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.