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

[Stone]

THE FIRST SESSION
October 11 to December 8, 1962

THE MISSION VIEWPOINT ON THE LITURGY

The choice of the schema on the liturgy as the first topic of debate was to have a number of unexpected side effects. The very practical considerations in the schema affecting the Church’s life of worship were of paramount concern to missionary and Asian- and African-born bishops. Had the debate begun with any other topic, these bishops might not have become actively and totally engaged in it until much later. They knew better than anyone else the importance of liturgical reform, particularly in respect to language. At the same time, they knew that they could not effect the desired changes singlehanded. And since the European alliance was altogether sympathetic to their views, they .rallied to its support, causing it to grow in size and power. Still another consequence of the priority given to the debate on the liturgy was that Father Schillebeeckx and other opponents of the four dogmatic constitutions were given ample time to pinpoint the inadequacies of those texts and to demand their complete revision. A number of lectures were organized on the topics concerned and were widely attended by Council Fathers.

The only representative from Asia on the Liturgical Commission was Dutch-born Bishop Willem van Bekkum of Ruteng, Indonesia, who had gained international repute by the paper he had read on liturgical reform and the missions at the Pastoral Liturgical Congress held in Assisi in 1956. His candidacy had been favored by the European alliance, partly because he had received his formal training in liturgy from the two leaders of the liturgical movement in Germany and Austria. On October 23, the day after the discussion on the schema began, I persuaded him to let me arrange a press conference for him. The announced topic was the adaptation of the liturgy to Indonesian culture.

As was anticipated, the press turned out in large numbers. The Bishop said that he had been able, with the help of his Indonesian flock, to “Christianize clan feasts in which original socioreligious structures were preserved.” Before the Council opened, he said, he had felt that proposals such as he wished to make would have no chance of a hearing, but now he was “highly optimistic.” “At private meetings in the past few days with missionary bishops from other parts of the world,” he said, “I have learned that our experience in Ruteng has been multiplied hundreds of times throughout Asia and Africa. And I have found warm sympathy for these ideas among liturgical experts from the West.” Traditional Indonesian practices such as harvest thanksgiving feasts, feasts honoring the dead, and agricultural new year feasts could “safely be transformed in Christ and sanctioned by the Church. On the subject of language, Bishop van Bekkum stressed the importance of spontaneity in worship and pointed out that spontaneity disappeared when the faithful were confronted with a foreign tongue. He hoped that languages other than Latin—those of Asia and Africa, for instance—might become “sacramental languages through their introduction into the liturgy, and especially into the Mass. The result, he said, would be “a much richer and more vital liturgy.

As Bishop van Bekkum walked out of the press conference, he met Archbishop Bernardin Gantin, the African-born head of Cotonou archdiocese in Dahomey. Upon learning of the conference, the Archbishop told the Bishop, “You are our spokesman.” An hour later, news programs throughout Italy and international news agencies were spreading Bishop van Bekkum’s ideas far and wide. L’Osservatore Romano surprised its readers with an exclusive interview. The Bishop’s own comment on his press conference, which had lasted an hour and a half, was: I could never have explained so much in the ten minutes allotted to speakers on the Council floor.”

The press conference had turned out so well that I was eager to try the experiment again. On Sunday, October 28, I approached Archbishop Eugene D’Souza of Nagpur, India, with the suggestion that he might wish to pass on to reporters his thoughts regarding the use of Indian languages and local customs in the liturgy. Realizing that the cause of liturgical reform had been advanced by the published statements of Bishop van Bekkum, the Archbishop agreed, and the conference was held the next day. He had reason to believe that there was serious opposition, because Cardinal Dopfner had told him, “We are standing before a thick stone wall, and it does not look as though we shall get through.”

Archbishop D’Souza told a roomful of reporters, “The marriage rite as it now stands is unintelligible to many of our Catholic people living in rural areas.” To make it more understandable, some local customs had been incorporated in certain regions of India. “For example, since a ring means nothing at all to some of our people, a dish called a thalee is handed by the husband to the wife.” In other places, he said, the “marriage knot” was used as the external sign or symbol of the marriage contract. The whole rite of most of our sacraments and sacramentals ought to have local color.” And on the subject of language, he added: “The use of the vernacular in the administration of the sacraments is a must, for the simple reason that the beautiful rites are completely lost on our people if they are in Latin.” If local languages and customs were not introduced into the liturgy, the Church would “never make the impact it should on our country. ...”

Similar considerations were voiced at a press conference given by Bishop Lawrence Nagae of Ur aw a, Japan, who maintained that Catholicism had made such slow progress in his country (with 300,000 Catholics) because its presentation had been too Western. “If Catholicism is to be recognized and accepted by the working class, which makes up the bulk of the Japanese population, it is necessary for the Catholic Church to appear as a very modern and dynamic spiritual and social force.” The Catholic Church must have something special to say to modern man and something special to give him, he went on. “Modern Japan, seeing only ceremonies and institutional practices in the Catholic Church, considers the Catholic religion on a par with its own traditional religions, outdated and defunct, incapable of making any serious and worth-while contribution to modern Japanese life.”

He therefore called for a simpler liturgy and a more direct approach, so that the people might be able “to participate more immediately with the priest.” He also called for the elimination from the liturgy of elements such as genuflections, which, he said, stemmed from Western culture and were meaningless to the Japanese. “In our country, where we make a profound bow to show reverence, we would prefer to use that motion in place of the genuflection.” Other ceremonies and symbols, too, were unintelligible to the Japanese—for instance, the kissing of objects during liturgical services. This practice should be made more infrequent, he said, since “the kiss in the Orient is out of place.” He also said that the sign of the Cross should not have to be made so frequently.

The schema on the liturgy went into its ninth day of discussion on November 5. Twenty-four Council Fathers spoke at this meeting, emphasizing many of the same topics, preoccupations, and differences as had been voiced at earlier meetings. Some called for the shortening of the Mass prayers at the foot of the altar, ending the Mass with the Ite, missa est and the blessing, using the pulpit for the Mass of the Word and the altar for the Mass of the Sacrifice, and pronouncing only the words "Corpus Christi” (“Body of Christ”) when distributing Holy Communion. One of the speakers that morning was German-born Bishop William Duschak of Calapan vicariate in the Philippines, who stressed the need for what he called an ecumenical Mass, modeled closely upon the Last Supper, over and above the existing form of the Latin Rite Mass.

The communique issued by the Council Press Office that day made no mention of Bishop Duschak’s proposal. In fact, it stressed the “necessity of preserving the present structure of the Mass in its substance,” and indicated that “only minor changes may be allowed.” A press conference, however, had been arranged for him in the afternoon, and when newsmen heard that the Bishop had spoken in the Council hall that morning, they turned up at his conference in exceptionally large numbers. To inform newsmen of these press conferences, I had to distribute my notices on the front steps of the Council Press Office, since it was not allowed during the first session to post a notice on the bulletin board inside. Authorities maintained that reporters would then consider the press conference to be official. 

Bishop Duschak told the press that he had devoted a lifetime of study to pastoral liturgy, and that his present suggestion was the product of over thirty years of priestly work in the Philippines. “My idea,’ he said, “is to introduce an ecumenical Mass, stripped wherever possible of historical accretions, one that is based on the essence of the Holy Sacrifice, one that is deeply rooted in Holy Scripture. By this I mean that it should contain all the essential elements of the Last Supper, using language and gestures that are understandable, adopting the method and spirit of the prayers and words that were used then. It should be a kind of celebration of the Mass which all members of a community, even if they happen to
be attending Mass for the first time in their lives, can readily understand without involved explanations and without special historical commentaries.” Man-made prayers, he said, should be used very sparingly; the emphasis should instead be placed on the words of promise in Holy Scripture, the words Christ spoke at the Last Supper in instituting the Holy Sacrifice, and in his priestly prayer for unity, and St. Paul’s admonitions regarding the Eucharist as contained in the first Epistle to the Corinthians.

Bishop Duschak did not accept the conventional reasons for keeping the Canon of the Mass intact. “If men in centuries gone by,” he said, “were able to choose and create Mass rites, why should not the greatest of all ecumenical Councils be able to do so ? Why should it not be possible to ordain that a new Mass formula be drawn up with all due reverence, one that is suited to, desired and understood by modern man, who lives in a world which is daily becoming smaller and more uniform.'” The substance of the Holy Sacrifice would remain, he said, but the rite, form, language, and gestures would be accommodated to our modern age, thus making it possible for modern man to derive greater spiritual benefit from it. The entire Mass, moreover, should be said aloud, in the vernacular, and facing the people. “I believe it is also likely that if the world receives such an ecumenical form of Eucharistic celebration, the faith of Catholic Christian communities in the sacramental presence of Christ might be renewed or even rectified.”

Bishop Duschak emphasized that he was not proposing the abolition of the existing form of the Latin Mass. He was merely proposing that an additional form or structure of the Mass be introduced. Asked whether his proposal originated with the people whom he served, he answered, “No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it.”

When a high-ranking conservative official of the Council Press Office saw the bulletin that I had prepared for reporters attending this press conference, he seriously asked me to examine my conscience and decide once and for all to discontinue publishing bulletins, since this was the task of the Council Press Office. But when I sought advice from some progressive Council Fathers, they said, “Carry on! If you run into trouble, we’ll get rid of the roadblocks for you.”

Before the Council ended, the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy had already approved of three distinct Mass formulas on a limited experimental basis, in which the entire Mass, including the Canon, was to be said aloud, in the vernacular, with the priest facing the people. A part of Bishop Duschak’s proposal was already being put into practice.