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

[Stone]

THE FIRST SESSION
October 11 to December 8, 1962

UPDATING LITURGICAL PRACTICES - SOME UNDERLYING ISSUES

Throughout the discussion of the first four chapters of the schema on the liturgy, the question of the vernacular came up again and again. It appeared prominently in Chapter I, in which general principles were stated. It came up again in Chapter II, in connection with the Mass; in Chapter III, on the sacraments; and in Chapter IV, on the Divine Office. This endless preoccupation with the introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy often appeared to outsiders as so much unnecessary and repetitious talk. A simple solution, one might have thought, would be to let those countries have the liturgy in the vernacular whose bishops favored this, and let those whose bishops preferred Latin retain that language. But, like most simple solutions, this one did not go deep enough.

As long as Latin texts and Latin rites were universally used in the Church, the Roman Curia would be competent to check and control them. But if hundreds and even thousands of local languages and customs were introduced into the liturgy, the Curia would automatically lose this prerogative. Episcopal conferences with knowledge of the local languages and understanding of local custom would then become the more competent judges in the matter. And this was precisely what the evolving majority was insisting upon. It wanted episcopal conferences to be authorized to make certain important decisions in regard to liturgical practices. The Curia, on the other hand, correctly surmised that, if it agreed to the principle of local jurisdiction in liturgical matters, a precedent would be established enabling episcopal conferences to gain still wider powers of decision in other areas as well. This was one of the reasons for its opposition to the introduction of the vernacular and of local customs into the liturgy.

During Vatican I (1869-70) the Curia had led the majority, and the German-speaking bishops and the bishops of France had led the minority. But now the tables were turned, and—in the space of one short month the German-speaking and the French bishops had found themselves at the helm of Vatican II. The sides taken in this first great encounter on the liturgy proved a severe blow for the Curia, because the positions taken crystallized and profoundly influenced the over-all voting pattern that was to characterize the Council.

Historians concede that the early Christian Church successfully adapted itself to the prevailing Roman culture of the time. And they ask whether the same process could not be achieved in India, Japan, Africa, the South Sea Islands, and elsewhere. At the beginning of Vatican II, the Church in all those countries was identical in appearance with the Church in Rome. Will this still be the case fifty years hence? The discussions and decisions of the Council leave no room for doubt that, in external appearance, the Church in those countries may well be very different.

Changes were also proposed in the matter of the Divine Office, or breviary. Paul Cardinal Leger of Montreal, for instance, made a very radical proposal, which was warmly applauded, for the thorough reorganization of the Divine Office. One form, he suggested, should be prescribed for clergy engaged in the active apostolate, and another for monks. For the first, the breviary should be made up of three sections, one to be said in the morning, one in the evening—both in Latin—and a third consisting of special passages to be freely selected and read in any language. Other speakers proposed that the whole of the Divine Office should be in the vernacular. A French bishop proposed that a priest be automatically dispensed from certain parts of the Divine Office if he celebrated two Masses or preached twice on the same day.

Other speakers, on the contrary, stressed the importance of the breviary for the spiritual life of priests engaged in the active ministry, as well as for monks, and rejected the suggestion that it should be shortened. Some wished more space to be given to New Testament texts, while omitting certain psalms of a historic character relating specifically to incidents in the history of the Hebrew people.

The official news bulletin of the Council Press Office stated that the reason given by Council Fathers for shortening the Divine Office was “to give priests the possibility of dedicating themselves more to apostolic activities.” It went on to say, with regard to such proposals, that it had been emphasized “that every type of pastoral activity, no matter how generous, is made sterile if it is not nourished by the priest’s prayer.” Some Council Fathers maintained that the report was tendentious, since it did not present the manifold reasons given for shortening the breviary.

Since the Canadian hierarchy was most immediately concerned, it lodged an official protest.

Numerous reasons had in fact been given by Council Fathers for reducing the length of the Divine Office, over and above the consideration of apostolic activities. For instance, a reduction in the time spent on the formal prayers of the breviary might leave more time for meditation, spiritual reading, examination of conscience, and other practices of personal piety. The reason underlying the proposal for the recitation of the breviary in the vernacular was that this would facilitate a greater understanding of the text and would therefore produce greater spiritual benefits.

To speed lip the proceedings, the last four chapters were discussed as a unit. The result was a veritable kaleidoscope of proposals. For instance, there were proposals in favor of a fixed liturgical calendar throughout the world. And although arguments were voiced to the contrary, there seemed to be a consensus in favor of a fixed date for Easter, such as the first Sunday in April, for example. It was stressed that an understanding would have to be reached in the matter with the Eastern and Protestant Churches, and with the civil authorities.

Ways and means were also suggested whereby the faithful would be enabled to observe Sundays and holy days of obligation with more regularity. One proposal, in this connection, was that the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday should be transferred to a weekday in the case of persons prevented from attendance on Sunday.

Again, Bishop Johannes Pohlschneider of Aachen, Germany, suggested that the Lenten fast be restricted to Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and the morning of Holy Saturday. He gave two reasons: one, that modern men generally did not observe the law “because of the speed of modern life and widespread nervous tensions,” the other that many bishops and priests dispensed themselves from fasting on the grounds that it deprived them of the strength they needed to perform their extensive pastoral duties. If bishops and priests did not fast, Bishop Pohlschneider observed, the faithful could hardly be expected to do so. At the same time, since “the Christian life cannot exist for long without a spirit of penance and self-denial,” the faithful should constantly be admonished to make “specific sacrifices.”

The last speaker on October 30 was Auxiliary Bishop Ildefonso Sansierra of San Juan de Cuyo, Argentina, who expressed the hope that “the wish of very many bishops and priests” for the inclusion of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass would not be forgotten. On November 5, the same request was made at great length by Bishop Albert Cousineau of Cap Haitien, Haiti, a former superior of the St. Joseph Oratory in Montreal, who asked that “the name of Blessed Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, be introduced into the Mass wherever the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary is mentioned.”

At the end of the eighteenth General Congregation, on November 13, the Cardinal Secretary of State made a special announcement on the subject. He said that the Holy Father, wishing to conform to the desire “expressed by many Council Fathers,” had decided to insert the name of St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass, immediately after the name of the Most Holy Virgin. This action was to serve for all time as a reminder that St. Joseph had been the Patron of the Second Vatican Council. “This decision of the Holy Father,” added the Cardinal, “will go into effect next December 8, and in the meanwhile the Sacred Congregation of Rites will prepare the necessary documents.”

Cardinal Montini later described this unexpected move as “a surprise for the Council from the Pope.”

In some quarters Pope John was severely criticized for taking what was termed independent action while the Ecumenical Council was in session.

• Actually, his decree was only the culmination of sporadic but intensive campaigns, dating back to 1815, through which hundreds of thousands of signatures of the hierarchy and the laity had been gathered and sent to the Vatican. The campaigns had become particularly intensive at the announcements of Vatican I by Pope Pius IX, and of Vatican II by Pope ; John. Immediately after Pope John’s announcement, Monsignor Joseph Phelan of St. Joseph’s Church in Capitola, California, launched a drive together with his parishioners and netted some 150,000 signatures.

Chiefly responsible for the action taken by Pope John, however, were Fathers Roland Gauthier and Guy Bertrand, directors of the Center of Research and Documentation at the St. Joseph Oratory in Montreal, who in 1961 composed at seventy-five-page booklet giving the history of these campaigns. They explained that the placement of St. Joseph’s name after that of the Virgin Mary in the Canon of the Mass would, doctrinally and liturgically, give official recognition to St. Joseph’s eminence in sanctity, after Mary, over all other saints. These two Holy Cross Fathers, through collaboration with the Discalced Carmelites of the Sociedad Ibero-Americana de Josefologia in Valladolid, Spain, and the St. Joseph Fathers of Blessed Leonard Murialdo of the St. Joseph Research Center in Viterbo, Italy, were able to have their booklet appear in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian, and sent copies of it with a petition to the Council Fathers around the world, long before the Council began.

In mid-March 1962, Pope John was presented with six volumes containing the signed petitions of 30 cardinals, 436 patriarchs, archbishops and bishops, and 60 superiors general. While examining the signatures, Pope John said, “Something will be done for St. Joseph." These signatures confirmed him in his personal desire to do something special for St. Joseph, whom he had venerated from childhood with a very special devotion.

On October 19, three days before the liturgy came up for discussion in the Council hall, Father Edward Heston of the Holy Cross Fathers—who had submitted the petitions in the name of the three centers—was officially informed that Pope John had decided to take action on the proposal, and was going to include the name of St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass.

November 13, the day on which Pope John’s decision was made public in the Council hall, also marked the end of the long discussion on the liturgy, which had taken up fifteen meetings, with an average of twenty-two speeches a day. It was announced at the end of the morning that discussion would begin on the following day on the schema on the sources of revelation.

[Stone]

THE FIRST SESSION
October 11 to December 8, 1962

DEADLOCK AND SOLUTION

It was not hard to predict that the schema on the sources of revelation would run into serious trouble on the Council floor. Its opponents, led by Father Schillebeeckx and the Dutch bishops, had been agitating against it outside the Council hall for over a month. Although the Preparatory Commission which had drawn up the document had included liberals like Bishop John Wright of Pittsburgh, Bishop Joseph Schroffer of Eachstatt, and Monsignor Gerard Philips of Louvain, the schema was regarded as bearing the stamp of Cardinal Ottaviani and Father Sebastian Tromp. The latter, though Dutch and a Jesuit, was placed second only to Cardinal Ottaviani as a champion of conservatism. Cardinal Ottaviani had chosen him to be secretary of the Preparatory Theological Commission, and had appointed him to the same post in the Theological Commission of the Council.

A number of lectures had been organized during the first month of the Council, featuring eminent liberal theologians, and these had been well attended by Council Fathers. The lecturers pointed to the weaknesses in the schema, charging that it was too negative, too aggressive, too intolerant, too one-sided, and altogether outmoded. It lacked a pastoral tone, they said, condemned good Catholic authors by quoting them out of context, and was marked by a number of theological errors. One of the main objections was that it recognized two sources of revelation instead of one.

The schema on the sources of revelation was presented by Cardinal Ottaviani on November 14. It was his first appearance in the Council hall since he had been silenced by Cardinal Alfrink two weeks earlier. He spoke of the pastoral value of the schema, and said that it was the first duty of every shepherd of souls to teach the truth, which always and everywhere remained the same. He then introduced Monsignor Salvatore Garofalo, another well-known conservative, and had him read the introductory report on the schema. Monsignor Garofalo had been a member of the Theological Preparatory Commission, and had been retained by Cardinal Ottaviani as a consultant to the Theological Commission of the Council.

Monsignor Garofalo, who was not a Council Father, said that the primary task of the Council was to defend and promote Catholic doctrine in its most precise form. There was no question of a renewal of doctrine, he said, but only of a closer study and knowledge of existing doctrine. He described the thorough work which had gone into the preparation of the schema, and pointed out that learned men from many nations and various universities had contributed to it. He then explained briefly the contents of the five chapters.

The reaction from the Council floor was swift and deadly. Cardinal Alfrink of Holland, Cardinal Frings of Germany, Cardinal Bea of the Curia, Cardinal Konig of Austria, Cardinal Lienart of France, Leo Cardinal Suenens of Belgium, Cardinal Leger of Canada, Joseph Cardinal Ritter of the United States, and Patriarch Maximos IV all categorically expressed their dissatisfaction with the schema. They were supported by Archbishop Adrianus Soegijapranata of Semarang, president of the episcopal conference of Indonesia, who said that he was speaking on behalf of all the bishops of his country. He attacked not only the schema on the sources of revelation, but the other three dogmatic constitutions as well, saying that none of them corresponded to the pastoral preoccupations of the Council. Since the vast majority of the bishops of Indonesia were Dutch, and since their chosen theological adviser was the Dutch Jesuit, Father Peter Smulders, who vehemently opposed the four dogmatic constitutions, the position of the Indonesian hierarchy was not unexpected.

Cardinal Siri of Genoa and Fernando Cardinal Quiroga y Palacios of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, expressed general satisfaction with the schema, saying only that it required certain amendments. The only speaker to express complete satisfaction with the text as it stood was Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini of Palermo, Italy. He then called attention to an alternative text which was being circulated among Council Fathers, and asked, "By what authority?”

A rival schema was in fact circulating. It was in mimeographed form, headed by the following statement: “Since it appears impossible for the Council to discuss all the schemas and vote on them, it would seem necessary to omit some and to shorten others and combine them. Therefore the presidents of the episcopal conferences of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and Holland make bold to propose as a basis for discussion the following compendium of material from the first two schemas. These are here presented in a more positive and pastoral tone.”

A group of Council Fathers from Latin America—that was how they identified themselves—put out a two-page statement attacking the first two dogmatic constitutions. “These two schemas,” it stated, ‘ as they stand, contradict the purpose of this Council. They lag behind the present stage of progress in theology and the study of Sacred Scripture, they do not correspond to the present stage of ecumenism, they fall short of the expectations of the modern world, and they are lacking in clarity of doctrine.” Each of these five points was elaborated, and the following conclusion stated: “It is clear that these two schemas are no answer to modern theological and pastoral needs. Therefore, let them be completely rewritten along the lines of these observations.”

At the twentieth General Congregation, on November 16, the tempest continued in full force. Nine of the twenty-one speakers sought to defend the schema by suggesting amendments to it. Two dared speak out in praise of the schema. Realizing the drama of the situation, one of them said that he felt like Daniel in the lions’ den. Nine other speakers revived previously stated objections or brought up new ones. They demanded that the schema in its present form be rejected and replaced by another. Some of them proposed the appointment of a special committee to draw up a new schema, such a committee not to be restricted to one school of thought.

At the twenty-first General Congregation, Cardinal Dopfner, who had been one of the sixty-seven cardinals on the Central Preparatory Commission, remarked that some of the Council Fathers had begun to wonder how it was that members of the Theological Preparatory Commission and the Central Preparatory Commission were so vehemently attacking a schema which they had previously approved. He explained that things had not been so very peaceful at the meetings of the preparatory commissions. “The same objections that are being made now on the Council floor were made then,” he said, “but they were simply set aside.”

Cardinal Ottaviani rose, unannounced, to protest against this statement. He reminded the Council Fathers, further, that canon law prohibited the rejection of schemas which had been approved by the Pope. Whereupon Norman Cardinal Gilroy of Sydney, Australia, who was presiding, pointed out that under Article 33, Section 1, of the Rules of Procedure governing the Council, schemas could in fact be rejected. The section read: “Every Council Father is permitted to speak on every schema proposed, and may accept it, or reject it, or amend it.” Once again. Cardinal Ottaviani sat down in defeat.

Of the eighteen speakers at the stormy twenty-second General Congregation, two defended the schema, seven called for major changes in the text, and nine rejected it completely.

Great concern was expressed over the apparent deadlock. It was suggested that discussion of the schema be postponed to the second session. Auxiliary Bishop Alfred Ancel of Lyons thought that the Pope might wish to assign some additional experts from the opposing school of thought to prepare a completely new schema.

At this point Bishop Emile De Smedt of Bruges, Belgium, took the floor on behalf of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. “Numerous Council Fathers,” he said, “have shown a truly ecumenical preoccupation in their examination of the schema on the sources of revelation. All sincerely and positively desire that the schema should foster unity. Views differ, however, some saying that it meets the requirements of ecumenism, and others saying that it does not. In order that you may better judge the matter, perhaps you would be pleased to hear from our Secretariat what precisely is required before a proposal can be designated ecumenical. Our Secretariat, as you know, was established by the Supreme Pontiff in order to assist the Council Fathers in examining the various texts from the viewpoint of ecumenism.”

Bishop De Smedt recalled that although his Secretariat had offered its assistance to the Theological Preparatory Commission, that body, “for reasons which I have no right to judge,” had not accepted the proffered assistance. “We proposed the formation of a joint commission, but the Theological Preparatory Commission answered that this was not opportune. Thus it was the Theological Preparatory Commission alone that took upon itself the most difficult task of giving an ecumenical character to our schema. With what success?”

He concluded with a dramatic plea: “We who have received from the Holy Father the task of working in this Council toward the happy establishment of dialogue with our non-Catholic brethren beg all of you. Venerable Fathers, to hear what the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity thinks of the proposed schema. As we see it, the schema is lacking notably in the ecumenical spirit. It does not constitute an advance in dialogue with non-Catholics, but an obstacle. I would go even further and say that it causes harm. ... If the schemas prepared by the Theological Preparatory Commission are not drafted in a different manner, we shall be responsible for having crushed, through the Second Vatican Council, a great and immense hope. That hope is shared by all those who, with Pope John XXIII, in prayer and fasting expect that now finally some serious and notable steps will be taken in the direction of fraternal unity among all those for whom Christ our Lord prayed ‘that all may be one.’ ”

As he stepped away from the microphone, the assembly broke out in thunderous applause.

At the twenty-third General Congregation, on the following day, seven speakers voiced approval of the schema, four approved but suggested amendments, and two insisted on its rejection.

By this time, eighty-five Council Fathers had spoken on the schema as a whole, and the Secretary General intervened to point out that the time had come to examine the individual chapters. However, he said, since a number of Council Fathers had expressed objections to the form of the schema, the Council Presidency considered it advisable to request a vote whereby each Council Father might in conscience make known his opinion in the matter. The question to be voted on was: Should the discussion of the schema on the sources of revelation be interrupted?

A total of 2209 Council Fathers voted. Of this number, 1368, or 62 per cent, voted in favor of interrupting the discussion; 822, or 37 per cent, against; and 19, or 1 per cent, submitted invalid ballots. Since the Rules of Procedure required a two-thirds majority for the adoption of a proposal, the Council Fathers who wished to interrupt the discussion were technically defeated, and the discussion on the schema as it stood would have to continue.

Efforts were now made to bypass the Rules of Procedure, which, in the words of Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, Italy, had led to “the absurd position of making the vote of a rather small minority prevail over that of a strong majority.” He called this “an evident weakness” in the Rules of Procedure.

On the following day. Archbishop Felici read a communicatio the Secretary of State, which said that the Pope had taken into consideration the various views manifested in the interventions of the preceding days. These had led him to foresee a laborious and prolonged discussion of the schema. It therefore seemed to him useful to have the schema revised by a special commission before the discussion was resumed. This special commission on revision should include all Council Fathers on the Theological Commission and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. The task of the commission would be to revise the schema, shorten it, and bring out in greater relief the principles of Catholic teaching already treated at Trent and Vatican I. The commission was to present the revised schema to the Council Fathers once more for their study. In place of the present schema, the next General Congregation would take up the discussion of the schema on communications media.

The victory of the conservatives had been short-lived. The liberals had won the election encounter; they had won the debate on liturgy; and now they had won the debate on revelation. They became increasingly conscious of the strength of their numbers. And the conservatives became gradually less sure of their position.

Four days later, L’Osservatore Romano announced the composition of the new commission on revision on its front page. The reference was no longer to the schema on the sources of revelation, but to the schema on divine revelation. This seemed to confirm that the liberal camp, which opposed the notion of two sources of revelation, had prevailed. The new commission on revision had two presidents, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bea. Six cardinals had also been added, among them Cardinals Frings and Lienart.

[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.

[Stone]

THE FIRST SESSION
October 11 to December 8, 1962

WHAT THE FIRST SESSION ACHIEVED

The Council took up the discussion of the all-important schema on the Church at its thirty-first General Congregation, on December 1, exactly one week before the closing of the first session. The first speaker was Cardinal Ottaviani, who, as President of the Theological Commission, wished to make some introductory remarks.

Only three days before, he had pointed out that it would be impossible to complete the discussion of the thirty-six-page schema on the Church in the few days left, and he had therefore asked the Council Fathers to discuss the shorter six-page schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary, as had originally been announced. There would have been no trouble in completing the discussion of that schema, he said, and the happy result would have been that the Council Fathers, “with the assistance of Our Lady,” would then have concluded the first session- “in union and harmony.” But his plea had been ignored.

The Cardinal proceeded to stress the caliber of the membership of the Theological Preparatory Commission, which had prepared the schema on the Church. It had consisted of thirty-one members, with thirty-six consultants from fifteen countries. Most of these men were university professors or professors in major ecclesiastical institutions of learning in different parts of the world. Each had several publications of outstanding importance to his credit, and some of these were used as textbooks in seminaries and universities. As a result, the Theological Preparatory Commission had considered itself intellectually equipped to carry out the weighty task of drawing up a schema on the Church. It had, moreover, borne in mind the pastoral aspect of the Council.

That morning, fourteen Council Fathers came to the microphone. Six of them called for revisions so complete as to be tantamount to outright rejection of the text as it stood. The schema was criticized for being too theoretical, for being too legalistic, for identifying the Mystical Body purely and simply with the Catholic Church, for referring only condescendingly to the laity, for insisting excessively on the rights and authority of the hierarchy, and for lacking a charitable, missionary, and ecumenical approach.

One of the speakers. Bishop De Smedt, summed up his criticism in three epithets: the schema, he said, was guilty of triumphalism, clericalism, and legalism.

The last speaker that day was Bishop Luigi Carli of Segni, Italy. He maintained that certain Council Fathers had carried their ecumenical preoccupations to excess. It was no longer possible, he charged, to speak about Our Lady; no one might be called heretical; no one might use the expression “Church militant”; and it was no longer proper to call attention to the inherent powers of the Catholic Church.

The days that followed witnessed much disagreement among the Council Fathers. Some speakers affirmed the pastoral character of the schema; others denied it. Some said that sufficient importance was given to the laity; others said that the treatment of the subject was too superficial. Valerian Cardinal Gracias of Bombay called for more delicacy in the treatment of Church-state relations. “The text as it stands,” he said, “is an open invitation to governments to martyr us.” Cardinal Bea objected to the manner in which Sacred Scripture was quoted, and he wanted pastoral preoccupations to be apparent from the text itself, and not only from some parenthetical exhortation added to the text.

Cardinal Bacci of the Roman Curia expressed belief that the Council Fathers were in accord on the doctrinal substance of the document, and that the schema would prove satisfactory after some corrections had been made in the style. Bishop Giulio Barbetta of the Roman Curia took issue with Bishop De Smedt, insisting that the text was neither triumphal nor clerical in tone, nor legalistic.

Maronite Bishop Michael Doumith of Sarba, Lebanon, a member of the Theological Commission, severely criticized the chapter on bishops. He said that, just as a mother gives her child a toy with a thousand warnings not to break it, so, too, “they give us, with a thousand cautions, a concept of the episcopacy.” He could not erase from his mind, he said, the painful impression that bishops, according to the schema, were no more than functionaries of the Pope. Bestowal of episcopal consecration on those who were not in charge of a diocese, he maintained, resulted in functionalism and secularization in the episcopacy. Cardinal Alfrink pointed out, in that connection, that some one third of the bishops in the Church were titular, and that no reference was made to them in the schema. (Titular bishops have no diocese of their own.)

On the first day of the debate on the schema, Cardinal Alfrink had called for a careful coordination of texts in order to avoid useless repetition in the Council agenda. This proposal, whose adoption was to alter profoundly the organizational structure of the Council, as well as the future form and content of the schemas, was supported in the following three meetings by Cardinals Leger, Suenens, and Montini.

On December 1, the Secretary General had opened the meeting by saying that the health of the Holy Father was showing improvement — an announcement greeted with loud and prolonged applause. At noon on December 5, Pope John appeared at his window to recite the Angelus, and many Council Fathers left the basilica early in order to see him. He spoke briefly, gave his blessing, and later said that their red robes had made them appear like a gigantic flame in the sun.

On the same day, December 5, carrying out the suggestions of the four cardinals, Pope John founded a new Coordinating Commission “to coordinate and direct the work of the Council.” It was to be composed exclusively of cardinals, with Cardinal Cicognani as President, and Cardinals Lienart, Dopfner, Suenens, Confalonieri, Spellman, and Urbani as members. The European alliance was represented by three members on this powerful six-member Commission, and therefore had control of 50 per cent of the seats. It was growing in influence and prestige, because it had had control of only 30 per cent of the seats in the Council Presidency since the beginning of the Council.

In addition to founding the Coordinating Commission, Pope John under the same date approved the norms which were to govern the Council in the interval between the first and second sessions. The first of these norms stipulated that, during that period, all the schemas should “be subjected once more to examination and improvement” by the Council commissions. This implied, of course, that not only the schema on the Church would have to be revised, but the dogmatic constitutions as well which had been attacked by Father Schillebeeckx and the Dutch bishops.

All the norms were read to the Council Fathers at the morning meeting of December 6, and they were recognized by the liberals as yet another victory over the Curia.

The Council Fathers were surprised to see Pope John walk into the Council hall at midday on Friday, December 7, the last business meeting of the session. He recited the Angelus with them and addressed them at length. He was back again the following day to take part in the solemn ceremonies which marked the close of the first session. He congratulated the Council Fathers on what they had accomplished, and urged them to be diligent in the work that lay ahead. “The first session,” he told them, “was like a slow and solemn introduction to he great work of the Council.” It was also understandable, he said, that in such a vast gathering “a few days” should have been needed to arrive at agreement on topics about which “in all charity and with good reason there existed sharply diverging views.” But even this manifestation of differences had had a providential place in the triumph of truth, “for it has shown to all the world the holy liberty that the sons of God enjoy in the Church.”

The Pope pointed out that modem communications made it possible for the intensive work on the preparation and revision of schemas to continue in the interval before the second session. He asked each bishop, “though preoccupied with pastoral administration, to continue to study and investigate the schemas that have been distributed, and also whatever else may yet be sent. In this way, the session which will begin in the month of September of next year . . . will proceed more surely, more steadily and with greater speed.” If preparations went forward seriously, there were grounds for hope that the Ecumenical Council might end at Christmas, 1963, which would be four hundred years after the conclusion of the Council of Trent.

The German theologian Father Joseph Ratzinger called the absence of any approved Council text at the end of the first session “the great, astonishing, and genuinely positive result of the first session.” The fact that no text had gained approval was evidence, he said, of “the strong reaction against the spirit behind the preparatory work.” This he called “the truly epoch-making character of the Council’s first session.”

Several days before the end of the first session, Father Hans Küng, a Swiss theologian on the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Tubingen, Germany, was invited to speak at the U. S. Bishops’ Press Panel. In his address, he mentioned the fact that Pope John, when asked in a private conversation why he had convoked the Council, had gone to his window, opened it, and said, “To let some fresh air into the Church.” Father Küng asserted jubilantly that what had once been the dream of an avant-garde group in the Church had “spread and permeated the entire atmosphere of the Church, due to the Council.” If for some reason the Council itself were to come to an end, the movement in the Church would not end, he said, and another Council would soon have to be called.

Father Küng was asked to enumerate some of the achievements of the first session. In reply, he said that “many of us” had feared that unfortunate statements might be officially issued by the Council on matters of dogma and ecumenism. So far, however, “all such attempts have been rejected.” This spirit in the Council had brought about a change of atmosphere throughout the Church. “No one who was here for the Council will go back home as he came. I myself never expected so many bold and explicit statements from the bishops on the Council floor.”

Father Kiing called the rejection of the schema on the sources of revelation “a great step in the right direction. It was something all of us in Germany had hoped for. But being a very small minority, we did not dream it possible.” In conclusion, he said that “perhaps the most decisive outcome of the first session is the realization on the part of the bishops that they, and not merely the Roman Curia, make up the Church.”

Bishop Sergio Mendez Arceo of Cuernavaca, Mexico, said at the end of the session, “It has been a most successful Council.” He noted that some Council Fathers had complained that there was too much talking and even too much repetition on the Council floor. “But I feel,” he explained, “that this was necessary, if we were all to find out what the others’ thoughts were. St. Peter’s basilica, where our meetings were held, was like a giant pressure cooker which rapidly and profoundly transformed the outlook of the bishops of the entire world.”

Rejection of schemas and rapid transformations of outlook were the earmarks of the first session of Vatican II.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963


PREPARING FOR THE SECOND SESSION

If the words of Father Küng were true—that “no one who was here for the Council will go back as he came”—they were no more true for anyone than for the German-speaking bishops and their theologians. They had come to the first session of the Council, hoping that they might win some concessions. They returned home, conscious that they had achieved complete victory. And they were confident that numberless other victories were yet to come.

When early in the first session the Council Fathers elected to office seventeen of the twenty-one candidates for Council Commissions proposed by the more than two hundred United States bishops, it almost seemed as though the Council was looking to them for leadership. But as the weeks of the first session passed, the American bishops gave the impression of being too retiring and too disunited to take over leadership. Was it because their periti had prepared no program for them? There had been nothing retiring or disunited, however, about the bishops from the Rhine countries. They had shown at the first session how important it was to have a specific text to fight for. The schema on the liturgy had been such a text, and the alliance was able to operate effectively because it knew beforehand what it wanted, and what it did not want.

The deadline for amendments to the schema on the Church was February 28, 1963, and the German-speaking bishops and theologians, for their part, set to work immediately. They decided to hold a meeting of all German-speaking Council fathers at Munich on February 5 and 6 to prepare a detailed analysis of the schema and draw up practical suggestions for its revision. Representatives from other European alliance countries were invited to attend the meeting: among others, Bishop Jan van Dodewaard of Haarlem, Holland; Coadjutor Bishop Leon Elchinger of Strasbourg, France; and Father John Schiitte, Superior General of the Divine Word Missionaries, who would be well placed to communicate the views of the alliance to the conference of superiors general in Rome. All this organizational activity centered around Cardinal Dopfner, who was also a member of the Coordinating Commission of the Council, and who communicated to that meeting the decisions arrived at by that Commission at its first session in the Vatican, from January 21 to 27. Two significant decisions made at that session had been to treat the schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary independently of the schema on the Church, and to reduce the latter to four chapters.

The Munich meeting produced a detailed criticism of the schema on the Church, as well as a substitute schema of forty-six articles. It was divided into five chapters, as Cardinal Suenens had suggested, rather than into four chapters, as the Coordinating Commission had decreed. The analysis and substitute schema were sent to Pope John XXIII and Cardinal Ottaviani, President of the Theological Commission, together with a special introduction. This stated that the analysis listed reasons “why it seems that the existing schema must undergo a thorough revision.” It stated further that, in drawing up the substitute schema, the German-speaking Fathers had continually borne in mind the general norms laid down by the Pope on December 5, 1962, at the end of the first session. Those norms had insisted “especially upon the pastoral aspect” of Council decrees. The introduction likewise stated that the German-speaking Council Fathers had also borne in mind the directives of the Coordinating Commission, in particular, “that a connection be shown with the First Vatican Council, that the role of the Supreme Pontiff and his primacy should be recalled and should be presented at the same time from an ecumenical point of view, and that the significance of episcopal collegiality and of the episcopacy itself should be placed in a clear light.”

Each of the' Council Fathers in Austria and Germany received copies of these documents from Cardinal Dopfner under date of February 16.

In addition, they received a commentary on the substitute schema, together with a bibliography of some thirty-five titles of theological works in German and French. The introductory sentence of the commentary explained that the purpose of the schema was to avoid certain shortcomings of the schema on the Church drawn up by the Theological Preparatory Commission. The substitute schema was much shorter, and sought to be more pastoral in tone and to correspond to the spirit of ecumenism. “In no way does it intend to keep silent about or to conceal Catholic truths, not even those which Protestants either doubt or deny. However, it always tries to give consideration to Protestant objections, but without, of course, treating those objections explicitly.”

The German-speaking Council Fathers were now well prepared for the opening debate of the second session, the schema on the Church. Still further preparations were to be made at a second conference held in August of the same year, at Fulda.

It is worth noting that the opening words of the substitute schema, “Lumen gentium” (“Light of nations”), taken from Pope John’s address of September 11, 1962, were subsequently adopted as the opening words and official title of the Council’s dogmatic constitution on the Church.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

THE MECHANICS OF THE LITURGICAL COMMISSION

In the latter half of November and early December 1962, toward the end of the first session, the Liturgical Commission presented a revised introduction and lengthy first chapter of its schema to the plenary Council assembly for twenty-eight separate votes. Contrary to general expectations, there was very little opposition. The largest number of negative votes on a single ballot was 150. The average number of negative votes was forty. And when a vote was taken on the chapter as a whole, on December 7, only eleven of the 2018 Council Fathers cast negative votes.

Some credited this near-unanimous acceptance to the close attention that the Liturgical Commission had given to the observations made by Council Fathers during the debate. Moreover, before submitting the drafts to a vote, the Liturgical Commission had presented an exhaustive printed report filling five booklets to each of the Council Fathers explaining in detail what it had done, and why.

Elated at this reaction, the Liturgical Commission revised the text of the remaining chapters of the schema, and gathered in Rome for a working session starting April 23, 1963. Each subcommission had to report to the full Commission on the work it had done, and the full Commission then examined the proposed changes line by line and word by word.

I asked one of the members of the Liturgical Commission, Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta, Georgia, who was in Rome for the meeting, if he would give a press conference on the procedure used by the Commission in conducting its business. He agreed readily, and met the press on May 7 in the Columbus Hotel.

“What I should like especially to point out,” he said, “is the careful consideration given by the Liturgical Commission to each statement made by the Council Fathers last fall. We examined each of the statements, and divided them roughly into four categories.” The first category included “proposals already covered by the schema itself, or by previous amendments to the schema.” The second covered “proposals which our Liturgical Commission has passed on to other commissions where the matter in question is treated more directly.” The third covered proposals which the Commission considered too detailed, “and these have been referred to a post-conciliar commission to be set up after the Council ends.” The fourth and final category included “all real amendments to the liturgy schema, and these are what we have processed in our subcommission and Commission meetings.”

Archbishop Hallinan then explained the functioning of the Liturgical Commission and its subcommissions. The discussion on the liturgy in the Council hall had extended from October 22 to November 13, 1962, and during that time each Council Father had been free to present whatever proposals or observations he wished. He could do so either orally or in writing. “This material filled some ten mimeographed volumes, and ran to nearly a thousand pages,” the Archbishop said. The proposals on the Sacrifice of the Mass alone filled nearly 250 pages.

Throughout the session, the Commission had met daily. As soon as a Council Father had spoken in the Council hall, the General Secretariat would forward the text of his address to the Liturgical Commission. “Basically, the processing of proposals was the same last fall as during this current session of the Liturgical Commission,” the Archbishop said.

Each of the thirteen subcommissions included both Council Fathers and periti. After a particular subcommission had examined the Council proposals for which it was responsible, it would formulate the corresponding amendments and draw up a report explaining why they had been so formulated. “This report was then read before a full session of the Liturgical Commission, and all Commission members, as well as the periti, took part in the discussion that followed.” Archbishop Hallinan was chairman of the Subcommission on the Sacraments, and said that his first report and the accompanying discussion had lasted two and a half days. But after the Subcommission had revised the text once again, the next report and discussion took only a half hour.

At the time of the press conference, the Liturgical Commission had already been in session for two full weeks. “All discussions regarding the amendments proposed by Council Fathers on the Mass, the Sacraments, and the Divine Office have now been completed,” said Archbishop Hallinan. “This week we are voting on the final form of the amendments which are to be presented to the Council Fathers for their vote in September.” Once the Council Fathers accepted the amendments, as well as the individual chapters, by the required two-thirds majority, “all that remains is a final, formal vote taken in the presence of the Holy Father in a public meeting. Then, with the assent of the Holy Father, the constitution on the Sacred Liturgy will be promulgated and will become law for the entire Catholic Church. At this point, the Liturgical Commission of the Second Vatican Council will have com¬
pleted its work.”

The Archbishop maintained that there was “very good reason for the optimism and the confidence that has accompanied this three-week period on the part of all the members of the Commission. ... In the first place, we have been assured by Cardinal Larraona that the Holy Father himself is very pleased with the work of the Liturgical Commission. In an audience about three weeks ago, he expressed his confidence that the work done by the Liturgical Commission and the Council Fathers was a real step toward the aggiornamento. This naturally is a cause of confidence and satisfaction to us all.”

He then referred to the “very democratic style” in which Arcadio Cardinal Larraona, President of the Liturgical Commission, conducted its meetings. His policy of giving everyone at all times full opportunity to speak freely and develop his own thinking had had its effect. The Commission members had instructed one another. “You cannot help but learn from men who are in totally different environments — in Africa, behind the Iron Curtain, in Latin America, and elsewhere. It is certainly true to conclude,” he went on, “that this Commission has worked in a truly conciliar way. It has been international, it has been open, it has been free, and it has certainly consisted of a group of dedicated men.”

Archbishop Hallinan said that the optimism of the members of the Liturgical Commission had also been caused in large part by the enthusiasm that the Council Fathers themselves had shown in the closing days of the Council, when they voted “with almost unanimity on behalf of the renewal — the aggiornamento. And now this has carried over. You could feel it in the working of the Commission.”

Some thirty to forty periti had been assigned to the Commission. “These men,” said the Archbishop, “represent probably the finest minds in the liturgical world today in terms of research, in terms of hard work, in terms of zeal, in terms of experimentation and everything else. They come from all different continents. And to have this group here was just like having a library shelf with the best liturgical books in the world. Only these were not the books; these were the authors. It was a very remarkable privilege to have these men here.”

Father Frederick McManus, a professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, and long associated with the liturgical movement in the United States, sat beside the Archbishop during the press conference. The Archbishop introduced him to the press as ‘'our American peritus in this field, one of the outstanding liturgists in the United States, a man who has the confidence of the bishops and of the laity in the very fast growing movement within the United States toward the liturgical revival.”

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION

September 29 to December 4, 1963

THE LAST MONTHS OP POPE JOHN’S LIFE

After the first session, in order to prove to the world that he was in good health again. Pope John XXI 11 paid a visit to Bambino Gesu Hospital on the Janiculum Hill, where he spoke with the sick children and addressed the nurses, Sisters, and other hospital personnel: “As you can see, I am in perfect health, although 1 am not in shape to run a race or take part in some other competitive sport. But I have, thanks be to God, the excellent use of every sense and of my entire body, and so am able to admire here this imposing spectacle of charity and innocence.”

On the feast of the Epiphany, January 6, 1963, Pope John XXIII issued a lengthy letter to all Council Fathers throughout the world. He told them that the picture of them all in St. Peter’s basilica, gathered in Council, was constantly before his eyes. And nothing was dearer to him than to be occupied “in thought and word with the serious and sacred subject of the Council.” He reminded- them that the period between January 6 and September 8, 1963, when the Council was to resume its labors, “must be considered as a true continuation of the work to be accomplished by the Council.”

It also was their sacred duty, he told them, “not only for each one of them to be present at the coming meetings in the Vatican basilica, but also to be most closely united in spirit for those eight months with all their brothers in the episcopate. They must show themselves prompt in replying to letters whenever the Commission headed by our Cardinal Secretary of State should ask anything of them. Each and every one must give close study to what has been sent to him, and must fulfill his obligations regarding correspondence. As a result of such alacrity, the labors of the Council will without doubt progress wisely, and this great task, toward which the eyes of all are turned, will hasten to its desired conclusion.”

Pope John insisted that for the bishops “every matter connected with the Council must be regarded as the apple of their eye.” They should do everything “quickly” and “properly.” In studying the Council documents, they should use the services of priests “outstanding in knowledge and virtue.”

The Coordinating Commission met in the Vatican under the presidency of the Secretary of State from January 21 to January 27, On January 28, the Pope received all the members of this Commission in audience, and also some other Council officials. He told them how eager he was to keep his finger on the pulse of the Council at every stage of its development. He was satisfied with what had been done so far, and with the decisions adopted by the Coordinating Commission. As a result of these, he said, there was hope “that the Council, already off to such a good start, will very quickly be able to reach all its goals.” He stressed the importance of organic unity in the Council agenda, and said that the work of preparation “must go forward swiftly.”

There was intense activity among the commissions and subcommissions during the early part of 1963. Commissions had all been divided into subcommissions, and the subcommission members, through correspondence, were able to settle upon texts which they then presented at plenary sessions of the commissions concerned when they convened in Rome. Seven commissions and the Secretariat of Cardinal Bea held meetings in Rome in the period between February 20 and April 1.

The Coordinating Commission, which supervised and coordinated the activity of these commissions, held a number of meetings in the Vatican starting on March 25. On March 28, it examined the first two chapters of the schema on the Church, and also the revised schema on ecumenism. The latter had been prepared by a special joint commission composed of members from the Theological Commission, the Commission for Oriental Churches, and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. The presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries of these two Commissions and of the Secretariat had therefore been invited to attend the meeting.

Pope John decided to attend the meeting too, and walked in at 6 p.m., accompanied by Cardinal Cicognani and Archbishop Felici. He had been receiving daily reports on the work of the Coordinating Commission, and he expressed great pleasure at all that had been accomplished. He then informed those present that on that day, March 28, he had founded a Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law. As far back as January 25, 1959, when Pope John first announced that there would be an Ecumenical Council, he had also announced that the code of canon law would have to be revised. The Pope presided over the meeting for a while, then once more exhorted all present to continue their work with enthusiasm, repeating his hopes that the Council would bear rich fruit. After imparting his Apostolic blessing, he left the hall.

The next major event in the pontificate of Pope John, now slowly drawing to a close, was his signing of his eighth encyclical, Pacem in terris (“Peace on Earth”), on April 9, 1963.

On Easter Sunday, April 14, a very disturbing close-up photograph of the Pope appeared on the front page of L'Osservatore Romano. It had been taken during the Good Friday afternoon service in St. Peter’s, and it showed him bending down to kiss the crucifix during the Veneration of the Cross. From the expression on the Pope’s face, he appeared to be in terrible agony. But the only answer given at the Vatican to inquiries was that the Pope had been very “fatigued” during the ceremony. As I later learned, the Pope’s immediate associates had been fearful that he might not get through the strenuous Holy Week services, but on Holy Saturday his condition had improved.

Some days later, on April 22, Pope John approved the texts of twelve schemas and ordered that they should be sent to the Council Fathers. They were the product of the numerous meetings held by the Coordinating Commission and the Council commissions. Pope John had been relentless in his insistence on speed. He had given no one any rest. He knew that his life was running out, and he worked all the more feverishly to move his Council ahead.

On April 25, I had an appointment with Dr. Luciano Casimirri, the Director of the Vatican Press Office, who told me—unofficially, and with great sadness—that the Pope was a very sick man. Consequently immediate preparations had to be made for press coverage of his final illness and death, and for the subsequent conclave. Once his condition became known, Dr. Casimirri said, reporters would flock to Rome to report the Pope’s death and the election of a new Pope. He asked, since he did not speak English fluently, and since English-language reporters were always the largest group, whether I might be able to assist him in case of need.

Later that day, from another source, I learned that the Pope was hemmorrhaging every other day, and his condition was rapidly deteriorating.

On April 30, Cardinal Cicognani wrote to all the Council Fathers to say that he was doing everything in his power to have the first twelve schemas sent to them as soon as possible. In the letter he added that by the end of June he hoped to have another set of schemas ready for distribution by the Secretary General. “I have the honor to inform you,” he wrote, “that the Most Holy Father is extremely concerned that these schemas should be given serious study. Then, if you judge that certain things still need reconsideration, you are invited to send your observations, advice, and amendments, written clearly and in proper form, to the General Secretariat of the Council, before the end of July. In this way, the Council commissions will have sufficient time to study these considerations attentively and to prepare their reports, which will accompany the schemas when they are presented in amended form to the General Congregation.”

As May advanced. Pope John could not understand why the twelve texts which he had approved on April 22 were not yet ready for mailing. Not even half of them were ready. Archbishop Felici then felt himself obliged to send a letter to all the Council Fathers on May 8, just one week after Cardinal Cicognani’s letter, informing them that the first six schemas would be sent “within a few days.”

The very next day, May 9, Cardinal Cicognani sent yet another letter to all the Council Fathers, containing this one sentence: “His Holiness Pope John XXIII desires to inform the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council that he has himself attentively examined the schemas which are being sent to the same Council Fathers, and intends to examine them anew after they have been discussed by the Council Fathers, before giving them his final approval.” 

Pope John gave no one any rest. He had one driving desire: to see the Second Vatican Council complete its work. He wanted to be sure that the documents would be in the hands of the Council Fathers, so that there should be no excuse for the Council’s not continuing.

He forced himself to go through the ceremonies connected with the reception of the Balzan Peace Prize on May 4. On the following day, he paid a state visit to the Quirinal, something which no Pope had done since the suppression of the Papal States. Two days later, a copy of Pacem in Terris, autographed by Pope John, was personally delivered by Cardinal Suenens to Secretary General U Thant of the United Nations in New York.

On May 18, I met Dr. Casimirri again, and he said that Pope John’s condition was “very bad.”

I Pope John wrote another long letter, on May 20, to all the bishops of the world, announcing that he would make his annual spiritual retreat, in recollection and solitude, during the Pentecostal novena from May 25 to June 2, Pentecost Sunday. He explained that he was informing the Council Fathers that he was going into spiritual retreat “so that you may accompany us in those days with your prayers and with your recollection.” He had chosen this time to make his retreat “because, as is our custom, we are acting promptly on a good inspiration.”

On May 21, Archbishop Felici finally mailed the first six schemas. On the next day. May 22, Pope John was scheduled to give one of his usual Wednesday audiences in St. Peter’s basilica at 10 a.m. At 9:55 a.m., it was announced that the Pope would not come to the basilica, but would bless everyone from his window at 10130. Pope John, I learned, had been hemorrhaging again, and had received blood transfusions throughout the night.

The following Sunday morning, the Pope told those around his bedside that he wanted to go to his window at noon as usual to bless the crowds in St. Peter’s Square, even though his spiritual retreat had begun. His doctors, however, forbade this, saying that he must refrain from all physical exertion. The next day, Italian priests in Rome were quoting Gustavo Cardinal Testa, who had access to the Pope’s room, as saying that blood had issued from the Pope’s mouth. Informed sources said that he was receiving blood transfusions every four hours.

On May 28, when Cardinal Cicognani told him that the entire world was praying for him, the Pope smiled and, after a short silence, said, “Since the whole world is praying for the sick Pope, it is only natural that some intention should be given to this prayer. If God should wish the sacrifice of the life of the Pope, then may that sacrifice succeed in obtaining abundant favors for the Ecumenical Council, for the Holy Church, and for mankind, which longs for peace.”

On Thursday, May 30, Pope John said to his doctor, ‘"I hey say that I have a tumor. But this means nothing, as long as God’s will is done. I hope to bring the Council to a conclusion, and to see peace in the world.”

Near midnight on the same day, the final crisis set in. On being informed of his condition on the following day, Pope John requested that he be given the Last Sacraments immediately. His confessor came to his bedside, and then brought him the Holy Viaticum. At his own request, Pope John received the holy anointings, and asked his confessor to remain near his bed with the Blessed Sacrament, while he said a few words. This he did in a clear and strong voice, once again offering his life for the successful outcome of the Second Vatican Council, and for peace among men. He said, too, that he wanted all Council Fathers throughout the world to know that the great work which had been started would certainly be completed.

After addressing all of those around him, he turned to his nephew, Monsignor Giovanni Baptista Roncalli, and called him to his side. Look, you arrive here, and you find me in bed! The doctors say that I am suffering from a stomach malady. But let us hope that everything will turn out for the best, and that soon I shall be able again to dedicate myself to the Council and to the Church.”

On Friday afternoon, the long vigil began in St. Peter’s Square. Day and night on Friday, Saturday, Pentecost Sunday and Monday, the crowds waited and prayed. Then, on Monday evening, June 3, at 7:49 p.m., Pope John died.

“The Council!” he had said. “God knows that with simplicity I have opened the smallness of my soul to the greatness of this inspiration. Will he allow me to finish it? Should he do so, may he be blessed. And if he does not allow me to finish it? ... Then I shall watch its joyful conclusion from heaven, where I hope 1 —rather, where I am certain—the Divine Mercy will draw me.”

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION

September 29 to December 4, 1963

A SECRETARIAT FOR NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

On Tuesday, April 2, 1963, Archbishop Zoa of Yaounde, Cameroun, a member of the Council Commission on the Missions, gave a press conference in which he stated his views on the schema on the missions.

He had felt, he said, that the first session of the Council had had only two main preoccupations: a pastoral preoccupation, causing it to study ways whereby the Church might better foster the spiritual growth of its own members; and an ecumenical preoccupation, dictating what was to be done or omitted in order to improve relations with other Christian bodies. What seemed to have been forgotten was that the Catholic Church was by definition a missionary Church. Its message, said the Archbishop, was not only to its own members, or to other Christians, but to all men.

Pondering over the Archbishop’s words that night, in a dimly lit chapel, I thought of the immense good that had been accomplished by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, and wondered if a similar secretariat might not also be founded for non-Christian religions. There were over a billion members of Judaism, Islam, Brahmanism, Vedaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism. Such a new secretariat might initiate and foster dialogue with these great world religions with as much success as the already existing Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity had done for non-Catholic Christian churches. The more I thought about it, the more necessary such a secretariat seemed. And should there not be observers from these non-Christian religions at the Council?

Early the next morning I telephoned Archbishop Zoa, believing that his reaction would be significant, since he had so many Moslems in his archdiocese. When he favored the project, the next question was, could a bishop be found who might be willing to launch the idea at a press conference?

It so happened that Bishop Anthony Thijssen of Larantuka, Indonesia, was spending a few days in Rome in the same house as I. We discussed the idea of another secretariat, and he told me that, while lecturing in Northern Europe in the previous weeks, he had advocated inviting observers from non-Christian religions to the next ecumenical council, although not to the present one.

Chinese-born Thomas Cardinal Tien was also in Rome at this time, and reacted very favorably to the proposal. He felt that, since the major non- Christian religions were mainly concentrated in Asia, the idea should not be launched by an Indian bishop, as planned, but by a European. In the East we have a saying,” he said, “that you should not invite yourself.” He also believed that the Vatican would more readily accept the proposal if it were made by a European, and he agreed to make a statement to the press in support of the secretariat, once a Council Father had come out publicly in favor of it.

Bishop Thijssen was then contacted again and, after further consultation, agreed to hold a press conference on the subject on April 6. The conference was attended by representatives of all the international news agencies with Rome bureaus, as well as by members of the embassies of India, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia.

Bishop Thijssen explained that he was Dutch by birth, but had been an Indonesian citizen since 1949. “Indonesia is known all over the world for its religious tolerance,” he said. “And 1 myself have many personal friends whom I respect highly, who are Moslems and Hindus.” T. he Bishop said that he would like to see “a special secretariat founded in Rome for the major non-Christian religions of the world.” The advantage of such a secretariat would not be one-sided. “We Catholics, for example, could learn much from the liturgy, culture, and philosophy of these non-Christian religions.” He was not proposing some kind of religious syncretism, he said. “No, not at all! We shall all simply come to understand each other better.”

The Bishop believed that the world would welcome the establishment of such a secretariat. He felt that it was in line with the aspirations of the major non-Christian religions of the world, and in harmony with the spirit of Pope John XXIII, who had said that he wished to be regarded as “a true and sincere friend of all nations.”


Bishop Thijssen was asked to comment on a statement by a Buddhist priest—reported in a Tokyo paper on January 18, 1963—to the effect that, while the Ecumenical Council would do much to promote religious and international harmony, the presence of observers from Buddhism and the other great non-Christian religions “would make the Council even more effective as an instrument of world peace and religious cordiality.” The Bishop replied that, while appreciating the views of the Buddhist priest, he personally considered the proposal premature in relation to the current Council, which was concerned with the internal reform of the Church and unity among Christians. “There would be little of very direct interest” to non-Christian observers, he said. He was deeply convinced, however, “that the formation of a special secretariat for the major non-Christian religions would be of inestimable world-wide value, and would indirectly enrich the religious life of all of us.”

Asked by the representative of the Middle East News Agency whether he had already spoken to the Pope on the subject, the Bishop said that he had not, and that he had wished first to get the reaction of the press, which had its finger on the pulse of the world. He said, too, that he would appreciate the assistance of the press in making the idea known throughout the world.

Another reporter asked the Bishop whether he knew of other Council Fathers who might favor the plan. The Bishop answered that he had spoken on the subject in general terms during the Council with the two Jesuit Indonesian archbishops of Semarang and Djakarta, as well as with Bishop van Bekkum of Ruteng. “All three were in favor of the idea,” he said.

Immediately after the press conference, Bishop Thijssen attempted to speak on the matter with Gregorio Cardinal Agagianian, at the headquarters of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. In the Cardinal’s absence, he was received by Archbishop Pietro Sigismondi, who expressed his pleasure that the Bishop had spoken to the press about a special secretariat for non-Christian religions. He assured the Bishop that he would inform Cardinal Agagianian about it, and that the Cardinal would likewise be very pleased about the press conference. Bishop Thijssen explained to Archbishop Sigismondi that he had not advocated inviting representatives of the non-Christian religions to the Council hall, since so much of the terminology used there would be incomprehensible to them. They would derive more benefit, he felt, from explanations given by the special secretariat outside Council meetings, if the secretariat were to function in conjunction with the Council at all.

On April 8, before leaving Rome for Madrid, Cardinal Tien issued a statement for the press in which he made further suggestions. After pledging his full support for Bishop Thijssen’s proposal, he said, “It is most important that the Catholic Church come to understand better the major non-Christian religions of the world, and that the non-Christian religions come to understand the Catholic Church better.” This could best be done “by establishing a secretariat where outstanding scholars of non-Christian religions could meet and confer with outstanding scholars of the Catholic Church.” As to the date of its establishment, the Cardinal said, “I would like to see it established very soon, so that, when the next session of the Ecumenical Council opens in September, we may have here in Rome representatives of the major non-Christian religions.” He wanted such representatives to be allowed to attend a few meetings inside St. Peter’s basilica, but added that he felt it would be of little value for them to be present regularly.

The two statements of Cardinal Tien and Bishop Thijssen came in the wake of Pope John’s encyclical Pacem in Terris. Many commentators looked upon the proposed secretariat as a practical means of implementing Pope John’s desire for better international understanding among “all men of good will.”

Father Edmund Farhat, a Lebanese priest in charge of the daily newscast in Arabic on Vatican Radio, had attended Bishop Thijssen’s press conference and had become as interested in the project as I. We both felt that no cardinal in the Church was better qualified to head such a secretariat than Cardinal Konig of Vienna. He was internationally known as an expert on non-Christian religions, had written copiously on the subject, and had at one time taught comparative religion at the university level.

We decided to seek out an opportunity to put the idea to him.

All action in the matter was suspended on June 3, with the death of Pope John XXIII. In the weeks that followed, the great question was whether the Council would continue at all.

The world did not have long to wait. On June 22, 1963, the day following his election, Pope Paul VI delivered his first radio message to the city of Rome and to the world, and stated: “The pre-eminent part of our pontificate will be occupied with the continuation of the Second Vatican  Ecumenical Council, on which the eyes of all men of good will are fixed. This will be our principal task, on which we intend to spend all the energies which Our Lord has given us. . . .” The Council would be “the first thought of our Apostolic ministry,” and he pledged to do all in his power “to continue the work of promoting Christian unity so auspiciously begun, with such high hopes, by Pope John XXIII.”

All the cardinals could be expected to remain in Rome until the coronation ceremonies, scheduled for June 30. On June 25, copies of the statements of Cardinal Tien and Bishop Thijssen on the proposed secretariat were mailed to Cardinals Alfrink, Cushing, Frings, Gilroy, Gracias, Konig, Lienart, Meyer, Ritter, Rugambwa, Spellman, Suenens, and Wyszynski. On June 27, Cardinal Frings permitted me to question him on his reactions to the proposed secretariat. He agreed that it might well prove a source of as many blessings to the world as was the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, and added that he could think of no one more qualified to direct it than Cardinal Konig. He undertook to approach Cardinal Konig in the matter.

Father Farhat and I were able to speak to Cardinal Konig on the day of the coronation, June 30. He had already discussed the matter with Cardinal Frings and felt that this was certainly the right time for the establishment of such a body, since the non-Christian religions were bound to show less interest in the Catholic Church after the Council ended. Cardinal Konig said that he would speak to Cardinal Bea about it that afternoon at the coronation ceremonies.

Cardinal Bea, too, was in sympathy with the idea, as was Cardinal Gracias of Bombay. A few days later, Cardinal Lienart wrote that he had read the statements on the proposed secretariat “with very great interest.” In his view, “the idea of establishing a secretariat for non-Christian religions seems opportune, but the decision in this regard pertains to the Sovereign Pontiff.”

With the Cardinal of China and the Cardinal of India favoring the project, as well as Cardinals Bea, Frings, Lienart, Konig, and, presumably, Cardinal Agagianian, the next step was to bring the matter to the attention of Pope Paul VI. And since the matter had to be presented by a cardinal, the logical choice seemed to be Cardinal Tien, who had first given public support to the idea. I therefore approached him on July 3, and asked whether he would write to Pope Paul VI, proposing this new secretariat and suggesting Cardinal Konig as best qualified to act as its president.

The Cardinal agreed, had me write a preliminary draft of the letter, and then asked me to read it back to him. When I was halfway through, he put his hand on my arm and stopped me. Sitting back in his chair, and folding his hands over his chest, he said with a mischievous smile, “I think we should do it the Chinese way.” He explained that it was difficult for him to send such a letter to the new Pope, whom he hardly knew, or to propose the name of one particular cardinal as most suitable to head the new organization. “However,” he suggested, “if you were to write a letter to me, you could explain at length what the functions of such a secretariat might be, mention the names of cardinals and bishops who have expressed their interest in it, and indicate the qualifications of Cardinal Konig for directing the secretariat. You could also say that you have reason to believe that Cardinal Konig would not be averse to being assigned such a task.”

After reaching Taiwan, where he was to fly on the following day, Cardinal Tien would write to Pope Paul, enclosing my letter and stating that he heartily approved of the project. He had one last bit of advice: my letter to him, and his to the Pope, were both to be written in Italian, so that the members of the Roman Curia might be able to read them without difficulty.

On July 21, Cardinal Tien wrote me from Taipei, saying that he had mailed the two letters to the Holy Father as planned. “In my opinion, the Holy Father will not act quickly,” he wrote. “He will first have to ponder the matter, and then confer with other cardinals.”

But on September 12, less than eight weeks after Cardinal Tien’s letter, Pope Paul VI announced that “a secretariat will also be founded in due time for those who are members of non-Christian religions.” There was no indication as to the name of the president of the new secretariat.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION
September 29 to December 4, 1963

THE FULDA CONFERENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

After Pope Paul’s announcement that the second session would open on September 29, 1963, the Council Fathers throughout the world resumed their study of the various schemas. In some countries, such study was undertaken by the episcopal conference as a whole. In the United States, some 125 bishops gathered in Chicago in early August 1963 for an unofficial review of Council questions. The bishops of Argentina met in plenary session from August 6 to 10 to decide their stand on particular Council issues. The Italian episcopal conference met in Rome on August 27 and 28.

The South African bishops met in Pretoria, also in August, and the Spanish episcopal conference met in Madrid in mid-September.

The meeting that drew most attention, however, was the one held at Fulda, Germany, from August 26 to 29.

The Coordinating Commission of the Council convened in Rome on July 3 for a two-day session. It examined and approved the schemas on the missions and matrimony; and on the second day, Cardinal Suenens reported on the schemas on the Church (Part II) and the Church in the Modern World. A proposal for improved press relations during the second session, put forward by Monsignor Vallainc, was also discussed and accepted in principle.

Immediately after that meeting, Cardinal Dopfner contacted Cardinal Frings and Cardinal Konig, with a view to arranging a mutually acceptable schedule for the Fulda conference. The opening date was fixed for August 26.

On July 9, Cardinal Dopfner sent a detailed letter to all Council Fathers in Germany and Austria, inviting them to the conference. As in February, he told them, the Council Fathers of Switzerland and Scandinavia would also be invited, as would Council Fathers “from neighboring lands to the west.”

The letter contained a twelve-point program. It listed successively the twelve schemas approved by Pope John XXIII on April 22, and distributed to Council Fathers, together with the names and addresses of the German or Austrian bishops belonging to the commissions responsible for the schemas concerned. Observations on a particular schema were to be sent to the appropriate bishop, who was to prepare an analysis of the schema and mail it to all participants two weeks before the opening of the conference. At the conference, the author of the analysis was to lead the discussion. On the basis of such discussion, a new and expanded analysis of the schema would be drafted, indicating its positive and negative aspects.
That final text would be forwarded to the General Secretariat of the Council as the common stand taken by the German-speaking Council Fathers assembled at Fulda. Each member and guest of the conference would also receive a printed copy of that final text.

Cardinal Dopfner also wrote that he would endeavor to obtain exact information from Rome as to the order in which the schemas were to be treated. Depending on the answer, he explained, the twelve-point program might be considerably shortened. “As soon as I receive definite word from Rome, I shall pass it on to you.”

When the conference opened on August 26, there were present four cardinals and seventy archbishops and bishops, representing ten countries. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries were represented by nearly all of their archbishops and bishops. France, Belgium, and Holland had representatives; Cardinal Alfrink himself represented Holland. Cardinal Frings presided.

The work carried out by the European alliance at Fulda was very impressive, and it is to be regretted that all national and regional episcopal conferences did not work with the same intensity and purpose. Had they done so, they would not have found it necessary to accept the positions of the European alliance with so little questioning. The Council would then have been less one-sided, and its achievements would truly have been the result of a world-wide theological effort.

Since the position of the German-language bishops was regularly adopted by the European alliance, and since the alliance position was regularly adopted by the Council, a single theologian might have his views accepted by the whole Council if they had been accepted by the German-speaking bishops. There was such a theologian: Father Karl Rahner, S.J.

Technically, Father Rahner was Cardinal Konig’s consultant theologian. In practice, he was consulted by many members of the German and Austrian hierarchy, and he might well be called the most influential mind at the Fulda conference. Cardinal Frings, in private conversation, called Father Rahner “the greatest theologian of the century.”

Bishop Schroffer of Eichstatt, who had been elected to the Theological Commission by the highest number of votes received by any candidate to that Commission, was responsible at Fulda for the three schemas produced by the Theological Commission, namely, the schemas on revelation, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Church. In mid-August, he sent separate analyses of these schemas to each of the Council Fathers invited to Fulda. He explained that these analyses had been prepared by Father Rahner and subsequently examined and commented on by three other German theologians—Father Ratzinger, consultant theologian to Cardinal Frings; Father Aloys Grillmeier, S.J.; and Father Otto Semmelroth, S.J. It had been impossible, the Bishop wrote, to find other theologians to examine the text in the short time available, but those three theologians had fully endorsed Father Rahner’s analyses, expressing only “a few wishes,” which had been incorporated in the text. The extent to which the bishops of Germany and Austria, and the entire Fulda conference, leaned on Father Rahner may be gauged by comparing his original observations with those submitted to the General Secretariat of the Council.

Numerous other criticisms of schemas, as well as some substitute schemas, were distributed either shortly before or immediately following the conference. Abbot Johannes Hoeck, President of the Benedictines of Bavaria, and a member of the Commission on Oriental Churches, wrote to all on attended the Fulda conference, asking for a “yes” or “no” reply to four specific points, so that he would know what stand to take on behalf of the German-speaking and Scandinavian Council Fathers at the meeting of his Commission, which was to begin one week before the opening of the second session.

Each of the German-speaking Council Fathers had been supplied with a total of 480 mimeographed pages of comment, criticism, and substitute schemas by the time he left for the second session. All this work was accomplished in connection with the Munich conference in February and the Fulda conference in August.

A meeting of Council Fathers from so many nations was bound to interest the press, and a succession of newspaper stories appeared with references to a “conspiracy” and an “attack” upon the Roman Curia and some of its representatives. Some of the Council Fathers were styled “progressives,” others “traditionalists,” still others “antiprogressives.” It was insinuated that the Fulda conference was intended to counteract the possible “personal inclinations” of the new Pontiff in regard to the direction to be taken by the Council, which might make it deviate from the path which Pope John had indicated.

Such statements produced a prompt and authoritative reaction. Cardinal Frings gave a press conference at which he said that the conference had been held to discuss the Council schemas. He pointed out that all observations had been transmitted in writing to the competent authorities in Rome. The word “conspiracy” as applied to the Fulda meetings was “an unjust stupidity.” And the German episcopal conference issued a statement expressing “profound consternation” at the “completely absurd” conclusions drawn from the Fulda conference.

On August 26 and 27, the Fulda conference completed its examination of three of the most important Council schemas, those on the Church, divine revelation, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. The numerous proposals were quickly drawn up; they filled a total of fifty-four long typewritten pages. These Cardinal Dopfner took to Rome on August 31, when he left for the fourth meeting of the Coordinating Commission. They were presented to the General Secretariat in the name of the German-speaking Council Fathers and the Episcopal Conference of Scandinavia.

Cardinal Dopfner took this opportunity to visit Pope Paul VI at Castel Gandolfo on September 2. Among other things, they spoke of the Fulda conference. “It was a great relief to me,” Cardinal Dopfner said later, “when I saw that His Holiness had not taken seriously the reports which had appeared in the Italian press about Fulda.” The audience had been “very cordial.” In order to counteract “these press reports, which have received much attention in Italy,” Cardinal Dopfner had discussed with Archbishop Felici an explanation to clarify the issue, which was subsequently published by the Council Press Office in L’Osservatore Romano, on September 4, 1963.

This “explanation” stated that the presence at Fulda of representatives from neighboring episcopal conferences had not been an innovation, but merely a continuation of a practice initiated in Rome during the first session. The purpose of the meeting had been to guarantee “a more careful and serious preparation for the coming Council meetings.” It was also stated that the German-speaking bishops, after their Munich conference and again after their Fulda conference, “had transmitted the results of their studies to others.”

Cardinal Dopfner informed the bishops of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Scandinavia in a letter dated September 7, 1963, of his audience with Pope Paul and of the article published in L’Osservatore Romano through the cooperation of Archbishop Felici. He took the opportunity to inform the Council Fathers that “at the moment the sequence of schemas to be treated at the coming session of the Council is as follows:

(1) the Church; (2) the Blessed Virgin Mary; (3) the bishops; (4) the laity; (5) ecumenism.”

Meanwhile, major changes were being prepared in the organization and procedure governing the Council. These were announced by Pope Paul VI on September 13. “On the advice of certain venerable Council Fathers, he said, he was revising the Rules of Procedure which had been approved thirteen months earlier by Pope John. Under the revised rules, the Presidency received an increase in membership but suffered a loss of power.

The number of Cardinal Presidents was raised from ten to twelve, and their function reduced to that of policing the Council, enforcing the rules, and “solving doubts and difficulties.” They were no longer to have any authority in the matter of the direction of Council discussions.

The new rules placed the responsibility for “directing the activities of the Council and determining the sequence in which topics would be discussed at the business meetings” in the hands of four Cardinal Moderators chosen from the membership of the Coordinating Commission, which had been expanded from six to nine by Pope Paul. The four Moderators chosen by the Pope were Cardinals Dopfner, Suenens, Lercaro, and Agagianian. Cardinal Dopfner was well known for his organizational ability; during the preparatory stages of the Council he had served on the technical-organizational preparatory commission together with the then Cardinal Montini, and throughout the first session he and Cardinal Suenens had served with Cardinal Montini on the seven-member Secretariat for Extraordinary Council Affairs. Cardinal Lercaro was known to be a liberal, an active supporter of the European alliance, and a close personal friend of the Pontiff. Cardinal Agagianian was regarded by the liberals as the most acceptable of the Curial cardinals. It therefore appeared that the Pope, in selecting these four men, was supporting the liberal element in the Council, as his predecessor had done.

By these papal appointments the European alliance grew in power and influence, advancing from control of 30 per cent of the Council Presidency and control of 50 per cent of the Coordinating Commission to control of 75 per cent of the board of Cardinal Moderators. And since Cardinal Agagianian was not a forceful person, the three liberal Cardinal Moderators often had 100-per-cent control.

In addition to this structural reorganization, there were many procedural changes. One of them, for example, provided that, if three commission members so desired, they might invite one or more pend not attached to that commission to attend its meetings. Pope John’s rules had provided that all such periti must be designated by the president of the commission concerned.

At Vatican I, the German, Austrian, and Hungarian Council Fathers had asked Pope Pius IX to authorize a minority group to defend its position before a Council commission, but the Pope had denied the request. Under the new Rules of Procedure approved by Pope Paul VI, “Council Fathers may request a hearing from any commission in order to give their views on the schema under discussion either in their own names, or in the names of a certain number of Council Fathers, or in the name of some region.” The commission was to set aside a special meeting at which such representatives could be heard.

The rules authorized by Pope John left it to the president of the commission to determine who should read the commission report on the Council floor. The new rules provided that this decision rested with the commission as a whole, and not simply with its president. As for the report itself, a new provision ruled that it must represent the majority view of the commission, but also that another relator might be designated to present the minority view.

Still another revision permitted as few as five members of a commission “to substitute another form of a proposed amendment,” and stated that “this new form, together with the original one, or in its place, must be examined by the commission.” Why was the figure set at five? It may have been mere coincidence, but the European alliance had a minimum of five members on every commission.

To preclude the possibility of a procedural deadlock (as had happened in the vote on the schema on the sources of revelation), the new rules provided that a vote on the rejection of a schema, or the postponement of its discussion, required a simple majority only (50 per cent plus one). A two-thirds majority was still required for the approval of schemas, or parts of schemas, or amendments.

The Moderator for the day was empowered, when the list of speakers was exhausted, to give the floor to other Council Fathers who requested it at the same meeting, especially to those relators who asked permission “to illustrate the issue before the Council more clearly, or to refute objections” that had been made. Like the Presidents before them, the Moderators might intervene and have the assembly vote on whether or not discussion on a topic should be discontinued. After such a vote, cardinals, and other Council Fathers as well, were still to be permitted to speak on request, “if they request permission to speak not only in their own names, but also in the names of at least five other Council Fathers.” Even after the discussion was completed, a minority was entitled “to designate an additional three speakers, even among the periti, who are to be granted the privilege of exceeding the ten-minute time limit.”

With a definite policy laid down at Munich and Fulda, which could be revised at the weekly meetings held in the Collegio dell’Anima; with 4S0 pages of comment and substitute schemas; with a German-speaking Council Father on every commission (the Bishop of Fulda was appointed by the Pope to the Commission on Missions when an elected member died in the interim between sessions); with Cardinal Frings on the Council Presidency and Cardinal Dopfner on the Coordinating Commission and serving as one of the Moderators—no other episcopal conference was so well prepared to assume and maintain the leadership at the second session.

It was clear at this point how the discussions would develop. There would be a strong German influence which would make itself felt in nearly every Council decision and statement of any importance. In every Council commission, German and Austrian members and periti would be highly articulate in presenting the conclusions reached at Munich and Fulda. With the Munich and Fulda conferences, the drastic changes that Pope Paul VI had made in the Rules of Procedure, and the promotion of Cardinals Dopfner, Suenens, and Lercaro to the position of Moderators, domination by the European alliance was assured.

[Stone]

THE SECOND SESSION

September 29 to December 4, 1963

OPENING THE SECOND SESSION

In his opening address, on September 29, 1963, Pope Paul VI enumerated four specific objectives of the Second Vatican Council: greater self-awareness by the Church, and understanding of its own nature; renewal within the Church; promotion of Christian unity; and promotion of dialogue with modern man.

The Pope then addressed the observer delegates directly: “We speak now to the representatives of the Christian denominations separated from the Catholic Church, who have nevertheless been invited to take part as observers in this solemn assembly. We greet them from our heart. We thank them for their participation. We transmit through them our message —as a father and a brother—to die venerable Christian communities which they represent.

“Our voice trembles and our heart beats the faster, both because of the inexpressible consolation and reasonable hope that their presence stirs up within us, as well as because of the deep sadness we feel at their prolonged separation.”

Pope Paul also spoke out against religious persecution and political, racial and religious intolerance. Instead of uttering bitter words, however, he preferred “a frank and human exhortation to all who may be responsible for these evils to put aside with a noble heart their unjustified hostility toward the Catholic religion.” He said that Catholics “ought to be considered neither as enemies nor as disloyal citizens, but rather as upright and hard-working members of that civil society to which they belong.” At the same time, he lamented that “atheism is pervading a part of the human race and is bringing in its wake the derangement of the intellectual, moral and social order.”

He also had some words for die great non-Christian religions of the world. “From the window of the Council, opened wide to the world,” the Church looks “beyond its own sphere and sees those other religions which preserve the sense and notion of the one, supreme, transcendent God, Creator and Sustainer, and which worship him with acts of sincere piety and base their moral and social life on their beliefs and religious practices.

It is true that the Catholic Church sees in such religions omissions, insufficiencies and errors which cause it sadness. Yet it cannot exclude them from its thoughts, and would have them know that it esteems the truth and goodness and humanity which they contain.”

Fhe principal concern of the second session, said Pope Paul, was “to examine the intimate nature of the Church and to express in human language, so far as that is possible, a definition which will best reveal the Church s really fundamental constitution and explain its manifold mission of salvation.” It should not come as a surprise, he said, that after twenty centuries there should still be need for the Catholic Church to enunciate a more precise definition of its true, profound and complete nature. Since the Church is “a mystery,” “a reality imbued with the Divine Presence,” it is “ever susceptible of new and deeper investigation.”

The notion of collegiality was the most important aspect of the Church before the Council, said the Pope. He looked forward “with great expectations and confidence to this discussion which, taking for granted the dogmatic declarations of the First Vatican Council regarding the Roman Pontiff, will go on to develop the doctrine regarding the episcopate, its function, and its relationship with Peter.” For him personally, this study, and the conclusions to be drawn from it, would “provide doctrinal and practical standards by which our Apostolic office, endowed though it is by Christ with the fullness and sufficiency of power, may receive more help and support, in ways to be determined, from a more effective and responsible collaboration with our beloved and venerable brothers in the episcopate.”

The thirty-seventh General Congregation—the first business meeting or the second session—opened on the following day, September 30. The first schema before it was the schema on the Church.

At the end of the first session, when that schema had been referred back to the Theological Commission, it had consisted of eleven chapters. Now it consisted of four, headed as follows: “The Mystery of the Church, the Hierarchic Constitution of the Church, with Special Reference to the Episcopate,” “The People of God and the Laity,” and “The Vocation to Sanctity in the Church.”

One of the first items to come up for discussion was the notion of episcopal collegiality, or government of the Universal Church by the Pope in conjunction with the bishops of the world. This was really the core of the entire Second Vatican Council, which was intended to complement the First Vatican Council, in which the primacy of the Pope had been studied in detail and solemnly defined.

In defining the notion of episcopal collegiality, the Council Fathers had to decide: first, whether Christ had intended that, alongside the universal teaching and governing authority of the Pope, there should exist in the Church another body endowed with universal teaching and governing authority—namely, the body of bishops—as successors of the Apostles, according to the constant teaching of the Church; second, if the answer was “yes,” whether all bishops constituted this collegial authority, or only those with dioceses of their own; third, the conditions under which such collegial authority functioned; fourth, the relation between the collegial authority of the bishops and the personal authority proper to the Roman Pontiff.

A problem so complex and many-faceted was bound to elicit various reactions on the Council floor.

Cardinal Siri of Genoa, for instance, maintained that the bishops, “under certain conditions,” certainly constituted a college together with the Roman Pontiff; that was evident from Sacred Scripture and tradition. However, the concept of a college was “strictly juridical” and therefore much more complex than that of a simple association. It implied, in fact, “a juridical solidarity both in being and in action.” Cardinal Siri felt that the wording of the schema should be clearer and better organized, and should be harmonized with what the First Vatican Council had already defined on the papal primacy.

Albert Cardinal Meyer of Chicago supported the statement in the schema that Christ had entrusted his Church to the twelve Apostles as a college, or group. In his view, the text should also state that the office of the Apostles was a permanent one, because of Christ’s, words “I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world” (Mt. 28:20), and . . the Father . . . will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever” (Jn. 14:16). The Cardinal cited numerous scriptural texts to show that episcopal collegiality was as clearly stated in the New Testament as was the foundation of the Church on Peter.

Cardinal Leger of Montreal told the assembly that the concept of episcopal collegiality did not weaken the doctrine of the primacy of Peter, since collegiate action required a head, for the sake of unity. He called for a statement in the text that membership in the episcopal college flowed from episcopal consecration; all bishops, whether residential or only titular, belonged to the episcopal college.

Bishop De Smedt, of Bruges, said that episcopal collegiality “had always existed in the Church” and should be emphasized more than ever today in order that “Peter”—the Pope—-might more effectively carry out his function of strengthening his brethren. Former barriers to rapid communication had been removed by scientific progress, he said, and it was therefore desirable and even imperative that the Holy Father, “in matters of graver importance,” should communicate with the other bishops and with episcopal conferences.

Archbishop Staffa, of the Roman Curia, addressed the assembly on the “full and supreme power of the episcopal college.” The question at issue, he said, was whether this power belonged to only one person, or to the entire college. The reply to the question had already been given, he pointed out, by the First Vatican Council, which had defined that only Peter had supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church. He recalled, in that connection, that the relator at Vatican I had said, in explanation of the text on the primacy, that the power of the Pope over the bishops was at all times supreme, immediate, and complete, and that the Pope had that power independently of the bishops. Archbishop Staffa also pointed out that the relator had rejected proposals which would have limited the Pope’s power by placing supreme power in the episcopal college, which included the Pope. The monarchic structure of the Church would thereby have been replaced by an aristocratic structure. As long ago as the thirteenth century, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) had written to the Patriarch of Constantinople, saying that Christ had given power in the Church not to others without Peter, but to Peter without others.

At the forty-fourth General Congregation, on October 9, Archbishop Sigaud, of Diamantina, Brazil, called for special caution in the phrasing of episcopal collegiality. The Archbishop, who called himself a traditionalist, said that a comparison of Articles 12, 13, and 16 of the schema made it appear that “some new doctrine” was being taught—namely, that the twelve Apostles, with Peter as head, constituted together a true and permanent college strictly so called, and “even by divine institution.”

The Archbishop feared that most serious consequences would flow from this doctrine. “If by divine institution the bishops and the Pope constitute a true and permanent college, strictly so called, then the Church must habitually and ordinarily (not extraordinarily) be ruled by the Pope with the college of bishops. In other words, the government of the Church, by divine institution, is not monarchical or personal, but collegial.” But the exercise of collegial authority by bishops, as in ecumenical councils, was a rare event in the history of the Church, and must therefore be regarded as an extraordinary—not an ordinary—manner of governing the Universal Church.

The traditional Catholic teaching in the matter, he said, was that every bishop, on his appointment to office by the Pope, “receives the duty and, consequently, the authority of exercising the episcopal office among the faithful committed to him, within the territorial limits indicated to him by the competent authority.” There was a distinction, he pointed out, between acts performed by bishops collectively, and those performed collegially. An example of collective action was the gathering of many bishops of one ecclesiastical province or nation, the efficacy of which was not derived from divine institution and could not be said to have been collegially produced. The decisions of such gatherings had only “a juridical efficacy, that is, they oblige within a diocese only if the Roman Pontiff approves of such decisions as binding by virtue of his own full and universal power; or if the bishop of the diocese concerned, by virtue of his own jurisdiction, approves such decisions as binding for his own diocese.

Two “very dangerous precipices” must be avoided, said Archbishop Sigaud. In the first place, “we must avoid the establishment of some world institution which would be like a permanent ecumenical council, to which some bishops would be elected or delegated by others, and who would carry out the duties of the entire episcopal college. In this way, together with the Roman Pontiff, they would perform acts which were truly collegial, in a habitual and ordinary manner, and their efficacy would be extended by divine institution to the Universal Church.” Such an organism, said the Archbishop, would be a kind of “world parliament” within the Church. But, he pointed out, Christ had most certainly not established such an organism, because for twenty centuries the Roman Pontiffs and bishops had been wholly unaware of it. “On the contrary, it is clear to all that Christ the Lord conferred the supreme government of his Church upon the person of Peter, to be personally exercised, first, indeed, by Peter himself, and then by Peter’s successors.”

Another form of organism was also to be avoided, namely, “some kind of permanent national or regional council, in which a number of bishops of one nation or region would make juridical or doctrinal decisions. The Roman Pontiff would be unable, in practice, to deny assent to these judgments, and thus all bishops of the same nation or region would be bound.” It was clear that “such bodies would present very serious impediments . . . to the exercise of the supreme ordinary power by the Holy Father, and also to that of ordinary power by the individual bishop.”

Archbishop Sigaud had scarcely returned to his place in the Council hall when he received a message from Bishop Carli, of Segni, congratulating him on his address. This was the beginning of a firm friendship between the two prelates. Archbishop Sigaud subsequently introduced Bishop Carli to French-born Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers. The two archbishops had met in the first week of the first session and had formed a piccolo comitato (small committee) aimed at opposing certain ideas which they considered extreme, and which, they felt, were being forced upon many of the Council Fathers by the strong episcopal conferences, especially those of the European alliance. They now invited Bishop Carli to join their midget alliance; the bishop accepted the invitation. Cardinal Dopfner later admitted that there was no bishop at the Council whom he feared more.

In an exclusive interview, Archbishop Lefebvre told me that he saw no threat to the papacy in powerful episcopal conferences, but that he did regard them as a threat to the teaching authority and pastoral responsibility of individual bishops. He could speak on the matter with authority, having founded the national episcopal conferences of Madagascar, Congo-Brazzaville, Cameroun, and French West Africa while serving as Apostolic Delegate for French-Speaking Africa from 1948 to 1959.

It was easy to conceive, said the Archbishop, that “three, four, or five bishops in a national episcopal conference will have more influence than the rest and will take over leadership." This he called “a danger to the teaching and pastoral authority of the individual bishop, who is the divinely constituted teacher and pastor of his flock.” Referring specifically to the conference of archbishops of France, he said that at times this conference would issue a joint statement on social or pastoral questions. “It is then very difficult for an individual bishop to disagree with the public stand that has been taken, and he is simply reduced to silence.” Archbishop Lefebvre called this “a new and undesirable power over the diocesan bishop.”

He went further, saying that it was “a new kind of collectivism invading the Church.” The present tendency in the Council hall, he said, was to make national episcopal conferences so strong that “individual bishops would be so restricted in the government of their dioceses as to lose their initiative.” An individual bishop might contradict a national episcopal conference, “but then his clergy and laity would be in a quandary, not knowing whether to follow their own bishop or the conference.”

A restrictive influence was already at work in the Council, the Archbishop maintained, “because minority groups in various nations are not speaking out as they should, but are silently going along with their national episcopal conferences.” What was needed, he said, “at this Catholic Council,” was not a grouping of Council Fathers on national or linguistic lines, as hitherto, “but a grouping ... on international lines, by schools of thought and special tendencies.” In that way, it would be possible to see what the bishops thought, rather than what the nations thought. “For it is the bishops, not the nations, that make up the Council.”

The outstanding French theologian Father Yves Congar, O.P., agreed that episcopal conferences raised a difficult problem affecting the Church in very vital areas. Such conferences, he maintained, must not obliterate the personal responsibility of bishops by imposing on them the dictates of an organization, nor must they even remotely threaten Catholic unity.

Once more, the Council was headed for conflict.