Mater Populi Fidelis - Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles

[Doom]

The term "Mediatrix" was first used, as far as we know, by St Ephrem the Syrian, in the 4th century, and was subsequently used by later Fathers. The 4th century is frankly earlier than either the Assumption (first referenced as far as we know, in the 5th century) and the Immaculate Conception (which was not explictly stated in the form we know until the Middle Ages)

St Thomas (ST 3:26:1) says that in one sense Christ is the only perfect mediator, but that others can also be called mediators in the sense that they can become a channel of grace for others.

It was used, in magisterial documents, by Pope Pius IX (In Ineffiblus Deus the Apostolic Constitution defining the Immaculate Conception, Leo XIII (more than once, in his encyclicals on the Rosary in 1895 and again in 1896), Pius X (in the encylical "Ad Dieum Illium" in 1904, and John Paul II (Redemptoris Mater 1987) and most famously by Lumen Gentium (1965)

Ludwig Ott, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, lists the proposition "Mary gave the Redeemer, the sources of all grace, to the world, and in this way, she is the channel of all graces" as "senta certa, or ie, "generally agreed to be official doctrine, even though it has never been dogmatically defined.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

19. In the Feria IV meeting on 21 February 1996, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was the Prefect of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked whether the request from the movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici to define a dogma declaring Mary as the “Co-redemptrix” or “Mediatrix of All Graces” was acceptable. In his personal votum, he replied: “Negative. The precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. A defined doctrine of divine faith belongs to the Depositum Fidei — that is, to the divine revelation conveyed in Scripture and the apostolic tradition. However, it is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.”[36] Later, in 2002, he publicly voiced his opinion against the use of the title: “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.” While Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny that there may have been good intentions and valuable aspects in the proposal to use this title, he maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way.”[37]

20. The then Cardinal Ratzinger referred to the Letters to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, where the vocabulary and the theological dynamism of the hymns present the unique redemptive centrality of the incarnate Son in such a way as to leave no room to add any other form of mediation — for, “every spiritual blessing” is bestowed upon us “in Christ” (Eph 1:3); we are adopted as sons and daughters through him (cf. Eph 1:5); in him we have been graced (cf. Eph 1:6); “we have redemption through his blood” (Eph 1:7); and his grace has been “lavished on us” (Eph 1:8). “In him, we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined” (Eph 1:11). In him “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col 1:19) and for him and through him, God willed “to reconcile all things” (Col 1:20). Such praise for the unique place of Christ calls us to situate every creature in a clearly receptive position in relation to him and to exercise careful, reverent caution whenever proposing any form of possible cooperation with him in the realm of Redemption.

I think that speaks for itself. If you disagree with the new document, take it up with Ratzinger.

[anawim]

Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici is the very request that, then Pope JPII said, "The time is not right". Doesn't say that it can't happen, nor does it say that it won't happen, but it does say, not yet. That expresses discernment and wisdom. I think it's the best answer possible.

[Doom]

19. In the Feria IV meeting on 21 February 1996, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was the Prefect of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked whether the request from the movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici to define a dogma declaring Mary as the “Co-redemptrix” or “Mediatrix of All Graces” was acceptable. In his personal votum, he replied: “Negative. The precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. A defined doctrine of divine faith belongs to the Depositum Fidei — that is, to the divine revelation conveyed in Scripture and the apostolic tradition. However, it is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.”[36] Later, in 2002, he publicly voiced his opinion against the use of the title: “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.” While Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny that there may have been good intentions and valuable aspects in the proposal to use this title, he maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way.”[37]

20. The then Cardinal Ratzinger referred to the Letters to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, where the vocabulary and the theological dynamism of the hymns present the unique redemptive centrality of the incarnate Son in such a way as to leave no room to add any other form of mediation — for, “every spiritual blessing” is bestowed upon us “in Christ” (Eph 1:3); we are adopted as sons and daughters through him (cf. Eph 1:5); in him we have been graced (cf. Eph 1:6); “we have redemption through his blood” (Eph 1:7); and his grace has been “lavished on us” (Eph 1:8). “In him, we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined” (Eph 1:11). In him “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col 1:19) and for him and through him, God willed “to reconcile all things” (Col 1:20). Such praise for the unique place of Christ calls us to situate every creature in a clearly receptive position in relation to him and to exercise careful, reverent caution whenever proposing any form of possible cooperation with him in the realm of Redemption.

I think that speaks for itself. If you disagree with the new document, take it up with Ratzinger.

Please explain how an ecumenical council can use a term dating from the 4th century can somehow become wrong and we aren’t supposed to use it anymore.


Is the catechism going to be rewritten? Is the final chapter of Lumen Gentium going to be retracted?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Please explain why Cardinal Ratzinger didn't know this.

[Doom]

I have read the document about 5 times and read informed commentary on it. And I think I can accept it

It rejects the title of co-redemptrix, but if you pay close attention, it seems to actually affirm the theology behind it but says it needs a better term to describe it. This has always been more or less my position. I have never thought it would ever be formally endorsed or defined.

My problem was with the apparent rejection of the term mediatrix, which I always thought was the uncontroversial title and which has been used in magisterial documents. My worry was how a title that was used officially (unlike co-redemptrix, which has only been used unofficially can suddenly be rejected.

But according to the commentary I read, which I trust, it doesn't reject the title, it just tries to explain the correct, orthodox way of interpreting it. Mediatrix is official, even to the point that as of 1921, there is an optional feast of "Mary Mediatrix" on May 31, but since no Pope or council that has used the term has ever attempted to explain what they mean by it, some clarification on orthodox and unorthodox interpretations is necessary.


If that is what the document is saying, then I have no objection.

[peregrinator]

I think the concerns are reasonable and well-stated.

Some of them may be, not so much others, e.g. "how can Mary be Mediatrix of All Graces if she received grace before she could have mediated it" is very silly.

[peregrinator]

I think that speaks for itself. If you disagree with the new document, take it up with Ratzinger.

Ratzinger opposed the definition of the title Coredemptrix, not the term itself.

[Highlander]

For one ignorant, please, someone, provide the Child's Garden of MPF. In a short paragraph.

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

In Mater Populi Fidelis the dicastery said when an expression requires frequent explanation to maintain the correct meaning, it becomes unhelpful. “In this case, the expression ‘Co-redemptrix’ does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ,”. The dicastery encouraged the use of other expressions for Mary, specifically titles referring to her motherhood, including “Mother of God” and “Mother of the Faithful People of God.”. It warned that, “when we strive to attribute active roles to her that are parallel to those of Christ, we move away from the incomparable beauty that is uniquely hers".

[anawim]

when an expression requires frequent explanation to maintain the correct meaning, it becomes unhelpful

Good thing I didn't take that attitude with my former first graders. If I had, some of them still wouldn't know how to read & write, add & subtract, etc.
With the exception of one child who was diagnosed as LD, they all achieved success, because I didn't take the lazy way out, but rather kept searching for ways for them to succeed.
Having said that, there are instances in which the pastor has repeated tried to teach something from the pulpit, and people still don't listen, or follow that instruction. But that is their loss. It's still worth the effort. As it says in both Ezekiel and Jeremiah, that if you instruct, and they don't listen, that's on them. If you fail to instruct, that's on both the sheep and the shepherd. All will be held accountable.
I'll stand by the best explanation from then Pope JPII: "The time is not right". That took wisdom and discernment. It was not throwing in the towel and saying it's useless to try.

[Doom]

I think that speaks for itself. If you disagree with the new document, take it up with Ratzinger.

Ratzinger opposed the definition of the title Coredemptrix, not the term itself.

He rejected the term as unbiblical and contrary to apostolic tradition, but thought the theology behind it was sound; but it needed a better name, one that isn't as prone to misunderstanding and potential scandal.

The Church did canonize Louis de Montfort, Alphonsus Liguori, and Maximilian Kolbe, all of whom used extremely florid and hyperbolic language describing Mary, which, if taken 100% literally, would be blasphemous. The canonizations do affirm that their theology was sound, but do not mean that the language they used, which is sometimes rather extreme, should be replicated by the faithful regularly, especially in front of those who might be scandalized.

I remember there was a poster here, Paul something or other, back before the Night of Long Knives in 2005, when there were mass bannings. One time, there was a flood of crazy fundamentalists from some extreme website, and he began conversations with them by mentioning "The Glories of Mary" and the title Co-Redemptrix. This struck me as probably the worst possible apologetical approach in dealing with those types.

[Doom]

In Mater Populi Fidelis the dicastery said when an expression requires frequent explanation to maintain the correct meaning, it becomes unhelpful. “In this case, the expression ‘Co-redemptrix’ does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ,”. The dicastery encouraged the use of other expressions for Mary, specifically titles referring to her motherhood, including “Mother of God” and “Mother of the Faithful People of God.”. It warned that, “when we strive to attribute active roles to her that are parallel to those of Christ, we move away from the incomparable beauty that is uniquely hers".

The problem with that is that much of theological language "requires frequent explanation to maintain the correct meaning", most especially the doctrine of the Trinity.

You wanna talk about "frequent explanation", what about the Athanasian creed, which really labors the point so that the horse is not only dead, but its bones are disintegrated.

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.

Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.

So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.

Now this is the true faith:

That we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
is both God and human, equally.

He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and he is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.

Although he is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God's taking humanity to himself.
He is one,
certainly not by the blending of his essence,
but by the unity of his person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.

He suffered for our salvation;
he descended to hell;
he arose from the dead;
he ascended to heaven;
he is seated at the Father's right hand;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.

And yet it is still not enough, because Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians keep saying that Christianity is not a monotheistic religion because we believe in 3 gods.

There is the famous "Lutheran Satire" video, reposted every year on Trinity Sunday: "That's modalism, Patrick!" Which addresses at least some of the more common ways the doctrine is misunderstood or watered down.

[anawim]

which really labors the point so that the horse is not only dead, but its bones are disintegrated.

That's priceless! I'm stealing that!

[peregrinator]

I think that speaks for itself. If you disagree with the new document, take it up with Ratzinger.

Ratzinger opposed the definition of the title Coredemptrix, not the term itself.

He rejected the term as unbiblical and contrary to apostolic tradition, but thought the theology behind it was sound; but it needed a better name, one that isn't as prone to misunderstanding and potential scandal.

Yes, he was giving reasons why it should not be defined "for the foreseeable future". If he had opposed its use devotionally he would have said so and in his official capacity.

[Doom]

Even this document doesn't say the title can't be used; it only says that it should be avoided if in the presence of someone who might misunderstand or be scandalized by it. Which has always been my opinion anyway, which is why I don't say such things unless I am among fellow Catholics who won't be offended by it.

What does annoy me is that this document quotes Cardinal Ratzinger, NOT Pope Benedict XVI, and it doesn't even quote an official document he wrote as prefect of the DCF; the quote is from an interview he gave to a secular journalist. It is, in fact, only his opinion as a private theologian, one which he didn't try to make "official" as Pope. But I have the feeling that this quote is used to mislead, to make us think it is authoritative because "this guy became Pope". Of all the things Ratzinger said that might be quoted, such as his opinion on the liturgy and the Latin Mass?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

There are two notes in which he is quoted: One is from the interview, but another is his notes after the CDF meeting.

[Highlander]

Er, thanks for the explanation. The long and the short and the tall.

[peregrinator]

There are two notes in which he is quoted: One is from the interview, but another is his notes after the CDF meeting.

... which also isn't an official document of any kind.

[peregrinator]

Of all the things Ratzinger said that might be quoted, such as his opinion on the liturgy and the Latin Mass?

Yes, like one could quote him at length to show how he was misrepresented in the letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes.