Original Vatican II Schemas: updated 9/14/2015 w/ Draft on the B.V.M. (1962)!

[Geremia]

The Council that might have been... [Updated 9/14/2015]

On July 23, 1962, the Secretary General of the Second Vatican Council sent out to all those with a right to participate in the Council a book that contained the first draft-texts that were to be debated when the Council opened on October 11th of the same year. The following texts were included:

On the sources of revelation
On defending intact the deposit of faith
De deposito fidei – Latin text
On the Christian moral order
De ordine morali christiano – Latin text
On chastity, marriage, the family, and virginity
De castitate et al – Latin text
On the sacred liturgy
On the communications media
On the Church's unity.

(A second book, containing the drafts on the Church and on the Blessed Virgin Mary, would be distributed only after the Council had opened.}
I offer here my translations of the first four of these texts, prepared by the Theological Commission, which expected that they would be the first ones debated. Instead, the Council first debated the fifth text, on the liturgy.

At the request of several people I have scanned and uploaded the original Latin text of three of these texts. I'll try to get to the others later.
And I now add the Latin text of the draft on the Blessed Virgin May as well as my translation of it. The draft was only six pages long as printed, but it was accompanied by twenty-two pages of endnotes!

Draft on the Blessed Virgin 1962
Schema de BVM

One very useful way of studying the conciliar process and its products is to compare these officially prepared texts with the final texts issued by the Council, to note similarities as well as differences in orientation, style, and content, and then to account for the differences.
As far as I know, no other English translations of these texts are available.

I am now readying these translations for publication next year by Orbis Press.


All these PDFs can be downloaded in one PDF here.

[Kaesekopf]

Awesome.  Thanks for posting this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[GloriaPatri]

Such a pity that the original schema were not the one's used. Oh how different things would be!

[Kaesekopf]

Such a pity that the original schema were not the one's used. Oh how different things would be!

They were all thrown out in two weeks! 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Parresia]

Such a pity that the original schema were not the one's used. Oh how different things would be!

True.  But there was still no reason for a council in the first place.  There was no doctrinal question to be addressed, thus a council never should have been called.  If John XXIII wanted to talk about how to present Church teachings in the modern world and turbulent times of the 1960's, he should have written an Encyclical.  If there were other things he wished to address, he could have handled that in small, focused, and limited discussions on things like the liturgy, catechesis, etc. 

[GloriaPatri]

Such a pity that the original schema were not the one's used. Oh how different things would be!

True.  But there was still no reason for a council in the first place.  There was no doctrinal question to be addressed, thus a council never should have been called.  If John XXIII wanted to talk about how to present Church teachings in the modern world and turbulent times of the 1960's, he should have written an Encyclical.  If there were other things he wished to address, he could have handled that in small, focused, and limited discussions on things like the liturgy, catechesis, etc.

Given the devastation Europe had suffered less than 20 years prior, the rise of Communism on a global scale, and a growing disillusionment with God and religion, I for one think a Council to be necessary. Besides, neither the First Council of Lyons nor the Council of Vienne dealt with widespread heresy or any doctrinal questions, yet the Pope still called them. 

[Parresia]

Such a pity that the original schema were not the one's used. Oh how different things would be!

True.  But there was still no reason for a council in the first place.  There was no doctrinal question to be addressed, thus a council never should have been called.  If John XXIII wanted to talk about how to present Church teachings in the modern world and turbulent times of the 1960's, he should have written an Encyclical.  If there were other things he wished to address, he could have handled that in small, focused, and limited discussions on things like the liturgy, catechesis, etc.

Given the devastation Europe had suffered less than 20 years prior, the rise of Communism on a global scale, and a growing disillusionment with God and religion, I for one think a Council to be necessary. Besides, neither the First Council of Lyons nor the Council of Vienne dealt with widespread heresy or any doctrinal questions, yet the Pope still called them.

I am not saying their needed to be an issue of widespread heresy. There could simply be a doctrinal question necessitating council, one that would have actually had the protection of the Holy Spirit. Communism is not an issue requiring a council. 

[Lynne]

Didn't Abp Lefebvre write or help write most of these schemas?

[GloriaPatri]

Such a pity that the original schema were not the one's used. Oh how different things would be!

True.  But there was still no reason for a council in the first place.  There was no doctrinal question to be addressed, thus a council never should have been called.  If John XXIII wanted to talk about how to present Church teachings in the modern world and turbulent times of the 1960's, he should have written an Encyclical.  If there were other things he wished to address, he could have handled that in small, focused, and limited discussions on things like the liturgy, catechesis, etc.

Given the devastation Europe had suffered less than 20 years prior, the rise of Communism on a global scale, and a growing disillusionment with God and religion, I for one think a Council to be necessary. Besides, neither the First Council of Lyons nor the Council of Vienne dealt with widespread heresy or any doctrinal questions, yet the Pope still called them.

I am not saying their needed to be an issue of widespread heresy. There could simply be a doctrinal question necessitating council, one that would have actually had the protection of the Holy Spirit. Communism is not an issue requiring a council.

Neither Lyons I or Vienne death with questions of doctrine. Lyons I deposed the Holy Roman Emperor for persecuting the Church (very similar to the Communist regimes), and Vienne chiefly dealt with the dissolution of the Templar Order. Again, ecumenical councils do not need to be called solely when doctrinal questions arise.

[Geremia]

Such a pity that the original schema were not the one's used. Oh how different things would be!

They were all thrown out in two weeks! 

And they didn't even vote on any except the first one (De Revelatione)! I wonder who even read the entire first one? Ratzinger harshly criticized it (Ratzinger Reader pp. 258 ff.). In typical Modernist fashion, he asked:

Was the intellectual position of 'anti-Modernism' — the old policy of exclusiveness, condemnation and defence leading to an almost neurotic denial of all that was new — to be continued? Or would the Church, after it had taken all the necessary precautions to protect the faith, turn over a new leaf and move on into a new and positive encounter with its own origins, with its brothers and with the world of today?

[Parresia]

Such a pity that the original schema were not the one's used. Oh how different things would be!

True.  But there was still no reason for a council in the first place.  There was no doctrinal question to be addressed, thus a council never should have been called.  If John XXIII wanted to talk about how to present Church teachings in the modern world and turbulent times of the 1960's, he should have written an Encyclical.  If there were other things he wished to address, he could have handled that in small, focused, and limited discussions on things like the liturgy, catechesis, etc.

Given the devastation Europe had suffered less than 20 years prior, the rise of Communism on a global scale, and a growing disillusionment with God and religion, I for one think a Council to be necessary. Besides, neither the First Council of Lyons nor the Council of Vienne dealt with widespread heresy or any doctrinal questions, yet the Pope still called them.

I am not saying their needed to be an issue of widespread heresy. There could simply be a doctrinal question necessitating council, one that would have actually had the protection of the Holy Spirit. Communism is not an issue requiring a council.

Neither Lyons I or Vienne death with questions of doctrine. Lyons I deposed the Holy Roman Emperor for persecuting the Church (very similar to the Communist regimes), and Vienne chiefly dealt with the dissolution of the Templar Order. Again, ecumenical councils do not need to be called solely when doctrinal questions arise.

Just because it was done in the past without disastrous consequences doesn't make it a good idea.  Calling a council when there are not doctrinal questions to address takes the chance that the Holy Spirit will not be protecting the outcome.  In other words, they are putting God to the test.

[Miriam_M]

Parresia's posts here are worth framing, i.m.o.

Such a pity that the original schema were not the one's used. Oh how different things would be!

True.  But there was still no reason for a council in the first place.  There was no doctrinal question to be addressed, thus a council never should have been called.  If John XXIII wanted to talk about how to present Church teachings in the modern world and turbulent times of the 1960's, he should have written an Encyclical.  If there were other things he wished to address, he could have handled that in small, focused, and limited discussions on things like the liturgy, catechesis, etc.

Just because it was done in the past without disastrous consequences doesn't make it a good idea.  Calling a council when there are not doctrinal questions to address takes the chance that the Holy Spirit will not be protecting the outcome.  In other words, they are putting God to the test.

You are absolutely correct about an Encyclical being the indicated way to address modern challenges -- a vehicle used many times by popes. 

And by the way, testing God is naturally what's going on right now in the Sin-Nods.

Geremia, thanks for posting this.

[Geremia]

The author of this translation, the Vatican II scholar Fr. Komonchak, writes:

I intend to introduce the draft texts by giving the history of their composition, which will include the background in the theological and ecclesial situation at that time, particularly, since the authors of these texts were told this was their first obligation, the errors they were designed to oppose and condemn. This will help explain why the texts were written as they were, but there won't be a commentary as such. For example, with regard to the text on the B.V.M., I'll discuss the growth of Mariology in the 20th century and the issues that were warmly debated on the eve of the Council: e.g., whether to define Mary as Mediatrix of all grace or as Co-Redemptrix; the meaning of her virginitas in partu; her knowledge of her Son's divinity at the moment of the Annunciation; the first principle of Marian theology; the two opposing trends in Marian theology; etc.

I also plan on having an appendix in which I will set out to which paragraphs in the final texts of Vatican II the paragraphs of these first official drafts correspond. This will facilitate what is the main reason for publishing these translations: so that by comparing what it was intended the Council would say to what the Council in fact did say, readers will be able to do their own analysis of continuity and discontinuity in the teachings of Vatican II.

[Geremia]

Didn't Abp Lefebvre write or help write most of these schemas?

Yes, he was on the Preparatory Commission, which John XXIII created on June 5, 1960, two years prior to the Council, to prepare the draft schemas. He mentioned this fact in his 2nd intervention on Nov. 27, 1962, a week after the council fathers rejected the De Revelatione schema by a simple majority (1,368 or 61%). In that intervention, he criticized John XXIII's intended purpose of the council.

[Geremia]

Just because it was done in the past without disastrous consequences doesn't make it a good idea.  Calling a council when there are not doctrinal questions to address takes the chance that the Holy Spirit will not be protecting the outcome.  In other words, they are putting God to the test.

There were doctrinal questions to discuss, esp. with regard to mariology:

The author of this translation, the Vatican II scholar Fr. Komonchak, writes:

...with regard to the text on the B.V.M.,...: e.g., whether to define Mary as Mediatrix of all grace or as Co-Redemptrix; the meaning of her virginitas in partu; her knowledge of her Son's divinity at the moment of the Annunciation; the first principle of Marian theology; the two opposing trends in Marian theology; etc.