The following  selection is taken from “Mary at the Foot of the Cross – IX, Mary: Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Coredemptrix, and Mother of the Church.”  Parts V – VI will be published in the next issue. – Asst. Ed.

III. Lumen Gentium (November 21,1964)
Up to now, I have tried to delineate what I consider to be some of the major developments of the preconciliar papal magisterium on Our Lady’s relationship to the Church. This rich patrimony has dealt almost exclusively with Mary’s spiritual Motherhood of the Church and her intimately related roles as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces. We did note a certain juxtaposition in Blessed Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus of the figures of the “most holy Virgin” and “Our Holy Mother the Catholic Church” with the latter clearly subordinate to the former.

This suggestion of Mary as image or typus of the Church, which is of patristic origin,{footnote}Cf. Theotokos 346-348{/footnote} came to the fore in the last century with renewed interest in patristic texts and is represented in works such as Hugo Rahner’s Our Lady and the Church? {footnote}Translated by Sebastian Bullough, OP (London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd., 1961). The original German Maria und die Kirche was published in 1951{/footnote} Otto Semmelroth’s Mary, Archetype of the Church {footnote}Translated by Maria von Eroes and John Devlin (NY: Sheed and Ward, 1963. Trie original German Urbild der Kirche was published in 1950 {/footnote} and the French Mariological Society’s Etudes Mariales which represent the acts of that society from 1951 to 1953, all of which explore the analogy between Mary and the Church. These currents were well represented m the drafting of the Second Vatican Council’s Marian document, the eighth chapter of Lumen Gentium, and are readily distinguished in #53, 63, 64 and 68 of that same document:

She [Mary] is hailed both as a pre-eminent, and wholly unique member of the Church and as its type and outstanding model in faith and charity…
By reason of the gift and role of divine Maternity by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with His singular graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity, and perfect union with Christ. For, in the mystery of the Church which, itself, is rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar of both virgin and mother…
The Church indeed—contemplating her hidden sanctify, imitating her charity, and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will by receiving the word of God in faith—becomes a mother herself. By her preaching, she brings forth to a new and immortal life, the sons who are born to her in Baptism, conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of God. She, herself, is a virgin who keeps, whole and entire, the Faith given to her by her Spouse. Imitating the Mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she maintains integral faith, firm hope, and genuine charity with virginal purity… The Mother of Jesus, in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise, she shines forth on earth until the day of the Lord shall come (cf. 2 Pet. 3:10), asign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God.

These paragraphs surely represent a very genuine element of the Church’s millennial tradition: Mary is an image of the Church, its model and ideal. The Council Fathers did well to integrate this ecclesiotypical vision in the eighth chapter of Lumen Gentium without neglecting the even more fundamental christotypical vision which sees Mary in relation to her Son and, thus, Mother of God and spiritual Mother of the faithful. Hence, there are even more references to this fact in Lumen Gentium, and it is undeniable that human beings relate far more readily to a mother than they do to an image, no matter how sublime. We find such references in #53, 54, 58, 60, 61 and 62:

The Catholic Church taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her [Mary] with filial affection and devotion as a most beloved Mother…
This sacred synod—while expounding the doctrine on the Church in which the divine Redeemer brings about our salvation—intends to painstakingly set forth the role of  Blessed Virgin in both the mystery of the Incarnate Word and the Mystical Body, and the duties of the redeemed towards the Mother of God who is Mother of Christ and Mother of men, and most of all of those who believe…
Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus dying on the Cross as a Mother to His disciple, with these words: “Woman, behold thy son” (Jn 19:26-27)…

Mary’s function as Mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ Jbut, rather, shows its power. But the Blessed Virgins salutary influence on men does not originate in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it…
Thus, in a wholly singular way, she cooperated in the work of the Savior by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity, in restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason, she is a mother to us in the order of grace.
This Motherhood of Mary in the order of grace, continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation, and which she sustained beneath the Cross, without wavering, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven, she did not lay aside this saving role but, by her constant intercession, she continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth, surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into the happiness of their true home.

After presenting these representative texts, I would like to cite an evaluation with which I am in complete agreement. It is that of Father Joaqum Ferrer Arellano:

Ecclesiotypology considers Mary primarily in terms of the Church: as the Church’s figure, as her prototype, her preeminent daughter, her incarnation most sublime. According to the ecclesiotypical model the Virgin is totally immanent in the Church and in no way, even minimal, transcends the Church considered as a community composed of human beings. Ecclesiotypology only admits the cooperation of Mary in the subjective redemption-including her own, which implies Mary’s reception of the redemptive treasure on behalf of the whole Church (Semmelroth)-but without any active part in the acquisitive (objective) redemption, a position quite contrary to the very ancient tradition concerning the New Eve conceived as helpmate of Christ and so as a “cause of salvation-causa salutis” (St. Irenaeus)…
The christotypical model, on the other hand, relates Mary directly to Christ and to His mission. And so, in principle, it tends to see in Mary a participation in the privileges and mysteries of Christ. In virtue of this, in a manner subordinate to Christ, she exercises an exemplary and maternal influence over the universal Church and over each of its members in the donation of graces, in whose acquisition she assisted, through the salvific work of her Son.
With admirable discretion, Vatican II drew on insights from both of these approaches… But without doubt, the fundamental orientation of Vatican II is christotypical in dealing with Marian themes.{footnote}JOAQUIN FERRER ARELLANO, Marian Coredemption and Sacramental Mediation, in Mary at the Foot of the Cross – III: Mater Unitatis (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 2003) 95-96{/footnote}

IV. “Mother of the Church”
A. The Controversy?
Curiously, while it would have seemed that the scene had been set for the Council’s explicit recognition of Mary as “Mother of the Church,” the advocates of ecclesiotypical Mariology were

also hard at work and putting up incredibly stiff resistance. The fact is that the very first draft of the document, which would eventually become the eighth chapter of Lumen Gentium, bore the title “Mary, Mother of Jesus and Mother of the Church” [De Maria Matre lesu et Matre Ecclesia].{footnote}Cf. Toniolo 46, 102. {/footnote} Here is the late Michael O’Carroll’s summary of what subsequently happened:

The preliminary Marian schema for a while bore the title Mary, Mother of the Church. After the debate and vote in October, 1963, a new schema was ordered, and it appeared for the next session with an altered name. In the conciliar debate in September, 1964, and in written submissions, many Council Fathers objected to the omission of the title and pleaded that it be restored in the schema, while others asked that it not be restored in the title, and objected to its use in the schema. The official report on the first point gave the number as 195 for a return to Mater Ecclesia and 123 against. The theological commission did not put the title at the head of the body of the chapter. Their report said that the title was rare, though occurring in church writers and could scarcely be called traditional. It could not be commended from an ecumenical viewpoint; though theologically acceptable, it was thought sufficient to express it equivalently, which was done with words borrowed from Benedict XIV (LG 53).
Several Fathers-hundreds it has been stated-appealed directly to the Holy Father to intervene.{footnote}Theotokos 251-252{/footnote}

While it is true that, in summoning a council, the original intention of Blessed John XXIII specifically excluded the making of dogmatic definitions, it is equally clear that in a number of ways, the various documents of the Council did advance the development of doctrine in a number of areas, and we have already cited a very specific text on this matter from the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum. We have also already noted in the very first papal text quoted on Mary and
the Church that Benedict XIV came very close to using the title “Mother of the Church” and that Leo XIII did use it. What is even more interesting is that John XXIII had used it five times,{footnote}Cf. Theotokos 252; G. PHILIPS, La Viergeau He Conci/edu Vatican et I’Avenir
de la Mariologie, in Hubert du Manoir, SJ (ed.), Maria: Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, VIII (Paris: Beauchesne et Ses Fils, 1971) [= Philips] 66
{/footnote} and on December 5, 1962, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini of Milan had already made an intervention expressing his hope that the Virgin Mary would be honored by the Council as Mother of the Church.{footnote}Cf, PHIUPS 66{/footnote}
When Montini became Pope Paul VI, he continued to express this desire. In his discourse for the closing of the second session of the Council on December 4, 1963, he implored the Fathers for the “unanimous and devout recognition of the altogether privileged position which the Mother of God occupies in the Holy Church … so that we might honor her with the title ‘Mother of the Church’ for her glory and for our comfort.”{footnote}AAS 56 (1964) 37{/footnote} Further, at a general audience in the Vatican Basilica on May 27, 1964, he specifically stated that Mary can be considered and honored with the title of “Mother of the Holy Church.”{footnote}Insegnamenti di Paolo VIII (1964) 889-890; Beata perche hai creduto. Discorsi e scritti di Paolo VI sul/a Madonna (1963-1978) a cura di ANGELO
BONETTI (Vatican City:  Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1995) [= Bonetti]  126- 127 {/footnote}
Now we must ask why, given all of these converging factors moving toward doctrinal development on this point, was there such stiff resistance on the part of some Fathers (seemingly not the majority),periti and the theological commission? Clearly this is a matter which requires further research into the acts of the Council and the background of some of its major and hidden dramatis persona. Nevertheless, there are any number of clues that already point in the direction of an answer. Rene Laurentin, the well-known French mariologist, historian, and journalist states explicitly:

The expression “Mother of the Church” is occasionally found among ecclesiastical authors-but, very rarely- and cannot be called traditional. On the other hand, it is complimented by the addition of titles such as “daughter” and “sister” of the Church. It is clear, then, that we are dealing with a comparison here. From the ecumenical point of view this title is certainly not to be recommended, even if it can be admitted theologically. It seemed sufficient to the commission to express it in an equivalent manner.{footnote}<> RENE LAURENTIN, La Vierge au Concile (Paris, 1965) 36 as quoted in Philips 63 (my trans.){/footnote}

It is quite clear that the framers of the conciliar texts bent over backwards at times, not to offend Protestants{footnote}Cf. TONIOLO 67, 98-99{/footnote} (a matter about which legitimate questions should be raised) but I believe that there was a further prejudice at work which seems to have been shared by the majority of the members of the theological commission. We have already noted in a number of the preconciliar papal texts on Mary’s relationship with the Church, which we have analyzed above, that, integral to her maternal office (munus maternum) is her role as Mediatrix of all graces. I have already indicated my conviction that #62 is the weakest point of the eighth chapter of Lumen Gentium precisely because of the refusal to come to grips with the ordinary magisterium of the Popes on this matter. Further, there is a fair amount of evidence that all of the opposition to the title Mediatrix of all graces, which had been successfully eliminated from the text of Lumen Gentium, then crystallized against the title “Mother of the Church.”{footnote}On Karl Rahner’s tirade against the title “Mediatrix of all graces” and how he helped to mobilize the German-speaking Bishops against it (cf. Wiltgen 91-93). On the opposition to this title by Cardinals Bea, Dopfner and the German-speaking and Scandinavian Bishops as well as the support of Cardinals Ruffini, Wyszynski and 70 Polish Bishops (cf. Wiltgen 154-155). It is very interesting to note that Cardinal Wyszynski would later indicate that all of the Bishops of Poland had petitioned the Pope for the title of “Mother of the Church” (cf. Wiltgen 240) {/footnote}

B. The Solemn Declaration of Mary as “Mother of the Church”
Notwithstanding the tension during the last week of the third session of the Council regarding this, among other matters, which the Dutch christened “black week,”{footnote}Cf. WILTGEN 234-243 {/footnote}Paul VI announced in his general audience of November 18, 1964, that he intended to honor Our Lady with the title of “Mother of the Church” which rightly belongs to her.{footnote}Cf. WILTGEN 234-243{/footnote} Hence, on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lady, November 21, 1964, at the conclusion of the third session of the Second Vatican Council after the promulgation of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, he made this solemn declaration:

The Church is not only made up of the hierarchical order, of the sacred liturgy, of the sacraments, of the code of statues. No, her intimate power and characteristic, her chief source of efficacy, by which she sanctifies people, reside in her mystical relation with Christ. Now this relation cannot be viewed independently of her who is the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with whom Christ intimately associated Himself for the very purpose of working out our salvation.
Hence, as We view the Church herself, We must lovingly contemplate the wonders which God worked in his own Holy Mother. The knowledge of the true Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgin Mary, therefore, will always be an efficacious help for a correct understanding of the mystery of Christ and of the Church.
As we consider those close relations by which Mary and the Church are joined, which were so clearly expounded in the present Constitution of the Council, We are persuaded to think that this moment in time is very solemn and opportune for fulfilling the wish We expressed at the end of the past Session. Many Fathers welcomed it and urgently requested that, during this Council, the role ofCf. WILTGEN 234-243 mother which the Blessed Virgin Mary exercises toward the Christian People would be openly proclaimed. It seemed proper to Us, then, that in this public assembly We fittingly introduce the title-which would bring honor to the Blessed Virgin Mary-which is postulated by various regions of the Catholic world, and which is especially welcome to Us since, by a certain wonderful conciseness, it expresses the privileged place in the Church that is proper to God’s Mother, as this Council has acknowledged.
Therefore, to the glory of the Blessed Virgin and to our solace, We declare that the most holy Mary is the Mother of the Church, that is, of the whole Christian People, both of the faithful and of the Pastors, who call her their most loving Mother. We also decree that the whole Christian People give still greater honor to God’s Mother from now on through this sweetest name, and make supplications to her.
We are speaking, Venerable Brothers, of a title that is not unknown to the devotion of Christians. Why do the faithful and the whole Church, especially love to call upon Mary by this name of their Mother? Really, this name belongs to the essence of true devotion to Mary, since it rests firmly on the very dignity by which Mary is endowed as Mother of God’s Incarnate Word.
We will explain. Just as divine Motherhood is the reason why Mary has altogether singular relations with Jesus Christ, and why she is present in the work of human salvation wrought by Him, so, likewise, it is especially from divine Motherhood that the relations between Mary and the Church flow. Therefore, precisely as Christ’s Mother, Mary must also be regarded as Mother of all the faithful and of the Pastors, i.e., of the Church.{footnote}AAS 56 (1964) 1014-1015; DOMINIC J. UNGER, OFMCap, Mary, Christ and the Church (Bayshore, NY: Montfort Publications, 1979) 22-23{/footnote}

Father Wiltgen tells us that “The standing ovation that greeted this announcement signified the warm assent of the Council Fathers. The Pope was interrupted seven times by applause during his address; the applause increased in intensity as the address continued.”{footnote}Wiltgen241{/footnote} This would seem to be quite a clear indication that, whereas the great majority of the Council Fathers were in favor of the title, clever bureaucratic manipulation, especially by the theological commission and probably by any number of periti, had blocked the will of the majority. Writing in 1971, Monsignor Philips, who had represented the ecclesiotypical position during the Council, expressed this remarkably balanced evaluation:

The sense of the papal declaration is clear and precise even in its details. It underscores in Augustinian terms that the Virgin is a member of the Church and its principal and chosen portion, and that the new title expresses Mary’s place in the Church in a magnificent synthesis. The proclamation appears then as the crowning and the seal of the Constitution on the Church…
The reader who makes a detailed and serene study of these words will be convinced of two things: To begin with, there is absolutely no doctrinal divergence between the Pope and the Council; further, the Pope went beyond the conciliar text by his solemn proclamation of the title of Mary, Mother of the Church…
If Paul VI had wished to see the title of Mother of the Church inserted into the conciliar text, he could have easily intervened by means of a papal modus. Examples of this procedure are known. The Pope wanted to personally and publicly make the declaration which he had very much at heart. Did he think it useful on that great day to make clear-that, even after the Council, and next to it, in a certain sense, the ordinary papal magisterium always subsists-that teaching which, without pronouncing any definition ex cathedra, still expresses the official doctrine of the Church to the Catholic world? …
Whatever one might think of the hypothesis advanced on the intentions of the Pope, the value of his act is indisputable.{footnote}philips 68-70(my trans){/footnote}

Let us further note two things. (1) Before and after the explicit declaration, Pope Paul accentuated Mary’s being intimately associated with Jesus in the work of our salvation, a fact that was made clear in Lumen Gentium without using the words Coredemptrix or Mediatrix of all graces. Whereas her role as Coredemptrix was clearly taught by the Council in Lumen Gentium #55, 56, 57, 58 and 61-even if the word was not used out of questionable ecumenical methodology,{footnote}cf. Toniolo 98-99{/footnote} her role as Mediatrix or Distributrix of all graces was barely touched upon in #60 and 62.{footnote}Cf. ARTHUR BURTON CALKINS, Totus Tuus: John Paul II’s Program of Marian Consecration  and Entrustment (   New  Bedford,   MA:   Academy  of the Immaculate, 1992) 184-187 {/footnote} (2) The Pope also insisted that “The knowledge, therefore, of the true Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgin Mary will always be an efficacious help for a correct understanding of the mystery of Christ and of the Church.”