Marco Tosatti
Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, we offer you this article by a theologian, whom we thank warmly, on the role of the Virgin Mary in the redemption of the world. Enjoy reading and sharing.
§§§
The Pope and the “dispute” over Co-redemption. The Errors of Víctor Fernández (II)
In a previous article, also kindly published by friend Marco Tosatti on his blog, it was shown that the dismissal of the term “Co-redemptrix” as applied to the Blessed Virgin in the doctrinal note “Mater populi fidelis” was neither a theological nor a pastoral measure. This inelegant and incorrect gesture was due solely to a certain human prudence, probably ill-conceived. It was shown that the “always inappropriate” of Fernández, besides being a contradictio in terminis, had, as a consequence the indelicate and dangerous dismissal of the Magisterium and theological tradition preceding Pope Leo XIV.
It is worth recalling, in passing, that the term “Co-redemptrix” applied to the Virgin Mary was officially approved by Leo XIII in the AAS and used in Papal Magisterium by Pius X, Pius XI, and John Paul II, not to mention the affirmation made by Benedict XV in Inter Sodalicia, cited in the previous article, which logically and immediately implies the recognition of said title. Incidentally, the Popes who did not explicitly mention the title of Co-redemptrix did not fail to expound the doctrine of Marian cooperation in the work of Redemption, theologically justifying the co-redemptive mission of Mary. All the recent Pontiffs have done so, except for Francis, as did the Second Vatican Council. From this, it must be concluded that Leo XIV, thanks to his pro-theologian Fernández, considers these Popes, including the one from whom he claims to have taken his name, “always inappropriate” due to the hypothetical risk that the aforementioned title entails of “overshadowing” Jesus Christ, the sole Redeemer.
This awkward situation, in our view, and the amount of testimonies from the Magisterium that we will bring to bear in the following articles, would justify Pope Leo XIV, imitating the humble and luminous Retractationes of his founder St. Augustine, in making a public rectification, clarifying his position on Marian co-redemption in terms of magisterial continuity and sound theology, since both the title and the doctrine are definitively admitted in pontifical teachings, and to deny it is to contradict an inalienable tradition.
For ecumenical reasons, the title was omitted from the documents of Vatican II, despite the fact that the preparatory commission recognized its theological value. Did leaving it out serve any pastoral purpose? Indeed, the arguments against the title of Co-redemptrix are all based on prudential considerations and align with the dialogue with Protestants and Orthodox Christians.
Grave theological error concerning Mary and her redemptive merits
In this publication, we wish to focus on what we consider a true theological error contained in the text of Fernández’s “doctrinal note”, an error which concerns the merits of Mary in relation to salvation. Here is the relevant excerpt from the doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis:
“47. Our salvation is solely the work of the saving grace of Christ, and of no one else. […] Only the merits of Jesus Christ, who gave himself up to the end, are applied to us for our justification.
“48. We can, however, participate by desiring the good of another, and it is fitting (congruo) that God would fulfill this charitable desire that can be expressed “in prayer” or by “works of mercy.” [STh, q. 114, a. 6, ad 3] Now, it is true that only God can pour out the gift of grace itself since this ability “exceeds the proportion of our nature” [STh, q. 114, a. 5, co.], and there is an infinite distance [Cf. STh, q. 114, a. 1, co.] between our nature and his divine life. Yet, God can bestow this gift, fulfilling the Mother’s desire, who thereby associates herself joyfully with God’s work as a humble servant.”
This passage categorically rules out the possibility of the merits of any member of the Church being applied to the justification of our neighbors. Instead, we can support one another “by desiring the good of another,” expressed through prayer and works of mercy. Nothing more. This would render the cooperation of Mary in the work of Redemption, which the “doctrinal note” recognizes as unique, supreme, and primary, as devoid of true meaning. If the Redemption were a meritorious work capable of atoning for our debt of sin, how could one cooperate—that is, work alongside—without the possibility of meriting in order to collaborate to pay off such a debt?
Furthermore, we are confronted with the umpteenth distortion of the thought of the Aquinate. Indeed, the “doctrinal note” affirms the contrary of his theological opinion. Even worse, the central idea of Fernández, that attributes exclusivity to the merits of Christ in the order of Redemption, directly contradicts the previous Magisterium, which does attribute redemptive merits to Mary. This is yet another reason to lament the fact that the happily reigning Pope has endorsed this unfortunate “doctrinal note” in such an unprecedented manner, giving it an emphasis that it absolutely does not deserve.
Mary “completes what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24)
In order to focus properly on this issue, we must return to the pericope from Colossians (1:24) that was cited in the previous article with the promise of further exploration. Today, we will read and comment on this passage in light of the teachings of John Paul II, with a brief reference to those of Pius XII, and we will see its direct application to the Blessed Virgin Mary, with the logical consequence that her merit did indeed weigh in our salvation.
We refer to the Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris (January 1, 1984). Unfortunately, it is not mentioned at all in the “doctrinal note,” despite its being an essential document for treating of this topic, as it deals precisely with the power of salvific suffering of the elect and highlights the participation of Mary in the redemptive work.
John Paul II draws on various biblical passages concerning the redemptive value of the sufferings of Christ as well as the suffering of Christians. In the Apostolic Letter, however, the reflection is based primarily on the verse from Colossians: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church” (Col 1:24). Here are some of the conclusions reached by the Polish Pontiff:
- The Redemption was accomplished through the Cross of Christ, that is, through his suffering (n. 3). By means of this suffering [Christ] must bring it about “that man should not perish, but have eternal life”(n. 16). Therefore, Christ goes toward his own suffering, aware of its saving power(n. 16) and suffers voluntarily and suffers innocently (n. 18).
- One can say that with the Passion of Christ all human suffering has found itself in a new situation(n.19). In consequence, each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished. In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ (n.19).This is the meaning of suffering, which is truly supernatural and at the same time human (n. 31).
- In the Paschal Mystery Christ began the union with man in the community of the Church. For, whoever suffers in union with Christ—just as the Apostle Paul bears his “tribulations” in union with Christ—not only receives from Christ that strength already referred to but also “completes” by his suffering “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”.This evangelical outlook especially highlights the truth concerning the creative character of suffering. The sufferings of Christ created the good of the world’s redemption. This good in itself is inexhaustible and infinite. No man can add anything to it. But at the same time, in the mystery of the Church as his Body, Christ has in a sense opened his own redemptive suffering to all human suffering. In so far as man becomes a sharer in Christ’s sufferings—in any part of the world and at any time in history—to that extent he in his own way completes the suffering through which Christ accomplished the Redemption of the world. (24)
- Does this mean that the Redemption achieved by Christ is not complete? No. It only means that the Redemption, accomplished through satisfactory love, remains always open to all love expressed in human suffering. Christ achieved the Redemption completely and to the very limits but at the same time he did not bring it to a close. In this redemptive suffering, through which the Redemption of the world was accomplished, Christ opened himself from the beginning to every human suffering and constantly does so. Yes, it seems to be part of the very essence of Christ’s redemptive suffering that this suffering requires to be unceasingly completed(n. 24).
- Faith in sharing in the suffering of Christ brings with it the interior certaintythat the suffering person “completes what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”; the certainty that in the spiritual dimension of the work of Redemption he is serving, like Christ, the salvation of his brothers and sisters. Therefore he is carrying out an irreplaceable service(n. 27).
This completes the masterful explanation of Paul’s doctrine of the completion of the Passion for the benefit of the entire Church. On one side, the uniqueness of Christ’s Redemption, as clearly declared by Scripture and recorded in the “doctrinal note,” is respected; however, the ineffable mystery of the Church’s meritorious participation in the Redemption itself is acknowledged. This is a true chef-d´oeuvre of theological balance, deftly harmonizing two seemingly contrasting aspects of Revelation.
The conclusion is admirable: all human suffering, endured within the Church, accompanied by the faith in participating in the redemptive suffering of the Cross, has supernatural value; it “completes” the suffering of Christ, and contributes to the salvation of others. In response to the erroneous assertion of the “doctrinal note,” the question begins to emerge: how could a supernatural action such as the suffering of Christians serve the salvation of others if it did not entail merit? In effect, if the suffering of the members of the Church were not supernatural and did not possess redemptive merit, it would contribute nothing to the salvation of others. This becomes abundantly clear when we study the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas as misrepresented in the “doctrinal note”.
Within the framework of this luminous doctrine, John Paul II, however, does not forget the Virgin Co-redemptrix, and although he does not use the title, he proclaims the doctrine:
- It is especially consoling to note—and also accurate in accordance with the Gospel and history—that at the side of Christ, in the first and most exalted place, there is always his Mother.In Her, the many and intense sufferingswere amassed in such an interconnected way that they were not only a proof of her unshakeable faith but also a contribution to the redemption of all (n. 25).
- It was on Calvary that Mary’s suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensitywhich can hardly be imagined from a human point of view but which was mysterious and supernaturally fruitful for the redemption of the world. Her ascent of Calvary and her standing at the foot of the Cross together with the Beloved Disciple were a special sort of sharing in the redeeming death of her Son (n. 25). She truly has a special title to be able to claim that she “completes in her flesh”—as already in her heart—“what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (n. 25).
In summary, John Paul II applies to Mary the same doctrine elucidated earlier, highlighting specific aspects. Her suffering was supernatural and fruitful for the purposes of Redemption; therefore, it must be considered meritorious, as St. Thomas teaches. Moreover, these same merits had a universal repercussion, for they “were a contribution to the redemption of all.” Finally, to complete in one’s flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions applies to her in a most special way. This last point had already been peremptorily affirmed by Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis: “Finally, bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, She, truly the Queen of Martyrs, more than all the faithful ‘filled up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ…for His Body, which is the Church’ (Col 1:24)” (n. 110).
We reiterate: if Mary, through her sufferings, completed what was lacking in the Passion of the Lord’s Passion, She could not have done so without merit. Aquinas will explain this to us with his characteristic clarity and simplicity.
Only the merits of Jesus Christ? St. Thomas denies this
Question 114 of Part I-II of the Summa Theologica is cited at least three times in the “doctrinal note,” though it is truly appalling to see the extent to which a theological thought can be distorted. Through equivocal statements and ambiguous formulations, St. Thomas is ultimately made to say the exact opposite of what he taught. In order to demonstrate this unfortunate reality to our readers, we must first provide a summary of authentic Thomistic thought and then contrast it with its falsified substitute.
In the first article, Aquinas asks whether man can merit anything from God. His answer is illuminating but somewhat lengthy; we will attempt to summarize it below.
First of all, let us define terms: “Merit and reward refer to the same, for a reward means something given anyone in return for work or toil, as a price for it. Hence, as it is an act of justice to give a just price for anything received from another, so also is it an act of justice to make a return for work or toil.” (STh I-II, 114, 1).
He proceeds to explain that merit is the fruit of an act of justice, and that justice properly speaking only exists where there is perfect equality between the parties. However, in our relationship with God, such equality does not exist, although there is a certain proportion, which would be “a certain manner of justice” (STh I-II, 114, 1). The merit resulting from this kind of “relative” justice is different from the merit that stems from justice tout court, for “where there is no simple right, but only relative, there is no character of merit simply, but only relatively, in so far as the character of justice is found there, since the child merits something from his father and the slave from his lord” (STh I-II, 114, 1).
This is considering man in his strict nature, for if the factor of grace—that is, man’s participation in the very life of God—is taken into account, St. Thomas broadens his thinking. This is evident in the third article, where he queries whether man can merit eternal life condignly. For the Aquinate “Further, merit that equals the reward, would seem to be condign” (ST I-II, 114, 3, sc), that is, in terms of justice of equality.
The answer of St. Thomas is affirmative, albeit nuanced. He accepts the possibility of a relationship of equality with God, but in what sense? It is worth reproducing a large part of the explanation provided in the Summa Theologica: “Man’s meritorious work may be considered in two ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Spirit. If it is considered as regards the substance of the work, and inasmuch as it springs from the free-will, there can be no condignity because of the very great inequality. But there is congruity, on account of an equality of proportion: for it would seem congruous that, if a man does what he can, God should reward him according to the excellence of his power. If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Spirit moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Spirit moving us to life everlasting according to John 4:14: ‘Shall become in him a fount of water springing up into life everlasting.’ And the worth of the work depends on the dignity of grace, whereby a man, being made a partaker of the Divine Nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom the inheritance is due by right of adoption, according to Romans 8:17: ‘If sons, heirs also’” (STh I-II, 114, 3).
Therefore, works that proceed from grace do indeed make us worthy of eternal and condign life. Without our merits we are not saved: “qui creavit te sine te, non salvavit te sine te,” as St. Augustine teaches.
St. Thomas then goes further and asks whether a man can merit the first grace—i.e., conversion or baptism—for another. This brings us to the heart of the matter, because the Lord’s Redemption begins with the first grace. The answer is surprising and exactly contrary to what Víctor Fernández asserts. The selected passages must be read to the end:
“No one can merit condignly for another his first grace, save Christ alone; since each one of us is moved by God to reach life everlasting through the gift of grace; hence condign merit does not reach beyond this motion.” Notwithstanding, “one may merit the first grace for another congruously; because a man in grace fulfils God’s will, and it is congruous and in harmony with friendship that God should fulfil man’s desire for the salvation of another” (STh I-II, 114, 6).
In case anyone has any doubt, Aquinas himself exemplifies when responding to one of the objections: “The poor who receive alms are said to receive others into everlasting dwellings, either by impetrating their forgiveness in prayer, or by meriting congruously by other good works” (STh I-II, 114, 6, ad 3).
Finally, it is important to highlight the role of suffering and struggle in obtaining merit. According to St. Thomas, this is arduous work, because it is great and increases merit as welll as causing charity to expand and be undertaken with magnanimity. When pain is accepted and endured well, it makes the flame of love grow, and, therefore, increases merit (cf STh I-II, 114, 4, ad 2), hence it is understood that the manifestation of God’s love for us had to be on the Cross.
In conclusion, according to St. Thomas, a man can earn another’s salvation, thereby participating directly in Christ’s redemptive action, which precisely consisted of earning our salvation.
A theological curiosity that merits further exploration is the fact that St. Thomas uses the term congruous in two different senses within the same article. Initially he reiterates the previously formulated concept, that is, the merit of congruity is that which stems from human free will and is thus obtained through an act that is intrinsic to human nature. However, when he refers to the merit by which one man can obtain the first grace for another, he uses the term congruous again, this time based on the friendship established between God and man through the life of grace. This is supernatural rather than merely natural congruence, such as that generally proposed throughout the question. This nuance will undoubtedly lead to future explanations of great interest in understanding the participation of the Most Blessed Virgin and of all the elect, in the work of Redemption.
Víctor Fernández, therefore, betrays the thought of St. Thomas when he states: “Our salvation is solely the work of the saving grace of Christ and of no one else. […] Only the merits of Jesus Christ, who gave himself up to the end, are applied to us for our justification.” And it is confusing and distorting when he states: “We can, however, participate by desiring the good of another, and it is fitting (congruo) that God would fulfill this charitable desire that can be expressed “in prayer” or by “works of mercy.”
In reality, the merits of Jesus are not only sufficient for our salvation, they are superabundant. However, according to the mysterious disposition of his divine will, it is not only his merits that save us, but also those of our brothers, as St. Thomas teaches. This is not due, as John Paul II clearly taught in Salvifici Doloris cited above, to any insufficiency of Christ’s merits, which are more than sufficient to save a thousand humanities, but because He wanted to associate the members of his Mystical Body in the redemptive task. Through this, the human being participates in the Redemption not with a vague desire, but with real supernatural merits. This truth is illuminated by the teachings of St Paul: “I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which in Christ Jesus goes with eternal glory” (2 Tim 2:10).
Victor Fernandez fell into error: previous teachings betray him
As if that were not enough, it is important to remember that several Pontiffs have affirmed in their teachings, with abundant clarity, the existence of redemptive merits on the part of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Relevant excerpts follow:
Leo XIII (September 8, 1901): “How often do we greet Mary with the angelic proclamation that She is full of grace […] So many times does the grace sent by God in the blessed fruit of her womb come to mind. So many times do we also remember the other singular merits by which She was made a participant in her Son’s human redemption. (Litterae Apostolicae de Consecratione Novi Templi Beatae Mariae Virginis a Sacratissimo Rosario ad oppidum Loudes in Galiis. In AAS, vol. XXXIV (1901-1902), pp. 193-195).
Leo XIII (September 20, 1896): “As the various mysteries present themselves one after the other in the formula of the Rosary for the meditation and contemplation of men’s minds, they also elucidate what we owe to Mary for our reconciliation and salvation.” (Encyclical Fidentem Piumque. In AAS 29 (1896-97), 204-209)
Pius X (February 2, 1904): “Since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces.” (Encyclical Ad diem illum laetissimum. In AAS, vol. XXXVI (1903-1904), pp. 449-462).
These are some of the explicit references regarding the redemptive merits of Mary, without counting the innumerable testimonies of the Magisterium that logically lead us to the same conclusion: that Mary merited Redemption for us, with and under Christ.
The fraudulence of Víctor Fernández becomes evident in his attempt to empty Marian cooperation in the work of Redemption of its content. Indeed, if the Virgin “cooperated” without redeeming merits, what kind of cooperation would that be? A vague charitable desire does not constitute cooperation; rather it sophistically eats away at it until it is reduced to an expressionless husk. This is how far the theological maneuvering of the Argentinian cardinal had to go in his attempt to discredit Mary.
What is to become of the papal Magisterium if Víctor Fernández continues as papal pro-theologian?
The question that now arises is: why did Víctor Fernández, without being a Mariologist —and who is even a highly debatable theologian due to his dearth of logic and his ambiguity—make Pope Leo sign a document that unscrupulously confronts the great preceding magisterial tradition?
Pope Leo himself advised objectivity in the use of language to the diplomatic corps: “When words lose their connection to reality, and reality itself becomes debatable and ultimately incommunicable, we become like the two people to whom St. Augustine refers, who are forced to stay together without either of them knowing the other’s language” And yet, according to the happily reigning Pontiff: “We need words once again to express distinct and clear realities unequivocally.”
For, if the world needs to return to a use of language that is consistent with reality and with logic, it goes without saying that so does the Church itself, led by Pope Leo. What is strange is that he places his trust in a “shantytown” theologian who maneuvers Orwellianly in his texts in order to favor his ideological conception of religion. And he does this by manipulating, omitting, confusing, erring and making a mess of things. With all respect for the Holy Father, we expect consistency and firmness from him. You cannot ask the world for something that the Church itself does not do. Let’s start preaching at home.
Let us pray to St. Peter and St. Paul that Pope Leo surround himself with competent assistants, faithful to the truth and zealous in serving the successor of Peter. Those who are not: pull up stakes!
Fr. Miguel Guzmán,
Doctor in Theology
§§§
Aiutate Stilum Curiae
IBAN: IT79N0200805319000400690898
BIC/SWIFT: UNCRITM1E35
***
Stilum Curiae lo trovate anche qui:
https://www.instagram.com/sanpietrotos/
https://www.facebook.com/marco.tosatti/
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063593462822
www.linkedin.com/in/marco-tosatti-77b42a21
(21) Marco Tosatti (@MarcoTosatti) / X
***
