma.com.

Mary is the Immaculata, but is she the Co-redemptrix?

Co-redemptrix – the idea that the Blessed Virgin could be dogmatically proclaimed under this title makes Protestants and even some Catholics cringe. Would this dogma virtually elevate Mary to the level of the “fourth person of the Trinity”? The Church has always condemned the idea that Mary could be a divine person. But is this what “Co-redemptrix” actually means?

The saints know that Mary is not God (otherwise, they would not be saints, because that would be idolatry), so what do they say about calling Mary Co-redemptrix?

Many saints in fact, throughout the centuries in both the East and the West, have testified to the truth of Mary’s participation in the work of redemption: St. Justin Martyr, St. Ephraem, St. Augustine, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Anselm, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bonaventure, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, and more.

St. Irenaeus in the second century said, “Mary became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”

St. Francis Xavier Cabrini, the first American to be canonized, stated that on Calvary Mary “merited to become our most worthy Co-redemptrix.”

St. Edith Stein: “Mary leaves the natural order and is placed as Co-redemptrix alongside the Redeemer.”

St. Maximilian Kolbe, who along with Belgian Cardinal Mercier strongly advocated for the proclamation of the dogma of Marian coredemption and mediation of all graces, said, “Mary, as Mother of Jesus the Savior, becomes Coredemptrix, while as Spouse of the Holy Spirit she takes part in the distribution of all graces.”

St. Josemaria Escrivà, founder of Opus Dei, wrote, “The Supreme Pontiffs have rightly called Mary ‘Co-redemptrix.’ At that point, together with her Son who was suffering and dying, she suffered and almost died; at that point she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of humanity and immolated Him, insofar as she was able, in order to placate the justice of God; thus one can rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ.”

St. Padre Pio wrote, “Now I seem to be penetrating what was the martyrdom of our most beloved Mother. … Oh if all people would but penetrate this martyrdom! Who could succeed in suffering with this, yes, our dear Co-redemptrix?”

John Paul II called Mary Co-redemptrix at least six times during his papacy. He said, “Mary, though conceived and born without the taint of sin, participated in a marvelous way in the sufferings of her divine Son, in order to be Co-redemptrix of humanity.”

Mother Teresa of Calcutta stated: “Of course Mary is the Co-redemptrix. She gave Jesus his body, and the body of Jesus is what saved us.”

John Paul II’s quote above best highlights the connection with today’s feast. Mary is the Co-redemptrix because she is the Immaculata – she is the Immaculate Conception, as she told St. Bernadette at Lourdes in 1858, four years after the truth was dogmatically defined by Bl. Pius IX. Mary had no taint of original sin that she would be able to give Jesus a body undefiled.

The Problem of the Immaculata’s Sufferings
The reality of Jesus’ sufferings would be an infinite injustice on account of His innocence and supreme dignity as a divine person were it not for the infinitely redemptive value of His sufferings. His suffering is union and love with all who suffer from injustice and is redemption for all who commit injustice – as such, His infinitely merciful act is an act of perfect mercy and perfect justice. There is no contradiction between the two, because as divine attributes (pure perfections), justice and mercy are one in the same.

But what of the suffering Mother? If it is as some hold, that her sufferings are not in any way meritorious, then there is great injustice perpetrated on Calvary, injustice perpetrated not by man but by God. The accusations the feminist theologians have been making against the patriarchal God who they say has little esteem for women would then be true. For in His strivings to redeem the world, He would have wounded His mother by His own hand with the sword of sorrow (Lk 2:35) when by His own power He could have spared her in the first place.

(Of course, we know this to be impossible. It is contrary to God’s nature that He could ever be unjust. By His very nature, He is Justice personified.)

First of all, we all know that she suffered – the Gospel of John attests to her presence at the foot of the Cross of her Son (see John 19:25-27). We remember her sorrows during the Stations of the Cross every Friday during Lent when we pray the Stabat Mater. We commemorate her sorrows on September 15 every year. That she suffered is not in question.

Now if Mary were not immaculately conceived, it could rightly be said that her sufferings were due to her sins. Her suffering would not be problematic. Yet Mary is immaculately conceived and she suffers. Let me say that one more time, because its importance must be seen:

Mary is immaculately conceived and she suffers.

And because she is the Immaculata (as St. Maximilian Kolbe often called Our Lady), there is no greater martyrdom in the history of the followers of Jesus than her own. “It was on Calvary that Mary’s suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view …” (Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, n. 25). Her Immaculate Conception meant that she had all the original innocence of Adam and Eve before the fall. Suffering is the result of sin. Yet there she stands in all her innocence engulfed in suffering.

It would seem that Mary has incurred injustice. How could it be justice that the effects of sin fall upon a sinless creature who is altogether undeserving of the consequences? The position is altogether unthinkable that God in His goodness could grant infinite merit to the sufferings of His divine Son, unblemished by the stain of sin, and withhold merit altogether in the face of the sufferings of the unblemished mother.

The Superabundance of Christ’s Merit
and Mary’s Suffering as Gift for Redemption
Would Christ in His act of infinite love, the redemption of the world, transgress the Fourth Commandment in such a cruel manner? For surely He could have taken her into heaven before His glorious Passion. Yet there she stands at the foot of the Cross.

No my friends. Christ did not transgress the Fourth Commandment. He did not perpetrate injustice against His suffering mother. It is a supreme act of justice and love that Mary stands at the foot of the Cross. The reality of Mary’s suffering—though altogether undeserving of pain and sorrow because of her immaculate nature—means one thing and one thing only: Her sufferings are gift, meritorious in the one Merit of her Son, redemptive in the one Redemption of her Son. Her suffering is love and it is Love that gives her the gift of suffering with her Son.

She is the suffering handmaid of the Suffering Servant. Together the New Adam and the New Eve suffer together in an immaculate human nature to make satisfaction for us and merit our incorporation into this new humanity.

Again, it must be emphasized that it is the one merit of Christ that accomplishes all of salvation. But in the superabundance of His merit, He has seen fit to involve the Blessed Mother in a secondary and subordinate way in the plan of salvation, that her suffering in Christ is made “supernaturally fruitful for the redemption of the world” (John Paul II, SD, n. 25).

It is as St. Josemaria Escrivà said, “she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of humanity and immolated Him, insofar as she was able, in order to placate the justice of God; thus one can rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ.”

If you remain unconvinced, let us have dialogue in this matter, so that you will at least know that the Catholic doctrine of coredemption in this way does not obscure the one Redemption of Christ, but rather glorifies it. For what gift is greater: the gift that satisfies the individual, or the gift given so superabundantly that it cannot help but transform the recipients into givers themselves to all who are able to receive? The one giver is the same. The abundance of the gift is the question here.

Mary merits in and under the totality of merits acquired by her Son in an altogether unique way from sinful humanity. But through her we see that we, too, may make a generous offering of our sufferings in union with Jesus to merit in Him as well. Then we may say with St. Paul that “in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His Body, that is, the Church” (Col 1:24).

The infinite mercy of God the Father is neither compromised nor obscured by Mary Co-redemptrix. To the contrary, Mary Co-redemptrix magnifies the Lord and her spirit rejoices in God her savior.

For those of you who are convinced that the Immaculata is the Co-redemptrix, I invite you to join your name to Mother Teresa, St. Maximilian and the more than 7 million Catholic brothers and sisters who have already sent in their petitions to the Holy Father asking that he solemnly define the doctrine that Mary is Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate – the Spiritual Mother of all humanity.

I sent my petition to Pope Benedict XVI one year ago today. To sign the online petition or for instructions on how to mail yours in today, go to FifthMarianDogma.com.

The Theology of Co-Redemptrix

Upon research for a recent class, I noticed how casually Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., used the term Co-Redemptrix in his book on Divine Providence (Tan, p. 108). Garrigou-Lagrange (+1964) is no insignificant priest. The French Dominican was a very prolific writer (more than 500 books and articles) and taught at the Angelicum in Rome. There, he served as the doctoral adviser of a certain young priest named Karol Wojtyla, whom we all affectionately remember as the man who would become Pope John Paul II. So, intrigued by this reference to Mary as "Mediatrix and Co-Redemtprix" on p. 108 of Garrigou-Lagrange's "Providence," I sought to find out if he had written more on Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix. He has. In "Mother of the Savior and Our Interior Life," he has a nice section devoted to Our Lady's unique role in the redemption of mankind (not opposed to or diminishing Christ's redemption, but in union with Christ's redemption). I offer his words below, and pray for his intercession. May he advise us as he did John Paul II.


(For more on the life of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, click here)

The following is from "Mother of the Savior and Our Interior Life," Tan, 1994:



How Did Mary Make Satisfaction For Us?

The purpose of satisfaction is to repair the offence offered to God and to make Him once more favorable to the sinner. The offence offered by mortal sin has about it a certain infinity, since offence is measured by the dignity of the person offended. Mortal sin, by turning the sinner away from God, his final end, denies in practice to God His infinite rights as the Supreme Good and destroys His reign in souls.

It follows from this that only the Incarnate Word could offer to the Father perfect and adequate satisfaction for the offence of mortal sin (1). For satisfaction to be perfect, it must proceed from a love and oblation which are as pleasing to God as, or more pleasing than, all sins united are displeasing to Him (2). But every act of charity elicited by Jesus had these qualities for His Divine Person gave them infinite satisfactory and meritorious value. A meritorious work becomes satisfactory (or one of reparation and expiation) when there is something painful about it. Hence, in offering His life in the midst of the greatest physical and moral sufferings, Jesus offered satisfaction of an infinite and superabundant value to His Father. He alone could make satisfaction in strict justice since the value of satisfaction like that of merit comes from the person, and the Person of Jesus, being divine, was of infinite dignity.

It was, however, possible to associate a satisfaction of becomingness (de congruo) to Jesus’ satisfaction, just as a merit of becomingness was associated to His merit. In explaining this point, we shall show all the more clearly the depth and extent of Mary’s sufferings.

Mary offered for us a satisfaction of becomingness (de convenientia) which was the greatest in value after that of her Son

When a meritorious work is in some way painful it has value as satisfaction as well. Thus theologians commonly teach, following upon what has been explained in the previous section, that Mary satisfied for all sins de congruo in everything in which Jesus satisfied de condigno. Mary offered God a satisfaction which it was becoming that He should accept: Jesus satisfied for us in strict justice.

As Mother of the Redeemer, Mary was closely united to Jesus by perfect conformity of will, by humility, by poverty, by suffering—and most particularly by her compassion on Calvary. That is what is meant when it is said that she offered satisfaction along with Him. Her satisfaction derives its value from her dignity as Mother of God, from her great charity, from the fact that there was no fault in herself which needed to be expiated, and from the intensity of her sufferings.

The Fathers treat of this when they speak of Mary "standing" at the foot of the Cross, as St. John says (John 19:25). They recall the words of Simeon, "Thy own soul a sword shall pierce," and they show that Mary suffered in proportion to her love for her crucified Son; in proportion also to the cruelty of His executioners, and the atrocity of the torments inflicted on Him Who was Innocence itself (3). The liturgy also has taught many generations of the faithful that Mary merited the title of Queen of Martyrs by her most painful martyrdom of heart. That is the lesson of the Feasts of the Compassion of the Blessed Virgin and of the Seven Dolors, as well as of the Stabat Mater.

Leo XIII summed up this doctrine in the statement that Mary was associated with Jesus in the painful work of the redemption of mankind (4). Pius X calls her "the repairer of the fallen world" (5) and continues to show how she was united to the priesthood of her Son: "Not only because she consented to become the mother of the only Son of God so as to make sacrifice for the salvation of men possible, but also in the fact that she accepted the mission of protecting and nourishing the Lamb of sacrifice, and when the time came led Him to the altar of immolation—in this also must we find Mary’s glory. Mary’s community of life and sufferings with her Son was never broken off. To her as to Him may be applied the words of the prophet: ‘My life is passed in dolors and my days in groanings.’ To conclude this list of Papal pronouncements we may refer to the words of Benedict XV: In uniting herself to the Passion and death of her Son she suffered almost unto death; as far as it depended on her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be said that with Him she redeemed the human race’ (6).

The Depth and Fruitfulness of Mary’s Sufferings as Co-redemptrix

Mary’s sufferings have the character of satisfaction from the fact that like Jesus and in union with Him, she suffered because of sin or of the offence it offers to God. This suffering of hers was measured by her love of God whom sin offended, by her love of Jesus crucified for our sins, and by her love of us whom sin had brought to spiritual ruin. In other words, it was measured by her fullness of grace, which had never ceased to increase from the time of the Immaculate Conception. Already Mary had merited more by the easiest acts than the martyrs in their torments because of her greater love. What must have been the value of her sufferings at the foot of the Cross, granted the understanding she then had of the mystery of the Redemption!

In the spiritual light which then flooded her soul, Mary saw that all souls are called to sing the glory of God. Every soul is called to be as it were a ray of the divinity, a spiritual ray of knowledge and love, for our minds are made to know God and our wills to love Him. But though the heavens tell God’s glory unfailingly, thousands of souls turn from their Creator. Instead of that divine radiation, instead of God’s exterior glory and His Kingdom, there are found in countless souls the three wounds called by St. John the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life: living as if there were no desirable love except carnal love, no glory except that of fame and honor, and no Lord and Master, no end, except man himself.

Mary saw all that evil, all those wounds in souls, just as we see the evils and wounds of bodies. Her fullness of grace had given her an immense capacity to suffer from the greatest of evils, sin. She suffered as much as she loved God and souls: God offended by sin and souls whom it rendered worthy of eternal damnation. Most of all did Mary see the crime of deicide prepared in hearts and brought to execution: she saw the terrible paroxysm of hatred of Him who is the Light and the Author of salvation.

To understand her sufferings, we must think too of her love, both natural and supernatural, of her only Son whom she not only loved but, in the literal sense of the term, adored since He was her God. She had conceived Him miraculously. She loved Him with the love of a virgin—the purest, richest and most tender charity that has ever been a mother’s. Nor was her grief diminished by ignorance of anything that might make it more acute. She knew the reason for the crucifixion. She knew the hatred of the Jews, His chosen people—her people. She knew that it was all for sinners.

From the moment when Simeon foretold the Passion—already so clearly prophesied by Isaiah—and her compassion, she offered and did not cease to offer Him who would be Priest and Victim, and herself in union with Him. This painful oblation was renewed over years. Of old, an angel had descended to prevent Abraham’s immolation of his son Isaac. But no angel came to prevent the immolation of Jesus.

* * *

In his sermon on the Compassion of Our Lady, we read the following magnificent words of Bossuet: It is the will of the Eternal Father that Mary should not only be immolated with the Innocent Victim and nailed to the Cross by the nails that pierce Him, but should as well be associated with the mystery which is accomplished by His death. … Three things occur in the sacrifice of our Savior and constitute its perfection. There are the sufferings by which His humanity was crushed. There is His resignation to the will of His Father by which He humbly offered Himself. There is the fruitfulness by which He brings us to the life of grace by dying Himself. He suffers as a victim who must be bruised and destroyed. He submits as a priest who sacrifices freely; voluntarie sacrificabo tibi (Vulgate, Ps. 53:8). Finally He brings us to life by His sufferings as the Father of a new people. …

"Mary stands near the Cross. With what eyes she contemplates her Son all covered with blood, all covered with wounds, in form now hardly a man! The sight is enough to cause her death. If she draws near to that altar, it is to be immolated there: and there, in fact, does she feel Simeon’s sword pierce her heart. …

"But did her dolors overcome her, did her grief cast her to the ground? Stabatjuxta crucem: she stood by the Cross. The sword pierced her heart but did not take away her strength of soul: her constancy equals her affliction, and her face is the face of one no less resigned than afflicted.

"What remains then but that Jesus who sees her feel His sufferings and imitate His resignation should have given her a share in His fruitfulness. It is with that thought that He gave her John to be her son: Woman, behold thy son. Woman, who suffer with me, be fruitful with me, be the mother of my children whom I give you unreservedly in the person of this disciple; I give them life by my sufferings, and sharing in the bitterness that is mine your affliction will make you fruitful."

In the sermon, of which the paragraphs I have quoted are the opening, Bossuet develops the three main points outlined and shows that Mary’s love for Jesus was enough to make her a martyr: "One Cross was enough for the well-beloved Son and the mother." She is nailed to the Cross by her love for Him. Without a special grace she would have died of her agony.

Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain: but she brings the faithful forth in the most cruel suffering. "At what price she has bought them! They have cost her her only Son. She can be mother of Christians only by giving her Son to death. O agonizing fruitfulness! It was the will of the Eternal Father that the adoptive sons should be born by the death of the True Son. … What man would adopt at this price and give his son for the sake of strangers? But that is what the Eternal Father did. We have Jesus’ word for it: God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son (John 3:16).

"(Mary) is the Eve of the New Testament and the mother of all the faithful; but that is to be at the price of her Firstborn. United to the Eternal Father she must offer His Son and hers to death. It is for that purpose that providence has brought her to the foot of the Cross. She is there to immolate her Son that men may have life. … She becomes mother of Christians at the cost of an immeasurable grief. …" We should never forget what we have cost Mary. The thought will lead to true contrition for our sins. The regeneration of our souls has cost Jesus and Mary more than we can ever think.

We may conclude this section by noting that Mary the Co-Redemptrix has given us birth at the foot of the Cross by the greatest act of faith, hope and love that was possible to her on such an occasion. One may even say that her act of faith was the greatest ever elicited, since Jesus had not the virtue of faith but the beatific vision. In that dark hour when the faith of the Apostles themselves seemed to waver, when Jesus seemed vanquished and His work annihilated, Mary did not cease for an instant to believe that her Son was the Savior of mankind, and that in three days He would rise again as He had foretold. When He uttered His last words "It is consummated" Mary understood in the fullness of her faith that the work of salvation had been accomplished by His most painful immolation. The evening before, Jesus has instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice and the Christian priesthood; she sees now something of the influence the sacrifice of the Cross will exercise. She knows that Jesus is the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, that He is the conqueror of sin and the demon, and that in three days He will conquer death, sin’s consequence. She sees the hand of God where even the most believing see only darkness and desolation. Hers was the greatest act of faith ever elicited by a creature, a faith higher than that of the angels when they were as yet in their period of trial.

Calvary saw too her supreme act of hope at a moment when everything seemed lost. She grasped the force of the words spoken to the good thief: "This day thou shalt be with me in paradise"; heaven, she realized, was about to be open for the elect.

It was finally her supreme act of charity: so to love God as to offer His only Son in the most painful agony: to love God above everything at the moment when He tried her in the highest and deepest of her loves, even in the object of her adoration—and that because of our sins.

It is true that the theological virtues grew in Mary up to the time of her death, for these acts of faith, hope, and charity were not broken off but continued in her as a kind of state. They even expanded in the succeeding calm, like a river which becomes more powerful and majestic as it nears the ocean. The point which theology wishes to stress is not that of Mary’s subsequent growth in the virtues but the equality between her sacrifice and her merits at the foot of the Cross itself: both her sacrifice and her merits were of inestimable value and their fruitfulness, while not approaching that of Christ’s sacrifice and merits, surpasses anything the human tongue can utter. Theologians express this by saying that Mary made satisfaction for us de congruo in proportion to her immense charity, while Jesus made satisfaction de condigno.

Even the saints who have been most closely associated with the sufferings of the Savior did not enter as Mary did into the most secret depths of the Passion. St. Catherine de Ricci had every Friday during 12 years an ecstasy of pain which lasted 28 hours and during which she lived over again all the sufferings of the way of the Cross. But even such sufferings fell far short of those of Mary. Mary’s heart suffered in sympathy with all the agony of the Sacred Heart to such a point that she would have died of the experience had she not been especially strengthened.

Thereby she became the consoler of the afflicted, for she had suffered more than all, and patroness of a happy death. We have no idea how fruitful these sufferings of hers have been during 20 centuries.

Mary’s Participation as Co-Redemptrix in the Priesthood of Christ

Though Mary may be termed Co-Redemptrix in the sense we have explained, there can be no question of calling her a priest in the strict sense of the word since she has not received the priestly character and cannot offer Holy Mass nor give sacramental absolution. But, as we have seen already, her divine maternity is a greater dignity than the priesthood of the ordained priest in the sense that it is more to give our Savior His human nature than to make His body present in the Blessed Eucharist. Mary has given us the Priest of the sacrifice of the Cross, the Principal Priest of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Victim offered on the altar.

It is more also, and more perfect, to offer her only Son and her God on the Cross as Mary did, by offering herself with Him in community of suffering, than to make the body of Our Lord present and to offer It on the altar as the priest does at Holy Mass.

We must affirm, too, as has recently a careful theologian who has devoted years to the study of these questions (7) that "it is a certain theological conclusion that Mary cooperated in some way in the principal act of Jesus’ priesthood, by giving, as the divine plan required, her consent to the sacrifice of the Cross as it was accomplished by the Savior." In another context he writes: "If we consider only certain immediate effects of the priest’s action such as the Eucharistic consecration or the remission of sins in the sacrament of penance, it is true that the priest can do certain things which Mary, not having the priestly power, cannot. But to look at the matter so as not to compare dignities but merely particular effects which are produced by a power which Mary lacks and which do not necessarily indicate a higher dignity" (8).

But even if Mary cannot, for the reasons given, be spoken of as priest in the strict sense of the term, it remains true, as M. Olier has said, that she has received the fullness of the spirit of the priesthood, which is the spirit of Christ the Redeemer. That is the reason why she is called Co-redemptrix, a title which, like that of Mother of God, implies a higher dignity than that of the Christian priesthood (9).

Mary’s participation in the immolation and oblation of Jesus, Priest and Victim, cannot be better summed up than in the words of the Stabat Mater of the Franciscan Jacopone de Todi (1228-1286).

The Stabat Mater manifests in a singularly striking manner that supernatural contemplation of the mystery of Christ crucified is part of the normal way of holiness. In precise and ardent words it speaks of the wounding of the Savior’s Heart and shows the intimate and persuasive manner in which Mary leads us to Him. Not only does Mary lead us to the divine intimacy, in a sense she produces it in us: that is what the repetition of the imperative "Fac" in the following strophes brings out:

Eia Mater, fons amoris, (O Thou Mother! Fount of love!)
Me sentire vim doloris (Touch my spirit from above,)
Fac, ut tecum lugeam. (Make my heart with thine accord!)

Fac ut ardeat cor meum (Make me feel as thou hast felt;)
In amando Christum Deum, (Make my soul to glow and melt)
ut sibi complaceam. (With the love of Christ my Lord.)

Fac ut portem Christi mortem (Let me, to my latest breath,)
Passionis fac consortem (In my body bear the death)
Et plagas recolere. (Of that dying Son of thine.)

Fac me plagis vulnerari (Wounded with his every wound,)
Fac me cruce inebriari, (Steep my soul till it hath swoon’d)
Et cruore Filii. (In His very blood away.)

This is the prayer of a soul which, under a special inspiration, wishes to know in a spiritual way the wound of love and to be associated in these painful mysteries of adoring reparation as were John and the holy women on Calvary—and Peter, too, when he shed his bitter tears. Those tears of adoration and sorrow are what the Stabat asks for in the following strophes:

Fac me tecum pie flere, (Let me mingle tears with thee,)
Crucifixo condolere, (Mourning Him who mourn’d for me,)
Donec ego vixero. (All the days that I may live.)

Juxta crucem tecum stare, (By the cross with thee to stay.)
Et me tibi sociare (There with thee to weep and pray,)
In planctu desidero. (Is all I ask of thee to give,)

—Fr Caswall

Mary exercised therefore a universal mediation on earth by meriting de congruo all that Jesus merited de condigno and also by making similar satisfaction in union with Him. For both Jesus and Mary, the mediation exercised on earth is the foundation of that now exercised in heaven which we will discuss in the next chapter.






(1) It is easier to knock down than to build up. The offense of a creature’s mortal sin has a certain infinity from the side of the Person offended, whereas the creature’s love is limited because of the limitations of its principle. Besides, mortal sin destroys the life of grace, and once that has been lost, we cannot be restored to it by ourselves.

(2) IIIa, q. I, a. 2, ad 2; q. 48, a. 2.

(3) Cf. St. Ephrem, Oratio ad Virginem; St. Ambrose, De Instit. Virg., c. 7; Epist. 25 ad Eccles. Vercell.; St. Bernard, Sermo de Passione, Sermo de duodecim stellis, Sermo Dom. infra Oct. Ass.; St. Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 42; St. Bonaventure, Sermo I de B. V.; St. Laurence Justinian, Sermo de nativ. Virginis.

(4) Encyclical Jucunda Semper, Sept. 8, 1894: "Censors cum Christo existit laboriosae pro humano genere expiationis."

(5) Encyclical Ad Diem Ilium, Feb. 2, 1904: "Reparatrix perditi orbis."

(6) Cf. Denz. 3034, no. 4. In this same place reference is made to the words of Pius XI: "Virgo perdolens redemptionis opus Jesu Christo participavit," and to a decree of the Holy Office praising the custom of adding after the name of Jesus that of His Mother, our Co-Redemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The same Congregation has indulgenced (Jan. 22, 1914) the prayer in which Mary is addressed as Co-redemptrix of the human race. Cf. Dict, de Theol. Cath., art. Marie, col. 2396: "Since the word ‘Co-redemptrix’ signifies of itself simple co-operation in the work of redemption, and since it has received in the theological usage of centuries the very precise meaning of secondary and dependent cooperation … there can be no serious objection to its use, on condition that it be accompanied by some expression indicating that Mary’s role in this co-operation is secondary and dependent."

(7) E. Dublanchy, Dict, de Theol. Cath., art. Marie, col. 2396 sqq.

(8) Ibid., col. 2366

(9) Ibid., col. 2365.

Join me in Praying the Stabat Mater every Friday

We may only come to understand the mystery of Mary Co-redemptrix through a greater understanding of Christ the Redeemer. Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! But Mary with Christ makes a priestly offering of the victim Lamb. From the time of her fiat at the Annunciation she began her 33-year walk up Mount Moriah to sacrifice her son. She had prepared the Lamb for this moment. But no angel would stop the sacrifice, as one did Abraham. In her Son, she herself is crucified. And she "lovingly consents" to the immolation of the Victim born of her (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 58).

To honor the divine Son of God, Jesus the Christ, let us commemorate his Passion, which we remember every Friday, and in one accord sing (if you know the tune) and pray the Stabat Mater, which is offered in the left column on this blog. Let us get to better know our holy and ineffible Redeemer by joining his mother in sorrow at the foot of the Cross in our souls.

Below is the Latin version:

Stabat Mater dolorosa
iuxta Crucem lacrimosa,
dum pendebat Filius.

Cuius animam gementem,
contristatam et dolentem
pertransivit gladius.

O quam tristis et afflicta
fuit illa benedicta,
mater Unigeniti!

Quae maerebat et dolebat,
pia Mater, dum videbat
nati poenas inclyti.

Quis est homo qui non fleret,
matrem Christi si videret
in tanto supplicio?

Quis non posset contristari
Christi Matrem contemplari
dolentem cum Filio?

Pro peccatis suae gentis
vidit Iesum in tormentis,
et flagellis subditum.

Vidit suum dulcem Natum
moriendo desolatum,
dum emisit spiritum.

Eia, Mater, fons amoris
me sentire vim doloris
fac, ut tecum lugeam.

Fac, ut ardeat cor meum
in amando Christum Deum
ut sibi complaceam.

Sancta Mater, istud agas,
crucifixi fige plagas
cordi meo valide.

Tui Nati vulnerati,
tam dignati pro me pati,
poenas mecum divide.

Fac me tecum pie flere,
crucifixo condolere,
donec ego vixero.

Iuxta Crucem tecum stare,
et me tibi sociare
in planctu desidero.

Virgo virginum praeclara
,mihi iam non sis amara,
fac me tecum plangere.

Fac, ut portem Christi mortem,
passionis fac consortem,
et plagas recolere.

Fac me plagis vulnerari,
fac me Cruce inebriari,
et cruore Filii.

Flammis ne urar succensus,
per te, Virgo, sim defensus
in die iudicii.

Christe, cum sit hinc exire,
da per Matrem me venire
ad palmam victoriae.

Quando corpus morietur,
fac, ut animae donetur
paradisi gloria. Amen.