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

[Stone]

THE FIRST SESSION
October 11 to December 8, 1962

THIRD VICTORY

The work of the Council, briefly, was to examine schemas (preliminary drafts) of constitutions and decrees, and then amend them, accept them or reject them. To understand what was implied by the rejection of a schema, something which happened repeatedly during the first session, we must look into the background of the schemas, which were prepared over a period of three years and five months of intense work prior to the opening of the Council.

The first phase of the work began on Pentecost (May 17) 1959, when Pope John created an Ante-Preparatory Commission, presided over by his able Secretary of State, Domenico Cardinal Tardini, to assist him in determining the subject matter of the Council. (Canon law stipulates that it is the Pope's responsibility to determine the subject matter and the procedures to be followed at an ecumenical council.) The Pope chose one representative from each of ten Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curia to be members of the commission, and as Secretary he appointed another very able Curial official. Monsignor Felici.

Twelve days after his appointment to the presidency of the Ante-Preparatory Commission, Cardinal Tardini invited the Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curia to make a comprehensive study of all matters under their authority, and to offer specific proposals on matters which they felt could usefully be presented to the future preparatory commissions. Three weeks later, he sent out 2593 copies of a letter to as many prelates around the world, informing them that Pope John XXIII desired their assistance in drawing up topics for discussion at the Council. Originally, Cardinal Tardini had planned to send a questionnaire indicating suitable topics. But since this might have been regarded as a form of pressure, limiting discussion to certain questions, and since he knew how eager the Pope was to create an atmosphere of free and open discussion, he had decided against it. He added in his letter that the prelates were at liberty to consult "prudent and expert clerics” in formulating their replies. The letter was sent not only to those entitled to attend the Council by virtue of canon law, but also to titular bishops, vicars and prefects apostolic, and superiors general of nonexempt religious congregations.

In July 1959, Cardinal Tardini invited the rectors of Catholic universities and the deans of the theological faculties in Rome and around the world (sixty-two in all) to prepare a series of studies on issues which they regarded as especially timely and important. He told the rectors and deans in Rome: “From what we can foresee today, it is more than probable that the Council will have a character that is practical, rather than dogmatic; pastoral, rather than ideological; and that it will provide norms, rather than definitions. This does not remove the possibility or necessity of recalling and reaffirming those points of doctrine which are more important today, and which are more attacked today. Nor does it remove the possibility or necessity of first giving rapid and tranquil summaries and reminders of the doctrinal principles before stating the practical norms.”

A second letter was mailed by Monsignor Felici to the prelates who had not replied by March 21, i960. “The Supreme Pontiff,” he wrote, “who is directly and personally concerned with the guidance and preparation of Council activities, will be most grateful to you for a reply.” He enclosed a copy of the letter sent by Cardinal Tardini nine months previously.

A total of 1998 replies (77 per cent) was received to the two letters. Some of the highest returns came from Mexico (92 per cent), Spain (93 per cent), Ireland (94 per cent), Congo (95 per cent) and Indonesia (100 per cent). The United States made a 70-per-cent return (151 out of 216), and Canada a 69-per'Cent return (62 out of 90). These percentages were low due to the poor response from titular bishops and archbishops in the two countries. The response from heads of dioceses and archdioceses in the United States was 89 per cent, in Canada, 90 per cent. In Germany, it was 100 per cent.

Monsignor Felici worked quietly with nine assistants in a ten-room office in the shadow of St. Peter’s. Their job was to classify and summarize the recommendations which came in through the mails. The letters were first photostatted and then the originals were filed. The photostats were cut into sections and classified according to subject matter. Pope John said later that he had personally followed these labors, which had been conducted “with accuracy and care,” and that he had most attentively examined the suggestions made by the bishops, the proposals of the Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curia, and the wishes and special studies presented by the Catholic universities.

The replies of the prelates filled eight huge volumes; those of the universities and theological faculties, three; and those of the Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curia, one. In addition to these twelve volumes, there were one containing all Pope John’s statements on the Council, two containing an analysis of the proposals made by the prelates, and a final one containing an index. These sixteen volumes of nearly ten thousand pages were to serve as a basis for the work of the future preparatory commissions. Monsignor Felici and his staff completed all this work in the space of one year.

The Ante-Preparatory Commission was now in a position to indicate what subjects should be given thorough study in the Council. It was also able to suggest—and this was another of its tasks—what structural organization would be required to carry out the second phase of the preparatory work for the Council.

On Pentecost (June 5) i960, Pope John launched the second phase of the preparatory work. Twelve preparatory commissions were established, and three secretariats. Over these was a Central Preparatory Commission, with three subcommissions. The Pope himself was president of the Central Preparatory Commission, which had 108 members and twenty-seven consultants from fifty-seven countries (its counterpart at Vatican I had had nine members — all cardinals — and eight consultants from four countries). This central body was the coordinating agency for the other groups, supervised their work, amended their texts, declaring them suitable or unsuitable for treatment by the Council, and reported to the Pope the conclusions reached by individual commissions and secretariats, so that he might be able to make the final decisions as to what subjects should be dealt with at the Council.

When Pope John founded the Central Preparatory Commission, he made forty-eight-year-old Monsignor Felici its Secretary General, elevating him to the rank of archbishop three months later. Although jurisprudence was the Italian archbishop’s specialty, Latin was his hobby, and he had published several books of Latin verse. He was born in Segni, where his maternal uncle, the rector of the local seminary, instilled in him a love for Latin. Ordained a priest at the age of twenty-two, and installed as a judge on the Roman Rota, the supreme court of the Catholic Church, at the age of thirty-six, he went on to become director of the Roman Rota’s college of jurisprudence, before being chosen by Pope John for Council work.

The topics to be studied, as chosen or approved by the Pope, were mailed to the members of preparatory commissions and secretariats by Archbishop Felici on July 9, i960. Four months later, the activity of these bodies officially began when Pope John received the 871 men involved — among them 67 cardinals, 5 patriarchs, 116 archbishops, 135 bishops, 220 secular priests, 282 religious priests and 8 laymen — in St. Peter’s basilica.

After two years’ work, ending on the eve of the Council with the dissolution of most of these bodies, a total of seventy-five schemas had been prepared. Some were merely chapters of full schemas, some were later combined with others by the Central Preparatory Commission, and still others were considered too specialized for treatment by the Council, and were referred to the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law. In this way, the seventy-five schemas were ultimately reduced to twenty. These, as Monsignor Vincenzo Carbone, an official of the General Secretariat, subsequently pointed out, were only “preliminary drafts, capable of further improvement.” As at other councils, they would be perfected “only through discussion in the Council, with the help of the Holy Spirit.” It was certain, however, that no other council had had a preparation “so vast, so diligently carried out, and so profound.”

On July 13, 1962, three months before the opening of the Council, Pope John decreed - *that the first seven schemas, officially called the “First Series of Schemas of Constitutions and Decrees,” should be sent to the Council Fathers around the world. Since they were consecutively numbered, most bishops assumed that it was intended to treat them in their numerical sequence.

Shortly thereafter^ seventeen Dutch bishops met at Hertpgenbosch, at the invitation of Bishop Wilhem Bekkers, to discuss the the schemas. There was general dissatisfaction with the first four dogmatic constitutions, entitled "Sources of Revelation," "Preserving the Pure the Deposit of Faith," "Christian Moral Order,” and “Chastity, Matrimony, the Family and Virginity,” and general agreement that the fifth, on the liturgy, was the best. The proposal was "then discussed and approved that a commentary should be prepared, and be widely distributed among the Council Fathers, pointing out the weaknesses of the dogmatic, constitutions, and suggesting that the schema on the liturgy be placed first on the. Council agenda.

In effect, the only author of the resulting commentary, published anonymously, was Father Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P., a Belgian-born professor of dogmatics at the Catholic University of Nijmegen, who served as the leading theologian for the Dutch hierarchy. It contained a devastating criticism of the four dogmatic constitutions, which were charged with representing only one school of theological thought. Only "the fifth schema, on the liturgy, was described as “an admirable piece of It should be noted that the liturgical movement had been arrive in Europe for several decades, and that quite a large number of bishops and periti from the Rhine' countries had been appointed by Pope John to the preparatory commission on liturgy. As a result, they had succeeded in inserting their ideas in the schema and gaining approval for what they considered a very acceptable document.

On the opening page of his lengthy commentary, Father Schillebeeckx wrote: If you are of the opinion that the following commentary requires more time for study and reflection, it might be well to request of the Council Presidency that schemas V, VI and VII should be treated first, and only afterwards the first four.” In a second remark, he went even further: “One might well raise the question whether it would not be better to rewrite the first four schemas completely.” Such complete revision was, in fact, the real aim in view. A third remark suggested that Vatican II should follow the example of the Council of Trent, and refrain from settling questions which were still controverted among the theologians. Father Schillebeeckx also suggested that a classroom style should be avoided, both in language and in treatment, and that “the good news should be proclaimed with good will and in a positive way.”

Latin, English and French versions of the commentary were prepared. Close to 1500 copies were printed in Rome by seventy-two-year-old Bishop Tarcisio van Valenberg, a Dutch Capuchin, and were distributed to bishops from all countries as they arrived for the Council.

Prior to the distribution of this commentary, individual episcopal conferences had not been aware of what bishops from other countries thought of the first four dogmatic constitutions. As one prelate put it, “It was only after seeing the commentary that the Council Fathers dared speak out their secret thoughts about the schemas.”

In consequence of this Dutch initiative, numerous petitions were submitted to the Council Presidency, by episcopal conferences and individual bishops, asking for a delay in the treatment of the four dogmatic constitutions that the schema on the liturgy should be treated first. Actually, no decision had been made as to the sequence in which the schemas were to be debated; this was, a matter within the jurisdiction of t he Council Presidency, as determined by the Rules of Procedure of the Council.

The proposal was strongly supported by Cardinals Frings, Lienart, and Bernard Alfrink of Utrecht, the Netherlands, a ta meeting of the ten Council Presidents, following the brief first General Congregation on October 13. On the following Monday, Pope John received the ten Presidents in a private audience. The next morning, it was announced in the Council hall that the first schema to be presented for discussion would be the constitution on the Liturgy.

With this announcement on Tuesday, October 16, during the second General Congregation, the European alliance had scored another victory. Although the first two victories — the postponement of elections and the placing of hand-picked candidates on the Council commissions — were given extensive press coverage, this third victory passed unnoticed.