WI Archbishop Montini is elected Pope in 1958?

In th 1958 conclave in early votes Archbishop of Milan Montini received a few votes but in the end Cardinals decided to go with tradition and elected one of their ranks Cardinal Roncalli as Pope.
WI the Cardinals decided to break with tradition and elected someone outside the College of Cardinals as Pope?
How is an early Montini Papacy and the elimination of John's XXII Papacy affects History? Would there be a Vatican II?
What do u think?
 
A simpler POD would be for Montini to be elevated to cardinal in the 1953 consistory. This would make him a very strong papabile in 1958.

Vatican II per se is improbable (but not completely impossible) in this scenario but most of the changes we associate with council still occur but at a somewhat slower pace mostly through papal action (or in some cases inaction). New Theology still takes over the church. Kung may remain obscure for a while because he did make a name for himself at the council OTL, but Rahner, von Balthasar, de Lubac, Courtney Murray, Ratzinger, even Schillebbeckx would triumph during this papacy esp. as a complete breakdown of discipline was Montini's greatest failing.

Liturgical Reform: Bugnini remains in the driver seat. At a bare minimum, vernacularization, congregational responses, ad populum orientation, revised Church calendar and readings will happen.

Religious Liberty: I would see a papal encyclical that is very close to the council's Dignitatis Humanae. So much so that it will upset Lefebvre.

Ecumenism: Again I see papal initiatives on this front akin to what emerged out of Vatican II.

Artificial contraception: Here is an interesting question. Would the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control ever get started in the first place? I think think one is a coin toss. If it does not then Montini might not feel a need to issue Humanae Vitae but simply maintain that the doctrine enumerated in Casti Connubi and clarified in detail by Pius XII remained in effect.
 
Tom_B;4556799 said:
Liturgical Reform: Bugnini remains in the driver seat. At a bare minimum, vernacularization, congregational responses, ad populum orientation, revised Church calendar and readings will happen.

If there is no Vatican II, there is no Concilium. I agree that Annibale Bugnini would still have an important role to play. He would have to go through the Pope to have his reforms issued as motu proprio.

You are right that Bugnini would have forced versus populum just as he did in 1964. This orientation was the fashion among liturgical reformers in Europe at the time. Many continental European clergy thought that "facing the people" was indeed the way forward. I do not know, however, if Bugnini would have gotten much farther than what we now know as the "1965 Missal" (which is really the 1962 Missale Romanum with some of the requiem Mass abbreviations and the permission for vernacular propers). Far-reaching reforms like the three-year lectionary, the destruction of the sanctoral cycle, and the abrogation of Epiphanytide, Septugaesimatide, and the Sundays after Pentecost might not have happened without Bugnini's ability to twist SC towards a radical direction. Without the ability to harness the high spirits of the Council, Bugnini might not have been able to force through the 1970 Missal either.

There would still be a smaller group, perhaps led by Lefebvre, Ottaviani, and Siri, who might have openly criticize the decision to say Mass facing the people. Even so, Mons. Lefebvre said the 1965 Missal facing ad orientem without any qualms. He went back to 1962 only with the introduction of the new Missal in 1970. When Lefebvre signed Sancrosanctum Concilium, he probably thought the document would be strictly interpreted. The much more radical actions of Bugnini and the Concilium in 1965 -- 1969 turned him back to the Missal of Bl. John XXIII. If the Concilium stopped at the 1965 rubrical changes, the trajectory of traditional(ist) Catholicism would look much different today. There would probably be no need for Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae, as the 1965 Mass was still Tridentine. Also, I suspect that the motu command to face the people would soften through disobedience and indults.
 
Last edited:
My first thought was that there wouldn't be so much of a "complete breakdown of discipline" (as Tom B put it) as there was in OTL. With the aforementioned reforms coming gradually rather than as part of a major, epochal event like an ecumenical council, there'd be less of a temptation to buy into a "hermeneutic of rupture". You wouldn't hear people talking so much about the New Church vs. the Old Church.

Thus, those on the left wouldn't be so radical in pushing for change, nor those on the right in resisting it (no SSPX etc.). I'm also thinking of OTL's "complete breakdown of discipline" particularly regarding Humanae Vitae.

So without this kind of breakdown, Montini's pontificate might be more effective and active, he might continue to travel and issue more encyclicals, and wouldn't gain the brooding and somber image that eventually clung to him.

However there's also the possibility that if the reforms are pushed through solely on papal initiative rather than in response to the council, then those who disagree with the reforms (or want them to go further) will identify the pope as the singular source of all that's wrong with the Church, and that Montini will end up even more personally besieged as in OTL, dragging his pontificate down all the same.
 
It could be simpler if Montini was created Cardinal in the 1953 Consistory but there are 2 contradicting stories why he wasnt created one. Pope Pius's XII side says that he was offered the Cardinalate but he declined the honour while Montini's side retains that Pius XII never intended to create him a Cardinal for his own reasons... Couldnt Montini as Pope announce several reforms to the Church without calling Vatican II?
 
Top