THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL DIRECTLY ATTACKED THE BLESSED VIRGIN

 

COMBAT CLOSED BETWEEN THE CARDINALS IN THE EIGHTH CHAPTER ON THE PRERROGATIVES OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN

 

 The eighth and final chapter was addressed the next day. It was the subject on the Blessed Virgin, which now appeared as a chapter in the scheme on the Church, instead of constituting a separate scheme. The chapter was a compromise text written by two experts (Bishop Philips and Fr. Balic) with very different opinions on the matter.

Bishop Philips insisted on abandoning the titles Mother of the Church and Mediatrix, but the Theological Commission decided to include Mediatrix, convinced that, if the text did not include either of the two, it would not achieve the desired unanimous approval of the Council Fathers.

Thirty-three Council Fathers took the floor to discuss the chapter. Card. Ruffini, from Palermo, said that the scheme "almost hid" the cooperation of Mary in the work of Redemption, (Co-redemptrix) that had been wanted by God. And since the text also affirmed, without further explanation, that the title Mediatrix was proper to the Blessed Virgin, it was necessary to clearly elucidate what that title meant, so that “non-Catholics understand that its use does not imply undermining the dignity of Christ, which is the only absolutely necessary Mediator”. (Condigno is the Blessed Virgin Mary CORREDENTORA as I explained in another article)

Card. Stefan Wyszynski of Warsaw, Poland, on behalf of seventy Polish bishops, referred to Pope Paul's encyclical Ecclesiam suam, published just six weeks earlier. In this encyclical, the cardinal said, the Pope called attention to the fundamental importance of the Blessed Virgin in the life of the Church. Based on that statement, the Polish bishops had sent a memorandum to Pope Paul, asking him to proclaim the Blessed Virgin "Mother of the Church."

 Card. Wyszynski also requested, on behalf of the Polish bishops themselves, that the chapter on the Blessed Virgin occupy second place in the diagram, instead of last, as this would cover more attention and better illustrate the role of the Blessed Virgin in relation to Christ. and his Church.

Card. Leger, from Montreal, said it was necessary "to renew Marian doctrine and worship." (Here modernism begins to act against the Virgin Mary) This renewal or reform had already begun among theologians, he said, “but it must also reach pastors and the faithful, and this final chapter of the Constitution on the Church offers the best opportunity to favor it”. The desired renewal "consists of using exact and precise words and sober terms to express the role of Mary." In this regard, I question the use of the titles granted to Mary in the scheme: "Mother of men", "Servant of the Redeemer", "Generous Companion" and "Mediator". (These are the new titles currently granted to Our Ladythat contradict the dogmatic and theological titles that the Church has always given to the Blessed Virgin

The origin and meaning of all these titles, he said, had to be carefully studied in the light of the best theological research, before their use was supported by a conciliar text. (¿Whose theological research? Modernists or traditional or scholastic theology? Undoubtedly modernist)

Card. Dopfner then spoke on behalf of ninety German-speaking and Scandinavian bishops, repeating what had been decided at the Innsbruck conference. He said that the chapter contained solid doctrine on the Blessed Virgin, without going into disputed questions, and he thought it would be better not to add anything else to what the text already said about the role of Mary as Mediatrix. (Words or new titles such as: mother of men, Servant of the redeemer and generous companion were “discarded”. Names so used today by the current Pope and his predecessors even before Pius XII)

Card. Bea, president of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, also opposed the title of Mediatrix. (its original title is: MEDIATOR OF ALL GRACES) A conciliar text, he said, could not be a manual for personal devotion. What the Council Fathers had to decide was whether each and every one of the statements in the text were sufficiently thoughtful and theologically justified for the Council to endorse them as the highest authority of the Church. Since theologians were still discussing the role of Mary as Mediatrix, it should not be included in the text.

Archbishop Corrado Mingo, of Monreale (Italy), severely criticized the text. Contrary to what had been promised in the conciliar classroom, the text had been "absolutely and radically mutilated"

during the process of transformation into a chapter of the scheme on the Church. The title Mother of the Church had been suppressed without any justification, contrary to the wish expressed by Pope Paul in his speeches of October 11, 1963, in the Basilica of Santa María la Mayor, and of December 4, 1963, in the closing of the second session of the Council. Not only should the title Mediatrix be preserved in the text, she said, but also be expanded to Mediatrix of all graces.

When the scheme entitled On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, was incorporated as Chapter VIII to the scheme on the Church, its title was changed to On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church.

Bishop Juan Hervas y Benet, from Ciudad Real, said that the original title should be recovered. I also severely criticize the text, saying that it was not an adaptation, but a completely new version of the original text, which did not correspond to the wishes expressed by the Council Fathers.

The revised text had reduced the doctrine on the Virgin Mary absolutely to a minimum; however, it had been affirmed in the council hall at the time of the vote that "by inserting the scheme on the Virgin Mary into the scheme on the Church, no such impairment was intended or would be carried out."

Card. Leo Suenens, from Mechelen (Belgium), also opposed the revised text, because it seemed to minimize the importance of Maria, a trend that today constitutes a real danger”. The text did not place in an adequate light the spiritual motherhood "that Mary continues to exercise today in the Church." His exposition of what the ordinary magisterium of the Church taught about Mary, and of what the faithful believed about the Virgin's cooperation in the work of Redemption, was also somewhat imperfect. He considered it necessary for the scheme to allow the faithful to understand that in their apostolate they were associated with the maternal action of Mary.

During this one and brief moment, Card. Suenens had the  courage to step outside the line marked by the European alliance and speak in his own name. It would have been really strange if the Cardinal of Belgium (a country so prominent in the Catholic Church for its great devotion to the Virgin Mary) had adopted a different public position.

Bishop Francisco Rendeiro, of Faro (Portugal), on behalf of eighty-two bishops, expressly requested that the title Mediatrix be preserved in the text. Its omission would cause scandal among the faithful, because by then public opinion was already aware that the matter had been discussed in the council hall.

Bishop Ancel, auxiliary of Lyon (France), said that public opinion was receiving from the press the false impression that not all the Council Fathers had the same veneration for the Virgin.

To erase that impression, it was essential to obtain the unanimous approval of the chapter. I try to show that it was actually a compromise text, since it mentioned the title Mediator, but at the same time it did not give any endorsement, thus leaving the door open for further study. "Perhaps the title of Mediator could be included along with others, to avoid the impression that it is a special title." (¿Maybe put together with the title of Mediatrix servant of the redeemer? Ridiculous proposition of a totally modernist court)

Archbishop Rafael Garcia y Garcia de Castro, of Granada, on  behalf of eighty Spanish bishops, rebuked the Theological Commission for "completely remodeling the text, instead of adapting it, as the Council Fathers had wished." He also believed that the original title should be recovered (On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church), so attached to the pontifical documents promulgated by Popes Benedict XIV, Leo XIII, San Pio X, Bene dicto XV, Juan XXIII, and Pablo VI, as well as the writings of the Podium of the Church, in particular Saint Irenaeus, Saint Augustine and Saint Leo the Great.

The archbishop declared that changing the title and omitting this doctrine would be an affront to the teachings of the Popes, and would undermine the devotion to the Virgin that the Christian people manifested.

Archbishop Jose Gawlina, director of the Polish hospice in Rome, said that devotion to Mary was evidently not an obstacle to ecumenism, since Martin Luther had said in 1533 long after his break with Rome, that "the the creature Mary”. In 1521, in his dissertation on the Magnificat, Luther had written: “What can please [Mary] more than if you thus go to God through her, and through her learn to believe and hope in God? (...) Mary does not want you to go to her, but through her to reach God”. Four days later, the archbishop died suddenly of a heart attack.

Punishment of God the Son, the jealous defender of his Mother? Undoubtedly.

From this Conciliabulum the Blessed Virgin Mary was directly attacked with the infamous titles of mother of men, Servant of the redeemer and generous companion. So we are not surprised that, at the moment, these new words are being promoted from the Vatican itself among the Church as a new devotion to the detriment of the old one that greatly exalted and put it in its true spiritual value before GOD AND men. This “new” anti-Marian behavior is not new, but has already come from the “Second Vatican Council”.

 

SOURCE: article taken from the book: The Rhine flows into the Tiber