Category: Theology

After the preceding interview about the DDF’s document on the term “Coredemptrix” and other Marian titles, Fr. Manfred Hauke wrote a commentary on the topic for the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost. It appears here with permission.

A Conflict of Theologians over Mary

Only “Mother of the faithful people”? Why the Doctrinal Note about the Mother of God from the Dicastery on the Doctrine of the Faith calls for clarification

by Manfred Hauke

In the view of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, someone who invokes the Virgin Mary as “Mother of the faithful people” is doing everything right: at the start of November the document “Mater populi fidelis. Doctrinal Note on some Marian titles regarding Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation” appeared.

For the Latin expression “Mother of the faithful people (of God)” the Note refers to St. Augustine, who speaks of how Mary “cooperated by charity that faithful might be born in the Church.” The singular cooperation of Mary in the Redemption is a leitmotiv of the Marian chapter in the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which also cites the same passage from Augustine (at Lumen gentium 53).

The occasion for the Note is the Dicastery’s involvement with alleged Marian apparitions in which certain titles which can pose difficulties appear. Cardinal Fernández’s reference to the past thirty years in the prologue relates particularly to the Marian apparitions in Amsterdam, judged as inauthentic by the Dicastery, apparitions that spread proposals for a Marian dogma under the three titles of Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate. This problematic demand was spread foremost through an international petition drive addressed to the public since 1993 under the leadership of the American theologian Mark Miravalle, which collected millions of signatures for the proclamation of a dogma by the Holy Father. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led at the time by Cardinal Ratzinger, also took up the issue, particularly in its meeting of February 21, 1996.

But more important than the efforts promoted in connection with Amsterdam are the initiatives of the Belgian Cardinal Mercier, in the last year of whose life (1926) begins the dossier with which the Dicastery was occupied. From 1915 on, Mercier and the Belgian bishops supported declaring a dogma about Mary as “Mediatrix of all graces” and reached an important stage on the way to that goal in the optional Feast introduced by Pope Benedict XV in 1921 under that very title. They were blocked from reaching that goal, above all by the considerations already expressed in 1916 by Fr. Alberto Lepidi, O.P., against a cooperation by Mary in the Redemption, which the Belgian bishops had described with the title “Coredemptrix”. These dogmatic considerations, however, have been largely overcome by the Marian chapter of Vatican II, which speaks clearly throughout of a singular cooperation of Mary in the Redemption (Lumen gentium 61). In the mystery of the Redemption Mary was, according to the witness of the Church Fathers, “not merely passively used by God”, but “cooperated in free faith and obedience for the salvation of men”.

The singular cooperation of Mary in the Redemption was summed up briefly with the word “Coredemptrix”. The Council’s Theological Commission described the term “Coredemptrix of the human race” and similar expressions as completely right (verissima), but did not use them in the prepared text, out of consideration for the Protestants (Acta synodalia, per. I, pars IV, 99). The references provided by Karl Rahner, S.J., during the Council are interesting. For example, during a subcommittee session in regard to the use of the title “Mediatrix” on June 3, 1964, the Jesuit emphasized: Mary is “mediatrix” and consequently also “coredemptrix”. Some days earlier he had also observed in the general session of the Council’s Commission on Faith and Morals that Lumen gentium (now in numbers 55–59) was presenting the doctrine of Coredemption (Laurie Olsen, Mary and the Church at Vatican II. The Untold Story of Lumen Gentium VIII, Steubenville, Ohio, 2024, p. 112 and note 627; also pp. 118 and 200, with long unknown evidence from audio-tape archives of the Council).

The most important problem for the reception of the document set forth by Cardinal Fernández is the fact that the Note criticizes the concept of “Coredemptrix” as “always inappropriate”, although the doctrinal truth expressed by it is recognized throughout: namely the singular cooperation of Mary in the Redemption. In the first press reports it was emphasized above all that the Note was taking a position against the concept of “Coredemptrix”, and also another important title, “Mediatrix of all graces”, with reference to, among other things, a statement by Cardinal Ratzinger from 1996, marked with a question mark.

The problem with this approach appears in an exemplary way in the Note’s two citations of probably the most relevant contemporary magisterial document on “Coredemption”, in the Marian Catechesis of John Paul II, on April 9, 1997. Its title reads “Mary as singular cooperator in the Redemption”. In it John Paul II distinguishes the specific cooperation of Mary, which extends maternally over Christ’s whole work of salvation, from the cooperation of Christians, which takes place after the sacrifice on the Cross at Golgotha. Mary herself is connected with the sacrifice on the Cross which merited salvation for all mankind. The Doctrinal Note takes up this distinction with a reference to Mary’s participation in the “objective Redemption” (in Christ’s work of salvation on earth), in distinction from her present-day influence on the redeemed. The original title of the catechesis, whose content is strongly influenced by the work of the Belgian Jesuit Jean Galot, read clearly “Mary Coredemptrix”; this can be understood in the context of John Paul II’s reference to the 15^th century in which the title of “Coredemptrix” pops up for the first time, while the first explicit witnesses of any discussion of the cooperation of Mary in the Redemption go back to the tenth century. Apparently the title of the talk was changed prior to publication on the advice of the Secretariat of State, perhaps in order to avoid controversies over the title “Coredemptrix”.

The effort to set aside the concept of “Coredemptrix” is apparently already being minimized by Cardinal Fernández by means of the introductory remark that the Doctrinal Note is not intended to correct the devotion of the faithful People of God in any way. But that is where word of Mary as “Coredemptrix of the human race” became widespread, above all since the pontificate of Leo XIII, who approved an indulgenced prayer with that title. Since the 16^th century the concept has been found among theologians and saints. St. John Henry Newman, recently named as a Doctor of the Church, defended the description of Mary as “Co-redemptress” against the Anglican Edward Pusey: If he, knowledgeable about the Church Fathers, recognized concepts such as “Second Eve”, “Mother of the living”, and “Mother of God”, these were even much stronger concepts than the title under criticism. There are also some possible misunderstandings with the title “Bearer of God” (Theotokos), a title which the Dicastery’s Note itself mentions as obvious despite Protestant objections.

The critical remarks on the concept “Mediatrix of all graces”, with reference to Cardinal Ratzinger’s name, are also astounding, because Benedict XVI expressly used this concept in his letter to Archbishop Sigismund Zimowski of January 10, 2013, and paraphrased its content in a homily for the canonization of the Franciscan Fra Galvão (May 11, 2007). On May 12, 2010 in Fatima, on the occasion of the Year of the Priest, he addressed Mary as “Mediatrix of grace”, “fully immersed in the one universal mediation of Christ”. Pope Francis also recognized the “old” invocation of Mary as “Mediatrix of all graces”, in his message to the Archbishop of Sassari in Sardinia on May 13, 2023. Much more could be said about the strengths and weaknesses of the Dicastery’s Doctrinal Note. In view of the questions already mentioned, it would really not be surprising if after some time something might take place similar to what happened after the document “Fiducia supplicans”, on the subject of various blessings, when the head of the Dicastery made a few clarifications.

The author is Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Theological Faculty of Lugano, member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy (PAMI) and, since 2005, Chairman of the German Society for Mariology. The translation is by Richard Chonak (11/28/2025), and this commentary first appeared in Die Tagespost on November 13, 2025.

On November 7, the Italian news outlet La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana published an interview with Mariologist Fr. Manfred Hauke on the subject of the new DDF document Mater populi fidelis, a Doctrinal Note on Marian titles.

Writer Luisella Scrosati presented the questions.

Is coredemption “unsuitable”? You’re rebuking saints and doctors of the church

For the director of the German Society for Mariology the title of Coredemptrix does not create ambiguity about the unique salvific mediation of Christ. If it had done so, the Church would have to criticize the writings of Newman and John Paul II.

We asked Fr. Manfred Hauke, professor of dogmatic theology at the Theological Faculty of Lugano, member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy, and director of the German Society for Mariology, for an opinion on some critical points of the Doctrinal Note Mater populi fidelis.

Q: The main concern of the Note seems focused on the fact that some Marian titles, such as those of Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, might obscure the uniqueness of Christ’s salvific mediation. In your view, does this danger really exist?

In my opinion this danger does not exist in a healthy catechetical and theological context. Who could accuse, for example, St. John Paul II, who various times used the two titles mentioned, of lacking balance? The Note itself recalls that he used the title Coredemptrix “on at least seven occasions” (n. 18). Would we have to take away the title “Doctor of the Church” from Cardinal John Henry Newman, who was declared a Doctor this first of November, because the English convert defended the title of Coredemptrix against the Anglican Edward Pusey? Or criticize the writings of St. Alphonsus de Liguori, also a Doctor of the Church? Or go against numerous saints, including St. Edith Stein and St. Teresa of Calcutta? The Marian titles “second Eve”, “Mother of life”, and “Mother of God”, according to Newman, are much stronger than the title under criticism (Letter to Pusey). Or would we perhaps have to rebuke Pope Leo XIII, who has been praised by the reigning Supreme Pontiff with the choice of his pontifical name: Leo XIII who granted the indulgence for a prayer with the Marian title (in Italian) “Coredemptrix of the World” (Acta Sanctæ Sedis 18, 93)?

Rather, it is easier for them to be misunderstood in the Protestant world, which denies the cooperation of man in salvation with the principle of sola gratia. For this reason the Theological Commission of Vatican II omitted

some expressions and terms used by the Supreme Pontiffs, which, while being most true in themselves, could be made comprehensible only with difficulty to the separated brethren [in this case Protestants]. Among the other terms … “Coredemptrix of the human race” [Acta synodalia, I, 99].

Is it right to sacrifice an expression that is “most true” in itself for ecumenical reasons? Anyway, for Protestants there is not only the problem of the term, but also the doctrine taught by Vatican II on the singular cooperation of Mary in the Redemption. A false ecumenism can damage the Catholic doctrine professed in all its richness. If the Church had to remove all the expressions disliked by the Protestants, she would also have to eliminate the title of Mother of God (Theotokos) mentioned in the Note (nn. 9, 11, 15). Here too we would have to give force to possible misunderstandings of such a title by people who are not well catechized.

Q.: By now almost all the journalistic reports, even in Catholic publications, bear a headline that Mary is not Coredemptrix. One remains somewhat astonished to read that a title such as that of Coredemptrix, which has in fact become part of the vocabulary of theology, as it has also entered into the teachings of Popes, is being unexpectedly declared “inappropriate” and “unsuitable” by the Note.

The title “Coredemptrix” is the shortest expression to express the singular cooperation of Mary in the Redemption. The misunderstanding that Mary would be set on the same level as Jesus is avoided by clarifying that the cooperation of Mary depends totally on Christ and is subordinate to Him. To forbid a brief title that expresses a central truth taught with great clarity by Vatican II would be rather difficult. Moreover, we make note of Cardinal Fernández’ explanation in the opening presentation:

The piety of the faithful People of God … is not contemplated here to correct it ….

The expression “Coredemptrix of the human race” has spread among the faithful, for example in the Appeal of the Message of Fatima by the Venerable Servant of God Sister Lucia; and more so, “Mediatrix of all graces”. This last invocation makes use of the title of the liturgical feast introduced by Pope Benedict XV in 1921 and was even used by Popes Benedict XVI (his Letter of January 10, 2013 to Archbishop Sigismondo Zimowski) and Francis:

One of the ancient titles with which Christians have invoked the Virgin Mary is in fact “Mediatrix of all graces”. Entrust to her your aspirations and good intentions guarded in your hearts; may She infect you with the joy of following Christ and serving him in humble and docile fashion in the Church ….
[Message to Archbishop Gian Franco Saba of Sassari, Sardinia, May 13, 2023]

Q: In your view, did the Note intend to reject only the title of Coredemptrix, or also some important aspects of the singular cooperation of Mary in the work of the Redemption?

Despite the critical observations on the two titles, the Note presents the doctrine of the conciliar and pontifical magisterium (nn. 4-15), especially regarding the “singular cooperation of Mary in the plan of salvation” (n. 3; see also n. 36f and 42). The document also cites the clearest text on this point, the Marian catechesis of St. John Paul II on April 9, 1997, which distinguishes the participation of Mary in the objective Redemption wrought by Christ on earth from our cooperation in the process of salvation (nn. 3, 37b).

Q: St. Pius X (Ad diem illum) taught that the Most Holy Virgin, by virtue of her singular holiness and association with the work of the Redemption,

merits for us de congruo [for the sake of fittingness], in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno [for the sake of justice]

In the Note itself there seems to be a hesitation, if not a reversal, when it affirms that “Only the merits of Jesus Christ, … are applied to us for our justification” [n. 47]. What do you think of it?

The important distinction by Pius X is not cited, but it seems that a hint is being made – even if it is somewhat hidden – at the distinction between the merit de condigno by Christ and the merit de congruo by Mary (n. 47f). In order to speak of a universal extension of the maternal mediation of Mary in Christ it is indispensable to recall this type of merit.

Q: In the concluding paragraphs of the Note, an often discussed theme is taken up, namely that Mary Most Holy, in the words of Pope Francis, “is more disciple than mother” (n. 73). What is true in this expression and what pitfalls are there?

According to St. Augustine, Mary conceived the Word of God first in her heart and then in her womb (Sermon 215, 4). On the other hand, it is not possible to separate in Mary being a disciple and being Mother of God, in addition to being “Mother of the faithful people”. The specific dignity of Mary comes precisely from her mission of being the Mother of God, she who generated the human nature of the Savior. The basis for all her salvific cooperation also stands here.

In these days after the Solemnity of the Ascension, it’s proper to reflect on the Church that our Lord left behind.
In the 1985 interview book “The Ratzinger Report“, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said this to interviewer Vittorio Messori:

…the Church is not ours but his. Hence the ‘reform’, the ‘renewals’… cannot exhaust themselves in a zealous activity on our part to erect new, sophisticated structures…. Saints, in fact, reformed the Church in depth, not by working up plans for new structures, but by reforming themselves. What the Church needs in order to respond to the needs of man in every age is holiness, not management.

The Cardinal was speaking about ecclesiologies — theories of what the Church is — that had lost their balance in the 1960s and 1970s. Some Catholics, he said, had in practice adopted a concept of the Church that was like the American “free church” concept. This refers to the pattern we see as far back in America as the Pilgrims: a fellowship of believers who spurned the idea of an institutional Catholic Church founded by the will of Christ, and also spurned the state-churches that arose from the Protestant Reformation, which those Pilgrims also considered oppressive. They founded their own communities to follow their spiritual lives according to their convictions.
To think of the Church as a creation of ours makes it a human construct, subject to democratic processes and group dynamics, and dependent on our human skills of management.
This is different from how we Catholics believe. We think of the Church as the communio sanctorum, a phrase with multiple meanings.
The Church is the fellowship of the saints, in which “saints” refers to all the baptized, the people made holy (“saints”) by the grace of Christ given in baptism. This fellowship extends not only throughout the world but also through time, and includes those who have died in fellowship with Christ, and who are still one community with us even as they await their glorification which will be full at the end of the world.
And the Church even includes the Holy One himself, Christ the Lord risen and glorious who has ascended to the Father and is present body and soul before Him. The Church is the Body of Christ, present in Heaven through Him, and present in the world and in history through His people.
Because Christ is the Head of the Church, He makes the Church into the communio sanctorum in its other meaning: the sharing of holy things. It is the sharing of the sacraments — Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Confession, Ordination, Marriage, Anointing — the holy things through which Christ uses material goods, words, and gestures to confer grace and spiritual life on us. To be fully in the Church is to share the sacraments, the greatest of which is the Eucharist which contains the living Jesus Christ himself, given to us hidden under the forms of bread and wine.