RORATE CÆLI: The Mother of God and salvation - an article on the Vatican Document on the Blessed Virgin

The Mother of God and salvation

by John Lamont

Faithful Catholics have rightly been outraged by the doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis published on November 4, 2025 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document was signed by Cardinal Victor Fernández, the Prefect of the Dicastery, and its publication was ordered by Pope Leo XIV. In his address to the Dicastery on January 29th 2026, Pope Leo praised and endorsed the document, describing it as 'the doctrinal Note Mater Populi fidelis, on certain Marian titles referring to Mary's cooperation in the work of salvation (4 November 2025), which encourages popular Marian devotion, deepening its biblical and theological foundations, while offering precise and important clarifications for Mariology'.

Much of the outrage at this note has focused on the rejection of the titles 'Co-Redemptrix' and 'Mediatrix' applied to the Mother of God. Less attention has been paid to the anti-Catholic theology of grace that is used to justify this rejection. The present discussion will address this theology.

Mater Populi Fidelis on the Mother of God

There is no doubt that the document's rejection of these Marian titles is wrong. In its 'Response to Mater Populi Fidelis', the International Marian Association Theological Commission listed a number of magisterial statements that contradict the position of the Doctrinal Note. The more important ones are the following:

- Pope Benedict XIV in his 1748 Bull, Gloriosae Dominae, describes the Blessed Virgin as “a celestial stream through which the flow of all graces and gifts reach the soul of all wretched mortals.”

- Bl. Pope Pius IX, in his 1849 encyclical, Ubi primum, writes: “For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation.”

- Pope Leo XIII, in his 1891 encyclical, Octobri mense, writes: “Consequently, it may be affirmed with no less truth and justice that absolutely nothing from this immense treasury of all the graces brought forth by the Lord—inasmuch as ‘grace and truth have come from Jesus Christ’ [Jn 1:17]—is imparted to us, by the will of God, except through Mary (nisi per Mariam).”13

- Pope Pius VII, in his 1806 apostolic constitution, Quod Divino afflata Spiritu, refers to Mary as the “Dispensatrix of all graces.”

- In 1921 Pope Benedict XV approves the Mass and Office of the Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces.

- Pius XII, in his apostolic constitution, Sedes sapientiae of May 31, 1956, speaks of Mary as “the One who was constituted Mediatrix of all graces regarding sanctification (“ … quae gratiarum omnium ad sanctificationem spectatium Mediatrix constituta est …”).

All of these teachings are actions and utterances of the popes themselves, rather than a note from a dicastery that is approved by a pope but not promulgated as his own teaching. They therefore have greater magisterial authority than Mater Populi Fidelis.

The International Marian Association also cites the 1967 apostolic exhortation of Paul VI, Signum Magnum, which should be cited at greater length:

Mary is the Mother of the Church not only because she is the Mother of Christ and His most intimate associate in "the new economy when the Son of God took a human nature from her, that He might in the mysteries of His flesh free man from sin," but also because "she shines forth to the whole community of the elect as a model of the virtues." Indeed, just as no human mother can limit her task to the generation of a new man but must extend it to the function of nourishing and educating her offspring, thus the blessed Virgin Mary, after participating in the redeeming sacrifice of the Son, and in such an intimate way as to deserve to be proclaimed by Him the Mother not only of His disciple John but—may we be allowed to affirm it—of mankind which he in some way represents, now continues to fulfill from heaven her maternal function as the cooperator in the birth and development of divine life in the individual souls of redeemed men ('ea caelitus nunc materno pergit munere fungi, quo ad gignendam augendamque vitam divinam in singulis hominum redemptorum animis operam confert'). This is a most consoling truth which, by the free consent of God the All-Wise, is an integrating part of the mystery of human salvation; therefore it must be held as faith by all Christians (Haec veritas et maximi solacii materiam praebet et, e libera voluntate Dei sapientissimi, pars est expletiva mysterii salutis humanae; quam ob rem ab omnibus christianis debet fide teneri.) But in what way does Mary cooperate in the growth of the members of the Mystical Body in the life of grace? First of all, by her unceasing prayers inspired by a most ardent charity. The Holy Virgin, in fact, though rejoicing in the union of the august Trinity, does not forget her Son's advancing, as she herself did in the "pilgrimage of the faith" (Lumen Gentium, n. 58). Indeed, contemplating them in God and clearly seeing their necessities, in communion with Jesus Christ, "who continues forever and is therefore able at all times to intercede for them" (Heb. 7:25), she makes herself their Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix (Lumen Gentium, n. 62). Of this intercession of hers for the People of God with the Son, the Church has been persuaded, ever since the first centuries, as testified to by this most ancient antiphon which, with some slight difference, forms part of the liturgical prayer in the East as well as in the West: "We seek refuge under the protection of your mercies, Oh Mother of God; do not reject our supplication in need but save us from perdition, O you who alone are blessed."

The definition asserts that Our Lady cooperates in the birth of divine life in the souls of individual men. The birth of divine life is the conferring of sanctifying grace. This apostolic exhortation invokes the apostolic authority of the Pope, as its title indicates. It is addressed to the entire Catholic Church, since it is addressed to all the bishops of the Catholic world. It states that the words given in bold in the original Latin in the above excerpt are part of the deposit of faith and must be held by all Christians as a matter of faith. It thus satisfies the conditions for an infallible definition of the dogma of the faith to which all Catholics must give the assent of faith. Denial of it is therefore heresy.

What are the reasons given in Mater Populi Fidelis for rejecting these Marian titles and the doctrine that underlies them? The document states:

Mary’s motherhood in the order of grace must be understood as a help in preparing us to receive God’s sanctifying grace. ... We must understand Mary’s mediation not as a complementary aid that would enable God to work fully, with greater richness, and more beauty; instead, her mediation must be understood in such a way that “it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ, the one Mediator.” When explaining Mary’s mediation, it must be emphasized that God alone is our Savior and that it is God alone who applies the merits of Jesus Christ, the only merits that are necessary and entirely sufficient for our justification. Mary does not supplant the Lord in any action he has not already done (i.e., she does not take anything away from him) nor does she supplement him (i.e., she does not add to him). Since she does not add anything to Christ’s salvific mediation in the communication of grace, she should not be regarded as the instrumental agent of that free bestowal. If she accompanies an action of Christ — by virtue of his own work — she should never be thought of as being parallel to him. Rather, being associated with Christ, Mary is the recipient of a gift from her Son that places her beyond herself, a gift that enables her to accompany the Lord’s work with her maternal character. We return, then, to the safest point, which is Mary’s contribution in preparing us to receive God’s sanctifying grace; in that context, one can indeed think of her as acting to contribute something of her own insofar as she “can cause some disposition” to others.''

...

... the term “graces,” when seen in reference to Mary’s maternal help at various moments in our lives, can have an acceptable meaning. The plural form expresses all the aids — even material — that the Lord may grant us when he heeds his Mother’s intercession. These helps, in turn, prepare our hearts to open to God’s love. In this way, Mary, as Mother, has a presence in the daily lives of the faithful that is far greater than the closeness any other saint could have. 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. She humbly cooperates so that we may open our hearts to the Lord, who alone can justify us through the action of sanctifying grace: that is, when God pours his Trinitarian life into us, dwells in us as a Friend, and makes us sharers in his divine life. This is exclusively the Lord’s own work.'

The document asserts: 'It is God alone who applies the merits of Jesus Christ'. This is correct. The gift of sanctifying grace is given solely by God's action. The question at issue is the connection between Our Lady's intercession for us and our reception of this gift of sanctifying grace. God acts freely in granting or not granting the gift of sanctifying grace. The question is: is it ever the case that the reason for God's granting the gift of sanctifying grace to a sinner is the prayer of Our Lady requesting that this gift be given? Put differently, are there any cases where the gift of sanctifying grace is given to a sinner because Our Lady prayed that this gift be given, and where that gift of sanctifying grace would not have been given if Our Lady had not prayed that it be given, all other things remaining equal?

The document gives the answer 'no' to this question. It states:

Mary’s motherhood in the order of grace must be understood as a help in preparing us to receive God’s sanctifying grace. ... Since she does not add anything to Christ’s salvific mediation in the communication of grace, she should not be regarded as the instrumental agent of that free bestowal. ... the term “graces,” when seen in reference to Mary’s maternal help at various moments in our lives, can have an acceptable meaning. The plural form expresses all the aids — even material — that the Lord may grant us when he heeds his Mother’s intercession. These helps, in turn, prepare our hearts to open to God’s love.

We should point out a non sequitur here that other commentators on the document have drawn attention to. From the premise that Mary does not add anything to Christ’s salvific mediation in the communication of grace, it does not follow that she should not be regarded as the instrumental agent of that free bestowal. An instrumental cause used by God does not add anything to the divine action, in the communication of grace or in anything else. Since such an instrumental cause is produced by God with all its characteristics, is acted upon by God to serve as an instrument, and exercises in its role as an instrument a divine power that it does not possess on its own, it does not add anything of its own to the divine action. That is the case with the sacraments, which are instrumental causes of the bestowal of grace, including sanctifying grace. When a sinner is given sanctifying grace because of the prayer of Our Lady, the prayer, the merit that gives force to the prayer, and the person praying are all themselves deliberately caused to exist by God. So it is not as if the intercession of Our Lady is an influence that is external to God's action or providential plan. Instead, when a sinner is converted and thereby saved by Our Lady's intercession, God has both chosen to save the sinner and chosen Our Lady's intercession as the means whereby He will save the sinner. He has chosen this because Mary’s mediation is in fact, contrary to the document's assertion, a complementary aid that enables God to work fully, with greater richness, and more beauty; as is the case with all the instrumental causes that God uses in promoting and bringing about our salvation, whether they be the sacraments, the Scriptures, or the prayers and sacrifices of other saints.

If this reasoning were valid, of course, it would also exclude Mary's mediation in the giving of actual graces, which like all graces also result from Christ's salvific mediation; but the document acknowledges that such mediation exists. We will not further consider this obvious inconsistency, which seems to have been introduced into the document to prevent the incredulity that would arise among Catholics if it had flatly denied that Our Lady has no role in the giving of any graces at all.

The conclusion that this fallacious reasoning seeks to establish is that Mary's intercession does not extend to the gift of sanctifying grace. Her intercession is limited to the granting of actual graces or the granting of temporal favours, like rescuing sailors from shipwreck in the way that is commemorated at the 'Bonne Mère', the cathedral of Marseille. This is the conclusion that this discussion will address.

The denial of the direct salvific worth of intercessory prayer

The sweeping nature of this conclusion does not seem to have been fully grasped by commentators on the document. It is touched upon but not fully explored by the document of the International Marian Association. The titles of Mary that are rejected by the document assert that she has a unique and universal role in mediating graces to humanity. But the position of the document does not simply deny that Our Lady after her ascension to heaven has a supreme and vital role in obtaining graces for sinners, a role that includes an involvement in the granting of all graces whatsoever to men. It denies that she has a role in the conferral of any sanctifying grace, because no-one aside from Christ Himself has a role in the conferral of sanctifying grace. This denial is necessary for its thesis, because if it is accepted that some sanctifying grace is given to sinners because of Our Lady's intercession, there is no reason for denying that all sanctifying grace is given to sinners at least partly as a result of Our Lady's intercession.

If this is true, it is futile to ask the Blessed Mother to pray for the salvation of sinners, because that salvation consists in the giving of sanctifying grace, and she is excluded from any role in the granting of sanctifying grace. She can obtain by her intercession some preconditions of salvation for sinners, but salvation itself cannot result from her intercession in any way. Not only is she not the mediatrix of all graces, she is not the mediatrix of any sanctifying grace at all.

If the Blessed Mother cannot influence the salvation of sinners, a fortiori other human beings cannot do so either. The reasons that supposedly make it impossible for her to obtain sanctifying grace for sinners by interceding for them will also apply to all other human beings, with the exception of Christ alone. It is thus futile for anyone to pray for the salvation of anyone else, or to ask for prayers for anyone's salvation. No-one can influence God to forgive a sinner and give them sanctifying grace through their prayers. It is a waste of time to do this. Not only is it futile to pray for someone else to receive sanctifying grace; it is futile for anyone except for Jesus Christ to pray to receive sanctifying grace for himself – and this is a prayer that Christ would not ever have made, because he could not ever have needed to make it, being necessarily in a state of grace from the first moment of his Incarnation. That is the position of Mater Populi Fidelis.

The outrageous and extreme character of this position has not been underlined by the faithful Catholics who oppose the document. They seem to have found it hard to take in that an official Roman document could uphold such an absurd, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian position. But that is what the document says.

Refutation of the document's position

The first objection to this position is that if the Blessed Mother can obtain sanctifying grace for us by her prayers, then it is false that no-one can obtain sanctifying grace for another by their prayers. So the position is incompatible with the teachings on the Blessed Mother herself cited above, which describe her as the mediatrix not just of all graces except for sanctifying grace, but of all graces whatsoever – which includes sanctifying grace.

All Catholics know that in the Hail Mary, we ask Our Lady to pray for us at the hour of our death. But what are we asking her to pray for at the hour of our death, and why do we continually make this prayer? Is it for the sake of a more comfortable death, the success of our tax avoidance plan to avoid death duties on our estate, or some other temporal advantage? Obviously not. It is for receiving the grace of repentance if we are not in a state of sanctifying grace, and receiving the grace of final perseverance in sanctifying grace if we already possess it.

The document's assertions are contradicted by the prayer after the 'Ave regina caelorum'; 'Concede, misericors Deus, fragilitati nostrae praesidium: ut, qui sanctae Dei Genitricis memoriam agimus; intercessionis eius auxilio, a nostris iniquitatibus resurgamus.' It is also contradicted by the prayer after the 'Regina Caeli'; 'Deus, qui per resurrectionem Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi, mundum laetificare dignatus es: praesta, quaesumus; ut per eius Genetricem Virginem Mariam, perpetuae capiamus gaudia vitae.'

The content of these antiphons is important. On the face of it, their message is an odd one. For a Catholic, there is no difficulty in the idea of asking the Mother of God to pray for our salvation. But why ask God that the Blessed Virgin ask Him to save us? What is the sense in taking this roundabout approach to asking for the prayers of the Mother of God, rather than just asking her directly? If we are asking God to do something to save us, why not just ask Him directly for our salvation, instead of asking that He being about our salvation through prompting the Mother of God to ask Him for our salvation? If He is willing to grant our prayer to get the Mother of God to ask for our salvation, and then to listen to her prayer and save us because of an intercession that she has made in the first place because we asked Him to get her to make this prayer, why would He not just listen to a straightforward request for salvation made to Him directly?

The answer to this question is that the prayer of the Mother of God has been established by God as part of the normal way to obtain salvation. Asking Him to prompt Her to ask Him for our salvation is like praying to God that our treatment by doctors should restore our health. The reason this is a proper and rational prayer is that getting medical treatment from a knowledgeable and honest doctor is the normal way to restore one's health (cf. Ecclesiasticus ch. 38: Honour the physician with the honour due him, according to your need of him, for the Lord created him; for healing comes from the Most High, and he will receive a gift from the king. ... The Lord created medicines from the earth, and a sensible man will not despise them.) In the same way, being saved through the intercession of the Mother of God is the normal path to salvation. Of course this salvation comes from Jesus Christ; but the normal way for Our Lord to give us the grace of salvation is with the intercession of his Mother and at least partly because of the intercession of His Mother. So just as if we are sick we ought to go to a good doctor and ask God that the doctor be successful in his treatment, so in order to obtain spiritual health and life we ought to ask the Mother of God for it, and ask God that her intercession be successful.

The document's position is contradicted by the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium:

62. This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source. For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.

A dogmatic constitution of a ecumenical council is of far higher authority than a doctrinal note from a dicastery. The assertions of Mater populi fidelis must therefore be rejected solely on the basis of Lumen gentium.

This contradiction between Mater populi fidelis and the Second Vatican Council is worth noting. The publicist Mike Lewis asserts: 'the restrictions on the old Latin Mass are aimed at restoring unity in the Church. ... Church leaders are concerned that many who belong to Latin Mass communities — including virtually all of their public spokespeople — openly reject the Second Vatican Council in whole or in part ...'. In his letter to the Catholic bishops of the world accompanying the motu proprio Traditionis custodes, Francis gave as one reason for his effort to eradicate the traditional Latin rite the assertion that 'the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”'.

However, the Second Vatican Council itself asserts that Mary brings us the gift of eternal salvation by her intercession after her Ascension, and that she is rightly titled Mediatrix – precisely what Mater Populi Fidelis denies. Traditionalists are united in defending the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on this subject, while the opponents of the Latin Mass within the Church are either silent or approving about the document's rejection of the conciliar teaching. This state of affairs is not limited to Marian doctrine. Most of the texts of Vatican II state traditional Catholic doctrine. Traditionalists have expressed reservations about a few passages in the texts that suggest heterodox positions, Progressives on the other hand have rejected far larger swathes of explicit conciliar teaching because of its traditional Catholic character. Traditionalists are more loyal to the teachings of that council than anyone else in the Church. The claim that the traditional Latin rite is being restricted or suppressed by progressives out of concern for the teaching of the Second Vatican Council is a false propaganda line, maintained by intimidation and control of information.

The second objection to this position is that the possibility of obtaining sanctifying grace for others through prayer is a divinely revealed truth that is clearly taught by Scripture and Tradition. Here are some examples of Scriptural passages that state it:

Romans 10:1, Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them [the Jews] is that they may be saved.

James 5:14. Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

Ephesians 3:14. For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner man, 17 and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

John 14:13 Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Hebrews 4:14. Having therefore a great high priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God: let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin. 16 Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of grace: that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid.

Colossians 1:9. Therefore we also, from the day that we heard it, cease not to pray for you, and to beg that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will, in all wisdom, and spiritual understanding: 10. That you may walk worthy of God, in all things pleasing; being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God:11. Strengthened with all might, according to the power of his glory, in all patience and longsuffering with joy ...

Obtaining sanctifying grace for our neighbour is the principal form of love of neighbour, and the principal thing that we need to do to obey the commandment to love our neighbour. It is in fact the only thing that really fulfils this commandment, since to love is to will the good of another, and the good for man lies in the salvation that is brought by sanctifying grace. Since it is only God who grants sanctifying grace, the only way we have of obtaining sanctifying grace for another person is to ask God to grant it to that person. We may do other things that make it more likely that the person will accept sanctifying grace if it is offered, but these things will be useless if the offer of sanctifying grace is not made. So if God does not grant sanctifying grace to anyone because of prayer, then there is no way of directly obeying the principal part of the commandment to love our neighbour.

St. Thomas discusses this issue when he addresses the question of whether or not we can merit for others (Summa theologiae, Prima Pars, q., 114):

Objection 1: It would seem that a man can merit the first grace for another. Because on Mt. 9:2: "Jesus seeing their faith," etc. a gloss says: "How much is our personal faith worth with God, Who set such a price on another's faith, as to heal the man both inwardly and outwardly!" Now inward healing is brought about by grace. Hence a man can merit the first grace for another.

Objection 2: Further, the prayers of the just are not void, but efficacious, according to James 5:16: "The continued prayer of a just man availeth much." Now he had previously said: "Pray one for another, that you may be saved." Hence, since man's salvation can only be brought about by grace, it seems that one man may merit for another his first grace.

I answer that, As shown above (articles 1, 3, 4), our works are meritorious from two causes: first, by virtue of the Divine motion; and thus we merit condignly; secondly, according as they proceed from free-will in so far as we do them willingly, and thus they have congruous merit, since it is congruous that when a man makes good use of his power God should by His super-excellent power work still higher things. And therefore it is clear that no one can merit condignly for another his first grace, save Christ alone; since each one of us is moved by God to reach life everlasting through the gift of grace; hence condign merit does not reach beyond this motion. But Christ's soul is moved by God through grace, not only so as to reach the glory of life everlasting, but so as to lead others to it, inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, and the Author of human salvation, according to Heb. 2:10: "Who hath brought many children into glory [to perfect] the Author of their salvation." But one may merit the first grace for another congruously; because a man in grace fulfils God's will, and it is congruous and in harmony with friendship that God should fulfil man's desire for the salvation of another, although sometimes there may be an impediment on the part of him whose salvation the just man desires. ...

[Article 3 referenced above: Man's meritorious work may be considered in two ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost. If it is considered as regards the substance of the work, and inasmuch as it springs from the free-will, there can be no condignity because of the very great inequality. But there is congruity, on account of an equality of proportion: for it would seem congruous that, if a man does what he can, God should reward him according to the excellence of his power.]

Reply to Objection 1: A man's faith avails for another's salvation by congruous and not by condign merit.

Reply to Objection 2: The impetration of prayer rests on mercy, whereas condign merit rests on justice; hence a man may impetrate many things from the Divine mercy in prayer, which he does not merit in justice, according to Dan. 9:18: "For it is not for our justifications that we present our prayers before Thy face, but for the multitude of Thy tender mercies."

If a just man can merit sanctifying grace for a sinner de congruo, then the prayers of this man for a sinner will influence God in the direction of granting sanctifying grace for that sinner. Obviously his merit will not make God obliged in justice to grant sanctifying grace to the sinner, but it will provide a motive for God's granting that grace. God can thus choose to grant sanctifying grace to a sinner specifically because of the prayers of a righteous man. If He can do this in the case of a righteous man, a fortiori he can do this in the case of the prayer of the Blessed Mother.

The fact that the Church is the Body of Christ both implies and explains the power of Christians to obtain the gift of sanctifying grace for others by their intercessory prayer. Pius XII taught this in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi:

44. Because Christ the Head holds such an eminent position, one must not think that he does not require the help of the Body. What Paul said of the human organism is to be applied likewise to the Mystical Body: "The head cannot say to the feet: I have no need of you." It is manifestly clear that the faithful need the help of the Divine Redeemer, for He has said: "Without me you can do nothing," and according to the teaching of the Apostle every advance of this Mystical Body towards its perfection derives from Christ the Head. Yet this, also, must be held, marvelous though it may seem: Christ has need of His members. First, because the person of Jesus Christ is represented by the Supreme Pontiff, who in turn must call on others to share much of his solicitude lest he be overwhelmed by the burden of his pastoral office, and must be helped daily by the prayers of the Church. Moreover as our Savior does not rule the Church directly in a visible manner, He wills to be helped by the members of His Body in carrying out the work of redemption. That is not because He is indigent and weak, but rather because He has so willed it for the greater glory of His spotless Spouse. Dying on the Cross He left to His Church the immense treasury of the Redemption, towards which she contributed nothing. But when those graces come to be distributed, not only does He share this work of sanctification with His Church, but He wills that in some way it be due to her action. This is a deep mystery, and an inexhaustible subject of meditation, that the salvation of many depends on the prayers and voluntary penances which the members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ offer for this intention and on the cooperation of pastors of souls and of the faithful, especially of fathers and mothers of families, a cooperation which they must offer to our Divine Savior as though they were His associates.

Catholic tradition states that Christians are 'divinized' by Christ. This is a difficult expression. The fact that we are able to promote the eternal salvation of others through interceding for them in prayer is helpful in understanding it. Eternal salvation is a divine gift, so if we can help to cause it, we are participating to that extent in the divine nature. If we were not able to further the salvation of others, we would not be divinized and we would not in any real sense be part of the body of Christ.

Motives for the document

The above section may seem like flogging a dead horse. The claim that it is useless to pray for the salvation of others, and that God is never motivated by such prayers in granting sanctifying grace, are monstrous and absurd to Catholics. The feeble so-called reasons given for this claim in the document are scarcely worthy of refutation.

One response to this reaction is that an official Roman document that contradicts the faith and has not been repudiated is a live horse that very much needs to be flogged. But there is a further important consideration that has to do with the theological position of the document. Another name for God's giving sanctifying grace is justification. The document's position on Mary's intercession and on all intercession makes perfect sense if a Lutheran position on justification is assumed. There is no merit, condign or congruous, in Luther's understanding of justification. The prayers of Mary or of anyone else cannot therefore merit de congruo the gift of sanctifying grace for anyone. Luther does not go as far as the Vatican document, since he does not say that praying for the salvation of others is futile, but he removes the attribute of Our Lady – her surpassing merit – that makes her intercession efficacious. As well as denying the existence of merit, he denies that Our Lady and the saints are holier than any justified Christian whatsoever, and denies that justification involves divinization. He insists that justification is a relation between the individual Christian and Christ, with no-one else having anything to do with it. The Lutheran assumption that divine and human action are mutually exclusive, an assumption inherited from medieval nominalism, gives a reason for Luther's position on justification and the sacraments. On this assumption, if Christ is entirely responsible for our justification, then no-one and nothing else can play a part in it. If these Lutheran positions are accepted, the conclusions of Mater populi fidelis are correct. In this document Cardinal Fernandez and his dicastery are implementing the position of Francis, who asserted that 'on this very important point [the doctrine of justification], he [Luther] was not mistaken' [press conference, June 26th, 2016].

Mater populi fidelis and Leo XIV

By promulgating and later endorsing the document, Leo XIV is following the theological programme of Francis. We should look at the context to try to understand what this might mean.

We can start with the background of Leo XIV. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both trained and formed in the pre-conciliar Church, where at least outward orthodox Catholic belief and practice were enforced. They were trained in the orthodox Thomist theology of the day. On some level they believed that they were upholding the traditional Catholic faith. Those Catholic doctrines that the Second Vatican Council considered together with its aftermath undermined, such as the identity of the Roman Catholic Church with the Church of Christ, the necessity of membership in the Roman Catholic Church for salvation, and the duty of states to recognize the Catholic faith, were sidelined or denied by them; but they did make efforts to uphold a lot of Catholic doctrines that were being attacked on all sides. This gave them an undeserved reputation as stainless champions of the faith, but it did at least keep the Church on life support in many circles.

Francis, who was ordained in 1966, was too young to be exposed to the thorough theological training of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but he was old enough to get some detailed exposure to the faith – enough exposure to hate it bitterly and devote his rule over the Catholic Church to its destruction.

Leo XIV, who was ordained in 1982, was educated at the Catholic Theological Union, a leading centre of modernism that is located in Chicago, one of the most corrupt dioceses in the entire Catholic Church. For decades that archdiocese has been run by networks of predatory homosexual clerics, who are deeply involved in criminal sex trafficking and criminal sexual abuse. The heterodoxy of the Catholic Theological Union is both a cause and a consequence of this corruption. Leo XIV would have been given a theological formation that presented modernism as true, although with some exposure to Catholic tradition due to the surviving scholarly knowledge that persisted at that time. If he had openly disagreed with this modernist theology, he would have failed his degree. He may well simply assume that rejection of Catholic doctrine on Mary is correct and beneficial for the Church, because that is what he was formed to believe. So the fact that Mater populi fidelis rejects the Catholic faith, insults the Mother of God, and angers Jesus Christ, may escape him. Does he agree with the specific Lutheran-inspired theology inherited from Francis that underlies Mater populi fidelis? Is he instead simply backing Cardinal Fernandez as a political move without being concerned with the theological issues? Or does he have a vague appreciation for the teaching of the document as a modernist rewriting of Catholic doctrine that will be pleasing to Protestants, without a commitment to the details of its theology? There is no publicly available information that would answer these questions.

There is no doubt about the motivations of Victor Fernández in producing Mater populi fidelis. He was put in place by Francis to implement a programme of destruction of the Catholic faith, and he agrees with that programme. He is a sexually twisted man of mediocre intelligence (both qualities are apparent in his published work). Such men hate the Mother of God because of her purity. They are subject to the control of Satan, especially when they are clerics. Mater populi fidelis was clearly produced at the direction of the devil. This can be seen in its dishonouring the Mother of God, who is hated by Satan above all other creatures because she has defeated him. If the central theological assertion of the document was accepted by Catholics, they would cease to ask the Mother of God to pray for their salvation. Such a rejection of the intercession of the Blessed Mother would lead to the damnation of the overwhelming majority of Catholics – which is what the devil wants.

Conclusion

With some honourable exceptions, such as Fr. Davide Pagliani FSSPX, the superior of the Society of St. Pius X, https://laportelatine.org/actualite/abbe-pagliarani-des-sacres-par-fidelite-a-leglise-et-aux-amesthe response of believing Catholics to Mater populi fidelis has been lamentable. There has been virtually no public recognition of the obvious facts about the document:

It is plainly heretical.
It is motivated by hatred of the Mother of God.
It will do terrible damage to souls.
The main person responsible for it, Cardinal Fernández, rejects the Catholic faith and is working to destroy it.
It implements the programme of Francis, a programme aimed at destroying the Catholic faith.
Pope Leo XIV's endorsement of it is a crime against the faith, and provides serious grounds for supposing that Leo himself is, like Francis, a heretic.

Why this culpable silence on the part of Catholics who all believe in the mediation of Mary and who at least claim a devotion to her? The human failings that explain it are lack of courage and manliness, and inward and outward dishonesty. The facts above are horrifying. Rather than acknowledge them and face up to them like mature and responsible adults, believing Catholics mostly prefer to conceal them from themselves and others, presenting the document as if it is regrettable but not catastrophic, and attempting to extenuate Leo XIV from responsibility that is clearly his – as if he will be become a good pope if only we pretend hard enough that he is one. As well as human weakness, this shows a refusal to do God's will, and an ersatz faith that is not supernatural – a belief that sycophancy and unwarranted trust towards the pope is a Christian virtue, and that God will intervene to save the Church without our having to publicly stand up for the truth. One hopes that love for the Mother of God – and the intercession of the Mother of God! – will lead such Catholics to a change of heart.