During Vatican II (1962-1965), there was a debate as to whether there would be a document on the topic of Mariology. As a result of a lot of debate, it was finally concluded that Mariology would be attached to the document discussing the Church as chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium. Furthermore, there was much debate for and against the use of various titles, especially Mary as “Mediatrix” (e.g., Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger opposed it on Ecumenical grounds). Rev. Ralph W. Miltgen, S.V.D., who was at the Council and reported on the events as part of the Council News Service, discussed the debates in detail. Note, for example, the following sample:
According to Father Rahner, whose written comments were distributed to all participants in the conference, the schema as then drafted was “a source of the greatest concern” for himself and for Fathers Grillmeier, Semmelroth, and Ratzinger, who had also examined it from a theological point of view. Were the text to be accepted as it stood, he continued, “unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants.” It should not be too strongly stressed, he said, “that all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with that Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands.”
It would be too much to expect, continued Father Rahner, that the schema on the Blessed Virgin could be rejected as simply as the schema on the sources of revelation. It should therefore be urged “with all possible insistence” that the schema on the Blessed Virgin be made either a chapter or an epilogue of the schema on the Church. “This would be the easiest way to delete from the schema statements which, theologically, are not sufficiently developed and which could only do an incalculable harm from an ecumenical point of view. It would also prevent bitter discussion.
Father Rahner contended further that the schema as it stood used “tactics which objectively are not honourable,” since “it declares that there is no intention of defining new dogmas, and at the same time presents certain teachings as though they already belonged to the doctrine of the Church, although they are not as yet dogmas and, from a modern theological standpoint, cannot become dogmas.”
What he attacked especially was the schema’s teaching on the mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the title “Mediatrix of all graces,” which it gave the Blessed Virgin. This teaching was not proposed as a dogma of faith, but rather as a doctrine commonly held by Catholics. Although the teaching was supported by many pronouncements of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church, especially by recent papal encyclicals, “this doctrine must nonetheless be carefully pondered anew,” for the schema would have “great influence on Mariology and on the devotion of the faithful to Mary.” If the word “mediation” were to be used at all, it must be most clearly defined . . . 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 . . .Cardinal Léger, 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 on 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” . . . 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 . . . 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 11, 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” . . . 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 . . . 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 commission would generate scandal among the faithful, since the public was by this time aware that the matter had been discussed in the Council hall . . . 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, however, are not to be 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 Cullman, 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 as 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 honouring 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.” (Ralph M. Wiltgen, The Inside Story of Vatican II: A Firsthand Account of the Council’s Inner Workings [Charlotte, N.C.: TAN Books, 2014], 126-27, 225-26, 228, 232-33)
For a lengthy discussion of Mariology from a Latter-day Saint perspective, be sure to check out my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017)