Mary, the Co-Redemptrix and Mater Populi Fidelis
The Co-Redemptrix and Mater Populi Fidelis
by Father Pierre LaLiberté*, JCD/PhD
for Rorate Cæli
The docuмent Mater Populi Fidelis of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, specifically in numbers 17 and 18 gives a undeservedly over-simplified overview of this important doctrine of the Catholic Faith. The fact that Our Lady cooperated in the work of the Redemption, at least mediately, is a de fide teaching. To doubt it would incur theological censure. For a clear and comprehensive overview of the main lines of this teaching and its historical development, I refer the reader to J. A. de Aldama, S.J., “De Corredemptione,” in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, vol. 3, Madrid, BAC, 1961, pp. 413-443. (English translation by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., vol. IIIA, pp. 441-466.) A further and more detailed explanation can be found in J. Carol, O.F.M. “Our Lady’s Coredemption,” in Mariology, vol. 2, Milwaukee, Bruce, 1957, pp. 377-425.
The usage of the title of Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix is one which has been historically ascertained as being theologically certain. de Aldama notes that “it is not licit to doubt about its suitability.” The opposite theological note to this would be an “error in theology.”
It is a sad consequence of the times in which we live that there exist voices which aim to subvert the traditional teachings of the Church by exploiting the lower-grades of theological certitude to attempt to discourage the use of theologically valid and sound arguments from Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. In this specific instance, such opinions are aimed at Our Blessed Lady’s mediate and, furthermore, immediate cooperation in Our Lord’s work of redemption. Even the latter is asserted within the teachings of the Papal Magisterium dating back to Pius IX and Leo XIII, and even is found in the post-conciliar teachings of John Paul II. Mater Populi Fidelis grossly oversimplifies the theological reflection which has been expounded by the Pontiffs when it states: “some Popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” without elaborating much on its meaning.” In the interests of brevity, a full catalogue of these papal teachings on co-redemption can be found in the reference cited above. One need only refer to the bull “Ineffabilis” of Pius IX; the encyclicals “Iucunda Semper” and “Supremi Apostolatus” of Leo XIII; the encyclical “Miserentissimus Redemptor” of Pius XI; as well as the encyclicals “Mystici Corporis” and “Ad cæli Reginam” of Pius XII and the bull “Munificentissimus Deus” of the same Pius XII.
In some circles, the ambiguities in this docuмent have caused the sad effect of scandal, in turn causing the “little ones” to doubt that the teaching is no longer valid, and some even to rejoice that this so-called “unclear terminology” is being cast aside. “Severely affronted” best describes this teaching which is intrinsic to the Catholic Tradition. How painful it is to see some well-meaning Catholics appearing jubilant over this critical and magisterial teaching being classified (dismissed?) as “inappropriate” – a term which itself has no relevance to the theological tradition at stake. “Inappropriate” in this context seems to only imply that the term is not relevant to the ambiguous and unclear conciliar-synodal approach in vogue in the highest levels of the Church since the Second Vatican Council. Interestingly, Juniper Carol even cites Protestant theologians such as Giovanni Miegge and Pierre Maury in defense of the teaching of Our Lady’s corredemption! Maury notes that “the Coredemption is not only one of the primary principles of Mariology; in the mind of the Popes and Catholic theologians, it is the very synthesis of the Marian tract.” (Carol, p. 377)
To assert, as Mater Populi Fidelis does in no. 22, that “when an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful.” A study of this question from approved theological authors does not bear out this reality. As Catholics, we must consider the entirety of teaching as found within the Magisterium and Tradition. The docuмents mentioned above are important data points in this theological reflection. To assert that the expression “requires many, repeated explanations” is mere theological lassitude. To simply say that this important title sanctioned by the Magisterial authority of the Church, is to be disregarded, causes the Tradition to be placed into doubt. A parallel argument can be made for post-conciliar liturgical legislation casting opprobrium upon the irrevocable and perpetual right conceded by Quo Primum by St. Pius V. The Petrine authority is to safeguard the Tradition and not to innovate, and to make it possible for theologians in universities, in concert with it, to explain and clarify teachings of the two-millennium-old Catholic experience stemming from the depositum fidei. This diachronic identity is completely essential for the Church to remain the Church. How easy it becomes now to find these sources of authentic teaching via archive.org or even via artificial intelligence, and how sad it is to see such over-simplifications being proffered by the very authorities in the Church who should safeguard, protect, and celebrate these teachings eodem sensu eademque sententia!
Any serious theological analysis of the truth of Our Lady’s co-redemption must contend with the clear theological data found in Catholic Tradition, emanating from the Scriptural grounding in the proto-Evangelium of Genesis 3:15 as well as Magisterial teaching, the authority of the saints, and other landmarks of Catholic heritage such as hymnody and theological reasoning.
This author chooses to stand with the Sovereign Pontiffs on the matter and upon the centuries of the development of Our Lady’s co-redemption with Jesus Christ the Lord and Redeemer.
De Maria, numquam satis.
* Pen name of a priest friend of Rorate Caeli.
Topic: New-Church Nixes Titles of Our Lady - Co-redemptrix & Mediatrix (Read 12677 times)