Mayhem Unfolds as Leo XIV Decides Against Marian Titles ‘Co-Redemptrix’ and ‘Mediatrix of All Graces’: An Overview

Vatican issues doctrinal statement…

Mayhem Unfolds as Leo XIV Decides Against Marian Titles ‘Co-Redemptrix’ and ‘Mediatrix of All Graces’: An Overview

Victor Manuel Fernandez, author of Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing, presents the new doctrinal note

The same ‘Pope’ Leo XIV who in a recent sermon declared that “[n]o one should impose his or her own ideas”, has just done that very thing by approving a new doctrinal document put out by the Dicastery for the Destruction of the Faith (DDF).

The text, entitled Mater Populi Fidelis (‘Mother of the Faithful People’), was written and presented by the Vatican’s ‘Mouth-Healer’, the notorious Argentinian mystical porn author ‘Cardinal’ Victor Manuel Fernandez (see image above), who has been in charge of the Vatican’s doctrinal department since 2023:

The document bears the explicit official approval of Bob Prevost from Chicago, otherwise known as ‘Pope Leo XIV’.

Of course most people who are technically registered in a Novus Ordo parish (and therefore officially counted as being among the world’s ‘Catholics’), couldn’t care less about a doctrinal note from Rome. But for those few who do, their reactions have been quite varied.

Novus Ordo Watch will resist the temptation to rely simply on headlines and hot takes for its own commentary without a careful study of the document first. Meanwhile, however, we can survey the landscape a bit….

News Reports, Analyses, Commentaries, Reactions from Various Sources and Perspectives

Catholic and Historical Resources on the Topic:

The DDF’s latest move comes as a huge blow to people like Dr. Mark Miravalle, who has spent decades trying to get the Vatican to dogmatically declare the Virgin Mary Co-Redemptrix. A day after the document’s release, Miravalle published an initial reaction here.

As far as reactions go, there were commotions even at the official press conference held by ‘Cardinal’ Fernandez introducing the text. On Twitter, Vatican journalist Diane Montagna, who was present, reports what transpired:

SPARKS FLY at today’s presentation of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s new document, ‘Mater Populi Fidelis’—on some Marian titles regarding Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation, as an Italian layman … heatedly denounces points made by DDF prefect Cardinal Victor Fernández & his co-presenter, Prof. Maurizio Gronchi.

The second outburst, which I caught on video, came when Prof. Gronchi said “it is necessary to take a clear distance from the idea that Mary comes to stand between God and humanity as a sort of lightning rod”—an idea, he said, that “Ratzinger himself repeatedly contested.”

The Italian laym[a]n specifically told [Vatican correspondent Delia Gallagher] that he doesn’t represent any particular group.

Regarding the title “Co-redemptrix,” the new document, prepared during the pontificate of Pope Francis with some modifications by Pope Leo XIV, states that it would be “inappropriate” & “unhelpful” to use the title Co-redemptrix as “many, repeated explanations” are needed “to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning” (n. 22).

(Source)

On social media, Mater Populi Fidelis triggered the usual ‘Catholic’ battles, so to speak. They are fights for narrative control, for being first in reporting, and for being first in providing commentary. For some it is also an opportunity for filling their coffers with click revenue generated via monetization. (Rest assured, Novus Ordo Watch is not monetized; no money is made through clicks, hits, views, etc., neither on this web site nor on any of our social media accounts. Virtually all money comes from free-will donations.) Ultimately, however, it’s about influence, which is mostly sought for the sake of controlling the narrative.

So, what did we see after the DDF published its doctrinal note?

For one thing, we saw how wrong some of the would-be experts can be in their punditry. Eric Sammons, for example, woke up with lots of egg on his face on Nov. 4 as his prediction that the Vatican would declare the Virgin Mary Co-Redemptrix went up in smoke, to put it mildly. Nevertheless (or perhaps therefore), hours later he was busy on YouTube instructing his viewers what Catholics should and should not think about the latest Vatican text.

Then, of course, there are those who immediately try to find reasons why the Vatican decision is, in one way or another, “not binding.” It did not take long for Rorate Caeli to post something to that effect, and this fellow here also thought he was on to something. We are told that since the document was not approved by Leo in forma specifica, it is not really a papal teaching or act — as if, you know, they all would be rushing to render their submission of intellect and will now had Leo added “in forma specifica” to his signature instead of just giving his standard personal approval.

However, at his press conference, Fernandez clarified the authority of Mater Populi Fidelis at the very outset:

Today, we present a doctrinal note, and it is important to specify that the term ‘doctrinal’ in the title indicates that this document has special value, superior to other documents we have published in recent years. Signed by the Pope, it belongs to the Magisterium of the Church and must be seriously considered in relation to theological study and reflection.

(computer-generated translation from press conference transcript)

The fact that this text does not enjoy the highest possible approval from the ‘Pope’ is irrelevant, for such is rarely given, and rarely needed. Traditional Roman Catholic ecclesiology requires assent to everything taught by the Pope, directly or indirectly, fallibly or infallibly. This has been affirmed by numerous Popes time and again:

…when we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what matter we must obey; when we love the Pope we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly — as if he were required to speak his will in every man’s ear, and to utter it not only by word of mouth but in letters and other public documents as well. Nor do we cast doubt on his orders, alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who is commanding, but someone in his entourage. We do not limit the field in which he can and ought to exercise his authority; we do not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of other persons — no matter how learned — who differ from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the Pope.

(Pope St. Pius X, Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912], p. 695; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, nn. 750,752.)

…[T]his sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted…. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, nn. 18, 20)

It should not come as a surprise to Catholics that since the Pope has the right to teach the faithful, they therefore have the obligation to assent to his teaching:

Continuing our survey of the online landscape, of course Dr. Taylor Marshall did not fail to provide guidance to his ‘flock’ on Mater Populi Fidelis (see YouTube video here), which also afforded him another sterling opportunity to promote his influencer business: People who wanted to know what he thought about the new text kept getting interrupted with ads for his books, his liturgical calendars, his upcoming pilgrimages, his online courses, the gold he recommends, and even his favorite liver cleanse formula. Soon his viewers may hear what mattress he sleeps best on.

Timothy Gordon decided to invite semi-trad exorcist ‘Fr.’ Chad Ripperger onto his show to comment on the DDF note. (It is probably only a slight exaggeration to say that many self-styled traditionalists would sooner submit to the Rev. Ripperger, their hero, than to the man they recognize as the Pope.) Aside from explaining the doctrines regarding the Corredemption and the Holy Virgin’s mediation of graces, the recognize-and-resist presbyter also criticized the new doctrinal note for its lack of precision and its poor reasoning.

Not unexpectedly for those who know him, Ripperger shared some of his sought-after ‘exorcism’ accounts to help make his case, which many traditionalists who admire him, alas, apparently consider a source of theological data. Tragically, instead of submitting to what one accepts as the Catholic magisterium, listening to what demons have reportedly said becomes part of the rule of Faith. What a bad and incredibly dangerous idea! As the great Scripture scholar Fr. Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637) writes in his commentary on Mark 1:25 (where Christ forbids a demon to speak, and drives him out):

…Euthymius says, “[Christ] has taught us never to believe the demons, even when they say what is true. For since they love falsehood, and are most hostile to us, they never speak the truth except to deceive. They make use of the truth as it were a kind of bait.” For, liars that they are, they conceal their lies by a colouring of truth. They say certain things that are true at the first, and afterwards interweave with them what is false, that those who have believed the first may believe also the last. For this cause Paul drove out the spirit of Python, who praised him, Acts xvi. 18.

(The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide, vol. 3, 5th ed. [Edinburgh: John Grant, 1908], p. 372)

People who would sooner listen to the reported words of a demon than to the official documents of what they think is the Roman Catholic magisterium because a priest whom they have chosen to trust (even though most have never met the man) relates to them his experience at an exorcism, have their theology all messed up!

Next, let’s check in with the cafeteria trads of Rorate Caeli. Not surprisingly, they have not been too eager to embrace the new Vatican directives. A presbyter writing for them under a pen name argues:

Any serious theological analysis of the truth of Our Lady’s co-redemption must contend with the clear theological data found in Catholic Tradition, emanating from the Scriptural grounding in the proto-Evangelium of Genesis 3:15 as well as Magisterial teaching, the authority of the saints, and other landmarks of Catholic heritage such as hymnody and theological reasoning. This author chooses to stand with the Sovereign Pontiffs on the matter and upon the centuries of the development of Our Lady’s co-redemption with Jesus Christ the Lord and Redeemer.

(Rev. Pierre LaLiberté, “Mary, the Co-Redemptrix and Mater Populi Fidelis”, Rorate Caeli, Nov. 5, 2025)

Unfortunately for such pseudo-trads, Pope Pius XII insisted that “even though to someone, certain declarations of the Church may not seem proved by the arguments put forward, his obligation to obey still remains” (Allocution Magnificate Dominum, Nov. 2, 1954). Oops!

Another cafeteria trad we must not fail to mention is Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. He actually rejects the new magisterial document outright, giving it a “hard pass” on Twitter. He doesn’t bother with looking for loopholes or using demonic testimony — he simply doesn’t give a flip about what level of authority a Vatican document might come with if he disagrees with it. Humble submission to teachings, decisions, or decrees of the Apostolic See he disapproves of is simply not his thing (not even if the Pope is St. Pius X, we might add). Recall that with regard to Francis’ Apostolic Letter Traditionis Custodes, Kwasniewski was not shy to declare the entire document invalid (see video clip here) even though he firmly believes Francis was a true Pope.

Sometimes you have to illustrate the absurdity:
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski has determined that Mater Populi Fidelis isn’t getting his assent.

Rejection of the new directive was also expressed by Katherine Bennett at the Catholic Unscripted blog: “I will continue to use the word Co-Redemptrix”, she announced.

Now, regardless of whether a particular Vatican decision is binding on anyone, what always gets missed in such an “is it binding?” discussion is that if something is not binding, it simply means it is optional. And that, in turn, means that it is be perfectly safe to accept. Yet, most of the people who scream “not binding!” regarding a teaching or decision they disagree with really hold that it is not optional either. In other words, not only does a Catholic not have to assent, he is not even allowed to because the given decision or teaching presents a danger and is harmful to his soul.

Therefore, a good response to semi-trads who claim, for example, that nothing Vatican II taught or decreed is binding, is: “But is it optional? Even if not obligatory, is it nevertheless safe for a Catholic to embrace?” If the answer is no, then “it’s not binding” is actually a red herring. What they really mean is that “it’s a great danger to your soul, and you’re not allowed to accept it.” But that changes the conversation considerably, doesn’t it?

In that regard, the reaction of YouTuber Christian Wagner, although reprehensible (if we hold, as he does, that Leo is Pope), is at least candid. The self-described ‘Walmart Thomist’ warned his followers not to assent to the Vatican’s latest doctrinal statement: “…no Catholic should assent to this”, he wrote in a tweet that got over 27,800 views as of the time of this writing.

Dressed up in a suit and tie, Wagner followed up Nov. 5 with a 1-hour video discussion: “New Vatican Document UNLEASHES Controversy”. (His video from Nov. 4 on the same topic was for paying ‘members’ only. Yes, he’s so sure of his theological prowess that he’s willing to charge people for it.) Having been a member of the Novus Ordo Church for a mere 4 years (after abandoning Anglicanism), it is amusing to see this youthful-looking rookie correcting the Vatican and live-streaming his theological thoughts to the whole world. It is not known what his local Novus Ordo bishop thinks about that. Ironically, Wagner’s YouTube avatar is a photo of Robert Prevost (Leo XIV), though perhaps that is more for display purposes than for showing religious affiliation.

And so we see that whereas in the Catholic Church there is submission to the Pope, in the Vatican II Church everyone pretty much does his own thing. Far from submitting their own judgment to Vatican decrees, what usually happens is that people submit the Vatican decrees to their own judgment.

On Sep. 10, 1957, Pope Pius XII praised the Jesuits (who, at that point, were generally orthodox) precisely for not having “that proud spirit of ‘free inquiry’ which is more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one, and which does not hesitate to submit to one’s own critical judgment even norms issued by the Apostolic See” (Allocution Vos Omnes; English translation in The Pope Speaks, vol. 4, n. 4 [Spring, 1958], pp. 447-453).

Then there’s Dr. Edward Feser, a philosophy professor from Pasadena, California, who routinely and nonchalantly subjects Vatican decisions, decrees, and teachings to his own scrutiny. So far, he has merely called out the Vatican’s double standard: Mater Populi Fidelis states that “when an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful” (n. 22), and Feser points out that it would be good for the Vatican to apply that same rule to its own recent teachings and pronouncements that have required hermeneutical gymnastics to make them appear orthodox (think: Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, Dignitas Infinita, etc.).

At The Catholic World Report, editor Carl E. Olson has published a critique hitting on the same and similar points; and Matthew Archbold of the Creative Minority Report has also noted the glaring double standard.

It must be said further that the Vatican’s sudden professed concern for doctrinal orthodoxy and ensuring people are not misled, is nothing short of hilarious. In scriptural terms, one might say that even if all that Mater Populi Fidelis asserts is true, to try to rein in the titles ‘Coredemptrix’ and ‘Mediatrix of All Graces’ while teaching that God wills a diversity of religions amounts to straining a gnat while swallowing a camel (cf. Mt 23:23-24). Perhaps ‘Tucho’ Fernandez (as he is called) could show us some examples of just where in the Novus Ordo world a dangerously unsound view of the Blessed Virgin’s role in salvation was being promoted. Surely it must have been a very serious problem to justify an intervention by the Vatican II Sect’s highest doctrinal office.

There is truly a good amount of amusing irony in this latest Vatican move: The same people who are notorious for creative large-scale confusion and for issuing ‘clarifications’ that raise more questions than they answer, want us to believe that the world urgently needed to be warned not to use the titles ‘Co-Redemptrix’ and ‘Mediatrix of All Graces’ for the Blessed Virgin Mary. The same people who refuse to evangelize the Jews and more or less openly teach that all religions lead to God are suddenly interested in emphasizing that only Jesus Christ is our Savior. The same people who proclaim that human beings have an “infinite dignity” — whereas traditionally the Blessed Virgin Mary alone was accorded a dignity that is only “quasi-infinite” on account of her being the Mother of God — are now expressing concern that some have overstated Mary’s role in our Redemption. The same people who speak of violence against humans as “blasphemy” and “sacrilege” and routinely elevate the poor to a quasi-divine status, are now cautioning the world against excessive Marian veneration. You can’t make this stuff up!

So, what is the real reason the Vatican issued Mater Populi Fidelis? It’s obviously not a concern for doctrinal orthodoxy, nor for reining in some alleged out-of-bounds Marian devotion leading to confusion and spiritual danger. So, what are Prevost, Fernandez, and their henchmen up to? As the Latin phrase goes, cui bono? Who benefits from this?

The most obvious answer would be Ecumenism. The Mouth Healer’s doctrinal note will be incredibly useful to advancing the fake ‘religious unity’ the Neo-Modernists have been seeking with various heretics. Marian doctrines, and perhaps even more so Marian devotion, are huge stumbling blocks for ‘Christian unity’. So is the Papacy, of course — and that’s why they’ve been working very hard on downgrading that, too.

Let’s end on another humorous note: At Fernandez’s press conference, the Rev. Armando Matteo, secretary of the DDF, announced that the dicastery is preparing to issue another document before the end of the month. It will be entitled: “We Two: In Praise of Monogamy. Doctrinal Note on the Value of Marriage, Exclusive Communion, and Mutual Belonging”.

What could possibly go wrong?

Title image source: YouTube (screenshot)
License: fair use

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.