Diane Montagna posted at her Substack page: HERE
Cardinal Fernández Clarifies: “Co-redemptrix” Off Limits in Official Vatican Documents, Permitted in Private Devotion
In comments on Mater Populi Fidelis, the DDF Prefect explains what the doctrinal Note means in stating the Marian title is “always inappropriate.”
The zaniness continues.
Montagna reports that Fernández has formally clarified that the Marian title Co-redemptrix is no longer permitted in official Vatican documents or liturgical texts.
This “clarification” accompanies the Dicastery’s new doctrinal note—signed by Pope Francis—which states that the term is “ always inappropriate” and “unhelpful” because it can obscure Christ’s unique role as the sole Redeemer. According to Fernandez, a theological expression that repeatedly requires careful explanation in order to avoid misunderstanding does not serve the pastoral needs of the faithful. For this reason, the note concludes that terms such as “Co-redemptrix” and similarly problematic titles like “Mediatrix of all Graces” should not appear in any official ecclesial or liturgical context.
Fernández stressed at the press conference that the document is doctrinal in nature and should be taken with the seriousness due to the Magisterium. While this clarification restricts the term in formal teaching and liturgy, it does not explicitly condemn historical theological uses by saints, theologians, or even earlier papal statements. Rather, the Dicastery is drawing a boundary for contemporary usage in the Church’s authoritative documents, arguing that the term’s potential to sow confusion has become pastorally detrimental.
The article also highlights the controversy generated by this clarification. Many Marian theologians and regular Catholics regard Co-redemptrix as a venerable title expressing Mary’s subordinate but real cooperation in the work of redemption—rooted in her “fiat” at the Annunciation and her intimate participation at Calvary. The Dicastery says that in modern language the prefix “co-” can easily be misread as implying equality with Christ, creating a doctrinal ambiguity that must be avoided. Thus, while the ruling does not directly forbid private devotional uses, it effectively pushes the title to the margins of contemporary ecclesial language, marking a notable shift in the Vatican’s approach to Marian terminology.
The interesting (in an alarming sense) part is the exchange between Montagna and Fernandez.
Montagna pressed Fernández on why the Dicastery had effectively prohibited the Marian title Co-redemptrix when so many saints, theologians, and even popes had used it in the past. She asked how the Vatican could now declare the title “always inappropriate” without implicitly suggesting that earlier magisterial and devotional uses were mistaken. Montagna also challenged the Dicastery’s claim that the term obscures Christ’s unique mediatorship, noting that historically it had always been used in a qualified and subordinate sense. Her questions aimed at clarifying whether the new ruling amounted to a doctrinal correction of earlier tradition.
[…]
MONTAGNA: Yes, but why did you use the term “always” [siempre]? Does this refer to the past, especially given that it was used by the saints, doctors and ordinary magisterium?
FERNANDEZ: No, no, no. It refers to this moment. Just as Pope John Paul II himself used it at one time and then didn’t use it anymore. What we believe is that, in the substance behind that word, there are elements that can be accepted and continue to be upheld.
MONTAGNA: So, does “always” mean “from now on”? [And pro multis means “for all” and 2+2=5]
FERNANDEZ: From now on, certainly. It isn’t meant to judge the past at all. It means “from now on.” And moreover, it means above all that this expression [“Co-redemptrix”] will not be used either in the liturgy, that is, in liturgical texts, or in the official documents of the Holy See. If one wishes to express Mary’s unique cooperation in the Redemption, it would be expressed in other ways, but not with this expression, not even in official documents.
That is something that is known, even if perhaps not very widespread. If you, together with your group of friends, believe you understand well the true meaning of this expression, have read the document, and see that its positive aspects are also affirmed there, and you wish to express precisely that within your prayer group or among friends, you may use the title—but it will not be used officially, that is, either in liturgical texts or in official documents.
MONTAGNA: Thank you very much. Just one final question, did you (i.e. the DDF) consult any Mariologists for Mater Populi Fidelis?
Yes, many, many, as well as theologians who specialize in Christology.
[…]
As one of my theologian friends remarked…
“They can’t tie their own shoes at DDF.”
Loading ...
I think that Fr. Robideau had a simple yet excellent critique of the document that is worth bringing up. He published in the parish bulletin.
https://gregorythegreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/25-11-09.pdf
I found another Byzantine/Orthodox title for Our Lady, which also has an icon design.
Psychosostria, which literally is the female form of “Savior of Souls.”
Tsk tsk, whatever will the DDF say?
The critique by Fr. Robideau pointed to by TradCathMake is indeed excellent. Perhaps Fr. Z could put the link in the body of his blog so more readers could see it.
Diane Montagna’s report of the “clarification” arrived in my inbox this morning. I could not believe what I was reading. Yet again the Cardinal filtering what he clearly wrote in order to disingenuously appease his critics. It is astonishing. How does he maintain his position?
Not only can they not tie their shoes at the DDF, they can’t wipe them off try as they may. The only good to come out of this debacle is that Fernandez reveals once again his inadequacies.
It is pathetic.
It’s odd that Hollywood and the motion picture industry have always used somewhat similar terminology and no one got terribly confused.
Some movies are advertised as “starring” the lead actor. And it’s “co-starring” some other actor who’s very important to the picture, but not the lead. And then there’s the cast, i.e., everybody else. “Co-” is clearly meant to mean really important, more so than the rest of the cast, but not the lead, not the “star”. Has anyone in the history of film ever thought it meant anything else?
More than one actor has been a bit miffed at getting the “co-” designation when he thought he was the brightest bulb in the particular cinematic chandelier.
“By their Actions they will be known”.
Ironically, the MPF document correctly explains how the term Coredemptrix should be properly understood, as Mary’s real but subordinate cooperation in the Savior’s work of Redemption. And it warns only against the possible “misunderstandings” of the teaching.
It doesn’t really deny what is truly meant by the term, but rather, what some people (might) misunderstand. Repeated explanations are usually called “catechesis”. Think of other terms, like “Trinity” and “Mother of God,” that also need to be explained, because they are often misunderstood.
I notice that the Spanish, Portugese and French words, “inoportuno,” and “inopportune,” sound a lot more like the cognate English word, “inopportune,” than “inappropriate.” Neither word means false. But inopportune only means that it is inconvenient at this point in time. Maybe later?
I also notice that the Englush word “always” cannot really be construed to mean only “from now on” without a bit of mental gymnastics. That may also require frequent and repeated explanations.
Pious King Canute humbly showed the inability of an earthly king to command the tide not to rise. Maybe the faith and piety of the People of God will continue to rise, in spite of this document from the Dicastery.
“Rather, the Dicastery is drawing a boundary for contemporary usage in the Church’s authoritative documents, arguing that the term’s potential to sow confusion has become pastorally detrimental.” Potential? Pastorally detrimental to who? The un-catechized?
It doesn’t pass the sniff test. This is a smokescreen for something else like cozying up to Protestants.
Prior to this document, I only encountered the Co-redemptrix title once before when there was a bit of a push to get JPII to define the title. My first reaction then was “That’s heresy!” I was so stunned that there were people who wanted to use that title that I had to find out how they could possibly explain this as anything other than making Mary equal to Christ. I’m used to protestants mistakenly thinking we worship Mary as we do Christ, so I was completely shocked that there were some of us who appeared to believe that and wanted to try to make the rest of us own it. When I found an explanation of the title I realized it was something much more benign, but it was stuck with wording that just screamed heresy. It was a relief when it disappeared quickly. At this moment I am puzzled why DDF resurrected the title just to suppress it and why anybody is getting their panties in a twist about it. What is the upside of pushing this? Is it essential to salvation to accept the title? Nonsense. Will it be that last little nudge that somebody needs to convert? Snowman’s chance. Does Mary care? I doubt even she can count the titles we have heaped on her, so I suspect she is content to let this one pass. True or not, how is this title helpful? At first glance it looks heretical and at second glance it looks like a can of worms we don’t want to open because then we have to expend lots of energy explaining and defending it. I won’t quarrel with anyone who thinks a more careful note could have been prepared, but in the end they clearly came to the right conclusion.
“For this reason, the note concludes that terms such as “Co-redemptrix” and similarly problematic titles like “Mediatrix of all Graces” should not appear in any official ecclesial or liturgical context.”
This is absurd, and it goes well beyond the remit and content of the document.
Which a) does NOT condemn the title “Mediatrix of all Graces” nor even describe it as “problematic” ; and b) does NOT formally condemn “Co-Redemptrix” either, despite its negativity towards it.
Fernández is basically claiming that his own exaggerated personal interpretations are somehow “magisterial”, and that smacks of Modernism and Protestantisation, regardless what the document itself says. It is an attitude that is uncatholic in purpose, as it seeks to divide rather than to unite.
Particularly given that the meaning of Co-Redemptrix when correctly understood is NOT “problematic”, although it is possible that how that meaning has been expressed does lack sufficient clarity. Given also that all who shall be saved are in some sense co-operators in their own redemptions.
The same potential difficulty cannot however be claimed concerning Mediatrix of all Graces, given that through Mary’s Fiat the Source of All Graces and the Light of the World came into His Incarnation.
Fernández seems also to be attempting to shut down all and any legitimate theological debate on these questions, which neither he nor his dicastery have the authority nor power to do.
He is ascribing a dogmatic and disciplinary character to a document that instead constitutes some pastoral doctrines and theological discourse.
This attempt to try and prevent theological discussions of that discourse can but fail, and it will.
If you want another must-read, check out Peter Wolfgang at Catholic Culture. The ‘no’ he posits is solid and nothing about the Pope/DDF take is erroneous.
The argument for it is frail: long term use by some notables. Heck, V2 has been in long-term use and we all know what readers here think of it and pine for relief.
Fernandez should have avoided speaking to Montagna in a squirrelly way. THe document does not dishonor Mary.
I personally do not find the title co-redemptrix confusing, any more than I find that the title “co-pilot” for the first officer of an airline flight detracts from the pilot’s unique role in being in command of the airplane, or the example of a co-star as mentioned above. It seems they underestimate the intelligence of the average Catholic. It’s not as though the Catholic faith doesn’t have many concepts that are not obvious, are capable of being misunderstood, and need explanation – the Trinity, Jesus as God and Man, Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, and so on.
Thank you Father Z. For the Pro Multis comment.
The Catholic Faith is the One True Faith and the reception of the Body and Blood is for the many Catholics., not for all.
Another tool of the devil.
After Vatican II , I was at a Byzantine youth Mass. Some young people there were not Catholics. Father said, only Catholics can receive. Then he told the non Catholics to come up and receive. I remember that to this day.
I’m currently reading a book by the late Franciscan Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner who, unlike Cdl. Tucho, was a bona fide theologian (and Mariologist par excellence). In the book I keep running into phrases about those who wish to jettison Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, and Fr. Fehlner masterfully shows how those critics are mistaken. The effect of the DDF document on me has been to make me even more devoted to Our Lady and appreciate Her as the Key to understanding the whole panorama of salvation. From what I am hearing others are experiencing the same thing. So in that regard I have to say thank you Cardinal Fernandez.
Cardinal Fernandez’ current motto is (in Spanish not Latin *eyeroll*) is “En Medio de tu Pueblo”. Frankly it needs to change to “Lutum Clarum” – clear as mud (if anyone has a better Latin translation of this please advise).
As an aside, his Coat of Arms looks like it was done in Microsoft Paint-which would make sense given the lack of theological depth he seems to have. Finally, let us not forget that this theological heavy hitter also wrote “Heal Me with Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing” and “Mystical Passion: Spirituality and Sensuality”…..
“A theological expression that repeatedly requires careful explanation in order to avoid misunderstanding does not serve the pastoral needs of the faithful.” – to be fair, the same could be said of transubstantiation, redemptive suffering and confession. Some people will be consistently confused by “Holy Day of Obligation”.
Three Point:
1.) Mater Populi Fidelis seriously misrepresents Ratzinger’s position, which was an academic position that desired for there to be ongoing discussion and growth rather than stifling that growth by having “official” pressure either through a CDF definition or through papal casual usage of those particular Marian titles. The above interview continues that misrepresentation.
2.) This all needs to be seen in the same context as that certain episcopal strained thought: “the laity are a bunch of rubes that cannot handle big words.” Recall the whole “consubstantial” issue from 2011.
3.) If one notices, Cardinal Fernandez is way over his skis in attempting to bind the papacy on the usage of the term, both in terms of the liturgy and in official documents from the papacy. The DDF doesn’t have that type of authority. Further, Mediatrix does appear in liturgical hymns and did/does have a liturgical feast day.
Yeah, we have to be so careful that people don’t misunderstand things; like the Pachamama worship thing, Luther’s statue in the Vatican, Tutti Frutti, Laetitia Mortis, and other words and actions we’ve come to expect.
Just like his adolescent erotica bibliography is all quite clear and doesn’t engender any confusion.
Does it make me a bad person that his previous writings make me question if this guy is the right one for the job?
Now I cannot recite the Rosary calmly without asking myself if each one of the titles from the litanies is appropriate.
This appears to be a “solution looking for a problem to solve”.
Most Catholics had seemed content with things as they were, so why stir up an unnecessary “problem”?
In another post, I had explained that I had been confused by the title because I had never received a proper explanation of it. But this title never had a negative impact on my faith. We should never attempt to minimize Our Blessed Mother’s role in salvation history just to please some “special” group.