Rev. Ralph Wiltgen: The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

THE SCHEMA ON DIVINE REVELATION: SOME PAPAL DIRECTIVES


In the preface to its dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the Second Vatican Council declares that, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, it “wishes to set forth authentic teaching about divine revelation and about how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe; by believing, it may hope; and by hoping, it may love.” In Chapter I, divine revelation is described as an action whereby “the invisible God out of the abundance of his love speaks to men as friends and fives among them, so that he may invite and take them into fellowship with himself. This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them.”

The life span of the schema on divine revelation covered all four sessions.

At the first session, discussion was deadlocked on the crucial matter of a single or twofold source of revelation. Pope John XXIII resolved the deadlock by creating a special joint commission representing both conflicting tendencies and instructing it to draw up a new text. This text was distributed to the Council Fathers in May 1963.

On August 9, 1963, Bishop Schroffer, of Eichstatt, Germany, a liberal member of the Theological Commission, informed the Council Fathers who were preparing to attend the Fulda conference later that month that the revised schema was “the result of a laborious struggle” in the joint commission, and was no more than “a compromise with all the disadvantages that a compromise entails.” It had not been possible, he said, to achieve further concessions, and “not much more” was to be hoped for.

He enclosed with his letter detailed comments on the schema prepared by Father Rahner, as supported by Fathers Grillmeier, Semmelroth, and Ratzinger, according to which the schema was “a peaceful compromise which avoids many causes of division, but which therefore avoids mentioning many things concerning which additional doctrine would be welcome.”

The Fulda conference prepared an official statement on the schema, largely based on Father Rahner’s comments, including an “urgent request” that the schema on divine revelation “should not be treated at the very beginning of the second session of the Council, but at a later time.” The further request was made that the discussion should start with the schema on the Church. Cardinal Dopfner delivered the statement in person to the Council authorities in Rome and attended the meeting of the Coordinating Commission on August 31, which determined the agenda for the coming session. On his return to Munich, he informed the Council Fathers who had attended the Fulda conference that the schema on the Church was first on the provisional agenda; the schema on divine revelation was not listed at all.

Although F'ather Rahner had told the bishops at Fulda before the second session that there was “virtually no hope of substituting a new and better schema,” this hope was revived at the end of the second session when the European alliance succeeded in having four new members elected to the Theological Commission, which was responsible for the schema on divine revelation. It was announced at the same time that further amendments could be submitted by mail until January 31, 1964.

Three weeks after the close of the second session, the Coordinating Commission instructed the Theological Commission to proceed to a revision of the as yet undiscussed schema. Special subcommissions of the Theological Commission were created to handle the revision; their members included Bishop Andre Charue, of Namur, Belgium, chairman; Bishop van Dodewaard, of Haarlem, the Netherlands; Archbishop Ermenegildo Float, of Florence, Italy; Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Heuschen, of Liege, Belgium; Abbot Butler, of Downside, superior of the English Benedictines; Bishop Georges Pelletier, of Trois-Rivieres, Canada; and a large number of periti, including Fathers Grillmeier, Semmelroth, Castellino, Cerfaux, Garofalo, Turrado, Rigaux, Kerrigan, Gagnebet, Rahner, Congar, Schauf, Prignon, Moeller, Smulders, Betti, Colombo, Ramirez, and Van den Eynde.

The bishops and periti of this special subcommission worked privately before meeting in Rome from April 20 to 24, 1964. Their revised text was sent for approval to the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, which replied on May 30 that is was generally satisfied with the text and felt that a joint meeting with the Theological Commission would not be needed.

The text was next taken up at four meetings of the Theological Commission, from June 3 to 5. On June 26, the Coordinating Commission approved the revised text, and on July 3 it was approved by Pope Paul VI as a basis for discussion. On September 30, 1964, two weeks after the opening of the third session, the draft constitution on divine revelation was introduced on the Council floor by Archbishop Florit.

The Archbishop said that many of the written observations submitted by Council Fathers had requested that the schema should include a fuller treatment of tradition. Many had also called for a more profound treatment of revelation itself, asking “that the concept of revelation be further developed, as well as its object, which should include not only truths about God, but God himself; for God reveals himself not only in words but also in deeds carried out by him in the history of salvation.”

Another member of the Theological Commission, Bishop Franic, of Yugoslavia, said that the schema as it stood, while not erroneous, was “notably defective” in its treatment of the fullness of tradition.

Cardinal Dopfner, of Munich, speaking in the name of seventy-eight German-speaking and Scandinavian Council Fathers, commended the text highly, saying that it had successfully skirted the difficult problem of defining whether the whole of revelation was or was not contained in Sacred Scripture.

Cardinal Leger, of Montreal, called the text more than satisfactory and said a fine balance had been achieved regarding the relation between Sacred Scripture and tradition.

Archbishop Shehan, of Baltimore, called the schema defective because “it does not express what happens to the subject of revelation, that is, to a human mind which receives revelation from God, interprets it, and then transmits it to the People of God.”

Bishop Compagnone, of Anagni, Italy, said that there should be no deviation from the doctrine of the Council of Trent and Vatican I, which affirmed that tradition was more extensive than Sacred Scripture, and that revelation was contained not only in Sacred Scripture but also in tradition. Although the majority did not consider it opportune to introduce this teaching in the text, care should be taken to avoid giving the impression
that the Council was turning its back on earlier decisions.

Abbot Butler, of Downside, discussed the historicity problem of the Gospels. “In the light of faith,” he said, “it is certain that the Gospels, like the other books of the Bible, are inspired, with all the consequences resuiting from that dogmatic truth. But it is also certain that the notion of so-called literary types applies to the Gospels as well as to the other books. And it is likewise certain that through this principle many difficulties in the Old Testament have been solved in such a way that no harm was done to faith. At the same time, apparent contradictions between the inspired books and other known truths, whether scientific or historical, have disappeared. .. . There is no reason from faith or from dogma why the same might not happen in the case of the Gospels.” He readily admitted that errors might arise, and that some exegetes might even turn this liberty into license, but this danger must be faced in view of the greater good to be achieved.

The debate was closed on October 6. All suggestions made during the five days of debate, as well as those contained in written interventions, were examined anew. On November 20, at the last General Congregation of the session, the new edition of the schema was given to the Council Fathers, who were told that they might submit further observations up to January 31, 1965.

The International Group of Fathers sent a ten-page criticism of the schema to its mailing list with an accompanying letter stating that one in conscience could give an affirmative vote at the fourth session, if the enclosed amendments were adopted in the schema. The group urged that its amendments be submitted before the January 31 deadline, since experience proved that “suggestions and amendments made to Council Commissions have almost no weight unless they are supported by the largest possible number of signatures.”

The effort was wasted, however, because the Theological Commission did not make a revision, in spite of the announcement made in the Council hall.

Voting on the schema took place early in the fourth session, between September 20 and 22, 1965. Contrary to Article 61, Section 3, of the Rules of Procedure, no report was read by a representative of the Theological Commission before the vote. In the course of six ballots, qualifications were submitted with 1498 affirmative votes. The Theological Commission, however, was not obliged to adopt any of these changes, because each part of the schema had received far more than the required two-thirds majority.

The qualified affirmative votes chiefly concerned the relation between Scripture and tradition, in Article 9; the inerrancy of the Scriptures, in Article 11; and the historicity of the four Gospels, in Article 19. From the outset, these three points had proved particularly difficult, because of different schools of theological thought, because of varied positions dictated by modern biblical studies, and because of ecumenical implications.

Practically the same proposal was submitted by hi Council Fathers in connection with Article 9. They wished to have the following words added to the text; “Consequently, not every Catholic doctrine can be proved from I Scripture alone.”

To assist the Theological Commission in its deliberations on this point, Pope Paul on September 24 sent it the following quotation from St. Augustine: “There are many things which the entire Church holds, and they are therefore correctly believed to have been taught by the Apostles, even though they are not to be found in written form.” For some reason, the quotation was never brought up at any of the meetings of the Commission on October 1, 4, and 6. A long and heated discussion took place on the proposal of the in Council Fathers, and the decision was finally reached on October 6 to retain the text unchanged.

In connection with Article 11, on the inerrancy of the Scriptures, 184 Council Fathers asked for the deletion of the phrase “pertaining to salvation” from the statement that “the books of Scripture .. . must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, with integrity, and without error, the truth pertaining to salvation.” They argued that the phrase seemed to confine the inerrancy of the Scriptures to matters concerning faith and morals. The Commission decided that the schema as it stood did not in fact restrict the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and again it decided to make no changes in the text.

The point at issue in Article 19, on the historicity of the Gospels, was the phrase “true and sincere things about Jesus” in the statement, “The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels... always in such manner that they told us true and sincere things about Jesus.” An amendment prepared by the International Group was submitted by 158 Council Fathers to reword the phrase to read “true and sincere history,” or “true historical narrative.” The argument was that a writer could be sincere, yet still write only fiction. They also felt that the schema confined the truth of the Gospels to those things which were narrated “about Jesus”; it should be made clear that what was said in the Gospels about other persons was also historically
true and sincere. Eighty-five other Council Fathers suggested that the words “true and sincere things about Jesus” should be replaced by the words “objective truths as regards the historical accuracy of the facts.”

But again the Theological Commission decided not to change the text. The majority justified their stand on the grounds that the general assembly had already accepted the schema in its existing form by more than the required two-thirds majority, and that the Commission therefore had no authority to alter the text on the basis of suggestions made by a relatively small minority. This position was legally correct, since the vote had in fact proved a great victory for the liberals. Article 9 had been adopted by 83 per cent of the assembly; Article 11, by 84 per cent; and Article 19, by 85 per cent.

Understandably, these decisions occasioned great disappointment in the minority groups concerned, both inside and outside the Commission. Complaints immediately began to reach the Pope through numerous channels. Some periti maintained that the schema as it stood contained serious doctrinal error. Bishops pleaded urgently for an authoritative intervention by the Pope. And still others assured the Pope that there was no cause for alarm, and that there was no danger that a false interpretation might be given to the schema. If the Pope was to take any action in the matter, it would have to be prior to the final series of votes on the manner in which the Theological Commission had handled the qualifications.

A solution to the problem of Article 9 was submitted to Pope Paul by Archbishop—now Cardinal—Florit, of Florence, who had helped formulate Article 9 and had supported it in the Theological Commission. He suggested that Pope Paul reconvene the Commission and ask it to reconsider carefully the necessity, or the opportuneness, of stating explicitly in the schema that not every Catholic doctrine could be proved from Scripture alone. The thorny problem of whether tradition contained more revealed truths than Scripture was an altogether different question and would not be touched upon. It was merely a matter of stating more precisely that tradition provided a more explicit and complete expression of divine revelation than Scripture, since tradition could be the determining factor in some cases for arriving at an exact knowledge and understanding of what had been revealed. An affirmation of this sort, said Cardinal Florit, would be fully in harmony with the text. He proposed, therefore, the addition of these words to Article 9: “Consequently, not every Catholic doctrine can be proved from Sacred Scripture alone.” This amendment, incidentally, was nearly identical with the one proposed earlier by the Council Fathers, and rejected by the Theological Commission.

On October 8, Pope Paul received a memorandum from the International Group of Fathers regarding Article n. The phrase “truth pertaining to salvation,” wrote the authors of the memorandum, had been deliberately introduced in order to confine the inerrancy of Scripture to supernatural matters concerning faith and morals; this was in open conflict with the constant teaching of the Church, they continued, and would encourage exegetes to become increasingly audacious in their demands. Other reactions to this article also reached the Pope, some spontaneously, some solicited by him, and of all shades of opinion.

Complaints were also submitted to Pope Paul concerning Article 19, and it was known that he himself felt the phrase “true and sincere things” to be unconvincing and unsatisfactory. An account that was historically reliable would have a wholly different value from one that was merely sincere, he said. Upon inquiry he learned that Cardinal Bea and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, together with the Theological Commission, technically made up the joint commission which was competent for revising the schema, but the Theological Commission had drawn up the objectionable passages independently. Pope Paul then conferred with Cardinal Bea.

The Pope gave these questions his most earnest attention, studying the relevant literature and consulting with competent persons. After discussing the matter with the four Moderators on October 12, he received from one of them a memorandum two days later on Article 9, pointing out that the Theological Commission had been obliged to act in accordance with the mandate which it had received from an overwhelming majority of the Council Fathers. To allay every anxiety, however, the writer suggested, it might still be stated that not all Catholic doctrine could be known with certainty from Scripture alone, without the help of tradition or the teaching authority of the Church. That solution, he said, would substantially strengthen the Catholic position in the face of the Protestant position, without touching upon the question still controverted among Catholic theologians.

The view of the Moderator coincided with the proposal made earlier by Cardinal Florit. On October 14, Pope Paul sent that proposal to the Theological Commission as his own.

In a letter dated October 18 to Cardinal Ottaviani, President of the Theological Commission, the Secretary of State enclosed further observations of Pope Paul on the three disputed articles, and informed the Cardinal of the Pope’s decision to reconvene the Commission. The observations, he explained, were not intended “to alter substantially either the schema itself or the work of the Commission, but rather to improve it in some points of great doctrinal importance.” The incorporation of these changes . would enable the Holy Father “in all tranquility” to give the requested approval for the promulgation of the document which involved “great responsibility for him toward the Church and toward his own conscience.” The Secretary of State further gave notice of the Pope’s wish that Cardinal Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, who had also served as co-president of the special joint commission established by Pope John XXIII, be invited to attend the meeting of the Commission.

This letter had been dictated by the Pope himself on October 17.

The Commission met on October 19 to hear the contents of the letter.

The first of the three papal directives concerned Article 9, and suggested seven possible renderings. Cardinal Bea explained why he preferred the third one. After some discussion and balloting, the Commission decided to add to Article 9 the words: “Consequently, it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything which has been revealed.” This had been Cardinal Bea’s choice.

In regard to Article n, the Commission was invited by Cardinal Cicognani, on behalf of Pope Paul, to consider “with new and serious reflection” the advisability of omitting the expression “truth pertaining to salvation” from the text. The Cardinal pointed out that the issue here was a doctrine that was not yet commonly accepted in the theological and Scriptural teaching of the Church; moreover, it did not seem to have been sufficiently discussed in the Council hall. Further, he said, in the judgment of very authoritative persons, the phrase might easily be misinterpreted. The omission of the phrase would not rule out the future study of the problem.

Cardinal Bea also maintained that the phrase was inopportune and open to misinterpretation. He drew attention to the fact that the phrase had not been decided upon at a meeting of the special joint commission, but had been introduced later.

After further discussion and several ballots—there was controversy as to which of these ballots was to be considered valid—the Commission decided to reword the phrase as follows: . . the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” Almost the same wording had been suggested by 73 of the 260 Council Fathers who had submitted qualifications to Article n nearly a month before.

With regard to Article 19, Cardinal Cicognani advised the Commission that Pope Paul regarded the words “true and sincere” as insufficient. That expression, he said, did not seem to guarantee the historical reality of the Gospels, and he added that the Holy Father clearly “could not approve a formulation which leaves in doubt the historicity of these most holy books.”

Cardinal Bea subscribed to the views stated by Cardinal Cicognani on behalf of Pope Paul, and supported the alternative formulation suggested by the Pope.

Other Commission members, however, pointed Out that not even the suggested formulation would eliminate the difficulty, since many Protestants would place their interpretation upon it. It was then suggested that the historicity of the Gospels should be asserted without equivocation earlier in the same paragraph; this would preclude any ambiguity concerning the words “true and sincere,” which could then be retained.

This solution, which achieved the purpose intended by the Pope and also contained the substance of his proposal, was voted upon and adopted. The beginning of Article 19 was thus amended to read as follows; “Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels, . . . whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ . . . really did and taught for their eternal salvation.”

On October 29, Cardinal Florit read a report to the general assembly on the manner in which the Theological Commission had handled the qualifications submitted with the affirmative votes. No mention was made of the special meeting of the Commission or the role of Pope Paul. When the ballot was taken, 2081 Council Fathers expressed approval of the manner in which the qualifications had been handled, and 27 expressed disapproval.

On November 18,1965, the Council Fathers, gathered in the presence of Pope Paul VI, voted 2344 to 6 to accept the Constitution on Divine Revelation. The Constitution was immediately promulgated by the Pope.

While Pope Paul was considering whether to intervene in the matter or not, he received a letter from a leading personality at the Council—not a member of the Theological Commission—who had taken it upon himself to act as the spokesman for some alarmists at the Council. The writer said that if the Pope reconvened the Commission, as it was rumored, he would be guilty of using moral pressure on the Commission and the Council. Such a step, continued the writer, would damage the prestige of the Council and the Church, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, the United States and Canada, where people were particularly sensitive to any violation of Rules of Procedure.

To this, Pope Paul replied:

We wish to let you know immediately that it is in fact our intention to invite the Theological Commission of the Council kindly to consider the advisability of improving some points of the schema on divine revelation. We consider it our duty to reach a degree of doctrinal certitude which will allow us to add our approval to that of the Council Fathers.

We believe also that this intervention of ours in the Council Commission is perfectly in order, since it is our responsibility not only to ratify or reject the text in question, but also—like every other Council Father—to collaborate in improving it with opportune suggestions. . . . This also seems the simplest and most courteous way of bringing to the attention of the Commission all those elements which are useful for the work that has been assigned to it. We take the liberty of pointing out, however, that no offense is being committed against the authority of the Council, as you indeed suspect, but rather that a necessary contribution is being made so that it may carry out its functions.

Further, nothing can cause us more pleasure than to see attention called to the liberty of the Council and to the observance of the rules of procedure that have been laid down. These principles are no less dear to the Romans than they are to the Anglo-Saxons. They have been most rigorously observed in the Council.

Father Giovanni Caprile, S.J., who has had access to papal archive material on the Council, has said that the Pope’s intervention in this phase of the Council’s history “makes us appreciate once more the firm and at the same time gentle moderating action exercised by Paul VI. Together with the Council Fathers, at their side and as their leader, delicately fulfilling the command to strengthen the brethren, he has been the instrument used by the Holy Spirit to assure the Church a flowering of conciliar texts rich in wisdom and safe in doctrine.”