FACULTAS THEOLOGICA "MARIANUM" MARIAN LffiRARY INSTITUTE (UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON) TITLE: THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIBLICAL MARIOLOGY PRE- AND POST-VATICAN II (1943-1986 AMERICAN MARIOLOGY) A thesis submitted to The Theological Faculty "Marianwn" In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Licentiate of Sacred Theology By: James J. Tibbetts, SFO Director: Reverend Bertrand A. Buby, SM Thesis at: Marian Library Institute Dayton, Ohio, USA 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 The Question of Development I. Introduction - Status Questionis 1 II. The Question of Historical Development 2 III. The Question of Biblical Theological Development 7 Footnotes 12 Chapter 2 Historical Development of Mariology I. Historical Perspective Pre- to Post Vatican Emphasis A. Mariological Movement - Vatican I to Vatican II 14 B. Pre-Vatican Emphasis on Scripture Scholarship 16 II. Development and Decline in Mariology 19 III. Development and Controversy: Mary as Church vs. Mediatrix A. The Mary-Church Relationship at Vatican II 31 B. Mary as Mediatrix at Vatican II 37 c. Interpretations of an Undeveloped Christology 41 Footnotes 44 Chapter 3 Development of a Biblical Mariology I. Biblical Mariology A. Development towards a Biblical Theology of Mary 57 B. Developmental Shift in Mariology 63 c. Problems of a Biblical Mariology 67 D. The Place of Mariology in the Bible 75 II. Symbolism, Scripture and Marian Theology A. The Meaning of Symbol 82 B. Marian Symbolism 86 c. Structuralism and Semeiotics 94 D. The Development of Two Schools of Thought 109 Footnotes 113 Chapter 4 Comparative Development in Mariology I. Comparative Studies - Scriptural Theology 127 A. Richard Kugelman's Commentary on the Annunciation 133 B. Raymond Brown's Commentary on the Annunciation 137 C. Conclusions and Comparisons 141 II. Comparative Studies - Systematic Theology 146 A. Juniper Carol's Book 150 B. Frederick Jelly Book 155 c. Conclusions and Comparisons 166 Footnotes 171 Chapter 5 A Future Direction and Development 1) From the Abstract to the Concrete 185 2) Mary as Avocate, Mediatrix and Coredemptrix 187 3) The Way of Truth and the Way of Beauty 190 4) Marian and Charismatic Prayer Groups 195 5) The Spirit of Gratitude 197 Footnotes 199 BIBLIOGRAPHY 200 1 CHAPTER I THE QUESTION OF DEVELOPMENT POST VATICAN II CHANGES I. Introduction and Status Questionis The current research is situated within a broad context of development in American Mariology from 1943 to 1986. The specific focus of this paper will be to discuss and analyze the development and major influences of scripture scholarship in Mariology in light of some of the publications, especially the American Mariological Society. One observation made of Vatican II is the increase in a ecclesiotypical and a decrease in the christotypical point of view. Another change is the development from a privileged-centered Mariology to a sharing-oriented Mariology. Several scholars such as Fr. Frederick Jelly and Fr. Eamon Carroll have noted these changes. But another scholar, Fr. Dominic Unger, disagrees that this has occured, as is shown later in the paper. The historical critical method has increased in usage after the council, but this biblical method tends to be more controversial immediately after the council. Thus, conflicting opinions and facts seem to exist throughout the literature. Has there really been a change from a christotypical to an ecclesiotypical point of view? Has one view built on the other jor are the two mutually exclusive? Before Vatican II a very traditional approach to scriptural 2 scholarship was utilized. After Vatican II the historical critical method took predominance. Within the American Mariological Society (M.S.A.), Richard Kugelman, a scripture scholar before and after Vatican II, and Raymond Brown, a scholar whose major works were after Vatican II, exemplify that development. The work of these two scholars will be compared in regards to the topic of the annunciation. Juniper carol's (a pre-conciliar systematic Mariologist) 1956 work Fundamentals in Mariology will similarly be compared with that of the 1986 work Madonna, by Frederick Jelly (post-conciliar systematic Mariologist). Is there a development in the writings of these scripture scholars and systematic mariologists? There have been differences of opinion on the nature and conclusions of scriptural study in Mariology. Raymond Brown and Rene Laurentin have had a long standing disagreement in this area. Both scholars have other scholars who agree with their respective viewpoints. Does this mean that there is more then one school of thought in scripture scholarship on Mariology? Following is an overview of the question and topics which well be helpful before beginning the main sections of the paper. II. The Question of Historical Development In the early 1900's there was limited activity within the field of Mariology. But in the 30's and 40's there was considerable development in Mariological research which culminated in the dogma of the Assumption in 1950. This 3 development can be witnessed (or evidenced) in the increase in number of Mariological Societies, Marian Centers, Marian Libraries, Marian Magazine Publications, Mariological Academies and Marian Congresses. Much of this growth took place in the 1940's and the 1950's. The dogma of the Assumption caused a spur of activity in the late 1940's and throughout the 1950's. 1 The biblical mariological focus was not the major trend in the 1940's and 50's. Rather, the major trend was the pre-Vatican interest in principles of Mariology. Many theologians have written [on their view] about the primary principle of Mariology. Juniper Carol summarizes these views in his work. He groups the theologians' opinions into four categories: 1) The divine Maternity as the fundamental principle, which a large number accept; 2) Coredemptrix as the first principle (out of which comes the divine Maternity) which a small group accepts; 3) A combination of the two (divine Maternity and Coredemptrix) as the primary principle; and 4) The fundamental principle as formally one, but virtually complex and as having several aspects (such as, those above, along with, the Bridal Maternity of Mary, the Universal Motherhood of Mary, etc.). 2 This 'primary principle' concept and concern seems to have disappeared after Vatican II. Rev. Charles Neumann indicates that there has been a decline in Mariology. 3 The status of Marian literature has declined, the studies on mediation, coredemption and queenship have declined dramatically and Marian societies are also diminishing. But the quality of scientific works on Mary is on the rise and 4 ecumenical studies on Mary are increasing. Some of the reasons for this decline in Mariology are 1) a rationalizing tendency in theology; 2) a change in the focus of the theological interest (from revelation theology to the practical theology of ethics); 3) an anti-doctrinal bias; 4) a climax in the Marian movement of the 1950's; 5) a difference or split in method following the Council (those scholars who build on church documents and speculative analysis - Mary's privileges - and those scholars who build on scripture and patristics); and 6) a demythologization regarding the Christian kerygma, i.e., the historicity of the infancy narratives and the abstraction of Mary into a myth or symbol. Rev. Theodore Koehler, in a paper on Mary's spiritual maternity after the council, indicated that an evolution had indeed taken place. "To understand this double approach to the Marian doctrine (christotypical and ecclesiotypical], let us keep in mind that Vatican II took place during a time of well-known evolution in Marian theology. 114 Koehler went on to write: "That answer indicates a present danger: to transform Christ into a pure idea and abstraction; and, consequently, the mother of Christ, as a pure idea, ..• That points out the actual importance of the doctrine of Mary's spiritual Maternity after Vatican II."5 The theological theme of both the Mary-Church relationship and Mary as Mediatrix has been used by many authors throughout history. Before Vatican II both these themes were being promoted 5 by various scholars. The development of these two themes becomes a major influence in the development of Lumen Gentium at Vatican II. A mariological congress was organized by Cardinal Mercier in 1921 to promote the universal mediation of Mary (as Mediatrix). Later, he also launched a campaign to elicit petitions to the Vatican in favor of a definition of the dogma of Mary's mediation. In 1950, a resolution was sent to Pius XII by a group of theologians, but the Pope felt that doctrine was not theologically mature enough for such a definition. Before Vatican II, 382 bishops wanted the council to develop a definition of Mary's mediation and, concurrently, the Preparatory Commission was petitioned by the Mariological Society of America to include on the agenda of the Council the development of a definition of Mary's co-redemption. 6 Both Karl Rahner and Rene' Laurentin, who were present as periti during the Council, analyzed the clash over this issue. Part was due to temperament, part to methodological approach and part to differences on the meaning of the title, Mediatrix. The document on Mary went through major changes and relativized the theme of Mary's mediation by the successive reductions. Some participants in the Council felt they had suffered a setback. On the post-Vatican emphasis Eamon Carroll points out, "As a Marian title it [Mediatrix] has virtually disappeared from the vocabulary of preaching and popular piety, at least in the United States."' 6 Hugo Rahner in his study of the Mary-Church relationship and its beginnings, offers a brief history of this subject. In the introduction Rahner speaks about the purpose of his book by stating: "We must learn to see the Church in our Lady, and in our Lady the Church.