Rev. Ralph Wiltgen: The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

THE SCHEMA ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY


Throughout the preparatory stages of the Council, the schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary was alternately treated independently and as a chapter of another schema.

In January, 1963, following the close of the first session, the Coordinating Commission ruled at its first meeting that the schema “on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, is to be treated independently of the schema on the Church.” Because of this decision, the schema was reprinted and distributed to the Council Fathers, together with eleven others, before the second session. The only difference was in the wording of the title. Originally the title had read, “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of Men”; now it read, “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.” An additional note on the title page specified that “the text will be changed only after suggestions are made by the Council Fathers.”

When the German and Austrian Council Fathers received their copies of the schema, they asked Father Rahner to prepare comments on it for presentation at the forthcoming Fulda conference.

According to Father Rahner, whose written comments were distributed to all participants in the conference, the schema as then drafted was “a source of the greatest concern” for himself and for Fathers Grillmeier, Semmelroth, and Ratzinger, who had also examined it from a theological point of view. Were the text to be accepted as it stood, he contended, “unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants.” It could not be too strongly stressed, he said, “that all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands.”

It would be too much to expect, continued Father Rahner, that the schema on the Blessed Virgin could be rejected as simply as the schema on the sources of revelation. It should therefore be urged with all possible insistence” that the schema on the Blessed Virgin be made either a chapter or an epilogue of the schema on the Church. ‘This would be the easiest way to delete from the schema statements which, theologically, are not sufficiently developed and which could only do incalculable harm from an ecumenical point of view. It would also prevent bitter discussion.”

Father Rahner contended further that the schema as it stood used “tactics which objectively are not honorable,” since “it declares that there is no intention of defining new dogmas, and at the same time presents certain teachings as though they already belonged to the doctrine of the Church, although they are not as yet dogmas and, from a modern theological standpoint, cannot become dogmas.”

What he attacked especially was the schema’s teaching on the mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the title “Mediatrix of all graces,” which it gave the Blessed Virgin. This teaching was not proposed as a dogma of faith, but rather as a doctrine commonly held by Catholics. Although the teaching was supported by many pronouncements of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church, especially by recent papal encyclicals, “this doctrine must nonetheless be carefully pondered anew,” for the schema would have “great influence on Mariology and on the devotion of the faithful to Mary.” If the word “mediation” were to be used at all, it must be most clearly defined.

Father Rahner painstakingly listed for the German and Austrian Council Fathers precisely what he felt should be changed or omitted in the existing schema. The whole substance of the schema, he contended, could be stated “without stirring up these difficulties and dangers." And he suggested by way of conclusion that “the bishops of Austria, Germany and Switzerland” should consider themselves “forced to declare openly” that they could not accept the schema in its present form.

The Fulda conference adopted his suggestions with one major exception. He had been opposed to leaving the title “Mediatrix” in the text. But the proposals eventually submitted to the General Secretariat of the Council by the Fulda conference read as follows: “By far the greater part of the Council Fathers of Austria, Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavia are not absolutely opposed to retaining the words ‘Mediatrix’ and ‘mediation’ in the schema. However, it seems desirable that the expression, ‘Mediatrix of all graces’ should not be used.” These expressions, the Council Fathers explained, would raise the problem as to how the Virgin could be the Mediatrix of the sacramental graces flowing from the very nature of the sacraments themselves, “a question which might well be avoided.” They added, nevertheless, that the Theological Commission should weigh the reasons given by the minority for excluding the terms “Mediatrix” and “mediation” from the schema altogether.

The proposal officially submitted by the Fulda conference to the General Secretariat of the Council also quoted from Protestant writings. Bishop Dibelius, of the German Evangelical Church, was quoted as saying in 1962 that the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary was one of the major impediments to union. Other German Protestant authorities, such as Hampe and Kiinneth, were quoted as saying that the Council Fathers in Rome should remember that they would be erecting a new wall of division by approving a schema on Mary. Therefore, these writers had concluded, the Council should either keep silence on the subject, or reprehend those guilty of excesses. More moderate Protestant writers, such as Meinhold and Kiel, were quoted as expressing the hope that, if the Council treated of the Blessed Virgin Mary at all, it would do so in the schema on the Church, since then “a new approach could be made to the doctrine on the Blessed Virgin.”

The topic before the thirty-seventh General Congregation, held on September 30, the first working meeting of the second session, was the revised schema on the Church. As the first speaker on this topic, Cardinal Frings, of Cologne, stated that it would be most fitting to include in the schema on the Church everything pertaining to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Among other considerations, such action would do much to foster dialogue with the separated Christians. The Cardinal pointed out that his stand was endorsed by sixty-five German-speaking and Scandinavian Council Fathers.

Cardinal Silva Henriquez, of Santiago de Chile, was the first speaker on the following day. Speaking in the name of forty-four Latin American bishops, he said that devotion to the Virgin Mary in those countries at times went beyond the bounds of Christian devotion. If a separate dogmatic constitution were adopted on the Virgin Mary, it would be difficult for the faithful to relate the doctrine contained therein to the doctrine on Christian salvation as a whole. He therefore supported Cardinal Frings’ proposal that Catholic teaching on the Blessed Virgin be included in the schema on the Church. The same morning, Archbishop Gabriel Garrone, of Toulouse, speaking on behalf of “many French bishops,” also supported Cardinal Frings’ proposal. The theological image of the Church, he said, would be completed by the inclusion of all teaching on the Blessed Virgin in the teaching on the Church as a whole. Moreover, this would prove an antidote to devotional excesses, since the Virgin would not appear to be outside the providential plan of salvation, but rather as participating therein.

Two days later, Benjamin Cardinal de Arriba y Castro, of Tarragona, took the floor on behalf of sixty bishops, most of them from Spain. He argued that, contrary to what had been suggested at previous meetings, it would be preferable to adopt a separate schema on the Blessed Virgin, because of the importance of the Mother of God in the economy of redemption. However, if it should be decided to include this text in the schema on the Church, then an entire chapter should be devoted to it, preferably the second.

On October 4, the hierarchy of England and Wales circulated a letter drawing attention to a “draft for a chapter or epilogue on the Blessed Virgin Mary, to be included in the constitution on the Church.” This draft had been prepared as a substitute for the existing schema by Abbot Christopher Butler of Downside, Superior General of the English Benedictines, “on the principle that the Council, especially in view of the ecumenical orientation set before it by the Holy Father, should as far as possible base the full modern Catholic understanding of Our Lady, including the dogmas defined in 1854 and 1950, on Holy Scripture and on the traditional evidence preceding the East-West rupture. If fifty Council Fathers endorsed this substitute schema, according to a new procedural rule, it could be presented to the Cardinal Moderators, who would then be obliged to transmit it to the Coordinating Commission for consideration and a decision.

A booklet dated October 4 was circulated by the Servites (Order of the Servants of Mary) suggesting, among other things, that, if the reference to the “titles” of Mary was to be retained in the schema, then more than one such title should be given; in addition to the title of Mediatrix used in the schema, the title “Coredemptrix” would be appropriate.

Another booklet, bearing the same date, was circulated by Father Carolus Balic, a peritus on the Theological Commission, citing many reasons for retaining the schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary as a separate document. Numerous Council Fathers were quoted, including Cardinal Spellman, who had asked in a written intervention whether the schema could pass over in silence titles like Coredemptrix, Reparatrix, and others used by the Supreme Pontiffs, simply “because they would be rather difficult for Protestants to understand.” The Cardinal was opposed to this sort of reasoning, he said, because “the task of the Ecumenical Council is to teach the members of the Church, rather than those outside of it.”

On October 17, Cardinal Silva Henriquez officially submitted his own substitute schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Fie was aware, he said, that the hierarchy of England and Wales had also proposed a text. The one that he was submitting was intended simply as a help in producing the definitive text.” Four days later, he circulated another draft, explaining that it had been produced by the Chilean bishops by combining their own schema with that of Abbot Butler and also with that of Canon Rene Laurentin of France, one of the periti.

On October 24, the Cardinal Moderators announced that so many Council Fathers had requested the inclusion of the schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary in the schema on the Church that a debate on the motives for and against such a proposal would be held that morning. Rufino Cardinal Santos, of Manila, Philippines, spoke first, giving reasons why the two schemas should be treated separately. “I humbly beg the Cardinal Moderators not to allow the vote to be taken on this question immediately,” he said, “but to grant a suitable amount of time to the Council Fathers for pondering over the matter and giving it prudent consideration.” Cardinal Konig of Vienna, a member of the Theological Commission like Cardinal Santos, then stressed the advantages of uniting the two schemas.

On the following day, a letter signed by five Eastern-rite Council Fathers was circulated, pointing out that “among the Orientals united to the Apostolic See, as well as among those separated from it, the Blessed Virgin Mary is very greatly honored,” and urging the Council Fathers to vote in favor of an independent schema on Our Lady.

A rebuttal to all arguments in favor of combining the schemas was circulated on October 27 by Servite Bishop Giocondo Grotti, of Acre Purus, Brazil. As for the argument that a special schema should not be devoted to Mary because she was a member of the Church, the Bishop pointed out that she was not like other members; “because of her singular mission and singular privileges, she should receive singular treatment.” Turning to the argument that a separate schema on Mary would be taken as defining something new on Mary, the Bishop pointed out that the Council Fathers had many schemas before them, and no one claimed that those schemas were defining anything new. Another objection, he recalled, was that more honor would be given to Mary than to Christ. But from the text of the schema it was clear that Mary was “neither above nor against Christ.” He added that abuses in the devotion to Mary were not an argument against a separate schema, but rather in favor of it, since in a separate schema the truth could be more clearly presented. Bishop Grotti then asked: “Does ecumenism consist in confessing or in hiding the truth? Ought the Council to explain Catholic doctrine, or the doctrine of our separated brethren? . . . Hiding the truth hurts both us and those separated from us. It hurts us, because we appear as hypocrites. It hurts those who are separated from us because it makes them appear weak and capable of being offended by the truth.” Bishop Grotti concluded his rebuttal with the plea, “Let the schemas be separated. Let us profess our faith openly. Let us be the teachers we are in the Church by teaching with clarity, and not hiding what is true.”

On October 29, a vote was taken on the following statement: “Does it please the Council Fathers that the schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, should be so arranged that it may become Chapter 6 of the schema on the Church?” When the votes were counted, there were 1114 in favor of combining the two schemas; the required majority was only 1097. Father Rahner—and the European alliance—had won by a margin of seventeen votes.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

THE DIACONATE


One of the arguments offered by the European alliance toward the close of the first session for the rejection of the schema on the Church was that it made no mention of the diaconate. Chapter 3 of the schema contained merely one paragraph on bishops and one on priests.

At the conference of German-speaking Council Fathers held in Munich on February 5 and 6, 1963, the discussion centered around an alternate schema prepared by Monsignor Philips and Father Rahner. In this draft, the section on the priesthood was lengthened, and two paragraphs added on the diaconate and the minor orders. The text was officially submitted to Pope John XXIII and Cardinal Ottaviani in mid-February, 1963, and the section on deacons was incorporated in the revised official schema; the section on minor orders was not included.

One of the sentences in the new paragraph read: “Although today in the Church, the diaconate is generally considered to be only a step on the way to the priesthood, this has not always been the practice, nor is it everywhere the practice today.” The revised text provided further that “the diaconate can in the future be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy wherever the Church may consider this expedient for the care of souls.” It would be up to the competent ecclesiastical authorities to decide whether such deacons were to be bound by the law of celibacy or not. A footnote accompanying the text pointed out that something similar had been presented for consideration at the Council of Trent on July 6, 1563.

This addition to the schema on the Church was strongly contested when this last revision was made by the Theological Commission. Asked to comment on the revised schema on the Church for the benefit of the Council Fathers assembled in Fulda, Father Rahner devoted thirty-three lines in defense of the fourteen lines on the diaconate, stating that it was most desirable, in spite of certain objections raised, that the section on deacons should be retained in its entirety. His commentary was accepted verbatim by the Fulda Fathers, and officially presented to the General Secretariat of the Council prior to the opening of the second session.

The topic was raised in the Council on October 4 by Francis Cardinal Spellman, of New York. After expressing general satisfaction with Chapter 2 of the revised schema on the Church, he argued against the retention in it of the section concerning the diaconate. The matter, he said, was a disciplinary one and should not, therefore, be included in a dogmatic constitution. As to whether it should be treated in any other constitution, he felt that it should not, and he proceeded to explain his position.

In the first place, he said, deacons would have to be adequately prepared for their functions. In many places, however, it was scarcely possible, or even impossible, to establish seminaries for candidates to the priesthood. How, then, could other houses be provided for deacons? Again, if those men who were already deacons were to remain so permanently, there would automatically be fewer priests. The idea of a permanent diaconate had originated mainly with liturgists, who wished to restore ancient practices without taking modern conditions into account. With the passage of time, he pointed out, the diaconate as a permanent rank in the hierarchy had in fact become obsolete. No steps, therefore, should be taken to restore it without careful consideration of the reasons leading to its abandonment. The role of the diaconate in the modern Church was being fulfilled by many lay religious, members of secular institutes, and lay apostles who were living lives of service to the Church; one of the purposes of the Council, he recalled, was precisely the fostering of the growth of this type of lay activity.

At the next General Congregation, Cardinal Dopfner answered some of Cardinal Spellman’s objections. As for seminaries for the training of deacons, they would not be necessary; it was a question of “sacramentalizing functions that already exist,” not introducing new ones. Those who were already trained for these functions, or were exercising them, he said, like married catechists in mission lands, should receive the corresponding sacramental grace to help them carry them out more perfectly.

In conclusion, he pointed out that the purpose of the text was “simply to give a dogmatic basis for a permanent diaconate and to open the door to a further examination of the question.”

Cardinal Suenens, of Belgium, also proceeded to refute Cardinal Spellman’s objections. Because the diaconate was sacramental, it pertained to the very constitution of the Church and must be treated on a supernatural level, he said. Certain functions in the Church should be entrusted only to those with the necessary supernatural grace. God had established certain ministries and graces, and these ought not to be neglected in building up a Christian community; the community had a right to them. The Cardinal rejected the contention that a married diaconate would undermine priestly celibacy or result in a decline in vocations. The diaconate itself was a gift of divine grace and would strengthen Christian communities, thereby aiding the growth of the Church.

Cardinal Suenens asked, in conclusion, that a vote be taken at the end of the discussion in order to determine the consensus on the subject, Archbishop Bernard Yago, of Abidjan, Ivory Coast, suggested that the Council Fathers might be interested in hearing a voice from Africa on this matter. He supported the establishment of a permanent diaconate; deacons could play an important role, especially in missionary countries, since many communities seldom saw a priest. To the objection that a practice dating from the first centuries of Christianity and long since discarded should not be revived, he replied that Africa was in fact experiencing its first century of Christianity.

Archbishop Paul Zoungrana, of Ouagadougou, Upper Volta, accepted the principle of a permanent diaconate, but he argued that a married diaconate would be altogether undesirable in West Africa. A strong reason for insisting on celibacy, he said, was that the modern world needed a firm witness to the possibility of a life of chastity. However, since circumstances might suggest that a noncelibate diaconate was more useful in some regions, episcopal conferences should be able to obtain the necessary powers from the Holy See to dispense with the obligation of celibacy.

Cardinal Bacci, of the Roman Curia, spoke out against the principle of a married diaconate; it was both inopportune and dangerous. If the law of celibacy were relaxed for deacons, the number of priests would certainly decline, since youth “would choose the easier way,” Moreover, if the Council waived the obligation of celibacy for deacons, the plea would soon be heard that the same should be done for priests.

Bishop Jorge Kemerer, of Posadas, Argentina, addressed the assembly in the name of twenty bishops from Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and various mission lands. “Something serious must be done,” he said, “to solve the great and urgent problem of the shortage of priests around the world.” Although theoretically there was one priest for every 6000 souls in Latin America, in fact “nearly every diocese has many parishes with a single priest caring for 10,000, 20,000, or even 30,000 souls!” The solution was not to import priests from abroad, he said, since the population of Latin America was close to 200 million and was expected to be double that by the end of the century. “What we need is the restoration of the order of the diaconate in the hierarchy, without the obligation of celibacy.”

He then made this earnest and eloquent appeal: “The restoration of the diaconate is our great hope. And it is the wish of many bishops in Latin America that you, venerable Fathers, do not deprive us of this hope when the matter comes up for a vote. The door is already open. If among you there are some who do not wish to enter, we shall not force you to enter. But we earnestly beg of you not to close the door on us, because we do want to enter. Allow us, please, to do so!” His plea was received with applause.

Archbishop Custodio Alvim Pereira, of Lourengo Marques, Mozambique, spoke on behalf of thirty-eight bishops from Portugal. He said that, if a candidate did not have the knowledge required of a priest and was not celibate, he was not fit for the diaconate; if, on the other hand, he did possess that knowledge and was celibate, he should become a priest. He contended that it was generally agreed that a married diaconate would undermine priestly celibacy.

Bishop Jean Gay, of Basse-Terre and Pointe-a-Pitre in the French West Indies, supported the restoration of a permanent diaconate, but he felt that a married diaconate would present difficulties. He recalled that Canon 17 of the Council of Trent had been designed to restore the minor orders in the Church and said that the present Council offered an opportunity to carry out such a step. Married men in minor orders could help in the liturgy, in Catholic Action, in catechetics, and in administrative work. The restoration of minor orders, he said, deserved attention, “and should be given a place in the schema alongside the diaconate.”

Bishop Paul Sani, of Bali, Indonesia, told a press conference that on an ordinary Sunday in Flores it took a priest a half hour to distribute Holy Communion. “This annoys the congregation,” he said, “and we could use some help from deacons here.” Nevertheless, he said, “I am not in favor of a diaconate by Orders. This may have been well and good in the first centuries, when the Church was not yet organized. But many of the functions performed by ordained deacons in the early Church are today performed by teachers, catechists, and church board members.” Ordained deacons, moreover, would have to be paid salaries for performing services similar to those rendered gratis by church board members. “This would be a blow to the lay apostolate movement, in which people render their services spontaneously and without remuneration.”

The Bishop was especially concerned with the fact that the sacrament of Orders, by which the diaconate was conferred, imprinted an indelible mark on the soul of the recipient. “But if an ordained deacon is involved in a scandal or a village quarrel, what will you do with him? People will no longer come to him to receive Communion. And linguistic, cultural, property, and family ties make his transfer from one parish to another more or less impossible. So his services cease, but you must still continue to support him.” On the other hand, a diaconate by jurisdiction, or faculties, was much more suited to mission needs. “Bishops or ordinaries in charge of dioceses should receive faculties or jurisdiction from the Holy See to appoint an individual or individuals, married or unmarried, on a temporary basis, to do the work or perform the functions of deacons on specific occasions.” The Bishop said that lay brothers, as well as catechists, whether married or not, and other married men, should be eligible to the diaconate, but always on a temporary basis. He believed that, if lay brothers were given priority in serving as deacons, that would change their role in the mission apostolate and would result in an increase in vocations to the brotherhood.

Other Council Fathers, however, insisted that the diaconate must be conferred by the sacrament of Orders, so that the deacon in performing his duties might receive the grace of that sacrament. Bishop Ermann Tillemans, a Dutch-born missionary on the island of New Guinea for thirty-four years, was of this opinion. “Having an unordained catechist or layman teaching the faith is not the same as having an ordained man. The ordained man will have the help of the grace of his ordination.”

In conformity with the suggestion made earlier by Cardinal Suenens, an exploratory vote was taken on October 30 to determine the thinking of the assembly. The Council Fathers were asked whether the schema should be revised in such a way as to take into consideration the opportuneness of restoring the diaconate as a distinct and permanent grade in the sacred ministry, depending upon its usefulness for the Church in particular places. The vote prescinded from the question whether deacons would be allowed to marry.

The result of the exploratory vote was a 75 per cent majority in favor of establishing the diaconate as a permanent and distinct grade in the
sacred ministry.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

THE LAITY


In the schema on the Church that was presented to the Council Fathers during the first session, Church membership was divided into three categories with a chapter devoted to each: hierarchy (i.e., bishops and priests), religious (i.e., members of religious orders and congregations), and laity. When the Council called for a revision of the schema, the Coordinating Commission in January, 1963, ordered that these three chapters should be retained, but changed their sequence: hierarchy, laity, and religious. Less than one month later at Munich, the German-speaking bishops asked that the chapter on religious be considerably shortened, and that it more explicitly identify the perfection sought by religious as “nothing else but the perfection sought by all Christians.” These views, favored by the European alliance theologians, became so strong in the Theological Commission that the chapter on religious was changed to “The Vocation to Sanctity in the Church.”

At the last minute, in early July, Cardinal Suenens succeeded in having the Coordinating Commission partially alter its orders of January, and call for an additional chapter on “The People of God.” This chapter, which carefully avoided the word “member,” was to be so phrased as to include not only Catholics, but everyone who in any way might be called a Christian. By July, however, it was much too late for the already revised schema to be revised once again, since it had to be sent through the mails to the Council Fathers for their study without further delay. The solution was to print a footnote informing the Council Fathers that, “according to a recent ruling by the Coordinating Commission,” the chapter on the laity would be divided into two parts, constituting Chapter 2 on the People of God, and Chapter 4 on the laity. The phrase “the People of God” had been copied from the first page of the rejected schema of Cardinal Ottaviani and his Theological Preparatory Commission.

In this way, the number of chapters in the schema on the Church was increased from four to five. The schema structure and content were now precisely what the German-speaking bishops had called for in their official resolutions taken at Munich in February of that year, when they had studied a five-chapter substitute schema on the Church prepared principally by Monsignor Philips of Belgium and Father Rahner of Germany. The other chapters indicated in the footnote of Cardinal Suenens were: Chapter 1: the mystery of the Church; Chapter 3: the hierarchical constitution of the Church; and Chapter 5: the vocation to sanctity in the Church.

Examination of the two chapters on the laity and on the People of God, discussed as a unit—and not altogether without confusion—as a result of the last-minute change, began at the forty-ninth General Congregation, on October 16.

Bishop Wright of Pittsburgh spoke on the historical and theological importance of the chapter on the laity. “The faithful have been waiting for four hundred years,” he said, “for a positive conciliar statement on the place, dignity and vocation of the layman.” He found fault with the traditional notion of the laity as defined in Church law as being too negative; the layman was defined as “neither a cleric nor a religious.” Once the Council had declared “the theological nature of the laity,” he said, “the juridical bones of the Church would come alive with theological flesh and blood.”

Abbot Godefroi Dayez, President of the Benedictine Congregation of Belgium, also drew attention to the faulty definition of the laity in the schema. According to the text, “the Sacred Council in using the word ‘laity’ understands it to mean those faithful who, through Baptism, have been united to the People of God. They serve God in the ordinary state of the Christian faithful . . . But they belong neither to the hierarchical rank, nor to the religious state sanctioned by the Church.” The Abbot contended that this definition was incorrect. Strictly speaking, he said, the laity formed a group separate from the clergy, but not separate from religious. For many in the religious life—nuns, brothers, certain monks— were in fact members of the laity, even though they were members of religious orders. “Unfortunately, many do not know that the religious life is neither clerical nor lay, but is based on a special charism.” He called for the insertion of a new passage in the text which would state that the layman was a “noncleric.” Moreover, the text should distinguish between the laity in general, those members of the laity who were in religious orders, and those who belonged to secular institutes.

Cardinal Meyer of Chicago contended that the text was “neither adequate nor realistic, because it neglects two fundamental facts.” Instead of speaking only of the graces, gifts, and privileges of the People of God, the schema should also emphasize that “we are all sinners as members of a fallen race,” and that “even after our entrance into the Church, we remain aware of our weakness and have lapses into sin.” The difficulties in living a good Christian life, the Cardinal said, sprang from both internal and external sources. The internal source was the tendency to evil in man’s fallen nature, combined with his actual lapses into sin. The external source was the devil, as was abundantly clear from Scripture. (Cardinal Meyer thus became one of the few Council Fathers to refer to the devil.) Therefore, he said, if the Council document was to reach the hearts of men, weighed down by a sense of sin and moral incapacity, a new paragraph should be inserted in the text to describe the Church as the home of the Father of Mercies, where the sins of the prodigal son were forgiven.

The U.S. bishops were particularly concerned that the schema should make specific mention of racial equality. Bishop Robert Tracy, of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, speaking in the name of 147 United States bishops, said that a reference to racial equality by the Council would bring consolation to people around the world who were deprived of rights and liberties, and subjected to sufferings and discrimination, not because of any transgression on their part, but simply because they belonged to a certain race. Although only countries such as the United States, South Africa, Rhodesia, and to some extent, also, Australia, were generally affected by racial problems, said Bishop Tracy, “their repercussions and effects today are international and are therefore proper matter for conciliar concern. We therefore ask,” he concluded, “that a solemn dogmatic declaration on the equality of all men, with respect to nation and race, be included in the chapter on the People of God.” His proposal was greeted with applause, and incorporated in the final text.

Cardinal Siri, of Genoa, took exception to the footnote on the first page of the chapter on the laity which announced that the Coordinating Commission had recently decided to make two chapters out of it, one on the People of God, and the other on the laity. He said that he was very much in favor of the Biblical expression “People of God” but opposed to devoting a separate chapter to it. “From such a chapter, it might be inferred that the People of God can subsist, or can achieve something, even without the Church. That would be contrary to the teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation.” This proposal, however, was not supported, and the order indicated in the footnote was adopted.

The examination of the chapter on the laity stretched from the forty-ninth General Congregation on October 16 to the fifty-fifth General Congregation on October 24. In that time 82 speakers had addressed the assembly: 13 cardinals, 1 patriarch, 16 archbishops, 49 bishops, and 3 superiors general. The chapter was sent back to the Theological Commission for a further revision.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

RELIGIOUS ORDERS AND THE UNIVERSAL VOCATION TO SANCTITY


One of the unpublicized minority groups at the Council was the Roman Union of Superiors General, comprising 125 Council Fathers, some bishops, but most of them priests. These Fathers were particularly disturbed by the fact that, in the interim between the first and second sessions, the members of the European alliance had succeeded in prevailing upon the Coordinating Commission of the Council to delete the chapter on religious life from the schema on the Church, and to replace it by a new chapter entitled, “The Vocation to Sanctity in the Church.”

The position of the European alliance was based on the arguments advanced by Father Rahner and Monsignor Philips, and submitted to the German-speaking Fathers meeting in Munich in February, 1963. Those arguments were that the inclusion of the chapter on the religious life would “confirm Protestants in their objections, namely, that in the Church, through the religious state, there exist two essentially diverse paths to salvation; that the laity are not called to evangelical perfection and automatically are always on a lower level of sanctity; and that those who are members of religious orders are automatically considered better than those who are joined in marriage.”

The Munich Fathers forwarded these considerations to the Theological Commission; and, in the process of the revision of the schema, the chapter on religious was duly dropped, and a new chapter included instead on the universal vocation to sanctity in the Church. When news of this revision reached the German-speaking and Scandinavian Council Fathers gathered at Fulda in August, they wrote to Rome expressing their satisfaction at “the victory that has finally been won—after long discussions— for the view that this chapter should treat of sanctity in the entire Church, and should make special but not exclusive mention in that context of those in religious life.”

It was against this background that the Roman Union of Superiors General decided on October 14 to request a detailed report on the matter from Bishop Enrico Compagnone of Anagni, a Discalced Carmelite whom Pope John had appointed to the Commission on Religious; he had previously been a member of the Preparatory Commission on Religious.

Bishop Compagnone explained that the preparatory commission had expressed the desire that the schema on the Church should contain something on religious orders, “since they constitute an integral part of the Church.” In consequence, the Theological Preparatory Commission had included in its schema a chapter entitled “On the States of Life Devoted to Achieving Evangelical Perfection.” Immediately after the first session, the Coordinating Commission had instructed a joint commission made up of members of both the Theological Commission and the Commission on Religious to review that chapter. The joint commission had agreed on a new title, namely, “On Those Who Profess the Evangelical Counsels.” However, after the text had been returned to the Theological Commission, the title had been changed to read “On the Vocation to Sanctity in the Church,” and the text had also been “substantially altered.” He labeled as “perplexing” these steps taken by the Theological Commission on its own initiative.

While there were positive elements in the new chapter, said Bishop Compagnone, such as the emphasis on the fact that all members of the Church were called to holiness, it was defective in its presentation of the nature of the religious life. It stated merely that the purpose of the religious life was to bear witness to the fact that the evangelical counsels were followed in the Chinch. That, however, was only one aspect of the religious life. Those in the religious life, he said, constituted “a vital part of the Church.” Various forms of the apostolate would perhaps never have come into existence but for the religious orders: for example, the missionary apostolate, which was an essential function of the Church, and which had in practice been carried out solely by religious, at least up to modern times.

Bishop Compagnone proposed that a chapter should be included headed “On Religious,” in which it would be clearly stated, as had been agreed in the joint commission, that “Christ wished to have in his Church consecrated souls who would follow the evangelical counsels.” Precisely because this was Christ’s will, the schema on the Church ought to speak of the religious life, and to clarify the position effectively occupied by members of religious orders in the Church.

The Council’s Commission on Religious had decided that all statements on the vocation to sanctity in general should be transferred to the chapter “On the People of God.” The schema would then have this logical sequence: 1. The Mystery of the Church; 2. The People of God; 3. The Hierarchy; 4. The Laity; 5. Religious. Bishop Compagnone urged the superiors general to make oral and written representations to secure this order and formulation.

After further discussion, the Roman Union of Superiors General decided to request the introduction in the schema of a new chapter on religious.

On October 22, Father Schiitte, Superior General of the Society of the Divine Word, officially proposed in the Council hall the sequence of chapters for the schema on the Church which had been advocated by Bishop Compagnone. Father Schiitte suggested further that everything pertaining to the universal call to holiness should be treated in the chapter on the People of God. That chapter dealt with all members of the Church as a whole, and it should therefore treat of the call which all received to holiness. “If in this schema on the Church,” he said, “we have a special chapter on the hierarchy . . . , even though there is another entire schema on bishops, and if we have an entire chapter on the laity, although still another schema is going to treat of the lay apostolate, then why can we not have a special chapter which properly treats of religious?”

Religious, said Father Schiitte, should not be considered in the schema on the Church “only from the viewpoint of their vocation to sanctity, but also from the viewpoint of their educational, charitable, social, pastoral, and especially missionary work, which is of the greatest importance for the life of the whole Church.” Over one third of all those entitled to attend the Council, he pointed out, were members of religious orders. Moreover, one third of all priests in the world were members of religious orders, and there were altogether some 2 million men and women in the world who had consecrated themselves to Christ in the religious state. “Why, therefore, do we appear to be ashamed to speak out about members of religious orders properly and clearly, distinctly and explicitly, not only about their vocation to sanctity, but also about their fruitful activity which is so necessary to the life of the Church?”

Some days later. Cardinal Dopfner addressed the Council on behalf of seventy-nine German-speaking and Scandinavian Council Fathers. He praised the new chapter on the vocation to sanctity, because it laid down that all the People of God were called upon to practice the evangelical counsels, thereby refuting the false notion that there were different classes of Christians, more or less perfect by reason of their state of life. He suggested that the Council should warn religious not to live for themselves and remind them that they were called upon, together with other groups of the faithful, to form a united Christian people.

Cardinal Leger of Montreal recalled that the monastic ideal of holiness had long been the prototype on which all Christian life had been modeled.

But since the life of lay people was so different from that of monks and other members of religious orders, sanctity had seemed to them to be unattainable. Many of the faithful, the Cardinal continued, had searched in vain for a life modeled on the Gospels and suited to their needs. A great loss of spiritual forces in the Church had resulted. Consequently, he said, the laity would welcome the propositions contained in the chapter on the universal call to holiness.

The Cardinal pointed out, further, that the only specific aspect of lay life mentioned in the text was the conjugal life. But the search for holiness must be pursued by people regardless of their age, and whether or not they were married. He asked that mention be made of all the activities of human life: daily work, political affairs, cultural activities, leisure, and recreation, since through them and in them holiness must be developed.”

Cardinal Bea contended that the schema was not realistic enough, since the Church included sinners as well as holy persons. He therefore called for a distinction “between the Church in heaven which is perfectly holy, and the Church on earth which tends dynamically to sanctity, but is never perfectly holy.” The way in which the schema cited Scripture was “unworthy of the Council,” he said, in referring to several examples where Scripture texts were used to support statements to which they had no reference.

Bishop Frane Franic, of Split-Makarska, Yugoslavia, spoke of poverty as a necessary condition for holiness of bishops. “When the Church was poor, it was holy. When it became rich, sanctity diminished accordingly.” Bishops, he said, had a much greater obligation to be holy than all other members of the Church, “because as bishops we must sanctify others.” But, he pointed out, since the Middle Ages, most saints had come from the ranks of the religious orders, not from the ranks of the bishops. “This would seem to indicate a lack of heroic sanctity among bishops,” he said, “and I believe the reason for it is a lack of evangelical poverty.” Diocesan priests and religious orders also needed to reform themselves in the matter of poverty, he added.

A good number of bishops belonging to religious orders, as well as some superiors general, had prepared statements in favor of the inclusion of an entire chapter on the religious life in the schema on the Church, and had given due notice of their desire to speak. But day after day of discussion passed, and their names were not called out by the Cardinal Moderators.

On October 30, the assembly voted to close the discussion, but many of those scheduled to speak took advantage of the rule which allowed one to address the assembly after cloture, provided five Council Fathers had endorsed the request.

Cardinal Dopfner was Moderator at the fifty-ninth General Congregation, on October 31. Before permitting any speakers to come to the microphone, he announced that many Council Fathers were complaining that the Council was proceeding too slowly. In order to preserve the right to speak of those Council Fathers who had obtained five signatures, and at the same time to satisfy the general desire of the assembly to close the discussion and keep moving, he asked speakers “to confine their remarks to pertinent matter, to avoid repetitions, to stay within an eight-minute time limit instead of the usual ten, and to remember that statements not delivered in the Council hall but presented in writing have equal weight before the Commissions.”

This latter recommendation, which the Cardinal himself did not follow, was followed consistently by Archbishop Felici, the Secretary General, who because of his position had renounced his right to deliver interventions.

Cardinal Dopfner intervened frequently during the speeches on that day, reminding the Council Fathers of the points that he had mentioned. At least three speakers were interrupted twice. Three others were interrupted once, or were told when they had finished that what they had said was not pertinent to the matter at hand. Many Council Fathers found it hard to understand the Cardinal’s hasty manner and his seemingly arbitrary reduction of the time allowed to speakers.

Father Agostino Sepinski, Superior General of the Franciscans and President of the Roman Union of Superiors General, was the nineteenth speaker to take the floor that day. He suggested that the text on the universal call to holiness in the Church should be transferred from Chapter 4 to the chapter on the People of God. Chapter 4, he said, should treat only of the religious state, according to the logical sequence of chapters. He informed the assembly that the superiors general, at one of their meetings, had unanimously decided to request the inclusion of a special chapter on the religious state in the schema on the Church.

Bishops from religious orders waiting to speak were not invited to the microphone. At the same time, others whose names had been handed in only that morning were called upon to speak. The silenced Council Fathers were so indignant that they decided to send Cardinal Dopfner a private warning, stating that they would not allow the matter to rest and would ask for an official investigation if there was no change. But when they tried to contact him, they found that he had left for Capri for a long weekend and was not due back until the evening of November 4.

On his return, Cardinal Dopfner found a message from the offended Council Fathers waiting for him. He called them together, apologized for what had happened, promised that it would never happen again, and asked them to renounce their right to speak. They refused. He then agreed to read a summary of their speeches in the Council hall and asked them to indicate the points they considered essential. At the sixty-second General Congregation, on November 7, he read a summary, but not the one that they had been asked to prepare. It was extremely short, obscure, and in many places inaccurate.

The immediate result was that seven bishops from different religious orders met to decide on action to neutralize the German and Belgian element which they felt was exerting a “dictatorship” in the Council. They drew up a series of propositions, or postulata, concerning the schema on the Church, including, in particular, a demand for a separate chapter on the religious life, The postulata were printed in large numbers to be distributed to individual Council Fathers for their study and signatures.

On November 11, the seven bishops met with thirty-five other bishops from thirty-five other religious congregations, and it was decided to give the organization permanency and elect a board of seven presidents. The first of these was Archbishop Pacifico Perantoni of Lanciano, Italy, a former Superior General of the Franciscans and a close acquaintance of Pope Paul VI. Bishop Richard Lester Guilly, S.J., of Georgetown, British Guiana, was elected secretary. The name decided upon for the organization was “The Bishops’ Secretariat,” and its offices were set up in the international headquarters of the Jesuit order.

When the Roman Union of Superiors General held its regular meeting two days later, it decided to establish immediate liaison with this new group, and to give full support to the project of collecting signatures for the postulata. For the balance of the Council, the Bishops’ Secretariat and the Roman Union of Superiors General worked hand in hand. Because of the disdain shown by many diocesan bishops and Roman Curia bishops for religious orders, it would not have been possible for the Roman Union of Superiors General alone to conduct a program at the Council with anything near the success that the Bishops’ Secretariat could hope for.

Within two weeks, the postulata had been signed by 679 Council Fathers, including seventeen cardinals. The seven presidents of the Bishops’ Secretariat then personally presented the signed postulata to the Secretary General of the Council and to Cardinal Browne, Vice-President of the Theological Commission, at the same time giving them an oral explanation of the background of the matter. Both the Secretary General and Cardinal Browne said that they would take the matter up with Pope Paul. The Pope subsequently referred the postulata to the Theological Commission with a personal note saying that he was sending them “for diligent and careful study.” In a separate letter to Archbishop Perantoni, of the Bishops’ Secretariat, Pope Paul explained what he had done, expressed his thanks for the interest shown by the Bishops’ Secretariat, said he hoped it would continue its work, and applauded the fact that religious were collaborating in so positive a way in the work of the Council.

When the Theological Commission revised the schema on the Church once more between the second and third sessions, it added a new chapter “On Religious.” The reason it gave in its report was that “very many Council Fathers, including the 679, have explicitly and formally requested a chapter to be reserved for religious.” This was the first defeat for the European alliance. Its iron grip on the Council had been broken, because a group had come into being with comparable powers of organization.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

THE ROMAN CURIA UNDER FIRE: SCHEMA ON BISHOPS AND THE GOVERNMENT OF DIOCESES

The discussion of the schema on bishops and the government of dioceses opened on Tuesday, November 5, at the sixtieth General Congregation.

That morning I had a special pass to attend the meeting. At 9 a.m. chimes tinkled softly, inviting the Council Fathers who filled the broad aisle between the two banks of tiered seats to take their places. They did so quickly, and five minutes later the chimes tinkled again and a voice announced in distinct Latin over the crystal-clear public address system that His Beatitude, Paul II Cheikho, Babylonian Patriarch of Baghdad,

Iraq, was about to celebrate Mass in Aramaic in the Chaldaean rite. When the bishops lowered their private kneelers, it sounded like thunder rumbling through the basilica.

Half an hour later, when Mass was over, the hushed basilica burst into life as Council Fathers adjusted their collapsible tables, reached into portfolios for notes and official documents, glanced at the morning newspaper, or exchanged comment with those sitting around them. Latecomers hurried through the center aisle to their places. Five minutes later the Book of the Gospels was solemnly enthroned, and then the Secretary General said: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” Immediately afterwards all Council Fathers and the periti prayed together the “ Adsumus" (“We are here before You, O Holy Spirit”) prayer, and then the day’s business began, with one speaker - following the other at the microphone without a break.

The new schema was presented by Paolo Cardinal Marella, President of the Commission concerned, and Bishop Carli, of Segni, followed with a report on the origin, development, and content of the schema. One of the five chapters was titled, “Relationships between Bishops and the Roman Curia.”

Paul Cardinal Richaud, of Bordeaux, France, made a brief speech in which he said that the Roman Curia should be reorganized with a view to a better distribution of functions, a clearer definition of competency, and a more satisfactory degree of coordination. The membership of the Roman Curia should become international, and it should include diocesan bishops.

These points were also emphasized by the next speaker. Bishop Giuseppe Gargitter, of Bressanone, Italy. Just as the bishops were in the service of the People of God, so too the Roman Curia should be in the service of the bishops, he said. The mere concession of faculties was not enough; effective decentralization was needed. He called for the internationalization of the Curia, saying that no Western nation or nations should have a privileged position in that body. The schema should include a reference to the function of international and even intercontinental episcopal conferences, as well as to national ones.

Bishop Jean Rupp, of the Principality of Monaco, humorously referred to the schema as a “model of Roman brevity”—so short that important questions such as the compulsory retirement of bishops for reasons of age were developed up to a certain point and then left hanging up in the air. The principle laid down for the reorganization of dioceses was much too general, since the schema indicated merely that “dioceses should be neither too large nor too small.” He suggested, further, that bishops had been so careful about clearly stating their rights in the schema on the Church that in this schema it would be well to set out clearly the rights of others in the Church, especially of priests.

Following the example of many Council Fathers, I left my seat halfway through the meeting and went to the coffee shop which the Council Fathers had christened “Bar Jona.” (Coffee shops in Rome are known as bars.) This one was set up in a sacristy, and inside I had to elbow my way through noisy groups of bishops and periti drinking coffee and soft drinks. Archbishop D’Souza, of Bhopal (formerly of Nagpur), whom I met that day in the coffee shop, assured me that criticism of the schema would increase as the days went by. “No one has anything to fear from giving us bishops more power; we are not children,” he said.

The Indian prelate was right. In a fiery address, Patriarch Maximos IV charged that the schema envisaged “only a slight and timid reform in the central government of the Church,” since it provided that “bishops might possibly be invited from the entire world to become members or consultants of the Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curia.” The Patriarch maintained that restricting the bishops’ collaboration to the Sacred Congregations corresponded “neither to the actual needs of the Church in our times, 'nor to the collegial responsibility that the episcopate has toward the Church.” His suggestion was that “the task of assisting the Pope in the general government of the Church should be given to a limited number of bishops representing their colleagues.” These representatives should be “the residential and apostolic patriarchs, the cardinal-archbishops by virtue of their archiepiscopal sees . . ., and finally, bishops chosen by the episcopal conferences of every country.” This group, he said, should constitute the new Sacred College to be convoked by the Pope at fixed times, “whenever the need is felt for discussion on the general affairs of the Church.”

Cardinal Konig, of Vienna, made a similar proposal. The schema should contain practical suggestions on the manner in which the bishops, with and under the Roman Pontiff, might collaborate in the government of the Universal Church. “Once or twice a year,” he said, “if the world is at peace, the Roman Pontiff might call together the presidents of episcopal conferences, and also certain other bishops, to take counsel with them and find out what they think about matters affecting the Universal Church.. .. In this, or some similar way, unity will be established between the center and the periphery through closer contact between the Supreme Pontiff and the Episcopal College; real assistance will be rendered by bishops in the government of the Universal Church; and there will be more communication between mission territories and other countries.”

Dutch-born Bishop Francis Simons of Indore, India, speaking in the name of thirteen bishops, said that Christ had entrusted the Church not only to the Pope, but also to all the bishops under the primacy of the Pope, because of the diversity of peoples, languages, and cultures in the world. The Roman Curia in its present form, he said, “is not aware of local conditions, nor does it sufficiently represent the bishops of the whole world”; it was therefore not a suitable instrument for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over the Church. “Often," he added, “it is not an instrument of the Pope, but a barrier between him and the bishops.”

Cardinal Alfrink, of Utrecht, speaking on behalf of the Dutch bishops, pointed out that, if collegiality was by divine right, then the episcopal college took precedence over the Curia, and the Curia was not entitled to stand between the Pope and the bishops. This was a theological as well as a juridical question, he said, and one which did not lessen the dignity of the Curia or the respect and gratitude owed to it.

Cardinal Spellman, of New York, drew attention to articles appearing in newspapers and periodicals with interpretations of Council discussions; these, he said, were often misleading, and detrimental to the welfare of souls. “The authority of the Pope is full and supreme,” he said. “It is neither necessary nor essential that the Pope share this authority with the bishops, although he may do so if he wills.” And since the Roman Curia was in fact the executive instrument of the Pope, only the Pope was competent to judge and reform it. “This is something that he has already indicated he will do.”

Bishop Pablo Correa Leon, of Cucuta, Colombia, speaking on behalf of sixty bishops from Latin American countries, proposed a structural change in the schema. In its existing form, he said, it treated only of matters pertaining to the bishop’s role as “ruler of a community.” Another schema, on the care of souls, considered the bishop’s role as sanctifier and teacher. “But these three roles of ruler, teacher, and sanctifier are three different aspects of the same pastoral office of bishops, and they are complementary.” For “the only reason why a bishop has any power to rule at all, or to prohibit, or even to punish, is precisely in order that he may be able effectively to carry out his pastoral office, which obliges him to lead souls, endowed with faith and vivified by grace, to eternal salvation. Consequently, the power to rule is intimately and logically bound up with the bishop’s role as sanctifier and teacher.” He therefore urged that the schema should show clearly that the power to rule flowed from the very nature of the pastoral office of the bishop.

Italian-born Bishop Edoardo Mason, of El Obeid, Sudan, rose in defense of the Roman Curia. “My personal experience,” he said, “has shown me that the Roman Curia as well as papal delegates are always a great help in difficulties and a good friend at all times.” Everyone was aware that an aggiornamento was needed in the Curia, and the Pope himself had said so. “But we are all in need of this aggiornamento ,” said Bishop Mason. “Perhaps the patriarchate needs an aggiornamento too!” And instead of bishops being eager to obtain more faculties, perhaps they should abandon some of those they already possessed, such as wearing a special cape and having the title “Excellency.”

Patriarch Ignace Pierre XVI Batanian, Armenian Patriarch of Cilicia, with residence in Beirut, Lebanon, begged the Council Fathers to be “objective and calm in making their observations on the present form of the central administration of the Church, giving due consideration to the merits of the Supreme Pontiff’s collaborators, and to the obligation of avoiding scandal.” The bishops, he said, were certainly free to suggest whatever they considered effective and useful for the Church. But he asked that “while we do this, we should not give others occasion to think that the Church through its present method of administration has been reduced to a lamentable condition.” A tree must be judged by its fruits, “and we must say that the Church, notwithstanding the calamities that plague the world, is experiencing a glorious era, if you consider the Christian life of the clergy and of the faithful, the propagation of the faith, and the salutary universal influence possessed by the Church in the world today.”

It was difficult for the public to understand how the bishops could pour such severe criticism upon the Roman Curia which had given those bishops, the Pope, and the Church so many decades, generations, and centuries of service.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

COLLEGIALITY


In the minds of many Council Fathers, the purpose of the Second Vatican Council was to balance the teaching of the First Vatican Council on the papal primacy by an explicit doctrine on episcopal collegiality. Just as the doctrine of the papal primacy clarified the right of the Pope to rule over the Universal Church alone, so too collegiality was to establish the right of bishops to rule the Universal Church in union with the Pope. It was to be expected that collegiality should be differently interpreted by different groups in the Council.

Among the adherents of the European alliance, for example, some theologians took the view that the Pope was bound in conscience to consult the College of Bishops on important matters. But not all Council Fathers shared this view. In fact, it was not even clear whether a majority of Council Fathers favored the principle of collegiality in any form, even after the matter had been discussed for nine days.

On the final day of discussion, Tuesday, October 15, the Cardinal Moderators announced that four points would be presented to the Council Fathers in writing on the following day to determine the four principal arguments of Chapter 2 of the schema on the Church, and that these points would be put to the vote one day later. On Wednesday, however, the Moderators announced that the distribution of the four points would take place “on another day.” Day after day passed, and no further mention was made of the matter.

The action suggested by the Moderators had been an innovation, not provided for by the Rules of Procedure, and had been overruled by the Presidency.

Subsequently, on October 23, a compromise solution was finally worked out by the Presidency, the Coordinating Commission, and the Moderators, and on October 29 the printed text of the four points was distributed to the Council Fathers.

The text asked the Council Fathers whether they wished to have Chapter 2 of the schema on the Church revised to state:

1. That episcopal consecration was the highest grade of the sacrament of Holy Orders;

2. That every bishop legitimately consecrated and in communion with other bishops and the Roman Pontiff, their head and principle of unity, was a member of the College of Bishops;

3. That this College of Bishops succeeded the College of Apostles in its role of teaching, sanctifying, and caring for souls, and that this college, together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without him (whose primacy over all bishops and faithful remained complete and intact), enjoyed full and supreme power over the Universal Church; and

4. That that power belonged by divine right to the College of Bishops united with its head.

An accompanying note informed the Council Fathers that these points would be put to the vote the following day. It explained further that by their votes the Council Fathers would “neither approve nor reject any text” contained in the schema, since the voting had no other purpose than to “make it possible for the Theological Commission to determine the feelings of the assembly concerning the proposed points.” The Commission expressly obliged itself, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Council, to “give due consideration to the individual interventions of Council Fathers”; furthermore, it would submit the text of the schema in its entirety for a vote by the Council Fathers in a General Congregation. It was explained further that the Moderators were taking this action because it had been requested by many Council Fathers, and even by entire episcopal conferences.

These carefully phrased qualifications on the significance of the vote indicated clearly that there were some influential Council Fathers who feared that the vote might be used by the controlling liberal element in the Theological Commission as a reason for ignoring all arguments to the contrary that had been presented in oral and written interventions.

The voting which took place on October 30 was another brilliant victory for the liberals. The first point was carried by 2123 votes to 34; the second by 2049 to 104; the third by 1808 to 336; and the fourth by 1717 to 408.

Bishop Wright of Pittsburgh, a liberal member of the Theological Commission, said that the vote was of the greatest importance because it showed that an overwhelming majority of Council Fathers shared “the tendencies of the Council in this important matter.” He did not attach any importance to the 408 negative votes on the question of collegiality, saying that those who had voted against the point had done so for many different reasons, and this did not necessarily signify that they did not have “faith in this project.” They might be against the formulation, or they might consider the moment inopportune.

Father Gregory Baum of Toronto, one of the periti, hailed the voting results as “support of the position of the Moderators.” He also said that the successful use of this procedural device would enable the Cardinal Moderators in the future to discover the majority feeling of the Council Fathers on a particular subject without the need to hear an interminable stream of speakers.

On November 5, when the schema on bishops and the government of dioceses came up for discussion, at least six Council Fathers found fault with it because it appeared to ignore the notion of collegiality.

The next day, Cardinal Browne of the Roman Curia, Vice-President of the Theological Commission, said that there was no foundation for the objections made the previous day, “because the notion of collegiality has not yet been determined accurately by the Council or by the Theological Commission.” He stated that it would be necessary to await the report of the Theological Commission for clarification of this basic point before taking any practical action.

Two days later, Cardinal Frings referred to Cardinal Browne’s remarks as “indeed amazing.” Those remarks, he said, would seem to imply that the Theological Commission had access to sources of truth unknown to the rest of the Council Fathers. Such observations, he went on, lost sight of the fact that the Council commissions were intended to function only as instruments of the General Congregations, and to execute the will of the Council Fathers. While the October 30 vote had been merely indicative, “an almost unanimous assent should not be considered as of no value at all.”

In another part of his address. Cardinal Frings called for a clear distinction between administrative and judicial practice in the Roman Curia. “This distinction should also be applied to the Holy Office," he declared. “Its methods in many cases no longer correspond to modern conditions, and as a result many are scandalized.” The task of safeguarding the faith was extremely difficult, he said, but even in the Holy Office “no one should be judged and condemned without a hearing, and without an opportunity to correct his book or his action.” The Cardinal was applauded several times during his address.

Cardinal Ottaviani, of the Holy Office, happened to be on the list of speakers on the same day. “I must protest most strongly concerning what has just been said against the Holy Office, whose President is the Supreme Pontiff,” he began. “Such words were spoken out of lack of knowledge—I do not use another word lest I offend—of Holy Office procedure.” He explained that experts in the Catholic universities of Rome were always called in to study cases carefully, so that the cardinals who made up the Congregation of the Holy Office might be able to base their judgment on certain knowledge. Their resolutions were then submitted to the Supreme Pontiff for his approval.

As for the votes which had been taken in the Council hall on October 30, they had been “only an indication of the drinking of the Council Fathers.” It was unfortunate, he said, that the points voted on had been proposed by the four Moderators without first being submitted to the Theological Commission, which was competent in the matter, since it touched on dogma. Those points had contained equivocal terms which should have been clarified. In particular, the point on collegiality had presumed the existence of the Apostolic College, of which the present College of Bishops was said to be the successor. “But this is a case of confusion on the nature of episcopal succession,” he said. “It is true that the bishops succeed the Apostles,
but they do not succeed the College of Apostles as a college, because the College of Apostles as such did not exist, at least not in a juridical sense.”

There had been only one example of collegiality among the Apostles, and that had been at the Council of Jerusalem. No one doubted that at Jerusalem the Apostles had acted as a college, he said, “just as no one doubts that the bishops today, in Council, are acting as a college with and under the Pope.” Christ’s words “Feed my sheep” had been addressed only to his vicar, “and therefore whoever wants to be counted among the sheep of Christ must be under the universal pastor appointed by Christ.” There were no exceptions to this rule, “not even bishops.”

Archbishop D’Souza of India charged Cardinals Browne and Ottaviani with acting as though the indicative votes taken on October 30 “were null and void because the collegiality of bishops had not yet been juridically established. . . . Does this not seem like an act of derision of the Council, to say that there is no obligation to take into consideration the views which 85 per cent of the Council Fathers have clearly expressed by vote?” He found it difficult to see how a few bishops from around the world “scattered among the various Sacred Congregations,” as called for by the schema on bishops and the government of dioceses, could have any real influence on the Roman Curia “when 2200 bishops from all parts of the world, gathered together for an Ecumenical Council, find it difficult at times to resist certain pressures.”

The common good of the Church, continued the Archbishop, would be greatly promoted “if some Senate, so to say, were formed of bishops from various countries, who might rule the Church with the Supreme Pontiff.” But it would be even more desirable “if on the one hand the power of the Roman Curia were limited, and if on the other hand the bishops were granted all the faculties for the exercise of their office which belong to them by common law and by divine law.” The Apostolic See, he said, would always “retain the right to reserve to itself those things which are opportune for the good of the entire Church.” Archbishop D’Souza’s address was greeted with tremendous applause.

At the next General Congregation, on November u, the October 30 vote was again brought up, this time by Cardinal Dopfner. The impression was being created, he said, that while the Holy Spirit was working elsewhere, some enemy had sown in the Council hall the points presented for a vote on October 30. But collegiality had not been inserted “by stealth," he said. It was after a fifteen-day study that “the competent authority, that is, the Moderators,” had presented propositions based in wording and sense upon the schema on the Church. The voting had served as a helpful indication not only for the Theological Commission but also for the Council Fathers in discussing the schema. While the votes were not definitive, “what is clear should not be made obscure.”

That evening, by coincidence, I had an appointment with Cardinal Ottaviani in his home to check out a story. When he came into the room and sat down, he seemed disturbed and said distractedly: “I have just come from a meeting of the Theological Commission and things look very bad; the French and the Germans have united everyone against us. . .

Ten days after the Frings-Ottaviani exchange, which received extensive and prolonged coverage in the press, I was approached by Bishop Dino Romoli, O.P., who had served in the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office for eight years. He asked me whether I would be interested in carrying a report in the Divine Word News Service on the conduct of condemnation procedures in the Holy Office. He had informed Cardinal Ottaviani of his desire to have such a report published, and the Cardinal had readily agreed. I assured the Bishop that we would welcome his report.

To my question whether it was true that the Church’s highest tribunal would condemn an accused person without a hearing. Bishop Romoli replied: “You have to distinguish. If one member of the Church accuses another of a crime for which the Holy Office is the competent tribunal, then the accused is always given a full hearing and has every opportunity of defending himself. He receives the assistance of a lawyer and may himself present the lawyer of his choice to the tribunal. The precautions taken to safeguard the accused in such a case are so extensive and elaborate as to appear at times even excessive.”

Bishop Romoli pointed out that the condemnation of publications was an altogether different matter, “since here it is a question of a theory which, considered in itself, might be injurious to the integrity of Catholic doctrine and to souls.” In such a case, he said, “where the orthodoxy of Catholic doctrine does not appear clear, or where orthodoxy is put in doubt, the Holy Office does not always listen to the interested party before pronouncing its verdict.” In such condemnations, he said, the author’s intentions were not called into question or condemned; the tribunal was concerned only with the author’s theories.

To the question whether it would not be more humane to consult with an author before condemning his writings, the Bishop said that that could readily be done in the case of an unpublished manuscript. “But once the uncertain or false doctrines have already been published, what purpose would such interrogation serve?” It could not alter the impact of his writings on the Catholic world. “Before the Holy Office condemns a published work or issues a solemn warning to an author,” the Bishop explained, “it makes a vast, accurate, and intensive investigation by consulting with highly qualified experts from various linguistic and national groups in order to be incontestably objective and secure in its judgment. At times such investigations take several years, so great is the delicacy with which the Holy Office treats this matter.”

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

OBSERVER-DELEGATES AND GUESTS

On September 8, 1868, fifteen months before the opening of the First Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX sent an Apostolic Letter to all patriarchs and bishops of the Orthodox Church, inviting them to end their state of separation. If they agreed, they were to have the same rights at the Council as all other bishops, since the Catholic Church considered them to be validly consecrated. If they did not, they were to have the opportunity of sitting on special Council commissions composed of Catholic bishops and theologians, to discuss Council affairs, as at the Council of Florence in 1439. But the wording of the letter was offensive to the patriarchs and bishops. And they were further annoyed by the fact that the entire text was published
in a Roman newspaper before they had received their personal copies. As a result, not a single Orthodox patriarch or bishop accepted the invitation.

Five days after writing the above letter, Pope Pius IX invited “all Protestants and other non-Catholics” to use the occasion of the Ecumenical Council “to return to the Catholic Church.” A careful examination, his letter stated, would prove that not one of their groups, or all of them together, “constitute and are in any way that one Catholic Church which Jesus Christ founded, constituted, and willed to be; nor can these groups in any way be called a member or a part of this Church, as long as they are visibly separated from Catholic unity.” He invited them “to strive to free themselves from that state in which they cannot be certain about their own salvation.”

This letter, too, proved offensive, and achieved very little.

The failures of the First Vatican Council in promoting Christian unity hung like an ominous cloud over the second. But Pope John XXIII, in his optimism, appeared to ignore them. When he informed the world of his intention to convoke an Ecumenical Council, he immediately spoke of “a renewed invitation to the faithful of the separated Churches to follow us in friendship in this search for unity and grace, desired by so many souls in all parts of the world.” And among the numerous commissions and secretariats that he established on June 5, i960, to take in hand the more immediate work of preparation for the Council, was the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Its purpose was to establish contact with the Orthodox, Old Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant Churches, and to invite them all to send official representatives to the Council.

The religious climate in the world of Pope John XXIII was very different from what it had been in the days of Pope Pius IX. In the intervening years, the ecumenical movement, for the promotion of Christian unity, had taken firm hold of Christian communities around the world.

Many factors had contributed to the development of this truly providential movement. One was Biblical research, which brought together Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, and Catholic scholars. This was the first area of fellowship among the Christian churches.

Next came the World Council of Churches, founded specifically to promote Christian fellowship in all possible fields, which in less than thirty years saw its membership grow to 214 full-member and eight associate-member churches of the Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, and Old Catholic communions. 

Another contributing factor was the neo-pagan threat of Nazism in Europe during World War II, which threw Catholics and Christians of all other denominations together in defense of religion. This explains why Catholic interest in the ecumenical movement was first apparent in Germany, France, and Holland. Among the most active leaders of Catholic ecumenism were members of the Jesuit and Dominican orders.

The initial successes in these three countries were given added impetus when the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued its lengthy “Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement” of December 20, 1949. This “Instruction” urged bishops throughout the world “not only to use diligence and care in watching over all these activities, but also to promote and direct them prudently, in order that those who are seeking for the truth and the true Church may be helped, and that the faithful may be shielded from the dangers which might so easily result from the activities of this movement.”

Pope John’s choice of Cardinal Bea—a German, a Jesuit, and a Biblical scholar—was therefore not surprising; the fact that the Cardinal was seventy-nine years old seemed to be negligible.

With thousands of separated Christian churches around the world, it was impossible for each of them to be represented at the Council. Cardinal Bea’s solution was to contact larger groups and invite them to send delegations which might represent all their affiliated churches. Thus invitations were sent to the Lutheran World Federation, the World Alliance of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches, the World Convention of Churches of Christ (Disciples of Christ), the Friends’ World Committee for Consultation, the International Congregational Council, the World Methodist Council, the International Association for Liberal Christianity and Religious Freedom, die World Council of Churches, the Australian Council of Churches, and other groups.

Archbishop John C. Heenan, of Liverpool, a member of Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat, said in 1962: “It is not too much to say that the personality of the Pope has altered the outlook of non-Catholics in England to the Vatican. In the jargon of our day, we could say that Pope John has given a “new image” to die Catholic Church in the minds of Protestants . . . Dr. Fisher [former Archbishop of Canterbury] has told me that the attitude of Pope John inspired him to take the initiative of proposing a visit to the Vatican. This would have been unthinkable even so short a time ago as five years.”

Cardinal Bea invited the Archbishop of Canterbury to send a representative delegation on behalf of the Anglican Church. The invitation was accepted. He then approached the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras, asking him to send a delegation representing the various branches of the Orthodox Church. But when the Patriarch approached the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), it showed no interest, maintaining that the Ecumenical Council was a private affair of the Catholic Church, which did not concern it. As international interest in the Council grew, however, so did that of the Russian Orthodox Church, and when Bishop Nikodim Rotow was asked at the New Delhi Assembly of the World Council of Churches, in November, 1961, whether the i Russian Orthodox Church would send delegates to the Second Vatican Council, he replied that this was an embarrassing question, since it had not been invited.

Technically this was true, since the Russian Orthodox Church had not been directly invited by Cardinal Bea, but through the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, who considered himself to have the right of initiative in proposing to the other patriarchs a common delegation. And when Monsignor Jan Willebrands, Secretary of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, visited the patriarchal sees of the Middle East to explain to the patriarchs and their synods the matters to be treated by the Council, he learned that they too were all averse to being invited through the Ecumenical Patriarch at Constantinople. To their way of thinking, no one patriarch was superior to another; they were all on the same level. Cardinal Bea therefore issued invitations directly to each group in the Orthodox Church.

When Bishop Nikodim met Monsignor Willebrands in Paris in August, 1962, he told him that his Church would react favorably to an invitation if Monsignor Willebrands would go to Moscow and invite Patriarch Alexius personally. This Monsignor Willebrands did, visiting Moscow from September 27 to October 2. He explained the items on the Council agenda to the Patriarch, and issued a verbal invitation. He received no immediate reply, however, because the written invitation had not yet arrived.

The matter of Communism did not come up directly at either the Paris or the Moscow meetings. No request was made by the Russian Orthodox Church that the subject should not be treated at the Council, and no assurance was given by Monsignor Willebrands that it would not. In explaining the Council agenda, Monsignor Willebrands simply stated that the problem was treated positively in the Council program. However, he made it clear that, once the Council had opened, the Council Fathers were free to alter the program and introduce any topic they wished.

Cardinal Bea’s written invitation arrived after Monsignor Willebrands’ departure. On October 10, the day before the Council opened, Patriarch Alexius and his Synod telegraphed acceptance of the invitation. On the same day, Patriarch Athenagoras, of Constantinople, informed Cardinal Bea that he had been unable to assemble a representative delegation of the Orthodox Church as a whole, and that he was reluctant to send a delegation representing only his Ecumenical Patriarchate. (Neither his patriarchate, nor the Greek Orthodox patriarchate of Alexandria, sent representatives to the Council until the third session, and the patriarchates of Antioch, Athens, and Jerusalem never sent representatives at all.) Of the Orthodox present at the first session, in addition to the delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church, were representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt, the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Armenian Orthodox Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia.

Eleven days after the opening of the Council, it was announced that Pope John had raised the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity to commission status. By refraining from publicizing this decision earlier, the Pope had in effect preserved intact the team of outstanding leaders in the ecumenical field whom Cardinal Bea had assembled in the previous two years. The Secretariat was the only “commission” which did not have sixteen elected members. Its new status meant that it was entitled to compose schemas, submit them to the general assembly, revise them where necessary, defend them, and perform all the other functions pertaining to Council commissions.

Before a month had passed, Cardinal Bea publicly expressed his great satisfaction with the reactions of the observer-delegates. It was “a true miracle,” he said, that so many non-Catholic Christian churches had asked their members to pray for the Council, as contrasted with the atmosphere prevailing at the time of the First Vatican Council.

Professor Oscar Cullmann, of the Universities of Basel and Paris, who was a guest of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, gave a lengthy press conference at the end of the first six weeks of the first session to explain his reactions and those of other guests and observers. He said that they had received all the Council texts, were able to attend all General Congregations, could make their views known at special weekly meetings of the Secretariat, and had personal contact with Council Fathers, periti, and other leading personalities in Rome. The activities of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, he said, “daily reveal to us how truly its existence serves to draw us closer together.”

Professor Cullmann pointed out that mistaken conclusions were being | drawn from the presence of observers and guests at the Council. He was receiving letters from both Catholics and Protestants who appeared to think that the purpose of the Council was to bring about union between the Catholic and other Christian churches. That, however, was not the immediate purpose of the Council, he said, and he feared that many such people would be disillusioned when, after the end of the Council, they found that the churches remained distinct.

Among the ecumenical achievements of the Council, Professor Cullmann mentioned in the very first place the existence of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. “If it continues to be full of respect for other churches, and to work in a sincere ecumenical spirit such as now characterizes all its actions and attitudes, one may justly consider its existence as of extreme importance for the future of ecumenism,” he said. Another achievement was the presence of observers and guests in the Council hall. “I am more and more amazed every morning at the way we really form a part of the Council,” he said.

In preparation for the General Congregations, the observers studied the schemas which had been distributed to them. “We make notes on them, compare them with the Bible, and check them with the writings of the Fathers of the Church and the decisions of previous Councils. Our reactions to the schemas which have been shown to us so far have obviously been very varied: some we like, others we don’t; some really encourage us, others we find disappointing.”

Professor Cullmann noted that any future historian of the Second Vatican Council must refer to the “ecumenical import” of the coffee shop installed for all members of the Council. “Not only does it refresh us, but it also enables us to meet bishops from all over the world in a way that would otherwise be impossible. . . . And if the dialogue is continued by both sides in the spirit which has animated it thus far, that in itself will be an element of unity capable of bearing still more fruit.”

The experiment worked so well during the first session that it continued throughout the duration of the Council. When Pope Paul, early in the second session, received the observers and guests in audience, Cardinal Bea was able to announce that their number had increased from forty-nine to sixty-six, and that the number of churches or communities which they represented had grown from seventeen to twenty-two.

The observer-delegate of the Lutheran World Federation, Dr. Kristen Skydsgaard, addressed the Pope in French on behalf of all the observers and guests present, and expressed their “deep gratitude for the renewal of the invitation to this second session of the Council.” All were reassured, he said, to learn that Pope Paul did not share the naively optimistic or superficial ecumenism based on the assumption “that the visible union of Christians can be quickly achieved.” He hoped that the light shed by a practical and historical theology, “that is, a theology nourished by the Bible and by the teaching of the Fathers, will shine more and more in the work of this Council.” He also spoke of a new ecumenical spirit which was becoming manifest in the Council. “We find ourselves meeting together at the beginning of a road whose end only God knows.”

In reply, Pope Paul spoke of “our desire to receive you not only on the threshold of our house, but in the very intimacy of our heart.” After thanking the observers and guests for accepting the invitation to attend the second session, he asked them to be assured “of our respect, of our esteem, and of our desire to have with you, in Our Lord, the best possible relations. Our attitude does not hide any snare, nor is it intended to minimize the difficulties that stand in the way of a complete and final understanding. We do not fear the delicate nature of the discussion nor the pain of waiting.” As for the history of separation, he preferred to focus his attention “not on what has been, but on what must be. We turn toward a new thing to be born, a dream to be realized.”

On the following day, October 8, Cardinal Bea gave a reception for the observers and guests. Addressing them in French, he invited their criticisms, reminding them of Pope Paul’s words to the Roman Curia only a few weeks earlier: “We must welcome criticism with humility, with reflection, and even with gratitude. Rome has no need to defend itself by turning a deaf ear to suggestions that come from honest voices, especially if the voices are those of friends and brothers.” Cardinal Bea assured the observers and guests that their positive criticism, suggestions, and wishes would be greatly esteemed.

Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy, the observer-delegate of the Russian Orthodox Church and of the Orthodox Church of Georgia in the Caucasus, replied in Russian on behalf of the assembled observers and guests. “The whole history of Christianity in our era,” he said, “is the history of the action of the Holy Spirit upon us and upon our churches, calling us to unity and helping us to understand the necessity and urgency of this task. ... We are always ready to help our Roman Catholic brothers in anything which may contribute to harmony and unity among all Christians, so that, with a single tongue and a single heart, we may together glorify the most Holy Spirit.”

Six weeks later he had an opportunity to prove how ready he was to contribute “to harmony and unity,” when via telephone he was notified by Moscow to leave Rome immediately in protest because of a special religious service announced by the Vatican to honor St. Josaphat. This Catholic Saint, martyred in the year 1623 at Vitebsk, Poland (today, Russia), was considered by the Russian Orthodox Church responsible for the martyrdom of Orthodox Saints, and Archpriest Borovoy was ordered to conduct a religious service in Geneva in their honor while the religious service was being held in Rome. Archpriest Borovoy explained, however, that the order placed him in a dilemma since that same Monday, November 25, Cardinal Spellman was to conduct a Requiem service in St. John Lateran basilica for the recently assassinated President John F. Kennedy.

His going to Geneva before this date would not only make ecumenical relations worse instead of better, he said, but the press could also be expected to interpret his going as an excuse not to participate in the Requiem service. His church headquarters in Moscow then rescinded the order. The leader of the Anglican delegation, Bishop John Moorman, of Ripon, Britain, obligingly gave me a statement o£ his personal views on the primacy and collegiality. For 400 years, he said, the Anglican Church had lived in separation from the See of Rome, “and during that time the claims of the Pope have increased, especially with the decree of infallibility in 1870 ” However, if there was ever to be unity among Christians, “there will have to be a central head of the Church, and that head will certainly have to be the Bishop of Rome.” It was his belief that the Anglican Communion as a whole “would be prepared to accept the fact of the papacy, though they would find great difficulty in recognizing the basis on which the primacy rests,” since historically and exegetically “far too much has been made of the words of Our Lord to St. Peter.” The Roman Catholic Church would be greatly strengthened, he said, “if the principle of collegiality of bishops were accepted, and some method were provided whereby representative bishops of the whole world could form a permanent council with the Pope.” That, he said, would be an improvement on the present system of a largely Italian Curia.”

The observers and guests were particularly interested in the schema on ecumenism, which was taken up at the sixty-ninth General Congregation, on November 18. It comprised only three chapters, and it was presented to the assembly by Archbishop Joseph Martin of Rouen, France, a member of Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. He explained that the schema was intended as a pastoral document for the instruction of Catholics, to help them to understand the significance and purpose of the ecumenical movement and its providential role in the Church.

Archbishop Casimiro Morcillo Gonzalez, of Saragossa, Spain, said that (one of the admirable qualities of the schema was its “positive tone,” resulting from a reduction in the number of warnings and the complete disappearance of condemnations, such as had characterized previous documents on the subject. It would not be proper, he said, for the Catholic Church “to refuse to accept the collaboration now offered by our separated brethren in solving this very great question.”

Cardinal de Arriba y Castro of Spain said that to foster dialogue, as was the intention of the schema, could be very dangerous “to the faith of our Catholics, especially those of low estate, who often are not prepared to answer the arguments presented by experts of the various sects or confessions.” Endless proof existed, he said, that proselytizing by Protestants was on the increase. He therefore asked the Council Fathers “to include in the schema a request directed to the separated brethren that they abstain from all proselytism among Catholics, lest the faith of our people be obscured through confusion.”

Cardinal Bea admitted on the Council floor that indifferentism and doubts concerning the faith might arise if ecumenical questions were treated by those whose good faith was not matched by learning and caution. The remedy was not to avoid all ecumenical efforts, he said, but rather to have them carried out under the direction of the bishop concerned. “We hope to issue an ecumenical directory,” he explained, “but these rules and principles issued by the Holy See will have to be adapted to local conditions by the bishops themselves.” Cardinal Bea recalled that the “Instruction” issued by the Holy Office in 1949 required that those who engaged in dialogue should be well versed in theology and should follow the norms laid down by the Church.

Archbishop Heenan said that the hierarchy of England and Wales were prepared “to do anything outside of denying the faith” to obtain the union of Christians. “We desire fuller and more frequent dialogues with all Christian denominations,” he said.

Auxiliary Bishop Stephen Leven of San Antonio, Texas, told the assembly, on November 26, that “every day it becomes more clear that we need the dialogue, not only with Protestants, but also among us bishops.” There were some Council Fathers, he said, who “preach to us and chastize us as though we were against Peter and his successors, or as though we desired to steal away the faith of our flocks and to promote indifferentism.” Such bishops “prefer to blame non-Catholics, whom perhaps they have never seen, rather than instruct the children of their parishes. Otherwise, why are they so afraid that the effects of ecumenism would not be good? Why are their people not better instructed ? Why are their people not visited in their homes? Why is there not an active and working Confraternity of Christian Doctrine in their parishes?”

Bishop Leven concluded in most solemn tones, “I pray you, Venerable Conciliar Brothers, let us put an end to the scandal of mutual recrimination. Let us proceed in an orderly way with the examination and study of this providential movement called ecumenism, so that with patience and humility we may achieve that unity for which the Lord Christ prayed at the Last Supper.”

No voting took place during the eleven days of the discussion on the schema on ecumenism. But, on the basis of the numerous interventions made, a revision was to be prepared by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity; the revised text was to be presented to the Council at its third session.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

WORLD ALLIANCE

On November 15, when Cardinal Lercaro in the presence of the other Moderators, the Coordinating Commission, and the Council Presidency, read a progress report on the second session to Pope Paul VI, he said that the Council could move ahead with much greater speed “if we Moderators can use the same method that we used at the conclusion of the debate on Chapter 2 of the schema on the Church.” According to this method, which had been used in voting on the four points and was now being requested “by many episcopal conferences,” the Moderators—as the Cardinal said— would be empowered to determine “the major aspects of each debate,” and would put them in the form of questions for voting, “so that directive norms could be provided for the commissions.”

The requested authorization was not granted to the Moderators, who very likely could have obtained a majority vote on the Council floor for whatever proposals they might make. If adopted, this method would have given them the power to decide what was the majority opinion, and likewise would have made it possible for them to determine policy for the individual commissions. The Moderators, technically, were supposed to have only administrative authority, with the policy being determined by the general assembly after—not before—the commissions had thoroughly studied both the oral and written interventions, and had revised the schema in accordance with what it considered the mind of the Council Fathers to be. There were no further cases of “points” being formulated by the Moderators.

Having failed in getting this suggestion officially adopted, the Moderators—and the liberals whom they represented—sought other ways to gain more control over the individual commissions. The struggle for theological power was becoming more and more evident.

After November 15, there was increased agitation against so-called “Curia-controlled commissions.” The solution for the problem, presented to the Pope in letters signed by individual Council Fathers and by entire episcopal conferences, was to hold new elections for all presidents, secretaries, and members of all Council commissions. The aim was to increase the number of liberal members on each commission. The European aliiance by this time had full control of the Council majority and was confident that it could replace all conservative members on Council commissions if only it were given the opportunity. Less extreme proposals suggested that elections be held at least for new presidents and secretaries.

Still another proposal was that the number of members on the individual Council commissions should be increased, since this would make more personnel available for subcommissions and then theoretically the work of the commissions could be accomplished more quickly.

On November 21, at the seventy-second General Congregation, the Secretary General announced that the Pope had decided to allow the number of members on each commission to be increased from twenty-five to thirty, “in order that the work of the Council commissions may be carried out more expeditiously and quickly.” In doing so the Pope was responding “to the requests of many Council Fathers.” It was further announced that the Council Fathers were to elect four members and the fifth would be appointed by the Pope, who also authorized each commission to choose from its members an additional vice president and from its periti an additional secretary.

The lengthy announcement also suggested that the presidents of episcopal conferences should assemble their members and name not more than three of them for each commission. These lists were to be submitted to the Secretary General by Monday, November 25, for printing and distribution, so that the election could take place on Thursday, November 28, one week after the announcement was made.

Most significant in the General Secretary’s announcement was this sentence: “It is highly desirable that several conferences should unite and present a combined list.”

With each member of a thirty-man commission representing 3 1/3 per cent of the commission’s voting power, and with four members to be elected, there was at stake in this election 13 1/3 per cent of each commission’s voting power. Realizing this, the European alliance set to work drawing up an unbeatable international list. This work was greatly facilitated since by this time, late in the second session, the European alliance had expanded into a world alliance. In point of fact, the origins of the world alliance went back to the beginning of the first session, and from that time it was always under the dominating influence of the European alliance.

The world alliance during the first session was an undercover group of five or six bishops and archbishops, representing national, regional, or continental episcopal conferences, who met periodically. From the beginning of the second session, when they considered themselves strong enough to act more openly, they held meetings at Domus Mariae each Friday evening and saw their membership grow to twenty-four bishops and archbishops, who represented approximately sixty-five episcopal conferences.

The one who presided over the meetings was Coadjutor Archbishop Pierre Veuillot of Paris, whenever he was in Rome.

Although not juridically organized, the world alliance was able to determine the policy of the controlling liberal majority, and prepared sample letters which individual episcopal conferences then submitted to the Pope, requesting him to take specific action on specific issues. The secretaries of these twenty-four members held a meeting of their own every Tuesday night, thus making possible top level intercommunication twice every week.

When the lists of candidates for Council commissions were ready for distribution by the General Secretariat on November 27, they contained in the first place the combined list presented by the sixty-five episcopal conferences of the world alliance. Other lists were presented by eight national hierarchies, the superiors general, and three groups of Eastern Rite Churches.

When the results of the November 28 election were announced the next day, it was no surprise that all candidates elected to office came from the list proposed by the world alliance. Germans and Austrians had been so well placed on the list that six of them were elected to office. France had to be satisfied with only two.

All candidates presented by the world alliance, however, did not fulfill Pope Paul’s condition of being “truly skilled” in the material to be studied by their commissions. There was the case of the Council Father placed second on the list of candidates for the Theological Commission, who was elected to office with 1448 votes. Some days before the election he presented a substitute schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary to sixty bishops meeting in the Columbus Hotel. When they raised objections against it, he could not answer them and admitted repeatedly that he was no theologian, but was simply presenting to the group a schema which had been drawn up for him by others.

After this election there was no longer need for anyone to doubt about the direction in which the Council was headed. Strangely enough, Pope Paul waited six weeks before publishing the names of his lone candidates for each commission.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

ADOPTION OF THE SCHEMA ON COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA

The schema on communications media was presented at the first session on November 23 by Archbishop Rene Stourm of Sens, France, on behalf of the Commission on the Apostolate of the Laity, the Press and Information Media. After recalling that the press, radio, television, motion pictures, and other communications media were often sources of genuine pleasure and relaxation, he cited world-wide figures to illustrate their range: 8000 daily newspapers with 300 million circulation; 22,000 other publications with 200 million circulation; 1000 television stations and 120 million television sets; 6000 radio stations and 400 million radio sets; 2500 new motion pictures produced annually and shown to 17 billion viewers in 170,000 theaters. He therefore judged that these were “the most universal and most effective” vehicles of opinion, doctrine, and human communication.

The Church, he said, could not ignore the problem of mass media, since “by its very mission and nature it must make known the one and only message necessary for men, the message of salvation.” For the first time in history, the Church had the possibility of making its message known to the whole world. Should it not regard the mass media as “a providential means for transmitting the Christian message more rapidly, more universally, and more effectively?” A profound scrutiny of modern communications media would reveal an invitation from God himself, “asking us to assume the task of guiding them.” Yet instead of providing leadership in this field, and thus bringing others to Christ, he pointed out, the Church was experiencing more difficulty than ever before, and was seeing even its own sons “neglect the voices of their pastors to follow mercenaries imbued with a pagan or materialistic concept of life.”

In order to remedy this situation, said the Archbishop, the Church must “establish norms for the faithful which will make it possible for them to enjoy such wonderful inventions with advantage.” For the Church realized that modern man “would be nourished, educated, and formed by these media.” Therefore the Church requested of the faithful “that they should work together with it to perfect them and bring about their righteous and honest use, so that through them the Christian concept of life and of the world might be more extensively and vigorously promoted.” Those had been the underlying considerations in the preparation of the schema now before the Council.

By way of conclusion he referred to weaknesses in the schema, pointing out at the same time that the priests who specialized in this field were nearly all absorbed in the production aspect of communications, and stressing the fact that “the theologians have not yet made the contribution desired of them in this particular field ” There had been a liturgical movement in the Church, a biblical movement, and an ecumenical movement, but there had not been an enduring communications movement.

Archbishop Stourm’s address was aimed at rousing the bishops of the world from their lethargy, but relatively little constructive reaction to the schema resulted. Some Fathers pointed out that the schema was too long, too diffuse, too specific on points that were subject to daily change. They maintained that the schema should simply enunciate certain fundamental principles of permanent validity and leave the practical application to the experts. It was repeatedly stressed that laymen rather than clergy should be urged to take the leadership in the field of mass communications.

On the third day, after fifty-four Council Fathers had spoken on the schema, the assembly voted to close the discussion. And on the following day, by a vote of 2138 to 15, a three-point statement on the schema was adopted. First, the assembled Fathers declared the substance of the schema satisfactory; it was fitting, they said, for the Church in view of its teaching office to treat explicitly of a matter of such great pastoral importance. Secondly, they instructed the Commission on communications media to review and summarize the essential principles and pastoral guidelines contained in the schema, and to submit the schema in shortened form. Thirdly, the balance of the existing schema should be revised and published in the form of a pastoral instruction.

The schema on communications media, as revised after the first session, was presented at the second session on November 14. It had been reduced from eleven chapters to two, from 114 articles to twenty-four, and from forty pages to nine.

When the vote was taken, 92 negative votes were cast on Chapter 1, and 103 on Chapter 2. The Secretary General announced that under the Rules of Procedure the schema in its revised form had received the necessary approval of the assembly. Nevertheless, the Moderators had decided to invoke Section 7 of Article 61 of the rules, which “in special cases” permitted another vote on the schema as a whole. No specific date was set for that vote, as the Commission concerned wished to examine the schema once more in the light of the new amendments that had been submitted.

That afternoon, at the U.S. Bishops’ Press Panel, the revised schema came up for discussion. Wary journalists asked panel members for a full explanation of Article 12, which provided that the civil authority had the duty “to defend and protect a true and just availability of information; the progress of modern society utterly depends on this, especially as regards freedom of the press.” They were particularly disturbed at the statement that the civil authority had “the duty of seeing to it in a just and vigilant manner that serious danger to public morals and social progress do not result from a perverted use” of communications media. This appeared to open the door to state censorship Three Catholic newsmen, Mr. Robert Kaiser of Time, Mr. John Cogley of Commonweal, and Mr. Michael Novak of the Catholic Reporter, decided to alert the Council Fathers.

They set out their views in a short statement and had four periti attest that their statement was “worthy of consideration”; the periti were Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., Father Jean Danielou, S.J., Father Jorge Mejia, and Father Bernard Haring, C.SS.R. The statement termed the proposed decree on communications media “not an aggiornamento, but a step backward,” which might “one day be cited as a classic example of how the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council failed to come to grips with the world around it.” In two important passages, said the authors, the schema seemed to give the state “an authority over mass media which is dangerous to political liberty everywhere and which in some countries like the United States is proscribed by constitutional law.” Another passage could be interpreted as “endowing the Catholic press with a teaching authority and near infallibility that is neither proper to journalism nor helpful to the formation of public opinion in the Church.”

The action taken by the three newsmen prompted some of the periti to undertake a campaign of their own against the schema before the crucial vote, which had meanwhile been set for November 25. A Latin text was circulated, stating that the Council Fathers “ought to cast a negative vote” because the revised schema was no longer substantially the one discussed at the first session but really “a new schema.” Since it might be difficult to persuade Council Fathers who had already voted in favor of the schema now to vote against it, it was suggested that the Moderators should place the following proposal before the general assembly: “Would it please the Council Fathers to have the Coordinating Commission incorporate this schema in the schema on the apostolate of the laity (on theological grounds), and in the schema on the Church in the modern world (on sociological grounds), so that the connection and force of the schema on communications media, which has been so worthily prepared by the Commission, may be more evident?” Thus an affirmative vote would in effect constitute a rejection of the schema.

Father Mejia, one of the periti who had endorsed the statement of the three newsmen, launched another drive of his own. He sent Council Fathers the following circular, printed in Latin and marked “Urgent”: “On reading the schema on communications media once more before the final vote, many Council Fathers are of the opinion that the text of this schema is not fitting for a Council decree. The Council Fathers are therefore asked to consider seriously the advisability of casting a negative vote, because the schema does not conform to the expectation of Christians, especially of those who are skilled in this matter. Should it be promulgated as a decree, the authority of the Council would be jeopardized.” Ample room was left on the paper for the signatures of Council Fathers. A brief letter accompanying the circular asked Council Fathers, if they were in agreement with the author, to obtain as many signatures as possible and to return them to the author by the evening of November 24. Cardinal Silva Henriquez, the letter said, would then deliver them the following morning to Cardinal Lercaro, who had indicated that he could make good use of them.

As was evident from the letter, Cardinal Lercaro, who was scheduled to direct that day’s meeting, had a plan to block acceptance of the schema.

On the morning of November 25, Father Mejia stood on the steps of St. Peter’s with a stack of printed copies of his petition bearing the names of twenty-five Council Fathers from fourteen countries who had signed and handed them to Council Fathers as they walked into the basilica. He was later relieved by Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Reuss of Mainz, Germany. The distribution proceeded peacefully until the huge, angry figure of Archbishop Felici appeared. The Archbishop tried to seize the papers from Bishop Reuss, a scuffle ensued, and the Bishop eventually surrendered them.

Before the voting took place that morning, Cardinal Tisserant, as Chairman of the Council Presidency and in the name of the Moderators, addressed the assembly on the matter. The distribution of circulars, he said, was “most vehemently to be deplored,” particularly since the schema concerned had already been approved by more than the required two-thirds majority. He described the action as directed against conciliar tranquility, as unworthy of an Ecumenical Council, and as an attack on the Council Fathers’ freedom. Later the Secretary General announced that one of the Council Fathers named on the circular had deplored seeing his name published without his knowledge. In the face of this unfavorable publicity, the planned attempt at blocking the schema was dropped.

The result of the vote on the schema as a whole was 1598 in favor and 503 opposed. In accordance with normal procedure, the Cardinal Moderator presented the schema to the Pope for promulgation as a decree, since it had received the required two-thirds majority.

On November 29, the following letter was sent to Cardinal Tisserant by eighteen of the twenty-five Council Fathers whose names had appeared on Father Mejia’s circular:

Adoption of the Schema on Communications Media

“The President of the Sacred Council, together with the Moderators, at the General Congregation of the Council on November 25 of this year, deplored and designated as unworthy of the Council the fact that in St. Peter’s Square papers signed by twenty-five Council Fathers were distributed, inviting other Council Fathers to consider seriously whether they should cast a negative vote on the schema on communications media. But there is no positive law of the Sacred Council forbidding the distribution of such papers; in fact, a short time earlier, a similar distribution took place without any mention of it being made by the President of the Sacred Council. Further, nowhere in the world where civil liberty flourishes is it forbidden to call the attention of those who are voting to the seriousness of their vote, nor is it even forbidden to win them over to one’s own side.

“Therefore our manner of acting cannot be considered as a disturbance of the tranquility of the Council, nor does it infringe upon its freedom. We took this action because no other way existed for us to appeal to the Council Fathers.

“Since that is how the matter stands, the Council Fathers who signed the aforementioned circular, and who sign below in their own hand, consider the statement made by the President of the Sacred Council as an offense, and they hope that the Most Eminent Chairman of the Council Presidency, when better informed about the affair, will discover some way of rectifying the matter.”

Cardinal Tisserant answered with individual replies, dated December 2, as follows:

". . I am very displeased that Your Excellency has taken offense. It was my intention, and likewise that of the Moderators, to provide for proper order in the Council, since this seemed to have been disturbed as a result of the distributed circulars. For, if the dignity of the Sacred Council and the liberty of the Council Fathers are to be safeguarded, it cannot be admitted that near the Council Hall, a few moments before a vote is to be taken, activity may be carried on against the text of a schema which has been properly prepared, properly presented, properly discussed, and properly approved, chapter by chapter, and which according to the norms governing Council procedure (Article 61, Section 6), can already be considered as being completely approved.

“Besides, it was the Most Eminent Moderators themselves who ordered me to deplore this affair, since complaints had been brought to them by Council Fathers.

“This, Your Excellency, is what I have to say in answer to your letter. For the rest be assured that I am filled with veneration toward

Your Excellency, and I remain, your most devoted brother,

+Eugenius
Card. Tisserant.”

At a public session in St. Peter’s on December 4, the Council Fathers gave their formal approval to the decree on communications media by a final vote of i960 to 164. Pope Paul VI immediately promulgated the decree.

In that same month of December the Holy Father issued new norms for the periti, as follows:

“1. According to the work assigned, the reverend periti should answer with knowledge, prudence, and objectivity the questions which the commissions have proposed to them.

“2. They are forbidden to organize currents of opinions or ideas, to give interviews, or to defend publicly their personal ideas about the Council.

“3. They should not criticize the Council, nor communicate to outsiders news about the activities of the commissions, observing always in this regard the decree of the Holy Father about the secrecy to be observed concerning conciliar matters."

Before the opening of the third session, still another directive was issued: “Without the express permission of the President, which is to be obtained through the Secretary General, no one is permitted to distribute papers, treatises, printed matter, etc., of any kind whatsoever within the Council hall or in its vicinity. It is the duty of the Secretary General to see to it that this rule is observed.”

These new norms and rules seemed to be aimed at pressure groups inside the Council.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

ADOPTION OF THE SCHEMA ON THE LITURGY AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

Bishop Zauner of Linz, Austria, was the best-known expert on liturgy among the Council Fathers. As a member of the Commission on the Sacred Liturgy, he was the logical choice to report to the Fulda conference in August, 1963, on the progress made by that commission.

The goal which the Liturgical Commission had always borne in mind during its discussion of the amendments proposed by Council Fathers, he said, was to produce a text which would be assured of gaining the support of two thirds of the Council assembly. For that reason. Bishop Zauner explained, many desirable points had been omitted. One such point was “the use of the vernacular in the breviary for a large part of the clergy in certain territories.” He pointed out, however, that all “important issues that could be considered necessary for liturgical progress” had been accepted, and that the schema as drawn up by the Commission consequently deserved the support of all.

Bishop Zauner was disappointed with Article 57, which laid down the rules concerning concelebration. He explained that the numerous occasions for concelebration listed in an earlier draft, and which had been deleted by the subcommission on amendments during the preparatory stage of the Council, had not been restored. That was of little consequence, however, since “the opportunity for concelebration is practically extended to every group of priests.”

He explained that in its meetings the Commission had run into special difficulties regarding the language to be used when sacred rites were solemnized in song. There were some members who claimed that genuine Gregorian chant must necessarily be sung in Latin, whereas others maintained that this was not true. After lengthy discussion the commission decided to sidestep the issue, giving not even an implicit decision in the matter, so that—as the official commentary later said— “neither the true nature of the art of Gregorian chant may be disfigured, nor pastoral care may in any way be impeded.” By referring in Article 113 of Chapter 6 to the general norms already listed elsewhere in the text, the Commission and subsequently the Council left bishops free to use either Latin or the vernacular when sacred rites were solemnized in song.

Bishop Zauner’s hope that the Council Fathers would endorse the revised text was amply fulfilled at the second session. With approximately 2200 Council Fathers voting, only 36 votes were cast against Chapter 2; 30 against Chapter 3; 43 against Chapter 4; and 21 against the combined Chapters 5, 6, and 7. The vote on the schema as a whole was 2159 to 19; it took place in the morning of Friday, November 22,1963, the sixtieth anniversary of the publication of the document, Tra le sollecitudini, issued by Pope St. Pius X, which had launched the whole liturgical movement.

In an interview following the vote, Bishop Zauner told me that four important aims or principles were reflected in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. “The first is that divine worship must be a community action; that is, that the priest should do everything with the active participation of the people, and never alone.” The use of the vernacular, he said, was a necessary condition for such participation.

A second principle was that the faithful must be enriched by Sacred Scripture directly, and not only through sermons. “Every liturgical function, including the marriage rite, will now include readings from Sacred Scripture.”

A third principle was that, through liturgical worship, the people should not only pray but also learn. This was especially important, the Bishop said, in mission territories, where the priest could make only infrequent visits to his parishes. It was also necessary in countries suffering persecution, where religious instruction outside Mass was often forbidden. Even in free societies, the same need arose; the pace at which life moved was so rapid that if the faithful did not receive instruction at Mass, they often had no time for it at all.

The fourth principle applied specifically to mission territories. “Where there are tribal customs involving no superstitious elements, these may now be introduced in the liturgy,” said Bishop Zauner. This process, known as adaptation, “may be carried out only by the authority of an episcopal conference assisted by experts from the linguistic areas con¬ cerned. Approval by the Holy See is required before such adaptation may be put into effect.”

The Bishop said that he was “very well satisfied” with the Constitution on the Liturgy, and had never believed that “we would achieve so much.”

The final, formal vote took place on December 4, the closing day of the second session, in the presence of Pope Paul VI. In his address, the Pope pointed out that the first schema to be discussed by the Council had been the one on the sacred liturgy; and the subject was also, “in a certain sense, the first in order of intrinsic excellence and importance for the life of the Church.” The new Constitution on the Liturgy, he said, would simplify liturgical rites, make them more understandable to people, and accommodate the language used to that spoken by the people concerned. There was no question of impoverishing the liturgy, the Pope said; “on the contrary, we wish to render the liturgy more pure, more genuine, more in agreement with the Source of truth and grace, more suited to be transformed into a spiritual patrimony of the people.”

Ballots had meanwhile been distributed, and the Council Fathers were asked to vote for or against the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The results were speedily processed by electronic computer and announced: 2147 votes in favor, 4 against. The announcement was greeted with an outburst of applause.

Pope Paul then rose and solemnly promulgated the Constitution, using a formula different from the one used at the First Vatican Council. Here, greater emphasis was placed on the role of the bishops: “In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The decrees which have now been read in this sacred and universal Second Vatican Council, lawfully assembled, have pleased the Council Fathers. And we, by the Apostolic power given to us by Christ, together with the Venerable Fathers, do approve, enact, and establish these decrees in the Holy Spirit, and command that what has been thus established in the Council be promulgated unto the glory of God.” Once more, applause filled the hall.

Some, like Bishop Zauner, had believed that the Holy Father would put the Constitution on the Liturgy into effect immediately. Instead, it was announced that there would be a vacatio legis, or suspension of the law, until February 16, 1964, the first Sunday of Lent. In the interval, the Pope was to announce the manner in which the specific provisions of the Constitution were to be put into effect. This suspension of the law made it possible for bishops to instruct the priests and laity of their dioceses on the coming changes.

On January 29, 1964, L’Osservatore Romano published Pope Paul’s Motu proprio, or directives, in the matter. In substance the Pope said that not all parts of the Constitution on the Liturgy could be put into effect at once, since new liturgical books must be prepared, and he announced that a special commission would be appointed to undertake this task.

On the following day, L'Osservatore Romano published a commentary by a Benedictine liturgist, Father Salvatore Marsili, expressing considerable disappointment with the Motu proprio, which, “while ostensibly ending the period of suspension of the Constitution, in practice lengthens it.”

I had the good fortune to meet Father Marsili shortly thereafter, and learned that, in his eyes, the Motu proprio was a “disaster.” The Constitution on the Liturgy, he said, had been so open, so expansive, “and now the Pope has closed it up again with his Motu proprio.” Everyone on the Liturgical Commission was aware, he said, that three separate versions of the document had been prepared for the Pope. The one which eventually reached him had been so thoroughly altered by Archbishop Felici that in part it even contradicted the Constitution as promulgated. Unfortunately, Pope Paul, relying on the Secretary General, had permitted publication of the text.

In the twenty-four-hour period following the publication of the Motu proprio, there was pandemonium in the offices of the Vatican Secretariat of State. Telephone calls, telegrams, and cablegrams poured in from perplexed and angry bishops and episcopal conferences all over the world. Archbishop Angelo Dell’Acqua of the Secretariat of State later said that this department had never witnessed such a day in its entire history. The position was further aggravated on January 31, when L’Osservatore Romano published an Italian translation of the Moto proprio which did not tally with the Latin text published two days before.

Perhaps the major grievance against the Motu proprio was its failure to permit the introduction of the vernacular in the liturgy after February 16, 1964. It was soon reported in the press that the French hierarchy were going ahead with the vernacular regardless. The German hierarchy immediately sent one of their leading liturgists, Monsignor Johannes Wagner, to Rome, to see what had gone wrong. Cardinal Lercaro, of Bologna, was greatly displeased, and he announced that he was coming to Rome to see the Pope.

The jurists at the Vatican were busy, meanwhile, seeking a way out of the dilemma. The solution they found was to inform the episcopal conferences around the world, through the Apostolic nuncios or delegates, that the Motu proprio that had appeared in L’Osservatore Romano had been revoked, and that another version was in preparation for publication in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the only official journal of the Holy See. (Technically no Vatican document is ever officially promulgated until it appears in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.)

On March 2, the official text of the Motu proprio as it was to appear in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis was issued as a brochure for distribution to bishops. Fifteen revisions had been made. To many Council Fathers, those few sheets of paper were a symbol of their victory over the Roman Curia.

On March 5, L’Osservatore Romano announced the establishment of a Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, as promised by Pope Paul in his Motu proprio. The new commission had a membership of forty-two persons, representing twenty-six countries, with Cardinal Lercaro as President. On this commission were most of the Council Fathers who had been members of the Liturgical Commission, as well as many others; its Secretary was Father Annibale Bugnini, C.M., who had acted in the same capacity on the preparatory commission on the liturgy.

The most surprising name of all on this commission was that of Archbishop Felici, who had so thoroughly blue-penciled the Motu proprio and caused such commotion among the bishops and such embarrassment for the Holy Father. What had he done to merit a seat on this commission? He was a canon lawyer, but not a liturgist. The appointment had been promoted by Father Bugnini, who felt that the Archbishop deserved to be rewarded for what he had done in behalf of the schema in its early stages, when eighty-year-old Gaetano Cardinal Cicognani, older brother of the Secretary of State and President of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission, had hesitated in giving the necessary approval.

Strong conservative elements in the Sacred Congregation of Rites were urging him to withhold his signature. Archbishop Felici, who reported regularly on the progress of the schemas and their distribution to Pope John, explained the difficulty that he was having with Cardinal Cicognani, since without his signature the schema was blocked, even though the required majority of the commission had already approved it. Before the audience was over, a plan was devised to obtain the desired signature.

Pope John called for his Secretary of State and told him to visit his brother and not to return until the schema was duly signed. On February 1, 1962, he went to his brother’s office, found Archbishop Felici and Father Bugnini in the corridor nearby, and informed his brother of Pope John’s wish. Later a peritus of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission stated that the old Cardinal was almost in tears as he waved the document in the air and said, “They want me to sign this, but I don’t know if I want to.” Then he laid the document on his desk, picked up a pen, and signed it. Four days later he died.