…

…
Response to Mater Populi Fidelis by the International Marian Association Theological Commission Introduction 1. The International Marian Association is a group of cardinals, bishops, clergy, religious, theologians and lay leaders who seek to promote full Marian truth and devotion throughout the world. In light of its mission, the IMA’s Theological Commission respectfully wishes to offer the following response to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in reference to its recent doctrinal note, Mater Populi Fidelis: Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 4, 2025. In its presentation, the DDF explains that this Note is not intended to be “comprehensive or exhaustive,” but it does seek “to maintain the necessary balance that must be within the Christian mysteries between Christ’s sole mediation and Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation.” 2. The IMA’s Theological Commission [IMA] positively recognizes the document’s strong emphasis in affirming Jesus Christ as the sole divine Redeemer of humanity and the one divine Mediator between God and men (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The DDF also notes that Christ’s mediation is inclusive, and “He enables various forms of participation in his salvific plans” (n. 28—29). It highlights some important Scriptural references to Mary’s cooperation in salvation history such as Gen 3:15, Jn 2:4, and Jn 19:26. Patristic and medieval authors are also cited, as well as Marian liturgical and iconographic expressions, including those from the Christian East (n. 14–19). It affirms in general the cooperation of the faithful in the saving work of Christ (n. 28), and it refers to the singular and distinct cooperation of Mary, though without attributing to it an objective redemptive value (n. 37A and 64). Mary’s spiritual motherhood is affirmed (n. 35) as well as her role as heavenly intercessor (n. 41) and model disciple (n. 73–74). Substantial Points in Need of Clarification and Modification 3. In spite of these positive aspects of Mater Populi Fidelis [MPF], the IMA maintains that there remain significant theological points that require substantial clarification and modification. We recognize that MPF as a doctrinal note by the DDF has been approved for publication by Pope Leo XIV and is an expression of the ordinary Magisterium, albeit on a level lower than that of direct pronouncements of the Pope (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 25). However, the Magisterium in general and the DDF in specific recognize the right of theologians to communicate their difficulties to magisterial authorities regarding the teachings and arguments of certain documents for the goal of better clarification and articulation of Catholic faith (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis [1990] n. 30). Moreover, canon 212§ 3 of the Codex Iuris Canonici affirms the right and responsibility of all the Catholic faithful to communicate their opinions to the pastors of the Church: According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they [the faithful] possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their 2 opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. Therefore, in accordance with both Donum Veritatis, n. 30 and Canon 212, the International Marian Association Theological Commission, which consists of over forty theologians from fifteen countries, would like to note the following elements in MPF we maintain are in need of substantial clarification and modification. I. The title Co-redemptrix 4. The DDF in n. 22 of MPF offers this perspective on the Co-redemptrix title: 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. It should first be noted that there is a significant inconsistency in the different translations of this text. The Italian, English, and German refer to the title as “always inappropriate” (sempre inappropriate, immer unangebracht) while the Spanish, French and Portuguese refer to it as “always inopportune” (siempre inoportuno, toujours inopportune, sempre inoportuno). To describe a title as “inappropriate” suggests that it is improper or unacceptable. To describe it as “inopportune” suggests that it is imprudent to use it. It should also be noted that the word “always” needs further clarification. If the title Co-redemptrix is always inappropriate or inopportune to use, then the popes who approved or used the title were acting in an inappropriate and imprudent manner. If it is always inappropriate to use the title, then the saints and mystics who used this title were irresponsible and inappropriate. 5. The DDF states 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 theological terms, though, require perennial explanation for those not familiar with them. For example, the title “Mother of God” has been rejected by some Christians because they think it means Mary precedes God. The Trinity requires repeated explanations, even for those who believe this revealed truth. The same could be said for other terms such as transubstantiation, papal infallibility and the Marian dogma of the Immaculate 3 Conception, which require ongoing explanation even among the Catholic faithful. St. John Paul II, in his 2002 apostolic letter, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, notes that St. Bartolo Longo referred to Mary as “all-powerful by grace” (omnipotens per gratiam). John Paul II describes this as a “bold expression, which needs to be properly understood” (n. 16). This we believe should be the proper attitude regarding Co-redemptrix. It needs to be properly understood and explained, rather than rejected. Members of the IMA Theological Commission who have taught Mariology for decades certainly do not find the title Co-redemptrix “unhelpful.” Once a proper explanation is provided, students are quick to understand and affirm the legitimacy of the title. 6. The DDF acknowledges that the titles “Redemptrix” and “Co-Redemptrix” have been used for centuries. It claims that Co-redemptrix was a “correction” of Redemptrix and yet St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church (1347–1380), referred to Mary as the “Redemptrix of the human race” (Oratio XI). The term Co-redemptrix came to be preferred— not as a correction of Redemptrix— but because the prefix co—from the Latin cum (with)—further emphasizes Mary’s subordination and dependency on Christ, the Redeemer. 7. Another term used in the Church in reference to Mary is “Reparatrix,” which is the theological equivalent of “Redemptrix.” A number of popes in authoritative encyclical teachings have referred to Mary as the Reparatrix. In his 1854 Bull defining the Immaculate Conception, Blessed Pius IX said the Fathers of the Church “declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents” (fuisse parentum reparatricem). In his 1895 encyclical, Adiutricem, Leo XIII refers to Mary as the “Reparatrix of the entire world” (reparatricem totius orbis: ASS 28 [1895–1895], 130–131). St. Pius X, in his 1904 encyclical, Ad diem illum, refers to Mary as “the Reparatrix of the lost world” (reparatrice perditi orbis: ASS 36 [1903–1904], 454). Pius XI, in his 1928 encyclical, Miserentissimus Rex, states that, because of Mary’s union with Christ, “she likewise became and is piously called Reparatrix” (Reparatrix item exstitit pieque appellatur: AAS 20 [1928] 178). These popes do not call Mary the Co-reparatrix but simply the Reparatrix. This title is just as strong if not stronger than co-redemptrix and constitutes repeated papal magisterial teaching on a high level of the ordinary Magisterium. 8. Mater Populi Fidelis, 18 states that “Some popes have used the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ without elaborating on the meaning.” Reference is made to seven uses of the title by St. John Paul II, the approvals of the title under St. Pius X, and the use of it by Pius XI (in endnote 33). What is unfortunately missing is Pope Leo XIII’s July 18, 1885 approval of the Co-redemptrix title in some praises (laudes) to Jesus and Mary with an indulgence of 100 days granted by the Congregation for Indulgences and Sacred Relics. In the Italian version of the praises to Mary, she is referred to as “co-redemptrix of the world” (corredentrice del mondo). In the Latin version, she is referred to as the “mundo redimendo coadiutrix). Leo XIII approved both the Italian and Latin versions of the prayer (Acta Sanctae Sedis [ASS] 18 [1885] p. 93). 9. While it is appropriate that the DDF acknowledges papal uses of the title Co-redemptrix, it is unfortunate that these papal uses are not given greater respect or presence in the actual text. Fr. René Laurentin published a historical study on the Marian title of Co-redemptrix.1 He traces the use of the title by saints, theologians, and spiritual writers. He mentions those who opposed the title, but he provides examples of papal approval and uses of the title in the 20th century. In light 1 René Laurentin, Le Titre de Coréredmptrice: Étude historique (Rome: Editions “Marianum; Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines”, 1951). 4 of these papal uses of Co-redemptrix, he writes that “it would at least be gravely temerarious to attack its legitimacy.”2 He also notes that “it is certain that the use of co-redemptrix is now legitimate.”3 A similar attitude of respect is shown by Fr. J. A. De Aldama, S.J. In the Sacrae Theologiae Summa (Madrid, 1950), Fr. De Aldama argues that Mary’s cooperation in bringing about redemption—at least in a mediate way (saltem mediate)—is de fide (p. 372). He also states that Mary’s immediate cooperation in the work of redemption is “a doctrine that is more in conformity with cited texts of the Roman Pontiffs” (doctrina conformior textibus citatis SS. Pontificum). As for the title “Co-redemptrix,” Fr. De Aldama maintains that “it is certain that it can be correctly used and that it is not permitted to doubt its appropriateness” (“Quod titulus Corredemptricis recte usurpetur, est certum; nec licet dubitare de eius opportunitate;” (cf. Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol III, Tract. II, p. 372). Reference to and respect for these leading Mariologists leading up to the Council serve an authentic hermeneutic of continuity so strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI before and after the Council. 10. The DDF states that “The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title [Coredemptrix] for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons” (MPF, 18). This, though, is not entirely accurate. In the praenotanda to the 1962 schema on the Blessed Virgin, we are told that: “Certain terms and expressions used by Roman Pontiffs have been omitted, which, although most true in themselves (in se verissima), may be difficult for the separated brethren (such as the Protestants) to understand. Among such words the following may be enumerated: ‘Coredemptrix of the human race’ [St. Pius X, Pius XI]” (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, Volumen I, Periodus Prima, Pars IV [Vatican City, 1971], p. 99). Thus, the Marian title, Co-redemptrix, was omitted from the 1962 schema before ever reaching the Vatican Council Fathers themselves, because it was thought difficult for the separated brethren to understand. It was not omitted for dogmatic reasons. In fact, it was included among expressions that are “most true in themselves.” It should also be noted that some prominent post conciliar theologians have argued that Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium explicitly affirms the doctrine of Mary as Co-redemptrix without using the term. Among these are Fr. Jean Galot, S.J., the papal writer for John Paul II, and Fr. Georges Cottier, O.P., the former theologian of the papal household (cf. Galot in La Civilità Cattolica [1994] III: 236-237 and Cottier, in L’Osservatore Romano, June 4, 2002). It is also unusual that the DDF document essentially omits Lumen Gentium n. 58, which is arguably the most co-redemptive passage of Lumen Gentium’s chapter VIII concerning Mary. This passage highlights Mary’s intimate union with her Son at Calvary, noting that she was “enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering,”; that she “associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart” and that Mary was “lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim born of her.” This testifies to Mary’s active and willed redemptive participation at Calvary, which in fact constitutes her coredemption. 11. The DDF states that popes have used the title Co-redemptrix “without elaborating much on its meaning” (MPF, 18). Certainly, popes understood the meanings of the titles they use, based on the Mariology articulated by contemporary theologians. The meaning of the term has been 2 Ibid., p. 28: “Il serait gravement téméraire, pour le moins, de s’attaquer à sa légitimité.” 3 Ibid., p.36: “Ce qu’il y a de certain, c’est l’emploi de corredemptrix est dès maintenant légitime.” It is very sad that Fr. Laurentin departed from his defense of Mary as “Co-redemptrix” in his later years.