Advent Series – Session 2 Remebering the Second Vatican Council First Year of the Council
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ADVENT SERIES – SESSION 2 REMEBERING THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL FIRST YEAR OF THE COUNCIL: 1962 FIRST SESSION OF THE COUNCIL: October 11 to December 8, 1962 UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF POPE JOHN XXIII General Organizational Structure: Each of the general meetings had three different “leadership” groups in charge. 1. the Council of Presidents – 10 members, cardinals, named by John XXIII, sat at a table up front in St. Peter’s Basilica, chaired by Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the College of Cardinals – job: to direct the councils discussions. 2. the Secretariat for Extraordinary Affairs, ‐ 7 members, cardinals, named by John XXIII, chaired by Cardinal Cigognani, Secretary of State – job: to help the presidents resolve procedural conflicts and to help the council run more efficiently. 3. the Secretary General – Cardinal Felici, named by John XXIII – job: to run the day‐to‐day operations of the Council such as printing and distribution documents, etc. Problems as the Beginning of the Council: 1st Problem – over‐lapping authorities. For example, as Secretary of State, Cigognani had access to the Pope at any time. When he met with him was it as Secretary of State or as Secretary of Extraordinary Affairs of the council. 2nd Problem – the sheer quantity of printed material the bishops were expected to read and digest. Before arriving in Rome they had received 7 schemas – which were to be discussed at the council. However in addition they had received roughly seventy documents prepared by The Preparatory Commission. 3rd Problem – there seemed to be no coherent theme in all the material. The documents seemed to be a scattershot of all kinds of ideas – except to confirm the status quo. Agenda Item #1: Schema – Sacrosanctum Concilium [On the Sacred Liturgy] This appeared as the first document to be discussed because it had received the least amount of criticism before hand; and because it seemed well structured. In addition ever since Pius X and especially Pius XII, the “Fathers of the Church” were familiar with the idea of changes in the liturgy. BACKGROUND; However, there is a bit of background to this document and its genesis. January, 1962 Cardinal Gaetano Cigognani, prefect of the Congregation of Rites (branch of the Curia that ‘controlled’ liturgy) and elder brother of the Amleto Cigognani who was the Secretary of State, was named chair of the Preparatory Commission on the liturgy. Annibale Bugnini, a priest and well known liturgist, who had actually been consultant to Pius XII, served as the secretary of the commission. The commission itself had 65 members. By January of 1962 there was a document prepared. However Gaetano Cigognani was gravely ill; and he refused to sign the document – parts he didn’t like. Cardinal Felici, worried that the document would not be ready for the opening of the Council, appealed to John XXIII, who then “had a talk” with his Secretary of State, Amleto Cigognani (the other one), who convinced his brother (Gaetano Cigognani) to sign off. February, 1962 Gaetano Cigognani died and John XXIII named Cardinal Larraono as the new prefect of the Congregation of Rites, which made him now head of the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy. He aligned himself up as one of the more conservative members of the Council. It was also at this time that John XXIII issued his encyclical Veterum Sapeintia, the Apostolic Constitution that insisted on the intensification of study of Latin semenaries. October, 1962 As was expected Cardinal Larraona was appointed Head of the Liturgical Commission at the Council itself. One of his first acts was to replace Fr. Bugnini with Ferdinando Antonelli, a priest working in the Curia. Larraona considered Bugnini too progressive and held him responsible for the disagreeable schema ha had inherited. The rumor was that the change was at the instigation of Cardinal Ottaviani. In addition Fr. Bugnini was almost immediately relieved of his teaching duties at the Lateran University. Word spread fast and many at the council construed this as further evidence of machinations by the Curia to control the council at all cost, by any means. General Session: October 22, 1962 Cardinal Larraona took the floor and introduced Fr. Antonelli who spoke for about twenty minutes introducing the document “On the Liturgy”. He made two general points: 1. Just as the Council of Trent and Vatican I had mandated revision and emendation of liturgical texts, experets were now unanimously convinced that, while holding fast to the liturgical tradition of the church, similar changes in texts and rites were needed “to accommodate them to the ethos and needs of our day.” 2. A great pastoral problem has to be addressed – the faithful had become ‘mute spectators’ At Mass. He then traced how this problem had been already attended to by Pius X and Pius XII, and he offered that this document was in line with these prior papal teachings and actions. In this development he listed five criteria for evaluating the changes proposed in the schema: a. preserve the legitimate liturgical patrimony of the church; b. there would be these few principles to guide a general renewal of the liturgy c. the practical and rubrical directions would be derived from a doctrinal base d. it would focus on instilling in the clergy a deeper sense of the “liturgical spirit’ so that they could be effective teachers of the faithful e. it would take as its aim leading the faithful into an ever more active participation in the liturgy. He never mentioned the burning issue of the day – vernacular languages in the Mass. He simply reminded the Fathers of the Council that the document had been approved by the Preparatory Commission and was ready for their examination and discussion. THE DOCUMENT: The schema presented to the Bishops had 105 sections and ran for 25 pages. The Preface picked up on two of the general themes of the council: to adapt the liturgy better to conditions of modern life and to foster Christian unity. In it the crucial link between liturgy and ecclesiology was made. Chapter 1 then sets out a number o major themes that were “new” to the normal understanding and practice of the liturgy. Item #1: the “mystery of Christ” as “the Paschal Mystery” was made for the first time. [In the past the focused redemption almost exclusively on the suffering and death of Jesus; now it was defined as Christ’s passion, death, resurrection, and glorification.] In this way it proposed a new type of spirituality by insisting that the liturgy is a source of nourishment for one’s spiritual life – a call to holiness that God through the church addresses to all men and women. Item #2: Chapter 1 was also important for its insistence on active participation by everyone in the congregation. Such participation was the right and duty of every Christian. It was demanded by the very nature of the liturgy and was conferred upon the faithful by virtue of their baptism. [This was a complete counterpoint to the traditional approach to liturgy where all the action was located in the priest‐celebrant.] Item #3: Chapter 1 also set forth the principle that whatever obscured or distracted from the essential meaning of the liturgical celebrations was to be eliminated. Intelligibility and simplicity were thus to be the norms. Item #4: Chapter 1 also returned the role of “the Word” in the liturgy – and introduced a new centrality of Scripture in Catholic preaching and piety. Item #5: Chapter 1 also set out the idea that while the essential structure of the Roman Rite was to be maintained, local adaptation, especially in mission territories, was legitimate and encouraged. Greater autonomy was to be granted to bishops in making adaptations appropriate to their cultures. Item #6: Finally with regard to Latin Chapter 1 states … Latin is to be retained in the liturgies of the Western church. Since, however, ‘in some ties it is clear that the vernacular has proved by useful for the people, it should be given a wider role in liturgy, especially in readings, announcements, certain prayers, and music. Let it be left to episcopal conferences in different parts of the world, in consultation if need be with bishops of nearby regions speaking the same language, to propose tro the Holy See the degree and the modes for admitting vernacular languages into the liturgy. The remaining chapters of the document then go on to concrete applications and directives. Some examples: Chapter 2 – In Mass let a suitable place be made for the vernacular, especially in the readings, in prayers, and in some canticles, in accordance with article 24 of this Constitution. Chapter 2 – called for the reception of the Eucharist by the faithful on certain occasions under the form of both bread and wine. Chapter 3 – very vague and simply states “Let the rite and formula of the Sacrament of Penance be revised so as more clearly to express the effect of the Sacrament. After Antonelli presented a summary of these ideas in the document, the floor was open to the Fathers of the Council for comment. The first six speakers that day included some who would turn out to be among the most influential in the whole Council. Cardinal Frings of Cologne (sitting at the Presidents Table ‐ progressive): “The schema before us is like the last will and testament of Pius XII, who, following in the footsteps of Saint Pius X, boldly began a renewal of the sacred liturgy.” This would be a leitmotif of the majority – the council was carrying forward work that had already begun. Cardinal Ruffini (sitting a the Presidents Table ‐ conservative): Criticized the text for being too focused on the Roman rite; reminded the fathers that only the Congregation of Rites could make changes in the liturgy; and did not support the document.