December Allocutio 2025
Mary Mediatrix
Fr. Paul Churchill, Concilium Spiritual Director
The recent Doctrinal Note (Mater Populi fidelis) from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has raised anxieties in some quarters. Let us be clear that many of the points made by the Declaratory Note are not cause for anxiety. Marian devotion is a treasure of the Church. Mary “is the feminine manifestation of all that God’s grace can accomplish in a human being”. Mary, the first to be redeemed, was herself redeemed by Christ, “becoming the prototype, model and exemplar of what God wants to accomplish in every human who is redeemed”. This is not far off Louis Marie de Montford, Maximilian Kolbe and Frank Duff.
The Note deals with two main issues. It treats firstly with the proposed title for Mary, Co-Redeemer or Redemptrix, and firmly rebukes it, even if it was well-intended. I note that it coincides with the thinking of Frank Duff who says, “Protestants say, too, that we put her above redemption, whereas we believe the very opposite. We hold her to have been more redeemed than any other creature, to have been more than any other, the beneficiary of the Precious Blood, and that she continues more than any other, dependent on God”. So Frank Duff and the Doctrinal Note are quite in harmony. I cannot find the term Co-Redeemer used anywhere by De Montford. If Mary’s cooperation in the redemption through her Fiat was necessary, it does not make her a redeemer. We must all co-operate with God if his graces are to take effect, we must all in our own way “make up what is lacking in the suffering of Christ”. All of us with Mary, as the leader of creatures, remain in the ranks of the redeemed.
For us in the Legion of Mary the concerns raised by the Dicastery regarding the title Mediatrix of all graces touches on an invocation we have in the Tessera and the title of an article in the Handbook. This term is a recent one, not found in the Litany of Our Lady nor in the writings of St Louis Marie de Montford, who instead uses the expression Mediatrix with Christ.
The Note says, “Special prudence is required when applying the term Mediatrix of all graces”. I note the word prudence. The Note implies that the term Mediatrix can be used of Mary when it means cooperation, assistance, intercession. Mary had a real mediatory role in enabling the Incarnation to take place. It is therefore not rejecting the notion of Mary as Mediatrix. But the title Mediatrix of all Graces does need careful understanding and use.
An obvious concern of the Note is that the term might be interpreted by some as meaning that Mary’s role in bringing grace to us is as equal to or even trumping Jesus. That certainly is not the position of all in the broad family of St. Louis Marie de Montford, including many Popes (not least St. John Paul II), Kolbe, Duff and Mother Teresa. De Montford is clear: “I hold, with the entire Church, that … Mary is no more than a mere creature … that she is less than an atom—nay more, that she is nothing … this great Lord had absolutely no need—and still has no need—of the Blessed Virgin”. All our understanding of Mary’s place is built on this premise.
The Note is concerned at risks inherent in the expression Mediatrix of all Graces. It says that Mary is portrayed in some places as if she possesses a repository of grace separate to God, that she is portrayed as a fountain from which all grace flows, that the mystery of God’s indwelling in our hearts depends on a passage through Mary’s hands. Such notions can risk Christ’s centrality, or condition it. Card Ratzinger felt this expression, Mediatrix of all graces, was not grounded in Scripture. It adds that Mary could not have been the Mediatrix of that grace that saved her. The Note also says that the giving of grace is beyond our nature and belongs to the Divine alone. Aquinas is clear that no creature can confer grace. God alone gives grace direct to a soul.
The problems here are really about words and interpretation. We all know that Mary had to be a recipient of grace first before she could mediate for it on our behalf. I think it is not unfair to say that when the ordinary faithful use the phrase Mediatrix of all Graces they are referring to all those graces we need to help us in our union with God. Clearly the graces involved in the act of Creation and in Mary’s Immaculate Conception are direct from God. And I think we all know that, since God is supreme Lord, he can freely dispense graces without reference to Mary, since as de Montford says, he has no need of her. And we all know that if Mary can allocate graces to souls, they all come from the Divine goodness and the Redemption.
De Montford is clear that in the order of grace all does indeed come from the Divine. “God the Father made a gathering of all graces and called it Mary”. Mary then is creature full of all graces put together by God. Then he adds, “God the Son has communicated to his Mother all that he has gained by his life and his Death … and he has made her the disburser of all that His Father has given him as his inheritance”. These words show that all graces come from God, that Mary is a recipient and that insofar as she disburses any grace they belong to the Father Almighty. They are not hers. The broad family of de Montford are on safe ground!
The expression Mediatrix of all Graces however remains an awkward expression. The preposition “of” suggests possession. It might suggest to some that the graces belong to Mary. That is balanced by the word Mediatrix which suggests an intercessor or intermediary. The Dicastery might accept that the faithful, in saying “all graces”, are only referring to the graces they need. But they would point out that the expression might convey a very different nuance to a weak soul, namely that Mary is the possessor of all graces and that God is left out. Not intended of course since we all know that Jesus is the one Mediator before God. But technically the expression is ambiguous; it could never be declared a dogma.
So the question: Can we in the Legion of Mary still use the term Mediatrix of all graces? The Note does not rule out the use of the term. My advice then is this: We can use it subject to any future clarification from the Supreme authority of the Church or a decision of Concilium to replace it by a less awkward expression. If we do continue to use it as an invocation it would have to be on the understanding that the term Mediatrix means cooperator, assistant, intercessor. The term of does not mean she possesses the graces but rather that she has a special position, unique, in obtaining them for us. She mediates for us. The term all cannot mean absolutely every grace but rather those graces we need for our salvation. And when we use the term graces we understand that they all come from God who alone is the source of all.
I’ll end with an image. You go into a pharmacy to get some medicine you need. There is a friendly helpful compassionate lady behind the desk. She hears you and goes to speak to the chemist in the room beyond. She comes back with what you need and gives it to you with a lovely smile. Or she may say that they will order that from the manufacturer and have it later.
In a similar way we present our requests to a most beautiful and caring Lady who, with a mother’s heart, understands our needs. She goes and gets what we need from her Son who sends them to us through her. If needs be He goes to his Father, the Almighty Maker of all graces but when we go back to collect that grace it will be through the hands of the lovely, grace-filled compassionate Lady Mary. That is an image that captures the reality.
