Appendix I: Participation of
Protestants in the
of the New Catholic Liturgical Rites
On May 3, 1970, La Documentation Catholique published the text of a speech made by Pope Paul VI to the members of the Consilium. The cover of this issue depicted Pope Paul VI posing with the six Protestant Observers who had been invited to participate in the work of the Consilium. This photograph proved to be a source of astonishment and even scandal to large numbers of the faithful, who had no idea that Protestants had played any part in the compilation of the new Catholic sacramental rites. It resulted in public controversy in a number of countries, which was followed by official denials that the Observers had in fact played any part in the compilation of the new rites. These denials have since been cited by apologists for the official reform as "refutations" of the allegation that Protestant Observers had taken an active part in their compilation. There is, however, a considerable difference between a denial and a refutation, and these particular denials are totally gratuitous and contradict the available evidence.
In the July-August 1974 issue of Notitiae, official journal of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Bugnini (its Secretary) claimed that the Observers confined their role simply to observing (pp. 249-250). Here are his exact words:
What role did the "Observers" play in the Consilium?
Nothing more than that of-----Observers." First of all, they only took part in the study meetings. In the second place, they behaved with impeccable discretion. They never intervened in the discussions and never asked to speak.
In contrast with this, Bishop W. W. Baum (now Cardinal Baum), an ardent ecumenist, made the following statement in a personal interview with the Detroit News, June 27, 1967:
They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn't mean much if they just listened, but they contributed. (Emphasis added.)
The account given by Cardinal Baum, and the denials issued by Archbishop Bugnini and the Vatican Press Office, are clearly contradictory. In order to discover the truth, I wrote to one of the Observers, Canon Ronald Jasper. Before giving his reply, it is necessary to explain the manner in which the Consilium did its work. Firstly, there were the study sessions, during which the practical details of the reform were worked out, discussed and modified. Then there were the formal (plenary) meetings during which the draft services which had been compiled in the study sessions were debated and voted upon. In my letter to Canon Jasper, I explained that I was working upon a series of books on the liturgical reform and that I particularly wished to know whether the Observers had had a voice in the new rites of Mass and Ordination. In his reply, dated February 10, 1977, he explained that the Observers received all the documents from the drafters of the new services in the same way as did other members of the Consilium. They were then present at the debates when the new services were presented by the experts and debated by the Consilium, but the Observers were not allowed to join in the debate.
In the afternoon, however, they always had an informal meeting with the periti who had prepared the draft services, and at these meetings they were certainly allowed to comment and criticize and make suggestions. It was then for the periti to decide whether any of their points were worth taking up when the general debates in the Consilium were resumed. But, explained Canon Jasper, in conclusion, these informal meetings were a complete free-for-all, and there was a very frank exchange of views.
Exactly the same process took place during the course of Vatican II. The Protestant Observers, while not allowed to speak in the plenary sessions, were able to take an active part in the informal discussions where the real work of drafting the documents was done. Their influence is visible in the finalized documents themselves, and evidence of it is provided in Chapter IX of Pope John's Council. In addition to this evidence, the following testimonies are relevant.
Archdeacon Pawley, an Anglican Observer, reveals that "In the course of the Council itself the fullest courtesies and opportunities for communication and exchange were allowed to the Observers at every stage, and traces of the process can be recognized in the documents themselves." 1
Robert McMee Brown, a Presbyterian Observer, remarks:
Particularly during the discussion on ecumenism, it was apparent that many bishops wanted to know what Protestant reactions were to statements in the schema about Protestantism, and wanted to elicit Protestant opinions on how the schema could be improved. Thus, although we had no direct "voice" on the Council floor, we did indeed have an indirect voice through the many contacts that were possible with the Fathers and their indispensable strong right arms, the periti. 2
Thus, although it could be argued that officially the Observers played no part in drafting the conciliar documents, as they could neither vote nor speak in the debates, it is clear that they were able to influence the final format of these documents. This is precisely what took place with the formulation of the new liturgical rites by the post-conciliar Consilium.
1. B. Pawley, Rome and
Four Centuries (London: Mowbray, 1974), p. 343.
2. R. McAfee Brown, Observer in Rome (London: Methuen, 1964), pp. 227-228.
3. Ibid., p. 173.
BACK | NEXT