It cites Cardinal Ratzinger’s authority in an interview (i.e., in a non-magisterial document) in support of the rejection of the term but takes an expression out of context. What Cardinal Ratzinger says in that interview actually destroys the first reason given by the Prefect to justify his decision to declare this title inappropriate. In fact, according to the then Cardinal:
I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within a foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better summarized in other titles of Mary, while 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. What is true here? Well, it is true that Christ is not outside of us or to one side of us, but builds a profound and new community with us. Everything that is his becomes ours, and everything that is ours he has taken upon himself, so that it became his: this great exchange is the actual content of redemption, the removal of limitations from our self and its extension into community with God. Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being ‘with’ is realized in her in exemplary fashion.[1]
As can be seen, although Ratzinger did indeed say that the term was inexpedient, he did not think that its meaning was contrary to the Faith, nor that the Congregation could declare that it was not appropriate to use it. He only said that he did not believe that in the immediate future he would officially approve the use of that Marian title. In these pages we are going to examine why it is a mistake to exclude the use of that title, focusing on the first reason. As for the second reason, we think that Specola’s criticism in a recent article is sufficient.
The point I am going to focus on is the reality of participation. The fact that Christ has a unique place in redemption does not exclude Christians from cooperating in it and thus being co-redeemers. Moreover, Scripture expressly teaches that St. Paul cooperated precisely in redemption; that is what the word “co-redeemer” means. Therefore, Scripture does not allow us to deny that Mary the Mother of God is that what the word “co-redemptrix” means.
The document Mater populi fidelis has the peculiarity of excluding participation with regard to the titles “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix,” only to admit it immediately afterward, in number 28:
In this sense, the contradiction affects the heart of this document. For this reason, it seems to me that it cannot demand the assent of the intellect. Christianity is not an ideology like Marxism. Christianity is founded on the revelation of divine truth, which cannot contradict reason. If, therefore, a document that is in principle magisterial denies truths contained in Scripture or Tradition (cf. Dei Verbum 10), or if it is inconsistent with previous magisterial teaching,[2] or if it is incoherent, it cannot be accepted by Christians.
Let us now present the reasons why Scripture seems to require that Mary not be denied the title of co-redemptrix, or at least what the title means (as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out).
1. What does “to redeem” mean and imply?
To redeem is to rescue a slave by means of a price. It implies two things: the act of paying, on the one hand, and the price paid, on the other. Christ performed the act of paying by dying for us, and the price paid was his own, his bodily life and his blood. In this sense, He is the only Redeemer. (See Summa Theologica III, q. 48, a. 5).
However, God, in His infinite goodness, has willed that we participate in the payment of the debt owed for sins. Our actions would be totally ineffective in covering this debt, which is infinite because of the dignity of the offended party. But, grafted into Christ by grace, having received the adoption of sons (or daughters), we participate in the divine nature. And so our actions can contribute to paying the debt of sin, of our own sins and the sins of others. This is the doctrine of St. Thomas on this point, commenting on the clear text of Col. 1:24, which says, “in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the Church.” Aquinas comments:
He later adds that these sufferings of the saints also serve to strengthen the Church.
2. St. Thomas’ hesitations and the evolution of doctrine
St. Thomas was quite hesitant on this point. In Summa Theologica III, q. 48, a. 5, ad 3m, he says that the sufferings of the saints benefit the Church “by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, according to 2 Cor. 1:6: ‘Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation and salvation’.” [4] He was concerned that it would not be recognized that the redemption wrought by Christ was sufficient to redeem the whole world and other worlds as well.
However, in the text from Colossians that we have transcribed, he himself lays the foundations for the subsequent evolution of the doctrine. Christ, in a primary sense, is the only redeemer. But in a secondary sense, the saints can be co-redeemers by completing the merits that the Church, as the Body of Christ, must accumulate until the end of the world. God, in his goodness and omnipotence, has willed that we participate in redemption.
In St. Thomas’s time, Peter Lombard’s Sentences were taught in theology schools. They said that charity was God’s action in our souls. Faced with this attempt to highlight God’s sovereignty and power and our own poverty in the supernatural, St. Thomas rightly reacted critically, as he deeply perceived the error contained in the Sentences. He put it this way:
With regard to sanctifying grace, St. Thomas has given similar reasons to prove that it is a habit of the soul. But then he adds that it is not a virtue or a habit of a power or a faculty of the soul, but an entitative habit of the soul itself, just as health is an entitative habit of the body. See, in this sense, I-II, q. 110, aa. 1-4.
St. Thomas can provide an adequate solution to this problem because he understands the problem of participation well. Thus, for example, he teaches that although the intellect of principles is connatural to our soul, nevertheless, because rational knowledge is proper to the degree of being of our intelligence, we have that intellectual knowledge by natural participation in separate substances.[7] Similarly, although the love of charity exceeds our nature, we can receive by grace a participation in that love which is proper only to the divine nature.
And it is this metaphysical disposition that made it possible for the Church to face a challenge as profound as that of Pelagius, but of the opposite sign. Lutheranism and Calvinism not only affirm that our nature is ineffective in achieving salvation, but that it is completely corrupted so that everything it does naturally is sin, and that even after receiving grace it remains corrupted and completely incapable of doing anything meritorious on the supernatural plane. But the Church responded to this challenge with great depth and produced the magnificent texts of the Council of Trent. I will bring up some of them here that are relevant in order to understand the issue of participation in the supernatural realm, and then apply the metaphysical principles to the question of whether the saints (and especially the Virgin Mary) can be co-redeemers.
3. The doctrine of Trent[8] on grace
First, let us gather some important passages on participation in divine life, which is grace. In them it is clear that, although Christ is our only Savior and Lord in an absolute sense, and although his Passion is the sufficient redemptive work, nevertheless, through his Goodness and Omnipotence, God allows us to participate in his holiness and in his holy works.
In session VI, chapter 7, we find the following beautiful passage. Our sanctification has only one formal cause,
In the same session VI, in chapter 10, it is said that the justified can grow in holiness by mortifying their flesh and using it as an instrument to sanctify and justify themselves further. To corroborate this, it quotes Revelation 22:11: “He that is just, let him be justified still.”
These doctrines are repeated in the canons:
Thus, grace is a divine gift that exceeds our nature, but through that gift God elevates us to the supernatural plane. And so we can do, as Christ said to the Apostles, “greater works than these,” which Christ did with his miracles. “[...] nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits.”[10]
But canon 32 strongly insists that we are the cause of the increase of our justification by our works, although we may be so by divine gift:
Here we can clearly see participation: the effect belongs to an order higher than our nature, but it is ours because God, in his goodness, through grace, makes us participate in the divine nature, in the Sonship of Jesus Christ.
Luther’s heresy was necessary to clarify many points that had remained obscure in response to Pelagius’ heresy. And it is this development of doctrine that now allows us, based on Scripture, to maintain that Saint Mary is co-redemptrix. Not because she can merit forgiveness of sins for humanity, which belongs only to the Son of God made man. Not for that reason, but because God in his goodness has allowed men to participate in paying the price for our sins; and He has allowed the saints to fill through their sufferings the merit that God wants to gather until the end of the world.
Now, who can doubt that no human being could gather the merit of Mary, especially during the Passion of her Son, to whom She was united with such deep love that She truly suffered in herself what He suffered? That is why Simeon could say: “and a sword will pierce your soul, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:35). If Paul could write that he was associated with the work of redemption, how much more so is Mary associated with the work of redemption! She, of whom the Holy Spirit said, “All generations will call her blessed, for the Almighty has done great things for her” (see Luke 1:48-49).
4. Confirmation of what has been said: purgatory and penance
Catholic doctrine on purgatory seems to me to be a clear testimony that the faithful can be co-redeemers of their brothers and sisters. Indeed, if suffrages can be offered for the deceased, it is because through them it is possible to pay in some measure the penalty due for their non-mortal sins, or the penalty for forgiven sins. This is “to fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the Church.” Since paying the price for sins is precisely redemption, and since no faithful person can do that except by uniting themselves to Christ, the only Redeemer par excellence, the faithful can be said to be co-redeemers by participation. Let us look, then, at the doctrine of Trent on purgatory:
Something similar can be said about Penance. When the Council of Trent speaks of the satisfaction for sins imposed on the penitent, it declares:
Final colophon
It would now be necessary to deal with secondary and instrumental causes in more detail. But that topic would require careful metaphysical investigation. I can briefly point out that it is obvious that, for example, in the sacraments, the principal agent is Christ, and the minister is merely an instrumental cause of the grace of the sacrament. But in other supernatural actions, the human being is a secondary cause whose primary cause is God; and the human being can be a secondary cause that is not merely instrumental because he has received the sanctifying grace that inheres in his soul, and the supernatural virtues that are added to sanctifying grace, as we have seen in the case of charity.
It is for this reason that St. Paul can say that “by the grace received from God” he is “a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, serving as a priest to the Gospel” and has glory in Christ (Romans 14:15-17). In 1 Corinthians 3, St. Paul plainly says that “we are God’s co-workers [synérgoi]” (9), referring to the work of evangelization in Corinth. “I planted, Apollos watered” (6), “but it is God who made the seed grow” (ibid.). It is for this reason also that St. Thomas can say that works of charity are done by us as secondary causes, not as mere instruments (S. th. II-II q. 23, a. 2, c).
This supernatural work resembles the natural work of human parents, who can be called “co-creators” because they must place their animal generative power at the service of God’s creative power, which alone can produce the intellective soul, which, however, cannot begin to exist without a body. The difference is that animal generative power is natural, and supernatural works exceed nature, presupposing elevation by grace.
In his infinite goodness, God has given us efficiency in his creative work and in his redemptive work. This has been very much explicitly stated by the Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium:
But the greatest efficiency belongs, without the slightest doubt, among all merely human beings and among all mere creatures, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who, for this reason, realizes in herself what the word “co-redemptrix” means, because of her very special participation in the act of our liberation from sin. The same Constitution Lumen gentium declared it so, immediately after the passage just cited:
Whether or not it is expedient for the Apostolic See to officially recognize this title is a matter in which I cannot interfere. But I can say with certainty that it cannot be ruled out that what the title means applies to Mary.
The point I am going to focus on is the reality of participation. The fact that Christ has a unique place in redemption does not exclude Christians from cooperating in it and thus being co-redeemers. Moreover, Scripture expressly teaches that St. Paul cooperated precisely in redemption; that is what the word “co-redeemer” means. Therefore, Scripture does not allow us to deny that Mary the Mother of God is that what the word “co-redemptrix” means.
The document Mater populi fidelis has the peculiarity of excluding participation with regard to the titles “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix,” only to admit it immediately afterward, in number 28:
At the same time, we need to remember that the unicity of Christ’s mediation is ‘inclusive.’ He enables various forms of participation in his salvific plan because, in communion with him, we can all become, in some way, cooperators with God and ‘mediators’ for one another (cf. 1 Cor 3:9).
In this sense, the contradiction affects the heart of this document. For this reason, it seems to me that it cannot demand the assent of the intellect. Christianity is not an ideology like Marxism. Christianity is founded on the revelation of divine truth, which cannot contradict reason. If, therefore, a document that is in principle magisterial denies truths contained in Scripture or Tradition (cf. Dei Verbum 10), or if it is inconsistent with previous magisterial teaching,[2] or if it is incoherent, it cannot be accepted by Christians.
Let us now present the reasons why Scripture seems to require that Mary not be denied the title of co-redemptrix, or at least what the title means (as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out).
1. What does “to redeem” mean and imply?
To redeem is to rescue a slave by means of a price. It implies two things: the act of paying, on the one hand, and the price paid, on the other. Christ performed the act of paying by dying for us, and the price paid was his own, his bodily life and his blood. In this sense, He is the only Redeemer. (See Summa Theologica III, q. 48, a. 5).
However, God, in His infinite goodness, has willed that we participate in the payment of the debt owed for sins. Our actions would be totally ineffective in covering this debt, which is infinite because of the dignity of the offended party. But, grafted into Christ by grace, having received the adoption of sons (or daughters), we participate in the divine nature. And so our actions can contribute to paying the debt of sin, of our own sins and the sins of others. This is the doctrine of St. Thomas on this point, commenting on the clear text of Col. 1:24, which says, “in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the Church.” Aquinas comments:
At first glance these words can be misunderstood to mean that the passion of Christ was not sufficient for our redemption, and that the sufferings of the saints were added to complete it. But this is heretical, because the blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem many worlds […] (1 Jn 2:2). Rather, we should understand that Christ and the Church are one mystical person, whose head is Christ, and whose body is all the just […] (1 Cor. 12:27). Now God in his predestination has arranged how much merit will exist throughout the entire Church, both in the head and in the members, just as he has predestined the number of the elect. And among these merits, the sufferings of the holy martyrs occupy a prominent place. For while the merits of Christ, the head, are infinite, each saint displays some merits in a limited degree. (Super Col., chap. 1 l. 6)[3]
He later adds that these sufferings of the saints also serve to strengthen the Church.
2. St. Thomas’ hesitations and the evolution of doctrine
St. Thomas was quite hesitant on this point. In Summa Theologica III, q. 48, a. 5, ad 3m, he says that the sufferings of the saints benefit the Church “by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, according to 2 Cor. 1:6: ‘Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation and salvation’.” [4] He was concerned that it would not be recognized that the redemption wrought by Christ was sufficient to redeem the whole world and other worlds as well.
However, in the text from Colossians that we have transcribed, he himself lays the foundations for the subsequent evolution of the doctrine. Christ, in a primary sense, is the only redeemer. But in a secondary sense, the saints can be co-redeemers by completing the merits that the Church, as the Body of Christ, must accumulate until the end of the world. God, in his goodness and omnipotence, has willed that we participate in redemption.
In St. Thomas’s time, Peter Lombard’s Sentences were taught in theology schools. They said that charity was God’s action in our souls. Faced with this attempt to highlight God’s sovereignty and power and our own poverty in the supernatural, St. Thomas rightly reacted critically, as he deeply perceived the error contained in the Sentences. He put it this way:
The Master looks thoroughly into this question in Distinction 17 of the First Book, and concludes that charity is not something created in the soul, but is the Holy Ghost Himself dwelling in the mind. Nor does he mean to say that this movement of love whereby we love God is the Holy Ghost Himself, but that this movement is from the Holy Ghost without any intermediary habit […]. And this he said on account of the excellence of charity.
But if we consider the matter aright, this would be, on the contrary, detrimental to charity. For when the Holy Ghost moves the human mind the movement of charity does not proceed from this motion in such a way that the human mind be merely moved, without being the principle of this movement, as when a body is moved by some extrinsic motive power.[5] For this is contrary to the nature of a voluntary act, whose principle needs to be in itself [6][…]: so that it would follow that to love is not a voluntary act, which involves a contradiction, since love, of its very nature, implies an act of the will.
Likewise, neither can it be said that the Holy Ghost moves the will in such a way to the act of loving, as though the will were an instrument, for an instrument, though it be a principle of action, nevertheless has not the power to act or not to act, for then again the act would cease to be voluntary and meritorious, whereas it has been stated above (I-II, Q. 114, art. 4) that the love of charity is the root of merit: and, given that the will is moved by the Holy Ghost to the act of love, it is necessary that the will also should be the efficient cause of that act. Now no act is perfectly produced by an active power, unless it be connatural to that power of reason of some form which is the principle of that action. Wherefore God, Who moves all things to their due ends, bestowed on each thing the form whereby it is inclined to the end appointed to it by Him […]. But it is evident that the act of charity surpasses the nature of the power of the will, so that, therefore, unless some form be superadded to the natural power, inclining it to the act of love, this same act would be less perfect than the natural acts and the acts of the other powers; nor would it be easy and pleasurable to perform. And this is evidently untrue, since no virtue has such a strong inclination to its act as charity has, nor does any virtue perform its act with so great pleasure. (S. th. II-II, q. 23, a. 2, c.)
With regard to sanctifying grace, St. Thomas has given similar reasons to prove that it is a habit of the soul. But then he adds that it is not a virtue or a habit of a power or a faculty of the soul, but an entitative habit of the soul itself, just as health is an entitative habit of the body. See, in this sense, I-II, q. 110, aa. 1-4.
St. Thomas can provide an adequate solution to this problem because he understands the problem of participation well. Thus, for example, he teaches that although the intellect of principles is connatural to our soul, nevertheless, because rational knowledge is proper to the degree of being of our intelligence, we have that intellectual knowledge by natural participation in separate substances.[7] Similarly, although the love of charity exceeds our nature, we can receive by grace a participation in that love which is proper only to the divine nature.
And it is this metaphysical disposition that made it possible for the Church to face a challenge as profound as that of Pelagius, but of the opposite sign. Lutheranism and Calvinism not only affirm that our nature is ineffective in achieving salvation, but that it is completely corrupted so that everything it does naturally is sin, and that even after receiving grace it remains corrupted and completely incapable of doing anything meritorious on the supernatural plane. But the Church responded to this challenge with great depth and produced the magnificent texts of the Council of Trent. I will bring up some of them here that are relevant in order to understand the issue of participation in the supernatural realm, and then apply the metaphysical principles to the question of whether the saints (and especially the Virgin Mary) can be co-redeemers.
3. The doctrine of Trent[8] on grace
First, let us gather some important passages on participation in divine life, which is grace. In them it is clear that, although Christ is our only Savior and Lord in an absolute sense, and although his Passion is the sufficient redemptive work, nevertheless, through his Goodness and Omnipotence, God allows us to participate in his holiness and in his holy works.
In session VI, chapter 7, we find the following beautiful passage. Our sanctification has only one formal cause,
the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills [justitiam in nobis recipientes, unusquisque suam secundum mensuram, quam Spiritus sanctus partitur singulis, prout vult], and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein…[9]
In the same session VI, in chapter 10, it is said that the justified can grow in holiness by mortifying their flesh and using it as an instrument to sanctify and justify themselves further. To corroborate this, it quotes Revelation 22:11: “He that is just, let him be justified still.”
These doctrines are repeated in the canons:
Canon XI. If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.”
Canon XXIV. If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
Thus, grace is a divine gift that exceeds our nature, but through that gift God elevates us to the supernatural plane. And so we can do, as Christ said to the Apostles, “greater works than these,” which Christ did with his miracles. “[...] nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits.”[10]
But canon 32 strongly insists that we are the cause of the increase of our justification by our works, although we may be so by divine gift:
Canon XXXII: If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life –if so be, however, that he depart in grace– and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
Here we can clearly see participation: the effect belongs to an order higher than our nature, but it is ours because God, in his goodness, through grace, makes us participate in the divine nature, in the Sonship of Jesus Christ.
Luther’s heresy was necessary to clarify many points that had remained obscure in response to Pelagius’ heresy. And it is this development of doctrine that now allows us, based on Scripture, to maintain that Saint Mary is co-redemptrix. Not because she can merit forgiveness of sins for humanity, which belongs only to the Son of God made man. Not for that reason, but because God in his goodness has allowed men to participate in paying the price for our sins; and He has allowed the saints to fill through their sufferings the merit that God wants to gather until the end of the world.
Now, who can doubt that no human being could gather the merit of Mary, especially during the Passion of her Son, to whom She was united with such deep love that She truly suffered in herself what He suffered? That is why Simeon could say: “and a sword will pierce your soul, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:35). If Paul could write that he was associated with the work of redemption, how much more so is Mary associated with the work of redemption! She, of whom the Holy Spirit said, “All generations will call her blessed, for the Almighty has done great things for her” (see Luke 1:48-49).
4. Confirmation of what has been said: purgatory and penance
Catholic doctrine on purgatory seems to me to be a clear testimony that the faithful can be co-redeemers of their brothers and sisters. Indeed, if suffrages can be offered for the deceased, it is because through them it is possible to pay in some measure the penalty due for their non-mortal sins, or the penalty for forgiven sins. This is “to fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the Church.” Since paying the price for sins is precisely redemption, and since no faithful person can do that except by uniting themselves to Christ, the only Redeemer par excellence, the faithful can be said to be co-redeemers by participation. Let us look, then, at the doctrine of Trent on purgatory:
Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and everywhere proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. (Session XXV, Decree on Purgatory)
Something similar can be said about Penance. When the Council of Trent speaks of the satisfaction for sins imposed on the penitent, it declares:
Whilst we thus, by making satisfaction, suffer for our sins, we are made conformable to Jesus Christ, who satisfied for our sins, from whom all our sufficiency is; having also thereby a most sure pledge, that if we suffer with him, we shall also be glorified with him. But neither is this satisfaction, which we discharge for our sins, so our own, as not to be through Jesus Christ. For we who can do nothing of ourselves, as of ourselves, can do all things, He cooperating, who strengthens us. Thus, man has not wherein to glory, but all our glorying is in Christ: in whom we live; in whom we merit; in whom we satisfy; bringing forth fruits worthy of penance, which from him have their efficacy; by him are offered to the Father; and through him are accepted by the Father. (Session 14, Chapter 8)
Final colophon
It would now be necessary to deal with secondary and instrumental causes in more detail. But that topic would require careful metaphysical investigation. I can briefly point out that it is obvious that, for example, in the sacraments, the principal agent is Christ, and the minister is merely an instrumental cause of the grace of the sacrament. But in other supernatural actions, the human being is a secondary cause whose primary cause is God; and the human being can be a secondary cause that is not merely instrumental because he has received the sanctifying grace that inheres in his soul, and the supernatural virtues that are added to sanctifying grace, as we have seen in the case of charity.
It is for this reason that St. Paul can say that “by the grace received from God” he is “a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, serving as a priest to the Gospel” and has glory in Christ (Romans 14:15-17). In 1 Corinthians 3, St. Paul plainly says that “we are God’s co-workers [synérgoi]” (9), referring to the work of evangelization in Corinth. “I planted, Apollos watered” (6), “but it is God who made the seed grow” (ibid.). It is for this reason also that St. Thomas can say that works of charity are done by us as secondary causes, not as mere instruments (S. th. II-II q. 23, a. 2, c).
This supernatural work resembles the natural work of human parents, who can be called “co-creators” because they must place their animal generative power at the service of God’s creative power, which alone can produce the intellective soul, which, however, cannot begin to exist without a body. The difference is that animal generative power is natural, and supernatural works exceed nature, presupposing elevation by grace.
In his infinite goodness, God has given us efficiency in his creative work and in his redemptive work. This has been very much explicitly stated by the Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium:
For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared [participated] in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source. (n. 62)
But the greatest efficiency belongs, without the slightest doubt, among all merely human beings and among all mere creatures, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who, for this reason, realizes in herself what the word “co-redemptrix” means, because of her very special participation in the act of our liberation from sin. The same Constitution Lumen gentium declared it so, immediately after the passage just cited:
The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary [in an excellent participation in redemptive action and in mediation]. It knows it through unfailing experience of it and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more intimately adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer. (n. 62)
Whether or not it is expedient for the Apostolic See to officially recognize this title is a matter in which I cannot interfere. But I can say with certainty that it cannot be ruled out that what the title means applies to Mary.
NOTES
[1] Joseph Ratzinger and Peter Seewald, God and the World, a Conversation con Peter Seewald, (Ignatious Press, San Francisco: 2000), p. 306.
[2] There are previous Magisterial statements that are incompatible with what the Prefect states in this document. See, for example, Leo XIII, Encyclical Supremi apostolatus, n. 2 (in Italian, although not in English, the word “corredemptrix” is explicitly used); Leo XIII, encyclical Quamquam pluries, n. 3; Leo XIII, Iucunda semper, n. 3; Leo XIII, Adjutricem populi, n. 7 (the English translation of this last document available at Vatican.va is not very faithful to the Italian in which the word “redemption” is used). Besides, the Apostolic Constitution Lumen gentium, n. 62, explicitly applies the title “Mediatrix” to Mary, and implicitly applies the title of “Corredemptrix” as well, as we shall see.
[3] I am using the translation by Fabian Larcher, O.P., Html-formated by Joseph Kenny, O.P. Available here: https://isidore.co/aquinas/SSColossians.htm (November 10 2025).
[4] I use the Benziger Bros. edition, 1947, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Available here: https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/index.html
[5] Today, thanks to Buridan’s and Galileo’s physics, we know that the body receives movement in a way that is not entirely passive. I assume that the theory of relativity is a physical-mathematical theory that explains phenomena but does not discover causes. The causal explanation must retain the Newtonian perspective.
[6] See Saint Augustine, City of God book 5, 10.
[7] See Summa theologica I, q. 79, a. 4, c.
[8] I am using the version published online at vatican.va.
[9] In chapter 16 one finds a similar teaching: “Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God […].”
[10] Session VI, chapter 16.
