22 October: a new feast day and an old feast day!

A long-time participant here just pointed out to me in my email that the new feast day designated for Bl. John Paul II, 22 October, is also the feast of Sts. Nunilo and Alodia!

Nunilio and Alodia were 9th c. virgin martyrs in Huesca, Spain.  They were born to a Muslim father and Christian mother.  They chose their mother’s Christianity.

During the Emirate of Abd ar-Rahman II they were first put in a brothel and then were executed as apostates according to Sharia law.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Just Too Cool, Linking Back and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to 22 October: a new feast day and an old feast day!

  1. Hieronymus says:

    My thoughts exactly, Ezra. But why let little things like history and reality get in the way. The show must go on!

  2. dcs says:

    I have to say that I think it is a bit odd that the late Pope’s feast day will be October 22. CNS reported (see: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101302.htm ) that Pope John Paul II was being beatified in recognition of his holiness, and not because of his papacy. Card. Amato and Dr. Navarro-Valls are cited. And yet the designated feast day is the date of John Paul II’s installation as Pope. So it is difficult to see how the beatification is not connected to the papacy.

  3. Corinne says:

    Ezra,
    Yes, at times it would seem that perhaps the soon to be Blessed John Paul II let his humanism overtake his Catholicism (I believe this is due to what he witnessed in Poland during WWII and the communist takeover of Poland. Circumstances and environment shape all of our lives and perspectives whether we are aware of it or not). The prayer you pointed out is one such instance (2000). However, I would suggest you read Redemptoris Missio (1990) by Bl. Pope John Paul II (among others of his plethora of brilliant writings) to get his true perspective.

  4. Ellen says:

    Sigh. I selfishly hoped his feast day would be on April 2nd (my birthday).

  5. tealady24 says:

    October 22nd! I love this day; it’s my wedding anniversary and to share it with our Blessed John Paul II is God’s grace! April 2nd was my beloved mom’s birthday!

  6. NCtrad says:

    Corrine-

    I find these words very troubling from the Encyclical you site:

    “10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

    For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that “this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.”19

    These statements seem to indicate that all men of “good will” will be saved. So why the need to evangelize? Further Christ stated that his blood would be shed for many, not everyone.

    Contrast this with Boniface VIII “Unam Sanctam”:
    “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

    and

    “Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins…”

  7. marajoy says:

    Praise the Lord!
    I’m getting married this day, and we were SO SAD that we wouldn’t have a saint’s feast day!
    But now I guess we do! How lucky (or blessed?!) can you be?!

  8. Geoffrey says:

    “perhaps the soon to be Blessed John Paul II let his humanism overtake his Catholicism”

    Or perhaps his Catholicism nourished his humanism.

    2 April never seemed logical, as it would often be “bumped” by Holy Week or the Octave of Easter, etc. Blessed John XXIII’s feast day is the day he opened the Second Vatican Council.

  9. MaryW says:

    This is my eldest son’s birthday. Now I have another Saint to pray to for his return to the Church.

  10. MichaelJ says:

    Isn’t this a bit premature? I honestly do not know. Has the Church ever designated a Feast Day for any other individual before they have been beatified?
    On a related note, shameful as my ignorance seems to be, aren’t Feast Days supposed to be for the Canonized and not “merely” beatified?

  11. Corinne says:

    NCTrad,
    I don’t have a problem with that, because many people do not have the opportunity to know Christ due to many reason but one of the main reasons is that we as Catholics are too busy fighthing amongst ourselves instead of proclaiming the Gospel. Perhaps you missed the paragraph right above the one you posted. In it he addresses God’s mercy, something far too many so-called “traditional Catholics” seem to be amnestic of:

    The Council makes frequent reference to the Church’s role in the salvation of mankind. While acknowledging that God loves all people and grants them the possibility of being saved (cf. l Tm 2:4),15 the Church believes that God has established Christ as the one mediator and that she herself has been established as the universal sacrament of salvation. 16 “To this catholic unity of the people of God, therefore,…all are called, and they belong to it or are ordered to it in various ways, whether they be Catholic faithful or others who believe in Christ or finally all people everywhere who by the grace of God are called to salvation.”17 It is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for salvation. Both these truths help us to understand the one mystery of salvation, so that we can come to know God’s mercy and our own responsibility.

    You seem to favor Feeneyism, something the Church has never taught, not even the SSPX teaches that. But if it helps, Bl. John Paul II addressed your question, “Why evangelize?” in the document. Perhaps you missed it:

    Nevertheless, also as a result of the changes which have taken place in modern times and the spread of new theological ideas, some people wonder: Is missionary work among non-Christians still relevant? Has it not been replaced by inter-religious dialogue? Is not human development an adequate goal of the Church’s mission? Does not respect for conscience and for freedom exclude all efforts at conversion? Is it not possible to attain salvation in any religion? Why then should there be missionary activity?

    Starting at paragraph 5 you will find the answers…the answers you seemed to have…overlooked. Take care friend.

  12. NCtrad says:

    Corrine-

    Thank you for your response. I do not subscribe to Feeneyism. I simply quoted CLEAR teaching from a pre-VII pope. How do you reconcile that statements of these different popes? As with most post-conciliar papal statements one could either interpret this in light of what the Church has always taught or it could be interpreted in a radically different way. He seems to be saying that all men may be saved through ignorance of the Truth and soley through Natural Law. Granted he states that Christ is the source and ultimately the reason why anyone is saved. There does not seem to be a pressing urgency to be actually received into the Church via the Sacraments. Were any of the pagans priests and priestesses at Assisi invited to embrace the Truth of Christ? Rather they were confirmed in their idolatry.

    Coupling these statements with the late Pontiff’s actions (Assisi) it is hard to deduce exactly what it is he is trying to say.

  13. Banjo pickin girl says:

    Corinne, and Redemptoris Missio is in complete accordance with the catechism.

  14. Corinne says:

    NCTrad,
    I can answer only this: The soon-to-be Blessed John Paul II repeated the mandate given by Christ, “Go out and preach the Gospel” to all men, all nations. I plan to spend more time doing that in my state in life in honor of him (JPII) and in honor of Him (Our Lord Jesus Christ) than arguing and/or debating with my fellow Catholics as I have spent far too much time doing in the past. It is not up to me to “square” this or that statement of any given pontiff past, present or to come. I have read and continue to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I practice my Faith and therefore I know what is required of me and am ever striving for holiness (a favorite statement of JPII’s as well) . I refuse to “react” to the Faith and instead am set to embark on living it by the Grace of God. Because as John Paul II stated reiterating what was said in Lumen Gentitium:

    Those who are incorporated in the Catholic Church ought to sense their privilege and for that very reason their greater obligation of bearing witness to the faith and to the Christian life as a service to their brothers and sisters and as a fitting response to God. They should be ever mindful that “they owe their distinguished status not to their own merits but to Christ’s special grace; and if they fail to respond to this grace in thought, word and deed, not only will they not be saved, they will be judged more severely.”

    Being a Catholic is indeed a priviledge but it is also a huge responsibility.

    Pax et bonum

  15. Dr. Eric says:

    I noticed that Ezra only quoted a little bit of the speech, not the rest of the prayer which is in keeping with Catholic doctrine especially since the Holy Father was at the Jordan River.

    Before we start bashing Venerable John Paul II for some of his mistakes, let’s remember that St. Hippolytus was an Anti-Pope.

  16. Dr. Eric says:

    Honestly, all this JPII bashing reminds me of the people who were up in arms over St. Josemaria Escriva’s Canonization and of the people who complain that Ven. John Paul II made too many Saints.

  17. NCtrad says:

    Corrine-

    Thank you for taking the time. At the end of the day we are all striving to work out out salvation. Have a Blessed Easter.

    Dr. Eric-

    There are serious questions concerning both JPII’s Pontificate as well as the Beatification. Bringing these points to light and cautioning prudence in this lightening fast beatification is not “bashing.” It is a known fact that JPII gutted the process of canonization by reducing the necessary miracles to one and by throwing out the Devil’s Advocate. [You might be out of your depth when opining about the canonical process.]

    Throwing around epithets and avoiding the hard questions serves no purpose.

    Pax

  18. robtbrown says:

    NCtrad says,

    Contrast this with Boniface VIII “Unam Sanctam”:
    “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

    and

    “Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins…”

    I simply quoted CLEAR teaching from a pre-VII pope. How do you reconcile that statements of these different popes?

    You’re right–the teaching is clear. Your understanding of it, however, is not.

    What you are endorsing is an approach often used by traditionalists. In fact, it is based not on traditional Ecclesiology but rather the Counter Reformation Ecclesiology that tilts heavily in the concept of Church as a political institution, i.e, a society with laws, etc. To be sure, it is such a society, but such a notion cannot be considered to circumscribe the nature of the Church. The ecclesial political institution (society) exists within the Mystical Body that is the Church of Christ.

    That is why the distinction must be made between explicit and implicit faith (cf St Thomas’ Treatise on Faith). Or to use the terms cited by you, implicit and implicit subjection to the Pope. The same distinction is to be applied in non est salus extra ecclesiam

  19. MichaelJ says:

    It seems that Redemptoris Missio was not quite as effective as it could have been in explaining the subtle disctionction referenced robtbrown above. One thing I wish it had done better is to distinguish between culpable and invincible ignorance.

    Perhaps this is why the Vatican rather explicitly stated that Ven. John Paul II is being beatified for his personal holiness and not for his actions as Pope.

  20. robtbrown says:

    MichaelJ says:

    It seems that Redemptoris Missio was not quite as effective as it could have been in explaining the subtle disctionction referenced robtbrown above. One thing I wish it had done better is to distinguish between culpable and invincible ignorance.

    Perhaps this is why the Vatican rather explicitly stated that Ven. John Paul II is being beatified for his personal holiness and not for his actions as Pope.

    Unless it comes from an official document, that opinion cannot be attributed to the Vatican. Further, according to the article it came from Navarro Valls, not Cardinal Amato.

    Although a pope’s personal holiness and his papacy are not co-terminous, nevertheless, they are not mutually exclusive.

  21. Ezra says:

    Robtbrown,

    What you are endorsing is an approach often used by traditionalists. In fact, it is based not on traditional Ecclesiology but rather the Counter Reformation Ecclesiology that tilts heavily in the concept of Church as a political institution, i.e, a society with laws, etc.

    A rather odd hermeneutic of rupture here, pitting the ecclesiology of Counter Reformation theologians against the Church’s “traditional ecclesiology”. Given that the Counter Reformation’s greatest ecclesiologist was St Robert Bellarmine, and that St Robert was made a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XI, I would be careful about pushing this line of interpretation too far.

    Although a pope’s personal holiness and his papacy are not co-terminous, nevertheless, they are not mutually exclusive.

    No-one is claiming that they are mutually exclusive; to do so would be to do a grave disservice to sainted popes such as Pius V and Pius X, whose pontificates were marked by acts of great wisdom and holiness. Nonetheless, a pontiff can have attained the beatific vision without his papacy having featured any notable successes, as in the case of Pope St Celestine V.

  22. MichaelJ says:

    Although a pope’s personal holiness and his papacy are not co-terminous, nevertheless, they are not mutually exclusive.

    I never intended to suggest otherwise, and if that is the impression I left, I apologize. Nevertheless, we as faithful Catholics are expected to emulate those whom the Church raises to the Altars.
    Understanding that due to the differences in our state in life, I will never be able to “Do what ven. John Paul II did as Pope” but what should I emulate? I can easily try to emulate his personal sanctity and holiness, but how to I translate his actions as Pope to something that I, as a layman, can emulate? Should I proclaim the Truth, but ensure that I do so in such a way as to avoid offending anyone – at the risk that others through good or ill will wil misunderstand what I am proclaiming?
    I am sure that ven. John Paul II did not intend to teach Universal Salvation in Redemptoris Missio. I will go further and state that he, in fact, did not teach it. At the same time, I cannot find too much fault – and especially not ill will – in those who believe that this is what he was teaching.

    As an aside, the article from the Catholic News Service (which you seem to suggest cannot be trusted) states the following (emphasis added):

    Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact on history or on the Catholic Church, but because of the way he lived the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love, said Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for Saints’ Causes.

  23. robtbrown says:

    Ezra says:
    Robtbrown,

    What you are endorsing is an approach often used by traditionalists. In fact, it is based not on traditional Ecclesiology but rather the Counter Reformation Ecclesiology that tilts heavily in the concept of Church as a political institution, i.e, a society with laws, etc.

    A rather odd hermeneutic of rupture here, pitting the ecclesiology of Counter Reformation theologians against the Church’s “traditional ecclesiology”. Given that the Counter Reformation’s greatest ecclesiologist was St Robert Bellarmine, and that St Robert was made a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XI, I would be careful about pushing this line of interpretation too far.

    In so far as I taught theology at the FSSP seminar, you can rest easy that I am being careful. From my comments above, I think it’s obvious I was not talking about rupture, but rather a serious difference in emphasis.

    Do you think that Pius XII was wasting his time when he wrote Mystici Corporis?

    Do you think all Doctors of the Church say the same thing? Do you think that St Augustine’s theory of cognition is the same as St Thomas’? Do you think the Sacramental Theology that dominated the Church during the Counter Reformation period is the same as St Thomas’? Do you think that St Thomas’theology of Original Innocence is the same as that of St Gregory of Nyssa?

  24. robtbrown says:

    Also:
    No-one is claiming that they are mutually exclusive; to do so would be to do a grave disservice to sainted popes such as Pius V and Pius X, whose pontificates were marked by acts of great wisdom and holiness. Nonetheless, a pontiff can have attained the beatific vision without his papacy having featured any notable successes, as in the case of Pope St Celestine V.

    It’s a matter of pastoral prudence not successes. Successes can be a function of the situation the man inherited when he became pope. JPII inherited a very bad situation.

    Celestine was known as a holy man long before he was drafted into the papacy.

  25. robtbrown says:

    MichaelJ says,

    As an aside, the article from the Catholic News Service (which you seem to suggest cannot be trusted) states the following (emphasis added):

    “Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact on history or on the Catholic Church, but because of the way he lived the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love, said Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for Saints’ Causes.”

    Faith, Hope and Love would be manifest in his papacy. Thus, that would contradict what was said by Navarro Valls (who’s an MD not an STD).

  26. MichaelJ says:

    I can find no contradiction between what Navarro Valls, and Cardinal Angelo Amato state in the article cited by dcs. By what hermeneutic does “Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact …on the Catholic Church” come to mean, “He is being beatified because of what he did in the excercise of his office as Pope”?
    For good or ill, the legacy of his Papacy is what it is. What is wrong with holding up his personal sactity as a model for the faithful? Why must there be more? Not that I am saying that this is the case, but is it not possible for a completely incompetent bumbler to be holy and recognized by the Church as such?

  27. robtbrown says:

    MichaelJ says:

    I can find no contradiction between what Navarro Valls, and Cardinal Angelo Amato state in the article cited by dcs. By what hermeneutic does “Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact …on the Catholic Church” come to mean, “He is being beatified because of what he did in the excercise of his office as Pope”?

    From the article: “Navarro-Valls said people must remember that beatification is not a judgment on a pontificate, but on the personal holiness of the candidate.”

    Personal holiness is a manifestation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. One of the Gifts is Counsel, which in a bishop refers to, among other things, Pastoral Prudence. Therefore, a pope who lacks PP also lacks personal holiness.

    For good or ill, the legacy of his Papacy is what it is.

    Considering the situation in the Church when he was elected pope, I think his legacy is very good.

    What is wrong with holding up his personal sactity as a model for the faithful?

    See above: A pope’s personal sanctity cannot be separated from his actions as pope.

    Why must there be more? Not that I am saying that this is the case, but is it not possible for a completely incompetent bumbler to be holy and recognized by the Church as such?

    If you’re wondering whether a bishop can have “personal holiness”, yet be a disaster as a bishop, I will let Fr Ambrose Eszer op (†), once Relator General at the Cong of Saints, answer: If that is true, then he lacks Pastoral Prudence–and we can do nothing for him.

  28. MichaelJ says:

    I read what Navarro-Valls said. You seem to have missed what Cardinal Angelo Amato said and try to establish some conflict where none exist. What part of “he is not being beatified because of his impact on the Catholic Church”, is so hard to grasp? Are there actions that a Pope may take in the exercise of his office that do not affect the Catholic Church?

    Beyond that, you seem to think that a Bishop is impeccable if he has personal sanctity. I suppose the converse must also be true. That is, if in the exercise of his office, a Bishop takes an action that is unwise, imprudent, incompetent or a pastoral failure we can correctly conclude that he is not holy and has no personal santity – in other words is evil.

    If, as you say, that if we believe that ven. Pope John Paul II was personally holy, we must also believe that every action he undertook was pastorally prudent, please explain the pastoral prudence of him venerating, or at least appearing to venerate the koran.

    I’ve heard all of the explanations of why he did what he did (which frankly ring hollow), but I’m not interested in that. I want to know how this act as Pope can be considered pastorally prudent.

  29. Ezra says:

    robtbrown,

    in so far as I taught theology at the FSSP seminar, you can rest easy that I am being careful. From my comments above, I think it’s obvious I was not talking about rupture, but rather a serious difference in emphasis.

    Not really. You posited a distinction between “traditional ecclesiology” and Counter Reformation theology; perhaps you could explain where you draw the line in the development of traditional ecclesiology. The theology of the Counter Reformation has its distinctive notes – with writers emphasising, defending and clarifying points of Catholic doctrine being disputed by the heretics of the Reformation – but it is simply sloppy writing to suggest that there is some uniform “traditional ecclesiology” against which that of St Robert Bellarmine can be contrasted.

    It’s a matter of pastoral prudence not successes. Successes can be a function of the situation the man inherited when he became pope. JPII inherited a very bad situation.

    Yes, and the situation deteriorated dramatically during his pontificate. Bishops tainted by unnatural vice and unChristian belief were appointed, their crimes ignored, and in some cases their persons protected from prosecution. Fr Maciel’s accusers were treated with contempt while he and his order were showered with favours. Yes, we had the Church’s teaching on contraception and the ordination of women forcefully reaffirmed, but a pope must govern as well as teach. Too often, John Paul II gave ammunition to those of his critics who thought him more interested in international showboating than in acting to prevent the spread of heresy and vice in the Church.

    If he is canonized, we are required to accept that he has attained the beatific vision, and that there may be aspects of his life worthy of emulation. We are not required to celebrate his papacy, approve his more curious gestures, or regard his as an example of what a good pontificate looks like, any more than the canonization of Pope St Celestine V required Catholics to believe that it is normal or good for popes to resign their office.

  30. robtbrown says:

    MichaelJ,

    Pardon the late response.

    1. I do not think that beatifying JPII (i.e., proclaiming his holiness) implies that his actions as pope were impeccable, or that every pastoral action was prudent. Pastoral acts are, like personal acts, subject to human limitations. There is no more reason to think that JPII always acted correctly pastorally than to think that he always acted correctly personally (i.e., committed no sins).

    2. There is a serious difference between assessing a papacy and assessing a pope’s impact on the Church. As I noted above, every pope is elected into circumstances–sometimes good, other times not so good. I think we can agree that JPII walked into very bad circumstances. Men like Cardinals Villot, Baggio, and Pironio held powerful Curial posts. Pironio went from Prefect of the Congregation of Religious to Head of the Council of the Laity–like a US Sec of State being moved to Head of the President’s Council on Physical Fitness.

    And of course Abp Jadot was the Vatican delegate to the US–he and Bernardin were naming US bishops.

    There were also seminaries that encouraged seminarians to date because they said celibacy was going to end. There were people in formation in seminaries and religious orders who were told over and over by members of formation teams that women would be ordained (I have personal knowledge of this). There was also confusion about Catholic moral teaching.

    3. Cardinal Amato is emphasizing that holiness is not merely a matter of public actions, but I can’t agree that he thinks holiness excludes public actions.

    4. Although I wasn’t crazy about JPII kissing the Koran or for that matter the Assisi Gathering, I don’t consider them big deals. I do consider it a big deal that he paid little attention to reforming the Church. He was possibly the paradigm of a papa politico.

    5. I have no objection to him being beatified, but all the John Paul the Great talk leaves me cold. As a priest friend once told me: JPII’s First Act was superb, but when the time came for the Second Act, he just repeated the first.

  31. robtbrown says:

    Ezra,

    1. I consider “theological development” to be a much overused phrase. There are legitimate instances of theological development, e.g., the doctrines of Transubstantiation, Papal Infallibility, the Assumption, or the Immaculate Conception. On the other hand, I would not consider Counter Reformation Theology to signal theological development. Rather, it was the marriage of Scotist theology to the trend toward highly centralized, top down organizations.

    2. It is well known that Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis marked a return the concept of the Church found in St Paul (also St Thomas Aquinas). IMHO, the best example of the difference between the Mystical Body approach and the Church as Perfect Society approach is found in the interpretation of non est salus extra ecclesiam. The former has no problem handling the question of the possible salvation of non-believers; the latter either dismisses it as a possibility or adopts the Cardinal Kasper approach of denying the doctrine.

    3. I agree that in many ways the state of the Church worsened under JPII. In some cases, I think the problems just began to surface–it takes a while for a dead animal to smell. I do wonder, however, why he made little effort to reform the Church. There are many possibilities why he didn’t, among which:

    a. He had almost no experience in running an organization. Cardinal Wyszy?ski ran the Church in Poland.
    b. He thought that the episcopacy needed to be rebuilt before any serious attempt at reform could be made.
    c. He bought into the new liturgy, thinking it had nothing to do with the mess.
    d. His health. I do know that I was told in 1991 by someone in the know that after the shooting JPII’s health was much worse than it seemed.
    e. He thought most of the problems in the Church were simply Western Decadence, which would begin to be cured by the influence of the Central European nations after the fall of the Soviet Union.
    f. He accepted the notion of Polish Prophecy, that Pole would arise to teach morality to the world.
    g. He was going build Euro Unity to make sure that Poland would never again be occupied by a nation to the East or to the West.

    IMHO, there is truth in all of the above.

    4. Although beatification and especially canonization establish someone as a certain moral paradigm, it doesn’t mean that we have to accept every aspect of their lives. There are certain saints (among whom, St Peter Damien) who are blatant anti-intellectuals, a trait I consider all but anti-Catholic. And Pius XII, a great pope whom I hope will be canonized, tried to remake the Dominicans in the image of the Jesuits (super centralization. The Master General of the Dominicans backed him down. Further, he put off dealing with the problems of Church, which results in a bigger mess after Vat II.