Mater Populi Fidelis - Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles

[peregrinator]

The bigger question is "Where does it say you can't use it"?

If something is "always inappropriate" then it shouldn't be done, this isn't hard to understand.

[Doom]

So you think John Paul II's use of the title was mentioned for the purpose of condemning him? And the long section giving the history of the theology behind the doctrine, mentioning several Church Fathers and canonized saints, was done to call them out as wrong?

That is quite far from the most natural interpretation.

[peregrinator]

So you think John Paul II's use of the title was mentioned for the purpose of condemning him? And the long section giving the history of the theology behind the doctrine, mentioning several Church Fathers and canonized saints, was done to call them out as wrong?

That is quite far from the most natural interpretation.

I'm glad we're now talking about interpretation rather than what the document "literally says". In any case I'm definitely not the only person who understood the doctrinal note to mean that the title "Coredemptrix" ought not to be used, so if your interpretation is correct then it's incumbent on the DDF to offer clarification, and we see (again, after the Fiducia Supplicans fiasco) how completely unsuited Card. Fernandez is to the role to which Pope Francis appointed him.

[peregrinator]

A Dutch auxiliary criticizes Mater Populi Fidelis:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/ ... nt-on.html

[anawim]

A Dutch auxiliary criticizes Mater Populi Fidelis:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/ ... nt-on.html

A number of quotable statements in that article!

[peregrinator]

Apparently the DDF didn't consult with any Mariologists on the "doctrinal" note:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... xpert-says

Emphases mine below:

However, in the case of this doctrinal note on certain Marian titles, “no collaborating Mariologists could be found,” according to Gronchi.

The priest pointed out that neither those who teach at the Marianum Theological Faculty nor the members of the Pontifical International Marian Academy (PAMI by its Italian acronym) participated in the presentation of the document at the Jesuit Curia (administrative center), which in his opinion can be interpreted as a “silence” that “can be understood as dissent.”

I'm assuming that no Mariologist wanted his name associated with the document. Just embarrassing.

[Jack3]

So you think John Paul II's use of the title was mentioned for the purpose of condemning him? And the long section giving the history of the theology behind the doctrine, mentioning several Church Fathers and canonized saints, was done to call them out as wrong?

That is quite far from the most natural interpretation.

So how do you get around its phrase "always inappropriate", as opposed to "often inappropriate" or "inappropriate if XYZ". Your interpretation requires "always" to mean something other than "always".

[Doom]

and we see (again, after the Fiducia Supplicans fiasco) how completely unsuited Card. Fernandez is to the role to which Pope Francis appointed him.

Indeed, he is not capable of writing a coherent statement. His statement that "when a term needs repeated explanation to avoid being misunderstood" applies to pretty much everything he ever wrote. Certainly, no one has any idea what "synodality" means, despite repeated attempts to explain it.

I can point you to commentaries that I believe are informed and reach the opposite conclusion from your commentaries. The fact that two commentators can read the same document and come to opposite conclusions is itself proof that the "doctrinal note" is not as clear as such a "note" ought to be.

[Highlander]

The fact that two commentators can read the same document and come to opposite conclusions ...

... is not in the least surprising. A commentator brings his perceptions, personality, prejudices, and pressures ( four "p" ' s, eh) to whatever document he reads. The document is a lens through which the commentator selectively peers and distorts what he reads into what he wants. It is so common as to be universal.

[Doom]

Yes, but the commentaries are as varied as "this idea is being condemned" to "this idea is not being condemned," which is an extreme difference, given that we are talking about a "Doctrinal Note" which ought to be 100% unambiguous. Certainly, no one reading "Ineffiblus Deus" was unclear whether Pius IX was for or against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

When I was working on my doctoral dissertation, I would have been shocked if one of the professors on my committee read it and said "It isn't clear, are you trying to prove this assertion, or disprove it?"

[peregrinator]

LOL, I really have to hand it to Doom, he seems to have divined the esoteric meaning of Mater Populi Fideles:

https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/ca ... redemptrix

[Doom]

LOL, I really have to hand it to Doom, he seems to have divined the esoteric meaning of Mater Populi Fideles:

https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/ca ... redemptrix

I didn't "divine" anything; I read several extensive commentaries by people I trust. I just try not to read Church documents through the lenses of a hermeneutic of suspicion, assuming there is some kind of heresy to be found in it. If that is how one reads anything, one will always find what one wants. Not that I am accusing you of calling it "heretical", I'm just pointing out that such documents should be read with an open mind and one should search for continuity rather than discontinuity.

Based on the commentaries I have read, I regard it as "two steps forward, one step back"; the document teaches an extremely high Mariology and endorses the theology behind the controversial titles of Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces, even if it throws some cold water on the use of those titles. Never before has an official document by the Church spoken so highly of Mary. And while there was a time when I was hesitant to use such language, today, whenever I hear someone speak highly about Mary, I am inclined to think, "No, you're not going high enough."

[Doom]

One such commentary is by Stephen Boyce, an Anglo-Catholic theologian and historian:

https://www.youtube.com/live/pRSzmvI3gW ... GRnbgm49lo

I would love to see you try to rebut his conclusions.

[peregrinator]

LOL, I really have to hand it to Doom, he seems to have divined the esoteric meaning of Mater Populi Fideles:

https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/ca ... redemptrix

I didn't "divine" anything; I read several extensive commentaries by people I trust. I just try not to read Church documents through the lenses of a hermeneutic of suspicion, assuming there is some kind of heresy to be found in it. If that is how one reads anything, one will always find what one wants. Not that I am accusing you of calling it "heretical", I'm just pointing out that such documents should be read with an open mind and one should search for continuity rather than discontinuity.

I just took the document at its word, and I saw others (including priests and religious) doing the same.

Based on the commentaries I have read, I regard it as "two steps forward, one step back"; the document teaches an extremely high Mariology and endorses the theology behind the controversial titles of Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces, even if it throws some cold water on the use of those titles.

But it doesn't teach a particularly high Mariology, that's the thing.

Never before has an official document by the Church spoken so highly of Mary.

I think this is demonstrably false. For example, in Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum St. Pius X writes [my emphases]:

12. Moreover it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of God, Who was to be born with human members (S. Bede Ven. L. Iv. in Luc. xl.), of which material should be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice. Hence that uninterrupted community of life and labors of the Son and the Mother, so that of both might have been uttered the words of the Psalmist "My life is consumed in sorrow and my years in groans" (Ps xxx., 11). When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore (S. Bonav. 1. Sent d. 48, ad Litt. dub. 4). And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood.

13. It cannot, of course, be denied that the dispensation of these treasures is the particular and peculiar right of Jesus Christ, for they are the exclusive fruit of His Death, who by His nature is the mediator between God and man. Nevertheless, by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the Mother and the Son, it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world with her Divine Son (Pius IX. Ineffabilis). The source, then, is Jesus Christ "of whose fullness we have all received" (John i., 16), "from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in charity" (Ephesians iv., 16). But Mary, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the channel (Serm. de temp on the Nativ. B. V. De Aquaeductu n. 4); or, if you will, the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head - We mean the neck. Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, "she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts" (Quadrag. de Evangel. aetern. Serm. x., a. 3, c. iii.).

[Doom]

Cardinal Fernandez made a statement today that he didn't mean to say the titles of "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix of all Graces" were being banned, that he meant they can be used in private devotion, but not in the liturgy. Exactly what I said, that the document says.

[Jack3]

The same stuff peregrinator linked above, right?

[peregrinator]

Cardinal Fernandez made a statement today that he didn't mean to say the titles of "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix of all Graces" were being banned, that he meant they can be used in private devotion, but not in the liturgy. Exactly what I said, that the document says.

If the document said that, then a clarification would hardly have been necessary I think you'll find that most people understood it to mean that "Coredemptrix" (e.g.) ought never to be used. Again, more confusion from the DDF.

[Jack3]

Cardinal Fernandez made a statement today that he didn't mean to say the titles of "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix of all Graces" were being banned, that he meant they can be used in private devotion, but not in the liturgy. Exactly what I said, that the document says.

If the document said that, then a clarification would hardly have been necessary

I agree with peregrinator here. Obviously, the Prefect's clarification is how the document should've been worded.

[Highlander]

A thought.

When being introduced to Catholicism, I as told this story:

A petitioner approachs a Church office with a demand for attention and action, arguing an immediate and urgent need for change. His petition is received, and over the next weeks he pesters the office, providing example after example of the dire and critical nature of the required action. Finally, an official meets with him to provide the office's response.

The official states that the office was greatly impressed by information that the petitioner provided and noted the pressing need for action. Based upon the evidence and insight now possessed by the office, the matter was now considered of the highest priority.

The petitioner is greatly relieved and asks when he might expect conclusive action. The official answers that, given the extreme importance of the issue, definitive action might come as soon as ten years.

The point was that the Church moves slowly. Its timeframe is not the timeframe of secular modernity.

Perhaps the issues on the Marian titles might have been assuaged if a few more years had been applied to consideration of the Church's position.