Traditionalist Issues
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Dialogue Mass - CXLVII
Rejection of the Schema
On Preserving Intact the Deposit of the Faith
Continuing with the negative influence of Fr. Ratzinger (via Card. Frings) during the decision-making process of Vatican II, we can also cite the anti-traditional animus he displayed when he rejected the original draft document De deposito fidei pure custodiendo (On Preserving Intact the Deposit of the Faith). Anyone who reads the original document would be struck by its clarity, precision and conformity to Catholic doctrine. But Ratzinger blocked its progress towards acceptance by the Council Fathers on the following contentious grounds:
“Of all the drafts, the second text, On Preserving the Purity of the Deposit of Faith, is still in no way suitable but is so faulty that as it stands it cannot be proposed to the Council. It follows no clear order as it takes up, from different areas of dogmatic theology, disconnected items, which in the way they are treated offer little or no benefit. Furthermore, the first and second chapters enter into philosophical discussions and in doing this they confuse what belongs to philosophy and to theology. They mix up what rests on scholarly method and what is personal witness and proclamation. Because of this, it would be better to simply omit this schema.”1 [Emphasis added]
Thus wrote the young Professor who would later become the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not to mention Pope, having quashed the pre-Conciliar schema which was a superbly reasoned defence of the Faith and its transmission in the modern age. This schema was aborted in the womb, dismissed out of hand without, apparently, a qualm of conscience.
But the real reason, we now know, why the original draft was not allowed to be proposed to the Council was that it echoed the teaching of the perennial Magisterium reflected in the theological Manuals. Commenting later on those early times, Ratzinger revealed unreservedly that the goal of Vatican II theology was to “be less dominated by the current Magisterium” and to “give greater voice to the Scriptures and the Fathers.”2 The original draft would, therefore, have been an obstacle in the path of the progressivists’ plans for a radically new Church. It was a case of Tradition being sacrificed on the altar of Religious Liberty, Collegiality and Ecumenism.
Schema On the Constitution of the Church, De Ecclesia
In similar vein, Ratzinger wrote the speech for Card. Frings with which the latter rejected the schema On the Constitution of the Church, De Ecclesia, on December 4, 1962. A trumped-up charge was brought against it that it was too narrow-minded in scope, limited to only a tiny fraction of Tradition (relative to the last 100 years), and ignored the concerns of the wider Church, especially the Eastern traditions.3 Ratzinger-Frings considered it unworthy of an Ecumenical Council.
There is an obvious reason why the 100 years of Catholic Tradition prior to Vatican II were singled out for criticism and dismissal. This period coincided exactly with the Popes’ repeated condemnation of Catholic Liberalism, starting with Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864), including Americanism by Leo XIII, Modernism by Pius X, Communism by Pius XI and Neo-Modernism by Pius XII. This period also coincided with the heyday of the “Manualist tradition” which was not based simply on the Church’s teachings from the 19th century but incorporated those from all the earlier centuries as well.
Without any serious evidence being adduced, the whole schema was thrown out with the assertion that it should, in its totality, be amended, reconsidered and thoroughly reworked. Looking back on these events in 1963, Ratzinger congratulated himself on his own handiwork in a letter to the secretary of Card. Frings, in which he stated:
“I think that we can be very satisfied with the schema on the Church. Progress can already be detected just by comparing the composition of the old and new schema. In the former, 90% of the content belonged to the 19th and 20th centuries.” 4
And that content, as we know, was taken straight from the Manuals which were not limited to 19th- and 20th-century thinking, but enshrined perennial Catholic principles, taught authoritatively by the Popes, which could be used to illuminate contemporary problems. The tragedy is that the teaching of those pre-Conciliar Popes, who had truly read “the signs of the times,” was lost to the Church; it had offered modern Catholics the best means of keeping the Faith and advancing in holiness amid the almost insuperable spiritual dangers in the modern world.
When the new schema was presented, one of the Council Fathers, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, commented ruefully in his Diary on September 24, 1963:
“I found evidence that the teaching in the first Chapter of the new schema on the Church and the language are those of Fr. [George] Tyrrell. May God preserve His Church from that chapter. If it passes, it will be a great evil. I must pray and act.”5
It did, of course, pass, and became the future Lumen gentium.
Like all innovators and reformers, it seems as if Ratzinger was standing in judgement over the whole Church, past, present and future. He would later have no compunction about declaring Gaudium et spes a “Counter-Syllabus” in the sense that it contradicts and reverses previous Magisterial teaching:
“If we seek an over-all analysis of Gaudium et spes, we could say that it is (linked with the texts on religious liberty and on world religions) a revision of Pius IX’s Syllabus, a sort of Counter-Syllabus... Let us recognize here and now that Gaudium et spes plays the part of a Counter-Syllabus insofar as it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the modern world as emerging since the French Revolution of 1789.” 6
Schema on the Church-State relationship
During a meeting of the Central Preparatory Commission in June 1962, Chapter 9 of the original schema, De Ecclesia, which had been put forward by the Theological Commission headed by Card. Ottaviani for discussion, caused intense disagreement between the conservative and progressivist Fathers. (In his Memoirs, Card. Frings referred to the “violent clashes” between the progressivists and conservative groups over the original schemata, particularly the one on Religious Liberty).7
This chapter, a faithful summary of Leo XIII’s Encyclical Immortale Dei upheld the ideal of the Catholic State and its duty both to profess and defend the Catholic Faith and to support the one true Church. The doctrine it contained was part of the perennial Magisterium, and was of particular relevance to modern times which stood in need of true evangelization.
Ratzinger (via Frings) rejected it in favor of a document written by Card. Bea entitled “On Religious Liberty” which proclaimed the opposite: the duty of the State is to respect all religions and protect the rights of citizens to practise the religion of their own choosing. This document caused a vehement altercation between Ottaviani and Bea during the Commission debate, and showed that even before the Council began there was an irreparable division between the forces of Tradition and Progressivism.
Bea’s document was the precursor of Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis humanae). It ensured that there would be no more Catholic States. After the Council, the Church refused to countenance these and even dismantled any that still existed around the world.
To be continued
Karl Rahner with his disciple Joseph Ratzinger adapting to the modern world: suits, cigarretes & beer
Thus wrote the young Professor who would later become the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not to mention Pope, having quashed the pre-Conciliar schema which was a superbly reasoned defence of the Faith and its transmission in the modern age. This schema was aborted in the womb, dismissed out of hand without, apparently, a qualm of conscience.
But the real reason, we now know, why the original draft was not allowed to be proposed to the Council was that it echoed the teaching of the perennial Magisterium reflected in the theological Manuals. Commenting later on those early times, Ratzinger revealed unreservedly that the goal of Vatican II theology was to “be less dominated by the current Magisterium” and to “give greater voice to the Scriptures and the Fathers.”2 The original draft would, therefore, have been an obstacle in the path of the progressivists’ plans for a radically new Church. It was a case of Tradition being sacrificed on the altar of Religious Liberty, Collegiality and Ecumenism.
Schema On the Constitution of the Church, De Ecclesia
In similar vein, Ratzinger wrote the speech for Card. Frings with which the latter rejected the schema On the Constitution of the Church, De Ecclesia, on December 4, 1962. A trumped-up charge was brought against it that it was too narrow-minded in scope, limited to only a tiny fraction of Tradition (relative to the last 100 years), and ignored the concerns of the wider Church, especially the Eastern traditions.3 Ratzinger-Frings considered it unworthy of an Ecumenical Council.
There is an obvious reason why the 100 years of Catholic Tradition prior to Vatican II were singled out for criticism and dismissal. This period coincided exactly with the Popes’ repeated condemnation of Catholic Liberalism, starting with Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864), including Americanism by Leo XIII, Modernism by Pius X, Communism by Pius XI and Neo-Modernism by Pius XII. This period also coincided with the heyday of the “Manualist tradition” which was not based simply on the Church’s teachings from the 19th century but incorporated those from all the earlier centuries as well.
Without any serious evidence being adduced, the whole schema was thrown out with the assertion that it should, in its totality, be amended, reconsidered and thoroughly reworked. Looking back on these events in 1963, Ratzinger congratulated himself on his own handiwork in a letter to the secretary of Card. Frings, in which he stated:
Msrg. Joseph Fenton realized an attack against Tradition was being launched
And that content, as we know, was taken straight from the Manuals which were not limited to 19th- and 20th-century thinking, but enshrined perennial Catholic principles, taught authoritatively by the Popes, which could be used to illuminate contemporary problems. The tragedy is that the teaching of those pre-Conciliar Popes, who had truly read “the signs of the times,” was lost to the Church; it had offered modern Catholics the best means of keeping the Faith and advancing in holiness amid the almost insuperable spiritual dangers in the modern world.
When the new schema was presented, one of the Council Fathers, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, commented ruefully in his Diary on September 24, 1963:
“I found evidence that the teaching in the first Chapter of the new schema on the Church and the language are those of Fr. [George] Tyrrell. May God preserve His Church from that chapter. If it passes, it will be a great evil. I must pray and act.”5
Ratzinger: Gaudium et spes is a Counter-Syllabus
Like all innovators and reformers, it seems as if Ratzinger was standing in judgement over the whole Church, past, present and future. He would later have no compunction about declaring Gaudium et spes a “Counter-Syllabus” in the sense that it contradicts and reverses previous Magisterial teaching:
“If we seek an over-all analysis of Gaudium et spes, we could say that it is (linked with the texts on religious liberty and on world religions) a revision of Pius IX’s Syllabus, a sort of Counter-Syllabus... Let us recognize here and now that Gaudium et spes plays the part of a Counter-Syllabus insofar as it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the modern world as emerging since the French Revolution of 1789.” 6
Schema on the Church-State relationship
During a meeting of the Central Preparatory Commission in June 1962, Chapter 9 of the original schema, De Ecclesia, which had been put forward by the Theological Commission headed by Card. Ottaviani for discussion, caused intense disagreement between the conservative and progressivist Fathers. (In his Memoirs, Card. Frings referred to the “violent clashes” between the progressivists and conservative groups over the original schemata, particularly the one on Religious Liberty).7
This chapter, a faithful summary of Leo XIII’s Encyclical Immortale Dei upheld the ideal of the Catholic State and its duty both to profess and defend the Catholic Faith and to support the one true Church. The doctrine it contained was part of the perennial Magisterium, and was of particular relevance to modern times which stood in need of true evangelization.
Pope Leo XIII had fought to protect & nurture Catholic States with Immortale Dei
Bea’s document was the precursor of Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis humanae). It ensured that there would be no more Catholic States. After the Council, the Church refused to countenance these and even dismantled any that still existed around the world.
To be continued
- Josef Frings/Joseph Ratzinger, Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II: Appendix prima, September 1962, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1983, p. 76.
- Benedict XVI, Last Testament, p. 131.
- The Ratzinger-Frings intervention is recorded in the Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II: Periodus prima, pars IV, 1971, pp. 218-220.
- Norbert Trippen, Josef Kardinal Frings (1887-1978): Sein Wirken Für Die Weltkirche Und Seine Letzten Bischofsjahre (Josef Kardinal Frings (1887-1978): His Work for the Universal Church and his Final Episcopal Years), vol. 2, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2005, p. 369.
- Joseph Clifford Fenton, Journal of a Trip to Rome (1963-1965), Online version. Msgr. Fenton (1906-1969), a priest of the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, was Professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America and Editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review (1943–1963). He served at Vatican II as a member of several Commissions and as the peritus of Card. Ottaviani.
- Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology. Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987, pp. 381, 382.
- N. Trippen, op. cit., p. 243.
Posted March 14, 2025
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |