NO!
Co-redemptrix
Regarding the title “Co-redemptrix,” the Note recalls that “some Popes have used the title “without elaborating much on its meaning.” Generally, it continues, “they have presented the title in two specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished) or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross. The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons. Saint John Paul II referred to Mary as ‘Co-redemptrix’ on at least seven occasions, particularly relating this title to the salvific value of our sufferings when they are offered together with the sufferings of Christ, to whom Mary is united especially at the Cross” (18).
The document cites an internal discussion within the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which in February 1996 had discussed the request to proclaim a new dogma on Mary as “Co-redemptrix or Mediatrix of all graces.” Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was opposed to such a definition, arguing, “the precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. […] It is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.”
Later, in 2002, the future Benedict XVI expressed himself publicly in the same way: “The formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings… Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.”
The note clarifies that Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny the good intentions behind the proposal, nor the valuable aspects reflected in it, but nonetheless maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way” (19).
Pope Francis also expressed his clear opposition to the use of the title Co-Redemptrix on at least three occasions.
Tuesday’s Doctrinal Note concludes: “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. […] 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” (22).
Press title for entire document:

16 comments:
Francis commented that Mary was not co-redemtrix in interviews on a few occasions. Glad this one has officially been knocked on the head!
I have to say, this was closer to a nothing-burger than a lot of people expected. (I expect MT will refer to countless unnamed traditionalists making vile war on the Church by sending unspecified intemperate tweets reacting to a in response to a DDF note, which—is it even part of the magisterium?)
But I will point out that Card. Fernandez must’ve wanted everyone to know he is the master of self-forgetfulness, or rather lack of self-awareness. Really? We shouldn’t speak in a way that is confusing and requires repeated lengthy explanations? Surely he forgot about synodality… and Fiducia Supplicans… and more…
Nick
Nick, why refer to "unnamed traditionalists" when Rorate Caeli signed onto the following:
Translated from Spanish, as posted by Rorate Caeli via X:
Panoramix
@PCIDigital
"I wonder why this note was published now, when Leo XIV is under pressure to resolve the issue of the traditional Mass, given how far things have come on the matter.
"It occurs to me that someone has wanted to provoke an indignant reaction from the traditional Catholic sector in order to put obstacles in the way of a resolution favorable to the Tridentine liturgy."
Rorate Caeli's response: "That's quite possible."
=======
Trad Inc: Always in pursuit of a conspiracy theory.
Does New Catholic (Rorate Caeli) believe...actually believe...that it is "quite possible" that the Holy See concocted a document designed to "provoke an indignant reaction from the traditional Catholic sector in order to put obstacles in the way of a resolution favorable to the Tridentine liturgy."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Nick, why refer to refer to "unnamed traditionalists"? LifeSiteNews, a named source, offered the following for the world to read:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-rejects-marian-titles-co-redemptrix-and-mediatrix-in-new-doctrinal-note/?utm_source=featured-news&utm_campaign=catholic
Excerpts:
"Speaking to LifeSiteNews, Fr. Dave Nix said: “Mary is not just the object of our sweet devotion. She is also known as the exterminatrix of all heresies.”
“This is why the modernists despise her. And those bad guys in the Vatican know their time is limited as we quickly approach the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.”
=======
Is Pope Leo XIV among Rome's "bad guy" "modernists" as he owns the document in question?
=======
"The document’s tone echoes prior post-conciliar efforts to scale back theological language seen as obstacles to ecumenical dialogue.
It frames the new restrictions as an attempt to deepen “fidelity to Catholic identity” while supporting ecumenical efforts towards unity with non-Catholic bodies.
The note’s approach recalls the post-Vatican II shift toward ecumenical accommodation.
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, chief architect of the liturgical reform, famously stated that Holy Week rites had to be revised to “remove every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle” to unity with “the separated brethren.”
=======
Nick, what was that about "traditionalists" and their "making vile war on the Church."
As you know, such is not the case. "Traditionalists" always embrace that which emanates from Rome.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
It is a little ironic that traditionalist Catholics really seem to like this innovative title for the Mother of God. I heard some very innovative ideas about St. Joseph the Betrothed from traditionalist priests in years past as well.
Why refer to unnamed traditionalists when speaking of your sweeping, magisterial claims of a traditionalist "war on the Church"?
Because that's what you do.
Nick
Fr. Dave Nix is not representative or a representative of TLM-attending Catholics, by far, for multiple reasons, and you know it.
Nick
"Nick, what was that about "traditionalists" and their "making vile war on the Church."
As you know, such is not the case. "Traditionalists" always embrace that which emanates from Rome."
Oh, give me a break, dude.
Nick
Nick, I report that there are "traditionalists making vile war on the Church" for the simple reason that there are traditionalists making vile war on the Church.
You despise that reality. In turn, you shoot the messenger.
When Rorate Caeli, LifeSiteNews, The Remnant, Peter Kwasniewski, SSPX...additional "traditionalists"...halt their collective war upon the Church, then that will render a messenger unable to reporter upon said war.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT,
Which one is it--"vile war on the church" (as you said, "such is not the case") or "always embrac[ing] what emanates from Rome"?
I can't blame you for not keeping a close record of what you've commented here over the years; I can't say I do. But you said these things in comments in the same 24-hour period on one post here.
In any event, I don't "despise that reality" because it's not reality; it's the rhetoric you've built up in a reality of your own.
And don't try to feed me that BS about shooting the messenger, Mike Lewis already ran that line threadbare.
And is it shooting the messenger to point out once again that you've previously slandered me and not once defended or withdrawn your libelous statements against me?
Nick
Nick said..."MT, Which one is it--"vile wr on the church" (as you said, "such is not the case") or "always embrac[ing] whata emanates from Rome"?
=======
My "Traditionalists" always embrace that which emanates from Rome" comment was a small attempt at humor. I had counted upon that as obvious.
I was wrong.
Mea culpa.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Nick said..."And is it shooting the messenger to point out once again that you've previously slandered me and not once defended or withdrawn your libelous statements against me?"
I am not a lawyer. However, I am alarmed by your above claim. Therefore, to protect myself from you, it may be best to refrain from communicating with you.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Was your defamation of me also a small attempt at humor? That was also not obvious.
But thank you for clarifying. Mike Lewis acknowledges the difference between people attached to traditional Catholic practices (often called traditionalists, and who embrace Rome, though Lewis draws a distinction there) and traditionalists as he defines it, meaning those overly attached to an ideology and would be described by you as waging a vile war on the Church, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
I suppose it was too much to expect for you to offer as much nuance as Mike Lewis does, which isn't even all that much. Nope--you'll stick with your uncharitable, dishonest lumping of anyone into a "traditionalist" "basket of deplorables."
Nick
Also, what a silly thing to say: "Does New Catholic (Rorate Caeli) believe...actually believe...that it is "quite possible" that the Holy See concocted a document designed to "provoke an indignant reaction from the traditional Catholic sector in order to put obstacles in the way of a resolution favorable to the Tridentine liturgy.""
This is a straw-man and you know it... actually know it.
Nick
The option of withdrawing your slander of me as making vile attacks on the pope is always available, MT.
Nick
Rorate Caeli has continued its Satanic War against Holy Mother Church.
Rorate Caeli, via Roberto de Mattei's analysis of Mater Populi Fidelis, Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation...
...has promoted the notion that Pope Leo XIV has fed us spiritual poison.
=======
"The Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV...approved the present Note...and he ordered its publication."
=======
Excerpts from the article that Rorate Caeli has promoted:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/11/quis-ut-virgo-who-is-like-unto-mary.html
=======
"The document consists of eighty paragraphs dedicated to the “correct understanding of Marian titles,”...It is with deep sorrow that we have read this text, which, behind a mellifluous tone, hides a poisonous content."
"In a historic hour of confusion, in which all the hopes of fervent souls turn to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wants to strip her of the titles of Co-Redemptrix and Universal Mediatrix of all graces, reducing her to a woman like any other: “mother of the faithful,” “mother of believers,” “mother of Jesus,” “companion of the Church,” as if the Mother of God could be confined to a human category, stripping her of her supernatural mystery.
"It is difficult not to see in these pages the fulfillment of the post-conciliar mariological drift which, in the name of the “happy medium,” has chosen a minimalism that demeans the figure of the Blessed Virgin Mary."
=======
In regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary: Rorate Caeli has wished us to believe that Pope Leo XIV has thrown in with the attempt to...I quote...
..." “decapitate” her, reducing her to a mere woman."
Pope Leo XIV has unleashed upon Holy Mother Church a document filled with "poisonous content," according to Rorate Caeli.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment