Vatican II: 'Two Sources of Revelation'

Jack P. Oostveen

send an Email

Content Introduction Interventions by Pope Paul VI De Fontibus Revelatione Preparatory document, June1961 General session, November 1962 Mixed Commission Written Observations 1964 General Session 1964 Intervention Conclusion Attachment This report can download as pdf-file.

Interventions by Pope Paul VI

Consequently to the Hijack the Council Commissions were imbalanced with a disproportional influence by the New Theology and the anti-Roman sentiment. Therefore Pope Paul VI had to intervene personally more than once in accordance to the substantive rules set by Pope John XXIII. This was the case of the Dogmatic Constitution Verbum Dominum, the doctrine of marriage, the subject of celibacy [03] and the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium.

He forbade the Council to debate publicly about the subjects on contraception and celibacy by withdrawing these subjects from the Council's agenda and decided to cover these by himself. After the Council Pope Paul VI indeed covered these subject in the encyclicals Sacerdotalis Cealibatus (1967) and Humanae Vitae (1968) respectively, which got an overflow of rebellion reactions.

In case of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium Pope Paul VI choose to issue a Nota explicativa praevia to explain how certain parts of this document has to be read.

Bellow the intervention on the two Sources of Revelation, a subject that concerns the teaching of the Council of Trent, is highlighted. This subject can be found in the preparatory document De Fontibus Revelatione [04], especially in its first chapter, which is added as attachment. Finally the preparatory document De Fontibus Revelatione became the Dogmatic Constitution Verbum Dominum.

De Fontibus Revelatione

After discussing the schema on the Liturgy from October 20 to November 13 the Council Fathers started on November 14 with the schema De Fontibus Revelatione prepared by the theological commission. Firstly, as president of the Theological Commission Cardinal Ottaviani was given the floor. He warned against illegal acts, by which: "some schemas have been circulated for the purpose of being substituted for the official schema.  This does not seem to be in accordance with the provisions of canon X of canon law. [The canon invoked is canon 222]" [05] and [06]. Then directly after the opening Cardinal Liénart of Lille took the floor: "I do not like the present doctrinal decree. In all of its content, it is totally inadequate for the matter with which it must deal. ... I ask with all my strength that the schema be entirely revised" [05] followed by the Cardinals Frings' and König's "Schema non placet". The general discussions went on till November 20, with the exception of Sunday November 18. The Council seems to have been divided into two opposite groups. On Sunday November 18 a private meeting was held at Bishop Volk's residence: "the 'Mater Dei' boarding house by Bishop Volk of Mainz. There were about 18 of us: 6 German bishops (Schröffer, bishop of Eichstätt; H. Schäuffele, from Freiburg, Volk from Mainz, P.Rusch from Innsbrück, etc.); 4 French bishops (Garonne, Elchinger, Pourchet, and the auxillary of Lille); theologians from Germany, France, Belgium, Holland ..." [05].  Bishop Volk started this meeting by saying: "This is an absolutely private meeting, to examine freely among ourselves how we can get out of this impasse. ..." [05]

Finally, November 20, after a week of general discussions and before starting the more detailed discussions on the chapters a voting was held on the schema in general. And when the votes did not attain the two-thirds majority in favour of rejecting this schema that the council's rules required on all procedural questions, the detailed discussions continued.  However the following day, November 21, it was announced the Holy Father had decided to have the schema De Fontibus Revelatione of the theological commission recast by a new mixed commission, in order to shorten it and to make the general principles defined by Trent and Vatican I stand out better. 

It has to be concluded here that Pope John XXIII did not require, suggest or ordered any substantial changes of this document. Rather, the changes would only affect the length and shape, making it more pastoral and ecumenical. Further discussion of this scheme by the Council Fathers was called off.

The new mixed commission consisting of the Theological Commission and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was presided by both Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Holy Office, and Cardinal Bea S.J., President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. In addition, Pope John XXIII appointed Cardinals Liénart, Frings, König, Léger, Meyer, Lefebvre, Santos, Ruffini and Browne [04]. Now the imbalanced new theologian commission became even more imbalanced, because Cardinals Bea S.J., Liénart, Frings, König, Léger, Meyer and Lefebvre were attached to Schema non placet position while only Cardinals Ottaviani, Ruffini and Browne were in favour of the schema. With this the rebellious "Spirit of the Council" gained a majority in the Mixed Commission and had only to wait for the right moment, they could rule this Commission. Finally, this made an intervention by Pope Paul VI inevitable.

Preparatory document, June1961

The first Chapter of the original schema De Fontibus Revelatione mentioned the two Sources of Revelation: Holy Scripture and Tradition. Especially, paragraph 6 referred to this distinction given by the Council of Trent. This distinction was a response to the reformation that interpreted the one divine revelation of the Word of God as being Sola Scriptura.

The draft of De Fontibus Revelatione has been written by a sub-commission of experts and reworked after a discussion by the full Theological Preparatory Commission. Then after approval by the vast majority of the Theological Preparatory Commission this reworked draft was presented to the Central Preparatory Commission [07]. The voting by the members of this Central Preparatory Commission, at which only Cardinals and Bishops could vote, turned out to be 4 Placet, 63 Placet iuxta modum and 2 non placet, while 4 votes abstained. The two non placet votes came from the German Cardinals Frings and Döpfner [07]. According the protocol, because the fast majority of the Central Preparatory Commission had voted placet iuxta modum the document did not return to the Theological Preparatory Commission. In accordance to rules the document was revised by a sub-commission under supervision of 5 Cardinal members of the Central Preparation Commission [07]. In case an objective had been rejected the sub-commission was obliged to write their arguments in an accompanying letter. The critics in this draft that had led to a majority of votes for placet iuxta modum, did not really concern the distinction of the sources of Revelation between Tradition and Scripture. Even the large numbers of critics by Cardinal Bea, at which about 55 votes referred, did not concern this subject.

Note that only 13 of the 72 voting members of the Central Preparatory Commission where members of the Curia too, most of them Prefect of one of the Congregations. And more than 80% of the voting members where diocesan Cardinals and Bishops from all over the world. It was this revised draft that after approval by Pope John XXIII was presented for discussion to the Council Fathers. So, in no way this preparatory document can be considered as a Curial document as it was so oft suggested by those, who opposed this document [08].

General session, November 1962

November 14, 1962, the General Session on De Fontibus Revelatione started. Here, in contrary to the objections by the Central Preparatory Commission, the subject of the two Sources of Revelation was precisely where the Cardinals Liénart, Frings and König began attacking this preparatory document. Note that these Cardinals were also voting members of the Central Preparatory Commission. Here, they showed a harsh opposition to the subject of two sources of Revelation. Cardinal Liénart addressed the issue as follows: "I do not like the present doctrinal decree. In all its content, it is totally inadequate for the matter with which it must deal. This refers to the idea of two sources of revelation. The schema identified two distinct sources: Scripture and tradition, which corresponded to a theme inherited from the anti-Protestant arguments against the idea of sola scriptura. This conception was criticized by some Fathers who insisted on the one and only source: the Word of God. The divine source has been omitted, the deeper, unique source, that is the Word of God. The essential source. ..." [05]. Directly thereafter Cardinal Frings stated: "... On the two sources. This manner of speaking is recent; it is not found in the Fathers or Scholastics (it is not in Saint Thomas) or in the Councils.  And from the very first lines, by these two sources, our separated brethren will be offended, a new gap will be created. ... It is not the tradition of the councils to resolve disputed questions." [05] and Cardinal König "In truth he said in the schemas proposed a judgement which up today is still disputed among the theologians and periti, and about which there is not the unanimous consent of the Tradition" [09].  These interventions were aroused by titular Archbishop Mgr. Parente by an articulate and precise summing up the opposite facts after which Cardinal Frings was persuaded to apologise for not having expressed himself clearly and corrected himself, saying: "in order of being there is one source, Revelation itself, from which arise two rivulets, Sacred Scripture and Tradition". Finally, the real problem was the method, over which there was a disagreement regarding the purpose. [09]. 

 Note, that the same Cardinals, who intervened irregularly on the first working day of the Council, were just those who set the tone by a confrontational attack on De Fontibus Revelatione on the first day of the discussion on this document. Meanwhile their theologian advisors strived to get a withdrawal of all doctrinal preparatory documents. As mentioned by Cardinal Ottaviani in his opening address they were illegally working on alternative texts to get the entire 3 years of dogmatic Preparatory Work withdrawn and replaced for their hasty produced alternatives.

Here, the fathers Yves Congar O.P., Daniélou S.J., Karl Rahner S.J. found it extremely necessary to reject these doctrinal documents. Though the younger Joseph Ratzinger claimed that he was much more moderate on it, he still worked closely to Father Karl Rahner S.J. on a text to replace the text of De Fontibus Revelatione: "[Cardinal Joseph Frings] began to send me [the schemata] regularly in order to have my criticism and suggestions for improvement. Naturally I took exception to certain things, but I found no grounds for a radical rejection of what was being proposed. It is true that the documents bore only weak traces of the biblical and patristic renewal of the last decades, so that they gave an impression of rigidity and narrowness through their excessive dependency on scholastic theology. In other words, they reflected more the thought of scholars than that of shepherds. But I must say that they had a solid foundation and had been carefully elaborated" [10]

Mixed Commission

While the voting on November 20, 1962, lacked the required absolute majority to reject the De Fontibus Revelatione, the discussions would continue. However considering that this outcome "was too thin to be viable" [11] and that the character of the rejections were finally on the method only, Pope John XXIII decided to recast this schema by a Commission. This Commission, composed mostly of members of the Doctrinal Commission and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, should shorten the text and make the general principles defined by Trent and Vatican I stand out better (November 21).

Note, that while the text would be too much academic, scholastic and too defensive, Pope John XXIII's instruction to the mixed commission did not contain any substantial change, but looking at the method to make the general principles defined by Trent and Vatican I stand out better.

In addition to this, on November 24, nineteen Cardinals addressed the Supreme Pontiff, showing their appreciation of this decision to clearly state doctrinal principles against arising deviations, especially in exegetical field.  These Cardinals mentioned: "(1) that divine Revelation is an external and public fact, historically ascertainable; (2) that the divine Catholic Tradition is, as well as Sacred Scripture, means of Revelation; (3) that the divine Catholic Tradition is necessary to guarantee the value itself of the Sacred Scripture, and to interpret with clarity the obscure biblical texts, in matters of faith and morals; (4) that both Sacred Scripture and divine-Catholic Tradition are remote rule of divine Revelation; the proximate rule is the living and unfailing Magisterium - ordinary and extraordinary - of the Holy Church, which sets out what is to be believed as divinely revealed truth that which is contained in the Depositum Fidei; (5) ...; (6) ..."[09].

However, the Fathers, their theologian advisors and periti of the mixed commission were divided. And so, opposing the instructions by Pope John XXIII, a discussion on the two sources, i.c. the material sufficiency of Scripture started.  Some were following Cardinal Bea S.J. with the opinion that a question about the distinction of the two sources should not be raised while others were following Cardinal Ottaviani who objected since it was a serious matter of faith at stake, de re fidei.  A third group that followed Father Karl Rahner S.J. defended the fact that other truths, excluding the canon, were implied in Sacred Scripture. 

After a few months of discussion none of these opinions got a two-third majority.  Then on February 23, 1963 a two-third majority was formed by Cardinal Bea S.J. and Father Karl Rahner S.J. agreeing to leave this matter open, falsely arguing that the Council was not called on to resolve this problem. This argument neglected on the one hand their main task: "make the general principles defined by Trent and Vatican I stand out better". While on the other hand with regard to the opening address by Pope Blessed John XXIII, they opposed the main rule that "the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously" and "the Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers".

The new neutral formula of the Revelation was adopted on February 23, 1963, by the majority of the mixed commission. It has to be said here that such happened while, during that meeting on Februari 23, Cardinal Ottaviani had to leave the meeting early, since he had to attend a function and by that Cardinal Bea assumed the first presidency. When Cardinal Ottaviani was still present, a question was put to vote. However, when Cardinal Ottaviani was absent Cardinal Bea changed the question for voting, so the agreement was to be that nothing was to be said about insufficiency, nothing in favour or against. The next meeting, February 25, Cardinal Ottaviani formally protested against the change in the question and criticised the legal validity of the vote, since, by means of the vote according to Cardinal Bea's question, the status quo had changed; the doctrine which had been taught by the ordinary Magisterium up until now, was now placed only as questio disputa, but in fact it was a matter of the foundation of faith. Cardinal Ottaviani presented a new question for voting: are there revealed truths which are not contained Sacred Scripture either explicitly nor implicitly. Cardinal Bea and all members of his Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity within the Mixed Commission rejected this vote, stating that such a question was already contained in a resolution, approved by the co-ordinating Commission. Finally this new neutral formula was send to the co-ordinating Commission, approved on March 27, 1963 and hand over to the General Secretary for further discussion in the Council [09].

The 1963 closing Address and the Written Observations 1964

Then, December 1963, in his closing address of the second session of the Council, Pope Paul VI alluded to the schema on Divine Revelation that he wanted the question about Revelation to be developed so as to defend the deposit of faith from all errors, abuse and doubt. He concluded: "the very sufficiency of Scripture is in no way taught by the Scripture itself" [12].  This should be a sign to the Council Fathers, who received this so-called neutral schema for making written observations and proposing amendments on January 3, 1964. Here, once again the debate about Tradition was heated. The Fathers accepted the schema while proposing amendments, which in their eyes were right and proper. Hereby, the German-language Council Fathers as well as the Scandinavian were in favour of the new schema, others manifested their perplexity, concerning the way the theme of material insufficiency of the Scripture was neutralised with the danger that the teaching on Tradition was made barely comprehensible. [09].
Then, March 1964, the Theologian Commission started to work on the observations by the Fathers. Obviously, again, the two sources appears too be a great problem. As Ratzinger has said "The greatest difficulty remained here, too, the problem of the material sufficiency of Scripture". The Doctrinal Commission was divided. Confirming the material insufficiency of Scriptures as taught by the Council of Trent, only a minority did not want to reduce the Scripture-Tradition relationship to a quaestio disputata. Only a minority did not want to reduce the Scripture-Tradition relationship to a quaestio disputata, confirming the material insufficiency of Scriptures as taught by the Council of Trent.

Here we have to mention Father Hermann Schauf reporting about a private meeting with Father Karl Rahner S.J. on March 12, 1964, "Before today's meeting a great disagreement with Rahner, who now wants to hear nothing about the insufficiency of Scripture. About formulation, which offers revealed things, which could not prove by Scripture, he said: what does to prove, to demonstrate mean? Who stops me from finding it in Scripture?". Father Karl Rahner S.J. stated that the axiom of material insufficiency of Scripture was impossible to prove, and therefore could be left out the conciliar declaration. [09]. Herewith, Father Karl Rahner made clear that for his concern the neutral formulation only served his opinion about the sufficiency of the Scripture.

General Session 1964

Certainly, there were outspoken opinions on the subject of the two Sources of Revelation, from both sides: pro and contra. Like on the one hand: "If we do not affirm the two sources, we are being unfaithful to the Council of Trent. We must speak of the 'Traditio constituva' " (Mgr. Raffaele Calabria of Benevento) while on the other hand Mgr. Hermann Volk of Mainz (Germany), one of the pupils of Father Karl Rahner S.J., stated: "Scripture does not merely contain but is in itself the word of God. We set forth Sacred Scripture in aula, not tradition" [03]
November 10, 1964, the Theologian Commission started the examination of De Revelatione in a lively discussion pro and contra the two sources. Then, as Mgr. Anastasio Granados, Auxilery of Toledo charged on the traditio constitutiva Mgr. Luis Henrí quez of Caracas said: "If someone wants to reopen this discussion, let there first be a prior vote to see if the commission consents to it; and, in that case, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity should be convoked, since it is a mixed commission that has charged with the finalization of the text. And the Secretariat will surely have a contrary opinion". Finally, the theological commission decided to keep silent about the dogmatic fact of Tradition as indispensable vehicle of faith alongside Scripture. Through this silence, dependent how it will be interpret, it could be understood that the Scripture is sufficient, thereby reducing the value of Tradition.

Intervention by Pope Paul VI

On September 24, 1965 Pope Paul VI urged through a letter by Pericles Felici, Secretary of the Council to Cardinal Ottaviani the prevention of the approval of a text on Scripture: "Most Reverend Eminence That is the will of the Holy Father that in the most appropriate place in the schema it be stated clearly and most explicitly about the constitutive nature of Tradition, as Source of Revelation. To that end the Supreme Pontiff himself has kindly indicated the following quotation from St. Augustine 'Sunt multa quae universa tenet Ecclesia, et ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta bene credeuntur, aquam scripta non reperiantur' (De baptismo c, Donat,. V, 23, 31: PL. 43,192)" [12].

Stimulated by this letter Cardinal Ottaviani once again tried several times to convince the members of the theological commission of the need for not silencing this doctrine of the Church. However the majority, who did not know about the letter of September 23 to Cardinal Ottaviani still refused by arguing that such is already passed by the decision of the mixed commission in February 1963.

After these refusals, on October 18, 1965, Pope Paul VI finally sent the theological commission a number of text-proposals from which they had to choose to adopt into the final schema, so that it could be read in accordance to the Doctrine of the Church.  As a reaction on the first rumours about such letter, according to Father Yves Congar O.P. on October 13, 1965, the conservative minority was directly accused for having influenced the Pope by requests for intervention.  However it came out by Cardinal Suenens, who had spoken Pope Paul VI twice about this subject, as Father Yves Congar O.P. reported:"that the Pope is pre-occupied with this question of Scripture and Tradition" [03].

So it went from "silencing the distinct sources by one unique source" (Liénart) via silencing one specific distinction "it is not found in the Fathers or Scholastics (it is not in Saint Thomas) or in the Councils" and "by these 'two sources', our separated brethren will be offended, a new gap will be created"(Frings) to a "Sola Scriptura"-spirit that considered: "Scripture as complete, everything is found there" [14] back to the origin two Sources of Revelation".

With the hindsight of the Council's aftermath, in 2013 Pope Benedict XVI reported that the mixed commission had produced a text on the Scripture: "... born from a vision of the Council detached from its proper key, that of faith. And the same applies to the question of Scripture: Scripture is a book, it is historical, to be treated historically and only historically, and so on".  This text that was strongly influenced by a spirit that considers the "Scripture as complete, everything is found there; consequently there is no need for Tradition, and so the Magisterium has nothing to say" [14].

Conclusion

Whereas, principally, any ambiguity, contradictory compromised texts or a one-sided silenced part of the Doctrine is a risk for false interpretations and therefore cannot directly come from the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of the Truth. So, any deliberately created ambiguity, contradictory compromised text-phrases or a one-sided silenced part of the Doctrine has to be considered as contradictory to a gracious and humble collaboration with the intention of the Holy Spirit.

So, this example on the 'Doctrine of the two Sources of Revelation' is showing how far the rebellious 'Spirit of the Council' would work against the Holy Spirit if they indeed had the majority itself. Then, they would not only stack into ambiguities to delude good-willing Council Fathers.

This example shows that:

• A vast majority of the mixed commission as well as a vast majority of the theological commission and a vast majority of Council Fathers lacked the spirit to fulfil the primary substantive rule set by Pope John XXIII: "never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers" [01]. They silenced the Truth about the Doctrine of the two Sources as given by the Council of Trent;
• A vast majority of the mixed commission did not fulfil the task as instructed by Pope John XXIII not to change De Fontibus Revelatione substantially;
• A vast majority of theological commission and Council Fathers did not respond well to the intention of Pope Paul VI as given in his closing address of the second session in December 1963.

Apparently, it shows that the rebellious spirit lacked any spirit of gracious and humble collaboration with the intention of the Holy Spirit by their free will. Suggesting "that the Pope is pre-occupied with this question of Scripture and Tradition" [03] they only accepted this Doctrine forcedly because the Pope insisted that this is the Truth about the source of Revelation. And so they set back this Doctrine in the document about the Revelation. However even then, as witnessed by Father Henry de Lubac S.J., not too strong: ".. it did not seem to me strong enough (Which are the dogmas, in fact, about which the Scripture text alone, without the traditional interpretation, could give us an absolute certainty) .. That showed me how easily our bishops are being maneuvered. .." [13].

Furthermore, as reported by [15] Father. Alberto Franzini, SJ, notes in his dissertation ad lauream in Theology at the Gregorian University "The concept of Tradition in the Constitution Dei Verbum is understood with different meanings not always clearly specified or even intelligible, thus giving rise to confusions that theological reflection, based on good textual hermeneutics, should attempt to eliminate ... Regarding the first criticism, Dei Verbum can hardly escape the accusation that a certain 'semantic sleight-of-hand' has taken place. Until the various meanings of the term 'Tradition' are clarified, it will be difficult even to agree upon the precise meanings that, at times, it may take on....".." and more specifically on number 8: " In n. 8 of Dei Verbum are seen fundamentally two concepts of Tradition which are constantly interchanged: a concept which is broader in some contexts and more restricted in others".."

Obviously, Cardinal Bea S.J. seemed to be motivated and focused by ecumenical purposes to decline the resistance by the reformation, which is a good thing itself. But going so far as if the Doctrine of the Church is (partly) guilty on that gap between the Church and the Reformation and therefore denying or silencing a part of the doctrine seems to be an accusation against the Holy Spirit.

This event concerning the subject of the "two Sources of Revelation" shows the full consequences of the irregular intervention on October 13, 1962, by Cardinal Liénart, the confirmation by Cardinal Frings as well as the irregular applause by a vast majority of Council Fathers, neglecting the rule "not to change a rule without Pope's approval" by the Presidium and the sanctioning by Pope John XXIII.