“The Virgin Of The Lilies”
“La Vierge Au Lys”.
Artist:
Date: 1899.
Source: PaintingHere.com
Author:
The recent pronouncement from Rome was the Vatican’s November 2025 doctrinal note “Mater Populi Fidelis”, which explicitly discouraged the use of the Marian Title “Mediatrix of All Graces” and rejected the title “Co‑Redemptrix” as inappropriate.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that while Mary has a unique maternal role in salvation history, Christ alone is the one Mediator, and Marian Titles must not obscure this truth.
“Pope John’s Council — Liturgical Revolution”.
Volume Two.
By: Michael Davies.
Page 181.
Available as an Epub download from ANGELUS PRESS
The influence exercised upon the Council by Protestants is well illustrated in relation to Our Lady.
The question of the Council and Our Lady needs to be discussed under three main headings:
1. The Separate Schema.
2. The title “Mediatrix of All Graces”.
3. The title “Mother of the Church”.
The Rhine Group programme was quite definite.
There had been legitimate differences of opinion among Catholic theologians before the Council, not on the fact that Mary had co-operated with Our Lord in the economy of our salvation, but on the nature and extent of that co-operation.
A Croatian peritus, Father Carolus Balic, was particularly active in combating the Rhine campaign, as were many bishops from the Latin countries.
An interesting insight into the progressive mind is the manner in which Xavier Rynne describes the campaign of the Rhine Group to do away with the separate schema.
Orthodox Christians do indeed have a great devotion to Our Lady and, in fact, use the term Mediatrix.
The application of the title Mediatrix to Our Lady is by no means new and can be traced back to the Fathers of the Church.
The schema produced in 1962 began well enough with a number of quotations from the Bible indicating Mary’s place and her co-operation in the divine plan.
On Saturday, 21 November, on the last day of the session, the Pope stated in his closing address that at his own desire, in response to the wishes of many Fathers and suggestions from various parts of the Catholic world, “for the glory of the Virgin Mary and for our own consolation, We proclaim the Most Holy Mary as Mother of the Church”.
He also complained that in the many ceremonies which took place honouring Mary during the Council, together with statements made about her by both Pope John and Pope Paul, meant 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”.35
What emerges from these facts is that Our Lady seems to have succeeded in turning the tables on the Liberals.
Dr. Moorman also considered that the titles which are used are qualified sufficiently to safeguard them from misinterpretation.37
The influence exercised upon the Council by Protestants is well illustrated in relation to Our Lady.
In justice to the Protestant observers it must be made clear that this stemmed not so much from any behind-the-scenes pressures which they may have exerted upon the liberal Fathers and periti, but from the fact that the principal preoccupation of so many of these liberals was “What will the Protestants think?” rather than, “In what way can we most fittingly honour the Mother of God and clarify her role in the economy of salvation ?”
The question of the Council and Our Lady needs to be discussed under three main headings:
1. The Separate Schema.
2. The title “Mediatrix of All Graces”.
3. The title “Mother of the Church”.
“Queen Of The Angels”.
“Regina Angelorum”.
Artist:
Date: 1900.
Collection: Petit Palais.
Source/Photographer:
Copied from English Wikipedia to Commons.
(Wikimedia Commons)
It was opposed to:
A separate schema being devoted to Our Lady;
To the full title “Mediatrix of All Graces”;
And to the title “Mother of the Church”.
1. The Separate Schema.
During the preparatory work for the Council it had been intended to include any conciliar pronouncement on Our Lady within the schema on the Church, but the Preparatory Commission eventually decided unanimously to devote a separate schema to the Blessed Virgin.
1. The Separate Schema.
During the preparatory work for the Council it had been intended to include any conciliar pronouncement on Our Lady within the schema on the Church, but the Preparatory Commission eventually decided unanimously to devote a separate schema to the Blessed Virgin.
After several changes of title, the schema was eventually called “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church”.1
Cardinal Ottaviani had hoped that the Council would discuss this short, six-page schema before the close of the first session.
The happy result, he believed, would have been that “the Council Fathers, ‘with the assistance of Our Lady, would then have concluded the first session in union and harmony’.
But his plea had been ignored”.2
The fact that there was to be a separate schema devoted to Our Lady, and its contents, aroused the displeasure of Protestants and their Catholic sympathisers.
There had been legitimate differences of opinion among Catholic theologians before the Council, not on the fact that Mary had co-operated with Our Lord in the economy of our salvation, but on the nature and extent of that co-operation.
An important school of thought, favoured by Pope Pius XII, had come to see Our Lady as co-operating in the acquisition of our salvation and wished to see the Magisterium define her as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces.
Another school favoured an approach emphasising her position as a member of the Church like ourselves, differing from us not in the essence but in the degree of her perfection.
While the former view is incompatible with Protestantism, the latter has distinct ecumenical possibilities.
The devotion of a separate schema to Our Lady would be seen by Protestants as favouring the former view; they would regard its inclusion within the schema on the Church as an important ecumenical concession.
The rejection of the plan for a separate schema became the first priority for those Fathers and periti who considered the ecumenical aspect of the Council as its most important dimension.
Leading German Protestants had made it clear that Catholic teaching on Our Lady was a major impediment to reunion; that a separate schema on her, if approved, would erect a new wall of division; that if the Blessed Virgin was even mentioned it should be in the schema on the Church; and even that the Council should either keep silent on the subject or reprehend those guilty of excesses.3
The manner in which a single theologian could impose his views on the Council, provided he could gain the approval of the German bishops, has been mentioned in Chapter V.
Leading German Protestants had made it clear that Catholic teaching on Our Lady was a major impediment to reunion; that a separate schema on her, if approved, would erect a new wall of division; that if the Blessed Virgin was even mentioned it should be in the schema on the Church; and even that the Council should either keep silent on the subject or reprehend those guilty of excesses.3
The manner in which a single theologian could impose his views on the Council, provided he could gain the approval of the German bishops, has been mentioned in Chapter V.
In the case of the separate schema, this is exactly what Karl Rahner did. He claimed that if the schema was accepted as it stood “unimaginable harm would result from the ecumenical point of view—all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands”.4
He asked the Rhine bishops to “declare openly” that they could not accept the schema as it stood.5
The Rhine Group forces were accordingly deployed and went into action as soon as the topic was raised during the second session.
Cardinal Frings felt it would be “most fitting” to include everything pertaining to Our Lady in the schema on the Church as, among other things, “such action would do much to foster dialogue with the separated Christians”.6
A Croatian peritus, Father Carolus Balic, was particularly active in combating the Rhine campaign, as were many bishops from the Latin countries.
One of the Rhine arguments was that a separate schema would be taken as defining something new, but a Brazilian Servite bishop, Giocondo Grotti, pointed out that there were separate schemata on a good number of topics but no-one claimed that anything new was being defined here:
Does ecumenism consist in confessing or hiding the truth ? Ought the Council to explain Catholic doctrine, or the doctrine of our separated brethren ? Hiding the truth hurts both us and those separated from us.
Does ecumenism consist in confessing or hiding the truth ? Ought the Council to explain Catholic doctrine, or the doctrine of our separated brethren ? Hiding the truth hurts both us and those separated from us.
It hurts us because we appear as hypocrites. It hurts those separated from us because it makes them appear weak and capable of being offended by the truth.
Let the schemata be separated. Let us profess our Faith openly. Let us be the teachers we are in the Church by teaching with clarity, and not hiding what is true.7
When the vote came, the Rhine Group won by a majority of only seventeen votes. Even Xavier Rynne accepts that “It would be difficult to describe it as a victory for the progressives”.8 (This had been a procedural matter and a fifty-one per-cent majority was sufficient.)
When the vote came, the Rhine Group won by a majority of only seventeen votes. Even Xavier Rynne accepts that “It would be difficult to describe it as a victory for the progressives”.8 (This had been a procedural matter and a fifty-one per-cent majority was sufficient.)
The progressive Catholic Gazette has conceded that Our Lady was included in the schema on the Church “with the feelings of non-Catholics in mind” rather than “give her a separate schema to herself, as many devout Catholics wished them to do”.9
An interesting insight into the progressive mind is the manner in which Xavier Rynne describes the campaign of the Rhine Group to do away with the separate schema.
It is those who attempt to maintain the status quo who are made to appear contentious and their efforts are described as “an extraordinary and intensive propaganda barrage on behalf of a separate schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary”.10
Among the most active supporters of the separate schema were the Council Fathers from the Eastern Rites. The Tablet reported that:
When the Fathers arrived at St. Peter’s (to vote) they found oriental bishops lobbying (and it was the day Mass was celebrated in the Ukrainian rite by the recently-released Archbishop Slipyi), handing out mimeographed sheets with arguments why, out of reverence, Our Lady should get a separate schema to herself . . . It is ironical that the ecumenical movement, which wants to face both the Orthodox and the Protestants, finds these two groups of separated brethren taking opposite views on Marian devotions.11
Among the most active supporters of the separate schema were the Council Fathers from the Eastern Rites. The Tablet reported that:
When the Fathers arrived at St. Peter’s (to vote) they found oriental bishops lobbying (and it was the day Mass was celebrated in the Ukrainian rite by the recently-released Archbishop Slipyi), handing out mimeographed sheets with arguments why, out of reverence, Our Lady should get a separate schema to herself . . . It is ironical that the ecumenical movement, which wants to face both the Orthodox and the Protestants, finds these two groups of separated brethren taking opposite views on Marian devotions.11
Orthodox Christians do indeed have a great devotion to Our Lady and, in fact, use the term Mediatrix.
The fact that the Fathers had been made aware of this caused great concern to the Theological Commission which circulated a document stating that although the Orthodox used the word they did not use it as a base for a theological system.
The Irish Mariologist, Father Michael O’Carroll writes:
The greatest theological system on our Lady’s universal mediation is from an Orthodox theologian, Theophanes of Nicea (☩ 1381). Theophanes is one of the Palamite theologians, named from the greatest of them, Saint Gregory Paloamas (☩ 1359).
The greatest theological system on our Lady’s universal mediation is from an Orthodox theologian, Theophanes of Nicea (☩ 1381). Theophanes is one of the Palamite theologians, named from the greatest of them, Saint Gregory Paloamas (☩ 1359).
Gregory was himself quite explicit: “No divine gifts can reach either Angels or men, save through her mediation”.
Theophanes set forth a closely-argued exposition of Mary’s universal mediation. For example: “It cannot happen that anyone of Angels or men, can come otherwise, in any way whatsoever, to participation in the divine gifts flowing from what has been divinely assumed, from the Son of God, save through His mother . . . Mary is the dispenser and distributor of all the wondrous gifts of The Divine Spirit”.12
Protestant observers have made no secret of their satisfaction at the relegation of Our Lady to the schema on the Church.
Protestant observers have made no secret of their satisfaction at the relegation of Our Lady to the schema on the Church.
Dr. McAfee Brown considered it to be an “item of ecumenical importance”.13
He explains that: “In this way, the separate and independent extension of Marian theology was effectively checked”.14
Dr. Moorman, leader of the Anglican delegation, could not refrain from expressing his relief at the final outcome when he considers that: “A mere handful of votes (twenty-one in all) would have turned the thing the other way, with results which might have proved disastrous.
“Many of the observers wondered if this was a sign that the Holy Spirit was at work”.15
2. The Blessed Virgin Mary—Mediatrix of All Graces.
It was shown in Chapter III that most of the bishops who arrived in Rome for the Second Vatican Council were not really sure why they were there or what direction the Council would take.
2. The Blessed Virgin Mary—Mediatrix of All Graces.
It was shown in Chapter III that most of the bishops who arrived in Rome for the Second Vatican Council were not really sure why they were there or what direction the Council would take.
An Anglican observer, Archdeacon Pawley writes that:
Even after its announcement, there were those who spoke of it as a device for giving conciliar approval to one or two doctrines which the Pope had in mind.
Even after its announcement, there were those who spoke of it as a device for giving conciliar approval to one or two doctrines which the Pope had in mind.
One English Roman Catholic bishop, who must be allowed to remain anonymous, wrote in his diocesan leaflet: “It is an open secret that the bishops are assembling with great hopes of new definitions to supplement the dogmas of the Catholic Faith already revealed.
“It is my personal hope that the Holy Father will see fit to crown our love of our glorious and Blessed Mother, Queen of Heaven and Ever Virgin, with the definition of the dogmas Maria Mediatrix and Maria fons Gratiæ, which have ever been in the Prayers and devotions of the Faithful”.16
The application of the title Mediatrix to Our Lady is by no means new and can be traced back to the Fathers of the Church.
The title is attached to Mary in official Church documents — including Papal Bulls and Encyclicals dating from “Ineffabilis” of Pope Pius IX (1854), and has also been introduced into the Liturgy of the Church through the Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces.17
But the Protestant observers were not simply opposed to the devotion of a separate schema to Our Lady — they were far from pleased with what it contained.
They did not wish simply that the original schema should be relegated to the schema on the Church, but that it should be considerably modified. Dr. Moorman wrote:
The schema produced in 1962 began well enough with a number of quotations from the Bible indicating Mary’s place and her co-operation in the divine plan.
But it began to arouse suspicions in the minds of some of the observers when it began to speak of her as “not only Mother of Jesus, the one and only divine Mediator and Redeemer, but also joined with him in carrying out the redemption of the human race”.
Suspicion grew when it went on to speak of her as “administrator and dispenser of heavenly graces”, and finally as “mediatrix of all graces”.
Nor were they comforted by the appended note which pointed out that these were not new phrases or titles since each of them had appeared in some Papal pronouncement, and that some of the expressions proposed by the “maximalists” had been deliberately omitted.
As for the title of “co-redemptrix”, the note goes on to say that although used by Pius X and Pius XI, it was left out of this schema so as not to offend the “separated brethren”, though no attempt was made to disassociate the Council from this title or to throw any doubts upon its validity.18
At the Fulda Conference, Karl Rahner stated quite correctly that the acceptance of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces was not a dogma of the Faith, but simply a doctrine commonly held by Catholics.19
At the Fulda Conference, Karl Rahner stated quite correctly that the acceptance of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces was not a dogma of the Faith, but simply a doctrine commonly held by Catholics.19
However, such doctrines can eventually be defined as dogmas binding upon the Faithful.
A doctrine which is held universally, particularly when it is incorporated into the Liturgy, may well be proclaimed as a dogma by the Pope — the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Our Lady provide obvious examples.
In fairness to Father Rahner, it must be mentioned that his opposition to the inclusion of the title Mediatrix in the conciliar documents by no means indicates that he does not accept it himself.
The relevant entry in his theological dictionary shows that he by no means rejects it.20
However, in this matter, the Rhine bishops were not as content to follow his advice as they had been in the matter of the separate schema.
They were not opposed to retaining the title Mediatrix, although they were against Mediatrix of All Graces.21
In a written intervention, Cardinal Spellman asked whether such titles used by the Supreme Pontiffs could be passed over simply “because they would be rather difficult for Protestants to understand — the task of an Ecumenical Council is to teach the members of the Church, rather than those outside of it”.22
A good number of bishops from the Latin countries supported the inclusion of the title Mediatrix, including eighty-two from Portugal, whose spokesman feared that 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”.23
A good number of bishops from the Latin countries supported the inclusion of the title Mediatrix, including eighty-two from Portugal, whose spokesman feared that 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”.23
Liberal Cardinals, such as Léger, Döpfner, Bea, and Alfrink, led the opposition to its inclusion. Surprisingly enough, Cardinal Suenens differed from the Rhine Group on this matter and criticised the revised text for minimising the importance of Our Lady, “a tendency which today constitutes a real danger”.24
In fact, this intervention is not so surprising, as Cardinal Suenens had been noted for his devotion to the Mother of God and had written a most excellent book on Mary, before the Council.25
“For this one brief moment”, writes Father Wiltgen, “Cardinal Suenens had the courage to break away from the party line and speak out his own mind”.26
Eventually, a typical conciliar compromise was reached. The Liberals agreed not to oppose the inclusion of Mediatrix, if the conservatives did not insist on the title Mother of the Church.
Eventually, a typical conciliar compromise was reached. The Liberals agreed not to oppose the inclusion of Mediatrix, if the conservatives did not insist on the title Mother of the Church.
The very idea of making compromises with regard to the honour due to Our Lady is distasteful — but at least this was a set-back for the extreme Liberals, but not too severe a set-back as they had managed to restrict the title to the one word Mediatrix and had excluded the three words “of All Graces”, to which the Protestant observers took such exception.
3. Mother of the Church.
The title of the schema on Our Lady which it had been decided should be added to the schema on the Church had been “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church”.
3. Mother of the Church.
The title of the schema on Our Lady which it had been decided should be added to the schema on the Church had been “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church”.
Contrary to what had been promised in the debate, the text was not simply transferred, but, to quote Archbishop Mingo of Monreale, Italy, had been “absolutely and radically mutilated”.27
Among these mutilations, a Spanish bishop laid special stress on the change of title to: “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church”.
He claimed that the “revised text had reduced the doctrine on the Blessed 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 into the schema on the Church, no such diminution was intended or would be carried out’”.28
Cardinal Wyszynski on behalf of seventy Polish bishops asked the Pope to proclaim Our Lady “Mother of the Church”, as did eighty Spanish bishops who pointed out that the title corresponded to Pontifical documents issued by Popes Benedict XIV, John XXIII, and Paul VI.
Cardinal Wyszynski on behalf of seventy Polish bishops asked the Pope to proclaim Our Lady “Mother of the Church”, as did eighty Spanish bishops who pointed out that the title corresponded to Pontifical documents issued by Popes Benedict XIV, John XXIII, and Paul VI.
They wished to have the title restored to the schema where it had probably been inserted on the instructions of Pope John, himself, but had been removed by the Liberal-dominated Theological Commission on its own authority during its “mutilation” of the separate schema.
The members of this drafting commission misled the Council Fathers on a number of occasions, either through ignorance or deliberate deception.
They stated in a document distributed to the bishops that Pope Pius XII had never used the word Mediatrix.
Father O’Carroll informs us that:
He did so many times. I quote his plenary affirmation: “The maternal office in ‘Mediatrix’ really began at the very moment of her consent to the Incarnation.
He did so many times. I quote his plenary affirmation: “The maternal office in ‘Mediatrix’ really began at the very moment of her consent to the Incarnation.
“It was manifested for the first time by the first sign of Christ’s grace at Cana in Galilee; from that moment, it spread rapidly down through the ages with the growth of the Church” (Per Christi Matrem, 15 May 1947).
He also said: “For she (Mary) has been appointed Mediatrix of All the Graces which look towards sanctification and is properly called Mother and Queen of the Catholic Priesthood and Apostolate” (Sedes Sapientiae, 31 May 1956).29
In the end, as part of the compromise to enable the title Mediatrix to remain, the new title was accepted, and those who had demanded the inclusion of the title Mother of the Church had to be content with the following passage in Article 53 of the Constitution on the Church: “Taught by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church honours her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother”.30
In the end, as part of the compromise to enable the title Mediatrix to remain, the new title was accepted, and those who had demanded the inclusion of the title Mother of the Church had to be content with the following passage in Article 53 of the Constitution on the Church: “Taught by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church honours her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother”.30
However, the matter did not end there.
By this time, although the effective control of the Rhine Group over the machinery of the Council was almost absolute, organised opposition was beginning to emerge.
In the third session, this resulted in the emergence of several organised groups which, although never approaching the numerical strength of the Rhine Group’s World Alliance, were able to alert many of the middle-of-the-road Fathers as to what was happening and thus secure the correction of some of the more glaring deficiencies in the schemata.
The schemata were, of course, now drafted by the conciliar commissions which were, for practical purposes, Rhine Group commissions.
The most effective of these “opposition” groups was the International Group of Fathers (Coetus Internationalis Patrum).
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a leading member of this group, of which much more will be written in the chapter on Communism.
The International Group of Fathers collected signatures for a petition to the Pope begging him to proclaim Our Lady as Mother of the Church. Other petitions to the same effect had been received, notably one from all the bishops of Poland.31
On Wednesday, 18 November 1964, Pope Paul announced at a public audience: “We are happy to announce to you that we shall close this session of the Ecumenical Council — by joyfully bestowing upon Our Lady the title due to her, Mother of the Church”.
On Wednesday, 18 November 1964, Pope Paul announced at a public audience: “We are happy to announce to you that we shall close this session of the Ecumenical Council — by joyfully bestowing upon Our Lady the title due to her, Mother of the Church”.
The Liberals had suffered several other reverses during this week, and it has come to be known as “Black Week” in their mythology.32
On Saturday, 21 November, on the last day of the session, the Pope stated in his closing address that at his own desire, in response to the wishes of many Fathers and suggestions from various parts of the Catholic world, “for the glory of the Virgin Mary and for our own consolation, We proclaim the Most Holy Mary as Mother of the Church”.
This announcement was greeted by a standing ovation, and the Pope was interrupted by applause seven times during his address.
He also announced his intention of sending a Golden Rose to Fatima to “entrust to the care of this Heavenly Mother the entire human family, with its problems and worries, with its lawful aspirations and ardent hopes”.
Father Wiltgen considers this to have been a partial reply to the petition from 510 heads of dioceses, archdioceses, and patriarchates from 76 countries, begging the Pope to consecrate the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as Our Lady of Fatima had requested.
In the face of opposition from Cardinal Bea and the bishops of France and Germany, Pope Paul had felt unable to take this step.33
Conclusion.
Pope Paul’s action enraged the Liberals. “The promulgation of the misleading title Mater Ecclesiæ against the expressed will of the Council majority, which will arouse in non-Catholic Christendom great indignation, and grave doubts as to the genuinely ecumenical sympathies of the Pope”, was Hans Küng’s verdict !34
Professor Oscar Cullmann, a Lutheran observer, stated in a Press conference:
We cannot pass over in silence the disappointment we experienced at seeing the title “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 intended to weaken Mariology — has in reality made it even stronger, because everything stated about the Church culminates, so to speak, in this chapter.
Conclusion.
Pope Paul’s action enraged the Liberals. “The promulgation of the misleading title Mater Ecclesiæ against the expressed will of the Council majority, which will arouse in non-Catholic Christendom great indignation, and grave doubts as to the genuinely ecumenical sympathies of the Pope”, was Hans Küng’s verdict !34
Professor Oscar Cullmann, a Lutheran observer, stated in a Press conference:
We cannot pass over in silence the disappointment we experienced at seeing the title “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 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 also complained that in the many ceremonies which took place honouring Mary during the Council, together with statements made about her by both Pope John and Pope Paul, meant 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”.35
What emerges from these facts is that Our Lady seems to have succeeded in turning the tables on the Liberals.
The inclusion of the schema on her in the Constitution on the Church had an effect precisely the opposite to what was intended; her title Mediatrix was included; and the title Mother of the Church was bestowed upon her in a far more solemn and public manner than would have been the case if the Liberals had not made such efforts to eliminate it from the text of the Constitution.
It might seem that what this chapter has shown is precisely the opposite of what it was intended to show, in other words, the extent of Protestant influence upon the Council.
It might seem that what this chapter has shown is precisely the opposite of what it was intended to show, in other words, the extent of Protestant influence upon the Council.
This is not the case.
The fact that the result of this influence turned out differently than intended does not alter the fact that so many of the Fathers and their advisers were prepared to go to such lengths to play down or ignore aspects of the Faith which they feared would be unpalatable to Protestants.
A separate schema on Our Lady was rejected for ecumenical reasons;
the title Mother of the Church was excluded for ecumenical reasons;
the words “of All Graces” were removed from the title Mediatrix for ecumenical reasons.
Dr. Moorman wrote:
In its final form it was greeted by all but the most Protestant of the observers as a just and unexceptional statement which could not reasonably be accused of raising new barriers among the people of God.
In its final form it was greeted by all but the most Protestant of the observers as a just and unexceptional statement which could not reasonably be accused of raising new barriers among the people of God.
Certain titles are attributed to the Virgin — Advocate, Supporter, Helper, Mediator — but the two expressions most likely to cause offence (“Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of All Graces”) were carefully avoided.36
Dr. Moorman also considered that the titles which are used are qualified sufficiently to safeguard them from misinterpretation.37
Dr. McAfee Brown was pleased to note that the chapter on Mary is “deliberately couched in as biblical a framework as possible, replacing the string of Papal quotations that had characterised the earlier draft, so that there might be an ecumenical meeting point with Protestants and Orthodox, both of whom affirm the authority of biblical, but not Papal statements”.38
What this observer fails to make clear is that the Orthodox do indeed accept the doctrine of Mediatrix even if not on the basis of Papal statements.
Despite its deficiencies, the chapter on Our Lady has emerged as a fine, if far from perfect, exposition of the role of Our Lady in the Church.
Despite its deficiencies, the chapter on Our Lady has emerged as a fine, if far from perfect, exposition of the role of Our Lady in the Church.
Furthermore, in no sense whatsoever have the developments in Marian doctrine, which many of the Faithful hoped would emerge from the Council, been precluded — although there is little hope of their emergence in the present climate.
Father Milan Mikulich rightly pointed out that the chapter on Our Lady is “. . . a point of arrival and a point of departure in the relationship between Mary and the Church”:
It is a point of arrival because in this chapter the theologians and the bishops arrived at the point of establishing the clearer terms concerning the relationship between Mary and the Church.
It is a point of arrival because in this chapter the theologians and the bishops arrived at the point of establishing the clearer terms concerning the relationship between Mary and the Church.
It is a point of departure because the Council clearly states that it does not “have in mind to give a complete doctrine on Mary, nor does it wish to decide those questions which the work of theologians has not yet fully clarified”.
Those opinions — continues the Council — “may be lawfully retained which are propounded in the Catholic schools concerning Her, who occupies a place in the Church which is the highest after Christ and yet very close to us”.39
One final point of interest is that far from the reduction in length which the Liberals had hoped for when they secured a vote against the separate schema, the chapter in the Constitution on the Church proved to be one-third longer.40
One final point of interest is that far from the reduction in length which the Liberals had hoped for when they secured a vote against the separate schema, the chapter in the Constitution on the Church proved to be one-third longer.40
The attitude towards Our Lady manifested by the Liberals during the Council has come to be the hallmark of those engaged in contemporary ecumenism.
As stated above: When Catholic doctrine is to be explained, the prime criterion is not: “Is this what the Church teaches ?” but, “Will this offend Protestants ?”
As Cardinal Heenan wrote: “Some over-enthusiastic ecumenists would jettison all Marian dogma in the belief that this would please Protestants”.41
Apart from anything else, this does less than justice to Protestants themselves for, to quote Cardinal Heenan again: “Catholics do less than credit to non-Catholics by thinking that they expect us to be silent about the claims of the Church.
“Those of us on terms of the closest friendship with other Christians know that they never want us to disguise the Church’s claims. They respect an honest statement of Catholic belief and despise those who paint a false picture”.42
It is noted that the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) recently issued strong comments on the Vatican’s doctrinal note “Mater Populi Fidelis” (November 2025), criticising it as a denial of traditional Marian titles and a wound to Catholic devotion.
SSPX’s Reaction.
• Interview with Superior General Fr. Davide Pagliarani (November 2025):
• He said that: “To deny the title of Co‑Redemptrix is tantamount to dethroning the Most Blessed Virgin”, which he described as something that “wounds the Catholic Soul in what is dearest to it.”
• His immediate response was to Celebrate a Mass of Reparation for what he considered an attack on Marian doctrine.
Communiqué from the SSPX General House (November 2025):
• The SSPX accused the Vatican of “caricaturing” traditional Marian terminology in order to distance itself from it.
• They argued that the Note’s insistence that “it is always inappropriate” to use “Co‑Redemptrix” and that “special prudence” is required for “Mediatrix” amounts to forbidding these titles in practice.
• The communiqué claimed the Vatican’s text “seeks to minimise the role entrusted by God to His Associate in the work of Redemption”, reducing Mary’s universal mediation almost to denial.
No comments:
Post a Comment