A note on the 1963 Conclave

The following is taken from the Book "The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story":

Cardinal Montini (Later Paul VI P.P.)

“The clashes within the conclave, according to Cardinal Testa, were intese. Cardinal Ottaviani fought to the end against Montini, pressing for the election of Cardinal Ildebrando Antoniutti, a sixty-four-year- old prelate from Friuli, who had considerable diplomatic experience, and who would have represented an interruption of the “Johannine” course. The stories that leaked out of the conclave tell also of Cardinal Siri’s refusal to make himself available for possible election, thus shifting the votes in his own favor toward the archbishop of Milan: “For the good of the Church, I did not want to oppose Montini,” the archbishop of Genoa confided to Benny Lai."

+JMJ+

When Cardinal Ottaviani squared off with Cardinal Bea on Religious Freedom/Tolerance

Two years after the title for Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was invented and promptly given to Venerable Pius XII’s confessor Cardinal Bea, a battle of two conflicting understandings of the church’s teaching on the Religious Toleration/Religious Freedom came to ahead.  The story is related in Roberto de Mattei’s  book The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story:

Bea and Ottaviani square off

Buy the Book!!

On June 19, 1962, the next to last day of the final session, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bea came into direct conflict. Two schemas were presented: one from the theological commission and the other from the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Bea, in presenting his schema, asserted that it was focused on non-Catholics and corresponded to the “aggiornamento” of current living conditions in the Church desired by the pope. Ottaviani vehemently retorted that the secretariat had no right to deal with the question for which the Theological Commission was competent.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre recalls this episode, of which he was a [sic] eyewitness:

"I must relate to you a minor incident that occurred in 1962, when I was a member of the Central Preparatory Commision of the council. We held our meetings in the Vatican, but the last one was dramatic. Among the papers given to the Central Commission there were two on the same subject: One came from Cardinal Bea, president of the Commission for Unity , and the other from Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Theological Commission. When we had read them, when I myself had read the two schemas, I said: “It is very stange that there are two completely different points of view on the same subject, that is religious liberty or the Church’s attitude toward other religions.” Cardinal Bea’s was entitled De libertate religiosa; Cardinal Ottaviani’s – De tolerantia religios. Do you see the difference, the profound difference? What was happening? Why two completely different schemas on the same subject? At that moment, during the meeting, Cardinal Ottaviani stood up and , pointing with his finger, said to Cardinal Bea: “Eminence, you did not have the right to compose this schema, you did not have the right to do it because it is a theological schema and therefore within the competence of the Theological Commission.” And as Cardinal Bea stood up he said: “Excuse me, but I did have the right to compose this schema as president of the commission on Unity; if anything concerns unity, certainly religious liberty does.” He added, turning to Cardinal Ottaviani, “I radically oppose what you say in your schema De tolerantia religiosa”… It was the final session of the central commission, and we could clearly perceive, on the eve of the council, displayed in fron of us, the whole battle that would take place during the council. This means that these things had already been prepared before the council. Cardinal Bea certainly did not compose his schema De libertate religiosa without having reached an agreement with other cardinals."

To get around the doctrinal obstacles, the secretariat proposed a new “para-diplomatic” way of expressing the faith, which consisted of couching dogmatic topics in contemporary terms without addressing them from a dogmatic perspective, but rather leaving them vague in the name of the primacy of the pastoral approach.

The Secretary for Promoting Christian Unity expanded his role, moreover, through the influence that he exerted on the “mixed commissions.” Most of these commissions in fact duplicated the curial dicasteries and were composed of bishops who were faithful to Rome. While the Theological Commission rejected all interference by Bea’s secretariat in the composition of the schemas, other commissions agreed to form “mixed commissions” with the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, for instance the Commission for the Discipline of the Sacraments. The best Collaboration Occurred with the Liturgical Commission, whose secretary was Father Annibale Bugnini. Bea’s secretariat asked, in February 1961, for “the widest possible use of the vernacular.” In

April Bea himself intervened: “We must strongly oppose the idea that [liturgical] Latin is a sign of unity. It is more a sign of uniformity than a sign of unity.”

On October 22, eleven days after the opening of the council, John XXIII elevated the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unit to the rank of a commission. This new status gave the organization the right to present schemas to the General Assembly and to correct them. Its role would be decisive.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So for those of you keeping score of what the current Prefect for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Kasper, is doing currently with the marriage issue, let not your hearts be troubled, that position is a pile of rubbish and always has been… lol… we are doomed!... no but seriously LOL!

Who encouraged St. Pope John XXIII to call Vatican II? (The answer may surprise!)

 Many of us are familiar with the story that ‘Good’ Pope John was sitting with one of his friends when all of the sudden the word “council” fluttered from his mouth.  From this, some say, proceeded with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost an intention to call the Second Vatican Council.  There is more to this enthusiastic story, but I think it more interesting to let you know about verified instances that played a more profound role in the decision to bring about the council.

So who was it exactly that encouraged St. John XXIII? 

Do the names Cardinal Ruffini and Ottaviani ring a bell?

St. Pope John XXIII and Cardinal Ottaviani in procession

Following the early pause of the First Vatican Council, there were many calls to bring the council to a close by finishing the deliberations that had begun prior to the Italian wars that left the Pontiffs prisoners of the Vatican.  Different Popes showed varying degrees of support to the idea of breathing new life in the First Vatican Council. Pius XI and Pius XII were not exceptions to this rule.  Pius XI had personally thought highly of restarting the council, but was persuaded by his closest advisers that it was not a good time to do so because of the modernist problem.  Pius XII was a little more skeptical about restarting First Vatican but he appointed secret commissions in the late 1940’s to study the possibility.  

During the conclave of 1958 there were many names being circulated including Ruffini, Ottaviani and a young Cardinal Siri of Genoa.  All three of these figures played a key role for the late pontiff and many expected that from this group would come forth the new Pope, which as a fact of history has proven very naïve.  The French delegation of cardinals were put under and exerted great pressure to keep the aforementioned names from ascending to Peter’s throne.  Charles De Gaulle, who was the French leader at the time still supported the Gallican ways of old, shunning montanism.  The French loved Cardinal Roncalli, however, because he had lived with them and they knew his tendencies and could thus manipulate him to an extent. 

In his book, The Second Vatican Council: The Untold Story, noted Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei relates the following information:

“The idea had come from  Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini, the archbishop of Palermo, in an earlier audience on February 24, 1948. “At the feet of Pius XII,” he recounted, eleven years after receiving the purple hat, “I, the last of the priests, dared to ask for an ecumenical council. It seemed to me that it was urgently required by the circumstances and that there would be as much material to deal with as the Council of Trent had. The venerable pontiff did not reject the proposal; he did not even take note of it, as he was accustomed to do in important matters… Faced with differing opinions, which foreshadowed a conflict, Pius XII preferred to set aside the project, not unlike what his predecessor Pius XI had done.
The same Cardinals Ottaviani and Ruffini, who had suggested the idea of a council to Pius XII in 1948, stated that in his cell at the conclave, they were the first to suggest to the newly-elevted John XXIII that he convene the twenty-first universal council of the Church.

In an interview published by the weekly Epoca, Cardinal Ottaviani was asked, among other things: “When John XXIII announced the council what was your reaction?” Ottaviani replied: ‘He had spoken about it to me from the moment of his election. Or rather, to be more precise, it was I who visited him in his little room at the conclave on the eve of the election. Among other things I told him “Your Eminence, it is necessary to think about a council.” Cardinal Ruffini, who was present at the conversation, was of the same mind. Cardinal Roncalli adopted this idea and later had this to say: “I have thought of a council from the moment I became Pope.” It’s true, he welcomed our suggestion.”

Oh the irony...

Tancred had this up the other day and I never got around to posting about it...

Did German Bishops Recently Attempt to Prevent Müller's Appointment as Cardinal? German Press Calls him the "New Ottaviani"

Cardinal Ottaviani with Bld John XXIII

So the German's tried to stop Cardinal elect Muller from retaining his CDF position and reception of the Cardinal office.  How bad does it have to be in Germany that Muller who is criticized by many trads is looked at by the hierarchy in Germany as the new Ottaviani (ie: a remnant of pre concilliar thought)