Is Mary "Co-Redemptrix"? The Next Dogma? A Pious Title? Heresy or Blasphemy?
A Primer On Mariology
Based on overwhelming requests, I have written this article on Mary’s controversial title “co-redemptrix”. I say controversial because if it is misunderstood, it is heresy at best, and blasphemy at worst. As an initial disclaimer, the Church does not “officially” declare whether or not Mary is “co-redemptrix”, at least not in the same way that the Church declares that she is “Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.”1
On November 4th, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is set to release a document on Mary’s role in salvation. Hopefully this document will shed some much needed light on the Church’s current position on the “co-redemptrix” debate. Until then, we must investigate together the sources of this teaching, the Magisterial statements regarding it, and the theological accuracy of the title. Lastly, we will debate whether or not this title adds anything, theologically, to the Church’s understanding of Revelation.
What does it mean to Redeem?
Redemption is the act, properly speaking, whereby man is reconciled to God, restored to that state of perfection that was original to mankind. The whole of salvation history is simply the bearing-out of God’s plan of man’s redemption. With the knowledge of the unsatisfactory expiation of the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament, the Jewish people anxiously awaited the Messiah would truly set them free.
Thus, in the plan of salvation, God sent His only-begotten Son, who became man, suffered, died, and rose again for the final redemption of man. Now, in the order of history, mankind is redeemed through the precious blood of Jesus Christ shed on the Cross. Our redemption is won by Christ, but it is not a given, it requires the free acceptance on the part of mankind to repent, believe in the Gospel, and be baptized with water.
In this sense, and in the metaphysical sense, redemption is won by the sole virtue of Jesus Christ, period; “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The irredeemable nature of humanity post-fall was not a nature that could be reversed, save by God Himself. God Himself must be the one who redeems man. Humanity is incapable of self-redemption. How then can a creature, Mary, be said to be an agent in the plan of redemption? How can she be “co-redeemer” with Christ? That is the theological question at hand. Is it theologically accurate to say that Mary is “co-redeemer” in the work of salvation? Isn’t Scripture clear that there is one Savior, Jesus Christ? How then can someone else be “co-redeemer” with Him?
What Is Implied And Not Implied In The Title Of “Co-Redemptrix”?
The title of “co-redemptrix”, first used sometime in the 10th century, and popularized in the last century, particularly in the papacy of Pope St. John Paul II, means that in the plan of salvation, Mary, alongside her Son, was a helper, or an assistant in the redemption of man. It means that Jesus is assisted in His work of redemption by His Mother. If Mary is “co-redemptrix”, it means, or rather it does not mean that she somehow takes away from Christ as sole redeemer. In whatever way she assisted in the work of redemption, it does not imply Jesus was not sole redeemer.
To demonstrate, I turn to Pope Pius X’s encyclical, Ad diem illum. This encyclical, on the fiftieth anniversary of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, has a passage in it where the Pope discusses the Marian title of Mediatrix. His explanation of this title helps illustrate, I believe, the proposed title of co-redemptrix. He states that by Mediatrix, the Church does not take away the singular “dispensation of these treasures (graces)”2 which are the singular fruit of Christ’s work on the Cross, He who is the one mediator between God and man. Continuing on, the Pope states that “by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the Mother and the Son, it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be ‘the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world in the presence of her only begotten son.’”3 Furthermore, he states, quoting St. Bernard of Clairvaux, that while Mary is not the source of the graces, she is the “aqueduct”.4 Finally, if you will allow me to quote extensively, Pope Pius X concludes thus:
We are, then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace—a power that belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Christ and has been associated by Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo (in a congruous manner), in the language of theologians, what Christ merits for us de condigno (in a condign manner), and she is the supreme minister of the distribution of graces.5
Now we have what I believe is a very helpful qualifier in the title discussion; namely, whether or not what we are attributing to Mary is active or passive—is hers by virtue of her nature, or by virtue of her association with her Son. In other words, what Mary does is in harmony with what Christ does by virtue of who He is. She plays a distinct role in the plan, but the plan does not emanate from her, nor does it come from her actively, as if we would wrongly claim that she creates it.
If that is true for the Mediatrix debate, I believe that clarification is uniquely helpful in the co-redemptrix debate.
We could say then, that Mary is co-redemptrix because she uniquely, and in a way only fitting to her, actively cooperated with God’s plan of redemption, which involved her unique fiat. That fiat, and that fiat alone is what allowed the one mediator, Christ, to become man, and, alongside His mother, redeem mankind. So, then, we see Mary at the Wedding at Cana being the one who cooperates with her son in the miracle. She does not perform the miracle, only Christ can, but her involvement is essential as she tells the servants, “Do whatever he tells you” (Jn. 2:5). The title of co-redemptrix, it seems to me, is simply the pious invocation and acknowledgement of the unique role that Our Blessed Mother played in the course of salvation history. He role alone is unique among mankind. Her role is the singular role that allowed the Son of God to take on human flesh and work the redemption of mankind. The active work of redemption, the Passion and Resurrection, is Christ’s alone; she bore His sufferings with Him, but He and He alone took on the sins of mankind and redeemed them in His own blood. If it is appropriate to say Mary is “co-redemptrix”, it is, it seems to me, only in the manner in which her active yes brought about her cooperation in the work of redemption which Christ won for mankind.
With those qualification, and with the necessary theological nuances, I don’t see a theological reason why the title of co-redemptrix cannot be given to Mary. Alongside her other titles as “Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix”, co-Redemptrix seems to be just as fitting.
The theological fittingness of the title is one matter, the necessity of proclaiming the title is another matter—one which I will posit below.
Evidence From Tradition and Papal Teachings
Before discussing the fittingness or lack thereof of the title, it will be beneficial to take a brief look at the traditional and magisterial place this title and theology has had in the Church.
In the second Century, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, in his Against Heresies, states that Mary, “by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.”6 So, according to Irenaeus, Mary’s obedience to GOd’s will allowed her to become the cause of salvation.
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical, Sempiternus Rex, states that Mary was “the noble associate of the Divine Redeemer”.7 Likewise, in his encyclical, Ad caeli Reginam, Pius XII states that Mary had an “exceptional role in the work of our eternal salvation”8 and quoting Francisco Suarez, S.J., the Pope states that in a unique manner, Mary “assisted in our redemption”9 by giving her substance in that work. Furthermore, in an analogous way, Mary as an associate of her Son, has a share in his “royal dignity.”10 Finally, in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, Haurietis aquas, he states that “by God’s will, in carrying out the work of human redemption the Blessed Virgin Mary was inseparably linked with Christ in such a manner that our salvation sprang from the love and the sufferings of Jesus Christ to which the love and sorrows of his Mother were intimately united.”11 For Pope Pius, Mary’s cooperation with her Son was not simply an event that happened, but it was, quite literally, integral in the plan of salvation; so much so that that cooperation, that association with her Son caused them to be “inseparably linked.”
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Octobri mense, states that Christ did not unite himself to mankind “without adding there the free consent of the elect Mother, who acted in some way in the role of the human race itself”12 Very clearly here, Pope Leo XIII is continuing the theological idea from his predecessor Pius X in stating that Mary’s did play a role in salvation by her fiat to the Archangel Gabriel.
Pope St. John Paul II, in the General Audience of 1 October 1997, stated that “the title ‘Mother in the order of grace’ explains that the Blessed Virgin co-operates with Christ in humanity’s spiritual rebirth.”13 Furthermore, he speaks of Mary’s unique role in man’s redemption in a Wednesday Audience of 25 October 1995. In this Audience, Pope St. John Paul II goes through the Tradition and traces the unique role of Mary in salvation through St. Irenaues, many Middle Age writers and Saints, such as St. Bernard, Arnaldo de Chartres, a Byzantine monk—John the Geometra—, St. Anselm, Guerrico d’Igny, and the 13th Century text, the Mariale. Through all of these examples, John Paul highlights the theological development of Mary’s Motherhood and her cooperation with her Son in his work of redemption. According to the saintly Pope, these sources work to develop the “doctrine of Mary’s special cooperation in the redemptive sacrifice.”14
Suffice it to say that John Paul strongly advocated for this theological development and found in the Tradition evidence of its beginning, both in the Scriptures and in the theological and pious tradition of the Church.
What Does “Co-Redemptrix” Add?
Now that I think we have sufficiently described the fittingness and theological correctness of the title, it now begs the question of how this title adds to our understanding of Revelation in general and Christology in particular. A secondary question is whether or not this title will or should be solemnly defined as dogma.
Each and every element of Mariology, such as the Theotokos, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the other titles mentioned above, adds some depth of theological insight into the mystery of Christ and Revelation. What then does “co-redemptrix” add? Or, does it simply obscure?
The first point in this discussion is a general question: Does not everything that is true, good, and beautiful speak of Christ? In other words, do we have a duty to speak what is true? I would say yes. For instance, the Immaculate Conception is the recognition that by a preeimanet grace, the Virgin Mary was conceived without Original Sin so as to be the spotless vessel of the Son of God in His Incarnation. This dogma speaks both of Mary and of Christ. The dogma is true because that is what God did. Its truth sheds light both on Christ and on Mary. The title of co-redeemer, if it is true, must also shed light on Christ’s work of salvation.
If we properly understand Mary’s role in salvation, the she was an intimate cooperator with her Son in his singular work of redemption, that by her fiat, the Son of God became man and freely allowed His mother to be an intimate associate in His plan of Salvation; by her bearing those things in her heart, by taking on, in her heart, the internal sufferings that her Son experienced in His flesh, she, above all others, singularly cooperated in the plan of salvation. As argued above, this seems to simply show that it is true that she was a passive (as in associate or one that assisted the active agent in our Salvation) instrument in the plan of salvation. Her proposed title of “co-redemptrix” reveals something about her—her unconditional surrender to the will of God—and something about Christ—his free association with His mother and his generous acceptance of her role in His mission. It seems to me that this title emphasizes that God truly required Mary’s yes; that that act was not a smokescreen; that Heaven really waited with bated breath for her fiat. That fiat was God’s revelation that while He could have saved mankind without assistance, by His gracious will, He chose the Blessed Virgin Mary as the creature to whom would undo the knot of Eve’s disobedience and smash, once and for all, the head of the serpent.
The Next Dogma?
If it is theologically true, should it then be solemnly defined as the next Marian dogma? Simply put, I don’t know. However, if I was to venture a guess, I would say that there is simply no need to declare this as a dogma of the Church. There are many theologically true statements that are not solemnly defined. A solemn definition is something extraordinary. I do not think this title is necessary to the faith, in the same way that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are necessary. Something can be theologically accurate and not necessary for salvation—which is the direct implication of a defined dogma. With that being said, it seems to me that one could not deny Mary’s role in salvation, as a close associate and intimate cooperator in the work of Redemption. That however, does not necessarily imply that it must be solemnly defined.
So no, I do not think it needs to be defined and I do not foresee it actually being defined. However, I do think it needs to be explained more deeply and I do think it is theologically helpful to understand salvation.
I hope this gives much needed clarity in this debate.
I welcome your thoughts.
Question — What do you think about this title? Do you find it helpful or does it detract from Christ’s singular mission? Leave a comment because I would love to hear your thoughts.
📌P.S. — If you like this essay, please share it with your audience so more people can engage in this important conversation.
This helps us grow and reach more people to help them understand difficult theology.
Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 21 November, 1964,” in The Word on Fire Vatican II Collection: Constitutions, ed. by Matthew Levering (Park Ridge, IL: Word on Fire Institute, 2021), 62.
Pius X. Encyclical, Ad diem illum. DS 3370.
Ibid., DS 3370.
Ibid. DS 3370.
Ibid. DS 3370.
Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies 3, 22. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103322.htm.
Pius XII. Encyclical, Sempiternus Rex, DS 3902.
Pius XII. Encyclical, Ad caeli Reginam, DS 3914.
Ad caeli Reginam, DS 3914.
Ad caeli Reginam, DS 3916.
Pius XII, Encyclical, Haurietis aquas, DS 3926
Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense, DS 3272.
John Paul II, General Audience, 1 October 1997. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_01101997.html
John Paul II, General Audience, 25 October 1995. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/es/audiences/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19951025.html. (Unofficial English Translation).
I will challenge a bit by being provocative: how is Mary's act of faith different from Peter or John's act of faith or that of every Christian participating in the Body of Christ? Each person who has said yes to Christ's calling and have mourned deeply the crucifixion is co-redemptrix with our Lord? In some sense yes, we are called to theosis and participating in the divine will. In another sense, Mary is different because she was the human mother of the God-man. But the differentiation is in her motherhood and unique role in salvation.
The problem is that co-redemptrix sounds scandalous as if Mary is equal with Christ, but if you theologically explain it you end up something that can be arguably applied to every Saint. The title obfuscates more than it clarifies. I am concerned that many trad Catholics will lean into it because it will scandalize Protestants.
You did a great job of explaining the precise meaning of the phrase. The issue I have with my Protestant friends is that when they hear “co-redemptrix” they think we are suggesting that Mary is the primary cause of salvation and that God entirely depends on her. Mary is not a second source of salvation co-equal with God, but rather the primary instrument of God’s plan of salvation. God is completely self-sufficient (i.e. aseity) so He did not need Mary in the strict sense. Nevertheless, in actual salvation history, Mary played a unique and crucial role.