UPDATE:
Since I posted, the website has been updated with working links and the English text.
Once again, the Holy See demonstrates its commitment to excellence on their website and the distribution of information. At the time of this writing, the Bollettino for today has the
DICASTERIO PARA LA DOCTRINA DE LA FE
Mater Populi fidelis
Nota doctrinal sobre algunos títulos marianos
referidos a la cooperación de María
en la obra de la salvación
Oh yes… it’s in Spanish first. Some 48K words! Then Italian is listed… But it you click the link for any other language… nada. Italian, English etc., nada. However, if you scroll down you find the Italian text… or… some of it…
The document cuts off in par. 11. The Spanish is 80 paragraphs.
Is there Latin, you ask?
HA HAH HAH HA HA… *wiping eyes”
Do you remember when we heard that a document was about to come out and we were excited to get our hands on it and look for all the good stuff in it? Remember?
Now we hear that a document is coming out and we are filled with anxiety. It’s like seeing road kill down the way. You don’t want to look, but you do anyway. And when you do, you look for the bad stuff, rather than the good.
I have not combed through this thing yet: Spanish is not my strong suit and this thing is massive. It is dense with footnotes. However, I can make out certain things.
Leo signed off on this. Simply. Not in forma specifica (weightier).
What is the bottom line, you ask? Does it trash the title Co-Redemptrix? Mediatrix?
Not… quite.
The new document clearly “fences in” Mary’s role in how graces are given and it discourages Co-Redemptrix as “inopportune”.
The document explicitly states that the title Corredentora (“Co-Redemptrix”) is “inoportuna” in paragraph 22.
Here is the Spanish text:
«Teniendo en cuenta la necesidad de explicar el papel subordinado de María a Cristo en la obra de la Redención, es siempre inoportuno el uso del título de Corredentora para definir la cooperación de María. Este título corre el riesgo de oscurecer la única mediación salvífica de Cristo y, por tanto, puede generar confusión y un desequilibrio en la armonía de verdades de la fe cristiana…»
So, in 22 the DDF say that, although Mary truly cooperates in salvation, the use of the title Corredentora is “always inopportune” because it risks obscuring Christ’s unique and sufficient redemptive mediation. An English rendering:
22. Taking into account the need to explain Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, the use of the title Co-Redemptrix to define Mary’s cooperation is always inopportune. This title runs the risk of obscuring the unique salvific mediation of Christ and, therefore, can generate confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, because “there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). When an expression requires many and constant explanations in order to prevent it from being misunderstood, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unsuitable. In this case, it does not help to exalt Mary as the first and greatest collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, because the danger of obscuring the exclusive place of Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man for our salvation, the only one capable of offering to the Father a sacrifice of infinite value, would not be a true honor to the Mother. Indeed, she, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), points us to Christ and tells us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5).
UPDATE: Official trans:
22. 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. 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. In this case, the expression “Co-redemptrix” does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ — the Son of God made man for our salvation, who was the only one capable of offering the Father a sacrifice of infinite value — which would not be a true honor to his Mother. Indeed, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), Mary directs us to Christ and asks us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5).
So, the document does not contradict any official teaching about Mary as Co-Redemptrix, because there isn’t one. However, it clearly hems in her role.
Earlier popes (esp. John Paul II in non-definitive addresses) sometimes used Co-redemptrix in a participatory, subordinate sense. I know that Ratzinger/Benedict was cool about the term and thought it could be easily misunderstood. I have often wondered if the term was beyond the ability of most priests (esp. of a certain age) to explain clearly (if they understood it at all).
That said, this is not a formal condemnation of the term.
It downplays also, leaning on Vatican II’s Lumen gentium, Mediatrix.
Many pre-Conciliar texts call Mary Mediatrix (Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII). Benedict XV authorized a Mass and Office of “Mary Mediatrix of All Graces”. Vatican II retained the title but immediately fenced it in saying that Mary’s mediation neither takes away from nor adds anything to Christ’s unique mediation. Today’s Note warns against any notion that sanctifying grace is “channeled” through Mary as a perfective cause or necessary conduit. It describes her role as maternal intercession and dispositive help.
The document consistently treats Lumen gentium 60–62 as its doctrinal baseline.
So, what we have is a narrowing of titles which have been used somewhat more broadly.
Loading ...
We are left to wonder why this issue has risen to the top of the desk at the DDF. I sincerely doubt that more than ten percent in my parish could tell you what the term Immaculate Conception actually describes, or, for that matter Original Sin…or if matters to them that they believe in either. Given that Pew Research estimates that only nine percent of American Roman Catholics believe in the Most Holy Trinity, and another some tragically miserable percentage in the Real Prescence of Christ in the Eucharist. Let’s say the polling is wrong. Let’s say its fifty percent.
Utter failure.
What would propel the DDF to address essentially unknown concepts to the contemporary Church such as Co-Redemptrix or Mediatrix of All Grace? And why would the late Pope Benedict’s estimation of these titles, obscure at best to the vast majority of Catholics, matter to those who regard his position of the Vetus Ordo to be inconsequential and disposable? And why would we hold credible the DDF’s position on obscure titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary when the opinion of the majority of bishops contacted regarding the value of the Vetus Ordo was misrepresented with Traditionis Custodes? Or why not any urgency in clarifying critical moral teaching in regard to same-sex attraction and the legitimacy of the divorced and remarried receiving the Holy Eucharist. And is there no concern regarding the ministry practiced by clergy who openly contradict the perennial Magisterium in regard to these and other critical issues? And why no concern regarding universal and accurate catechesis of the baptized?
I don’t get it.
Or maybe I do.
Is it too bold to speculate that all the above are either suppressed, neglected, deliberately ignored or misrepresented in the “sacred” cause of ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue? I submit it is not bold speculation, but a perfect bullseye to recognize what is transpiring and has long been in operation.
I am not edified.
I scanned the leaked parts last night. I’ll read the full Spanish later today, since I’m sure that’ll be easier to digest than Vatican English.
I thought it did a pretty good job of balancing affirming the good theology while essentially nixing a pretty modern title that could easily cross the line into blasphemy if people didn’t understand what it meant. To be clear, I’m not accusing anyone here of doing it, but the title itself is problematic because of the ease with which one can do it.
My biggest issue with co-redemptrix has always been that it’s a title in search of a doctrine. No one really denies the so-called “doctrine of co-redemption”, but when you get into it, that doctrine as explained is usually a fusion of a a few other doctrines (Annunciation, theology around the Immaculate Conception, treasury of merit, our ability to participate in redemptive suffering, etc.) that it almost seems like it was created as a fusion statement of beliefs to justify a relatively modern title.
All in all, Fernandez was pretty restrained. He could have gone in a lot harder on citations if he wanted to.
This document is part of the overall clearing of the path to help protestants accept “Catholicism” (of which they are not as this is watered down at best Catholicism) without asking them to fully accept the Deposit of Faith…
If so, then what does that make of the Church and new cradle Catholics? How can one hope to be fully aligned with the pre-VII Saints and Pontiffs? I was such a cradle Catholic – it is the internet and blogs such as Fr. Z’s that allow me access to the full Logos (the conciliar church hides the fullness).
What is sure to follow is cutting out 3 more Holy Days of Obligation – making Mary’s Solemnity days (Theotokos, Assumption, and Immaculate Conception) not obligatory, and possibly reclassifying as a Feast…
The new Ecumenical Church structure is clearly forming now. When will it drop the name of “Catholic” as that is in the way of many Protestants?
I read most of the document in Spanish. A few things before longer thoughts on context:
1) the Spanish is really gorgeous, very precise and mixes analysis with literary language where useful. Worth commenting on for anyone who doesn’t speak it, since you lose some sense of the style and tone in translation. Fernandez prose here is great. It’s a solid piece of writing
2) his introductory note is worth reading as it sets the tone and intent for everything
3) he’s scrupulous to align himself with the biblical, patristic, medieval, and contemporary traditions here.
4) It is a pro-Marian document that outside of the headline grabbing part presents an extraordinarily integrated Christology and Mariology. “Ella es la manifestación femenina de todo cuanto puede obrar la gracia de Cristo en un ser humano” is a phenomenal synthesis of Catholic Mariology.
The biggest question is “why now?” and I think Fernandez hints at it in the beginning when he talks One of his less headline grabbing pet projects is that he’s centralized and standardized the norms around assessing apparitions; and he’s actually done a really good job at it compared to the previous process.
As I mentioned on the previous post on this, the title of Co-Redemptrix has been connected to several alleged visions/apparitions over the last century that the Holy See has historically been skeptical of. The most famous being Our Lady of All Nations, which is considered not of supernatural origin, and if memory serves there are several other less famous ones that also are associated with the title that the CDF/DDF took a less than friendly view of. A quick google shows that the Patriarch of the Maronite Church recently called upon the DDF to asses its stance on the Our Lady of All Nations apparitions, and Fernandez reaffirmed the 1974 position that there was no evidence of supernatural origin.
If I had to guess, that petition made it opportune for DDF to clarify this since it would go along well with Fernandez’s focus on creating a uniform process for assessing apparitions. He specifically calls out spread of calls for dogmatic definition on social media as a driving factor in issuing this now, which given the context of the recent request of the Maronite Patriarch probably means he’s seen or been shown examples of promoting apparitions related to this on the web.
Thanks in advance to Fr. Z for humoring my essay :)
I consulted a few substacks for the hair-on-fire reactions (not that they can’t be valuable) and then came here for balance. Thanks to Benedict Joseph for the questions — why this, why now? Also, if “an expression requir[ing] many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, does not serve the faith of the People of God” then we have a problem with the whole of the Faith. Don’t we?
Now that Rome has spoken sorta coolly of the title, the Patriarchs of our separated brethren can start preaching hard about Our Lady under the titles of Lytotria and Izbatelnitsa.
The urge to be different from Rome could be useful, for once. And eventually, we could get the title back for reasons of ecumenism!
Izbavitelnitsa. Sorry for spelling that wrong. An icon by that name has a recently instituted feast in Russia, btw.
Mesitria (Mediatrix) and Soteira (Savioress) are also Greek titles for Our Lady.
The length of modern ecclesial documents is a detriment to catechetical and evangelical efforts, especially as they tend to muddy the waters. I am expecting this document to be no different.
Since we live in the time of AI, I asked Grok about this document from three perspectives. 1.) Traditional Catholic Theology with emphasis on the mystagogical tradition. 2.) Orthodox Theology from Russian, Greek, and Coptic perspectives again with emphasis on the mystagogical tradition. 3.) Analysis based on Card Henery Newman’s Development of Doctrine.
Analysis:
1.) “potentially erring against the sensus fidelium . Statements risk material error by implying traditional expressions are inherently confusing, contradicting the Fathers’ typological boldness, mystics’ ecstatic praises, and pre-VII magisterium’s approbations. ”
2.) (paraphrased). Finds the document to be legalistic, flattens, and underemphasises Mary’s role in the incarnation and salvation. “the document appears to Orthodox eyes as a Latin contraction of Marian fullness—juridical where tradition is mystical, cautious where iconography boldly proclaims her as “Life-giving Gate””
3.) Fails the test. “The document’s reliance on modern opinions (Ratzinger, Francis) over pre-1962 consensus (Pius XI, XII) and its ecumenical minimalism suggest a retreat into ambiguity, bordering on regression by undoing Mariology’s organic growth. It risks aberration by sidelining the sensus fidelium and mystical-liturgical traditions, failing to refine what prior centuries cultivated.”
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw%3D%3D_7990c7e3-e010-413a-b75c-126775de2e36
Pingback: TVESDAY MID-DAY EDITION - BIG PVLPIT
What, then, of St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion?
Surely the most common depiction of the Blessed Virgin is that of Our Lady of Grace, with arms extended, palms of the hands dispensing Grace.
Oh…obviously this depiction is erroneous!
Only to be found on the Miraculous Medal made manifest by Heaven to Saint Catherine Labouré … but I’m sure it doesn’t mean what it depicts, despite the fact that it has ecclesial approbation… but from the dark pre-conciliar epoch [both of them!].
I look forward to Cardinal Fernandez’s next project? I wonder what he will tackle next?
Personnel is policy.
The only crew which has ever tried to convince anyone that the mysteries of the Blessed Virgin Mary detract from the supremacy of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, are protestants…not a few of whom presently either don’t believe in the Blessed Trinity and don’t believe in the Divinity of the Son of God.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a CDF / DDF document signed off by a pope with the words ‘in forma specifica’ (and I have looked at most of them on the Holy See’s website at one time or another). Is this phrase really necessary for making it magisterial?
That would imply that virtually none of the Dicastery’s documents actually embodied the statement in ‘Donum Veritatis’ (CDF, 1990): ‘the documents issued by this Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] expressly approved by the Pope participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.’
Almost invariably, for CDF / DDF documents, it simply says the pope approved the document and ordered its publication. I suggest that this counts as being ‘expressly approved’ and therefore magisterial. Otherwise, they’ve really been wasting their time all these years.
Even ‘Dominus Iesus’, with all the importance given to it, didn’t say ‘in forma specifica’ – merely that Pope John Paul ‘with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration…and ordered its publication.’
Occasionally a CDF / DDF document gives no mention of the pope, or papal approval, at all. (e.g. Considerations on the Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, 1998) These are the ones, I suggest, that are not intended as magisterial, strictly speaking.
The only document I remember seeing with the wording ‘in forma specifica’ as part of the papal approval was the Instruction on the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest (1997) (signed off by several Congregations, but listed under the Congregation (Dicastery) for the Clergy). I assumed that this wording was because it was primarily about making laws, not giving teachings.
Why now? Well, in reading it I am happy to see the emphasis on the holiness and intercession of Mary without using ecclesiastical, Latin terms which can be so off-putting to souls not used to them. As an Anglican child who felt she wanted to save the world (which I think is part of baptismal grace), I immediately understood the word “co-redeemer” when I came across it, and because I saw that that didn’t seem to find a part in the Protestant world, it was one of the things which helped move me toward Catholicism. Too many Protestants don’t see the need for holiness and that it is holiness which pleases God and makes one’s intercession powerful. I think the world needs to reflect on the importance of holiness in regards to one’s salvation, and to the salvation of the world, and not just trusting “trust” or external striving.
I’m personally intrigued by the lack of reference to Lumen Gentium 62, “Propterea B. Virgo in Ecclesia titulis Advocatae, Auxiliatricis, Adiutricis, Mediatricis invocatur.”
The footnote for that pings back to several papal documents, including the below from Leo XIII’s Adiutricem Populi:
“ 8. The power thus put into her hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help as though impelled by an instinct of nature, confidently sharing with her their future hopes and past achievements, their sorrows and joys, commending themselves like children to the care of a bountiful mother. How rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her hailed as “our Lady, our Mediatrix,”(3) “the Reparatrix of the whole world,”(4) “the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.”(5)”
I don’t mind the reminder that the Theotokos is a creature, but I question whether this was a serious attempt to be scholarly with those omissions. It seems more like an attempt to placate someone somewhere who was clutching their pearls because Mary was mentioned without emphasizing her subordination to Christ.
What l find concerning about this and other actions from Rome since the prior pontificate, is the trend of contradicting previous popes and teachings. It almost seems as though there is a frenzied agenda at play.
R2D notes that
since it would go along well with Fernandez’s focus on creating a uniform process for assessing apparitions.
Not only did Fernandez & DDF create a more more uniform process, he also centralized the process into the Vatican. The local bishop can issue a nihil obstat that holds until Rome’s final decision, but he cannot make a final judgment.
Note that DDF did this in and around Francis declaring a “synodal church” and claiming to “decentralize” the powers in the Church. This action by DDF shows that the real intention of the “synodal church” is to centralize power: the “synodal” process may involve “discussions” all the way down at the level of parish laity, but the decisions on how to describe those discussions, and how to elevate issues, and how the later processes (like with bishops) take them up , are all in the hands of the clergy and ultimately all in the hands of the Vatican. Like with the pretense of “listening” to the bishops on the TLM survey – in which the Vatican issued its “findings” as whatever they wanted to say was the outcome of the survey – there’s no power outside of the Vatican to say nay to their characterization of the “discussions” and “opinions”, so there’s no power outside the Vatican to push decision-making in any direction but whatever the pope or the dicastery heads feel like.
I had to laugh at another rationale Fernandez gave for the change, “excessive delays” in final judgments. You mean, now that the Vatican runs it, the process will be speedy? The same Vatican that took multi-decades to act on heretical teachers like Kung and Curran? The Vatican that took 40 years to discover that McCarrick was a predator, though dozens of priests and bishops knew? The Vatican that took until 2019 to say anything even kinda, sorta specific about Medjugorje apparitions that started? in 1981, and it’s still not a final judgment? That Vatican?
Admittedly, this is all a side issue regarding Mary’s titles. I have no problem with the title of Mediatrix, and I have no problem with the Vatican noting that the title “Co-Redemptrix” is fraught with troublesome complexity. I don’t know why it takes a Leonine signature to do that. Surely they have better things to do. If they don’t recognize that, that’s sad.
Ironic, isn’t it, that in interfaith discussions, Christ’s ‘unique salvific mediation’ isn’t mentioned, but only used in an effort to downplay the role of His Blessed Mother.
I must confess, when I first encountered the title “Co-Redemptrix”, I was confused as I had been taught, growing up in 1950’s & 1960’s, that Christ was our sole Redeemer. This was probably because the title was never properly explained to me.
I did understand the title “Mediatrix” since we always ask Mary to pray and intercede for us.
Mary has a very special place and role in our salvation history. For the sake of converting non-Catholic Christians, it wrong to minimize Mary. What should have been published is an apologetic document defending Her. What should called for is better teaching of the Marian doctrines so we can defend them.
O Blessed Mother, Our Lady, pray for us.
“When an expression requires many and constant explanations in order to prevent it from being misunderstood, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unsuitable.”
Seems like a sentence applicable to a number of things in the Church today.
[Like… “What is ‘Synodality’?”]
Praise to Mary, Heaven’s Gate,
Guiding Star of Christians’ way,
Mother of our Lord and King,
Light and hope to souls astray.
When you heard the call of God
Choosing to fulfill his plan,
By your perfect act of love
Hope was born in fallen man.
Help us to amend our ways,
Halt the devil’s strong attack,
Walk with us the narrow path,
Beg for us the grace we lack.
Mary, show your motherhood,
Bring your children’s prayers to Christ,
Christ, your son, who ransomed man,
Who, for us, was sacrificed.
Virgin chosen, singly blest,
Ever faithful to God’s call,
Guide us in this earthy life,
Guard us lest, deceived, we fall.
Mary, help us live our faith
So that we may see your son;
Join our humble prayers to yours,
Till life’s ceaseless war is won.
Praise the Father, praise the Son,
Praise the holy Paraclete;
Offer all through Mary’s hands,
Let her make our prayers complete
^Mediatrix^
Hmm… I had a quick look in the Plymouth-Brethren lexicographer, William Elwy Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (completed in 1940 but reprinted in this century) which lucidly notes under MESITES “In Gal[atians] 3:19 Moses is spoken of as a mediator” and under SOZO “to save, […] is used of human agency […] Rom[ans] 11:14; 1 Cor[inthians] 3:19; 9:22” – of which (as far as I can discover) only 1 Corinthians 3:19 has made it into ‘Mater populi fidelis’, in the Lumen gentium-rich paragraph 28.
@TonyO, yep, centralized and not synodal on the apparitions point, but I’m also fairly certain that’s what this is about. It gives a magisterial reason to reject the more suspect private revelations.
It’s also not really that controversial outside of some feminist and traditionalist circles. Müller also opposed it either during his CDF tenure or shortly after, and he’s hardly a Protestant sympathizer. So you have two right-leaning popes (Pius XII and BXVI), at least three CDF prefects (BXVI, Müller, and Fernandez), an ecumenical council, and a left-leaning pope (Francis) all skeptical at best over the usage.
Seems to be a normal exercise of the ordinary magisterium codifying the organic consensus of the supreme pontiffs and bishops when further clarification on the topic had been requested by several bishops (Our Lady of all Nations related requests) and by people who hoped for the opposite result.
Pingback: TVESDAY EARLY-EVENING TOP-10 - BIG PVLPIT
re: Lurker 59 “The length of modern ecclesial documents is a detriment to catechetical and evangelical efforts, especially as they tend to muddy the waters.” Indeed. It is long past time that someone reminded the popes that the first person to hold their office wrote a grand total of two letters, in which I roughly estimate that there are not more than 3,000 words. How many Catholics are actually reading documents with five digits’ worth of words? Another helpful rule would be that if the pope (better yet, every bishop?) cannot write it in Latin all by himself, then he should not write it at all.
I am with Benedict16 on this: cool to the idea of the title Co-Redemptrix. It is unavoidable that the term elevates well beyond what many say is just a unique cooperation. Or participation, as Stiner at Return to Tradition proposes.
It should have little to do with Protestant sensibilities. It is just a logical fallacy that the redeemed and ‘a’ redeemer can be one and the same person. I add that ‘Mediatrix’ when used with ‘of all graces’ is inarguably a fine term.
Too bad Fernandez was not equally as accurate and orthodox in some of his prior work products.
A number of people in the comments have already condemned it as downplaying Our Lady, appeasing Protestants, or even contadicting the deposit of faith. That’s not what Father said in his analysis above.
Has everyone who is critizing this document read it in full?
“De Maria nunc satis”?
They uncrowned Christ the King 60 years ago, and today in the logical progression of “the process” as Pope Leo XIV calls it, they have uncrowned His Mother.
It is all couched very lovely as left handed complements usually are, until you get to paragraph 22 and down comes the hammer – “it is not appropriate to use that title”.
This is in direct contradiction of countless saints and holy and canonized Pontiffs. These titles given to Our Lady reflect what Catholics have always believed for ages, and who but Our Lord could have wanted it so, He who loves His Mother more deeply than any other son could love their mother.
But these tactics to undermine the faith are nothing new. They have been discrediting every Saint and hero that came before V2 bit by bit as all that Catholic piety is a barrier to their fraternal brotherhood of man Conciliar-Synodal Church. None though has had the temerity to do what was done today God help them.
Thankfully a man named Gian Filippo stood up for Our Lady at the presentation for this document today, and told Tucho among other things, “God doesn’t like it, your Eminence!”. I concur.
Well… I only glanced at the document, but it seems to me:
1. What it says about the actual things – as opposed to “matters of language” – here concerned is quite orthodox.
2. It says the title “coredemptrix” is “inopportune” and does not forbid even that.
3. It also speaks in a discouraging tone about “mediatrix of all graces”; but that one it doesn’t even call inopportune.
Well, as the newly-elevated Doctor of the Church St. John Henry said about Vatican I (he didn’t really, but it was his attitude) “I feared a catastrophe; I am happy”. “Coredemptrix”, while the doctrine rightly explained is sound, never has been a Marian title central to either my own spirituality or, I believe, the Church’s; and much as we might dislike Cardinal Fernandez he’s probably right with his opinion of inopportunity (which was shared by Pope Benedict) here. And the fact that a rather questionable apparition demanded a dogma here actually adds to the inopportunity, to be honest.
I do have a particular love for the title “Mediatrix of all Graces”, and also it’s probably very important ever since St. Louismarie Grignion and St. Catherine Labouré’s apparition. But the tone is not the text.
Gavin Ashendon’s commentary on this is very helpful.
“So if you have no Latin and you read the word Co-Redemptrix you immediately think this is some form of ultra-idolatrous elevation of Mary promoted to the role of an equal Redeemer alongside Christ. This is exactly what the Latin does not mean. In Latin, it simply means she plays a part in redemption with Him.”
But he has a lot more.
https://open.substack.com/pub/drgavinashenden/p/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-maria?r=brpti&utm_medium=ios
I need to read the full document and consider in greater detail, but the very first thing that crossed my beady little mind with respect to the term Co-Redemptrix was 1 Corinthians 8 (is the term thought to be a cause of stumbling for some of the brethren or other?).
But I am a bear of very little brain and will consider further.
I am no theologian, but as a believing Catholic my entire life, the title co-redemptrix has meant to me that Mary had a unique role in our redemption-nothing more, nothing less, nothing confusing to me…there are so many beautiful titles of the Blessed Mother to contemplate that enrich our understanding of her role in our redemption. There are also so many other issues I think the Church desperately needs to address at this time, so why this one? Also, to be brutally honest, anything coming from Fernandez is suspect to me for obvious reasons; I get the willies every time I see a picture of him!
My final answer is: Mary ,type (or archetype) of the Church can not be co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces because the New Different Church cannot be seen as the only source of graces and salvation.
How does that thing in Latin go? extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
I have seen this pop-up elsewhere, but I want to address the 1 Cor 8 that OldProfK brings up.
That analogy referring to 1 Cor 8 is apples and oranges. St. Paul is pretty clear that it is scandalous not to teach the tenets of the Faith, not to educate people, not to help them move on from “milk.” He is not teaching about causing scandal due to hard, difficult-to-accept, or complex teachings. His advice about eating meat offered to idols isn’t a catechetical or evangelizing moment, but rather about limited “eccumenical” engagement; Catholics interacting with pagans on the pagan’s “home turf”. St. Paul is saying, “I know that your friends invited you to the temple picnic where they eat food offered to the gods and thus, according to them, participate in the sacrifice. You and I know that it is all fake, but they don’t. So don’t participate because they think it is real, and they would interpret your actions as thinking it is as real, and those baby Catholics would interpret your actions as thinking it is real.” It is the same advice as “Don’t receive the Lord’s Supper if you attend a Protestant service. We know it is fake, but others would see the action as thinking it is real. Better yet, don’t go to Protestant services.”