[Catholic Caucus] Cardinal Fernández Clarifies: “Co-redemptrix” Off Limits in Official Vatican Documents, Permitted in Private Devotion

Diane Montagna Substack ^ | November 27, 2025 | Diane Montagna

[ebb tide]

[Catholic Caucus] Cardinal Fernández Clarifies: “Co-redemptrix” Off Limits in Official Vatican Documents, Permitted in Private Devotion

In comments on “Mater Populi Fidelis,” the DDF Prefect explains what the doctrinal Note means in stating the Marian title is “always inappropriate.”

Three weeks after Mater Populi Fidelis sparked debate over its statement that the Marian title Co-redemptrix is “always inappropriate,” the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has clarified that the phrase is not a sweeping rejection of the title itself. The Cardinal said the word “always” applies only to official Church usage from this point forward, not to every context in which the title might be used.

In comments after Tuesday’s Vatican press conference on Una Caro, the DDF’s new doctrinal Note on monogamy, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández said the statement found in MPF n. 22—that “it is always inappropriate” to use the title Co-redemptrix to define Mary’s cooperation—“isn’t meant to judge” past affirmations by saints, doctors, and popes, but that “from now on” it will not be used “either in the liturgy, that is, in liturgical texts, or in the official documents of the Holy See.”

Fernández explained that after decades of theological study—first requested by John Paul II and carried forward by Cardinal Ratzinger—the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has concluded that the title should no longer appear in magisterial or liturgical texts, not because its underlying doctrine has been rejected, but because the term itself risks pastoral misunderstanding today. He argued that Mater Populi Fidelis “conserves and makes explicit the positive aspects” contained in the title, namely “the unique cooperation of Mary in the work of redemption,” claiming the phrase appears “200 times” in the text.

In fact, the phrase “unique cooperation” appears only once in MPF; the word “unique” occurs 29 times, while the analogous term “singular” appears six times, including footnotes. Furthermore, Marian theologians have argued that the key problem with Mater Populi Fidelis is that it downplays and obscures Mary’s active cooperation in the work of Redemption. In other words, the issue is not whether the text speaks of Mary’s unique cooperation, but how it articulates the nature of that cooperation.

Crucially, Cardinal Fernández also emphasized that the new restriction on the title Co-redemptrix applies solely to the Church’s official language. The faithful who understand the traditional, properly subordinate meaning of the term are not being asked to abandon it in private devotion or informed discussion. The decision sets a standard for magisterial and liturgical texts, not for personal piety.

At the end of our exchange, the Cardinal also said that the Dicastery consulted “many, many” Mariologists and Christologists in preparing Mater Populi Fidelis.

However, this seems to contradict recent statements of Father Maurizio Gronchi, the Christologist and consultant to the DDF who co-presented the new document on Nov. 4 alongside Cardinal Fernández. In comments to ACI Prensa on Nov. 19, Gronchi said that “no collaborating Mariologists could be found.” He noted that neither faculty members of the Pontifical Theological Faculty Marianum nor members of the Pontifical International Marian Academy (PAMI, by its Italian acronym) participated in the presentation at the Jesuit Curia—a “silence” that, in his view, “can be understood as dissent.”

According to ACI Prensa, Fr. Gronchi noted that PAMI has a history of active participation in discussions regarding potential dogmatic definitions.

One day later, Father Salvatore Maria Perrella, OSM—a former Professor of Dogmatics and Mariology at the Marianum who was highly esteemed by Pope Benedict XVI and played a key role in past discussions regarding the title Co-redemptrix—told Swiss media that Mater Populi Fidelis ought to have been more carefully considered and refined, and emphasized above all that “it should have been prepared by persons competent in the field.”

While underscoring the legitimacy of the title Co-redemptrix for personal devotion, Cardinal Fernández did not address its use in ongoing theological debate. However, in presenting the new doctrinal note, the Cardinal stressed that its purpose is not to “propose limits.”

If the Catholic Church follows the precedent set in the development of previous Marian dogmas—most notably the Immaculate Conception—theological research, dialogue, and debate are naturally expected to continue. As Fr. Salvatore Perrella noted his recent interview, even a “controversial” document such as Mater Populi Fidelis can be valuable, “because it sparks and sustains debate. In this case, the doctrinal note opens discussions in theology and Mariology, particularly regarding the different dimensions” of Mary’s unique cooperation in the work of Redemption.

Here is my exchange with Cardinal Fernández, preceded by Mater Populi Fidelis n. 22 on the title Co-redemptrix.

Mater Populi Fidelis n. 22:

22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate 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” (Jn2:5).

Diane Montagna: Your Eminence, Mater Populi Fedelis no. 22 says, in the Spanish original, that it is “siempre inoportuno” to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation in the work of Redemption. This was translated into Italian as “è sempre inappropriato.” Meanwhile, the English text originally said “it would be inappropriate” to use this title but was then changed to say, “it is always inappropriate”…

Cardinal Fernández: The translator did a softer [English] translation but then he said to us, “Look, I’m not sure about this,” and then it was changed.

But why did you use the word “always” [siempre], especially as the saints, doctors of the Church and popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix,” particularly over the last century. What are you seeking to communicate to the clergy and faithful through the use of the “always”?

That in this moment, after these thirty years of study by the dicastery, there have been various interventions as questions arose. Pope John Paul II himself asked Ratzinger to study the issue. Until that study was done, Pope John Paul II occasionally used “Co-redemptrix.” After that study, and Ratzinger’s response—which we now know—he didn’t use it anymore. But he conserved the positive aspects of the content, that is, the unique cooperation of Mary in the work of redemption.

We use this phrase — the “unique cooperation of Mary in the work of redemption” — I believe 200 times in the document, that is, we conserved and make explicit this positive aspect in the text. But after the study carried out by Ratzinger in response to John Paul II, he didn’t use it anymore. And then there were other times when the dicastery, under Ratzinger and afterward, studied the topic because it was linked to certain apparitions, etc. and Papa Ratzinger closed [the case of] those apparitions with a “Negative” vote. The same thing happened afterward.

With the apparitions, we have been, let’s say, a bit more generous. We try, even if there are aspects that can be confusing, to find the positive aspects and allow the piety of the faithful. However, on this matter, after thirty years of work by the dicastery, the moment had to come for it to be made public—and that is what we have done.

Yes, but why did you use the term “always” [siempre]? Does this refer to the past, especially given that it was used by the saints, doctors and ordinary magisterium?

No, no, no. It refers to this moment. Just as Pope John Paul II himself used it at one time and then didn’t use it anymore. What we believe is that, in the substance behind that word, there are elements that can be accepted and continue to be upheld.

So, does “always” mean “from now on”?

From now on, certainly. It isn’t meant to judge the past at all. It means “from now on.” And moreover, it means above all that this expression [“Co-redemptrix”] will not be used either in the liturgy, that is, in liturgical texts, or in the official documents of the Holy See. If one wishes to express Mary’s unique cooperation in the Redemption, it would be expressed in other ways, but not with this expression, not even in official documents.

That is something that is known, even if perhaps not very widespread. If you, together with your group of friends, believe you understand well the true meaning of this expression, have read the document, and see that its positive aspects are also affirmed there, and you wish to express precisely that within your prayer group or among friends, you may use the title—but it will not be used officially, that is, either in liturgical texts or in official documents.

---

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic
KEYWORDS: clarification; frankenchurch; tucho

[ebb tide]

It seems every single document Tucho has published has required a subsequent "clarification".

Who promoted this incompetent, homosexualist heretic as prefect of the DDF?

[ebb tide]

Ping

[ebb tide]

Cdl. Fernández says faithful who ‘understand’ Co-Redemptrix title may use it, but not official docs

‘If you believe you understand well the true meaning of [Co-Redemptrix], you may use the title – but it will not be used officially,’ Cardinal Fernández specified.

Well isn't Tucho the generous soul!

[irishjuggler]

“Who promoted this incompetent, homosexualist heretic as prefect of the DDF?”

Bergoglio’s attitude was that every day was “opposite day” at the Vatican... as in the opposite of what JP2 and B16 had done. If his predecessors thought that Tucho was a sketchy creep... then, damn it, Jorge was going to put him in charge of the Holy Office precisely *because* his predecessors disapproved of the guy. If JP2 and B16 thought some heterodox nun was in need of stern correction, then appoint her to an important Vatican commission! If they thought some wacky monk need to be expelled from a leadership position in his order, then make the dude a bishop... maybe even a cardinal!

[RitaOK]

Not very probable for coming new papal appointments when already the bold confidence to display arrogance remains epic and permissible.

[vladimir998]

In other words, none of this matters in real terms. Just as I was saying.

[Fedora]

“What we believe is that, in the substance behind that word, there are elements that can be accepted and continue to be upheld. . .If you, together with your group of friends, believe you understand well the true meaning of this expression, have read the document, and see that its positive aspects are also affirmed there, and you wish to express precisely that within your prayer group or among friends, you may use the title—but it will not be used officially, that is, either in liturgical texts or in official documents.”

So it’s a policy directive based on debatable prudential judgment, not a doctrinal change.