Posted on 11/19/2025 8:28:44 PM PST by ebb tide
On November 4, the Vatican’s doctrinal office, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), led by prefect Cardinal Víctor Manuel (“Tucho”) Fernández, did just that in the Catholic world when it published the document “Mater Populi Fidelis”( “The Mother of the Faithful People of God”). Strikingly and disturbingly, the document claimed that the title of “Co-Redemptrix” was not an appropriate way to portray the Blessed Virgin Mary’s participation in God’s salvific plan.
Few serious Catholics, if any, have taken issue with the title of Our Lady as “Co-Redemptrix”, or confused the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the unique redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
In the aftermath of the document’s release, eyebrows were unsurprisingly raised, and emotions soared. Many faithful Catholics devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, including prominent Catholic prelates and lay people, slammed the DDF’s document and its prefect, contending that the confusing publication goes against longstanding Church teaching about the Blessed Mother’s unique role in God’s plan for redeeming mankind and thus sows division among the faithful.
For example, Fr Joachim Heimerl stated on LifeSiteNews (LSN):
“When an ambiguous figure like the current prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has nothing better to do than to cast the Marian devotion of the faithful in a supposedly negative light, it says far less about the Blessed Virgin than it does about those who engage in such behavior. The fact that they do so with the ‘blessing’ of the Pope does not make things any better, but only illustrates what is really going on behind the scenes, and this is nothing less than the establishment of a new ‘Catholic’ Church and a new ‘Catholic’ faith.”
Likewise, in a post on X, Catholic philosopher Edward Feser singled out how the inconsistencies in Cardinal Fernández’s theological arguments have undermined the DDF’s job to spread sound and clear Catholic doctrine.
“…consider all the ink spilled in recent years by those attempting to explain: -how Amoris Laetitia can be reconciled with Christ’s teaching on divorce and St. Paul’s teaching on worthiness to receive Holy Communion -how the revised Catechism’s statement that ‘the death penalty… is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person’ and Dignitas Infinita’s statement that ‘the death penalty… violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances’ can be reconciled with the consistent teaching of scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all the popes up to Benedict XVI that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong -how ‘blessing couples’ in same-sex or adulterous relationships can be licit even though ‘blessing unions’ of those kinds is not -Pope Francis’s claim that ‘the pluralism and the diversity of religions… are willed by God’ -how human beings can ‘possess an infinite dignity,’ given that, on the most natural reading of that expression, only God can have such dignity. And so on for other statements coming from the pope or the Vatican during Francis’s pontificate. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that all of these statements can be reconciled with traditional teaching, it takes a lot of work to do so – much more work than should ever be necessary with a statement coming from a pope or from the DDF.”
Faithful Catholics devoted to the Holy Virgin Mary as their Heavenly Mother, have predictably viewed Cardinal Fernández’s rejection of the title of Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" as a despicable attempt to downplay Our Lady’s unique role in cooperating with God’s redemptive plan for mankind.
The Holy Father better in achieve genuine Church unity by promoting and clearly articulating the title of Mary as "Co-Redemptrix," in accordance with Catholic teaching.
Few serious Catholics, if any, have taken issue (and made a public scene out of it) with the title of Our Lady as “Co-Redemptrix”, or confused the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the unique redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
Writer Carl Olson penned the following in an article on Catholic World Report (CWR):
“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.”
However, Cardinal Fernández’s tolerance or endorsement of “Fiducia Supplicans”, a contentious document permitting priests to “bless” to couples in “irregular situations”, including same-sex couples, despite the immense confusion surrounding “Fiducia Supplicans”, is highly inconsistent and hypocritical.
In fact, following the public backlash over “Fiducia Supplicans” due to its contents, the Coptic Orthodox Church even temporarily halted theological dialogue with the Catholic Church! (Talk about “Church unity” under Cardinal Fernández, who seems to cherry pick which facets of Catholic teaching to maintain as per his ideological whims instead of fidelity to Catholic doctrine!)
Moreover, Cardinal Fernández’s persistent acceptance of the pastoral direction adopted by “Amoris Laetitia”, a document apparently undermining the indissolubility of marriage and the objective reality of sin, is also immensely disingenuous and divisive, given that this document seemed to many as contradicting centuries of Gospel and Church teaching on the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony.
By disregarding Our Lady’s title of "Co-Redemptrix” that reflects Mary’s dignified and free cooperation in redemption, while promoting questionable moral teachings in “Fiducia Supplicans” or “Amoris Laetitia”, Cardinal Fernández has demonstrated theological inconsistency as well as an inability and unwillingness to clearly enunciate traditional Catholic doctrine, while claiming to strictly guard against the Marian title of “Co-Redemptrix”.
The result? Catholics all around the world are left divided and reeling in confusion regarding the Church’s unchangeable teachings on the Blessed Virgin Mary and on marriage.
Nonetheless, some voices have tried to run to Pope Leo XIV’s defense (given that “Mater Populi Fidelis” was supposedly approved by the pontiff himself), with National Catholic Register (NCR) writer Matthew Bunson making a rather (in my view) feeble attempt to justify the document:
“In discouraging the possible use of the title Co-Redemptrix for Mary, Pope Leo is also trying to build a new bridge to other Churches and ecclesial communities while taking away any potential obstacles that could obscure the absolute centrality of Christ. He is thus re-focusing our gaze as Christians — Mary among us as the first and greatest disciple and as Mother of the Church — on unity in Christ.”
Is Bunson then insinuating that Our Lady is a “potential obstacle” that could “obscure the absolute centrality of Christ” and the post-conciliar Church’s goal of attaining “ecumenical fraternity”? It could be well inferred so, based on the aforementioned paragraph alone!
Rather, the Holy Father would excel better in achieving genuine Church unity in extolling Our Lady’s role in God’s salvation plan, promoting and clearly articulating the title of Mary as "Co-Redemptrix," in accordance with Catholic teaching that Jesus Christ Our Lord and Redeemer is the Sole Mediator between God the Father and mankind. After all, one cause of division within the Church is heresy, and Mary, being the Exterminatrix of Heresies, will dispel confusion and pave the way towards Her Divine Son Jesus Christ.
By adopting an unflinching stance on moral teachings such as those pertaining to Catholic marriage and homosexuality, Pope Leo XIV can contribute towards easing existing divisions and ambiguities within Holy Mother Church.
And one of the very first steps towards eradicating internal Church divisions and ensuring true Church unity would be to remove Cardinal Fernández from the DDF, for the latter who tried to portray the Blessed Virgin Mary as merely “the girl next door” simply has messed with the wrong Lady…
Maria Redemptoris Mater, pray for us.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“When an ambiguous figure like the current prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has nothing better to do than to cast the Marian devotion of the faithful in a supposedly negative light, it says far less about the Blessed Virgin than it does about those who engage in such behavior. The fact that they do so with the ‘blessing’ of the Pope does not make things any better, but only illustrates what is really going on behind the scenes, and this is nothing less than the establishment of a new ‘Catholic’ Church and a new ‘Catholic’ faith.”
Ping
Replacing him with Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez would be an improvement.
Replacing him with Tuco Salamanca would be an improvement.
I’m surprised he hasn’t made the Prixster an alter boy at the Vatcian. Or maybe the guy who passes the collection plate.
I never hear Orthodox talking about unity since Benedict left.
The cardinals voted for a fully heretic pope with Francis, and now they have even less tradition minded cardinals since Francis nominated many more.
How can they have decent popes with more and more cardinals nominated every year who are against holy tradition.
I don’t see how the catholics can recover and turn the ship around
Just to be clear I have no grand insight into the mentality of people on either side, and my assessment is just my own and could be very wrong.
The document’s clarifications are seen by some Orthodox commentators as a step toward reducing ecumenical roadblocks:
https://x.com/John_markos_/status/1985766838567829941?referrer=grok-com “New Vatican document Mater Populi fidelis: ... -Co-Redemptrix is explicitly called an inappropriate title ... -I am Orthodox, but I think this document is honestly quite good.”
In a Medium article titled “Christ Alone: Eastern Orthodoxy’s Firm Rejection of Mary as ‘Co-Redemptrix’,” the author discusses the document’s release in the context of Orthodox theology, noting it invites a view of Mary as “the pinnacle of created holiness” rather than a co-redeemer, which could ease tensions in ecumenical discussions. The piece frames this as a positive step, highlighting how the Vatican’s clarification avoids implications that conflict with Orthodox Christocentrism.
AND the title “Co-Redemptrix” has long been viewed as a barrier to post-1054 Schism reconciliation:
https://orthochristian.com/161634.html — OrthoChristian.com states: “Certainly any talk of her as ‘co-redemptrix’ is likely to bedevil ecumenical progress and exacerbate the differences already existing between us.” This explicitly identifies the title as a barrier to unity.
The same Medium article above notes Eastern Orthodoxy’s “firm rejection,” positioning “Co-Redemptrix” as incompatible with patristic consensus and a ongoing ecumenical obstacle.
So, Mount Athos - this is a Pope who has moved to alignment with the Eastern Orthodox. So the Church has recovered.
Quite frankly I don’t get why you guys oppose “Mater Populi Fidelis,” https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20251104_mater-populi-fidelis_en.html
Perhaps you don’t debate with non-Catholics.
Each time I have to explain that the “Co..” does not mean two saviors.
We catholics know it does not mean that, but if we have to spend so much time explaining a meaning to others, then we should use other terms.
Let’s focus on the dogma rather than words or titles that can confuse. That’s mho
I have several.
1) It was unnecessary. It was never a hot, thorny topic that needed addressing.
2) It's a futile, ecumaniacal attempt to pacify those, who even to this day, deny Mary is the Mother of God (which could be Tucho's next target)
3) To quote Bishop Mutsaerts, Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of ’s-Hertogenbosch in the Netherlands, “There is no truth that cannot be misunderstood.” So Cronos, why can't you take the time to explain the Truth, rather than ignore it?
4) Consider the author of the document.
Consider Tucho's past writings. Have any of them been orthodox?
I have many more reasons, Cronos. But these are the first to come to mind.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.
Our Lady Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces, pray for us.
Dignare me laudare te, Virgo sacrata.Da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos.(Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O sacred Vir-gin. Give me strength against thine enemies.)
I hope you don't include me among those who oppose it. I have said NUMEROUS times here that I neither support it or oppose it. I just don't think it's an earth-shattering development for the Church as a whole. The terms in question, even though they have been around a long time have never been officially defined or dogmatized, so nothing is being "removed" that was ever installed. It takes nothing away from Our Lady, who is already, rightfully, the most exalted human (after Jesus, who is also Divine) that ever lived. I think there is good reason why, even after decades of concerted efforts by some parties in the Church to have this declared as "A fourth Marian doctrine", this has not been seriously considered, even under some seriously Marian Popes. Yes, it is easy to explain (though anti-Catholics would not accept any explanation as some of them even reject the indisputable title, "Mother of God"), but not enough to define it sufficiently to make it dogmatic.
I strongly disagree.
Do you think the holy apostles and martyrs complained about having to "explain" the Truth about three persons in One God?
So by your logic, "we catholics" ought to refrain from calling Mary, the Mother of God.
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.