St. Mary, Coredemptrix [of the human race]
![S. m. perrella, Corredentora [rsi cultura]](https://locusmariologicus.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/cba62f29-9b46-4bcb-b689-edf53782930a1.jpg)
The debate shows no signs of abating nearly two weeks after the release of the Doctrinal Note *Mater populi fidelis*. Dividing opinions primarily revolve around the title of Co-Redemptrix, which has been attributed to Mary by saints, theologians, and popes. The document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which labels its use as “inappropriate” (while the original Spanish text uses instead the adjective “inopportune” and the original English version presented even more striking variations), is opposed by some in a provocatively manner. They point to the favorable opinion of Cardinal Newman, recently proclaimed a “Doctor of the Church” by Leo XIII, who in 1865 wrote to the Anglican theologian Edward B. Pusey, a strong critic of Marian devotion at the time, stating: “When they saw that you, with the Fathers, called her Mother of God, Second Eve, Mother of all the living, Mother of life, Morning Star, Mystical New Heaven, Staff of Orthodoxy, Immaculate Mother of holiness, and others, they would have considered a poor compensation for such language the fact that you protested against her being called Co-Redemptrix.”RSI speaks with Servite theologian Salvatore Maria Perrella, who served as a full professor of Dogmatics and Mariology at the Pontifical Theological Faculty Marianum and as rector for two terms of the same Roman college. He enjoyed the lasting and open esteem of Joseph Ratzinger. It was indeed Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who chose him in 1996 as one of the twelve experts on the Vatican International Commission on Marian Co-Redemption. Later, once he became Pope Benedict XVI, he selected Perrella in 2010 as a theological expert on the Vatican International Commission on Medjugorje.*Mater populi fidelis*: For many, an inappropriate, harmful, and useless document…“**As to uselessness, I do not agree. Everything is always useful. Even a controversial document, because it ignites and animates debate. In this specific case, the Doctrinal Note opens debates at the level of theology and Mariology, especially according to its various dimensions. It highlights a dimension that reads Mariology strictly in a Christological sense. However, there is little space for the ecclesiological and anthropological dimension. And the Trinitarian and symbolic dimension is completely lacking. The document should, nonetheless, be understood within a much broader perspective.”Question?“Behind this Note, as the document itself notes, and I hope the authors are aware of this, lies the reading of point 20 regarding Pope Francis’ position on the title of Co-Redemptrix. The question of Marian titles has always been in the spotlight. It resurfaces and then falls asleep again. So, what to say? As for the titles related to Mary’s cooperation, they have been at the center of renewed reflection since 1854 with the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception. It was precisely within the framework of the immaculateist doctrine that in-depth readings of Mary’s service or ‘munus’ in the work of salvation were preferred, using numerous terms. Some, indeed, totally inappropriate, such as Redeemer or Substitute for what is proper to Divinity. This led theologians and popes, from Leo XIII to Pius XII, to read the Immaculate Conception in the work of salvation as a fruit and a mission. Fruit of mercy, mission of Mary.”“What, in your opinion, was missing from this reading? The creature dimension of Mary was notably overlooked. Today it is fortunately present, but perhaps a little excessively so. In short, a balance that is currently absent is needed. As for the Doctrinal Note, upon reading and re-reading it, I believe it formally remains in line with the doctrine of the Second Vatican Council, especially Lumen Gentium 60-62, later re-read by John Paul II in Redemptoris Mater.”“Indeed, especially in numbers 40-42, these are the pillars of the doctrine of cooperatio Mariae. Personally, I do not appreciate the title of Co-Redemptor, but as a theologian, I cannot ignore that it also emerged in the post-conciliar magisterium.”
John Paul II indeed used the title of Co-Redemptor seven times. Although he did not employ it after the Fourth Session of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on February 21, 1996, as noted in the Note, he subsequently used equivalent terms, such as “Collaborator of the Redeemer” or “Unique Collaborator in Redemption.” What can you say about this?
“All of this is true. Returning specifically to the document Mater populi fidelis, I consider it absolutely very ‘Franciscan’, in the Bergoglio sense. Number 21, which serves as a heading for number 22, explains, in the light of three statements by Pope Francis, why the term Co-Redemptor is inappropriate and inconvenient. Personally, I would never have used such terms. I am in favor of the intelligent option of Lumen Gentium…”
That which has raised concerns among recent popes is not the issue of certain Marian titles, but rather the reception of the Lumen Gentium, the Council’s Constitution on the Church. Their concern was about the immediate reception of this document, which set out a new understanding of the Church and its relationship to the world.
Regarding the issue of Marian titles, I agree that the concern expressed in the Note is excessive. While it is true that titles like Theotokos, Immaculate, Mother of the Church require explanations, these are provided by theology and catechesis. These titles are rooted in Sacred Scripture and the divine will, as Father Calabuig taught, from eternity. The Note, with its monophysite leanings, does not help in understanding Mary’s integral role in the work of salvation. In fact, it presents critical points. We must ask ourselves: What is the urgency of the Church’s faith today? Today, belief in the Trinity is waning, and there are doubts about Christ’s divinity and messiahship. Mary is peripheral to these issues. As Pope Benedict XVI expressed, Mary is second, but not secondary. The Note, in its current form, does not promote a holistic reading of Christian faith.
I believe the document should have been better reconsidered and refined, and it should have emerged from a study conducted by competent individuals.
“And concerning the Council, we are still in a mythical reception of Vatican II, whose documents, unfortunately, are not known in depth.”“Regarding point 75 of the Note, it challenges the new *Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Presumed Supernatural Phenomena*, on which you are openly critical. What are the reasons?”“Forgive me for using a neologism, but the point in question is another ‘precious pearl’ of the Note. It is precisely because of its close connection with the new Norms of the Dicastery from 2024. I have always held in high regard those approved by Paul VI in 1978 and officially made public in 2011. In particular, I appreciated the preface signed by then-Cardinal Prefect William Levada. At the time, having been questioned by the Congregation on this matter, I had warmly expressed the desire for a revision of Paul VI’s Norms. But in the perspective of a deeper intellectual exploration, not a dismantling of the great iconographic heritage of language, content, and perspective.”To understand the new Norms and what has been produced during the two years of Cardinal Fernández’s prefecture, it is necessary to always keep present the constantly looming icon of Pope Francis, and in particular, his constitution for the reform of the Roman Curia, *Praedicate Evangelium*. This constitution, which ignited all diplomatic, political, and operational practices of the Vatican, also had influences on Mariology and on the Marianity of the Church. Because, with the reform of the Curia, the State Secretariat lost, under Francis, its primacy and coordination role, while the main dicastery became that of Evangelization. However, the primacy of evangelization cannot dispense with Christ’s words, who did not abolish even one iota of the Law (cf. Mt 5:17-19). This fundamental principle should have supported and should support magisterial propositions with greater caution, with greater respect for history and the present, and with great attention to other realities. And this is also true for the issue of Marian titles.The document also reflects on popular devotion. Yet, it always had its own language, that of the heart and feeling. This is evident in 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 antiphona like *Salve Regina*, in which she is invoked as *Spes nostra* and *Advocata nostra*…These titles, which are proper to the Holy Spirit, are rightly attributed to Mary due to the principle of analogy. Regarding popular devotion and its language, a splendid lesson comes to mind, given by then-Cardinal Ratzinger at the Marianum, on the double characterization of Mariology and Marianity of the Church, that is, reason and feeling. From this arises the crucial question: How to harmoniously combine these two demands? This is the true problem. Unfortunately, in the Church, there are few prepared people who can help in this regard. And so, Mary continues to be exploited, as it were, like an unpaid worker. If we want to truly know Mary, we must do so through God’s Word and the *sensus fidelium* on the path of the Church.The Professor Perrella interview fits into the debate on Marian titles addressed in the document *Mater Populi Fidelis* published by the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith in December 2024.Deepen your studies: explore Mariology, Marian theology, Marian apparitions, and the Master’s in Mariology.Marian academic resources: Deepen your formation in Mariology and Marian theology with the Locus Mariologicus Institute. Master’s in Mariology: excellent academic training.
To deepen the theology of Mary’s co-redemption, consult the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater by Pope John Paul II.
Responses