Back And Forth On Mary's Identity: IMATC v. DDF

The latest response to the document of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Mater Populi Fidelis (MPF), or perhaps the most significant response in terms of quantity of contributors and length of the text, is that of the International Marian Association Theological Commission (IMATC).

Athanasius contra mundum?

The IMATC response to MPF draws on a range of voices from the past and present. While quoting popes, saints, and theologians can be fitting, simply citing many sources doesn’t guarantee a strong defense—especially if those chosen mostly challenge the official stance, while supportive ones are downplayed or interpreted in ways that diminish their significance.

Faith and Morals

The significance of a pope’s statements depends on their nature, and while Catholics should take all papal remarks seriously—given the Pope’s role as the successor of Peter—not every decree, letter, or informal comment (e.g. one made during an airplane interview) carries the same weight. Treating them all as equally authoritative without considering the type of teaching or its context isn’t truly Catholic or practical. We should, however, avoid being flippant or dismissive as that could foster a habit of disobedience that might blind us to teachings that truly require our full obedience for the good of our souls.

The publications of the Church’s current teaching office should remain consistent with what has been passed down, which is founded on the duty to share only what has always been taught everywhere and at all times. And it has done so, safeguarded as Christ promised (St. Matthew 16:18).

Saint Vincent of Lérins is best known for his brief but important book called the Commonitorium. In this work, he explained how to tell the difference between true Catholic teaching and false ideas. He believed that the Church must always hold on to what has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all.”

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

Newman's development of doctrine is an important consideration to insert into a discussion of the transmission of doctrine. Without Newman's provision of equilibrium in rhetoric, it would be easy for theological discussions to become ensnared in fossilized language or be prone to heterodoxy.

In addition to exploring the laws of the existential logic of faith and to defending its rationality, Newman spends a long time studying the development of Christian doctrine, which consists in the third area of meriting consideration to becoming a Doctor of the Church. From his acquaintance with the Fathers of the Church, especially Athanasius, he discovered that, in order to keep its integrality, the faith of the Church must adapt its language to the cultural challenges and the dangers of heresy. It must therefore discern doctrines compatible with the deposit of faith, eventually adopting a new language, not necessarily scriptural, while remaining faithful to the revelation established once and for all by the determination of the canon of the New Testament Scriptures. Thus, although the deposit does not change, the Church’s knowledge of it progresses, deepens and is expressed in a new way, always faithful to the original idea. In his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Newman passionately analyses the criteria and conditions for ensuring a doctrinal fidelity not only compatible but also in harmony with the new dogmas of the Roman Church since they express the Church's progressive knowledge of the deposit of the Faith. This observation deeply shook Newman to the core, causing his criticism of the Roman Church to fall, formally accused of contaminating the deposit with unjustifiable additions. 

https://atreasuretobeshared.blogspot.com/2020/08/saint-john-henry-newman-doctor-of-church.html

The term 'Co-redemptrix' has been applied to the Virgin Mary since the 15th century. Saint Bernard gave Mary a role at the foot of the Cross that inspired the title 'Co-redemptrix,' which first appeared in an anonymous fifteenth-century hymn from Salzburg: De compassione BMV, 20: G.M. Dreves (ed.), Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, XLVI, Leipzig 1905, n. 79, 127. [WP].

Loving, sweet, and kind
altogether undeserving of any sorrow
if you henceforth chose to weep
as one suffering with the Redeemer
for the captive sinner
you would be co-redemptrix.

Mining Treasure 

Leading Mariologists Publish Scathing Critique of Vatican Note on Mary’s Titles | NCREG

• https://www.ncregister.com/news/pentin-mary-titles-coredemptrix-mediatrix-vatican
• https://edwardpentin.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/IMATC-Response-to-MFP-FINAL-Final-2-Dec.-5-2025.pdf

The IMATC’s criticism includes the claim that the DDF’s document “sounds more Protestant than Catholic, and is therefore unacceptable,” or words to that effect.

To propose, instead, a Redemption based on “Jesus alone” bereft of any human redemptive value on the part of Mary, seems to resemble more a Protestant theology of Redemption than that of the Catholic Church. 

Protestant?

These days, critics often resort to an irritating tactic—when they can’t convince someone, they take the easy route of name-calling to distract and discredit the other side. Even the hierarchs of the august Council of Trent (A.D. 1545 to 1563), called to adjudicate the challenges of the day, never stooped to such a flimsy and empty effort to distinguish orthodoxy from Protestant heresy. While most Protestant ideas were and do remain problematic, not all were wrong, e.g., sola gratia, by grace alone we are saved, a doctrine shared by Catholics and Protestants, though with important distinctions in its implications. The fathers of the esteemed Council spent years examining and debating ideas, issuing clarifications and, when necessary, anathemas (condemnations of ideas), and confirming theological expressions that were agreeable or compatible.

Have the members of the IMATC considered the possibility that their enthusiasm might stem from a rich and complex form of devotionalism that has gone off track due to placing too much focus on Mary’s important, though secondary, role? In other words, an inherited bias stemming from a sincere yet exaggerated devotion to Mary that blurs the distinction between her role and that of Christ?

Who is Jesus?

Et in unum Dóminum, Jesum Christum, Fílium Dei unigénitum, et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sǽcula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero, génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri: per quem ómnia facta sunt.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made.

We use terms like 'Mother of God' that call for a bit of nuance—Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God. The identity of Jesus who is very God of very God is protected by the term 'Mater Dei'. Referring to the Greek term Theotokos, meaning God-bearer, offers a complementary understanding.

Some have concluded that the terms 'Theotokos' and 'Mater Dei' assert that Mary is also the mother of God the Father. Some might persist in the attempt to further twist that conclusion by stating that since everything the Father has belongs to the Son, which is true, then surely Mary is the mother of the Father. In that instant, those claiming that Mary is the mother of God the Father should be run out of town for failing to acknowledge that the Son is distinct from the Father. The Son, the Word of God, took flesh, and was born of the Virgin Mary. The Father and the Holy Spirit did not take on human flesh and a human nature, though the two Persons—Father and Holy Spirit—are entirely present to and in communion with the Son.

The title ‘Immaculate Conception' is a topic that often sparks lively conversation in online forums and theological circles. So yes, there’s always a need to clarify and explain religious terms, just as the IMATC rightly points out.

• https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/editorial-white-house-december-8-message

The DDF is right to warn about potential confusion, as without explanation the title 'Co-redemptrix' can imply that Mary’s role is on par with that of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

What does the Mass say?

The terms 'Co-redeemer' and 'Mediatrix of All Graces' can distract from Jesus' unique role and identity as the one Redeemer of all mankind. We do not pray in the Mass that Mary may save us. The lex orandi operating in the Mass does not have us praying in the Canon that Mary is our redeemer. Rather, we ask Mary to pray with and for us, i.e., to intercede for us in the name of Jesus who liveth and reigneth with the Father and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Attempts to promote a fifth Marian dogma were undertaken in the 1920s through 1940s, but Pius XII decided not to proceed with the definition of the dogma. The concluding chapter of the Second Vatican Council's apostolic constitution Lumen gentium, which many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology, refers to Mary as "Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix," but does not use the term "Co-Redemptrix."

How about the shorter term 'Mediatrix'? A qualified 'yes'. Mediatrix of All Graces? By elevating Mary, which is always attractive for the faithful Catholic to have the Mother of God celebrated, to a point, however, that obscures her role in the redemption of man, it may be that we divorce her from her children, all of us, by ignoring her role as Mother of Christians. So then, a  qualified 'no'. Mater Populi Fidelis asserts that

2. Beyond terminological issues, some titles pose significant difficulties regarding their content because they can often lead to a mistaken understanding of Mary’s role, which carries serious repercussions at the Christological, ecclesiological and anthropological levels.

55. It does not honor Mary to attribute to her any mediation in the accomplishment of this work (God acting in us with his Trinitarian indwelling; only he enters into us and transforms us, making us sharers in his divine life) that belongs exclusively to God.

Strangely, the IMATC response brushes off the DDF’s concern that using the terms 'Co-redemptrix' and 'Mediatrix of All Graces' is risky, even while stating that explanation is warranted for another good, the salvation of souls.

VI. Conclusion | The “risks” posited appear more theoretical than real. It would be difficult to find within the Church a single reputable Catholic author in the last three centuries who taught that the Co-redemptrix title denotes that Mary is divine or an equal redeemer parallel to Jesus. For those outside the Church, the Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces titles become excellent opportunities for authentic Catholic evangelization (agreed!), along with other key Catholic truths that require appropriate explanations, such as the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the Papacy, and the intercession of the Saints. (No. The Real Presence, the Papacy and the intercession of the Saints are clearly presented in the Mass AND scripture. Mediatrix and Co-redeemer are not.)

Why assume the DDF’s concerns are more theoretical than real? The IMATC spent 23 pages explaining why Marian terms are acceptable and how they may be used, which actually suggests the DDF’s concerns are quite real. If there’s little confusion about a term’s use, why stretch the discussion with efforts to set and clarify precedents? Those precedents in many cases belong to specific devotional contexts, not dogmatic defenses, and overuse of the terms is discouraged. Is it reasonable, then, to say the IMATC’s approach tends to blur the line between contexts—mixing dogmatic apples with devotional oranges?

IMA Response: 10, p.4 | It is also unusual that the DDF document essentially omits Lumen Gentium n. 58, which is arguably the most co-redemptive passage of Lumen Gentium’s chapter VIII concerning Mary. This passage highlights Mary’s intimate union with her Son at Calvary, noting that she was “enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering,”; that she “associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s (human) heart (full of grace)” and that Mary was “lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim born of her.” This testifies to Mary’s active and willed redemptive participation at Calvary, which in fact constitutes her coredemption.

No. Enduring with her son the intensity of his suffering testifies to Mary's active and willed identification or empathy with her son at Calvary. Mary and Jesus share a perfect human nature, i.e., a sinless human nature, not the Divine Nature, as do the Persons of the Blessed Trinity: Three Persons, One God, one divine nature. Is Mary a fourth person of or in the Godhead? No, definitely not.

Sacredotus at www.sacerdotus.com has constructed a useful table that sums up the IMA’s view, highlighting the pros and cons of the titles Mediatrix of All Graces and Co-redemptrix in the ongoing debate.

For "Mediatrix of All Graces," the cons include potential diminishment of the Holy Spirit's role—the true Sanctifier (Jn 14:26)—and overemphasis on secondary causes. Aquinas cautioned against attributing to Mary what belongs to Christ alone. (...) The 1996 Czestochowa Congress voted 23-0 against dogmatization, citing (the very real possibility of) ecumenical damage.

Pastoral concerns abound: online maximalism confuses laity, as Fernández noted, turning devotion into ideology. In diverse cultures, it risks syncretism, diluting Christ's universality (Acts 4:12). The notes alternative—maternal titles—avoid these, centering on Lk 1:43's  "mother of my Lord."

screenshot | https://www.sacerdotus.com/2025/11/mater-populi-fidelis-no-to-co.html

The author concludes the section with

In sum, while pros illuminate Mary's Christ-given dignity, cons—echoed in Mater Populi Fidelis —prioritize safeguarding the Gospel's core.

Let us bear in mind additional counsel. 

Despite requests for a new Marian dogma, the Fathers of Vatican II and the Popes who presided at the Council, John XXIII and Paul VI decided not to proceed with new dogmatic definitions. The decree Lumen gentium of Vatican II would caution of the title of "Mediatrix" that: "This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator". Lumen gentium, 62. [W]

And...

In August 1996, a Mariological Congress was held in Częstochowa, Poland, where a commission was established in response to a request of the Holy See. The congress sought the opinion of scholars present there regarding the possibility of proposing a fifth Marian dogma on Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously declared that "it is not opportune to abandon the path marked out by the Second Vatican Council and proceed to the definition of a new dogma, define a fifth Marian dogma on those titles." The Declaration of Częstochowa observed that while these titles can be given a content in conformity with the deposit of the faith, nevertheless such "titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways".  L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English 25 June 1997, p.10. [W]

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. “D” followed by a number refer to Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma.

The title Corredemptrix = Coredemptress, which has been current since the fifteenth century, and which also appears in some official Church documents under Pius X (cf. D 1978 a), must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (I Tim. 2, 5).  As she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by Christ, she could not of herself merit the grace of the redemption of humanity in accordance with the principle: Principium meriti non cadit sub eodem merito. (The author of an act of merit cannot be a recipient of the same act of merit.)  Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the Redeemer, and, under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him.  As Pope Pius XII says in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” (1943), she “offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love like a new Eve for all children of Adam” (D 2291).  As “The New Eve” she is, as the same Pope declares, in the Apostolic Constitution “Munificentissiumus Deus” (1950) “the sublime associate of our Redeemer” (alma Redemptoris nostri social [cf. Gn. 3, 12]).  Cf. D. 3031: generoso Divini Redemptoris socia.

Christ alone truly offered the sacrifice of atonement on the Cross; Mary merely gave Him moral support in this action. Thus Mary is not entitled to the title “Priest” (sacerdos).  Christ, as the Church teaches, “conquered the enemy of the human race alone (solus)” (D 711); in the same way, He alone acquired the grace of Redemption for the whole human race, including Mary.  The words of Luke I, 38: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord,” imply Mary’s mediate, remote co-operation in the Redemption.  Saint Ambrose expressly teaches: “Christ’s Passion did not require any support” (De inst. Virg. 7).  In the power of the grace of Redemption merited by Christ, Mary, by her spiritual entering into the sacrifice of her Divine Son for men, made atonement for the sins of men, and (de congruo) merited the application of the redemptive grace of Christ. In this manner she co-operates in the subjective redemption of mankind.

The statement of Pope Pius X in the Encyclical “Ad diem illum” (1904):  (Beata Virgo) de congruo, ut aiunt, promeret nobis, quae Christus de condigno promeruit (D 1978 a) (The Blessed Virgin merits for us de congruo what Christ merited de condigno) is, as the present tense ‘promeret” shows, not indeed to be taken as referring to the historical objective Redemption, which occurred once and for all, but to her ever-present, intercessory co-operation in the subjective redemption.

Consider the following reflection.

Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix are terms that simply refer to the role of Mary in salvation history. She is a co-Redemptrix (redemptor) in the sense that she freely chose to cooperate with God’s plan and brought Christ into the world. It is through her as mediator that Christ was brought into the world. Since Christ is the salvation of mankind, it follows that she is an instrumental part of salvation history.

Robust Discussion

The IMATC authors of the criticism of Mater Populi Fidelis have done the Church a great service by engaging the process of theological dialogue in a forthright and (mostly) charitable manner, which is appropriate among believers. We all stand to benefit from the serious concern Catholics have for doctrinal precision especially in an era when precise thinking about reality is in short supply.

As we move forward, it may be useful to review some very basic but essential qualifications:

1. What we call Mary must not detract from the identity and action of Jesus Christ.
2. How we describe Mary and her role must affirm the identity and action of Jesus Christ.
3. Mary always points to her Son, Jesus, the Son of God.

Mater Populi Fidelis still commands authority in the midst of criticism, and at the risk of reducing a theological work much larger in scope to a very terse conclusion, Mater Populi Fidelis teaches that

1. the terms Meditatrix and Co-redemptrix are useful but prone to serious misunderstanding and should therefore should be avoided; and that
2. in a Catholic forum where the identities of Christ and Mary are clearly understood, the terms may be employed (carefully) to facilitate an understanding of Mary's close association with her son.