Wednesday 31 October 1962
Mass according to the Dominican rite, which somewhat perplexed those attending.
Msgr. Felici began with an announcement: Non distribuere circulares privatas [private circulars are not to be distributed] in the Council precinct and during the sessions. Someone told me that Cardinal Larraona had circulated a paper among the Italian bishops inviting them to vote against the schema. That seems to me very unlikely: 1) a Commission President could not do such a thing without bringing discredit on himself; 2) such a paper would be known about and in ten minutes would come into the hands of ‘others’ who would be very interested in it for quite different reasons. However, it remains true that Cardinal Larraona is against the schema De Liturgia and that Msgr. Staffa, a great defender of Latin, is his secretary. Larraona has asked the Spanish bishops to speak against the schema ‘in order to defend the Holy See and Christian piety’.
Cardinal Lercaro: suggested the oratio fidelium [Prayers of the Faithful] after the homily: he referred to St. Justin (which happened three times during the morning): it is the prayer of the assembled community, for the world, for the poor … Concerning No. 43: The term ‘Mass’ denotes BOTH the didactic and sacrificial parts of the Mass. Do not sacrifice the mensa divini Verbi [table of the divine Word].
Cardinal König: Placet, in spite of the fact that the comments submitted to the Central Commission have been omitted. As regards communion under both kinds and concelebration: ne claudatur porta [do not shut the door].
Cambiaghi (from Crema): No. 39: homilia non tantum commendanda sed imponenda [the homily should not only be recommended but made obligatory]. No. 42: restrict communion under both kinds to the ordination of PRIESTS. Concelebration: On Holy Thursday and at Congresses of Priests for priests who are sick. But one would need to STIPULATE quite what is understood by these congresses of priests.
Jop (Polish) No. 39: commendetur [to be recommended] is not enough. Semper nuntiari debet [It should always be given]. No. 42: communion under both kinds: Magna practica difficultas [great practical difficulty], even for ordinations!
Iglesias (Urgel): No. 42: Nulla immutatio [Nothing should be changed]. Restrict it to priests on their ordination. Christ only gave both kinds TO PRIESTS. He listed four reasons against it. No. 44: there is no adequate reason for a wider use of concelebration.
Nuer (Egypt) addressed his remarks to the Observers as well. Allow the use of ordinary bread.
Auxiliary from Barcelona: spoke very fast, like a machine gun, and for too long, so he was cut off. Many bishops left for the bar.No. 42: it is not a question of introducing communion under both kinds indiscriminately for all, but in particular cases. He gave reasons in favor of this: special incorporation into Christ. No. 44: in favor of concelebration in certain circumstances.
Cistek? (bishop Januarius): Nos. 42 and 44 are the fruit of the very life of the liturgical movement. Pius X prepared the way for No. 42 by deciding that members of the Latin Church could receive communion in the eastern rite under both kinds. That would express the unity of the faith. Porta re-aperiatur [The door should be re-opened]! There is no longer any danger for the faith.
Devoto (Argentina) I went to the WC. The bar was crowded. There is only one thing on everyone’s lips: it is going on for too long.
Archbishop of Atlanta(USA): in favor of adaptations (good).
Jaeger (Paderborn) No. 42: in specified cases: ordinations, solemn professions; the bride and groom at their Nuptial Mass; the baptism of adults and the reception of a convert. Force of representation more complete.
Brazilian Bishop: delete tum laicis [including lay people] in No. 42, 1.11 celebratio versu populum [celebration facing the people]: only at the discretion of the Ordinary.
Msgr. Weber: 1) it is absque fidei periculo [without danger to the faith], so delete the words sublato fidei periculo [danger to the faith having been removed]. 2) iudicio episcoporum [at the discretion of the bishops] and in the cases stipulated by the pope. Thus it is without danger and libertas episcoporum integra manet [the freedom of bishops remains undiminished]. 3) quae rationes? [which reasons?] Ecumenical, pastoral: to show the people the great value of the acts for which it is to be re-introduced.
Msgr. Elchinger spoke in the name of young people. He read his text eloquently with, at times, very studied effects, which was not really appropriate. But he was listened to and even, at the end, applauded.
Khoury, Maronite. He also addressed himself to Carissimi Observatores [very dear Observers]. Very good intervention. Concelebration: the Commission’s text has been truncated. Why limit it? Extend it to include: Holy Thursday, all meetings of priests, conventual Mass. Doctrinal basis: the Eucharistic celebration is an act of the community, the act, not alone of the priest but of the presbyterium (St Ignatius). Religious eat from a common table, except that of the Lord. He suggested a text saying all that. The Council ought to set an example.
Edelby (very good Latin: very clear; very well presented): he wishes to make the voice of the East heard in restauranda liturgia latina [in the restoration of the Latin liturgy]. He agreed with Khoury’s remarks concerning concelebration. Two kinds: Bibite ex eo omnes [Drink from it, all of you]. It is the praxis evangelica, apostolica, normalis. Non privilegium vel concessio [It is the evangelical, apostolic, normal practice. It is neither a privilege nor a concession]. Communion under only one kind is praxis exceptionalis [the exceptional practice]. Moreover, res mere disciplinaris [it is only a disciplinary ruling]. The reasons for the hierarchy’s opposition are psychological: a complex. They do not want to seem to go back on a decision, to be imitating Protestants and the Orthodox. They should get rid of this complex. Do not exaggerate the practical difficulties (Cardinal Godfrey’s reference to the use of lipstick). Non in uno actu et statim concedenda [not to be granted immediately, and all together].
Aramburu (Tucumán): in favor of a Eucharistic fast of two hours. Inclined to be against communion under both kinds. …
Msgr. Himmer (Tournai): No. 39: the homily is part of the liturgy. No. 40: very much in favour of the oratio fidelium [prayer of the faithful]: a short litany of intercession; in favor of the Eucharistic fast being reduced to one hour?
Van Cauwelaert (Congo). Possibly the finest intervention of the morning. Made with emphasis in the name of 260 bishops of Africa and Madagascar who are UNANIMOUS. Stuporem meum omittere non possum [I cannot hide my amazement] that there are some who wish to delete the ‘paschale convivium’ [Paschal Meal] from the proemium. Saint Paul; Saint Thomas! Concelebration: the 260 bishops are unanimously in favor and endorse the words of Cardinal Léger. The people will understand from this, more than from the spoken word, the unity of the priesthood and the uniqueness of the priest. If some regions do not see the usefulness of certain innovations, they should not interfere with those where the bishops are unanimous in considering them necessary; they should not quench the Spirit. Example of the welcome given to Paul and Barnabas at the Synod of Jerusalem. We should open the Church to all the peoples! Applause. …
Auxiliary bishop of Verdun: Boillon: Communion for the sick under one kind only, the wine.
De Vito (India): against concelebration for the Chrism Mass but in favor of it for the evening Mass of Holy Thursday. No restriction on the time of celebration.
Melas (Italy): against communion under both kinds for the people.
In the afternoon, a good visit from Fr. de Lubac. He told me that last week’s L’Espresso spoke of one school (Lubac, Congar, Chenu) against the Ottaviani-Parente school . . . He also told me that he had heard that, during a lecture, Piolanti had said that some people had been invited to the Council so that they would not do what Döllinger did in 1870; peeved at not having been invited to the Council he caused a schism. They had been invited in order to keep them in the Church. We also spoke about the fact that our French bishops were not using their theologians. They do not ask them to work for them and do not work with them. There are a great many lectures in order to give information, to which Msgr. Garrone is anxious to invite all and sundry, but there are no working sessions. The situation is very different among the Spaniards, the Germans and the Dutch. The latter have a lecture every evening, given by Fr. Schillebeeckx; the Germans hold regular working meetings and were doing so even before the Council. Their cardinals and their bishops consult Rahner, Ratzinger, Häring, Jedin. I have several times heard news of these meetings from them. Our bishops: nothing.
Yves Congar, My Journal of the Council, pp. 136-140. The 1100-page book can be purchased from Liturgical Press. Pray Tell ran the previous installment of the journal of Yves Congar last Wednesday.
Please leave a reply.