Insights into Vatican II’s Reform of the Mass Lectionary from Heinz Schürmann’s Personal Files

Abstract

The personal documents of the biblical scholar Heinz Schürmann as a member of the commission charged with the elaboration of the Mass lectionary of Vatican II show that this was not an exegetical work which did away with the traditional way the Church used the Bible in the Eucharist, as some critics have recently declared, but an ecclesial endeavor carried out in fidelity to the tradition and rigorous scholarship. My research of Schürmann’s files has shed a personal and original light on the entire process of organizing the new Mass readings. His contributions are multiple, but especially in producing a more biblically Christological lectionary, which would eventually lead to greater unity among the different Christian communities. Schürmann always lamented that biblical scholars were not heard by the overwhelming majority of liturgists. The question of time restrictions on the work of this commission has surfaced as a real concern. Renewed scholarship on figures like Schürmann, who contributed so positively to Vatican II’s liturgical reform, is much needed today to underline the validity and value of such a renewal of today’s Church.

1. Introduction

In May and June of 2024, I had the great privilege of accessing Heinz Schürmann’s personal documents on his work in Coetus XI preserved at the archives of the Deutsches Liturgisches Institut (DLI) in Trier, Germany. This study group of the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia (Consilium) was made up of liturgists, biblical scholars and a few pastoral agents and appointed by Paul VI with the task of preparing a new Mass lectionary following the principles established by the conciliar Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium. Their work spanned from 1 October 1964 to 25 May 1969 when the saintly pontiff promulgated the new Ordo Lectionum Missae (OLM). Most Catholics welcomed such richer fare at the table of God’s Word with a positive response. But at the beginning of the 1980s, Klaus Gamber (1919–1989) affirmed that the OLM was a work of the biblical scholars, which broke with the liturgical tradition of the Roman rite by selecting new Mass readings in terms of their biblical and “exegetic character and not giving due consideration to existing liturgical rules and customs” (Gamber 1993, 2002). Gamber sustained that a small group of exegetes, not liturgists, hastily drew up the new Order of Mass Readings in order to teach and edify with biblical instruction the faithful present at Mass. This kind of criticism based on “didacticism” has recently reappeared in many authors’ work (Dobszay and Hemming 2010; Cekada 2010; Davies 2003; Leone 2017; Schneider 2019). For them, the OLM emphasizes the catechetical and pastoral role of the Sacred Scriptures in the liturgy at the expense of its liturgical (“latreutic,” “iconic,” ritual, sacrificial) (Kwasniewski 2016)1 use. My findings in Schürmann’s unedited materials on his work in Coetus XI, consisting of his personal letters, notes and commentaries, evidence the rigorous liturgical, biblical and pastoral work carried out by this pontifical commission, disprove those criticisms, and shed a unique light on how the OLM was elaborated, in fidelity to Vatican II’s directives, for the sake of announcing Christ’s paschal mystery at the celebration of the Eucharist, and always keeping the liturgical tradition of the Roman rite in mind.

In this article, I first introduce the figure of Heinz Schürmann within the context of biblical scholarship and his interest in the role of the lectionary in the Eucharist. I secondly make a brief introduction to Schürmann’s materials preserved at the DLI’s archives and explain his main contributions to the elaboration of the OLM. Without presenting an in-depth study of his records on the work of Coetus XI, I underline his theological vision for the proclamation of a more representative part of the Bible in the Mass, even if that put him in tension with the views of other Coetus XI members. I thirdly study the uniqueness of his witness in enlightening the essentially liturgical character of this conciliar reform. I conclude my study with a few reflections on the need for scholarship on the spirituality, scientific background, and main contributions of those who played key roles in the liturgical reform. In a time when voices against the liturgical reform grow louder and the faithful become more confused and polarized, Schürmann’s personal records on his work on the conciliar renewal of the Mass lectionary bear witness to the validity and value of the Consilium’s work for the renewal of the Church, and the different opinions that shaped the new Mass lectionary, but above all, to a life of profound love for the Church, her Sacred Scriptures and her liturgical life.

2. Heinz Schürmann (1913–1999): His Biblical Scholarship and Work on Mass Lectionary Reform

Schürmann studied theology in Paderborn and Tübingen from 1932 to 1937. He received his doctorate with a dissertation entitled The editorial activity of the Evangelist Luke on the Last Supper Account (1948) in Münster. His historical-critical work on the Sacred Scriptures is particularly marked by its constant connections to theology and the Christian life (Aldana 2018, p. 618). He dedicated much of his scholarship and teaching to the renewal of the Church by fostering both the faithful’s appropriate celebration of the liturgy and their understanding of the Bible (Hentschel and März 2000, p. 317). Influenced by Romano Guardini, exegesis and spirituality are inseparable in Schürmann’s work in order to present a global image of Christ’s mystery, derived from the ecclesial experience of faith (Schürmann 1999). He was critical of the historical-critical method and searched for a continuity between Jesus’ historical preaching and the Church’s kerygma (Aldana 2018, p. 623). In 1953, he accepted a position at the newly founded Philosophical and Theological Study Program in Erfurt, East Germany, as professor of New Testament studies. This move to Stalinist-influenced Germany, to a place where his working conditions deteriorated significantly and his opportunities for scholarly and academic communication became increasingly restricted, speaks of him as a spiritual and missionary shepherd intent on leading people to the cause of the Gospel (Hentschel and März 2000, p. 317). Schürmann was a peritus of Vatican II and from 1969 to 1986 a member of the International Theological Commission and a consultor to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Within the field of biblical scholarship, the question of the ipsissima intentio of Jesus’ life and death—summarized in the key concept of “pro-existence”—became increasingly the decisive focus of his theological reflection (Hentschel and März 2000, p. 316). For Schürmann, Jesus’ “being-for-others” affected his whole life, was perfectly reflected in the Last Supper narratives, and needs to continue in the way He is preached today (Aldana 2018, p. 633). He supported the Catholic teaching: “The only divine Word, personally identifiable with Jesus of Nazareth, continues to be heard in the words of Sacred Scripture, thanks to the divine Spirit whose inspiration accompanies all the process of tradition, from the life of the Lord to the redaction of the gospels, passing through the oral and written testimony” (Aldana 2018, p. 629). Thus, for Schürmann, the point of departure for the exegete is the encounter with the mystery of God revealed in Christ, which precedes all critical work. The Word of God must have primacy over all critical activity in the work of the biblical scholar. Exegesis must contemplate the Word of God and not merely use it as an object of its analysis and criticism. The critical methods need to serve the faith of the Christians by recognizing in the history of salvation the features of the God who is always greater (Aldana 2018, p. 653).

In 1942, while serving as a parochial vicar in Saale, he prepared a three-year cycle of gospel and epistle readings for Sundays and feast days in order to bring the New Testament to the ears of the faithful and help priests to preach about it during the Mass (Nübold 1986, p. 35). His plan to bring the Bible closer to the faithful covered all the gospels in three years, but without Old Testament pericopes. Schürmann’s shared his unpublished “lectionary draft” with priest friends during the 1940s in order to help them to proclaim the entire New Testament in a three-year cycle and preach Christ to the faithful, who were not used to scripturally based sermons. He conceived his list of readings, not as a reform of the 1570 Missale Romanum (MR) system, which seemed unthinkable at the time, but as a system that complemented the official readings said in low voice. Together with other scholars’ proposals, like Jounel’s (1961) and Kahlefeld’s (1953), his draft for a renewed “order of Mass pericopes” became widely used in German-speaking parishes and was finally published as a proposal for a revision of the 1570 MR reading system in 1952 (Schürmann 1952). His introduction explained his list’s main purpose: “that the core of the entire New Testament may be grasped by the congregation as they listen” (Schürmann 1952, p. 59). His gospel choices, though departing from the 1570 MR selections, always preserved some thematic links with them. He considered that the Old Testament reading belongs to the weekdays, not to Sundays and feast days, “according to the practice of the ancient Church” (Schürmann 1952, p. 60). During the 1950s and early 1960s, Schürmann’s proposal was republished several times, even in French and in English, and helped to raise awareness among Catholic pastors about the importance of Mass lectionary reform for the pastoral work of the Church (Nübold 1986, p. 42). Schürmann was appointed as a consultor, not a member, of Coetus XI on 11 May 1964. Members attended all the meetings of the Study Group, but consultors had to be summoned to the meetings. By then, he had already published more than forty works on New Testament exegesis and spirituality, many of them translated into English, Spanish and French (Schürmann 1948, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965a).

3. Schürmann’s Personal Documents on His Work in Coetus XI and His Contribution to the Elaboration of Vatican II’s Mass Lectionary

Schürmann’s personal documents, letters, unsubmitted proposals, unpublished talks, handwritten and typed notes and observations on his work in Coetus XI are collected in ten archival boxes at DLI (hereafter referred to as SchüArch).2 Reviewing the materials in Schürmann’s archive, especially his letters to colleagues and to German bishops, one perceives the considerable amount of important but very different elements of the lectionary which Coetus XI’s members tried to address: some valued the biblical formation of the faithful above all, others the needs in the mission countries, others preserving traditional reading choices contained in 1570 MR, fostering priestly spiritual life, improving homiletics, ecumenism, fidelity to the structure of the sacred text, etc. Schürmann’s documents evidence a consensus on the solid scholarship on the fields of the Bible and the Liturgy during the first year of work, but also the intense debates between the “biblicists,” who defended a more ample and faithful use of the Scripture according to the biblical lens, and the “liturgists,” who supported a more traditional use of the biblical passages and fostered “aggiornamento” within fidelity to the liturgical sources.3

A recent contribution to the liturgical field, especially to the study of Coetus XI has been the publication of Barba and Massimi’s L’”Ordo Lectionum Missae” del Concilio Vaticano II (2023). These Italian liturgists have edited for the first time all the “schemata” (“official reports”) that the study group of experts and bishops produced after each of their gatherings in order to record the progress of their work from 1964 to 1969. In those reports, it is clearly evidenced that Schürmann’s contribution was continuous and intense, especially in the area of the gospel pericopes. In general, there can be ascertained a gradual and methodical working process, which moved from more general principles, to the general distribution of the pericopes, to more revisions by different experts, until the concrete choices were fixed. There was not a preconceived plan or idea of how the final lectionary would be. Schürmann was present since the very first meeting of the group in Brescia on 9–12 September 1964, together with four other members: Fontaine, Kahlefeld, Massi and Lanne (Barba and Massimi 2023, p. 299). The five main criteria or guidelines drafted at that first meeting were: (a) presenting Christ’s paschal mystery in salvation history through the readings; (b) faithfulness to the directions given by Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), especially Nos. 24, 35.1, 49 and 51; (c) three readings (Old Testament-New Testament-Gospel) on Sundays and major feasts, with the certain harmonization in order to help with the homily, though first or second could be dropped depending on the circumstances of the people; (d) a cycle of three or four years, but certain feasts and seasons would preserve the traditional choices (e.g., Acts during Easter, Isaiah during Advent, etc.); (e) the most important passages of the Bible to be included in the OLM complemented by the Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours (Bugnini 1990, pp. 410–11).

The second phase of the work, mainly during 1965, was dedicated to what Bugnini calls “collection of materials.” Coetus XI wanted to establish its decisions on sound liturgical scholarship on the different reading systems that the tradition of Mass readings in the various rites from East and West throughout history presented. It was striking to see with my own eyes in Schürmann’s archive the handwritten “tables of Fontaine”, the secretary of Coetus XI, who in fifty comparative tables, summarized and compared how the Bible had been used in the Eucharist since the early Church. Many academic articles on the history of the Mass readings and recent proposals for an extended lectionary, including four of them written by Schürmann, were studied.4 Another great step during 1965 was to assign the different books of the Bible to thirty-one renowned biblical scholars in order to select the passages that they regarded as best suited for liturgical use in the New and Old Testaments (Bugnini 1990, p. 412). Schürmann was assigned the synoptic gospels. He was the only biblical scholar who was asked to submit a list of readings, who was also a consultor of Study Group 11. He submitted his draft for the Ferial Mass lectionary on September 19 of that year, with a one-year cycle of gospels, covering almost all the gospels in lectio semi-continua, and a separate one-year cycle of epistles (Barba and Massimi 2023, pp. 958–85; Turner 2022, p. 11). He also presented a three-year cycle of gospel readings for Sundays, also in lectio semi-continua, assigning Mark to seven Sundays after Epiphany every one of the three years,5 Luke to fourteen Sundays after Pentecost, Matthew from the 16th to the 24th Sunday after Pentecost, and John for Easter, Christmas and Year III in Advent. In this system, the Sunday and the ferial systems move in agreement, instead of having two separate lectionaries as our OLM does. In Schürmann’s proposal, Advent reads the narratives before Christ’s public ministry, with no reference to the eschatology (Barba and Massimi 2023, pp. 986–88). Interestingly enough and against our scholar’s opinion, when the task of drafting the first preliminary schemas was assigned, no biblical scholar received any assignments.

1966 proved to be a crucial year for the future of the new Mass lectionary. The volume of Schürmann’s correspondence on the decisions taken by Coetus XI increased at this time. Cyprian Vagaggini, the new relator of Coetus XI—after Godfrey Diekmann, its first relator resigned in 1965—sent out the recommended passages for revision. There were three fundamental questions to resolve: 1. Should the Old Testament reading and the New Testament epistle be both obligatory or one of them could be optional on Sundays and major feasts? 2. Should the one-year cycle of readings present in 1570 MR be kept or abandoned? 3. Should there be a three-year or a four-year cycle for Sundays and major feasts? On 24 April 1966, our biblical scholar sent his responses on the proposed lectionary in Latin. He underlined the importance of unity with the rest of Christian communities using the system in 1570 MR, and advocated for preserving it alongside the new three-year cycle. The choice between the three or four-year cycle for the first several years “ad experimentum” should be left to the regional conferences of bishops (Schürmann 1966f, pp. 1–2). Schürmann was against Adrien Nocent’s Plan Normatif which presented the history of salvation on the Sundays after Pentecost according to ecclesiological themes, since he considered that the OLM should present Christ in the manner of the Gospels, that is, biblically, “without the introduction of systematic or catechetical themes (e.g., love of God, the Church, eschatology)” (Schürmann 1966f, p. 3). Schürmann desired that the Old Testament reading could be read even during the Easter time (Schürmann 1966f, p. 4). His position on the key role of the Old Testament in the Mass lectionary evolved over the year together with the rest of the members of Coetus XI, who unanimously agreed on its mandatory proclamation so that the Christian people could be once again imbued in the Sacred Scriptures (Barba and Massimi 2023, p. 380).

In his observations to the proposed Sunday Gospel readings, he asked for the removal of the “titles” for being “exegetisch sehr problematisch,” “and the content can hardly be adequately captured in a short manner” (Schürmann 1966a, p. 1). He made extensive comments on reading choices and the addition or removal of verses that seemed better than the proposed ones in his opinion. In general, he advocated for shorter evangelical pericopes, which would respect their evangelical structure. At times he proposed readings with only three verses, like Mat 28:18–20 for 1st Sunday after Pentecost and Mat 13:44–46 for the 7th Sunday after Pentecost (Year A) (Schürmann 1966a, p. 4). Even if the Passion according to Matthew was traditional in the Roman rite for the Mass on Palm Sunday, Schürmann preferred Mat 21:10–17 (Year A), Lk 19:37–44 (Year B) and John 12:20–36 (Year C), since he considered that the Passion accounts are too long after the procession, and they should remain as a characteristic of Good Friday. This is a concrete example of the way he favored the pastoral approach to biblical formation through the Mass lectionary above any patristic or liturgical tradition.

On 12 May 1966, the relators voted unanimously to bring the first question back to the Consilium, but only five out of twenty-five votes supported such a position. It is important to underscore that the chairs (relators), that is, the main experts in the work of the Consilium were against having a mandatory third reading, and Schürmann supported their view. In his 12 June 1966 letter, Kahlefeld showed support for Schürmann’s objections and encouraged him to “express them clearly and sharply (and above all in Latin),” not in German. He “feared that [the Sunday order of Mass readings] would be left to some liturgist,” instead of biblical scholars like them (Kahlefeld 1966a). Regarding the issue of keeping the Tridentine system of readings, the chairs of the different study groups voted (21 vs. 4) against retaining the current lectionary as Year I of the new plan. Some Reformed churches developed lectionaries based on the Roman Missal. Many hoped that the Roman rite would keep the main structure of its readings. Paul Turner has recently affirmed that “Schürmann therefore initially favored making the current lectionary one year of a new cycle” (Turner 2022, p. 2; Barba and Massimi 2023, pp. 383–84). His correspondence with different scholars, bishops and colleagues in Coetus XI shows that he always supported that idea until the end, that is, complementing the 1570 MR system with weekly readings and adding three more years of Mass readings. The relators however decided to move forward with a three-year cycle, and “if it turned out that valuable passages were thereby neglected, the group declared itself ready to turn” to the four-year system (Bugnini 1990, p. 417). After many revisions of the different drafts, an order of readings was finalized by 5 September 1966. Though most members agreed with the plan, Schürmann and Kahlefeld presented major objections (in German, due to the pressing time to submit a system of readings for the upcoming meeting of the Consilium). They listed fifty-nine important gospel pericopes missing in that list, and therefore its failure to accomplish the “praestantior pars” requested by SC, 51 (Barba and Massimi 2023, pp. 546–52). In their view, the passages should respect their original context within the biblical book and include even the more difficult texts. And they proposed to add them “optionally” on specific days. Schürmann’s correspondence evidences a special desire to retain the Tridentine system of Mass readings for ecumenical purposes. He envisioned sharing a year with the reformed Christians, who were using the Catholic traditional system in an enhanced manner.

Kahlefeld wrote to Vagaggini during that summer lamenting: “Since it is the liturgists and not the biblicists (die Liturgiker und nicht die Bibliker) who have the majority or the necessary gravitas, we will probably have to submit to the principle of the 3 years.” (Kahlefeld 1966b). In a letter to his bishop Otto Spülbeck of Meißen, Germany, a member of the Consilium, on 5 September 1966, Schürmann complained that the latest draft of the OLM (Barba and Massimi 2023, pp. 461–513) has been “largely drawn by a committee of liturgists,” and not by “actual Bible experts” (Schürmann 1966b). Two days later, he wrote his friend and colleague in Coetus XI, Heinrich Kahlefeld, recommending to establish a biblical “sub-commission” that would produce a more exegetical approach to the Mass lectionary: “In my opinion, only a separate committee of exegetes can help, because all individual expert opinions pass through the liturgical-historical sieve of Coetus XI” (Schürmann 1966d). The German scholar viewed a “liturgical-historical” screening, that is, “liturgiegeschichtliche Sieb” at the center of the liturgical reform. Vagaggini observed “a sort of conflict” (“quasi conflictum”) between liturgists and biblical scholars in Coetus XI, especially Schürmann and Kahlefeld (Vagaggini 1966). Two Belgian liturgists, Rose and Marot, were appointed as a subcommittee to respond to their objections. They accepted twenty-one of the fifty-nine suggested passages into Sundays of Ordinary Time, which were missing before, e.g., the Beatitudes (Mt 5:1–12), but rejected having many options that disfigured the overall integrity of the lectionary structure. Regarding the length of the readings, Rose and Marot followed the traditional choices in which the liturgy used them. They rejected the brief passages that tried to recover the original literary units of the gospels, and favored the liturgical reading of the Scripture. Regarding the four-year cycle, they considered that too much work had already been carried out in the direction of the three-year system, that there had to be many repetitions in order to fill out another year with readings, and that it would be “too long for the psychology of the majority of the faithful” (Barba and Massimi 2023, pp. 553–64). On 10 October 1966, probably the most significant day in the whole process of renewal of the Mass readings, the bishops of the Consilium approved unanimously with a single exception the three mandatory readings for Sundays and major feasts, a three-year cycle of readings, and not keeping intact the reading cycle in 1570 MR. Though many different passages were revised during 1967 and 1968, the main structure of the new Mass lectionary remained intact until its final publication by Paul VI in 1969.

4. Schürmann’s Witness to the Liturgical Character of Vatican II’s Mass Lectionary

Schürmann made a great biblical and pastoral contribution to the OLM (Nübold 1986, pp. 131–70).6 He was keenly insistent on presenting the entire life of Christ in the new lectionary and to do so from a biblical perspective. His comments and observations reveal an emphasis on the “Christological” structure of our current Mass lectionary (Benini 2023). But he aimed to approach the proclamation of Christ at the Eucharist more from an exegetical than liturgical perspective. One of his concerns was that merely following the “liturgical-historical” perspective, we may either become historicists, not realizing that some of the traditional choices were coincidental, e.g., “the pericopes whose selection was determined by a stational church,” or we may even abandon our pastoral sense of the Eucharist, like when “the liturgists” try to retain the traditional Sunday Lenten baptismal gospels (Temptations, Transfiguration, Samaritan Woman, Healing of the Man Born Blind, and Resurrection of Lazarus) without considering other options that call people to conversion today (Schürmann 1965b). Another great interest in Schürmann’s perspective was the ecumenical aspect of a biblical work such as the Mass lectionary. He envisioned it as an opportunity to pray together with the reformed brothers and sisters “with a common order of readings,” as an instrument of God’s Providence in the path to unity (Schürmann 1966c). Thanks to Schürmann, the Protestant observers at the Consilium agreed with the 3-year OLM project and that the Catholic Church should revise the MR lectionary for ecumenical reasons. Vagaggini had previously pointed out that all the Protestant communities, while officially preserving the 1570 MR system, were in practice already complementing it with alternative multi-year cycles (Bugnini 1990, pp. 415–17). Though some of his proposals were not accepted by the majority of “French speaking liturgists,”7 many of his insights are reflected in our new Mass lectionary, such as, adding more gospels for Sundays of Lent besides the traditional ones, as the original plan was to have a one-year cycle for Sundays of Lent. Schürmann’s documents evidence the intense debates between the “biblicists,” who defended a more ample use of the Scripture according to the biblical lens, and the “liturgists,” who supported a more traditional use of the biblical passages, and fostered “aggiornamento” within fidelity to the liturgical sources. The two main principles of “harmonization” (more liturgically oriented) and lectio semi-continua (more biblically supported) shed light on a certain balance that makes the OLM the richest lectionary that the Church has ever known (Nocent 1994).

Between the “more biblical” approach represented by Schürmann and others and the “accommodating adaptation” to the current biblical culture of Catholics in the 1960s, the editors of the OLM chose a middle way, which kept in mind the length of the Mass, the faithful’s understanding and the priests’ preaching capabilities, among others. Schürmann envisioned the Mass lectionary reform as “a work in progress,” almost “ad experimentum” for a longer period of time for ecumenical purposes: “Since this revision is not urgent, it could perhaps be carried out with Anglicans and Lutherans” (Schürmann 1966c). But the liturgical scholars at the head of Coetus XI understood that the Church needed to place the current pastoral needs of Catholics ahead of any ecumenical concerns, hoping that the goal of a single lectionary for all Christians would be reached in the future (Schema 165, De Missali, 4 May 1966, 40, a, b, and c in Barba and Massimi 2023, pp. 388–90). Here, again, the OLM appears as a decidedly pastoral work beyond any idealistic goal or ideological program. In his 24 September 1966, letter to Vagaggini, Schürmann expresses his concern to the relator of Coetus XI about his objections not been sufficiently addressed: “It may happen that the experts in biblical matters do not have the authority to decide the order of pericopes, but are they also—due to lack of time—not even given the opportunity to approve the work of the liturgists (laborem liturgicorum)?” (Schürmann 1966e, p. 1). Schürmann showed difficulties in accepting that the OLM was the work of liturgists for the renewal of the Church through the Word of God. On 17 September 1966, Schürmann wrote a letter to the Coetus Relatorum requesting that the new lectionary “be entrusted to a commission of experts in biblical matters (of which I do not wish to be a member)” (Schürmann 1966e, p. 2). The Church’s understanding of the Bible in the Eucharist is supported by biblical scholars, but it is not determined by them. The sacred text belongs by its very nature to the realm of the liturgy, and the Church proclaims and understands it within the context of her Eucharistic mystery.

SchüArch therefore unveils the liturgical priorities of Coetus XI over the preferences of the flourishing biblical scholars and the ecumenical movement. It also presents a definite issue with moving forward in a timely fashion towards its goal. In his 24 September 1966 letter to Vagaggini, Schürmann makes reference to “inopia temporis” (“lack of time”) and “celeriter ducendi rem ad finem” (“quickly bring the matter to conclusion”). He laments that more time should be devoted to such a fundamental source of renewal for the Church. The question of whether the OLM was produced after sufficient time for further revisions and consultations emerges from our biblical scholar’s documents. The observations and commentaries submitted by biblical experts to Coetus XI confirm his point. After reviewing the proposed readings from the minor prophets, Dr. Alfons Deissler (1914–2005), professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of Freiburg, states that “no exegetes were consulted during the first selection of texts”, which we know was not accurate, and that “precisely” because of the difficulty of drafting a new Mass lectionary, “it should not come to a hasty conclusion” (Deissler 1967). Normand Bonneau has commented: “liturgical principles take precedence over exegetical, catechetical, paraenetic or other principles in determining the selection and distribution of biblical passages in the Sunday Lectionary. This is because the liturgy is concerned with the community here and now assembled” (Bonneau 1998).

5. Conclusions: Need for Scholarship on the Value and Validity of the Consilium’s Work

According to SchüArch, Coetus XI’s elaboration of the Mass lectionary of Vatican II was not an exegetical work which did away with the traditional way the Church used the Bible in the Eucharist, as some critics have recently declared, but an ecclesial endeavor carried out in fidelity to the tradition, sources and history of the Roman rite. Paul Turner has recently described the work of renewing our Mass Lectionary as “hard work, diligent research, differences of opinion, and camaraderie” (Turner 2022, p. x). My research of Schürmann’s files has shed a personal and original light on the entire process of organizing the new Mass readings. His contributions to our Mass lectionary are multiple, but especially in producing a more biblically Christological lectionary, which would eventually lead to greater unity among the different Christian communities. He fought for the inclusion of many evangelical “difficult texts” left out of the Sunday lectionary, even if some never made it in. Schürmann always lamented that biblical scholars were not heard by the overwhelming majority of liturgists in Coetus XI. The question of time restrictions on the work of this commission has surfaced as a real concern, even if the issue of lectionary reform was studied extensively since the beginning of the 20th century.

The work of the Consilium has recently been put into question for supposedly breaking with tradition and not being faithful to Vatican II. SchüArch proves the need for new and more extensive scholarship on the work of the members and consultors of the coeti of the Consilium as a foundation for all studies on Vatican II’s liturgical books. Our biblical scholar dedicated his life to the proclamation of the Word of God. Living under Communist Germany, his participation in Coetus XI implied continuous challenges and risks. Studying the official reports on Coetus XI’s work together with Schürmann’s personal comments and observations offers a broader perspective on both the great achievement accomplished by the main scholars in the field of the Bible and the liturgy, and the weaknesses and limitations inherent in any human endeavor. In this article, I have underlined the great ecclesial work of collaboration achieved by the main pastoral, liturgical and biblical scholars who prepared the way to our OLM. SchüArch offers unique insights regarding the human component of our Mass lectionary, but also the great love for the Church portrayed by the main figures of the liturgical reform and for her mission to increase in her children “the hunger for hearing the word of the Lord” (Amos 8:11).