On the occasion of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, I thought it appropriate to return to a theme that has been present in Christian theology for centuries: the figure of Mary.
A figure who, over time, has taken on an increasingly complex role, sometimes even superior to that of her Son, especially in popular devotion. This is the natural result of a historical process in which affection, imagination, liturgies, and legends have layered up to generate a Mariology much broader than the biblical texts allow.
The Church itself, aware of the risk of these exaggerations, recently intervened with a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled Mater Populi Fidelis, a doctrinal note dedicated to certain Marian titles that refer to Mary’s alleged “cooperation” in the work of salvation.
This is an important document because it seeks to bring order to centuries of theological, iconographic, and popular elaborations that have produced an image of Mary that is often far removed from the texts.
The Church openly acknowledges this: those titles attributed to Mary in popular devotion—‘Co-redemptrix,’ ‘Mediatrix of all graces,‘ ‘Our Lady of Grace,’ ‘Our Lady of Good Counsel,’ and so on—have no clear theological basis and may even overshadow the uniqueness of Christ’s mediation.
It is precisely this risk that the Note intends to limit.
Why is the Vatican intervening? The problem of Marian language
In the presentation of the document, it is stated that for decades the Holy See has received insistent requests to define new Marian dogmas — especially that of Co-redemptrix and that of Universal Mediatrix.
This pressure comes from both the “simpler” faithful and some sectors of the clergy.
The Dicastery clarifies two fundamental points:
- Marian devotion plays an important affective role in the life of the Church, because the faithful recognize in it the maternal tenderness of God.
- Many Marian titles that have arisen in popular piety do not have a defined theological meaning and risk generating confusion, especially when they seem to attribute to Mary a role that doctrine cannot recognize.
One example concerns Marian apparitions: the Note refers to the Norms on alleged supernatural phenomena, which point out that many titles attributed to Mary in apparitions are inappropriate or theologically incorrect.
The simple fact that, according to the accounts, Our Lady herself presents herself with definitions that the Church considers misleading should invite caution.
In the document, therefore, the Church seeks to restore a balance: Christ is the Son of God, Mary is his mother, but Mary is not divine.
All too often, devotion has overstepped this boundary.
Mary’s cooperation in the Scriptures: what do the texts really say?
The Note states that Marian cooperation in the plan of salvation is “attested to in the Scriptures” and cites several passages:
- Genesis 3:15, where Mary is glimpsed as the “woman” who defeats the serpent;
- John 2 and John 19, where Jesus calls his mother “Woman”;
- Revelation 12, the woman who gives birth to the Messiah under attack from the Dragon.
But a philological and contextual reading shows a completely different picture:
• Genesis 3:15
It does not speak of Mary, but of the woman’s offspring, of a generic human line struggling with adverse forces.Attributing that passage to Our Lady is a later theological reading.
• The title “Woman” in John
It is a respectful appellation of the time, but it does not indicate a dogmatic role.Furthermore, in the story of the wedding at Cana, the Note cites verses 3 and 5, deliberately omitting verse 4:
“What do you want from me, woman? My hour has not yet come.”
A phrase that, read without filters, shows an attitude that is anything but devout or hierarchically subordinate to Mary.
• Revelation 12
The woman in chapter 12 is not Mary: she is a symbolic figure, representing the messianic community or Israel.The woman flees into the desert, receives wings to escape, and is attacked by the dragon: elements that are completely incompatible with the historical life of the mother of Jesus.
Marian cooperation, therefore, is not a biblical fact, but a result of subsequent theological interpretation.
How Mariology came about: liturgies, icons, and doctrine
The Note traces the history of Mariology, which originated mainly in the East.
The Fathers speak of Mary as:
- Theotokos (Mother of God),
- Aeiparthenos (Ever Virgin),
- Panagia (All Holy),
- “New Eve.”
These titles do not derive from biblical texts, but from centuries of theological, poetic, and liturgical elaboration.Eastern icons contribute enormously: they become theological tools that shape the Church’s imagination more than the texts themselves.
The West inherits all this and creates a further dogmatic framework, culminating in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which defines Mary as “first among the redeemed”: a theological formulation that guarantees the uniqueness of the Redeemer, but without any scriptural basis.
And when we remember that “original sin” does not exist in the texts of the Old Testament, it becomes clear how much these constructions are the result of subsequent elaborations.
The title of “Co-Redemptrix”: history of a correction
This is the most problematic title. The Note states—clearly—that it is always inappropriate. The term appeared in the Middle Ages as a correction of the even more audacious title of “Redemptrix.”
It passed through hymns, sermons, and papal pronouncements: John Paul II used it several times, fueling the misunderstanding.
But the Second Vatican Council avoided it. Ratzinger, both in 1996 and in 2002, declared it “immature doctrine” and “incorrect terminology.”
The reason is simple:
Mary cannot be placed on the same level as Christ.
And theology itself recognizes that, since Mary was redeemed before she was born, she cannot have cooperated in her own redemption or that of others. The problem is theological and linguistic, but above all it is exegetical: the Bible does not recognize the concept of “coredeemption” at all.
It is a product of affective devotion that, over time, has become theology.
The title of “Mediatrix”: a mediation to be reevaluated
The title of ‘Mediatrix’ originated among the Eastern Fathers in the 3rd-6th centuries, arrived in the West later, and became a doctrinal thesis only in the 17th century.
But the New Testament is clear:
“There is only one mediator between God and humankind: Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).
The Church recognizes only:
- an “affective” or ‘intercessory’ mediation,
- a maternal role,
- but no salvific mediation.
The Second Vatican Council uses very limited formulas (“maternal help,” “aid”), carefully avoiding the idea that Mary can dispense anything.
The new Note introduces the concept of Christ’s “inclusive mediation”: only He mediates grace; others can participate in a broad sense, but not as primary channels.
Mary, therefore, is not and cannot be a universal mediator.
Mary’s grace and limits: where theology draws the line
This is perhaps the strongest section of the Note.
The document states that:
- no human being can be a universal dispenser of grace;
- only God gives grace, through the humanity of Christ;
- Mary does not intervene in the direct relationship between God and the believer;
- Neoplatonic models that imagine flows of grace through intermediaries must be rejected;
- Mary is not honored by attributing to her roles that belong only to God.
The Church itself recognizes that attributing to Mary the function of distributor of graces is an error, both theological and biblical.
This also applies to the other title discussed: “Mediatrix of all graces,” which is judged doctrinally untenable.
Between popular faith and doctrine: a difficult balance
The Note, however, does not deny Marian piety.
On the contrary, it values it:
- pilgrimages,
- icons,
- shrines,
- the “caress of the Mother,”
- the affective dimension.
The faithful have always sought intermediary figures: a model that has its roots in ancient religions, from the Lamassu to the Mesopotamian Shedim. The biblical “messengers” themselves—the malakhim—played intermediary roles.
Mary, the angels, and the saints perform the same psychological and symbolic function today.
The problem arises when popular imagination exceeds the boundaries that doctrine can accept. In fact, the Church maintains pastoral openness but sets precise theological limits.
Mary as the “first disciple”: the final re-evaluation
In the concluding part, the document proposes some firm criteria:
- the immediate union is with Christ, not with Mary;
- God does not need Mary to save or to give grace;
- Mary does not alter Christ’s mediation;
- her motherhood in grace is only a consequence of the biological fact of being the mother of Jesus;
- she is the first disciple, more disciple than mother.
This re-evaluation is consistent with the New Testament, where episodes concerning Mary are very few and often show a detached relationship:
– What do you want from me, woman? (Jn 2:4)
– Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? (Lk 8:21)
The document openly acknowledges that many Marian expressions are not based on Scripture.
And this coincides exactly with what I have been repeating since 2010: first we must read the texts, then distinguish what they say from what theology has constructed.
Conclusion – Returning to the texts to truly understand Mary
Ultimately, the Note presents a figure of Mary who retains great emotional and symbolic value for the faithful, but who must be brought back to her original role theologically.
Mary remains:
- the mother of Jesus,
- the first disciple,
- a model of faith,
- a consoling figure in popular piety.
But she is not:
- the co-redemptrix,
- the universal mediator,
- the dispenser of grace,
- the quasi-divine figure that centuries of devotion have imagined.
Above all, none of this belongs in the biblical texts. To truly understand who Mary was, we need to open the Gospels and read:
- how Jesus addresses her,
- how little she appears,
- how little she understood—according to the accounts—her son’s mission,
- how much her figure was exaggerated later, not in the texts.
The texts do not change. Only the interpretations change.
And to address even the most delicate issues of faith — such as that of Mary — with intellectual honesty, we must always return to the original documents.
They are the ones that speak. And they often tell a very different story from the one that tradition has constructed.
