Standing with Peter: on the Inerrancy of the Papacy, and a comparison between Mater Populi Fidelis and Fiducia Supplicans

In our increasingly isolationist culture, steeped with the heresy Leo XIII dubbed “Americanism,” it would seem that every declaration from the Vatican is doomed to be met with sound condemnation and controversy. More and more, the faithful in the United States subject every document from the Magisterium to the exact same litmus test they subjected Humanae Vitae to: does this document align with my personal notion of what Catholicism is, and to what degree do I personally accept or reject this teaching? As it was with Paul VI so it was with JPII, so it was with Vatican II, so it was with Benedict XVI, Francis, and now (unsurprisingly), Leo XIV. With the continuity of selective-acceptance drawing closer to the hundred year mark and spanning both pre Vatican II papacies as well as post, one almost wonders at what point the modern “Faithful” are simply ipso facto sedevacantists masquerading as crusaders in their adolescently selective rebellions. 

Most recently, this controversy among the American Faithful is, of course, surrounding the document published several weeks ago now entitled Mater Populi Fidelis. Curiously enough, this document is under fire for doing the precise opposite dogmatic activity that the last contentious article - Fiducia Supplicans - engaged in. Whereas the former seeks to suppress a practice which is not founded on clearly defined Catholic dogma, the latter seeks to introduce a novel practice on the grounds that in a strictly legalistic sense would not technically violate long-standing Catholic teaching. In other words, MPF declares that Catholic practices must remain above reproach in their reflections of clearly defined Church teaching so as to avoid obfuscating the truth; FS sought to allow for new practices to reflect pastoral kindness, regardless of the potential scandal or confusion that would ensue. 

I want and intend to dive into the meat of Mater Populi Fidelis, and indeed I shall get there. Before I begin, however, I would like to revisit something I wrote almost two years ago cautioning against the free and liberal spirit with which many criticize and condemn the documents from the Vatican. To contrast this, let us revisit the American response to Humanae Vitae, and the widespread damage it did to the Faith in this country.

The American response and rejection of Humanae Vitae was immediate, nearly universal, and well organized.  Beginning with a secret meeting at the Catholic University of America, many priests were encouraged to sign a document in objection and refutation to the pro-life messages of the encyclical without even being allowed to read the document.  In fact, similar to the widespread reaction to Henry VIII when he broke from Rome, only one priest at that original meeting refused to sign and asked to read Humanae Vitae before he was asked to vehemently oppose it.  This priest was all but ejected from the meeting and held as a naysayer: no discussion would be permitted surrounding the contents of the encyclical.  

The rejection of Humanae Vitae took root quickly in Catholic Churches and their CCD programs, adding to the already swelling sexual revolution happening on our own soil and enshrining it through an apparent endorsement by the largest religious body in the world (if you were not Catholic how would you know any better?).  The opposition to the document did not simply remain within the Church.  It also pervaded American politics, with many politicians declaring that they could set aside what their faith taught in order to politically vote for counter-Catholic policies.  Some of these politicians still maintain this same logic today, and are rightly decried as not living up to their own faith.  

No traditional Catholic today would bless the actions of the liberal radicals who were so instrumental in making abortion almost untouchable in the US today.  How does this relate to criticisms of Pope Leo?  It is a word of caution against the free flowing, ready, vehement and vocal public decries against his publications.  Look how successful the rejection of Pope Paul VI was on a societal level, both in Churches and the community at large.  If we wish to have any semblance of legitimacy in the Roman Papacy after Pope Leo departs the throne, we would do well to echo the sentiment of Thomas More from the play A Man for All Seasons.  When asked if he would sign the document attesting his assent to Henry VIII, he answered that if at all possible, he would indeed sign it.  

We cannot go against Church teaching, but we can read the documents from the Vatican through a lens of already settled Church teaching - even if that means pointing out the technicalities which make these teachings consistent.  If we continue to bash the papacy with such vocal and public veracity, we lose all appeal to the See of Peter as authoritative in itself.  I myself am interested in reading some of the articles concerning the Papacy that will be published during the next Papal Reign: will the same authors who so freely criticize the Papacy now be quick to defend the teachings authority of a Papacy that they happen not criticize?  Or will they see the inherent hypocrisy of such an action as a discredit not only to the authority they will then be defending but also to themselves?  History suggests this lesson, as it has been for the greater part of a century, will be lost yet again. May the Holy Spirit Prevail.

Cautionary tale aside, let us dive into MPF. Let us not be like the multitudes quick to abandon the Petrine succession without even actually reading the document as happened to HV; rather, by taking the document for what it is - and noting what it is not - we can appreciate not only the continuity of Church teaching but also remember how the Church comes to make declarations in the first place.

The document begins with one of the most concise and clearly outlined developments of Marian doctrine that I have ever read. From the earliest Christian devotions to our own time, nearly every major dogma and devotional practice is touched upon. If someone wanted to understand why Catholics teach and believe what they do about Mary, no document perhaps serves a better chronological reference than this. So, right from the beginning, MPF seeks to place itself in the context of longstanding Church practice.

MFP does more than simply track the development of Marian devotion and dogma, however. It also does an exceptional job at articulating the criteria for any dogmatic elevation - be it title which is incorporated into official dogmatic theology or simple canonization for widespread devotional use. Put simply: things that are not clearly defined, are intentionally or accidentally ambiguous, or run the danger of causing scandal are not elevated to widespread use. The Church simply does not operate in this way, and never has. So, in addition to placing itself within the teaching of the Church from the earliest ages, this document is careful to clearly demonstrate how the Church does and does not make declarations on devotional titles. 

Now, after laying the foundation for the crux of the document’s controversial declaration, MFP tackles both Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix specifically. From their rise in the 15th century as corrections to abbreviations (Mother of the Redeemer to the abbreviated Redemptrix, corrected to Co-Redemptrix) to the devotional use in the East which has always been denied dogmatic elevation (Mediatrix), both of these terms have simply been without clear relation to specific theology. Though several pontiffs and saints have indeed used both terms freely in recent history, they have done so without expounding upon their actual meaning. The interpretation of what reality in regards to Mary and her role in Salvation history these terms mean remains as they always have: up to personal interpretation.

Now, both of these titles can be explained in accord with Orthodox Marialogy. But that’s precisely the point of this document: you can defend anything. However, when the literal words of a title - both of which in question are relatively new and are pointedly absent from the litany to Mary - are very specifically confusing, people are left to themselves to explain it in any wat that makes sense to them. And herein lies the crux of the document: because there is no specific theology behind either of these titles, even though technically one could reconcile these titles with currently defined dogmas, the Church should not be utilizing or encouraging language that is inherently confusing, ill-defined, and ambiguous on its face. 

Now, this being said, one could make the argument that the Church is full of terms and doctrines that are confusing to those who do not understand them. Why would these two terms merit special treating and suppression? The answer lies in understanding the Church’s function as Bride of Christ. The Church’s role in history has always been to clarify and define such truths that the whole of the Faithful receive as the deposit of Faith. She does not “legislate from the bench.” Hence, while terms like homoousios might be confusing to some and might need explaining, the term is clearly defined, enshrined in Creedal dogma, and is tied to a specific Christological doctrine.

This document does not revoke anything; the titles in question have never been part of official use and as such cannot be “revoked.” Moreover, the document doesn’t forbid anything, per se. Rather, it says that these two tiles are “always inappropriate,” because of the scandal they can and many times do cause. And, in accord with true Mariology, there is literally nothing less Marian than to eclipsed the efficacy and Salvific work of her Son. That is precisely what these two terms do many times. And so, at least with current linguistics, they are actually outside of long-standing Church teaching on Mary and her role in Salvation history.

The American online reception to this document is nothing more than a crusade of Faithful who are grossly mistaken as to the nature of Tradition. Vociferous and wanton critics of the Vatican in the US marry a grave Protestant-Calvinistic notion imbedded in our founding - that is, the “city on a hill for the rest of the world” mentality - with an extremist and Puritan understanding of the exclusivity of Salvation through the Church. This deadly combo results in disdain for anything which appears too “Evangelical (that is, missionary towards those outside the Church),” and elicits complaints that the Church is pandering to Protestants. This, coupled with the already present American mindset, results in many falling prey to Americanism. And in this light, there is no wonder that America has seen such uniformity in denouncing Vatican documents - no matter what they actually say. In the words of Leo XIII: 

“These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty (Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae: Concerning New Opinions, Virtue, Nature and Grace, with Regard to Americanism).”

 
There is something to be said for not watering down the truth simply to appeal or become accessible to the masses. However, we as Catholics must be careful to witness to the truth in ways that people can understand. The Church simply isn’t the true Church if she is not, by nature, missionary. And so, at the very least, we must proclaim the Faith without casting doubt and confusion to what we truly believe. To accept dubious titles, ill-defined dogmas, and deliberately confusing language is to engage in the opposite activity as the witness of the Martyrs. These individuals gave their lives so that the clarity of their positions might be enshrined by their sacrifice. 

The Church is not a free for all. We speak with one voice, a voice which remains essentially unchanged throughout the ages. From the death of the last Apostle until now, nothing new has been added, and nothing has been taken away. We who live this unchanged Faith in 2026 must be careful to adhere to the Tradition of the Church - that is, what is the truth which must be handed on - in such a way that we are not arrested by preserving the way in which it has been passed on. Such would be historicism: the final nail in the casket for any true tradition.

Above all, we must be careful to witness to the truth of the Church, the truth which rests in its Apostolic nature just as much as it does in her Missionary nature. Freely bandying criticisms of Vatican decrees, without at least trying to see them in light of Church continuity, all while claiming an elitism of personal correctness, is perhaps the most anti-Catholic activity of all. In this light, I echo something here I wrote almost two years ago and which I began this article with: if we are to somehow stand with any semblance of honesty behind Peter in the future, we must also stand behind him now. Even if that means pointing out with charity and fidelity how, in spite of ambiguity or legalistic obfuscation, his office preserves and clarifies rather than invents.