Father Vincenzo M. La Mendola, C.Ss.R., offers a guided reading of “Mater Populi Fidelis,” a doctrinal note issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the aim of providing clarity and tools for discernment regarding Mary’s role in salvation history. The author’s contribution consists in providing interpretations and clarifications that help place Marian titles in their proper theological perspective, enhancing dialogue and growth in faith.
Father La Mendola refers to some controversial voices that have been heard, and tries to explain that the note does not define new dogmas, but rather provides theological guidance for the use of terms such as “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix,” suggesting the preference for expressions that avoid misunderstandings and reaffirming that Mary’s cooperation is unique but subordinate to Christ. The titles are not abolished, but their liturgical and pastoral use is discouraged, promoting a clearer reflection that is more faithful to the Church’s tradition.
Regarding the Doctrinal Note, issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
Some keys to understanding, clarifications and an introduction to reading
A necessary premise
On 7 October 2025, Pope Leo XIV signed Mater Populi fidelis, a Doctrinal Note on some Marian titles referring to Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and made public on 4 November last.
The news, spread in real time, has sparked mixed reactions. It is undoubtedly a sign of ecclesial vitality. We all care that Mary’s role in the history of salvation is not diminished or called into question.
One gets the impression, scrolling through some social media pages and reading the related comments, that few have read the entire text of the Note. Very few have studied and reflected on it, seriously and calmly, without any bias or prejudice, which, in some cases, could border on ideology.
When faced with a document of the Magisterium of the Church, we are not asked to argue, because not all of us have the means to do so correctly, remaining within the limits of a scientific debate, and because it is not always necessary. But we are certainly asked to question ourselves, in the common search for the Truth. Arguing without understanding is not a sign of intellectual honesty. Mariologists are the first to enlighten us on this complex topic. However, it is equally legitimate for those unfamiliar with this discipline to offer their own considerations on the document. But the difference lies in how we approach it. Do we have the right credentials to set ourselves up as its examiners, censors, and judges, or do we wish to understand its contents? Only after having understood and internalized can we offer our reflections and initiate a constructive debate, motivated by the search for the Truth.
I am equally convinced that no one can diminish or enhance the value of Mary’s role in the history of salvation, which has its objective validity and effectiveness, regardless of human reasoning. The Church, teacher of Truth, wishes to safeguard this truth and transmit it to humanity, as is her duty. And in this mandate, received from Christ, she is assisted by the Holy Spirit and acts with Christ’s authority. Without these convictions, one places oneself outside of ecclesial communion. The baptized are not the judges of the teaching of the Church— their Mother —but children—who listen, desire to understand, and grow in knowledge of the faith and its individual contents. The Church is at the service of humanity and of Truth. And it is within this horizon that she acts when she exercises her munus docendi.
Divided into 80 numbers, the Note consists of an Introduction and four chapters, dedicated to the Marian titles: Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Mother of Believers, Mother of Grace. The title Mater Populi fidelis is taken from Saint Augustine.
The central theme is the correct association of Mary with the saving work of Christ, in light of the principle of the “hierarchy of truths”, indicated by the Second Vatican Council: in order to “maintain the necessary balance which, within the Christian mysteries, must be established between the unique mediation of Christ and the cooperation of Mary in the work of salvation, and it also wishes to show how this is expressed in different Marian titles” (n. 3).
The criterion regarding the hierarchia veritatum — inserted in the schema de oecumenismo, which later became the conciliar decree Unitatis redintegratio — came from the intervention of Monsignor Andrea Pangrazio, bishop of Gorizia-Gradisca, on 25 November 1963, where he distinguished: «There are some truths that belong to the order of the end: for example the mystery of the Holy Trinity, of the Incarnation of the Word and of the Redemption […]. Then there are other truths that concern the order of the means of salvation, for example the truths regarding the seven-fold number of the sacraments […]»2.
The role of the Virgin Mary in the economy of salvation was developed by the Council and is clear about her function in the order of means: “She cooperated in a very special way in the work of the Savior, by her obedience, faith, hope and ardent charity, for the restoration of supernatural life to souls. For this reason she became a mother to us in the order of grace” (LG 61).
Given these premises, which are useful for those preparing to read the text, we note that the Note presents a novel element: Mary is presented as a “privileged witness” to the events attested by the Gospels: “Among these eyewitnesses, Mary stands out, directly involved in the conception, birth, and childhood of the Lord Jesus” (no. 7), in the Passion, and in Pentecost. This is an aspect largely overlooked by New Testament exegesis, which has so far hesitated to recognize Mary’s true value among the most significant witnesses to the Gospel narrative, particularly in Luke, and which the theological reflection in question highlights.
Some clarifications
Some aspects need to be clarified, which are equally preparatory to reading the text and useful for clearing up potential misunderstandings.
- The Note is not a dogmatic definition, but a theological reflection intended to serve the faith of God’s people. It neither prohibits nor defines but rather guides. It does not impose but suggests a prudential path.
- The theological reflection proposed therein does not deny the Marian titles mentioned but rather places them in their correct theological perspective. The Blessed Virgin Mary’s contribution to the work of Redemption, in fact, cannot be understood in its authentic meaning if deprived of its connection with Christ, the sole Redeemer and sole Mediator of the new and eternal covenant. The document does not intend to introduce new definitions, nor to deny those already in use. It contains no prohibitions or new doctrinal developments regarding revealed truth.
- The Note does not intend to reject or prohibit the faithful’s expressions of piety —which are indeed highlighted in several passages of the text—but rather to restore them to their correct theological value, so that the figure and work of Mary may be fully understood and inserted into the history of salvation. There is indeed a risk—not to be underestimated—that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s cooperation in the work of Redemption may be distorted by excessive interpretations and misunderstood in its true meaning, when what prevails is not revealed truth but excessive “devotionalism,” often sentimental and poorly grounded in theology.
- The reflection outlined in the document focuses on Marian language, its meaning, and its use today. And it reiterates, in case it was not clear, that it must always remain anchored to the Christological and Trinitarian dimension, horizons within which Mary’s participation in the Redemption is inscribed. All the titles that the piety of the faithful attributes to the Mother of God, in fact, must be in full harmony with the economy of salvation and must clearly express her participation in the mystery of Christ. She, for her part, adhered to it with her free assent and participated in it in a singular and personal way. This is the essence. Language is the form that expresses this truth, which cannot be addressed in isolation but requires a broader exploration, proposed in the Note in question.
- What is set out in the Note is not definitive and does not close the question, but it is clarifying, marking a step in the theological debate – which remains open – on the role and participation of the Virgin in the mystery of Redemption.
- The Note does not define as “erroneous” the use that some saints, spiritual authors, theologians and pontiffs have made of the title “Co-Redemptrix”, but notes that it has been used without being explained, as in the case of St. John Paul II. The Second Vatican Council – the text notes – avoided using the title of Co-Redemptrix for dogmatic, pastoral and ecumenical reasons» (n. 18).
- The well-reasoned reflection, however, focuses on the “inadequacy” this lemma may have in the current context. Therefore, no doctrinal judgment is made on the matter, but a consideration is offered on the validity of the term, used in the past, where its understanding was not compromised, but no longer appropriate in today’s communicative context. It is not stated that the term is false, but it is noted that it is susceptible to misunderstanding.
- The term “co-redeemer” in fact, in today’s language, could indicate a double redemption, or it could imply that the Work of Redemption has two actors , and therefore convey the message – theologically erroneous – that Mary was co-author of the Redemption, together with her Son. The Note , citing St. Augustine, St. Bernard and other authors, proposes as an alternative the use of the terms “cooperation” and “collaboration”, which clearly express Mary’s action, united with Christ, as well as her subordination to Him (n. 9) and are equally valid and used since antiquity. Mary’s participation is not denied, which has an explicit foundation in Sacred Scripture (n. 5), but it is intended to protect it from misunderstandings by preserving its authentic meaning.
- Advising against the use of a word does not mean denying the truth it has expressed thus far but rather finding other words—more appropriate and more suitable—to express the same truth. The text reflects on the “inappropriateness” or “inappropriateness” of using a term. It is well known that language evolves and that a word can be used differently over time. Theological reflection indicates that the way in which the truth in question is expressed can be reformulated, not to diminish its scope, but to make its authentic meaning more intelligible.
- “Co-redemption” is not denied—but the use of the term is regulated, seeking a clearer language that does not require constant explanation. The doctrine, therefore, remains unchanged —and could not be otherwise—because the Magisterium of the Church cannot contradict itself.
The use of the titles “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix”
Even words can become “fragile” and lose some of the iconic and immediate power they once had. Human language is constantly evolving, like humanity itself.
In Christian tradition, these two titles originate and are used to indicate the Blessed Virgin Mary’s cooperation in the Redemption. Their use, if not correctly explained, can lead to ambiguity.
- “Co-Redemptrix,” for example, could imply that Mary redeems together with Christ, since the “co” in everyday language indicates equality (see, for example, co-tenant, co-parish priest, co-explainer, etc.). In Mary’s case, there is not and cannot be equality with Christ, but rather free and conscious participation in his saving mission. The Virgin Mary cannot redeem, because she is not God, but she can participate in the Redemption with her free consent and with the strength of her charity, as the mother of the Savior. No one would accept the term “co-savior,” because the Savior is one. Don’t Savior and Redeemer express complementary aspects of the same truth? The stakes are high.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is associated by Jesus with his mission, and she herself, with free consent, associates herself with Jesus, being “co-redeemer” in a shared and subordinate sense , never in an absolute sense and/or as an actor (= the one who brings about) the Redemption. Her important and unique action must not obscure or diminish the uniqueness of the Redeemer and Mediator, the sole actor of the Redemption. Mary’s cooperation is real, has great value, but is not independent. She, in fact, is “the first redeemed,” previously benefiting, in her Immaculate Conception, from the Redemption, “in view of the merits of her Son.” If she was redeemed, how could she redeem? For these reasons—as the then Cardinal Ratzinger stated— the title of co-redeemer may be devout, but it is theologically inappropriate, if it is not preceded by the necessary clarification that Christ is the only Redeemer.
From these considerations, it’s easy to understand that when a word requires constant explanation and clarification to be understood and no longer has the immediate expressive force it once had, it is no longer adequate to express the truth it had previously expressed. Its generic and devotional use does not contribute to the exaltation of Mary and no longer immediately expresses what she was and is: the first and greatest collaborator in the Work of her Son’s Redemption. - The same reflection is proposed for the title of “Mediatrix,” which expresses Mary’s function towards the Church and the world, referring to her maternal intercession. And for this reason, she is endowed with a singular efficacy. Indeed, she is not the source of Grace, but the instrument, the means, the channel, the aqueduct —to use an image dear to Eastern tradition—through which Christ’s Grace reaches humanity. The Note reiterates that her maternal mediation “is entirely in Christ and for Christ,” and cannot be separated from the Son. It is a shared mediation and draws its efficacy from the unique mediation of Christ, as one of the Marian prefaces states. Even in “mediation,” there is subordination and participation. The Virgin cannot have an active role, parallel to that of the Son, which is unique, as Sacred Scripture reiterates, but shared. Even Christian believers, in fact, in different ways, participate in the Redemption of the world, with their union with Christ, prayer and the offering of themselves.
In conclusion
The two titles are not “abolished,” but their liturgical and pastoral use is discouraged. The truth thus far expressed by these two words is and remains a truth of faith, even if not the object of dogma. It can be expressed more explicitly, comprehensibly, and theologically correct by other words, which do not imply Mary’s autonomous greatness but rather clearly express her close collaboration in the Work of the Son. She is not simply placed beside the Son, but is in Him, as the “first redeemed,” “the first disciple,” “the first collaborator” in His saving mission.
Knowledge of the Note is an opportunity for enrichment and a chance to reflect on a theme absolutely dear to all Christians, and especially to those who show particular devotion to the Holy Mother of God and intend to glorify her, as the Church has done and continues to do, in its two-thousand-year-old theological, euchological (non comparable), and iconographic tradition.
Fr. Vincenzo M. La Mendola, C.Ss.R.
