Hello and welcome to Mariology Without Apology. This is Dr. Mark Miravalli. I am joined by
my colleague and friend, Dr. Robert Festigi, who is no stranger to this program. Thanks
for being with us, Robert, as we talk about this subject, which I think is so very much
cutting edge, if I may say, and that is the role of Mary at the Second Vatican Council
and misconceptions which still exist to our day. So our hope is to bring up some of these
issues regarding even where Mariology is placed in seminaries and in curricula today, and
what was the significance of the placement of Mary as it was voted on at the Council,
and how that cannot lead to any minimalizing of the hermeneutics of continuity regarding
Our Lady. So with that introduction, Robert, thanks for being with us on this program.
It's my honor, Mark, especially as we approach the great solemnity of Our Lady as Mother
of God. That's right, that's right. It's always, you know, such a blessed way to enter
every new year. So Robert, I mean, this is a big question. It's a big topic. But for
those who haven't done the reading, don't have the background, let's say, on kind of
the steps that got us to having Mary become Chapter 8 in Lumen Gentium. I'm going to try
to offer just a very large screened 30,000 foot approach to how this happened, and please
augment it as you feel is appropriate. So essentially, and actually, I want to start
it with some statistics on what happens when John XXIII announces that there's going to
be a second Vatican Council. I want to read this. This is from an article from our mutual
colleague Monsignor Manfred Hauke, always with outstanding Teutonic precision. He documents
the petitions, really the answer to the question, what do we want to talk about? We're going
to have a second Vatican Council. What do we want to discuss? What should be discussed?
And I'm just going to read from Hauke here. He says, quote, until spring of 1960, the
bishops, general superiors, and theological faculties to whom the inquiry was addressed
sent 1,998 responses. Okay, so this is the council's announced in 1959. These are the
responses of people as early as spring of 1960. So of 1,998 responses, about approximately
600 concern the mother of God, which is remarkable just to start with. You know, about a third
of what they want to talk about is Our Lady. Quote, 500 inquiries expressed a desire for
a dogmatic definition, while approximately 400 conveyed the participant's desire for
a definition of her mediation, 50 of her spiritual motherhood, 50 of her co-redemption, and 20
of her queenship. And these are, again, these are the eight topics within those initial
requests of what they want to talk about. Mariology in general, spiritual motherhood,
perpetual virginity, queenship, the end of her life on earth, the transito, universal
mediation, co-redemption. And then some obviously say, well, we don't want to talk about Mary.
I find that to be stunning in and of itself, that of all the things in church and world,
of all the things of revelation and nature and society and morals,
a third is dedicated to Our Lady. I mean, does it, and that 500 are requesting a dogmatic
definition of her mediation. It is remarkable, and I should mention, we think of the timing.
It had only been nine years between the dogmatic proclamation of Mary's assumption into heaven,
when the new ecumenical council was announced. So Mary was very much on the mind, and it had
only been a few decades before when there was a really strong movement of petition to define Mary
as mediatrix of all graces. And so actually, there was an initial plan around 1960 to include
Mariology as an appendix to the document on the church. But then in 1962, it was thought,
no, this would not work out. So the 62 draft was drafted as a separate document, and St. John
the 23rd approved it for discussion, but then he died. And then there was the movement to perhaps
move it back, not as a separate document, but back into the document or dogmatic constitution
on the church. So there were these different opinions on this, and a vote was taken, as you
know, on October 29th, 1963. And by a very small majority, it was decided to integrate the schema
on Mary, the draft on Mariology, into the dogmatic constitution on the church. And what's interesting
is there's an article in 1986 in Marian Studies, which it documents that four
Catholic theologians were meeting and giving little talks at the North American College to
the bishops, and four of them convinced the U.S. bishops to side with the vote for inclusion.
And so this is probably 20 votes. It might have been a factor in terms of passing of this. But
once it was decided, all right, well, it's going to be integrated into the church. Well, the future
Pope and St. John Archbishop Wojtyla, and along with the entire Polish Episcopate, said, if we're
going to include it in the Mariology in the church, it should come very early, like chapter two,
because Mary's yes to become the mother of God is essential for the formation of the church. If we
didn't have Christ, we would not have the body of Christ, which is the church. But then it was
decided, no, to have it as the final chapter. The fear was then it would be considered just like an
appendix. Now, there is another way you could look at it. It's the crowning of the church is found in
Mary. So there's another way of looking at it. And we know from Fr. Wilkin's book how disappointed
the Protestant theologian Oskar Cullman was in seeing Mary as the final chapter on the church,
and that St. Paul VI declared her to be the mother of the church. Well, the point of the
council was not to please Professor Cullman. The point of the council was to clarify and affirm
a Catholic dogma. But it's kind of, well, it's disappointing, I think, that there
maybe was not a stronger support for a definition at Vatican II. But maybe John XXIII
said we don't want new definitions. But maybe he sensed that there might not have been a full
consensus yet for these dogmatic proclamations. Of course, he as Pope could always
declare them, or any future Pope. Right. And the fact that he said so before we even got to the
council on the opening day, he made this clear. But I think what the vote testifies is that of all
conceivable subjects, you'd get a third asking for a definition and talking about Our Lady in
this way. I mean, that shows the continuity. And again, going back to Benedict XVI, this
hermeneutics of continuity is so important. You know, we like to use this word coherence now,
right? The concept of coherence. Well, there's no mere logical coherence if you have this rupture
between the teachings of Our Lady, the teachings of the Church on Our Lady before the council,
and then all of a sudden a great minimalization of those teachings. That can't be justified. And,
you know, in light of the vote and where the document was, and, you know, many, you know,
Carol Wojtyla, before that 1964 entrance, wrote in 1962 and said the two schemas should be
close together so Mary could be seen as part of the Church as well. But that's when there was two
schemas. That's right. It would be inappropriate to say, well, you know, he wanted inclusion first.
That's not indicated at all. He wanted them close because he essentially says in his
statement to the commission, and he quotes Our Lady as a mediatrix, because she's mediatrix,
because she is mother of both head and body, she should be close to the Church. And also he said so
that the Church also be understood as a spiritual mother. And those are positive elements, but it's
clearly foundationally Christotypical. And I think, Robert, and, you know, there's a lot of
possible directions and discussions on this, but I think we could say ultimately
what's first is not whether it was a separate document or not, or at least let me say in my mind,
that's not what's first. I think the dichotomy came in because the people for an independent
document were those who wanted the full truth about Our Lady. The people in general pushing
for inclusion into the Church were much more ecumenically minded. This is strongly the Germans,
the French, the Swiss. They wanted to, they did not want to emphasize the uniqueness of Our Lady.
But let's put that aside for just a moment.
The real issue is, regardless of where she's put, is the truth conveyed about her without
compromise? Is the full truth? And as we know, we've talked about this in other programs,
in the process, it was very clear, for example, Cardinal Bea, who was German, a cardinal,
and a strong role of Scripture, just eliminated words that said, no, we're not going to use those
because those are not ecumenically acceptable. We know that the co-redemptrix and mediatrix of
all graces, certainly co-redemptrix, was eliminated in a praenotanda precisely for the same reason.
Absolutely true in itself, but because it might be easily misunderstood by our Protestant
brethren. So I think the real issue is, are you compromising the mother? Are you compromising
the truth about her? Even regardless where her treatment comes, is what is then said
going to be minimalized because of ecumenical concerns? I think that's the bigger overriding
question, and that's why so many were disappointed that it was put in the church, not because they
had that as a principal concern, but because they knew that those for putting in the church
were minimalizing the truth about Our Lady. I think that's quite significant, Mark, and
you know that this perception that Vatican II then changed the whole approach to Mariology,
and now we see her as a member of the church, a model of discipleship, and of course these have
a truth to them, but it's not the whole truth. This is why Cardinal Santos, when he argued
for a separate document, said Mariology doesn't deal with just ecclesiology, it also deals
with Christology, Soteriology, and all these other aspects. But you see, perception sometimes rules
the day, and so we could say, yes, Mary is intimate with the church, and even the title of
Chapter 8 is The Blessed Virgin Mary in the Mystery of Christ and the Church. So it's
clearly a synthesis between Christotypical and Ecclesiotypical Mariology, and it does affirm
Marian co-redemption without using the title co-redemptrix. It does speak of her as Mediatrix,
even though some, like Cardinal Bea, didn't want that term used. Thank you to God it's there,
and it's been reaffirmed, and she's been called Mediatrix of All Graces by Saint John Paul II,
and by Pope Benedict XVI, the month before he resigned as Pope, and now acknowledged by
Pope Francis that this title Mediatrix of All Graces is to be attributed. It's one of the most
ancient titles. So, I mean, we have great support for this, and people have misunderstood what
is taught in Chapter 8 of Mariology. I agree with Cardinal Cotillier and the great
Jesuit Mariologist, Jean Gallo, that it affirms Marian co-redemption, though it doesn't use
the title. I think you would agree with that as well. Oh, absolutely. I don't know how
you could see references. This is Lumen Gentium, you know, 56 with the New Eve, 57,
58 is a whole paragraph on co-redemption, and then 61 that she uniquely participates,
you know, in this mission of redemption. For this reason, she becomes a mother to us
in the order of grace. I think that for this reason is critically important too, Robert,
because it's saying her mediation of graces, her spiritual maternity, the gift that Jesus gives us
by saying, behold your mother, is because she uniquely participated in the obtaining of the
graces, in the mission itself, and that for this reason is in about four other papal statements,
some of which are footnoted, to show causality. She is Mediatrix because she was first co-redemptrix,
and you know, Robert, you read an interesting, you know, reference during the
debate that happened at the council between Santos and Koenig, and sometimes, and again,
we're always going to assume goodwill, but sometimes it was confusing because you would
have members for, you know, a pro-ecclesiotypical, for lack of a better term, who are saying, oh,
you know, we're not going to take anything away, we just want it in the church, but then in fact
they fought very hard to take things away, and in fact, in the final document, things were taken
away precisely with the fear of those saying, if you put it in the church, you might try to act as
if there's not, you're not focused on the particular privileges of Our Lady, and in fact, that's what
happened, is they minimalized those, and so there, whether or not it was just a lack of inconsistency,
I pray it wasn't agenda, but there were references that were made a note, well, nothing will be
reduced, but in fact, very much was reduced in terms of the full content on Our Lady.
Exactly, exactly, and then we're dealing, of course, with the misinterpretations of
Lumen Gentium, Chapter 8, as it is written, and no less an authority than Joseph Ratzinger, Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, writing in 1980, then it came out later in English, Mary the Church at the Source,
this wonderful book that he co-authored with Father Hans-Oswald Balthasar, I mean, there's
that stunning statement that, in fact, the immediate outcome of the victory of ecclesiocentric
Mariology was the collapse of Mariology altogether. It's astounding. God bless him for the integrity
he had to say that, because he was very strongly ecclesiotypical, Ratzinger, at that time,
and so, and that gets into this bigger question too, Robert, as what about the tree and fruits?
That's right. Had she, and by the way, just so we're all clear, we are both
ardent defenders of the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council, make no mistake about that.
These are spirit-led ecumenical councils, and error is being protected
by the spirit, at least as Paul VI says, on the level of supreme ordinary magisterium, so
if not beyond, but at the same time, it's important to distinguish, and especially for colleagues and
students who listen, as well as just, you know, wonderfully intelligent layfolk interested on this,
that the council promise, that the protection is that there wouldn't be error, but it does not
guarantee that you're going to have a full treatment, and what's ironic about Vatican II
is they say so. In Lumen Gentium 54, it says, we do not intend to provide a complete doctrine on
Mary, and what's being held at schools at that time can continue to be held, but what was being
held at schools at that time? Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Sylvo, Grace is ubiquitously everywhere,
and so, but this idea that if you believe that it, you know, if you don't accept that it should
have been Mary in the church, in that doctrine, somehow you're not really responding to the council,
well, that's silly, because not every protocol, not every prudential judgment is protected from
error. As you mentioned, it seems like the American bishops were persuaded by some theologians
just at the last moment that, I mean, the vote only won by 17 votes, and so to make huge
foundational ramifications based on that seems to beg the question, do you think every single
choice prudentially or every draft was inspired by the spirit? Well, no, that's not the case. So
one can say, no, I think she should have got her own document, and then it could have also
been incorporated in the document of the church. That wouldn't have been a bad move either.
Yes, exactly, and we have to also understand the way
Popes after Vatican II understood the reception of the council. So St. Paul VI in 1974
issues Marialis Cultus to try to make clear, especially to the liturgists,
that devotion to Mary is not taking anything away from the liturgy. I mean, there were
attempts to kind of suppress the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary and so on.
That was before mass, right? Yes, and so that he clearly saw the problem,
and then under St. John Paul II, who was such a great Mariologist and devotee of our
Blessed Mother, he saw the problem, and then he declared the Marian year, 1987 and 1988.
But even before that, there was the recognition on the part of the Congregation for Catholic Education
of problems in seminaries. So the circular letter in 1980 addressed to
bishops about seminary formation, and it strongly urged greater devotion and attention
to Mariology, to Marian devotion, and it said Mariology is also Christology, or Christology
is also Mariology, that this is the best way of protecting against false Christology, is to have
a sound Mariology. So that was 1980. Then during the Marian year, there was a letter written to
again all the bishops on the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in intellectual and spiritual
formation, that it would be unthinkable not to give Mariology the proper attention it deserves,
and then it specifies all the elements of proper Mariology to be complete and integral and
adapted to the different types. But I mean, I could just read it to you. It says,
it would be unthinkable that the teaching of Mariology be obscured today. This is 1988.
It is necessary, therefore, that it be given its just place in seminaries and theological faculties.
Such teaching consisting of a systematic treatment will be organic, complete, suited to the various
types of institutions, and then the goal is they, seminarians and theology students, must
acquire a complete and exact knowledge of the doctrine of the Church about the Blessed Virgin
Mary and nourish an authentic love for her. So this is the expectation of the Church that's
still quoted as a footnote in the most recent program for priestly formation. But this has been
a concern of the Mariological Society of America and the Pontifical Marian Academy International.
So I did a survey 2015 and 2016. 32 seminarian deans responded. So out of 32 major seminaries in
the United States in 2016, only nine had a required standalone course in Mariology. Now,
others said, well, we cover it, or it's an elective, or it's covered in ecclesiology, or
some of them would have like a combined course, you know, like Devotion to the Saints and Mary,
you know, so we cover it there. But it has to be, it has to be a complete doctrine to understand
also the development of the great dogmas about Mary, Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception,
the Assumption, you know, her threefold virginity, because lack of good Mariology has very
negative effects on the life of the Church. As I mentioned before, 2012, the International
Theological Commission comes out with a document on theological methodology called Theology Today.
I went through it, I could not find a single reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary, as if
theology today could be done without reference to the Mother of God. And then I spoke to a member
of the commission, and she told me, well, there was a section on Mariology, but we were told the
document is too long, so we omitted it. I mean, well, there you go, Robert, because then you're
talking about, you know, this false understanding of hierarchy of values. Of course it all starts
with Jesus, and it ends with Jesus. He's the Alpha and the Omega. But again, like Wojtyla and the
Polish bishops, after that, talk about Mary, who makes Jesus possible, you know, like Mother Teresa,
you know, no Mary, no Jesus, you know, no Mary, no Christmas, no Mary, no Incarnation. And so
do it fluidly, co-naturally, where it appears in the New Testament, which is Mary says, yes,
we get our Jesus. Now, notice in Baum's document, as you emphasize, a complete organic treatment.
That's not the last two weeks of ecclesiology. That's not a complete organic treatment. And
some have even put this position, which is very fallacious, I just have to say, but it floats
out there, so we should deal with it. The idea that because of those 17 votes at the council,
and because Mary was included in the document in the church, well, therefore, we have to now
formulate all our curricula on only treating about Mary in ecclesiology. It's absolutely
fallacious, and it's foundationless, but it's out there, and you've experienced it.
Yes, two of my colleagues, on separate occasions, when it's been proposed to have a required course
in Mariology, which now has been twice voted down, I hope this time maybe it will succeed,
that objection has come forward from colleagues who say, well, because Vatican II decided to
include Mariology in the document on the church, that's where it should be treated in ecclesiology.
But I teach both ecclesiology and Mariology. Mariology as an elective, ecclesiology as a
required course. It's just impossible, because, as you know, sometimes we fall behind, and then
when we come to Mariology, sometimes it's only one class, and then you can't possibly cover.
I have trouble in an elective course on Mariology covering what really needs to be covered.
No, of course, yeah. Over the years, both at Franciscan University and Ave Maria University,
I've gone from Mariology I to Mariology II, and now to Mariology III, because there's just so
much of the mother, and of course we're not covering all that. But I've had seminary instructors tell me
that students at Franciscan and Ave Maria are getting more Mariology than 90% of clergy,
and that's not the way it's supposed to be. And this is one great contribution,
St. Thomas is not quoted as a great Mariologist in many ways, but Thomas does give us the concept
that we deal with Mary in relation to Jesus, and it's almost like, gosh, do we really need to be
told that? And yet, that's precisely what's being denied today. Only deal with Mary as a member of
the church. So, I don't know, Robert, this minimalization, I think, has an existential
loss for the church. And going back to Ratzinger's statement, what about tree and fruits? What
happens? What happened historically? When we did, based on perception, as you wisely point out,
minimize Our Lady, whether it was intended or not, but that was clearly the perception,
global perception, was Vatican II called us to calm down on Mary. Well, then we had
a decade without Mary, which was really, honestly, more like two and a half decades until
Redemptoris Mater. John Paul II made the correction in 1987. Chapter one, marrying the mystery of
Christ. Chapter two, marrying the mystery of the church. Chapter three, maternal mediation.
He's the one that corrects it. And again, I think another great point you made is,
what's the best way to interpret a council? By the pontiff that follows the council.
That's right. That's the Holy Spirit speaking through the vicar of Christ on a proper
interpretation. And so, when John Paul II uses co-redemptrix, does a tank load of teaching on
co-redemption, mediation is all over the place, as our friend Monsignor Calkins has documented.
And this real continuity from what happened before the council, but with a new, I mean,
what was John Paul's brilliance? Talking about Mary's maternal mediation in Christ. So you don't
have Jesus here. He's a mediator. You have Mary here. She's a little shorter. And then you have
Saint Joseph. No, it's all in Jesus. All mediation is participating in the one mediation of Jesus.
Takes nothing away from Jesus. But Our Lady uniquely participates in that one mediation,
the likes of which none of us come close. None of us come close. The greatest intercessor,
the greatest prayer warrior does not come close to the mediatrix of all graces and the advocate
for all peoples. So, the example is there. Thank God. The unity is there. But, oh no,
the power of the mother given by the Trinity in the order of grace is something we simply cannot do.
Exactly. Exactly. I mean, Pope Francis realizes this, that he has said that there's no salvation
without the woman. And he has then referred also to Mary as the bridge between us and God.
I mean, that's mediation there in the most sublime way. And yes, you know, these things have to be
developed. But this is the role of theologians and Mariologists. But we're praying for either
Pope Francis or a future Pope to make a clear declaration of who the full truth about Mary,
her role as universal spiritual mother, the mother of us all, madre de todos, as Pope Francis has
said. She's the universal mother. But then also, what does a mother do? Is she up there in heaven
just interceding? She is our mother in the order of grace. So, she's involved in both the acquisition
and the distribution of the graces merited by our divine Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ.
But in and with her divine Son, she participates in the mediation of all grace. I think that's
the truth of it. Right. And you know, Robert, our friend Monsignor Hauke was saying also,
the whole structure of chapter 8 is really a structure of spiritual maternity.
That's the overall structure. There's some references to mediation. And quite frankly,
the first draft had a lot stronger concept of mediation, co-redemption and mediation.
But nonetheless, the way the document finally came out, it is really within the genus of spiritual
maternity through which she acts as mother in these particular ways. So, quite frankly,
a definition of spiritual motherhood, which also accentuates her unique privileges. And then, of
course, as she's a model for all of us, we're all called to be virgin and mother, even you and I
as males are called to be virgin and mother insofar as, you know, as Lumen Gentium 64 and 65,
66 talk about, insofar as bringing people to be baptized, right, and a virginal fidelity to Christ,
the bridegroom, but not like she was and not like she is. So spiritual motherhood is really
the genus of the council. It really has the metaphysical wherewithal, the ontological
wherewithal to handle all of Our Lady's functions. And the three major functions are her role in
suffering, her role in nourishing, her role in protecting, co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate.
But that's not a metaphysical stretch. We have some colleagues that say, no, it's got to be mediation.
I would respectfully disagree. I think spiritual maternity has the guts, so to speak. It has the
ability to contain the truth, but also it has the great pastoral benefit of being universally
understood. Ask two people off the street to define motherhood, maybe not in Washington, D.C.,
but anyway, to define motherhood and to define mediation. Well, most people have a much clearer
idea of what a mother is than the concept of mediation. So I think that type of formulation
would have a theological and a great pastoral readiness to it that some of the more abstract
concepts could lack. Yes, exactly. And one great Mariologist in Rome,
Padre Stefano Cecchini, said he thinks chapter eight is scotistic because it emphasizes the
joint predestination of Mary and Jesus, that this was God's plan ab aeterno, from the beginning.
And so the primacy of Christ involves, and the predestination of the incarnation
must involve the predestination of the mother. And so she's at the center of salvation history,
St. John Paul II beautifully put it, at the center of this salvific event there is
the woman. We cannot forget that. And then her mediation of all graces is because she's taken
up into heaven, as Lumen Gentium 62 says, but she did not lay aside her salvific or maternal
duty, munis. This is her duty, her office. This is who she is. She continues by her intercession
to mediate the fruits of salvation. Right. And so, Robert, if we take that,
and I'm glad you brought up the Franciscan dimension to this, if we take what Blessed
Pius IX says in the document in E Fabulis Deus, and says this joint predestination,
that they were predestined by the one and the same eternal decree, Jesus and Mary,
how can you be first an ecclesiotypical Mariologist? Was the church in there too? No,
no, not yet. The predestination of Jesus and Mary, that's the predestination which allows
the fulfillment of the church to happen. But if you say, well, no, you got to talk about Mary
only in relation to the church, not in relation to Jesus, well, that Franciscan thesis is gone.
That's right. And it really doesn't make any sense of Blessed Pius IX's statement of the one
eternal united decree was of the word and his mother. The church comes as a heavenly fruit
of that, but it's not with that. You don't have the new Adam, the new Eve, and the new church.
That doesn't happen. You don't have it in the patristics, you don't have it in history.
I mean, this is not only unfaithful, this attitude is unfaithful to Pius IX, but also Vatican II.
I'll just read to you, Lumen Gentium 61, predestined from eternity by that decree
of divine providence, which determined the incarnation of the word to be the mother of
God, the blessed virgin was in this earth, the virgin mother of the Redeemer, and above all
others, and in a singular way, the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord.
Keep reading, Robert.
Above all others, in a singular way, she's unique. She's not just a disciple and member of the church like us.
Exactly. Keep reading that because that ends with her unique role and mother of us in the order of
grace. 61 is a gem.
Yes, she conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ. That's what a mother does.
She presented Him to the Father in the temple, so kind of like an offering, and was united with
Him by compassion as He died on the cross. Compassion means co-suffering.
In this singular way, again, her uniqueness, she cooperated by her obedience, faith, and hope, and
burning charity in the work of the Savior. So yes, she's redeemed, but she participated objectively
in the work of the Savior.
And uniquely, right.
What? In giving back supernatural life to souls. Giving back supernatural life to souls
is a work of mediation of grace.
That's her spiritual motherhood.
Yes, wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace.
Mater nobis in ordine gratiae.
There it is. And several translations also use for this reason rather than wherefore. For this reason
she is mother to us in the order of grace. I mean that whole paragraph completely summarizes
the predestination. And by the way, in my opinion, 58 is even stronger in terms of Mary at Calvary
associating herself with His sacrifice in her mother's heart, lovingly consenting to the
immolation of the victim born of her. If she's consenting to the immolation of the victim born of
her, how can that not be co-redemptive?
So does the Council teach co-redemption? Of course it does. Does the Council teach
Christotypical Mariology properly understood? It does. Does John Paul make it even more clear?
He certainly does. And that's why the Holy Spirit has been developing this, Robert, since the
Apostolic Age. There's good evidence to think that the whole New Eve concept came from John
through Polycarp to Irenaeus, because you have it on three continents in 180 AD.
How did that happen if it wasn't part of the tradition? From that time to this time, the Holy
Spirit has been developing this doctrine about Mary's unique role with Jesus in the redemption.
He's not going to stop now. He's going to do it to completion. And that's why we should continue to
pray and study and write and work for this proclamation, because it's true. And if you
further grant, and we could end a sentence there, because it's true, you want to further grant
legitimacy of many credible apparitions in the 20th century and 21st. It also says it's a condition
for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart. Now some might say, well, I don't want to get into
proper revelation. That's fine, but you don't have to. It sustains on its own. Mercier did what he
did without any proper revelation, the guy who started this movement for the Fifth Dogma back in
1915, as a remedy for war, for peace, for historic grace. But if you choose to go beyond and accept
some of these credible apparitions, it redoubles the fact that this is a condition for world peace.
So again, I go to Pascal's wager. What do we lose, Robert, if all those apparitions are false
and if Mercier was wrong? Well, we lose nothing because we proclaim the truth about Our Lady.
I know one guy that proclaimed the truth about Jesus, a guy named Simon Peter, and he was merited
for that. He became the first pope, because Jesus said he didn't get this from, he got this from the
Holy Spirit. And so if all that stuff is wrong, what do we lose? We get a proclamation of truth.
That's always meritorious. If all of it's right, we have a real urgency, a peaceful urgency to
examine this, to stay with this. I mean, even as we look at the global scene, I mean, we've got
Ukraine and Russia, we've got Israel, Palestine, we've got over 20,000 people in Gaza Strip
who have been killed in the last three months. 70% are women and children. Do we need to wait
for something nuclear before we default to the Lady? So I think Pascal's wager is relevant to
this. I think if you're not sure, go with the mother. Give her the benefit of the doubt, because
we're not going to lose either way. That's right. I mean, why did Pope Benedict XV urge prayer and
dedication to Our Lady during World War I? This was before the apparitions of Fatima,
but that would more or less confirm what he already said. And he referred to Mary as
omnipotent by grace, you know, that she has a kind of intercessory omnipotence.
Why then would there be the instruction to consecrate the world and Russia in particular
to her Immaculate Heart, which now has been done by St. John Paul II and more recently by Pope
Francis? Why a consecration to Mary for peace, unless you understand her powerful role as the
spiritual mother? You're absolutely right. The theological foundation for consecration,
whether it's personal or universal, is this very doctrine, her role as spiritual mother. Robert,
thank you as always. I always enjoy speaking about Our Lady's truth and love of Our Lady.
And, you know, let's pray that there is a true continuity, not the rupture that some seem to
desire on both sides of liberal and conservative. Some, you know, want this rupture idea.
No, the Spirit guides the church continuously, and to have mirilogical coherence, it has to be
applied to Our Lady. Don't cut off the great fruit of every truth about Our Lady that happened before
1962. And now continue it as the council does it, but especially through the lens of John Paul II,
and in many beautiful ways through Pope Francis as well. Let's pray that its continuation will
in fact lead to a great outpouring of grace, because I think we need it more by the day.
Yes, exactly, exactly. And we pray that future priests will receive a proper and full
education about Our Lady, not just devotions which are so essential, but also the truth,
the full truth. And so, to deprive the future priests of Marian formation, intellectual as
well as spiritual, is depriving the faithful of well-formed priests, because the people are very
hungry for sound Mariology. Some of them are led to extremes and, let us say, unhealthy Marian
devotion sometimes, because they don't have proper guidance. And then some priests overreact,
and they just want to suppress Marian devotion altogether. People have been seriously hurt by
this, because of an improper understanding of Vatican II. It goes back to Cardinal Ratzinger,
Joseph Ratzinger mentioned, you know, you judge a tree by its fruits, and minimalizing Our Lady
did not bring fruits to the church. So let's bring a true and balanced devotion to Our Lady,
but that's based on doctrine, which is another reason why this fifth dogma would be so appropriate.
It would substantiate theologically authentic devotions like rosary and consecration,
and would also identify false extremes of either maximalism or minimalism by things that go off
the doctrinal chart, which is the first way of knowing extremes. So, well Robert, thank you so
much for joining us. It's always delightful, and I thank you listeners and followers and viewers of
Mariology Without Apology. You know, the goal of this podcast is to tell the truth, always in
charity, but without limitation. In that sense, without apology, we love the Mother. We want the
full truth about the Mother to be known, so that love of Our Lady can be as universal as possible.
And I'll tell you what, that would be another wonderful fruit of a solemn proclamation. The
whole world would know it has a Mother. Thanks so much for being with us, and God bless you all.