Revisionist Marian History?

There was some hope that our most holy lord, Benedict XVI, would offer a reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council, that is, of its place in history, during the course of his homily on Feast of the Immaculate Conception at St. Peter's in Rome. This expectation was not met, though he had some interesting things to say about the role and place of the Blessed Virgin with respect to the Council. I draw your attention to the following passage from his homily:

"There is a moment fixed indelibly in my mind, when on hearing [Paul VI's] words, "Mariam Sanctissimam declaramus Matrem Ecclesiae" - 'let us declare Mary the Most Holy Mother of the Church', the Fathers leapt out of their chairs and stood applauding, paying homage to the Mother of God, our Mother, the Mother of the Church."

This passage intrigues me for a number of reasons. First of all, if the translation I'm quoting is accurate, I'm puzzled by the Holy Father's rendering of "Mariam Sanctissimam declaramus Matrem Ecclesiae." So far as I can tell, the sentence means "WE DECLARE that Mary is the Mother of the Church" and not "let us declare" which would be "declaremus."

Notice the way in which the words of Paul VI are related in the vernacular and how the Holy Father juxtaposes Pope Paul's words with the response of the Council fathers. Pope Paul says something like: "Let us agree in calling Mary the Mother of the Church" and the Council fathers vote "yes" with their enthusiastic applause. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable that Paul VI had said "WE DECLARE" and then the Council fathers seconded, with their applause, the declaration.

Romano Amerio remembers a very different story from the Council with regard to the beautiful title, "Maria, Mater Ecclesiae." Again, for those of you who are yet without the book, I quote at length from Iota Unum:

"The second papal intervention [at the Council] concerned devotion to Our Lady. The dominant view was that, as something peculiar to the Catholic religion, devotion to Our Lady should be only briefly treated at a council which had given pride of place to the causa unionis. It was thought a single chapter on Our Lady ought to be enough, and the separate schema envisaged by the preparatory commission was not necessary.

"From its beginning, the Council was in fact under the influence of German theological schools, themselves influenced by a protestant mariology which it was thought undesirable to contradict. Protestantism, like Islam, accords merely a certain reverence to Our Lady, but rejects that full and unique veneration which the Church accords in a very special way to the Mother of Jesus.

"Among the many titles with which Catholic devotion has surrounded the Virgin some, even most, are the fruit of the poetic imagination and vivid affectionate feelings of Christian peoples, while others presuppose or generate a theological proposition. The Coronation of the Virgin has, for example, been the subject of magnificent works of art, but has not figured in theology; while the Assumption has figured in both art and theology and was finally given dogmatic status by Pius XII in 1950. The grounds for the dogma of the Assumption lie in the profound ontological connections between the unique character of the God-Man and the person of His Mother.

"Paul VI wanted one of these many titles, Mother of the Church, to be officially approved in the schema on the Blessed Virgin, or rather in the chapter of the schema on the Church to which the former schema had been reduced. The Council wished otherwise.

"The title is based on both theological and anthropological considerations: since Mary is truly the Mother of Christ, and since Christ is head of the Church and, in a sense, the 'contracted' Church (just as the Church, to use Nicholas of Cusa's phrase is the 'expanded Christ') the step from Mother of Christ to Mother of the Church is beyond criticism.

"But the majority of the Council objected to the proposed proclamation, on the grounds that the title was of the same kind as those that range from the poetic to the speculative, are of uncertain meaning, lack a theological basis, and obstruct the way to Christian unity.

"Acting on his own authority, the Holy Father proceeded to make the solemn proclamation in his speech closing the third session of the Council on 21 November 1964, and was received in silence by an assembly usually quick to applaud.

"The Pope's act gave rise to strong complaints since the title had been struck out of the schema by the theological commission (despite an impressive number of votes in favor) and the Bishop of Cuernavaca had actually critized it on the council floor. The incident illustrates the internal dissensions in the Council and the anti-papal spirit of the modernizing party. In the face of these facts, one cannot accept an assertion made by Cardinal Bea. He was right when he said that since there had been no specific vote by the Council on whether to accord the title to the Virgin or not, it was not fair to oppose the unstated desire of the Council to the authoritatively exprssed will of the Pope. The cardinal went beyond the bounds of logic, however, when he tried to prove the Pope and Council were in agreement, by arguing that the title Mater Ecclesiae was implicitly contained in the whole mariological teaching expounded in the constitution. An implicit teaching is, however, a teaching in potentia, and somebody who refuses to make it explicit, that is to teach it in actu, is certainly at odds with somebody who does want it made thus explicit.

"The statement made by Cardinal Bea, who was one of the opponents [of the title], is merely a sign of respect or reparation directed at the Pope. It rests on a sophistical line of argument which would equate the implicit with the explicit, and is designed to rob the incident of its significance. Someone who refuses to make an implicit proposition explicit is not of the same mind as someone who wants it made explicit, because by not wanting it made explicit, the latter does not really want it at all."

There seems to be a curious situation here: one of these men has a faulty memory (either there was loud, exuberant applause or there wasn't) or there is some confusion about which event is being recalled. I can think of neither Romano Amerio nor certainly of Benedict XVI that they are disingenuous in their accounts, but at the very least, the details which Amerio brings to the surface about a number of Council fathers' feelings with regard to the title, Mater Ecclesiae, are worthy of consideration. This seems especially clear when we consider that the fruit of the Council, purportedly guided by a Marian spirit, was not a greater devotion to Our Lady nor to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, but a decline in the belief in the incarnational elements of our holy religion and a move away from Marian devotion.

go to main page