sign in sign up
<<
Home , Carlo Confalonieri, Fernando Cento, Ildebrando Antoniutti, Papabile, Roman Rite, Sacrament of Penance

ADVENT SERIES – SESSION 2 REMEBERING THE

FIRST YEAR OF THE COUNCIL: 1962

FIRST SESSION OF THE COUNCIL: October 11 to December 8, 1962

UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF 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, of the – 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 were expected to read and digest. Before arriving in 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 [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 ” 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, of the Congregation of (branch of the that ‘controlled’ liturgy) and elder of the Amleto Cigognani who was the Secretary of State, was named chair of the Preparatory Commission on the liturgy. , a 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 Veterum Sapeintia, the Apostolic that insisted on the intensification of study of 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 and Vatican I had mandated revision and emendation of liturgical texts, experets were now unanimously convinced that, while holding fast to the liturgical 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 . 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 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 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 – 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 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 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 ” was made for the first time.

[In the past the focused redemption almost exclusively on the suffering and death of ; now it was defined as Christ’s passion, death, resurrection, and .]

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 .

[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 preaching and piety.

Item #5: Chapter 1 also set out the idea that while the essential structure of the Roman 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 , and music. Let it be left to episcopal conferences in different parts of the , in consultation if need be with bishops of nearby regions speaking the same language, to propose tro the 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 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 of 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 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 ; reminded the fathers that only the Congregation of Rites could make changes in the liturgy; and did not support the document.

Cardinal Lercaro of (possible papabili at the death of John XXIII – moderate) – supported the document, especially because of its pastoral concerns.

Cardinal Montini of (possible papabili at the death of John XXIII – moderate) –also supported the document, and called for more vernacular, in moderation.

Cardinal Spellman of New York – never said whether he liked or disliked the document‐ simply advised caution. He did opposed introduction of the vernacular into the Mass. [Note: while at first he was dominant in the US Bishops conference; this influence later waned.]

Cardinal Dopfner of Munich – praised the document; and then directly in contradiction to Spellman, called for the vernacular even in the Mass.

OUTSIDE THE COUNCIL:

Bishops from “new churches” began holding press conferences to talk about their ideas of the liturgy – all urging use of the vernacular .

Bishop Willem van Bekkum of Ruteng, Indonesia Eugene D’Souza of Nagpur, India Lawrence Nagae of Urawa, Japan

October 24, 1962 His Beatitude, Maximos IV Saigh, of the Melkite , rose and spoke (to the consternation of the Fathers of the Council – in French – and not Latin as required):

The almost absolute value assigned to Latin in the liturgy, in teaching, and in the administration of the strikes us from the Eastern church as strange. Christ after all spoke the language of his contemporaries … In the East there has never been a problem about the liturgical language. All languages are liturgical, as the psalmist says, ‘Praise the Lord, all ye people.’ The Latin language is dead. But the church is living, and its language, the vehicle of the grace of the , also be living because it is intended for us human beings not for angels.

He made two suggestions: 1. Instead of saying that Latin was to be kept as the language of the liturgy, the text should be emended to say simply that it is the original and language of the Roman Rite. 2. Instead of saying that the episcopal conferences propose to the Holy See whatever use of the vernacular they think appropriate, the text should say that the conferences decide, subject to the approval of the Holy See.

October 30 Cardinal Ottaviani – got up to decry the schema. He insisted that the Mass not be changed; that reception of the Eucharist under both forms was a bad idea; that was a bad idea. He complained that while some were quoting Pius XII in their support, they had forgotten what he said about keeping Latin in the liturgy. He was well over his 10‐minute allotted time and so Cardinal Alfrink (presiding that day) called him to halt. No one had ever done that before. “I’ve finished. I’ve finished. I’ve finished.” He yelled, ‐ at which point the basilica broke out into applause. Ottaviani, insulted and humiliated, boycotted the council for the next two weeks.

Discussion of this document then continued from October 22 to November 13 – three weeks, fifteen sessions, with 328 interventions from the floor and 297 submitted in writing.

Problem – how to end the discussion. Again “The Regulations” had no procedures for this. So on Nov 6 Pope John again intervened allowing the presidents to close discussion if they felt an issue had been adequately addressed.

November 14, Cardinal Tisserant, the presiding president of the day, called for a closure vote. Final tally 2,162 votes in favor; 46 opposed.

In the next Session II, 1963 the council would overwhelmingly approve of the document with its emendations. The final vote would be 2,147 in favor, 4 against. This was the first document approved by the council and compared with the others, was remarkable for how little it had changed from the original version. At the end Session II would be the first document promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

RESULT: By approving Sacrosanctum the council set in motion a programmatic reshaping of virtually every aspect of liturgy unlike anything that had ever been attempted before.

January 3, 1964 Pope Paul VI appointed Fr. Bugnini was name secretary to a new commission to implement and interpret Sacrosanctum. It was to be headed by Cardinal Lercaro … but was no longer attached to the Congregation of Rites still under control of Larraona.

This document was the start of four principles that would guide both other documents within the council and subsequent directives and documents that would implement it:

Principle #1: Adaptation to contemporary circumstances. Principle #2: Adaptation to local circumstances Principle #3: Principle of episcopal authority at the local level. Principle #4: Principle of engagement and active responsibility.

Agenda Item #2: De Fontibus: Schema – [On the Sources of ]

November 14, 1962 As the same day as the vote on Sacrosanctum took place, Cardinal Ottaviani rose to introduce the schema “On the Sources of Revelation”. As part of his address he noted:

You have heard many people speak about the lack of a pastoral tone of this schema. Well, I say that the first and most fundamental pastoral task is to provide correct doctrine. “Teach!” The Lords’ greatest commandment is precisely that: “Teach all peoples!” Teaching correctly is what is fundamental to being pastoral. Those who are concerned with a pastoral can later give the church’s teaching a fuller pastoral expression. But take notice: councils speak in a style that is orderly, lucid, concise, and not in the style of a or a pastoral letter of some , or other, nor even in the style of an encyclical of the Supreme Pontiff. This style of council discourse is sanctioned by its use through the ages.

Then Fr. Salvatore Garofalo, secretary of the Doctrinal Commission that produced this schema, began to outline its content. He started with …

Everybody knows that the principal task of an is to defend and promote Catholic doctrine.

The schema consisted of five chapters. Chapter One: On the Sources of Revelation – Scripture and Tradition as two sources of revelation Chapter Two: On the Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Literary Composition of the Scriptures – every part of scripture was inspired by God, who as the principal author moved the human author to write what he intended. That inspiration meant that Scripture was entirely free from error in both religious and secular matters. Chapter Three: On the – the whole for the Old Testament and what gives it its momentum is movement to the in which its full meaning is made clear. Chapter Four: On the New Testament – condemned the errors that called into question the historical accuracy of the accounts of Jesus’ words and deeds. It also condemned the errors that attributed Christ’s words not to him but to the evangelist, or worse, to the teaching of the early Christian community. Chapter Five: On Sacred Scripture in the Church – again sanctioned the as the only legitimate translation of the scriptures; warned that the faithful reading the scriptures must adhere to the magisterial interpretations of the text.

When Garofalo was finished

 Bishop Lienart rose and proclaimed: non placet (unacceptable). The text must be completely revised.  Bishop Bringe got up and proclaimed: non placet (unacceptable).  Bishop Ruffini rose to defend it; and so did Bishop Siri.  But then Cardinal Leger of Montreal rose and proclaimed: non placet.  Then Cardinal Konig of Vienna rose and proclaimed: non placet.  Then Cardinal Alfrink of Utrecht rose and proclaimed: non placet.  Even Cardinal of Saint Louis, breaking with Spellman and McIntrye rose and proclaimed: non placet.  Then it was Cardinal Bea who rose and asked for an entirely new document.

This avalanche of no’s was not unexpected. As in the case of the Schema on the Liturgy, there was a lot going on behind the scenes and before the schema was actually presented to the Fathers of the Council.

 Cardinal Konig had asked to look it over. He wrote a “Disuisitio” recommending starting all over which was passed around to the bishops “under wraps”.  Cardinal Alfrink had asked Schillebeeck to review the document. His “Anima adversiones” also was circulated among the bishops “under wraps”.  In fact the German Bishops had Ratzinger and Rahner draw up an alternative schema – contrary to the rules of The Regulations of the Council – and had them passes around to the bishops “under wraps”.

A week before the schema was presented the Secretariat for Christian Unity met under the leadership of Cardinal Bea. They were frustrated because they had been “cold shouldered” by Ottavianni about the schema. They plotted their strategy – which was to suggest that a “mixed” commission be set up with members from both the Secretariat and the Doctrinal Commission to produce a more acceptable document.

The day before the schema was presented, the Conference of Delegates had met with representatives from a large number of episcopal conferences around the world. What to do about the schema. Most members opposed it.

Therefore before November 14, many bishops already knew that the schema was in trouble.

Problems with the schema:

Problem #1: the treatment of scripture and tradition in Chapter One – as sources of revelation. Even Trent and Aquinas had proclaimed that it was the preaching of Christ and the Apostles which were the source – transmitted in two ways – written books and unwritten . The schema presented ideas that seemed debatable or even incorrect interpretations from the era of the Counter overly simplified in the seminary texts of the 19th century. ‐it seemed to deny any intrinsic relationship between scripture and tradition ‐it implied that tradition had a larger content than scripture and could be developed without limit (e.g. the development of Marian theology) ‐did not underscore the unique role of scripture in the Church

Problem #2: the language of the schema was academic, was accusatory, failed utterly to be pastoral.

This was to be the critical issue of the council. By November 19 Cardinal Siri (Curia) sensed the impending calamity. He wrote in his diary: ‘The situation is serious if the shcema fails tomorrow! Lord help us! Holy , , pray for us! You [Mary} can obtain for us the victory, you who alone have overcome all throughout the world.”

The discussion on De Fontibus lasted for less than two weeks, with only 85 speeches from the floor – most sharply critical of the schema.

There were two notable interventions:

The Patriach Maximos IV Saigh ended with the following observation: Where he asked was the schema on the church? Why had the Doctrinal Commission not released it? That was the schema he asserted for which everyone was waiting. Vatican I, with its emphasis on the papacy, gave a partial view of the church, which seemed to reduce the rest of the body – bishops, clergy, and the faithful – to dwarfs drained of life and energy. The task the council faced was to reestablish the proper balance between the prerogatives of the head and those of the rest of the church. The schema on the church would have to be the centerpiece of the council’s work, and it would determine how the fathers would deal with all other questions.”

Bishop Emile‐Joseph DeSmedt of Bruges, speaking on behalf of the Secretariat for Christian Unity,l spent the first half talking about the necessity for discourse as the style of the church. He then went on to state that De Fontibus may or may not speak clearly, but it was certainly not ecumenical because more was required than lucidity. In its preparation of De Fontibus the commission had refused every offer of help from the Secretariat. Now, speaking for the Secretariat, De Smedt had to assert that from the ecumenical viewpoint the document was notably deficient. When he finished applause broke out.

DeSmedt’s speech raised the stakes. All at once on the floor of St. Peter’s the bishops witnessed the spectacle of an officially constituted body of the council, now enjoying the status of a commission, asserting that it could not accept the work o another.

When the session ended the Council of Presidents met and decided to put it to a vote on whether to continue discussion of this schema or not.

November 20, 1962 Felici put the question to the council in the unfortunate form decided upon by the presidents: Should the discussion be interrupted? A yes vote (placet) meant a vote against the schema, where a no vote (non placet) was a vote in favor of it. Confusion reigned. Felici had to try three more times on the exact wording of the vote. In the end, yes meant no and no meant yes. The results: 1,368 voted for closing debate (and therefore against the schema), 822 for continuing the debate. A clear victory for the majority – BUT not enough according to the Regulations (needed two thirds majority – short by 105 votes).

November 21, 1962 At this Session, when Mass was completed, Felici was given a note from Pope John XXIII. It said in part that “Yielding to the wishes of many, John had decided to refer the document to a ‘mixed commission’ made up of members of botht he Doctrinal Commission and the Secretariat for Christian Unity. The task of this new commission would be to emend the schema, shorten it, and make it more suitable, with an emphasis especially on general principles.

It seems some behind closed politics took place. During the evening of Nov 20 the Canadian Bishops had scheduled an audience with the Pope. At that meeting Cardinal Leger took a few moments to speak to the pope privately. He spoke “frankly” about the situation, although what was said has not been recorded. The next morning came the intervention of the Pope at Mass.

Everyone was relieved. What was clear was that with this intervention the control that the Doctrinal Commission was trying to hold over the council had been thwarted (although not eliminated). However, this particular schema would take another three years of trial and tribulation before it finally emerges in the last session as , totally different than the schema of De Fontibus.

This event marked the turning point of the council. And it became clear that something of great significance was afoot in the council. As stated in the French Journal “Etudes”: With the vote on November 20 we can consider the era of the Counter Reformation ended and a new era for , with unforeseeable consequences, begun”

Agenda Item #3: On the Mass Media

The discussion was perfunctory, generally favorable, and lasted only three days. The assembly approved the schema by an over‐whelming majority, sent it back to commission for minor revisions, and saw it promulgated the next year at the end of Session 2. For the Father of the Church it was good to proceed with this document without all the drama and rancor of the prior two.

Agenda Item #4: De Ecclesiae Unitate (On the Unity of the Church)

This schema dealt with the relations between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. The text was prepared by the Commission for the Oriental Churches under Cardinal Cigognani without input from the Theological Commission or the Secretariat for Christian Unity. The schema was criticized by almost everyone and rejected.

November 30 The president called upon the council fathers to approve terminating discussion by simply rising from their chairs. All rose…says the minutes. The next day the chair proposed a motion that praised the schema for its good intentions but required that the issues it dealt with be incorporate into other documents of the council. Eventually these would become part of the on . The motion passed 2,068 votes in favor; 36 opposed.

Agenda Item #5: De Ecclesia (On the Church)

December 1 Cardinal Ottavianni introduced this document (Many bishops were upset because they had only received copies of the schema a week before hand).

“The concern of those who prepared the schema was that it be as pastoral and biblical as possible, not academic, and that it be done in a form comprehensible by everybody. I say this because I expect to hear the usual from the fathers of the council – it’s academic, it’s not ecumenical, it’s not pastoral, it’s negative, and other things like that.

Further, I’ll tell you what I really think. I believe that I and the speaker for the commission are wasting our words because the outcome has already been decided. Those whose constant cry is “Take it away! Take it away! Give us a new schema!” are now ready to pen fire. I’ll tell you something you may not know: even before this schema was distributed – Listen to me! Listen to me! – even before it was distributed, an alternative schema had already been produced. Yes, even before the merits of this schema have been looked at the jury has rendered its verdict. I have no choice now but to say no more because, as Scripture teachers, when nobody is listening words are a waste of time.”

He was correct. An alternative schema was ready – written by a Fr. Gerard Philips (a membe of Ottavianni’s own Preparatory Theological Commission) at the urging of Cardinal Suenen, who in turn had been urged by Cardinal Cicognani (Secretary of State) the chair of the council’s Secretariate for Extraordinary Affairs to have an alternative text ready.

At the same time both Rahner and Schillebeeckx had circulated their own critiques of the original schema.

After Ottavianni, then Bishop Frane Fanic of Split‐Makarasa, Yugoslavia (Croatia) presented the schema. It contained seven chapters, and he did little but list them. It was long, eighty‐two pages, and ranged widely with chapters 1. on the nature of the church militant, 2. on church membership, 3. on the episcopacy,4. on religious orders, 5. on the , 6. on the Church’s , 7. on authority and obedience, 8. on church‐state relations, and finally 9. on ecumenism.

When the debate opened there were no salvos, like with De Fontibus. Rejection was slow to build. Actually one of the first to state this rejection was Cardinal Ritter of St. Louis who had now replaced Spellman and McIntyre as leader of the American contingent. He called for a reworking of the document.

De Smedt , however, did not mince words. He delivered one of the most famous and most quote speeches of the council when he denounced the schema for its three ‘‐isms’ – triumphalism, clericalism and juridicism – in scathing terms.

Three days later Cardinal Fringe spoke in the name of the German conference and asserted that the schema was imply not “catholic” enough. He pointed out that this document only took into account the last 100 years (as could be noted by the text footnotes – all dating from the 19th century) and ignored the universal church both in time and space.

The critics of De Ecclesiae saw it as expressing an inadequate vision of the church because it moved in the tradition of a polemical mentality that took off in the sixteenth century in opposition to Protestantism, and intensified and got more authoritatively codified in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries in opposition to modernism.

December 4 There were only a few days left before the First Session would end (December 8). The bishops were worried. So much to do; so little time to do it; and so little coordination.

Cardinal Suenens got up an spoke. Another critical moment in the council had arrived. He proposed a program for proceeding with the Council in the future.

BACKGROUND: Before the Council Suenens had been dismayed by the uncoordinated production of documents coming out of the various preparatory commissions – and the lack of any direction to the whole thing. In one of his Lenten Suenens presented the idea that the Church should look inward at itself and look outward to the world. In addition that the church should emphasize what unites Catholics with others, not what separates.

John XXIII liked these ideas. He asked Suenens to develop a plan which was then forward secretly to a number of select cardinals. They met at the Belgian College in Rome. In attendance: Dopfner, Montini, Siri, Lienart and Suenens. It came too late for re‐organizing the council. It’s plans were in motion. But on December 4, Suenens presented his ideas to the council fathers.

He first proposed that the council should have a general theme: the Church of Christ, light to the world (Ecclesia Christi, ) ‐the first part of this statement asks the question directed to the Church: What do you say of yourself? ‐the second part of this statement: How are you to relate to others?

And so the council should proceed by engaging in three : 1. a with its own members 2. a dialogue with brothers and sisters not now visibly united with it 3. a dialogue with the modern world And asked the council fathers to adopt this plan for its future work.

There was prolonged applause! It did three things: a. it moved the Council away from a scattershot approach to all kinds of unrelated topics b. it contributed to the conviction that the current set of schema needed more than “touching up” c. it sowed the seeds for an entirely new document not forseen up to this point – “The Church in the Modern World” It was this speech more than any that distance Vatican Council II from the “long nineteenth century”.

December 5 Montini stood and agreed with the Suenens recommendation and also added that he felt very dissatisfied with the current schema on De Ecclesia. He called for the schema to be submitted to the proper commissions for revision, one of which was to be the Secretariat for Christian Unity. His support important – because he was seen as cautious and moderate, was a leader of a generally conservative Italian conference, and was considered .

December 6 John XXIII established goals and procedures for the Council’s Interim. One was to establish a “Coordinating Commission” with the Secretary of State as its president – to attend to rewriting of the schema and of initiating the new direction of the Council suggested by Suenens.

As for “De Ecclesia” seventy‐seven speeches on the text had been given. But given the new directives from John XXIII on the interim procedures, there was now no longer a need for a “quick vote”. It would automatically go back to the commissions for revision.

December 8 Concluding Open Session concluding with an allocution by John XXIII – the last time most of the council fathers were to see or hear him.

FIRST INTERSESSION: DECEMBER 1962 TO SEPTEMBER 1963

Three Major Events Took Place:

A. Establishment of the Coordinating Committee to help make sense out of what was going on in the Council and how it should proceed into the Future. B. Death of John XXIII C. The Conclave and election of Paul VI

FIRST EVENT: Coordinating Committee

After the first session two major problems recognized: 1. Pope John’s naming curial cardinals as heads of the Preparatory Commissions 2. Dealing with the sheer number of documents prepared by those committees

To deal with this – December 6 a “supper commission” was created by John XXIII – the Coordinating Committee Task: to expedite the agenda, resolve conflicts among the heads of the commissions, and see that the documents responded to the aims of the council President: Cigognani (Secretary of State – also President of the Councils Secretariat of Extra Affairs, and President of the Commission on the Oriental Churches. Six others named: Dopfner, Lienart, Spellman, Suenens, Urbani and – last was from the Curia but not aligned with the conservative group (Ottaviani, Larraona and Browne)

First Meeting: January 21‐27: Reduced and produced 17 texts – which from this point on would be the focus of the Council. No 17 – the Presence of the Church in the Modern World – brand new. In the council it would be known first as Schema 17; then as some of the schema’s were eliminated, Schema 13. The document was to be produced by a joint commission – The Doctrinal Commission (Ottaviani) and the Commission on the Apostolate of the Laity (Cardinal ).

No 1 – the old De Fontibus, underwent revision under the joint direction of the Doctrinal Commission (Ottaviani) and the Commission for Ecumenism (Cardinal Bea) –but it too received such wide spread criticism that it would not be presented at the Second Session and would be have to be totally scrapped and rewritten – not brought to the floor of the council until the third session.

No 2 – the old De Ecclesia, also underwent revision. Reduced the number of chapters from eleven to four – the excised sections either become documents of their own, incorporated into other documents or discarded. This new version would become the basis of Lumen Gentium. First Chapter renamed: “On the Mystery of the Church” replacing the old “On the Nature of the Church” – indicating the complete shift in style and content of the document. The principal issue of the document would be the relationship between Vatican I and Vatican II – the relationship between the pope and the bishops. The schema was to clarify the sense of “episcopal ” – one of the major hot button issues of the council. The changes made to the document were actually done by a sub‐committee of the Doctrinal Commission, which took it out of the immediate hands of Ottaviani. The subcommittee was made up of seven members – five from the majority, two from the minority. The general theological background came from Gerard Philips, Karl Rahner, Jean Danielou and . Philips had drawn up one of the five alternative texts – it was seen as a moderate “middle way” – and therefore was used for the basis of the new revisions. By March 5 they presented the first two chapters of the revised text. Ottavianni attacked it. However in the end the majority of the commission was in favor of it. Major issue: collegiality in the second chapter – which ignited a battle royal in the commission. But it all eventually was approved by the commission despite Ottavaiani. The other two chapters (on the laity and on religious orders) would also eventually be approved.

By September 29 the coordinating Committee had done its job. It had extracted revised texts from almost every commission. Five were selected for Session II Schema on the Church, Schema on the Virgin Mary, Schema on Bishops, Schema on the and Schema on Ecumenism. And for the first time, it brought in lay men into the discussions on the Lay Apostolate and Schema 17

B. SECOND EVENT: Death of John XXIII

On Holy Thursday, April 11, John XXIII issued his Encyclical “”; ‐ the writing had been done by Fr. Pietro Pavan, a peretti and professor from the Lateran. ‐ breaking tradition, it was addressed to “all men and women of good will” ‐it proclaimed (for the first time): 1. freedom of speech 2. freedom of the press 3. 4. freedom of ‐it called for the end of the arms race It was criticized from economically and politically conservative sources as smacking of socialism and even . In the previous month he had received Krushchev’s son‐in‐law in audience which had caused quite a stir

But he was sick, from cancer. He died on June 3, 1963.

C. THIRD EVENT: Conclave and election of Paul VI

Eighty cardinals entered the conclave, twenty‐nine were Italian. The burning question of the day – would the new pope continue the Council?

Apparently the conclave was quite contentious. Ottaviani and Siri (both from the curial conservative wing) received some votes, but backed , prefect of the Congregation of Religious as their candidate. But it became clear that the conservative candidates could not get the majority of votes needed. Then it turned to Lercaro and Montini. Montini had many friends in the Curia, was seen as a moderate, had only spoken once in the Council, and had maintained a low profile. In his eulogy for John XXIII at his Cathedral in Milan he seemed to indicate he advocating continuing in the footsteps of John XXIII which please the progressives. Working again him was his reputation for indecisiveness stemming from long years under the shadow of Pius XII. On the sixth ballot, supported by Spellman, Ottaviani and Cicognani, he was elected by a very slim majority. A few days after this he announced that the Council would continue and reconvene on September 29.

Before that he made several important decisions: 1. He prolonged indefinitely the life of the Coordinating Committee – originally set up as an interim structure. 2. He confirmed Cicognani both as Secretary of State and President of the somewhat expanded Coordinating Committee. 3. Keeping the Coordinating Committee made the Secretariat for Extraordinary Affairs somewhat superfluous – so it was abolished.

4. The Council of Ten Presidents had proved cumbersome. He created four Moderators to run the council sessions – however no one was named head of this group – so they had to work as a team. They all became members of the Coordinating Committee. They were Dopfner, Lercaro and Suenens (from the majority) and Cardinal Gregoire‐Pierre Agagianian, represting the Curia. They would have weekly meetings with Paul VI during the second session. IN turn they then appointed their own secretary, , Lercaro’s personal theological adviser; set up their own infrastructure of archives and experts and acted with a degree of independent not universally accepted.

5. The Council of Presidents he then expanded to thirteen and gave them the new job of seeing that The Regulations were followed and for resolving any difficulties that might arise.

6. He confirmed Felici as Secretary General of the Council.

But organizational problems still existed – a lot of confusion as to where did the buck stop? The procedural muddle of the Regulations was never resolved – and would lead to more confrontations.

On September 21 before the Council Open – Paul VI addressed the entire Curia at a special meeting. He praised them for their work; for their long history; for their attachment to the papacy. But then he ended with three points: 1. Henceforth the Curia would have to accept that residential bishops would have a more active role in the functioning of the Congregations. 2. He expected them to cooperate with the Council. 3. He explained that it was reasonable for the Curia to undergo some changes in its mode of operation; some “reforms”. What he effectively did was to remove “ of the Curia” from the agenda of the Council. Rather the reforms will be formulated and promulgated by the Curia itself.

On September 29 the Council re‐opened. At the opening Mass he addressed the council at the end. Here he informed them that he would be issuing an encyclical “on the church”. This he would do a year later, August 6, 1964 – – all of which seemed a bit odd since this was one of the major council’s agenda items. Once more he was trying to steal the thunder and remind everyone that “he was in charge”.  He did reaffirm the pastoral nature of the council and the motif of , following John XXIII.  He went on to call for a renewal of the Church.  He asked for forgiveness from the separated brethren for any injuries against them and assured them of forgiveness for their offenses.  He declared that the church looks upon the world with kindness and with resolution to be of help in its many needs.

How he differed from John XXIII: For the most part John left the Council run its own course. He only intervened when others came to him for help.

Paul: 1. He was going to be more vigilant. 2. He would act simply as a bishop providing his own emendations to the discussions 3. He would be arbiter in procedural disputes. 4. He was the promoter of unanimity in the acceptance of council (He did not want to end up with divisions between winners and losers) 5. He saw himself in the last instance as of orthodoxy in the Council.