Rev. Ralph Wiltgen: The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND THE CHURCH

Chapter 7 of the schema on the Church, entitled “The Eschatological Nature of the Pilgrim Church and Its Union with the Church in Heaven,” was the first item to come up for discussion at the third session. This chapter had been introduced in the schema at the wish of Pope John XXIII. The “eschatological” character of a Christian’s life was described as “a continuity of life which begins on earth and reaches perfection in heaven.” The underlying doctrine is that the Church on earth and in heaven constitutes a single People of God and a single Mystical Body of Christ.

Cardinal Urbani, of Venice, called the structure of the chapter satisfactory, adding that it corresponded to the ideas expressed at the second session by Cardinal Frings on behalf of the bishops of Germany and Scandinavia.

The Latin-rite Patriarch of Jerusalem, Alberto Gori, objected strongly to the chapter, saying that the text should not be silent “on the existence of hell, on the eternity of hell,” and on the possibility of “personal damnation.” These were truths that had been explicitly revealed, he said, and should today be given their proper emphasis. So many, in their sermons, he said, seemed to shrink from expressing these doctrines openly and clearly.

Maronite Archbishop Ignace Ziade, of Beirut, Lebanon, said that far too little prominence had been given to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. “The scope of my intervention is simple,” he said. “How is it possible to speak of our eschatological calling without any reference to the Holy Spirit?” The Orientals, he declared, were not able to recognize their traditional doctrine on the Holy Spirit in “such a deficient profession of faith.”

The eighth and final chapter was taken up on the following day. This was the text on the Blessed Virgin Mary, now included as a chapter in the schema on the Church instead of being treated as a separate schema. The chapter was a compromise text produced by two periti—Monsignor Philips and Father Balic—of widely differing views on the matter. Monsignor Philips insisted on leaving out the titles “Mother of the Church” and “Mediatrix,” but the Theological Commission decided to include “Mediatrix,” convinced that if neither of the two were in the text, it would not get the desired unanimous approval from the Council Fathers.

Thirty-three Council Fathers took the floor to discuss this chapter. Cardinal Ruffini, of Palermo, said that the schema “almost veiled” the cooperation of Mary in the work of redemption, which had been willed by God. And since the text also contained the unqualified statement that “Mediatrix" was a title given to the Blessed Virgin, it was necessary to explain clearly what that title meant, so that “non-Catholics will come to realize that the use of this title implies no lessening of the dignity of Christ, who is the one absolutely necessary Mediator.”

Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski, of Warsaw, Poland, speaking on behalf of seventy Polish bishops, drew attention to Pope Paul’s encyclical, Ecclesiam suam, published some six weeks earlier. In that encyclical, said the Cardinal, the Pope called attention to the fundamental importance of the Blessed Virgin in the life of the Church. On the basis of that affirmation, the Polish bishops had sent a memorandum to Pope Paul, requesting that he proclaim the Blessed Virgin “Mother of the Church.” Cardinal Wyszynski also asked, on behalf of the same Polish bishops, that the chapter on the Blessed Virgin be numbered second instead of last in the schema, since in that way it would receive more attention and would better illustrate the role of the Blessed Virgin in relation to Christ and his Church.

Cardinal Leger, of Montreal, said that it was necessary “to renew the Marian doctrine and cult.” This renewal, or reform, had already begun among the theologians, he said, “but it must also reach the pastors and the faithful, and this final chapter of the Constitution on the Church offers the best opportunity for promoting it.” The desired renewal “consists in using accurate words and precise and sober terms to express Mary’s role” In that connection, he questioned the use of the titles given to Mary in the schema—“Mother of Men,” “Handmaid of the Lord Redeemer,” “Generous Companion,” and “Mediatrix.” The origin and meaning of all these titles, he said, should be carefully studied in the light of the best theological research, before their use was endorsed in a conciliar text.

Cardinal Dopfner spoke next, in the name of ninety German-speaking and Scandinavian bishops, repeating what had been decided at the Innsbruck conference. He said that the chapter contained solid doctrine on the Blessed Virgin, without entering into disputed questions, and he felt that it would be best not to add anything more than was in the text concerning the role of Mary as Mediatrix.

Cardinal Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, also objected to the title “Mediatrix.” A Council text, he said, was not intended as a manual for personal devotion. What the Council Fathers had to decide was whether each and every affirmation made in the text was sufficiently thought out and theologically proven to be presented by the Council, as the highest Church authority. Since the role of Mary as Mediatrix was still disputed by some theologians, it should not be included in the text.

Archbishop Corrado Mingo, of Monreale, Italy, severely criticized the text. Contrary to what had been promised in the Council hall, the text had been “absolutely and radically mutilated” in the process of being turned into a chapter of the schema on the Church. The title “Mother of the Church” had been deleted without any justification whatsoever, he said, contrary to the wish expressed by Pope Paul in his discourses of October n, 1963, in the Basilica of St. Mary Major, and December 4, 1963, at the closing of the second session of the Council. Not only should the title “Mediatrix” be retained in the text, he said, but it should be amplified to read “Mediatrix of all graces.”

When the schema entitled “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother I of the Church” was incorporated as Chapter 8 in the schema on the Church, its title was changed to read “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and the Church.” Bishop Juan Hervas y Benet, of Ciudad Real, Spain, said that the original title should be restored. He also criticized the text severely, saying that it was not an adaptation but a completely new version of the original text, which did not correspond to the wishes expressed by the Council Fathers. The revised text had reduced the doctrine on the Virgin Mary to the absolute minimum; yet it had been stated in the Council hall at the time of the vote that “by inserting the schema on the Virgin Mary in the schema on the Church, no such diminution was intended or would be carried out.”

Leo Cardinal Suenens, of Mechelen, Belgium, also objected to the revised text, saying that it appeared to minimize the importance of Mary, a tendency which today constitutes a real danger.” The text did not place the spiritual maternity “which Mary continues to exercise in the Church even today” in its proper light. It was also somewhat defective in its exposition of what the ordinary teaching authority of the Church had to say about Mary, and what the faithful believed regarding the cooperation of the Virgin in the work of redemption. It was necessary, he felt, that the schema should make the faithful realize that they were associated with the maternal action of Mary in carrying out their apostolate.

For this one brief moment Cardinal Suenens had the courage to break away from the party line of the European alliance and speak out his own mind. It would have been strange, indeed, if the Cardinal of Belgium—a land so noted in the Catholic Church for its great devotion to the Virgin Mary—had taken any other public stand.

Bishop Francisco Rendeiro, of Faro, Portugal, speaking on behalf of eighty-two bishops, expressly asked that the title “Mediatrix” should be retained in the text. Its omission would generate scandal among the faithful, since the public was by this time aware that the matter had been discussed in the Council hall.

Auxiliary Bishop Ancel, of Lyons, France, said that the public was getting the false impression from the press that the Council Fathers did not have equal veneration for the Virgin. In order to offset this impression, it was necessary to obtain unanimous approval for the chapter. He attempted to show that the text was in fact a compromise, since it mentioned the title “Mediatrix” but at the same time gave it no endorsement, thus leaving the door open for further study. “Perhaps the title ‘Mediatrix’ might be listed with other titles, in order to avoid the impression that it is a privileged one.”

Archbishop Rafael Garcia y Garcia de Castro, of Granada, Spain, speaking on behalf of eighty Spanish bishops, took the Theological Commission to task for “completely refashioning the text instead of adapting it, as the Council Fathers had desired.” He was also of the opinion that the original title—“On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church”—should be restored, since it corresponded to the pontifical documents issued by Popes Benedict XIV, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, John XXIII, and Paul VI, as well as to the writings of the Fathers of the Church, in particular SS. Irenaeus, Augustine, and Leo the Great. To change the title and to omit this doctrine would be an affront to the teaching of the popes, and would undermine the devotion shown by the Christian people to the Virgin, the Archbishop declared.

Archbishop Giuseppe Gawlina, director of the Polish hospice in Rome, said that devotion to Mary was evidently no obstacle to ecumenism, since Martin Luther had said in 1533—long after his break with Rome—that “the creature Mary cannot be praised enough.” In 1521, in his dissertation on the Magnificat, Luther had written: “What can please her [Mary] more, than if in this way you come to God through her, and from her you learn to believe and hope in God. .. . Mary does not wish that you come to her, but that through her you should come to God.” Four days later the Archbishop died suddenly of a heart attack.

The Moderators had decided that two days of discussion on this chapter would suffice. From the thirty interventions read at the General Congregations of September 16 and 17, it was quite clear that the assembly was still divided on the same lines as before, with large groups opposing and defending the two titles “Mother of the Church” and “Mediatrix.” Concerned that these divisions might nullify everything that had been accomplished, Father Balic approached Cardinal Frings and begged him to address the general assembly the following day to urge acceptance of the compromise text as it stood.

The Cardinal agreed. In his address, he said that the chapter on the Blessed Virgin Mary contained nothing contrary to Catholic faith or to the rights of the separated brethren. It offered a middle road between diverse opinions “and in a certain way may be considered a compromise.” It would be difficult to change the text, he said, since a two-thirds majority would be required. Therefore it seemed best that each one “sacrifice some, personal ideas, even very right ones,” and approve the schema after certain amendments had been made in the scriptural citations and particular passages, as requested in the course of the debate. “Theologians can then use this text as a starting point for making more profound studies of the doctrines which are not yet clear, and can better develop those which are still disputed.”

Cardinal Alfrink, of the Netherlands, spoke next in the name of 124 Council Fathers from his own country, Africa, Latin America, Germany, Italy, and other countries. He repeated in substance the arguments put forward by Cardinal Frings, but he felt that the title “Mediatrix” should not be insisted upon, since it generated such great difficulties.

Bishop Laureano Castan Lacoma, of Siguenza-Guadalajara, Spain, speaking on behalf of eighty Council Fathers, said that, since the Church was a family, the title of the chapter should read “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church,” as before. He saw no reason for its deletion by the Theological Commission.

The text was now referred back to the Theological Commission for revision. In addition to the texts of the oral interventions, the Commission had to take into account a number of written interventions and other comments submitted even before the opening of the third session. When the work of revision was completed. Archbishop Maurice Roy, of Quebec, announced to the assembled Fathers that the chapter would be put to the vote as a whole. The voting took place on October 29; the result was 1559 affirmative votes, 521 qualified affirmative votes, and 10 negative votes. The required two-thirds majority had been achieved, and Father Balic credited the address of Cardinal Frings for this success.

Three weeks later, on November 18, the text as revised in the light of the qualifications submitted by the 521 Council Fathers was put to the vote again. When the assembly was asked if it was satisfied with the manner in which the qualifications had been handled, 99 per cent replied “yes.”

Archbishop Roy explained that, although the title “Mother of the Church” was omitted from the final text, it was equivalently expressed in Article 53, which stated, “Taught by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church honors her [Mary] with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.”

As for the controversial title “Mediatrix,” the solution proposed by Cardinal Ruffini, Bishop Ancel, and others had been adopted in Article 62, which stated: “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. These, I however, are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature could ever be classed with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. . . . The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary.”

Professor Oscar Cullmann, a guest of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, gave a lengthy press conference at the end of the Council in the course of which he said: “We cannot pass over in silence the disappointment that we experienced at seeing the title of ‘Mediatrix’ given to Mary. . . . The fact that the text on Mary, after so much discussion as to where it should be placed, should have finally become the concluding chapter of the schema on the Church—a decision which was in fact intended to weaken Mariology—has in reality made it even stronger, because everything stated about the Church culminates, so to speak, in this chapter.”

He went on to observe that, in the light of the many ceremonies honoring Mary during the Council, and also of the statements made about her by both Pope John and Pope Paul, it must be concluded “that Mariology at this Council has in general been intensified to a degree which is not in keeping with the ecumenical tendencies of Protestantism . . . and with a return to the Bible. Our expectations in this connection have not been fulfilled.” It was clear, he said, “that we could not require the surrender of a teaching and tradition which belongs to the very kernel of Catholic piety.” What he had expected, however, was “a weakening of emphasis, not some sort of revision of the fundamental relationship to the Virgin Mary.”

Just as the attempt by some circles to bring about “a weakening of emphasis” had failed, so too the attempt to reduce the text in length had failed; the new chapter was one third longer than the original schema.