Tuesday, November 4, 2025

Cardinal Fernández on doctrinal clarity

From Twitter/X today, apropos of Mater Populi Fidelis:

Posted by at

29 comments:

  1. TonyNovember 4, 2025 at 11:32 AM

    A prudent consistency is the hobgoblin of orthodox minds. We don't need no stinkin' consistency around here.

    The liberal elitigentia are well known for exercising reasonable norms when and as it advances their pet causes, not otherwise. Even here, Ferdinand overstates the issue. Where in English it is rendered with toned-down phrasing:

    22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it would not be appropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. ,

    in the original Spanish it is

    Teniendo en cuenta la necesidad de explicar el papel subordinado de María a Cristo en la obra de la Redención, es siempre inoportuno el uso del título de Corredentora para definir la cooperación de María.

    "siempre inoportuno" as "always inopportune" exaggerates the concern in the title. Why would he need to issue an "always" judgment when it is not possible to know what social conditions will present themselves in the future?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David McPikeNovember 4, 2025 at 3:20 PM

      But then, by parity of reasoning, it would seem that it would also not be appropriate to use the term 'co-operation' to define the work of Mary (en este caso, siempre es inoportuno el uso del termino 'cooperacion' para definir la operacion de Maria).
      On 'siempre': I believe the sense could, besides 'always,' also be 'still' or 'at least.'

      Delete
    2. TonyNovember 5, 2025 at 11:34 AM

      On 'siempre': I believe the sense could, besides 'always,' also be 'still' or 'at least.'

      Could be. I didn't see that in google translate, but I know that's not much to go by.

      But then, by parity of reasoning, it would seem that it would also not be appropriate to use the term 'co-operation' to define the work of Mary (en este caso, siempre es inoportuno el uso del termino 'cooperacion' para definir la operacion de Maria).

      I have no clue what you are referring to. Are you indicating that Ferdinand should have - by parallel reasoning - objected to the term "co-operation" applied to Mary? The saints since at least Augustine have used "co-operation" as the role ALL of the faithful have with respect to their activity under the influence of grace: He who created you without your cooperation does not justify you without your cooperation.

      Delete
    3. David McPikeNovember 6, 2025 at 7:13 AM

      Tony, I think you are mistaken: it seems you clearly do have a clue what I'm referring to. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in saying no to 'coredemption' but yes to 'cooperation,' since 'coredemption' is just a(n indisputably correct) specification of 'cooperation' and there seems no reason to think that the arguments adduced (unreasonably, in my view) against 'coredemption' shouldn't equally apply against 'cooperation.'

      As for the Augustine, I believe the quote is just: "Qui ergo fecit te sine te non te iustificat sine te. (He then who made you without you does not justify you without you.)"

      Delete
    4. TonyNovember 6, 2025 at 10:41 AM

      But...I am NOT saying "no" to coredemption. I don't have a problem with saying coredemption.

      Because "cooperation" and "coredemption" are different words, it is initially plausible that they have different denotations, or at least different connotations. This would provide a possible ground for objecting to one and not the other. I find my own sense of them is distinct in this: "cooperation" refers primarily to a person's action going along with (not defecting from) Christ's action of grace in saving him, whereas "coredemption" refers primarily to a person's action in participating in Christ's action to save another, though in a different (and wholly secondary) mode. In both cases Christ is the primary agent of redemption, but in the second case Christ's action provides in addition a grant to that person secondary agency in the saving of a third person. The gift of the first does not necessarily imply the gift of the second. It is possible that my sense of the terms is peculiar to me, but I have read them many times in many contexts and I thought I grasped the sense of those passages.

      As stated, I don't have a problem with either usage. But it does not appear SIMPLY true that concerns about the second (and its proper distinctions and pedagogy) are wholly present also in the first, in the same way and same degree. My initial comment was mainly to highlight the questionable word "siempre" if it means "always", but if it is better translated as "at least", that too is minimized. You would think that the official translators at the Vatican would grasp the distinction.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousNovember 4, 2025 at 12:26 PM

    Interesting, after CVII putting its hope in the late European philosophy - Heidegger and so forth - Leo XIV now points to east.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Great Thurible of DarknessNovember 4, 2025 at 2:07 PM

    I mean, there are lots of doctrinal "expressions" in Christian history that have required "many, repeated explanations to prevent [them] from straying from a correct meaning"—"begotten, not made," "truly God and truly man," "proceeds from the Father and the Son," etc. I'm sure the losing factions at Nicaea or Chalcedon felt exactly the same way about those formulations being "unhelpful" and not serving the faith. Doesn't mean they were right (or wrong).

    But it does mean that, from a historical perspective (and that's what matters here), it's not a very good argument. At least, it has an inherent tendency to rebound upon the very doctrinal positions it's used to defend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserNovember 4, 2025 at 2:23 PM

      The difficulty in those cases derives from the subject matter, viz. the divine nature, which is as remote from ordinary experience and language as a topic can be. And also, of course, the formulations took centuries to hammer out precisely.

      By contrast, the topics referred to in my tweet are pretty simple and straightforward, mostly concerned as they are with everyday human life rather than abstract metaphysical questions. And they were long settled in the tradition. The difficulties arose from imprecise remarks and apparent attempts to meddle with that tradition.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousNovember 4, 2025 at 3:35 PM

    Here is that alleged “liberal” Vatican II Dei Verbum Chapter II sect.9…”This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on.” Not only does this put the last four Popes in trouble on the death penalty but it begs for an investigation of every Cardinal who voted them into office…especially the last two. Cardinal Newman said that in the 4th century the ecclesia docens was in suspension. Ask ai at google, it will say yes….he did say that. Well then…deja vu.

    ReplyDelete
  5. David McPikeNovember 4, 2025 at 7:37 PM

    "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" appears to BE an expression that would require many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning. MOREOVER (there is no logical consequence here), it does not seem likely to serve the faith of the 'PoG' and is not helpful. (So perhaps not well said by Fernandez.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousNovember 5, 2025 at 12:22 PM

    Hi Ed,

    I don't know why you object to Pope Francis speaking of human beings possessing an infinite dignity, given that Pope John Paul II affirmed the same thing back in 1980:

    https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/editorial/on-the-infinite-dignityof-man/

    To be fair, Pope John Paul II seems to have held people could lose their infinite dignity due to grave sin. However, your argument that God alone possesses infinite dignity would have been rejected by Pope John Paul II. And I might point out that not all infinities are equal. God's dignity is infinitely greater than ours, and unlike ours, God's infinite dignity is wholly underived.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserNovember 5, 2025 at 1:20 PM

      First, elsewhere I've explained in detail why the phrase is problematic:

      https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2024/04/two-problems-with-dignitas-infinita.html

      The fact that JP2 once used the expression in passing in an obscure informal address doesn't somehow make it theologically significant or magically wave away the grave problems with the notion (which I set out in the article linked to).

      Second, JP2's remark does not, in any case, somehow give a foundation to the extreme claims made in Dignitas Infinita. Again, he make a passing comment in a little known informal address, that's all. It wasn't presented as some grand introduction of a revolutionary theological development. And as you acknowledge, he said this dignity could be lost. Obviously, then, it can't be intrinsic to human nature itself. As JP2 uses the phrase, it is evidently something we have only in a loose and derivative sense - which is consistent with the thesis that only God has it in a strict an inherent sense.

      So, there is no basis in JP2 for the claims made in Dignitas Infinita, which, again, are highly problematic for the reasons I set out in the article.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousNovember 5, 2025 at 4:57 PM

      Although it could be said that we have infinite dignity when we are in the state of grace, it is clear that that degree of dignity derives solely from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and is not from human nature. The fact that it can be lost indicates just this. Since it is infinite in virtue of the divine in us and not our own nature, our own person, or our own merits independent of God, JPII was not claiming what others today suggest in urging that human dignity is infinite in itself.

      The problem with Dignitas Infinita is that while it initially notes the distinction between human dignity as such, arising from human nature, and the dignity that pertains to a soul in God's favor, it then ignores applying that distinction and in effect pretends that such distinction doesn't have any place in the discussion of the proper punishments of evil-doers.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousNovember 5, 2025 at 1:34 PM

    Furthermore, JPII’s address was in German. I believe he actually referred to man as having “undenliche” which would have more appropriately been translated as “unending” rather than “infinite”.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousNovember 5, 2025 at 3:13 PM

    Can we assume Pope Leo approved this?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tim the WhiteNovember 5, 2025 at 7:18 PM

    This talk of having to clarify so much is a canard. The real reasons for this scandalous blasphemy is modernism, lack of belief, and false ecumenism (syncretism).

    Besides the Church doing everything short of making an infallible definition on these matters, let's not forget the the Blessed Virgin Herself is not shy about telling the faithful how She is to be venerated.
    She told St. Bernadette, "I am the Immaculate Conception."
    She told the Lucia to make the 5 first Saturdays for the conversion of Russia and of sinners.
    The intention for the 4th, is to make up for those who sow hatred for the Blessed Mother in peoples hearts.
    Most specifically, She showed St. Catherine Laboure how to make the Miraculous Metal, which shows Her acting as Mediatrix with the Grace of God flowing from her hands. She said some graces were dependent on the petitions directed to Her in order to be given.

    Mary is the exterminatrix of all heresies. The clergy of little faith, and bad will, must oppose Her in order to push their anti-Catholic and evil agenda.

    O Mary,
    Queen of Heaven,
    Our Co-Redemtrix and Mediatrix,
    Pray for us,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousNovember 6, 2025 at 12:47 PM

      Pope Leo signed off on the document that Mary is not Co-Redemptrix. I accept what the Holy Father teaches.

      Delete
    2. Tim the WhiteNovember 7, 2025 at 6:34 AM

      Is that so!?
      What about all of the OTHER, PREVIOUS Holy Fathers whom he is supposed to uphold!
      He did not invoke infallibility on this and that's on purpose. Just like all the other irreverent documents that the corrupt curia keeps putting out.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousNovember 7, 2025 at 11:53 AM

      Pope Leo signed off on the document that Mary is not Co-Redemptrix.

      DDF didn't say that the title isn't true. They said it is "inopportune", because of additional distinctions that must be made. You should at least be obedient to what the Church actually says.

      Delete
    4. KurtNovember 7, 2025 at 12:34 PM

      The magisterium has instructed the faithful to be extremely cautious with those titles and yet you defiantly shout them in an act of disobedience and dissent. If we can learn one thing from the Blessed Virgin, it is “to do what He tells you”.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousNovember 7, 2025 at 1:52 PM

      Yeah, Tim. That is so. And Pope Leo is going to have very long reign.

      Delete
    6. Tim the WhiteNovember 8, 2025 at 8:36 AM

      Kurt,

      These last popes and these cardinals are defying what the Magisterium has taught and done for millennia, as the professor and so many others have been pointing out for as long as it has been going on, on almost every aspect of the Faith.

      The Curia has not been doing as He told them.

      Delete
    7. Tim the WhiteNovember 8, 2025 at 9:03 AM

      A pious defense of the doctrine for those wo are interested.

      https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2025/11/a-note-on-our-ladys-title-of.html

      Delete
    8. AnonymousNovember 8, 2025 at 11:21 AM

      @Tim the White
      Where has the magisterium previously defined those titles? The point of the recent document is to clarify precisely what hadn’t been clarified in the past despite previous popes having used the title. In fact, in response to Pope John Paul II using the title, then Cardinal Razinger said,

      >>“The formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings… Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.”<<

      Again, this was in response to Pope John Paul II using the title. In other words, the magisterium had no intention of dogmatizing the title. The current magisterium has simply further clarified and thus in giving our submission of intellect and will to the ordinary magisterium we must refrain from using those problematic titles.

      Delete
  10. Michele ArpaiaNovember 6, 2025 at 2:02 AM

    "Watchman, what is left of the night?"

    ReplyDelete
  11. grodriguesNovember 6, 2025 at 3:50 AM

    Want to be a loyal son of the Church, but at this point this is just malice.

    We have what we deserve and this our cross to bear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerNovember 6, 2025 at 6:43 PM

      grodrigues,

      You are a loyal son. If things were too easy I'd be goofing off.

      Delete
  12. AnonymousNovember 8, 2025 at 3:09 PM

    @Anonymous Nov. 7, 11:53am
    The title is more than just "inopportune." The document speaks for itself. It is you who should be obedient to what the church actually teaches and not what you want it to teach.
    "The Vatican’s doctrinal office said Tuesday the title of “Co-Redemptrix” is not an appropriate way to describe Mary’s participation in salvation.

    In Mater Populi Fidelis (“The Mother of the Faithful People of God”), the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) said when an expression requires frequent explanation to maintain the correct meaning, it 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,” according to the doctrinal note, released Nov. 4.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)