S. M. Perrella, Co-Redemptrix [RSI Cultura]

This article is a free translation of the Italian original available at https://www.rsi.ch/cultura/filosofia-e-religione/%C2%ABNon-amo-il-termine-Corredentrice-per%C3%B2%E2%80%A6%C2%BB,3289250.html

The debate has not died down almost two weeks after the publication of the doctrinal Note Mater populi fidelis. What divides opinion above all are the paragraphs concerning the title of Co-Redemptrix, which, however, was attributed to Mary by saints, theologians and popes. And against the document of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which labels its use “always inappropriate” (whereas the original Spanish text instead uses the adjective inoportuno and the early English version presented even more striking variants) and even “unfitting”, some provocatively set the favorable opinion of Cardinal Newman, recently proclaimed “Doctor of the Church” by Leo XIV, who in 1865 wrote thus to the Anglican theologian Edward B. Pusey, strongly critical of the then-contemporary cult of Mary in the Catholic Church: “When they saw that you, with the Fathers, called her Mother of God, Second Eve and Mother of all the living, Mother of life, Morning Star, Mystical New Heaven, Sceptre of Orthodoxy, Immaculate Mother of holiness and others besides, they would have considered it a very miserable compensation for such language that you should protest against her being called Co-Redemptrix”.

Speaking to RSI is the Servite theologian Salvatore Maria Perrella who, formerly full professor of Dogmatics and Mariology at the Pontifical Theological Faculty Marianum and for two terms rector of that same Roman athenaeum, enjoyed the lasting and open esteem of Joseph Ratzinger. It was, indeed, the then cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who wanted him, in 1996, among the twelve expert members of the international Vatican Commission on Marian Co-Redemption. And later, once he had become pontiff under the name of Benedict XVI, it was he who chose him in 2010 as theological expert of the international Vatican Commission on Međugorje.

Mater populi fidelis: for many, an inopportune, harmful and useless document…

“As for uselessness, I do not agree. Everything is always useful. Even a controversial document, because it kindles and enlivens debate. In this specific case, the doctrinal Note opens debates at the level of theology and of Mariology above all according to its various dimensions. One dimension stands out in it, which reads Mariology in a strictly Christological sense. There is, however, little room for the ecclesiological and anthropological dimension. And the Trinitarian and symbolic dimension is also entirely lacking. The document must, in any case, be understood within a much more global perspective”.

Which one?

“Behind this Note, as the document itself points out, and I hope the authors are aware of this, paragraph 20 must be read, where the position of Pope Francis on the title of Co-Redemptrix is discussed. The question of the Marian titles has always been on the agenda. It resurfaces and goes back to sleep. So, what is to be said? As regards the titles relating to Mary’s cooperation, they were at the center of a renewed reflection beginning in 1854 with the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception. It was precisely within the framework of the immaculist doctrine that in-depth readings of Mary’s service or munus in the work of salvation were preferred, with the use of numerous terms. Some, it is true, wholly improper, such as Redemptrix or Substitute for what belongs properly to the Divinity. This led theologians and popes, from Leo XIII to Pius XII, to read the Immaculate One in the work of salvation as fruit and as mission. Fruit of mercy, mission of Mary”.

What, in your view, was missing from that reading?

“What was forgotten above all was Mary’s creaturely dimension. Today it is happily present, but perhaps in a somewhat excessive way. In short, that balance which is currently absent would be necessary. As regards the doctrinal Note, I am of the opinion, reading it and rereading it, that it remains formally, but not always wisely, within the doctrine of the Second Vatican Council, especially Lumen Gentium 60-62, later reread by John Paul II in Redemptoris Mater, above all in paragraphs 40-42. These are today the pillars of the doctrine of the cooperatio Mariae. Personally, I do not care for the title of Co-Redemptrix, but, as a theologian, I cannot fail to take into account that it also emerged in the post-conciliar Magisterium”.

John Paul II did indeed use the title of Co-Redemptrix seven times. And although, after the Feria IV of the former Holy Office of February 21, 1996, he no longer employed it, as the Note points out, it is equally true that he later had recourse to equivalent terms such as, for example, Cooperator of the Redeemer or Singular cooperator in the Redemption. What can you say in this regard?

“All of this is true. Returning specifically to the document Mater populi fidelis, I consider it absolutely very ‘Franciscan’, in the Bergoglian sense. Paragraph 21, which serves as a heading for paragraph 22, explains, in the light of three statements of Pope Francis, the reasons why the term Co-Redemptrix is inappropriate and unfitting. Personally, I would never have used such terms. I am for the intelligent option of Lumen Gentium, which takes into account the preceding vocabulary. It does not stigmatize it, but neither does it adopt it. Not only that. I also have the impression that in the Note the ecumenical concern prevails. And that is a distraction. It must certainly be present, but it must not be prevalent. Primacy must be given to the pastoral character of doctrine. Moreover, I find the Note excessively long in contrast with a Roman Magisterium that has always been distinguished by sobrietas, by concision”.

What is problematic is, above all, the following passage from paragraph 22: “When an expression requires numerous and continual explanations in order to keep it from straying from its correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unfitting”. But, from this perspective, the titles Mother of God, Immaculate, Mother of the Church, for example, would also seem unfitting, since these likewise require extensive explanations. A task which, on the other hand, is carried out by theology and by catechesis. Do you not think so?

“Without a doubt. The truth is that we are within history, but we are not aware of it. That dissociation was seen from the very beginning with the title Theotokos. This uproar over the titles is a pretext, because they have a single foundation: Sacred Scripture and what Divine Providence, as Fr. Calabuig taught, willed and designated ab aeterno for Mary. The document, although broad and extensive, has no historical memory. And that, so to speak, is a poverty. The very purpose of the document, that is, to draw attention to Mary in the work of salvation, a purpose expressed, moreover, in too radical a manner, presents critical points. We ought, in fact, to ask ourselves: What is the urgency of the Church’s faith today? Today people no longer believe in the Trinity. Doubts are fed about the divinity and the messiahship of Christ. Now, Mary is collateral to all of this. Mary, to use an expression dear to Benedict XVI, ‘is second, but not secondary’. And the Note, which I would define as ‘too monophysite’, unfortunately does not help an integral and global reading of the Christian faith. I am of the opinion that the document should have been better rethought and refined and, above all, should have been born of a study carried out by competent persons”.

In the Presentation of Mater populi fidelis, Cardinal Fernández stated that the question of some Marian titles is something that “has aroused concerns in recent pontiffs”. What do you think of that?

“It does not seem to me that the pontiffs have been concerned with such a question. Their concern was quite another: the immediate reception of Lumen Gentium and of the Council. We are still in a mythical reception of Vatican II, whose documents, unfortunately, are not known in depth”.

Paragraph 75 of the Note calls into question the new Norms for proceeding in the discernment of alleged supernatural phenomena, about which you are openly critical. What are the reasons?

“Forgive me the neologism, but the paragraph in question is another ‘s-preziosa’ pearl of the Note. And it is so precisely by reason of its close connection with the new Norms of the Dicastery of 2024. I have always held in high regard those approved by Paul VI in 1978 and made officially public in 2011. In particular, I appreciated the preface signed by the then cardinal prefect William Levada. At the time, having been consulted by the Congregation on the matter, I had warmly desired a revision of the Norms of Paul VI. But with a view to a sapiential deepening, not to a squandering of the great vivid patrimony of the language, of the contents, of the perspectives”.

Could you explain that further?

“In order to understand the new Norms and what has been produced in these two years of Cardinal Fernández’s prefecture, one must always keep in mind the constantly looming icon of Pope Francis and, in particular, his constitution reforming the Roman Curia Praedicate Evangelium. That constitution, which set off the entire diplomatic, political and operative practice of the Vatican, also had influences on Mariology and on the Marian character of the Church. Because, with the reform of the Curia, the Secretariat of State lost, under Francis, its primacy and its role of coordination, while the principal dicastery became that of Evangelization. The primacy of evangelization, however, cannot dispense with the words of Christ, who did not abolish a single iota of the Law (cf. Mt 5:17-19). That fundamental principle should have sustained and should sustain magisterial propositions with greater caution, with greater respect for history and for the present in a future perspective, and with great attention to other realities. And this holds also for the question of the Marian titles”.

The document also reflects on popular devotion. And yet it has always had a language of its own, which is that of the heart, of feeling. Proof of this is precisely the variety of titles with which, for two thousand years, the faithful have addressed Mary, Mother of Christ and of the Church. Consider, for example, a liturgical antiphon such as the Salve Regina, in which she is invoked as Spes nostra and Advocata nostra…

“These are titles proper to the Holy Spirit, but which we correctly attribute to Mary by virtue of the principle of analogy. Coming to the theme of popular devotion and its language, there comes to my mind a splendid lecture, delivered by the then cardinal Ratzinger at the Marianum, on the twofold characterization of Mariology and of the Marian character of the Church, that is, reason and feeling. From this derives the crucial question: How are these two demands to be harmoniously combined? This is the real problem. Unfortunately, in the Church there is a scarcity of trained people who can help in this regard. And so Mary continues to be exploited as always in the likeness, if I may be allowed the image, of an unpaid laborer. If we wish truly to know Mary, we must do so through the word of God and the sensus fidelium on the Church’s journey”.

Prof. Perrella’s interview forms part of the debate on the Marian titles addressed in the document Mater Populi Fidelis published by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in December 2024.

Deepen your studies: explore Mariology, Marian Theology, Marian apparitions and the Postgraduate Program in Mariology.

Marian academic resources: Deepen your formation in Mariology and Marian Theology with the Locus Mariologicus Institute. Postgraduate Program in Mariology: an academic formation of excellence.

To deepen the theology of Marian co-redemption, consult the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater by Pope John Paul II.