Marian Theologian Esteemed by Benedict XVI Critiques “Mater Populi Fidelis”

“The document required more careful consideration and refinement, but above all it should have been prepared by persons competent in the field.”

(Left: Fr Salvatore Perrella. Right: Cardinal Victor Fernández, credit: Lola Gomez)

ROME, 21 November 2025—One of Church’s leading authorities on Mariology has sharply criticized Mater Populi Fidelis, saying the document reveals the theological and methodological incompetence of those who produced it.

In a recent interview with Swiss media (RSI), Father Salvatore Maria Perrella, OSM, former Professor of Dogmatics and Mariology at the Pontifical Theological Faculty Marianum and twice its Dean, said the new doctrinal Note on the Marian titles “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of All Graces,” issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, should have been more carefully considered and refined. He emphasized that, above all, “it should have been prepared by persons competent in the field.”

The respected Italian Mariologist argues that the Note draws excessively on Pope Francis, whose perspective dominates the text in a way he finds unbalanced and lacking depth. He suggests the result is a document that falls short of the competence, thoroughness, and historical grounding normally expected from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

A member of the Order of the Servants of Mary (Servites), in July 2025 Fr. Perrella currently serves as Conventual Prior of the Community of the Seven Holy Founders in Rome, where he also facilitates collaboration between the Pontifical International Marian Academy, other Pontifical Theological Faculties, and the Apostolic See.

A prominent Mariologist under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, he was part of the 1996 commission, appointed by then-CDF Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, that examined the possibility of defining a fifth Marian dogma—Mary as “Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.” The commission concluded that it was not opportune to define such a dogma at that time.

In his detailed commentary, Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Redemption: Present State of the Question, Perrella at the time questioned the clarity and theological maturity of the titles “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix,” noting they could fail to express the doctrine “clearly, suitably or in a uniform manner.”

In 2010, he was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to the Vatican’s international commission on Medjugorje.

In the new interview with RSI, Fr. Perella admits he is “not fond of the title Co-redemptrix,” but stresses that, as a theologian, he must consider its appearance in the postconciliar Magisterium.

Regarding Mater Populi Fidelis, Perrella describes it as “unmistakably ‘Franciscan—in the Bergoglian sense.” He observes that paragraph 21, which introduces the discussion of “Co-redemptrix,” relies heavily on Pope Francis to explain why the title is “inappropriate” and “unhelpful.”

“Personally,” he says, “I would never have used such expressions. I favor the intelligent approach of Lumen gentium, which takes earlier vocabulary into account: it neither stigmatizes it nor adopts it.”

Fr. Perrella also criticizes Mater Populi Fidelis for being overly dominated by ecumenical concerns, calling this a “misstep,” and notes its excessive length, which he says is “at odds with the Roman Magisterium, traditionally characterized by sobrietas—that is, concision.”

Finally, the Marian theologian brands Paragraph 75 of the Note an “un-precious pearl” for its reliance on the new DDF norms for discerning alleged supernatural phenomena, which he argues “squander” the Church’s history and tradition.

Here is an English translation of the full interview with Fr. Salvatore Perella, published with the kind permission of its author.

---

Mater Populi Fidelis. For many, it is an inappropriate, harmful, and useless document…

On the question of its uselessness, I disagree. Everything is useful in some way—even a controversial document, because it sparks and sustains debate. In this particular case, the doctrinal Note opens debates in theology and Mariology, especially with respect to the different dimensions involved. Within it, a perspective emerges that interprets Mariology in a strictly Christological sense. But there is little, indeed virtually no space for the ecclesiological and anthropological dimensions. And the Trinitarian and symbolic dimensions are entirely absent. The document must, in any case, be understood within a much broader perspective.

Which perspective?

Behind this Note, as the document itself suggests—and I hope the authors are aware—one must consider paragraph 20, which discusses Pope Francis’ position on the title of Co-Redemptrix. The question of Marian titles has always been on the agenda: it reemerges and then subsides. So, what can be said? Regarding the titles related to Mary’s cooperation, they became the focus of renewed reflection starting in 1854 with the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception. It was precisely within the framework of Immaculist doctrine that more in-depth interpretations of Mary’s service or munus in the work of salvation came to be favored, using a variety of terms. Some, in truth, were entirely inappropriate, such as Redemptrix or Substitutrix of what is proper to God. This led theologians and popes, from Leo XIII to Pius XII, to understand the Immaculata in the work of salvation both as a fruit and as a mission: the fruit of mercy, the mission of Mary.

What, in your view, was lacking in that interpretation?

Above all, it overlooked Mary’s creaturely dimension. Today that aspect is fortunately present, though perhaps somewhat excessively. In short, we need a balance that is currently missing. As for the doctrinal Note, my view—after reading and rereading it—is that it adheres formally, though not always wisely, to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, especially Lumen Gentium 60–62[1], later taken up again by John Paul II in Redemptoris Mater, particularly in paragraphs 40–42. These are today the cornerstones of the doctrine of Mary’s cooperatio. Personally, I am not fond of the title “Co-redemptrix,” but as a theologian I cannot fail to take into account that it has also appeared in the postconciliar Magisterium.

John Paul II, in fact, used the title Co-redemptrix seven times. And even though—after the Feria IV of the former Holy Office on February 21, 1996—he no longer employed it, as the Note observes, it is still true that he subsequently used equivalent expressions such as Cooperator with the Redeemer or Singular cooperator in the Redemption. What can you say about this?

All true. Looking specifically at the document Mater Populi Fidelis, I find it unmistakably ‘Franciscan’—in the Bergoglian sense. Paragraph 21[2], which introduces paragraph 22[3], draws on three statements by Pope Francis to explain why the term Co-redemptrix is ‘inappropriate’ and ‘unhelpful’. Personally, I would never have used such expressions. I favor the intelligent approach of Lumen gentium, which takes earlier vocabulary into account: it neither stigmatizes it nor adopts it. Moreover, I have the impression that the Note is dominated by ecumenical concern. And this, I believe, is a misstep. Such concern should of course be present, but it must not be predominant. The priority should be the pastoral character of doctrine. I also find the Note excessively long, at odds with the Roman Magisterium, which traditionally has been characterized by sobrietas—that is, concision.

What is especially problematic is the following passage in paragraph 22: “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.” But from this standpoint, titles such as Mother of God, Immaculata, or Mother of the Church would also appear inappropriate, since they too require extensive explanation—a task that, after all, belongs to theology and catechesis. Don’t you agree?

Undoubtedly. The truth is that we are in history, but we are unaware of it. This disconnect was already evident at the outset with the title Theotokos. The whole uproar over titles is contrived, because they have one single foundation: Sacred Scripture and what Divine Providence, as Father Calabuig taught, willed and designated ab aeterno for Mary. The document—despite being broad and expansive—lacks historical memory. And that, so to speak, is a poverty. Even the very aim of the document; namely, to draw attention to Mary’s role in the work of salvation—expressed, moreover, in an excessively radical way—raises difficulties. Indeed, we should ask ourselves: What is the Church’s urgent concern in matters of faith today? Today people no longer believe in the Trinity; there are doubts about the divinity and messianic identity of Christ. Now, Mary is ancillary to all of this. Mary, to use an expression dear to Benedict XVI, “is second but not secondary.” And the Note, which I would describe as “too Monophysite,” unfortunately does not help to foster the integral and comprehensive understanding of the Christian faith that is needed. In my view, the document required more careful consideration and refinement, but above all it should have been prepared by persons competent in the field.

In presenting Mater Populi Fidelis, Cardinal Fernández stated that certain Marian titles are an issue that “has caused concern among recent popes.” What do you think of that?

It does not seem to me that the popes were troubled by such a question. Their concern was something quite different: the immediate receptio of Lumen gentium and of the Council. We are still living under a mythical reception of Vatican II, whose documents, unfortunately, are not deeply known.

Paragraph n. 75[4] of the Note refers to the new Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena, about which you have been openly critical. What are your reasons?

Forgive me the neologism, but that paragraph is yet another “un-precious” pearl of the Note. And it is such precisely because of its close connection with the new Norms issued by the Dicastery in 2024. I always held in high esteem the Norms approved by Paul VI in 1978 and officially published in 2011. I particularly appreciated the preface signed by the then-Prefect, Cardinal William Levada. At the time, having been consulted by the Congregation, I strongly encouraged a revision of Paul VI’s Norms—but from the perspective of a wise deepening of understanding, not a squandering of the great rhetorical and conceptual heritage of language, content, and perspectives.

Could you explain further?

To understand the new Norms and what has emerged in these two years of Cardinal Fernández’s prefecture, one must always keep before one’s eyes the constantly looming figure of Pope Francis, particularly his reform of the Roman Curia in Praedicate Evangelium. That constitution, which shattered all the diplomatic, political, and operational customs of the Vatican, has also had an impact on Mariology and the Church’s Marian identity. With the reform of the Curia, under Francis, the Secretariat of State lost its primacy and its coordinating role, while the principal dicastery became that for Evangelization. However, the primacy of evangelization cannot disregard the words of Christ, who did not abolish even the smallest letter of the Law (cf. Mt 5:17-19). This fundamental principle should have guided—and should continue to guide—magisterial statements with greater caution, greater respect for history and the present in a forward-looking perspective, and with careful attention to other realities. This also applies to the question of Marian titles.

The document also reflects on popular devotion. Yet popular devotion has always had its own language—that of the heart, of feeling. A striking example is the variety of titles by which, for two millennia, the faithful have addressed Mary, Mother of Christ and of the Church. Think, for instance, of the liturgical antiphon Salve Regina, where she is invoked as Spes nostra and Advocata nostra …

These are titles that properly belong to the Holy Spirit, yet we rightly attribute them to Mary by virtue of the principle of analogy. When I consider popular devotion and its language, I am reminded of a splendid lecture that then-Cardinal Ratzinger delivered at the Marianum on the twofold characterization of Mariology and of the Church’s Marian dimension: namely, reason and sentiment. Hence the crucial question: How can these two demands be brought into harmony? That is the real problem. Unfortunately, there are few well-prepared people in the Church who can help with this. And so, Mary continues to be exploited, as always, in the manner—if I may use the image—of an unpaid laborer. If we truly want to know Mary, we must do so through the Word of God and the sensus fidelium along the journey of the Church.

---

[1] 60. There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, “for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all”. The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power. For all the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ.

61. Predestined from eternity by that decree of divine providence which determined the incarnation of the Word to be the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin was on this earth the virgin Mother of the Redeemer, and above all others and in a singular way the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. She conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace.

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.

[2] 21. On at least three occasions, Pope Francis expressed his clear opposition to using the title “Co-redemptrix,” arguing that Mary “never wished to appropriate anything of her Son for herself. She never presented herself as a co-Savior. No, a disciple.” Christ’s redemptive work was perfect and needs no addition; therefore, “Our Lady did not want to take away any title from Jesus… She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no. There is only one Redeemer, and this title cannot be duplicated.” Christ “is the only Redeemer; there are no co-redeemers with Christ.” For “the sacrifice of the Cross, offered in a spirit of love and obedience, presents the most abundant and infinite satisfaction.” While we are able to extend its effects in the world (cf. Col 1:24), neither the Church nor Mary can replace or perfect the redemptive work of the incarnate Son of God, which was perfect and needs no additions.

[3] 22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, for “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). 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. Indeed, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), Mary directs us to Christ and asks us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn2:5).

[4] 75. Should expressions or titles, such as those mentioned above, emerge in cases of alleged supernatural phenomena that have already received a positive judgment from the Church, one ought to bear in mind that “whenever a Nihil obstat is granted by the Dicastery… such phenomena do not become objects of faith, which means the faithful are not obliged to give an assent of faith to them.”