A Marian Opportunity for the Crisis of Continuity

The international Mariological conference in Rome De Maria numquam satis recently concluded. Notably, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller publicly defended the title “Co-Redemptrix.” Cardinal Müller’s defense is particularly interesting, since he was previously critical of it. The conference occurred almost one year after the publication of Mater Populi Fidelis (MPF), a doctrinal note from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that discouraged using that very title (though Cardinal Fernández clarified it was not banned). Yet according to the National Catholic Register’s interview with one of the organizers, Virginia Coda Nunziante, the aim was not “to fuel controversy, but to restore theological clarity” and begin reflections aimed at giving rise “to a genuine Marian movement, capable of involving priests, religious and laypeople in the shared commitment to know, love and promote devotion to Mary.” This approach provides an opportunity for honestly, prudently, and fruitfully addressing the greater concern of doctrinal continuity.

When MPF was first released, I recall some Catholic commentators saying it was mainly about the use of titles. However, the reality of an international conference seeking “to restore theological clarity” suggests the controversy is more nuanced. Let’s use a specific example. MPF cautions against understanding Mary as an “instrumental agent” or secondary cause in the mediation of graces; it says we should understand her intercession as “preparing” us to receive grace by influencing our dispositions (see MPF, 46, 65). There is tension here because pre-conciliar popes—including Leo XIII (encyclical Adiutricem, 7; encyclical Superiore anno, 1), St. Pius X (encyclical Ad diem illum, 12-15), Benedict XV (encyclical Fausto appetente die, 11), Pius XI (encyclical Miserentissimus redemptor, 21), and Pius XII (encyclical Ad caeli reginam, 39, 42)—explicitly taught that she is associated in dispensing or distributing grace.

Our Lady’s instrumental role is also taught by post-conciliar popes, even if at lower levels of papal teaching. Pope St. John Paul II exhorted seminarians to entrust themselves to “Mary Immaculate, dispenser of every grace” [Maria Immacolata, dispensatrice di ogni grazia]. He also told the bishops of Korea that God’s grace is “abundantly dispensed” through her. Pope Benedict XVI preached with theological precision: “There is no fruit of grace in the history of salvation that does not have as its necessary instrument the mediation of Our Lady.” John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis all used the title “mediatrix of all graces.”

Other debates over continuity—such as with religious liberty, ecumenism, or the death penalty—are usually framed as pre-conciliar versus post-conciliar. But here there is tension with both eras of papal teaching. This example also shows that controversy is not simply about prudential decisions or pastoral practice, unlike many of the other issues just mentioned. A doctrinal note clearly comments on doctrine, and in this case, there seems to be tension for doctrinal continuity. Thus, whether someone is enthusiastic about or critical of MPF, all need to confront some kind of crisis of continuity. Hence, there is a legitimate need for discussion and clarification.

I am not condemning the Dicastery or Pope Leo XIV here. MPF has magisterial authority since our Holy Father approved it. Even with the tensions, all Catholics have to respect the document’s authority, the Dicastery, and our Holy Father. I am not arguing whether MPF is rupture or development, nor am I trying to undermine its authority. I am not proposing theological solutions or debating the level of assent because this is not an academic article. I am more concerned with establishing how this objective problem needs to be acknowledged for the good of souls (cf. CIC, canon 212, §3).

Catholics are, for better or worse, hyperaware of everything that comes out of the Vatican, subsequent commentary, and disputes that may arise. For example, Catholic media has publicly shared the letter theologians wrote to the Dicastery about this issue of continuity (cf. Donum Veritatis, 30). The Protestant apologist James White used discrepancies between MPF and prior papal teaching to argue against the existence of authoritative apostolic tradition in a livestream, or in other words, to lead Catholics out of the Church. Magisterial documents are available online for everyone; it is not difficult to find these tensions – especially when AI can instantly synthesize them. High school students have even asked me about Church controversies because they experience these online encounters.

Ordinary Catholics are also forced to face the continuity issue, especially with this specific example, because so many practice forms of Marian devotion (such as St. Louis de Montfort’s Marian consecration or St. Maximilian Kolbe’s Militia of the Immaculata) that heavily emphasize her role as a “dispenser” or “mediatrix” of all graces. Yet most Catholics generally do not know how to navigate different levels of Church teaching or theological technicalities. We must acknowledge and address the tensions, because if we don’t, Catholics will quietly fall into doubt and frustration as they are inevitably exposed to them. However, the point of a diagnosis is not to despair, but to seek healing. How, then, should we react once aware of this controversy? What should we do specifically with Marian devotion?

As someone heavily involved in Marian devotion who finds himself confused amidst this tension, here is how I keep my peace. First, we should pray for our Holy Father and our bishops – especially during the Rosary. This is essential for maintaining a receptive and reverent spirit toward the Magisterium. We should always have a fundamental openness to follow authoritative teaching, and when there appears to be an issue, we should express our concerns delicately and reverently without compromising that teaching.

Second, we should remember that many doctrinal controversies throughout Church history took even centuries to settle. Take, for example, the Christological crises of the early Church, or the debate and development regarding the Immaculate Conception. Doctrinal confusion, discrepancies, or disputes have never been settled overnight, but the Church has always eventually emerged with clarity—which is why the Marian conference presented itself as part of a bigger reflection. We should not become obsessed with these debates; they will not be solved immediately or anytime soon.

Third and most importantly, we should be more intentional about Marian devotion. This is where we ordinary faithful can join in that “genuine Marian movement” the conference envisions as the fruit of doctrinal clarity – specifically by, as Nunziante said, recovering the “unity between doctrine and devotion, between contemplation of Mary’s privileges and Christian life.” We shouldn’t just do pious acts, but study why Catholic tradition has embraced these Marian prayers. We should especially study how Marian dogmas and doctrines have developed from Scripture and Tradition (especially with the Fathers and Doctors).

MPF rightly seeks to emphasize Christ as the sole Redeemer and Mediator (Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5). The Dicastery is understandably concerned that the Marian titles and doctrines in question may obscure those roles. In response, once we understand the truths of Our Lady with reverence toward the Magisterium, we should alleviate this concern by the joyful testimony of our own informed filial devotion.

We can show how the more we contemplate her active participation in Redemption with and under Christ, the more faithfully we are able to unite our own lives to His death so that others may have life (2 Corinthians 4:11-12). Benedict XVI captured this perspective when exhorting the sick: “Welcome the call of Jesus who will shortly pass among you in the Most Blessed Sacrament, and entrust to him every setback and pain that you face, so that they become – according to his design – a means of redemption for the whole world. You will be redeemers with the Redeemer, just as you are sons in the Son. At the cross… stands the mother of Jesus, our mother.”

We can show that the more we contemplate her subordinate mediation of grace, the deeper we desire uniformity with Christ so that our own prayers become a powerful means of intercession for others (1 Timothy 2:1-6). Our Holy Father, in fact, points to Our Lady offering her suffering at Calvary “for the good of all,” so that her intercession acquires “for us a unique value,” as a model for our own participation in Christ (cf. Colossians 1:24). He also says that Our Lady has been called by the Church “the Mediatrix of graces” (Mediatrix gratiarum) since she embraces all the members of Christ’s mystical body. The Holy Father desires that we allow her unique participation with and under Christ to form and inspire us.

Let us, then, take this time of confusion over continuity as an opportunity. Let us show with sincere charity—rather than rebellion or mockery—that devotion to Our Lady’s role in Redemption and her mediation of graces inspires us to be co-workers with Christ (1 Corinthians 3:9), as she was the most perfect and exalted co-worker. Let us show that we cherish these doctrines because we desire to be saints, and since becoming a saint is to become another Christ, we seek to put on Christ (Galatians 3:27) in being born of Mary (Matthew 1:16).