“I think the faithful and the Society simply profess the faith of all times,” said Bishop Athanasius Schneider in a recent interview with journalist Matt Gaspers. “They profess it, accept the Pope, pray for him, and profess the Catholic faith. This is the minimum really required to be in communion.” (The full interview can be watched here)

Vatican warning and declaration of Catholicity

As it stands, the Holy See appears unlikely to change its stance regarding the SSPX and the planned episcopal consecrations. This means that, come the July 1 consecration date, the Holy See would deem that such consecrations without the papal mandate would incur “the excommunication established by the law of the Church.”

Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández’s document from May 13 declares this, reading:

This act will constitute “a schismatic act” (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, n. 3) and “formal adherence to schism constitutes a grave offense against God and entails the excommunication established by the law of the Church” (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, August 24, 1996).

The Society has expressed its intention to proceed with the consecrations, noting that “regrettably all the discussions entered into have remained without result, and none of the concerns expressed have received any truly satisfactory response.”

SSPX Superior General Fr. Pagliarani replied to Rome on behalf of the Society, publishing a Declaration of Faith in response to the Holy See’s threat of excommunication. The text, wrote Pagliarani, “seems to us to correspond to the minimum indispensable to be in communion with the Church, and to truly call ourselves Catholics and, consequently, your sons.”

This view is also held by Bp. Schneider, an authoritative voice on the matter given his experience as the Holy See’s official visitor to the Society under Pope Francis. “If this is not the minimum, then what shall the minimum be?,” he asked, referencing their recent Declaration of Faith and loyalty to the Pope.

“At the same time,” he observed, “the German synodal way and other bishops around the world openly proclaim heresies and permit blasphemies during liturgies, all unpunished and not corrected.”

The Society’s Declaration of Faith concludes by noting that “it is in this immutable Faith that we desire to live and die, in the hope that it may give way to the direct vision of the immutable eternal Truth.”

For Schneider, the SSPX’s Declaration is clearly Catholic: “When we read this declaration of faith, we must accept it if we are Catholics.” He added that “even all so-called traditional Ecclesia Dei communities and others who celebrate the traditional Latin Mass would, of course, accept this declaration, because it is Catholic. I cannot imagine that they would not accept it.”

Share

What next for SSPX attendees?

Bishop Schneider has already opined to this correspondent that the Holy See’s excommunication would be invalid. “Therefore, I think that, if the excommunication would be applied, it would be in some way not valid because there is no intention to do a schismatic act on the side of the Society of Pius X, and you cannot be punished when you have not the intention to do it, according to the canon law,” he stated in March.

He reiterated this during the course of his interview with Gaspers. “To excommunicate those who profess this faith and repeatedly express that they recognize the Pope and want to serve the Roman Church would be unjust.”

In Schneider’s assessment, the SSPX consecrations are important in order to continue their activity and their very existence “because of a dilemma of conscience. Otherwise, if they do not carry out the consecrations, their work will come to an end, and this would be a damage to the entire Church.”

Such a comment touches on an issue which is often overlooked when the SSPX is debated. Far from being simply a question of access to the traditional Latin Mass, the Society’s concerns relate to widespread confusion emerging in doctrine and Church teaching – concerns which are broadly but more quietly shared across many members of the other Ecclesia Dei traditional communities in full communion with Rome.

These concerns relate to the Second Vatican Council, with Schneider viewing the SSPX as offering a key “theological contribution” in the necessary process of “clarifying, supplementing, and, if necessary, amending those statements in the texts of the Second Vatican Council that raise doctrinal doubts and difficulties.”

He highlighted how, due to the SSPX’s “uncompromising clarity in doctrine, liturgy, and priestly formation,” is thus “not welcomed by some authorities in Rome.” For Bp. Schneider, the issue boils down to the same thing: “the demand to accept Vatican II and the current path of the Church since the Second Vatican Council. This is the root of the problem, the core question.”

Earlier this year, Fr. Pagliarani attested that this the much cited state of necessity is worse than ever before – worse therefore than at the time of the 1988 episcopal consecrations – following Pope Francis’ pontificate.

Bp. Schneider appears to have agreed with Pagliarani, remarking previously about the Church’s internal crisis that “only divine intervention can help, such as through massive persecution of the Church and the person of the Pope himself by political, anti-Christian global elites.”

The auxiliary bishop of Astana has been cautious not to directly or publicly advise the Society to perform the episcopal consecrations. However, he has defended their urgency in doing so, along with the rationale behind the move and the importance of such an action.

The SSPX exists “only as a work for the Church,” he noted, lamenting that “unfortunately, the authorities in Rome currently do not see or recognize this, probably because they desire a different style of Church, not the traditional one.”

Schneider suggested that this position of the Holy See was akin to the Avignon Exile, competing that “perhaps we are now in a sixty-year exile of clarity in doctrine and liturgy, and this will end.”

As things stand, neither the SSPX nor the Vatican appear any closer to resolving the doctrinal issues which led to the breakdown in negotiations. With the Holy See appearing deaf to Schneider’s repeated, public plea to approve the episcopal consecrations, it seems likely that a new and painful era in the Church will begin as of July 1.

Such is the assessment of Monsignor Martin Grichting, an esteemed professor of canon law, the emeritus Vicar General of the Diocese of Chur and a former consulter for the Congregation for the Clergy in the Vatican.

“This trust has been shaken in the Church; for many, it has been destroyed,” he writes. {Grichting’s analysis first appeared in InfoVaticana, but the official English translation is published here with Mgr. Grichting’s permission. The full text is below.}

Grichting points to key moments such as Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, the Abu Dhabi Declaration, and the Synod on Synodality as contributing to the crisis he refers to:

Pope Francis has turned the indissolubility of marriage into a farce through “Amoris Laetitia.” It now applies only in theory. In practice, with a few “pastoral distinctions”—on whatever basis, by whomever—one can live in adultery with a clear conscience. The Vatican’s non-liturgical blessing of few seconds for same-sex and unmarried couples (“Fiducia supplicans”) represents a further departure from Christian marriage.

He warns also that these issues “persist under Pope Leo XIV,” including with the Synod on Synodality and the work of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops which recently published “a heretic text that relativizes Church teaching on marriage and the family (Final Report of Study Group 9 regarding ‘complex issues’).”

The monsignor points also to the heavy restrictions on the traditional liturgy – implemented by Pope Francis in 2021. “Laypeople are humiliated by being forbidden to celebrate this form of the Eucharist in parish churches. These faithful are driven underground or into the Society of St. Pius X, whose very existence is then lamented.”

He points to the apparent contradiction whereby the Holy See has turned a blind eye to the increasingly heterodox actions of the German episcopate, while being swift and harsh against the Society of St. Pius X in their adherence to traditional teaching. The Germans, Grichting writes, go “unchecked” despite the fact they have for years “been undermining the sacramental order of the Church with their ‘Synodal Path’ and institutionalizing the blessing of same-sex couples.” In contrast the SSPX “is threatened with excommunication by virtue of the Pope’s absolute authority.”

Regarding the Holy See’s two-fold response to the Germans and the SSPX, Grichting comments that the Pope is disregarding Lumen Gentium no 21 “concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders and demands acceptance of the Constitution on the Liturgy…These double standards are destroying the trust of many faithful.”

Pointing to a distorted exercise of papal authority, Grichting notes how the SSPX’s planned episcopal consecrations is the “undoubtedly problematic — attempt to limit papal omnipotence when its boundary no longer seems to be Church doctrine.”

By way of repairing the damage within the Church, Mgr. Grichting urged the Pope to “heal the wounds inflicted on Church doctrine,” but warned this would not be achieved through “dictates, threats, and double standards.”

“The Society of St. Pius X is not the disease, but a symptom,” he wrote. “This symptom can be combated with excommunication. Papal supremacy undoubtedly permits this legally. But the disease will not be healed by this. It will continue to fester and divide and weaken the Body of Christ, the Church.”

For Grichting, the Pope must be more pro-active not just to penalize the SSPX, but to repair the devastating crisis of doctrine and authority which is now rampant within the Church.

Share

A Crisis of Trust in the Church

Only papal consistency can heal the wounds inflicted on church unity. A guest commentary by Martin Grichting

The Catholic liberal Lord Acton (1834–1902) famously said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In democracies, the conclusion drawn from this is that power must be mistrusted and limited. It is therefore checked, among other things, by the recognition of fundamental rights, by the separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial), by subsidiarity and federalism, by referendums, and by term limits. Through a “social contract” among all citizens—the constitution—people agree to share political power in this way. But even this does not always sufficiently restrain it.

In the Church, the problem of power is even more acute. For none of the aforementioned means of fragmenting power exist there. Rather, according to the doctrine of the faith and the Code of Canon Law (CIC/1983), the Pope possess “by virtue of his office supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (c. 331).

The Pope, then, possesses absolute power. Does absolute power within the Church therefore lead to absolute corruption? If one views the Church solely through human eyes, one would have to say: Yes, that is the case. But when viewed through the eyes of faith, this is not true. For there exists a single “instrument” to limit papal omnipotence: it is unconditional obedience to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, to which the Pope is bound in his conscience. Only because the Church as a whole and the Pope in particular are bound by this limitation of power is it possible for absolute power to be entrusted to a single person within it. Mistrust of power is thus overcome in the Church by the fact that the faithful have confidence that the Pope knows himself to be bound by unconditional obedience of faith in the exercise of his power, which is in itself unlimited.

This trust has been shaken in the Church; for many, it has been destroyed. Pope Francis has turned the indissolubility of marriage into a farce through “Amoris Laetitia.” It now applies only in theory. In practice, with a few “pastoral distinctions”—on whatever basis, by whomever—one can live in adultery with a clear conscience. The Vatican’s non-liturgical blessing of few seconds for same-sex and unmarried couples (“Fiducia supplicans”) represents a further departure from Christian marriage. Ambiguous gestures such as the Pachamama cult in the Vatican and the “Document on Human Fraternity” (Abu Dhabi Declaration) from 2019 have effectively denied Christian universalism of salvation. The appointment of laypeople to Vatican leadership positions involving the exercise of governing authority constitutes a break with the Second Vatican Council (LG 21; Nota explicativa praevia 2). It undermines the sacramental-hierarchical order of the Church. This situation persists under Pope Leo XIV. In the wake of “synodalism,” the Apostolic See published a document that attempts to justify the rejection of the Second Vatican Council (Final Report of Study Group 5 regarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders and “potestas sacra”). Without comment—and irresponsibly—the Apostolic See has published a heretic text that relativizes Church teaching on marriage and the family (Final Report of Study Group 9 regarding “complex issues”).

Even serious liturgical abuses are ignored or downplayed by bishops and the Holy See. Yet the followers of the extraordinary form are harassed. Priests are prevented or made to find it difficult to celebrate the Eucharist in this manner. Laypeople are humiliated by being forbidden to celebrate this form of the Eucharist in parish churches. These faithful are driven underground or into the Society of St. Pius X, whose very existence is then lamented.

The Pope allows German bishops, who for years have been undermining the sacramental order of the Church with their “Synodal Path” and institutionalizing the blessing of same-sex couples, to continue unchecked. It is said that discussions have taken place with them. The Society of St. Pius X, however, is threatened with excommunication by virtue of the Pope’s absolute authority. The Pope disregards the Dogmatic Constitution “Lumen Gentium” (No. 21) concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders and demands acceptance of the Constitution on the Liturgy (“Sacrosanctum Concilium”). Both are documents of the same Council. These double standards are destroying the trust of many faithful.

The Society of St. Pius X’s announcement that it will consecrate bishops on its own initiative is an expression of a loss of trust in the Pope. And the sympathy for this act, which extends far beyond the Society’s followers, shows that for many, trust has given way to mistrust. Too much has happened, and the consequences are devastating. For more and more Catholics are realizing that Church doctrine no longer serves as the limit to the hierarchy’s actions. This is the illness from which the Church truly suffers. And it cannot be healed by exercising papal omnipotence through threats and excommunications. For if the unchecked power of the stronger party is decisive within the Church, there is only one conclusion to be drawn: this power must be limited. The ordination of bishops against the Pope’s will is ultimately the—undoubtedly problematic—attempt to limit papal omnipotence when its boundary no longer seems to be Church doctrine.

If we are to avoid further limitations on papal omnipotence caused by schisms, there is only one way forward: the Pope must heal the wounds inflicted on Church doctrine. Only in this way can he address the mistrust and restore confidence. He will not succeed in doing so through dictates, threats, and double standards. The Society of St. Pius X is not the disease, but a symptom. This symptom can be combated with excommunication. Papal supremacy undoubtedly permits this legally.

But the disease will not be healed by this. It will continue to fester and divide and weaken the Body of Christ, the Church. The Pope holds the key to healing the disease. He must use it and cannot sit out the problem. For even not to govern is to govern. This is also a consequence that follows from papal omnipotence.

Leo has made his regular appeals for peace in the world one of the most regular and recurring elements of his pontificate, starting from his first moments emerging onto the Vatican loggia in front of the world.

This was re-iterated in Magnifica Humanitas as Leo decried the “normalization of war” and the manner in which war is becoming a normal part of common parlance and international policy.

{For a full roster of different analyses on the encyclical by this correspondent, interested readers may find them on Pelican+, The Catholic Herald, Ad Vaticanum, The European Conservative.}

“We are witnessing a real paradigm shift in public discourse and in decisions regarding rearmament, with a troubling revival of war as an instrument of international politics, while the very ethical principles that had previously limited its use are being eroded,” he wrote.

But as part of this, Leo took aim at the Church’s teaching regarding a just war:

It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts.

Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. (182) Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.

Footnote 182 adds further information and a quotation from the catechism regarding just war:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defense by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain ‘rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy’ have been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even ‘preventive’ attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing ‘evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.’”

This footnote appears to clearly be aimed more directly at President Trump’s administration and his joint preventative strikes with Israel against Iran. Leo passionately decried the instigation of fresh hostilities at the time, something which drew the repeated ire of Trump who accused the Pope of defending Iran.

The Pelican Brief

Pope Leo XIV Responds as Trump Launches Blistering Attack on the Pontiff

“I am not afraid of the Trump administration,” Leo XIV has stated, after President Donald Trump issued a blistering media attack on the Pope, accusing him of being “weak” on crime, supporting Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and “catering to the radical left…

Read more

2 months ago · 12 likes · 4 comments · Michael Haynes

So great was the public tension from the White House that the US bishops weighed in. Indeed it was only just over a month ago that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a number of clarifications over the Just War teaching under the headline “Just War Doctrine.” Bishop James Masa, chairman of the USCCB doctrine committee, noted in mid-Aril that “for over a thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught just war theory and it is that long tradition the Holy Father carefully references in his comments on war.”

The Catholic teaching on the just war is often referred to as a “theory” but the Church’s own texts note it as a “doctrine.”

“As long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed,” reads the catechism, before proceeding to outline the precise element which must be met in order to constitute a just war:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the ‘just war’ doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. (CCC 2309)

The Church’s Just War Doctrine has, as the USCCB noted, been in force for centuries and owes a great part of its makeup to Saints Ambrose, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (ST II-II, Q40).

Leo’s comments regarding the Just War are by no means a novel development in the Vatican. In doing so he was not breaking fresh ground by any means. Pope Francis argued similarly, as did Cardinal Ratzinger before he became pope.

Read more

Read more

Early on the morning of May 18, Leo XIV hosted Aram I – the Armenian Catolicos (patriarch) of the Great House of Cilicia – in a private audience. The visit was part of a four-day visit by Aram I to the Holy See, with a number of meetings forming part of his schedule, including with the Holy See’s leading ecumenical and interreligious figures and the Secretary of State.

According to details released by the Great House of Cilicia, Aram proposed a number of issues to Leo as being all matters of “significant importance.” These included:

• a unified date for Easter.

• a day commemorating all martyrs.

• the convening of a Third Vatican Council.

The Catolicos reportedly spoke to Leo about the “urgent necessity of these issues within the context of the universal Christian Church.” No mention of such issues was made during the official speeches delivered by Aram and Leo, nor in the Holy See’s brief summary of the meeting, thus it is to be presumed that such a conversation formed part of the private element of the pair’s encounter.

{The rest of this article is currently reserved for paid subscribers of the site. Per Mariam relies entirely on readers’ support to maintain its reporting directly from Rome.}

Read more

For over fifty years the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) “has endeavoured to set before t…

Read more

Announced in the daily bulletin on March 30, Leo has enacted a veritable changing of the gu…

Read more

Read more

Father Daniel Pellizzon, of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, is returning to Argentina to become parish priest of the church of San Cayetano de Belgrano near the center of the city of Buenos Aires itself.

News of the move, though not announced by any official channels of the Holy See, was shared by the parish church in late November. Announcements of Pellizzon’s welcome Mass as the new parish priest were made at the start of February, with the opening Mass being on March 1.

The priest has been made a Monsignor, a fairly customary way of a parting diplomatic gift following the conclusion of close service to the Pontiff and Holy See. Indeed it is customary for the Pope to choose his own secretaries – or bring those he already had as a cardinal – rather than keeping those of his predecessor, but Pellizzon’s departure remains notable due to who he is.

Pellizzon is not widely known to much of the Anglosphere, but he should be, given his close links to the late Pope Francis and Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández – the cardinal being one of the most controversial figures introduced to the Vatican under the last pontificate.

Pellizzon was ordained in November 2018, and has long had a very close relationship with Fernández, as well as with Pope Francis.

The Argentinian priest was private secretary for Fernández during the latter’s nine years as rector of the Catholic University of Argentina – something which was notably glossed over in English reports in July 2023 – and was also the Archbishop’s Master of Liturgical Ceremonies for key events.

Share

Prior to his priestly life, Pellizon also worked with Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio during his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, helping him organize his personal archive. Consequently he received a personal letter of congratulations from Pope Francis at his 2018 ordination – a Mass at which Archbishop Fernández gave the homily.

Pellizon spent four years as a priest in San Cayetano Shrine in Liniers, before moving to a new church in February 2023. However that was a short-lived assignment since he was named as private secretary to Pope Francis in July 2023, and arrived in August.

The timing of this move to Rome was closely arranged to marry up with that of his other long-time close friend and collaborator, Fernández. Fernández was named as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in July 2023 and arrived just a few weeks later.

The rest of Per Mariam’s analysis continues below, and is for paid subscribers. This site relies entirely on readers’ support to continue reporting!

Read more

For many Vatican analysts Leo’s major appointments in the Roman Curia will be the most telling, but so f…

Read more

During the post-consistory press conference last Thursday, Johannesburg’s Cardinal Stephen Brislin commented that though there were some differences of opinion on certain topics, the cardinals were nevertheless united. That, however, appears not to have been a full representation of the matter.

A number of cardinals speaking off the record to The Catholic Herald and Messa in Latino, mentioned concerns they had about the process itself and the control being levied over the prelates assembled.

But more than that, it seems that the troubled legacy of Pope Francis’ synodality could be the biggest stumbling block not just for the College of Cardinals but perhaps for Leo’s own pontificate.

The future of synodality depends on how the cardinals and Leo understand and interpret it: whether as a useful tool to locate genuine issues or as the endless process of questioning already settled Church teaching. So far, it seems a strong number of cardinals created by Pope Francis are on-board with the style of synodality which has hitherto been witnessed, or at least happy to be led by the vocal majority.

Some concerns are beginning to be tolerated, however, with the consistory cardinals apparently mentioning last week that it would be good to have more clarity on synodality itself – over four years after the Synod on Synodality actually began.

Share

It seems that the battle over the identity of synodality will be waged between the small number of hardline activists, such as Cardinals Mario Grech and Jean Claude Hollerich, Fabbio Baggio and Victor Fernández, and those who vocally oppose it, such as Cardinals Gerhard Müller, Joseph Zen and Raymond Burke.

Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, Francis’ ghost-writer and interim prefect of the CDF, urgently proposed the Church renew its attention to the late pope’s 2013 text Evangelii Gaudium. In order to promote evangelization, the Argentine attested that “it is the synodal missionary reform that ultimately consists in putting in the background what does not directly serve to reach everyone with this first proclamation.”

There was no further explanation of the relegation of certain aspects which do not, according to Fernández, assist evangelization. But he appeared to refer to certain aspects of the Church’s moral teaching as he criticized that “sometimes we end up always talking about the same doctrinal, moral, bioethical, and political issues.” This, he argued, buries the Gospel message.

Vatican observers will be forgiven for hearing such a speech with cynicism given that Fernández’s text Fiducia Supplicans promoting blessings for same-sex couples ushered in arguably the biggest de facto split in the Church for decades, and led to widespread rejection from numerous episcopal conferences. Out of supposed concern for all and in order to be a “welcoming” Church, Fernández's presented the idea to the world that the Church was well on its way to approving of same-sex relationships.

The Church is nowadays somewhat shy in proclaiming the truths about pressing moral questions which the world defends – such as abortion and euthanasia – and thus for Fernández to suggest further dilution of anything deemed to be controversial is unlikely to win him much applause in the thriving and fervent areas of the Church.

Read more

Interviewed by The Telegraph, Timothy Cardinal Radcliffe OP made a number of revelatory comments, not least about the fact that he apparently fell in love with a woman just shortly after he was ordained a priest and invited her to stay at his priory to meet the Dominican community there.

But it is his position on women’s access to the diaconal order which is a standout aspect of the interview.

Radcliffe characteristically sought to present both sides of the current argument. He downplayed the idea that the only “people that matter” are those in the sacrament of Holy Orders. ‘“Perhaps the public haven’t got it right. It’s a very clericalist view to think that the only people that matter are priests. Saints are more important than priests.”

Read more

As is now most well known, Mater Populi Fidelis weighed into the Mariological debate and came down against the use of the term Co-redemptrix, despite the theology behind the title being consistently expounded and taught by the Church over many centuries.

Two prominent Mariologists have already critiqued the text, and to lend further weight to their arguments is the Church’s teaching on this topic from the last 200 years.

Below is an extract from the latter half of my book on Mary as Co-redemptrix, presenting the magisterial teaching from recent popes regarding the title. {Readers wishing to read the book in full may find the book online, published with an imprimatur, and a recommendation from Bishop Athanasius Schneider.}

Teaching from the 1800’s

In defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX issued the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus (1854), containing a synthesis of Marian teaching regarding the Mother of God, of which some naturally pertained to her as Co-redemptrix. He refers back to the Fathers and their exegesis of Genesis 3:15, stating that: “They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity.”

Here the pope uses the word which was employed by many medievals and equated with Co-redemptrix. His teaching was furthered by his successor, Pope Leo XIII, renowned for his multitudinous encyclicals and also styled as the ‘Rosary Pope’. In Jucunda Semper (1894), the pope refers to the rosary as being a thorough meditation upon Mary as the Co-redemptrix throughout her life: “In it [the rosary], all the part which the Virgin played in acquiring the salvation of men returns, as set forth and as having its effect now.”

In his brief meditation upon the Crucifixion, Leo XIII notes the proximity of Mary to the Cross and the meaning of such nearness:

“there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, who, in a miracle of charity, so that she might receive us as her sons, offered generously to Divine Justice her own Son, and died in her heart with Him, stabbed with the sword of sorrow.”

Further he continues, in remarking how she is the mediator of man’s salvation: “To thee we lift our prayers, for thou art the Mediatrix, powerful at once and pitiful, of our salvation.”

In 1901, the pope taught that, “Every time we, with the angel, greet Mary as full of grace…we remember all the most singular merits by which She has become a partaker with her Son Jesus in the Redemption of humanity.”

Share

Pius X and the start of the 20th century

Pope St. Pius X continued the use of such language in his encyclical, Ad Diem Illum (1904), which was released to mark the fiftieth anniversary of Ineffabilis Deus. The pontiff mentions that she has the office of, “presenting [Christ] for the sacrifice” and that “from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world.”

By drawing from St. Bernard and the spirituality of St. Louis de Montfort, Pius X describes Christ as the source but Mary as the channel, who “merits for us de congruo, as they say, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces.” This technical language is also that of St. Thomas as outlined earlier and hence the pope is denoting that “Mary merits for humanity in the order of ‘fittingness’ or congruous merit, that which Jesus merits for us in the order of ‘justice’ or strict condign merit.”

On another occasion, in response to a dubium regarding the weight of the feast of the Seven Sorrows of Mary, the Congregation of Rites declared the wish that, “the devotion of the Sorrowful Mother may increase and the piety of the faithful and their gratitude toward the merciful Co-Redemptrix of the human race may intensify.”

Such usage of the title is a great development in the promulgation of the doctrine of Co-Redemption. Since the reply was issued from the Congregation and recorded in their official acts, it lends the title yet further weight.

Indeed, in 1913 the Holy Office granted a partial indulgence to a prayer of reparation to Our Lady, which ended with the words, “I bless thy holy Name, I praise thine exalted privilege of being truly Mother of God, ever Virgin, conceived without stain of sin, Co-Redemptrix of the human race.” Here the Holy Office quite liberally uses the term in an indulgenced prayer, very positively expressing the implicit approval of the devotion and the title.

Pope Benedict XV greatly promoted the devotion to Our Lady under this title, by clearly explaining her role in the redemption. In his letter, Inter Sodalicia (1918), he wrote on the unity of sacrifice of Mother and Son:

With her suffering and dying Son, Mary suffered almost to the point of death; she renounced her maternal rights over Him and, for the purpose of appeasing the Divine Justice inasmuch as it was dependent upon her, she offered up her Son so that it can truly be said of her that with her Son she ransomed mankind.

However, it fell to Pius XI to first use the title Co-redemptrix in a papal address. In speaking to a group of pilgrims from Vicenza in 1933, he uttered these words:

By necessity, the Redeemer could not but associate his Mother in his work. For this reason we invoke her under the title of Coredemptrix. She gave us the Savior, she accompanied him in the work of Redemption as far as the Cross itself, sharing with Him the sorrows of the agony and of the death in which Jesus consummated the Redemption of mankind.

In 1934 and 1935 he repeated the explicit use of the term twice, clearly demonstrating his ardent belief in Mary’s role.

Vatican II: Affirming but avoiding the title

Whilst not a primarily Marian document, Lumen Gentium (1964) contains a great deal of teaching regarding Mary. Before the Second Vatican Council, a multitude of requests were made by bishops regarding Mary’s mediation, with fifty bishops specifically requesting a definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. A note sent in response to this petition stated that any such definition would not occur, due solely to ecumenical reasons, not any theological problems. The note reads:

“Certain expressions and words used by supreme Pontiffs have been omitted, which, in themselves are absolutely true, but which may be understood with difficulty by separated brethren. Among such words may be numbered the following: ‘Co-redemptrix of the human race.’”

Hence whilst a definition did not occur, a condensed presentation of Mariology is nevertheless contained in the final chapter of Lumen Gentium. Chapter eight details a brief history pertaining to Co-Redemption theology, starting with the Scriptures and then moving onto the Fathers and their teaching on Mary as New Eve.

The Council Fathers write that:

Embracing God’s salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience.

The document also refers to Mary as the “cause of salvation” and employs the words of St. Irenaeus regarding Mary being the New Eve as found in the Adversus Haereses. Only a few lines later, the document continues in the best lines of Co-redemptive theology:

After this manner the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, grieving exceedingly with her only-begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth. Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to His disciple with these words: ‘Woman, behold thy son’.

Lumen Gentium describes Mary’s role in light of the concept of de congruo merit, when it discusses her mediation being not only pleasing to God, but also aiding to “foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ”. So also does the text state that Mary was united with Christ throughout His life, but pivotally on Calvary:

She conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace.

The entirety of the chapter is awash with Co-redemptive language. The Council Fathers teach that her maternity began with her Fiat and lasts until the end of time. They also refers to Mary as having a “salvific duty” and bringing to man the gifts of salvation. Through the heavy use of the language of co-operation, Lumen Gentium thus implicitly teaches the doctrine without using the actual term, yet quoting terms from previous papal Co-redemptrix teaching: “Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.”

Share

John Paul II

Whilst the Council avoided using the term, Pope John Paul II used the title prolifically in his writings and addresses. Greatly inspired by the Marian spirituality of St. Louis-Marie, the pope penned the encyclical Redemptoris Mater (1987), in which he states: “Mary is perfectly united with Christ in his self-emptying…Through faith the Mother shares in the death of her Son, in his redeeming death.”

He frequently uses words referring to her sharing in the life and death of Christ and teaches that “interceding for all her children, the Mother cooperates in the saving work of her Son, the Redeemer of the world.” The pope released this Marian encyclical nine years into his papacy, but in the years prior to this he had already referred to Mary under the title of Co-redemptrix many times. Most notable among those is his homily in Guayaquil, Ecuador in 1985, in which he discourses on Mary “having suffered for the Church”:

The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the ‘yes’ of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting in the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption…Crucified spiritually with her crucified son, she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God… In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church…Nevertheless, as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.

In reading the text of this homily, one becomes very clearly acquainted with a theological explanation of Scripture and the words of Lumen Gentium. But a few months later, the pope gave a homily on Palm Sunday, in which he commended devotion to Mary: “May Mary our Protectress, the Co-redemptrix, to whom we offer our prayer with great outpouring, make our desire generously correspond to the desire of the Redeemer.”

In a general audience given on October 25, 1995, the pontiff gave a brief history of the development of Co-redemptive teaching in the Church where he traced its origins from the Fathers through to the time of St. Bernard. In another audience given in 1996, he noted the woman of the Apocalypse as Mary at the Cross, and also repeated Mary’s role as the New Eve:

“This [Rev 12:2] refers to the mother of Jesus at the Cross, where she shares in anguish for the delivery of the community of disciples with a soul pierced by the sword…It was fitting that like Christ, the new Adam, Mary too, the new Eve, did not know sin and was thus capable of co-operating in the Redemption.”

John Paul II delivered a series of seventy catechetical teachings on Our Lady between 1995 and 1997, of which a key part was the General Audience of April 2 1997 where he gave a very insightful meditation on Mary’s compassion:

With our gaze illumined by the radiance of the resurrection, we pause to reflect on the Mother’s involvement in her Son’s redeeming passion, which was completed by her sharing in his suffering. Let us return again, but now in the perspective of the Resurrection, to the foot of the Cross where the Mother endured ‘with her only-begotten son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consented to the immolation of this victim which was born of her.’ … In her heart reverberates all that Jesus suffers in body and soul, emphasising her willingness to share in her Son’s redeeming sacrifice and to join her own maternal suffering to his priestly offering.

Pope John Paul II not only uses the title Co-redemptrix with great frequency, but he also writes and preaches explaining Co-redemptive theology. Influenced by St. Louis, he is devoted to Mary as being intimately united with Christ in the redemptive act and thus recognizes that closeness to Mary is closeness to God.

In what has been billed by some as a significant development in ecumenical relations between the Church of England and the Catholic Church, today’s midday prayer service was attended by leaders from the religious and diplomatic sphere in the U.K. and the Vatican, and was dedicated to the “the protection of Nature and concern for the environment.”

Charles is supreme governor of the Church of England, a position held since the Protestant Revolt and break with Rome enacted by King Henry VIII in 1534. The King and Queen had been due to make a state visit to the Holy See in April, but postponed it due to Pope Francis’ ill health at the time.

The visit to the Holy See was described earlier this year as “an historic visit in the year of the Papal Jubilee, and will mark a significant step forward in relations between the Catholic Church and Church of England.”

For the ecumenical service, the Church of England’s current ranking clerical member – the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell – was present, given that the newly appointed female archbishop of Canterbury has not yet been installed.

Choir members from the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel were joined by those of the King’s choristers from Windsor Castle and St. James’s Palace.

Pope Leo and then Cottrell intoned the opening prayer before the choirs chanted psalms combining Catholic Gregorian Chant with the distinctive sound of the Anglican choral tradition of English choirs. The U.K.’s Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper read the scripture passage taken from St. Paul.

In closing the ceremony, Cottrell and Leo jointly led the final concluding prayer, with no formal papal blessing being given.

Details given by Buckingham Palace about the ceremony noted that the event’s ecological focus and “theme of ‘Care for Creation’,” were “reflecting Pope Leo’s and His Majesty’s commitment to the protection of Nature and concern for the environment.”

The Pope’s throne in the Sistine Chapel was not used, and instead Leo sat on one of four identical ornate chairs in front of the altar. Joining him was Cottrell, the King and Queen.

Despite the headlines carried by many secular outlets of the ceremony being the first joint prayer between the British monarch and the Pope in 500 years, it is actually believed to be the first since the 800’s. However, it is arguably the most significant ecumenical event since the Protestant revolt of the 1500’s, during which the Church of England broke away in schism from Rome.

Share

Ecological unity and reciprocal brotherhood

Following the ceremony, Charles and Leo had a private meeting together furthering what is described as their joint, keen interest in climate issues.

Read more

As prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) from 2014 through 2021, Robert Cardinal Sarah has more authority than most when addressing questions of the liturgy. He is known for his defense of reverence in the liturgy, advocating for such elements as ad orientem worship, reception of Communion kneeling and on the tongue, and has also given voice to advocating for the traditional Mass.

Speaking to Tribune Chrétienne last week, Sarah lamented the rekindling of the liturgy wars. “We have turned the Mass into a battlefield — traditionalist, progressive, this and that — and we are profaning the Eucharist,” he said.

For the cardinal, this is all the more egregious since the Mass “is the only time when man is in face-to-face relationship with God. It is the only time when man is in direct contact with God, when God listens to him, when he speaks to God.”

Harkening back to the phrase quoted by Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum – Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer, the law of belief) – Sarah reiterated the link between liturgy and spirituality: “As we believe, so we pray.”

“If people don’t believe, then nothing will change,” he warned. “We continue to fight over liturgy, we continue to bully certain people.”

The Guinean prelate did not condemn any group or individual by name, but instead praised Catholics devoted to the traditional liturgy of the Church as an example of lived faith:

But when we really look at Christians who practice today, they are the ones who go to traditional Mass. So why forbid them? On the contrary, we should encourage them.

I don’t know what the Pope will do, but he is aware of this battle. He is aware of this difficulty.

Much has been speculated about what Leo XIV’s response will be to the question of the traditional liturgy, following the crippling restrictions imposed by his predecessor.

Cardinal Raymond Burke publicly revealed in June that he had already taken the opportunity to speak to the new Pope about the future of the traditional Mass. With the American cardinal being a prominent champion of the traditional liturgy, it seems likely that he has been using his presence in Rome to continue that cause.

Burke has since had a papal audience and will prominently offer the traditional Mass in the Vatican for an annual pilgrimage next weekend.

Sarah also met with Leo in audience in recent weeks, and though the conversation was private he noted to Tribune Chrétienne that he had the chance to raise the question of the traditional Mass with Leo.

But the cardinal also urged patience and restraint. “The Pope is the father of each and every one of us,” Sarah said. “He is the father of traditionalists. He is the father of progressives, the father of everyone. We cannot ignore his children. Everyone has their own character, their own sensibilities. We must take everyone into account. I think he will try to act in this spirit.”

Share

Archbishop Gänswein on the need for ‘urgent healing’

Just as forthright as Cdl. Sarah’s were the comments made by Archbishop Georg Gänswein a few weeks prior. Now serving as Nuncio to Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, Gänswein was the longtime secretary to Pope Benedict XVI, and thus has a unique view of Pope Francis’ dismantling of Benedict’s attempt to implement liturgical peace.

Read more

He points to the intimate link between love of God and love of neighbor, quoting – as would be expected – from the Gospel passage: “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.” (Matt 25:40)

Condemning the “throwaway culture” – in a passage drawn from Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’ – and rejecting the notion that society has reduced the amount of poverty, Leo sought to highlight the duty of caring for the poor as contained within the Gospels.

Touching somewhat briefly on the topic of migrants also – a hot topic under Pope Francis – Leo somewhat echoed his predecessor in saying that migrants represent Christ knocking on the door.

As noted by Leo, the Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi Te takes its name from Revelations 3:9, using the very end of the scriptural passage “they shall know that I have loved thee.”

Leo’s document is not entirely his own in the sense that it builds upon a text already prepared for Pope Francis. Indeed the link to the Francis pontificate is clear from the very title “Dilexi te,” which clearly links back to Francis’ 2024 encyclical Dilexit nos.

Share

Acknowledging this, Leo wrote that in his last months Francis was preparing:

an Apostolic Exhortation on the Church’s care for the poor, to which he gave the title Dilexi Te, as if Christ speaks those words to each of them, saying: “You have but little power,” yet “I have loved you” (Rev 3:9). I am happy to make this document my own — adding some reflections — and to issue it at the beginning of my own pontificate, since I share the desire of my beloved predecessor that all Christians come to appreciate the close connection between Christ’s love and his summons to care for the poor.”

Leo has indeed made this theme of his predecessor his own, noting that “I too consider it essential to insist on this path to holiness, for ‘in this call to recognize him in the poor and the suffering, we see revealed the very heart of Christ, his deepest feelings and choices, which every saint seeks to imitate.’”

Quoting from Evangelii Gaudium, Leo also urged that Catholics “‘let ourselves be evangelized’ by the poor and acknowledge ‘the mysterious wisdom which God wishes to share with us through them.’”

“Caring for the poor is part of the Church’s great Tradition,” he concluded, “a beacon as it were of evangelical light to illumine the hearts and guide the decisions of Christians in every age.”

Divided into five chapters and 121 numbered paragraphs, the Exhortation is somewhat shorter than some of Pope Francis’ more prominent texts.

Read more

A telegram sent from Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin to the head of the Amazon bishops’ conference conveys the thoughts and instructions of Pope Leo XIV to the relatively…

Read more

In an increasingly secular world, what relationship does the liturgy have with the Catholic Church’s moral teachings? Further, can the liturgy be so divorced from the Church’s moral teachings as to be a way to escape those teachings?

If such were indeed the case, then the answer would surely be that either the teachings or the liturgy in question were not actually Catholic, since the beliefs, practice and worship of the Catholic Church are intimately and intrinsically bound together.

So did Cardinal Tarcisio Isao Kikuchi of the Archdiocese of Tokyo paint a line between the Church’s traditional liturgy – widely known as the Latin Mass – and Her teachings, or was he highlighting a cultural phenomenon in Japan?

A way to escape

Japan has a relatively low number of Catholics, estimated last year to be less than half a million, whilst the overall population is around 123 million.

Opining on why that number is so low, Cdl. Kikuchi spoke to UCA News to say that Japanese people have “no strong personal religious commitment in everyday life.”

But more than this, Kikuchi pointed to a national perception of the Catholic Church as being too liberal for Japanese sensitivities:

Additionally, in Japan, another factor is that most people tend to be politically conservative. The Catholic Church’s social teachings are often seen as not very conservative, and sometimes even leftist or, to some, “communist.” Therefore, the Church can be viewed with suspicion.

In light of this, the new cardinal – created in the December 2024 consistory by Pope Francis – commented thus on the traditional liturgy:

Read more

As announced last week, on July 7 the General Secretariat of the Synod published a 14-page document on how the Cath…

Read more

Amid the flurry of interviews given…

Read more