Original Discarded Schemata for Vatican II

[giuseppeTO]

Thanks to the folks at Rorate, here is the original schemata:

1. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ
2. The Christian Religion Cannot Be Practiced Except in and Through the Church That Christ Founded
3. The Church Is a True, Perfect, Spiritual, and Supernatural Society
4. The Church Is a Visible Society
5. The Visible Unity of the Church
6. The Church Is a Society Absolutely Necessary for Salvation
7. Outside the Church No One Can Be Saved
8. The Indefectibility of the Church
9. The Infallibility of the Church
10. The Power of the Church

It has been purported that this formed the groundwork of Vatican II’s original schema on the Church, which was rejected and replaced by a new draft that became Lumen Gentium. LG is different in style from this draft constitution, but LG incorporates and elaborates upon all of the doctrines found in this draft constitution which was first considered during the First Vatican Council but never voted on due to the suspension of the Council. The draft constitution from Vatican I is considered by many to be superior to LG in a number of ways including writing style and clarity and force of doctrinal expression.

Perhaps to crystallize the opposing forces that formed even prior to the Council, Cardinal Bea declared: “We must help the Holy Father (John XXIII) achieve his goals for the Council, the ones he expresses in his radio messages and in his exhortations. These are not the same as those of the schemas, either because the Theological Commission (under Cardinal Ottaviani) , which directs them, is closed to the world and to ideas of peace, justice, and unity, or because of the division of the work and a lack of co-ordination. They’ve made room for everything except the Holy Spirit. .…The Catholic Church as means of salvation is not of ‘absolute necessity for salvation’ in the sense that God, in His loving-kindness and wisdom, has not willed to impose on men the unjust yoke of embracing it, in order to be saved, an institution they have never heard of, and which the Catholic Church does not impose. The only thing required of men is the upright intention by which they would accept the Church if they knew of it and recognized it as the means of salvation.”

Cardinal Ottaviani, highly displeased by this intervention because it tended to broaden as far as possible the concept of membership in the Church, made this reply: "I understand [Cardinal Bea’s] zeal, since to him has been entrusted the Secretariat for Non-Catholics, and he will certainly do what he can so that the Council leaves a door wide open to them, but we mustn’t exaggerate! We must not say that as soon as someone is baptized he becomes a member of the Mystical Body even though he is not a member of the Church. Such an affirmation is dangerous…The Catholic Church and the Mystical Body are identical…Whereas the Commission has taken the greatest care to show that only Catholics are really members of the Church (the consequences of the opposite doctrine are truly dreadful and would cast doubt on the universality and infallibility of the Second Vatican Council), it has on the other hand worked to explain clearly that not all the ties between the sons of the Church and the separated brethren have been destroyed.

Even though the original schemata only exist as archived paper copies in Latin, the structure is interesting to consider. Also, I found Cardinal Ottaviani’s reference to the infallibility of V2 prior to its opening to be noteworthy.

 

[Lormar]

It might help too to include how the word “Church” was defined back then.

As for the rest, it is not surprising - that is what we were taught.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Archbishop Lefebvre was on the Central Prepatory Commission that organized the schemas. He talks a little bit about it in “Open Letter to Confused Catholics.” Check out some of the story here in chapter 14: sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-14.htm

This is also from “Open Letter” chapter 11, where he discusses the differences in the schemas on “Religious Tolerance” and “Religious Liberty”:

At the Central Preparatory Commission before the Council, two schemas were submitted, one by Cardinal Bea under the title “Religious Liberty,” the other by Cardinal Ottaviani under the title, “Religious Tolerance.” The first filled fourteen pages without any reference to documents of the Magisterium. The second covered seven pages of text and sixteen pages of references, from Pius VI (1790) to John XXIII (1959).

Cardinal Bea’s schema contained, in my view and in that of a considerable number of the Fathers, propositions not in accord with the eternal truths of the Church. We read, for example, “This is why we must praise the fact that in our day liberty and religious equality are proclaimed by many nations and by the International Organization for the Rights of Man.”

Cardinal Ottaviani, on the other hand, set forth the question correctly: “Just as the civil power considers it right to protect citizens from the seductions of error, so it may also regulate and moderate the public expression of other forms of worship and defend its citizens against the diffusion of false doctrines which, in the judgment of the Church, endanger their eternal salvation.”

• PAX

 

[floresco]

Rorate Caeli posted an article rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/04/controlling-mic-at-vatican-ii.htmlthat included this eye-witness report:

Whenever I think about the Council, I said, I always have one image in my mind: an aging Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, now blind, about age 80, limping, the head of the Holy Office and so the chief doctrinal officer of the Church, born in Trastevere to parents who had many children, so a Roman from Rome, from the people of Rome, takes the microphone to speak to the 2,000 assembled bishops.
And, as he speaks, pleading for the bishops to consider the texts the curia has spent three years preparing, suddenly his microphone was shut off. He kept speaking, but no one could hear a word. Then, puzzled and flustered, he stopped speaking, in confusion. And the assembled fathers began to laugh, and then to cheer…

“Yes,” Gherardini said. “And it was only the third day.”

“What?” I said.

“Ottaviani’s microphone was turned off on the third day of the Council.”

“On the third day?” I said. “I didn’t know that. I thought it was later, in November, after the progressive group became more organized…”

“No, it was the third day, October 13, 1962. The Council began on October 11.”

“Do you know who turned off the microphone?”

“Yes,” he said. “It was Cardinal Lienart of Lille, France.”

“But then,” I said, “it could almost be argued, perhaps, that such a breech of protocol, making it impossible for Ottaviani to make his arguments, somehow renders what came after, well, in a certain sense, improper…”

 

[TrueLight]

Archbishop Lefebvre was on the Central Prepatory Commission that organized the schemas. He talks a little bit about it in “Open Letter to Confused Catholics.” Check out some of the story here in chapter 14: sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-14.htm

This is also from “Open Letter” chapter 11, where he discusses the differences in the schemas on “Religious Tolerance” and “Religious Liberty”:

• PAX

This quote from chapter 14 jumped out at me. It actually made my heart beat a little faster.

"Monsignor Prelot,9 a senator for the Doubs region of France. “We had struggled for a century and a half to bring our opinions to prevail within the Church and had not succeeded. Finally, there came Vatican Il and we triumphed. From then on the propositions and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by Holy Church.”

If this quote is correct, this shows the factions that had a role in shaping Vatican II and not only that, why after the council, the documents were applied in ways that were not even consistent with Vat II itself.

Is it any wonder some people have an issue with Vat II or at least its application?

 

[TrueLight]

Also, I found Cardinal Ottaviani’s reference to the infallibility of V2 prior to its opening to be noteworthy.

Very interesting considering how Pope Paul VI stressed that it was a pastoral council.

 

[Alfonsus]

Well, pastoral does not mean not binding or cannot produce doctrinal statements.
In the Church there are groups that want to take the pastoral theme of the council to means approval for anything ones want, the other side take it as approval to reject anything one wants.

On the other hand, what ever the original schema(s) in the beginning and during the council, are now an academic curiosity. But the binding ones are the final documents of the council, signed by the Council Fathers.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

This quote from chapter 14 jumped out at me. It actually made my heart beat a little faster.

If this quote is correct, this shows the factions that had a role in shaping Vatican II and not only that, why after the council, the documents were applied in ways that were not even consistent with Vat II itself.

Is it any wonder some people have an issue with Vat II or at least its application?

Remember that modernism was not new. It had been condemned by many past Popes back as far as the 19th century! The influence of the modernists in the Church was growing and building up very quickly through the 30s, 40s and 50s. The Second Vatican Council was simply the vial being opened. The modernists and liberals had hijacked it.

 

[giuseppeTO]

"giuseppeTO:

Also, I found Cardinal Ottaviani’s reference to the infallibility of V2 prior to its opening to be noteworthy.

Very interesting considering how Pope Paul VI stressed that it was a pastoral council.

But even beyond that, here is a very conservative Cardinal who worries, even prior to the Council, that it’s infallibility could be called into question if its documents contradicted the faith.

 

[Dollinger]

Very interesting considering how Pope Paul VI stressed that it was a pastoral council.

“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers.We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with thevenerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.” (Paul VI,solemnly closingevery document of Vatican II)

.

 

[Dollinger]

Well, pastoral does not mean not binding or cannot produce doctrinal statements.
In the Church there are groups that want to take the pastoral theme of the council to means approval for anything ones want, the other side take it as approval to reject anything one wants.

On the other hand, what ever the original schema(s) in the beginning and during the council, are now an academic curiosity. But the binding ones are the final documents of the council, signed by the Council Fathers.

Exactly.

***Objection #1) At his speech to open Vatican II, John XXIII said that Vatican II was to be a “pastoral council.” This proves that Vatican II was not infallible!

Response: This is not true. John XXIII did not say in his opening speech at the council that
Vatican II was to be a pastoral council. Here is what John XXIII actually said:

John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancient
deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the
latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything
being measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER*.”9

Here we see that John XXIII did not say that Vatican II would be a pastoral council. He said
that it would reflect the Church’s Magisterium, which is predominantly pastoral in character. So, despite the incredibly widespread myth, the truth is that John XXIII never even called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech. By the way, even if John XXIII had called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech, this wouldn’t mean that it is not infallible. To describe something as pastoral does not mean ipso facto (by that very fact) that it’s not infallible. This is proven by John XXIII himself in the above speech when he described the Magisterium as “pastoral,” and yet it’s de fide (of the faith) that the Magisterium is infallible. Therefore, even if John XXIII did describe Vatican II as a pastoral council (which he did not) this would not prove that it is not infallible.**
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/38_V2infallible.pdf

 

[jam070406]

CWN -May 22, 2012 The Second Vatican Council’s declarations on non-Christian religions and religious freedom do not contain “binding doctrinal content,” Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said at a press conference on May 21. The retired president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, along with Archbishop Agostino Marchetto and Father Nicola Bux, is the coauthor of a newly published book, Le ‘Chiavi’ di Benedetto XVI per interpretare il Vaticano II [Benedict XVI’s ‘Keys’ for Interpreting Vatican II]. Stating that the conciliar documents have differing degrees of authority, Cardinal Brandmuller said that “there is a huge difference between a great constitution and simple declarations.” “Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents [on religious liberty and relations with non-Christian religions] do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them," he continued. "So I don’t understand why our friends in the Society of St. Pius X concentrate almost exclusively on these two texts. And I’m sorry that they do so, because these are the two that are most easy to accept if we consider their canonical nature.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14369

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/card-brandmuller-nostra-aetate-and.html#moreb

 

[giuseppeTO]

From the book Tumultuous Times:

*During the first session, tempers clashed between Traditionalists and Modernists regarding the Sources of Revelation. The Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council confirmed that the two sources of Divine Revelation are Scripture and Tradition. Modernists argued that placing emphasis on Tradition would alienate Protestants who believe in Scripture, alone.

The second session was no less turbulent. The Modernists strove to promote the theory of “collegiality,” contradicting the established truth that the pope is the visible head of the Church. Conservatives were soundly defeated by a margin of 2,000 to 300, reducing the authority of the pope to a membership in a fellowship.

After the death of John XXIII in June of 1963, Paul VI carried on… Try as they might, conservatives were outnumbered and oftentimes felt helpless against the tsunami of modern ideas that had taken over the Council.

During the third session (1964), Cardinal Guiseppe Siri mourned, “It will take a century for the church to recover…” Once again, a letter was delivered to the pope, signed by twenty cardinals, a number of bishops and the leaders of several religious orders, questioning the motivation behind the majority, accusing their actions of being non-doctrinal and claiming that they disregarded Scripture and prior councils. On the last day of this session, the Decree on Ecumenism was promulgated, ultimately reversing the belief that the Catholic Church is the One, True Church.

The fourth session began on September 14, 1965. It was during this session that the term separated brethren became popular, contradicting the Church’s 400-year condemnation of the churches of the Protestant Reformation. Concurrent with this session, several changes were made to the Mass, Latin was almost completely replaced with the vernacular, altars were replaced with tables facing the laity.
*

 

[TrueLight]

From the book Tumultuous Times:

*During the first session, tempers clashed between Traditionalists and Modernists regarding the Sources of Revelation. The Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council confirmed that the two sources of Divine Revelation are Scripture and Tradition. Modernists argued that placing emphasis on Tradition would alienate Protestants who believe in Scripture, alone.

The second session was no less turbulent. The Modernists strove to promote the theory of “collegiality,” contradicting the established truth that the pope is the visible head of the Church. Conservatives were soundly defeated by a margin of 2,000 to 300, reducing the authority of the pope to a membership in a fellowship.

After the death of John XXIII in June of 1963, Paul VI carried on… Try as they might, conservatives were outnumbered and oftentimes felt helpless against the tsunami of modern ideas that had taken over the Council.

During the third session (1964), Cardinal Guiseppe Siri mourned, “It will take a century for the church to recover…” Once again, a letter was delivered to the pope, signed by twenty cardinals, a number of bishops and the leaders of several religious orders, questioning the motivation behind the majority, accusing their actions of being non-doctrinal and claiming that they disregarded Scripture and prior councils. On the last day of this session, the Decree on Ecumenism was promulgated, ultimately reversing the belief that the Catholic Church is the One, True Church.

The fourth session began on September 14, 1965. It was during this session that the term separated brethren became popular, contradicting the Church’s 400-year condemnation of the churches of the Protestant Reformation. Concurrent with this session, several changes were made to the Mass, Latin was almost completely replaced with the vernacular, altars were replaced with tables facing the laity.
*

So here is a serious question. Would these turbulent proceedings be what is referred to as the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Does a majority mean this is what the Holy Spirit wanted?

Theoretically, it is easy for me to envision a council being guided by the Spirit.

Practically, is this what it means?

 

[jam070406]

So here is a serious question. Would these turbulent proceedings be what is referred to as the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Does a majority mean this is what the Holy Spirit wanted?

Theoretically, it is easy for me to envision a council being guided by the Spirit.

Practically, is this what it means?

Or perhaps a chastisement?

 

[TrueLight]

Or perhaps a chastisement?

Well, I’m pretty sure that during the past 50 years, we were definitely being chastized. Look at the trials and tribulations the Church went through.

I am reminded of when the disciples prayed for a replacement for Judas and then they drew straws.

I guess the question is when is it the Holy Spirit and when is it a vote?

And to tie it in with the OP so that I am not derailing… Even though there was an original schema, the final result did not match that schema.

How can you tell if the Holy Spirit approved a modern agenda (and how) or if it was the work of men?

 

[jam070406]

Well, I’m pretty sure that during the past 50 years, we were definitely being chastized. Look at the trials and tribulations the Church went through.

I am reminded of when the disciples prayed for a replacement for Judas and then they drew straws.

I guess the question is when is it the Holy Spirit and when is it a vote?

And to tie it in with the OP so that I am not derailing… Even though there was an original schema, the final result did not match that schema.

How can you tell if the Holy Spirit approved a modern agenda (and how) or if it was the work of men?

Robert Sungenis has a pretty good theory on this:

youtube.com/watch?v=hzGzIposjY0&sns=em

 

[giuseppeTO]

So here is a serious question. Would these turbulent proceedings be what is referred to as the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Does a majority mean this is what the Holy Spirit wanted?

Theoretically, it is easy for me to envision a council being guided by the Spirit.

Practically, is this what it means?

In defense of a validly called council by a valid Pope, I think we have to agree that what the Holy Ghost ordained for the church was the outcome of the council. I don’t profess to necessarily understand why but I do not discount the possibility that we do not see the full ramifications of the council at this point in time. Perhaps the revival of the love and respect of the traditional liturgy and practices could only have happened as a result of the council or a backlash against the abuse in its aftermath? Perhaps this movement will somehow be the catalyst for more conversions in the future?

A parallel would be the process involved in selecting a new Pope in conclave. We are not privy to the process which has (anecdotally) in the past been heated, cantankerous, and perhaps even dishonest in an isolated circumstance. But whomever walks out of the conclave is Pope regardless of how the Holy Ghost allowed the process to take place.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

In defense of a validly called council by a valid Pope, I think we have to agree that what the Holy Ghost ordained for the church was the outcome of the council. I don’t profess to necessarily understand why but I do not discount the possibility that we do not see the full ramifications of the council at this point in time. Perhaps the revival of the love and respect of the traditional liturgy and practices could only have happened as a result of the council or a backlash against the abuse in its aftermath? Perhaps this movement will somehow be the catalyst for more conversions in the future?

A parallel would be the process involved in selecting a new Pope in conclave. We are not privy to the process which has (anecdotally) in the past been heated, cantankerous, and perhaps even dishonest in an isolated circumstance. But whomever walks out of the conclave is Pope regardless of how the Holy Ghost allowed the process to take place.

That is an excellent point. God’s will is done even in messy situations. Our efforts to scheme and plot do not thwart God. We also have to consider positive outcomes that are already apparent - growth of the faith in Southern countries, revival of religious, and other things. It is true that we are very close to the events and do not yet have the long view of history, but we do already know of certain pluses.

 

[TimothyH]

Well, I’m pretty sure that during the past 50 years, we were definitely being chastized. Look at the trials and tribulations the Church went through.

I am reminded of when the disciples prayed for a replacement for Judas and then they drew straws.

I guess the question is when is it the Holy Spirit and when is it a vote?

And to tie it in with the OP so that I am not derailing… Even though there was an original schema, the final result did not match that schema.

How can you tell if the Holy Spirit approved a modern agenda (and how) or if it was the work of men?

It’s not a modern agenda but God’s agenda, and God is outside of time. If the agenda is not God’s agenda then it is the work of men and that makes our Church and our religion fraudulent, along with about half of society which happens to be built on the values taught by our religion.

God knows what he is doing. Mrs Sally and giuseppeTO’s posts are excellent. We don’t have the perspective of time. The true value of the council will become clear long after we are gone, and if not then everything Richard Dawkins and the others say about us is true.

-Tim-