Cardinal Müller and the Marian minimalism of Mater Populi Fidelis

"Saint Pius X: "If the Virgin was freed from the original stain, it was because she was to be the Mother of Christ: now she was the Mother of Christ so that our souls might live again in the hope of eternal goods"."

Source: SSPX News

Presented as a defender of the faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller nevertheless holds positions on the co-redemption and virginity in partu that call for serious examination.

The sad doctrinal note, Mater Populi Fidelis, promulgated last year by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Leo XIV, belittles the greatness of the Blessed Virgin by denying her her Co-redemption (that is, her participation in the acquisition of the graces of our salvation through the merits of her Compassion), as well as her universal mediation in the dispensation of graces. No one is surprised that Cardinal Fernandez denies this traditional doctrine, given the lack of doctrinal credibility and moral authority of the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, despite the holy office he holds.

On the other hand, more than one Catholic will be surprised to learn that Cardinal Müller, who in recent years has acquired a reputation as a defender of the faith for certain praiseworthy positions on other subjects, has made remarks about the Blessed Virgin that are not in keeping with the perennial teaching of the Magisterium. He declared himself clearly against the doctrine of Coredemption and wrote ambiguous pages on the dogma of perpetual virginity.

Is it "falsely exaggerating per excessum" to assert that Mary is our Coredemptrix?

In a book published in 2017, Cardinal Müller, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, rejects the title of Coredemptrix, because of the doctrine on which it is based:

"Theologians and preachers in particular must avoid two risks: on the one hand, that of falsely exaggerating per excessum, attributing to the Virgin what is not attributable to her (for example, the Church, despite Mary's privileged place in the work of salvation, does not call her 'co-redemptrix', because the only Redeemer is Christ and she herself has been redeemed sublimiori modo, as Lumen Gentium says [no. 53], and serves that redemption accomplished exclusively by Christ); and on the other hand, to deny her per defectum the unique privileges due to her by divine decision (Lumen Gentium, no. 67) - that is, dogmas such as her Immaculate Conception, her divine motherhood, her perpetual virginity and her Assumption, body and soul, to heavenly glory. »1

According to Cardinal Müller, the title of Coredemptrix cannot be granted to the Blessed Virgin, because that would be a sin of excess. The doctrine that justifies it would be opposed to the oneness of salvation in Jesus Christ, the one Redeemer who alone works the redemption of the human race, and would be irreconcilable with the dogmatic truth that Mary herself was redeemed by Christ, albeit in a more sublime way (by her Immaculate Conception). He therefore explicitly denies the doctrine of the Co-Redemption since it would imply an exaggeration, and it is for this reason, according to him, that this title would not be authorized by the Church.

Cardinal Müller's reasons for rejecting this title are not very different from those alleged by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in Mater Populi Fidelis, and the criticisms that can be levelled at this doctrinal note apply to the Cardinal as well. Mater Populi Fidelis also claims that to attribute this title to Mary would be opposed to the oneness of salvation in Jesus Christ (cf. nos. 47-48) and also alleges that her own redemption, although unique, would imply that she cannot contribute by her merits to the redemption of others (cf. nos. 33 and 67).

And yet, that the oneness of salvation in Jesus Christ is in no way called into question by the privilege of the Co-Redemption is clear from the teaching of the Magisterium: "Mary most legitimately deserved to become the reparator of fallen humanity... it has been associated by Jesus Christ with the work of redemption, it merits for us to congruo, as the theologians say, what Christ Jesus has merited for us in condigno, and it is the supreme minister of the dispensation of graces. (Saint Pius X, Ad diem illum).

In other words, if Christ alone, by his Passion, merited our salvation in strict justice (de condigno), this in no way prevents the divine liberality from granting a meritorious value of congruity (de congruo), subordinate to that of his Son, in the work of our redemption. It is this notion of merit of propriety, although clearly taught by St. Pius X, that is missing from Cardinal Müller's discourse as well as from Mater Populi Fidelis. This same magisterial teaching was also omitted from chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium, which deals with Our Lady's unique cooperation in the work of our salvation, and since Cardinal Müller adheres to the letter and spirit of the Council, as do the authors of Mater Populi Fidelis, it is not surprising that there is agreement among them on this issue. But how can we truly affirm "Mary's privileged place in the work of salvation" while at the same time throwing into oblivion this notion of merit of propriety on the part of the Mother of God in the work of our redemption?

Moreover, the perennial teaching of the Magisterium teaches us that the Immaculate Conception, by whom Mary was uniquely redeemed, in no way prevents her from being able to contribute by her merits to the redemption of the rest of the human race. On the contrary, the privilege of the Immaculate Conception was granted to her precisely so that her merits could be associated with those of Christ in the work of our redemption.

This reason for the existence of her Immaculate Conception is implied by Saint Pius X: "If the Virgin was freed from the original stain, it was because she was to be the Mother of Christ: now she was the Mother of Christ so that our souls might live again in the hope of eternal goods." (Ad diem illum).

And this purpose is expressed still more clearly by Pius XII: "It was she who, free from all personal or hereditary sins, always very closely united to her Son, presented him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father,... for all the sons of Adam who bear the stain of original sin; thus she who was the mother of our Head in body became spiritually the mother of all his members. (Mystici Corporis).

Mary was redeemed in a more sublime way in order to be not only the worthy Mother of God, but also the Mother of men, that is, their Coredemptrix, so that "she redeemed the human race with Christ." (Benedict XV, Inter sodalicia). In opposing this teaching, Cardinal Müller agrees, here again, with Mater Populi Fidelis: in both is omitted the distinction, however crucial, between the grace of the Immaculate Conception, which Mary did not deserve, and the saving graces which, through her merits of propriety, she was subsequently able to obtain for the rest of the human race. But to admit the fact of her Immaculate Conception, while omitting her reason for being, is it not "to deny her per defectum" the finality that God had in mind in granting her this unique privilege, which is none other than her divine and co-redemptive Motherhood?

Is it "falsely exaggerating per excessum" to affirm virginity in partu stricto sensu?

If Cardinal Müller's statement on Mary's cooperation in the work of salvation is debatable, there are still other subjects of concern in his Marian doctrine. More serious than his denial of the Co-Redemption (a doctrine taught but not yet solemnly defined by the Magisterium) are his words on perpetual virginity, which is a dogma of faith. The Magisterium, however, clearly says that her virginity is perpetual precisely in that it remains complete and inviolate before, during and after the birth of our Saviour.

And yet, here are some troubling words from Cardinal Müller that deal precisely with the virginity of Mary in partu, during the birth of Jesus:

"These are not phenomena that deviate from natural physiological characteristics in the process of giving birth (such as the non-opening of the birthing routes, the non-violation of the hymen and the absence of childbirth pains); it is the saving influence of the Savior's redemptive grace on human nature, which had been "wounded" by original sin. The profession of faith therefore does not relate to somatic details that would be physiologically and empirically verifiable. »2

Charity prompts us to describe this statement only as very ambiguous. But Cardinal Müller does seem to suggest that physical integrity during birth (described as a simple "somatic detail") is not an article of faith. Would it then be enough to give only a purely metaphorical meaning to virginity during birth? Cardinal Müller seems to be saying so. Immediately afterwards he asserts that "the content of the faith in the Virginitas in Partu is well expressed by Karl Rahner," and he quotes him: "'But this proposition, which is directly intelligible, does not offer us the possibility of deducing affirmations about the concrete details of the process, which would be certain and universally binding.' »3 Cardinal Müller thus relies on Rahner as a reliable authority; however, for the latter, adherence to dogma does not imply the affirmation of physical integrity during the birth of Jesus.

That Rahner dares to question the obviate meaning of these terms "bodily integrity" is clear in this other passage: "What is actually included in the concept of 'bodily integrity' and what does it imply? ... For example, should the normal expansion of the genital tract during a completely healthy birth be considered an attack on "bodily integrity"? Will anyone have the courage to maintain this categorically? »4

The answer to this question from the Fathers of the Church (such as St. Ambrose, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Jerome, St. Hilary, St. Augustine, etc.) is clear: they had the courage to maintain categorically, and stricto sensu, the bodily integrity of Mary during birth. Virginity in partu undoubtedly possesses for these Fathers a spiritual meaning, but this is based on the literal and obviate meaning which, for them, is not in doubt.

Saint Bernard, Doctor of the Church, to express this inviolate virginity during birth, this bodily integrity understood stricto sensu, this miraculous birth, uses a beautiful image: "The name of Mary designates the star of the sea: it is indeed with great accuracy that she is compared to a star, for just as the star emits the ray of her womb without experiencing any alteration of it, thus the Virgin gave birth to a son without damage to her virginity. »5

Finally, the Magisterium is clear on this subject, since the Lateran Council in 649 declares: "If anyone does not confess in a proper and true sense that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God, since she conceived the Word Himself from the Holy Spirit without seed and gave birth to Him without corruption, his virginity remaining unalterable even after childbirth, let him be condemned. »6

Bodily integrity must therefore be believed "in a proper and true sense," and it is difficult to conceive how to reconcile with this statement the position of Rahner, and of Cardinal Müller following him. What can be said except that only the modernist perfidy of a Rahner - on whom Cardinal Müller relies - can have the audacity to claim to adhere to the dogma of perpetual virginity, while rejecting the obviate meaning of the doctrine of the Fathers and the declarations of the Magisterium on virginity in partu.

In view of his words on "Mary's privileged place in the work of salvation", which exclude the privilege of her Co-Redemption, and on her bodily integrity in childbirth, treated as a "somatic detail" that would not be the object of faith because it is not "physiologically and empirically verifiable", it seems clear - unless there is a clear retraction, which he has not made to date - that Cardinal Müller cannot serve as a pillar of faith in the Virgin Marie.

We find, on the other hand, a solid pillar in Saint Bernard, to whom the motto is attributed: De Maria numquam satis: Of Mary one will never say enough. To express the greatness of the privileges that God grants her in order to make her a worthy Mother of God, this saint cannot find adequate words. This adage does not mean that her perfections are without measure (which belongs only to God), but that they must be measured by her dignity as Mother of God, who demands such holiness, says Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus, that "no other thought than that of God himself can measure its greatness."7 Obviously, this famous motto does not fit well with the fear of "exaggerating falsely per excessum," by honoring her with the title of Coredemptrix, and by affirming her perpetual virginity as the Church has always understood it. On the contrary, it is to be feared that the motto that would be more in keeping with the Marian doctrine of Cardinal Müller would rather be: De Maria ne quid nimis: De Marie, rien de trop. Now, under the appearance of moderation that the Cardinal gives himself, there is, in reality, a gloomy minimalism, a doctrinal obscuration.

In truth, attributing to Our Lady the title of Coredemptrix is by no means too much, but harmonizes with the perennial doctrine of the Magisterium; and to profess in the full sense one's unalterable virginal integrity is in no way excessive, but is nothing other than the dogmatic integrity valiantly defended by the Fathers and clearly defined by the Magisterium.

Karen Darantière,
Organizer of the Symposium on Co-Redemption in Paris in May 2025

 

(Source: SSPX News)
Cover image: photograph of Cardinal Müller (Elke Wetzig, CC BY-SA 4.0), digitally modified; Diego Velázquez, The Coronation of the Virgin.