24 October 1962
The discussion, or rather the continuation of the discussion, did not begin until 10.15 am; the bishops are already tired from so much standing up and sitting down.
Cardinal Tisserant: Cyril and Methodius. Other historical and CONTEMPORARY facts: only recently, under Pius XII, the Missal has been translated into a local language (Dalmatian). History tells us: there is no objection to translation into the vernacular.
Cardinal Gracias (India): VERY FINE and quite long intervention. The best is the enemy of the good. Festinare lente [hasten slowly], but avoid resistance to change. In India, there are fourteen official languages, each one of which is used by a population equivalent in size to a country in the West. The bishops’ conferences should be granted the faculty to experiment, the final decision being reserved to the Holy See. But they should receive a prompt reply! This needs to be stipulated. The schema is not clear on this point. …
I note that throughout this session, and, according to what I have been told, yesterday, too, the remarks concerning the vernacular have all been on the pragmatic level. NO THEOLOGY UNDERLYING THE QUESTION. In general, the liturgical movements have not provided themselves with the ECCLESIOLOGICAL basis that they ought to have. In this case, the fundamental theological question, which has not been asked, is: who or what is the subject of the liturgical action?! It is the mystical, organic Body, to which the plebs sancta [holy people] belongs.
Cardinal Bea: … Avoid prejudging the future. Do not close any doors. Things are moving. There is also the ecumenical movement and it may be that this will affect the liturgical question. Avoid deciding NOW.
Cardinal Bacci: with a very affected diction. A true Diafoirus. 1) No vernacular languages in the Mass. Rosmini was censured. 2) Danger that certain texts would be understood in the vernacular (e.g. the story of Susanna). 3) Solution: catechesis, homily. Translation of the Missals and annuntiator quidam probatus [an approved reader] reading the texts. 4) What is envisaged may lead to conflicts and difficulties in multilingual countries, such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium. Unity! 5) In the administration of the sacraments where a relationship is established between the priest and ONE member or a SMALL GROUP of the faithful, use the local language. ‘Statuatur modo unitario pro universa Ecclesia ab Apostolica sede’ [it should be determined uniformly for the universal Church by the Apostolic See]. No intervention on the part of the bishops’ conferences.
Cardinal Meyer (Chicago): Cardinal Gracias has spoken well. Two additional remarks: find a via media. This is what the schema has done. No. 24 on page 170 should be better expressed. Too much is being given away in granting moderamen [direction] to the national commission. Each bishop must remain judge in his own diocese. (Mgr McGrath told me this evening that Cardinal Meyer had spoken because, he said, he was ashamed that his country had been represented yesterday by Cardinal McIntyre.)
Van Lierde: … Ecumenical perspective. Christians should endeavor TOGETHER to introduce the same feasts in civilian life. For example, the Protestants’ Good Friday and the Catholics’ Thursday of Corpus Christi.
Archbishop of Dublin: The people understand nothing of the ancient rites. The bishops of Ireland propose that it should be added to paragraph 27 that in no way is the Rosary being disparaged, etc.
Bishop of Smyrna: paragraph 24: in favor pro ampliatione maiore facultatum iam concessarum [of widening even further the faculties already granted], as well as widespread use of the vernacular, bearing in mind the development of the world. Authorization by the bishops (and not solely by bishops’ conferences). He quoted many examples of Eastern liturgies, in which even the words of consecration . . .
… (Often, especially among those who are conservative, a distinction has been drawn between the DIDACTIC parts of the liturgy, for which the vernacular could be used, and the sacramental or priestly parts. Always the same vice of SEPARATING, of turning abstraction into a category of the real.) Blondel was right (cf his Monophorisme4).
Archbishop of Madagascar, speaking in the name of three hundred bishops of Africa and Madagascar: in favor of a very international liturgical commission, reflecting ALL cultures.
A Polish bishop, bishop in Northern Rhodesia: … Some people have said that Latin is THE language of the Church. But it is not the only one. ‘Ne pondus argumenti unitatis exaggeretur!’’ [the weight of the argument from unity should not be exaggerated]. Unity is a matter for the mind and the heart, and goes well beyond the question of language: Ut facultas daretur conferentiis episcopalibus [the faculty should be given to the bishops’ conferences]. No PRIVILEGED position for Latin. He quoted Acts 15: ‘Nihil ultra imponere quam haec necessaria’ [Lay no greater burden than these necessary things]. It is being said: The Sedes Apostolica [Apostolic See] should decide . . . In fact, it is the departments that do so: ‘Ego sum fortasse successor Bartholomei’ [I am, perhaps, Bartholomew’s successor . . . ]. …
Parente: will use any kind of argument in order to discredit the schema. He said: Laborat verbositate et levitate [It is afflicted by wordiness and lack of weight]. It contains things that are at times incoherent; its style is hardly worthy of a Council. Remarks on some expressions that are not theologically correct . . . Praise of the Holy Office (the way he went on, you would think they were martyrs!) which has plura concessisse [already given way on many things]. The Holy See proceeds prudently and what it does is sufficient.
Msgr. Staffa: wholesale attack on the use of the vernacular. Logically, it would need to be used even for the Canon and the Consecration . . . What is being suggested would be useless for the faith. We would be creating divisions at a time when the world is uniting . . . PRESERVE UNITY. Ne quid detrahatur iuris Romani Pontificis [nothing should be taken away from the right of the Roman Pontiff]. He ALONE is able . . . He asked that a vote be taken on this: that the schema be sent back to a joint commission of Theology, Liturgy and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
Archbishop of Colombo (Ceylon) . . . too long. He was told to stop.
The Congregation ended at 12.30 pm. On the way out I saw Hébert Roux. I went to the Procure Saint-Sulpice and to the Belgian College to deliver the text which I had prepared on communion under both kinds. Tremendous effort to walk! I went to a meeting of the French bishops at 6.30 pm. To be noted: The Pope wants the pastoral point of view to predominate. He wants the discussion to be based on the schemas proposed. He asks that there be no references to politics at all, dicit [so says] Cardinal Feltin. …
At 7.30 pm, I had a visit from Msgr. McGrath, Auxiliary Bishop of Panama. He reminded me that we had met at Saint-Sébastien, and that we had gone swimming together. In fact I remember very well; it was in ’51 or ’52. He belongs to the Theological Commission. He is very good. He consulted me on a number of matters: he wanted, in particular, to speak against the idea, put forward by Ottaviani, Parente, Staffa, of submitting the liturgical schema to the Theological Commission. All the Commissions are composed of bishops who also have doctorates. In reality, this is a tactic on the part of Ottaviani and the Holy Office. Msgr. McGrath told me that Ottaviani has brought his theologians together, especially Fenton, who has written fifty pages against the expression ‘invisible Church’ that had been used in the schema De liturgia.
Yves Congar, My Journal of the Council, pp. 116-122. The 1100-page book can be purchased from Liturgical Press. Pray Tell ran the previous installment of the journal of Yves Congar last Sunday.
Please leave a reply.