Cardinal Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released Mater Populi Fidelis, a new “doctrinal note on some Marian titles regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the work of salvation.” This document takes issue with the Marian titles of “”Co-redemptrix”” and “”mediatrix””. Even worse, Tucho’s new document puts forward what appears to be a new title for Mary based on the “People of God” concept.
On November 4, 2025, Cardinal Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released Mater Populi Fidelis, a new “doctrinal note on some Marian titles regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the work of salvation.” The first words of Tucho’s presentation of the document alert us to the fact that the document responds to inquires that have been considered for decades:
“The present Note responds to numerous requests and proposals that have reached the Holy See in recent decades, and particularly this Dicastery, regarding questions pertaining to Marian devotion and certain Marian titles.”
Tucho’s new document makes the Blessed Virgin Mary the mother of some theologically ambiguous grouping of Catholics and non-Catholics that has been set up in opposition to the Mystical Body of Christ.
In fact, the issues treated in the new document have been considered for centuries, and were hotly debated at Vatican II. To best appreciate the new document from Tucho’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith we should understand the context of those Vatican II debates. Yves Congar’s journal entry from September 22, 1961 explains the battle lines during the Council:
“In the evening, at the Antonianum (Hall of Promotions), discussion of the actual text of the Chapter De B Maria V. I saw there the drama which I have experienced all my life. The need to fight, in the name of the Gospel and of apostolic faith, against a development, a Mediterranean and Irish proliferation, of a Mariology which does not come from Revelation, but is backed up by pontifical texts. Several times, I was told that the rule of faith is not Scripture but the living Magisterium; what do you make of the papal pronouncements? I understand better the way Luther reacted, for this was the reply he, too, was given. He threw overboard all texts and ecclesiastical authority in order to hold fast to Scripture alone.” (Congar, My Journal of the Council, p. 54)
Congar (who is the inspiration behind Francis’s Synodal Church), sided with Luther against the popes in this battle; and Tucho’s new document predictably joins the same side of the battle, against a Mariology that Congar described as “maximalist”:
“At first, the discussion was quite tough going. Fortunately, Laurentin is brave, measured and knowledgeable. He fights the anti-maximalist battle. We tell each other that we must not be TOO antagonistic, for fear of bringing about worse than what we are anxious to avoid. Two things are certain, about which we can do nothing: 1) the existence of the pontifical texts and of Mariological currents; 2) the existence of more than 450 requests from bishops in the vota. What we can do is to work towards achieving a relatively cautious text by seeking to tone down some turns of phrase which the maximalists would take advantage of to go even further.” (pp. 54-55)
From these words we can see how tactical and manipulative Congar and his fellow liberals were at the Council. And, as much as Congar professed to approve at least a minimal Marian devotion, we can get a better sense of his perspective on the Blessed Virgin Mary from his September 17, 1964 entry:
“I am campaigning, AS MUCH AS I CAN, against a consecration of the World to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, because I can see the danger that a move in this direction would constitute.” (p. 578)
Every so often — such as here, and when he twice urinated on the door of the Holy Office — Congar let the mask drop so that we can now see how un-Catholic he truly was. This does not necessarily mean that everyone who stood with Congar on the anti-maximalist side of the debate was un-Catholic, but it is evident that at least some powerful figures were (and still are).
Tucho tries to persuade us that his Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — the same one that issued Fiducia Supplicans on same-sex blessings — is genuinely interested in doctrinal clarity and adherence to correct meanings.
So this is the context in which we ought to understand Tucho’s new document, in which he rejects the Marian titles of “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix.” He dresses up his analysis with theological language and an apparent respect for Our Lady, but ultimately he is just seizing more ground in the same battle in which Congar fought. His hypocrisy is highlighted in the following passage from the new document:
“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. In this case, the expression ‘Co-redemptrix’ does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ — the Son of God made man for our salvation, who was the only one capable of offering the Father a sacrifice of infinite value — which would not be a true honor to his Mother.”
With these words, Tucho tries to persuade us that his Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — the same one that issued Fiducia Supplicans on same-sex blessings — is genuinely interested in doctrinal clarity and adherence to correct meanings. But what is “the faith of the People of God” to which he refers? Do readers of the new document know what the “People of God” means? It would be much easier to find a concrete and understandable definition of “Co-redemptrix” than of “People of God.”
Even worse, Tucho’s new document puts forward what appears to be a new title for Mary based on the “People of God” concept:
“Mary’s ‘Yes’ to Gabriel’s message — so that the Word of God might become flesh in her womb (cf. Lk 1:26-37) — opens for humanity the possibility of divinization. For this reason, Saint Augustine calls the Virgin ‘cooperator’ in Christ’s Redemption, thereby emphasizing both Mary’s action at Christ’s side as well as her subordination to Him, for Mary cooperates with Christ so that ‘the faithful might be born in the Church.’ For this reason, we can call her the Mother of the Faithful People of God.”
This would not necessarily be problematic were it not for the fact that the concept of “the People of God” has been a Trojan horse term to evade the teaching in Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis (paragraph 22) that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Church, to which only those who accept the Catholic Faith belong. Benedict XVI actually alluded to the spurious development in terminology in his farewell address to the clergy of Rome:
“[I]n the quest for a complete theological vision of ecclesiology, a certain amount of criticism arose after the 1940’s, in the 1950’s, concerning the concept of the Body of Christ: the word ‘mystical’ was thought to be too spiritual, too exclusive; the concept ‘People of God’ then began to come into play. The Council rightly accepted this element, which in the Fathers is regarded as an expression of the continuity between the Old and the New Testaments.”
Because this change in terminology was employed to solve the ecumenical problem — that is, to please the non-Catholics — it should come as no surprise that the Synodal Church now uses the term “People of God” to mean all the baptized. From this heterodox foundation, the Synodal Church has developed the self-evidently heretical idea all of the baptized participate in the sensus fidei:
“Through Baptism, ‘the holy People of God has a share, too, in the prophetic role of Christ, when it renders Him a living witness, especially through a life of faith and charity’ (LG 12). The anointing by the Holy Spirit received at Baptism (cf. 1 Jn 2:20.27) enables all believers to possess an instinct for the truth of the Gospel. We refer to this as the sensus fidei. This consists in a certain connaturality with divine realities based on the fact that, in the Holy Spirit, the Baptised become ‘sharers [participants] in the divine nature’ (DV 2). From this participation comes the aptitude to grasp intuitively what conforms to the truth of Revelation in the communion of the Church. This is the reason why the Church is certain that the holy People of God cannot err in matters of belief. . . . All Christians participate in the sensus fidei through Baptism.” (Final Document of the October 2024 session of the Synod on Synodality)
Obviously it is false to imagine that baptism is sufficient to identify the group of people whose beliefs constitute the true faith such that “the holy People of God cannot err in matters of belief.” To demonstrate this, we need only consider that over half of all baptized people (when we consider Protestants, apostates, and Catholics in error) reject numerous Catholic dogmas.
Therefore, using the Synodal Church’s definition of People of God, it would be far more accurate to assert that the “People of God cannot collectively avoid error in matters of belief.”
If we want further confirmation that the term was revolutionary, we can reflect on how Congar described its impact in his True and False Reform in the Church:
“Between 1947, when the book was first written, and 1950 the church—especially in France—sought to respond pastorally to the actual situation in which it found itself. But some initiatives worried Rome. Pius XII, a great pope, was not fundamentally opposed to change, but he wanted strict control over any change and even wanted all initiatives for change to be his alone. . . . In a few short weeks John XXIII created a new climate in the church, and then came the council. This most significant breakthrough came from on high. All of a sudden, forces for renewal which had scarcely had room to breathe found ways to be expressed. The cautious suggestions for reform mentioned in my text of 1950 have been surpassed by far. . . .On the whole, despite some unfortunate exceptions, theologians now enjoy the freedom that they need for their research and writing. But more than anything, two great changes already characterize the climate within the church and will continue to do so more and more: an ecclesiology based on the ‘People of God’ and ecumenism.”
Thus, Congar considered the “ecclesiology based on the ‘People of God’” to be one of the two most important changes to flow from the Council. With the Synodal Church, we now understand what he meant.
Putting it all together, Tucho’s new document makes the Blessed Virgin Mary the mother of some theologically ambiguous grouping of Catholics and non-Catholics that has been set up in opposition to the Mystical Body of Christ. It would presumably be more blasphemous to call her the “Mother of Heretics,” but it actually seems more devious to call her the Mother of the Faithful People of God in the way that Tucho does. He is effectively calling her “Mother of the Synodal Church,” and that is wicked.
It seems likely that this recent offense from Tucho (which was approved on some level by Leo XIV) will spark further opposition to the errors plaguing the Church. But any such opposition will be futile if it fails to attack the roots of the problem, which run through Vatican II. If we truly want to combat the crisis in the Church, we should allow this new manifestation of wickedness to truly awaken us to the need to reject the entire Vatican II revolution. Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces, pray for us!
