Queen of Heaven by Nicholas Roerich, 1931
I have been researching the question of the effect of the Marian teachings of Vatican II on the liturgy and personal devotions for some time. I have drawn no absolute conclusions, but I can make some definite observations. It is striking to me that very early in my journey to the Catholic Church, I caught on to the the current division between what I now classify as "traditionalists" and "progressives". How much of this is primarily a debate among academics versus the populace I am not sure. It seems safe to say that there are those who like Vatican II and those who decidedly do not. Then there are those who mostly agree with the Council's teachings but feel that certain grievous mistakes were made, including the area of Marian doctrine.
I have read the chapter on Mary at the end of Lumen Gentium, the Council's document on the Church. Evidently there was a huge debate regarding this choice to place Marian teaching within this larger context rather than giving Mary her own, special document. The winning faction had their way only by a very narrow margin, and there was much bitterness between the two groups of bishops. The traditionalists were expecting a new dogma to be declared regarding Mary as Mediatrix of All Grace. The progressives believed that this would thwart ecumenical efforts. The title "Mediatrix" was indeed included in the chapter on Mary, but great caution was taken to make sure this was not misleading and did not take away from Christ's role as the one, unique Mediator. Mary's intercession is accomplished in a unique way with the primacy of Jesus, not in place of him, and this is certainly solid theology.
Vatican II did not take away any of Mary's titles or doctrines, and it states in the beginning of the chapter that its goal was not to reiterate the vast body of teaching and tradition. It rather emphasized Mary's ecclesiotypical nature; that is, her relationship with the Church as Mother and exemplary member of the Body of Christ, and her role as Jesus' first disciple. There was not any intention to "throw Mary out of the Church". In fact, my interpretation is that the Church is tied like an apron around Mary's waist, with each member carefully tucked into a pocket, and therefore, Marian spirituality cannot be separated from Catholic Christian worship.
But that's not how it was understood by many, as the sharp decline in Marian devotion after Vatican II bears witness. The Rosary was no longer popular but thought to be old-fashioned, statues were put in church basements or placed in less prominent areas, and Marian prayers and hymns were greatly reduced in the liturgy. In short, the result was decidedly reductionist. Pope Paul VI was so concerned about this unintended fallout that he spent four years writing Marialis Cultis, published in 1974, to emphasize the importance of properly honoring the Blessed Mother. And of course the intense Marian devotion of Pope John Paul II helped to revive Mariology, as did increased alleged apparitions. There is currently a campaign by Vox Populi, begun in the 1990s I believe, to urge the Vatican to declare a 5th Marian dogma, naming her Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Grace, and Advocate of the People. Pilgrimages to Marian shrines are at an all time high all over the world. Yet there are still a great many who are very uncomfortable with traditional Marian devotion. The great divide between traditionalists and progressives lives on. What will be the conclusion?
While I have no issue with the ecclesiotypical interpretation of Mary, I think it can--and should-- live in harmony with the "biblicalplus" version of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth, as advocated by Charlene Spretnak in her book, Missing Mary. She sees Our Lady as matrix-typical, in the cosmological sense of the subtle relationship of all living things with one another and God the Creator, reflecting the findings of post-modern science. Spretnak wants to bring "Big Mary" back, seeing her as symbolizing the Maternal Matrix, as revealing the feminine face of God. Isn't there room for both the biblical Nazarene village woman who lived at a certain point in history and the divinized Mother of God assumed body and soul into heaven, reigning next to her Son? I say yes, we need the whole picture. We need the poetry, art, and song, the symbolism that lifts us from text bound literalism to mystical awareness. This is true wisdom. This is true religion. This is true devotion to Mary.
Queen of Heaven by Bonnie Bisbee
