Here I shall cite only John XXIII's well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes "to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion". And he continues: "Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us...". It is necessary that "adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness..." be presented in "faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another...", retaining the same meaning and message (The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715).

Here I would put forth the writing of Romano Amerio who has composed a most scholarly work on the matters of Vatican II. I will put forth a critique of the statement above, and then a digression to the events prefiguring the council itself which was held in the synod which produced the decree Veterum Sapientia.

"Anyone studing the matter is confronted at this point with an unexpected obstacle. When it comes to a Pope's words, the official text which has the status of expressing his thoughts is as a rule the Latin alone. No translation has this authoirty unless it has been recognized as official. That is why the Osservatore Romano always states that a private translation is being given when it prints its Italian translation after the Latin text. Given the fact, however, that the latin text is the work of a group of translators working on a text originally drawn up by the Pope in Italian, it would seem legitimate to appeal to the original wording, where that is known, and to take that as a criterion for interpreting the Latin. One would thus reverse the authority of the two texts, giving preference to the Italian version, which is in fact the original, rather than to the official Latin, which is in fact a translation. Philologically this reversal is legitimate, but canonically it is not, becasue it is the policy of the Apostolic See that its thought is contained in the Latin wording alone.

Now, the discrpancies between the Latin text of the opening speech and its Italian version are such as to change its meaning. It also happens that in subsequent theological writing the Italian, rather than the official Latin, has been followed. The discrepancy is so great that we seem to be presented with a paraphrase rather than a translation. The original says the following: "Oportet ut haec doctrina certa et immutabilis cui fidele obsequium est praestandum, ea ratione pervestigetur et exponatur quam tempora postulant." Translated, it is appropriate that this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which faithful loyalty must be shown, should be examined and expounded in the manner which the times demand." The Italian tanslation carried by the Osservatore Romano of 12 October 1962, and subsequently reproduced in all the Italian editions of the council texts, reads: "Anche questa pero studiata ed esposta attraverso le forme dell'indagine e della formulazione letteraria del pensiero moderno." The French version likewise says: "La doctrine doit etre etudiee et exposee suivant les methodes de rechereche et de presentation dont use la pensee moderne."

The differences between the original and the translations are inescapable. it is one thing to say that a new consideration and exposition of the perennial Catholic doctrine should be carried out in a manner appropriate to the times (a broad and all embracing idea); and quite another that it should be carried out following contemporary methods of thought, that is contemporary philosophy. For example: it is one thing to present Catholic doctrine in a manner appropriate to the citeriorita peculiar to the contemporary state of mind, and quite another that it should be considered and expounded following that same mentality. For the approach to the modern mentality to be made correctly, one should not adopt the methods, let us say, of marxist analysys or existentialist phenomenology, but rather, formulate the Catholic opposition to the modern mentality in the most effective manner.

In short, the question here is the one the Pope passes to the following section, "how to repress error." First, the difference of meaning arising from the discrepancy in the translations witnesses to the loss of that accuracy which used to characterize the Curia in the drawing up of its documents. Second, the difference in meaniing resurfaced in the Pope's subsequent addresses, as he quoted his words of 11 October sometimes in Latin and sometimes in translation. Third, the variant contained in the translations, which was soon spread about to the detriment of the Latin version and made the basis of discussion on the subject, contradicts the original, whereas the translations agree among themselves. This agreement gives ground for speculating that there may have been an attempt, whether spontaneous or organized, to give the speech a modernizing meaning which may not have been in the Pope's mind.

The passage in the speech which distinguishes between the unchangeable substance of Catholic teaching and the changeability of its expressions, gives rise to the same uncertainty. The offical text reads as follows: "Est enim aliud ipsum depositum fidei, seu veritates, quae veneranda doctrina notra continentur, aliud modus quo eaedem enentiantur, eodem tamen sensu eademque sententia. Huic quippe mod plurimum tribeuendum est, et patientia si opus fuerit, in eo elaborandum, scilicet eae inducendae erunt rationes res exponendo, quae cum magisterio, cuius indoles praesertim pastoralis est, magis contruant." The Italian translation reads: "Altra e la sostanza dell'antica dottrina del "depositum fidei" e altra e la formulazione del suo rivestimento, ed e di quiesto che devesi con pazienza tener gran conto, tutto misurando nella forma e proporzione di un magistero a carattere prevalentemente pastorale."

The divergence is so great as to admit of only two hypotheses: either the Italian translator was attempting a paraphrase, or the translation is in fact the original text. If the Italian is the original, it must have appeared convoluted and imprecise (what in fact is "the formulation of its clothing"?) so that the Latin translator tried to gather its general sense and, being dominated by traditional ideas, failed to notice how great a novelty the original version contained. What is very noticeable is the omission of the words "eodem tamen sensu eademque sententia" which are an implicit quotation of a classic text of St. Vincent of Lerins, and which are bound up with the Catholic understanding of the relation between the truth to be believed and the forumla in which it is expressed."

Let us digress to an earlier historical event to make the point further, again taken from Romanos observations concerning the even more stunning account of the Synod and the decree Veterum Sapientia which was to be the grand outline in preparation for the event of the Council.

Apart from the comparison between the final documents and those first propsed [the Synod] three principal facts make the paradoxical outcome of the council apparent: the falseness of the forecasts made by the Pope and others who prepared it; the fruitlessness of the Roman synod called by John XXIII as an anticipation of it; and the almost immediate nullification of the decree Veterum Sapientia, which was meant to forshadow the cultural cast of the post-conciliar Church.

Pope John intended the council to be a great act of renewal and functional adaptation for the Church and thought he had adequately prepared it to be such, but nonetheless cherished the propsect that it would all be over within a few months... ...(see other historical councils). In fact the council opened on 11 October 1962 and closed on 8 December 1965, thus lasting intermittently for three years. All expectations were overthrown because of the aborting of the council which had been prepared, and the successive elaboration of another quite different council which generated itself.

The Roman synod was planned and summoned by John XXIII as a solemn forerunner of the larger gathering, which it was meant to prefigure and anticipate. The Pope himself said precisely that, to the clergy and faithful of Rome in a allocution of 29 June 1960. Because of that intention, the synod's importance was universally recognized as extending beyond the diocese of Rome to the whole Catholic world. Its importance was compared to that which the provincial synods held by St. Charles Borromeo had had with respect to the Council of Trent. New life was given to the old saying that the whole Catholic world should wish to model itself on the Church of Rome. The fact that the Pope immediately ordered the texts of the Roman synod to be translated into Italian and all the prinicpal languages, also makes it clear that in his mind it was intended to play an important exemplary role.

The texts of the Roman synod promulgated on 25, 26 and 27 January 1960 constitutes a complete reversion of the Church to its proper nature; we mean not merely to its supernatural essence (that can never be lost) but to its historical nature, a returning of the institution to its principles, as Machiavelli put it.

The synod in fact proposed a vigorous restoration at every level of ecclesial life. The discipline of the clergy was modeled on the traditional pattern formulated at the Council of Trent, and based on two principles which had always been accepted and practiced. The first is that of the peculiar character of the person consecrated to God, supernaturally enabled to do Christ's work, and thus clearly separated from the laity (sacred means separate). The second, which follows from the first, is that of an ascetical education and a sacrificial life, which is the differentiating mark of the clergy as a body, though individuals can take up an ascetical life in the lay state. The synod therefore prescribed for the clergy a whole style of behavior quite distinct from that of the laymen. That style demands ecclesiastical dress, sobriety in diet, the avoiding of public entertainments and a flight from profane things. The distinct character of the clergy's cultural formation was also reaffirmed, and the outlines were given of the system which the Pope solemnly sanctioned the year after in Veterum Sapientia. The Pope also ordered that the Catechism of the Council of Trent should be republished, but the order was ignored. It was not until 1981 that, by private initiative, a translation was published in Italy.

The liturgical legislation of the synod is no less significant: the use of Latin is solemnly confirmed, all attempts at creativity on the part of the celbrant, which would reduce the liturgical action of the Church to the level of a simple exercise of private piety, are condemned. The need to baptize infants as soon as possible is empnasized, a tabernacle in the traditional form and position is prescribed, Gregorian Chant is ordered, newly composed popular songs are submitted to the approval of the bishop, all appearances of worldliness is forbidden in the churches by a general prohibition of such things as the giving of concerts and performances, the selling of pictures or printed matter, the giving of free rein to photographers and the lighting of candles by all and sundry (one ought to get the priest to doo it). The ancient sacred rigor is re-established regarding sacred spaces, forbidding women entry to the altar area. Lastly, altars facing the congregation are to be allowed only by way of an exception, which it is up to the diocesan bishop to make.

Anybody can see that this massive reaffirmation of traditional discipline, which the synod wanted, was contradicted and negated in almost every detail by the effects of the council. And so the Roman synod, which was to have been an exemplary foreshadowing of the council, fell within a few years into the Erebus of oblivion, and is indeed tanquam non fuerit. [As if it had never been] As an instance of this nullification I may say that having searched for the texts of the Roman syond in diocesan curias and archives, I could not find them there and had to get them from secular public libraries."

These passages comprise about two pages taken from that of 786 in total found in Romanos scholarly treatise on the study of changes in the Catholic Church. I have read 100 pages so far. Very bluntly, it seems to me that the 'spirit of the council' simply hijacked the Church from within itself by itself, much the same way the Magicicada Septendecim which is burried for 17 years in the ground sheds its outer skin only to live for few weeks before it returns to that one and the same suspended state, the ground from which it emerged. The grand error of the council, is that the newly emerged organsim is looking back at its shell (its own accidents formulated through history and reality) in complete denial that it was its own self within that shell that actually permitted its short lived reformation.