On 4 November 2025, the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, presented a new doctrinal note, Mater Populi Fidelis (MPF), on some Marian titles regarding Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation. This is the first time that the most important dicastery of the Roman Curia has devoted such great attention to Marian soteriology, and for this reason we cannot but rejoice. A document comprised of 80 paragraphs and 197 footnotes is, by no means, insignificant. The biblical aspect is treated with great precision. Indeed, upon reading the introductory section, one is pleasantly struck by a statement that stands in clear contrast to the prevailing historical-critical exegetical milieu in vogue. It states that Genesis 3:15 prefigures, in Eve, the Virgin Mary, “the Woman who shares in the definitive victory over the serpent” (n. 5). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Jesus addresses his mother as “Woman” at Cana (cf. Jn 2:4) and at the “hour” of the Cross (cf. n. 5).
It would have sufficed to draw the theological conclusions from this solid biblical framework to affirm, with a long line of Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church and, not least, Lumen gentium, with the help of great theologians, that the Virgin Mary cooperates actively and directly in the work of Redemption; namely, that Mary contributes to our salvation, in a manner subordinate to Christ, with what is properly hers: her merit, her love as Mother and her oblative act, participating with Jesus in the salvation of humanity, and with Him in the distribution of grace and all divine favours.
Instead, MPF takes a different path. On the one hand, it does not wish to place limits on Mariological development (cf. Presentation), but on the other, it seeks with great ecumenical zeal to minimise Mary’s contribution to our salvation, reducing it to merely disposing the faithful to receive everything, and only, from God. Let us look in detail at what the Note teaches, and at its obvious limitations.
Mary’s cooperation in the Redemption: quid est?
Without a doubt, Mary’s cooperation in the Redemption, defined as “unique” by Lumen gentium 61 (“operi Salvatoris singulari prorsus modo cooperata est”), occupies the central part of the document. MPF 3 asks: “What is the meaning of Mary’s unique cooperation in the plan of salvation?,” referencing in a footnote a catechesis by John Paul II, delivered on 9 April 1997, in which the Polish Pontiff says the opposite of what MPF will affirm, declaring instead that “in union with Christ and subject to Him, she cooperated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity.”
In MPF 15, it seems that Mary’s cooperation is resolved in her divine maternity. Everything is focused on Mary’s divine and active motherhood, not only as the root but also as the development and culmination of her cooperation in our salvation. In other words, Mary’s active cooperation refers to her divine motherhood and not to her spiritual motherhood in relation to us. This is confirmed in no. 26, where Mary’s real mediation is presented in reference to the Incarnation: “Mary’s response opened the gates of the Redemption that all humanity had awaited.” This mediation is also seen as operative at Cana, but not on Calvary (cf. no. 26).
Furthermore, footnote 32 illustrates the mens [mind] of the document. Leveraging the fact that theologians have differing opinions about Mary’s active cooperation, MPF feels authorised to intervene in order to resolve the diversity of opinions and resulting confusion—adopting a radical and unusual method for a Dicastery that ought instead to stand above theological opinions. On the one hand, it rejects the title “Co-redemptrix”; and on the other, it (inevitably) chooses from the three theological positions listed, the receptive—and, in any case, minimalist—one: that of immediate receptive or ecclesiotypical cooperation.[1] It tries to remain in the middle, when instead the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith ought to stand above. Proof of this is found in no. 20, which states: “Such praise for the unique place of Christ calls us to situate every creature in a clearly receptive position in relation to him and to exercise careful, reverent caution whenever proposing any form of possible cooperation with him in the realm of Redemption.”
It is the “maximalist” Mariological tenor of the Popes who used the term “Co-redemptrix” that MPF finds disagreeable; for this reason, it is stated in no. 18 that the Pontiffs who taught Mary’s co-redemption did not explain the term. In other words, they are reproached for having taught a truth while leaving the faithful in doubt and error. In truth, if the Pontiffs used this term, that fact shows that it was not only well understood, but also entirely appropriate and Catholic. Now, out of the blue, “Co-redemptrix” becomes an ambiguous title. According to MPF 22, it is “always inappropriate” to use it because it would obscure Christ’s unique saving mediation. As if to say that Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, John Paul II, and Paul VI were simply ignorant—to say the least.
In reality, the problem raised by this Note is not the title “Co-redemptrix,” but rather Mary’s unique cooperation in the Redemption, as recently explained by Lumen gentium in light of previous teaching. The subject is mentioned in a few paragraphs, but its precise meaning is never clearly explained. MFP no. 36 seems to be the most relevant for this purpose, but when read carefully, one sees the ecclesiotypical narrowing of this cooperation: Mary cooperates as the Church does. The highest point of this ecclesiotypism is reached in no. 37c, which quotes Pope Francis: “As Mother, Mary waits for Christ to be begotten in us and does not take his place.” It is also worth noting that while at the beginning the document affirms, with Paul VI, that Mary is the mother of the whole Christ because she gave birth to both Head and members by virtue of her faith (no. 35), it concludes the ecclesiotypical excursus that significantly narrows her cooperation, affirming with Pope Francis what has just been cited. Between Mary, Mother of the Church, who generates by virtue of her faith, and Mary who hopes that Christ will be begotten in us, there lies a significant reductionism.
Furthermore, if there is no sacrificial dimension to Mary’s cooperation in the Redemption, it follows logically and consistently that there will be no singular and meritorious contribution on her part. Among the many rich citations in MPF, there is one great absentee: Lumen gentium 58, which clearly reiterates the previous magisterium (particularly Benedict XV, in Inter sodalicia) concerning the active and oblative role of the Virgin.
In addition to this reticence regarding Mary’s offertorial role, her merit is likewise passed over in silence. If Mary has no personal merit in the oblation of her Son—and of herself in her Son—foreshadowing what the Church herself would later do, then she does not cooperate in a singular way in redemption, but only in an ecclesiotypical and receptive manner. This is further confirmed by the fact that no. 37a explicitly excludes that Mary’s intercession has the character of priestly mediation like that of Christ. Does the document therefore exclude Mary’s participation in the priesthood of Christ, while Lumen gentium 10 postulates it for all Christians, who are a priestly people, participants in the royal priesthood? Are the faithful people greater than Mary Most Holy? All this once again seems to confirm the receptive approach that is imposed on Mary’s cooperation and its unbalanced ecclesiotypical dimension: the Church, more than Mary. This brings us, then, to the question of Marian mediation.
Mediation: the most problematic Marian title
In MPF 28, the Note seems to suggest that Mary’s entire mediation consists in the fact that she occupies a unique place in the Church. The synthesis of this Note on Mary’s mediation in Christ’s mediation is found in no. 32, which reads as follows:
“She is the Mother who gave the world the Author of Redemption and of Grace, who stood firm at the foot of the cross (cf. Jn 19:25), suffering alongside her Son and offering the pain of her maternal heart pierced by the sword (cf. Lk 2:35). From the Incarnation to the cross and the Resurrection, she was united to Christ in a way that is unique and that far surpasses any other believer.”
This is a significant downgrade even compared to Lumen gentium, which adds something very central, but which is absent here: Mary associated herself with a maternal spirit to the sacrifice of her Son (cf. LG 58). What does this maternal mediation consist in? Paragraph no. 33 offers an answer, but it reflects the minimalist framework of the document: Mary is a passive model for receiving salvation; she is available and allows herself to be filled by the Spirit. That is all. The fact that Mary, as Mediatrix, could obscure the unique salvific mediation of Christ casts a shadow also over this section. In fact, more than “Co-redemptrix,” the title that should raise questions is “Mediatrix,” since it would appear to directly contradict 1 Tim 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” MPF is aware of this and attempts, en passant, to first and rightly situate Mary’s mediation within the metaphysical framework of participation, but then, as it is still redundant, it is ultimately confined to a simple dispositive function (cf. n. 46).
What is Mary’s role now as Mediatrix of grace? According to MPF, the Virgin Mary is not a Mediatrix of grace (and graces). The mediation of grace is only dispositive: Mary disposes the soul to receive grace but she does not distribute it. Obviously, if the Virgin Mary has no merit, because she did not actively cooperate in the Redemption, she will not have an active role in the distribution of grace. Grace is certainly acquired through Christ’s Redemption; Mary participated in this acquisition in a unique way, with a unique and maternal merit. However, if Mary does not have this, she cannot give it. Numbers 45-55 are an example of Marian minimalism. There is an attempt to minimise Mary’s distribution of grace using the sacramental theology of St Bonaventure, but no mention is made of the fact that the Seraphic Doctor teaches the doctrine of Co-redemption and Mediation of all graces, presenting Our Lady as the “Throne of Grace” (cf. among others: Sermone I Feria Sexta in Parasceve, Opera Omnia, vol. 9, p. 259; Sermo I De Purificatione Beatae Virginis Mariae, Opera Omnia, vol. 9, p. 640).
Reference is made to St Thomas Aquinas to argue that Christ’s humanity accepts no mediation other than itself in producing grace in the sacraments. However, it is forgotten that St Thomas distinguishes between the humanity of Christ, as an instrument joined to his divinity, and the sacrament as a separate instrument. MPF overlooks a central Thomistic point: it does not speak of the instrumental causality of Jesus’ humanity and of the sacraments. For example, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 62, aa. 3-5 (q. 63 is also important in this regard) is not cited. The Note only cites question 64 of the III pars (cf. footnotes 118 and 122)[2], thus skipping over the preceding questions, in which St. Thomas explains the manner in which the sacrament, as a sign and instrumental virtue/power, causes sanctifying grace. For Aquinas, the sacraments derive their capacity to produce grace from Christ’s Passion. If MPF had addressed this, it would have been theologically possible to explain how the Virgin Mary exercises instrumental causality in the production of grace. This applies whether one looks at her mediation from the perspective of physical causality (in a more Thomistic way) or exemplary causality, as Franciscan theologians argue. Just as the sacrament does not obscure Christ’s mediation but makes it effective, so too with Mary’s mediation, even earlier and much more effectively. Her mediation precedes the sacraments because it occurs within the very act of Redemption, in its objective moment. These are concepts that are no longer utilized and have been conspicuously omitted in MPF. However, it is not methodologically acceptable to use St Bonaventure and St Thomas to prove with their authority that Mary does not exercise any mediation.
“Mediatrix of all graces” thus becomes a problematic title, and as seems to be suggested, one to be set aside. Ratzinger is invoked to assert that this title is not based on Revelation, citing a meeting of the Feria IV (cf. note n. 98), which, if not included in an official document, remains an opinion of the Dicastery. However, MPF does not cite Pope Benedict XVI, who in his homily for the canonisation of Brother Antonio de Sant’Anna Galvão, said: “There is no fruit of grace in the history of salvation that does not have as its necessary instrument the mediation of Our Lady” (11 May 2007). For MPF, all Mary can do is intercede for us (nos. 67-68). Her mediation is reduced to intercession for the sake of imploring actual graces but not sanctifying grace. Here is a summary in no. 69, which is truly disruptive and countertrend:
“Through her intercession, Mary can implore God to grant us those internal impulses of the Holy Spirit that are called ‘actual graces.’ These are the aids given by the Holy Spirit that operate even in sinners to prepare them for justification, and that encourage those already justified by sanctifying grace to further growth. It is in this specific sense that the title ‘Mother of Grace’ must be understood.”
MPF thus employs a narrative use of Mariology whereas the systematic Mariology developed by great Mariologists, such as Gabriele Roschini, Domenico Bertetto, Carlo Balic, Brunero Gherardini and many others, is absent.
What is the doctrinal value of this Note?
This is the million-dollar question. Formally speaking, the Mariological Note approved by the Holy Father becomes part of the ordinary magisterium and therefore requires a religious assent of intellect and will, even though it belongs to the lowest magisterial level, is not infallible and is not exempt from possible error. However, looking at the substance of the document, it is evident that the doctrinal Note takes a position against the ordinary magisterium of the Popes, reiterated for more than a hundred years on the same subject. This discrepancy between form and substance has been going on for quite some time. Now, how can a document claim ordinary magisterial weight while denying that same weight to the previous magisterium? One could say that obedience to this Note can be given according to the mens of the document itself, which in the Presentation excludes the intent to impose limits, that is, to abrogate what was previously taught—according to the same degree of submission that the Note gives to the previous ordinary magisterium on the same subject.
MPF as a whole is more a theological document than a doctrinal one. It aligns itself with theology and engages in dialogue with it, rather than offering the doctrinal position of the Magisterium. It is, de facto, a theological opinion. One would not expect such a high-ranking Dicastery to choose between theological positions on Mary’s cooperation in salvation and to prefer the one that best reflects its predetermined goal. While the Dicastery welcomes sound theology, it should remain above it, but, above all, it should remain faithful to previous magisterial reiterations without mixing theological opinions and Papal magisterium. The Note has a pastoral tone, as the Magisterium of the Church seems to have become pastoral for quite some time now.
Fr. Serafino M. Lanzetta
[1] Ecclesiotypical interprets Mariology by looking at Our Lady more in her relationship with the Church, as a member of the Church, than in relation to Christ. Lumen gentium, chapter VIII, tried to overcome any unbalanced vision, by considering Our Lady in Christ and in the Church.
[2] MPF does speak of secondary or instrumental causality (cf. no 65), but by presenting it as something to be avoided when speaking of Our Lady in relation to grace. However, if this metaphysical terminology is applicable to the sacraments, why would it not be applicable to Our Lady as well?
Cover image created by Artificial Intelligence