A Marian Response to Mater Populi Fidelis

Mater Populi Fidelis has pushed Catholic households, parishes, and dioceses to deeply contemplate the nature and role of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The title of Mary as “Co-redemptrix,” which was an honest theological debate up until the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith settled the question — at least for the time being — earlier this month, is close to the heart of many of the faithful. That said, the ruling on this question is now part of the ordinary magisterium and, as such, demands a filial response from those who still believe that the powers of death will not prevail against Christ’s Church (Matthew 16:18).

The focus of this essay is not necessarily the substance of Mater Populi Fidelis, but rather, the reactions that it has generated. Breaking the responses down into three groups, this analysis seeks to find the most Catholic — and the most Marian — response. The first group relates to those who, prior to the recent document, never used the title but patiently waited for the Church to make a formal statement; the second group relates to those who frequently used the title while being open to the Church’s stance on the matter; and the last group relates to those who frequently used the title but, even after Mater Populi Fidelis, are unwilling to reform their conscience regarding title of Mary as “Co-redemptrix.”

Those Who Never Used the Title

The Blessed Virgin Mary, who was a perpetual virgin, immaculately conceived and assumed bodily into Heaven, is the great Mother of God, highest among the saints and she who cooperated most perfectly with the Redeemer. For those who never used the title of Mary as “Co-redemptrix,” some of these Marian truths are enough. Better said, for those who never used the title, the fullness of Mary’s nature may be thought of to derive from these Marian truths. The Mother of Our Lord, the Vatican document affirms, “is the most perfect expression of Christ’s action that transforms our humanity [and] is the feminine manifestation of all that Christ’s grace can accomplish in a human being.”¹

Building on the dense Marian theology of the Church, Mater Populi Fidelis clearly reiterates the already existing official teachings about Mary but draws a line in the sand regarding the title “Co-redemptrix.” So it cannot be said that those who never used the title — either out of indifference towards the debate or because of theological opposition to the title — lack Marian devotion.

True devotion to Mary is based on the teachings of the Church her Son established. And so being that the title of Mary as “Co-redemptrix” has never been an official teaching of the Magisterium, it cannot be said that this title is at — or has ever been at — the same level as some of the dogmatic titles officially promulgated (e.g., Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, etc.). The distinction between Mary’s dogmatic titles and the merely debated title of “Co-redemptrix” is that a Catholic who is consciously indifferent towards or rejects her official titles cannot claim to be on the side of orthodoxy, while a Catholic who is consciously indifferent towards or even rejects the title “Co-redemptrix” can remain orthodox.

The essence of the debate over Mary as “Co-redemptrix” was whether or not the Church should declare a fifth Marian dogma highlighting the example of Mary’s cooperation in the Redemptive act. It must be noted that the Vatican’s statement does not reject the theology of “Co-redemptrix” per say, but rather the title itself. It is the title and not necessarily the theology behind the title that many Catholics, rightly so, have either been indifferent to or outright rejected.

“Co-redemptrix,” up until Mater Populi Fidelis, has been open for theological debate since the conversation began in the fifteenth century. As such, for those who suspended judgement and never used the title, the Vatican’s decision has only clarified a debate they never really weighed in on. And for those who were more invested in the discussion, sharing the opinion of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) and Pope Francis that the title is not fitting, the Vatican’s decision only confirms the sound opinion they had which is now backed by the ordinary magisterium.

Those Who Used the Title, But Remained Open to a Final Decision

Even for Catholics like myself who never felt fully comfortable with “Co-redemptrix,” the Vatican’s decision that “it is always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s cooperation”² was a definitive statement that seemed unnecessary. But the Magisterium operates by the divine and mysterious promptings of the Holy Spirit, which is why our subjective opinions should take a backseat to the objective matter of these situations. The objective reality regarding the debate about Mary as “Co-redemptrix” is that the title is not fitting. Due to the risk of theological confusion, the expression is “unhelpful,” the Vatican stated. This is what the Church, through Her ordinary magisterium, has decided.

The Catholics who chose to use the title, before Mater Populi Fidelis, were not standing on sand. Their theological opinion was rooted in strong statements from popes, including St. John Paul II, who attempted to build up a more developed Mariology based on “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.”³ From the popes who used the title to the recent theologians who attempted to defend the position that Mary’s title as “Co-redemptrix” was an orthodox opinion, their position was never to equate Mary with Jesus; but rather, it was to highlight her role as the most perfect cooperator of grace in the order of salvation. Mater Populi Fidelis simply decided that the title was misleading because “she should never be thought of as being parallel to him.”⁴

While there have been many responses to Mater Populi Fidelis on every side of the theological spectrum, there are two responses that I believe serve as great examples of filial obedience regarding this issue.

The first example comes from one Dr. Andrew McGovern, a Mariologist and theologian who has spent the last ten years promoting Mary as “Co-redemptrix.” The humble Dr. McGovern writes,

For now, as a Mariologist and a Catholic theologian, I must submit to the keys of Peter and adjust the way that I have been speaking, writing, and teaching for the last decade. This is what it means to be Catholic. I am beholden to the successor of Peter and any doctrinal or moral decision that he makes. This is regardless of my personal thoughts or desires on the matter.⁵

The second example comes from a diocesan priest who publicly expressed his feelings about the document, stating:

I personally would love to continue calling the Blessed Virgin Mary Co-Redemptrix, for no other title so beautifully expresses her unique and intimate cooperation in the redemptive work of her Son. However, in humility and in the religious submission of intellect and will that the ordinary magisterium requires in matters that are not defined infallibly, I will continue to teach and promote the doctrine itself, that Mary truly participated, in a singular and subordinate way, in the work of our salvation, while recognizing that, at this time, the Church’s Magisterium prefers not to employ the title Co-Redemptrix to describe in one word what our Blessed Mother accomplished through her maternal union with Christ the Redeemer.

These two examples are humble submissions to God’s will and mirror the Marian disposition of obedience. These responses require greater virtue than those who never used the term, for these two acts of humility display both confidence in Christ’s Church and a receptive attitude towards a promulgation they may have wanted to go the other way. Unfortunately, though, there are many Catholics who have done the opposite and rebelled against the Church’s decision out of a need for their theological opinion to be dogma.

Those Who Used the Title, and Oppose the Final Decision

The assertion of theological opinion as dogma is becoming one of the biggest problems in the Church today. This is what many of those who used “Co-redemptrix” while being closed off to the Church’s decision on the matter have displayed. Professing their theological opinion as if it was dogma is what some in this camp did before Mater Populi Fidelis, and now, they are continuing to profess it even after the title was said to be inappropriate and unhelpful. The humbling reality for those in this camp is that when the Vatican ruled against the title “Co-redemptrix,” the Church was indirectly stating that their theological opinion about the usage of the title was off.

There is nothing unfaithful, though, about having an incorrect theological opinion — especially when the Church has allowed the debate to go on for as long as it has. There is something unfaithful, though, about rebelling against the Church’s official decisions. What makes the now rebellious “Co-redemptrix” camp so theologically unorthodox today is that, although the Church has finally weighed in on the debate, they dismiss the decision and continue to promote the title as if nothing happened. When popes like John Paul II used “Co-redemptrix,” they were pushing their own theological opinion while not dogmatizing it. (And for those who might say that a pope merely using the title equates to making something dogma, this would simply be a misunderstanding of how magisterial authority works.) In sum, John Paul II never attempted to dogmatize his theological opinion about “Co-redemptrix,” and Mater Populi Fidelis has, in an official capacity, deemed the expression to be imprudent for the time being.

The wide discussions in the Catholic world about Mater Populi Fidelis, which are already reminiscent of the discussions regarding Fiducia Supplicans, point to the simple reality that the title of Mary as “Co-redemptrix” is a deeply personal topic for many Catholics. But just as there were poorly researched responses to Fiducia Supplicans, so too are there poorly researched responses to Mater Populi Fidelis. It is no coincidence, then, that those who are rebelling against Mater Populi Fidelis are usually the same ones who rebelled against Fiducia Supplicans.

A response that I believe serves as a prime example of disobedience regarding Mater Populi Fidelis comes from one Fr. Joachim Heimerl, who wrote that “The enemies of the Church have always been the enemies of the Blessed Virgin, and they alone are the ones who applaud the latest Vatican statement.”⁶ So not only does Fr. Heimerl reject the Vatican’s decision about Mary as “Co-redemptrix,” but he labels those who are in favor of it as “enemies of the Church” and “enemies of the Blessed Virgin.” Fr. Heimerl’s response is a prime example of what happens when Catholics reject proper authority, or misunderstand it. It seems that, similarly to Luther, Fr. Heimerl has set himself up against the Magisterium and, as a result, he — like Luther — has fallen into theological error.

To agree with the ordinary magisterium about a matter that was up for theological debate for centuries is something Catholics actually have an obligation to do. This is why those who used the title and changed their approach to the issue after Mater Populi Fidelis are models for others to follow. The responses from those faithful Catholics who have decided to reform their language, unlike Fr. Heimerl, are rooted in authentic faith that pledges its allegiance to the guidance of the Church. The Second Vatican Council teaches:

Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence.⁷

There is no skating around this teaching. And Canon Law reiterates it, stating that “a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act” (Can. 752). Fr. Heimerl has either never read Vatican II or Canon Law, or he has and simply rejects these teachings. The only problem is that these teachings are definitive and bind on our consciences as Catholics, which is why his response is Protestant in nature.

Fr. Heimerl’s errors, though, are not just rooted in a misunderstanding about authority and the assent we, as Catholics, owe to the Magisterium, but they are rooted in poor research. In the same article where he claims that those who assent to the Church’s official decision about “Co-redemptrix” are enemies of the Blessed Virgin Mary, he also attempts to enlighten his readers about the supposed evil of Fiducia Supplicans. Stating that Fiducia Supplicans gives the okay to blessing sinful relationships, Heimerl also claims that it denies the indissolubility of marriage. Fiducia Supplicans, though, does the exact opposite of what Fr. Heimerl says.

For people in a disordered union seeking a blessing, Fiducia Supplicans teaches in paragraph 31 that they must be people who:

Recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help — do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.⁸

Fiducia Supplicans states that people in a same-sex relationship — who are (1) looking to get out of that disordered situation, and (2) not seeking an affirmation of their sinful state — may, by virtue of a pastor’s prudential judgement, receive a blessing:

Rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children” — and what contradicts it are inadmissible.⁹

Like with Vatican II and Canon Law, Fr. Heimerl has either never read Fiducia Supplicans, or he has and chooses to misrepresent its teachings. He has, like many Catholics today, built up a disobedient and rebellious disposition towards the Magisterium based on an incorrect interpretation of her promulgations.

There are, of course, differing degrees of assent we are to give to magisterial teachings based on their authoritative weight. Mater Populi Fidelis does not establish a new dogma, and nor does it promulgate any new doctrines. But we believe as Catholics that divine assistance is given to the bishops who teach in communion with the Pope, even when they exercise the ordinary Magisterium “without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a ‘definitive manner.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §892) The faithful, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, are to adhere to these ordinary teachings “with religious assent.” (CCC §892)

Fr. Heimerl should do what the diocesan priest mentioned earlier did and respond with religious assent to the ordinary magisterium. That diocesan priest not only passively submitted to the Church, but he began to actively do real theology and suggest other titles that may be more fitting, such as Cooperatrix Redemptoris (Cooperator of the Redeemer), Socia Redemptoris (Companion of the Redeemer) and Redemptricis Adiutrix (Helper of the Redeemer).

Following the Model of Mary’s Submission

If people only read headlines, Mater Populi Fidelis would merely be thought of as the Vatican document that axed the title of Mary as “Co-redemptrix.” But the reality is that the vast majority of Mater Populi Fidelis is a strong defense of the four Marian dogmas, with a handful of lines that regulate Marian titles the Church does not see as appropriate at this time in salvation history. It is my opinion that the four Marian dogmas are enough because, in them, the reality of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s exclusive, unique, and perfect union and cooperation with Jesus can be found — including the orthodox teachings that undergird “Co-redemptrix,” which are most thoroughly explicated in the fourth Marian dogma of her Assumption into Heaven.

Mary, Mother of God

The first Marian dogma is something no Christian should deny. Mary, the Mother of God, is a necessary title given to Jesus’ mother for the sole purpose of protecting His true nature. As soon as Mary arrives at the house of Zechari’ah, her cousin Elizabeth loudly exclaims, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:42-43). The Blessed Virgin Mary is recognized by her cousin as the mother of her Lord and the mother of the Lord; that is, God himself.

Many times throughout Scripture, Jesus himself reaffirms this loud cry of Elizabeth. As a perfect son, Jesus’ obedience towards His mother is seen at the age of twelve after He was found in the Temple (Luke 2:51), around the age of thirty at the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:5-7), and at the age of thirty-three on the Cross (John 19:27). What we see in Sacred Scripture is that Mary gently pushes her Son to Calvary by initiating His first public miracle. Although her awareness of being the mother of God began when she joyfully accepted the angel Gabriel’s invitation (Luke 1:38), her awareness is made even more clear when she actively pushes her Son to begin His public ministry.

Jesus’ public ministry, completed once and for all at Calvary, was ordered towards man’s acceptance of and communion with Himself as the long-awaited Messiah. At Calvary, the sin of Adam is finally undone and man’s relationship with God is restored. At this moment — the most important moment in human history — Jesus gives us a more complete understanding of Elizabeth’s greeting. Lovingly commanding the Apostle John to “behold, your mother” (John 19:27), Jesus reminds His people that Mary is not just “the mother of my Lord,” as Elizabeth exclaimed, but rather, she is the mother of all Christians.

The reason that Christians should not have scruples about addressing Mary as the Mother of God is because the title is a song of praise that (1) professes the oneness of the Holy Trinity, and (2) rejects the separation of the Godhead. If we believe Jesus’ words “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), as well as His fully human and fully divine nature, to refer to His mother in this way is simply an affirmation of His true nature.

Mary, Perpetual Virgin

The second Marian dogma is also something no Christian should deny. The dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity, like the first Marian dogma, protects the true nature of Jesus. (The protection and further understanding of the Holy Trinity and, more specifically, Our Lord’s hypostatic union, is the cause and final end of all four Marian dogmas.) Mary’s perpetual virginity is a theological truth that has its roots in the ark of the Covenant, which was the holiest object in the Old Testament because it carried the presence of God. As such, anybody who merely touched the ark was struck dead (2 Samuel 6:7).

Mary (i.e., the new ark) contained the bread of life (John 6:35), the high priest (Hebrews 4:14), and the living Word (John 1:14), which are obvious fulfillments of that which the old ark contained; that is, “a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant” (Hebrews 9:4). The new ark itself, then, also fulfills the old ark. The old ark, constructed using acacia wood (Exodus 37:1), which was incorruptible, prefigured not only the incorruptible nature of Mary, but also the sacredness and the supreme purity of her body and soul. If the old ark was made out of incorruptible wood, with a death penalty waiting for anybody who dared touch it, how can it be said that the new ark — which, by virtue of carrying something with a transcendent nature to that of the contents of the old ark — did not remain untouched in her life? The Word became flesh, entering into the world through a perfect and untouched vessel — a perfect an untouched body and soul.

Mary, Immaculate Conception

The third Marian dogma, Mary’s immaculate conception, is evident in the angel Gabriel’s simple greeting to her: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” (Luke 1:28). Martin Luther even wrote at one point in 1522 (five years after his Ninety-five Theses): “She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.”¹⁰ And in a 1527 sermon (about six years after he was excommunicated), he preached “on the day of the Conception of Mary the Mother of God,” proclaiming:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.¹¹

The immaculate conception, though, relates to Mary being preserved from the stain of original sin and does not, strictly speaking, explicate her perfect cooperation with the Redemptive act. This teaching, I would argue, is easiest to see in the fourth Marian dogma.

Mary, Assumed into Heaven (Body and Soul)

It can be said that the “Co-redemptrix” doctrine is found in the already established and infallible dogma of the Assumption. This is my theological opinion, and this is also why I concur with Mater Populi Fidelis — not only on the passive basis of filial obedience, but in a more active manner that agrees with the spirit of the document itself. Those who were pushing for Mary to be granted the title “Co-redemptrix” in an official capacity were pushing for the great Mother of God to be more recognized as having a unique and perfect cooperation with the will of God and, specifically, the Redemptive act. The dogma of the Assumption is summed up well in the third paragraph of Munificentissimus Deus:

Actually God, who from all eternity regards Mary with a most favorable and unique affection, has “when the fullness of time came” put the plan of his providence into effect in such a way that all the privileges and prerogatives he had granted to her in his sovereign generosity were to shine forth in her in a kind of perfect harmony. And, although the Church has always recognized this supreme generosity and the perfect harmony of graces and has daily studied them more and more throughout the course of the centuries, still it is in our own age that the privilege of the bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, has certainly shone forth more clearly.¹²

Whereas the dogma of the Immaculate Conception speaks to the preservative grace that God instilled Jesus’ mother with at the instant of her beginning, the dogma of the Assumption speaks to Mary’s perfect cooperation with the grace she was given. In other words, the Immaculate Conception focuses on the revealed truth of Mary being conceived without original sin, while the Assumption focuses on the revealed truth of Mary finishing her earthly pilgrimage without having committed personal sin. The former occurred solely because of God’s active will with no human cooperation necessary, while the latter was nothing more than a perfect usage of free will; that is, a perfect cooperation with and response to God. This is where we begin to see the “Co-redemptrix” doctrine in the Assumption.

Almighty God regards Mary “with a most favorable and unique affection,” Pope Pius XII states in Munificentissimus Deus. But not only does the Creator of the Universe see her as His most splendid creation at her conception and birth, He saw her respond to those supreme graces with a supernatural abundance of charity after she achieved the age of reason and had the opportunity to wield her free will. The “perfect harmony of graces,” as the Church calls it, shines forth in Mary to such a great extent because she was fully and completely receptive to the “privileges and prerogatives [God] had granted to her.”

Mary was physically assumed into Heaven because her body and soul were untainted and without blemish. Pointing out Mary’s freely willed perfect cooperation with God, St. Alphonsus Liguori makes the case for her bodily assumption by writing, “All her thoughts, desires, and affections were of and for God alone.”¹³ He adds that “she never uttered a word, made a movement, cast a glace, or breathed, but for God and His glory.”¹⁴ And Liguori’s strong language here is proven to not be hyperbolic when he states that she “never departed a step or detached herself for a single moment from the Divine love” (Emphasis added).¹⁵ The entire point here is that in explicating the Assumption of Mary, the great eighteenth-century Church Doctor points to Mary’s unique and perfect cooperation with God, which is the entire purpose of the “Co-redemptrix” doctrine.

Mary’s Assumption, as is the case with the other Marian dogmas, has its roots in the Old Testament. Immediately after the Fall, God says to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” (Genesis 3:15). All the way back in Genesis, God sets the serpent up, not against Jesus, but against Mary. (And for those who question whether or not the woman of Genesis is really Mary, read Revelation 12:17.) Mary as mother of all Christians is prefigured in Genesis 3:15, fully established at Calvary and made even more explicitly clear in Revelation 12:17 (“her offspring [are] those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus”).

What does the opposition between the serpent and Mary have to do with the Assumption? Like Mary, Satan (i.e., the serpent) was gifted by God in a unique way, but his being cast out of Heaven was the result of his absolute and complete rejection of the grace he was given. Mary and Satan were graced by God in a way that no other figures in Scripture are said to have been graced. But it was not the initial grace; that is, the unmerited and absolutely free gift of God apart from any volitional assent, that caused Satan’s fall. Likewise, it cannot be said that Mary’s initial grace (i.e., her Immaculate Conception) canceled out her free will and forced her to be the exemplar of holiness, virtue and moral perfection that she was. The Blessed Virgin Mary and Satan share a common a similar beginning, which was a special call from God that others did not have. The only difference between the two — and the reason Mary went up and Satan went down — was how they responded to the unique grace they were blessed with.

The Evil One was a “signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (Ezekiel 28:12). The Lord God continues to describe Satan’s past, saying “You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created” (Ezekiel 28:15). Was not the Blessed Virgin Mary a “signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty”? Was she not created blameless, or without spot or blemish?

Satan used his free will to completely and fully reject the graces he received, whereas Mary used her free will to perfectly cooperate with the graces she received. This is the essence of the “Co-redemptrix” doctrine found in the dogma of the Assumption. God reveals to the prophet Ezekiel what He said to the Evil One: “Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor” (Ezekiel 28:17). Mary’s response to the gift of God’s great generosity was the exact opposite, for she elates, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47). Here, we see why God says to Satan, “I cast you to the ground” (Ezekiel 28:17), while He raises Mary up to Heaven, where she is “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1).

The essence of Christianity is the paradoxical nature of the truly sanctified life, which requires a joyful embrace of sorrow and suffering so as to conform one’s heart, mind and soul to Jesus Christ and become a sharer in His divine life. This total acceptance and receptivity to the almost unbearable reality of the Cross is what Mary unreservedly said “yes” to. Her cooperation with God’s will was made manifest in her humble response to Gabriel, and this response endured and never extinguished even at the brutal foot of the Cross. Mary’s perfect cooperation before, during and after the Redemptive act (i.e., Calvary) is the heartbeat of the “Co-redemptrix” doctrine and, as has been explained, this reality has been greatly emphasized in the Church’s theology.

In Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII authoritatively teaches that Mary had and has an “exalted holiness, entirely surpassing the sanctity of all men and of the angels,”¹⁶ and this Marian holiness (i.e., perfect cooperation with grace) flows from “the intimate union of Mary with her Son, and the affection of preeminent love which the Son has for his most worthy Mother.”¹⁷ Munificentissimus Deus is not speaking of the singular grace Mary was given that excludes her from the inheritance of original sin, but rather, draws our eyes to her “exalted holiness” and intimate union with her Son. This is what the “Co-redemptrix” doctrine, I believe, has been trying to emphasize. My understanding is that this truth has already been taught by the Magisterium, and it is specifically contained in the dogma of the Assumption.

The soul that magnifies the Lord is also the soul that was pierced by the sharpest of swords (Luke 2:35). Simeon’s prophecy in the Temple specifically prefigured Mary’s perfect and unique cooperation with the Redemptive act. Munificentissimus Deus connects the sorrowful words of Luke 2 with Calvary, teaching that “a terribly sharp sword pierced her heart as she stood under the cross of her divine Son, our Redeemer.”¹⁸ In the Church’s wisdom, it has been decided that, in order not to cause confusion at this time, the Blessed Virgin Mary should not be referred to as “Co-redemptrix.” Her role as God’s unique and perfect cooperator, though, has already been established by the bride of Christ, of whom Mary is the mother of. Let us follow Mary’s model of submission to the will of God in all things, and especially in the things that transcend our human comprehension.

Mary, Queen assumed into Heaven, pray for us.