Lumen Gentium, Jesus Christ as the Light of the world

Preliminary remarks

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium starts proclaiming, “Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod gathered together in the Holy Spirit eagerly desires, by proclaiming the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16, 15), to bring the light of Christ to all men, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church” (Paul VI 1964, Lumen Gentium 1).

Lumen Gentium results from one of the main efforts of the Second Vatican Council to describe the Catholic Church. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church offers many descriptions for the Roman Catholic Church. Lumen Gentium 26 for example, describes the Church as “all legitimate congregations of the faithful” who “are gathered together by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ” and who celebrate “the mystery of the Lord’s Supper”. The Church is the congregation that assembles around Jesus Christ, teacher, savior and priest (Kaczynski, Reiner. 2004. “Theologischer Kommentar zur Konstitution über die heilige Liturgie Sacrosanctum Concilium.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol 2, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 1–228. 79. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). When studying Lumen Gentium and all the other documents of the Second Vatican Council we must observe that the descriptions of the Catholic Church predicate two aspects that are always present. One aspect concerns the Church as a social institution. Theologians speak of the human aspect of the Church. Lumen Gentium 26 speaks of a congregation that is of women and men. The other aspect of the Church concerns faith, the hopes and the end of this congregation of the faithful. The faithful gather in the Holy Spirit (Lumen Gentium 1). Celebrating the Paschal mystery, the faithful become “communion” and “people of God”, they constitute the Church as “the messianic people” (Lumen Gentium 9). Theologians call the faith aspect of the Church as people of God or as the messianic people the “divine” aspect of the Church. The magisterium of the Church and Canon Law speak of the Church as divine and as human (Onclin 1967, 733). Theologians describe the divine aspect also as an invisible community that is directed “to that city yet to come, which we seek (Hebrews 13, 14)” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 2). For the Council Fathers, for the magisterium of the Catholic Church and for all popes following Pope John XXIII to our days it is clear and beyond doubt that the human aspect of the Catholic Church must be realized as the hierarchical institution and society that is reigned under the absolutist powers of the pope. The 1983 Code of Canon Law claims in Canon 331 that the pope possesses absolutist power, “by virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely” (John Paul II. 1983. “Code of Canon Law.” The Holy See). Speaking of the Catholic Church, we always must join the two aspects, the divine and the human. The Church at the same time is divine and human that is “the society of men who are incorporated in it and who, under the direction of the sovereign pontiff and the bishops, pursue in common the end to which they are called, communion in divine life” (Onclin, William. 1967. “Church and Church Law.” Sage Journals 28 (4): 733–748. 733).

We always have to pay attention to the two aspects of the Roman Catholic Church. When Lumen Gentium 9 speaks of the Roman Catholic Church as “the messianic people” destined to bring together all human beings and “established as a communion of life, charity and truth” (Paul VI 1964), we think of our hopes for a world of peace and justice for all women, men and queer and we agree. At the same time, we cannot agree that the Catholic Church insists that the societal and human aspect of the communion of life and charity is institutionally organized as an absolute monarchy. Realizing the truth in Christ today implies realizing societies under the rule of Human Rights law. Human Rights proclaim and protect the equal dignity of all women, men and queer. Proclaiming in the name of Jesus Christ that the societal aspect of the people of God is the hierarchical institution of the Catholic Church under the absolute power of the pope, as does Canon 331 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, does not correspond to our understanding of the Gospel. Nevertheless, canonists, theologians and Dogmatic Constitutions of the Roman Catholic Church try to defend the hierarchical institution of the Roman Catholic Church by referring to the Gospel. Onclin refers with Lumen Gentium 8 to Matthew 28, 16–20; Mark 16, 15; Luke 24, 45–48; and John 20, 21–23 (Onclin 1967, 741). None of these references speaks of governing, directing or guiding the faithful with prescriptions, laws and precepts. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus confides to the eleven disciples the mission to baptize and teach his Gospel, and in John Jesus sends the disciples as the Father had sent him in order to forgive. Nowhere in the Scriptures does Jesus tell the apostles and disciples to govern like kings, direct as absolutist monarchs and guide with laws and prescriptions of their will. On the contrary, Jesus says, “Among the gentiles it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. With you this must not happen. No; the greatest among you must behave as if he were the youngest, the leader as if he were the one who serves” (Luke 22, 24–26).

The Second Vatican Council is not able to legitimate the claim that “the Apostles left bishops as their successors, handing over to them the authority to teach in their own place” (Dei Verbum 7) with a reference to the Sacred Scriptures. Dei Verbum 7 marks the above sentence as a reference to the Epistle to Diognetus. We do not know the name of the author of the Epistle; the author lived in the times of the Apostolic Fathers (Altaner, Berthold, and Alfred Stuiber. 1966. Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenväter. 77. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). The Second Vatican Council is somewhat conscious of this fact and actually uses Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, the most important theologian of the second century CE (ibid. 110), as authority for the claim that the transmission of the faith and the care for the authentic proclamation of the faith is the primary task of the bishops (Lumen Gentium 20). In chapter three of his book Against Heresies, Irenaeus claims that the teaching authority was transmitted from the Apostles to the bishops (Hoping, Helmut. 2005. “Dei Verbum.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol 3, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 695–832. 753. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Dei Verbum 20 assesses “like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture”. The origin of the teaching office of the bishops and the primate of the bishop of Rome we do not find in the Sacred Scripture.

Luke is one of the “apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing” (Dei Verbum 7). At the end of his Gospel Luke makes Jesus Christ resurrected tell the last instructions to his apostles and disciples: “… in his name, repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be preached to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24, 47). The message of Jesus Christ is for the whole world without any discrimination. Lumen Gentium 1 does not refer to the secured text of Luke 24, 47 to assess the last instructions of Jesus Christ to his apostles and disciples. Lumen Gentium 1 uses a reference to Mark 16, 15 claiming, “To bring the light of Christ to all men” by “proclaiming the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16, 15)”. Mark 16, 15 is an important reference for many documents of the Second Vatican Council. We find the reference to Mark 16, 15 in Sacrosanctum Concilium 6, in Lumen Gentium 1 and 19, in Dei Verbum 7, in Orientalium Ecclesiarum 3, in Unitatis Redintegratio 2, in Dignitatis Humanae 13, in Ad Gentes 5, 13 and 38 and in Presbyterorum Ordinis 4 (Hünermann, Peter. 2004. “Theologischer Kommentar zur dogmatischen Konstitution über die Kirche Lumen gentium.“ In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol 2, edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 263–583. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). We do not find a verse of the Gospel that the Second Vatican Council uses with a higher frequency than Mark 16, 15. Mark 16, 9–20 “are the work of an author other than the evangelist” (Metzger, Bruce M. 1994. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 106. Stuttgart: German Bible Society). The Gospel of Mark ended with Mark 16,8 and we do not know if the evangelist closed his Gospel with Mark 16, 8, or if he never finished his Gospel, or if “the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf” (ibid. 105).  The importance of Mark 16, 9–20 in the textual tradition of the Gospel is without doubt (ibid). Nevertheless, I would expect from a Council that claims, “All the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture” (Dei Verbum 20) to use for example Luke 24, 47 for assessing that the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be preached to all nations. The high frequency of the use of Mark 16, 15 by the Second Vatican Council indicates the importance of the Catholic tradition for assessing the Christian faith. The Council of Trent refers in the Decree on Scriptural Canons to Matthew 28, 19–20 and to Mark 16, 15.[i] Dei Verbum 7 takes up the biblical references and refers to the Council of Trent.

Lumen Gentium 1 claims the Light of Christ is “a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church” (Paul VI 1964, Lumen Gentium 1). I doubt that the Light of Christ is “brightly visible on the countenance” of the Church’s hierarchy. Nevertheless, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. I do not dispute that some men of the hierarchy mirror the Light of Christ in their lives. I doubt that all men of the hierarchy mirror the Light of Christ. Yes, the Church possesses the mission to preach and heal. The authority of the Church is Jesus Christ who directs this mission with the help of the Holy Spirit that every faithful receives at baptism. Jesus Christ administers the law, which is the law of the Spirit that is love and justice. The lawyer had been asking Jesus for eternal life, “Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10, 25). Jesus makes it clear that the Samaritan who relates to the wounded and robbed man realizes the commandment of love and inherits eternal life. Luke shows that Jesus had also succeeded in relating to the lawyer (Luke 10, 29–37). Christian faith hopes for Go’d’s love and mercy on the Day of Judgement and the Rabbis claim that Go’d does not forget his creation and will have mercy in the final judgement and bring peace and justice for all times. As Christians, we read, meditate on and pray the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We must not forget that Jesus proclaims in the Gospel that what “you did to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did to me” (Matthew 25, 40). “For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty, and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me” (Matthew 25, 35–36). The Church possesses not only the mission to preach but also the mission to heal. Jesus Christ was preaching by healing and healing by preaching. In Luke 24, 46–47, the risen Jesus tells his apostles and disciples, “So it is written that the Christ would suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that, in his name repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be preached to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem”. Christ suffered and assessed that he identifies himself with the suffering until the last day of creation (Matthew 25, 40).

Development of the text of Lumen Gentium

First Session of the Second Vatican Council, Oct 11, 1962 - Dec 8, 1962.

The second day of the Second Vatican Council, that is October 11, 1962, lasted about 50 minutes and was ended by the plea of the venerable 68-year-old Cardinal Liénart from Lille to postpone the Council for some days (Riccardi, Andrea. 1996. “La tumultuosa apertura dei lavori.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 21–86. 47. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The Council Fathers were already busy selecting bishops from lists that the Roman Curia had established for the ten commissions of the council. Liénart argued that the Council could not vote for the 160 bishops and cardinals that were to take part in the different commissions of the Council immediately (ibid). Cardinal Frings, like Liénart one of the 10 Cardinals of the presidential board of the Council, took the word after him, supported his claim, and communicated to the Council that also Döpfner and König wanted some time to get clear about whom they wanted to vote for the commissions (ibid). The aula of the Council spontaneously applauded for a long time and the Cardinal Dean of the cardinals Tisserant consented (ibid). John XXIII told Liénart that he had done well (ibid. 51). This decision made clear that the Council would not be the simple continuation of the preparatory commissions, that had been established by the Vatican. Liénart’s decision to take the word was the beginning of the self-government of the Council. The bishops’ conferences began to produce the lists of the possible members for the Council’s commissions and the Council Fathers would vote on the candidates in the aula of Saint Peter’s (ibid. 54). This was a revolution compared to Vatican I, the First Vatican Council (ibid).

After the successful intervention of Cardinal Liénart on the second day of the first session of the Council, October 11, 1962, the Council got off the ground and, on its way (Fogarty, Gerald. 1996. “L’avvio dell’assemblea.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 87–128. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The bishops overcame their confusion and solitude by organizing meetings. The most important element of Vatican II as an event of the history of the Roman Catholic Church, in the judgment of Fogarty was the beginning of a mutual exchange of opinions and institutionalized meetings of the bishops of the nations that is the bishops’ conferences, the continents and the world (Fogarty 1996, 94). The world episcopate met in reunions after almost a hundred years that had passed since Vatican I. At the Second Vatican Council the Vatican bureaucracy simply could not control any more the bishops’ sharing and discussing their proper ideas. Many theologians and bishops were disappointed with the prepared documents, especially with the schemes concerning doctrinal questions (ibid. 88). From the experience of sharing and working together, now there emerged a sense of collegiality of the episcopate that later was described and appreciated in the documents of the Council (ibid. 95).

On October 22, 1962, it was announced in the aula of the Council that John XXIII had elevated the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity to a Commission (ibid. 64). With this 11th commission, Cardinal Bea reached an institutional position at the Council (ibid). The presidency of the Council and the presidents of the 10 commissions got instituted at the beginning of September together with Felici as General Secretary of the Council at the presidency of the Council. Additionally, John XXIII instituted the Secretariat for extraordinary affairs of the Council and the Secretary of the State, Cardinal Cicognani was to be president of this new institution (ibid. 77). Felici was not happy that the presidency of the Council was to get help from another secretariat. Members of this Secretariat were the Cardinals Siri, Montini, Suenens, Döpfner, Confalonieri, Meyer from the United States and Cardinal Wyszynski from Poland (ibid.). (See my Posting “Cardinals from the center and from the periphery).

John XXIII wanted to limit the influence of the Roman Curia on the council. The relatively open-minded Cardinals from the Secretariat for extraordinary affairs were to steer the Council in accordance with the mood of the bishops in the aula. Since the presidents of the other 10 commissions of the Council were all members of the Roman Curia, John XXIII wanted to institute a kind of balance to their power and interests. John XXIII trusted Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Suenens and they significantly determined the second preparation of the council that absorbed much energy of the first intersession of the Counmcil. Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Suenens insisted on coherent preparation of the texts and a logic agenda for discussion. Their authority and their influence on the Pope John XXIII and the Council was considerable but declined progressively under Pope Paul VI.

On October 22, 1962, the Council started its work on the prepared scheme on sacred liturgy (Fogarty 1996, 102). The Council got off the ground of confusion and insecurity by starting with the only document of the preparatory commission of the Vatican, that was acceptable to a vast majority, and that was the document on liturgy. German and French bishops and theologians had been meeting since October 19 and were still discussing the theological proposals of Rahner and Ratzinger to start the Council with alternative texts, Congar was writing on a mission statement for the Council and Danielou had also written alternative texts for the Council. Neither of the texts of Ratzinger and Rahner, Congar and Danielou ever got official recognition at the Council (ibid. 103) (See my Posting “Theologians from the center and from the periphery”). Congar was the first to realize that the German initiative to start the Council with alternative texts had failed (ibid. 106). There were three reasons for this failure. First, the small group of French and German theologians that prepared alternative texts on revelation and the deposit of the faith ignored the prepared scheme on ecclesiology. Second, they had no strategy to get their texts discussed in the aula of the Council (ibid. 102). A third reason for the failure was the incapacity of Rahner and Congar to cooperate on a common text, and the lack of communication of Danielou with his colleagues. On November 4, 1962, a small group around Rahner, Ratzinger and Congar met for the last time. The common project of an alternative text to the prepared schemes on Revelation and on the deposit of the faith with Congar’s general introduction to all texts of the Council was dead. Fogarty thinks that the Germans had decided to end the confusion and to continue their own way (ibid. 106).

Cardinal Suenens and his theologian Philips followed the strategy to work on the amelioration of the prepared document on the Church. Philips did not work out an alternative text but tried to get a corrected version of the prepared text that would find the consensus of all. The strategy of Suenens and Philips was successful; they discussed the matter with Montini and his theologian Carlo Colombo and built further institutional support for their project. On October 19, 1962, Suenens and Montini presented together the necessity for a corrected version of the prepared scheme of the Church in the meeting of the secretariat for extraordinary affairs of the Council (ibid). Neither Cardinal König from Vienna for whom Rahner was working, nor the German cardinals connected with any Italian cardinal or with a cardinal from the Roman Curia to develop a strategy to bring their texts to aula of the Council. They had not been learning about reform strategies from Pope John XXIII. When John XXIII announced the upcoming General Council on January 25, 1959, he knew he had to cooperate with the Curia that is the Secretariat of State, the Congregations – bureaucratic departments watching over doctrine, discipline, missions, bishops, priests, seminaries, universities, liturgy, creation of saints, etc. – and the Roman Tribunals. He wanted the bureaucrats to be involved and engaged in the process of preparation (Alberigo, Giuseppe. 1995. “L’ annuncio del concilio. Dalle sicurezze dell’arroccamento al fascino della ricerca.” In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 19–70. 64. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Apparently, he calculated the price he had to pay to get this collaboration (ibid). To keep the damage small, he made his loyal Cardinal Secretary of State of the Roman Catholic Church Domenico Tardini (1888–1961) president of the pre–preparatory commission of the Council (ibid. 62). With the nomination of Tardini, the pope bypassed the conservative president of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the former Holy Office that is the Inquisition, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (1890–1979) (Fouilloux, Étienne. 1995. “La fase ante-preparatioria (1959–1960). Il lento avvio dell`uscita dall`inerzia.” In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 71–176. 63. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Domenico Tardini was born in Rome and studied like the later John XXIII at the Pontifical Roman Seminary. Tardini together with Giovanni Battista Montini (1897–1978), the later Paul VI, was the main assistant to Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (1876–1958), Cardinal Secretary of State till 1939, when he became Pius XII. In 1954, Pope Pius XII named Montini Archbishop of Milan, in 1958 Pope John XXIII created Montini cardinal. As cardinal of the largest diocese of Italy and as an insider of the Roman Curia, Cardinal Montini was an influential, powerful and necessary ally for Cardinal Suenens from Brussels, Belgium. Cardinal Bea was another ally for reform. Suenens supported his reform text on divine revelation and Bea supported Suenens’ efforts reforming the text on the Church De Ecclesia.

Sebastian Tromp (1889–1975), the Dutch Jesuit and from 1929 to 1967 professor of theology at the Gregorian University in Rome, was the most important adviser of Pope Pius XII for the encyclical Mystici corporis on the Church (Hünermann 2004, 294). As peritus (expert) for the Council he was secretary of the preparatory Doctrinal Commission and later of the Doctrinal Commission. Tromp redacted the scheme on the Church that Cardinal Ottaviani prepared for the Council in the sense of Ottaviani’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the former Holy Office (ibid). The prepared scheme on the Church counted eleven chapters. The first dealt with the nature of the militant and triumphant Church. The second was about its members, the third about the episcopate as the highest order of priestly ordination. The fourth dealt with the bishops, the fifth with the evangelical counsels, the sixth was about the lay, the seventh about the magisterium of the Church, the eighth about authority and obedience, the ninth dealt with church-state relations, the tenth with the necessity of missionary activity, and the eleventh was about ecumenism (ibid. 294–95).

Already in May 1960, the German Cardinals Frings and Döpfner expressed complaints about the lacking coordination of the preparatory work; the French bishops communicated the complaints to John XXIII (Komonchak, Joseph. 1995. “La lotta per il concilio durante la preparazione”. In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 177–380. 184. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). In order to supervise and coordinate the 10 preparatory commissions John XXIII created a central preparatory commission that he would preside (ibid. 182). This commission met for the first time a year later in June 1960, and for the second time from November 7 to 12, 1961 (ibid). The discussion on the texts that had been prepared by the preparatory commissions ended in June 1962 (ibid. 321). In March 1962, Cardinal Suenens spoke in the central preparatory commission of the impossibility to deal with all the schemes that are in preparation at the upcoming Council. Pope John XXIII agrees, Suenens consults with Cardinals whom he trusted and suggests focusing the Council’s work on the inner constitution of the Church, ecclesia ad intra or the mystery of the Church and on the relation of the Church and the world, ecclesia ad extra (Hünermann 2004, 320). Pope John XXIII takes up this suggestion and speaks of it publicly a month before the opening of the Council. The presidents of the Council did not take up this plan and started the discussion of the Council with the scheme on liturgy (ibid. 321).

The long-awaited scheme on ecclesiology only arrived at the Council fathers on November 23, 1962 (Ruggieri, Giuseppe. 1996. “Il difficile abbandono dell’ecclesiologia controversista.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 309–384. 309. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). For the majority of the bishops, ecclesiology was the single most important issue and primary cause for the Council (ibid). Since the preparation of the scheme on the Church, the Doctrinal Commission of Cardinal Ottaviani and the Secretariat for the Unity of the Church of Cardinal Bea were divided on central issues (ibid). Like the encyclical Mystici corporis of Pius XII, the prepared scheme De Ecclesia described the Church in strictly juridical terms as a perfect society that is considered identical with the Roman Catholic Church. The hierarchy of the pope, cardinals, bishops and priests was not regarded as a human institution but as an institution that Go’d had instituted. This concept of the Church completely ignored the divine vocation of the faithful women, men and queer. It was up to the hierarchy to direct the mission of the Church that is “evangelization and its task of bearing witness – it has been only what the pope says or teaches that really matters” (Hill 1987, 199). The critique of the Benedictine monk is fundamental: “The church has come to be perceived as a centralized absolutist papal monarchy; it is this papal institution that has been overwhelmingly, not to say suffocatingly vested with the aura of divine mystery” (ibid).

Cardinal Bea did not dispute the hierarchy governing, teaching and sanctifying the faithful but because of Go’d’s grace for all of humanity and for all Christians, Protestants and Catholics were real members of the Church. Bea recognized that not all Christians are full members of the Church, but all are real members (Ruggieri 1996, 309). In contrast, the Doctrinal Commission saw the Protestants only oriented versus the Church and claimed that the jurisdictional powers of the Pope were passed on to the bishops by the Pope’s absolutist power. The secretariat for the unity holds that the bishops received jurisdiction by ordination (ibid). Cardinal Bea further insisted on the recognition of religious liberty and freedom that is grounded in love (ibid. 310). The solution of the concept of membership of the Catholic Church was crucial for any equilibrium on the inner and outer aspects of the Church. Is the Church the perfect side of the world and the world the necessary but somewhat rotten condition of human existence?

On October 18, 1962, Philips tells Congar that Cardinal Suenens had asked him to work over the prepared scheme De Ecclesia (ibid). Philips practically follows the order of the chapters of the prepared scheme on De Ecclesia and starts to ameliorate the content. Philips presented his project to Congar. According to Congar, Philips had in mind six chapters, starting with a first chapter describing the Church as people of Go’d, as a mystery and as a mystical body that empowers the bishops (ibid). Philips spoke of the collegiality of the college of the twelve Apostles with Peter and of the sacrament of the episcopal ordination. The second chapter deals with the members of the Church, the third is about the bishops. The fourth deals with the lay, the fifth with the evangelical counsels and the sixth is about ecumenism. The chapters follow Suenens’s preferred order of first speaking of the Church ad intra and then of the Church ad extra that is the relation with the state, religious freedom and other themes (ibid. 310–11). On October 25, 1962, Philips discusses his redaction of the scheme with Congar, Colombo, Lécuyer, Rahner, Ratzinger, Semmelroth and McGrath and received best wishes to succeed (ibid. 311). A week later, Philips communicated his text to Cardinal Bea who expressed only minor corrections. Instead of talking of the members of the Church, Bea suggested to speak of the family of the Roman Catholic Church. On November 12, 1962, Philips communicates his text on De Ecclesia to Tromp. Tromp complains about having received the text from a stranger and keeps sticking to the official scheme that he had redacted (ibid. 312). Tromp’s reaction surprised, because he and Philips knew each other since their studies at the Gregorian University in Rome in their youth. After their studies, Tromp continued living in Rome for decades; Philips became professor of theology at Leuven. Tromp was a Vatican insider. Philips remained an independent outsider.

In the following weeks, Philips keeps working on his text, produces drafts of his paper and tries to organize the scheme coherently. He hoped that the bishops would accept his text not as an alternative option but as a slight correction of the official scheme (ibid. 326). Schillebeeckx and Rahner were not satisfied with this theology from Leuven (ibid. 332). For Schillebeeckx the beginning of a theology of the Church must consist in a theology of the vocation by Go’d; all Christian communities are members of the Church and constitute a sacrament. He claimed collegiality for all communities, men and women in the Church and not only for the bishops. He cited Saint Thomas as saying that all of humanity was potentially part of the Church. Ruggieri reminds Schillebeeckx of the fact that the bishop’s office is intimately connected and founded in the Eucharist. A bishop is the one who is appointed by the community to chair the Eucharist. The bishop has to see that all take part in the celebration of Jesus’s thanksgiving (ibid. 333–38). Rahner saw the Church as a means of salvation but would concede means of salvation that are outside the Catholic Church. Rahner saw the Church as a sacrament of the many. Baptism is a sacrament, a sign celebrated visibly by a community of believers in Jesus Christ who welcomes another man or woman with prayers of thanksgiving for the grace of the Lord. Rahner speaks of the collegiality of the priests and not only of the collegiality of the bishops. Rahner claimed a theology of different charismas. This theology of the different charismas of men and women in the Church is the basis to talk rightly of the responsibility of the lay people, the clerics, the monks, etc. in and for the Church. He reminded the Council of the fact that the councils of poverty, chastity and obedience of the Gospel were well practiced before the existence of any religious orders and therefore stay at the basis of Christian life for all, lay, clerics and monks. Rahner wanted to see the laity, men and women to be considered as constitutive for the Church, and the Church therefore seen as the People of Go’d (ibid. 338–43). Rahner and Schillebeeckx wanted to reject the prepared scheme De Ecclesia (ibid. 343). The way of Suenens and Philips was different. Suenens built a close relation to John XXIII and a social network with important Cardinals at the Council. He followed the strategy to get a consensus on the prepared scheme after it had been worked over substantially by Philips. Rahner, Schillebeeckx and others hoped that the pope would intervene again as he did on the scheme on revelation. The Council had been discussing and had voted on the prepared text on revelation but failed to obtain the necessary two thirds of the votes to kill the scheme of the Curia. Only the pope could resolve the impasse. On November 21, 1962, John XXIII intervened with Felici, the secretary of the Council, insisting on the pastoral direction of the Council (Ruggieri, Giuseppe, 1996. “Il primo conflitto dottrinale.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo periodo e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 259–294. 291. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Conservative cardinals like Ottaviani wanted to speak in dogmatic terms about revelation, John XXIII wanted the Council to present the Christian message to the modern world and to the world of tomorrow (ibid.). John XXIII ordered a mixed commission that was to resolve the problem (ibid.). (See my Posting “History of the text on revelation Dei Verbum”).

Rahner, Schillebeeckx and many others hoped that John XXIII would save them again. These hopes in the pope show the ambivalence of many theologians who claim participation in the development of the teachings of the Church but at the same time ask the pope to elevate their privileged theological ideas to the official teaching of the Church.

On November 23, 1962, Felici announced that after the discussion of the scheme on the means of communication the Council will discuss the schemes on the Virgin Mary and then on the Unity of the Church. Already on November 26, Felici had to correct the order of the schemes. First, there will be discussion on the scheme of the Unity of the Church and then the discussion on De Ecclesia will follow. The presidency of the Council overruled the effort of Cardinal Octaviani to prevent the discussion of De Ecclesia in the first session of the Council. Ottaviani wanted to secure that the prepared scheme would not be rejected by the Council (Ruggieri 1996, 355). On November 30, 1962, Felici had to announce with the words of John XXIII of November 21, 1962, that the discussion should be on the general principles of the schemes, so that in case of necessity, there remains enough time for their revision and accommodation. This statement implied that at least the presidency of the Council had concluded the necessity to revise the prepared scheme on De Ecclesia. On December 1, 1962, the debate on De Ecclesia began and everybody had accepted that the prepared scheme had to get worked over (ibid).

From December 1 to December 7, 1962, 77 Council Fathers took the word and discussed the scheme on De Ecclesia. Cardinal König asked for more religious freedom and claimed that the Roman Catholic Church had to work for the benefit of all people and not only for Christians. König speaks of the necessary influence of the individual Catholic woman and man on the teachings of the Church. He intervenes a second time claiming again the Church’s obligation to work for peace on this earth, to help the countries of the missions, to reflect on the concept of natural law, on the collegiality of the bishops and to organize special teams of priests for special tasks that is for the pastoral of the working class (ibid. 359). The most effective intervention to convince the fathers to substantially correct the prepared scheme came from Cardinal Frings. He insisted on the Greek and old Latin term of Catholicity that is katholon. Catholicity knows two possibility conditions: She is founded in the Eucharist and by the collegiality of all with Rome (ibid. 361). I very much enjoy the intervention of the bishop of Thebe Isaac Ghattas. He spoke in French, and it is a pleasure to read a comment to the modern world in a language that is spoken in this world and not dead like Latin. He reminded the Council Fathers of the old tradition of the Greek Orthodoxy. Accordingly, we find the mystical body of Christ in the Eucharist. He also insisted that the tradition of the Churches of the Orient always spoke of Churches. For example, of the Church of Rome, the Church of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioquia and of the mother Jerusalem. He also pointed at the principle of collegiality that guided the way to relate from one Church to the other. He reported that the Churches of the Orient also speak of the Churches of Africa, Japan, China etc.  Unity is to be considered from the point of the mystical body of Christ (ibid. 362–63).

Ruggieri makes the important observation that the bishops were worried about the future of the Church and the future of their Churches. What would they bring back to their dioceses? Still there were no results of the Council written down, and the Pope was suffering from a mortal disease (ibid. 366–67). Bishops like Marcel Lefebvre and others clearly recognized that a Majority of the Council Fathers wanted to follow the Pope’s intentions of renewal and saw with anxiety the erudition of the habitual juridical ground of their existences as bishops. He and the entire minority did not deny the pastoral character of the Council and the necessity of the pastoralist approach in its documents, but they categorically refused to attribute to the term pastoral the distinction and the dignity of being an essential part of the Christian faith that is being a dogma (ibid. 368). It was not at all recognizable for them to acknowledge that Jesus had been teaching by healing and healing by teaching.

In this situation of insecurity and concern for the future of the Council, Cardinal Suenens got the opportunity to make his final point. Already on November 14, 1962, he had manifested his worry with the confused organization of the Council’s work and on December 4, 1962, he could collect consensus for his proposal on De Ecclesia. He presented all the points of the prepared scheme, considered the concerns of everybody’s mind in the assembly, and spoke in a concrete, coherent and understandable way. He spoke of his project of two documents. One would be ad intra and the other ad extra. De Ecclesia is the document ad intra and deals with the nature of the Church as mystical body of the Christ, with the missionary task of the Church, and with teaching the Catechism, with baptizing and operating the sacraments and with praying (ibid. 369). Suenens continued that a second document will address the ad extra that is the Church in dialogue with the world. The Church will speak in this dialogue of the life of the human person, of social justice, of the evangelization of the poor and of peace and war. Suenens concluded his speech assessing that the Church has to dialogue with the faithful, with the brother Churches that are not yet visibly united with the Roman Catholic Church and finally with the modern word. The speech received overwhelming applause from the listening Council Fathers (ibid. 370).

The next day, December 5, 1962, Cardinal Montini gave his support to the project of Suenens. Montini knew that he had to follow a program of moderate reform if he wanted to get elected the next pope (ibid). On Tuesday December 4, 1962, Congar notes in his Journal the clerical gossip that Montini is the rising star behind the scenes, that he lives in the papal palace as guest of Pope John XXIII and has growing influence in the Secretariat of State (Congar, Yves. 2012. My Journal of the Council. 235. Translated from French by Mary John Ronayne and Mary Cecily Boulding. Edited by Dennis Minns. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press). Carefully distancing himself a bit from the Roman Curia, Montini even suggested beginning De Ecclesia with Cardinal Bea’s points on the importance of the college of the Apostles, continuing with the college of the bishops as successors of the college of the Apostles and ending with the sacramental character of the office of the bishops (Ruggieri 1996, 370). On December 6, 1962, Cardinal Lercaro presented the last significant and programmatic discourse of the discussion on De Ecclesia. He suggested to turn the attention of the document on the Church on the necessity of the Church to announce the Gospel to the poor (ibid. 371). He wanted a poor Church at the side of the poor of the world and being present with the poor and spoke of the Church of the poor. French bishops and bishops from Latin America enthusiastically greeted the term Church of the poor (ibid). Following the poor Christ, Lercaro wanted the Romnan Catholic Church to become poor and began defining the authority of the monarchic Church and its hierarchy according to the presence of Christ with the poor (ibid. 372). For the moment, nobody was ready to follow Lercaro with this prophetic conception of the Church. John XXIII certainly would have liked that Lercaro follows him as pope. For the Majority of the Council Fathers Lercaro was too prophetic, too progressive, too dangerous and radical to be considered as possible candidate to follow John XXIII. Just as Jesus, also Lercaro suffered the fate of the prophets.

Right after Lercaro’s speech, a to-do list for the first intersession (December 1962-September 1963) that John XXIII had established the day before, was distributed to the Council Fathers. Because of this papal intervention a vote on the prepared scheme De Ecclesia was not any more necessary (ibid. 372). On the same December 6, 1962, it was announced that the pope would create a Coordinating Commission with authority to revise the schemes that the other commissions had worked out and to prepare the second session (Grootaers, Jan. 1996. “Il concilio si gioca nell’intervallo. La seconda preparazione e i suoi avversari.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 385–558. 392. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The presidency of the Coordinating Commission was given to Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of the State and president of the secretariat for extraordinary affairs of the council.

The first intersession of the Second Vatican Council, December 1962-September 1963

The first of six sessions of this new Coordinating Commission took place at the end of January 1963 (ibid. 393). Suenens was chosen as the relator for the documents on the church, for the document on the Virgin Mary, and for social media (ibid). John XXIII had addressed the coordination commission in its first session and was personally present on March 25, 1963, in the second session, exhorting the cardinals to cooperate and to confirm that the principal theme of the council was the church (ibid. 395). Cardinals in the Coordinating Commission that were close to the Curia, like Confalonieri, Cicognani and Urbani, regularly differed in their positions from commission members that were not members of the Roman Curia, and these conflicts of interest frequently led to disputes (ibid. 401). The cardinals that still defend the documents that had been prepared by the Curia for the first session of the Council, now turn to be decisive adversaries of the second preparation, and the resistance to the second preparation from the Curia was getting more and more effective (ibid 402). Cardinal Ottaviani does not want to collaborate and does not collaborate with the Coordinating Commission. By stopping Ottaviani trying to take influence over other commissions and the Coordinating Commission, Cicognani demonstrated the necessary authority in the Coordinating Commission for its work on the second preparation of the Council (ibid. 404).

John XXIII instituted the Coordinating Commission as a principal commission, commission princeps that is as a commission with authority over all other commissions. The monarchists of the Roman Curia, the Vatican’s bureaucratic elite was out of time and stubbornly sticked to their power. Pastoral relations with lay women, men and queer, the spiritual renewal of the Church as a people of God, grace as the most important mystery, the freedom and dignity of religious experience of the individual woman, man and queer on this earth were not the concerns of the Curia. Instead, the prelates of the Roman Curia angrily reacted against the men from Northern Europe and the United States who took away their influence on the Council. In the intercession, the Curia and disappointed traditionalists regained momentum and social significance as a peer group. The so-called Minority of the Council is organized as an influential group at the Council. The majority of the bishops was nervous about the paralyzing impasse on the schemes. They found some relief only when in March 1963, the Coordinating Commission made some progress on ecumenism and the document on the Church. The Coordinating Commission was eager to assure an able majority at the Council. The price for a broad consensus and relative stability of a shaky majority was compromise on theological progress (ibid. 385–86).

The bishops in the aula lacked the necessary know-how to build a coherent text that would integrate all propositions and arguments from the debates. Frustration tormented the dioceses, the bishops and the Cardinals at Rome, the Coordinating Commission and the other commissions working on texts because of the lack of a desperately needed effective coordination of the Council. The bishops in their dioceses and the public did not get the needed information to participate in the process of the making of the text. Commissions that already had been dissolved continued gathering and worked on outdated drafts and texts. There was no institutional frame to interweave the thousand small elements from the discussions and papers to a combined connected text, there was no technique at hand to interlink the actors for a functional teamwork. Pope John XXIII had hoped that by Christmas of 1963 the Council could end its work. On January 6, 1963, he had to motivate the bishops to continue the work of the Council. He sent them the letter “Mirabilis ille” insisting that the Church had to remain the central theme of the Council. John XXIII concentrated all his energy to inspire the intercession. He encouraged the coordination commission to communicate with the bishops at home and asked the clerics and lay to cooperate with their bishops in discussing reform. The pope is quite conscious about the fact that a group of Curial Cardinals does not follow his will on reform and fights his efforts to a renewal of the Church (ibid. 387–89).

Already In September 1925, the prophetic theologian Lambert Beauduin observed in a conference in Brussels that the First Vatican Council (1869–1870) had not finished but was suspended because of the outbreak of the German French war in 1870 (ibid. 423). Beauduin concluded that a document on the theology of the episcopate would have constituted the necessary balance to the document on the theology of pontifical infallibility (ibid). Edward Schillebeeckx, theologian at the University Nijwegen, Netherlands, right after the announcement of a council in February 1959, published articles on the necessary work of the upcoming council. Schillebeeckx spoke of the task working out a theology of the relation between the pope and the bishops, of the collegiality of the bishops and of the importance of the laity for the life and existence of the Church (ibid. 424).

In January 1963, the Coordinating Commission published a resolution that indicated the direction for the work on De Ecclesia: The prepared scheme on the Church had to be revised by clearly demonstrating the inner connection between the First and the Second Vatican Council (ibid. 426). In this work the doctrine of the primate of the pope will be presented in a pastoral and ecumenical perspective together with a description of the collegiality of the episcopate, a theology of the priestly office and the role of the laity in the Church (ibid.).  Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Doctrinal Commission still refuses the collaboration with the Coordinating Commission. On February 12, 1963, the Doctrinal Commission met for the first time in two months. Tromp shot against the alternative text to De Ecclesia (ibid. 427). A sub-commission for the work on De Ecclesia was formed of seven bishops, five reformers and two conservatives. The bishops brought their theologians to the sub-commission. Cardinal Léger came with his theologian Lafontaine, Cardinal König with Rahner, Parente with Balic and later with Schauf, Charue with Gérard Philips, Garrone with Daniélou and later with Congar and Schröffer with Gustave Thils from Leuven and later with Moeller. Ottaviani made Browne president of the sub-commission (ibid). Meanwhile the Doctrinal Commission continued to be busy with the work on De Revelatione, the sub-commission on De Ecclesia succeeded in preparing a considerable revision of the prepared official scheme on the Church (ibid). Although on February 26, 1963, the president of the Coordinating Commission Cardinal Cicognani sent the sub-commission on De Ecclesia order not to work on an alternative text, the sub-commission took a different decision that day. There were several texts: The official scheme of Parente, a French scheme, the German project, the scheme of Philips and a very extensive text from Chile (ibid. 428).

Suenens had unsuccessfully tried by the way of the Secretariat for extraordinary affairs to bring the scheme of Philips to the aula for discussion at the end of the first session of the Council. It was a big surprise that on February 26, 1963, Léger, König,Charue, Garrone and Schröffer reached a consensus to start working with the scheme of Philips. His scheme was the most circulated and known in the first session of the Council. The five fathers chose the scheme of Philips because of its conciliatory tone and its international origin. The scheme of Parente should be taken into consideration and possibly also elements from other schemes that had been prepared (ibid. 429).

The experts of the sub-commission worked hard to be able to present a text to the dogmatic commission. They were perfectly conscious that if the new majority of the reformers failed to present a new text, Ottaviani could force the Council to discuss the old official scheme of Parente in September 1963. This need for a unified effort and the hermeneutic arts of Philips contributed to the rapid consensus for his text. He knew Rome very well; he had visited France and Germany to understand and discuss with his colleagues and made them understand the need to present the theology of reform in Rome’s traditional terminology. Philips used positive language towards the world and assured the majority without being theologically new. Principally, he stuck to the prepared schema. In only four days, the sub-commission finished the text on chapter one and two for the Doctrinal Commission. Ottaviani and Browne rejected the text and tried to put obstacles in the way for the work of the sub-commission (ibid. 430).

Philips, counting on a knowledge of parliamentary procedures, remained patient and was concerned not to create winners or losers while using his skills to get a compromise. Philips and Congar succeeded in introducing the Church as a mystical body and as a sacrament. Philips managed to escape attacks of the minority that he would neglect the hierarchical aspects of the Church (ibid. 435). The second chapter of Philips’s text introduced the idea of the collegiality of the bishops. Protests were imminent and bitter exchanges of insults were treated. Nevertheless, Suenens presented the first and second chapter on March 28, 1963, at the Coordinating Commission. He accepted the precision of Tromp that the first two chapters were dogmatic and not treating Church discipline and government. The juridical aspects of the Church’s organization could be treated later (ibid. 436). Ottaviani pointed again at the hierarchical structure of the Church and insisted on the pope as the only Vicar of Christ with full jurisdictional power. The final redaction of chapter one and two were ready on April 18, 1963. On April 22, 1963, the State Secretary issued the official approval, and, in May 1963, the chapters were finally sent to the bishops around the world (437).

The Doctrinal Commission met again for two weeks in the second half of the month of May 1963. The completion of the first two chapters gave the majority self-assurance and confidence to be able to complete the whole text successfully. The minority stayed active waiting that time would run out for the reformers. The theologians of the sub-commission of the Doctrinal Commission worked till exhaustion to be able to present a text (ibid. 438). The third chapter of De Ecclesia treats the laity. Long before the convocation of the Council, Philips had been elaborating a theology of the lay men and women and one of his many texts now served as basis for the third chapter (ibid. 439).

The third session of the Coordinating Commission took place from July 3 to July 4, 1963. The session was short but particularly important for the future development of the document De Ecclesia (ibid. 443). Suenens got the revised chapter on the lay and the religious approved. Suenens suggested some fundamental modifications of the organization of the chapters. After the first chapter, which was titled “The mystery of the Church”, Suenens wanted a chapter titled “The people of God in general”. Only then did he proceed with the chapter on the hierarchical constitution of the Church. The fourth chapter would deal with the function of the laity in the Church and the fifth chapter was titled “The vocation to sanctity of the Church” (ibid. 443–44). This restructuring was of fundamental significance for ecclesiology. The idea of this inclusive ecclesiology that called the bishops, lay, clergy and religious together the people of God had been circulating in Germany, the Netherlands, France and Canada. The Coordinating Commission did not reject the restructuring and on July 19, 1963, Cicognani sent the chapter on the laity to the bishops and informed them of the new order of the chapters of De Ecclesia. It is the merit of the efficient mediator during the Council, A. Prignon, rector of the Belgian College at Rome, to propose this inclusive ecclesiology to Suenens who was on his way to the meeting of the Coordinating Commission (ibid. 444). The Doctrinal Commission prepared its protest against the restructuring of De Ecclesia by Suenens. The archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, Cardinal Suenens, the team of editors of De Ecclesia and other supporters and advocates of the inclusive theology also met in September 1963 to prepare the upcoming controversy in the aula of the Council (445).

Gérard Philips decisively contributed with his scheme on De Ecclesia to end the uncertainty and confusion of the intersession from December 9, 1962, to September 1963. The simple fact of the existence of his text assured a majority and gave security to overcome the doubts concerning the presentation of a new text in September 1963. This first intersession became the so-called second preparation of the Second Vatican Council.

The new important factor of influence on the course of the Council in August 1963 was Paul VI. He is the new absolute monarch of the Roman Catholic Church. His plans, anxieties and hesitating passivity determine the insecurity on the beginning of the second session (Melloni, Alberto. 1998. “L’inizio del secondo periodo e il grande dibattito ecclesiologico.” In Il concilio adulto. Il secondo periodo e la seconda intersessione settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 19–133. 19. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The first act of the newly elected Paul VI was to declare that the Council would continue in October 1963 (ibid. 21). Paul VI asked Cardinal Döpfner from Munich, Germany, if the number of the proposed schemes could be reduced. Cardinal Lercaro, the theologian Dossetti and his collaborators from Bologna were asked to present proposals to better steer the Council. (ibid. 23). Paul VI starts preparing his first encyclical letter on the Church Ecclesiam suam. Dossetti, the ex-politician, and now secretary of the four moderators, thinks about a constitution for the Council. Paul VI does not meditate on the liberty of the Council in respect to papal authority. There was insecurity about the role of the Council’s presidency, the role of the Coordinating Commission and its confirmed president Secretary of State Cicognagni. Colombo proposes that Paul VI form a new steering group for the Council. Three or four cardinals from the Coordinating Commission and the presidency should become moderators (ibid. 26). On September 9, 1963, the State Secretariat informs Agagianian, Döpfner, Lercaro and Suenens that they are the moderators. There was no official text on their real executive powers and authority and the relations between Pope, Secretariat of State and the moderators never were spelled out in a regulation (ibid. 27). 

On September 21, 1963, Paul VI insisted in a letter to the whole Vatican Curia and some Council Fathers already present at Rome, on the necessity of the curial structure for the Pope’s government. Curia was relieved. Paul VI had not prepared the destruction of the apparatus that expelled him as substitute for the State Secretary in 1954. Although the Pope claimed that the residential bishops around the world participate in the work of the Roman Congregations, Paul VI missed an opportunity to reform the government of the Roman Catholic Church (ibid. 31). Paul VI reserves the right to formulate and promulgate any reform concerning the Roman Curia to the Roman Curia. How will the Roman Curia develop when the pressure of the 2500 Council Fathers on the Curia is gone after the Council (ibid. 32). The Melchite metropolitan Neophytos Edelby, as theological expert on the synods was familiar with the decision-making processes of the bishops at synods. Edelby analyzed drily, that the letter of Paul VI takes away the reform of the Roman Curia from the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council. He was very disappointed, and the letter reinforced his mistrust of Rome (ibid. 33).

On the August 31,1963, the coordination commission decided that De Ecclesia, and the documents on the Virgin Mary De Beata, on the bishops, on the apostolate of the laity and on ecumenism would be discussed in the upcoming second session of the Council. On September 16, 1963, Felici communicated this decision to the bishops of the Council. There was not much time left for the bishops to carefully study the documents and send their observations on the schemes back to Rome before the opening of the new session on September 29, 1963 (ibid. 34).

From September 26 to September 27, 1963, French and Italian bishops met in Florence to discuss. The French episcopate knew about Congar’s critique of the prepared text on revelation. Betti succeeded in convincing the bishops not to accept what the mixed commission had prepared on revelation. Revelation has to be described as a communication of God to men and women with a personal history within history. The German bishops’ conference discusses the observations on De Ecclesia, De Revelatione and De Beata that Rahner had sent them in July. They discussed the collegiality of the bishops and the pope. The episcopate of the United States from August 6 to August 7, 1963, gathered in Chicago. They discussed religious liberty as the last chapter of the scheme De Oecumenismo. Bishops’ conferences around the world were discussing the documents of the upcoming second sessions of the Council. Just a year prior, similar conferences of the world episcopate would have been completely impossible (ibid. 34–37).

At the end of September 1963, the 2500 bishops with their advisers came back to Rome for the second session. They have gotten familiar with the place but had lost the enthusiasm of the previous year. Four hundred of the arriving bishops were new and came for the first time. Communication with the bishops behind the Iron Curtain was almost impossible, China still refused to send bishops (ibid. 45). Thirteen lay men could assist the Council at St. Peter’s. Paul VI invited Jean Larnaud from the UNESCO, with Henri Rollet, the president of the International Federation of the Action Catholique, and with the Italians Silvio Golzio, Raimondo Manzini from the Osservatore Romano and with Francesco Vito, the president of the Catholic University of Milan. Further there was the Belgian Auguste Vanistendael, a Catholic labor unionist, Ramon Sungranyes de Franch, the Spanish president of Pax Romana, James J. Norris from the US and president of the International Commission on Immigriation, Mieczyslav de Habitch from Poland and Juan Vazquez from Argentina representing the Youth of the Action Catholique. Later Jean Guiton, Vittorino Veronese and Emilio Inglessis were invited too. The whole group was male. Bishop Guano was charged as their guardian. There were no women present at the aula. Only Vito was a commission member of the Council, the Commission on Education (ibid. 46). Five small Churches now accept the invitation as observers to Saint Peter’s: The Syrian-orthodoxy of India, the Mar Thomas of Malabar, the Southern Church of India, the Armenian Church and the Church of Georgia. The patriarch of Constantinople did not attend to the Council with respect to Moscow but was pleased to establish good relations and communication with Rome (ibid. 47).

Second session of the Council: September 29, 1963 – December 4, 1963.

The second session opened on September 29, 1963. Fenton, the American theologian fighting the definition of the Church as a sacrament and enjoying Ottaviani’s trust, comments the entry of the bishops and the Pope walking on foot as a better start than a year ago. The Argentine theologian Zazpe consents to the sobering routine of the opening. Yves Congar this time was physically and psychically ready to stay for the whole spectacle within Saint Peter’s although he experiences the baroque production of papal pomp not only anachronistically absurd but also as a real imprisonment of the Gospel of Jesus. Active liturgical lay participation on September 29, 1963, was not part of the protocol (ibid. 50).

The opening speech of Paul VI is reminiscent of Pope John XXIII only verbally. The content of the speech was not prophetic.  There is no allocution to the collegiality of the bishops with the pope. Paul VI speaks of the dialogue of the Church and the World (ibid. 52–54). The 37th general congregation of the Council started on September 30, 1963, with discussions on De Ecclesia (ibid. 60). Ottaviani and Browne, president and vice-president of the Doctrinal Commission, gave the first talks. They had not changed their opinion. This time the listening bishops were relaxed. Over the last year, they had found ways to talk their minds and stick to their conscience without fear of repression from the Curia. Frings takes the word in the name of 65 German and Scandinavian bishops. He approves the prepared text of De Ecclesia and demands to explicitly call the Church a sacrament (ibid. 61). On October 1, 1963, there is a decisive vote on De Ecclesia. This vote would do away with the scheme that was presented a year ago by Ottaviani. There were 2231 votes for the proposal accepting the scheme of Philips as basic text for De Ecclesia, 43 against and 27 empty sheets (ibid. 62). The first chapter deals with the mystery of the Church in the light of the economy of salvation that is from creation to the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. The second chapter of De Ecclesia is on the hierarchical structure of the Church. The bishops would loyally work together in the collegiality of the episcopate and in responsibility towards the received sacrament of consecration. The third chapter treats the people of God and the lay, the participation of all baptized men and women in the same mission of the Church. The fourth chapter talks about the call of every man and woman to sanctity; sanctity is understood as an instrument and fruit of grace (ibid. 63). The scheme of Philips was a compromise that had sacrificed some important theological developments. There was no way for further discussion of the concept of communio in respect to Church structures as French and Chilean bishops had suggested. The pneumatological character of the Church and the Eucharist as founding element of the Church were not mentioned, as some non-Catholic observers sadly remarked (ibid. 64).

From October 1 to October 4, 1963, the first chapter was discussed. Parallel to the debates in the aula, the commissions again worked intensively. Scheme XVII will not be debated in October and remains invisible. The Doctrinal Commission and the commission of the lay are absorbed working on De Ecclesia. Scheme XVII as presented by Philips tries to tell the Catholics what the world demands from them and tells the world how the Catholic faith tries to respond. Congar’s sequence of koinonia-diakonia-martyria persists in the text (ibid. 69–70). The commission on the apostolate of the lay assumes its work but does not know what to produce: a document, a small one, a big one, a declaration or simply some considerations on behalf of the use of bishops (ibid. 71). The commission will work on a big document to treat the lay as basis of ecclesiology.

On October 4, 1963, debate began on the second chapter of De Ecclesia. There are heavy debates and fierce emotions on the hierarchical structure of the Church, on collegiality and the bishops (ibid. 80). It is not disputed that the Church is founded on Peter and the Apostles. Together they form something like a college, but they do not dispose of constitutional or juridical powers. One might speak of a directive junta with authority coming from having accompanied Jesus. There is resistance in the Curia and in the Council to speak of the pope and the bishops as college in the same way that Peter and the Apostles are treated as something like a college of the Apostles. The Curia fears that the experience of episcopal collegiality at the Council would serve the bishops as a better model for governing the Church than the Curia’s jurisdictional approach. There is no dispute that episcopal consecration transmits the power to sanctify, that is called leiturgia. What about the bishop’s power for government and for teaching? Does consecration transmit these powers to the bishop or does the pope give this juridical power to the bishop (ibid. 82–86)?

On October 10, 1963, the four moderators and their secretary Dossetti enthusiastically leave their usual audience with the pope and speak of a moment of lived collegiality (ibid. 87). The moderators and the Pope had agreed on an orientation vote on some very important questions, a vote that would bind the work of the commissions (ibid. 88). Dossetti and Carlo Colombo, now a qualified expert of the aula, enjoy the trust of Paul VI. They start preparing the formulations of the questions for the vote. The first question is about the consecration of the bishops and the transmission of the three powers – sanctification, teaching, and government. The second question is about the college of the episcopate as an institution of divine right with full and supreme power over the universal Church. The third question is about the diaconate. On October 13 and October 14, 1963, Dossetti works over the questions. Colombo wants to integrate a better connection of the consecration of the bishops with the apostolic succession and collegiality. Colombo gets to read the corrections. There is also the inclusion of a reference to the primate and vicariate of the pope. The pope has juridical power allowing actions of collegiality of the bishops. The aula debates on the questions (ibid. 89–90).

On October 15, 1963, the moderators decide to vote to end the debate on the second chapter of De Ecclesia and announce the distribution of voting sheets with four key questions for the following day. Pericle Felici has already received the ballot papers from Lercaro and they got into print (ibid. 92). In the morning of October 15, 1963, everything for the orientation vote seems to be set. The vote would be risky but in the case of a success of the vote, the commissions, and especially the Doctrinal Commission, would finally have to accept the will of the Council. Since the ante-preparatory phase of the council the commissions are bound to the congregations of the Roman Curia. With the help of the Curia the Pope exercises control over the council. It was clear to Felici that the subordination of the commissions to the will of the assembly would damage the principle of papal authority. Felici was opposed to such a situation (ibid. 92). He informed Cicognani and asked him to consult Paul VI to block the vote for the other day. Paul VI claims to be ignorant of the vote planned for the next day. The situation is confused, and the historians still cannot establish the facts of the case. On February 2, 1965, Congar confides to his diary that Prignon – Albert Prignon, rector of the Belgian college at Rome – had told him that the pope had declared never to have seen the questions that were to be put to a vote. In the evening of October 15, 1963, Cicognani calls by phone and orders the ballots to be destroyed. He also informs the moderators that the vote is suspended without giving a day when it will be taken up again (ibid. 93).

Dossetti begged Lercaro, beseeched Suenens and implored them not to give in on the collegiality of the episcopate with the pope. He reminded them that Paul VI had accepted his text. It is clear: collegiality means putting the Curia under the authority of this college that is the Council (ibid. 95). Because of the failure to bring the four questions to a vote, Dossetti will lose whatever influence he exercised as secretary of the moderators. The moderators lose their steering monopoly of the Council and will be forced to compromise with the men of the Curia. The theologians and Council Fathers did not know about the crisis, the aula continues with the debate on the third chapter of De Ecclesia on the people of Go’d. The common vocation to sanctity of all lay and clergy and monks is consented. The sense of faith of all does not get linked to the lay but remains linked to the term community. The hierarchy governs this community. The community is again under the power of the hierarchy. This contradicts the vocation to sanctity of all. There are again arguments for putting the chapter on the people of Go’d before the chapter on the bishops and the hierarchy (ibid. 97).

There followed five days of intensive lobbying Paul VI. Massive pressure came from the presidency of the council, the Coordinating Commission, the general secretariat and the Doctrinal Commission, that is Tisserant, Urbani, Wyszynski, Cicognani, Felici and Ottaviani (ibid. 99). All of them had been excluded from the initiative of the moderators concerning the four questions and the vote on them. Dossetti had tried to assure that the assembly of the Council Fathers could elect their projects freely, independently from directives coming from the Curia. Three of the four moderators did not come from the Curia, they represented the episcopate residing around the world and were conscious of the needs of their dioceses. The possible participation of the world episcopate in the central government of the Roman Catholic Church threatened the absolute power of the Curial bureaucrats. The bishops and cardinals of the Curia perceived the moderators as competitors to their powers and barely hid their critique and antipathy. For the moment Tisserant, Urbani, Wyszynski, Cicognani, Felici and Ottaviani had no success making Paul VI turn against the moderators, but all claimed that the pope was open to their critique of the men who directed the Second Vatican Council in his name for the last three weeks (ibid). On October 19, 1963, Paul VI communicates to the moderators that he wants them to discuss and approve the texting of an orientation vote on the second chapter of De Ecclesia in a super-commission that consists of the moderators, the General Secretariat of the Council, the council of the presidency and the Coordinating Commission (ibid. 100). On October 23, 1963, the members of the super-commission meet for the first time (ibid. 101). Tisserant as deacon of the Cardinals chaired the meeting of this super commission and demonstrated energy and strength to get to a compromise. The college of the episcopate was kept in the text but could only take a decision if they were authorized by the pope to do so. This authorized decision realized the act of collegiality. Thus, collegiality was qualified as a special variant of the pope’s personal exercise of absolute power over the Church. At least the word collegiality remained in the text. The orientation vote on the second chapter includes the four questions according to the above compromise and was passed with overwhelming consensus by the aula on October 30, 1963 (ibid. 121). What would have happened without the firmness of Tisserant to a compromise? The Curia was certainly set to eliminate whatever influence of the moderators on the Council (ibid. 102–104).

On December 2, 1963, the Doctrinal Commission received permission to vote a second vice-president and a second secretary. Browne and Tromp thus got bishop Charue and Philips as companions. Philips was very relieved to finally formally possess an official position (ibid. 124). He had been working in a sub-commission on his scheme De Ecclesia right since the vote of October 1, 1963. There were many observations coming in from the Council Fathers. After the vote of October 30, 1963, more sub-commissions on the chapters of De Ecclesia were constituted to revise the text according to the observations.

The second intercession of the Second Vatican Council: December 1963 – September 1963.

Since January 31, 1964, the text resulting from the work of the sub-commissions on De Ecclesia that had been supervised by Philips, was sent to the Coordinating Commission and then to the Council Fathers for further debate in aula (ibid. 125). Philips proceeded very carefully, he organized small working-groups on the disputed points and prudently dealt with the delicate concerns of the Minority of the Council that opposed collegiality and pressed treating the hierarchy before the people of Go’d. In March 1964, the Doctrinal Commission had accepted the proposition of Philips to make the chapter on the people of Go’d chapter two and then work on the hierarchy. Philips proceeded (ibid. 128). In the council aula, he had noted every intervention of a bishop on a card. His file-card box for De Ecclesia counted some thousands of cards. With the help of these cards, it was possible to work on the text by exactly knowing the sense of a bishop’s wish for a modification or an amendment. In the sessions of the Doctrinal Commission, these cards were an important instrument to demonstrate and prove to the commission members how many bishops wanted a change of the text and how many did not want to change and what were their arguments (Declerck 2006, xviii).

During the intersessions the Coordinating Commission, all the other commissions, the sub-commissions and working groups tried to execute the directions they had received in the last session. In the intersession from December 1963 to September 1964, Philips was capable of taking control over all modifications of the text on De Ecclesia and of scheme XVII, for assuring some coherence of the documents. He had to prove his political skills and powers by managing the collaboration of important players. Three factors were responsible for the success of the Council’s work till 1965 and not only during the second intersession: There was Cardinal Suenens who controlled the redaction of De Ecclesia and scheme XVII in the Coordinating Commission. There was bishop Charue who was very respected in the Doctrinal Commission and there was Philips himself, second secretary of the Doctrinal Commission and editor of important texts (Vilanova, Evangelista. 1998. “L’intersessione (1963–1964).” In Il concilio adulto. Il secondo periodo e la seconda intersessione settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 376–513. 369. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). There were schemes that had already been discussed by the Council, that had received corrections and then passed partial votes on the text. At the beginning of April 1964, the schemes that had been discussed and modified were De Ecclesia (apart from the chapter on the Virgin Mary), De Oecumenismo (except for the chapters on the Hebrews and religious liberty), and De episcopis. The scheme on revelation had to be worked over completely before another discussion in the Council. Schemes that had not been discussed so far by the Council were the schemes on the missions, on the apostolate of the laity and scheme XVII that was still under construction. Other schemes had been reduced to declarations (ibid. 370). On May 19, 1964, Felici communicated the Doctrinal Commission a letter of Paul VI with thirteen suggestions concerning chapter three of De Ecclesia. This kind of papal initiative was unusual and greeted with ambiguity. By presenting modifications like the Council Fathers were doing during the sessions, the pope acted like a Council father. Nevertheless, he intervened not during an official session but during the intersession, at a moment when the whole Doctrinal Commission had already approved the text with remarkably high consensus. The pope now introduced the preoccupations of the Minority of the Council on his behalf, that is the preoccupations of the Minority that had been rejected by a vote in the Doctrinal Commission (ibid. 441). The pope suggested cancelling the term caput collegii (the pope being head of the college of the episcopate). The commission refused and proposed instead the term pastor ecclesiae. The pope suggested also to define the pope as caput ecclesiae (head of the Church). The commission introduced the alternative term supremus pastor (supreme pastor). Most of the other suggestions of the pope also concerned questions of pontifical powers (ibid. 442). The Doctrinal Commission starts discussing the papal suggestions, consults the biblical commission, which assesses that in the Bible there is no evidence of a college of bishops that would have succeeded the college of the Apostles. The biblical commission also affirms that the powers given to Peter in Matthew 16, 19 according to Matthew 18, 18 were also given to the Apostles, but the biblical commission was not capable of describing these powers (ibid). The commission insisted on the sacramental character of the bishop’s ordination and on collegiality that had already passed the orientation vote in October 1963 (ibid. 443). Philips was also ready to assess in the text of De Ecclesia that the college of the episcopate never could decide without the consent of the pope. The Doctrinal Commission communicated their answers for the pope to Felici on June 7, 1964.

Paul VI did not want to intervene in the voted text, although there was considerable pressure on him. A letter signed by many cardinals, bishops and general superiors of religious congregations at Rome such as the general superior of the Jesuits Janssens, lobbied to suppress the theme of collegiality. Paul VI wanted to pacify the minority. The minority kept attacking the pope, nevertheless. In September 1964, the pope again defended himself, affirming that he had not given away on the primacy of the pope (ibid. 443). On June 10, 1964, the pope had not yet read the answer to his suggestions, Paul VI received Charue for forty-five minutes. Charue informed the pope on the answers to his suggestions. Paul VI was reassured on collegiality but troubled concerning his potestas (powers) (ibid. 444). The pope wanted to get to know Philips and received him on July 7, 1964. Philips assured the pope that collegiality does not do away with the pope’s primacy (ibid). On his return to Leuven, Philips still suspected troubles for De Ecclesia, although the final text for De Ecclesia had already been sent to the bishops around the world. He was right, and in September Philips and Colombo published articles against conservative arguments and fake news on collegiality that were fiercely circulated, published and preached during the summer of 1964 (ibid. 445). The pope did not intend to change the text of De Ecclesia because of the blocking efforts of the minority; but he considered it appropriate to publish a text about the right interpretation of the text on collegiality to end the boycott of the minority (ibid. 446).

The weeks before the opening of the third session of the Council on September 19, 1964, there was much debate about the question of whether the Council could be concluded with this third session (Komonchak 1999, 53). The bishops’ conferences expressed complaints and impatience with the huge agenda that lay before the Council. At the same time, new regulations would limit their speaking time in the aula. Even Döpfner became skeptical about the possibility realizing his own plan for the schemes of the Council.

Third session of the Council: September 14, 1964 - November 21, 1964.

On October 1, 1964, he asked in the meeting of the moderators if a fourth session was not needed for the Council. Important documents like that of the relation of the Church with the modern world, the former scheme XVII, still needed a complete revision (ibid. 54). Felici wanted the council to be closed on November 20, 1964. Most cardinals of the Coordinating Commission agreed, even Lienart, Lercaro, Döpfner and Suenens, who nevertheless wanted to realize scheme XIII that is the former scheme XVII. On October 2, 1964, the delegates of the bishop’s conferences wrote in a letter to the pope that the public expects a document on the relation of the Church with the modern world and the matter of scheme XIII was very important to them and would justify per se a fourth session of the Council (ibid. 56). Two weeks later, sixteen lay auditors of the Council wrote to the moderators that scheme XIII was very important for them and that they would present some suggestions as they already had presented for the document on the apostolate of the laity (ibid).

Philips now worked on the amendments for the documents on the Church, on Revelation and on scheme XIII. Additionally, he was also asked to join the work on religious liberty. How could he manage all this work? There are three possibility-conditions for psychological health claims Karyn Hall and lists receptivity and openness to new experiences in order to learn, the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions and finally intimacy and connectedness with at least one other person (Hall, Karyn. 2018. “Working Towards Psychological Health.” Psychology Today. January 10). Philips disposed over the possibility conditions for staying resiliently healthy. We would not have noticed Gérard Philips’s intimate connectedness with his sister Roza Philips, if Miss Philips had not asked Leo Declerck for help to classify the literary estate of her brother including his notebooks (Declerck, Leo. 2006. “Introduction.” In Carnet Conciliaires de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale. Texte néerlandais avec traduction francaise et commentaires. By Karim Schelkens, ix–xx. xvii. Leuven: Maurits Sabbe Library, Faculty of Theology (K.U. Leuven)). Declerck notes on Roza Philips (1901–1977), the sister of Gérard Philips, that she lived with her brother in Lessel-Lo, Leuven and worked for him as a secretary (Schelkens, Karim. 2006. Carnet Conciliaires de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale. Texte néerlandais avec traduction francaise et commentaires. 177. Leuven: Maurits Sabbe Library, Faculty of Theology (K.U. Leuven)). Yet, in the books XI and XII Gérard also leaves a testimony that he was emotionally very close and existentially connected with his sister Roza. He realized that Roza’s feedback and advice were important guidelines for his self-control in the social interactions at the Council. In his retreat during Holy Week 1963, he noted a visit of the sick and depressed Tromp, who was still fixed in his views on the text of De Ecclesia which he had prepared for the Council. Tromp was not in peace with the fact that Philips had replaced him as major editor of the evolving text on De Ecclesia (ibid. 95–96). Philips writes that as the editor of De Ecclesia, he must accept not to try dictating his own views and must not put himself on the pedestal (ibid. 96). He notes that Roza expressively (Dutch: uitdrukkelijk) gave him this advice (ibid. 18, 96). Philips is conscious of the fact that only by neither giving importance to his critics nor to the flattering compliments will he preserve his independence and be able to regard the Lord (ibid). Philips enjoyed public recognition but did not depend on it. When he encountered critique, obstacles and defamation, he was flexible, tried different ways to reach compromise and always stayed polite and friendly.

In July 1964, Philips documents that he had effectively relaxed on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land of Palestine with Roza and a group guided by biblical scholar Father Rigaux, who was also an expert at the biblical commission of the Second Vatican Council (ibid. 119). On Saturday November 14, 1964, after he had completed his work on De Ecclesia and the text on revelation, he hopes that his “suffering at the cross” may have an end. His dominant feeling is gratitude as regards Go’d and he communicates his happiness to Roza (ibid. 135). On Wednesday, October 20, 1965, he suffers again from chest pains, and he receives medical treatment. Philips fears his weakened heart condition. He hopes that Roza will arrive the next day and that they can travel “home” together by train on Saturday (ibid. 154). There is not yet a real historic awareness for the contributions of women like Roza Philips to the Second Vatican Council. The historians do not yet describe the existentially important bonds of bishops and theologians with the women who influenced and enhanced their psychological health and work at the Second Vatican Council. We have to listen to these women talking about their sacrifices being suppressed and subjugated to the interests of the male celibate priests of a hierarchy that excludes them from equality. As a feminist man I had to learn to listen also to the women who decided to keep and even defend their status of subjugation by patriarchy and who obediently worked for bishops and cardinals.

On October 15, 1964, there was another meeting of the leaders of the Council. Lercaro reported his concern about the strong reactions of the assembly against the tight agenda the moderators had presented them. There were interventions, letters and a petition of 307 Council Fathers protesting. Lercaro suggested therefore a fourth session for the Council (Komonchak 1999, 57). In the following discussion Agagianian, Cicognani and Confalonieri dissented, Döpfner, Suenens and Liénart followed Lercaro (ibid. 58). Lercaro affirms that an amelioration of the text of scheme XIII would need a year of work. Three out of the four moderators then were in favor of a fourth session of the Council (ibid). On October 23, 1964, Felici had to announce that the third session would end on November 21, 1964. This announcement implied a fourth session of the Council (ibid). On January 4, 1965, Paul VI decided that the fourth and last session of the Council would open on September 11, 1965 (ibid. 59). This fourth session of the Council realized the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes. This Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World was crucial for acknowledging some problems of injustice and discrimination in the world. Some awareness of women’s situation in the world, and some encouragement of the laity in their vocation in the Church already fostered the growing of women’s theological involvement in the Church (Nussberger, Danielle. 2019. “Catholic feminist thought.” In The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology, edited by Lewis Ayres and Medi Ann Volpe, assistant editor Thomas L. Humphries, 833–849. 834. Oxford: Oxford University Press). Gaudium et Spes 9 affirms “women claim for themselves an equity with men before the law and in fact” and assesses that Go’d created women as persons of dignity (Gaudium et Spes 27). The suppression and exploitation of women is labeled as social sins and “women’s liberation from every kind of injustice” and women’s freedoms are also assessed with faith claims from the center of the Catholic faith doctrine that is the redemptive act of Jesus Christ (ibid). It is true, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church Gaudium et Spes endorsed the conversation between the Catholic Church and the world’s oppressed populations and Catholic feminist theologians identified with the oppressed and entered the academic theological discourse (ibid). It is also true that the Second Vatican Council never discussed women’s discrimination and subjugation within the Catholic Church itself. The principal exclusion of women from the hierarchy of the Church remains unchallenged in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

On September 21, 1964, the aula started voting on the hierarchy of the Church that is chapter three of the scheme on the Church. The first vote was on number 18 (collegiality of the twelve with Peter as one of them but being their head) and passed with 2,166 placet (yes) and 53 non placet (no). The second vote was on number 19 (on the collegial character of the group of the twelve) and passed with 2.012 placet and 191 non placet, the third vote was on number 19 concerning the origin of the ministry of the bishops and passed with 2,013 placet and 106 non placet. The vote on number 20 (transmission of the apostolic mission to the bishops) passed with 2,091 against 115. The minority was not happy with the result of the votes and protested; Cardinal Larraona, a Spanish cardinal and prefect of the Roman Curia protested with Felici (ibid. 100). On September 22, 1964, the votes continued with the most controversial issues: The sacramental character of the episcopate. The sacramental origin of the three functions of the bishops, the analogy of the college of the twelve and the college of the bishops, the recognition that collegiality was exercised by the primitive Church, and the assessment that a bishop becomes a member of the college of bishops by ordination and by the communion with the college of bishops. All issues passed and received an overall average of only 300 no votes that is about 10% of the bishops voted no. Paul VI was relieved by the outcome (Komonchek 1999, 101–102).

In the week from November 14, 1964, to November 21, 1964, several interventions rocketed the council. There was no more peace in the aula and the Council experienced a crisis (Tagle, Luis Antonio G. 1999. “La tempesta di novembre: la settimana nera.” In La chiesa come comunione. Il terzo periodo e la terza intersessione settembre 1964 – settembre 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 417–482. 417. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The New Yorker called November 19, 1964 “black Thursday” (ibid). On January 15, 1965, bishop Bekkers from Bois-le-Duc, Netherlands, first used the expression “black week” to talk of that gloomy week when sinister black grim characters shocked the reforms of the Council (ibid). Historians and theologians have since then used the expression “black week”.

In that week, it had become evident that the minority at the Council had successfully started the campaign of counter reform to maintain the old regime with the absolute powers of pope. The Majority of the Council Fathers had the impression that the text on collegiality in the third chapter of De Ecclesia had been weakened by unnecessary concessions the Pope had evidently made to the minority fathers (ibid). What had happened?

The general secretary of the Council, monsignor Felici announced on Monday November 16, 1964, that problems that remained with the third chapter of De Ecclesia would be solved by the organs of the Council (ibid. 419). The Council Fathers were not amused to hear that they were not part of the procedure that clarifies the collegiality of the episcopate and the powers of the pope (ibid). A second point of Felici concerned the doctrinal status of De Ecclesia. He wanted to downplay the significance of the document (ibid. 420). The third point of Felici really preoccupied the aula. Felici announced an explicative note (the Nota explicativa praevia) from the Pope on the correct interpretation of the doctrine of the episcopate and primacy of the pope in De Ecclesia. The introduction to the Nota Explicativa Praevia makes clear that the Doctrinal Commission had redacted the note. This Nota Explicativa Praevia will be added as an appendix in the official publication of De Ecclesia (ibid). On November 18, 1964, the text of the Nota Explicativa Praevia was distributed to the fathers in the aula. On the same day the Council voted on chapter three of De Ecclesia and accepted with 2,099 yes and only 46 no votes (ibid). The Council Fathers had read the Nota explicative but did not vote on the Nota explicativa. They voted on the third chapter of De Ecclesia only. The next day, Wednesday, November 18, 1964, the modifications of the last three chapters of De Ecclesia were voted (ibid. 421). November 19, 1964, was a day of hard work for the fathers of the Council. At the end of the day, Felici asked the Council Fathers for the vote on the whole text of De Ecclesia. He added the precision that the vote is realized according to the Nota Explicativa Praevia of the pope, the highest authority of this general congregation, from November 16, 1964 (ibid). There were 2,134 yes votes and only 10 no votes. One could say that the vote was passed almost unanimously. The problem consisted in the fact that the Nota Explicativa Praevia received with this day a different status (ibid. 422). From now on, the Minority of the Council claimed that the Nota Explicativa Praevia had been voted on by the Council as the official hermeneutical key for the interpretation of the doctrine of chapter three of De Ecclesia (ibid). What had been a note from the pope now was an official text of the Second Vatican Council.

On November 14, 1964, Philips confides to his notebook XII that the last weeks were for him the most difficult of the Council so far. First, he had to work on the text on the Church, then on divine revelation and in between on religious liberty (Schelkens, Karim. 2006. Carnet Conciliaires de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale. Texte néerlandais avec traduction francaise et commentaires. 57. Leuven: Maurits Sabbe Library, Faculty of Theology (K.U. Leuven)). On November 16, 1964, Philips documents some notes on the last two weeks. He writes that these notes on the last work on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium have to stay strictly secret (ibid. 136). Nevertheless, on Saturday October 31, 1964, Colombo, the theologian of Paul VI came to visit Philips in the Belgian College at Rome to talk about the last modifications on De Ecclesia. On Monday November 2, 1964, Philips prepares four points of the Nota explicative praevia. In the evening, Colombo visits him again and presents an introduction to the Nota that had been written by the Jesuit Wilhelm Bertrams, a canonist, who had gained growing influence at the Council during the spring of 1964. Philips will think about that plan and the next day he writes Colombo a note saying that he strongly advises not to use this introduction. The introduction would provoke another big discussion in the Doctrinal Commission that would possibly delay the final vote on De Ecclesia (ibid). In the afternoon, Colombo tells Philips on the phone that he will submit the texts and the question to Paul VI. On Wednesday, Philips does not mention these events concerning chapter three in the Doctrinal Commission that is working on chapters four, five and six (ibid. 137). On Thursday, November 5, 1964, Philips reaches Colombo on the phone. Colombo gives permission to discuss the Nota in the Doctrinal Commission. Philips understands that the pope apparently had abandoned the introduction. In the afternoon of Friday November 6, 1964, the Doctrinal Commission accepts Philips’s text of the Nota. Only Monsignor Parente insists that the words “not independently of the Roman Pontiff” remains in the text (ibid).

The pope wants to see the final modifications on chapter three of De Ecclesia and Philips sends him a copy. On Monday, November 9, 1964, Colombo presents his own text of the Nota at the presidency of the Council (ibid. 138). The next day Colombo again presents his introductory note at the counsel of the presidency. It rejects the note. Colombo still wants to introduce into the text that the pope always exercises his power at his will, and he wants to change the term “cooperation of the episcopate” into “conjunction of the episcopate” (ibid). The next day the question of the introduction note is open and in the Doctrinal Commission there is no decision on a text (ibid). Philips documents that on Monday November 16, 1964, the Pope announces the Nota with an introduction and a word on the theological qualification of the Nota to the Council. Several Council Fathers are preoccupied and experts like Ratzinger, Dockx, Congar and others try to provoke a negative vote of the aula. Many Council Fathers try to calm the moods (ibid. 139). The vote on the modifications on chapter three, four and five passes. Philips comments that the pope had reached his goal to convince the minority (ibid. 140). The minority pretends to be satisfied (ibid). On Wednesday November 18, 1964, the text of De Ecclesia is distributed to the Council Fathers and Philips receives warm congratulations from many fathers. Philips is disappointed that there is no word of thanks from Cardinal Suenens (ibid).

The next entry in his notebook dates May 24, 1965. There, Philips calls November 21, 1964, an important day (ibid. 141). The pope had approved and promulgated Lumen Gentium, the Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches Orientalium Ecclesiarum and the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio. Philips will finish his work on the text on scheme XIII, the later Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes before May 1, 1965 (ibid). Philips reads Lumen Gentium and is incredibly happy with the results of chapter one and two (ibid. 142). Philips claims that the many additions in chapter three to assure the primacy of the pope were not necessary. Especially Lumen Gentium 22 on collegiality missed a big chance for a generous gesture towards the bishops of the Orient. The doctrine of the document would have stayed the same without the precautionary additions (ibid). Philips had assured the pope several times that the primacy of the pope was not at stake. The pope had always consented to the collegiality of the episcopate, but his concern was primacy. Philips always respected this preoccupation of the pope and yet talked freely and openly in the two audiences with him. Paul VI thanked him on November 22, 1964, with the present of a golden chalice and Philips was moved by the gesture (ibid). The historian confirms that Philips stayed coherent with his convictions (Declerck 2006, xiv). The five propositions answering the thirteen suggestions of the pope in the spring of 1964 as the Nota Explicative Praevia claim the same points. It is the conviction of Philips that the pope does not delegate the powers of collegiality, but that they are transmitted by episcopal ordination. Philips is clear about the fact that theological faith convictions need to get institutionalized by Church Law. Since the bishops always exercise the powers of collegiality, even when there is no council, the exercise of the episcopal power of collegiality needs rules of law that the Church will develop and codify with time (Declerck 2006, xiv).

When Philips writes during Holy Week of 1964 on his memories of the first weeks of the first session of the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Suenens speaks to him in Rome and asks Philips to rework and restructure the prepared scheme on the Church (Schelkens, Karim. 2006. Carnet Conciliaires de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale. Texte néerlandais avec traduction francaise et commentaires.83. Leuven: Maurits Sabbe Library, Faculty of Theology (K.U. Leuven)). Suenens had coordinated this task of Philips with Cardinal Bea and other theologians to concentrate on one initiative. The collaborators of Philips on this task were Congar, Lécuyer, Colombo, Rahner, Ratzinger, Monsigneur McGrath, Cerfaux and Onclin (ibid). It is important to document that Philips from the beginning of his restructuring the scheme on the Church collaborated with the expert on Canon Law Onclin, his colleague from Leuven. Philips insists on reworking and restructuring the texts that the Roman Curia had prepared for the Council. Philips did not reject these prepared texts, because as a member of the Senate of the Belgian Parliament he had learned the parliamentary procedure. Legislative texts coming from the government into Parliament received corrections and compromises were negotiated but the texts were not rejected outright. Analogically, he did not reject the text coming from the Theological Commission on the Church for not cutting the relationship with the Curia (ibid. 85).

On Friday August 14, 1964, Philips writes in Lourdes that he has had some discussions about the college of the bishops (ibid. 128). He laments that his discourse partners did not understand that the bishops have the power to act as the college of bishops without papal jurisdiction. Philips affirms that he mentioned in his text on the scheme of the Church that the bishops receive their powers by ordination. These powers concern the power to govern that is jurisdiction, the power to teach and the power to sanctify. Philips said it is a pity that the Theological Commission had substituted his formula with the general formula that the episcopal college cannot act independently of the Roman Pontiff (ibid). He claimed it to be impossible to derive a reduction of the powers of the bishops over the whole Church from a charitable provision of the pope. The powers of the bishops rightly constitute a function of the bishop. The Minority of the Council would agree that the pope grants the bishops powers as an act of charity, but without any proper authority. According to them authority is exercised only by the pope in the Roman Catholic Church (ibid 51, 128). Philips claims that with this kind of thinking it becomes impossible to make theology and live through theologically what passes at the Council (ibid). Philips observes that laws and juridical regulation always follow the practice, and this is true for Canon Law too (ibid. 129). He claims that without a juridical regulation concerning the authority of the episcopal college and collegiality, the signification of the collegiality of the episcopate remains incomplete (ibid). Without the juridical powers of the collegiality of the episcopate it would be impossible to convoke a Council. It is impossible to claim supreme power of the college of bishops with the pope if the college of bishops does not already possess this power. If the pope has to attribute to the bishops supreme power, it is not supreme power but attributed power (ibid).

The Nota explicativa praevia affirms that the expression “College is not understood in a strictly juridical sense” but in the sense of a stable group (Felici, Pericle. 1964. “APPENDIX. From the Acts of the Council. Notifications given by the Secretary General of the Council at the 123rd General Congregation, November 16, 1964.” The Holy See). It affirms further “A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of Episcopal consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head of the College and with its members” (ibid). This means that episcopal consecration confers the functions (munera) but not the powers (podestas). These powers are given by the juridical power of the pope. The Nota also affirms, “The College, which does not exist without the head” has “supreme and full power in the universal Church” and clarifies, “In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops” (ibid). Further “the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will” and the college of the bishops is not always fully active, but “only from time to time and only with the consent of its head” (ibid). Reading the Nota and the lines that Philips had written in August 1964 I do not only say that Philips is a good looser. To me Philips speaks as a politically thinking and democratically experienced Christian. If the Council Fathers courageously realize the powers that episcopal consecration confides on them and if the bishops of the world episcopate would find the strength and courage to realize social choices of the full power of their college in the government of the Catholic Church, then Canon Law inevitably will follow, legalizing this practice.

When Philips writes on Mai 24, 1965, that he is happy with Lumen Gentium, especially with chapter one and chapter two, the expression “black week of November 1964” is around for 5 months (ibid. 128). Philips does not use this qualification. He qualifies the many modifications on his text of chapter three of Lumen Gentium by the Council Fathers and the concerns of the pope and the Nota as unnecessary, yet he is happy about the results of his work on Lumen Gentium (ibid). In the light of his notes of August 1964, I interpret that the democratic convictions of Philips made him believe that the rule of law of a liberal democracy once will also be practiced within the Catholic Church. At least he believed that Canon Law will one day promulgate the social practice of the bishops exercising their legitimately powers of governing, teaching and sanctifying that were confided to them by episcopal consecration at the demand of the majority of the faithful women, men and queer of the individual dioceses. Philips was conscious of the fact that before the change of Canon Law to a more democratic rule of law within the Church, the bishops would have to live a social practice of effective collegiality. The juridical form follows the exercise of social functions. Philips had no timetable or deadline for this change to come, although I believe his hope was for history and not for eschatology. I take relief from his sober analytical observation and self-consciousness that social change needs social choices of many individual women, men and queer, even bishops. Philips kept his seat in the Belgian Senate during his years working for the Second Vatican Council. He was the only theologian at the Council who at the same time participated in the social practice of parliament.

[i] “Denzinger. Sources of dogma,” Patristica.net, http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n700 (accessed January 6, 2020).