Hello and welcome to a Masterclass in Mariology. This is Dr. Mark Miravalle. I am joined by my colleague and good friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, as we try to unpack the beauties of the mysteries of the Mother. And in this episode of a Masterclass, following the sequence of what has led up to this point, that is our previous presentation on Mary's spiritual maternity, starting with the genus of maternal mediation, then going to the species of spiritual maternity, and now entering the three direct ways, the three manifestations of her maternity, and therefore starting with Our Lady's role in the redemption, or the title Co-redemptrix. So first of all, Robert, thanks for being with us. It's always a blessing to have our time together speaking about our good mother. Oh, it is my honor and a blessing to be with you, Mark, especially to talk about our blessed mother. Yeah, it's a tremendous grace. And I should mention, just in transparency, oftentimes when I'm contacting Dr. Fastiggi, we go so long before we turn the camera on, because there's so much to talk about Our Lady, and it's such a joy to talk about her, too. So I hope some of the love that we, however imperfectly, but we share of Our Lady comes through our program. So, Co-redemptrix. Now, let's start with a little controversy. Now, a controversy has two meanings. One is people don't get it. The other is that there's some lack of clarity or some dubiosity of something in itself. I'm only meaning the first aspect of controversy, because Our Lady's role in the redemption is so absolutely clear, biblically, patristically, in the medievals, in the magisterium, that I always find it a little bit of a wonder where people would say, well, what do you mean Mary uniquely participated in redemption? And I want to start, Robert, if I could, by talking about a Catholic apologist, and of course, we're always assuming good intentions. But I think sometimes, Robert, when our apologists are doing such a great job trying to defend the faith against Protestant Christians or others, that there can almost be, in some cases, an unconscious minimalism that kind of enters in. I find this also, by the way, with some of the treatments on private revelation.
It's almost the sense of, look, I've got enough to defend in terms of the Eucharist and infallibility. Don't give me more. And I know that there was an occasion before where you had to address a treatment that was not well done on the reported apparitions of the Lady of All Nations by another Catholic apologist, and you went through and pointed out the multi-form errors that were in this presentation and just factual mistakes. And here, too, is a kind of a first cousin to this. This apologist was—inevitably, this was on a transcription of a call, and someone called and said, what about the title Co-redemptrix? And the apologist said something to the effect of, well, maybe the term could be used to refer to Mary's role in the redemption in some sense, but it simply has fallen out of practice, and based on my examination of what constitutes dogma and doctrine, we really can't say that it's a doctrine. And I have to say, Robert, I find that a phenomenally inaccurate statement, and God willing, it's just some vincible ignorance there, because the doctrine of Mary's role in the redemption is as magisterial as you can get. It's got so many papal references, and it's, you know, so many references in 4, 5, just in Vatican II about this, a whole paragraph dedicated in Lumen Gentium 58, and 56 with the fathers, and 57 as it leads into that, and why she becomes the Mother to us in the order of grace in 61. So, I mean, the misunderstanding that Mary's role in the redemption, which is embodied by the word Co-redemptrix, is not an official doctrine of the church. I find rather staggering, and I certainly want to publicly say that's just an erroneous understanding of the relationship between the title, which has been used at least six times by Saint John Paul II, three times by Pius XI, approved by Leo XIII, also taught under the magisterium of Pius X. I mean, I don't know how much continuity you want before you say this is a truth in doctrine. So, your thoughts, Robert?
Yes, exactly. Well, I think some people are misled by a number of events. First, they say, well, it doesn't appear in Lumen Gentium chapter 8 of Vatican II, but if you trace the history behind this, there was the 1962 draft or schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary, and in the praenotanda or the introductory remarks to that, it states rather clearly, certain terms and expressions have been omitted, which although most true in themselves, would present difficulty of understanding for the separated brethren. And then it gives a list, a partial list of these, and one of them is Co-redemptrix of the human race, and then in parentheses, it has Pius X, Pius XI giving approval. So, in other words, it was removed or decided not to use the title, not because it was false, because it says it's most true in itself, but because it would present difficulty of understanding for the separated brethren, specifically the Protestants.
But we're not the separated brethren, we're Catholics, so we should feel comfortable with the title.
I'm so glad you bring that up, Robert, because I believe the wording is absolutely true in itself.
It's absolutely true in themselves, and it's important to note the title never got to the council fathers themselves. It was a group of theologians that had the title removed as a praenotanda from the first draft, so it's not accurate to say that Vatican II, you know, voted down Co-redemptrix. They never even had, the fathers never had the chance, and that's why theologians have to do their work on their knees, because theologians are not protected from error, as the magisterium is, but sometimes they almost sound as if they are, and so I think it's unfortunate that the fathers of Vatican II never got the opportunity to even vote on that, but in fact it was in the original text, absolutely true in itself, and then again, who's the ultimate authoritative discussor, commentator, interpreter of the council?
Then St. John Paul II, who then uses it and uses that very expression, Robert, Co-redemptrix of the human race, as the expression that they took out was used by St. John Paul II on his name day of St. Charles Borromeo in ‘84. 
Yes, exactly. I mean, we have the teaching of Mary in Co-redemption, which as you have already indicated, is so firmly rooted in salvation history. It's attested to in scripture and by numerous witnesses, and maybe we could talk about that in a little bit, but we then have the title, and some people misinterpret the title, or they say, well, it's never been approved, but we have to correct misinterpretations, just as some people react to Mother of God, they misinterpret it along Nestorian lines, or something like that, so we have to correct misunderstandings of titles, and then to say that, well, it's never been used, or it was disapproved, that's simply not true, that's not even, some people think Pope Francis has rejected it, but he was speaking in the strict sense, only Jesus is the Redeemer, and no one would deny that, no one, so when there's misunderstandings, we have to try to correct them, but then some people also refer to the Czestochowa intervention, that you know quite well, 1996 at the Czestochowa, the Congress of the Pontifical Marian Academy International, there was a small group of 23 theologians, some of them were not even Catholic, and it was just ad hoc, they didn't, they weren't told to prepare and discuss this, so it was ad hoc, and they came up with a quick document, and people cite that as if it's a document of the magisterium, but it seems to have been orchestrated by the Secretary of State, in fact, one of the priests who signed the document verified that. 
Right, yeah, and that document, you know, the Czestochowa Commission, which is being less and less quoted now, because I think the time is passing from it, but you know, I knew well the writer for St. John Paul II, for that commission, excuse me, for the conference itself, and in the original text, which he assisted, he was a Polish writer, he assisted John Paul in composing, was the term Co-redemptrix. Yeah. But the Secretary of State at that time, Cardinal Sedano, had that removed from the text. I also think it's fascinating, Robert, when we're talking about, and again, we love the Church, you know, we have to be willing to die for the Church, but at the same time, it's a spiritual institution on human building blocks, and there's some indiscretions and some inappropriatenesses that are obviously there. So, for example, the April 9th, 1997, papal audience address where St. John Paul II, on three occasions in one audience, used the term Co-redemptrix. But the next day, and this was testified by Monsignor Gherardini, who was on three or four different Vatican commissions, very well respected, in fact, he was the world expert on Luther at that time, was in the audience and heard the Pope say Co-redemptrix, co-redemptrice in Italian, and then the day after that, by the Secretary of State, arguably, or some connection with the congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, changed the title to cooperatrice, cooperator. Well, cooperator and Co-redemptrix are not the same thing. And so here again, you have a case of the Pope using these titles, and then obviously there's opposition, but it's not of God to edit the Vicar of Christ. You don't want to do that.
This title has been used and will continue to be used.
Exactly. And in his well-respected book, Introduction to Mariology, Father Manfred Hauke has a footnote on page 323, and he, citing Gherardini, Monsignor Gherardini, who writes, it is disconcerting, not that the Pope, during the catechesis of April 9th, 1997, insists on the part reserved to Mary in the work of salvation and faithfully completed by her, but that the Osservatore Romano, on April 10th, softened the papal catechesis, converting Co-redemptrix into singular cooperator. 
And if you read the audience, and again, our goal in this series is to try to bring forward stuff that's a little bit beyond, more like a master's or even a doctoral seminar, and these are the specifics that you would discuss in a doctoral seminar on this subject. If you read that text of April 9th, 1997, it doesn't even really make sense because unique cooperator isn't a title as Co-redemptrix is. It's a descriptor, but you don't have a history of the title cooperator, and so even the context doesn't support that text. So, you know, what does it tell us? It tells us that there's misunderstanding. That's why we do what high members in Rome have told us to do, and that is keep doing our work for the Co-redemptrix and to make these things clear. And so it's been very nice getting that type of support, and we will continue doing that because it's the truth. 
And by the way, since I, you know, had to make reference of a couple apologists that I think missed the mark, Matt Fradd, who's also a very popular speaker in Pints with Aquinas, did a very nice summary on the Co-redemptrix title, defending it, speaking about it as, you know, something that is just a reality for Christians, and even Protestant Christians know you have to spread the faith, be evangelist. Well, that's co-redeeming, and ultimately saying this title's not going away, and I couldn't agree with him more. This title is not going away. That's why we need to know why popes have used it, and saints, and mystics. You know, I've got a little book called With Jesus, The Story of Mary Co-Redemptrix. I'm happy to just say very clearly it's just totally a plagiarism.
I just plagiarize scripture, and the fathers, and the medievals, and the saints, but it's all over the place. I mean, even in the 17th century, there's 300 references to Our Lady's Co-redemptrix or her co-redemption. So ain't nothing new with this, Robert. This is not new material. This is what we believe, and that's why apologists have to be careful by quick shots of saying, you know, based on their knowledge. I mean, look, we all make mistakes, but then do the research, and then go on the air again, and say, actually, yeah, popes have used this title. Saints, mystics, it's been an accepted title since the 14th century. Exactly, exactly, and we have the case of Cardinal Mercier petitioning multiple times for the dogma of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, where the Holy See had appointed a Father Lepidi, a Dominican, a very good scholar to mediate this petition, and he noticed Cardinal Mercier using the title Co-redemptrix, and then he writes back, and this is 1916, he writes back, and he pulls out from the archives of the Holy Office some rejection of the title Co-redemptrix from the 18th century to an Italian bishop. Well, this is 1916. He was ignorant of the fact that Leo XIII had already approved the title in 1885, and it was there in the Acta Sancta Sedis. There were these lords to Jesus and Mary, and the lord in Latin was Mundo Redimendo Coadjutrix, but in Italian, in the parallel column, was Corendentrice del Mondo, so the Co-redemptrix of the world. So he was this very well-known Dominican scholar who was ignorant of that. Plus, this is 1916, already under the pontificate of Pius X. Three times prayers had been approved invoking Mary as Co-redemptrix. These appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. 
Right, and even inserted by the Holy Office. What do we mean by that? I mean, someone was asking for a prayer to get indulgenced, and they inserted the title Co-redemptrix. Now, you know, that's the DDF of today, so sometimes they've got to do their own homework and realize that this is already grounded. It's established in the church.
But maybe we should go, let's go a little bit to scripture, Robert, and let's, again, by way of review, I mean, the commentary on what's happening right now is critically important, but let's also provide the foundational scriptural texts, and then, you know, we'll bring it into the New Eve and talk a little bit about the medievals as well. 
Yes, exactly, and first we could begin with St. Louis de Montfort's observation. God had no absolute need of Mary, but this was his choice to redeem the human race by becoming incarnate ex Maria Virginae, of the Virgin Mary. So, she plays a central role in salvation history, and then the title Co-redemptrix is explained by the great Mariologist, Gabriele Roschini, is simply this, that, what does it mean? It means, just as Eve cooperated with Adam in our ruin, so Mary, the new Eve, cooperated with Christ, the new Adam, in our redemption. So, Eve was disobedient, she was the co-picatrix, and now Mary is the new Eve, and she's the Co-redemptrix. That, so the foundation is ultimately Genesis 3, Genesis 3:15, especially where there's the enmity between the devil and the woman, and this is why Pope Francis, in January 1st, 2020, said there's no salvation without the woman, you know. 
It's very powerful, Robert, and two, Genesis, what's the first thing that happens after God puts an enmity, an absolute total opposition between the woman and Satan? Immediately, he prophesies her role in the redemption, and it doesn't mean, it doesn't matter whether you use the ipsa, the she, the ipsus, the he, the Greek or the Hebrew antecedents, the woman is actively and directly involved in the crushing of the head of the serpent, because she's part of that whole passage. And so, I favor the she, and we've talked about this before, and even in our series here, the ibad, the total opposition, but also the Hebrew pronoun, which was so unclear that even on the same page it could be used interchangeably for he and she, and Jerome kind of knows his Hebrew, and he would, he gives us ipsa, which is she, and the magisterium uses ipsa, she, for 15 centuries, and Pius IX uses she, and Pius XII uses she all the way through up to the council, but even without that, even if you use he, which I think is less than the fullness, the woman is still intimately involved in this battle. It's the woman, her seed, versus Satan and his seed, and hence Immaculate Conception leads immediately, you don't even get a verse, to co-redemption, to her role with Jesus in crushing the head of the serpent. 
Yes, exactly, and then we could also see this in the prophecy of Simeon, that a sword will pierce your soul, and the church has understood that as being fulfilled under the cross, and so we have Our Lady united from all eternity in that one decree that determined the incarnation, and this is affirmed clearly in Vatican II, but even before that, 1854 by Pius IX, but this, that she's going to unite herself with him in his total work of redemption, and she's, this is taught remarkably well by Pius XII in his encyclical on the Queenship of Mary, Ad Caeli Reginam, and he states that for just as Christ, because he redeemed us as our Lord and King by a special title, so the Blessed Virgin also is our Queen on account of the unique manner in which she assisted in our redemption by giving of her own substance, by freely offering him for us, by her singular desire and petition for an active interest in our salvation. So it was her whole life was united with Christ in the work of redemption, and this is clearly taught at Vatican II and by numerous popes.
Absolutely, and, Robert, and I say this because can, and this is Schoenborn, Cardinal Schoenborn, you know, who directed the catechism, he says you have to grant Mary the title Corredemptrix, if for nothing else, just in virtue of the Annunciation. Just the fact that she says yes, and brings the Redeemer into humanity. You know, when Pius XI used the title Corredemptrix in 1933 in an audience, and then he gave a little explanation of it, and I always found this really getting right to the point of the Corredemptrix. He basically says, you know, how could we not—it's a double negative with the Italians, but that's okay in Italian—how could we not, you know, appreciate her role by A, bringing the Redeemer into the world, and by B, suffering with him at the foot of the cross. 
So, I mean, and again, Mother Teresa, who you don't quote in scholarly things, but saints are kind of evokes popely on steroids, and Mother Teresa says, well, of course she's the Corredemptrix. She gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saves us, and I literally said that this is in Calcutta when I was talking with Mother. I said, Mother, that's the difference between saints and theologians. You said in, you know, 20 seconds what it takes us books to write.
But to say yes to, even Protestants, Robert, Mary for Evangelicals, book by two Protestant theologians back in, I think, 2004, say don't deny Catholics the title Corredemptrix, because she's Corredemptrix insofar she brought us the Redeemer. They also say, which is for our next program, don't deny Catholics the title Mediatrix, because she also mediates Jesus, the one mediator to us. So, we have Protestant theologians saying this, Robert. How is it possible that we have Catholic hierarchy members, you know, without clarity on this? Anyway, I don't say that in judgment. I say it kind of with the further call to make this clear. This is not up for grabs. She is uniquely participating in the redemption, and it's simply everywhere, but we can go back to, and I'm glad you bring up, you know, Luke 2:35, and that Rome Pia reference, you know, not just a little dagger, but an execution sword will pierce your own heart, too, and when Jesus is on Calvary, when he's pierced, he's already died.
He's already, you know, consummatum est. So, whose heart is really being pierced there?
The mother who's still watching him, and so, of course, that's a co-redemptive reference. Everything at the presentation anticipates Calvary, and that brings us powerfully up to Calvary, where, again, John Paul says Mary was spiritually crucified in union with her son.
Exactly, exactly, and I mean, we have the mystics and the saints, you know, giving support to this Saint Bridget of Sweden in the 14th century reports our Lord appearing to her, and she hears Jesus say, therefore, I can well affirm that my mother and I saved man as it were with a single heart, I by suffering in my heart and flesh, and she with the suffering and love of her heart.
Now, some people say, well, all right, yes, Mary was there under the cross, and maybe she, in her own way, offered our Lord, but Jesus is the Redeemer. Are you saying that somehow Jesus did 70 percent, and Mary had to do 30 percent? How would you respond to that, Mark?
Yeah, I mean, these are doing, and it's interesting, if you look at the text, you could say the same thing about, you know, we're kind of assuming a non-Christian, or in some cases a Protestant Christian interpretation of John 19:25 to 27, but the idea of what's explicitly revealed, guess what's not explicitly revealed? That Jesus is dying to repair for the sins of all humanity. Where is that in the text? You're not going to find that in John 19:25 to 27, but in the context of Scripture, you do. So don't ascribe an absence to Our Lady just because it doesn't have a biblical reference that she's offering Jesus, because that's exactly what St. John Paul II says. She's offering Jesus to the Father, and she is meritting on her immaculate human level. So you've got the classic categories that Pius X uses, de congruo, de condigno, that Jesus merits de condigno, on a level of equality between he who is doing the offering and the recipient. Well, that can only be God. So Jesus is divine, the Father is divine, he can make that offering. Mary offers at least de condigno in the order of fittingness, or the order of what's appropriate for her human cooperation, her human participation.
I do think though, Robert, some of the earlier categories, like in the 1940s, others were talking about like a de condigno relativo, that is to say that she offers, and not just like a fittingness, like it's a nice thing you did this, but it really didn't help, which is not really what de congruo means. But even further to say, because as you brought up earlier, the plan of the Father was to have a woman involved. So God uses those three elements, a man, a woman, and a tree. 
And the New Eve is huge here. We could always go back, I mean, Co-redemptrix is just a modern, if you consider the 14th century modern, expression of the New Eve, but they do it together. Jesus does it infinitely. Mary does it in a human immaculate fashion, but the Father wanted Mary. Therefore, don't consider it as just kind of a little icing on the top. This was a critical providentially designed part of our redemption, that a woman would be involved, and that was Our Lady. 
Yes, exactly. And since it was God's will to unite himself to the human race through Mary's fiat, yes, and as St. Thomas Aquinas says, when she said yes, she said yes in place of all human nature, loco totius humanae naturae, so beautifully put. And then by uniting herself to the sacrifice and then offering herself, as Benedict XV says, she surrenders her maternal rights and then offers the victim. So she then makes a contribution to the redemption, because God relied upon a representative of the human race to become incarnate, so he relies upon the same woman to unite herself to show complete human cooperation on a human level with the work of redemption, almost ratifying now what the God-man has done. But John Paul II, in his apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris, 1984, puts it this way, that in her many and intense sufferings were amassed in such an interconnected way that they were not only a proof of our unshakable faith, but also a contribution to the redemption of all. So she contributed to our redemption, and then that's why Pius XI says that he could not help but associate, these are his words, by necessity the Redeemer could not but associate his mother in his work. For this reason we invoke her under the title of Co-redemptrix. She gave us the Savior, she accompanied him in the work of redemption as far as the cross itself, sharing with him the sorrows of the agony and of the death in which Jesus consummated the redemption of all.
That's a beautiful quote, Robert, and you know as you're reading I'm thinking, who has a problem with that theology? Who has a problem with granting that Our Lady uniquely participated with Jesus? Because that's such a fundamental rejection of so much revelation.
So going to that, and what are the theological terms? So at least starting in the 30s, you talk more about objective, some say Scheeben started these, but objective redemption and subjective redemption, and Lennart, the Jesuit also from the Greg, develops these.
Mary participates in objective redemption. She's the only human being that does that, because she's the only new Eve. There's not a new Adam, a new Eve, a new John, a new Magdalene.
It's not even based on geography of who shows up at Calvary. It's based on providential role, and so Jesus and Mary are fulfilling that new Adam, new Eve role. So this concept that now, and this really had a very unfortunate German twist in the 1950s, where several started, Koster, Semmelroth, a few others, started doubting Mary's role in the objective redemption.
And so once again, what are we talking about here? We're saying that Mary made a positive contribution to the redemption of all humanity. That's what you just read, St. John Paul II saying. He'll say it again on April 2nd of 1997, the audience before the audience that he speaks about the Co-redemptrix. He says it again in Evangelium Vitae, when he talks about Mary offering the Son, but the fact is she, in her participation, does something that affects all humanity. That's not true for any of the rest of us. So we summarize it by saying she participates in objective redemption. We all participate in the distribution of graces by our prayers and sacrifices, the Padre Pio's, etc. But only Our Lady participated in the acquisition, the obtaining of the graces, and that's been repeated several times by the papal magisterium.
I have to say, I'm at a loss of how people can deny that. This passive Germanic idea that Mary just received, this was Rahner, again Semmelroth, that Mary just received graces at Calvary, but she didn't actively participate in even the council in 56, quotes Irenaeus to say, no, it's an active role in the redemption.
Exactly. I mean, the council, Vatican II, rejected the thesis of Semmelroth and Koster, who were saying it was somehow receptive causality. Mary receives, but I'll just read you in the exact words. Rightly, therefore, the Holy Fathers see Mary as used by God, not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, and this is, you know, around 180 AD, she being obedient became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.
There's Marian co-redemption right there. And then also under the cross in Lumen, that was Lumen Gentium 56. This is Lumen Gentium 58. And it says, after this manner, the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith and faithfully persevered in her union with her son onto the cross, where she stood in keeping with the divine plan. This is part of God's plan, grieving exceedingly with her only begotten son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with his sacrifice and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, which she herself had brought forth. So she's there under the cross, uniting herself to the sacrifice, but also offering her, making an oblation. Right. And we have that from St. Bernard of Clairvaux in the 12th century, that Mary offers the victim. And, you know, just so our listeners are clear, we're only making some brief references of massive documentation of this. Let me outline very briefly, you have the New Eve, which is clearly co-redemption with the keynote of St.
Irenaeus. Mary is the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race. You go to the 5th century, you have Syrian and Egyptian liturgies that talk about Mary as the Liberatrix, the Salvatrix. And even in the Akathist hymn, Mary is referred to as, you know, Mother of God, save us.
And then you go to the 10th century, you have John the Geometer, who says there's an inseparability between mother and son. St. John Paul II does an audience just on John the Geometer and saying they do this together. Then you have Bernard and his disciple Arnold of Chartres.
Arnold of Chartres, he dies in 1163. He says that Mary was co-crucified, co-died in her heart.
It's everything except Co-redemptrix, but it's all the co-words of her offering Jesus in the two altars. One is Jesus's body, the other is Mary's heart. So my point is, this is just what it means to be Catholic. This is not new. It's not edgy. It's not dangerous. It's not risky.
And that's why it's interesting that our past, you know, lost friend, you know, Father Laurentin, who's very much honored by, you know, the Pontifical Marian Academy and others, in 1951 did a research on this title Co-redemptrix and said that it would be temerious, and that is to say it would be presumptuous to not accept the title Co-redemptrix. But then sadly, 30 years later, even 20 years later, he rejects the title. That's not continuity of hermeneutics.
That's not, the Holy Spirit doesn't make mistakes. And so what you're saying is, if you reject the title Co-redemptrix, you're kind of saying, well, they all got it wrong since the 14th century.
They've all gotten it wrong. The mystics who received, they got it wrong too. The popes who used it, they got it wrong. And that's a dangerous statement. So I'm just simply saying nothing new with this. This is what it means to be of the faith regarding Our Lady's unique role in the redemption. And to deny it is, I think, is a really, it's a tragic thing. 
Exactly, exactly. It's an unfortunate turn in Mariology, as you and I have spoken about this before. After the Council, it was going by certain perceptions, but we owe a great deal of gratitude to St. John Paul II, who used the title, and it's documented six times, and then also in that 1985 addressing Diakiel in Ecuador, he speaks about the el papel corredentor of Mary, the co-redemptive role of Mary, but it's translated into English as her role as Co-redemptrix. If I speak about your paternal role, and then I say, but that's your role as father, it means the same thing. Of course it does. Of course it is. And that's why it concerns me, Robert, that sometimes, now sometimes there could just be a misunderstanding that Co-redemptrix means Mary's unique role in the redemption, but sometimes it seems that there's a hesitancy to grant the unique role of Our Lady in the redemption, and that's far more troubling.
So it's not just that they have a problem with the title, they have a problem with this essential doctrine, but it, dare I say, this is not just about the mother. This is about humanity's cooperation in the greatest act of human history, which is the redemption. And God wanted us all to be involved. He brought in the best of us, the Immaculate One, to represent all of us, and as an exemplar for all the rest of us, that Augustine's right. God can create us without us, but he does not will to save us without us. And so if we reject Mary Co-redemptrix, we're really rejecting a key understanding of what we are supposed to do in the church. Why John Paul II called us to be co-redeemers in Christ. You made the good point before we got on, Pope Francis has really developed this more than Benedict XVI did with his quotes about the woman and also the bridge, which again is more general with the bridge, but the woman of redemption. I mean that's, you know, again that January 1st, 2020 quote is a powerful quote, and he talked about Mary's martyrdom at Calvary back in 2013. So even though he had this, and to be very clear, it wasn't, Pope Francis's comments on the Co-redemptrix and on the dogma were very much misrepresented. He, it wasn't even in the text, he made an aside comment about the Co-redemptrix and as you, I think, appropriately interpret in the most benevolent way, which is what we're called to, in the strict sense only Jesus redeems, but we don't live in the strict sense. We use analogy all the time, and in that sense, by analogy, Our Lady has this role, and we have this role.
So, but he has come forward strongly with these understanding of Marian co-redemption.
Exactly, I mean in September 15th, 2021, in a homily, Pope Francis said Mary shared in her son's mission of salvation, even to the foot of the cross. So she's sharing it, and then in a general audience, February 16th, 2022, in the plan of salvation, the son cannot be separated from the mother, from the one who advanced in the pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered her union with her son, even to the cross, and he's citing Lumen Gentium 58. So this is similar, it's echoing what Pius XI said, that we cannot, you know, for this reason, by necessity, the Redeemer could not but associate his mother in his work. 
Robert, and that's why I appreciate Pius XI's reference there, because if you get nothing else, if other biblical depths of meaning escape you, just go to the incarnation and the redemption, just go to the Annunciation and Calvary, and see what one human being did that no other human being has ever done. One gave flesh to the word. We could spend millennia trying to ponder that and not get it fully. Mary gave flesh to the word, who happens to be the Redeemer of the universe, and then secondly at Calvary, Mary joins his suffering with his suffering, offering it for the redemption of the world. No one else, not only did no one else do it, Robert, no one else came close, and no one else in the body would have problem. You think Saint Peter's upset calling Mary Co-redemptrix? What about Saint Paul?
Padre Pio? Padre Pio called her Co-redemptrix. He can't be upset. Mother Teresa? Oh yeah, she called him Co-redemptrix, called her Co-redemptrix too. You know, how many more do we need? So, and I say this without judgment of those with an opposing position. I'm not judging hearts here, but I'm saying this is not a slight balance question. It's not just barely making it.
This is Catholic. Mary Co-redemptrix is Catholic. For those who understand what that title means and what it reflects in terms of humans' need to cooperate in the redemption and Our Lady's immaculate exemplar of doing that. No one's close to it. 
Exactly, and you know, we all cooperate, but as Saint John Paul II pointed out in that memorable general audience, April 9, 1997, this is what he says. However, applied to Mary, the title co-operator, and I think in his original text it was Co-redemptrix, acquires a specific meaning. The collaboration of Christians in salvation takes place after the Calvary event, whose fruits they endeavor to spread by prayer and sacrifice. So this is how our prayer and sacrifice, we become co-redeemers and the Redeemer. Mary instead cooperated during the event itself and in the role of mother. Thus her cooperation embraces the whole of Christ's saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity.
I don't know how clearer you can get, and this is coming from a pope and a saint. I know it's, again, I make, I wish no disrespect to those who have said other things, but if you do the ink, if you do the research, it's not a debatable question. And you know, Robert, in some cases I think the faithful, the census fidelium, get this all over the place. I mean, even specific to the issue of the dogma, the fifth Marian dogma, I mean there's been over eight million petitions from over 180 countries. Cardinal Gagnon said, anybody who really prays the rosary and understands what they're praying is not going to have a problem with Mary Co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate. Because that's throughout the passages, Revelation, John 19, you know, obviously Calvary, and we talked about the presentation.
But sometimes, you know, it's almost like when Paul went to Athens. You know, why is there not a letter of Paul to the Athenians? Well, because who did he deal with? He was dealing with scholars, the intellectuals. And they, A, scoffed at him, or B, those who did not scoff said, yeah, maybe we'll hear you in another time, which is called an intellectual blow-off. It's kind of like, well, yeah, that's just not interesting us. So do I condemn scholars? All scholars? Of course not. We are humble scholars ourselves. But the greatest opposition to Co-redemptrix has not come from the faithful. It has not come from the religious. It has come from the scholars, and that's both the clerical scholars and the non-clerical scholars. And so I think there again, we have to say humility should lead us to re-examine if we're opposing something a pope, and another pope, and two other popes have said in terms of magisterium, do you really want to be on the side of opposing that? So, and again, why am I, why are we going so much with the authority?
Because ultimately, like the Council of Nicaea, this is a great quote that, you know, every heretic, Newman uses, every heretic has thousands of biblical quotes, one after another, ready to do. And the point is, if you don't follow the traditio, what's handed down, the authority of the church will be debating forever, because we all have different, or so many have different interpretations of scriptures. But the Holy Fathers have been clear on this, and therefore we should be clear on it as well. Exactly, exactly. And even Pius XII, who people say he never used the term officially during his pontificate, we've documented four uses of it when he was Cardinal Pacelli, at one point representing the pope, Pius XI, at a retreat at Lourdes. And then Father Siano, this Italian scholar, has found a reference to an address he gave in 1949 in French, and then it was translated into Spanish, and the title Corindentura appears in the Spanish translation of this French address, to the superiors of Marian congregations. So he certainly wasn't opposed to it, and he clearly taught the doctrine. I mean, so clearly there, in so many of his passages, this is Mystici Corporis, 1943, it was she, Mary, who always most immediately united with her son like a new eve, offered him up on Golgotha to the Eternal Father, together with the sacrifice of her maternal rights and love, on behalf of all the children of Adam, stained by the latter's shameful fall. Well, there is an absolute clarity. This is why Monsignor Gherardini was asked about Marian co-redemption, you know, is it a dogma? He said it's a sentencia proxima fidei, it's a teaching or a thesis close to the faith, but that's why some have said we need a dogma, we need a clear doctrinal proclamation to make it clear. It's already there, but it's here in these statements, in these encyclicals, it's there in Vatican II, as Cardinal Cottier said, Father Gallo said, it's there, it's taught in Lumen Gentium, Chapter 8, but without the title.
So maybe you could comment on this, you've been involved in this since 1993, this is over 30 years, Mark. Yeah, well, you know, Robert, I couldn't agree more.
There's two reasons to define a dogma. One is at a time of controversy, like Ephesus, right, like the Theotokos, the battle between Cyril and Historia, so that's a good time to define a dogma.
There's another time to define a dogma when you just want to add clarity, that's the assumption in 1950. There was not a great controversy about the assumption, but Pius XII just thought it'd be beneficial. I think in our case now, both of these conditions are present.
We have wonderful Catholic apologists saying that it's not a doctrine, and at the same time, we need to know our role in the church, we need to be reminded of the value, the Christian value of human suffering, when arguably we've got that more wrong as a humanity now than ever before, with abortion and euthanasia, and, you know, the termination of people who have no medical conditions at all, let alone, not that that justifies it, but that's just how far we're going.
We need a proclamation to understand the proper role of woman, which is in total dysphoria right now, and understanding what is the role of woman, and as John Paul says, you're not going to get that right until you go to Our Lady. In so many ways, Robert, I think the time is ripe for a solemn definition, and I would pray that in that solemn definition of spiritual maternity in general, spiritual motherhood, because I, you know, I think if you go up to someone on the street and try to explain, A, mediatrix, or B, mother, mother is going to be so much easier for them to understand immediately, even though John Paul says she is a mediatrix that's implicit in the term mother, but on the big picture right now, we need a proclamation of who Our Lady is, because she deserves it, because in many authentic apparitions, she's also made reference that this is the key to the triumph of her most immaculate heart. So for clarity, and for emphasis, I think now is the time that in a definition of Mary's spiritual mother, we could have the specific titles of Co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all grace, and advocate, because without any of those three, Robert, you're taking away a third of the manifestation of her motherhood. That's how she manifests herself.
Do you want to say Mary didn't suffer for us? No, we don't want to say that. I want to say Mary didn't nourish us in the spiritual life? Don't want to say that. Don't want to say Mary defends and protects us? Well, she's been doing that for all of history. So that's why I think it's so important that a definition is absolutely necessary, and that Co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate would be essential parts of that definition, but it's not a triple dogma. It's a single dogma of who Mary is in relation to us, but including these three critical dimensions of how she is. Imagine a human mother saying, well, a kid saying, well, I don't ever remember you suffering for me, mom. I'm talking about a good relationship, right? Or you never nourished me, you never cooked, you never formed me, or you never protected me. Well, that's not good motherhood, but here we're talking about immaculate motherhood, and we want all three of those dimensions that to be defined. I think it would be an occasion of absolutely historic races. 
Exactly, and it would also help to overcome confusion in the field of Mariology and ecumenism and so forth. I deal with it sometimes with very good people, but I mean, a priest just heard that I know and respect, heard the title Co-redemptrix and went bananas. A priest and a future bishop said, when a student I had, who's now a priest, used it in defending his thesis, he says, are you aware how offensive that title is to the separated brethren? And this priest went on to become an archbishop. 
And there you go, and that's why the faith will have to make this their own. I mean, I think it's really time, this is one of the reasons we're doing this series, is sometimes some of the intellectuals, for various reasons, and again, no judgment of heart here, we're just talking about positions, they're backing off this. But I don't consider the methodology to be sound from a Catholic perspective, because you start saying, do you know how offensive papal infallibility is to our separated brethren? Do you know how offensive saying that you eat the body and blood of Jesus is to our separate? Does that mean we start, we take away the real presence? Do we take away papal infallibility? That method is foundationally flawed, and it's the method that was used by some theologians at the council. And how do we know? Because they said so. Absolutely true in themselves, but it might be offensive to separated brethren. So that's not the way we want to go. But that's why I couldn't agree more.
I think a definition is timely, it's appropriate. And I think, you know, we're called to pray for our Holy Father, that the Holy Spirit will enlighten him. And again, that's God's task.
Our task is to do our work to spread the faith. But I really want to challenge our lay listeners who are not doctored or not degreed to own this. You don't have to have a clerical title or an ecclesial or theological title to quote the Pope's on Mary Co-redemptrix, and that this is what we believe, and it's truly part of our Catholic heritage. 
Yes. And you know, it's something Pope Francis said in an interview at the beginning of his pontificate. If you want to learn about Mary, talk to the theologians. If you want to learn to love her, speak to the people. This is what I have found, and maybe you have found it too. When you talk to people, devout people who pray the rosary, and you explain Mary and co-redemption to them, they say, isn't it obvious? Robert, the question I've had—I've just completed my 38th year of university teaching—the question I have had in most every class, and I've had over 6,000 students in Mariology, I've never had someone raise a question all that time saying, I don't like that title. The question I've had is, why isn't this already proclaimed?
Why is there not already a dialogue? What's holding things up? There's almost—and I can't recount for every class of 38 years, but that's the most consistent question is, why has not this been proclaimed? What's holding things up? Why are they waiting? And I can't give a good answer to that, but you know, that's where we do the truth. We pray, and this is a synodality moment in the church. So the lay faithful should have the peace and courage and confidence to know that if a member of the clergy comes up to them and says, oh, that's not a right title, you can say, I'm sorry, Father, actually it is, and here's why, and the popes have used it, always can be done respectfully, and that includes bishops. You know, we know a cardinal that went to a Marian congress and said, you don't have to believe the assumption and the Immaculate Conception to be a good Catholic. So that's a big problem, you know, and so again, it's time for the laity to own this, and they have—and by the way, when we're talking about people without degrees, we're not talking about people that are not extremely intelligent.
Just because they haven't gone through, you know, formation of theology doesn't mean they're very bright, they're very strong readers, are very articulate in the faith, and, you know, that's the challenge, is own and defend Our Lady Co-Redemptrix, because it's the truth, and Our Lady deserves having us defend her truth, not just for her, although first for her, but also because we need it, and again, I think this dogma is the key to the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, Robert. I think once it happens, once her roles are acknowledged, then she can fully exercise those roles. Right now she can't. Is she mother? Of course she is. Does she intercede?
Of course she does. Can she do it to her full capacity? No. Why? Because she awaits our consent.
So as one author said, just as, you know, God the Father waited for the yes of a 15-year-old virgin to bring us the Redeemer, now that virgin waits for our yes to be released, to fully intercede, to bring us the graces of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart. I believe that to be true.
Yes, exactly. I mean, you think of Our Blessed Mother at Fatima. She says, God wishes to establish devotion to my Immaculate Heart. So this is coming from God. God wishes us to acknowledge the full truth of Mary. We have an obligatory memorial for Mary, Mother of the Church, but what is her full role as mother, you know, and why is she the Mediatrix of all graces? Why is she the universal spiritual mother? It's because she cooperated uniquely with the Redeemer. Yeah, it's a perfect note to end this on, Robert. She's only mother to us in the order of grace, and again, Lumen Gentium says this in 61, because of a unique role from the birth of Jesus throughout his whole process in salvation. It's the ending two lines of Lumen Gentium 61. See, this is wonderful for me. Anytime I make a reference, I've got Robert to look it up and give credibility and quote it, so this makes it easy here. Here it is. It's really, all of Lumen Gentium 61 deserves to be read and understood properly, predestined from eternity by that decree of divine providence which determined the incarnation of the Word to be the mother of God. This is from eternity. The Blessed Virgin was on in this earth the virgin mother of the Redeemer and above all others. So she's not just a model, but above all others and in a singular way the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. Well, that was the substitute for Co-redemptrix, you know, the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ. She presented him to the Father in the temple and was united with him by compassion as he died on the cross. Compassion means co-suffering. In this singular way, it's absolutely unique, she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in what? The work of the Savior in bringing back supernatural life to souls, wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace. Mater nobis in ordine gratiae.
A beautiful title. And notice the causality of the very last line, for this reason, my translation says. So she uniquely participates in the restoration of life for this reason. She is a mother to us in the order of grace. So that's a causal thing, and just as you said, and you're in great company with Saint Bonaventure, she's only the spiritual mother because of the Co-redemptrix. She's only mediatrix and advocate because of the Co-redemptrix, and that's going to lead us well into our next session of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Grace, which flows from her role as Co-redemptrix. So thank you, Robert. Always enjoyable speaking about Our Lady, and I thank our viewers and listeners. You can tell, I think, that this means something to us because we try to be imperfect sons of the mother as well, talking about her truth and trying to do so in the order of love. So our next program will be on Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces, a papal title that's been used both in title and in teaching for over three centuries, and we'll break that down. We'll talk about how is Mary Mediatrix of All Graces? How does Mary mediate graces even before she exists? Could that even be possible? Grace in the Old Testament, and we'll go through the richness of why. Pope Francis, in the summer of 2023, says that Mediatrix of All Graces is one of her ancient titles. So again, Robert, thank you so much for your invaluable contributions to these elements of truth for Our Lady. Well, thank you, thank you, Mark, and thanks to the listeners, and we unite in prayer. I think that we believe in the power of prayer, and we pray for the discernment of bishops and the Holy Father on this matter. We leave it up to God ultimately, but we do our share teaching, explaining, and praying. Amen, great. Thank you so much for being with us, and God bless you all.