In the course of the longest pontificate of the twentieth century which has now extended into the twenty-first, Pope John Paul II has enriched the Church with extraordinarily solid teaching on faith and morals, but perhaps in no area has he been more illuminating than in his Marian magisterium. As one who has been chronicling it from early in the pontificate, I continue to be amazed at his prodigious output -- and even more at the quality of its content. This is to take nothing away from the significance of the Marian magisterium of all his predecessors, especially since the pontificate of Blessed Pope Pius IX (1846-1878). Each of the modern popes has passed on to the Church a precious patrimony of Marian doctrine (including the dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950) and devotion (including the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1942 and the establishment of the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1944 and of Our Lady's Queenship in 1954) while making his own unique contribution to the Church's millennial Marian tradition.
The study of this body of teaching on the person of the Mother of God and of her intimate relationship with Christ and the Church provides a magnificent illustration of the teaching of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council on the organic development of the Church's doctrine:
The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts (cf. Lk. 2:19 and 51). It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth. Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her. 
The Council Fathers further clarify that "the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. This teaching office, as we know, is exercised in a most authoritative way by the Pope, the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Apostolic College. 
A. Previous Studies of the Magisterium on Marian Coredemption
The teaching of the papal magisterium on Mary's collaboration in the work of our redemption has been the object of my particular study in the course of the past several years. I was pleased to have been able to present a detailed study on "The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium" at the theological symposium on Marian Coredemption held in Castelpetroso, Italy in September of 1996 and subsequently published by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in their first volume of studies entitled Maria Corredentrice: Storia e Teologia. In that work I analyzed many texts of Pope John Paul II in terms of their strict continuity with the teaching of his predecessors, especially since the pontificate of Blessed Pius IX.
I had earlier done a brief study on "The Heart of Mary as Coredemptrix in the Magisterium of Pope John Paul II"  and then a more extended study on "Pope John Paul II's Teaching on Marian Coredemption" which was published in Miles Immaculatae  as well as in Dr. Mark Miravalle's second anthology of theological studies devoted to the theme of Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate  . In 1998 I published an article in Marianum  as a response to an earlier article in that same learned journal  in which I dealt at some length with the magisterial teaching on the topic of Marian Coredemption. During that same year I authored three articles for the popular Marian magazine, Soul, in which I also discussed the the same topic.  These articles were later published in Dr. Miravalle's third anthology on Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.  In 1999 I also offered a brief resumé on Pope John Paul II's teaching on this matter for the popular Italian monthly Madre di Dio.
B. The Marian Catecheses
What I propose to do here is to continue to build on and develop what I have already published on this matter by taking into consideration the Holy Father's more recent teaching on Marian Coredemption, especially that contained in the 70 Marian catecheses which he has given us in the course of his Wednesday general audience addresses from 6 September 1995 to 19 November 1997. These provide a remarkable summary of his own teaching and a further consolidation of that of his predecessors and that of the Second Vatican Council, which constitutes a privileged point of reference for him. It must be readily admitted that these addresses are not infallible declarations, every word of which must be considered as revealed doctrine and thus settling every conceivable issue which theologians discuss. But on the other hand, these discourses may be justly regarded as an important exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and thus should be received by the faithful "with religious submission of mind and will". 
These Marian catecheses emerge from among thousands of the Pope's homilies, prayers, addresses preceding the recitation of the Angelus or the Regina Cćli, acts of consecration or entrustment to Our Lady, references in pontifical documents and encyclicals which he has pronounced and published before, during and after these reflections. Many of the points in these catechetical presentations can be further illustrated and amplified from this greater body of the Pope's teaching and as well as from that of his predecessors and of the Church's whole millennial Marian tradition. What is particularly noteworthy about this series of Marian teachings, however, is that it is unparalleled in the history of the papacy. Never before has any pope ever undertaken such a systematic exposition on the Mother of God. This alone would be enough to claim the serious attention of Mary's devoted children.
But there is more. From the first days of his pontificate he has striven to be a faithful interpreter of the Council. While in his Marian encyclical Redemptoris Mater and in these catecheses he rightly professes to elucidate the Marian teaching of the Council (the bulk of which is contained in the eighth chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium), he also does more. In effect, in many ways he further refines and clarifies the teachings of the Council, complementing and completing them. This was also the judgment of the late Cardinal Vincenzo Fagiolo:
John Paul II has advanced the conciliar mariology; and while the Council deliberately did not "wish to decide those questions which the work of theologians has not yet fully clarified" , the Pope has further explained and clarified their content, value and perspectives. With respect to the text of Lumen Gentium the papal catecheses make more extensive biblical references and are thus richer from the use of Old and New Testament sources. 
Perhaps the Pope's contribution to the development of Marian doctrine is nowhere clearer in these catecheses than in his treatment of Our Lady's collaboration in the work of our salvation.  It is well known that on the eve of the Council a good number of bishops desired a comprehensive treatment of this matter. Father Michael O'Carroll, C.S.Sp. informs us that of the 54 bishops at the Council who wanted a conciliar pronouncement on Mary as Coredemptrix, 36 sought a definition and 11 a dogma of faith on this matter.  On the related question of Mary's mediation, he tells us that 362 bishops desired a conciliar statement on Mary's mediation while 266 of them asked for a dogmatic definition. Obviously such definitions did not issue from the Council and many contemporary Mariologists would have us believe that the Council definitively closed the door on such a project. The Pope's handling of the question, however, is much more even-handed. As we will see in the ninth of his catecheses, that of 13 December 1995, he states that
During the Council sessions, many Fathers wished further to enrich Marian doctrine with other statements on Mary's role in the work of salvation. The particular context in which Vatican II's Mariological debate took place did not allow these wishes, although substantial and widespread, to be accepted, but the Council's entire discussion of Mary remains vigorous and balanced, and the topics themselves, though not fully defined, received significant attention in the overall treatment.
Thus, the hesitation of some Fathers regarding the title of Mediatrix did not prevent the Council from using this title once, and from stating in other terms Mary's mediating role from her consent to the Angel's message to her motherhood in the order of grace (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 62). Furthermore, the Council asserts her cooperation "in a wholly singular way" in the work of restoring supernatural life to souls (ibid., n. 61). 
This is an astute observation made by one who has continued to meditate on and develop these very themes. To my knowledge, it is the first explicit public acknowledgement on the part of a pope of the currents at the Council which shaped the writing of chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium. It also makes graceful reference to the Fathers who "wished further to enrich Marian doctrine with other statements on Mary's role in the work of salvation" without labelling them as promoters of "pre-conciliar ideas whose time has passed", as any number of modern Mariologists are only too anxious to do.
These general audience addresses were originally given in Italian and appeared in the daily edition of L'Osservatore Romano. They were later published by the Vatican publishing house as the fifth volume of Pope John Paul II's catecheses on the Creed  and eventually in the apposite volumes of the Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II to which I will refer in the notes. Ordinarily I will use the translations that originally appeared in the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano and will also provide references to them in the convenient volume of these catecheses published by the Daughters of St. Paul where the word order and paragraph divisions sometimes diverge slightly from the earlier translations.
II. The Development of Doctrine on Marian Coredemption
Just what does the Church teach on Mary's role in our redemption? Let us listen to the Holy Father as he traces the history of doctrinal development on this issue for us in broad strokes:
After becoming aware of the maternal role of Mary, who was venerated in the teaching and worship of the first centuries as the virginal Mother of Jesus Christ and therefore as the Mother of God, in the Middle Ages the Church's piety and theological reflection brought to light her cooperation in the Saviour's work.
This delay is explained by the fact that the efforts of the Church Fathers and of the early Ecumenical Councils, focused as they were on Christ's identity, necessarily left other aspects of dogma aside. Only gradually could the revealed truth be unfolded in all its richness. Down the centuries, Mariology would always take its direction from Christology. The divine motherhood of Mary was itself proclaimed at the Council Ephesus primarily to affirm the oneness of Christ's person. Similarly, there was a deeper understanding of Mary's presence in salvation history.
At the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, already pointed out Mary's contribution to the work of salvation. He understood the value of Mary's consent at the time of the Annunciation, recognizing in the Virgin of Nazareth's obedience to and faith in the angel's message the perfect antithesis of Eve's disobedience and disbelief, with a beneficial effect on humanity's destiny. In fact, just as Eve caused death, so Mary, with her "yes", became "a cause of salvation" for herself and for all mankind (cf. Adv. Haer., III, 22, 4; SC 211, 441). But this affirmation was not developed in a consistent and systematic way by the other Fathers of the Church.
Instead, this doctrine was systematically worked out for the first time at the end of the 10th century in the Life of Mary by a Byzantine monk, John the Geometer. Here Mary is united to Christ in the whole work of Redemption, sharing, according to God's plan, in the Cross and suffering for our salvation. She remained united to the Son "in every deed, attitude and wish" (cf. Life of Mary, Bol. 196, f. 123 v.). ...
A disciple and friend of St. Bernard, Arnold of Chartres, shed light particularly on Mary's offering in the sacrifice of Calvary. He distinguished in the Cross "two altars: one in Mary's heart, the other in Christ's body. Christ sacrificed his flesh, Mary her soul". Mary sacrificed herself spiritually in deep communion with Christ, and implored the world's salvation: "What the mother asks, the Son approves and the Father grants" (cf. De septem verbis Domini in cruce, 3: PL 189, 1694).
From this age on other authors explain the doctrine of Mary's special cooperation in the redemptive sacrifice. 
From its earliest days, then, the Church has had an intuitive grasp of the importance of Mary's consent and obedience in the work of our salvation. And for well over a millennium it has been slowly coming to a deeper grasp of her cooperation in the redemptive sacrifice. Indeed this process of doctrinal development under the guidance of the Holy Spirit came about not only through the work of theologians and spiritual writers, but also, as the Pope points out:
Painters, sculptors, musicians and poets have left us masterpieces which, in shedding light on the various aspects of the Blessed Virgin's greatness, help to give us a better understanding of the meaning and value of her lofty contribution to the work of Redemption. 
Obviously, when one thinks of Mary's collaboration in our redemption, one thinks first of the event of the Annunciation as, no doubt, St. Irenaeus did and as the Pope underscores:
Mary's role in the work of salvation is totally dependent on Christ's. It is a unique function, required by the fulfilment of the mystery of the Incarnation: Mary's motherhood was necessary to give the world its Saviour, the true Son of God, but also perfectly man.
The importance of woman's cooperation in the coming of Christ is emphasized by the initiative of God, who, through the angel, communicates his plan of salvation to the Virgin of Nazareth so that she can consciously and freely cooperate by giving her own generous consent. 
We should also note here a consistent insistence on the part of the magisterium: Mary's cooperation in the work of our redemption is always secondary, subordinate and dependent on that of Christ; she is not his equal. But at the same time God willed that her consent be a necessary condition for the coming of the Saviour into the world.
As the Holy Father had already pointed out in his catechesis of 25 October 1995, "Only gradually could the revealed truth [about Mary's collaboration in the work of our redemption] be unfolded in all its richness". He illustrates this magnificently in his catechesis of 9 April 1997:
Down the centuries the Church has reflected on Mary's cooperation in the work of salvation, deepening the analysis of her association with Christ's redemptive sacrifice. St. Augustine already gave the Blessed Virgin the title "cooperator" in the Redemption (cf. De Sancta Virginitate, 6; PL 40, 399), a title which emphasizes Mary's joint but subordinate action with Christ the Redeemer.
Reflection has developed along these lines, particularly since the 15th century. Some feared there might be a desire to put Mary on the same level as Christ. Actually the Church's teaching makes a clear distinction between the Mother and the Son in the work of salvation, explaining the Blessed Virgin's subordination, as cooperator, to the one Redeemer.
Moreover, when the Apostle Paul says: "For we are God's fellow workers" (1 Cor. 3:9), he maintains the real possibility for man to cooperate with God. The collaboration of believers, which obviously excludes any equality with him, is expressed in the proclamation of the Gospel and in their personal contribution to its taking root in human hearts.
However, applied to Mary, the term "cooperator" acquires a specific meaning. The collaboration of Christians in salvation takes place after the Calvary event, whose fruits they endeavour to spread by prayer and sacrifice. Mary, instead, cooperated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus her cooperation embraces the whole of Christ's saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity.
The Blessed Virgin's role as cooperator has its source in her divine motherhood. By giving birth to the One who was destined to achieve man's redemption, by nourishing him, presenting him in the temple and suffering with him as he died on the Cross, "in a wholly singular way she cooperated ... in the work of the Saviour" (Lumen gentium, n. 61). Although God's call to cooperate in the work of salvation concerns every human being, the participation of the Saviour's Mother in humanity's Redemption is a unique and unrepeatable fact. 
The above citation is a lengthy one, but it is particularly rich in doctrine and in its precision. It accentuates the historical development of the Church's insight into Mary's cooperation in the work of our redemption. It highlights the subordinate nature of Mary's cooperation while at the same time recognizing that her cooperation is altogether singular because she "cooperated during the event itself and in the role of mother" and thus "the participation of the Saviour's Mother in humanity's Redemption is a unique and unrepeatable fact".
Contrary to some appearances, there can be no doubt that the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, most notably Lumen Gentium #56 to 62, marked a further development in the Church's understanding of Mary's role in our redemption as the Pope clearly indicates:
The new schema on the Blessed Virgin, drafted so as to be included in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, shows real doctrinal progress. The stress placed on Mary's faith and a more systematic concern to base Marian doctrine on Scripture are significant and useful elements for enriching the piety and esteem of the Christian people for the Blessed Mother of God.
Moreover, with the passing of time the danger of reductionism, feared by some Fathers, proved to be unfounded: Mary's mission and privileges were amply reaffirmed; her cooperation in the divine plan of salvation was highlighted; the harmony of this cooperation with Christ's unique mediation appeared more evident.
For the first time, the conciliar Magisterium offered the Church a doctrinal exposition of Mary's role in Christ's redemptive work and in the life of the Church.
Thus, we must consider the Council Fathers' choice, which proved very fruitful for later doctrinal work, to have been a truly providential decision. 
Before moving on to the next point, I would like to present two precisions offered by our Holy Father with regard to the role of the Holy Spirit in this process of the development of Marian doctrine. Just as we have seen that the conciliar Constitution on Divine Revelation underscores the role of the Holy Spirit in all legitimate doctrinal development, so Pope John Paul II indicates his all-important function in the transmission as well as in the reception of the doctrine. First, the Pope points out the action of the Holy Spirit already at work through the human authors or transmitters of the Old Testament:
As can be easily noted, the Old Testament tradition frequently emphasizes the decisive action of women in the salvation of Israel, especially in the writings closest to the coming of Christ. In this way the Holy Spirit, through the events connected with Old Testament women, sketches with ever greater precision the characteristics of Mary's mission in the work of salvation for the entire human race. 
Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, he points to the necessity of the docile acceptance of the Spirit's guidance as we strive to penetrate the doctrine which has been received:
It is necessary to emphasize that Marian teaching and devotion are not the fruit of sentimentality. ... Not only affection but particularly the light of the Spirit must guide us in understanding the Mother of Jesus and her contribution to the work of salvation. 
III. Mary as the "New Eve"
We have already noted above the Holy Father's reference to St. Irenaeus's teaching about Mary as the "New Eve" in his catechesis of 25 October 1995. Indeed, St. Justin Martyr (+ 165), St. Irenaeus (+ after 193) and Tertullian (+ after 220), all of whom belong to the sub-Apostolic period, signalled the parallelism and contrast between Mary and Eve. This fascinating parallelism, never absent from the Church's liturgy  and magisterium , was highlighted in Lumen Gentium #56 and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #411. This theme sheds notable light on Mary's role in our redemption and Pope John Paul II has often enlarged upon it. Here is a basic exposition from his catechesis of 15 October 1997:
St. Justin and St. Irenaeus speak of Mary as the new Eve who by her faith and obedience makes amends for the disbelief and disobedience of the first woman. According to the Bishop of Lyons, it was not enough for Adam to be redeemed in Christ, but "it was right and necessary that Eve be restored in Mary" (Demonstratio apostolica, 33). In this way he stresses the importance of woman in the work of salvation and lays the foundation for the inseparability of Marian devotion from that shown to Jesus, which will endure down the Christian centuries. 
He further speaks of Mary as the "new woman desired by God to atone for Eve's fall". He says that
The parallel, established by Paul between Adam and Christ, is completed by that between Eve and Mary: the role of woman, important in the drama of sin, is equally so in the Redemption of mankind.
St. Irenaeus presents Mary as the new Eve, who by her faith and obedience compensated for the disbelief and disobedience of Eve. Such a role in the economy of salvation requires the absence of sin. 
Again he tells us that "the universal motherhood of Mary, the "Woman" of the wedding at Cana and of Calvary, recalls Eve, "mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20). However, while the latter helped to bring sin into the world, the new Eve, Mary, cooperates in the saving event of Redemption. Thus in the Blessed Virgin the figure of "woman" is rehabilitated and her motherhood takes up the task of spreading the new life in Christ among men." 
As Eve was given to Adam as his helpmate (cf. Gen. 2:18-20), so the Pope tells us: "Having created man "male and female" (cf. Gen. 1:27), the Lord also wants to place the New Eve beside the New Adam in the Redemption. Our first parents had chosen the way of sin as a couple; a new pair, the Son of God with his Mother's cooperation, would re-establish the human race in its original dignity."
In teaching about Mary's glorious Assumption into heaven, the Pope further specifies that, while we may speak of Jesus and Mary as "a couple, a new pair", we must also recognize that there is an important difference as well.
In a way analogous to what happened at the beginning of the human race and of salvation history, in God's plan the eschatological ideal was not to be revealed in an individual, but in a couple. Thus in heavenly glory, beside the risen Christ there is a woman who has been raised up, Mary; the new Adam and the new Eve, the first-fruits of the general resurrection of the bodies of all humanity.
The eschatological conditions of Christ and Mary should not, of course, be put on the same level. Mary, the new Eve, received from Christ, the new Adam, the fullness of grace and heavenly glory, having been raised through the Holy Spirit by the sovereign power of the Son.
Classical mariology has long known and taught that there is an analogy, a certain "likeness in difference" between Christ and Mary, a certain symmetry and complementarity, though not identity, between them. This principle of analogy is very germane to the topic under discussion and, indeed, the entire discourse on Mary's role in the work of our redemption cannot be understood without it. Thus in the above catechesis the Holy Father is careful to underscore and illustrate this principle. He does so as well as in the following catechesis in which he treats of the Kingship of Christ and the Queenship of Mary:
My venerable Predecessor Pius XII, in his Encyclical Ad coeli Reginam to which the text of the Constitution Lumen gentium refers, indicates as the basis for Mary's queenship in addition to her motherhood, her cooperation in the work of the Redemption. The Encyclical recalls the liturgical text: "There was St. Mary, Queen of heaven and Sovereign of the world, sorrowing near the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (AAS 46  634). It then establishes an analogy between Mary and Christ, which helps us understand the significance of the Blessed Virgin's royal status. Christ is King not only because he is Son of God, but also because he is the Redeemer; Mary is Queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, associated as the new Eve with the new Adam, she cooperated in the work of the redemption of the human race (AAS 46  635).
Let us note well the "likeness in difference": Christ is King because (1) he is Son of God and (2) because he is Redeemer; Mary is Queen because (1) she is Mother of God and (2) because she cooperated in the work of the redemption.
IV. From the Fiat of the Annunciation to the Fiat of Calvary
The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #58 makes a brief but profound statement about Mary's cooperation in the work of the redemption: "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death." We find this emphasis consistently repeated in the teaching of Pope John Paul II as in the statement in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitć that "The 'yes' spoken on the day of the Annunciation reaches full maturity on the day of the Cross"and in his comment in a general audience address that Mary's cooperation in the work of our salvation "having begun with the Incarnation, is destined to be expressed in the whole work of divine salvation."
I wish to highlight just two further instances in which the Pope underscores the significance of Mary's fiat at the Annunciation as being the operative principle in her entire life. The first is from a notable general audience address of 4 May 1983:
The "Yes" of the Annunciation constituted not only the acceptance of the offered motherhood, but signified above all Mary's commitment to service of the mystery of the Redemption. Redemption was the work of her Son; Mary was associated with it on a subordinate level. Nevertheless, her participation was real and demanding. Giving her consent to the angel's message, Mary agreed to collaborate in the whole work of mankind's reconciliation with God, just as her Son would accomplish it.
The second comes from his Message of 15 August 1996 to the 12th International Mariological Congress and emphasizes that the fiat at the Annunciation is continued at the foot of the cross:
God, by sending the Archangel Gabriel, revealed his intention to the Virgin Mary, entrusting the realization of his eternal plan [of salvation] to her free will. In the obedience of faith and love she pronounced her "yes", expressing "loco totius humanć naturć" -- as St. Thomas Aquinas says (Sum. Theol., III, 30, 1) -- her desire to co-operate and share in the mystery of salvation. ... Her whole life, given totally to God, to Christ and to mankind, to whom Jesus brought the good news of the coming of God's kingdom, was a constant offering of love, which was fully realized as Mary, at the foot of the cross, suffered together with her Son who was accomplishing our salvation.
V. The Presentation in the Temple: Prelude to Offering on Calvary
Of all of the events in the life of Jesus which anticipate his offering on Calvary and Mary's active participation in it, none is more charged with meaning than his presentation in the temple of Jerusalem when he was forty days' old (cf. Lk. 2:22-40). Father Stefano Manelli, F.I. provides a masterful overview of recent exegesis on this pericope in his perceptive study of biblical mariologywhile Father Ignazio M. Calabuig, O.S.M. offers us some valuable reflections on this theme from the perspective of Mary as "offerer" of Jesus in a recently published volume on Mary and the Eucharist. In his sketch of doctrinal development on Mary's collaboration in the work of redemption in his catechesis of 25 October 1995 the Holy Father points to the figure of St. Bernard of Clairvaux as underscoring Mary's offering of Jesus in the temple as an anticipation of his offering on the cross:
In the West St. Bernard, who died in 1153, turns to Mary and comments on the presentation of Jesus in the temple: "Offer your Son, sacrosanct Virgin, and present the fruit of your womb to the Lord. For our reconciliation with all, offer the heavenly victim pleasing to God" (Serm. 3 in Purif., 2: PL 183, 370).
Indeed, Pope John Paul II shows himself to be in the great tradition of interpretation of this Gospel pericope pioneered in the Latin West by Ambrose Autpert (+ 784), Peter Abelard (+ 1142) and St. Bernardin his numerous commentaries on this scene. In his general audience address of 4 May 1983 he links Simeon's prophecy (Lk. 2:35) with Mary's offering of Jesus in the temple and her fiat at the Annunciation:
During the Presentation in the Temple, Mary had a first clear reference to what would be the kind of life chosen by Jesus. After telling of the oppositions the Child would encounter in his mission, Simeon turned to her and told her "And you yourself shall be pierced with a sword" (Lk. 2:35). The Holy Spirit had moved Simeon to come to the Temple at the very moment when Mary and Joseph arrived there to present the Child. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Simeon uttered the prophetic words that enlightened Mary on the sorrowful destiny of the Messiah and on the great drama in which her motherly heart would be involved. Mary then understood more clearly the significance of the Presentation. To offer her Son was to expose herself willingly to the sword. Committed by the "Yes" of the Annunciation and prepared to reach to the very depths in the giving of herself to the work of salvation, Mary did not retreat from the prospect of the great suffering that was foretold for her.
He also developed this theme of Mary's offering of Jesus in the temple in his Message of 6 January 1997 for the first World Day for Consecrated Life:
The Virgin Mother who carries Jesus to the temple so that he can be offered to the Father expresses very well the figure of the Church who continues to offer her sons and daughters to the heavenly Father, associating them with the one oblation of Christ, cause and model of all consecration in the Church. ...
May the Virgin Mary, who had the sublime privilege of presenting to the Father his only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, as a pure and holy oblation, obtain for us that we may constantly be open and welcoming in the face of the great works which he does not cease to accomplish for the good of the Church and of all humanity.
In his catechesis on this same Gospel scene two days later he develops the notion of Mary's offering of herself in union with the offering of her Son -- a concept that has been consistently advanced by the magisterium with regard to Mary's presence on Calvary:
Giving back her Son, whom she had just received from God, to consecrate him for his saving mission, Mary also gives herself to this mission. It is an act of interior sharing that is not only the fruit of natural maternal affection, but above all expresses the consent of the new woman to Christ's redemptive work. ...
The chronological priority of Mary's action does not obscure Jesus' primacy. In describing Mary's role in the economy of salvation, the Second Vatican Council recalled that she "devoted herself totally ... to the person and work of her Son, under and with him, serving the mystery of Redemption" (Lumen gentium, n. 56).
At the presentation of Jesus in the temple, Mary serves the mystery of Redemption under Christ and with Christ: indeed he has the principal role in salvation and must be ransomed by a ritual offering. Mary is joined to the sacrifice of her Son by the sword that will pierce her soul.
The primacy of Christ does not rule out but supports and demands the proper, irreplaceable role of woman. By involving his mother in his own sacrifice, Christ wants to reveal its deep human roots and to show us an anticipation of the priestly offering of the cross.
Let us also note the precise accent here on Jesus as having the principal role and the primacy in salvation while Mary's role is described as "serving the mystery of Redemption under and with him".
The mysteries, the events, of the lives of Jesus and Mary are like magnificent gems. Each time we return to them under a wise guide we can see new facets, brilliance that we did not detect before. The Holy Father is such a guide for us. Let us listen to how he presents the presentation in the temple on yet another occasion:
Alongside Christ's suffering Simeon sets the vision of Mary's heart pierced by the sword, thus uniting the Mother with the sorrowful destiny of her Son.
In this way, while the venerable old man foresees the growing hostility the Messiah will face, he stresses its repercussion on the Mother's heart. This maternal suffering will culminate in the Passion, when she will unite with her Son in his redemptive sacrifice. ...
Beginning with Simeon's prophecy, Mary intensely and mysteriously unites her life with Christ's sorrowful mission: she was to become her Son's faithful co-worker for the salvation of the human race. 
The Catholic tradition sees the Presentation in the temple as the first of Mary's principal sorrows with good reason: from that moment she is definitively united "with the sorrowful destiny of her Son". She will be united on Calvary "with her Son in his redemptive sacrifice" because she became "her Son's faithful co-worker for the salvation of the human race." Finally, notice how all of this in communicated under the symbolism of Mary's Heart.
VI. The Joint Sacrifice of Calvary
The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council highlighted Mary's collaboration in the work of the redemption with this strikingly clear statement in Lumen Gentium #58:
The Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associating herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which was born of her.
It should be noted that the high point of Mary's collaboration is described as (1) enduring suffering with her Son, (2) associating herself with his sacrifice and (3) consenting to the immolation of the victim. It might be argued that the first two verbs put the emphasis on Mary's offering of herself or uniting herself to the offering of Jesus while the third verb speaks more precisely of her consenting to the offering of her Son to the Father "insofar as it depended on her", according to the expression of Pope Benedict XV.
In other studies I have distinguished between these two different offerings on Mary's part which took place on Calvary: (1) her offering of or consenting to the sacrifice of Jesus and (2) her offering of herself. Indeed, it is possible to cite texts of the Holy Father which illustrate both of these points quite clearly. Here, however, I will indicate these two logically distinct dimensions of the sacrifice, but, I have chosen to comment on texts of the Holy Father which place the emphasis on how Mary's sacrifice is inseparable from that of Jesus, how, in the words of the Holy Father, it is a "joint but subordinate action with Christ the Redeemer". Let us listen to the beautiful commentary the Pope made on Lumen Gentium #58 in his catechesis of 2 April 1997:
With our gaze illumined by the radiance of the resurrection, we pause to reflect on the Mother's involvement in her Son's redeeming passion, which was completed by her sharing in his suffering. Let us return again, but now in the perspective of the Resurrection, to the foot of the Cross where the Mother endured "with her only-begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consented to the immolation of this victim which was born of her" (ibid., n. 58).
With these words, the Council reminds us of "Mary's compassion"; in her heart reverberates all that Jesus suffers in body and soul, emphasizing her willingness to share in her Son's redeeming sacrifice and to join her own maternal suffering to his priestly offering.
The Council text also stresses that her consent to Jesus' immolation is not passive acceptance but a genuine act of love, by which she offers her Son as a "victim" of expiation for the sins of all humanity.
Lastly, Lumen gentium relates the Blessed Virgin to Christ, who has the lead role in Redemption, making it clear that in associating herself "with his sacrifice" she remains subordinate to her divine Son.
Let us note briefly how the Holy Father brings both of these dimensions of Mary's offering together by referring to her "compassion" or "suffering with" Jesus as well as insisting that her "consent to Jesus' immolation" was "a genuine act of love, by which she offers her Son as a 'victim' of expiation for the sins of all humanity." Another point to be noted is how beautifully and carefully the Pope puts "the Mother's involvement in her Son's redeeming passion" into the proper theological perspective: it is always to be understood as "subordinate", but at the same time "her sharing in his suffering" completes "her Son's redeeming passion".
These two dimensions of Mary's offering are gracefully intermingled by the Holy Father in his catechesis of 10 September 1997 in which he presents Mary as "the Church's model for generously participating in sacrifice":
In presenting Jesus in the temple and, especially, at the foot of the Cross, Mary completes the gift of herself which associates her as Mother with the suffering and trials of her Son.
The gift of herself is seen as completed in her association with the suffering of her Son whom she offered in the temple as an infant and now offers again on Calvary.
This intermingling of Mary's offering of Jesus and of herself was magnificently expressed in the Pope's homily at the Commemoration of Abraham "Our Father in Faith" during the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000:
Daughter of Abraham in faith as well as in the flesh, Mary personally shared in this experience. Like Abraham, she too accepted the sacrifice of her Son, but while the actual sacrifice of Isaac was not demanded of Abraham, Christ drank the cup of suffering to the last drop. Mary personally took part in her Son's trial, believing and hoping at the foot of the Cross (cf. Jn. 19:25).
This was the epilogue of a long wait. Having been taught to meditate on the prophetic texts, Mary foresaw what awaited her and in praising the mercy of God, faithful to his people from generation to generation, she gave her own consent to his plan of salvation; in particular, she said her "yes" to the central event of this plan, the sacrifice of that Child whom she bore in her womb. Like Abraham, she accepted the sacrifice of her Son.
Here the reference to the amalgamating of the two sacrifices on the part of Mary is subtle but real. Mary is compared to Abraham in that both of them gave their consent to the sacrifice of their only son, but in the case of Abraham, the consent was all that was required. In the case of Mary, however, the sacrifice was carried out, effectively requiring of her the sacrifice of her maternal heart, indeed of her very life.
The "joint but subordinate" sacrifice on the part of Mary has profound ecclesial reverberations. In treating of the "woman clothed with the sun", who appears in the twelfth chapter of the Book of Revelation, as being an image of the Church and of Mary, the Pope makes this comment in his catechesis of 29 May 1996:
Identified by her motherhood, the woman "was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for her delivery" (12:2). This note refers to the Mother of Jesus at the Cross (cf. Jn. 19:25), where she shares in anguish for the delivery of the community of disciples with a soul pierced by the sword (cf. Lk. 2:35). Despite her sufferings, she is "clothed with the sun" -- that is, she reflects the divine splendour -- and appears as a "great sign" of God's spousal relationship with his people.
Here the Pope, in effect, proposes a datum of the tradition i.e., that while Mary gave birth to Jesus in a painless way, her intense sufferings in union with Jesus on Calvary were the birth pangs by which she "begets as her children all those who become [his] disciples". This truth is magnificently synthesized in the preface of the second Mass of "Mary at the Foot of the Cross" published in the Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary:
In your divine wisdom you planned the redemption of the human race and decreed that the new Eve should stand by the cross of the new Adam: as she became his mother by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, by a new gift of your love, she was to be a partner in his passion, and she who had given him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church. 
At the foot of the cross, then, Mary is not only a partner in the passion (socia passionis), but is instrumental in giving birth to the Church. Note well that there are two striking symbols for the generation of the Church on Calvary: the pierced Heart of Jesus from which flows blood and water, "the fountain of sacramental life in the Church"  and the Heart of Mary to which the Holy Father makes an allusion in the above text by referring to Lk. 2:35.
Quite clearly, there is a partnership for the sake of our salvation, but it is not a partnership of strict equality, as the Holy Father tells us in the same catechesis of 29 May 1996:
It was fitting that like Christ, the new Adam, Mary too, the new Eve, did not know sin and was thus capable of co-operating in the Redemption.
Sin, which washes over humanity like a torrent, halts before the Redeemer and his faithful Collaborator. With a substantial difference: Christ is all holy by virtue of the grace that in his humanity derives from the divine person: Mary is all holy by virtue of the grace received by the merits of the Saviour. 
Developing the notion of Mary's labor pains on Calvary for the birth of the Church (cf. Rev. 12:2), the Pope stated in his catechesis of 17 September 1997:
On Calvary, Mary united herself to the sacrifice of her Son and made her own maternal contribution to the work of salvation, which took the form of labour pains, the birth of the new humanity.
In addressing the words "Woman, behold your son" to Mary, the Crucified One proclaims her motherhood not only in relation to the Apostle John but also to every disciple. The Evangelist himself, by saying that Jesus had to die "to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad" (Jn. 11:52), indicates the Church's birth as the fruit of the redemptive sacrifice with which Mary is maternally associated. 
Always subordinate and secondary, nonetheless Mary's "maternal contribution to the work of salvation" is unique and the sacrifice by which the Church was born cannot be separated by her maternal collaboration.
VII. Titles for Mary's Role in Our Redemption
There are many other facets of Pope John Paul II's teaching on Mary's collaboration in the work of our redemption which the constraints of space and time will not allow me to develop here, such as her being a model for all of the faithful in our participation in the sacrifice of Calvary  and more generally in our work for the growth of the Church in holiness and numbers.
The final topic that I would like to deal with is this: "How do we best describe this secondary and subordinate, but nonetheless active and unique role willed by God for Mary in the work of our redemption?" Our Holy Father has used a good number of descriptive titles such as collaborator and cooperator, associate and ally. He has called her "the perfect co-worker in Christ's sacrifice" (perfetta cooperatrice del sacrificio di Cristo)and "the perfect model for those who seek to be united with her Son in his saving work for all humanity".
This is a matter on which neither our present Holy Father nor any of his predecessors have pronounced and we are quite free to debate it. My argument would simply be that none of the one-word titles such as collaborator, cooperator, co-worker, associate, partner and ally sufficiently accentuates the uniqueness of Mary's role whereas others seem to me to be either lengthy phrases or cumbersome circumlocutions.
The fact is that there is a word which was coined and has become hallowed by usage to describe Mary's unique role: Coredemptrix. Once it has been made clear that the "co" in Coredemptrix does not mean equal to the Redeemer, but subordinate to him, it is arguable that it expresses the reality of Mary's position better than any other. This term has been in theological circulation since at least the fifteenth centuryand passed into usage by the magisterium at the beginning of the twentieth century. The word was used three times by Pope Pius XI (1922-1939), was not used by Pius XII (1939-1958) because of controversies about the doctrine which were only clarified at the end of his pontificate, and was described in the Prćnotanda of the first draft of the schema which would eventually become chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium as among those words which are "absolutely true in themselves" [in se verissima], but were being avoided out of ecumenical sensitivity. We are also free to debate about the wisdom and effectiveness of such a strategy.
What is very interesting, however, is that Pope John Paul II has used the word or a cognate form thereof to describe Our Lady's role in the work of our redemption six times, three times more than the only other pope to use this term. He has also used the word "coredeemer" or "coredemption" at least three times in speaking of the on-going collaboration of Christians in the work of Redemption. Despite these facts, there has been what seems a carefully orchestrated chorus stating that none of these instances are of any theological value.
First of all there was the "Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy" made in Czestochowa, Poland in August of 1996 made by an "ad hoc" commission composed of 18 Catholics, 3 Orthodox, an Anglican and a Lutheran and released by L'Osservatore Romano on 4 June 1997. Dealing with the titles Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, it states:
The titles, as proposed, are ambiguous, as they can be understood in very different ways. Furthermore, the theological direction taken by the Second Vatican Council, which did not wish to define any of these titles, should not be abandoned. The Second Vatican Council did not use the title "Coredemptrix", and uses "Mediatrix" and "Advocate" in a very moderate way (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 62). In fact, from the time of Pope Pius XII, the term "Coredemptrix" has not been used by the papal Magisterium in its significant documents. There is evidence that Pope Pius XII himself intentionally avoided using it.
From what I have already stated and documented, it is apparent that this declaration is not above criticism for the way it attempts to deal with facts and that it has no magisterial value. It dismisses the use of the term by Pope John Paul II as not occurring in significant magisterial documents.
Together with the declaration in L'Osservatore Romano appeared two commentaries: one unsigned with the title "A new Marian dogma?"and the other under the signature of Salvatore M. Perrella, O.S.M. entitled "Mary's co-operation in the work of Redemption: Present state of the question". The unsigned commentary offers a further specification with regard to the usage of this term by the present Pontiff:
With respect to the title of Coredemptrix, the Declaration of Czestochowa notes that "from the time of Pope Pius XII, the term Coredemptrix has not been used by the papal Magisterium in its significant documents" and there is evidence that he himself intentionally avoided using it. An important qualification, because here and there, in papal writings which are marginal therefore devoid of doctrinal weight, one can find such a title, be it very rarely. In substantial documents, however, and in those of some doctrinal importance, this term is absolutely avoided. 
At this point I deem it indispensable to introduce into this discussion #25 of the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, a text of capital importance on the Pope's magisterium or teaching office:
This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority [magisterium] of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either (1) by the character of the documents in question, or (2) by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or (3) by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.
On the basis of a careful analysis of this passage I have argued in my book Totus Tuus that the Pope's teaching on consecration or entrustment to Mary forms an important component of his "ordinary magisterium"and that he has brought this doctrine to a new level of importance.
I believe that a similar case may be made for his teaching on Mary's altogether unique role in the work of our redemption and even for his use of the term Coredemptrix. I would certainly not argue that his use of the word Coredemptrix occurs in papal documents of the highest teaching authority or that he has proclaimed the doctrine or used the word in the most solemn manner. I do believe, however, that my presentation here and in the other essays that I have written on this topic demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Holy Father's teaching on Mary's unique collaboration in and contribution to the work of our redemption has brought the teaching to a new clarity and is an unmistakable component of his ordinary magisterium -- precisely on the basis of the second criterion indicated in Lumen Gentium #25, the frequency with which he has proposed this doctrine. I will go further and argue that six instances of his use of the term Coredemptrix to characterize Our Lady's collaboration in the work of our redemption -- especially in the light of previous magisterial usage -- do not deserve to be cavalierly dismissed as "marginal [and] therefore devoid of doctrinal weight".
I am grateful to Father Ignazio Calabuig, O.S.M., one of the signers of the Czestochowa Declaration and President of the Pontifical Faculty Marianum, and his colleagues who have recently acknowledged that my study of the use of the term Coredemptrix published in Maria Corredentrice: Storia e Teologia I was done with praiseworthy precision and clearly indicates that the title is not proscribed and is susceptible of a correct reading. I still respectfully disagree with them, however, when they state that the word occurs only in documents of a non-magisterial character.
While granting that five of Pope John Paul II's usages of the term were passing references, I do not believe that these should be undervalued any more than the three usages by Roman Congregations at the beginning of the last century or the three usages by Pope Pius XI. These are a testimony to the Church's living tradition and to the legitimate employment of the term. What I wish to present here as a conclusion and recapitulation of this study, however, is a very deliberate use of the terminology of Coredemption by Pope John Paul II in which he teaches the doctrine with clarity and summarizes his teaching by speaking of "Mary's role as Coredemptrix".
On 31 January 1985, in an address at the Marian shrine in Guayaquil, Ecuador, he spoke thus:
Mary goes before us and accompanies us. The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the "yes" of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption; ... Crucified spiritually with her crucified son (cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she "lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth" (Lumen Gentium, 58). ...
In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church; her maternal heart shared to the very depths the will of Christ "to gather into one all the dispersed children of God" (Jn. 11:52). Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity. ...
The Gospels do not tell us of an appearance of the risen Christ to Mary. Nevertheless, as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary's role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.
This excerpt from the Holy Father's homily constitutes in itself a magnificent catechesis on the various ways in which Mary collaborated in the work of our redemption. Let us note how carefully the Pope develops this theme.
1. First he underscores that Mary's cooperation with God's plan for our salvation actually began with Mary's Immaculate Conception. He created her full of grace precisely in view of the role which he had predestined for her. This gift of being totally transformed by grace from the first moment of her existence in her mother's womb was so that her cooperation with God's designs would be unimpeded by the pull of the flesh. As he said so beautifully on 29 May 1996, "Christ is all holy by virtue of the grace that in his humanity derives from the divine person: Mary is all holy by virtue of the grace received by the merits of the Saviour."
2. Next he points out that her collaboration becomes deliberate and explicit in her response to the angel: "Let it be done to me according to your word" (Lk. 1:38). As he was later to declare in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitć, "The 'yes' spoken on the day of the Annunciation reaches full maturity on the day of the Cross"
3. Then the Pope delineates Mary's interior dispositions on Calvary. He describes her as "accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son" and cites here the classic text of the Second Vatican Council about how Mary "lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth" (Lumen Gentium, 58). He would present this reality in his catechesis of 2 April 1997 by stating that
The Council text also stresses that her consent to Jesus' immolation is not passive acceptance but a genuine act of love, by which she offers her Son as a "victim" of expiation for the sins of all humanity.
4. Integral to her offering of Jesus as victim to the Father is her offering of herself in union with him. The Holy Father stresses that Mary "united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church". Thus he underscores the fact that, though secondary and subordinate to Jesus' all-sufficient sacrifice, Mary's sacrifice cannot be separated from that of her son. We have seen how beautifully he recapitulated this idea in his catechesis of 17 September 1997 utilizing the same scripture text which he used in his homily in Guayaquil:
The Evangelist himself, by saying that Jesus had to die "to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad" (Jn. 11:52), indicates the Church's birth as the fruit of the redemptive sacrifice with which Mary is maternally associated.
5. Precisely because Mary is a co-offerer of the sacrifice of Calvary, John Paul II describes her as "crucified spiritually with her crucified son". This may at first seem to be a shocking assertion, even an exaggeration, until the Pope provides us with his point of reference, Saint Paul's bold declaration to the Galatians: "I have been crucified with Christ" (2:20). If the Apostle of the Gentiles can say this of himself and invite us to be imitators of him (cf. I Cor. 4:16; Phil. 3:17), how much more can this be attributed to Mary, the "New Eve," she who collaborates with Jesus in bringing forth the Church? The Pope presented the reality of Mary's co-suffering with Christ in order to bring forth the Church in terms of Revelation 12:2 on 17 September 1997 when he stated that
On Calvary, Mary united herself to the sacrifice of her Son and made her own maternal contribution to the work of salvation, which took the form of labour pains, the birth of the new humanity.
I submit that all of the doctrinal richness of the numerous texts we have explored above is neatly synthesized by the Pope in his reference to Mary's "role as Coredemptrix" and that the homily at Guayaquil, far from being "marginal [and] therefore devoid of doctrinal weight" is a magisterial text of notable value.
Laus Cordibus Jesu Virginisque Matris Eius
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
AAS Acta Apostolicć Sedis (1909 -- ).
Flannery Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1975).
Foundations I Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., (ed.), Mary -- Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate -- Theological Foundations -- Towards a Papal Definition? (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1995).
Foundations II Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., (ed.), Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Theological Foundations II: Papal, Pneumatological, Ecumenical (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1997).
Inseg Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, I (1978 ) (Cittŕ del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1979 ).
MCat Pope John Paul II, Theotókos - Woman, Mother, Disciple: A Catechesis on Mary, Mother of God with a Foreword by Eamon R. Carroll, O.Carm, S.T.D. (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 2000).
MMC Arthur Burton Calkins, "Il Mistero di Maria Corredentrice nel Magistero Pontificio" in Autori Vari, Maria Corredentrice: Storia e Teologia I (Frigento [AV]: Casa Mariana Editrice «Bibliotheca Corredemptionis B. V. Marić» Studi e Ricerche 1, 1998) 141-220
Messages Messages of John Paul II: Servant of Truth (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1979).
OR L'Osservatore Romano, daily Italian edition.
ORE L'Osservatore Romano, weekly edition in English. First number = cumulative edition number; second number = page.
Totus Tuus Arthur Burton Calkins, Totus Tuus: John Paul II's Program of Marian Consecration and Entrustment (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate "Studies and Texts," No. 1, 1992).
 The Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum (henceforth referred to as DV) #8 (Flannery 754).
 DV #10 (Flannery 755).
 Cf. The Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (henceforth referred to as LG) #18-25.
 "Il Mistero di Maria Corredentrice nel Magistero Pontificio" in Autori Vari, Maria Corredentrice: Storia e Teologia I (Frigento [AV]: Casa Mariana Editrice «Bibliotheca Corredemptionis B. V. Mariae» Studi e Ricerche 1, 1998) 141-220. Henceforth referred to as MMC. Cf. Key to Abbreviations on the last page.
 S. Tommaso Teologo: Ricerche in occasione dei due centenari accademici (Cittŕ del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana "Studi Tomistici #59," 1995) 320-335. An Italian translation entitled "Il Cuore di Maria Corredentrice nel Magistero di papa Giovanni Paolo II" was published in Corredemptrix: Annali Mariani 1996 del Santuario dell'Addolorata (Castelpetroso, Isernia, 1997) 97-114.
 "Pope John Paul II's Teaching on Marian Coredemption," Miles Immaculatć XXXII (Luglio/Dicembre 1996) 474-508.
 Foundations II 113-147.
 "'Towards Another Marian Dogma?' A Response to Father Angelo Amato," Marianum LIX (1997) 159-167. An Italian translation under the title of "Verso un'altro Dogma Mariano?" was published in Eco del Santuario dell'Addolorata (N. 3, Maggio-Giugno 1998) 6-12.
 Angelo Amato, S.D.B., "Verso Un Altro Dogma Mariano?", Marianum LVIII (1996) 229-232.
 "The Case for New Marian Titles," Soul 49, No. 1 (January-February 1998) 20-21, 27; "Correcting Misleading Impressions," Soul 49, No. 2 (March-April 1998) 22-23, 27; "Zeroing in on the Term Coredemptrix," Soul 49, No. 3 (May-June 1998) 26-27.
 "A Response to the Declaration of the Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy" in Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., (ed.), Contemporary Insights on a Fifth Marian Dogma; Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations III (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 2000) 125-134. Unfortunately the last paragraph on p. 134 was changed without my permission. The first of these articles was also translated into German and the others were summarized in Paul Maria Sigl, Die Frau Aller Völker: Miterlöserin, Mittlerin, Fürsprecherin (Goldach, Schweiz: Schmid-Fehr, 1998) 95-101.
 "Amorosamente consenziente al sacrificio del Figlio: Maria Corredentrice nei discorsi di Giovanni Paolo II," Madre di Dio 67, N° 11 (Novembre 1999) 28-29.
 LG #25. For a further discussion on how the ordinary magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff may be recognized, cf. Arthur Burton Calkins, Totus Tuus: John Paul II's Program of Marian Consecration and Entrustment (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, third printing 1997) 266-269.
 LG #54.
 Giovanni Paolo II, Maria Madre di Cristo e della Chiesa: Catechesi mariane a cura e commento del Cardinale Vincenzo Fagiolo (Casale Monferrato [AL]; Edizioni Piemme, 1998) 5 (my trans.).
 By his treatment of "maternal mediation" in his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Mater (#38-50) he had already put the spotlight on a theme that many post-conciliar Mariologists had consigned to past history. Cf. Totus Tuus 180-188.
 Cf. Michael O'Carroll, C.S.Sp., Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc.; Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1982) 308.
 Cf. Michael O'Carroll, C.S.Sp., "Mary's Mediation: Vatican II and John Paul II" in Virgo Liber Verbi: Miscellanea di studi in onore di P. Giuseppe M. Besutti, O.S.M. (Rome: Edizioni «Marianum», 1991) 543; Theotokos 352. In the latter article Father O'Carroll gives the number of Father asking for a statement on Mary's mediation as 382.
 Inseg XVIII/2 (1995) 1369-1370 [ORE 1421:13; MCat 51-52]. Italics my own.
 Giovanni Paolo II, Maria nel Mistero di Cristo e della Chiesa (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998). The Italian texts are also reproduced in Cardinal Fagiolo's volume cited above with his commentary. The first four volumes in the series on the Creed are devoted respectively to the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Church.
 Inseg XVIII/2 (1995) 934-935 [ORE 1414:11; MCat 25-27].
 Inseg XVIII/2 (1995) 1123 [ORE 1417:11; MCat 34].
 Inseg XVIII/2 (1995) 1318-1319 [ORE 1420:11; MCat 45-46].
 Inseg XX/1 (1997) 621-622 [ORE 1487:7; MCat 185-186].
 Inseg XVIII/2 (1995) 1369; ORE 1421:13; MCat 51.
 Inseg XIX/1 (1996) 853-854 [ORE 1435:3; MCat 75].
 Inseg XIX/1 (1996) 10 [ORE 1423:11; MCat 54].
 Cf. my treatment of this theme in "Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate in the Contemporary Roman Liturgy," Foundations I 55-57.
 Cf. my treatment of this theme in MMC 179-18.
 Cf. my treatment in "Pope John Paul II's Teaching on Marian Coredemption," Foundations II 128-132.
 Inseg XX/2 (1997) 565 [ORE 1513:11; MCat 246].
 Inseg XIX/1 (1996) 116 [ORE 1426:11; MCat 62].
 Inseg XIX/1 (1996) 1392 [ORE 1444:11; MCat 96].
 Inseg XX/1 (1997) 750-751 [ORE 1489:11, MCat 189-190].
 Inseg XX/1 (1997) 622 [ORE 1487:7; MCat 186].
 Inseg XX/2 (1997) 35 [ORE 1500:7; MCat 208]. Italics my own.
 Cf. my treatment of this matter in Totus Tuus 162-168.
 Inseg XX/2 (1997) 56 [ORE 1502:7; MCat 210]. Italics my own.
 For the magisterial background and foundation for this analogy, cf. Totus Tuus 85-86, 102-105.
 Flannery 416.
 Inseg XVIII/1 (1995) 731; AAS LXXXVII (1995) 520 [ORE 1385:XIX].
 Inseg XIX/2 (1996) 491-492 [ORE 1461:11; MCat 141].
 Inseg VI/1 (1983) 1136 [ORE 783:1].
 OR 6 settembre 1996, p. 4 [ORE 1461:8].
 Stefano M. Manelli, All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed: Biblical Mariology trans. Peter Damian Fehlner, F.I. (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 1995) 235-250.
 Ignazio M. Calabuig, O.S.M., "La Vergine offerente, modello della Chiesa che offre e si offre: Spunti dalla liturgia romana," in Ermanno M. Toniolo, O.S.M. (ed.), Maria e L'Eucaristia: "Fine d'Anno con Maria" 20 (Rome: Centro di Cultura Mariana «Madre della Chiesa», 2000) 259-296.
 Inseg XVIII/2 (1995) 935 [ORE 1414:11; MCat 26]. On St. Bernard's interpretation of the presentation, cf. Calabuig 272-281.
 Cf. Calabuig 265-281.
 Inseg VI/1 (1983) 1136-1137 [ORE 783:1]. Italics my own.
 Inseg XX/1 (1997) 25, 26 [ORE 1476:3]. Italics my own.
 Cf. my treatment of this theme in MMC 189-212.
 Inseg XX/1 (1997) 29, 30 [ORE 1474:11; MCat 161, 162]. Italics my own except for under and with him.
 Inseg XIX/2 (1996) 1046-1047, 1048; [ORE 1472:11; MCat 158-159, 160]. Italics my own.
 Flannery 417. Italics my own. I have changed the word "associated" to "associating".
 The expression quantum ad se pertinebat occurs in his Letter Inter Sodalicia of 22 May 1918 [AAS 10 (1918) 181-182]. Some of the language of the former document [non sine divino consilio, Filium immolavit] is incorporated into the text of Lumen Gentium #58, but without being cited in the footnote. Cf. my commentary on this text in MMC 191-193.
 I have treated these two dimensions separately in MMC 188-212 and in my study in Foundations II 132-140.
 Inseg XX/1 (1997) 621 [ORE 1487:7; MCat 185].
 Inseg XX/1 (1997) 572 [ORE 1486:11; MCat 183]. Italics my own.
 Inseg XX/2 (1997) 297 [ORE 1508:7; MCat 232].
 OR 24 febbraio 2000, p. 7 [ORE 1632:11]. Italics my own.
 Cf. my treatment of the sacrifice of Mary's maternal Heart in MMC 213-218; Foundations II 140-144. For a more detailed study of the Heart of Mary as a symbol of her collaboration in the work of our salvation, cf. my article, "The Heart of Mary as Coredemptrix in the Magisterium of Pope John Paul II" in S. Tommaso Teologo: Ricerche in occasione dei due centenari accademici (Cittŕ del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana «Studi Tomistici #59», 1995) 320-335; An Italian trans. "Il Cuore di Maria Corredentrice nel Magistero di papa Giovanni Paolo II" was published in Corredemptrix: Annali Mariani 1996 del Santuario dell'Addolorata (Castelpetroso, Isernia, 1997) 97-114.
 Inseg XIX/1 (1996) 1391 [ORE 1444:11; MCat 95].
 Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Vol. I: Sacramentary (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1992) 117; original Latin text in Collectio Missarum de Beata Maria Virgine I (Cittŕ del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1987) 49. Italics my own.
 On the concept of Mary as associate or partner in the work of salvation according to the liturgy, cf. my study in Foundations I 52-54. On this same concept according to the magisterium, cf. my studies in MMC 167-179 and in Foundations II 1126-127.
 Roman Missal, Preface of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
 Inseg XIX/1 (1996) 1392 [ORE 1444:11; MCat 96]. Italics my own.
 Inseg XX/2 (1997) 331 [ORE 1509:11; MCat 234]. Italics my own.
 Cf. my article on "Mary's Presence in the Mass," Homiletic & Pastoral Review XCVII, No. 10 (July 1997) 8-15.
 Inseg XIX/1 (1996) 1344 [ORE 1446:6].
 Inseg XVIII/2 (1995) 54 [ORE 1399:3].
 With apologies to Father Aidan Nichols, O.P. I would put his proposal of "The Redemptive Collaboratrix" among these. Cf. his article "Von Balthasar and the Coredemption" in Mary at the Foot of the Cross: Acts of the International Symposium on Marian Coredemption (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 2001) 314.
 Cf. Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1993) xv; MMC 147-148; Foundations II 117-118.
 Cf. Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., "Our Lady's Coredemption," Mariology 2 (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1957) 398-400; René Laurentin, Le titre de Corédemptrice: Étude historique (Rome: Éditions «Marianum», 1951) 15-16; Gabriele Roschini, O.S.M., Problematica sulla Corredenzione (Rome: Edizioni «Marianum», 1969) 15-17.
 Cf. MMC 149-151.
 Cf. MMC 151-153.
 Cf. Alessandro M. Apollonio, F.I., Il "calvario teologico" della Corredenzione mariana (Castelpetroso: Casa Mariana Editrice, 1999) 7-8.
 Cf. my treatment in Foundations II 119 and MMC 155-156.
 Cf. my article "'Towards Another Marian Dogma?' A Response to Father Angelo Amato," Marianum LIX (1997) 163-165.
 I have enumerated five of these instances in Foundations II 121-124 and in MMC 161-166. Since then I have found a sixth instance in an address to the sick and those who serve them on 24 March 1990 in which the Pope describes Mary as the "Coredemptrix of the human race next to her Son" [Corredentrice del genere umano accanto al suo Figlio] in Inseg XIII/1 (1990) 743.
 Inseg IV/1 (1981) 896; V/1 (1982) 91; XI/2 (1988) 1216.
 OR 4 Giugno 1997, p. 10 [ORE 1494:12].
 OR 4 Giugno 1997, p. 10 [ORE 1497:10].
 OR 4 Giugno 1997, p. 10-11 [ORE 1498:9-10].
 OR 4 Giugno 1997, p. 10 [ORE 1497:10].
 Flannery 379. I have added the numbers.
 Cf. Totus Tuus 266-269.
 The Italian speaks of documenti pontifici secondari, e quindi senza peso dottrinale.
 Ignazio M. Calabuig, O.S.M. e il Comitato di redazione della rivista Marianum, "Riflessione sulla richiesta della definizione dogmatica di «Maria corredentrice, mediatrice, avvocata»," Marianum LXI (1999) 157 n. 50.
 Inseg VIII/1 (1985) 318-319 [ORE 876:7]; Italics my own.
 Inseg XIX/1 (1996) 1392 [ORE 1444:11; MCat 96]. Italics my own.
 Inseg XVIII/1 (1995) 731; AAS LXXXVII (1995) 520 [ORE 1385:XIX].
 Inseg XX/1 (1997) 572 [ORE 1486:11; MCat 183].
 Inseg XX/2 (1997) 331 [ORE 1509:11; MCat 234].
 Inseg XX/2 (1997) 331 [ORE 1509:11; MCat 234].
The above paper first appeared in Mary at the Foot of the Cross - II (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 2002 and is reproduced with permission.