On November 4, 2025, the Vatican released a note about Mary, Mater Populi Fidelis (MPF), which is translated “The Mother of the Faithful People of God.” The document seeks to evaluate the theological and devotional appropriateness of applying the titles “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of All Graces” to Mary. Several headlines and social media posts characterized MPF as a bold retraction of Marian dogma, an encouraging affirmation of Christ alone as Mediator to the exclusion of Mary, or that Rome is reforming itself in light of Scripture. Catholic Answers notes these popular online reactions: “Protestants are shouting for joy, as if this were some sort of victory over the Church. Even headlines from notable news sources jumped the gun, proclaiming that the Church has tossed out the titles Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix. This has been interpreted by a large contingent on social media as the Church changing its doctrine.”¹ However, a careful reading of the document itself demonstrates that these claims are inaccurate.

Scope 1. “Deepen Marian devotion.”

The Vatican’s note, MPF, states that it seeks to preserve and encourage Marian devotion by articulating Mary’s “cooperation in the work of salvation,” her “Motherhood” over all believers, and the propriety of certain Marian titles, while cautioning against others that risk “confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith” (§ 22). It emphasizes that Marian titles and doctrines should not be understood apart from “the Mystery of Christ as the sole Mediator and Redeemer,” rather, Mary’s role should be understood in a subordinate and cooperative manner with Christ. At the same time “rather than proposing limits,” the note “seeks to accompany and sustain the love of Mary and trust in her maternal intercession.” It emphasizes that such an understanding of “Mary’s Motherhood” necessarily “engenders” Marian devotion.

Scope 2. Ecumenical PR stunt.

In addition to its primary aim “to deepen the proper foundations of Marian devotion,” a secondary goal is to be “a particular ecumenical effort.” Since Vatican II, Rome has been more than happy to be ecumenical, as long as that means Rome remains the supreme head of the church and can magisterially dictate doctrine and piety to everyone else. Commensurate with its ecumenical agenda, MPF uses language meant to resonate with Protestants and Evangelicals: it says its approach has a “prominent biblical imprint,” it appeals to Scripture (albeit eisegetically), and it frames Marian piety as a “symbolic expression of an evangelical attitude of trust in the Lord.” MPF frames its task as keeping a “necessary balance… between Christ’s sole mediation and Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation,” a formula likely designed to reassure critics while simultaneously retaining Marian dogmas & practices of piety that functionally augment or participate in Christ’s Mediatorship. The statement is a calculated Public Relations move to gain more followers and allies, while still not repudiating Rome’s idolatry of Mary.

No Doctrinal or Devotional Change

As is clear from the document’s own stated scope, and will be more fully seen below, MPF does not change any doctrine or devotional practice with regard to Mary. Roman Catholic theologian Dr. Andrew McGovern accurately summarizes MPF:

“The doctrine of Mary’s unique and supreme cooperation in the redemptive act and her mediation of grace has not been changed or rejected in any way. Simply, the church has set forth a direction to be more precise in our theological language by not using certain terms. I believe this document clearly lays out the theological understanding of what has been referred to under the term co-redemptrix, while at the same time directing toward the use of a more precise term. Thus, no doctrinal change… the theology of this doctrine is firmly stated and expressed without reduction in Mariological doctrine or Marian devotion. The church has clearly taught, in an authoritative way, that Mary possesses in a participatory manner, subordinate to Christ, a unique and supreme cooperation in the redemptive act, as well as a privileged role in the mediation of graces to the Church through her maternal relationship. To my mind, this is the very heart of the proposed fifth Marian Dogma. The church is affirming that this has been and continues to be the doctrine of the Catholic Faith. But we have to use more precise language when teaching it.”²

MPF Derogates from Jesus Christ

While MPF contains instances of verbiage that affirm Christ’s exclusive mediation in theory, on the whole, and in practice it opens the door for a plurality of mediators by blurring categorical distinctions. It speaks of Mary as “the Mother of the faithful” (§ 1), Mary as “our Advocate” (§ 16) and “Helper” (§ 16, 36), Mary’s “maternal intercession” from Heaven (§ 27), “Mary’s spiritual motherhood” over all Christians (§ 35), etc. It superficially guards Christ’s uniqueness by claiming that Mary’s work is “subordinate” and “participatory” with Christ in the work of redemption (§ 22), and not parallel or alternative to him, and that God freely gave her this role and was not constrained by necessity to do so (§ 65b). Although clever, these qualifications do not fundamentally overcome the fact that Rome detracts from Christ’s sufficiency. In the economy of redemption, “Advocate” is a role exclusive to Christ: “if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). “Helper” is a role exclusive to the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Christ alone is our Intercessor, “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25).

Paragraph 37 denies that Mary’s intercession is “priestly,” but states that it is “instead situated in the order and analogy of motherhood.” This is a distinction without a difference. Scripture is clear that intercession in the matter of redemption is intrinsically a priestly act (Hebrews 7:24-27; 9:11-12, 24; 10:11-14; Romans 8:33-34), therefore to ascribe any redemptive intercessory role to Mary is to effectively make her a priestess. It goes on to say that God’s gifts to us are “presented with a maternal aspect, imbued with the tenderness and closeness of the Mother” because Mary’s intercession is so closely associated with Christ’s work (§ 37a). This is a blasphemous attempt to ascribe mediatorial efficacy to Mary without explicitly contradicting the language of Scripture. It is a tacit equivocation, using maternal terminology instead of priestly, when the practical effect is substantially the same.

MPF views “Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation” in “a double perspective:” 1) “her participation in the objective redemption accomplished by Christ during his earthly life” and 2) “the influence she currently has on those who have been redeemed.” (§ 4). Think about that. Rome is saying that Mary cooperates and participates with Jesus Christ in the work of Redemption accomplished, and Redemption applied. The crucial point is not merely semantic: titles and dogmas that suggest participation in Christ’s redemptive efficacy can easily be believed and used devotionally as adding to Christ’s sufficiency. In Roman Mariology, “cooperation” is repeatedly described in ways that, practically and devotionally, elevate Mary’s role to one that practically functions like a necessary adjunct to Christ’s redeeming work.

Co-Redemptrix

MPF does not outright condemn all use of the title “Co-Redeemer,” but rather discourages its use in certain contexts so as not to offend people who would otherwise have a more favorable perception of Romanism. It explicitly defends these titles as used by previous Popes and theologians, as long as they mean either 1) “she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished,” or 2) “in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross” (§ 18).

While the document states that “it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation,” at the same time it maintains that Mary has a “subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption” and she is to be extolled “as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace.” (§ 22). So while it discourages use of the title, the substance of the doctrine signified by the title is retained and promoted. As Catholic Answers observes, “Though not altering the true understanding of Co-redemptrix, the DDF essentially states that too many explanations are required for people to understand what the title actually means… The takeaway is that the true theology is not changed—that which outlines Mary’s unique participation as the one who said fiat to the Annunciation, who suffered alongside her Son at the foot of the cross as a mother, and who is given to us as Mother of the Church. Yet at this time, the DDF deems it “unhelpful” to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix.’”³ Again, Rome wants to have its cake and eat it, keep its blasphemous and idolatrous doctrines while yet downplaying it by discouraging certain obvious and clearly blasphemous phrases.

Mediatrix

Similarly, the document states that “Christ is the only Mediator” (§ 24), and yet hedges and qualifies that clear truth in the subsequent paragraphs, which seek to explain in what sense Mary can truly be said to be a “Mediatrix.” MPF claims that it is “inevitable” to apply the term Mediator to Mary “in a subordinate sense” of “cooperation, assistance, or intercession.” (§ 25). It goes on to say that “Mary had a real mediatory role in enabling the Incarnation of the Son of God in our humanity, since the Redeemer was to be “born of woman” (Gal 4:4).” And her mediation was not simply “biological,” but also in her willingness to be the Theotokos, “Mary’s response opened the gates of the Redemption that all humanity had awaited and that the saints described with poetic drama. At the wedding feast in Cana, Mary also fulfills a mediating role when she presents the needs of the newlyweds to Jesus (cf. Jn 2:3) and instructs the servants to follow his directions (cf. Jn 2:5)” (§ 26). In Roman eisegesis, the newlyweds and servants are spiritual analogs for every Christian in their daily piety, establishing Mary as one who “presents [our needs] to Jesus” and “instructs [us] to follow him.” 

Christ Alone, Our Only Mediator

We cannot help but note the similarities of how Christ presents us and our needs to the Father (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:24-25; 9:24; 1 John 2:1; John 17:9, 20-21; Isaiah 53:12), and as our Mediatorial Prophet, efficaciously instructs us how to follow and obey him (Acts 3:22; Deut 18:15). Vatican II uses the term “mediation” primarily in reference to Christ, but “it sometimes also refers to Mary, but in a clearly subordinate manner” preferring terminology of “cooperation, maternal assistance, maternal intercession, manifold intercession, and maternal help” to “define the specific nature of Mary’s cooperation in Christ’s action through the Spirit” (§ 27). It asserts that the problem is not that Mary mediates grace, but only if she is considered to do so “apart from” Christ. In this way Mary is alleged to have a synergistic role in the accomplishment and application of Redemption. Is this supposed to set Christians at ease about Rome’s Mariolatry? Even if “subordinate,” additional mediation derogates from the sufficiency and exclusivity of Christ. MPF’s repeated balancing language does not remove that functional effect. Rome is “not beating the allegations” of idolatry, as the kids say these days.

Let’s cut past the rhetoric, allegory, and equivocation: Christ isn’t the only Mediator if there are “subordinate” Mediators. Scriptural language, historic, orthodox Theology, and the logic of the Gospel message itself cannot be reconciled with this synergistic accomplishment and application of Redemption by Jesus Christ the Mediator. Solus Christus! Christ alone is the Mediator, he has no subordinate nor cooperative help. Period. Mary was not given a subordinate mediatorial role to Christ in the work of Redemption. Rather, she rejoiced in Christ, who alone is her Savior! “And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” (Luke 1:46-47). Once again, Rome is speaking with a forked tongue (John 8:44; Rev 13:11), but God prohibits us from being “doubletongued” (1 Tim 3:8) and “double minded” (James 1:8; 4:8).

Conclusion

There are numerous additional problems with this document, but it would be far too tedious to address every erroneous, eisegetical, and heretical detail. None of these things are new either, our Christian forefathers have thoroughly rebutted all of these errors in ages past.⁴ The above should suffice to briefly emphasize that MPF does not cede any ground to biblical Christianity, but rather is an attempt to reframe distinctive Roman formulations in categories more acceptable to Christians, so that we will be more amenable to Rome without being pressured to concede Rome’s epistemic and juridical premises (e.g., the magisterium, the role of tradition, the manner of efficacious grace, etc.), while simultaneously retaining Marian doctrines & devotional practices that functionally augment or participate in Christ’s Mediatorship. The Bible insists on the completeness, sufficiency, and exclusivity of Christ’s Mediatorial work (1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 10:12, 14; 7:25-27; John 14:6; Colossians 1:19-22). Any formulation communicating that sinners obtain saving grace through other mediatorial channels (even “cooperative,” “subordinate,” or “secondary” ones), weakens our assurance and subverts the glory, honor, and majesty exclusive to the Lord Jesus Christ.⁵

---

1. Joshua Mazrin, Is Mary Still Mediatrix of Graces?, Catholic Answers, 06 Nov. 2025. EWTN Vatican posted on X, “Vatican declares that the titles ‘Co‐Redemptrix’ and ‘Mediatrix’ should no longer be used for Mary, reaffirming Christ alone is Redeemer and clarifying Marian doctrine.” This post was very widely shared and screenshots were posted broadly. Yet, the next day the same account replied to the post, “Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Mater Populi Fidelis nixes the Marian title of “Mediatrix” along with “Co-Redemptrix”; however, it only states that “Co-Redemptrix” is not appropriate.” (X post, 04 Nov. 2025). ↩︎
2. Andrew McGovern, Th.D., Mater Populi Fidelis: An Analysis, Missio Dei Catholic, 06 Nov. 2025. ↩︎
3. Joshua Mazrin, Is Mary Still Mediatrix of Graces?, Catholic Answers, 06 Nov. 2025. Prominent Roman theologian Dr. Andrew McGovern also concurs: “the term Co-redemptrix is distinguished from the theology behind it… the document affirms that Mary has an active role in the redemption of mankind. This is the essence of the Co-redemptrix title. The Co-redemptrix is the woman who has the unique cooperative role with the Redeemer in the Redemptive Act… the Church’s mind is that the theology behind the Co-redemptrix title is correct and has been adopted by the Church since the earliest understanding of Mary’s role. However, while the Church clearly affirms the theology of the title, she is cautioning against the use of the title.” (Andrew McGovern, Th.D., Mater Populi Fidelis: An Analysis, Missio Dei Catholic, 06 Nov. 2025) ↩︎
4. For example, in J.H. Heidegger’s 1673 apologetics tract against Roman Mariolatry, the question is asked, “But can [Mary] not furthermore be venerated as a mediator and intercessor between God and us with the honour of invocation?” And it is answered: “No, since no one should be invoked except God alone in Christ, our only Mediator, Saviour, and Intercessor (Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:9; 1 John 2:1-2), and Him, who is almighty, all-knowing, and present everywhere, and can thus know the sighs and thoughts of the heart as present & all-knowing, hear prayer, and as an Almighty God fulfil our hearts’ wish & prayer. Thus, we neither have a command nor any example from the Apostles or others who prayed to the Holy Virgin. Moreover, such an honour would not be pleasing to the Holy Virgin… partly because she never considered herself such a mediator, rather was only raised to such by men from their own pleasure, whereas she perceived herself as a maid of the Lord and rejoiced in her Saviour Himself; partly because she herself directed us to no one else but to her Son, when she said: “Whatsoever He, (my Son), saith unto you, do it”; partly because she prophesied of herself with these words: (Luke 1:46) “From henceforth, all generations of the world shall call me blessed”, but she does not mention her invocation as a mediator. We simply follow the Word of God and the teaching of the ancient Christian Churches, which spoke (Epiphanius, haereses 79) Mary should be honoured, but God Father, Son & Holy Spirit worshiped. Mary no one should worship. Thus, we do not refuse the Holy Virgin the honour of invocation out of contempt for her, but in the fear of God and out of love for a holy righteousness, which gives each & everyone what belongs to him, unto God what is God’s, unto the Son of God what is His and unto the Mother of God what is hers. (J.H. Heidegger, Short Instruction on the holy & highly lauded Virgin Mary (1673), pp. 15-16) ↩︎
5. cf. William Perkins on how Rome Denies the Mediatorial Offices of Christ. ↩︎