'Co-Redemptrix' – The testimony of Popes, Saints and Theologians
Our Lady is ‘Co-Redemptrix,’ and the fact that this term needs explanation and qualification is no more argument against it than against that of ‘Mother of God.’
Our Lady is ‘Co-Redemptrix,’ and the fact that this term needs explanation and qualification is no more argument against it than against that of ‘Mother of God.’
Introduction
In a previous piece, we considered a lesser-appreciated aspect of Our Lady’s sorrows: the fact that she willed and consented to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
We saw that the brave mother of the seven Maccabean sons was a type of Our Lady: this mother exhorted her sons to suffer and die for the sake of God’s Law, and thus earns the praise of Holy Scripture; Christ’s mother and ours stood at the foot of the Cross, and internally did the same.
Far from being an uncomprehending and passive victim of traumatic suffering, she was the most perfect disciple of Christ, willing what he willed – and as a result, insofar as was in her power, she could be said to have co-offered the sacrifice with him.
Willing her Son to suffer and consummate his Passion was surely one of the greatest sources of her own pain and sorrow during this time – even if it may have been accompanied by the same kind of peace, resolution and even joy that Christ experienced during his Passion.
In the previous piece, we saw that this idea was expressed by a variety of spiritual writers, including:
For an overall account of the idea, we refer readers to that previous piece, along with some supplementary texts on the same subject:
Before we continue – if you feel strongly about this issue, why not demonstrate that in mug form?
The confusion of the term
Our Lady’s will, consent and subordinated participatory “co-offering” are among the reasons why she is properly and fittingly called “Co-Redemptrix.”
Some find this term confusing, which is why Matthias Scheeben notes that it should be clarified with the restriction, “in a certain sense.”1
This confusion was one of the grounds given for the attempted suppression of the title by Víctor Manuel Cardinal Fernández (Prefect for the formerly Holy Office, now the Prevosterous Vatican’s “Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith”), in his November 2025 “Doctrinal Note.” The note stated:
“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.”2
One of our readers,
, insightfully pointed out the absurdity of this argument, at least when made by those who engage in “incessant tortured explanations” of how and why documents like Fiducia Supplicans (not to mention Amoris Laetitia, as well as so many things Francis said, as well as Vatican II itself) are “(allegedly) not heretical.” Those who engage in such contorted explanations are not in a position to be condemning titles like “Co-Redemptrix.”Further, with regards to confusion, we should note that some find the term “Mother of God” confusing – and surely not even the Conciliar/Synodal Church has any intention of jettisoning that any time soon. The fact that it is Scriptural does nothing to counter the argument presented.
In any case, the answer to confusion is clarity. We should not jettison time-honoured terms, but rather ensure better education, catechism, preaching, apologetics and controversy.
To that end, this piece is a supplement to previous, and includes a series of texts explaining this doctrine.
First, let us see Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s account of the redemption, in the context of what a “co-redemptrix” might mean:
“The purpose of satisfaction is to repair the offence offered to God and to make Him once more favourable to the sinner. The offence offered by mortal sin has about it a certain infinity, since offence is measured by the dignity of the person offended. Mortal sin, by turning the sinner away from God, his final end, denies in practice to God His infinite rights as the Supreme Good and destroys His reign in souls.
“It follows from this that only the Incarnate Word could offer to the Father perfect and adequate satisfaction for the offence of mortal sin. For satisfaction to be perfect, it must proceed from a love and oblation which are as pleasing to God as, or more pleasing than, all sins united are displeasing to Him. But every act of charity elicited by Jesus had these qualities for His Divine Person gave them infinite satisfactory and meritorious value. A meritorious work becomes satisfactory (or one of reparation and expiation) when there is something painful about it. Hence, in offering His life in the midst of the greatest physical and moral sufferings, Jesus offered satisfaction of an infinite and superabundant value to His Father. He alone could make satisfaction in strict justice since the value of satisfaction like that of merit comes from the person, and the Person of Jesus, being divine, was of infinite dignity.
“It was, however, possible to associate a satisfaction of becomingness (de congruo) to Jesus’ satisfaction, just as a merit of becomingness was associated to His merit. In explaining this point, we shall show all the more clearly the depth and extent of Mary’s sufferings.”3
He continues, emphasising the difference between Christ’s satisfaction in justice, and Our Lady’s satisfaction in “fittingness”:
“When a meritorious work is in some way painful it has value as satisfaction as well. Thus theologians commonly teach, following upon what has been explained in the previous section, that Mary satisfied for all sins de congruo in everything in which Jesus satisfied de condigno. Mary offered God a satisfaction which it was becoming that He should accept: Jesus satisfied for us in strict justice.
“As Mother of the Redeemer, Mary was closely united to Jesus by perfect conformity of will, by humility, by poverty, by suffering—and most particularly by her compassion on Calvary. That is what is meant when it is said that she offered satisfaction along with Him. Her satisfaction derives its value from her dignity as Mother of God, from her great charity, from the fact that there was no fault in herself which needed to be expiated, and from the intensity of her sufferings.”4
With that established, let us see how this teaching – especially the aspect in which Our Lady “co-offered” the sacrifice, is expressed by Popes, then move to saints, theologians and spiritual writers.
The Popes
In the “Doctrinal Note,” Fernández stated the following:
“Some Popes have used the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ without elaborating much on its meaning. Generally, they have presented the title in two specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished) or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross.”5
In fact, whether they used the title or not, several Popes have written about Our Lady’s voluntary offering of her Son at Calvary, and their meaning has not been ambiguous: Fernández even states it himself. These Popes linked it to her status as Mother of all Christians, as well as her role as a Mediatrix and Co-redemptrix (subordinate in both cases to her Son).
Here is a selection of such references.
Roman Pontiffs teaching about Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix
In Iucunda Semper, Pope Leo XIII taught that Our Lady offered her own Son:
“It is certain, therefore, that she suffered in the very depths of her soul with His most bitter sufferings and with His torments. Moreover, it was before the eyes of Mary that was to be finished the Divine Sacrifice for which she had borne and brought up the Victim.
“As we contemplate Him in the last and most piteous of those Mysteries, there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, who, in a miracle of charity, so that she might receive us as her sons, offered generously to Divine Justice her own Son, and died in her heart with Him, stabbed with the sword of sorrow.”6
In his encyclical Ad diem illum, Pope St Pius X taught:
“Moreover it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of God, Who was to be born with human members (S. Bede Ven. L. Iv. in Luc. xl.), of which material should be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice. Hence that uninterrupted community of life and labors of the Son and the Mother, so that of both might have been uttered the words of the Psalmist: ‘My life is consumed in sorrow and my years in groans.’ (Ps xxx., 11)
“When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore (S. Bonav. 1. Sent d. 48, ad Litt. dub. 4).
“And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood.”7
His successor Benedict XV wrote:
“For, as she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, she gave up her rights as mother over this Son for the salvation of men and, to appease Divine justice, she, as much as it pertained to her [quantum ad se pertinebat], immolated Him, so that it can be said appropriately that she has, together with Christ, redeemed the human race [Ipsam cum Christo humanum genus redemisse].”8
Pope Pius XI also taught that Our Lady participated in offering her Son as the sacrifice:
“[S]he brought forth for us Jesus our Redeemer, and nourished Him, and offered Him as a victim by the Cross, by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously called a reparatress.”9
Pius XII taught, in Mystici Corporis Christi:
It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members.10
In a radio address given to pilgrims at Fatima, on 13 May 1946, Pius XII said:
“He, the Son of God, reflects on His heavenly Mother the glory, the majesty and the dominion of His kingship; for, having been associated with the King of Martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption as Mother and cooperatrix, she remains forever associated with Him, with an almost unlimited power, in the distribution of graces which flow from the Redemption.
“Jesus is King throughout all eternity by nature and by right of conquest; through Him, with Him and subordinate to Him, Mary is Queen by grace, by divine relationship, by right of conquest and by singular election.”11
Fr Juniper Carol OFM comments on this, saying that:
“Our Lady is Queen by right of conquest, which, in the teaching commonly received, means that she is our Queen because she is our Coredemptrix in the proper sense of the word.”12
The Spanish Jesuits responsible for the Sacrae Theologiae Summa series summarise the teaching of these Popes as follows:
“In these texts without doubt a certain cooperation of Mary with the redemptive sacrifice of Christ is being taught.
“This cooperation consists at least in this: Mary prepared the victim of the sacrifice, by giving birth to Christ and nourishing and protecting him.
“Therefore she really prepared the victim, since the flesh and blood, which are immolated on the cross, are the flesh and blood of Mary.
“Then the sacrifice itself took place, while she was present and rejoiced in his sufferings for the salvation of mankind.”13
Such is the teaching of the ordinary magisterium. Fr Juniper comments further:
“In view of the above papal testimonies, we feel that the thesis of Mary’s Coredemption, as understood by the majority of theologians, may well claim the endorsement of the ordinary magisterium, especially as represented by Popes Benedict XV and Pius XII.
“In our evaluation of these and other papal utterances we must, of course, avoid the excesses of those who either minimize them or exaggerate them unduly. Both attitudes are reprehensible, particularly the former.
“While the passages quoted do not in any way constitute infallible pronouncements, nevertheless they should be received with humble respect and religious assent, coming, as they do, from the highest teaching authority in the Church.
He continues, speaking of the alleged problem of misunderstanding and confusion:
“The Popes are undoubtedly well aware of the fact that their words are interpreted by a large number of theologians as favoring the doctrine of Mary’s Coredemption sensu proprio. Had they felt that they were being misunderstood, they surely would have used the proper means to correct the error, considering the far-reaching implications of the thesis and their duty to safeguard the purity of the faith.
“Yet not only have they failed to sound a warning, but their statements in this connection have increased in number and emphasis in recent years.”14
The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.
However, we also provide WM+ articles—additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.
This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible to all.
In the rest of this piece:
Saints
St Robert Bellarmine
St Alphonsus Liguori
Saints cited by Cornelius a Lapide
Theologians
Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP
Fr Matthias Scheeben
Scheeben on the concrete form of Our Lady’s participation
Fr Juniper Carol OFM
Fr Juniper on how Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix.
If you want to ensure that our work continues, join WM+ today.
You can see our Testimonials page for what some of our readers are saying about the WM Review.
(We offer free membership on request for clergy and seminarians – please contact us for details.)