The development of the text of Sacrosanctum Concilium

Who wrote the history of the Second Vatican Council and who interpreted the texts? We have to recognize the fact that Alberigo’s team of 47 Catholic scholars of Christian theology and Church history exclusively consisted of white males, most of them celibate Catholic priests (Alberigo, Giuseppe. Director. 1995–2001. Storia del Concilio Vaticano II. Bologna: Società Editrice il Mulino). No woman theologian or historian participated in the above construction of the Second Vatican Council as an historic event of transition in the Catholic Church. These white men usually exclude the perspective of women and queer, are not conscientious about gender discrimination, racism and sexism when writing the history of the Second Vatican Council.  At the same time Alberigo’s history is my possibility condition to write on the Second Vatican Council, I could not do without it. The same is true about the monumental theological commentary on the Second Vatican Council that Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath edited with the collaboration of seven white male German theologians (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil. 2004–2005. Freiburg: Herder).

The German theologian Reiner Kaczynski (1939–2015) commented on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium. Reiner Kaczynski was born in Wroclaw, Poland in 1939. At the end of World War I (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. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

He fled with his family from Silesia as did hundreds of thousands of Germans. He found his second home in Bavaria. The Germans left their native homes fleeing the advancing Red Army and for fear of the revenge orgies of the liberated Polish and Czech population that had suffered the brutal death orgies of Nazi aggression and occupation. Kaczynski studied theology at the Gregorian University in Rome and was ordained priest in 1964. He got his doctorate from the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Trier, at German Catholicism’s most distinguished academic liturgical formation, the Liturgical Institute of Trier. He worked for five years at the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. From 1980 to 2004 he was professor of liturgy at the University of Munich, Bavaria (Haunerland, Winfried. 2015. “In memoriam Prof. Dr. Reiner Kaczynski (1939–2015) Homilie im Trauergottesdienst der Fakultät.” Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 66: 311–314. 311).  

Kaczynski introduces his theological commentary of Sacrosanctum Concilium speaking of the so-called liturgical movement at the beginning of the 20th century (Kaczynski 2004, 11). The movement rooted in the work of elite liturgical theologians, Benedictine monks of France and Germany and German professors of theology at the University of Tubingen (ibid. 12). The Neo-Scholastic mainstream of European Catholic theology worked at that time with the medieval concepts of Thomas Aquinas and first ignored and later discredited the emerging liturgical movement and modern concepts in theology. The theological groundwork of Johann Adam Moehler (1796–1838) had pioneered the concept of the Church as a “holy community” and the most important theologian of the liturgical movement of the 20th century, Josef Andreas Jungmann (1889–1975) takes up the concept in 1927 (ibid. 16). Jungmann recognizes the social constitution of the Church as a holy community as a possibility condition for the hierarchical structures of the Catholic Church, for the jurisdictional powers and privileges of the hierarchy. He claims that the social structures of the Church take origin in the inner structure of the Church as a holy community (ibid). Jesus Christ founded this holy community of all believers for the sake of all humanity and only because of the incarnation of the Word, this holy community can form a visible community on this earth (ibid). Till the end of the time, women, men and queer shall speak the Word and by speaking the Word renew the incarnation of the Son of Go’d ever regenerating (ibid).

Jungmann leads the theology of liturgy back to Jesus Christ and his holy community of praying and celebrating Christians. Yet, Jungmann never loses a thought on the hierarchical structure of this community that had become an absolutist society governed by an absolutist pope. He defends and fights for active participation of the faithful at the liturgy but does not care about the necessary democratic constitution to ensure this active participation. The central term of the whole liturgical reform movement is active participation; the speech-acts of all believers realize the basic agency of the Church celebrating liturgy as a service of Go’d (ibid.), but the participating faithful will never be allowed to speak freely about their faith in the liturgy. Already in the early 19th century Roman Catholic theologians like Johann Adam Moehler (1796-1838), a priest teaching at the famous Catholic Tuebingen School, had insisted on the equality of the sisters and brothers participating in the liturgical assembly. For Moehler, the celebration of the Eucharist realizes the basic agency of active participation, when all participants of the congregation are active in a participative spiritual way and celebrate the memory of Christ by offering their eulogy as sacrifice (ibid). There is no privileged position of the priest because all are participating with their priestly dignity, as the Church fathers had proclaimed (ibid). Following Franz Anton Staudenmaier, a student of Moehler, liturgy can be described as the service of Go’d by means of holy actions, at holy times and with the help of holy art (ibid. 17). Liberation and salvation are experienced in this service of Go’d as an ongoing process; liberation and salvation have to be described as reconciliation of men and women with Go’d, as communion with Go’d (ibid.).

The liturgical movement was able to become a movement within the Catholic Church thanks to the support of Pope Pius X (ibid. 23). His Motu Proprio on the importance of active participation of all participants at the liturgy from November 1903 was a decisive legitimation of the ecumenical movement (ibid). The liturgical movement had started with a speech by the Benedictine theologian Lambert Beauduin (1873–1960) on September 23, 1909, in Mecheln, Belgium. Beauduin repeatedly claimed that liturgy has to become democratized (French: il faurait démocratiser la liturgie) (ibid. 25). Beauduin considered liturgy as the true life of the Church and his insistence on democracy aimed at opening access to the spiritual experience of liberation and salvation of the people, of educating the poor, the uneducated people, the masses who attended mass in the parishes (Wernert, Francois. 2009. “La Pédagogie de Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873–1960). Jalons pour aujourd’hui.” Revue des sciences religieuses 84 (1): 73–84. 76).

The liturgical language of the Catholic Church was Latin and for one thousand five hundred years only educated priests, monks and nuns were able to understand the prayers at liturgy. Democratization meant for Beauduin the empowerment of all women and men of the multitude attending the liturgical services to understand what was going on to be able to profit for one’s own life and one’s relation to Go’d (ibid. 78). Beauduin protested that the multitude of Catholic women and men assisting the Eucharist were bored because there was no communication between them; instead, they were silently sitting in their pews and thinking of their own affairs (ibid. 80). The term active participation describes the possibility condition of understanding liturgical prayers and rites and participating by singing songs and following the homilies of the priests. Democratization of the liturgy for the liturgical movement and the Second Vatican Council does not mean that the faithful share and realize their equal dignity, freedoms and rights in liturgy.

I am not criticizing that the liturgical movement and the Second Vatican Council did not introduce the rule of democratic law into liturgy. I am criticizing that the liturgical movement and the subsequent Constitution on the sacred liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Second Vatican Council did not follow the example of celebrating the Eucharist as the Sacred Scripture, the New Testament, testifies and reveals. I present some examples for active participation in the sacred liturgy according to the Letter to the Hebrews. Hebrews 5, 12 expects from the women, men and queer participants of the congregation who are hearing the homily that they were teaching the faith. Women, men and queer Christians are supposed to be teachers in the Divine Service; they are not supposed to be just listeners. Leading women and men are those “who preached the word of God to you” and lived accordingly, they should be remembered, and the fruits of their lives assessed, “take their faith as your model” (Hebrews 13, 7). Grace strengthens and confirms our hearts with security and not with ritual practices in the Temple; Jesus sanctified the people outside the camp so “let us go to him, then, outside the camp, and bear his humiliation” (Hebrews 13, 13). The assembly should listen to their leading women and men and be persuaded (Hebrews 13, 17). The congregation of the faithful does not discriminate against anybody. Access to Go’d by faith for all women, men and queer is manifest by faith in Jesus Christ and the Eucharist celebrates with Jesus Christ this access to Go’d.

Pope Paul VI promulgated Sacrosanctum Concilium on December 4, 1963 (Paul VI. 1963) together with the Decree on the Media of Social Communications Inter Mirifica (Paul VI 1964b) on the last day of the second session (September 1963 to December 4, 1963) of the Second Vatican Council. Mathijs Lamberigts, historian and theologian from the Catholic University of Leuven, writes about the debate on liturgy during the first session (September 1962 to December 1962) of the Second Vatican Council (Lamberigts, Mathijs. 1996. “Il dibattito sulla liturgia.” 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, 129–192. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

On October 22, 1962, the aula in Saint Peter began discussing the scheme on the liturgy (ibid. 130). On September 4, 1962, Pope John XXIII nominated the Spanish Cardinal Larraona, then prefect of the Vatican congregation for the rites, President of the Conciliar Commission for Liturgy (ibid). During the preparatory phase of the Council, many bishops had asked for liturgical reforms. The scheme on liturgy had been very well prepared and enjoyed the consent of the experts. The scheme on liturgy indeed was the right document to prove to the bishops that the Council could work constructively (ibid). We remember that after the opening speech of John XXIII on October 11, 1962, the Council was interrupted the next day because the bishops protested and claimed their right to freely elect the members of the commissions of the Council (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). John XXIII found a compromise, allowed the bishops of the Council to list and vote for their candidates for the commissions, and appointed about a third of the commission members by himself. The self-government of the Council had begun and the work on the liturgy scheme continued. There was a large consensus on the scheme on liturgy and the bishops were assured that the Council functions well (Lamberigts 1996, 130).

Larraona had substituted Annibale Bugnini, who was the secretary of the preparatory commission on liturgy with the Franciscan Ferdinando Antonelli (ibid). Larraona considered Bugnini to be too progressive. Bugnini was the principal author of the prepared scheme that came up for discussion and he was the only secretary of a preparatory commission who was not to continue as secretary of the corresponding commission of the Council (ibid.).

Annibale Bugnini (1912–1982) was a member of the Order of the Congregation of the Mission. He was absorbed by his pastoral work in a suburban Roman parish, by the publications for the missions of his congregation, and the redaction of a scientific liturgical journal. He became professor at the Pontifical Lateran University and in 1948 was appointed secretary of the commission for liturgical reform by Pope Pius XII. In 1960, he was appointed secretary of the Pontifical Preparatory Commission of the Liturgy by Pope John XXIII, which essentially drafted the document that would become Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Kaczynski, Reiner. 2013. “Bugnini.” In Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter, 65. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). In 1962, he was sacked as professor at the Pontificial Lateran University. What had happened? Accusations or denunciations that he was a Freemason are discussed as the cause why Pope John XXIII sacked him. In 1964, he reappeared and made a comeback, appointed by Pope Paul VI as secretary of the Consilium for the implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy (ibid). This was the papal institution which was to control that liturgical reform was implemented by the bishops all over the world. In 1972, Paul VI consecrated Bugnini bishop. Three years later, accusations of Bugnini being a Freemason reappeared. Paul VI took a curial reform as pretext to remove Monsignor Bugnini as secretary by promoting him nuncio in Iran. In 1979, the archbishop and nuncio Bugnini discussed the release of 54 American hostages with Ayatollah Khomeini, the Iranian leader. Eventually they were released in January of 1981, but Khomeini did not want to meet Pope John Paul II on the matter[i]. 

The aula of the Council debated the scheme from October until November 13, 1962. National bishops’ conferences brought forward the majority of the 328 oral interventions of the debate. They spoke of the use of Latin and the use of vernacular languages in liturgy and the possibility of priests concelebrating the Eucharist. They further discussed the communion of bread and wine, the adaptation of the liturgy to local cultures, the powers of the bishops to realize liturgical reforms, the reform of the Brevier, of the Missal, the Ritual, and the reform of the sacrament of anointing the sick (Lamberigts 1996 133–35). 

The Chilean bishop E. Larraín Errázuriz, who had transformed his bishop’s palace into a shelter for the poor, spoke in the name of some South American bishops. He asked to adopt the Church’s liturgical celebration to the culture and life of the poor (ibid. 170). He claimed that the little baby in the stall of Bethlehem is the model for liturgical simplicity and criticized the pompous processions of the Catholic Church, showing off her precious metals, monstrances and Byzantine mitres. The luxury of golden churches and baroque cathedrals is not coherent with the preferential choice for the poor that we have to take in the name of Jesus (ibid). Yoshigoro Taguchi, bishop of Osaka, told the aula that in Japan’s culture of discrete perfection of simple wooden shrines, the exuberant splendor of the liturgical cups, candelabras and golden brocade, offends the Japanese mind and mentality for liturgical forms (ibid. 171).

The bishops of the so-called Third World countries empathically insisted on the necessity for liturgical reform (ibid. 175). A relative majority of the aula was ready for moderate liturgical reforms. Latin and the use of vernacular languages were at the center of this reform. A minority of Roman bureaucrats were against any liturgical reform (ibid). Cardinal Tisserant, president of the directive board of the Council, proposed a first directive vote on the scheme on liturgy. Cardinal Confalonieri, a moderate conservative in the Curia, member of the Secretariat of the Council and member of the mighty Coordinating Commission, diligently asked the aula for approval of the directive criteria for liturgical reform that is its pastoral concern and fidelity to the faith. He proposed that the scheme would be voted later when all necessary corrections had been introduced into the text (ibid). The instrument of an orientation vote, a kind of democratic procedure to find consensus in the steering process of decision-making, was the contribution of Professor Constantino Mortati, eminent member of the Italian Constitutional Court, to the Council (Alberigo 1996, 620). The further development of the Second Vatican Council proved that the procedure of the orientation votes significantly enhanced the consensus finding process of the Council.

Given the many critical voices during the debate on the scheme for liturgy, it was a surprise for all that the vote on Confalonieri’s proposal of November 14, 1962, the first vote of the Council, passed with 2,162 votes in favor, 46 votes against and 7 irregular votes (Lamberigts 1996. 176). The ensuing discussion and several votes concerning modifications were very constructive, on December 6, 1962, the General Secretary of the Council bishop Felici asked the aula to vote on the text of the first chapter. The aula accepted and voted the next day again with an overwhelming majority to approve the first chapter of the liturgical constitution (ibid. 192).

The massive majority of Yes votes for liturgical reform on November 14, 1962, ended the honeymoon of the Council (Ruggieri, Giuseppe, 1996. “Il primo conflitto dottrinale.” 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, 259–294. 259. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). After liturgical reform that the bishops widely recognized as necessary, the Council entered the debate on a central question of faith. The Council was asked to clarify the relation between the oral revelation by Jesus Christ and its successive transmission in the New Testament and by tradition. The transmission process of the Christian message lead to a conflict over revelation. Was the tradition of the Church’s teachings an authentic part of revelation or was revelation only to be found in the Scriptures? Since the bishops were not prepared theologically to deal with these questions, many meetings between theologians and bishops were organized to inform the bishops. In the first weeks of the Council these kinds of crash courses tried to capacitate the bishops for the discussions on the scheme on revelation. The text on the sources of revelation that had been prepared for the Council by the preparatory commission spoke of two sources of revelation, the Scripture and tradition (ibid. 261). The Council of Trent only spoke of Scripture as source of revelation and cardinals, bishops and theologians heavily criticized a doctrine speaking of two sources of revelation (ibid.).

Since debate on the question was very controversial, the presidency of the Council decided to vote, if the discussion on the prepared text should go on or not. In case of a no vote, the prepared text would have to get worked over completely. The no vote did not get the necessary two-thirds majority. Only the pope could overcome the impasse and John XXIII decided to create a commission that would have to work over the text (ibid. 293). This decision of Pope John XXIII opened the way for the Second Vatican Council to overcome the juridical method for codifying faith that had ruled the Church since the Council of Trent and finally had produced a sterile, abstract and distorted picture of the Gospel (ibid).

The scheme on liturgy remained the only scheme that had been prepared by the preparatory commission of the Second Vatican Council and also found the consensus of the bishops in the aula of the Council. During the intersession of 1962–1963, the amendments were integrated into the scheme. Only the commission on the liturgy continued to work with confidence after the death of John XXIII (Melloni 1998, 39). Almost all other commissions needed the backing of the future pope for constructive work to overcome the growing rifts between traditionalists and reformers (ibid). The final text of the scheme on liturgy was sent to the Council fathers in the summer of 1963. The commission on the liturgy had reached consensus on the remaining questions for discussion in the aula (Kaczynski 1998, 210). On September 29, 1963, Paul VI indicates in the opening speech for the second session of the Council that he hopes to get the document on liturgy passed in the upcoming session (ibid. 212).

The introduction and the first chapter of the scheme on liturgy were ready for approval by the Council at the beginning of the second session (ibid. 214). On October 8, 1963, five amendments for chapter two concerning Sunday mass, the order of the readings and the homily successfully passed the necessary votes.  On October 9, 1963, the votes on chapter two continued. The amendments concerned liturgical language, communion of the bread and the cup and the active participation of the laity in the celebration of Sunday Mass and on feast days (ibid. 215). On October 10, 1963, seven amendments concerning the concelebrating of priests at the Eucharist passed the necessary votes (ibid. 216). After these positive votes it was a surprise on Monday, October 14, 1963, that the final vote on chapter two did not receive the necessary two-third approval. 781 votes still asked for minor corrections and therefore chapter two had to go back to the Commission (ibid.).

On October 15, 1963, voting on amendments to chapter three concerning the sacraments followed, on October 16, 1963, amendments concerning the administration of the sacraments followed (ibid. 217). The vote on October 18, 1963, of chapter three also brought this chapter back to the Liturgical Commission (ibid. 218). Discussion on the amendments to chapter four concerning the Liturgy of the Hours began on the same day (ibid). The votes on the following days were positive and on October 24, 1963, the whole chapter four passed the final vote (ibid. 220).  

In the Liturgical Commission, the Jesuit Josef Andreas Jungmann from the University of Innsbruck, world famous expert on the historic development of the liturgy, especially the Eucharist, stubbornly insisted repeatedly on a reform of the Liturgy of the Hours (ibid. 230). His determination to fight the Commission’s and the Council’s indifference on his point did not lose intensity during the whole period of the Council (ibid. 231). He argued that the working rhythms of modern industrial civilizations differ substantially from the working days during agricultural production economies. It does not make sense to oblige contemporary priests to offer prayers in a rhythm of three hours beginning in the morning and ending in the evening. The Liturgical Commission did not take up his suggestion to reform these prayers of the priest by adapting it to the rhythms of modern life and working habits (ibid). Neither the Liturgical Commission nor the Council understood these deep and fundamental changes in the lifestyle of the priests in an age of global communication and totally desynchronized working patterns. Jungmann, the mountain farmer from the Alps was no diplomat like Philips from Leuven. Jungmann did not recognize the art of compromise; he did not understand how to work for majorities and to lobby for support of his ideas (ibid). His students at Innsbruck remember the bitter contrast of his inspiring ideas and his boring lecturing style, monotonously reading stiff sentences from his notes without making eye contact with his audience. Jungmann’s successor at Innsbruck, the German Jesuit Hans Bernhard Meyer, to whose support I largely owe my appointment as professor of Christian Ethics at the University of Innsbruck, continued to work for reform of the Liturgy of the Hours and he, too, failed to convince Church authorities to reform the Liturgy of the Hours. Because of this failure of reforming the Liturgy of the Hours, most priests in Europe after the Second Vatican Council simply abandoned praying the Liturgy of the Hours.

Discussion on chapter five of the text on the liturgy began on October 24, 1963, and was on the liturgical year. The text was approved by the vote of October 29, 1963. Discussion of chapter six on church music began on October 25, 1963, and the whole chapter was approved on October 30, 1963. Chapter seven on church art as an important liturgical tool for veneration was approved on October 31, 1963.

After the voting of the aula of the Council, the Liturgical Commission had to revise the amendments; there was lots of work to do (ibid. 226). On November 28, 1963, the Liturgical Commission met for the last time (ibid. 234). The seven chapters of the liturgical constitution passed the votes and on December 4, 1963, the council approved the whole document on the Constitution of the sacred liturgy with an overwhelming majority of 2,147 votes of approval and only 4 negative votes (ibid. 240). 

Cardinal Larraona, president of the Congregation for the Rites, was also president of the Liturgical Commission of the Second Vatican Council. Already on November 9, 1962, a group of experts from the Liturgical Commission wrote a letter to the Secretary of State Cardinal Cicognani saying that Cardinal Larraona was not capable of leading the Liturgical Commission and they suggested replacing him with Cardinal Lercaro (ibid. 257). The complaints about Larraona being incapable of realizing liturgical reform in the Catholic Church continued, and on October 10, 1963, Paul VI told the moderators of the Council that he wanted Cardinal Lercaro to prepare a document establishing some norms for the reform of the liturgy (ibid. 258). With the motu proprio Sacram Liturgiam, of January 25, 1964, Pope Paul VI announced the formation of a committee to revise all the liturgical rites. The committee was later called the Consilium (ibid. 263). Paul VI constituted the Consilium on liturgy on February 29, 1964 (Vilanova 1998, 371). Cardinal Lercaro, a recognized liturgical expert, headed the committee, and Bugnini was rehabilitated and became secretary. Cardinal Larraona was nominated a member too. It was important for Paul VI to be able to demonstrate his capacity to act with liberty and to balance his authority with the collegiality of the college of the bishops by naming Cardinal Lercaro, who was archbishop and cardinal of Bologna, but not a Cardinal of the Roman Curia (ibid. 372).

It took some time to clarify the respective responsibilities of the Congregation of the rites and Consilium for liturgical reform. On January 7, 1965 Cardinal Secretary of State Cicognani informed the Prefect of the Congregation of the rites Cardinal Larraona, that Cardinal Lercaro and Bugnini are authorized to present suggestions for the implementation of the liturgical reform (Kaczynski 1998, 268).

On March 25, 1964, Lercaro informed the Episcopal conferences that Consilium will help them with guidelines and instructions for the application of the liturgical reform (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, 367–512. 494. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Consilium and Lercaro were important for the success of the liturgical reform, especially during the unstable moments of the intersession in the spring of 1964. The bishops did not know how the Council would continue and how they would proceed. Consilium gave the bishops security, confidence and assurance.   Lercaro was an important person to bring liturgical reform to the Roman Catholic Church all over the world. He contributed to the cooperation of the bishops’ conferences on the application of liturgical reform in their cultures (ibid.). In the spring of 1964, the French and German bishops’ conferences published first norms for liturgical reform (ibid. 495–96). The British Catholics bishops’ conference followed in June with a publication (ibid. 497). The Italian and the Spanish bishops’ conferences published texts on liturgical reform (ibid. 499). The bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean were not all enthusiastic about liturgical reform, especially in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador there was not much impulse for liturgical reform by the bishops (ibd. 502).

Africa used the liturgical reform to work on an effective incarnation of the Christian mystery in their cultures (ibid. 503). Elements form the natural religions were taken into consideration to be reconciled with Christian liturgical rites. Relations to the Muslims for the first time were taken into consideration. The importance of rites and rituals for African cosmology and anthropology was recognized and taken seriously (ibid). The function of feasts as necessary interruptions of the hard rhythms of daily work were acknowledged (ibid). The African Catholics consented to the necessity of overcoming the European chains of cultural imperialism in liturgy. Yago, the archbishop of Abidjian, Ivory Coast, spoke in a letter of the Africanization of Christian ceremonies (ibid). The Latin liturgical tradition was to be replaced by the African (ibid. 504). The Catholics in Egypt spoke of their tradition of plural rites and liturgies pointing at the peaceful coexistence of their Catholic Latin rite, the Mennonite rite, the Coptic, Armenian, Greek, Syrian and Chaldean rites (ibid. 505).

In Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam liturgical reform was eagerly greeted with joy (ibid. 507). To replace knee bend with inclination was a significant change for expressing veneration of Go’d in the ways of one’s own culture. Other problems of acculturation or inculturation of liturgical expression were of more delicacy. One burning problem was the question of how to deal with the veneration and cult of ancestors (ibid.)?

So far, all historians, theologians and acting persons of this chapter have been male celibate priests. There was no single voice of a woman or openly queer Church historian or theologian. Teresa Berger is a professor of liturgical studies and Catholic theology at Yale Divinity Scholl, an ecumenical school inclusive of a wide range of Christian traditions (Teresa Berger | Yale Divinity School). Because of her interest in gender theories and her analysis of gender discrimination in the Roman Catholic Church, the authorities in Rome refused her the teaching license at German Catholic theological faculties who wanted to have her as professor. Theological faculties in German speaking countries regularly invited her for conferences, but Yale Divinity School allowed her to find a permanent academic teaching and research institution. Her critique of women and queer discrimination in Roman Catholic liturgy is consistent and documents the absence of gender-consciousness at the Second Vatican Council and its reform of liturgy.

Joel 2, 28 and Acts 2, 17 testify that the Spirit is poured out on all, both daughters and sons prophesize in the liturgy (Berger, Teresa. 2011. Gender Differences and the Making of Liturgical Tradition: Lifting a Veil on Liturgy’s Past. Ashgate Liturgy, Worship and Society Series. 154. Burlington, VT: Ashgate). At the beginning of the second century CE, the Didache, a theological tractatus and church order, witnesses the link between prophet and presider in that it allows prophets to eucharistize, that is, pray in thanksgiving, “as much as they wish” (Didache 10, 7) (ibid.). At least for this earliest church order, the charism of prophecy authorizes Eucharistic praying and presiding, a charism that was not gender constrained. Examples of women prophets in the New Testament are Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21, 9). Even Mary has a tradition as a priestess. In 1913, images of Mary in priestly vestments were forbidden, invocations of the Virgo Sacerdos soon followed (Berger 2011. 160). The Superior General of the Daughters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus had requested permission to use this title in prayer in the houses of her congregation. All devotions to Mary as Virgo Sacerdos were prohibited, and the officially approved prayer was withdrawn. One reason for this turn of events was surely the fact that by then questions were being raised within the Women’s Movement about the exclusion of women from priestly ordination (ibid. 161).

Gender contestations surrounding liturgical leadership emerged early on, only to be answered (or muted) by the patriarchal linking of priestly presiding to masculinity; this decisive link constantly had to be re-asserted and re-narrated throughout the centuries, “requiring, as does any tradition, ongoing repetition to it with seeming inevitability” (ibid.).

Despite Sacrosanctum Concilium, despite the realization of liturgical reform in the Roman Catholic Church and despite academic theological reflection, in 2011, Berger must confirm that the choice of passages for reading in liturgical worship is androcentric (ibid. 173). The lectionary for Sunday Masses in the Roman Catholic Church does not attend carefully enough to biblical stories about women. The story of the two Hebrew midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, who set the scene for the Exodus by defying pharaoh, is simply cut out of the liturgical reading of Exodus 1, 8–22. The lectionary reading lets worshippers know about this pharaoh while hiding the two Hebrew women who defied him (ibid). Berger accuses the male celibate Church leaders of being very conscious of the fact that they must mute women voices in order to stay in power (ibid).

Studying the history of the making of Sacrosanctum Concilium and its theological commentary by the male scholars of Catholic theology, we must bear in mind the damning bias of silencing the liturgical repression of women. The link between masculinity and liturgical leadership is masked by unconscious or conscious suppression (ibid. 122). The authoritative pattern of liturgical leadership in the Romnan Catholic Church continues constructing gender as gender differences, despite the fact that Jesus does not segregate and separate and “has no fear transgressing taboos of injustice to women” (ibid. 24).

[i] “Annibale Bugnini,” Wikipedia.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annibale_Bugnini (accessed July 20, 2020).