Posted on 11/05/2025 6:38:44 PM PST by ebb tide
The Virgin Mary is Co‑redemptrix, for no other creature was so intimately associated with the Passion of the Son. The liturgy says it, Tradition says it, the faith of the Christian people has said it for centuries. A Note, which in a year will already be forgotten, will not change what is eternal.
On October 4, 2025, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith promulgated the Mater Populi Fidelis Note. As the title indicates, it is a doctrinal Note and concerns “certain Marian titles referring to Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation.” The main object of criticism regards the centuries-old attribution to the Holy Virgin Mary of the title Co-redemptrix, considering that it causes confusion among the faithful because it would diminish the unique redemptive value of Jesus Christ.
Some sources report that the document was conceived under Francis, but was not published in time, because the Bishop of Rome—as he liked to call himself—died beforehand. Already by August 2025, several Italian Vaticanists were speaking of a Note aimed at reducing the number of Mary’s titles in the Litany of Loreto. Pope Leo, initially opposed, is said to have later yielded to Fernandez’s pressure. At this point, it remains to be understood to what extent it is the Curia acting in persona papae, as the law would require, or rather the Pope acting according to the logic of the Curia—one might say, in persona curiae.
Pope Leo, by signing the Note and thus recognizing it as his own magisterial act, in fact repudiates his own teaching. He even repudiates what the much‑beloved Second Vatican Council itself taught.
Before entering into the analysis of the document, it is interesting to note that Pope Leo, by signing the Note and thus recognizing it as his own magisterial act—albeit authentic and not ordinary (even though, thanks to Bergoglio, the confusion between these two categories is at its peak)—in fact repudiates his own teaching. He even repudiates what the much‑beloved Second Vatican Council itself taught.
On June 9, 2025, on the occasion of the Jubilee of the Holy See, Leo said that “the Motherhood of Mary, through the mystery of the Cross, made an unimaginable leap: the Mother of Jesus became the new Eve, because the Son associated her with His redemptive death, the source of new and eternal life for every man who comes into this world.” This is precisely the definition of the truth of faith concerning the Co-redemption accomplished by the Most Holy Mary: why, then, this magisterial schizophrenia?
Moreover, in the final chapter of Lumen Gentium, the most important dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council, we read that:
“Predestined from eternity by that decree of divine providence which determined the incarnation of the Word to be the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin was on this earth the virgin Mother of the Redeemer, and above all others and in a singular way the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. She 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 Saviour in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace.” (Lumen Gentium, 61).
Thus, the truth of faith concerning Mary as Co-redemptrix is here explained in a clear and unequivocal manner. Although it has never yet been solemnly defined by an act of extraordinary magisterium on the part of any Pope, it has nevertheless always accompanied the history of the Church, as is eminently demonstrated—among other things—by the history of the liturgy. Solemn definitions are the recognition and highest magisterial approval by the Pope of truths of faith or morals that have always, everywhere, and by all been believed.
They become necessary when the confusion surrounding a certain truth is such that there is a risk of forgetting it: then the Pope intervenes, defining it solemnly so as to leave no room for doubt or misleading teachings. Dogmas are therefore not an endpoint, but a point of departure—contrary to what the neo‑modernists teach.
Pope Leo teaches through the voice of Fernandez (or vice versa—it is not clear): “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."
The traditional liturgical memorial of the Seven Sorrows of the Most Holy Mary, on September 15 (significantly, the day after the Exaltation of the Holy Cross), speaks to us of this truth of faith. Recalling Simeon’s prophecy—“a sword will pierce your soul”—the hymn Stabat Mater questions us profoundly: “All you who pass by the way, look and see if there is any sorrow like mine.” And in the Communion antiphon we read: “Blessed the compassion of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who without dying merited the palm of martyrdom beneath the cross of the Lord.”
The Note of the Dicastery, after reconstructing in a superficial, coarse, and therefore inaccurate manner the history of the Marian title in question, and after acknowledging that several Popes up to John Paul II habitually used this title in homilies and various addresses, reminds us of something that will make some conservatives frown—namely, the role that Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, played in opposing the dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-redemptrix.
On February 21, 1996, the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was asked whether it was permissible to define the dogma of Mary as Co-redemptrix or Mediatrix of all graces. Ratzinger replied: “Negative. The precise meaning of the titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained therein is not mature. A doctrine defined de fide divina belongs to the depositum fidei, that is, to divine revelation conveyed in Scripture and in apostolic tradition. It is still not clearly seen how the doctrine expressed in the titles is present in Scripture and in tradition” (note well: tradition is, in both cases, written with a lowercase letter).
This response—dating well before Francis—is mistaken, but it is certainly not the only doctrinal blunder of Benedict XVI (here is another striking case, perhaps even more serious). We can therefore say that Ratzinger provided a very solid reason for obstructing the process of dogmatic definition of this truth of faith after the close of the Second Vatican Council.
With regard to magisterial schizophrenia, St. John Henry Newman, recently proclaimed Doctor of the Church and patron of Catholic studies by Pope Leo XIV, did not hesitate in his writings to speak of Mary as Co-redemptrix.
In point 22 of the Note, thus Pope Leo teaches through the voice of Fernandez (or vice versa—it is not clear):
“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 [...]. 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.”
It is glaringly evident, the grave logical, historical, and theological ignorance of the one who conceived this text. This comes even before any possible bad intention—over which, moreover, no one has the power to judge, simply because no one, apart from God, has the power to know what is in the heart of man.
Indeed, numerous saints (among them Bernard of Clairvaux, Alphonsus M. de’ Liguori, Louis M. Grignion de Montfort, Maximilian M. Kolbe) have taught that the risk of exaggerating in Marian veneration does not exist, since, if it is true that whoever honors father and mother honors himself, this applies all the more to Christ. What is astonishing, however, is the logical fallacy present in the document, according to which, if a theological thesis were to require many explanations, then it would be inappropriate and even useless, unhelpful.
In an age of grave doctrinal errors and spiritual confusion, these gentlemen assume a pseudo-theological zeal to nitpick a title and a truth of faith which, in itself, is as crystalline and pure as spring water.
Why, then, did the Fathers of the early councils spend years debating fine points about the two natures of Christ, whether in Christ there is one or more wills, and other such questions? The truth, as St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us, is that he who errs a little at the beginning errs greatly at the end. The truths of faith are all interconnected: if one is denied or mistaken in its definition, there is a risk of error in all the theological theses that descend from it.
With regard to magisterial schizophrenia, St. John Henry Newman, recently proclaimed Doctor of the Church and patron of Catholic studies (together with St. Thomas Aquinas) by Pope Leo XIV, did not hesitate in his writings to speak of Mary as Co-redemptrix. See, for example, what is contained in Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Considered: In a Letter Addressed to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., on Occasion of His Eirenicon of 1864, Volume 2, Longmans, Green, and Co., New York, 1900, p. 78. Here you can consult and verify it for yourselves free of charge.
In an age of grave doctrinal errors and spiritual confusion, these gentlemen assume a pseudo-theological zeal to nitpick a title and a truth of faith which, in itself, is as crystalline and pure as spring water. They say that proclaiming Mary as Co-redemptrix would overshadow the uniqueness of the Redemption accomplished by Christ — but where were these same champions of Christ’s unique salvific role when the anniversary of Nostra Aetate was celebrated, with applause and incense, the very document that opened the doors to a religious relativism disguised as dialogue?
They say that proclaiming Mary as Co-redemptrix would overshadow the uniqueness of the Redemption accomplished by Christ — but where were these same champions of Christ’s unique salvific role when the anniversary of Nostra Aetate was celebrated, with applause and incense, the very document that opened the doors to a religious relativism disguised as dialogue?
These individuals, even before being theologically ignorant, are linguistically ignorant. They do not even understand the elementary logic of words. Who flies an airplane? The pilot or the co‑pilot? It is the pilot who flies: he is the one who holds the controls, decides the route and the maneuvers. The co‑pilot assists, monitors the instruments, and intervenes only if requested. So it is with Christ the Redeemer, and so it is with Mary the Co‑redemptrix: the first accomplishes salvation, the second assists in it by grace, by nature, by unique merits, and by love. The same applies to author and co‑author, founder and co‑founder, signatory and co‑signatory. The prefix “co‑” neither divides nor confuses, but unites and specifies a cooperation that is subordinate yet unique.
And yet, in times of confusion and inverted priorities, these court theologians decide to diminish the Marian titles, as if that were the problem of faith, the cause of the widespread contemporary ecclesial crisis. They do not understand that the confusion does not arise from Marian devotion, but precisely from themselves: from men like Cardinal Fernández, who occupy key positions in the governance of the Church without possessing either competence or a sense of the sacred.
The real reason, however, for these pronouncements is another, and it is far deeper: Mary as Co‑redemptrix is troublesome to heretics, both inside and outside the Church. It is troublesome because it reveals the fully Catholic face of Redemption, in which grace and freedom meet in the person of the Virgin. Therefore, it must be overshadowed, in the name of ecumenism and diplomatic quiet living.
The real reason, however, for these pronouncements is another, and it is far deeper: Mary as Co‑redemptrix is troublesome to heretics, both inside and outside the Church. It is troublesome because it reveals the fully Catholic face of Redemption, in which grace and freedom meet in the person of the Virgin. Therefore, it must be overshadowed, in the name of ecumenism and diplomatic quiet living. The Note itself, moreover, admits that the Second Vatican Council avoided explicitly using the title—though, as we have seen, it contained the doctrine—“for pastoral and ecumenical reasons.” And for the authors of the document, this would be considered a point of merit. In reality, it is the admission of a surrender.
Thus, at the very moment when the Church most needs light and steadfastness, the choice is made to obscure the Mother of the Redeemer. But whoever touches Mary, touches Christ. And whoever sows confusion about the Mother, inevitably sows confusion about the Son. The problem, in the end, lies not only with those who write such Notes, but also with those who follow them blindly.
We could say there are donkeys and co‑donkeys: the first, ignorant ones in power; the second, accomplices who listen and obey. Both are jointly responsible for a spiritual impoverishment that, in the long run, will lead to not even knowing what it means to be Catholic anymore.
The Truth remains, despite these pronouncements (or perhaps even because of them). The Virgin Mary is Co‑redemptrix, for no other creature was so intimately associated with the Passion of the Son. The liturgy says it, Tradition says it, the faith of the Christian people has said it for centuries. A Note, which in a year will already be forgotten, will not change what is eternal.
Ping
An Ecclesiastical “Look! Squirrel!” diversion issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.