I
After carefully reading the document issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by the prefect Víctor Fernández and Pope Leo XIV, the clear intention on the part of Rome to uproot, as much as possible—and not to clarify or illuminate—the name of co-redemptrix, applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary, becomes evident. A beloved title that the sensus fidei of the faithful people has upheld for centuries. I myself, as a Catholic, have requested its proclamation as dogma in my article Ephesus 431 AD, relying on my Christian intuition and the constant doctrine of the Popes up to John Paul II, who upheld it unequivocally, at least until the year 1996 (note 36). This document acknowledges that "co-redemption" is a Marian title used by previous Popes, although it employs a phrase that, perhaps, seems somewhat dismissive:
"Some Pontiffs have used this title without dwelling too much on explaining it" (18).
In short, the evident intention is to remove from the midst a truth assumed by the faithful Christian people, and this is proven when, for example, the following is read in that document (my emphases):
"Taking into account the need to explain Mary's subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inopportune to use the title of Co-redemptrix to define Mary's cooperation" (22).
Always inopportune, it says. I will not deny that the theological arguments for this purported defenestration are solid—nor could they be less, dealing with a doctrinal note from the Dicastery that safeguards the purity of the faith. As is logical, Acts 4:12 ("there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved") or 1 Tim. 2:4 ("Christ man is the one mediator") are cited. And that desire to eliminate it is justified with the following excuse:
"When an expression requires many and constant explanations to avoid deviating from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the people of God and becomes inconvenient" (22).
Of course, it cannot fail to mention the peculiar magisterium of Pope Francis (the same one who appointed the current Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith):
"Mary never wanted to take anything for herself from her Son. She never presented herself as co-redemptrix" (21).
Does Francis think that Christians have ever defended those two barbarities, that Mary coveted something? Mary is the most radical example of humility and obedience in all sacred history (with the exception of her Son), and all the wonderful gifts with which the Holy Spirit has adorned her—including her cooperation and collaboration in our salvation (or co-redemption)—are expressions of divine Grace, which came upon her from the first instant of her conception. She, like any creature, has nothing that she has not first received from God, absolutely nothing. If she is co-redemptrix, it is not because she presented herself as such, not because she aspired to it, but because the Lord wanted her to be so. She did not drive a sword into her soul; it was driven into her (Lk. 2:35).
The saddest thing is that an ideal opportunity has been lost to clarify and theologically specify the scope (and limits) of this Marian title, so deeply rooted in the people as in the doctrine of the Popes, instead of trying to give theological clothing to the unfortunate and fallacious words of Pope Francis. Because it is a matter of such soteriological depth that it deserves to be deepened. The theologian Aurelio Fernández expresses this lucidly in his treatise on "Dogmatic Theology" (p. 442):
"What seems urgent is to rigorously explain the exact content of the term 'co-redemptrix,' for those who resist admitting it rightly point out that the co-redemptrix formula cannot mean equating Christ the Redeemer and Mary the Redeemer, since she too has been redeemed; the difference, then, between Christ's redemptive action and the Virgin's association with his work is not one of 'degree' but 'essential.' It cannot even mean a simple 'coordination' of tasks, but must guarantee the 'subordination of functions.'
"To explain, not to 'eliminate.' In ecclesiastical history, there would never have been any theological development in Christology, Mariology, or Ecclesiology if theologians and the Magisterium had been restrained by the 'inconvenient' or 'inopportune' dangers of the concepts used to explain truths of faith. Now that we celebrate the 1,700 years of Nicaea, let us think of the non-biblical term 'homousios,' the enormity of problems it generated; let us recall the title given to our Blessed Mother at Ephesus (431) of 'Theotokos' (no Catholic, not even the craziest ones, interpret it as Mary's ontological precedence over the Most Holy Trinity, although the most fanatical Protestants throw it in our faces on the internet). Let us reflect on the Church, defined as the 'universal Sacrament of salvation,' which does not mean there is an eighth sacrament as some fool might interpret. If there is anything that characterizes the Catholic faith, it is the demand to use, in addition to the Sacred Scriptures, the Tradition and the Magisterium, the power of reason. Despite, of course, the risks that this entails, given the difficulty of human language to address and specify mystagogical issues.
And needless to say, we could evoke those dogmas proclaimed when the Church had no ecumenical complexes (Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Papal Infallibility...). I have no doubt that, had these truths of faith not been solemnly defined, the authors of the document we criticize would bore us with a tedious exposition on the scant scriptural support for them and their grave repercussions for unity with heretics and schismatics. But those brave Popes of yore did not shy away from theological difficulties (in the first case), scriptural ones (in the second), or historical ones (in the third). And they couldn't care less about angering the heresiarchs.
In short, I ask ingenuously: why not attempt to "do Theology with a capital T"? To work intelligently, with faith, and with the fire of charity on such an emotive Marian concept, which has been habitually used by Catholics for more than five centuries. The document acknowledges this in numeral 17, although the first light was already perceived by Fathers of the second century like St. Justin and St. Irenaeus when describing Mary as the New Eve, through whose obedience salvation came to us. Why, then, has the hope of so many Christians who await the recognition of this fifth Marian dogma been sunk? Why?
The document seems to answer that question by citing—of course—the Second Vatican Council, specifically Chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium, for this Council "avoided using the title of co-redemptrix for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons" (18). True, but with an important nuance that we will see below. It avoided the title, but recognized this irrenunciable truth in a luminous paragraph that, significantly, is omitted in the Dicastery's document and its notes. We will see it below.
II
It is sufficiently studied by theologians and historians that during the sessions of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the preliminary schemas prepared since John XXIII announced the great assembly in 1959 were abandoned, including a specific one on the Blessed Virgin Mary. At the proposal of Cardinal German Frings and 66 Central European bishops—not a joke, the number—after a very close vote (1,114 votes against 1,074), it was preferred to unite the schemas on the Church and on the Virgin (which meant throwing away the specific schema on Mary). And thus arose the eighth chapter, conclusive of Lumen Gentium, placing the Virgin Mary as a brooch that closes the general treatise on the Church. And although an attempt was made to name the chapter "Mary, Mother of the Church," it was finally titled "Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church."
Those objective facts, given the Council's open ecumenical intention, might lead one to think that many conciliar fathers (for example, those from the polluted Rhine basin) did not desire an excessive presence of the Marian theme in the Council. In any case, it must be acknowledged that God writes straight with crooked lines and that the bond that Lumen Gentium establishes between the Church and the Blessed Virgin Mary (already existing in tradition, by the way) represented an important theological achievement, as our remembered Benedict XVI expressed:
"I think that this rediscovery of the transitional nature of Mary and Church, of the personality of the Church in Mary, and of the universality of the Marian in the Church, is one of the most important rediscoveries of 20th-century theology"
And with the lucidity that characterized the great Bavarian theologian, he noted:
"The Church is a person. She is a woman. She is a mother. She is alive. The Marian understanding of the Church represents the most decisive rejection of an organizational and bureaucratic concept (… ) The Church was begotten when the Fiat awakened in Mary's soul. This is the deepest will of the Council: that the Church awaken in our souls. Mary shows us the way."
And although it is also public and notorious that Mariology suffered an eclipse in the years following the Council, the truth is that in Lumen Gentium, despite not using the word "co-redemption" (for undisguisedly ecumenical reasons), it clearly alludes to that function. This Dogmatic Constitution, when referring to the action of the Blessed Virgin Mary, includes some luminous words that, however, are not quoted in Mater Populi Fidelis. And it is easy to deduce the reason why that luminous quote from Lumen Gentium was not included in this document (nor in its abundant marginal notes): it would dismantle the entire framework of its brilliant argumentation.
I transcribe it with deep emotion. And with the certainty that they were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit to keep open the window of the fifth Marian dogma, which will be proclaimed with immense joy by the Christian people at the moment Our Lord desires. And let us not forget that this brief dogmatic declaration of Lumen Gentium is, in terms of doctrinal value, far above all the numerals of the Dicastery's document, a note that will pass without pain or glory and which I hope will soon be forgotten like many other Roman documents of the past.
I also include the original Latin in bold because it is, if anything, more emotive (and strong). It says:
"The Most Holy Virgin (… ) by conceiving Christ, bringing him forth, nourishing him, presenting him to the Father in the Temple, suffering with her son as he died on the cross, (filioque suo in cruce moriendi competiens) cooperated in a completely unique way in the work of the Savior (operi Salvatoris singulari prorsus modo cooperata est) by obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity, to restore the supernatural life of souls (ad vitam animarum supernaturalem restaurandam) (61)."
In conclusion, peace of mind. Nothing has been closed. And as critical as we may be of certain ambiguous expressions in the generally magnificent documents of the Second Vatican Council, here I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit acted in a special and clarifying way. And He did so to remind us that, indeed, and first of all, "through the blood of Christ we have redemption" (Eph. 1:3). But equally so that we never forget that it was the will of the Divine Son that his blessed mother be at the foot of his cross, to associate her especially with his salvation.
The "how" or "in what way" that cooperation acts remains a pending question for wise theologians who are, at the same time, men of ardent faith. Not, certainly, for those who drafted that dispensable document.
Help Infovaticana continue informing