Mariologists critique Vatican note against Mary Co-redemptrix

Two of the leading Mariologists have issued robust critiques of Cardinal Fernández's document in which he attacked the term of Mary as Co-redemptrix

(PerMariam) — Prominent Mariologists have critiqued the Vatican’s recent Note about naming Mary as “Co-Redemptrix,” arguing that the Note actually says the “opposite” of what the Church has hitherto taught.

On Tuesday, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández released the doctrinal Note “Mater Populi Fidelis,” which weighed in on the topic of Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of graces.

The cardinal caused a stir through the Church thanks to his negative verdict against using the title:

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.

Though Fernández argued against the “appropriate” nature of the title, and presented his and Pope Francis’ personal objections to it, he did not state the title was wrong in itself. Nevertheless he wrote very strongly against it and the underlying theology which has led to the use of the term.

Fernández: ‘Co-redemptrix’ title is not ‘appropriate’

{For a usefully-sized explanation of Marian Co-Redemption, and replies to common objections against it, readers may find my book useful.}

But for Mariologists, Mater Populi Fidelis was a “very painful read.” Writing an analysis of Fernández’s text, Father Serafino Lanzetta STD commented “never in the history of the Church has the magisterium said what this document says; instead, it basically states the ‘right opposite’ of what the Church Fathers and previous Popes have historically taught.”

As reported on Per Mariam, the theology of Marian Co-redemption is found in the writings of the Church Fathers, the great saints of the Middle Ages and then in the 1700 and 1800’s, before receiving Vatican and even papal usage in the last 150 years.

As a sign of the centuries-old devotion to Mary, the Vatican’s Congregation of Rites declared the wish in 1908 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.”

By 1913 the Holy Office – the office Cdl. Fernández now leads – 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.”

But for Fr. Serafino, Cdl. Fernández’s Note “attempts to make Vatican II ‘shrink’ in its Mariological teaching.”

At Vatican II, a request for a formal declaration of Mary as Co-redemptrix by a number of bishops was denied due to ecumenical concerns. Fernández also cited ecumenism in the introduction to his Note.

This emphasis was particularly evident to Fr. Serafino, of the Marian Franciscans in the U.K. “The purpose of this new document is in fact very ecumenical, that is, finding an agreement with the Protestants,” he noted. “To be honest, I’d say that Luther would sign it; Luther is very pleased with this document. But what about Catholics?”

Ultimately, Mater Populi Fidelis “diminishes the Virgin Mary in her dignity and status in the Church as Theotokos, Mediatrix, and Coredemptrix,” Fr. Serafino wrote.

The Franciscan friar is by no means alone. Dr. Mark Miravalle – arguably the most prominent theologian on Marian Co-redemption – highlighted a number of questions and discrepancies in the Note.

Neither theologian rejected the Church’s teaching on Christ as the Redeemer of man, a fact which Miravalle made clear in his response. But he took issue with the logic on display.

Pointing to the use of the term “Co-redemptrix” and the theology by multiple saints and popes, Miravalle questioned if all such instances are “to be now considered not appropriate?”

Fernández stated that the term demanded clarification and as such it was unhelpful. In fact he even began the launch event by repeating this claim, saying that it was too complicated a text to allow for journalistic questions.

But Miravalle disagreed by appealing to Church history:

Other Marian titles such as Immaculate Conception and Mother of God have likewise required ongoing and perennial explanation and re-explanation, but these titles appropriately remain, let alone other Catholic dogmas such as Papal Infallibility, Original Sin, and Transubstantiation.

The American Mariologist also pointed to a peculiarity of the Note, which was highlighted also in Per Mariam’s original report. That aspect was the issue that quotations from popes and prominent figures “seem to lack a certain objectivity and parity,” given that Cardinal Ratzinger’s negative quotes were given at length, but Cardinal Pacelli’s positive use of the Co-redemptrix term were not shown.

In the age of synodality and the “listening Church,” Miravalle also noted how the Catholic faithful have in fact been clamoring for a formal declaration of Mary as Co-redemptrix in no small number.

“8 million faithful from 150 countries have sent petitions into the Holy See over the last 30 years, prayerfully seeking a dogmatic proclamation,” he wrote. “This international ecclesial petition drive also includes 700 bishops and cardinals with signatures and letters of support likewise submitted to the Holy See for this Marian definition.”

The intervention of these two prominent Mariologists is notable, and shines light on the gaping holes in the arguments presented in Mater Populi Fidelis.