Editing Nostra aetate (section)

===Third Session of the Council, 1963–1964===

====Cardinal Cicognani's "middle path" revision====

[[File:Massimo V Hakim.png|240px|thumb|right|Arms of Arab Catholic leader Archbishop [[Maximos V Hakim]] of the [[Melkite Greek Catholic Church]], who reported to Paul VI, warning of alleged "de-Christianisation" under the Israeli government.]]

In the United States, where Western political power was centralised in the 1960s and most of the American Bishops represented at the council were staunch supporters of a pro-Jewish statement and a declaration on religious liberty—with the notable exception of Cardinal [[James Francis McIntyre]]—there was anxiety about the way the Second Session had ended voiced at the [[National Catholic Welfare Council]]. During Paul VI's visit to East Jerusalem, he travelled briefly through what was the [[State of Israel]] but was bogged down defending the record of Pius XII in light of ''The Deputy'' and made a speech hoping for Jews to convert to Christianity.<ref name="roddy"/> While there, [[Maximos V Hakim]], the [[Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch|Archbishop of Jerusalem]] from the [[Melkite Greek Catholic Church]] passed the Pope a document purporting to show "a slow but deliberate process of de-Christianization" initiated by the Israeli government.<ref name="roddy"/> The concern of the American Bishops about the fate of the document was shared by the two secular Jewish points-of-contact for the American Bishops and thus the Vatican; Zacariah Shuster of the AJC and [[Joseph L. Lichten]] of the [[Anti-Defamation League]] of [[B’nai B’rith]] (Frith Becker of the [[World Jewish Congress]] also kept an eye on the proceedings, but took a more backseat role after the embarrassment caused by the Wardi affair).<ref name="roddy"/> On the contested deicide issue, Cardinals [[Joseph Ritter]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Oesterreicher|1986|p=197}}</ref> [[Albert Gregory Meyer]], Richard Cushing<ref>{{Harvnb|Oesterreicher|1986|pp=197–98}}</ref> and Francis Spellman were particularly insistent on supporting the Jewish position, as were Archbishop [[Patrick O'Boyle (American bishop)|Patrick O'Boyle]]<ref>{{Harvnb|Oesterreicher|1986|pp=199–201}}</ref> and Bishop [[Stephen Aloysius Leven]];<ref>{{Harvnb|Oesterreicher|1986|pp=198–99}}</ref> they also had the support of the [[Catholic Media Association]].<ref name="roddy"/> Some hope had been restored after six AJC members, headed up by Rose Sperry, had an audience with Paul VI in Rome and he personally agreed with the sentiment of Cardinal Spellman on the deicide issue.<ref name="roddy"/>

A new draft document was prepared between January and September 1964. Paul VI had given the SECU orders to make mention of [[Islam]] and a general reference to non-Christian religions (in the hopes of alleviating the concerns of the [[Arab world]]; both the Eastern Catholics and the Arab governments).<ref name="roddy"/> Also all reference to the much contested "deicide" issue would be removed due to the concerns the conservative faction had with it. This posed a problem for Cardinal Bea and his ''periti'', as, if he agreed to making the document a general one about non-Christian religions, then it could be very easily argued that its drafting should fall under the newly created [[Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue|Secretariat for Non-Christians]] under Cardinal [[Paolo Marella]], a conservative opponent of Bea.<ref name="roddy"/> And if the SECU refused to make changes, it would naturally go back to Cardinal Cicognani's Coordinating Committee (a Curialist, upholding the Pope's agenda). Eventually, Bea agreed to remove the term "deicide", but deferred to the Coordinating Committee on adding statements about other non-Christian religions. With the document now under the Coordinating Committee, some restructuring took place: discreetly avoiding letting the American Cardinals know the details, especially. The new version highlighted, like the very first draft, Christianity as heirs of the Prophets, Patriarchs and covenant of the [[Old Testament]], it expressed hope that the Jews will eventually convert to the Catholic Church (and thus Catholic sermons and catechesis, should avoid denigrating Jews). It also stated that the Church, "just as it severely disapproves of any wrong inflicted upon human beings everywhere, it also deplores and condemns hatred and maltreatment of Jews."<ref name="roddy"/>

A report was “leaked” to ''[[The New York Times]]'' on 12 June 1964 reporting that the deicide issue had been cut out of the document. Whole sections of the confidential document turned up in the ''[[New York Herald Tribune]]''.<ref name="roddy"/> According to Edward Kaplan, the author of ''Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972'', the AJC had secured a secret “mole” or "double-agent" within Bea's Secretariat, an eccentric Jesuit priest, [[Malachi Martin]].<ref name="kapp">{{Harvnb|Kaplan|2008|pp=243}}</ref> As part of his activities, Martin leaked pieces of confidential information about the progress of draft documents to the AJC and the New York media (in particular ''The New York Times'', the ''New York Herald Tribune'' and ''[[Time Magazine]]'') under the name “Pushkin”.<ref name="kapp"/><ref name="roddy"/> Shuster referred to Martin in reports as "Heschel's young friend". In May 1964, an insider “tell-all account” about the council was published as ''"The Pilgrim"'', under the pseudonym of "Michael Serafian".<ref name="kap">{{Harvnb|Kaplan|2008|pp=254}}</ref> This work was released by Malachi Martin, at the behest of Abraham Joshua Heschel, through [[Roger Straus]]’ [[Farrar, Straus and Giroux]] publishing company.<ref name="kap"/> Disparaging to Christianity, it claimed “no one conscious of what has made modern Europe can deny that the pyres and the crematoria, the mephitic smoke and stench of the extermination camps in Nazi Germany, were, if not the logical conclusion, at least one extremist consequence of the normal Christian attitude to the Jews.”<ref>{{Harvnb|Serafian|1964|pp=49}}</ref> Around this time, Msgr [[George G. Higgins]] arranged an audience with Paul VI for [[Arthur Goldberg]], the [[United States Ambassador to the United Nations]]. And then Cardinal Cushing arranged a meeting between Paul VI and Shuster, with Heschel also present. The Pope and Heschel clashed as the latter demanded the topics rejecting the deicide charge and blood guilt be reinserted and forbidding all Christian proselytising to Jews, to which Paul VI would not agree. Shuster somewhat embarrassed, spoke to Paul VI more diplomatically in French to cut Heschel out (as a secular man, Shuster was less concerned about the proselytising issue).<ref name="roddy"/> Like Jules Isaac before him, Heschel invoked [[the Holocaust]], in an article from September 1964 he wrote, "I am ready to go to [[Auschwitz]] any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death."<ref name="hesc"/>

[[File:CICOGNANI AMLETO GIOVANNI (+1973).jpg|240px|thumb|right|Cardinal [[Amleto Giovanni Cicognani]]'s "middle path" re-drafted version of September 1964, favoured by Paul VI, alienated both sides in the debate.]]

Paul VI made his position known on the general direction of the council, with his August 1964 encyclical ''[[Ecclesiam suam]]'', in which he tried to portray a cautious reformist position.<ref name="es">[https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html Paul VI. (August 6, 1964). ''Ecclesiam suam'', Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Church. Vatican.va]</ref><ref name="roddy"/> He warned about [[relativism]] and even [[Modernism in the Catholic Church|modernism]], laying out a dialogue with the world which was still directed towards the ideal of conversion of non-Catholics, but on a practical level advocated cooperation for defending "religious liberty, human brotherhood, good culture, social welfare, and civil order."<ref name="roddy"/><ref name="es"/> For the first time, during the Third Session of the Second Vatican Council, the contents of the draft schema "On the Jews and Non-Christians", was actually discussed on the floor by Council Fathers from 28 September 1964 and lasted two days. The "middle-ground" approach of the Paul VI-Cicognani revision (with the word deicide removed and mention of Islam, [[Hinduism]] and [[Buddhism]] included), while trying to please all factions managed to alienate all sides in the process. Cardinal [[Ernesto Ruffini]], Archbishop of Palermo representing the conservative faction, concerned with Catholic doctrinal integrity in rejecting the document, warned against "Talmudic teachings"<ref>{{Harvnb|Gilbert|1968|pp=151}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Foundation for the Study of Plural Societies|1975|pp=58}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|National Catholic Welfare Conference|1965|pp=69}}</ref> and stated at the podium; "It is clear that Christians love Jews, for such is the law of Christians, but Jews should be exhorted to cease hating us and regarding us as contemptible animals."<ref name="roddy"/><ref name="dny">[https://dignityny.org/sites/default/files/ADVENT%20SERIES%20Session%203.pdf DNY. (2012). Remembering the Second Vatican Council: Second Intersession, December 1963 to September 1964. Dignity NY]</ref> As ever, Catholic leaders from the Arab world also spoke out against any document focusing exclusively on the Jews without any mention of the Muslims, including: Cardinal Patriarch [[Ignatius Gabriel I Tappouni]] of the [[Syriac Catholic Church]], Patriarch [[Maximos IV Saigh]] and Bishop [[Joseph Tawil]] of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and Archbishop [[Pietro Sfair]] of the [[Maronite Church]]. Sfair was instrumental during the drafting of the [[Second Vatican Council]] document [[Nostra Aetate]] to highlight the [[House of Mary]] (in Ephesus, Turkey) and Marian devotion as a matter of shared interest between Christians and Muslims.<ref>{{cite thesis |last=Stackaruk |first=Christian |date=2022 |title=Retrieving MENA Catholics' Contributions to 'Nostra Aetate' |url=https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/50b94051-501a-456c-bfb6-83118062f124/content  |work=thesis  |degree=PhD in Theological Studies |location=Toronto, Ontario  |publisher=University of St. Michael's College and the University of Toronto  |access-date=April 16, 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=George-Tvrtkovic |first=Rita |date=Autumn 2017 |title=Merye Ana Evi, Marian Devotion and the Making of "Nostra aetate" 3| url=https://www.jsotr.org/stable/45178778 |journal=The Catholic Historical Review |volume=103 |issue=4 |pages=755–781|doi=10.1353/cat.2017.0186|access-date=June 30, 2024}}</ref> <blockquote>Archbishop P. Sfair of the Maronite Rite (Rome) considered the reference which the declaration ''De non christianis'' made to the Muslims'adoration of the one and remunerating God as insufficient. Mention should also be made of Mohammed's affirmation of the virginal conception and birth of Christ through Mary, the most exalted among women. The Archbishop recalled the respect with which the earliest Muslims treated the Christians and the Christian beliefs. He insisted that the declaration should give greater consideration to that which the Muslims believed, to the truths which they proposed for belief, than to their less essential cultural factors.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Farrugia |first=Joseph |date=1990 |title=The Evolution of the Conciliar Texts Regarding the Muslims | url=https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/36368/1/MT%2C_41%282%29_-_full.PDF|journal=Melita Theologica |volume=XLI |issue=2 |pages=115–139 |doi=     |access-date=September 20, 2024 |quote="Archbishop P. Sfair of the Maronite Rite (Rome) considered the reference which the declaration made to the Muslims'adoration of the one and remunerating God as insufficient. Mention should also be made of Mohammed's affirmation of the virginal conception and birth of Christ through Mary, the most exalted among women. The Archbishop recalled the respect with which the earliest Muslims treated the Christians and the Christian beliefs. He insisted that the declaration should give greater consideration to that which the Muslims believed, to the truths which they proposed for belief, than to their less essential cultural factors." |quote-page=125-126}}</ref>  </blockquote> 

The combined liberalising factions; headed up by the Rhineland Alliance and the American Cardinals; held different approaches, with ultimately the same goal in mind. One group, consisting of Cardinals Joseph Ritter of St. Louis, Albert Gregory Meyer of Chicago, [[Franz König]] of Vienna and Achille Liénart of Lille (supported by Bishops [[Léon Arthur Elchinger|Elchinger]] and [[Sergio Méndez Arceo|Méndez Arceo]]) took to the podium and spoke clearly against the "watered down" Paul VI-Cicognani revision and supported a full return to the previous draft authored by Cardinal Bea and the SECU, with the repudiation of the deicide theme against Jews of any generation clearly included.<ref name="roddy"/> The other group, consisting of Cardinals Richard Cushing of Boston, Giacomo Lercaro of Bologna and [[Paul-Émile Léger]] of Montreal (supported by Bishops [[:nl:Pieter Nierman|Nierman]], [[:nl:Jules-Victor Daem|Daem]], [[Lorenz Jaeger|Jaeger]], [[Philip Pocock|Pocock]] and O'Boyle) proposed instead that the new draft should be accepted, to get its foot in the door, but amended to cover the deicide issue and an explicitly condemnation of what they called "persecutions and injustices" against Jews throughout the ages, to the present day.<ref name="roddy"/> Two Americans, Bishop Leven and Archbishop O'Boyle, took the most radical position on the topic and proposed the document should repudiate any hope of Jewish conversion to Christianity, flirting with themes of [[universal salvation]] and [[dual-covenant theology]] respectively.<ref name="roddy"/> Cardinal [[John Heenan (cardinal)|John Heenan]], the English [[Archbishop of Westminster]], also spoke in favour of the liberal faction on the issue at a press conference the following day. On the deicide question, he admitted that “Jesus Christ was condemned to death by the [[Sanhedrin]],” but "the Jewish people as such cannot be held guilty for the death of Christ." He affirmed to "do all [he] could to satisfy the desires of [his] Jewish friends."<ref name="roddy"/> The document was sent back to the SECU for amendments on 29 September 1964 with over 70 suggestions.

====Cardinal Felici's letters, return to the SECU====

The political backlash was immediate: [[Salah al-Din al-Bitar]], the Ba'athist [[Prime Minister of Syria]] announced "world Zionism and Israel are trying to mobilize Catholics against the Arabs" and that the declaration "cannot be considered to be a purely religious matter.”<ref name="roddy"/> [[Charles Helou]], the [[President of Lebanon]] arranged for ten Bishops from the Levant and North Africa to telegram the Pope stating that the "Gospels teach clearly the Jewish crime of deicide. In this matter of the Jewish declaration we see clearly the intrigues of Zionist politics."<ref name="roddy"/> Similar statements were made by the [[Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria]], at the insistence of the Egyptian government.<ref name="roddy"/> The political implications of the document was discussed privately at the [[Egypt and the Non-Aligned Movement|Cairo Conference]] of the [[Non-Aligned Movement]] in October 1964 between Syrian, Lebanese and Egyptian delegates. It was agreed that they would not make a public statement on the issue at the Conference but that [[Sukarno]], [[President of Indonesia]], would discuss it with Paul VI during his visit on 12 October 1964. At this meeting, Sukarno warned that all Vatican diplomatic missions in Arab countries might be closed if the document was adopted. At the same time that Sukarno was visiting Rome, a [[Holy See–Palestine relations|Palestinian delegation]] lodged a complaint with the Vatican about the document, seeing it as favouring Zionism by proxy, despite the assurances of the Vatican that it was not political in nature.<ref name="roddy"/>

[[File:Stadtarchiv Kerpen - BA 05801 - Kardinal Joseph Frings auf der Kölner Straße 1959 crop.tif|240px|thumb|right|Cardinal [[Josef Frings]] organised a letter of protest against elements within the [[Roman Curia]] who wanted to cancel the document during the Third Session.]]
In the middle of this crisis, two letters had been received by Bea from Cardinal [[Pericle Felici]], Secretary General of the council on 9 October 1964.<ref name="dny"/> It dealt with two key documents under the auspices of the SECU; "[[Dignitatis humanae|On Religious Liberty]]" and "On the Jews and Non-Christians".<ref name="dny"/> The letter stated that Paul VI wanted a completely new text to be drafted on religious liberty, with a more mixed commission involved in creating the draft; including the addition of Archbishop [[Marcel Lefebvre]] (Superior General of the [[Holy Ghost Fathers]]), Cardinal [[Michael Browne (cardinal)|Michael Browne]], Fr. Aniceto Fernández Alonso ([[Master of the Order of Preachers]]) and Cardinal [[Giovanni Colombo]]. Of these men, the first three were unambiguously hostile to the document and the latter was a personal favourite of Paul VI.<ref name="dny"/> Meanwhile, the Jewish issue would not be addressed in a stand-alone document, but would become part of ''Schema 13''. This too would be rewritten by a more mixed commission including members drawn from Bea's Secretariat and Cardinal [[Alfredo Ottaviani]]'s [[Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith|Doctrinal Commission]].<ref name="dny"/> Cardinal Felici's two letters were "leaked" by Malachi Martin and became features in publications such as ''The New York Times''.<ref name="dny"/><ref name="nyt">[https://dignityny.org/sites/default/files/ADVENT%20SERIES%20Session%203.pdf NYT. (October 13, 1964). GROUP AT COUNCIL URGES POPE BACK SCHEMA ON JEWS; Cardinals Ask Him to Resist Conservative Pressure for Modified Statement; HE IS EXPECTED TO ACT; Religious Liberty Also Issue as Progressives Move to Bolster Majority View, December 1963 to September 1964. New York Times]</ref>

The liberals, drawn from the Rhineland Alliance and the American Cardinals, arranged a memorandum to be issued to the Pope to protest this in the strongest terms. A gathering took place at the residence of Cardinal [[Josef Frings]] of Cologne, where a number of other Cardinals added their voice to the petition. Supporters of the Frings motion explicitly named by the media included longtime interested parties Cardinals Ritter, Meyer, König, Liénart and Lercaro, along with Cardinals [[Raúl Silva Henríquez]] of Chile, [[Julius Döpfner]] of Munich, [[Joseph-Charles Lefèbvre]] of Bourges, [[Bernardus Johannes Alfrink]] of Utrecht and [[Leo Joseph Suenens]] of Brussels.<ref name="nyt"/><ref>See Oestereicher, pp.&nbsp;195ff.</ref> This was highly significant as it included three out of four Moderators of the Second Vatical Council (only the Eastern Catholic Moderator, Cardinal Gregorio Pietro Agagianian, did not sign up to it). They wanted the return of the Jewish document and the document on religious liberty to the SECU, they wanted to complain that the conservative minority were already able to "water down" some of the more radical elements in documents that had already been voted on and they were opposed to delaying the Council any further (rumours had abounded that Paul VI wanted to delay the council as it stood for three years, so the subjects covered could mature for a Fourth Session). With this memorandum in hand, the leader of the faction, Cardinal Frings held a meeting with Paul VI on 13 November 1964 to express the concerns of the liberal Council fathers.<ref name="roddy"/> Frings demanded that the Pope not intervene unilaterally (invoking the recent victories for Collegiality) and to follow the procedural rules established by the council. Paul VI intimated that he would take into consideration concerns, but also wanted to go more slowly, holding that radical steps would confuse and alienate the Catholic faithful in places like Italy, Spain and [[Latin America]].<ref name="roddy"/>

Not just on this question, but in general, the Third Session of the Second Vatican Council had been a disaster for the conservative faction in the lead up to the presentation of the Jewish document in September 1964.<ref name="roddy"/> ''[[Lumen gentium]]'' had been voted in favour of which endorsed [[Collegiality in the Catholic Church|Collegiality]] and married lay [[deacon]]s. ''[[Unitatis redintegratio]]'' allowed for closer ecumenical ties with non-Catholics and allowed for all who are baptised the "right to be called Christian", endorsing in some cases for common worship.<ref name="roddy"/> The proposed stand-alone document on [[Mariology]], which was to declare the [[Blessed Virgin Mary]] the [[Mediatrix of all graces|Mediatrix of All Graces]] (something Protestants would not accept), was thrown out and subsumed under ''Lumen gentium''. As well as the document on the Jews, there was still outstanding a document proclaiming religious liberty and also ''[[Gaudium et spes|Schema 13]]'' on the horizon, with debates on issues such as [[contraception]], [[birth control]], [[conscientious objection]], [[disarmament]], etc., no longer completely off the table. Thus, the conservative minority were fighting a rear-guard action on numerous fronts.<ref name="roddy"/> At a meeting held on the same day as Frings’ audience with Paul VI, the conservative grouping the ''[[Coetus Internationalis Patrum]]'' under the Presidency of Archbishop [[Geraldo de Proença Sigaud]] met with Cardinal Ruffini in attendance to discuss what they should do next. They were confidence that Paul VI would never allow a stand-alone Jewish document due to the mounting Arab political pressure and decided, contrary to what Cardinal Felici had laid out, they would work against the Jewish issue being covered in ''Schema 13'' (this document, ''On the Church in the Modern World'', was going to pass, just its final composition was still in play and if the Jewish issue was under it then it could slip through). This would prove to be a tactical blunder.<ref name="roddy"/>

====Black Thursday, Council fathers vote====

Following these discussions, the SECU under Bea prepared a new draft very favourable to the position of the liberals. The document stripped out all mention of conversion of Jews and condemning accusations of "deicide" was back. This, despite carrying a more ambiguous title, with Jews no longer explicitly highlighted, with the ''Declaration on the Church's Relationship to Non-Christian Religions''.<ref name="roddy"/> Bea hoped that Paul VI would be favourably disposed to this, with his upcoming visit to [[Bombay]] in the [[Republic of India]], as a sympathetic comment on Hinduism was also included, alongside generic statements against "discrimination." When the document came to Cardinal Ottaviani's Theological Commission for examination, the Commission refused to incorporate it into ''Schema 13'' and without proposing alterations to the text, simply returned it to the SECU. Then it went back to Cardinal Cicognani's Coordinating Committee (who, technically could not alter the text).<ref name="roddy"/> The Egyptian [[Ministry of Culture (Egypt)|Ministry of Guidance]] had got wind of the new draft through conservative allies in Rome and was preparing a memorandum from Christian leaders in the Arab world against it on 28 October 1964. Cicognani, who wanted to delay the document, wanted Egypt's memorandum to be brought to Paul VI's attention first. The memorandum asked why Rome would side with "10 million Jews over 100 million Arabs" and brought up the issue of Jewish deicide. On the other side, the American Cardinals (except McIntyre) and the Moderators of the council (from the Rhineland Alliance) were equally turning up the diplomatic pressure.<ref name="roddy"/>

The pressure of the American Cardinals (including the on their side the [[American media]]) and support from most of the Council Fathers, as well as the increasingly blunt approach of the Egyptians had made it difficult for the Pope to do anything but order the printing of the new version of the document. Cicognani delayed for eight days as the end of the Third Session was approaching and proposed a maneuver, wherein the three "natural" parts of the document would be voted on individually; [[Hinduism]] and [[Buddhism]] as the first, [[Islam]] as the second and then the more controversial and keenly contested section on [[Judaism]] as third.<ref name="comm"/> It was decided that the showdown on two of the most fought over documents would take place successively; the document ''[[Dignitatis humanae|On Religious Liberty]]'' would be released on 17 November 1964 with a vote on 19 November, while ''Relations with Non-Christians'' would be released on 18 November 1964 with a vote promised for 20 November.<ref name="comm"/>

[[File:Vatican II in session.jpg|280px|thumb|right|A photograph of the Second Vatican Council in Session. A vote on the document ''Relations with Non-Christians'' finally took place in November 1964 and was passed with the support of around 89% of the present Council Fathers.]]
The main battle was seen as the document ''On Religious Liberty'' and ''Relations with Non-Christians'' was closely connected to it but flowed downstream from it. The liberal and conservative factions were much the same with both documents and indeed the American theologian [[John Courtney Murray]], keenly supported by most of the American Cardinals, had provided the underpinning principles of the text ''On Religious Liberty''. The fiercely contested nature of the documents came to a head in what is known as Black Thursday or the "day of the bomb" (''la bomba oggi'').<ref name="comm"/> On the Thursday, when Cardinal [[Eugène Tisserant]] arose to announce that no vote would be taking place on that document due to  250 to 300 wishing for it to be delayed, uproar broke out on the floor of the Third Session. Cardinals Meyer and Ritter argued openly with Cardinals Siri and Ruffini at the table of the Council Presidents and the American Bishop [[Francis Frederick Reh]], Rector of the [[Pontifical North American College]], took up a paper and began a petition among the angry Bishops, which garnered 1,500 supporters. The Americans—Cardinals Ritter, Meyer and Leger—stormed off to confront the Pope. Paul VI was watching the proceedings on close circuit television and had Cardinal Felici called to restore order to the proceedings. Bishop [[:fr:Émile-Joseph De Smedt|Émile-Joseph De Smedt]], a prominent liberal clergymen and talented orator, took to the podium and explained in a matter of a fact manner how, why and who was responsible for delaying the vote on the document, to applause.<ref name="comm"/>

The Pope, having decided on a course of action that the vote on the document ''On Religious Liberty'' would be suspended until a Fourth Session, could not backdown lest he undermine his own authority.<ref name="comm"/> And so the Third Session entered its finally voting day deeply divided, with the liberal faction deeply frustrated and political, diplomatic and media hostility from states on both sides of the [[Cold War]] conflict; East and West; hostile to the idea of the [[confessional state]], aimed at the Holy See. Attempts to introduce a relaxed atmosphere and mollify the Bishops with the announcement that those in attendance would be given a gold medal and that new powers would be conferred upon the General Superiors changed little.<ref name="comm"/> Even the most ardent member of the Roman Curia opposed to a document on Judaism, Cardinal Ruffini, at this point relented with international hostility aimed at the Holy See over the issue of religious liberty, admitting that a vote go ahead on Cardinal Bea's ''Relations with Non-Christians'', with the fight over the "bigger fish" ''On Religious Liberty'' successfully delayed for another day. There would be no split vote on different religions, all of the parts of the document would be voted on as a single entity. An overwhelming majority of the Council Fathers, 89%, voted in favour of the document, making ''Relations with Non-Christians'' an official document of the Second Vatican Council at the close of the Third Session. The document itself had not yet been promulgated by the Pope, so there was possibility for alteration to the text, but it could not now be removed from the council.<ref name="comm"/>