T)-T7967 7Sl2t/



iMPRiMi potest: John
J.

McGinty, S.
J.,

Provincial of the

New York Province, nihil obstat: Francis
J.

Breidenbach,

Ph. D., Censor Deputatus. imprimatur: * Francis Cardinal

Spellman, Archbishop of New York. April 23, 1962

The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a book or

pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained

therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat and imprimatur

agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

Editor's Note: Readers familiar with this pamphlet in an earlier version

will recognize the following changes in this revised edition: 1) essays

appearing for the second time have been shortened and updated; 2) one

essay, that on the liturgy, has been dropped since its basic hopes found

fulfillment in the action of the first session; 3) a lengthy analysis of the

first session of Vatican II, by a Swiss Jesuit theologian-editor, now appears

in full English text for the first time; 4) the bibliography has been revised

to incorporate latest titles on the history of the first session.

Donald R. Campion, s. j.

Copyright 1963 by The America Press

920 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10010



Vatican

Council

First Session: October 11—December 8, 1962
Second Session : September 29, 1963

—

The Popes and the Council 2 JOHN XXIII AND PAUL VI

How to Understand the Council 5 DONALD R. CAMPION, S .J.

The Council: First Session 17 MARIO VON GALLI, S.J.

Perspectives for the Council 43 YVES M.-J. CONGAR, O.P.

The Laity and the Council 53 ROBERT A. GRAHAM, S.J.

Problems of the Modern Church 63 JOSEPH FOLLIET

The Council and Church Unity 76 AUGUSTIN CARDINAL BEA, S.

Inner Life of the Council 87 john Lafarge, s.j.

Review Questions 93



The words of

Pope John XXIII,

echoed in turn

by Paul VI,

plot the course

of the Council.

THE POPES

AND THE COUNCIL

As regards the initiative for the great event

which gathers us here, it will suffice to repeat as historical

documentation our personal account of the first sudden well-

ing up in our heart and lips of the simple words “Ecumenical

Council/' We uttered those words in the presence of the Sa-

cred College of Cardinals on that memorable January 25,

1959, the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, in the basilica

dedicated to him. It was completely unexpected, like a flash

of heavenly light. . . . And, at the same time, it gave rise to

great fervor throughout the world. . . .

In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes

have to listen, much to our regret, to the voices of persons

who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too

much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times

they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin . . . We feel

we must disagree with those prophets of gloom who are al-

ways forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world

were at hand. ...

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discus-

sion of one or another article of the fundamental doctrine of

the Church. .. . For this a Council was not necessary. But

from the renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the

teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it

still shines forth in the acts of the Council of Trent and the

First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic and apostolic

spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a

doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciences in faith-

2



ful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine. This,

however, should be studied and expounded through the meth-

ods of research and through the literary forms of modern

thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the de-

posit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is pre-

sented is another. It is the latter that must be taken into

great consideration, with patience if necessary, everything be-

ing measured according to the forms and proportions of a

teaching authority which is predominantly pastoral in char-

acter.

john xxiii, opening address of Council, Oct. 11, 1962

The first session was like a slow and solemn introduction

to the great work of the Council—
a

generous willingness to

enter into the heart and substance of our Lord’s plan. It was

necessary for brothers, gathered together from afar around a

common hearth, to make each other’s closer acquaintance. . .

.

In such a vast gathering, it is understandable that a few days

were needed to arrive at an agreement on a matter about

which, in all charity, there existed with good reason sharply

divergent views. But even this has 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. . .

.

And now, Venerable Brethren, one’s glance turns trustingly

to that phase of the work, seemingly silent, but none the less

important, which opens up during these nine months of in-

terval after your return to your sees. . . . Today’s celebration

does not bring the work to an end; rather, the work that

awaits all of us is of the greatest importance. . . . That ac-

tivity will continue is made clear by the institution of a new

commission composed of members of the Sacred College and

of the episcopate and representing the universal Church. This

commission’s duty is to pursue and direct the work during

3



these months and, along with the various conciliar commis-

sions, to lay the firm foundations for the successful out-

come of the ecumenical sessions. Thus, the Council really re-

mains open during the next nine months of suspension of the

ecumenical sessions properly so called.

john xxm, address at close of first session

,

Dec. 8, 1962

The pre-eminent part of our pontificate will be the con-

tinuation of the Second Vatican Council, on which are fixed

the eyes of all men of good will. This will be the principal

task for which we intend to spend all the energies which the

Lord had given to us, in order that the Catholic Church,

which shines in the world as the standard raised over far-off

nations (Isaiah 5:26), may attract all men to itself, through

the majesty of its organism, through the youthfulness of its

spirit, through the renovation of its structure and through

the multiplicity of its forces "out of every tribe and tongue

and people and nation' (Apocalypse 5:9).

paul vi, first public address as Pope

,

June 22, 1963

We will resume, as already announced, the Ecumenical

Council, and we ask God that this great event confirm in the

Church its faith, refresh moral energies, rejuvenate and adapt

its forms to the needs of the times, and so present the Church

to the Christian brethren, separated from its perfect unity,

in a way to make attractive, easy and joyous to them the

sincere recomposition, in truth and charity, of the Mystical

Body of the one Catholic Church.

We welcome with emotion . . . the heritage of our unfor-

gettable predecessor, Pope John XXIII, who, filled with the

Holy Spirit, brought about hopes that we deem it a duty

and an honor not to betray.

paul vi, homily at his coronation, June 30, 1963

4



This helpful

essay will inform

and orient

readers

about the meaning

of a council.

HOW TO UNDERSTAND
THE COUNCIL

In the 1,600 years since Nicaea, the Cath-

olic Church met in a general or ecumenical council 19 other

times. The last of these meetings had been in Rome, Decem-

ber 8, 1869 to July 18, 1870, under Pope Pius IX. From the

close of the last Council—hastened as it was by the outbreak

of war in Italy at a time when the Pope and his fellow

bishops had completed only a small portion of their sched-

uled program of action—almost a century would elapse before

a similar event took place.

What Is a Council?

What is an ecumenical council? In general, a council is a

meeting of clerics held under the authority of a prelate to

transact business pertaining to the welfare of the Church. Such

a meeting can take place at several levels. Here in the United

States, for example, the American bishops gathered several

times in the first half of the 19th century for a provincial coun-

cil—an assembly of all the bishops in one ecclesiastical district

or province—in this instance that of Baltimore, the mother

archdiocese of the country. At a later date, when U. S.

archdioceses had multiplied, the bishops and archbishops

would meet for a plenary council—an assembly of all the

Drawing on the observations of American and European theologians,

historians and sociologists, Fr. Donald R. Campion, s.j., an associate

editor of America, here sketches the background to Vatican II.

5



bishops in one nation. Within recent years, plenary councils

have been held, for the first time in each case, in the newly

independent nations of the Philippines and India.

An ecumenical council, finally, is a meeting of the bishops

and major prelates of the whole Church who are in union

with the Holy See. It is one that is convoked by the Pope

for the purpose of discussing and acting on matters of con-

cern to the universal Church under the headship of the

Roman Pontiff. There have been, in all, 20 such ecumenical

councils in the 2,000-year history of the Catholic Church.

No council, it should be noted, is truly ecumenical unless

it has been summoned by, or with the consent of, the Bishop

of Rome. It is he, personally or through his representative,

who presides at the council's sessions. It is he, too, who alone

confers the necessary, final confirmation of any decrees passed

by such an assembly. Thus, while it is true that an ecumenical

council has supreme power over the entire Church, it exer-

cises this power only in conjunction with the Pope. Its de-

crees, moreover, have no binding force unless they are con-

firmed by him and promulgated by his command.

The Pope is also the one who ultimately determines the

agenda for a council. When a council is in session, however,

any “Father” (a technical term meaning a major religious

superior, bishop, archbishop or cardinal in attendance at

the council with the right to vote in its deliberations) may,

with the permission of the presiding officer, add questions to

those proposed by the Bishop of Rome.

Why, indeed, did Pope John XXIII solemnly convoke this

Council in the Apostolic Constitution Humanae Salutis of De-

cember 25, 1961? Why, the Catholic must ask himself, did all

the prelates of the universal Church assemble in Rome as

the meeting began in the Vatican on October 11, 1962? The

answers to these and similar questions must be sought if a

Catholic is to follow, as he should, the actual working of the

6



Council and participate in its spirit of inner renewal as a

living member of the Church. Each Catholic likewise has a

responsibility, in a time when so many outside the Church

follow the affairs of the Council with remarkable interest and

enthusiasm, to be ready to answer intelligently the questions

of non-Catholics about this historic event.

Function of a Council

The basic function of a council is quickly defined. It is

summoned to provide for the welfare of the Church. To spell

out details of what a council can or actually will do is not so

easy a task. Our most reliable guide in such a matter is his-

tory—and here the picture becomes complicated. Each council

emerges from the records of the past with a distinct personal-

ity of its own. To quote from Msgr. Philip Hughes, the his-

torian: “The history of the next council—how matters will go

once the bishops meet—can never be foretold from the history

of the past.”

It is true that the authority and basic function of a council

will be the same as that of its predecessors. But, Msgr. Hughes

reminds us, one thing “is never constant: the human reaction

of the council’s component parts.” To understand why, one

need only see the make-up and record of earlier councils.

One immediately evident division among the councils is that

between the first eight and the twelve that came after them.

The earlier group all took place in Eastern Europe or Asia

Minor and were conducted by Greek-speaking ecclesiastics.

The rest have been held in Italy, Germany or France, and

their official language has been Latin.

Though laymen took an active part in the affairs of later

councils, including that of Trent in the mid-16th century, it

was in the East at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-

81 ) that an Emperor presided at some of the sessions. It was

7



also in the East, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), that lay

commissioners had to assist at the sessions to preserve order.

(It must be remembered that the period of this council was

one in which longshoremen in Mediterranean ports frequently

ended their debates on whether Christ had one or two natures

with a violent dockside brawl. So high did popular feelings

run at the time.)

Even the frequency with which councils have been held has

varied greatly over the centuries. Three took place, for in-

stance, in the 70 years between 381 and 451; yet none was

held for a period of 254 years from the Fourth Council of

Constantinople (869) to the First Lateran Council (1123).

Later on, an interval of 306 years elapsed between the closing

session of the Council of Trent (1563) and the opening of

the First Vatican Council (1869).

The 20 councils differ markedly also when one views the

principal topics they dealt with and the patterns of organiza-

tion and procedure they tended to adopt. The earlier or East-

ern councils were made up mainly of bishops, though a few

representatives of the Emperor might be present. They gen-

erally treated of theological or doctrinal questions, and their

most notable products took the form of dogmatic definitions

of Christian belief concerning the Trinity, Christology and the

like.

Turning to the later councils, we find that a group of them,

particularly those taking place in the three centuries from the

Fourth Lateran Council (1215) to the Fifth Lateran Council

(1512-17), dealt mostly with matters of ecclesiastical organi-

zation and the reform of canon law. Moreover, while some

of them centered around the Pope as their guiding spirit and

prime mover, others took on rather the appearance of what

might better be described as an “Estates of Christendom.”

Thus, we note that only 183 out of the 600 active members of

the Council of Constance (1414-18) were bishops; the re-

8



mainder included some 300 doctors of theology or canon law

and a mixed assortment of lesser clerics and lay delegates. On

the other hand, the records of the Fourth Lateran Council

(1215)—often ranked as the greatest council prior to that of

Trent (1543-63)—list 412 bishops in attendance, together with

800 abbots and priors of monastic orders and ambassadors

from the Latin Emperor at Constantinople, the kingdoms of

Germany, France, England, Aragon, Portugal, Hungary and

Jerusalem, as well as from several of the then independent

Italian states.

Coming down closer to modern times, one finds similar

sharp differences between the two most recent councils, that

of Trent (1545-63) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70).

While the Council of Trent issued decrees on both doctrinal

and disciplinary matters, the later council (because of the

circumstances which brought it to an abrupt, premature halt)

treated only of doctrinal issues. Moreover, though delegates of

several secular powers took part in the earlier council, the First

Vatican Council definitely rejected any intervention of princes,

kings or even prime ministers. That some clearing of the air

on this point was necessary seems evident when one recalls

that Bismarck of Germany and Gladstone of England at-

tempted at the time to influence the outcome of the delibera-

tions.

Problems for the Council

For a clue to the main problems or topics which were most

likely to win the Council’s attention, we need only turn to

the words of Pope John himself. A few months after his

dramatic revelation of his plan for holding a council, he

issued the encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram on June 29, 1959.

In it, the Pope stated that “the most pressing topics will be

those which concern the spread of the Catholic faith, the

revival of Christian standards of morality and the bringing of

9



ecclesiastical discipline into closer accord with the needs and

conditions of our times/'

Two and a half years later, when he announced in the

Apostolic Constitution Humanae Salutis (December 25, 1961)

that the Council would meet before the close of 1962,

John XXIII also indicated the spirit in which the Church un-

der his leadership would approach this labor:

The upcoming ecumenical council will be held ... at a

moment when the Church is caught up by an ever more

consuming desire to restore and fortify its faith, to draw

renewal of spirit from contemplating the image of its

own remarkable unity. It likewise experiences a quick-

ening sense of its duty not only to increase the efficiency

of its life-giving efforts and advance the sanctification of

its members, but also to further the diffusion of revealed

truth and update all its other activities.

Clearly, the Holy Father here envisioned for the Council a

task of breath-taking scope—the renewal or "reform” of the

Church in our day.

What, specifically, are some of the critical issues confront-

ing the Church in the world of the last half of the 20th cen-

tury? Many of these are discussed by competent scholars else-

where in this collection of essays. Here it will suffice to say

that an ecumenical council meeting in our time cannot remain

indifferent to the existence of ideological currents such as

aggressive atheism or certain fatalistic and materialistic vari-

eties of existentialism. Neither can it afford to hold aloof from

the thrust of such popular movements of the century as de-

colonialization, socialization and the much-heralded "revolu-

tion of rising expectations."

Within the Church, too, certain prevailing conditions must

inevitably have their impact on the deliberation of the bishops

10



as they gather in the Vatican. It is not difficult to imagine, for

instance, the range of questions that would be uncovered if

the Council’s attention should be directed to any aspect of

certain current developments in the Catholic world. Three

such would be the growth or expansion of Catholic popula-

tions in many lands; the tremendous upsurge of lay Catholic

initiative in all areas of Church activity; the spread of multi-

faceted movements within the Church such as those com-

monly associated with the terms “worker priests,” liturgical

participation, historical and biblical research, missiological

adaptation, catechetical techniques and religious sociology.

It seems unnecessary to cite any more statistics at this point

in order to suggest the grave problems of pastoral care, or-

ganization and administration that face the Church in urban

areas everywhere. When one further reflects on the uneven

distribution of sacerdotal and religious manpower throughout

the world, the enormity of these problems becomes increas-

ingly apparent. To take only one index, we find that the ratio

of priests to faithful in different lands varies from a high of

one priest for every 500 Catholics in one area to a low of one

for no less than 11,000 elsewhere.

Personnel of the Council

In size, the Second Vatican Council was clearly destined to

make history. At the first ecumenical council, that of Nicaea

(325), some 300 bishops were present. The Fourth Council

of Constantinople (869-70), however, drew only 19 bishops—

plus the papal legates—to its opening session; the number in-

creased to 102—including 37 archbishops—at the final session.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), it will be recalled,

stands out for its impressive total of 412 bishops and some

800 abbots and priors at its meetings, a figure that far sur-

passed that of the later Council of Trent (1545-63). That great

11



Council of the Counter Reformation started, in fact, with only

31 bishops and 48 experts in theology and canon law. It seems

never to have attracted more than 400 members (including

five generals of religious orders having the right to vote) to

one or other of its sessions. Coming down to the last century,

the First Vatican Council brought to Rome a total of 744 car-

dinals, bishops and major religious superiors out of a total of

1,050 individuals who had been invited to attend its meeting.

More interesting, and potentially more significant from a

sociological viewpoint, than the phenomenal increase in num-

ber of participants attending Vatican II, was the prospect of

an utterly unprecedented variety of racial and cultural back-

grounds that would be present. We have already commented

on the limited geographical and national representation at

some of the early councils. The members, in those centuries,

came almost entirely from the Middle East.

Later councils followed a similar pattern. Thus, while it is

true that the Third Lateran Council (1179) counted among

the bishops present some 19 who were German, 19 Spanish,

6 Irish, 6 English, and one each from Hungary and Denmark,

most of the remaining bishops—out of 300 in attendance—

came from France and Italy. The same was true of the Coun-

cil of Trent (1545-63). Out of less than 400 active participants,

almost 200 bishops came from Italy alone; there were, in addi-

tion, 31 from Spain, 26 from France and a thin handful from

Germany.

Despite the amazing expansion of the Church to all corners

of the world in the three centuries of exploration and coloniza-

tion following on the Council of Trent, the make-up of the

next council still presented an appearance of imbalance. More

than 120 of the prelates at the First Vatican Council were

English-speaking/though only 46 of these came from the

United States. In all, about a hundred missionary bishops rep-

resented the Church in the vast new areas of Asia, Africa and

12



Oceania—but all of these were also members of the white race.

We still find, moreover, that more than 200 out of the 643

residential bishops in attendance came from Italian sees.

The Second Vatican Council, by contrast with its predeces-

sors, has offered an unparalleled image of the universality or

catholicity of the Church. It became ecumenical in both the

geographical and technical or theological sense of the term-

representative of the entire inhabited world.

Using available statistics on the number of prelates actually

eligible to attend the Council as a base, a breakdown of the

potential membership of the Council—by continents—yields the

following percentages: from Europe, 38 per cent; from North

and South America, 31.5 per cent; from Africa, 10 per cent;

from Asia and Oceania (including Australia and New Zea-

land), 20.5 per cent.

A comparison of the foregoing figures with percentages of

the total Catholic population by continents reveals rather

dramatically the shift that has taken place since the days of

the First Vatican Council. The Catholics of the world are dis-

tributed in the following percentages: Europe, 47 per cent;

North and South America, 43 per cent; Africa, 3 per cent;

Asia and Oceania, 7 per cent. It is clear that the relatively

new Catholic populations of Africa, Asia and Oceania have en-

joyed a disproportionately large numerical representation in

the latest Council. Despite the major shift this comparison re-

veals, one still encounters a notable imbalance also among

the older Catholic peoples of Europe. Though Italy accounts

for only 19 per cent of the total Catholic population of Eu-

rope, it has provided almost 40 per cent of the European “Fa-

thers” of the Council.

Inevitably, in so vast an assembly outstanding personalities

will tend in different ways to make their presence felt within

and outside the Council's formal meetings. We would not ex-

pect, it is true, a repetition of what Msgr. Hughes has called

13



"the stormy history of the first eight councils” within the walls

of St. Peter’s in the 1960s. Yet the facts of individual and

group differences remain, and the elements of a dynamic hu-

man situation have been at hand in Vatican II.

There is, indeed, food for thought in Msgr. Hughes’ further

comment on the meaning of those early contentions. One must

recall, he suggests, who the actors in those bygone dramas

were: "Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians.” These were men, the dis-

tinguished historian reminds us, whose "natural temperament

and sense of nationality was not a whit less ardent than it can

show itself to be in their descendants of the mid-20th cen-

tury.”

Pope John and the Council

The Holy Father would have been the very last person to

desire any such thing, yet it was impossible to suppose that the

coming Council would not bear in large measure the stamp of

Pope John’s own personality. Indeed, the creation of the Secre-

tariat for Promoting Christian Unity, under Augustin Cardinal

Bea, S.J., seemed evidence in advance that the workings of the

Council would reflect the influence of the Pope’s spirit in a

notable way. His words and actions after this Secretariat was

established were to show again and again that John XXIII still

cherished his initial hope that this Council would mark a sig-

nificant step toward the holy goal of unity among Christians.

Another way in which one may expect to see the spirit of

the late Pontiff mirrored in the affairs of the Council will be

through the freedom with which the members go about their

task of deliberating and acting on matters relating to the

universal welfare of the Church. No words can better sum up

the characteristic mentality of Pope John in this regard than

the following passage from his encyclical of June 29, 1959,

Ad Petri Cathedram:

14



“We can do nothing against the truth, but only for the

truth” (II Cor . 13:8). But there are many points which

the Church leaves to the discussion of theologians, in

that there is no absolute certainty about them, and, as

the eminent English writer John Henry Cardinal New-

man remarked, such controversies do not disrupt the

Church's unity; rather they contribute greatly to a deeper

and better understanding of her dogmas. These very dif-

ferences shed in effect a new light on the Church's

teaching, and pave and fortify the way to the attainment

of unity. . . . There is a saying attributed to various

sources and sometimes expressed in different words, but

it is none the less true and unassailable. It runs: “Unity

in essentials, freedom in uncertainties, in all things

charity."

The more one meditates on these and similar expressions of

the Pope, the stronger becomes one's conviction that a key

factor—under the movement of the Holy Spirit—in the work-

ings of the Council was to be the mind and heart of this aged

man summoned by God to initiate it in our day.

Anyone seeking a deeper insight into the spirit of John XXIII

and its potential impact on the Council need only recall his

words in the unexpected and wholly remarkable homily he

preached at the Mass celebrated in St. Peter's on the occa-

sion of his coronation as Pope. He then observed that those

who expected to find in him “a skilled diplomat and states-

man” or “a scholar, an organizer of public life” would not “be

on the right track.” For their ideal of a Pope “does not at all

correspond to the true idea.” The new Pope, he advised his

hearers that day, “has before his mind, more than all else,

that wonderful Gospel picture which St. John gives, in the

words of the Saviour Himself, of the Good Shepherd.”

Here, surely, we have a most helpful clue to understand-

15



ing the Holy Father’s reasons for summoning the Church into

an ecumenical council in our time. His conviction remained—

as he subsequently stated in Humanae Salutis
,
the document

of convocation issued on Christmas Day of 1961—that the

event will yield three notable results.

The first of these, as Pope John envisioned it, will be a re-

affirmation “of the Church, always living and always young,

which feels the rhythm of the times and which in every cen-

tury beautifies itself with new splendor, radiates new light,

achieves new conquests.” Yet all the while, he continued, it

remains “faithful to the divine image impressed on its counte-

nance by its Spouse, who loves and protects it, Christ Jesus.”

Second, his prayerful hope was that the Council will re-

spond to the thrilling challenge of “a time of generous and

growing efforts ... in different parts for the purpose of re-

building that visible unity of all Christians which corresponds

to the wishes of the Divine Redeemer.” This challenge, he

suggested, will be met if the Council “should provide premises

of doctrinal clarity and mutual charity that will enliven still

more in our separated brothers a wish for the hoped-for re-

turn to unity and will smooth the way.”

Finally, with an eye to “a world which is lost, confused and

anxious under the constant threat of new, frightful conflicts,”

he held out the prospect that the Council by its labors will

“offer a possibility for all men of good will to turn their

thoughts and their intentions toward peace.”

The hopes that the pastoral heart of John XXIII entertained

for the coming 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church of

Jesus Christ were indeed ambitious. The outcome, of course,

is in the hands of the Lord. But in the light of what one learns

from the history of past councils and of what we can legiti-

mately surmise about the distinctive character of the latest

Council, it would be folly to despair of their fulfillment.

Donald R. Campion, S.J.

16



This balanced

report from Rome

clarifies

the true theological

issues at stake

in the first session.

THE COUNCIL:

FIRST SESSION

In the debate on the liturgy, there was much

discussion of detail: the vernacular and to what extent it should

be used; communion under both forms and in what circum-

stances; concelebration on every occasion when priests are to-

gether and pastoral considerations do not prevent, or only in

common with the bishop and on very rare occasions. As for

the breviary: how shall it be accommodated to the priest ac-

tive in the ministry? Thus, for example, it was proposed that

only three parts be left as a morning and evening prayer,

suited to each day; in addition, a half-hour of reading from

Scripture, the Fathers, and texts for meditation, each priest

fulfilling this obligation when he has time. The evening prayer

would truly be a prayer for the evening before retiring and

not regarded as a midnight prayer. Or are there to be only

minor changes, leaving untouched the present structure of

this monastic prayer? Is the sermon at Mass on Sunday to

be organically incorporated as a genuine part of the liturgy,

with the obligation of hearing it as part of the Mass, or is it

to be left as simply "desirable”?

In all these discussions, which were continued outside the

During the first session, the Swiss Catholic biweekly Orientierung carried

regular “Letters” from its Rome-based editor Fr. Mario von Galli, s.j.

These running comments on events as they unfolded in the Council remain

permanently valuable because of the author’s fair-minded judgments and

his ability at each point to grasp the underlying theological issues. Fr.

Matthew
J. O’Connell, s. j., professor of theology at Woodstock College

(Md.), translated the following selections from three of these reports.

17



Council meetings, I have the impression that, fundamentally,

there is a head-on meeting of two views of one and the same

Church. You’ve perhaps been surprised that thus far nothing

properly “theological” has appeared in the conciliar debates.

Many feel uneasy at this. A great theologian and “expert”

told me that he would attend no more public debates on the

liturgy but prepare himself for the properly dogmatic themes

which would sooner or later come up. I believe that, despite

all appearances, he is making a mistake. For it is quite clear

that the difference between the two parties on liturgical

particulars really stems from their dogmatic concerns.

Behind the Liturgy Debate

For one group it is a matter of “concessions” to be made

to a “movement” which is abroad and has, through the push-

ing of the “liturgists,” gotten down among the laity. Where

does this movement come from? Perhaps from a certain kind

of community-think with its roots probably in the loneliness

of modern man; perhaps simply from the general unification

of the world; perhaps from a new acquaintance with the

Eastern Churches and their stirring rites—but certainly not

from dogmatically founded motives. Consequently, this group

is certainly ready to make some concessions, but it retreats

precipitately before every direct difficulty of any size (e. g.,

hygienic difficulties in granting the chalice to the laity).

For the other group, the active participation of the laity

is a matter of life and death. These bishops are not looking

for “concessions,” but for the place of the Mass in the world

of faith. Thus, there is passion in their struggle. If the Church

cannot succeed in making sacramental rites and symbols, espe-

cially the Mass, transparent once again and a matter of living

experience for every Catholic (the Catholic of today), then

in their view their pastoral efforts have been crippled.

18



How have such opposed views arisen? I think that the

difference is a deeply dogmatic one. For the first group, the

Church is a primarily juridical structure, comparable to a

pyramid. The topmost stone is the Pope, who contains all

hierarchic power in himself. From this pinnacle there is a

series of descending steps—bishops, priests—down to the broad

foundation which is the faithful, whose task, really, is devoutly

to assist at the prayer of the Church, offered in the name of

all by consecrated persons. With this outlook goes a view of

the sacraments that is concerned primarily with ‘Validity.”

Grace is regarded almost as an indeterminate, neutral ( though

supernatural) power. In this view, a certain active participa-

tion of the faithful is, of course, necessary. But since the sac-

rament is an opus operatum
,
a minimum of intention and an

absence of fully frustrating obstacles suffices. A more intensive

participation of the believer is fitting, indeed, given the dig-

nity of the sacrament, but it ought not to be overly stressed.

This outlook has a tinge of nominalism to it; nominalism

disliked organic conceptions and preferred to make every-

thing depend on special decrees of God. Even Trent, which

wished to favor no “school,” identified itself in effect with the

practically minimalizing school. Later it was often believed,

though wrongly, that Trent's decrees contained the total truth

about the Church and the sacraments.

The second group sees the Church differently. For it, the

Church is in the first place the People of God, made one

from within by the grace of God, and the dwelling place of

the Trinity. This is the true essence of the Church. In the

people that thus form one Body, some are to exercise a special

function of authority, of sanctification, and are especially con-

secrated for this purpose. But they remain believers like all

other members, even if they have a special task. Those thus

commissioned are the college of bishops, which itself is not

simply a crowd of men, but an organism, and thus more than

19



the sum of its parts; the Pope is the head of the college.

In this view, the Church is being approached from within

and organically. Sacraments and especially the Mass are cor-

respondingly ( and without any derogation of the office of the

ordained priest) a concern of the whole Church. The baptized

and confirmed are all of them factors in liturgical action; this

latter, for its part, is primarily a dialogue with God, and de-

mands that all understand what is said. For this group in

the Council, it is therefore of vital importance, not that there

be simply a concession on this or that point, but that the

character of the People of God, which speaks to God as a

people, as His community (and not as muted believers),

should find clear expression in symbolism and participation.

In this description I have, of course, oversimplified. I have

done so deliberately, in order to make the contrast clear. By

all reports, the tone of the liturgy schema clearly springs from

the second conception, and thus it complements and broadens

the views of Trent, which did not, of course, deny all this but

did not, either, bring it to the fore.

As you can see, there is question of accent, but it is a the-

ological accent. If many Catholics today find in the Mass not

the vital center of their piety but a pure duty, that is perhaps

due to a nominalistically narrowed view of the Mass. The task

of the Council is not to work out in detail a new form of the

Mass, but to sketch out basic principles and to give an

emphatic push in the direction to be followed. The details will

demand adaptation to local conditions and thus will be a

matter for the episcopal conferences and for the guidance of

the Holy See, in the form of a permanent international pon-

tifical commission that is independent of the Curia (in the

latter’s present form).

The scene has changed somewhat since the days of the de-

bate on the liturgy. At that time a small group stood over

against an overwhelming majority. The little flock defended

20



itself energetically, but it knew that the cause was lost. “I

chirp here like a lonely sparrow on the rooftop,” one bishop

supposedly said, remembering his Psalms. He was in fact

right, though at the time this was not entirely clear. It was

the vote on the basic principles of the liturgy schema, called

for by Cardinal Tisserant on his own authority on Novem-

ber 14, that brought clarification: only 46 were opposed.

Choosing Up New Sides

Things are quite different now. If you look only at the

speeches made in the debate on revelation, you might think

things were just as they were in the liturgy debate. The

“great” men, the cardinals (with the best theologians in the

background, or upstairs in the tribune), were doubtless mainly

on the side of those who wanted to reject the schema. Again,

it seems that only a curial group were making a bitter stand

against rejection. Again, one of them began his speech: “I

stand here like Daniel in the lions’ den, but. ...” It looks as

though the only change was that, whereas in the liturgy de-

bate the majority were in favor of the basic ideas of the

schema, here they were opposed to the basic conception of

the schema “On the Sources of Revelation” (Cardinal Tis-

serant supposedly insisted on speaking always of “the Source

of Revelation”).

By the time you get this letter, certainly before it is printed,

the numbers will show you that this was not the situation.

[In fact, common report had it that the result of the ballot-

ing showed: 1368 Fathers favored removing the schema in

its present form from the agenda; 822 were against removal;

19 votes were invalid—Ed.] I can tell this already from the

discussions of the bishops outside the Council. I have the

impression that the two sides are fairly evenly balanced. In

favor of rejecting the schema (but not the subject itself, ex-

21



cept in isolated instances) are, almost unanimously, the Ger-

mans, Dutch, Belgians, Austrians and, surprisingly, the great

majority of the Africans and the Chileans. Divided, it seems,

are the Americans ( they are not, as the newspapers and many

press agencies are erroneously writing, closing ranks to keep

the schema), the English, the French.

In favor of keeping the present schema is the very great

majority of Italians and Spaniards. Undecided are, above all,

the Central and South Americans (except for the Chileans).

You may find one of them stopping you here and asking:

“Can you please explain what reasons the Germans have for

such strong opposition to the schema?” The Asians are either

for the schema or undecided. This is, of course, a rough out-

line of the situation. It does not claim balance and complete-

ness, nor is it drawn on the basis of a scientific poll. It simply

expresses an impression, hardly mistaken, that the lineup of

forces is different than in the previous debate.

Disciplinary vs. Doctrinal

But let us dig a little deeper and look for the fundamental

reasons for the split. In this matter something far more serious

was at stake than in the matter of the liturgy schema. As re-

gards the liturgy, discipline was the primary concern. The

question of discipline had a theological background, indeed,

as I pointed out in my previous letter. Many were doubtless

conscious of this background; others were not. I heard lec-

tures and interviews by bishops who were urging, for exam-

ple, rites more suited to mission countries, the vernacular, a

greater popular participation, freedom of local decision for

episcopal conferences, etc., but they were urging these re-

forms purely for pastoral reasons, and seemed not to have

had the slightest consciousness that a special “idea of the

Church” was also involved.

22



Bishops who thus argued for liturgical reform on pastoral

grounds were, it is clear, not necessarily opposed to the

schema on the sources of revelation. There were, in fact, I

was told, definitely "curial” prelates who had not the slight-

est objection to liturgical reform, though they set no great

store by it. They said to themselves: "All that is a matter

which, in the last analysis, the Pope could just as well bring

about through purely administrative channels without any

need for a council; it does not touch faith or morals, v/hich

are the bony structure of the Church. Liturgical reforms

come and go. Let us be broadminded and show ourselves

sympathetic.”

Now, however, it is a quite different situation: matters of

faith are directly concerned. The result of the debates will

be a dogmatic constitution and consequently unchangeable.

Later on, additions and supplements can be made; what is

here formulated may later on be better expressed. But no

contradictions can ever be tolerated of the substance of what

is here said.

At the very beginning of the debate this fact was solemnly

stressed. The word "heretic” was never spoken but it was in

the air. You could see that responsibility weighed heavier

now on men’s shoulders! Now there could be no haste. In

dealing with the liturgy, Cardinal Suenens could say iron-

ically: "If we dawdle along like this much longer, this Coun-

cil will be known to history not as Vatican II but as Trent II”

(Trent lasted, with rather lengthy intermissions, for eighteen

years), and in order to bring the Fathers at last to a vote,

he added: "Many Fathers of the Council are speaking here,

but the Council itself is mute.” In dealing with the schema

on revelation, no one could think of making such a remark;

all are afraid of hasty decisions. Both sides speak more seri-

ously and more urgently. There is no more laughing, no more

gossiping. There is silence among the "tribunes of the people,”

23



as a number of rhetorically brilliant speakers in the liturgy

debate were jokingly called. It is chiefly the cardinals who

speak—strongly and objectively on both sides.

Precisely because the question is one of doctrine, the earlier

Councils are heard of more and more, for the final formula-

tions of these Councils cannot be contradicted. Both sides

appeal to Trent, with the intention of prolonging and com-

plementing it, though in directions which are in large meas-

ure opposite. Trent left open the question whether Scripture

and tradition stand side by side as two parallel parts, whether

truths are contained in tradition which are not to be found

in Scripture. It spoke not of two sources, but of two "streams,”

in which divine revelation flows down to us.

This image of the two streams certainly ought not to be

pressed. But it seems to suggest that we have two separate

media of knowledge of revelation, connected with each other

only inasmuch as they both flow (to keep the image) within

the same garden, the Church. Progress and development

would consist in closing, in this direction, the question which

Trent left open. Justification for this could be found in an

appeal to the current catechisms and to all sorts of post-

Tridentine textbooks which show no remembrance of the fact

that Trent wanted to leave the question open. Discussion with

the Protestants contributed to this state of affairs. The Prot-

estants relied on Scripture alone, and, in the post-Reformation

period, they stressed this exclusive reliance more than the

Reformers did, with the intention of thereby clearly and

sharply distinguishing themselves from the Catholics.

However, another development has been taking place in

this matter of Scripture and tradition, in those countries

where, under the influence of the ecumenical movement, men

have been looking not for what divides them but for what

they have in common.

On the Catholic side, increasing stress has been laid on the

24



idea that even if Scripture and tradition are of equal dignity

(“to be given equal reverence”), as Trent says, they need

not be of the same kind. Scripture and tradition have not

been given us that we might grasp some truths here, others

there; rather, they are interconnected so that the one sup-

ports and complements the other. They must therefore be

seen as a totality, and only thus can they be correctly under-

stood. Scripture came forth from the life of the Church as

its expression, and the living Church is needed if Scripture

is rightly to be read and understood. In this perspective the

nature itself of God’s revelation will be better understood,

for revelation is not simply a collection of truths but contains

both doctrine and deeds.

The group which thus views Scripture and tradition refuses

to speak of “sources” (for then tradition and Scripture would

be made to appear, more thoroughly than ever, as two wholly

separated things
) ,
but speaks of one revelation of God. It does

not deny tradition, but wants to see it in unity with Scrip-

ture. For this group, theological progress demands that what

400 years ago, in the polemical atmosphere of Trent, was

put in the background, should now be recovered. Otherwise,

what was proposed at Trent will lead, in the new non-Tri-

dentine situation, to a misleading and even false conception

of Scripture and tradition.

Significance of the Observers

An additional factor is that not a few Protestants, on their

part, understand Scripture within their faith in Christ. They

complement the “Scripture alone” principle with the “grace

alone” and “Christ alone” principles, as, in fact, the Reformers

themselves did. One might easily find oneself therefore in an

interconfessional discussion in which both parties would like

to discard the polemically influenced views of the past in

25



favor of a more vital and less purely rational conception.

Not the least source of excitement in the Council is the fact

that the observers are sitting up there above the Council

Fathers. They cannot directly intervene in the discussion. But

they are there! This very presence is already a conciliar dis-

course. Never have I realized so clearly as here that the sheer

presence of another can decisively influence a situation. The

observers are there, and everyone knows that they are listen-

ing intently. Expectation and apprehension are struggling in

their hearts. They yearn for each successive step toward pos-

sible understanding, they are afraid that doors may be closed.

Behind them stand millions of men and Christ's words on

unity, His testament before his death. This stirs me far more

deeply than Masses in various rites, however much this latter

shows unity in multiplicity, as Pope John said. An observer

commented: “You can feel in the very air how the ecumenical

concern has today touched all Catholics. No single discourse

in the present discussion has failed to take a position on the

separated brethren/' Indeed—but how divergent the positions!

The defenders of the revelation schema said: “The two-source

view is a part of our faith. This truth cannot be pushed out

of sight on grounds of ecumenical charity. This would not

be true charity, and the evangelical world is waiting for us

to state our faith in clear and unequivocal terms. Truth of

its nature is also love.” The objectors to the schema countered:

“Our polemical attitude to the Protestants has brought us to

the point that if it hardens any further it means error.” You

realize, of course, that I am citing no one, but simply describ-

ing attitudes.

It might seem that the two attitudes are diametrically op-

posed. If they are considered in isolation, they may well be.

But there is some consolation in observing that the two can

be viewed as two steps on the same stair or two sections of

road lying one beyond the other. How do I come to such a

26



comparison? Well, I think it suggests itself rather readily.

Those sections of the world which have, in fact, no Protestants

or at least only a small, almost invisible group of them, stand

on the first step. The problem of unity has finally been

brought home to them. They know they must come to grips

with it, and they are ready to do so. But they lack entirely

the living experience necessary for this. Therefore their

speeches on the subject are purely abstract, their argumenta-

tion entirely conceptual.

Of course, truth in itself and by its nature is love! In the

abstract, this is unquestionably true. But the question whether,

in living converse with others, another side of the truth may

not come to light has never arisen in their minds. Understand-

ably so, for they have no experience of this converse with

others. The views expressed by opponents of the schema seem

to them “half-Protestant,” “a blurring of the truth out of false

charity,” as they say indulgently. That cardinals in crimson,

divinely appointed shepherds of the Christian people, should

express such views fills them with fear. They are worried

about the orthodoxy of the Church.

The other group stands on the second step. They have

reached it almost without realizing it. The attitude of the first

group is known to them almost exclusively from books; they

are inclined to judge that their polemical ancestors were lesser

men, narrow men, men far removed from the true spirit of

Christianity. Now they see these very men before them, they

speak with them, have experience with them. The experience

cannot harm them; it will humble them, make them less un-

just in their judgment and even cautious in evaluating their

own position.

Let us return to the debate on Scripture and tradition, and

note a further point of essential importance that has occupied

the Council in this area. I mean the invasion of biblical crit-

icism by modern historical scholarship. The schema on this

27



point is very negative, bent upon condemnations that are

hardly compatible with the biblical encyclical Divino Afflante

Spiritu of Pius XII (1943). There is hardly any appreciation

of, for example, the work of the Roman Biblical Institute and

of the exegetes who, laboriously and without harm to the

faith, in fact to the faith's advantage, have applied to Scrip-

ture the historical sciences.

Biblical Controversy

The major stress is on the dangers of accepting these mod-

ern methods. Sharp words are directed against those who

scrutinize the historicity of events related in Scripture, espe-

cially in the New Testament (for example, the narratives

about Jesus’ infancy, the promise of primacy to Peter, the

death and resurrection of Jesus). Italian weekly newspapers,

e.g., Vita
,
carry long reports on the threat to faith. Now it

cannot of course be denied that a solid historical basis is in-

dispensable to Christian faith. If Christianity were reduced

to an ethical teaching, its essence would have disappeared.

God has indeed dealt with the world and acted in the world.

This is a matter of life and death to us. But on the other

hand it would be folly and equivalent to suicide if we were

to forbid a solidly grounded science to investigate the Scrip-

tures according to its own proper methods.

The same basic problem confronts us today that confronted

the Church in the Galileo case centuries ago. The methods

of historical' science have been immensely refined, and their

application shows the Gospels to be far more “human” than

we had thought. Purely human factors play a far greater role

than the dogmatic theologians were willing to concede, even

up to a few years ago. This new knowledge, if thoughtlessly

and imprudently brought to bear, can in fact shatter faith.

If the application is worked out prudently and without hasty

28



generalizations, it can serve to deepen faith. We will, for

example, achieve a better insight into the mystery of the In-

carnation with all the consequences that flow from it. The

Catholic world is doubtless waiting in this area for a word

from the Church. Mounier wrote years ago that we had lost

the key to the thinking and questioning of modern man;

that we are speaking in a language that he does not under-

stand. The Council must again find the key!

But once again the Fathers of the Council are divided.

Some wish to emphasize the positive values that can come

from such effort in behalf of the faith; others fear a corruption

of the faith and therefore they insist on pointing out dangers.

According to the attitude chosen, entirely different pictures

emerge. The one has the features of a joyful message, the

other conjures up a fearful vision of judgment.

Once again, a sociological fact underlies each of the atti-

tudes. One of them is congenial to countries in which a great

part of the people is alienated from Christianity. The Church

in these countries wants to be a missionary, to penetrate into

the masses she has lost, and she knows she can do this only

if her message is one of blessing. The other attitude is prev-

alent in areas where the Church indeed clearly feels a falling

away from the faith (especially among educated men), but

believes the movement can still be checked by leading those

still loyal (especially the mass of the people) away from the

track, as it were, on which the train roars on its way.

How will this discussion end? Any answer would require

the balancing of many factors. Perhaps I shall write on this

the next time. For the moment I would like to make one

point. An opinion of the schools has never been canonized

by a Council. In the present matter each side objects to the

other that it is defending the opinion of a theological school.

But can a theological opinion never become something more

than that? Indeed it can. It does so when it becomes clear to

29



all that the opinion is really a part of revelation. It remains

the opinion of a school only as long as such clarity has not

been reached.

Legally
,

it can be said, this Council can promulgate a text

when a two-thirds majority has been reached. This is the

norm which the Pope has set down in general for all the con-

ciliar schemata. But many, among them Prof. Hubert Jedin,

have rightly insisted that in this matter of a required majority

both the nature of things and conciliar history demand that

distinction be made between disciplinary and dogmatic de-

crees. For disciplinary decrees a two-thirds majority can be

regarded as quite high. Trent was content with a much

smaller majority (e.g., on the duty of bishops to reside in their

dioceses). But in dogmatic matters moral unanimity has al-

ways been sought.

This unanimity was only formally present at Vatican I in

the question of papal infallibility, because those opposed to

the definition simply left the Council before the vote was

taken. This was certainly not an ideal case of a conciliar dog-

matic decree! No one today questions the validity of the def-

inition, but all are aware of the shock that this lamentable

action caused in the Church. There is every intention in the

present Council that this should not happen again (pre-

scinding from the fact that neither side in the present debate

looks as if it could get a two-thirds majority).

What, then, is to be done? The attempt will be made,

initially, to rework the present schema into a form satisfactory

to both sides. At some point, I think, all will see that this

is a tremendously time-consuming process and will produce

a result that pleases neither side. Since men (even bishops)

are made the way they are, they must undergo this experi-

ence before they grasp it. Improvements of one or another

part of the schema will be of little help. The point at issue is

the basic outlook of the document.

30



Perhaps the end of this week will find matters at this new

stage of insight. Then a commission of theologians will have

to be set up, probably composed of members of the The-

ological Commission and of the Secretariat for Promoting

Christian Unity in equal numbers. This group will formulate

a new schema satisfactory to all. The new schema will leave

many questions open, and, in its attitude, will have to com-

bine the seriousness of the Cross with the confidence of the

Resurrection. I am told that in conversations a high-ranking

defender of the present schema has been saying: “The other

group is always talking of the spirit of the Resurrection, of

the perspective of world-transfiguration. But what is needed

today is the spirit of penance and the Cross, the conscious-

ness that the devil goes about like a roaring lion.”

Admittedly, Christianity is a paradox. Without grace, no

one can live amid the sparks that fly from one pole of the

paradox to the other. They would burn him to a crisp! But

despite all the seriousness of evil, Christianity is not a pres-

ervation, but a liberation, from evil! In this lies the inner

dynamism of the Christian reality, the assistance of the Holy

Spirit even beyond the strict promises upon which we may

and are determined to rely.

Outcome of Revelation Debate

You’re doubtless somewhat confused that the subjects for

discussion during the present session of the Council have

suddenly become quite numerous. Well, here in Rome, too,

we were rather puzzled to learn of this multiplication of

themes. And it wasn’t easy to get a reliable account of how

this situation arose.

First of all—and here my prophecy was essentially correct

—the debate on the source of revelation was cut off. The

great majority were for substituting an entirely new docu-

31



ment, but the necessary two-thirds majority was lacking. Had

it been reached, a joint commission (consisting of the The-

ological Commission and the Secretariat for Promoting Chris-

tian Unity) would have had to work out a new schema with

perhaps a new title and, possibly, a completely new theme.

It is usually said that the intervention of Amleto Cardinal

Cicognani, Secretary of State, who got the Pope to end the

discussion and to appoint a joint commission, led in fact to

precisely the result described above. This is, however, not

quite the case. The joint commission has the task of improving

the old schema, not of substituting an entirely new one. This

explains how Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, who warned the Con-

ference of Italian Bishops (he is its president), before the

close of the debate, to oppose the rejection of the schema

(because it was a question of defending the faith against

creeping heresies), could, after the close and after the inter-

vention of the Pope, nonetheless speak of a victory of the

Italians in the defense of the faith. The old schema will have

to submit to radical improvements and additions, omissions

and changes, but it remains the point of departure for the

work of the newly formed commission.

Perhaps the difference may seem slight. But if you reflect

on the vehemence with which Joseph Cardinal Frings and

a whole group of bishops rejected the schema as beyond

salvage, you may feel some doubt whether the joint commis-

sion can succeed where such a large majority of the Fathers

thinks it impossible.

Archbishop Rene Louis Stourm, of Amiens, who presented

to the Fathers the schema on mass media of communications,

obviously regarded it as impossible that any further schema

should be submitted to the Council before the end of the

first session. He began his exposition by saying: “It is a

pleasure for me, Reverend Fathers, after the vehement de-

bates of recent days, to be able to propose to you a more

32



entertaining theme that will occupy us until the end of this

session.”

The schema clearly has a twofold purpose: it seeks to show

1) that in the modern age the mass media (press, film, radio

and television) are indispensable means of an up-to-date

pastoral activity, and 2) that for the proper use (active and

passive) of these instruments which form and guide public

opinion, a positive education and formation of conscience is

necessary, even—and perhaps especially—where there is ques-

tion purely of entertainment. Both purposes certainly cor-

respond to the intention of the Pope and the direction he

wished to give the Council.

Two Views on Mass Media

But objections were raised against the reason given for the

Church's intervention in this area and against the methods

to be followed. In offering grounds for the Church’s action,

the accent is strongly on the right of the Church to use these

means and to establish norms in this area. Many were of

the opinion that, considering the pluralistic character of our

modern society, emphasis ought to be placed, in presenting

the Church’s message to the world, not on the rights of the

Church, but on the character of service that is inherent in

her action. The Church can do a service to men today and

feels that her mission obliges her to this service which no

one else can render as she can. The pluralistic state will ac-

cept such an offer, whereas an appeal to rights whose basis

it does not recognize will seem to it an invasion of its proper

sphere of authority and a quest for power. Here once again

we glimpse the opposition of attitudes which has marked the

entire Council.

As for methods of carrying out the two purposes, the pro-

posed plan was so centralized as really to be disconcerting.

33



The Council Fathers touched on only one aspect of the prob-

lems raised by such a proposal. A Council should, in dis-

ciplinary prescriptions, show a certain flexibility. Its ordinances

ought to retain their validity 50 years from now. If it were to

go into great detail in matters still in course of development,

it could easily turn out that what the development seems to

demand at this particular moment would in 10 years’ time

be a great obstacle. At the suggestion, therefore, of a German

Bishop, Wilhelm Kempf of Limburg, practical prescriptions

were left to the Pontifical Commission for Film, Television

and Radio (the press ought also to be included), which is

to work up a readily updatable pastoral instruction. Mean-

while, the conciliar commission will gather up into a short

schema the basic lines of the doctrinal section, with the cor-

rections mentioned above; this will later be proposed to the

Council itself. In all honesty, the debate was rather dull. The

bishops felt themselves on somewhat unfamiliar ground, and

after two days the debate was closed by unanimous vote.

Representatives of the Mass-Media Commission admitted to

me that they were concerned lest the bishops simply turn

this whole matter of mass media over to laymen, and possibly

even incorporate the whole schema into the chapter on the

laity in the schema on the Church. For this reason the com-

mission stressed strongly the whole of the hierarchic Church.

It felt that the bishops themselves were involved here and

that many of them did not appreciate this fact. Well, in this

respect the commission got what it wanted. The episcopate

has committed itself to a role. On the other hand, one must

admit that mass media are primarily an area of lay activity.

By nature the mass media are suited to communication of

information and to entertainment. The specifically ecclesiasti-

cal area is only a sector of the whole and by no means the

largest sector, and it must accept being incorporated into the

whole. In my opinion, it would not be a good idea to seek

34



to have priests made directors of diocesan radio programs or

film or TV producers. Taken as a whole, all this too is work

for laymen, with the clergy in a primarily subsidiary role. It

is certainly good and indeed necessary that priests in increas-

ing numbers should become familiar with the techniques of

modern mass media, but, except in special cases (e.g., Vatican

Radio), with a view to playing a subordinate, not a leading

part.

Here the question broadens out to a more general one: Is

the Church to incorporate itself into the modern societal

structure, or is it to form, in a pluralistic society, a sort of

"society within society,” a state within a state? The question

is, of course, connected with the position of the laity in the

Church. Is the layman really considered an active member

with his proper area of responsibility in the total Church, or

is he purely an object of paternal care?

This broader question, of course, could not be gone into

in this discussion; it belongs to the schema on the Church.

But the example of the liturgy schema could have been fol-

lowed, for there the dogmatic place of the layman in the

Church was already anticipated in very happy fashion, where-

as in the mass-media schema an almost contradictory view of

the layman could be glimpsed in the background.

Considering the shortness of the debate, I have given dis-

proportionate space to the mass media. I did so deliberately.

For if we look at the importance of the theme and the pos-

sible results, we are not dealing with a subject to be dis-

patched in a relaxed mood over coffee. In any case, the

theme will recur when the schema is improved; perhaps

when it does recur it will be better situated than it was on

its first appearance. For at that time the attention of all was

already turned to the chief subject of the Council, which was

making its approach felt. This demands some explanation.

For three weeks there had been ferment among the Council

35



Fathers. They had all come with the expectation that the

question of the Church would be the chief theme of con-

ciliar deliberations. When the first schemata delivered to

the bishops did not include one on the Church, the bishops

calmed themselves by telling one another that the schema

was not yet ready. I can say for certain that such was indeed

the case. Much that today seems unpardonable neglect, or

for which all sorts of ulterior motives are invented, is really

to be explained by the fact that the opening of the Council

was set for an earlier date than had been anticipated. Many,

and these very influential, churchmen regarded 1963 as the

earliest date that could seriously be considered. It was the

Pope himself—in many matters a very independent man, who

makes his surprising decisions like one led by an invisible

hand—who threw off this calculation. The “Council better

prepared for than any other” really does not deserve this

description—at least not in every respect. I write now in order

to scotch certain legends; I do not deny, of course, that this

precise lack of preparation proved, after the event, to be a

genuine piece of good fortune. In any event, the schema on

the Church was not ready at the opening of the Council.

Why the Crowded Agenda?

But when, after a month, the schema had not yet been

put into the bishops’ hands, they became seriously disturbed.

Was the first session to be allowed to pass without the

main discussions being begun? The unrest became visible to

the journalists when, about three weeks ago, the Secretary

General, Archbishop Pericle Felici, announced that during

that week, or at latest during the next week, the bishops

would have the schema on the Church. It turned out to be

the next week. But what they received was a volume con-

taining two schemata: the schema on the Church and a

36



schema on the Blessed Virgin Mary. The latter contained only

six pages, the former about eighty.

In Rome one must always ask the question: Why? In every

event an ulterior motive is at least possible. So also here.

Why was the schema on Mary put in with the one on the

Church? The answer is easy and was given to me by a very

authoritative source.

The heads of the Theological Commission knew, of course,

of the bishops’ desire to begin dealing with the schema on

the Church before the first session ended. They also knew

(from the progress of the debates on the liturgy schema)

that the discussion would be difficult and protracted. In fact,

Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani later began his presentation of

the Church schema thus: "This schema is ecumenical, it is

pastoral, it is positive. Yet I know that the batteries are al-

ready drawn up and that the attack will be: the schema is

not ecumenical, not pastoral, not positive. I know further

that other documents are already prepared and are circulating

among the Fathers, which are to be substituted for the one

I am presenting. I ask you at least to read the schema before

condemning it.”

The intention, thus, was as follows: In order to give some

satisfaction to the bishops’ sense of urgency, the schema "On

the Unity of the Church,” concerned exclusively with the

Eastern Churches, was first to be dealt with. It was com-

posed, not by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity,

but by the Preparatory Commission for the Eastern Churches,

of which Cardinal Cicognani was president.

The hope was to secure the schema’s acceptance in perhaps

two days. For in all practical matters it showed the greatest

openness to the separated Eastern Churches, it spoke of them

with great respect, and it contained a sort of confession of

guilt in regard to the past. It solemnly declared that in church

law, liturgy and customs every possible liberty was guaran-

37



teed; that in any reunion no abjuration would be required

but only a simple profession of faith; that a lively spiritual

interchange with the spiritual treasures of the Eastern

Churches was envisaged; that in addition to the two octaves

(in January and at Easter), an annual day of unity was to

be celebrated; that the Eastern Churches were to be regarded

not as museum pieces but as living sectional Churches which

had the right to develop further. The schema was to be

presented as the promising opening of the whole question of

the Church. In addition, the Fathers were to be given the

great schema on the Church as they desired. Thus—this was

the hope—their hunger would be allayed for the moment and,

in view of the short time remaining, they would willingly

accept by an overwhelming majority the very sober schema

on the Blessed Virgin.

This was the attitude of one group. But it in no way cor-

responded to the views of the majority. Even at the table of

the ten presidents of the Council differences arose; for the

result of the discussion in this presidium was the enigmatic

statement that the schema on the Church and the schema

on Mary would be handled “at the same time.” How was

such a decision possible? There can be but one explanation:

the presidium, divided in itself, wanted to leave to the Coun-

cil the decision about which schema was to be discussed first.

Schema on Unity

But first the schema on unity was presented for debate.

It soon became evident that it must undergo radical change.

There could be no thought of its quick acceptance. It was

only natural that the Eastern Churches in union with the

Holy See had the greatest interest in the document. The

Melchite Patriarch Maximos IV made his appearance, a man

already well-known through his spirited speeches delivered

38



in French (though he is a master of Latin, he used French

to show that the “Latin” Church is in principle only a sectional

Church within the whole Catholic Church).

Unfortunately, the Eastern Churches are involved in un-

pleasant disputes whose roots ofen lie in remote history. Only

the Melchites, under the leadership of the commanding per-

sonality of Maximos IV, form a unified group. As you know,

each Father may speak only ten minutes. But Maximos knew

how to get around this. He announced that he had distributed

his criticism of the schema among himself and his four suf-

fragans. In approximately fifty minutes they could make all

the necessary points. More than one Latin bishop said to me

later: “That was one of the most interesting meetings. We got

an insight—and it was revelation to us—into a situation that

had lasted from the early Church to our time.”

I shall here mention only the most important point made

and save the rest for the time when the revised schema is

returned for judgment. The Eastern Churches are very con-

scious that they were immediately founded by the Apostles.

This was the starting point of their development, liturgical,

canonical and theological. They insist strongly that “they owe

nothing” to the Latin Church, while not denying, of course,

that the Latin development, too, is a legitimate unfolding of

the same deposit of faith. They are simply defending them-

selves, but with passion, against the claim of the “Latins” to

be the only legitimate manifestation of the Catholic faith.

They can view the Pope only as the head of the college of

bishops.

New light from very ancient tradition was here cast on

Fr. Karl Rahner’s recent studies of this subject, such as The

Episcopate and the Primacy ( Herder and Herder, 1962 ) . This

did not go unnoticed. Thus the naked, isolated setting of the

papal primacy at the head of the schema proved to be a

serious mistake. The revised version must avoid this blunder.

39



It took the discussion right into the debate on the Church

schema. It was impossible to approve here a conception of

the primacy which would later be effaced in the schema on

the Church.

The desire of the bishops for the debate on the Church

was thus not stilled; in fact, it had now been aroused more

fully. When, therefore, toward the end of the debate on the

unity schema, Cardinal Ottaviani proposed that the Council

should turn next to the schema on the Blessed Virgin, his sug-

gestion fell upon poorly disposed ears. To no avail he en-

thusiastically reminded each country of its Marian shrine; to

no avail he insisted on the moderate character of the schema,

on its clear avoidance of any maximalism or minimalism, on

its emphatic placing of Mary among the redeemed.

I have read the criticism of one of the conciliar “experts”

on this schema. Its fundamental objection is that Mary is

considered in isolation, instead of being seen in the context

of the Church. The question arises: If there is no intention

of saying anything new about Mary, why should this pre-

cise point of Catholic faith be treated in a separate docu-

ment? No schema was prepared on the Trinity or on Jesus

Christ! Would not such isolated treatment of the Blessed

Virgin give the impression that in practice more stress is laid

on Mariology than on the more central dogmas of Chris-

tianity? But Mary could well be considered in the context

of the schema on the Church, for many Catholics have no

clear idea of her place in the Church; at the same time, this

would be the best way to make the Evangelical (Protestant)

Christians understand Catholic devotion to Mary.

The situation was so clear that the Council immediately

accepted Cardinal Ottaviani’s suggestion to leave to the pre-

sidium (the ten presiding cardinals) the decision on which

schema should be treated first. The presidium, which a few

days before had wanted to leave the decision to the Council

40



as a whole, now decided to postpone consideration of the

Marian schema and to turn to the discussion of the great

schema on the Church.

I shall not go into the details of the very interesting debates

held during the last few days, for they came to no conclu-

sion. One point, however, did emerge clearly: the schema

on the Church will not indeed be replaced by an entirely

new one, but it will have to undergo radical revision. The

debate on the schema in its over-all character—which is as

far as things got—showed immediately that an overly juridical

conception of the Church had found expression in the docu-

ment; the mystery of the Church was left in the background,

and the image of the Mystical Body of Christ was not ade-

quately complemented by the images of the People of God

and the Bride of Christ.

Summing Up the First Session

If we glance back over the events sketched here, we can

see, even more clearly than in the conflict over "Revelation”

(as the former schema "Sources of Revelation” is already

being called), that there is still no unity of minds on the

meaning of the papal directives given at the opening of the

Council. What does it mean to speak "ecumenically, pastoral-

ly and positively”? Everyone wants to do that; this universal

desire is questioned by no one. But the interpretations vary

widely.

The point came up for renewed discussion apropos of every

schema. The particular subjects of debate were in fact only

instances that brought to the fore this same divergence. It is

easy here to see the confusion of language that besets us

today. This does not consist simply in the fact that we and

the totalitarian states use words like "freedom,” "democracy,”

"people,” in entirely different senses. Even in the Catholic

41



Church, which not without reason prides itself on unity of

doctrine, there are words which among Catholics themselves

are ambiguous. The Council had to spend two months be-

coming conscious of this fact.

At the beginning of the Council I often heard the state-

ment: We know there are tensions between the "center” of

the Church (Rome and Italy) and the "periphery.” Such

a statement contained a clear value judgment: the "center”

was being regarded as orthodox; the "periphery,” as at least

infected by suspect views. Those who spoke in this fashion

were convinced that the Council would make it clear to every-

one that only the "center” represented the pure teaching of

the Christian faith.

That the "periphery” might manifest a unified conception

of certain problems never entered the heads of the repre-

sentatives of the "center.” They thought they would encounter

a multiplicity of conflicting opinions. Rut the Council brought

to light quite a different situation. The "periphery” in fact

possessed a unified basic outlook, one that could be summed

up precisely in the words "ecumenical, pastoral, positive.”

This change and shift within the Church is the great and

even astounding result of the first session. Many feel that it

is of epochal significance, even if the tangible results of the

first session seem slight. Mario von Galli, S.
J.

imprimi potest: John
J.

McGinty, S.
J.,

Provincial of the

New York Province, nihil obstat: Carroll E. Satterfield,

S.T.D., Censor Librorum. imprimatur: * Lawrence
J.

Shehan,

D. D., Archbishop of Baltimore August 16, 1963

42



A learned

Dominican

theologian

answers questions

about some

topics for

Vatican II.

PERSPECTIVES

FOR THE COUNCIL

Pere Congar, distinguished French theol-

ogian, was a consultor to the Theological Commission pre-

paring for Vatican II. Among his many significant books,

Lay People in the Church (Newman) is perhaps best known

to the English-speaking world as an outstanding contribution

to the theology of the laity. For a quarter of a century Fr.

Congar has been in the forefront of the ecumenical movement

in European circles. His pioneer book of the mid-lQSO’s

Chretiens desunis, is still cited as a great leap forward in Cath-

olic thinking about the separated brethren.

In 1961, this gracious and very busy man invited the inter-

viewer to the Dominican House in Strasbourg, France, to dis-

cuss some of the salient problems facing the Church at this

turning point in its history. The astoundingly rapid change in

all fields today compels us to reconsider the role of "the little

Church in a vast world.” The quest for the most effective ways

of witnessing to the truth that is in us forms the supreme chal-

lenge for Catholics who live in this new age just being born.

• 09

Q You have mentioned in your writings that the

coming Ecumenical Council should rethink the

The reputation of Fr. Yves M.-J. Congar, o. p., as a theologian rightly

won him a role in the Council's preparatory labors and admirably qual-

ifies him to answer questions put by Fr. Eugene Bianchi, s.j., now an

assistant editor of America and also the interrogator of a noted layman,

Joseph Folltet (p. 63).

43



role of bishops in the Church. Would you like to

develop this idea?

congar: I think many bishops desire that the Roman

Curia be more international, with better representation in

Rome for the various national churches. One could imagine

a number of ways of achieving this, for example, enlargement

of the College of Cardinals, or perhaps the setting up of a

new permanent commission.

Even more important is the question of the theology of the

episcopal college. You are aware that, from a theological point

of view,, the bishops are successors of the apostles, not in the

sense that each bishop succeeds a determined apostle, but in

the sense that the college of bishops as such succeeds the col-

lege of apostles as such. This is important, because the apostles

had a universal jurisdiction; thus, the college of bishops has

in itself a universal jurisdiction in the Church.

Each individual bishop is limited de facto in his authority

to a determined territory, but as a member of the episcopal

college he possesses a certain power and obligation in regard

to the whole Church. This power and duty to the whole

Church is exercised mainly in an ecumenical council. The

Council is the perfect realization of the episcopal college.

When the bishops are dispersed in their own dioceses, each

bishop individually is not infallible. But when the bishops

universally preach a doctrine, it becomes a matter of faith, a

matter of infallible teaching. This was the chief argument of

Pius XII for declaring the dogma of the Assumption.

Furthermore, each bishop in his individual diocese should

show an interest in the universal Church. He shows this inter-

est, first, in the administration of his own diocese.

A diocese is only part of the whole Church, but it carries

within itself the nature of the whole Church. Thus, for a

diocese to be truly catholic, its bishop must govern it, not as

44



an independent unit, but rather as a portion of the universal

Church. This implies that the bishop actualize in his diocese

all the great causes of the universal Church.

Moreover, a bishop should interest himself in questions that

are distant from his proper domain. Pius XII strongly under-

lined this in his encyclical Fidei Donum, in 1957, when he

said that bishops are missionaries for the whole world. You

have a good example of that in Louvain, where you studied.

Cardinal Suenens and the Belgian bishops conduct there

a seminary for Latin America. The Belgian bishops believe

they have a certain charge of South America, where, as you

know, the pastoral needs are very great. Of course, the Belgian

bishops will not intervene in the diocesan affairs of Brazil or

Chile, but they are pastorally interested in these dioceses, as

the creation of this seminary signifies.

Q What attitudes do you think the Council will

take regarding the mission countries?

congar: I feel that the Church of the 20th century has

already begun to have a completely new outlook on the mis-

sions. This is to be understood in two ways.

First, the Church today understands better that it is mission-

ary by nature, missionary in all the aspects of its life. There

is no role or position in the Catholic Church that is not mis-

sionary. This should be strongly marked in the Council. And

when I say that the Church is missionary in all its members,

I am thinking especially of the laity. Recent pontifical docu-

ments and the recent conventions of laymen in Rome have all

expressed this thought.

Second, the Church has had to revise its attitude toward

the missions because of the gradual collapse of colonialism.

The 19th century was the most glorious missionary epoch of

history, but it was also a century of colonialism. It was the

45



century ot the geographical discovery of the world, of Africa

and Oceania in particular. Missionaries were sent on the heels

of the explorers, and under the protection of Western gov-

ernments. This protection seemed necessary at the time. But

it linked the missions to the West, to colonial interests and

to a certain form of imperialism. Today this is absolutely im-

possible. Wherever the missions are tied to Western powers,

they are meeting serious obstacles. The missions remain alive

and vigorous only in places where for at least a decade they

have separated themselves from too much dependence on

Western powers.

Today there are native hierarchies and native clergies. Of

course, these indigenous churches have not been very active

in theology, but I think they will bring to the Council their

authentic problems. Instead of being represented at the coun-

cil by Western powers, as was the case in 1869, the mission

countries will be represented by men who have firsthand

knowledge and intense interest in the evangelization of their

own lands. This should bring to the Council an extraordinary

broadening of perspective in matters of canon law, Catholic

Action, liturgy, and maybe even in the formulation of certain

doctrines.

Q What position do you think the Council can take

on the thorny question of non-Catholic groups

evangelizing the previously Catholic areas?

congab: I do not believe that the Church can directly de-

clare the right of non-Catholic Christians to evangelize in al-

ready Catholic areas. After all, the Church must be honest with

its own conscience; it must be loyal to its most profound be-

liefs. What it can do, and should do, I feel, is to make a firm

declaration of tolerance, of respect for the religious liberties

of other consciences.

46



In place of bitter rivalry, a disagreeable and very negative

thing, the Church should seek an amicable understanding with

the separated Christians, especially in missionary areas. Such

understanding, I am happy to say, is coming more and more

into evidence.

This question of tolerance is very important. The World

Council of Churches in Geneva expressly requests that we

take up the subject. In May of 1961, we brought together 12

Catholic and 12 non-Catholic theologians (appointed by the

WCC). This semiofficial meeting was to discuss religious

tolerance and freedom of conscience.

Today this problem of tolerance must be seen as forming an

indivisible unit in the world. I mean that it is impossible to

demand tolerance in one country and not practice it in an-

other. The question cannot be divided like that. A few years

ago the Catholic Church in a certain country desired that

Protestant citizens support the Catholic stand for religious lib-

erty in Hungary. The Protestants did not want to co-operate;

they said that they suffered from injustices in Catholic coun-

tries—Spain and areas of Latin America. This was not overly

generous on their part; it would have been better had they

not raised that matter. But one can certainly see their point

of view. The example shows that this question of religious

liberty must be viewed on an undivided, world-wide basis.

Q You have said that a whole new chapter on the

laity could he written today, that the Church

must go beyond the canonical notion of the laity

and see the place of laymen in the sacred order

of the Church . Would you like to comment on

this

P

congan: Yes. When the word “layman” is used, it makes

some theologians think of a canonical distinction which says

47



that a layman is neither a cleric nor a monk. Actually there

is much more to it than that.

The laity would be very disappointed if the Council just

says that laymen are neither clerics nor monks. They already

know that. They want to know just what they are, and this in

a positive way, not only as regards their rights, but also con-

cerning their duties. The laymen are anxious to take on the

responsibilities of the Church, but they ask to know just how

intimately they belong to the Church and form the Church.

On these points we have reached a sort of consensus since

1950, thanks to two world congresses of the lay apostolate, to

the discourses of the Pope, and to a number of books. I think

it is quite possible today to determine the ecclesiological role

of lay people in a positive and constructive way.

Of course, there are some delicate points, such as the obli-

gations of married people and the role of spouses in the Mys-

tical Body (which is not made up of individuals but of fa-

milies ) . Marriage must be seen as a Christian state in and of

the Church. Pius XII, you know, speaks of such a state in his

encyclical Mystici Corporis.

The role of lay people in the liturgy constitutes a consider-

able problem. First, there is the question of a more active lay

participation in the liturgy as it is today. Much good work has

been done. We have just recently celebrated the Holy Week

and paschal ceremonies. I found them very impressive when

the lay people had been properly prepared. But, in my opinion,

there is a much more fundamental problem facing our liturgy.

I doubt whether the Council will be able to take it up, since

it will demand much time, work and gradual experimentation.

I refer to the problem of a less clerical or monastic liturgy

than our present one.

Let me give an example. Take the “Exsultet” preface of the

Paschal Vigil. As a cleric who knows Latin, who has an ecclesi-

astical, patristic and monastic background, I find myself rel-

48



atively at home in this prayer. I recognize a quantity of poeti-

cal and biblical and traditional allusions in the song. It says

something to me; it profoundly touches my religious spirit.

But I imagine that for laymen, who have none of this Latin,

traditional, clerical formation, it must have much less mean-

ing. Many of the images say nothing at all to them; their for-

mation has in many cases been just the opposite of a Greco-

Latin traditional schooling.

I really think that this is the liturgical problem for some time

to come. The difficulties will first present themselves in the

far-off mission lands, like India and Africa, which totally lack

the Western tradition. It is evident that in France our whole

culture has a Latin foundation; the problem is, therefore,

somewhat less urgent here than on the missions. But this litur-

gical “gap” will become more and more pronounced even in

Western Europe. It will be necessary to envisage forms of

expression that are more accessible to the laity, if we do not

want to see the liturgy restricted to a specially trained elite.

Such a liturgy would have no contact with the masses.

I am very much impressed, having followed closely the

French liturgical movement, by the fact that the liturgy did

not really become popular until the singing of psalms in the

vernacular was introduced, thanks to the translation of the

Bible of Jerusalem and to the melodies of Pere Gelineau. The

movement is encouraging, but it is not an ideal solution. It is

rather a paraliturgical, or peripheral, solution. I regret that in

our student Masses we do not sing the Mass itself but, instead,

various psalms distributed throughout.

Q In your major work on the laity you explain how

lay people participate in the priestly
,
prophetic

and royal roles of the Church. Which of these

functions do you think is the most important for

the layman?

49



congar: I would hesitate to say that one of these roles is

more important than another. I think that the priestly function

of the layman is the most comprehensive, that is, if one under-

stands it, as I did, in conformity with the text of the Epistle

to the Romans: “. . . offer up your bodies as a living sacrifice,

consecrated to God and worthy of his acceptance; this is the

worship due from you as rational creatures” (12:1). All the

life of a layman is included in this complete and total offering

to God.

The prophetic role is also very important. This is what the

apostle Peter underlines in his first letter: “. . . that you may

declare the virtues of him who has called you out of darkness

into his wonderful light” (2:9). It is the prophetic people of

God, the Church, like Israel of old, giving witness before the

world of the existence of God, of His greatness and the need

for serving Him.

And concerning the interior life, the royal role is very im-

portant. It is the domination of one's self, the conquest of

one’s liberty. I think that we could formulate all of Christian

morality in terms of the conquest of liberty. It would then ap-

pear as a baptismal and paschal morality, that is, the escaping

from the slavery to sin to live in the spiritual liberty of the

sons of God.

Q I noticed in one of your articles that you hoped

the Council would refrain, in the interests of

Church unity
,
from making any Marian declara-

tions. Why do you feel this way?

congar: I think that if the Council made some of the

Marian declarations that are talked about in various theologi-

cal publications and congresses, it would constitute an almost

definitive obstacle to the unity of Christians.

It is a fact that the definition of the Assumption has created

50



a new obstacle that is very difficult to overcome not only for

Protestants—that’s too clear—but even for the Orthodox, who

nevertheless admit the Assumption. From the very day that it

was dogmatized unilaterally by Rome, the Orthodox said: Ah

no, we cant go along with that; it’s not the same thing.

If we were to make dogmas of subjects not yet mature in

the conscience of the Church, such as the co-redemption or the

universal mediation of Mary, I think it would create an almost

insurmountable obstacle to unity. Fr. Robert Leiber, S.J., as

you know, was a close adviser of Pius XII. In his memoirs of

Pius XII, he stated that the Pope considered these questions

not yet mature in the conscience of the Church, not sufficiently

clear to be the subjects of a dogmatic declaration. I would ask

those who want to make a dogma out of the co-redemption of

Mary to give me first a good theology of the redemption. I’m

sure they would have to admit that it is not easy to do.

Q There seems to be a desire among many Chris-

tians to see a greater simplicity and modernity in

the ChurcKs modes of expression and in the ways

of her ecclesiastics . What is your thought on this?

congab: I think the Council must express itself in lan-

guage that will be understood by the men of today, that is, in

clear, pastoral and nonacademic words which have a truly

evangelical and religious tone. As far as I can see from my

personal contacts, this is the formal desire of the bishops. They

absolutely do not want to propose to the world a theological

dissertation. They want to address a pastoral message. The

Church must become more and more aware that it is speaking

not only to a believing but also to an unbelieving world.

On the question of external forms of clerical life in the

Church, yes, it would be well if we simplified our ways. But

what is of much more importance, and I say this from personal

51



experience, is that men be able to express themselves freely.

Men are not happy unless they can express themselves. In fact

they do express themselves. But where? In their family lives,

their diversions, their work—not in church.

Now it seems to me that because of the pomp that sur-

rounds and imprisons them, bishops and cardinals are prac-

tically never at occasions and places where men freely express

themselves. They are with men, but in formal ceremonies

where men do not express themselves, where they enter into

a ready-made rite that is perhaps too solemn. These high dig-

nitaries have a certain contact with men, but this contact is

fenced around with protocol and the marks of respect. In these

circumstances men are careful not to say too much.

Thus, members of the upper hierarchy generally encounter

artificial rather than real situations. One would wish that they

had contact with men in those domains in which the latter

express themselves freely. How to achieve such contact prac-

tically, you ask. One suggestion would be that members of the

upper hierarchy four times a year take a workers’ train for

half an hour during the rush period. Of course, they would

have to present themselves in a way that would not obstruct

the liberty of expression of the men around them.

52



God calls

the modern layman

to an important

rendez-vous

with many new

responsibilities.

Without waiting for more developments,

we can safely assert that the Second Vatican Council will mark

an historic turning point in the apostolic life of the Church.

The relatively untapped energies of the lay Catholic will be

channeled at last into the main stream of the Church’s apos-

tolate. Pope John XXIII indicated as much when receiving

the permanent Committee of the International Congresses for

the Lay Apostolate on February 8, 1961. He said that this

question will be “an object of vital concern and special study.”

Later, in the publication Activities of the Holy See in I960,

the Central Preparatory Commission stated categorically that

the nature, prerogatives and limitations of the lay apostolate

will be studied in detail at the Council, on the level of both

theory and practice, with special reference to its relations

with the hierarchy.

Such authoritative forecasts reflect the virtually unanimous

wishes of the bishops of the whole world. The age of the lay

apostolate is arriving. To speak more accurately, that day has

already arrived. It remains only for the Fathers of the Coun-

cil to give its formal recognition.

The Council’s concern with the apostolic possibilities of the

layman is nothing else than a response to the growing ground

swell that has been sweeping the Church for many years. One

would have to go back to the 13th century and the popular

Long a student of Vatican affairs in his capacity as an associate editor

of America, Fr. Robert A. Graham, s.j., followed closely the pre-

paratory phases of the Council and was in Rome during the first session.

53

THE LAITY

AND THE COUNCIL



revival aroused by St. Francis of Assisi to find a comparable

grass-roots upsurge of lay religious zeal. It seems as though

the more society becomes secularized, the more pronounced

becomes the spiritual outlook of individual Christians in the

face of their environment. The evolving world circumstances

also suggest that Providence itself is kindling this fire to co-

incide with the advent of a revolutionary era.

In the newly developing countries, where Christianity's

roots are still tender, unprecedented opportunities are open-

ing at the very moment when, as in Africa and Asia, political

independence has tolled the bell for the 19th-century mission-

ary methods which depended so largely upon the prestige of

the colonizing power. As if these political and social changes

were not enough, rapid technological advances put a pre-

mium on specialists trained as no priest or religious can be

trained. Even if the shortage of priests were not felt in the

former mission-sending countries, many of the works now in-

dicated in the apostolate can be performed better, if not ex-

clusively, by laymen.

The needs and the opportunities are evident. Why must we

wait for an ecumenical council in order to get the lay apos-

tolate moving? How is it that the recent decades have wit-

nessed so much backing and filling, such unmistakable experi-

mentation and, most of all, such prolonged and indecisive

theoretical discussions?

The nub of the difficulty lies precisely in the apostolic na-

ture of this lay action. The layman is doing the work of the

Church. Yet, by the will of Christ and the constitution of the

Church, the preaching of the gospel and the sanctification

of souls are entrusted directly to an order of priesthood, with

the bishops at the head. Without abolishing the distinction

between clergy and laity, it seems difficult, if not impossible,

to conceive of a lay apostolate in the strict sense.

If "apostolate” were understood only in a generic or meta-

54



phoric sense, there would be no perplexity. Every Christian,

by the fact of his baptism and confirmation, is called to some

expressions of apostolic zeal, through prayer, good example

and the conscientious fulfillment of the duties of his state in

life. A faithful Catholic working in an office, a factory or the

Peace Corps with the right motivation can find ways of bear-

ing witness to the faith that is in him. But this work is his own

personal testimony and not part of the apostolate of the

Church.

A wider radius of action, however, is envisaged in the lay

apostolate. To use the words of Pius XII when he spoke to

the Congress of the Lay Apostolate on October 5, 1957, this

apostolate is "the assuming by laymen of tasks deriving from

the mission which Christ confided to His Church.” Those called

to this role are expected, not to supplement the work of the

bishops, priests and religious in a marginal way, but to work

alongside of these and even to supplant them in certain areas.

Whence arise the still unanswered problems of organization,

canon law, theology and spirituality which the Council must

now confront.

A Trend Over Two Centuries

A resume of the stages through which what we now call

the lay apostolate has passed will help put today’s issues in

perspective. The problem is relatively new, at least in its con-

temporary expression. The Church has known an apostolic

laity as far back as Joseph of Arimathea and the Women of

Jerusalem; but a lay apostolate is something else again. As a

body, the laity have not been invited to participate in the

Church’s sacerdotal mission in the ministry of the word.

At the high-water mark of Catholic Europe, the ‘laity” was

the civil power itself, as personified in the Emperor or prince.

With the French Revolution and its aftermath, when the

55



Catholic princes lost their crowns, or at least their real power,

if not their faith, the "laity” signified more and more the in-

dividual Catholic in relation to his Church. By reason of per-

sonal rather than hereditary status, some Catholics became

conspicuous as loyal defenders of the Church’s interests and

ideals. Hence there arose, in the early decades of the 19th

century, what is known, for want of a better word, as the

Catholic Movement. The first half of the past century is re-

markable for the names of such able and devoted Catholic

laymen as de Bonald and de Maistre in France, von Stolberg

and Goerres in Germany, Donoso Cortes in Spain, Daniel

O’Connell in Ireland and others. By their energies and talents

they supplied as best they could for the moral and political

decline of the traditional Catholic ruler.

Organizationally, this action of individuals soon gave way

to national unions or congresses for the defense of the Church.

A notable initiative of this kind was the Katholikentag, an an-

nual event in Germany, the first of which was held in 1848.

In Belgium, the Assemblee generate des catholiques first met

in Malines with a similar purpose in 1863. In Italy, the Opera

dei congressi e dei comitati caitolici was founded in 1874. As

the Industrial Revolution progressed, bringing with it the

problem of socialism, Catholic laymen found an additional

outlet for their zeal. The predominantly lay group who cre-

ated the Union of Fribourg (1884) laid the groundwork for

Rerum Novarum. In connection with this social action the

name of Toniolo in Italy and Harmel in France, of course, de-

serve special mention.

During the critical years of the 19th century the Church had

reason to be consoled in her sons and daughters. In the par-

liamentary eloquence of a Montalembert, the charity of an

Ozanam, the alms-collecting of a Pauline Jaricot, the polem-

ics of a Veuillot, the swords of the Zouaves who came from

all over the world to fight for the Pope, the attachment and

56



generosity of the Catholic faithful were impressively evident.

But this zeal, once on the march, was not destined to stop

at that point. A more intimate participation of the laity in the

apostolate of the Church was bound to grow from these begin-

nings. The Church began to call for lay action on an ever

broader front. One of the earliest invitations was that of

Leo XIII, who in his encyclical Sapientiae Christianae of Jan-

uary 10, 1890, said: “No one . . . must entertain the notion that

private individuals are prevented from taking some active part

in this duty of teaching, especially those on whom God has

bestowed gifts of mind with the strong wish of rendering

themselves useful.
,,

But the same Pope soon learned that Catholic organizations

could provide anxiety as well as comfort and strength. By the

turn of the century he was having difficulties because of the

political orientation of some movements which wished to serve

the Church in their way, without reference to the wishes of

the bishops.

Freewheeling by overzealous organizations continued, none

the less. In 1904, Pope St. Pius X suppressed the Opera del

congressi after it had repeatedly acted in opposition to the

Pontiffs known wishes. (As it so happened, the chief trouble-

maker was not a layman, but a priest, Don Romolo Murri, a

modernist who later left the Church.) In a letter of June 11,

1905, 11 fermo proposito, the Pope created a new lay organiza-

tion, the Unione popolare
,
which would avoid the pitfalls of

the past. Those works “known by the name of Catholic Ac-

tion,” said the Holy Father, “cannot be conceived as existing

in independence of the counsel and sovereign direction of the

ecclesiastical authority, especially insofar as they must all be

governed by the principles of Christian teaching and morality;

still less possible is it to conceive them as existing in opposi-

tion, more or less open, to the ecclesiastical authority.” Move-

ments which carry the Catholic banner, observed the Pope

57



in words still true today, should act in a Catholic manner.

The use of the phrase “Catholic Action” by Pope St. Pius X

was an abrupt change in terminology. Contemporary observ-

ers noted that, as though on purpose, the Pontiff had used this

term wherever his predecessor would have spoken of “Chris-

tian Democracy.” The older term, they commented, had be-

come too ambiguous to be useful. It had taken on both a

political and a social (as well as religious) meaning. And so

it came about that from this time on, Catholic Action, though

not used for the first time in 1905, entered into the language

of the Church to designate lay action which is nonpolitical,

apostolic and completely subordinated to the hierarchy.

Catholic Action and Lay Apostolate

When Pius XI began his pontificate in 1922, he thus found

himself in possession of an idea and a name. He proceeded

to give concrete organizational form to Catholic Action. Under

his impulsion, lay activists of all sorts sprang up. Of these,

the model form of Catholic Action was the Young Christian

Workers
(
Jocistes ), founded by the famous Canon Cardijn. It

would be difficult to overestimate the profound influence of

this form of “specialized Catholic Action,” which has so many

imitators.

To this Pontiff is due the definition of CA as “the participa-

tion of the laity in the apostolic mission of the hierarchy.” A

key device, called “mandate,” was developed in order to

assure full episcopal control at all times. Only those move-

ments could be regarded as forming Catholic Action which

had received a formal commission from some bishop. The

mandate or license could be given or withdrawn at discretion.

The formula of Pius XI, theoretically sound, proved imprac-

tical. Subsequent reversals of official policy imply this clearly

enough. The remedies for old ills generated new maladies. For

58



instance, the preoccupation with insuring subordination to the

bishop often succeeded in chilling lay initiative. The bishops

inclined to deal with the laity as they did with their own

priests and religious, in disregard of the whole idea of the lay

apostolate and its responsibilities. The method of the mandate

also induced confusion and a spirit of rivalry through lack of

uniform application from one diocese to another. Further-

more, a sort of superapostolate was created, since Catholic

Action appeared to be above older works which, though ap-

proved by the Popes and bishops, did not possess the treasured

mandate.

Another complication arose from the growth of Catholic

Action in the interwar period. The lay apostle, normally, is

married; the couple would probably be engaged in Catholic

Action together. Spiritual writers, accordingly, set about to

develop a lay spirituality for married apostolic couples. Their

efforts were not always satisfactory, inasmuch as the impres-

sion was created, contrary to the long-standing ascetical teach-

ing of the Church, that marriage and virginity are states

equally favorable for the attainment of sanctity. No doubt

many vocations were decided on this basis. It seems probable

that the drop in priestly and religious vocations in Europe is

traceable to the high praise of sanctity in the married state

current in the 1930’s. In his encyclical Sacra Virginitas of

March 25, 1954, Pope Pius XII corrected the errors and exag-

gerations that arose in this connection The existence of such

a problem illustrates some of the unsuspected doctrinal and

pastoral implications in the field of the lay apostolate.

After World War II a new period of development set in.

The two world congresses of the lay apostolate summoned by

Pius XII in 1951 and 1957 aided in crystallizing further the

data of experieiice. The most striking sign of a change of ap-

proach occurred when Pius XII finally resolved the perennial

and often sterile dispute over the definition of Catholic Ac-

59



tion by the simple process of extending it to embrace every

approved Catholic lay activity of an apostolic nature. The

term "lay apostolate” is now current; it is the term most likely

to get the sanction of official use in the decrees of the Ecu-

menical Council.

The transitions in vocabulary (Catholic Movement, Chris-

tian Democracy, Catholic Action, Lay Apostolate) mark the

four phases in the apostolic evolution about to culminate at

the Council. The pattern of issues to be met is now clear. The

bishops want the laity to join with them in the work of the

Church. They are careful at the same time to safeguard the

God-given constitution of the Church, according to which the

power of teaching and governing resides in the bishops alone.

But this vigilance has led the clergy to control the lay aposto-

late from the outside almost at every turn and, too often, even

to do with their own hands what the laity should do. Whence

the witty and not quite inaccurate description of Catholic Ac-

tion as "the organized interference of the clergy in the apos-

tolic mission of the laity.” The delicate balance between lay

responsibility and episcopal control is yet to be created.

There seem to be reasonable grounds for hoping that the

Fathers of the Second Vatican Council will be able to settle

what several Popes have vainly striven to resolve. By their

unique prestige, the bishops at the Council can at least widen

the range of possible solutions in a number of areas. Pastoral-

ly, the Council can make its own the earlier calls of modern

Popes inviting generous lay men and women to a more direct

participation in the work of Christ. (It can set the example it-

self by finding some form of lay consultation at the Council.

)

Canonically, the Vatican synod can give the laity some formal

status in ecclesiastical legislation. Such recognition is present-

ly lacking. According to one standard canon law textbook, the

laity are simply "those who do not have the power either of

order or of jurisdiction.”

60



Theologically, the Council can render a more profound serv-

ice. Lack of adequate theological perspective is part of the

reason for the past setbacks of the lay apostolate. At bottom,

what is needed is a recasting of the terms in which the Church

is presented. Ecclesiology, as many writers point out, has been

up to now primarily a hierarchiology. The main stress has been

on the teaching and governing of the episcopacy. Familiar to

every laymen is the distinction, so often insisted upon in ser-

mons, between the Church Teaching and the Church Taught.

At times, the very word “Church” is used as synonymous with

“Church Teaching,” as though the hierarchy is the Church.

What is true of the magisterium is also true of the ruling

power as embodied in the symbol of the shepherd. Pope St.

Pius X expressed a characteristic churchmans attitude when

on February 11, 1906, he declared to the French Catholics:

“The one duty of the multitudes is to allow themselves to be

led and, like a docile flock, to follow the shepherd.” Such ex-

hortations to passivity are hardly a favorable starting point for

great endeavors in the Lord’s vineyard.

The modern awareness of the Mystical Body has done much

to center differently the axis of our thinking. We are here re-

minded that the head, important as it is, is not the body; that

the body has other members whose functions are different and

whose work cannot be done by the head; and that all mem-

bers, the greater and the lesser, must contribute their separate

part “to the building up of the Body of Christ.”

Pius XII indicated the mind of the Church in seeking to re-

dress the balance when he told the 1957 lay congress: “It

would be a misunderstanding of the real nature of the Church

and her social character to distinguish in her an active ele-

ment, the ecclesiastical authorities, and a purely passive ele-

ment, the laity.” These are surprising words, in view of earlier

statements not only by Pope St. Pius X but also by Pius XII

himself. That the Holy Father felt able to make such an utter-

61



ance without fear of being misunderstood is perhaps possible

only because of our newly awakened consciousness of the

Mystical Body.

Another doctrinal contribution of the Council could be a

clarification of the idea of the royal priesthood of the laity.

Today, in contrast to former times, the Church willingly asso-

ciates the faithful with the divine liturgy and freely speaks of

the priesthood of the laity—again without fear of being mis-

understood. This mutual partnership of both sides of the altar

rail in the public liturgical prayers is bound to have its nat-

ural correlative in the field of action. At the same time the

liturgical life may help provide the basis of the lay spirituality,

which is as yet in its primitive form.

The Second Vatican Council, by throwing light on these and

other as yet obscure doctrinal corners, by setting in a new

framework the apostolic outlook of the Church, by codifying

the lessons of the past 150 years of trial and error and by giv-

ing timely impetus to worthy tendencies, can earn for itself the

title of "Council of the Lay Apostolate.” To the timorous

(clergy or lay), some aspects of this change may appear rev-

olutionary and dangerous to the essential clergy-lay distinc-

tion. But the lay apostolate exists only to energize the strength

of the Mystical Body, not to reorganize the constitution of the

Church. Those who enter upon this new-style vocation will

need more, not less, love and knowledge of the Church; they

will need more, not less, loyalty and devotion to the Holy

Father and their bishops. The clergy, for their part, will learn

how to exercise better their unique and irreplaceable preroga-

tives of preaching and sanctification. The end-product will be

a mighty union of hearts in the Christian community. The zeal

of the first Christians brought Christ’s gospel only to the lim-

its of the Roman Empire. It may be this age’s privilege to ex-

tend that Kingdom, in a great leap forward, to the ends of the

earth. Robert A. Graham, S.J.

62



The laymans role

in the Church

is explored hy

a layman

of international

renown.

PROBLEMS OF

THE MODERN CHURCH

Today there is much discussion about fuller

participation of the layman in the life of the Church. The feel-

ing is abroad also that the layman himself is not sufficiently

consulted about his function in the Mystical Body of Christ.

This interview which Fr. Bianchi had with M. Joseph Folliet

in Lyons, France, presented a lay intellectuars views on some

of the vital issues before the Church on the eve of the Second

Vatican Council.

Joseph Folliet is well known in Western Europe as a Cath-

olic thinker, editor and writer. One of his recent books, World

Catholicism Today (Newman), reviews some of the modern

Church’s problems. M. Folliet has a doctorate in social and

political science, another in Thomistic philosophy and a licen-

tiate in theology. He holds honorary degrees from the Univer-

sity of Montreal and Columbia University. For many years he

has been professor of sociology at the Institut Catholique in

Lyons and editor of the periodical Chronique Sociale de France.

o e o

Q Monsieur Folliet, how would you describe in gen-

eral terms the situation of the Church at this

turning point in her history

P

folliet: Such a large question can only suppose a very

broad and incomplete response. The first vital problem facing

the Church is the existence and activity of world communism,

which has already established itself throughout one-third of

63



the earth and is assiduously preparing for conquest of the re-

maining two-thirds. For the Church, communism presents a

problem without precedent.

The Church is not faced with another heresy or schism like

those of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Schism and

heresies undid Catholic unity, but at least some religious ele-

ment remained common to Catholics, schismatics, and even

heretics. The Church does not have to contend with a ration-

alist mystique like that of the Enlightenment, nor does she

have to oppose a 19th-century brand of materialism and posi-

tivism. These latter, without perceiving their interior contra-

diction, professed belief in objective truth and universal

morality.

Communist neopaganism, the secular religion of collective

man, is also a religion of history and, in a certain sense, a

complete pragmatism. Not only does it deny God and the

spirit, as we understand these words, but it rejects all objec-

tive truth and universal morality—truth and morality being

identified with the interest of the revolution and its official in-

terpreter, the party.

There is an essential and irreducible opposition not only

between Christianity and communism, but between normal

paganism and the Communist neopaganism. This is why

Catholicism must say no to communism in general, even

though certain economic accomplishments of the system are

worthy of interest.

Now, because of this categorical refusal of communism, an-

other danger, almost as serious as communism itself, looms

before the Church: that of practically degrading Catholicism

into pure and simple anticommunism. And we will perforce

succumb to this temptation if we content ourselves with a

posture of defense and of sentimental reactions.

The inevitable reactions of the Counter Reformation

weighed a long time on the life and progress of the Church.

64



The effects of a similar reaction of strict defense against com-

munism would be even more grave and lasting. Such tactics

would, on the one hand, deprive the social doctrine of the

Church of its most original and positive contributions. On the

other hand, it would enroll the Church in a crusade against

communism conducted in the name of political ideologies and

economic interests which have little or nothing to do with the

permanent and superior preoccupations of the Catholic reli-

gion.

Thus the Church would find herself oriented toward some

sort of totalitarianism of the national-socialist variety, or

aligned with certain capitalist systems, or wedded to the more

reactionary elements of every society. The latter don t want

change, because any change would diminish their wealth, au-

thority and prestige. In this way the Church would be fettered

to temporal causes in a temporal battle which has, perhaps,

been lost in advance.

Regardless of the perversity of the Communist system,

Communists are men redeemed by the blood of Christ, and

the Church must put the message of salvation at their disposal.

Therefore, I think that in her struggle with communism the

Church must not close in on herself nor be content to gaze

backward at the past.

On the contrary, she should insist on the most positive

aspects of her doctrine and life, showing the relationship be-

tween the divine and the human, and how the former protects

the latter. She should set her face toward the future, anxious

to make the Christian hope which she embodies shine before

the eyes of all men. Finally, the Church should develop an

apologetic and a catechetical teaching for use with Marxists

—for those behind the Iron Curtain and, especially, for those

in the uncommitted countries. The implementation of this

apologetic would probably fall to the layman, whose contacts

with Marxists would be more numerous and uninhibited.

65



Q It seems that the Church is faced with moral and

intellectual crises that are intimately linked to

the rapid change of modern civilization. How

do you understand this situation?

folliet: The whole world is undergoing a great crisis

of civilization and culture, a transformation more rapid and

universal than any that history has yet recorded. Western

civilization, which stemmed from Europe and is reflected in

the United States and the USSR, is gradually spreading

throughout the world. But, at the same time, this civilization

finds itself in a state of full change and interior crisis.

Our civilization is technical, industrial, urban and massive;

it is opposed to the old traditional civilizations which, with

their artisan economies of small or medium-sized groupings,

are predominantly rural. And from a cultural point of view, I

would add that while remaining a civilization of the written

word, it is becoming more and more an audio-visual civiliza-

tion through the newer means of mass communication. The

evolution is having important consequences on individual and

collective psychologies.

Up to now our contemporary civilization has not succeeded

in raising its sights to an order of goals. It resides, rather, in

an order of means: comfort and technical efficiency. Commu-

nism, by historical necessity, places the transcendental in front

of man instead of above him. But this provides no more than

an illusory solution whose insufficiency is revealed once man

has attained certain of his immediate material needs.

Old-time socialism has pretty well spent itself, and it offers

little promise. Nationalism is a heady tonic in the new nations

drunk with independence. But the older nations have the dark

feeling that even independence can do no more than furnish

the awakening countries with a motive for self-defense. It does

not provide a vision by which to live and die. I have the im-

66



pression that the development of the new civilization has

made most of the 19th-century ideologies obsolete.

Although it is in full expansion, our technological civiliza-

tion is a long way from being firmly implanted around the

globe. Take, for example, the problem of the working classes.

It is not at all the same problem in the industrially advanced

countries as it is in the underdeveloped nations. In the latter,

those basic injustices that victimize the laboring classes are

still vigorous and urgently crying for solution. Communism

often seems to be the only doctrine capable of resolving the

plight of these unfortunates.

In the wake of this sweeping revolution of modern civiliza-

tion, old moral and intellectual patterns have been abandoned,

but nothing has renewed or replaced them. In the present

moral crisis the Church has a magnificent opportunity to make

her voice heard. Hers is not a closed and dated morality that

is unsuitable to an ongoing civilization. Rather, it is a truly

human and evangelical morality, the only one which is apt to

provide interior discipline for persons and societies. Of course,

the moral and spiritual message of the Church will have no

impact on our time unless the faithful take the Gospel seri-

ously and make it enter into the whole fabric of their lives.

But the intellectual crisis of today poses problems of a

different order, and the Church will have her hands full try-

ing to resolve them. Her mental imagery, her symbolism, her

preaching and literature are profoundly associated with older

civilizations, particularly with rural civilizations, and with

Greco-Latin culture.

What can rural images mean to city-dwellers who live con-

stantly in a different time cycle and under artificial lights?

What can liturgical symbols signify to men who have lost the

sense of the poetic symbol, but who appreciate more and more

the mathematical symbol? Where is the catechism that is

adapted to presenting Christian moral and dogma to men

67



whose formation and daily experience are those of industrial

techniques? I do not pretend to know the answers, but I know

that these questions will not be solved by a simple fiat.

Q It seems that the catholicity of the Church will he

one of the preoccupations of the coming Council .

Would you like to say something about this?

folliet: Yes, I would. In a world that is becoming more

and more united, the Church should strive to be more catholic

than ever. All men should be able to live her life regardless

of their race, language, national and cultural traditions. The

problems of the Church in Africa and Asia are forcing us,

whether we like it or not, toward such universality.

If we look at the Church as it actually is, we are obliged

to admit that we are still very far from this catholicity which

is so necessary and desirable.

In history the Church appears as closely tied to Western

civilization, to Western forms of thought and custom. Fortu-

nately, the Church has been able to disengage herself from

the ties that colonialism has at times imposed on her. She was

alert enough to create a native clergy and hierarchy in mis-

sionary lands. This was an admirable effort. But now the uni-

versality of the Church must really pass from a state of theory

and doctrine to one of fact; it must be not only attested, but

also spread.

Here a secondary, but important, problem comes to the

fore: the Latinity of the Church. In Western civilization the

Church is closely associated with the Latin peoples and, be-

cause of the geographical location of its spiritual capital, with

the Italian people. Such a situation, which was once historical-

ly acceptable or, at least, unavoidable, must not continue to-

day. The last three Pontiffs have made an effort to clarify this

point of universality.

68



Q It ivould be well to review now some of the speci-

fic problems that the Church faces relative to the

lay apostolaie. Do you feel that the Church in-

corporates the layman sufficiently into her work

of salvation?

folliet: I would have to answer no, but with nuances, of

course, and with high hopes. Through the various forms of

Catholic Action the layman plays a role in the life of the

Church that is at once important and growing. But it doesn't

seem to me that the layman is offered, if I may use such an

economic term, full-time work in the life of the Church. Isn't

it odd, for example, that in France most magazines and many

of the newspapers read by French Catholics are directed by

religious? As a layman I would like to see my fellow laymen

take a more active part in the intellectual life of the Church.

Also I think that the Church could ask much more from

the layman in the area of the temporal administration of

dioceses and parishes. I feel a bit frightened and almost scan-

dalized when I see priests and religious consecrate nearly all

their time to purely administrative needs. Can't we ask the

layman to handle either the financial aspects of administra-

tion, or perhaps to engage more actively in the administra-

tion itself? Some priests speak of such lay co-operation, but

there are few who effectively seek or obtain it.

On the properly pastoral level, the evangelical program of

a parish, a diocese or a region cannot neglect the layman. In

this the movements of Catholic Action have their work cut

out for them. This is undoubtedly one of our high tasks in the

years ahead.

On the parish level, few are the parishes that have a council

of laymen that is worthy of the name. Such a council should

consist of militant and responsible Catholics who are repre-

sentative of their milieu, and whose activity gets beyond pure

69



passivity, if I may risk such an expression. These councils

could render important services in the parish.

Q How can the layman participate more fully in the

liturgical life of the parish

?

folleet: Some parishes have already introduced laymen

more specially formed in prayer and cult to a more active

sharing of liturgical life, either by reading the Proper of the

Mass or by directing the responses of the faithful during the

celebration. I know of a parish where the children’s Mass is a

dialogue Mass led by the father of a family. I know of other

parishes where the faithful participate in the priest’s preach-

ing by offering positive criticisms of past sermons and by pre-

senting suggestions for future preaching. This custom is far

from being generalized, but its diffusion would seem useful.

Then, too, there is the question of the use of the vernacular

in the liturgy. The number of the faithful who know Latin

today is very small indeed. Thus, from the point of view of

immediate apostolic needs, it would seem desirable to make

more use of the vernacular languages.

But certain difficulties crop up: many translations from

Latin seem to divest the liturgical texts of the sacred; these

translations “rationalize” the texts, stripping them of all

poetry. There is also the unifying role of Latin as the inter-

national language of the Church, which should not be over-

looked. In modern Europe especially, the frequent intercom-

munication of peoples points up the need for some such uni-

fying element in the liturgy.

Q You spoke of laymen being engaged full-time in

the apostolic endeavors of the Church. Do you

have in mind any specific ways of achieving this

today?

70



folliet: There has been considerable discussion about

re-establishing the diaconate for married men who also exer-

cise a professional activity. I know that the Germans have

studied the question attentively. But as far as I know, not

many French laymen have aspired to such a diaconate. It

seems to them that there is no middle term between the lay

state and the priesthood, a priesthood that the immense ma-

jority of them conceive as practically inseparable from celi-

bacy. This points out that the problem is not the same in

every country. If we distinguish between the countries of tra-

ditional Christianity and the mission countries, the diaconate

would seem to me to be more opportune in the latter.

At any rate, we must face up to the fact that a renewal of

the diaconate would involve for those Christians who ac-

cepted it a renunciation of certain of their lay activities. Here

I am thinking especially of political activity, which would be

foreign to men of the Church. Then, too, a renewed diaconate

would give rise to a large-scale reconsideration of the status

and role of the clergy, because the diaconate as such has fallen

into desuetude, except as a transitory step toward the priest-

hood.

We are witnessing today the flourishing activity of laymen

in secular institutes, I find this an excellent and timely move-

ment. Nevertheless, I feel that we should distinguish clearly

between secular institutes made up of laymen as such and

those religious institutes whose members, dressed as laymen,

live in the world. To confuse these two groups, which seek

analogous goals by very different means, would risk eliminat-

ing the very notion of the laity.

In my opinion the laity properly speaking is not only dis-

tinguished from the priesthood, but also from the religious

state. The mark of the latter distinction is the public vows of

religious, particularly the vow of obedience, which unites a

person totally to a group under the authority of a superior.

71



I do not think that a real vow of obedience would allow a

layman to live a full lay life in the temporal sphere, and espe-

cially in the political realm. A state can admit of certain ar-

rangements with religious orders, for example, in the areas of

teaching and the operation of hospitals. But the state certainly

could not permit one of its civil servants to be under the

dominion of an authority which it doesn’t know and over

which it could exercise no control.

Q This discussion on a more active role for the lay-

man naturally leads us to reflect on the need for

a deeper lay spirituality.

folliet: Yes, all that has been said points up the need

for a positive and modern spirituality for the layman. This

spirituality must not be reduced to a monastic or religious or

priestly spirituality. It can be very profitable indeed for lay-

men to attach themselves freely to some Third Order way of

life if they so desire. But the best intentions in the world do

not excuse the imposing on the layman of a spirituality that

was not originally intended for him and which is only with

difficulty adaptable to his conditions of life.

A characteristic of all monastic and religious asceticisms

is the regularity of spiritual exercise. This regularity can be

suitable for elderly persons who are free from professional and

family cares, or for celibate men and women who have limited

professional activities, and who thus are free in the use of their

time. But such a spirituality is hardly adaptable to the ordi-

nary layman busy with his family and his work, and often

engaged in some militant action, be it social, political or cul-

tural. In developing a spirituality for the layman today, we

should take up where St. Francis de Sales left off in his Intro-

duction to the Devout Life, basing ourselves on the experience

of laymen whose lives seem to be a spiritual success.

72



Undoubtedly great progress has been made in the area of

conjugal and familial spirituality. But I wonder if we haven’t

insisted too much on this aspect of lay spirituality to the det-

riment of other important aspects. Among the many factors

that inclined us to develop our spirituality of sex were a cer-

tain moralist tradition which places special emphasis on the

sixth and ninth commandments, and our contemporary pan-

sexuality, which mesmerizes so many with sexual preoccupa-

tions.

But this praiseworthy effort toward a family spirituality has

very seldom been accompanied by a corresponding effort to

elaborate a spirituality of action in the temporal realm in gen-

eral. Such a spirituality would be based on the duties of one’s

state in professional and civic life, and based also on the

proper mission of the layman, which is to bring the world

back to God by transforming at once its social structures and

its nature. A great deal remains to be done.

Q Your long career as a Catholic intellectual has

brought you into frequent contact with the

clergy . Do you think that the relations between

the laity and the clergy are improving or deteri-

orating?

folliet: Once again I must fall back on my French ex-

perience to answer your question. I can affirm without exag-

geration that the relations between laymen and ecclesiastics,

bishops and priests, have been improving over the last half-

century. Surely, there are still many laymen who don’t really

feel that they are the Church and who remain passive. But

the number of active citizens of the Kingdom of God is con-

stantly growing.

Of course, in some places an antiquated kind of clerical

domination still reigns. Here the priest considers himself not

73



only the spiritual master, but to some degree the temporal

head of the community. There is also a more subtle form of

clericalism by which certain movements are directed more by

the chaplain than by the responsible lay officials. But these

traces of clericalism are due more to human infirmity than to

institutions or mentalities, and certainly they are not based on

doctrinal concepts. When I was young, for example, it was

very difficult for a layman to contact a bishop; today in almost

all French dioceses this situation has significantly changed.

Not only would a layman be received, but he would be lis-

tened to and encouraged.

This does not mean that all is perfect in lay-clerical rela-

tions. There are certain lay people who think they are mature

and responsible, but who actually are not. And there are

priests who by-pass the layman in precisely those matters in

which the laity is most competent. Besides, it is certain that a

rather large number of priests, in spite of their undeniable

good will, simply do not understand the problems of lay peo-

ple, especially adults. I do not hold this against these priests

too strongly, given the complexity of the problems and the

uniqueness of individual cases. But I think we must recognize

this lack.

In many places, for example, it is hard for militant laymen

to find good spiritual directors, or even confessors who are

not satisfied with simple absolution and encouragement, but

who can counsel the militant according to his state and ac-

tivity.

Adult Christian education is lacking, too. Many priests, who

are at ease with children and young people, are intimidated

by adults, especially by men. They tend to let these adults get

along by themselves, since it is less interesting to deal with

adults who do not easily become enthusiastic and attached to

sentimental arguments. On the contrary, these adults in-

sist on being answered reasonably and to the point. Certain

74



Catholic Action groups are working well in adult Christian

education, but their efforts are quite disproportionate to the

amount of work that needs doing.

Perhaps I could mention here another source of subtle mis-

understandings in lay-clerical relations: a difference of forma-

tion. The formation of clerics is almost completely humanistic

and literary, and this in a scientific and technical world.

Q Do you think that the image of the Church pro-

jected to our contemporaries is that of the in-

carnation of the evangelical message, or does

the Church appear to be just another massive

organization with strong political oveHones?

folleet: I would say that the massive organization aspect

is less and less true of the French Church. It is an incon-

testable fact that the Church here has abandoned political

ties, and that it no longer appears as linked to a political

tendency, and less to a political party. It is also a fact that the

sociological body, as I call it, of the Church has become more

complex and varied. Certain social categories, especially the

salaried middle class, are still in predominance. But these

groups are not alone; it can be said that all the social cate-

gories are more or less represented in the French Church. The

working class, however, is not well represented in France.

I don’t think, however, that the same political-eccesiasticai

situation obtains in other countries where, for example, the

Church is closely aligned to a Christian Democrat party. I

believe that the Christian Democracy movement has rendered

great services, and that it can continue to do so in countries

where the level of political evolution is less advanced, as in

the Latin American republics. But in those countries where a

Christian Democracy is in power, it seems to show the same

symptoms of aging and exhaustion as do the Socialist parties.

75



Should we expect

Church unity THE COUNCIL
tn tpcn If TTntYi

the deliberations
|

AND CHURCH UNITY
of the Council?

The immediate aim of the forthcoming Sec-

ond Vatican Council is not the union of the Christian world,

or even reunion with particular religious groups. There can

be no doubt, however, that from a long-term point of view the

Council may serve to prepare the way for Church unity by

smoothing out many of the existing difficulties.

In the field of doctrine in general: the preservation of dog-

matic integrity does not require that, merely because there are

difficulties in the dogmatic field, nothing should be done. All

too often difficulties arise because the true meaning of a dog-

ma is ill-understood or even distorted. We have to remember

that man’s way of looking at things and his ways of express-

ing his thought have changed greatly with the passage of time.

Our separated brethren, cut off from the Church for several

centuries past, have experienced the influence of many phil-

osophical systems (rationalism, empiricism, Hegelianism,

Kantianism, phenomenalism, existentialism), which have

shaped their outlook and their terminology in such a way that

they often have difficulty in understanding, adequately, dog-

matic teachings expressed in the traditional language of the

Church. Here the Council will be able to carry out a useful

work of explanation and so remove many misunderstandings.

Our times are particularly favorable for such a work.

From his vantage point in Rome as head of the Secretariat for Pro-

moting Christian Unity, Augustin Cardinal Bea, s. j., spoke with un-

usual authority in this essay, which first appeared in The Month (31

Farm St., London, W. 1, England).

76



In days gone by, Protestantism, especially in its Lutheran

form, had a distinctly individualist character. It separated man

from society, from history and from tradition: the rule of man’s

life was his personal faith; he was to live in God’s sight quite

simply, reading and interpreting the Bible under the guidance

of the Holy Spirit, who enlightened him and directed his life.

For this reason he never looked back to the past, to tradition,

and felt no need of a visible Church through which the deposit

of faith would be handed down to him. But today, contempo-

rary thought is marked by an awareness of the meaning of his-

tory and of the social structure of life. We examine the origin

and history of ideas; we examine the intellectual climates into

which they were born and propagated; we look into the differ-

ent influences which they have undergone.

This modern method, based as it is on social history, draws

doctrines out of isolation and places them in the great current

of tradition. Fundamentally, it is the method of the Catholic

Church, which is anti-individualist. Today, therefore, the pru-

dent theologian will find it easier to demonstrate the historical

and objective source of doctrines, and their development down

the course of centuries. It is true that this does not take us to

tradition in the dogmatic sense of the word, that is, a divinely

guaranteed means of the faithful transmission of truths re-

vealed by God. But that purely historical tradition which we

do reach is in itself very precious as a point of departure for

future progress.

This modern method is particularly rich in important results

when it is applied to the study of Scripture. It will be enough

to quote here the words of a Protestant professor of theology

at the University of Zurich, Dr. E. Brunner, who, speaking of

the famous Theological Dictionary of the New Testament pub-

lished by Professor Kittel, writes: “Here it is the New Testa-

ment itself that speaks, not some classical exegesis of confes-

sional tradition. Faced with the results of the Theological Dic-

77



tionary
,

certain classical theological doctrines of our fore-

fathers reveal themselves as biblical only in a very limited

sense.” He then mentions as an example the doctrine of origin-

al sin and predestination, noting that Luther’s conception of

justification by faith alone cannot, without qualification, be

identified with that put forward by St. Paul.

With these recent studies as a basis, the Council will be able,

not only to uphold the doctrine of the Church with an inter-

pretation that conforms to modern methods, but, more gener-

ally, to show that the right understanding of the teaching of

Sacred Scripture, and even the assessment of what constitutes

the canon of Scripture, is not possible without recourse to tra-

dition, at least in its human and historical aspects. It is true

that if we use this method of historical research, the de-

ficiencies of men of the past and their errors will come to light;

but also, and much more strikingly, there will be revealed the

miracle of the continuous preservation and constancy of the

Catholic Church, which has triumphantly weathered so many

crises and has constantly reaffirmed herself before the world.

Rediscovering the Church

Which are the points that particularly need explaining to-

day? They are, primarily: the Church, her doctrine, her con-

ception of dogma and its unchanging character, her authority,

and especially the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. ( Requests

for such explanations have already been made by more than

one non-Catholic scholar.
)
These in fact are the fundamental

problems, and not
,
for example, the question of justification

or of the Mass as a sacrifice. Protestants themselves are becom-

ing more and more aware of this, so much so, that nowadays

they speak of a “rediscovery” of the Church.

In this field the Council may very well produce many benefi-

cial results. The problem of the Church was posed as far back

78



as the Council of Trent, but was not adequately dealt with

then, or at the First Vatican Council, which was prematurely

interrupted by the Franco-Prussian war. The most authorita-

tive modern historian of the Council of Trent, Prof. Hubert

Jedin, in a conference given at Rome in November of 1S60,

has noted that its teaching requires not reformation but com-

pletion. Today the way toward the completion of both these

Councils has been paved by theological study and research, as

well as by the directive compiled by and authoritatively set

out in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of Pius XII, on

the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.

Even Protestant writers have admitted that this encyclical

presented an idea of the Church which they had hitherto

scarcely taken into consideration. The infallibility of the

Church and of her head, the successor of St. Peter, the hier-

archical structure of the Church, the relation between the

power of the Pope and that of the bishops, the important po-

sition and function of the laity within the Church, the efficacy

of the sacraments—these, all difficult questions for Protestants,

are explained and clarified by the doctrine of the Mystical

Body in such a way as to make it understood that the Church

is not merely that juridical body which the Protestants reject

as contrary to Christ’s ideal. At the same time, however, it is

emphasized that the Church must be a well-ordered and reg-

ulated organism. When all this has been set out and explained,

the Church will appear to our separated brethren in a much

clearer light, and many prejudices and misunderstandings may

well disappear.

Mystici Corporis Christi
,
together with another encyclical of

Pius XII, Mediator Dei
,
sheds light also on the case of Chris-

tians who are validly baptized but separated from the Church.

For it shows that they in fact belong to the Church in some

way—though not in the fullest sense, since they cannot share

in the graces which derive from the head, Jesus Christ, and

79



which confer on the members joined to the head so much

light and strength

It would be an important step forward if the Council, with

its supreme authority, could explain these doctrines and their

implications, and thus, as the Holy Father puts it, “give splen-

dor to the face of Christ's Church, restoring the simpler and

purer beauty of the time of her birth," rediscovering anew “the

traces of her more fervent years, in such a way as to show

forth her triumphant power over those modern spirits that

have been tempted and compromised by the false theories of

the Prince of this World" (Allocution of November 13, 1960).

Such an achievement, besides helping the Church herself on

her difficult journey, would also meet the needs and aspira-

tions of our separated brethren and would indeed be a “sweet

invitation" to them to seek and obtain the unity for which

Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to the Father.

This restoration of the splendor that is the Church’s birth-

right, of which the Holy Father speaks, can be brought about

also in what concerns canon law. There are laws given by God

Himself, which cannot therefore be changed: for example, the

existence of the episcopacy and primacy in the Church, or the

indissolubility of marriage. But there are others also having a

human origin, which result from the conditions and require-

ments of other times and are incomprehensible to modern man.

The Holy Father himself seems to indicate the possibility of

a reform which would take into account the needs of the pres-

ent day when he speaks, in his allocution of January 25, 1959,

of “a timely and welcome modernization of the Code of Canon

Law" as a result of the diocesan synod of the City of Rome

and of the Council. He speaks more specifically of this revision

in his first encyclical, Ad Petri Cathedram. In this Council,

writes the Pope, bishops from every part of the world will

come together to discuss important religious issues, and par-

ticularly the problem of how ecclesiastical discipline may be

80



better adapted to the needs and to the mentality of our times.

Such adaptations have already been put into effect, during

the pontificates of Pius X, Benedict XV and Pius XII: for

example, the laws dealing with frequent Communion, with the

required age for first Communion, with the Eucharistic fast;

the change in the Latin translation of the Psalter, the reform

of the Roman Curia under Pius X, the increase in the number

of cardinals under John XXIII. Pius XII, referring to a reform

which he had both instigated and brought about, once re-

marked that “it took a lot of courage.” It will take a great deal

of courage also to reform certain other laws. But the Council,

like the divine Founder of the Church, will have the gifts of

the Holy Spirit, and among these gifts are fortitude and coun-

sel. It will know how to take into account the needs of the

present day, thus making the way toward union clearer and

easier.

Finally, there is one other way in which the Council may

do much to help the ecumenical movement: namely, by its ap-

proval, and by arousing and fostering the interest and the ac-

tion of the whole Catholic Church toward union. It is true to

say that to a great extent this is already happening. We need

only call to mind the immense interest and the response which

the Holy Father’s various pronouncements on this subject have

produced, a response reminiscent of the enthusiasm that met

the appeals of St. Pius X and Pius XI for Catholic Action and

the lay apostolate, or the missionary zeal aroused by the same

Pius XI. This does not mean that interest and initiative in the

ecumenical movement have been shown only in recent times; it

is enough to note the immense popularity of the Church Unity

Octave. At the moment, however, it is our duty to concern our-

selves with making these efforts less sporadic and isolated,

with directing and co-ordinating them with an eye to differ-

ences of situation and circumstance; and above all, with mak-

ing the whole Church progressively more aware, in all her de-

81



parturients, of the essential duty in charity of collaborating in

the great cause of the union of all baptized Christians.

We must, therefore, hope and trust that the Council will

greatly increase the enthusiasm of all for the work of unity.

There is no doubt that, if the possibilities afforded by the

Council which we have outlined here are carried into action,

we shall have both a useful foundation and an effective stim-

ulus for the movement as a whole. To these we ought to add

more explicit advice, special directives and suggestions for the

possible formation of study groups, or the foundation of per-

manent institutions at the diocesan, national and international

levels.

Five Ways to Work Toward Reunion

Without wishing to interfere in the slightest with the ulti-

mate decisions of the Council or even to make suggestions, we

shall try now, in the light of directives already given by the

Church, to trace out the main lines along which the ecumeni-

cal activity of groups and individual members of the Church

might be expected to proceed.

1. The first and most effective contribution, one that has in-

numerable applications, would appear to be this. Each of us

who meets non-Catholics in his everyday life can do much to

prepare them mentally for union by a wholehearted attitude

of charity. Just as the Holy Fathers deep charity in speaking

and dealing with our separated brethren has contributed

greatly to an improvement in the “atmosphere,” so also the

approach of each of the faithful has its importance. Charity

will preserve the Catholic from impatience and discourtesy in

his relations with non-Catholics; from resentment and prej-

udices caused by unpleasant events of times gone by, for

which they are in no way responsible; from the uncalled-for

judgment and the rash generalization. In short, it will bring

82



him to use, in his relations with them, the great rule of charity

set forth by the Apostle of the Gentiles: "Charity is patient, is

kind, makes every excuse, sets no limit to hope nor to endur-

ance” (I Cor. 13:4-7).

Such a united effort of Catholics of all walks of life would

reflect their fidelity to the precept of the first Pope, St. Peter,

which has been practiced in so exemplary a way by his suc-

cessor John XXIII: "Carry out your charge as God would have

it done, cordially, not like drudges . . . not tyrannizing, but set-

ting an example to the flock” (I Peter 5:2). Such an effort

would be a practical way of showing our separated brethren

that, though the Catholic Church guards with solicitude the

integrity of the dogma and faith of her own children, she is a

loving mother for them also, and now anxiously wonders

whether this terrible quarrel of the past may be made up to-

day through greater sanctity, prayer and sacrifice.

2. The example of a way of life that is eminently religious

and moral will also have much importance in preparing the

minds of non-Catholics for union. Each individual Catholic

must make his own what the First Vatican Council says of the

Church in general: Each must be "a beacon raised up among

the nations” to lighten, as it were, by his exemplary conduct,

the way toward the union of all separated Christians.

3. Fraternal collaboration with our separated brethren
,
in

any work that does not directly involve Catholic doctrine,

would be a partial realization, in advance, of the union that

we all hope for. Such collaboration is today both esteemed and

desired by non-Catholics. Dr. H. Schnell writes on this point:

"The formula, ‘practical collaboration as a means for drawing

the churches closer to one another/ might form the basis of an

agreement between the ideas expressed by the Pope in his

radio broadcast of Christmas, 1958, and the suggestion of the

World Council of Churches of February 12, 1959.” Only re-

cently the secretary general of the World Council stated in

83



his report to the Convention of St. Andrews: “We have made

it abundantly clear that full unity is and must be the goal of

the World Council of Churches, but we believe at the same

time that there are urgent common tasks to be performed even

now and that the performing of these tasks will help us to ad-

vance toward unity” ( Ecumenical Review [1960], p. 56).

These urgent common tasks have to do with social problems

and the promulgation of Christian principles in civil, social

and cultural life, as also in the life of charity, and particularly

in relations between nations. It has been observed, and rightly,

that the idea of such collaboration is not a new one. It ex-

presses a constant theme of the teaching of Pius XII, reflected

in the Instruction of the Holy Office, On the Ecumenical

Movement (December 20, 1949). This instruction approves of

“congresses of the various denominations to discuss the ways

in which we may work in common to defend the fundamental

principles of the natural law and the Christian religion.” This

teaching has been repeated and insisted upon by the present

Holy Father, John XXIII, who makes a solemn appeal in his

Christmas Broadcast of December 23, 1958, for “good will to

be at the service of order, justice and brotherhood among all

Christians, that they might work together in a common effort

of understanding and a spirit of mutual respect in religious,

civil and social life.”

4. A special form of collaboration with our separated breth-

ren is theological discussion between specialists

;

that is, be-

tween the theologians of either side. This work is to be recom-

mended especially, because little by little it will tend to affect

the deepest root of division, namely, the question of attitude

and mentality. It will also serve to clarify the misunderstand-

ings and wrong interpretations which may exist on points of

doctrine. Also these specialists, usually university professors,

enjoy a great prestige in the Protestant world, and it is they

who educate the future ministers of religion. Many non-Cath-

84



olics are anxious to have such discussions, and set great store

by them. It is significant that the Central Committee for the

World Council of Churches in a resolution of August, 1960,

welcomed with joy the creation of the Secretariat for Promot-

ing Christian Unity and went on to express the desire and the

hope that informal discussions between theologians would

continue, seeing that these contributed greatly to the cause of

union.

5. It is clear that not everyone can be engaged in active

collaboration, which depends upon the varying circumstances

of public and social life. But there is a type of collaboration

that is open to all, one which is essential for the success of the

Council and of the efforts of the Council directed toward

church unity: namely, prayer. We must not forget that the gift

of true faith is above all the work of grace, which gives us

the light to see and recognize truth and to accept its practical

consequences, as well as the strength to overcome obstacles.

This is true for each individual, and all the more true for en-

tire religious communities, handicapped perhaps by secular

prejudices, misunderstandings, social and family considera-

tions.

The Church herself prays daily, through the priest in the

Mass, asking God to deign to ‘reunite” the Church. This is

above all the prayer of our Lord Himself on the night before

He died: “I pray for them that believe in me, that they may be

one, as thou, Father, art one in me, and I in thee, that they

too may be one in us” ( John 17:21). We place all our faith in

this prayer of the divine Founder of the Church, without let-

ting ourselves be discouraged by the difficulties which still lie

between us and the attainment of the precious gift of the unity

of all who carry the image of our Lord in their hearts, and,

through baptism, a seal upon their souls that cannot be effaced.

In conclusion, we must point out that what we have said is

necessarily incomplete. The discussion remains and will remain

85



unfinished, because the documentation on the subject is so vast

and needs such continuous revision. Besides, there are matters

which can be spoken of only in private, which affect the

secrets of the conscience and cannot be made the subject of

public discussion. However, what has been set down here,

based as it is upon public accounts and declarations, will be

enough to show how important today is the movement for

Church unity, and in what ways the Council may help us ad-

vance its cause. “This heartbreaking problem of the disunity

of Christ's heritage,” says the Holy Father, “remains, to the

prejudice and hindrance of our best efforts, and the way ahead

is paved with difficulties and doubts.” But the Pope knows

that the peace of the world depends upon this unity, and

therefore upon how we work and how we pray to bring it

about. He therefore insists that we should not lose courage,

but “continue to extend a loving invitation to our dear separat-

ed brothers, who like us bear the name of Christ and read His

holy Gospel, who listen also to the promptings of religious

piety and of a charity that blesses and benefits” (Christmas

Broadcast of December 23, 1958 )

.

Like the Holy Father, let us not be discouraged, for we know

that “what is impossible for men is possible for God.”

Augustin Cardinal Bea, S.J.

86



How best can we

unite ourselves,

in mind and will,

with the work

of the Council?

INNER LIFE

AND THE COUNCIL

What has my inner life to do with the cur-

rent convention of bishops from all over
the world? After all,

the Ecumenical Council is for bishops, and it
will take place

whether I favor it or not.

Of course, as a good Christian, I will say many prayers
for

the Council’s success. But that is not the same thing
as having

a personal part in this world event.

History, however, gives a resounding answer to
such a ques-

tion. From history we learn that no mere formal action,
no

matter how finely organized, no matter how noble and urgent

the end for which it is convoked, can succeed in its
purpose

unless it is supported, brought to life, by the inner life
of the

members of Christ’s Church. As I wrote in St. Ansgars
Bul-

letin for January, 1962:

No formal action could have been more impressive, more

pontifical and authoritative than the proclamation by

Pope Eugene IV of the union of the Oriental Churches

with Rome at the Council of Florence on July 16, 1439.

Yet the widely hailed “reunion” turned out to be totally

abortive, just as was the case nearly two centuries earlier

at the Council of Lyons.

What, indeed, would the great reforming Council of Trent

A man of the Church in the most meaningful sense of the term, Fr.

John IjaFarge, s. j., dean of America’s editorial staff,
here meditates on

the Council’s interior significance.

87



(1545-1563) have come to, if it had not responded to the inner

prayers and aspirations of countless members of the Church

all over the Christian world? Theological learning, essential as

it was, would have had but scant results unless the aspirations

of the Council had been supported by the martyrdom of a St.

Thomas More and his many contemporaries and successors

who witnessed for their faith—a witness that came from their

inmost, burning souls.

The present Council is, therefore, a tremendous challenge to

each person’s inner spirit. What that challenge means is clear

from the words of our Holy Father, Pope John XXIII, in

speaking on June 29, 1959, of the coming Council. The Pope

made it clear that it will be held at a moment when the

Church is consumed by the desire to restore and fortify its

faith—in the face of an alienated and doubting world—and to

draw renewal of spirit from contemplation of the remarkable

heritage and pledge of unity bequeathed to the Church by its

divine Founder.

In his Apostolic Constitution of December 25, 1961, in which

he solemnly and officially convoked the Council, to take effect

toward the end of the year 1962, Pope John laid special stress

upon the theme of unity. Through the fact of Catholic unity,

as well as through the spirit of the same unity, the Church can

hope to make its maximum impact upon the confused and

divided modern world.

The mere objective of Catholic unity, as that of a world-

wide organization, is not enough. For the Church to meet the

problems of tire changing times, unity must become a living

factor in the personal lives of its members. How then are we

to acquire that spirit of unity? The answer is simple: By re-

turning to the sources of spiritual unity: the mystery of the

redemption and resurrection of mankind as found in the

Source of our unity, the person of the Incarnate Word of God,

our divine Saviour Jesus Christ.

88



This mystery is the focal point of all our faith, our hope and

our love. As is so briefly and powerfully expressed in the

majestic Vespers antiphon which closes the octave of the

Epiphany and with it the Christmas liturgical cycle:

Splendidly great is the mystery of God’s fidelity, which

was made known in the flesh, was filled with justice in

the spirit, appeared to the angels, was preached to the

nations, was believed in the world, was taken up in glory,

alleluia.

The Council itself calls upon each of us, therefore, to build

up in our minds and hearts, in a quite special way, that spirit

of unity for which the Saviour Himself prayed on the eve of

His sacred Passion. In the mystery of unity that He preached

to His disciples, the Saviour communicated to a hate-born, war-

burdened mankind some inkling of that perfect unity by which

He was and is forever one with His Father and the Holy Spirit.

Far from detracting from the ineffable unity of the divine

Lord of history, preached by the prophets and sung by the

Psalmist, the mystery of Incarnation opens a transcendent vista

of unity and makes of it a living force, not for one people

alone, not for one race or nation alone, but for all mankind,

even for the faithful departed.

It is the business of our inner life, not just to sink ourselves

ever deeper into the existence of that unity, but likewise to

understand its operations : displayed in the history of mankind

and in each person’s own history as well. We do this not by

elaborate speculations, but by simply contemplating the Christ

of the Gospel, on the one hand, and the Mystical Christ—His

Mystical Body as found today in every part of the world—on

the other. It is not enough just to read about the manifold

marvels of this Body. Its all-embracing unity must be made

89



our own with passionate intensity, so that we breathe its spirit

unceasingly and in the most unexpected ways.

As we enter such a contemplation, two opposite poles, as it

were, reveal themselves before our inward eyes. The dimen-

sions of that unity—its scope, its overwhelming living reality,

can be measured only by the measureless love that originates

with the Father, is brought to us in the person of the Son

and is communicated to us by the Holy Spirit. The height, the

sublimity of that unity, lies far beyond all human expression.

Through it, the entire human race, collectively and individual-

ly, is related to the ultimate consummation of all creation.

Again, we find this unity operative—in earthly space and

time—in the deepest humiliations of our being. The barriers to

total unity are dissolved in man’s total humiliation, even agony

—that of the crucifixion on Calvary. To the date of writing, no

power, at least no earthly politics or diplomacy, has proved

able to break down the cruel wall of separation that divides

one part of the German nation from another: the infamous

Wall of Berlin. Yet it was on the cross, as St. Paul teaches us

in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, that the

wall of separation was annihilated that most drastically sep-

arated the civilized human beings of his time: the wall be-

tween Jew and Gentile.

The inner spirit, therefore, will explore more and more

deeply this all-unifying mystery of man’s redemption. But the

inner spirit will go still further. It cannot rest until it has com-

municated the saving spirit of unity to each and all of its fel-

low human beings. It will exercise its impact upon the divided

world by confronting it with the glory of its hope and with

the humble lowliness of the redemptive mystery of the cross.

Precisely at this point we need to set our sights abundantly

clear. If we are prayerful people, if we make a due allowance

in our lives for contemplation, praise and adoration, medita-

tion, reading of good books, and most of all for intimate per-

90



sonal conversation with the Saviour in His sacramental pres-

ence and sacrifice, we shall be just so much better fitted to

share in the Council’s great work of making our faith known

to the world. We shall be more truly "apostles,” that is to say,

people "sent out” from the sacred precincts of that Supper

Table where the Saviour’s desire and prayer were so solemnly

spoken—that all men should be one, as the Son is one with the

Father.

The inner life, then, is not only the ideal, but it is the neces-

sary preparation and condition for any fruitful effort to preach

unity to our fellow men. Certainly a major impact of the Coun-

cil upon our inner life will be precisely an urgent desire to

bring the knowledge of unity and our sense of unity to our

brethren of other faiths, even though we differ from them in

many fundamentals of that same faith.

But there is another aspect of this same "mystery of com-

munication” which we need to know, if we, as members of

Christ’s Mystical Body, are to be agents of unity to the world.

It is not just our talk, however cogent and well-reasoned, that

convinces men. It is primarily what we are : our being, quite

as much as our action. The tendency of Catholic devotional

practice, in our day and times, is—quite naturally and proper-

ly—to seek privacy. We seek to be able to speak to our Creator

in silence and retirement; to be protected from the noisy, un-

spiritual world. All this is eminently right and good.

Yet there is another work that we can do: it is to bring

our inner life, if possible, right into the midst of men. We

want them to peer into our spiritual interiors, as it were. We

want them to come close, to kneel with us, even though they

may not fully adore with us, even though their Amen does

not fully harmonize with ours.

We cannot convince the modern world by talk alone-

precious as is intelligible and rational discourse. In its gnaw-

91



ing anxiety and deep fear, the generation of today must see

the Church at prayer, must glimpse—as far as is possible for

those who do not share, or at least do not fully share, our

faith—the inner conflict of hope and redemption which occurs

even in our own poor and sinful hearts.

Unless the unbelieving world sees men and women who are

becoming one with God—not in some sensational "conversion”

spectacle or dramatized "change of heart,” but in the opera-

tion of their daily lives in His presence—unless they see this

as a daily and an hourly reality, they will not fully under-

stand or relish the idea we strive to convey to them with our

halting words.

It is not enough for people to "behold our good works”—

whether of merciful charity or courageous, uncompromising

justice. It is not enough for us even to explain our motives for

such works, showing how they spring from the indestructible

faith and the pronouncements of its magisterial interpreters.

They need to see—to hear, to accompany if possible—the be-

lieving community, and the believing individual in that com-

munity, in the very act of love, reverence and worship.

Whether that community be monastic or secular, whether it

be secluded or outgoing, the same principle prevails.

For that simple act we do not need to be learned theolo-

gians, though the theologians will infinitely assist us by their

enlightening and inspiring teaching. We need to show in our

own persons what it means to be a living member of the

Mystical Body. And the impact of that sight is often most

striking when it occurs, not in some remote place of pilgrim-

age, but in the life and thought of your neighbor right in the

same block. As St. Luke tells us in the last chapter of his Gos-

pel, the consummating mystery of the Resurrection was re-

vealed when the Saviour broke bread at an evening meal in

Emmaus with the two traveling and anxious disciples.

John LaFarge, S.J.

92



REVIEW QUESTIONS

1. What did Pope John judge to be the primary objective of

Vatican II? How did the first session set the stage for the attain-

ment of this goal? (2-3)
*

2. What importance does Paul VI attach to the work of the Coun-

cil as a responsibility of his pontificate? (4)

3. What is an ecumenical council? How many have been held?

When was the last one? ( 5

)

4. Why should all Catholics feel obliged to keep informed about

events in the Second Vatican Council? (7)

5. Name one major respect in which the earlier or Eastern coun-

cils differ from later ones. What was the last attempt at secular

intervention in a council’s affairs? (8-9)

6. How does Vatican II compare in size with previous councils?

How many Fathers are eligible to attend it? What other socio-

logical characteristic of the Council’s personnel is of unusual

significance? (11-12)

7. How would you describe Pope John’s view on freedom of

debate in the Council? What three results did he predict?

(15-16)

8. What two positions were asserted in the liturgy debate? How

do they relate to underlying theological differences? (18-19)

9. What position on liturgy won approval? By what vote? (21)

10. How did the alignment of forces in the revelation debate vary

from that in the debate on liturgy? Other differences? (22)

11. Describe the evolution in thinking among Catholics on the

relation between Scripture and tradition. (24-25)

12. What impact did the presence of non-Catholic observers have

on conciliar debate? ( 26

)

13. Why do some Catholics fear recent trends in Catholic biblical

scholarship? Is there a sociological factor at work? (28-29)

14. What is the key difference between a disciplinary and a doc-

trinal decree? Did the Council’s debate mirror this? (30)

15. What was the practical outcome of the debate on revelation?

How did both sides conceive of it? (32)

16. In the debate on the mass media, what fundamental theologi-

cal views of the Church came in conflict? (34-35)

* The number in parentheses refers to the page in this pamphlet
which treats of the

matter in question.

93



17. What explanation has been offered for the sudden appearance

of several topics on the agenda in the last days? (37)

18. Why were so many Fathers anxious to begin debate on the
question of the Church? Why did others oppose this? (40)

19. What does Fr. von Galli see as the primary accomplishment

of the first session? (42)

20. In what sense are bishops successors of the Apostles? Why
does a bishop possess obligations to the whole Church? (44)

21. Why has the Church lately had to revise its attitude toward
missions? How will mission lands influence the Council? (45-
46)

22. Why must the Council look at religious liberty on a world-
wide basis? What do other Christians expect here? (47)

23. Which of the layman’s three basic roles in the Church does

Fr. Congar see as most comprehensive? Why? (50)
24. Why has contact between laity and hierarchy been inadequate?

How could a bishop learn the true sentiments of the laity?

(52)

25. What modern developments in the Church have stimulated

the Council’s interest in the lay apostolate? (54)

26. Trace the stages of development in the concept of the lay-

man’s role in the Church since the French Revolution. (56-57)

27. How did Pius XI describe Catholic Action? What shortcom-
ings did experience uncover in older forms of Catholic Action?

(58-59)

28. What reason have we to hope that Vatican II can answer the

unsolved problems of the lay apostolate? (60)

29. What does the concept of the Mystical Body contribute to our

understanding of the layman’s role in the Church? (62)

30. Would you agree that the Church is confronted by a more

serious challenge today than in the Middle Ages, the Renais-

sance, the Enlightenment? Why? ( 64

)

31. What is the basis for opposition between the Church and

communism? What dangers might arise if the Church limited

itself to a purely negative anticommunism campaign? (65)

32. What does it mean to say that the Church today should be

more Catholic than ever? How can it dispel the impression
that it is fundamentally Latin? (68)

33. What administrative jobs in a diocese can a layman perform

as well as or better than priests? (69)

34. What liturgical functions are open to laymen? What are some

pros and cons on a married diaconate? (70-71)

35. Why is a distinctive lay spirituality necessary for lay apostles?
How should it differ from that for religious? (72)

94



36. Aside from personalities, what are the chief causes of strain

between laity and clergy? How can they be lessened? (74)

37. What changes does M. Folliet see taking place in the external

image of the Church in France? How does the Church in

America appear to different groups in the nation? (75)

38. Is the immediate aim of the Second Vatican Council a
reunion

of the Christian world? (76)

39. How does awareness of the meaning of history help theologians

to place Catholic doctrines in the great stream of
historical

tradition? (77)

40. What points of Catholic theology most need explaining to

the non-Catholic world today? What problems are no longer

so pressing in this regard? (78)

41. Name some key questions that have been clarified for Prot-

estants by Pope Pius XII s teaching in the encyclical Mystici

Corporis Christi. (79)

42. List some significant adaptations of Church life and discipline

already introduced by recent Popes. (81)

43. What basic steps can the Council take toward fostering the

ecumenical or unity movement? (82)

44. In what areas can Catholics rightly and fruitfully collaborate

with their separated brethren? Have the Popes given specific

approval to such efforts? (83)

45. Pope John reminded us of the fundamental ties binding us to

our separated brethren. What are these ties? (85)

46. What outlook did Pope John urge us to entertain concerning

the ultimate possibility of reunion? (86)

47. What is a classic case in history where a Council’s work was

frustrated because the inner life of the faithful did not match

the Council’s vision? ( 87

)

48. What does the mystery of the Incarnation show us about

Church unity? (89)

49. According to St. Paul, what will break down the wall of sepa-

ration between men? (90)

50. How can individual Catholics best become agents of unity

to the world”? (92)

95



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Background of the Council

Butler, Cuthbert, O.S.B. The Vatican Council, 1869-1870: Based on

Bishop Ullathorne
y

s Letters. Newman. 1962. 5l0p.

Conway, T. D. Times of Decision: Storu of the Councils. Fides.

1962. 299p.

Cunneen, Joseph E. (ed.). Looking Toward the Council. Herder

and Herder. 1962. I54p.

Daniel-Rops, Henri. The Second Vatican Council. Hawthorn. 1962.

160p.

Hughes, Philip. The Church in Crisis: A History of the General
Councils, 325-1870. Hanover. 1961. 384p.

Jaeger, Lorenz. The Ecumenical Councils, the Church and Chris-

tendom. Kenedy. 1961. 194p.

Jedin, Hubert. Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: An

Historical Outline. Herder and Herder. 1960. 254p.

Kiing, Hans. The Council, Reform and Reunion. Sheed & Ward.

1962. 208p.

Nelson, Claud D. The Vatican Council and All Christians. Associa-

tion Press. 1962. 126p.

Vatican II in Action

Abbott, Walter M., S.
J.

Twelve Council Fathers. Macmillan. 1963.

176p.

Haring, Bernard, C.SS.R. The Johannine Council: Witness to Unity.

Herder and Herder. 1963. 155p.

Kaiser, Robert Blair. Pope, Council and World: The Story of Vati-

can II. Macmillan. 1963. 266p.

Kiing, Hans. The Council in Action: Theological Reflections on the

Second Vatican Council. Sheed & Ward. 1963. 276p.

Lee, Anthony D., O.P. (ed.). Vatican II: The Theological Dimen-

sion. Thomist Press. 1963. 618p.

Rynne, Xavier. Letters From Vatican City: Vatican Council II (First

Session): Background and Debates. Farrar, Straus & Cudahy.

1963. 289p.

96



The Ecumenical Councils

1. Nicaea I

2. Constantinople I

3. Ephesus

4. Chalcedon

5. Constantinople II

6. Constantinople III

7. Nicaea II

8. Constantinople IV

9. Lateran I

10. Lateran II

11. Lateran III

12. Lateran IV

13. Lyons I

14. Lyons II

15. Vienne

16. Constance

17. Florence

18. Lateran V

19. Trent

20. Vatican I

21. Vatican II

Sylvester I

St. Damasus 1

Celestine I

St. Leo the Great

Vigilius

St. Agatho; Leo II

Hadrian I

Nicholas I; Hadrian H

Callistus II

Innocent II

Alexander HI

Innocent HI

Innocent IV

Gregory X

Clement V

Martin V

Eugene IV

Julius II; Leo X

Paul III; Pius IV

Pius IX

John XXIII; Paul VI

May to June, 325

May to July, 381

June to July, 431

Oct. to Nov., 451

May to June, 553

Nov., 680 to Sept., 681

Sept, to Oct., 787

Oct., 869 to Feb., 870

March to April, 1123

April, 1139

March, 1179

November, 1215

June to July, 1245

May to July, 1274

Oct., 1311 to May, 1312

Nov., 1414 to April, 1418

Dec., 1431 to Aug., 1445[?]

May, 1512 to March, 1517

Dec., 1545 to Dec., 1563

Dec., 1869 to July, 1870

Oct., 1963—



^ Check List of Other Timely Pamphlets

PACEM IN TERRIS Here is the English text, reviewed and
collated by the editors of America

,
with masterly and pene-

trating analysis by John Courtney Murray, S.J., a commentary

by Thurston N. Davis, S.J., copious questions for study-club

use, an extended reading list, and a twelve-page tabular break-

down of the encyclical. (C-76) 50$

MATER ET MAGISTRA Pope John XXIITs history-making
encyclical, “Mother and Teacher,” is here reproduced in pre-

cise translation from the official version in the Acta Apostolicae

Sedis—with extended analysis, discussion outline and bibliog-

raphy. (C-65) 50$

RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN CATHOLIC TRADITION

A timely topic discussed in the context of Catholic teaching

through the centuries. By the Archbishop of Bologna, Giacomo

Cardinal Lercaro. (A-14) 15$

CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS Gustave Weigel, S.J. A

theological consideration. (B-61) 25$

TilE BIBLE: ROAD TO UNITY Father Walter M. Abbott,

S.J., sees the Scriptures as a way to ecumenical agreement

among Christian faiths. (B-67) 25$

ONE FOLD, ONE SHEPHERD A Christian exchange on

the possibilities of unity of faith. (B-64) 25$

ENGLISH IN THE LITURGY John A. O’Brien and John
LaFarge, S.J. Two eminent churchmen weigh the challenges

of the movement for the use of the vernacular in the liturgy,

with comments by the readers of America . ( A-56 ) 15$

The America Press 920 Broadway New York, N. Y. 10010