Proclaiming new dogmas is more serious than deconstructing the dogmas of faith. Maria Corredentrice? A theological idiocy supported by those who ignore the bases of Christology



The Blessed Virgin Mary would have asked to be proclaimed co-redemptrix with a fifth Marian dogma? We smile so as not to cry about certain nonsense. Someone is willing to truly believe that the Blessed Virgin who defined herself as humble servant, the woman of gifted love, silence and confidentiality, which has as its purpose that of leading to Christ, may ask seers or devalued visionaries to be proclaimed co-redemptrix and placed almost on a par with the Divine Redeemer?

— Theologica —



PDF print format article




"Therefore, after having raised suppliant requests to God again and having invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, to the glory of almighty God, who poured out his special benevolence in the virgin Mary in honor of her Son, Immortal king of the ages and winner of sin and death, to the greater glory of his august Mother and to the joy and exultation of the whole Church, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and Our, we pronounce, we declare and define it to be dogma revealed by God that: the immaculate Mother of God always virgin Mary, finished the course of earthly life, she was assumed to heavenly glory in body and soul ". Therefore, if any, God forbid, dared to deny or question voluntarily what we have defined, know that he has failed in the divine and Catholic faith " (Dogmatic bubble the generous, 1November 1950)

With the dogmatic bull the generous Pope Pius XII proclaimed November 1st 1950 the dogma of the Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose solemn feast is celebrated on 15 August. On this occasion, I offer a theological reflection to all those who clamor for the proclamation of the dogma of Mary Co-redemptrix, starting from a question: It is more serious challenge and deconstruct the tenets of the Holy Catholic Faith, or more serious to proclaim new dogmas? Undoubtedly it is more serious the second thing, who, making mistakes and sowing confusion among the People of God, question the dogmas through rereading and reinterpretation, until reaching to their de-construction, it is not said to be animated by malicious intentions, all of this can also be the result of that bad theological formation that has been passed on for over half a century to generations of priests and theologians. Many are my confreres who came out of our disastrous seminaries as priests and drank the best of the heterodoxies taught in ecclesiastical universities., they are really convinced that bad is good, that the defect is virtues, that heresy and orthodoxy is that Orthodoxy is heresy. Not a few, induced to think, they have come to admit that they have received bad theological training and bad priesthood training, almost always trying with effort and sacrifice to remedy it. Those who admit any of this ever, despite their disturbing gaps, we are seeing them become bishops one after the other.

Who proclaims dogmas that do not exist It accomplishes a greater error, because it operates by placing itself above the authority of the same Holy Church Mater et Magistra, holder of an authority that derives from Christ himself. And the latter yes, which is a dogma of the Catholic Faith, which has not come to logical deduction, but on the basis of clear and precise words pronounced by the Word of God made Man (cf.. Mt 13, 16-20). And when dogmas are proclaimed that do not exist and cannot exist, in that case we are in the diabolical, because pride enters the scene in its worst manifestation: intellectual pride. I wrote and explained it previously but it deserves to repeat it again: in the so-called scale of the deadly sins the Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates pride in the first place, with the painful peace of those who persist in concentrating in lust - which we remember does not figure in the first place at all, but not even to the second, to the third and fourth - the whole mystery of evil, regardless of the fact that the worst sins ranging everyone and rigor from his belt to rise, not instead of his belt to fall, as in an ironic but theologically very serious tone I wrote years ago [See Catechism n. 1866].

I therefore start with an example having by object the so-called Usual Noti, those who just hear the sound of magic of the Latins they lose all sense of reason and any kind of critical sense, with the consequent total distortion of the objective reality. Here then S. AND. Mons. Mario Oliveri, Bishop emeritus of Albenga, defensively to say he was by no means removed from his episcopal see as responsible - partly even involuntary -, for having reduced a diocese to an authentic brothel, to a collection center for overt homosexuals thrown out for serious moral problems by one or even more seminaries, up to find themselves with a considerable number of uncontrollable priests dedicated to every kind of vice and patrimonial deception useful for the maintenance of their vices. None of this jumps in the slightest in the eyes of the Usual Notes, who undeterred and obstinate continue to affirm and write that the poor prelate was persecuted from the "modernist Church" because he loved the The old rite of the Mass, used jeweled mitres seventy centimeters high and giving out Holy Communion all'inginocchiatoio under the canopy supported by knights frac.

Just as it happened - the Usual Notes say -, to the members of the Congregation of the Franciscan Friars, not only punished according to them for organizing conferences criticism of Karl Rahner, to have shown the danger of Modernism and Freemasonry; but persecuted above all because they too celebrated - needless to say - col The old rite of the Mass.

On the columns of our magazine The Island of Patmos the Dominican pontifical academician Giovanni Cavalcoli and myself, later the Capuchin theologian Ivano Liguori and the Dominican theologian Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci we have written over the years about Karl Rahner, on Modernism and the Modernists, and so on Freemasonry, in very critical and harsh tones. We didn't even just shoot in bursts, we have just fired repeated heavy mortar rounds, with a much higher severity than that used in past conferences promoted by the Franciscans of the Immaculate Conception. You should therefore ask you: because they haven't got us any police stations yet? Because, despite having harshly accused Karl Rahner indicating him as the originating source all the returning heresies that invade the Church today, seminaries and pontifical universities, no ecclesiastical authority has ever given us any sighs and least of all recalls?

When a few years ago I had a talk with one of the most distinguished Mariologists of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate Conception, I was very impressed by his madonnolatric fanaticism, to follow from his pride, because he already took the dogma of Maria Coredemptrix for proclamation. As a result, within that congregation, the never proclaimed dogma of Maria Coredemptrix was in fact already written in deposit of faith with a lot of theology and cult promoted and spread. All in the complete indifference that all the Popes of the twentieth century, including those particularly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, even if pleaded several times to this effect they never wanted to consider the possible proclamation of this new Marian dogma. Among these it is enough to mention the Holy Pontiff Pius X, the Venerable Pope Pius XII, the Holy Pontiff Paul VI and the Holy Pontiff John Paul II who wanted the emblem of the Blessed Virgin to be engraved on their papal coat of arms, he was so devoted to Mater Dei, finally the Venerable Pontiff Benedict XVI, who in his capacity as theologian explained and clarified with the timid meekness - perhaps even excessive - that has always characterized him, that the very term "co-redemptrix" created problems on the theological level with Christology.

The reigning Pope - who is not shy and meek - he expressed himself three times [1] on this issue reiterating a dry and decisive no:

«Our Lady did not want to take away any title from Jesus; she received the gift of being His Mother and the duty to accompany us as a Mother, to be our Mother. He did not ask for himself to be quasi-redeeming or to be co-redeeming: no. The Redeemer is one and this title is not doubled " [2].

The reaction of the more radical Usual Notes it was not long in coming: they accused the Supreme Pontiff of being a blasphemer and a blasphemer (!?). All the more reason it is good to clarify: if questioning the dogma of the immaculate conception and the assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin Mary is wrong and heretical, on the other hand, promulgate the dogma of Mary the co-redemptrix and act accordingly, up to disseminate so impudent theology, it is far more serious. Then, if in the face of these and other things the Holy See intervenes at a certain point, it is useless to cry out «to the persecution of The old rite of the Mass!». Because if we want to be objective and apply first of all criteria of aequitas together with the sense of proportion, in a completely reasonable way we can say that before the ax was lowered on the poor Franciscans of the Immaculate Conception, the Jesuits were severely hit and together with them various other historical orders and congregations with much more serious internal problems, but mainly responsible for spreading for decades in a dangerous way - as in the case of the Jesuits -, a patently non-Catholic thought. This is something the Franciscans of the Immaculate Conception cannot be accused of. If indeed these young and simple fratacchioni raised by Father Stefano Maria Manelli they erred, this happened largely in good faith and also out of not a little ignorance, undoubtedly animated by the best intentions inner and outer, by love for truth and authentic veneration of the Holy Church of Christ.

The Jesuits and members of other religious groups that spread the worst destructive theologies, they can be harshly criticized for the way they de-construct or update the dogmas of the faith, but the Franciscans of the Immaculate Conception who proclaimed a Marian dogma in concrete facts, giving it as existing and instituting the cult of Mary Co-redemptrix, on the theological level they have committed a much graver error, thus replacing the highest and supreme authority of the Church. And don't object, as do the total fasts of theology which presume for this reason to be able to dissert in the most delicate spheres of dogmatics: «… But St. Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort in his Treatise on True Devotion wrote that ... but Our Lady of Amsterdam in a private revelation asked that ... this mystic and this visionary said that in a private revelation the Madonna asked him that ... ".

The Blessed Virgin Mary would have asked to be proclaimed co-redemptrix with a fifth Marian dogma? We smile so as not to cry over certain nonsense that make some subjects quite arrogant and difficult to manage for us priests and for us theologians, precisely because their arrogance goes hand in hand with their ignorance. Yet the answer is simple: someone is willing to believe that the Blessed Virgin who defined herself as humble servant, the woman of gifted love, silence and confidentiality, the one who has the purpose of leading to Christ, can really ask seers or devalued visionaries to be proclaimed co-redemptrix and put almost on a par with the Divine Redeemer?

The very term of co-redemptrix it is in and of itself a solemn theological idiocy that creates enormous conflicts with Christology and the mystery of the redemption brought about solely by God the incarnate Word, which does not need co-redeemers and co-redeemers. The mystery of redemption is one with the mystery of the cross, on which God made man died as a sacrificial lamb. On the cross the Blessed Virgin Mary was not nailed to death like a sacrificial lamb, that at the end of her life she fell asleep and was assumed into heaven, she did not die and rose again on the third day, defeating death. The Blessed Virgin, first creature of the whole creation above all the saints for its immaculate purity, he does not forgive our sins and does not redeem us, he intercedes for the remission of our sins and for our redemption. When we turn to her through prayer, both in the Ave Maria than in Hi Regina of always, throughout the history and tradition of the Church, we invoke her saying "pray for us sinners", we do not ask her to forgive our sins or to save us.

This should be enough to close a discourse which cannot be proposed on the theological level such as that of Mary co-redemptrix. An authentic theological idiocy which only the ignorant arrogant and the madonnolatri unaware of what true devotion to the Blessed Virgin is can feed on, but above all what is the true role entrusted by God to Full of Grace in the economy of salvation.


the Island of Patmos, 15 August 2022

Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin Mary



[1] See. 12 December 2019 homily at the Holy Mass on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe; 30 April 2020, Holy Mass in the chapel of the Martha House Sancthae; 24 March 2021, in the speech during the general audience.

[2] See. Holy Mass in the chapel of the Martha House Sancthae.





Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos




6 replies
  1. Stefano Delle Chiaie
    Stefano Delle Chiaie says:

    Gentile p. Ariel, rereading my second comment I recognize that I have succumbed to sarcasm, which you shouldn't do, and for this I also apologize to your readers. That said, and relied on his understandable and dutiful defense of office, I have not even named the Holy Father: how does he accuse me of having even judged and condemned him? The things I mentioned are not just about him. And it's not my fault that the Pope sometimes finds himself, Willy-nilly, to act as a testimonial to certain enormities. Then, scusi, I have perhaps reported slander? If certain things are public, where is the slander? Then, why should I be labeled pseudo-Catholic and Calvinist if I dare to have a healthy and sacrosanct critical attitude? Perhaps the right to criticize the children of Light has been abrogated? I agree that out of respect for the Bride of Christ Church, the Pope should never be brought up, and of him one can always say that he has fallen into an ambush, but all the others? But really we ignorant madonnari with the hobby of Mariology are held to reverent respect towards certain theologians, as well as Bishops and Cardinals? Please, at least we keep the sense of the ridiculous.

    • father ariel
      father ariel says:

      There are lay Catholics who, after jumping from one blog to another and having read comments on comments, they think they can dispute in the most delicate areas of dogmatics, which has always been the most delicate sector of theology by far, not a dispute between Lazio fans against those of Roma or vice versa. They also think they can make precise and detailed criticisms of the reigning Pontiff, which is certainly not without flaws, ambiguities and contradictions, but without knowing the ecclesiology and the complex history of the papacy.

      However, the problem is not this but something else, I will try to explain it to you with this example: once, a guy, began to criticize Karl Rahner, whom I personally consider a pernicious and dangerous theologian. I listened to him and then cited two of the main works of this famous German theologian and asked him for a precise and specific opinion on the dangers of his thought.. He just reiterated: "Ah, but of Rahner it is said that … I read that …».
      Told by whom? From a blogger! Read where? On a blog by a perfect amateur who presumes to understand theology.

      You see my dear, certain authors or certain theological currents, with all the speculative freedom granted to the children of God and of the Holy Church, I can criticize them who have reached the threshold of the gods 60 I have been studying in depth for some decades the most delicate areas of dogmatic theology, of sacramental dogmatics and of the history of dogma. This legitimizes me, qualifies me and gives me all the necessary authority that is required to be able to discuss with any theologian who has the freedom and full right to be a bitter anti-Thomist or an irreducible anti-scholastic and to whom I can counter with full and profound knowledge of cause and knowledge. Likewise, with a theologian who argues the feasibility of proclaiming the dogma of “Maria Corredentrice”, I can discuss it freely, but not her, I don't think he spent years and years of his life studying certain very delicate areas of theology.

      His criticism could be legitimate if based on deep and cultured knowledge, it is not legitimate, least of all the exercise of the freedom granted to the children of God, if it is based instead on subjective emotionality and lack of knowledge, because in this case it is not an army of freedom but an expression of pure ignorance based on not knowing that it presumes to know why "it is said that … I read that …».

  2. orenzo
    orenzo says:

    It always creates deep sadness for me to read that the Immaculate Ever-virgin Mother of God “She never presented herself as a co-redeemer” e “He did not ask for himself to be quasi-redeeming or to be co-redeeming”.
    Instead, it creates great joy for me to read the invitation to imitate the Immaculate Ever-virgin Mother of God for “to be able to transform our pain into a loving offering, in imitation of the Madonna, the Coredemptrix”, “Maria, even conceived and born without stain of sin, (that) he participated in a wonderful way in the sufferings of his divine Son, to be Co-redemptrix of humanity” Why “Actually, the co-redeeming role of Mary did not cease with the glorification of the Son”.
    “May our desire be generously matched to the desire of the Redeemer, look after Mary, the co-redemptrix, to which we raise our prayer with full effusion”: that “Holy Mary, Co-redemptrix of mankind next to his Son, (us) always give courage and confidence”, let's invoke it “as Immaculate, Sorrowful and Coredemptrix, exalting its unique role in the history of salvation and in the life of the Christian people.”
    And also in the Gospels, both in the words of the old Simeon, both in Jesus who enters Jerusalem on horseback on both the donkey and his colt, can be seen, as in filigree, the co-redemption, whose theology is admirably and simply represented in the reto of “Miraculous Medal”.

  3. Stefano Delle Chiaie
    Stefano Delle Chiaie says:

    If the title of co-redemptrix served to better explain all the others and not to take away from Christ that of Redeemer, I would not find reasons for scandal. So it is enough to understand each other. ad is, even that of Immacolata created difficulties for centuries, until Scotus untied the knot which he then allowed in 1854 to proclaim the dogma which confirms the faith of the Church of all time regarding this prerogative of Mary. The same kind of reasoning should apply in the present case. Are, to es, being the mother of Christ makes Mary the Mother of God, it is legitimate to ask what prevents the mother of the Man of Sorrows (venerated as Sorrowful and Mother of Sorrows) to share in a special way in the passion of the Son, and therefore to be called, with all the appropriate quotation marks, Redemptrix. By His will, means. Indeed, that He potuit is beyond question, it is only a question of understanding whether it is also decuit and whether, so, he made. Already Simeon prophesied to Mary a suffering without equal, with an "also" that seems to link it to the redemption of a Mystery of Pain that had to manifest itself: “He is here for the ruin and resurrection of many in Israel, sign that will be contradicted the thoughts of many hearts, and a sword will pierce your soul too ". Participation in the redemptive pain of Christ is also indicated by St. Paul as the completion of "what is lacking" at the cross of Christ, which in itself would seem a blasphemy, is that, compared to the greatness of Mary, it could also be called co-redemption. But so be it. Solo food for thoughts.

    • Stefano Delle Chiaie
      Stefano Delle Chiaie says:

      P.S.: if then the title of co-redemptrix served at least to safeguard Mary from being reduced to a Jungian archetype (“She is just a mother, not a goddess "), and to avoid honoring pagan idols like Mother Earth and Pachamama as gods instead, or to participate in shamanic rites where the Western grandmother is invoked to gain access to the sacred circle of spirits (she is a door to heaven, not just any mother!), well, this alone would be enough to consider it desirable (and also urgent) the proclamation of dogma. After all, St. Paul VI said that one cannot be a Christian without being a Marian, statement that has all the appearance of an implied one, although – perhaps – not premeditated, anticipation of the dogma of Mary the co-redemptrix.

      • father ariel
        father ariel says:

        She thinks the Virgin Mary, that she is devoted to the Church and above all obedient as the visible body of Christ on earth (cf.. With the 1, 18) she who venerated the Apostles made sharers in the mystery of the ministerial priesthood of Christ, starting with Peter, chosen by his Divine Son as Head of the Apostolic College and of the Church (cf.. Mt 13, 16-20), would appreciate the words of a pseudo-Catholic from Mariology to say the least confused that, as she, pur of “to promote” the Madonna as a further title, he does not hesitate to throw mud on the Successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter?
        Ask yourself these questions and give yourself an answer.
        She, like any Catholic, like us priests and like our bishops, has no title, authority and power to judge and condemn the Supreme Pontiff who can be judged only by God and by no human authority. And rest assured that if you are wrong, God will also be particularly severe with him, but God, not her.
        Hers is not a Catholic facility, it is not even a Lutheran implant. His towards the Papacy and the Authority of the Church is a typically Calvinist attitude.
        If until today no one had told him, now I told him.
        Of the two one … either he corrects himself or he comes to terms with it: you are a perfect Calvinist.

Comments are closed.