Paix liturgique

A shockwave was sent by the Doctrinal Note Mater Populi fidelis “on some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation”, published by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on November 4, 2025. Admittedly, it is a document from a curial institution and is not directly pontifical, but it was approved twice by the Pope, prior to its publication on October 7, 2025, then during a meeting with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on January 29, 2026.

The title of Mary Co-redemptrix deemed “always inappropriate”.

This Doctrinal Note seeks to welcome and encourage popular Marian devotion, but it intends that this devotion be enlightened, in the manner of a sort of neo-Jansenism, and it rules out the use of three titles often attributed to the Blessed Virgin, with varying degrees of rejection:

“Certain expressions [‘Mary, Mother of Grace’: the document undoubtedly refers to the title of Mary Mother of Divine Grace] that could be theologically acceptable can easily become laden with concepts and symbolism that convey less acceptable notions. For example, Mary is sometimes portrayed as if she possessed a repository of grace separate from God. In such a notion, it is not so clear that it is the Lord who ? in his generous and free omnipotence ? willed to associate her with the sharing of that divine life which springs forth from the sole center that is the Heart of Christ, not that of Mary. She is also frequently portrayed or imagined as a fountain from which all grace flows. If one considers the fact that the Trinitarian indwelling (uncreated grace) and our participation in the divine life (created grace) are inseparable, we cannot think that this mystery depends on a ‘passage’ through Mary’s hands. Such notions elevate Mary so highly that Christ’s own centrality may disappear or, at least, become conditioned.” (n° 45)

“Some titles, such as ‘Mediatrix of All Graces,’ have limits that do not favor a correct understanding of Mary’s unique place. In fact, she, the first redeemed, could not have been the mediatrix of the grace that she herself received. This is not a minor point since it reveals something central: even in Mary’s case, the gift of grace precedes her and comes from the absolutely free initiative of the Trinity in view of Christ’s merits. Like all of us, she did not merit her justification by a preceding action of her own, nor did she do so by any subsequent action.” (n° 67)

And above all, the title of Mary Co-redemptrix, which it declares to be “always inappropriate”: “22. 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.” [emphasis in the text].

Let us leave aside the two most weakly expressed rejections, those of the titles Mother of Grace and Mediatrix of All Graces. Let us nevertheless recall ? as does the Note ? that in 1921 Pius XI instituted a Mass and an Office of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces, for the diocese of Mechelen-Brussels, which were then extended to many dioceses and congregations. At the very least, this entry into the lex orandi assured us that this Marian title did not in any way contravene the Catholic faith and morals.

What remains, then, is the radical rejection of the Co-redemption, or rather, since we are dealing with a more subtle literary genre, the rejection of the use of the title that refers to this doctrine: “it is always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s cooperation.”

The Magisterium of the Popes: Mary is Co-Redemptrix

Yet when we speak of Co-redemption, more than an eminence in degree with regard to Mary, we are referring to a specific participation in the redemptive work of her Son as “Mother of God” (Ephesus, 430). If Christ, the sole Priest, offers the sacrifice of his Blood, the subordinate participation of the Mother of God in this redemptive offering is due to the fact that her Fiat made the Redemption possible, because she provided the victim of the sacrifice. Furthermore, Christ, who endured all kinds of human suffering (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, q 46, a 5), also wills and welcomes the Compassion of his Mother, which is of an absolutely unique, maternal quality. It is well understood that the merits of Mary’s contribution to our salvation are not, like those of Christ, de condigno, by right and justice, but de congruo, by way of fittingness, that is, granted by God in response to the prayer of the Blessed Virgin.

We refer the reader to our article, “Défense de la doctrine de la Corédemption de la Sainte Vierge”[1], which deals with the traditional development of the doctrine underlying this title: on the part of St. Irenaeus (the Virgin Mary, from the moment of her Fiat, “became the cause of salvation for herself and for the entire human race”); as well as St. Justin, Tertullian, and St. Jerome (Mary is to the New Adam, Christ, what Eve was to the father of the human race); and Arnaud de Chartres, in the 12th century (“Both [Christ and Mary] offered together one single holocaust, she through the blood of her heart, he through the blood of his flesh”); with the term Co-Redemptrix appearing in the 15th century in a hymn (captivato transgressori, tu Corredemptrix fieres, for the captive who has transgressed, you will be the Co-redemptrix).

And we might recall that:

Leo XIII, in his encyclical Adjutricem populi of September 5, 1895, affirmed that the reconciliation of those who are separated from the Church is most especially the mission of Mary, while linking her cooperation with Redemption with the dispensation of graces: “From her heavenly abode she began, by God’s decree, to watch over the Church, to assist and befriend us as our Mother; so that she who was so intimately associated with the mystery of human salvation [emphasis added] is just as closely associated with the distribution of the graces which for all time will flow from the Redemption.”

Saint Pius X, in his encyclical Ad Diem Illum of February 2, 1904, on the Immaculate Conception, justifies the title “Reparatrix of the lost world” and Dispensatrix of all graces: “When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore (S. Bonav. 1. Sent d. 48, ad Litt. dub. 4). And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood. […] We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace ? a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces. Jesus ‘sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high’ (Hebrews 1:3).”

Benedict XV, in his Apostolic Letter, Inter sodalicia, of March 22, 1918, speaks of the association of the Virgin Mary with the redemption accomplished by her Son, an association that could be called co-redemption: “Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother’s rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind.” [emphasis added]

Pius XI in an address on November 30, 1933, states: “From the nature of His work the Redeemer necessarily had to associate His Mother with His work. For this reason, we invoke her under the title of Coredemptrix. [emphasis added]. She gave us the Savior. She led him to his work of redemption, even to the Cross. She shared with him the sufferings of agony and death through which Jesus accomplished the redemption of all mankind.”

The words are very precise: Mary’s association with Christ was necessary, a necessity of congruence, of course; the invocation of Mary under the title of Co-redemptrix is an established fact; the sharing of redemptive suffering is explained by the initial gift she offered to us of the Savior.

Finally, we must consider the theological reasoning of Pius XII in the encyclical Ad cæli Reginam of October 11, 1954, in which he speaks of Mary’s association with the work of Redemption based on the Eve/Mary typology: “Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God’s design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of ‘recapitulation’, in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; … moreover, it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ ‘in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race.’” [emphasis added]

Mater Populi fidelis, the latest episode in the “conciliar” saga

It can be said that this text belongs to the new magisterium, known as authentic (or “pastoral”), established by n° 25 of Lumen Gentium, but, ultimately, its classification is of little import. It is a text that expresses a judgment of doctrinal value: “it is always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’.”

At the very least, it seeks to relativize a set of texts that fall under the magisterium of four successive popes[2], the most significant of which is found in Pius XI: “the Redeemer necessarily had to associate His Mother with His work. For this reason, we invoke her under the title of Coredemptrix.” (Pius XI)

This Doctrinal Note therefore falls into a category of similar texts that, one might say, play fast and loose with previous teachings, such as: the Second Vatican Council’s declaration Nostra ætate on interreligious dialogue, n° 2, which moves from the traditional acknowledgement of seeds of the Word in non-Christian religions to a legitimization of the religious systems that contain these fragments of truth: “[The Church] regards with sincere reverence [observantia: religious respect] those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”; the Second Vatican Council’s decree Unitatis redintegratio on ecumenism, n° 3, which develops the new concept of “imperfect communion” for those who are separated and suggests an ecclesial legitimization of their communities as such: “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”; the Second Vatican Council’s declaration Dignitatis humanæ on religious liberty, n° 2, which inverts the traditional principle of the tolerance of evil or of error with a civil right not to be impeded from professing religious error; but also Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Amoris lætitia of March 19, 2016, n° 301, which affirms that an adulterous person, aware that they are contravening a commandment of God, is not necessarily in a state of sin:“It can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”

We may therefore describe these texts as being “conciliar” in the broad sense. But more directly, we can consider that Mater Populi fidelis prolongs and completes the process of Vatican II, whose Fathers accepted that the specific schema, or draft, that had been prepared on the Blessed Virgin Mary be integrated into the schema on the Church (so as to become the eighth chapter of Lumen Gentium), and that the title of Mediatrix of All Graces, in the absence of a dogmatic proclamation, be neither expressly explicated nor highlighted, but merely mentioned in passing among a series of titles: “The Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.” (n° 62).

Fr. Claude Barthe

Res Novae

[1] Défense de la doctrine de la Corédemption de la Sainte Vierge ? Res Novae.

[2] Which the Doctrinal Note dismisses with a wave of the hand: “Some Popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” without elaborating much on its meaning.” (n° 18). However, in note 33, it points out other occurrences of this usage: a document of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (May 13, 1908); two documents of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (June 26, 1913, January 22, 1914); a Brief from Pius XI dated July 20, 1925; and the Allocution “Ecco di nuovo” (November 30, 1933).