The Blessed Virgin is and Must Be Called Our ‘Co-Redemptrix’

On November 4, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) published a Doctrinal Note that had previously been approved by Pope Leo on October 7, Mater Populi Fidelis (MPF). Without issuing any dogmatic definition, formal condemnation, or canonical prohibition against the terms “Mediatrix of All Grace” and “Co-Redemptrix,” the document — the fruit of “a particular ecumenical effort” (“Presentation”) — said that the Virgin Mary ought not to be called by those titles.

The Note has engendered a great deal of commentary, some of which made its way onto our site:

It should not be a surprise to our readers that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, my Congregation, are what some now call “Marian maximalists,” who strongly oppose the kind of Marian minimalism this new document champions. Our Founder, Father Leonard Feeney, was such a maximalist, and the Montfortian name he bequeathed to his Congregation bespeaks it. (In Saint Louis Marie’s formula of Marian Consecration, we tell Our Lord that He has given His most holy Mother “for a mediatrix with Thee.” With Saint Louis Marie, our other maximalist hero is, fittingly enough, Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe.)

“Religious Submission” to Contrary Propositions?

Before I proceed further, let me address those who may have scruples about being “disobedient” to Rome in “dissenting” from this document: they may object that such a document demands of us a “religious submission,” so we cannot criticize it, nor should we do what the document deems “always inappropriate” by calling the Blessed Virgin, “Co-Redemptrix” — as I do with gusto in the very title of this Ad Rem. To these, I point out that a string of popes have used and expounded upon the titles this document now seeks to put in disrepute, and that those documents — of a higher magisterial order as part of the ordinary papal magisterium — are also owed “religious submission.” (This rather thorny and technical matter is addressed on our website here and here.)

This is what the document has to say on the title, Co-Redemptrix (I will address Mediatrix later on this site, Deo volente):

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” (Jn 2:5). [All italics as in original.]

Neither “inappropriate” nor “unhelpful,” both italicized in the original, are theological or canonical terms of art. They are not theological censures. But we live in a day when words like those — along with “unacceptable” and “inadmissible” — are employed in official documents and protocol letters, and given a weight they do not actually have.

But She Is the “Second Eve”!

One of the most noteworthy incongruities in the document is that it interprets in a Marian sense two Biblical passages, respectively from the first and last books of Holy Writ, that Marian maximalists apply to the Blessed Virgin. By stark contrast, liberal Catholic and Protestant exegetes refuse to concede that sense to those passages. Here is Father Serafino M. Lanzetta commenting on this:

The biblical aspect is treated with great precision. Indeed, upon reading the introductory section, one is pleasantly struck by a statement that stands in clear contrast to the prevailing historical-critical exegetical milieu in vogue. It states that Genesis 3:15 prefigures, in Eve, the Virgin Mary, “the Woman who shares in the definitive victory over the serpent” (n. 5). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Jesus addresses his mother as “Woman” at Cana (cf. Jn 2:4) and at the “hour” of the Cross (cf. n. 5).

In the next numbered paragraph (n. 6), the document says, “In a similar sense, the Book of Revelation presents the ‘Woman’ (Rev 12:1) as the mother of the Messiah (cf. Rev 12:5) and the mother of ‘the rest of her children’ (Rev 12:17).”

Father Serafino points out that the document could have used those fine Biblical passages as a starting point to show — using the teachings of popes and solid theologians — how the Blessed Virgin has an active role in our salvation as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix. But, sadly, the document took a different course. Hence, the incongruity.

Indeed, the Marian interpretation of Genesis 3:15 and the patristic doctrine of the Holy Virgin as “the Second Eve” provide us with the foundation for explaining the beautiful title and doctrine of Mary Co-Redemptrix. All the essentials are there, and they have been developed by great Mariologists. In brief, it is the sin of Adam that brought Original Sin into the world; we inherit that guilt from our first father, not from Eve. Yet, Eve did have a true causal role in the fall. The first woman, whose name means “mother of all the living,” was supposed to be Adam’s “helper” (Gen. 2:20), but she was, instead, his “partner in crime” — indeed, his instigator. Now, Jesus Christ is “the last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45) and “the second man” (1 Cor. 15:47), who came to reverse that curse, to restore and elevate our race. This Pauline doctrine was further developed by the Fathers: The Last Adam had a helper in restoring man; this is the Second Eve, Mary. We see Her recapitulate Eve at the Annunciation, and we see Her do so again under the Cross. The typology is obvious: two virgins are approached by two angelic beings with a message; the one helps to effect our Fall, the other, our redemption. At the Cross, we see Mary again as the Second Eve, this time standing under the Tree of Life (the Cross) where She is given by Jesus as a mother to all those living in the order of grace, whereas Her antitype stood cursed under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil for having illicitly partaken of its fruits and assisted her husband in bringing about our demise. At the Cross, the Church is born out of Our Lord’s pierced side, whither flow the baptismal water and the Eucharistic Blood. There, the Second Eve suffers the birth pangs She was spared when She birthed Jesus because there, at the Cross, She is giving birth to Jesus’ members — the sinners who form the Mystical Body of Christ our Head. From the Fiat to the Stabat, there was a perfect partnership between Jesus and Mary that effected our Redemption. It was Jesus who effected it, but Mary assisted actively, entering into the causality of our rise just as Eve assisted actively and entered into the causality of our fall. Mary, as the popes and theologians have assured us, did so through, with, in, and under Christ, but still, She did so.

Strangely and Protestant-like, MPF separates what God has joined together — Mary’s Spiritual Maternity and Her Mediation and Co-Redemption.

I mentioned that there are popes who have used the titles that the DDF Note seeks to discredit. Father Serafino lists Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Paul VI, and John Paul II. Here is Pope Pius XII:

We wish to recall here the words of Our Predecessor of happy memory, Pius XI, who said: “The Church has always taught that the Virgin Mary is the Co-Redemptrix of the human race.” And We Ourselves have repeated these words in Our Encyclical, Miserentissimus Redemptor. But today, on this solemn anniversary, We desire to affirm once more that Mary, associated with the King of Martyrs in the work of human Redemption, is always associated with Him in the distribution of the graces that derive from the Redemption. She is the dispenser of these graces, the Mother of divine grace, as the liturgy calls her. And so, with St. Bernard, We can say: ‘Let us venerate this Mediator of God and men, this Immaculate Virgin, who, because she is the Mother of God, is the Treasurer of all graces.’ (Pope Pius XII, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 38 [1946], pp. 264–267; cf., The Pope Speaks, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 399–401; bold emphasis mine.)

For more citations from the Roman Pontiffs, please see “Mary, Coredemptrix: The Significance of Her Title in the Magisterium of the Church,” by Rev. John A. Schug, O.F.M. Cap. and Dr. Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D.; “The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium, Part I,” and “The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium, Part II,” by Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins; and “‘Co-Redemptrix’ – The Testimony of Popes, Saints and Theologians,” by S.D. Wright.

What’s With All the Confusion?

As for the supposed confusion that this title engenders, we think Dom Mary Eugene Boylan’s explanation of the title — first published in 1945 — should clarify that, understood properly, this title implies no infringement on Our Lord’s unique prerogatives as the only Redeemer:

Theologians are still discussing Mary’s share in the Redemption. The title co-redemptrix has been applied to her, and she has a perfect right to it; but the title must not be misunderstood. It does not imply that Christ’s work of Redemption was incomplete, or that there is a single part of the whole plan of Redemption that does not depend upon Him. Even the act by which we enter into our share of His grace, depends upon a grace coming from Him. The title means that God freely and without any necessity decided to associate Mary in the Redemption so that she should share in the glory of it. But every single act by which she co-operated drew all its value from the merits of Christ the Redeemer, and was vivified by His grace. Independently of Christ, Mary could contribute nothing to the Redemption. Everything she did was done through Christ, with Christ and in Christ in the unity of the Holy Spirit. In no one is the life of the Mystical Body of Christ so complete and so perfect.” (M. Eugene Boylan, O. Cist. R., This Tremendous Lover, The Newman Press, Westminster, MD, 1957, pg. 334)

Note that the above comes from an immensely popular volume, a work of piety that was well within reach of the decently formed Catholic layman of that day. In our sad times, when rotten catechesis has so damaged the faithful, this may no longer be the case. But should we really dumb down the Faith because people might be confused? Or worse, because non-Catholics don’t like it? If we do this for “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of All Graces,” we would also have to do it for “Mother of God”!

In response to the Note’s claim that, “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,” many have already noted the extremely confusing recent statements from the Chair of Peter and the Holy See that have required multiple explanations (some contradictory), leading to massive confusion on the part of the faithful. (See, e.g., Dr. Edward Feser on this.) We are suffering through a regime of confusion, yet Cardinal Fernández is concerned that a beautiful title of the Holy Virgin, so often used by popes, theologians, popular devotional writers, and preachers, might be confusing.

A Maximalist to the Rescue!

In the 1955 theological manual published in Madrid as the second treatise in volume IIIA of B.A.C., De B. Maria Virgine, the Jesuit Mariologist, Father José Antonio de Aldama y Pruaño admirably defended a number of theses that he gathered from the writings of the popes and approved theologians who came before him. I would like simply to list these theses (which he proves at some length) so that the reader can see what was considered the norm in the scholasticism of the pre-Vatican II theological manuals, referring the reader to that work for Padre Aldama’s actual arguments. It is worth noting that, at Vatican II, this Jesuit was one of the “good guys” in the wars between the Maximalists and Minimalists, as narrated by Roberto de Mattei (the book from which that linked passage is excerpted is available here). Here are the theses, numbered as they are in the book, with all grammatical and capitalization conventions as in the original (the previous numbers have to do with other subjects):

  1. The Bl. Virgin Mary was constituted proximately and formally the spiritual mother of all men both by her consent to the Incarnation and by her compassion under the cross.
  2. The Bl. Virgin Mary is said to be and in the proper sense is Mediatrix.
  3. The Bl. Virgin Mary participated with Christ in the work of redemption and therefore she is rightly called the corredemptrix.
  4. The Bl. Virgin Mary participated in accomplishing the work of redemption principally by her virginal consent and by her maternal compassion.

It should be noted that, by “compassion,” Padre Aldama means not Mary’s virtuous disposition to take pity, but Her active, willing suffering with Christ in His Passion: He suffered His Passion; She, Her Compassion.

Aside from quoting many popes to support these theses, the learned Jesuit has recourse to various decrees of the then Holy Office — now called the DDF. The reader may draw his own conclusions from that fact.

Good can and does come out of evil (cf. Rom. 8:28). This document has engendered a groundswell of interest in the subject, and that is good. It is also forcing people to distinguish between the gradations of magisterial intervention and the nature of the non-infallible magisterium. I am very confident that this whole matter will be clarified in favor of Mary’s Mediation and Co-Redemption when the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, prophesied at Fatima, takes place. In the meantime, those privileged to be Mary’s slaves and also Her “heel,” should expect that the infernal serpent will strike at them through his earthly minions.

So be it. May God be ever glorified and the Virgin Mary ever exalted!

Filed Under: «Ad Rem» A Fortnightly Email Message from the Prior, Current Issues in the Church, Our Lady, Theology