The Council that might have been... [Updated 9/14/2015] (https://jakomonchak.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/the-council-that-might-have-been/)
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 (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/de-fontibus-1-5.pdf)
On defending intact the deposit of faith (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/defending-the-deposit-of-faith.pdf)
De deposito fidei – Latin text (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/de-deposito-fidei-latin-text.pdf)
On the Christian moral order (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/on-the-christian-moral-order.pdf)
De ordine morali christiano – Latin text (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/de-ordine-morali-christiano-latin-text1.pdf)
On chastity, marriage, the family, and virginity (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/on-the-sexual-order.pdf)
De castitate et al – Latin text (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/de-castitate-et-al-latin-text.pdf)
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 (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/draft-on-the-blessed-virgin-1962.pdf)
Schema de BVM (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/schema-de-bvm.pdf)
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 (http://garrigou.us.to/browse/book/4253).
Awesome. Thanks for posting this.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Such a pity that the original schema were not the one's used. Oh how different things would be!
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
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! :lol:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Parresia on October 17, 2015, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
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.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Parresia on October 17, 2015, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
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.
Didn't Abp Lefebvre write or help write most of these schemas?
Quote from: Parresia on October 17, 2015, 03:26:41 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Parresia on October 17, 2015, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 17, 2015, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
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! :lol:
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 (http://www.theway.org.uk/Endeanweb/Ratzinger%20Reader.pdf) pp. 258 ff.). In typical Modernist fashion, he asked:
Quote from: RatzingerWas 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?
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 09:56:50 PM
Quote from: Parresia on October 17, 2015, 03:26:41 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Parresia on October 17, 2015, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
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.
Parresia's posts here are worth
framing, i.m.o.
Quote from: Parresia on October 17, 2015, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on October 17, 2015, 01:19:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Parresia on October 18, 2015, 08:24:43 AM
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.
The author of this translation, the Vatican II scholar Fr. Komonchak, writes:
Quote from: Fr. KomonchakI 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.
Quote from: Lynne on October 17, 2015, 05:08:12 PMDidn'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.
Quote from: Parresia on October 18, 2015, 08:24:43 AMJust 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:
Quote from: Geremia on October 18, 2015, 10:04:39 AM
The author of this translation, the Vatican II scholar Fr. Komonchak, writes:Quote from: Fr. Komonchak...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.
Okay, so if these schemas haven't convinced this Novus Ordo priest-translator that Vatican II is at least questionable, why should we traditionalists here act as if there were something special to convince anyone against Vatican II???
Thank you Geremia,
Msgr. Lefebvre wanted to have these texts published one day, just as a testimony to the true Catholic doctrine as was held by the Church on the eve of the Council.
Quote from: Rube on October 18, 2015, 10:30:09 AM
Okay, so if these schemas haven't convinced this Novus Ordo priest-translator that Vatican II is at least questionable, why should we traditionalists here act as if there were something special to convince anyone against Vatican II???
Invincible ignorance?...
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 18, 2015, 10:33:26 AMMsgr. Lefebvre wanted to have these texts published one day, just as a testimony to the true Catholic doctrine as was held by the Church on the eve of the Council.
He did? Do you have a source for that? That's interesting.
Quote from: Geremia on October 18, 2015, 04:41:15 PM
Quote from: Rube on October 18, 2015, 10:30:09 AM
Okay, so if these schemas haven't convinced this Novus Ordo priest-translator that Vatican II is at least questionable, why should we traditionalists here act as if there were something special to convince anyone against Vatican II???
Invincible ignorance?...
So, what value do you think they have for us, since you were the one posting them?
Quote from: Rube on October 18, 2015, 05:53:39 PMSo, what value do you think they have for us, since you were the one posting them?
They show, by way of contrast, the effects of Modernism on the final Vatican II documents.
Quote from: Geremia on October 18, 2015, 04:41:44 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 18, 2015, 10:33:26 AMMsgr. Lefebvre wanted to have these texts published one day, just as a testimony to the true Catholic doctrine as was held by the Church on the eve of the Council.
He did? Do you have a source for that? That's interesting.
I will have to look it up (my famous last words); I have a lot of information stored in my brain from reading so many things; I just cannot connect it all to its original source.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 18, 2015, 08:55:55 PM
Quote from: Geremia on October 18, 2015, 04:41:44 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 18, 2015, 10:33:26 AMMsgr. Lefebvre wanted to have these texts published one day, just as a testimony to the true Catholic doctrine as was held by the Church on the eve of the Council.
He did? Do you have a source for that? That's interesting.
I will have to look it up (my famous last words); I have a lot of information stored in my brain from reading so many things; I just cannot connect it all to its original source.
I think it was from open letter to confused catholics.
P3
Quote from: Geremia on October 18, 2015, 06:54:23 PM
Quote from: Rube on October 18, 2015, 05:53:39 PMSo, what value do you think they have for us, since you were the one posting them?
They show, by way of contrast, the effects of Modernism on the final Vatican II documents.
Vatican II documents contrast only past teachings that they directly touch upon. It has already been mentioned here that these schemas were ignored, so they are not a part of the contrast.
Quote from: Rube on October 19, 2015, 05:29:33 AM
Quote from: Geremia on October 18, 2015, 06:54:23 PM
Quote from: Rube on October 18, 2015, 05:53:39 PMSo, what value do you think they have for us, since you were the one posting them?
They show, by way of contrast, the effects of Modernism on the final Vatican II documents.
Vatican II documents contrast only past teachings that they directly touch upon. It has already been mentioned here that these schemas were ignored, so they are not a part of the contrast.
Then they highlight the "hermeneutic of discontinuity or rupture."
Quote from: Geremia on October 19, 2015, 07:05:15 AM
Quote from: Rube on October 19, 2015, 05:29:33 AM
Quote from: Geremia on October 18, 2015, 06:54:23 PM
Quote from: Rube on October 18, 2015, 05:53:39 PMSo, what value do you think they have for us, since you were the one posting them?
They show, by way of contrast, the effects of Modernism on the final Vatican II documents.
Vatican II documents contrast only past teachings that they directly touch upon. It has already been mentioned here that these schemas were ignored, so they are not a part of the contrast.
Then they highlight the "hermeneutic of discontinuity or rupture."
It's the actual contrast that proves the discontinuity. The schemas don't add anything to the proof.
One striking difference between the Vatican II Preparatory Commission's schemas (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=12659.msg275019#msg275019) and the final Vatican II documents is what
On chastity, marriage, the family, and virginity (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/on-the-sexual-order.pdf) has to say about mixed marriages:
Quote from: Vatican II Preparatory Commission document «De castitate et al.»21. Mixed Marriages Where a marriage between two Catholics can be contracted without extraordinary difficulties, the good of religion for the most part requires that Catholic men and women avoid so-called mixed marriages, especially with unbelievers. But the faithful also have the duty, in accordance with the dictates of prudence and the other virtues, to avoid marriage with those who are opposed to God or religion or with those who are Catholics in name but not in life. Although the Church, using her power, may permit mixed marriages, nevertheless the Catholic party, as divine law dictates, must in the conceded mixed marriage avoid dangers to the faith and indifferentism, must always carefully see to the Catholic education of the children, and lovingly and prudently try to bring the spouse to the Catholic truth. Pastors should take special care for those who are joined in a mixed marriage. The Sacred Synod knows that in some places mixed marriages cannot be avoided, but from the fact that this can happen in some places false principles or dangerous inducements should not be deduced.
... It also rebukes those who say, and indeed under the pretext of benefitting the Church, that mixed marriages are generally and in themselves to be fostered rather than tolerated. That position is also mistaken which maintains that a marriage can be declared invalid or dissolved solely because of a failure of love. ...
Quote from: fn 34Pius VII, Brief Etsi fraternitatis, October 8, 1803 (CIC Fontes, II, p. 718):Quote from: Pius VII, Brief, «Etsi fraternitatis», October 8, 1803And the first of these is that the Catholic Church has always forbidden and rejected as illicit, pernicious and detestable the marriages of Catholics with heretics, as we could demonstrate from innumerable decrees of Councils and of Supreme Pontiffs.... And although in some areas because of difficulties of time and place, such marriages may be tolerated, this should be considered to be an equanimity which in no way implies approval or consent but mere patience, necessary but not voluntary, in order to avoid greater evils...;
collate this with many other documents, especially those listed in the note to D 1499 and in the note to CIC c. 1060 (https://books.google.com/books?id=2XbtF6Y21LUC&pg=PA365). With regard to canons 10 and 31 of the Council of Laodicea (Mansi II, 565 and 570), it should be noted that they are to be interpreted in the light of the whole teaching of the Council, which did not even permit the faithful to pray with heretics and schismatics.
Vatican II threw this teaching out due to Vatican II's promotion of the heresy of ecumenism.
1917 CIC c. 1060 (https://books.google.com/books?id=2XbtF6Y21LUC&pg=PA365) says:
Quote from: Canon 1060Most severely does the Church prohibit everywhere that marriage be entered into by two baptized persons, one of whom is Catholic, and the other belonging to a heretical or schismatic sect; indeed, if there is a danger of perversion to the Catholic spouse and children, that marriage is forbidden even by divine law.
The 1983 Code on mixed marriages (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P41.HTM) is much, much more lenient.
The fairly well known tale that Pope John cried on his deathbed 'stop the Council' (EWTN believed it at some point:http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=296979&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=) and the reality of how the Council descended into darkness as it departed from those good schemas, must mean something. Perhaps it is that hacking at the old oaks of Traditions by those foresters, the Fathers of the Council, wrecked the great old forest that is the Church. Probably it it shows the sheer stupidity of the modishness which seized so many like fever at the Council. Some were Modernists, but most seem to have been biddable sheep who could be easily shepherded by a small, ill-willed minority.
I find them so saddening to read in the light of the wrecking which followed.
Quote from: Prayerful on October 21, 2015, 03:58:20 PMThe fairly well known tale that Pope John cried on his deathbed 'stop the Council' (EWTN believed it at some point:http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=296979&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=)
Perhaps Roncalli realized his sin of derailing the council onto a revolutionary course with his revolutionary, "game-changing" opening speech.
Quote from: Geremia on October 21, 2015, 04:12:33 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on October 21, 2015, 03:58:20 PMThe fairly well known tale that Pope John cried on his deathbed 'stop the Council' (EWTN believed it at some point:http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=296979&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=)
Perhaps Roncalli realized his sin of derailing the council onto a revolutionary course with his revolutionary, "game-changing" opening speech.
Oops! :o
Quote from: Geremia on October 17, 2015, 12:57:13 PM
The Council that might have been... [Updated 9/14/2015] (https://jakomonchak.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/the-council-that-might-have-been/)
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 (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/de-fontibus-1-5.pdf)
On defending intact the deposit of faith (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/defending-the-deposit-of-faith.pdf)
De deposito fidei – Latin text (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/de-deposito-fidei-latin-text.pdf)
On the Christian moral order (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/on-the-christian-moral-order.pdf)
De ordine morali christiano – Latin text (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/de-ordine-morali-christiano-latin-text1.pdf)
On chastity, marriage, the family, and virginity (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/on-the-sexual-order.pdf)
De castitate et al – Latin text (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/de-castitate-et-al-latin-text.pdf)
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 (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/draft-on-the-blessed-virgin-1962.pdf)
Schema de BVM (https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/schema-de-bvm.pdf)
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 (http://garrigou.us.to/browse/book/4253).
Can you post the original Latin prep-schema on the Liturgy, I want to translate it and compare it to Sacrosanctum Concilium?
Quote from: FaithfulSonOfTheChrist on August 25, 2016, 11:56:04 PMCan you post the original Latin prep-schema on the Liturgy, I want to translate it and compare it to Sacrosanctum Concilium?
I think the first draft of that came at a later session.
Look for it here:
Acta synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II (https://archive.org/search.php?query=Acta+Synodalia+Sacrosancti+Concilii+Oecumenici+Vaticani+II&sort=publicdate)
It is the "acts" of Vatican II (documents, interventions, etc.—"primarily in Latin, with some text in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, or Arabic").
Thanks for asking the question, because I just discovered now that a certain MHazell user on Archive.org uploaded scans of first 10 volumes of the
Acta (of the "pre-session" and sessions 1 and 2) within the past few years!
Deo gratias!From here (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/3872156), this is the layout of the
Acta volumes:
V. 1. Periodus Prima. Pars 1: Sessio Publica I. Congregationes Generales I-IX. --
v. 1. Pars 2: Congregationes Generales X-XVIII. --
v. 1. Pars 3: Congregationes Generales XIX-XXX. --
v. 1. Pars 4: Congregationes Generales XXXI-XXXVI. --
v. 2. Periodus Secunda. Pars 1: Sessio Publica II. Congregationes Generales XXXVII-XXXIX. --
v. 2. Pars 2: Congregationes Generales XL-XLIX. --
v. 2. Pars 3: Congregationes Generales L-LVIII. --
v. 2. Pars 4: Congregationes Generales LIX-LXIV. --
v. 2. Pars 5: Congregationes Generales LXV-LXXII. --
v. 2. Pars 6: Congregationes Generales LXXIV-LXXIX. Sessio Publica III. --
v. 3. Periodus Tertia. Pars 1: Sessio Publica IV. Congregatines Generales LXXX-LXXXII. --
v. 3. Pars 2: Congregationes Generales LXXXIII-LXXIX. --
v. 3. Pars 3: Congregationes Generales XC-XCV. --
v. 3. Pars 4: Congregationes Generales XCVI-CII. --
v. 3. Pars 5: Congregationes Generales CII-CXI. --
v. 3. Pars 6: Congregationes Generales CXII-CXVIII. --
v. 3. Pars 7: Congregationes Generales CXIX-CXXII. --
v. 3. Pars 8: Congreationes generales CXXIII-CXXVII. Sessio Publica V. --
v. 4. Periodus Quarta. Pars 1: Sessio Publica VI. Congregationes Generales CXXVIII-CXXXII. --
v. 4. Pars 2: Congregationes Generales CXXXIII-CXXXVII. --
v. 4. Pars 3: Congregationes Generales CXXXVIII-CXLV. --
v. 4. Pars 4: Congregationes Generales CXLVI-CL. --
v. 4. Pars 5: Congretiones Generales CLI-CLV. Sessio Publica VII. --
v. 4. Pars 6: Congregationes Generales CLVI-CLXIV. Sessio Publica VIII. --
v. 4. Pars 7: Congregationes Generales CLXV-CLXVIII. Sessiones Publicae IX-X. --
[v. 5.]. Indices. [1980]. --
[v. 6.]. Appendix. [1983].
Sacrosanctum Concilium was ratified on 4 Dec. 1963 in the 2nd session, so look through those volume. I'm not sure which of the "Congregationes Generales" it specifically was discussed (or first discussed).
Quote from: Geremia on August 27, 2016, 05:28:07 PM
Quote from: FaithfulSonOfTheChrist on August 25, 2016, 11:56:04 PMCan you post the original Latin prep-schema on the Liturgy, I want to translate it and compare it to Sacrosanctum Concilium?
I think the first draft of that came at a later session.
Look for it here:
Acta synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II (https://archive.org/search.php?query=Acta+Synodalia+Sacrosancti+Concilii+Oecumenici+Vaticani+II&sort=publicdate)
It is the "acts" of Vatican II (documents, interventions, etc.—"primarily in Latin, with some text in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, or Arabic").
Thanks for asking the question, because I just discovered now that a certain MHazell user on Archive.org uploaded scans of first 10 volumes of the Acta (of the "pre-session" and sessions 1 and 2) within the past few years! Deo gratias!
From here (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/3872156), this is the layout of the Acta volumes:
V. 1. Periodus Prima. Pars 1: Sessio Publica I. Congregationes Generales I-IX. --
v. 1. Pars 2: Congregationes Generales X-XVIII. --
v. 1. Pars 3: Congregationes Generales XIX-XXX. --
v. 1. Pars 4: Congregationes Generales XXXI-XXXVI. --
v. 2. Periodus Secunda. Pars 1: Sessio Publica II. Congregationes Generales XXXVII-XXXIX. --
v. 2. Pars 2: Congregationes Generales XL-XLIX. --
v. 2. Pars 3: Congregationes Generales L-LVIII. --
v. 2. Pars 4: Congregationes Generales LIX-LXIV. --
v. 2. Pars 5: Congregationes Generales LXV-LXXII. --
v. 2. Pars 6: Congregationes Generales LXXIV-LXXIX. Sessio Publica III. --
v. 3. Periodus Tertia. Pars 1: Sessio Publica IV. Congregatines Generales LXXX-LXXXII. --
v. 3. Pars 2: Congregationes Generales LXXXIII-LXXIX. --
v. 3. Pars 3: Congregationes Generales XC-XCV. --
v. 3. Pars 4: Congregationes Generales XCVI-CII. --
v. 3. Pars 5: Congregationes Generales CII-CXI. --
v. 3. Pars 6: Congregationes Generales CXII-CXVIII. --
v. 3. Pars 7: Congregationes Generales CXIX-CXXII. --
v. 3. Pars 8: Congreationes generales CXXIII-CXXVII. Sessio Publica V. --
v. 4. Periodus Quarta. Pars 1: Sessio Publica VI. Congregationes Generales CXXVIII-CXXXII. --
v. 4. Pars 2: Congregationes Generales CXXXIII-CXXXVII. --
v. 4. Pars 3: Congregationes Generales CXXXVIII-CXLV. --
v. 4. Pars 4: Congregationes Generales CXLVI-CL. --
v. 4. Pars 5: Congretiones Generales CLI-CLV. Sessio Publica VII. --
v. 4. Pars 6: Congregationes Generales CLVI-CLXIV. Sessio Publica VIII. --
v. 4. Pars 7: Congregationes Generales CLXV-CLXVIII. Sessiones Publicae IX-X. --
[v. 5.]. Indices. [1980]. --
[v. 6.]. Appendix. [1983].
Sacrosanctum Concilium was ratified on 4 Dec. 1963 in the 2nd session, so look through those volume. I'm not sure which of the "Congregationes Generales" it specifically was discussed (or first discussed).
Thank you sooooo much! I found the area where it talks about the Liturgy and I am going to do a translation by myself and a friend. I will be sure to post it and send you the finished product. God love you.
Quote from: FaithfulSonOfTheChrist on August 28, 2016, 03:05:37 PMI found the area where it talks about the Liturgy
What volume and pages are you translating, specifically?
Quote from: Geremia on August 29, 2016, 07:43:28 AM
Quote from: FaithfulSonOfTheChrist on August 28, 2016, 03:05:37 PMI found the area where it talks about the Liturgy
What volume and pages are you translating, specifically?
The last volume pages 409-423.
+Tissier de Mallerais's biography of +Lefebvre has a good account in and around chapter 12 of how quickly and ruthlessly the liberal, Modernist element discarded the schemas or rendered them irrelevant. The rest as they say, is history, a good word to describe the Catholic Church in most of the West.