Roma Locuta Est

November 7, 2025 – (Steven O’Reilly) – Since he was elected on May 8, seven months ago, I have for the most part refrained from commenting on the acts of Pope Leo XIV. It was not so much intentional, as it was because I have been busy with other things in life.

For one, I was in the process of retiring from my career in private industry, which I exited in October. Also, now with more free time, I have devoted most of my writing energies on completing book II of the PIA FIDELIS trilogy (Book I is titled PIA FIDELIS: The Two Kingdoms). This is a historical fiction novel set in the times of the Arian crisis and the rise of Julian the Apostate, a time many commentators have likened to our own in various ways.  For one, it was a time of poor papal and episcopal leadership at time of doctrinal confusion.

In the wake of the pontificate of Pope Francis, well deserving of a sobriquet of “The Terrible“, the bar was set pretty high to disappoint. Unfortunately, Pope Leo XIV has readily cleared the high jump bar already on a few occasions. For example, there was his failure to either stop or comment on the homosexual mass at the Gesu’ in Rome back in September (see Pope Leo XIV: Silence gives consent),  There is also Pope Leo XIV’s foray into American politics, which he and Francis only seemed to care to do during Republican administrations. Recently, Pope Leo spoke on American immigration policy. However, his comments lacked any balance in terms of “accepting the foreigner” when the foreigners who have entered the country did so illegally, came with long criminal rap sheets, or committed crimes in their new host country, or that host country citizens must pay for the illegal “foreigners” healthcare and benefits etc. at a time when the country is trillions of dollars in debt.  Such lack of nuance just seem to make Pope Leo XIV, like Pope Francis, and any number of liberal bishops, particularly in the USA, a political hack.

The Titles of Mary

The most recent bit of confusion out of Rome is a document titled Mater Populi Fidelis, which was issued by the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). This document analyzes the Marian titles of “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix“, which have for some time been applied to Our Lady. However, the new DDF document provides a negative assessment of applying either title to Our Lady.

With regard to the title of “Co-Redemptrix,” the DDF document concludes in paragraph 22 (bold added): 

Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, for “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). 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. In this case, the expression “Co-redemptrix” does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ — the Son of God made man for our salvation, who was the only one capable of offering the Father a sacrifice of infinite value — which would not be a true honor to his Mother. Indeed, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), Mary directs us to Christ and asks us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5).

So, the DDF document says it is “always inappropriate to use” this title. This is a stronger translation from the official Vatican site’s English translation, compared to the Vatican press bulletin, which read “it would not be appropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix”.  Interesting, but it is clear the Vatican intended it is “always” inappropriate, as the official translation now indicates.

With regard to the use of “Mediatrix of All Graces” specifically, the document again states the title does “not favor a correct understanding of Mary’s unique place.”  The document says, in part (bold added):

67. Some titles, such as “Mediatrix of All Graces,” have limits that do not favor a correct understanding of Mary’s unique place. In fact, she, the first redeemed, could not have been the mediatrix of the grace that she herself received. This is not a minor point since it reveals something central: even in Mary’s case, the gift of grace precedes her and comes from the absolutely free initiative of the Trinity in view of Christ’s merits. Like all of us, she did not merit her justification by a preceding action of her own,[172] nor did she do so by any subsequent action.[173] Even in Mary’s case, her friendship with God by grace is always freely bestowed. Her cherished figure is the supreme testimony of the believing receptivity of one who, more than anyone else, opened herself with docility and complete trust to Christ’s work, and who, at the same time, stands as the greatest sign of the transforming power of that grace.

68. On the other hand, the title “Mediatrix of All Graces” risks presenting Mary as the one who distributes spiritual goods or energies apart from our personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, the term “graces,” when seen in reference to Mary’s maternal help at various moments in our lives, can have an acceptable meaning. The plural form expresses all the aids — even material — that the Lord may grant us when he heeds his Mother’s intercession. These helps, in turn, prepare our hearts to open to God’s love. In this way, Mary, as Mother, has a presence in the daily lives of the faithful that is far greater than the closeness any other saint could have.

By now, others have provided critiques of the DDF’s analysis. Therefore, it is not my intent to go into detail on the question. What is interesting here to note, is that the document chooses to emphasize how these titles can be misunderstood and for this reason declares it always inappropriate to use them.

Yet even in making its case, the same document does admit the titles can represent a true reality about Our Lady, when properly understood. In other words, if understood in the proper sense, Mary is “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix”. For example, the document acknowledges 

13. The cooperation of the Mother with her Son in the work of Salvation has been taught by the Magisterium of the Church.[22] As the Second Vatican Council states, “rightly, therefore, the holy Fathers see Mary not merely as a passive instrument in the hands of God, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience.”[23] This cooperation is present not only in Jesus’ earthly life (at his conception, birth, death, and Resurrection) but also throughout the life of the Church.

And again (bold and italics added):

It was with a view to Christ that God the Father, from all eternity, chose her to be the all-holy Mother and adorned her with gifts of the Spirit granted to no one else.”[27] Mary’s “Yes” is not a mere precondition for something that could have been accomplished without her consent and cooperation. Her motherhood is not only biological, nor is it passive in nature,[28] but it is a “fully active” motherhood[29] that is joined to the salvific mystery of Christ as an instrument willed by the Father in his plan of salvation. She is “the guarantee that he is truly man, ‘born of a woman’ (Gal 4:4)” and, after the Nicene dogma is proclaimed, she is also recognized as being the “Theotokos, the God-bearer.”[30]

And the document admits popes have used the title (bold and italics added):

18. Some Popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” without elaborating much on its meaning.[33] 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[34]) or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross.[35] The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons. Saint John Paul II referred to Mary as “Co-redemptrix” on at least seven occasions, particularly relating this title to the salvific value of our sufferings when they are offered together with the sufferings of Christ, to whom Mary is united especially at the Cross.[36]

The document admits that popes have used the title of “Co-Redemptrix” of Mary multiple times, such as the example of St. John Paul II above. In Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor, he wrote:

“…whereas He is the “one mediator of God and men” (1 Timothy ii, 5), chose to make His Mother the advocate of sinners, and the minister and mediatress of grace...”

Per Wikipedia, citing Mark Miravalle, “the Holy See approved in 1921 an annual celebration in that country of a feast day of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces” (see HERE).

So, the document admits there is a proper sense in which the titles can be understood as true, but the document offers a prudential judgment, in the DDF’s and pope’s opinion, there is a greater risk these titles will be misunderstood, and hence, are “always inappropriate.”

As said, the goal here is not to comment in great detail, or attempt a rebuttal to the DDF document. Others have provided great commentary on it. The goal here is to provide a few brief examples which highlight how the DDF guidance itself provides evidence, albeit grudgingly, that when understood properly, the titles do in fact describe the reality of Mary’s special place in God’s plan of Redemption and Salvation.

Rome is confusing the faithful 

So, given that the Marian titles and question, if understood property, can describe the true reality of Mary’s place in God’s plan; why does Rome not just insist, and expand upon this understanding — instead of rejecting all use of them as “always” inappropriate?  Where was the controversy that necessitated this document? This new DDF document is but the latest from Rome that adds to the confusion of Catholics. It seems to be the latest in a string of self-inflicted diminutions of papal coherence.

As previously quoted, the DDF document says “it is always inappropriate to use” the title Co-Redemptrix. This is confusing given Catholics know popes have used the title, which the document honestly notes to its credit. The document in a more lengthy discussion appears to reject “Mediatrix” as well with the same strength. But, again, Catholics know popes, have used this title as well, e.g., Pope Pius XI, as cited above. If it is “always inappropriate”, were the former popes wrong in using the term? How can it reasonably be said the the use of the titles, even with the appropriate meaning attached to them is “always inappropriate”?

This latest DDF document is but the latest of confusing utterances and policies from Rome. Catholics have for years been puzzling over the comments of Pope Francis and the DDF on the death penalty, knowing it is found in Revelation, and the Church’s magisterium, inclusive of popes, who had previously defended it (see HERE). Then, of course, there is the case of Amoris Laetitia, which under some interpretations seems to – if not to actually – allow communion for active adulterers in some cases. Pope Francis never attempted to explain how such an interpretation could be explained in light of his predecessors’ clear, explicit teaching denying communion to active adulterers in all cases (e.g., Familiaris Consortio 84) .

Rome’s belated attempt to address questions about Amoris Laetitia resulted in only more confusion (see Dubium: ‘Are you a heretic, yes or no?’). Then, there was the confusion of Fiducia Supplicans, which allowed – or certainly seems to – for the blessing of same-sex couples (see Will Fiducia Supplicans Backfire on Pope Francis). And, then, related to the same problem with the Church’s current policy toward same-sex relationships, was the aforementioned silence of Pope Leo XIV regarding the mass for homosexual groups at the Gesu’ in Rome, and their procession into the Basilica of St. Peter (see Silence Gives Consent).

For years, Catholics have been looking for more clarity, and less confusion from Rome. Yet, they have gotten more of the latter, and none of the former. We are living in a period of confusion and crisis in the Church, brought on in great part by recent popes. Initial hopes that this might be toned down some after Pope Leo’s election have been disappointed (see Habemus Papam).  But, Catholics need to remember that Church history is filled with confusing times, bad popes, bad bishops, faithless Catholics, etc.  Therefore, we must recognize that, and in these times endeavor to keep the faith.

Unfortunately, the ongoing confusion has had its tragic consequences, as some Catholics, despairing, have left the Church to become sedevacantists – even if they deceive themselves and others by calling themselves other, laughable, names, like “interregnists”. Having first rejected the validity of the pontificate of Pope Francis on their misunderstanding of canon law and other facts surrounding Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, they now have come to reject the validity of Poe Leo XIV as well.  Dispensing with even the pretense of citing procedural problems, they base their arguments on old sedevacantist arguments. A small and odd alliance of 1958 sedevacantist and Benepapist-turned-sedevacantist blogs/podcasts, a “Sede Inc.” of sorts, is developing to push the view that Pope Francis was, and Pope Leo XIV is an antipope. 

Already, they are whining like stuck pigs about the latest offering from Rome. However, Catholics should take care not to lend credit to the opinions of these sedevacantists, and Benepapists-turned-sedevacantists. For those tempted by them, or having to deal with them, check out the resources that refute their tendentious arguments, such as articles on this blog (e.g., HERE, HERE), videos (see HERE), or my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.

“This too shall pass”

In the humble opinion of this wee, lilliputian blog, clearly, what is needed is more clarity and common sense in Rome — and with a healthy dose of clearly expressed orthodoxy. How could one possibly think that blessing homosexual couples, and allowing active adulterers to receive communion would not cause confusion among the faithful?  Yet, that calling the titles of “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix” inappropriate made sense, especially when no one was misusing the titles, or were using them in a sense other than what prior popes attached to them?

However, as confusing as this new Marian title controversy is, the Catholic attitude should be, “this too shall pass.” My hunch is, the day will come when a future pope will clarify, and permit – and indeed, encourage – the use of these titles. Below, I explain why I believe this to be the case by analogy.

Catholics might recall that there were once popes who rejected the use of the filioque (“from the Son“) in the creed at a time when it began to appear in it in some places – but which is something said now in every mass!  For example, Pope John VIII (872-882) in a letter to Bishop Photius wrote (Bold added):

“Your fraternity also knows that when the one sent by you recently came to us and consulted us on the holy symbol, he found that we have preserved it unshaken, just as it was handed down to us from the beginning, without adding or removing anything, as we know well that a grave condemnation awaits those who dare to do such things. Therefore, we inform your reverence once again that regarding this addition in the symbol (from the Son, specifically), not only do we not proclaim it, but we also condemn those who, in their madness, first dared to proclaim it as transgressors of the divine word, as those who subvert the theology of our Lord Christ, and as enemies of the holy Fathers who, meeting in council, delivered the holy symbol to us. We place these transgressors alongside Judas, not because they delivered the Lord’s body to death, but because, by schism, they separated and divided among themselves the faithful of God, who are His members, casting them, and themselves even more so, headlong into eternal fire, as did that aforementioned Judas, the unworthy disciple of Christ, who hung himself.” (Source:  HERE)

Granted the controversy was in part due to the later introduction of the filioque in some places.  However, above, Pope John VIII “condemned” those who used the filioque, suggesting they “subvert the theology of our Lord Christ” — and he places them “alongside Judas”, and accuses them of “schism.”  So…what they did…was far worse than being “always inappropriate” in the eyes of that pope, yet today we say the “filioque” in the creed!  Now, this said, there has been a question as to whether the above passage was a forgery or not (see HERE).  Still, it is true that in Rome there was some hesitancy about adopting the filioque in the creed.  As the online Catholic Encyclopedia indicates:

“The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. Scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15).” [1]

Pope Leo III (795-816) advised the “filioque” be omitted in the creed, and it was only later, as the citation above indicates, did it ‘gain a firm foothold in Rome itself.’  The filioque was only added to the creed in Rome by Pope Benedict VIII, in 1014 AD. The point being, at a minimum, Rome was resistant for a time – about 200 years – to adding an expression it later admitted.

There is also the case of Pope Honorius who greatly contributed to the doctrinal confusion that gave rise to the Monothelite heresy, when he wrote that various phrases – which were orthodox (e.g., “two wills”, and “two operations”) and which were important to clarify the truth about Christ’s divine and human natures against heretics – should not be used. For example, Honorius wrote:

“…on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man” (Scripta dilectissimi filii quoted by William Shaw Kerr in A Handbook on the Papacy 196; emphasis added in Steven O’Reilly’s article Guilty Only of Failure to Teach ).

Honorius was later condemned for his silence (see Guilty Only of Failure to Teach; and James White Is Wrong), i.e., ‘favoring heresy’, precisely, for failing to define the faith when it needed to be.

So, in conclusion, these past historical examples suggest — to me at least — that we have not seen nor heard the last of these Marian titles by popes by a long shot. In fact, I believe the day will come when — emphasizing the true and proper use and meaning of these titles — that popes in Rome will, once again, consider them “appropriate” to use.

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.

Notes:

[1]  Maas, A. (1909). Filioque. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm