WI Vatican II a decade earlier

[Tom_B]

In 1948 Cardinal Ruffini came up with the idea that what the church needed was a general council. He persuaded other influential clergy and together they got Pope Pius to take some preliminary steps towards convening one. However after 2 years Pius decided against doing it during his reign but suggesting that it might be a good idea for his successor.

WI if he had gone ahead with the council and it started in 1952?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

In 1948 Cardinal Ruffini came up with the idea that what the church needed was a general council. He persuaded other influential clergy and together they got Pope Pius to take some preliminary steps towards convening one. However after 2 years Pius decided against doing it during his reign but suggesting that it might be a good idea for his successor.

WI if he had gone ahead with the council and it started in 1952?

Would that even work? I mean Pius XII was highly conservative, if not reactionary. Would a church council be able to go as far as it did with John XIII and Paul VI as it would with Pius XII?

 

[Tom_B]

Would that even work? I mean Pius XII was highly conservative, if not reactionary. Would a church council be able to go as far as it did with John XIII and Paul VI as it would with Pius XII?

What I am asking is WI there was a council convened in the Vatican in 1952. It would therefore be called the Second Vatican Council. I am in no way assuming it would produce the same results as the 1962 version of OTL. Actually a large part of what I am asking is how different would it be.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

What I am asking is WI there was a council convened in the Vatican in 1952. It would therefore be called the Second Vatican Council. I am in no way assuming it would produce the same results as the 1962 version of OTL. Actually a large part of what I am asking is how different would it be.

Oh OK. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a lot about that era in the Vatican but I'm willing to guess. Looking at the way Pius XII was I'd say not much, about the same as Vatican I. For instance, I doubt representatives from the Orthodox and Protestant churches would be invited. Maybe we could still get mass said in the language of the county it was in instead of Latin but other than that...

 

[Athelstane]

Would that even work? I mean Pius XII was highly conservative, if not reactionary. Would a church council be able to go as far as it did with John XIII and Paul VI as it would with Pius XII?

There was already the general knowledge that Vatican I had been interrupted before it could finish its work, particularly on the role of the episcopate.

Pius XII at more than one point conceded the possibility that a Council should be considered. But he was reluctant to pull the trigger.

Needless to say, a Council under Pius XII in 1952 would be considerably more restrained in its texts, more willing to employ dogmatic definitions. Its permitted scope would be much narrower. You might get something like Dei Verbum; nothing like Gaudium et Spes. The liturgy would be largely untouched. Looking at the preparatory schemas (which were famously set aside) of Vatican II would be a good place to start.

A big hitch for John XXIII when he plotted the initial course of the Council was what the communists would permit in terms of participation by Catholic bishops (such as Karol Wojtyla) and Orthodox observers from Eastern Europe; in the end, an agreement to mute criticisms of communism in exchange for such participation was worked out. In 1952 Stalin was still alive, and unlikely to permit much at all; and Pius XII unlikely to ask it. So any such council would proceed without any such accommodation, and therefore much more likely to make more formal condemnations of communism.

 

[Tom_B]

There was already the general knowledge that Vatican I had been interrupted before it could finish its work, particularly on the role of the episcopate.

Pius XII at more than one point conceded the possibility that a Council should be considered. But he was reluctant to pull the trigger.

Needless to say, a Council under Pius XII in 1952 would be considerably more restrained in its texts, more willing to employ dogmatic definitions. Its permitted scope would be much narrower. You might get something like Dei Verbum; nothing like Gaudium et Spes. The liturgy would be largely untouched. Looking at the preparatory schemas (which were famously set aside) of Vatican II would be a good place to start.

A big hitch for John XXIII when he plotted the initial course of the Council was what the communists would permit in terms of participation by Catholic bishops (such as Karol Wojtyla) and Orthodox observers from Eastern Europe; in the end, an agreement to mute criticisms of communism in exchange for such participation was worked out. In 1952 Stalin was still alive, and unlikely to permit much at all; and Pius XII unlikely to ask it. So any such council would proceed without any such accommodation, and therefore much more likely to make more formal condemnations of communism.

I agree that Gaudium et Spes would not come out of an early council. Dei Verbum is a bit tricky. One interesting thing is that Ottaviani would not be at the council as a voting member at least at first (he does not become a cardinal until 1953 and he does not become a bishop until 1962) though he might be there as somebody's peritus. The original form of that document in OTL was largely influenced by Ottaviani and deadlocked the council until Pope John intervened resulting in what is regarded as a compromise mishmash.

I also agree that a formal condemnation of Communism is likely.

But I disagree about the liturgy. Pope Pius issued Mediator Dei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediator_Dei) back in 1947 which clearly showed he was in favor of at least some liturgical reform. Furthermore in 1948 he appointed Bugnini to head the Commission for Liturgical Reform. So in light of these facts I see something close to Sacrosanctum Consilium emerging though possibly stating that only minor if any changes could be made to the canon.

 

[Athelstane]

But I disagree about the liturgy. Pope Pius issued Mediator Dei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediator_Dei) back in 1947 which clearly showed he was in favor of at least some liturgical reform. Furthermore in 1948 he appointed Bugnini to head the Commission for Liturgical Reform. So in light of these facts I see something close to Sacrosanctum Consilium emerging though possibly stating that only minor if any changes could be made to the canon.

You hardly need to look at Mediator Dei (which, if it's a blueprint for reform at all, is a very minor reform). You can merely look at the Holy Week reforms of 1955, and the suppression of several octaves at the same time - the biggest reform to the Roman Rite in centuries.

But I wouldn't expect much more than that out of Pius XII. He was steadfastly opposed to vernacular. Any document on the liturgy would end up only tinkering at the margins, and nothing like the Consilium of our time would be in charge of implementing it.

 

[Tom_B]

You hardly need to look at Mediator Dei (which, if it's a blueprint for reform at all, is a very minor reform)..

Hey why don't we look at Mediator Dei together? Here is paragraph 60:

"60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See."

Italics mine. Now I know that I have stumbled whenever on a Tradland website whenever I see the first sentence quoted dotingly and the rest of the paragraph omitted. It should be noted that Thomists have a tendency to give the argument for the rejected position first.

Here is a more obscure bit of trivia about something Pius did back in 1939 that suggests he saw value in vernacularization: http://shanghaiscrap.com/2007/07/in-the-vernacular/ He appointed Bugnini to the "Commission for Liturgical Reform" not the "Commission for Liturgical Ossification"

Pope Pius was an admirer of Jungmann and was in fact leaning towards vernacularization as well as other changes. However he was an incrementalist who wanted to phase the reforms in gradually and not at the torrid pace of OTL 1960's. He also insisted on centralized control of the process which broke down in OTL. Just before his death he approved the "Dialogue Mass" which is in accord with para 105 of Mediator Dei. His health problems may have slowed down the pace of reforms. Another complication in the process was his convoluted up and down relationship with Cardinal Spellman who was a strong opponent of vernacularization.

 

[Tom_B]

Allocution to Midwives

In 1951 Pope Pius XII gave the Allocution to Midwives (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm) in which he reiterated the Catholic Church's unequivocal opposition to artificial contraception as already enunciated by his predecessor in the encyclical Casti Connubi (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...s/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html) but makes it clear that the rhythm method is permissible but only if grave reasons exist for not procreating.

Now with a council in 1952 it is very possible that a document is produced say a Constitution on Marriage and the Family wherein this doctrine is restated quite possibly with language about "whomever says otherwise should be held in anathema"