The more than 13,000-word document Mater Populi Fidelis, published Nov. 4, took a critical approach to titles such as “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all Graces.”
Presenting the text at a press conference at the Jesuit Curia in Rome, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the DDF, said the titles “confuse the faith of the simple people with matters that do not add anything essential.”
Most notably, the new document determined that the title of “Co-redemptrix” should be avoided as it “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.”
The text acknowledged that the title had been used by many popes, including St. John Paul II. While supporters say that the theology behind the title of “Co-redemptrix” can be traced back to the Church Fathers, the title itself was first employed in the 15th century and only became widely used in the 19th century.
While definitions vary, supporters generally mean by “Co-redemptrix” that the Virgin Mary has a special co-operation in Christ’s redemptive work, but subordinated to Him. Yet the title has been criticized historically, with opponents warning that the “co-” particle could be misunderstood as suggesting that Mary is an equal “co-redeemer” with Christ.
Pope Leo XIV signed the DDF document Oct. 7, the Memorial of Our Lady of the Rosary, after it was approved in an Ordinary Session — a regular, scheduled meeting — of the dicastery March 26.
Cardinal Fernández told The Pillar that the document did not undergo major changes following the April 21 death of Pope Francis.
“After the [Ordinary Session], the members of the DDF can send some change proposals, small details, style corrections… [but only] small changes,” said the cardinal.
Fernández added that the document presented Nov. 4 was substantially the same as the version approved and voted upon by the DDF in March.
The cardinal noted that the document’s presentation took place in the conference hall of the Jesuit Curia and not at the Vatican’s press office because “the document did not lend itself to dialogue between journalists and the dicastery.”
But as the document’s launch was open to the public, an unidentified man interrupted Fernández as he attempted to give an example of a certain kind of “Marian maximalism” that Catholics should avoid.
The man said that such an example was “the Church’s teaching and the eternal truth of the Church,” and that the new document was “made without considering the feelings of the people of God.”
In its introduction, the document said it aimed to clarify “in what sense certain titles and expressions referring to Mary are acceptable or not [and] 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.”
The text said that certain devotions and requests for Marian dogmas cannot be considered “popular devotion” and they “ultimately propose a particular dogmatic development and express themselves intensely through social media, often sowing confusion among ordinary members of the faithful,” which prompted the dicastery to publish the doctrinal note.
“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,” it said.
The note said it was in line with the DDF’s 2024 Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena, as the expressions and titles the document deals with are “frequently used in connection with such phenomena.”
Nevertheless, the document considered that “these titles — some of which already appear in the writings of the Church Fathers — are not always employed precisely, and their meanings are sometimes altered or misinterpreted… Some titles pose significant difficulties regarding their content because they can often lead to a mistaken understanding of Mary’s role.”
Therefore, the document intended to “maintain the necessary balance that must be established within the Christian mysteries between Christ’s sole mediation and Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation, and it seeks to show how this is expressed in various Marian titles.”
Supporters of the term “Co-redemptrix” say they don’t mean that Our Lady has an equal place to Christ in the redemption of mankind, but rather that she is the first collaborator with Christ in the work of redemption.
For example, the 20th-century French Mariologist, Fr. Emile Neubert, S.M., defined the doctrine by saying that “we have been saved first and principally by Christ and secondarily by the action of Mary in subordination to the action of Christ.”
While the document didn’t directly criticize this idea, it said 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.”
“[It] 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… which would not be a true honor to his Mother,” it said.
Supporters of the “Co-redemptrix” title trace the idea back to the Church Fathers, as St. Irenaeus of Lyon in Against Heresies referred to Mary as “the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.”
The note mentioned that St. Augustine of Hippo also called Our Lady the “cooperator” in Christ’s redemption, “emphasizing both Mary’s action at Christ’s side as well as her subordination to him, for Mary cooperates with Christ so that ‘the faithful might be born in the Church.’”
The document noted that popes such as St. Pius X, Pius XI, and St. John Paul II used the title “Co-redemptrix,” but “without elaborating much on its meaning.”
“Generally, they have presented the title in two specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished) or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross,” it said.
The document recalled that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, said during a 1996 Vatican doctrinal office meeting that a request to define the doctrine of the “Co-redemptrix” or “Mediatrix of All Graces” was not acceptable.
Ratzinger, the then head of the doctrinal office, said: “The precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature… It is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.”
Ratzinger also publicly said in 2002 that “the formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.”
The document justified the need for such a clarification by saying: “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.”
At the press conference presenting the document, Cardinal Fernández said: “Benedict and Francis didn’t reject certain titles for a lack of love to Our Lady, on the contrary, it’s an act of love to Our Lady.”
The document also criticized the “Mediatrix” title. It said that “Mary had a real mediatory role in enabling the Incarnation of the Son of God in our humanity, since the Redeemer was to be ‘born of woman’ (Gal 4:4) ... Mary’s response opened the gates of the Redemption that all humanity had awaited.”
It added: “The Second Vatican Council’s terminology regarding mediation primarily refers to Christ; it sometimes also refers to Mary, but in a clearly subordinate manner. In fact, the Council preferred to use a different terminology for her: one centered on cooperation or maternal assistance… we cannot talk of any other mediation in grace apart from that of the incarnate Son of God.”
The document’s criticism of the “Mediatrix” title was similar to that of “Co-redemptrix.” While the text did not criticize the term’s underlying theology, Fernández suggested the term could be confusing.
“The expression ‘participated mediation’ can express a precise and valuable sense of Mary’s role, but if misunderstood, it could easily obscure or even contradict it. Christ’s mediation, which in some respects can be ‘inclusive’ or shared, is in other respects exclusive and incommunicable,” the document said.
It also questioned the title “Mediatrix of All Graces,” saying that Mary is “sometimes portrayed as if she possessed a repository of grace separate from God… She is also frequently portrayed or imagined as a fountain from which all grace flows.”
“In such a notion, it is not so clear that it is the Lord who — in his generous and free omnipotence — willed to associate her with the sharing of that divine life which springs forth from the sole center that is the Heart of Christ, not that of Mary…. Such notions elevate Mary so highly that Christ’s own centrality may disappear or, at least, become conditioned,” the text said.
The document noted that Cardinal Ratzinger, during his time as head of the doctrinal office, said the title was not clearly grounded in Revelation, and that the DDF now recognizes “the difficulties this title poses, both in terms of theological reflection and spirituality.”
The document clarified that while “God raises us to overcome the infinite disproportion that separates us from divine life; only he acts in us with his Trinitarian indwelling; only he enters into us and transforms us, making us sharers in his divine life,” such a cooperation is “in Mary’s case, distinguished from the cooperation of any other human being due to the maternal character that Christ himself conferred upon her while on the cross.”
According to the note, the title of “Mediatrix of All Graces” risks “presenting Mary as the one who distributes spiritual goods or energies apart from our personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”
But the note indicated there was also an acceptable interpretation of a term such as “Mother of Grace” or “Mother in the order of Grace,” when “seen in reference to Mary’s maternal help at various moments in our lives… In this way, Mary, as Mother, has a presence in the daily lives of the faithful that is far greater than the closeness any other saint could have.”
The document said it was preferable to employ the title “Mother in the order of Grace,” as used in the Vatican Council II’s document Lumen gentium, but that any understanding of such a title should pay special attention to three criteria.
First, it said, “we must reflect on how Mary fosters our ‘immediate union’ with the Lord — which the Lord himself produces by conferring grace and which we can receive only from God — and not think of our union with Mary as being more immediate than our union with Christ.”
Second, it said, “the Second Vatican Council highlighted that ‘the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God’... Therefore, it is not acceptable to present Mary’s action as if God needed her to accomplish salvation.”
Third, it said, “when explaining Mary’s mediation, it must be emphasized that God alone is our Savior and that it is God alone who applies the merits of Jesus Christ, the only merits that are necessary and entirely sufficient for our justification. Mary does not supplant the Lord in any action he has not already done... nor does she supplement him.”
“Since she does not add anything to Christ’s salvific mediation in the communication of grace, she should not be regarded as the instrumental agent of that free bestowal. If she accompanies an action of Christ — by virtue of his own work — she should never be thought of as being parallel to him,” the document said.