Diane Montagna has done us all a favor by publishing a theological analysis of Mater Populi Fidelis by the Franciscan Mariologist Father Serafino Lanzetta. Below are reproduced the introductory paragraphs followed by a link to the original on Miss Montagna’s Substack. Following that are a few additional comments of mine.
A Very Dissonant Marian Note: On Mater Populi Fidelis
by Fr. Serafino M. Lanzetta
On 4 November 2025, the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, presented a new doctrinal note, Mater Populi Fidelis (MPF), on some Marian titles regarding Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation. This is the first time that the most important dicastery of the Roman Curia has devoted such great attention to Marian soteriology, and for this reason we cannot but rejoice. A document comprised of 80 paragraphs and 197 footnotes is, by no means, insignificant. The biblical aspect is treated with great precision. Indeed, upon reading the introductory section, one is pleasantly struck by a statement that stands in clear contrast to the prevailing historical-critical exegetical milieu in vogue. It states that Genesis 3:15 prefigures, in Eve, the Virgin Mary, “the Woman who shares in the definitive victory over the serpent” (n. 5). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Jesus addresses his mother as “Woman” at Cana (cf. Jn 2:4) and at the “hour” of the Cross (cf. n. 5).
It would have sufficed to draw the theological conclusions from this solid biblical framework to affirm, with a long line of Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church and, not least, Lumen gentium, with the help of great theologians, that the Virgin Mary cooperates actively and directly in the work of Redemption; namely, that Mary contributes to our salvation, in a manner subordinate to Christ, with what is properly hers: her merit, her love as Mother and her oblative act, participating with Jesus in the salvation of humanity, and with Him in the distribution of grace and all divine favours.
Instead, MPF takes a different path. On the one hand, it does not wish to place limits on Mariological development (cf. Presentation), but on the other, it seeks with great ecumenical zeal to minimise Mary’s contribution to our salvation, reducing it to merely disposing the faithful to receive everything, and only, from God. Let us look in detail at what the Note teaches, and at its obvious limitations.
Read more at Diane Montagna’s Substack…
In the comments on that site, one lady asked for an explanation of the following paragraph in Father Serafino’s analysis:
One could say that obedience to this Note can be given according to the mens of the document itself, which in the Presentation excludes the intent to impose limits, that is, to abrogate what was previously taught—according to the same degree of submission that the Note gives to the previous ordinary magisterium on the same subject.
Here is the reply I posted:
I would not presume to answer for Fr. Serafino, but those lines stood out to me, too. Consider the following syllogism to be my own reading of his line of thought:
When the document was presented (“Presentation”), the DDF officials stated their intention not to impose limits on Mariological reflection and development.
Now, in the century or so leading to this document, Mariological development at the magisterial level became more “maximalist,” explicitly favoring both the terms and the underlying doctrinal concepts of “Mediatrix” and “Coredemptrix.”
Therefore, the document did not intend to stifle either these titles or the doctrinal framework that under-girds them.
Here is another syllogism:
Texts of the ordinary magisterium — even non-infallible ones — are to be given “religious assent of intellect and will” by all the faithful, including the signatories of MPF.
But the previous magisterial documents (namely, those of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, John Paul II, and Paul VI, cited by Fr. Serafino in his text) taught in a “maximalist” Marian way.
Therefore, the faithful, including the signatories of MPF, owe those magisterial texts the religious assent of intellect and will.
This second syllogism shows the problem we are faced with: evident contradictions in the non-infallible ordinary magisterium.
It needs to be stated that many reputable theologians point out that the “religious assent of intellect and will” does not rule out the possibility of error. Hence, in this question, the ultimate need of a higher-level magisterial intervention.
I hope this helped and didn’t confuse things further!
