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

[Stone]

THE FIRST SESSION
October 11 to December 8, 1962

IN SEARCH OF UNITY

Pope John XXIII celebrated his eighty-first birthday on Sunday, November 25, 1962, at the Pontifical Urban University, by saying Mass for the 320 major seminarians gathered there from all parts of the world.

In his address, the Pope expressed his conviction that God was guiding the Council. “You have proof of this in what has happened during the past few weeks. These weeks may be regarded as a sort of novitiate for the Second Vatican Council.” It was only natural, he said, when many persons were examining this or that point, that opinions and proposals should vary about the best way of putting fundamental principles into practice. “This is a sacred kind of liberty for which the Church, especially in these circumstances, has proved its respect. Through this, it has won profound and universal admiration.”

Before leaving, the Pope thanked the student body for their prayers and added that, with the help of those prayers, he would prepare himself “for the new period of life—however long it may be—which the Lord will grant us." Did he have a premonition of his death? He reminded the seminarians to pray for “the continued progress and happy outcome of the Ecumenical Council.”

The next morning, November 26, it was announced for the third time that the solemn closing of the first session of the Council would take place on December 8 in St. Peter’s, and that Pope John would preside.

November had been a very strenuous month for the Pope. In addition to his other duties, he had made it a point to receive in audience thirty-seven episcopal conferences, or nearly two a day, excluding Sundays. Few of the bishops were aware that the Pope had for some time been under close medical observation because he was hemorrhaging. The night after his eighty-first birthday, he suffered an exceptionally severe hemorrhage, and was forced to cancel further audiences. He was confined to his bed for eight days, but he stubbornly forced himself to conduct the closing ceremonies on December 8. A similar siege of the same malady was to cost him his life early in the following June.

Pope John may well have feared that he would not live to see the second session if it began as late as October 1963. This may have influenced his decision to open the second session on May 12 and close it on June 29, the feast of SS. Peter and Paul. But although these dates had been decided upon in consultation with episcopal conferences, their announcement resulted in immediate protests from many of the Council Fathers, on both pastoral and economic grounds. Some of the Council Fathers thought that, after a seven-week spring session, they might have to return for another session in the fall of the same year. For bishops with extensive dioceses to cover, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the intervals between Council sessions would then be too short to permit them to carry out their pastoral obligations. In addition, heavy traveling expenses were entailed, and missionary bishops in New Guinea and many other distant countries had had to furnish their own fares for the first session. If bishops from wealthier countries, they suggested, would help pay the traveling expenses of those who came from great distances, their attendance would be facilitated.

It was widely suggested that the second session should begin on September 1,1963, and close on December 15. The Pope’s severe hemorrhage on the night of November 26 may have influenced his decision, for the following morning Archbishop Felici announced that he had changed the opening date to September 8, 1963. No closing date was announced.

Had the second session begun on May 12, 1963, as originally planned, its first three weeks would have coincided with the last three weeks of Pope John’s life.

On the first day of the discussion of the schema on communications media, November 23, the Secretary General announced that the next subject for discussion would be the schema on Church unity, drawn up by the Preparatory Commission for the Oriental Churches. This would be immediately followed by the schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary.

This announcement caused a considerable stir in the Council hall. For on the very same day, another schema, entitled “On the Church,” had been distributed, containing a chapter headed “On Ecumenism.” The Council Fathers were thus faced with three different documents treating of the same general topic, namely, the promotion of Christian unity. There was, first of all, the schema on Church unity; then the chapter on ecumenism in the schema on the Church drawn up by the Theological Preparatory Commission under the chairmanship of Cardinal Ottaviani; and finally, as some of the Council Fathers were aware, a schema entitled “On Catholic Ecumenism,” prepared by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, under the chairmanship of Cardinal Bea.

Council Fathers active in the ecumenical movement were thoroughly dissatisfied with the chapter on ecumenism prepared by Cardinal Ottaviani’s Theological Preparatory Commission. They believed that their best hope of altering this chapter was to have it treated together with the other two schemas on Christian unity. The strategy was to discuss them one after the other, and eventually to have them combined. If a revised common text were issued by a group including the President of the Theological Commission (Cardinal Ottaviani), the President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (Cardinal Bea), and the President of the Commission for the Oriental Churches (Cardinal Cicognani), then the conservative influence on the final text would be greatly diminished.

An even more important target of the liberals was the schema on the Church as a whole. If it could be discussed immediately after the schema on Church unity, then the barrage of criticism which would be directed against it would make it possible to refer it back to the new Theological Commission for revision. And although that Commission was still headed by Cardinal Ottaviani, it also included eight carefully chosen representatives of the European alliance, who would be able to carry great weight.

The liberal element was thus more confident than ever. Not only was it well represented on the Theological Commission, but it had also gained strong support from both African and Latin American Council Fathers, the latter spearheaded by Raul Cardinal Silva Henriquez of Santiago, Chile. At first, the African-born bishops from former French African territories had been somewhat cool toward the French hierarchy, being anxious to avoid any semblance of colonial subservience, but that attitude rapidly wore off in the heat of debate, and their strong cultural ties with France prompted many bishops from French-speaking African and Asian countries to support the European alliance. In addition, superiors general and missionary bishops born in the countries which made up the European alliance gave it their support almost without exception. And the alliance also received the support of numerous other missionary bishops and bishops of Latin American countries who were grateful for the very generous financial assistance which they had received from Cardinal Frings during the preceding years through his two fund-raising agencies, Misereor and Adveniat. Many of those who used the occasion of the Council to visit Cardinal Frings and thank him personally found themselves joining the alliance.

The success of the alliance strategy became apparent on November 26, at the twenty-seventh General Congregation, only three days after the original order of business had been announced. On that day, the Secretary General announced that, after the schema on Church unity, and before the schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Council would discuss the chapter on ecumenism prepared by the Theological Commission, the schema on Catholic ecumenism prepared by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, and the schema on the Church prepared by the Theological Commission.

Cardinal Cicognani introduced the schema on Church unity at the same meeting. “We wish,” said the Cardinal, “once again to profess solemnly the fraternal ties by which we are united with the separated Orientals in Christ,” and he asked them to “reflect that once we were united, we were one.” The purpose of the present document, he explained, was “to prepare the way for unity in the truth and charity of Christ.” He also pointed out that the schema stressed the religious and historical importance of the Oriental rites, and made no reference to past dissensions. “Never in the annals of the Church has so much been said about the unity of the Church as in modern times,” he said, “and never since the time of Pope Leo XIII has so much been done to bring it about.”

The separated Orthodox Churches today have some 157 million members around the world. The Oriental Churches, as distinct from the Orthodox, belong to the Catholic Church. Oriental Churches is a term endorsed by long usage to designate those members of the Catholic hierarchy and laity who follow Eastern rites.

In drawing up the schema, Cardinal Cicognani said, the Commission had sought to bear in mind not only the theological differences between the Churches, but also the manner in which the Orthodox Churches were accustomed to express their theology. Representatives of all six of the principal Eastern rites in the Oriental Churches had therefore assisted in drawing up the text. The Preparatory Commission for the Oriental Churches had in fact represented twenty-four countries and sixteen religious communities, and also the main subdivisions of the five principal Eastern rites — the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Byzantine, Chaldaean, and Armenian rites.

The first speaker to take the floor was Cardinal Lienart. He asserted that the schema contained grave defects in both content and form, and should be rejected. Cardinal Ruffini of Palermo and Michael Cardinal Browne, Vice-President of the Theological Commission, felt that the schema should be included in the larger schema on the Church. Cardinal Bacci of the Roman Curia expressed his support of the schema as it stood and proposed only slight corrections.

On the following day, a number of speakers asked that the three documents dealing with Christian unity should be combined by the three bodies that had drafted them, and that the new schema should be submitted for discussion at the second session. The schema was criticized for not referring to mistakes and faults of the Catholic Church which had contributed to the original separation. It was pointed out, moreover, that the wording was so harsh and arrogant, and manifested so little of the true ecumenical spirit, that the very form of the schema might offend the separated brethren at whom it was aimed. Three speakers called for its outright rejection.

At the next meeting, several speakers proposed a complete revision of the schema. Some said that it made far too many concessions; others maintained that it was much too authoritarian. One speaker said that the schema should not include an admission of fault on the part of the Western Church. Auxiliary Bishop Ancel of Lyons retorted that the admission of mistakes was not a renunciation of the truth, for which he was loudly applauded. Another speaker said that the tone of the decree should reflect the respect due to the Orthodox Churches by reason of their large numbers, ancient traditions, the evangelization which they had fostered, and the frequent martyrdom that they had suffered. The same speaker wanted the schema to emphasize that the religious, historical and liturgical heritage of the East was a heritage of the Church as a whole, without distinction of East and
West.

Speaker after speaker asked that the three documents be combined in a single schema.

On November 30, the fourth day of debate, the Council Fathers were still divided. The meeting ended with a near-unanimous decision in favor of cloture of the debate. On the following day, by a vote of 2068 to 36, the Council decided that the three documents should be combined in one schema.