The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released today a “Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation” (Mater Populi Fidelis), and it has raised a few eyebrows along with quite a few questions.
The document has sections of theological and historical reflection that are quite excellent. I think, however, that it doth protest too much, throws out the baby with the bath water, and strains gnats while apparently being oblivious to the various camels walking about.
Víctor Manuel Cardinal Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery, introduces the document by saying the “present Note responds to numerous requests and proposals that have reached the Holy See in recent decades, and particularly this Dicastery, regarding questions pertaining to Marian devotion and certain Marian titles.”
The document aims, he states, to “deepen the proper foundations of Marian devotion by specifying Mary’s place in her relationship with believers in light of the Mystery of Christ as the sole Mediator and Redeemer. This entails a profound fidelity to Catholic identity while also requiring a particular ecumenical effort.”
And then he makes this important remark:
However, there are some Marian reflection groups, publications, new devotions, and even requests for Marian dogmas that do not share the same characteristics as popular devotion. Rather, they ultimately propose a particular dogmatic development and express themselves intensely through social media, often sowing confusion among ordinary members of the faithful. Sometimes these initiatives even involve reinterpretations of expressions that were used in the past with a variety of meanings. This document considers such proposals to indicate how some respond to a genuine Marian devotion inspired by the Gospel, and how others should be avoided since they do not foster a proper contemplation of the harmony of the Christian message as a whole.
My goal here is not to wade so much into the theological waters, but to consider some of the logic applied, especially in this key section, which I quote in full because it important:
21. On at least three occasions, Pope Francis expressed his clear opposition to using the title “Co-redemptrix,” arguing that Mary “never wished to appropriate anything of her Son for herself. She never presented herself as a co-Savior. No, a disciple.” Christ’s redemptive work was perfect and needs no addition; therefore, “Our Lady did not want to take away any title from Jesus… She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no. There is only one Redeemer, and this title cannot be duplicated.” Christ “is the only Redeemer; there are no co-redeemers with Christ.” For “the sacrifice of the Cross, offered in a spirit of love and obedience, presents the most abundant and infinite satisfaction.” While we are able to extend its effects in the world (cf. Col 1:24), 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.
22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it would not be appropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, for “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful. In this case, the expression “Co-redemptrix” does not help extol Mary as 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 for our salvation, who was the only one capable of offering the Father a sacrifice of infinite value — which would not be a true honor to his Mother. Indeed, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), Mary directs us to Christ and asks us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5).
There are, I believe, some significant problems here, including:
1. The use of a straw man. Sadly (but not surprisingly), this comes from the late Pope Francis, whose obsession with certain features of traditionalist (or simply traditional) Catholicism has been well documented. Having been in a Greek Catholic (Ukrainian) parish for over 25 years, I’ve heard and sung many lines extolling the virtues of Mary, the sinless Theotokos. For example:
We praise thee as the mediatrix of our salvation, * O Virgin Theotokos. * For thy Son, our God, who took flesh from thee, * accepted the Passion on the Cross, * delivering us from corruption as the Lover of Man.
And yet I have never heard any Catholic in my parish (or from any other parish, for that matter) talk about Mary as if she is “co-Savior”, or to confuse the role of Mary with the unique, saving work of Christ. Rather, we understand that Mary is unique in her relationship with her Son, always cooperating with perfect love and joy in His saving work. Yes, some Marian piety can be quite strong in its language and tone—just read some of the works of St. Alphonsus Liguori, who is a Doctor of the Church—but the concerns expressed by the document are curious.
Put another way: is this a serious problem in the Church today? And, if it is (say, perhaps in certain countries), is it right to use a chainsaw to perform delicate pastoral surgery?
2. The strange exasperation. When I read “Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption…”, I get a strong sense of annoyance and impatience.
Do Cardinal Fernández and company tire of patiently and carefully explaining the nuances of the Faith? If so, perhaps they should find other work. As someone who has engaged in quite a bit of catechesis, evangelization, and apologetics, I find such demanding work to be both challenging and deeply edifying. I’ve hardly been perfect in my endeavors, but I’ve also never thought: “I wish we could just do away with Doctrine A, or Dogma B, or Devotion C, so that I wouldn’t have to deal with these questions.”
3). Stop with the “risky” excuses. Which brings me to the troubling references to “risks,” which reads, to me, as the authors saying: “Since people can misunderstand these terms and titles, let’s just get rid of them.” And if that is the case, it is not just a serious problem but also a scandalous position.
A few years ago, I had a long talk with a Fundamentalist acquaintance about Mary as Theotokos—the Mother of God. Being a smart and reasonable man, he admitted that he could not deny the simple logic: Jesus is God Incarnate; Mary is the mother of God; therefore, Mary is the mother of God. But, he was unhappy with it. “The problem,” he said, “is that even if that’s true, it can easily confuse people. They could easily believe something that is false.” I asked him if he believed that God is Triune, which of course he did. “But aren’t there plenty of ways that the Trinity can be misunderstood or misrepresented?” He tried to dismiss the point, but it’s not easily pushed aside.
In truth, the phrase “for it carries the risk” can be applied to nearly every dogma, doctrine, devotion, and discipline in the Church: the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, His saving death on the Cross, the Resurrection, the nature of the Church, the papacy, moral teachings, celibate priests (in the West), married priests (in the East), etc.
And this points to the selective nature of these criteria in the DDF document. As Amy Welborn notes, it’s more than a bit disconcerting that Cardinal Fernandez, who has played key roles in both the ongoing saga of synodality and the 2023 fiasco called Fiducia Supplicans (“On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings”), should sign off on a document expressing such deep concerns about ambiguities, misunderstandings, misuses, and abuses.
As Edward Feser points out, the DDF’s statement—”When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful.”—can be applied so easily and rightly to Amoris Laetitia (on communion for the divorce and civilly remarried), the changes made to the Catechism about capital punishment, the blessing of “same-sex couples,” and much more.
To give a specific example: if Fr. James Martin, S.J., can use Fiducia Supplicans as license for “blessing” an openly homosexual “couple”, even while the Vatican insisted the document was not meant for such a purpose, shouldn’t that document be done away with? And keep in mind that references to Mary as Mediatrix go back many centuries (as the DDF document notes, in pars 17ff), but the blessing and acceptance of homosexual relationships has never been accepted or practiced by the Church (cf. CCC 2357-59).
So, again, the DDF document comes off, in places, as an exercise in selective targeting while using argumentation that should, by all rights, be applied to a host of far more serious and immediate issues. Furthermore, there is an air of arrogance to this, as if, first, Catholics are too dumb to understand the distinctions being made, while, secondly, non-Catholic Christians (mostly Protestant) are too stupid to follow the same distinctions. It smacks of both tone-deafness and personal agendas.
In short, it appears that the work of Pope Francis continues—especially since he is mentioned or quoted forty times in the document, which was most likely finished (or near finished) months ago, during his pontificate. Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P., a Dominican working on his doctorate in theology in Rome, writes that although he finds the term “Mediatrix” to be “unhelpful,” he has concerns about the document:
However, I don’t think that it is pastorally prudent to prohibit the use of the title at this point, because, frankly, the toothpaste is already out of the tube on this. It’s a title that is not limited to excessive popular devotion, but it has been very carefully discussed and explained in all kinds of popular and scholarly theological works, and even used by a number of Popes. So, to prohibit it at this point just creates needless disruption and confusion with the faithful. It’s going to be awkward for people who read entirely mainstream theology books, or see statements from the Pope that employ the term, but to also be told that it is wrong to use the term. …
The problem here is Cardinal Fernandez inability to see the need for a kind of “stare decisis” when it comes to the sensus fidelium and theologial consensus. He uses his office to press forward with his own theological program, without worrying about what it upends. I don’t think that this is how a person who occupies a public office in the Church is supposed to exercise a public office; its occupant rather should see himself as the steward of the common good. Pope Leo seems to see his papal mission as bringing stability and peace to the Church, so I was kind of hoping that he would put the damper on this kind of partisan behavior from his officials.
I agree. Cardinal Fernandez has repeatedly made questionable and troubling decisions. It’s time to move on, to end the obvious double standards, and to stop the tiring games.
• Related at CWR: “Reaching consensus on Mary’s role in redemption: The Athanasian solution” (May 15, 2022) by Robert Fastiggi and Mark Miravalle
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Pleasantly surprised to read a critical appraisal of DDF Cdl Fernández’ prohibition of ancient Marian devotions, although I had little reason to be concerned, Carl Olson offered plausible reasons to be critical that I wasn’t conscious of. Now miffed.
“He uses his office to press forward with his own theological program, without worrying about what it upends”. Olson juxtaposes Fernández’ objections to objectionable Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans.
Considering editor Olson was formerly Protestant, I wouldn’t have thought he’d be too concerned. Years attending the beautiful Greek Catholic liturgical devotion to Mary has its effects. Tells me how much I don’t know what I don’t know.
When I read the document, I had one question only: “What is its purpose?” I am still not sure about the answer.
To please Protestants (as some think), for the purpose of smoothing a path for one world religion? Or/and also to make out of the Virgin Mary Mother-goddess, a kind of Pachamama, “the Earth Mother”? Mother-goddess only gives a life; she does not distribute graces; she has never heard about redemption; she simply produces (and kills on occasions).
I have no idea why but I am bothered by an appearance of the document which had no real, i.e. rooted in Church’s life, reason to appear.
I have a strange VISUAL THOUGHT, of a group of people trying to chop off the block everything that “may raise questions”, of whoever.
“Considering editor Olson was formerly Protestant, I wouldn’t have thought he’d be too concerned.”
As is the case for many Protestants who begin to study Catholicism, Marian beliefs (along with the papacy, the Eucharist, and soteriological questions) were foremost in my mind. Once I (1) understood what the Church actually teaches, (2) saw the Christological foundations, and (3) appreciated the various expressions (devotions, etc), it was not an issue. On the contrary, I was quite upset by how I had been misled (usually out of ignorance) for so many years about what the Catholic Church really teaches. The key was (and always will be) the Incarnation: everything else flows from this central truth. So, yes, a quarter century in a Byzantine Catholic parish has been a tremendous blessing, but my acceptance of the Church’s Marian beliefs was cemented before that.
I hope that readers will appreciate my core point in this essay. I do not have a problem with the Church deciding not to officially declare Mary co-mediatrix, etc. That’s fine. She already has the highest title possible for a creature: Theotokos. My issue is with the double standards and weak “arguments” presented for not doing so, as if the complexities and “risks” involved are simply too much. Balderdash. That’s not just weak sauce; it’s gaslighting. It’s embarrassing. We deserve better. And Our Lady certainly deserves better.
“Considering editor Olson was formerly Protestant, I wouldn’t have thought he’d be too concerned.”
It doesn’t matter what a person was-it matters what they are.
You speak honestly about yourself [just a dash of humor I couldn’t resist. Forgive me Lord}.
To be sure you’re right. But does that remove any rationale for questioning why? As such the benefit at least for me is Olson’s excellent response and awareness of issues I wasn’t quite conscious of.
Oh my You miss the forest for the trees.
Agreed!
Which is why I’ve said multiple times in the past that Protestants take their decision quite seriously and enter the faith with much to offer and invigorate a failing of knowledge and practice of those of us born into the faith. Convinced the influx it’s providential.
Anna. If you can hear me from down here, I didn’t give the DDF Doctrinal Note much shrift because I no longer expect anything of value, or to be concerned about from this DDF and its prefect. Mary’s place in the economy of salvation, was and is predetermined, and will stand that way.
Carl Olson raised the question: Why did Cdl Fernández bother? You mention Pachamama, which is a logical inference. After all they engaged in formal idolatry at the Vatican with their ceremonies, which as you may be aware, Albanian Cardinal Ernest Simoni Troshani performed an exorcism at the Latin Mass offered by Cardinal Burke Saturday October 25 at St Peter’s Basilica. The rite used was the St Michael clergy rite of exorcism.
I can only surmise that the darkness of certain souls is so deep that a diabolic act of spiteful revenge had to occur. Perhaps unwittingly. But interiorly and persuasively.
Excellent article! I just wish I could shake the feeling that some bully is picking on my (our) mother.
Yes, as a kid in seventh grade a few years ago and now as an adult, trying to live out my Marian consecration, somebody is always talking trash about my mama.
In both cases, we need to meet at the bike rack after school and duke it out. It was life and death then and absolutely is now!
Ave Maria!
While I’m not a big proponent of the title “co-mediatrix,” I also get the feeling that this is targeted– once again– towards the orthodox. They haven’t done enough to harm orthodoxy by attacking the TLM and exalting the heterodox, so now they’re after other targets– and they almost never go after the heterodox. God knows what He is doing by raising those who are running the show these days, but it leaves me perplexed, wondering how good will come of it.
The expected backlash against “Mater Populi Fidelis” misses the point entirely. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is not diminishing Mary’s dignity but protecting Christ’s unique, saving role. Titles like “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all graces,” though piously intended, too easily blur the line between the Redeemer and the redeemed. As Scripture teaches, “there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). Vatican II already settled this balance: Mary’s maternal intercession “neither takes away nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator” (Lumen Gentium 62).
The critics’ argument, that the Church is caving to confusion or Protestant sensibilities, is hollow. The Church is not abolishing the theology behind these titles; it is discouraging their casual or imprecise use because they obscure what they aim to honor. The DDF rightly reminds us that Mary’s greatness lies not beside Christ, but within His saving work, as the first and most faithful disciple who cooperated through grace, not equality.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s earlier judgment still holds: “Co-Redemptrix” departs too far from Scripture and patristic language and risks misunderstanding the source of all redemption. To insist otherwise is to ignore the very Christocentric foundation of Marian doctrine.
This is not doctrinal downgrading but theological precision. Authentic Mariology is “Ecclesia-typical,” seeing Mary as type and member of the Church, not “Christo-typical,” which flatters devotion at the expense of truth. Real Marian love is ecclesial: she is wholly dependent on Christ, radiant in grace, and entirely one with the Church.
The DDF’s note is therefore not suppression, it is clarification. It preserves both truth and tenderness, protecting Marian devotion from distortion and ensuring that every title given to the Mother always leads back to the Son.
“The expected backlash against “Mater Populi Fidelis” misses the point entirely. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is not diminishing Mary’s dignity but protecting Christ’s unique, saving role.”
Now you tell me. After I read the document that says that exact same thing.
You’ve missed the point entirely of my essay. I’m shocked.
Well argued, but how would Maximillian Kolbe react to this?
I think St. Maximilian Kolbe would reply with this famous quote of his: “Never be afraid of loving the Virgin Mary too much. You can never love her more than Jesus did.”
The real issue, I very modestly think — more than a linguistic quibus—lies in the objectum formale quo, that is, in the perspective from which the mystery is considered. Thomism remains a magnificent and fertile synthesis for all of theology (creation, sacramentology, moral theology, ecclesiology), yet it seems not entirely suited to Mariology, which requires a more personalist and relational vision. In this regard, only Duns Scotus provides the conceptual categories necessary to understand Mary’s unique cooperation in the mystery of Redemption. That, I believe, is the crucial point.
“The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is not diminishing Mary’s dignity but protecting Christ’s unique, saving role.”
Fair enough. But why did the same DDF look the other way when false religions were parading through the Vatican, and remain silent when nothing was done to preach “Christ’s unique, saving role”? Christ alone when it comes to Mary, but hey, let’s celebrate all sorts of nonsense when it suits. That’s why it rings hollow to pious ears.
Get ready to be upset again. The Vatican is now planning an expanded version of the Assisi ecumenical jamboree to celebrate syncretism rather than Catholic witness.
You didn’t engage with the writer. He points out that the document has serios childish issues and language structure. Notwithstanding the human nature of cardinals, one expects them to not get down in the sewer when they write an essay. To repeat Carl, you missed the points in the essay. You read your biases into it. You should take a yearlong sabbatical. You’re not up to par
There is a focus here on Fernandez and the DDF, but this is a papal document: it has the formula of having been approved in an audience with Leo- in forma specifica- and also the unusual move of even containing his name/signature.
I think it was approved by his Holiness but not in forma specifica.
The hierarchy are turning are beautiful faith into a farce.
One of the reasons for the document was to provide a theological and magisterial rationale for the Holy See to disapprove dubious claims for recent Marian “apparitions”, almost all of which push for an official doctrinal or dogmatic definition of Mary as “Mediatrix OF ALL GRACES” and/or “Co-redemptrix”. Look up Our Lady of All Nations.
This document’s purpose is partially to provide for more easily dismissing suspect claims of alleged Marian apparitions. If an alleged apparition claims to push for Mary to be given a title that has now been declared to be inopportune, then that alleged apparition can be easily dismissed.
Thank you, Mr. Olson, for your thorough dismantling of Cardinal Tucho’s effort to carry on the Bergoglian persecution of Catholics.
Poor Mary. She doesn’t deserve treatment like this.
I had hoped for much better from Leo. But all indications are that he too — like his predecessor — is intent on replacing the faith with a faux ‘Catholique’ church in keeping with the evil one’s leftist culture of death.
It is incorrect to translate “Co-Redemptorix” as “Co-Redeemer”.
In the Latin, “Co-Redemptorix”, “Co” means “with”, the “ix” suffix indicates “woman”.
Together, Co-Redemptorix properly translated means “Woman with the Redeemer”.
What a beautiful and faithful way to describe Our Lady! I have never thought, when I sat and contemplated the title Co- redemptorix that Mother Mary in any way was taking anything away from our Savior. As a mother with children I am more than happy to let them shine and be so proud to just be noted as their mother in the background. Mary is so much more. I would say the key here is that when “I sat and CONTEMPLATED on Mary’s role with her son I was never confused but just thankful for her “yes”.
Perfect elegant rebuttal using accuracy (truth). The Church knows Jesus did the work, but it has recognized through revelation that, contemplation of Christ’s mother and her identity puts her in natural communion with Him (at all times, actually). In other words, we honor Mary in the spiritual/mystical (not the dogmatic/theological) sense of her living in the Divine Will (in inseparable grace), therefore in union with Christ. She was the only one like this on Calvary (in history). This is exactly what Jesus explains in the Vatican-approved Book of Heaven.
Carl’s core point is also perfect, nuance is part of the Christian journey, where gradual discovery and increasing delight occurs in finer understanding of faith and the Fiat of Redemption. We have to allow for the nuance of first discovery and new discovery; it is part of God’s endless inexhaustible coffers which continually pour out wonder for children, knowledge that bind us ever more powerfully to Him with every possessed new detail.
Thank you for the clarification. Based on what you have explained, I finally grasp why there is no English-language equivalent for the Latin term “Co-redemptrix.” It’s not only due to the prefix “Co-” or the suffix “-ix,” it’s that the structure of the Latin phrase can’t be reproduced in English (hope that makes sense). So the meaning ends up getting changed when “Co-redemptrix” is used in English, and it should be translated to be properly understood.
The translation “Woman with the Redeemer” is kind of awkward and probably could be improved on–but for now, I’ll mentally substitute that phrase when I encounter the term “co-Redemptrix.” Which, until this DDF document appeared, has been relatively rare in recent years. Obviously, quite a few other Catholics are more familiar with its use than I am.
Thank you Mr. Olson. Leo will not fulfill his mission to “bring stability and peace to the Church” until he replaces those prelates intent on demeaning loyal Catholics as the enemy.
Double standards or not, Pope Leo and his DDF are spot-on here. “Co-redemptrix” and “co-mediatrix” have relatively flimsy roots in the tradition, are gratuitously offensive to Biblically literate Christians, and are so obviously misleading. The Church has the God-given prerogative to determine that verbal formulations which might be technically orthodox when read in the right sense (e.g., “justification by faith alone,” “one incarnate nature of the Word”) are so open to misinterpretation that they be expelled from her authorized lexicon. There is nothing — literally nothing — orthodox about Mary indicated by expressions like “co-redemptrix” or “co-mediatrix” that we cannot say in other words, as the Church’s official magisterium now bids us to do. A magisterium which, refreshingly for a change, does not contradict settled Catholic teaching.
In just the same way God apparently used the Francis pontificate to reveal that historic Protestant charges of papolatry were not utterly without merit, so evidently He is doing the same in the current pontificate of Mariolatry. Any Catholic bent out of shape by this document, who simply cannot bring himself to speak truthfully of Mary without using these particular controversial formulations, suffers from a weird obsession of which he needs to repent. Get a damned life.
“Get a damned life.”
Ah, Don, you’re a sweetheart. Are you also a Fundamentalist or a Progressive? Because the two have the same arrogant attitude, deflecting approach, and misleading rhetoric.
A simple question posed to AI about Co-Redemptorix gives:
The Latin translation of co-redemptrix means “the woman who buys back with” or “the woman with the Redeemer”. It is composed of the prefix co- (meaning “with,” not “equal to”), and the New Latin word redemptrix, which means “female redeemer”. The title signifies a subordinate and complementary role to Christ in the work of human redemption.
Contextual meaning: The term highlights the unique, but subordinate, participation of Mary in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. It emphasizes her cooperation with her son, rather than suggesting she is an equal savior.
Vatican 2 clearly taught that, among other titles, Mary is invoked as Mediatrix (Lumen Gentium 62), this is also affirmed in the Catechism (#969). And while the word “co-redemptrix” is not used, I would like to know what title I should I apply to the following reality (also from Vatican 2, LG 61): “She [Mary] conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in giving back supernatural life to souls.”
I feel as though being a Catholic today means being constantly told by the hierarchy that you are bad, rigid and wrong for believing what that same hierarchy told you to believe only a few years ago. It’s exhausting and frankly, spiritually abusive. Gaslighting at it’s worst.
PS: I’m not a trad per se, but in my 1962 Missal there is literally a Mass on May 31st for Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces.
A Visitation of the Lord -as I like to meditate it. Thank you Cathusian.
I had said the prefix “co-” is unnecessary; however, it could be necessary at times for indicating Mary’s perfect co-operation and correspondence in grace according to her foreseen merits and glory. I think Redemptrix encompasses all of the meanings just standing on its own like that.
Also wish to add, I pray to her both as Queen of Prophets as in the Litany and as VIRGIN OF PROPHECY.
Only in the today’s Church can one be accused of being against Vatican 2, by following what Vatican 2 says. The cognitive dissonance is too much sometimes!
Try defending Gregorian Chant, a Mass in Latin, and a Mass Ad Orientem. You WILL be accused of “rejecting” Vatican II!
I, for one, am happy with the release of the document, “Mater Populi Fidelis”, if only to silence once and for all the small but noisy “Co-Redemptrix Movement” led by Mark Miravelle that goes to the extreme as to campaign that “Co-Redemptrix” be defined as the Fifth Marian Dogma.
I am 82 years old, from the Philippines. Through years of pre-Vatican II Catholic education, reading and praying the Bible, regular attendance at Mass, and praying the daily Rosary, I’d like to think I have developed a close relationship with our Blessed Mother. So I know her work for our salvation; it’s like the air surrounding us that cannot be contained. We know who she is and her love for us. She does not need to be defined any more than the Four Great Marian Dogmas that we cherish her for.
Proponents view the title Co-Redemptrix as not implying that Mary participates as equal part in the redemption of the human race, since Christ is the only Redeemer. Fine. We know that. But is it necessary to be defined as dogma? What does it take for a popular teaching to be defined as a dogma? Should that not require all the bishops of the world, along with the Pope, to agree? Or would a paltry movement led by Miravelle enough to pressure the Pope to proclaim it as dogma?
As I am not a native English speaker; I could be wrong, so please correct me. But to me, the prefix “Co-“ attached to someone or something, seems to mean “equal.” The #62 chapter of Lumen Gentium, which many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Catholic Mariology, refers to Mary as “Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix,” but does not use the term “Co-Redemptrix.”
The venerated hymn writer Fr. Frederick Faber (1814-1863) a native English speaker, recognized that the term Co-Redemptrix usually requires some explanation in modern English because so often the prefix “co-“ tends to imply complete equality. He also explains that, “Thus, so far as the literal meaning of the word is concerned, it would appear that the term co-redemptress is not theologically true.”
Salvatore Perrella of the Pontifical Theological Faculty of the Marianum in Rome thought that this indicated “…a certain ‘under-appreciation’ of the Council’s teaching, which is perhaps believed to be not completely adequate to illustrate comprehensively Mary’s co-operation in Christ’s work of Redemption.” (source: Wikipedia)
Perrella continued:
“The semantic weight of this expression would require a good many other qualifications and clarifications, especially in the case under examination, where she who is wished to be proclaimed co-redeemer is, in the first place, one who is redeemed, albeit in a singular manner, and who participates in Redemption primarily as something she herself receives. Thus we see the inadequacy of the above-mentioned term for expressing a doctrine which requires, even from the lexical standpoint, the proper nuances and distinctions of levels.”
Years ago, there was a reported Marian apparition in the Philippines to a novice nun named Teresita Castillo. It was reported that Our Lady identified herself as the “Mediatrix of All Graces.” It was initially disapproved by Philippine bishops, but upon further investigation, later approved it. But the Vatican finally disapproved it.
Before Castillo died a few years ago, she said Our Lady identified herself as the “Mediatrix of All Grace” (one comprehensive Grace), meaning, the Incarnation of our Lord. She acknowledged that “all graces” come from God and it’s the purview of the Holy Spirit to distribute them. But the one Grace that was channeled through Mary was the Source of All Graces Himself – Jesus Christ.
So, I have no problem referring to Mama Mary as Mediatrix. As to “Co-Redeemer,” it’s probably okay as a title – something that can be included in the Litany of Loreto – but not as a defined dogma of the Church.
My two centavos.
I don’t really have much to add to this but as far as the word “co” it doesn’t have to mean “equal.” I’ve had part time co-workers in the past. I might have seniority & a higher level of job responsibility but they were still referred to as my “co-workers” even if they only came in one or two mornings a week. We worked together.
Nor am I enthusiastic about a definition of ‘Maria Coredemptrix’ as dogma, but I imagine that ‘Coredemptrix, Mother of all graces, Advocate’ taken together probably pretty accurately represents the viewpoint of many of the Fathers and the Eastern Churches more generally. But in the current state of the Church it is probably not very easy to convince people of this. Our Lady Ever-virgin, pray for us.
On Sunday they declare a man a Doctor of the Church who promoted an understanding of the development of doctrine. Two days later they go after a beautiful doctrinal development on Our Lady that has been used for centuries by popes and saints.
Our Lady, Co-Redemptrix, pray for us!
Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Grace, pray for us!
I consider the Saints and myself coworkers in the vineyard. That does not mean we deem to be the owner or manager of God’s work. We simply have a role in the economy of Salvation. All salvation depended on Mary’s special role of saying yes to God’s plan. She cooperated from the beginning to Jesus death and Resurrection which brought forth Christ’s Mediation with the Father.
Thanks for this critique, Mr. Olson.
I needed it after Mark Lambert’s too-easy acceptance of the document on Catholic Unscripted.
Excellent article,again! Thank you!
Outstanding article Carl! Many thanks for an excellent job articulating the truth – again. I understand from watching EWTN’s short report on this that Cardinal Fernández said using these words like “mediatrix” causes problems with eccuminism with other “denominations”. Did he actually say that? If so, it logically follows that he believes the “Catholic Church” is simply one denomination among others – yes?
Mediator? – sure. Most perfect intercessor? – indeed, yes. Co-Redeemer? Of course not. Why is this a point of contention?
Why do you believe anyone proposed Mary as the equal of Christ? Do you know what a co-pilot is in aviation?
Never mind
In theological terms, “co-“ is more akin to “sub” than “co-equal.”
And it looks like Deacon Dom has discovered ChatGPT.
In terms of Protestants and confusion, doesn’t this lead to confusion in another direction? There are many Protestants who do not believe that we contribute in any way to our own salvation, that our collaboration with the will of God is entirely useless. The Church has always taught that “God will not save us without us.” Now setting aside Mary’s perfect collaboration, might this also lead to a setting aside of the rational response to the gift of grace intrinsic to all who choose Christ?
The title Co-Redemptrix, was never made a dogma. It might just be that the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, DOES NOT WANT IT. She brought forth the Incarnate God Jesus Christ, Savior and Redeemer, true God and true man: “We adore you Jesus Christ and we praise you because your Holy Cross you have redeemed the world.”
I do not have the theological training to have a personal opinion on “Co-Redemptrix.” For me, it was always enough that learned and holy men have frequently used the term. But now that the Vatican’s pornographer-in-chief is scandalized by the Co-Redemptrix, I will use the term as frequently as possible. May the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Co-Redemptrix, flush clean the Augean stables of the Vatican!
Co-Redemptrix Co = with redemptrix – the female associated WITH the Redeemer not equal to the redeemer what is so difficult ? The woman with the Redeemer this can’t be easily explained in a dogma declaration ? Seems the more supposed knowledge they have the more they cannot see the forest for the trees Advocate – she is always advocating for us before her son mediatrix – interceding for us before her Son for the grace we need to live “All he has Commanded Us ” So sad the people who should know and embrace TRUTH are so not trying to embrace it
If Heaven wants this title for Our Lady, no man will have power to fight it.