The Fernández Note: A Modernist Assault on Mary’s Corredemptive Role
[INFOVATICANA] reports on a doctrinal note by Cardinal Víctor Fernández, pro-theologian to antipope Leo XIV, which seeks to restrict the application of salvation solely to the merits of Christ, denying that the Blessed Virgin Mary—or any member of the Church—can merit for the salvation of others. The article counters this by citing John Paul II’s Salvifici Doloris and St. Thomas Aquinas, arguing that Mary’s cooperation in redemption was meritorious. While the article correctly identifies an error, it fails to grasp the full depth of the modernist contamination: Fernández’s note is not merely a theological mistake but a deliberate erosion of the supernatural economy, reducing grace to a naturalistic “desire” and stripping the Immaculate Mother of her true role as Corredemptrix. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith—unchanging before the conciliar apostasy—this note is a symptom of the systematic negation of the Church’s teaching on merit, the communion of saints, and the hierarchical structure of redemption, all of which find their source in the absolute primacy of Christ but allow for real, meritorious cooperation by His members, especially Mary.
1. Fernández’s Naturalistic Reduction of Redemption to “Desire”
The Fernández note states:
“Nuestra salvación es obra sólo de la gracia salvadora de Cristo y no de algún otro. […] Sólo los méritos de Jesucristo, entregado hasta el fin, son los que se nos aplican en nuestra justificación.”
This proposition, while verbally affirming Christ’s unique role, empties it of its full meaning by denying any cooperative merit on the part of creatures. Fernández continues:
“Sin embargo, un ser humano puede participar con su deseo del bien del hermano, y es razonable (congruo) que Dios cumpla ese deseo de caridad que la persona puede expresar «con su oración» o «mediante las obras de misericordia».”
Here, Fernández replaces the Catholic doctrine of meritum de congruo—a real, supernatural merit proportioned to the charity of the justified—with a vague “desire” that God may “fulfill” out of mere condescension. This is not theology but sentimentality, reducing the communion of saints to a psychological sympathy. It contradicts the Council of Trent, which declared:
“If anyone says that the justified, by the good works which they perform by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ… do not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of eternal life… let him be anathema” (Session VI, Canon 32).
Trent here uses “merit” in the proper sense: a title to reward based on justice, not mere congruence. Fernández’s “desire” has no such title; it is a Pelagian remnant, making God’s response arbitrary rather than just. This aligns with the naturalism condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors:
“All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind” (Error 4).
Fernández’s “desire” is precisely such a rationalist reduction: grace becomes a mere divine response to human goodwill, not a supernatural participation in God’s life. The Syllabus further condemns:
“Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil” (Error 3).
Fernández’s system, by making “desire” the criterion, implicitly exalts human effort over the supernatural order. This is the very Modernism Pius X condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu:
“The dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are not truths of divine origin but are a certain interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind has worked out with great effort” (Error 22).
Fernández’s reinterpretation of redemption as a purely extrinsic application of Christ’s merits, with no room for cooperative merit, is exactly such a human “interpretation” that strips dogma of its supernatural content.
2. The True Thomistic Doctrine: Meriting for Others
The Fernández note cites St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I-II, q.114, a.6, ad 3) but grotesquely distorts him. Aquinas indeed asks whether one can merit the first grace for another. His answer is precise:
“Con mérito de condigno sólo Cristo puede merecer para otro la gracia primera… Pero con mérito de congruo sí que se puede merecer para otro la primera gracia. Pues, cuando el hombre constituido en gracia cumple la voluntad de Dios, resulta congruo, de acuerdo con una proporción basada en la amistad, que Dios cumpla la voluntad del hombre que desea la salvación de otro” (STh I-II, 114, 6).
Fernández seizes on the word “congruo” and reduces it to a vague “desire,” but Aquinas means a real, supernatural merit based on the friendship of charity. In the ad 3 of the same article, Aquinas gives the classic example:
“Los pobres que perciben limosnas se dice que reciben a otros en las moradas eternas, bien porque con su oración logran que sean perdonados, bien porque les merecen de congruo la salvación mediante las propias obras buenas.”
Here, “merecen de congruo” is not a figure of speech; it is a real title to grace for others, rooted in the charity of the just. Fernández’s “desire” is a nullification of this doctrine. Moreover, Aquinas in article 4 explains that laborious works and suffering increase merit:
“El dolor, bien aceptado y bien llevado, hace crecer la llama del amor, y, por lo tanto, aumenta el mérito” (STh I-II, 114, 4, ad 2).
This directly supports the article’s reference to Colossians 1:24 and John Paul II’s Salvifici Doloris: the sufferings of the just “complete what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ” not by adding to their infinite value, but by participating in them meritoriously for the Church. Fernández’s denial that any human merit applies to justification is therefore a direct contradiction of Aquinas, who states that the justified can merit de congruo for others, including the first grace. Fernández’s error is not minor; it undermines the very doctrine of the communion of saints and the mystical body, where the members cooperate in the work of the Head.
3. Magisterial Witness to Mary’s Corredemptive Merits
The Fernández note attempts to nullify the title “Corredemptrix” by restricting redemption to Christ’s merits alone, thereby making Mary’s cooperation meaningless. But the pre-1958 Magisterium is unequivocal:
- Leo XIII (1896): “En los misterios del Rosario… brillan patentes los méritos de María en la obra de nuestra reconciliación y salvación” (Fidentem piumque, AAS 29, 204-209).
- Leo XIII (1901): “Tantas veces también nos acordamos de los otros méritos singulares por los cuales Ella fue hecha partícipe con su Hijo de la humana redención” (Litterae Apostolicae de Consecratione Novi Templi, AAS 34, 193-195).
- Pius X (1904): “Por el hecho de que María supera a todos en santidad y en unión con Jesucristo y, por haber sido asociada por Jesucristo a la obra de la Redención, ella nos merece de congruo, como dicen los teólogos, lo que Jesucristo nos merece de condigno” (Ad diem illum laetissimum, AAS 36, 449-462).
- Pius XII (1950): “Ella, en fin, soportando con ánimo esforzado y confiado sus inmensos dolores, como verdadera Reina de los mártires, más que todos los fieles, «cumplió lo que resta que padecer a Cristo en sus miembros… en pro de su Cuerpo [de él]…, que es la Iglesia» (Col 1,24)” (Mystici Corporis, n. 51).
These papal teachings are crystal clear: Mary’s cooperation was meritorious, and she “merited for us” (meruit nobis) what Christ merited condignly. Pius X explicitly says she merits de congruo for us. This is not a “vague desire” but a real, supernatural participation in the redemptive act. Fernández’s note, by denying this, places itself in direct opposition to the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The article correctly notes that Vatican II omitted the title “Corredemptrix” for “ecumenical reasons,” but this omission is itself a betrayal. Pius IX’s Syllabus condemns:
“Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church” (Error 18).
To water down Mary’s role to avoid offending Protestants or Orthodox is to accept this condemned error. Fernández’s “prudence” is the prudence of the world, which James condemns: “Adulterers, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?” (James 4:4).
4. The Symptomatic Modernism of the Fernández Note
Fernández’s error is not isolated; it is a fruit of the conciliar revolution. The note’s language is characteristically ambiguous:
- It speaks of “participar con su deseo” instead of “cooperar con mérito.”
- It reduces Mary’s role to “humilde servidora” without acknowledging her unique, mediatorial cooperation.
- It isolates Christ’s merits as the sole efficient cause, making creatures passive recipients.
This is the Modernism Pius X described in Pascendi Dominici gregis: the denial of the supernatural order, the reduction of grace to a vague immanence. Fernández’s note also echoes the condemned proposition:
“The dogmas of faith should be understood according to their practical function, i.e., as binding in action, rather than as principles of belief” (Lamentabili, Error 26).
By making Mary’s cooperation merely “desirable” for ecumenical dialogue, Fernández treats the dogma of her Corredemption as a “practical function” to be downplayed, not a principle of belief. This is the essence of the hermeneutic of continuity: pretending that new teachings are developments, when they are outright negations. The Fernández note, endorsed by antipope Leo XIV, shows that the post-conciliar sect has fully embraced the naturalism of the Syllabus and the evolutionism of Lamentabili. It is a stark reminder that the structures occupying the Vatican since John XXIII have been a continuous apostasy, as St. Robert Bellarmine taught that a manifest heretic loses the papacy ipso facto (cf. De Romano Pontifice, II:30).
Conclusion: Return to Immutable Tradition
The Fernández note is not a legitimate theological development but a modernist corruption. It denies the real merit of the saints, especially Mary, reducing the communion of saints to a sentimental “desire.” It contradicts Aquinas, the Roman Pontiffs before 1958, and the Council of Trent. Its “prudence” is the prudence of those who, as Pius IX said, “think they can do without God” (Syllabus, Error 39). The only response is the integral Catholic faith: Mary is truly Corredemptrix, who with Christ merited for us, and whose cooperation was necessary for the Incarnation and Redemption. As Pius XI taught in Quas Primas, Christ’s kingdom must reign over all, including theology. The Fernández note is a rebellion against that reign. Let the faithful cling to the unchanging doctrine of the pre-1958 Church, and reject the conciliar sect and its “theologians” who “toss aside the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
Source:
TRIBUNA: El Papa y la “querella” sobre la Corredención. Los errores de Víctor Fernández (II) (infovaticana.com)
Date: 15.02.2026