Why This Title Is a Bad Idea

1. What Is It?

A private theological opinion that enjoys some popularity within the Catholic Church, especially in traditional circles. It holds that the Virgin Mary’s participation in the redemption of humanity was so profound that She may rightly be called “Coredemptrix” (Co-Redeemer).

Usually the emphasis falls not on Her fiat at the Annunciation, but on Her suffering at the foot of the Cross.

The reasoning runs as follows: no one experienced greater pain in beholding the Christ Crucified as Mary, his Mother. Therefore, Her suffering, united to the Passion of Christ Himself, acquired a redemptive value for humanity.

2. What Is the Problem?

The problem is that we have only one Redeemer: our Lord Jesus Christ. Only He could, and can, save us – for only He is fully God and fully Man.

Calling any other human being a “Redeemer”, even with qualifiers such as “a lesser one” or similar nuances, diminishes the uniqueness of the title.

“There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

If Jesus Christ had not been born, or had refused the work of redemption – neither the Virgin Mary nor anyone else could have changed our condition in the slightest.

3. What Exactly Is Redemption?

3.1. Several theories of redemption exist, which at times coincide and at times compete. Remarkably, even after two thousand years we do not fully understand how exactly Jesus Christ accomplished it. We know for certain that He redeemed us, but the mechanics of redemption remain, to some degree, a mystery.

For this reason the Church does not dogmatize any single theory. She knows that we have no right to claim exhaustive understanding of the matter.

3.2. One of these theories holds that the Lord “bought” the redemption for us by His painful Passion on the Cross. This suffering was so immense and agonizing that it “satisfied divine justice.” Meaning that God the Father accepted it as reparation for the sins of humanity. In this way the Lord saved us from our sins.

This theory originates with Anselm of Canterbury and is not erroneous in the strict sense. But it provides only a partial answer.

Moreover: in this presentation, reduced to a kind of debit-and-credit accounting of suffering, it is not truly Anselm’s own theory, but rather a popularized and caricatured version of it.

3.3. The theory is highly problematic. To begin with the obvious: why would God the Father, upon witnessing the torture of an innocent, calm his anger and cancel the punishment of the guilty? Is he a cruel and blind parent who merely needs to vent His wrath on someone?

But the far more serious flaw is that this theory largely ignores the other events of Christ’s life – above all, His Resurrection.

Redemption consists not only in the absolution of sins, but also in theosis, the regeneration and transfiguration of our fallen nature. The Cross without the Resurrection would be nothing more than an evil and meaningless murder, worthy only of horror, not adoration.

“If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”

3.4. This theory has many other weaknesses, but it is better to address them in a separate article.

What matters here is that only within the framework of this particular theory one can call the Blessed Virgin Coredemptrix in any meaningful sense. If the suffering of an innocent were somehow redemptive, then Her sorrows beneath the Cross would be redemptive as well.

In other theories of redemption, e.g. the organic one, the Virgin Mary does not perform what would qualify for such a title.

3.5. Yet the Catholic Church has never dogmatized either the theory of satisfaction or its degenerated “theory of suffering” as the only true one.

Therefore, to accept the title Coredemptrix would imply that the Church has declared one particular theory of redemption obligatory – and, at that, one of the most simplified and contested.

Ergo, this title must not be adopted.

4. Even If

4.1. Let us suppose we nevertheless wish to use this “theory of suffering”. But even within its paradigm we would require a great many clarifications to understand the title correctly. We would have to explain at length, that we mean it analogically; that it refers to participation in the merits of Christ’s suffering; that the prefix “co-” means “with” and not “equal to”; and so on.

After all these explanations, the result would be that the Virgin Mary “coredeemed” in the same way as all saintly Christians do when they offer and unite their sufferings with the Passion of Christ – only to a greater degree than anyone else.

But in that case all saints are coredemptors, and the title becomes superfluous.

4.2. On the other hand, if we use this title without providing all these details, it becomes misleading. The faithful who do not delve into theological subtleties will naturally take it to mean that the Virgin Mary is another Savior alongside Jesus Christ.

This effectively turns Her into a goddess and therefore constitutes a grave sin of idolatry. I dare to say that Blessed Virgin Herself would never desire such an outcome.

4.3. So, in one mode of understanding, after excessive explanation, this title can function correctly, but then it is unnecessary. Or, it may be misunderstood and then poses an objective danger to the integrity of the faith.

It is evident that such a title is unhelpful.

5. Why Defend It?

Some devotees of the Virgin Mary wish to exalt Her in every possible way and therefore want to call Her, among other titles, Coredemptrix.

When they hear that this particular title is problematic, they often react fiercely, because it seems to them that the critic is denying the Blessed Virgin the due reverence to Her.

In other words, what drives them is a good but disordered intention to honor Her.

The Virgin Mary possesses many beautiful titles found in the Litany of Loreto and in other prayers: Ark of the Covenant, Star of the Sea, Mystical Rose. The Church offers Her magnificent praise and rightly places Her above all the saints.

However, Coredemptrix cannot simply be added as one more title in Her crown, for it is burdened with dubious theology. We must exercise wisdom and prudence, honoring the Virgin Mary with exalted, poetic, yet doctrinally sound forms of praise.

6. Latest Developments

Several important documents on this matter have recently been issued.

On 4 November 2025, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith published a doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis concerning this title.

I recommend all interested faithful to read it. It presents, in a sober and balanced manner, and with great reverence to the Virgin Mary, essentially the same arguments and conclusions as in this article.

One might have hoped that this would close the question of “Coredemptrix” once and for all.

However, on 9–11 November, the traditional Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX) issued a communiqué and an interview criticizing the Dicastery’s note. I consider it necessary to address these reactions.

7. Has The FSSPX Changed Its Position?

First, it must be said that, even within the Society, the idea of Coredemptrix enjoyed some popularity, but was never an official teaching. No one was required to profess this theologoumenon.

Yet the communiqué from Menzingen, the Society’s central authority, concludes with these words:

“May the Virgin Co-Redemptrix […] dispel the present darkness.”

If this signifies that the Society has now elevated this idea to the level of its official position, this is a grave and sorrowful development, one that carries a risk of dogmatic distortion.

One can only sympathize with its priests and seminarians, if from now on they will face pressure to accept this theologoumenon.

8. Critique of the Criticism

Now let us examine the interview of Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the Society.

His position and arguments may be summarized as follows:

1. He states that this title and the teaching connected with it are rooted in the Church’s Tradition and therefore are sound.

Response: this is not so. The idea of Mary’s unique participation in the economy of salvation is indeed present in Tradition. But none of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church calls Her co-redeemer or ascribes to Her a redemptive causality comparable to that of Christ.

Such an approach is absent both from Thomism and from classical theology in general.

The term Coredemptrix first appears during the Renaissance, sporadically and in a rhetorical sense, not as a proper theological concept.

Systematic usage, attempts at theological justification, and movements toward dogmatization are all novelties of the eighteenth–nineteenth centuries, reaching their peak in the late nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century.

2. Fr. Pagliarani then adduces numerous quotations in defense of the title, mostly from St. Pius Х and St. Bernard of Clairvaux. All these quotations exalt the Virgin Mary in various ways, but not a single one calls Her Coredemptrix or permits such a designation.

The argumentation invalidates itself.

3. He further claims that the Vatican’s opposition to the title is because of ecumenism, namely a desire not to offend Protestants who do not venerate the Blessed Virgin.

Response: this is incorrect. Protestants have generally rejected the veneration of the Blessed Virgin altogether. Whether She is Coredemptrix or not is of no concern to them.

The issue has nothing to do with ecumenism and remains a purely intra-Catholic matter.

The very fact that the Society of St. Pius Х reduces the problem to “ecumenism and evil Protestants”, reveals its theological trauma – which, regrettably, is historically understandable.

I say this not with schadenfreude, but with sadness, for I sympathize in many ways with the cause of the Society.

Still, the root of our present troubles lies not in ecumenism, but in disordered dogmatics and unhealthy mysticism.

4. Then Fr. Pagliarani states that “The ideas of … ‘sacrifice satisfying divine justice’ are being increasingly abandoned.” From this he draws a non sequitur: that “now God always forgives out of sheer generosity,” and from that yet another non sequitur – that this is somehow bad.

Response: there is nothing wrong in considering and examining different theories of redemption.

However, I would correct “generosity” to “mercy”. How else can one forgive if not out of mercy? Mercy, by definition, is the remission of a deserved punishment. Almighty God has full authority both to punish and to forgive.

But this is a broader topic, better discussed elsewhere.

5. After that Fr. Davide presents in the interview a correct interpretation of the title Coredemptrix. It is a long, complex theological construction with many supports and safeguards.

And yes, as he explains it, the title can be understood correctly. We have never denied this possibility.

But does this justify its use? No. The doctrinal note states it as follows:

“When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful.”

It is hard to put it any better.

9. Conclusion

Coredemptrix is zeal without knowledge. We should praise Virgin Mary, but we must do so correctly. This title involves objective theological risks and ought to be abandoned.

I myself am devoted to Virgin Mary and pray the Rosary every day. That is precisely why it pains me to see Her being forced to assume what belongs to Christ alone.

May the Most Holy Virgin Mary grant us wisdom and discernment, so that we may follow the straight and narrow path after Her and Him who is the Way itself – Jesus Christ, Her Son and our Lord. Amen.