Mater Populi Fidelis: An Analysis

Looking at the DDF Document on Marian Co-Redemption

On November 4th, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released a Doctrinal Note regarding the use of the titles Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces for the Blessed Mother. I wanted to write an analysis of this document, given that it covers a major subject of my own research. Needless to say, this is a subject very close to my heart as a Catholic and as a Theologian. To that end, I want to lay out the main contents of the document and address some reactions I have personally encountered on the internet.

*Disclaimer— I have published multiple articles as well as released a series of catechetical videos on Missio Dei Catholic on Mary and her role as the Co-redemptrix. I have taught Mariology for 10 years at multiple levels and have consistently taught it as part of the Church's Mariological doctrine. This is something that I am intimately associated with, as I view it as a critical doctrinal issue in our times.

The Document Itself— A Distinction

The document in question was written to respond to decades of requests by theologians, religious groups, and institutions asking for a fifth Marian Dogma.¹ This desired Dogma would formally define Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces, and Advocate. This particular document addresses the use of the titles “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of All Graces” for Mary and whether or not they are appropriate to use in theology and devotion.²

Co-redemptrix

The document first deals with the Co-redemptrix title. When we read the document, there is a very clear distinction that is made, the term Co-redemptrix is distinguished from the theology behind it, that is, that Mary has a unique cooperative role in the redemptive act.³ This is an important distinction that needs to be made in our reading of the document. Many might, at first, take the questioning of the term and the theology itself as one and think that the church has rejected this unique cooperation altogether. This is not the case. The document reads:

Mary’s participation in Christ’s saving work is attested to in Scripture, which presents the saving event accomplished in Jesus Christ as a promise in the Old Testament and as a fulfillment in the New Testament. Mary is foreshadowed in Genesis 3:15 because she is the woman who shares in the definitive victory over the serpent. Therefore, it is not surprising that Jesus addresses Mary as “Woman” on Calvary (Jn 19:26). In Cana, likewise, he calls her “Woman” (Jn 2:4), referring to Mary and her role, together with him, in the “hour” of the Cross.⁴

Here, we can see that Mary is cited as participating in the redemptive act alongside her Son. This participation is correctly grounded in the Protoevangelium of Genesis:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; she [they] shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Genesis 3:15⁵

This identity of Mary as the Woman in Genesis is carried forward to the Wedding at Cana and the Foot of the Cross. In both instances, Christ refers to His mother as Woman. This is a title and manner of identity as the Woman in Genesis. The term participation is immensely important here. The document affirms that Mary has an active role in the redemption of mankind. This is the essence of the Co-redemptrix title. The Co-redemptrix is the woman who has the unique cooperative role with the Redeemer in the Redemptive Act. It goes on to say:

It is worth remembering that Mary of Nazareth can be considered the “privileged witness” of the events of Jesus’ infancy that appear in the Gospels (cf. Lk 1-2; Mt 1-2)...Among those eyewitnesses, Mary stands out as the direct protagonist of Jesus’ conception, birth, and infancy. The same can be said of the accounts of the Passion, since Mary was “standing by the cross of Jesus” as “his mother” (Jn 19:25), and also of the period leading up to Pentecost, when the Apostles were “devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus” (Acts 1:14).⁶

Our Lady has an active role in the Mystery of Redemption by being a ‘protagonist’ in the mysteries of Our Lord’s life, both at the beginning and at the end. Mary stands as the constant cooperator with the Redemptive arc from the moment of the Incarnation to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. This shows a unique and distinct action by Our Lady in working for the salvation of mankind. This cooperation must be understood as alongside Christ but subordinate to Him:

Mary’s “Yes” to Gabriel’s message — so that the Word of God might become flesh in her womb (cf. Lk 1:26-37) — opens for humanity the possibility of divinization. For this reason, Saint Augustine calls the Virgin “cooperator” in Christ’s Redemption, thereby 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.⁷

The constant message of this document is not to deny the Blessed Virgin who unique cooperation, but, instead, to affirm it in clear terms, grounded in Sacred Scripture. In fact, the document uses some form of the word ‘cooperate’ no less than 55 times! This is the very essence of the Co-redemptrix title. It is a title that is meant to convey Mary’s cooperation that surpasses that of every other believer. This, however, must be ordered to the balance between “Christ’s sole mediation and Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation…”⁸ This, then, is the aim of the present document, and where we find the important distinction brought up earlier: the Church’s mind is that the theology behind the Co-redemptrix title is correct and has been adopted by the Church since the earliest understanding of Mary’s role.⁹ However, while the Church clearly affirms the theology of the title, she is cautioning against the use of the title.

This is the distinction that is made by the DDF. We have to take the theology of Mary’s cooperation and separate it from the title itself. The mind of the Church is that the Co-redemptrix title draws too much confusion when used. The DDF begins by citing a previous answer by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the then CDF, to the request to define a fifth dogma. The answer comes from the Feria IV meeting in February of 1996. Ratzinger says:

The precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. A defined doctrine of divine faith belongs to the Depositum Fidei — that is, to the divine revelation conveyed in Scripture and the apostolic tradition. However, it is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.¹⁰

He likewise says in 2002:

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… Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.¹¹

It is important to note that these comments do not amount to Magisterial declarations as they were made by Ratzinger before his election to the Throne of Peter. But, the DDF cites them here to emphasize that even a Theologian to the degree of Joseph Ratzinger had his questions about this title. Further, it seems that the concerns that Ratzinger speaks of in both 1996 and 2002 are the same concerns that this Dicastery is echoing, that there is a serious risk of confusion for those who hear of Mary referred to by this title. One might attempt to dismiss this as merely a matter of prudence, but, while it is guided by prudence, it is not left up to the prudence of individuals. The DDF explains:

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, 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.¹²

The DDF gives the guidance that “it would not be appropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s cooperation.” This is a very important line because the DDF is openly saying that the theology of Mary’s cooperation is a legitimate part of Catholic Doctrine, but it should not be referred to using the term “Co-redemptrix.” This distinction between term and theology is extremely apparent here. The DDF desires to safeguard Christ’s sole mediatorship while preserving Mary’s unique cooperation with that mediation. This simply requires us to use more precise language.

At the end of the day, Theology as a science requires the most precise language possible so that the faithful can hold the true faith. For 2000 years, the Church has held numerous councils and synods over the precise way to express the ineffable glory of God, the mysteries that He has revealed to us for our salvation. For 2000 years, our Theological language has developed over time to become more precise. The example that comes immediately to mind is that the mystery of the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ was called Transmutation by St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century. While this did the job in the 2nd century, the church eventually got to the point where Transubstantiation was the only acceptable term to use for this great mystery. St. Justin was not wrong, per se; he was just not as precise as the mystery required. It seems that the mind of the church is that the term Co-redemptrix isn’t as precise as it should be to illumine the delicate relationship between Christ’s sole mediatorship and the cooperation that Mary enjoys over and above the rest of Christendom, and yet, still subordinate to Christ.

Mediatrix of All Graces

Similarly, though I would say not to the same degree, the DDF considers Mediatrix of All Graces to also not fully communicate the appropriate theological idea. While the document does not express that the specific term mediatrix ought not be used, as long as it refers to the unique intercession that Our Lady enjoys, the addition of all graces seems to place her on a level to which she should not be elevated. The rationale here is that Mary, too, was redeemed through grace, and as the Definition of the Immaculate Conception teaches us, this redemption was a preservative grace¹³ that occurred at her first moment, thus, she could not have mediated that grace.

God is the author and source of all grace. In His wisdom and goodness, He has chosen to act through secondary causes to dispense that grace to His people. In this case, Mary acts as a secondary cause, subordinate to the First Cause, in interceding for her children on earth. The document reads:

At the same time, we need to remember that the unicity of Christ’s mediation is “inclusive.” He enables various forms of participation in his salvific plan because, in communion with him, we can all become, in some way, cooperators with God and “mediators” for one another (cf. 1 Cor 3:9).¹⁴

Overall, however, resides the Mother of Grace who possesses a unique role in communicating the grace of the cross to the Church: “Indeed, the Church extends in time and communicates everywhere the effects of Christ’s Paschal Mystery, and Mary holds a unique place in the heart of Mother Church.”¹⁵ Here, again, we do not see a suppression of the term so much as a reining in of the term to make sure that it does not encompass more than Catholic Tradition allows.

Our Lady does mediate to us in a unique and supreme way in relation to how she corresponded to grace in her life. As she is the most graced creature, she corresponded with grace in a unique and supreme way:

If this holds true for every believer — whose cooperation with Christ becomes increasingly fruitful to the extent that one allows oneself to be transformed by grace — how much more must it be affirmed of Mary in a unique and supreme way. For she is the one who is “full of grace” (Lk 1:28) and who said, without putting any obstacle in God’s work, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38).¹⁶

The use of the terms unique and supreme is telling here. The DDF is not removing from Mary any honor that she has always been given in Catholic Tradition; instead, much like with the title Co-redemptrix, it is giving a more precise rendering of the theology signified by the term.

Mary’s cooperation with her Son is both unique and supreme. It is unique because of her role as Mother of God. This is the greatest grace that could ever be communicated to a human person. It is what sets her imminently apart from the rest of humanity. It is supreme because she far surpasses all other creatures in both merit and grace as a result of her proximity to Christ. No one is nearer to the Son than the Mother.

Certain Criticisms

As with any ecclesial document accompanied by immediate access to internet comment boxes, it is very easy to lose sight of what a document actually says, and there is plenty of room for erroneous understandings of said document. To that end, I want to briefly address a few of the criticisms that I have seen over the last number of days. These are not intended to be exhaustive rebuttals but merely an address of issues that are plainly contradicted in the text.

The declaration is not authoritative

It has become commonplace in the church today to attempt to hash out the levels of Magisterial teaching with an eye toward what needs to be obeyed or not obeyed. If we are seeking to figure out what level of authority a teaching has just to figure out if we are free to disobey it, I would argue we are beginning from a flawed place. This mindset caters toward disobedience since it revolves around attempting to find a doctrinal loophole so that we feel like we don’t have to give assent to a specific teaching.

To clear this up, this doctrinal note does fall into the third category of magisterial teaching that which we refer to as the Ordinary Magisterium, though not infallible. It is important to note that Catholics are not only required to assent to infallible teaching, but we are also required to give religious submission of intellect and will to these “level three” non-infallible doctrinal pronouncements and clarifications. This is not optional. We must actively assent and follow the guidance laid down by the Holy Father through his chief doctrinal office.

This requires both obedience and humility. Anytime we are fleeing obedient assent, it is a sure sign that there is a lack in these two virtues.

This is merely a prudential rendering

The answer to this one follows from the prior. Prudential judgments and disciplinary laws fall under a fourth category of the authority of the Magisterium. This is not a part of that. Had the DDF used language of advice, suggestion, or preference, we could be speaking about a prudential judgement. Just because this direction comes from a place of prudence does not mean it is left up to an individual’s prudential judgment.

The doctrine has been changed

I think this is the most important of the criticisms. I submit that I have clearly shown above that the doctrine of Mary’s unique and supreme cooperation in the redemptive act and her mediation of grace has not been changed or rejected in any way. Simply, the church has set forth a direction to be more precise in our theological language by not using certain terms. I believe this document clearly lays out the theological understanding of what has been referred to under the term co-redemptrix, while at the same time directing toward the use of a more precise term. Thus, no doctrinal change.

Why is the DDF suddenly being clear here and not with other issues over the last few years?

Much can be said, and has been said, about the previous pontificate under Pope Francis for lacking in doctrinal clarity. I think that is a fair criticism of many of the documents and teachings under him. However, that does not have anything to do with the current pontificate and this doctrinal note. We can lament, and I do, the lack of clarity under Francis and for other teachings such as the death penalty, Amoris Laetitia, and the like, but we cannot place a strike against this document for the lack in past documents. I would argue that this document is very clear, and I celebrate that even if the clarity is restricting something that I have held dear for my whole theological career.

Previous lapses in doctrinal clarity do not reduce the authority of present doctrinal directions.

The Doctrine Moving Forward— Conclusion

So where does that leave co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces, and the proposed fifth Marian Dogma? As I affirmed above, the theology of this doctrine is firmly stated and expressed without reduction in Mariological doctrine or Marian devotion. The church has clearly taught, in an authoritative way that Mary possesses in a participatory manner, subordinate to Christ, a unique and supreme cooperation in the redemptive act, as well as a privileged role in the mediation of graces to the Church through her maternal relationship. To my mind, this is the very heart of the proposed fifth Marian Dogma. The church is affirming that this has been and continues to be the doctrine of the Catholic Faith. But we have to use more precise language when teaching it.

To that end, I will say that the biggest drawback of this document is that it does not give an alternative term to co-redemptrix. The church is well within her rights to restrict the usage of theological terms. But when they are not heretical terms in themselves and are expressive of a true theology even in their limitation, I believe it would be prudent to give an alternative term. Hopefully, that happens in the future. Perhaps, it is left to Mariologists of today and the coming decades and centuries to stay within these guardrails and figure out what term needs to be used.¹⁷ Perhaps if/when that happens, the church will be prepared to define a fifth Marian Dogma. I still have great hope we will see that. For my part, I will continue my own work in Mariology with the hope of Mary’s cooperative role in the redemption being formally defined as Dogma.

I believe the way forward is for Mary’s cooperation in redemption to be focused through the lens of her Divine Maternity and subsequent maternity of the church as a type of dual fundamental principle. That will be where I focus my own work.

For now, as a Mariologist and a Catholic theologian, I must submit to the keys of Peter and adjust the way that I have been speaking, writing, and teaching for the last decade. This is what it means to be Catholic. I am beholden to the successor of Peter and any doctrinal or moral decision that he makes. This is regardless of my personal thoughts or desires on the matter.

I submit to Holy Peter and his successor here on earth, Leo XIV.

For more from Dr. McGovern, visit his Substack at A Thomist, Dedicated to the Theological tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas. Exploring Thomas’ Spiritual Theology and topics in Christology and Mariology.

1. The Magisterium of the Church has formally defined four Marian Dogmas to this point in history: The Divine Maternity, The Perpetual Virginity, The Immaculate Conception, and The Assumption. While there are four currently, this does not mean that no more will be defined in the future. It also does not mean there definitely will be any more defined either.

2. The use of Advocate is not particularly addressed, other than it being used positively in the document.

3. Cf. Mater Populi Fidelis, 4. Hereafter, cited as MPF.

4. Ibid., 5.

5. There are varying translations of this text. The Latin reads with the feminine pronoun ipsa. Others use the collective they, indicating the woman and her seed. Both indicate the same reality, that the Woman and her Seed will conquer the serpent. The universal interpretation of the woman is Mary, and the Seed is Jesus Christ.

6. Ibid., 7.

7. Ibid., 9.

8. Ibid., 3.

9. Cf. Ibid., 9. The document cites the patristic understanding of Mary as the New Eve and the antithetical parallel of the two. This is a common understanding found in the earliest patristic Mariology.

10. J. Ratzinger, Minutes of the Feria IV of 21 February 1996, in the Archives of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

11. MPF, 19

12. Ibid., 22.

13. We make a distinction in the manner in which Mary is redeemed and the way the rest of mankind are redeemed. Mary, by a unique and special grace, receives preservative redemption. This means that she is preserved from contracting original sin at the moment of her conception. Her redemption was at the moment of conception by being preserved from sin. For the rest of mankind, we received libertative redemption. This means that we are conceived with original sin and then we are cleansed, or liberated, from that sin.

14. MPF, 28.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid., 32.

17. For my own part, perhaps something in the way of Co-operatrix or similarly to emphasize her cooperative action in the redemption.