The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith recently released a document on the Blessed Mother entitled Mater Populi Fidelis (Mother of the Faithful People). It is subtitled “Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation.”
The reason for the note, made clear in the presentation, is that there exist new devotions to Mary, new (or reinterpreted) expressions about her, and even requests for new Marian dogmas. The intention of the note is to present a genuinely theological understanding of Marian devotion, one inspired by the Gospel, rooted in the teachings of the Catholic Church, and in harmony with the complex of Christian mysteries.
The document treats several titles traditionally imputed to the Blessed Mother, but two stand out: co-redemptrix and mediatrix. As regards the former, it concludes that it is “always inappropriate” because this appellation easily gives rise to misunderstandings. There is one and only one Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Although there is a correct way to understand co-redemptrix, the document states that if an expression requires repeated explanations, a significant problem is thereby revealed.
The note then moves on to the title of mediatrix. Unlike co-redemptrix, the document does not insist that this title is “always inappropriate” but rather that its use merits “special prudence.” While extensively citing Vatican II’s teaching on Mary, the note does not refer to the vigorous conciliar debate over the title mediatrix. More than sixty years ago, there was, in fact, an intense battle in the council’s Theological Commission (also called the De Fide) over whether this term should be attributed to Mary by an ecumenical council.
The question was a sensitive one given the polemics surrounding the Blessed Mother since the time of the Reformation. Moreover, the Catholic Church had infallibly defined two dogmas about Mary (her Immaculate Conception in 1854 and her bodily Assumption in 1950), further dividing Catholics from Orthodox and Protestant Christians. How could the council—which had ecumenical intentions and was replete with Orthodox and Protestant observers—express Mary’s role in salvation history in a sensitive manner, yet one that was fully appreciative of Catholic teaching? This was the task before the Theological Commission.
The chapter on Mary was drafted by the Louvain theologian Gérard Philips, also the moderator of the De Fide. When he presented his schema to the commission in June 1964, controversy immediately ensued. Archbishop Pietro Parente, an official of the Holy Office, expressed his grave disappointment that there was no mention in the draft of Mary’s role as mediatrix of God’s grace. Parente’s complaint was echoed by Charles Balić, a Croatian Franciscan and ardent Mariologist. Balić blamed Philips directly for failing to include Mary’s mediatorial role. Philips defended himself, saying that he did not believe that the council (given its pastoral and ecumenical intentions) had the authority to impose the title of mediatrix.
But Parente pressed his case, asking Philips to rework the draft so as to reconcile two theological trajectories: Mary as Christ’s exemplary disciple and as mediatrix of grace. Philips refused, shocking members of the De Fide since the Louvain theologian normally took pains to synthesize differing theological perspectives. Some surmised that Philips, clearly acting out of character, had been privately informed that Paul VI opposed having the title mediatrix in the Dogmatic Constitution.
Despite Philips’s refusal, Parente remained on the offensive: A paragraph should be included mentioning Mary as mediatrix, even while insisting on Christ’s unique mediatorial role. Parente then proposed a formula: “It is a fact that in the Catholic Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary, beyond other titles with which she has been adorned, has been called ‘mediatrix.’ But this title has been understood so that it neither derogates from, nor adds to, the dignity and efficacy of the mediatorship of Jesus Christ.”
The eminent theologians Yves Congar and Karl Rahner were unconvinced by Parente’s formula, stating that the term mediatrix was bound to cause theological confusion and to give ecumenical offense. With the debate inconclusive, the full De Fide was asked to vote on whether to include the disputed term in the schema. The tally was 12-9 in favor of inserting mediatrix in the draft presented to the bishops.
But the drama over Mary was not yet finished. In August 1964, Philips made a pilgrimage to the Marian shrine at Lourdes, France. There, the local bishop threw cold water on his work, stating that “the schema De Beata [On the Blessed Virgin] satisfies no one.” Philips was unperturbed: “I have tried honestly to write a true Mariology. Nonetheless, the whole affair is in the hands of God.”
And the controversy continued in St. Peter’s Basilica when the bishops started to discuss the schema. Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens of Belgium was considered one of the progressive bishops at Vatican II. But, surprisingly, and on the floor of St. Peter’s no less, he accused Philips’s schema of purveying anti-Marian Christo-centrism. This accusation was shocking—and considered by many an act of betrayal, both personal and theological. Once again, Philips was undisturbed, confiding to his journal that he was not at the service of Suenens, but at the service of the Church and of truth.
A more temperate criticism came from Max Thurian of the Taizé community, one of the distinguished Protestant observers. He asked the De Fide to remove the word mediatrix from the draft, since it would be problematic for Protestant Christians. But it was already late in the day. Thurian was told only a direct intervention by Paul VI would be sufficient to withdraw it. But Paul did not intervene.
In October 1964, Philips was editing De Beata, taking into consideration the issues raised by the bishops. He wondered how best to handle the inflammatory title, mediatrix. He concluded that he would surround the disputed term with other titles of Marian devotion such as advocata and adjutrix. Such a strategy, he thought, would prevent mediatrix from developing an isolated and technical theological meaning. As we know from reading Lumen Gentium today, Philips’s work was approved both by the De Fide and by the conciliar bishops.
Looking back on his chapter on Mary, six months after Lumen Gentium had been formally promulgated (21 November 1964), Philips ruminated about the theological debates that had taken place. Some theologians and bishops were convinced that the title mediatrix was essential to Catholic Mariology. Philips was not opposed to the designation, but remarked, “We venerate the individual person, but this person is only venerable because he or she is referred to Christ as source and fulfillment. The dignity of Mary also comes from Christ. Naturally, no one denies this origin. But the method employed by many does not always take sufficient account of it.”
Mater Populi Fidelis has long been foreshadowed by the lively theological debates at Vatican II. If we are to judge from the recent document—with its drumbeat of citations from Lumen Gentium—Philips’s sober Mariology presciently anticipated the dicastery’s contemporary concerns.
