Chapter II of Dei Verbum, Vatican II's dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, concerns the transmission of divine revelation. This subject involved some controversial questions among Catholic theologians at the time of Vatican II, and the discussion of these controversial topics was further complicated by the widespread desire to treat these issues in an ecumenical manner. What eventually resulted was, like so many other parts of Vatican II documents, essentially a compromise text. As a result, it is not as clear on some of the controverted points as one might desire.[1] Nevertheless, while there is not necessarily enough material available to resolve all these questions, one can attempt to correctly interpret the Council text here at least to the point of excluding erroneous interpretations, which might seem to indicate that the text takes positions on some points which in fact it does not. That is approximately what will be attempted here, with chapter II of Dei Verbum being considered in light of the relatio of the Council itself on that text.[2]

Consideration of Scripture and Tradition is naturally fundamental to any study of the transmission of divine revelation, since it is precisely through both of these that we receive divine revelation. The relationship and roles of these two were not, however, a matter of universal agreement at the time of the Council. No one really questioned the role of Scripture, but Tradition was definitely a controversial topic. There were some who questioned the very significance and role of Tradition in divine revelation. In the ecumenical atmosphere of the time, there was not surprisingly a tendency among some people to go as close to the Protestant sola scriptura position as possible, affirming the material completeness of Scripture and denying much in the way of a significant and necessary role for Tradition.[3] At the same time there was an insistence on the part of some of the recognition of a negative line of Tradition, which would need to be corrected by Scripture and removed by reform.[4] In the final text of chapter II there do seem to be some indications of at least partial support for at least some of these positions. However, closer examination will reveal that this was not in fact the intention of the Council fathers.

Vatican II in this chapter, like the Council of Trent, did not actually say that Tradition contained materially more than Scripture. On the contrary, in article 7 the text read: "This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."[5] Read incorrectly, this could seem to indicate at least a primacy of Scripture over Tradition, and perhaps the material completeness of Scripture. However, "Gospel" in this context does not of course refer to Scripture alone. Tradition is in fact given an equality with Scripture in this chapter, and they are seen as completely bound together. For example, in article 8 part of the text was specifically changed to read: "By means of the same Tradition the full canon of the sacred books is known to the Church and the holy Scriptures themselves are more thoroughly understood and constantly actualized in the Church."[6] Nor does the relatio leave any doubt as to the main point of this passage: "The importance of Tradition with respect to Scripture in the life of the Church is more clearly extolled, explained by this affirmation: through the living Tradition the whole Canon of sacred books became known to the Church."[7] Hence it is clear that the Council intended to affirm a very definite role for Tradition, and not merely to respect and honor it as somehow good but unnecessary.

Some of those at the Council objected to a passage in the original text which stated "In this way the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she holds, all that she believes."[8] Those objecting claimed that Tradition in a negative sense could produce practices in the Church which were not in line with divine revelation, and therefore depending on how one interpreted it "all that she holds" was not necessarily appropriate here.[9] There seems to be a confusion here between the Tradition of divine origin and traditions of human origin, since only the latter could possibly depart from divine revelation. In the context that phrase could be taken as referring to the Tradition of divine origin. This phrase was eliminated in the final text, which could be taken as support for the objections raised. However, in the relatio it is made clear that the reasons for changing the text were far from any intention to cloud the distinction between Tradition and traditions. Rather, the relatio states: "The words 'all that she holds' were suppressed, so that it would appear more clearly that from this apostolic Tradition, and this only, arose those things which are substantial to the Church, namely: all that she herself is, all that she believes."[10] Thus although it must obviously be admitted that human traditions can produce error and be in need of reform, the Council affirms that those things which are substantial to the Church are from the Tradition of divine origin, a very different thing that can never be in need of reform.

Exactly how one defines Tradition itself is clearly very important to how one will approach the subject of the transmission of divine revelation. In addition to the aforementioned attacks on the role of Tradition, the views of some of those at the Council on the very definition of Tradition were heavily influenced by a dynamic view of Tradition which saw it as a living thing, as opposed to a more purely material view of Tradition.[11] There is something to be said for this kind of dynamic view, of course. Certainly there is nothing wrong with referring to the living Tradition of the Church. However, this view can be carried to extremes and seemingly was so carried by some people at the time of the Council. Tradition was seen in some quarters as a process, something that was always progressing in itself, and thus changing.[12] In the orthodox Catholic view, of course, change in Tradition is impossible. However, those holding the extreme views mentioned here could make some case that the text of chapter II here said nothing to oppose their view, and in fact gave hints of support for it. This is not in fact the case.

In Article 8 of Dei Verbum it says: "The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on."[13] On the surface this would seem to at least leave open the possibility of a growth in Tradition that would go beyond the orthodox conception of the development of doctrine. However, it is important to note that it is the insight that grows here, not Tradition or the realities and words themselves. Moreover, the Council made a special point of using "perceptio" to mean insight here, since "perceptio" must be nominative and therefore in the Latin text the subject of the growth. In the original text "intelligentia" was used here, which could be taken as ablative as well as nominative. If it had been taken as ablative then one could have referred the growth to "Traditio," meaning Tradition, as the nearest nominative in the Latin text. Hence "intelligentia" was replaced with "perceptio," and the relatio explained as follows: "In place of 'intelligentia,' which was able to be taken also as ablative, was placed 'perceptio;' and therefore it is revealed clearly that the progress does not itself touch upon Tradition, but only of itself touches upon the insight."[14] This indicates that a view literally attributing progress to Tradition itself was not acceptable to the Council. The fact that Tradition is spoken of as making progress in the Church does not mean progress in the sense of change in Tradition, but rather in the sense of Tradition gaining understanding within the Church.

In the same passage in article 8 another point against a view of a changing, progressing Tradition was made. Although, as was noted in the last paragraph, the passage mentions progress and growth, it also speaks of "The Tradition that comes from the apostles."[15] A Tradition that is so fundamentally apostolic cannot be quite the changeable entity some would have it be. This point is even stronger when one refers to the relatio and discovers that this phrase in the final text replaced the words "This living Tradition" in the original text. The relatio on this point states "In place of 'This living Tradition' it is said: 'This Tradition that comes from the apostles.' From these added words, which came out from St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies, III, 3, 2, it is more openly shown here about Tradition that it is set in motion only of divine origin."[16] This affirmation of a Tradition that comes from the apostles and beyond that has a divine origin is at least an indication that this Tradition is to be the same now as it was then, and is not a changing entity or a process.

The extreme dynamic view of Tradition, which has just been discussed, naturally has practical consequences in relation to the teaching office of the Church. If Tradition can change in any way, then the Church has in a way a great deal more freedom in this teaching office, not being bound by an unchanging divine revelation, which she must pass on intact. This is a relatively popular view in some circles, and it has an attraction and convenience for anyone who is anxious for the Church to change some position she has taken on the basis of Tradition.[17] The orthodox view clearly excludes such ideas, but they have continued very much alive after the Council, encouraged by supposed hints at an extreme dynamic view of Tradition in the Council text, an example of which was given earlier. However, just as the Council can clearly be seen, if interpreted correctly, to remain in line with a more orthodox view of Tradition, so also the text of chapter II excludes the consequences of such a view in the teaching office of the Church.

The text in article 9 makes it clear that the bishops, although they are successors of the apostles, do not have the same role in Tradition as the apostles. A section which originally read "Tradition is the mind, doctrine, example, and command of Christ transmitted faithfully through the preaching of the apostles and their successors, with the Holy Spirit assisting," was changed in the final text to "Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their teaching." The relatio on this article comments on this change: "The distinction between the service of the apostles and the service of the bishops is more accurately emphasized, since through the former Tradition itself was established, however through the latter truly the same Tradition is only preserved, expounded, and spread."[18] Clearly the service of preserving, expounding, and spreading does not involve any power to change, so the bishops in exercising their teaching office within the Church have no power to alter Tradition.

Finally, in article 10, the further point is made that the teaching office of the Church is only the servant of divine revelation, so obviously it must leave the divine revelation which it receives intact in its teaching, and it must never teach anything which is contrary to that divine revelation. Referring to divine revelation, the Word of God, a passage in this article states "At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully."[19] The phrase "listens devotedly" in this passage was not in the original text but was added as an amendment. The relatio explains this change as follows: "The words 'listens devotedly' are added, for the purpose of further indicating the dependence of the Magisterium on the revealed deposit and the transcendence of the latter, with respect to the former."[20] This is a wonderful indication of the relationship between the Magisterium and divine revelation. If the Magisterium totally depends on the revealed deposit, and the revealed deposit totally transcends the Magisterium, then obviously the transmission of divine revelation through the Magisterium cannot possibly involve the Magisterium adding something to or omitting something from the revealed deposit.

It may seem at first glance possible to read some anti-traditional views into the chapter on the transmission of divine revelation in Dei Verbum. No doubt certain passages may seem ambiguous and capable of being interpreted in favor of some false view. It has been shown here in several cases, however, that the text, when it is seen in light of the mind of the Council fathers as indicated in the relatio, is not nearly so liable to these interpretations as it might at first seem to be, regardless of what other imperfections it may have.

Bibliography

Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II. Volume IV. Part I. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1976.

Flannery, O.P., Austin. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Rev. ed. Boston: St. Paul Books & Media, 1992.

Ratzinger, Joseph. "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Chapter II." In Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, tr. William Glen-Doepel, 181-199. New York: Herder and Herder, 1969.

Notes

[1] Joseph Ratzinger, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Chapter II" in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, tr. William Glen-Doepel (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), 182.
The only work in my bibliography which is not in some sense an original source is this commentary written relatively shortly after the Council by Joseph Ratzinger, now Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Since this is the case, I should clarify that I am not relying on Ratzinger for any of my views that may be presented here. I am unaware of Ratzinger's views on these matters, and do not mean to imply anything as to whether or not they coincide with my own. As an examination of the text and footnotes will reveal, this work by Ratzinger is not used here primarily as a commentary per se, but as an indicator of the cirumstances and thought at and around the time of the Council.

[2] A relatio is something from the published minutes of the Second Vatican Council. When the Council reached the final version of a text, one person, called a relator, was assigned to get up and give an explanation of the text, which was called a relatio. This explanation generally covered clarifications of the intentions of the Council Fathers in specific texts, reasons for any changes that had been made, reasons that various things were included or excluded, the basis for phrasing things in a certain way, and other points of that nature. This is obviously an extraordinarily valuable tool for determining the mind of the Council itself concerning the conciliar documents, which is always an important task. The relatio on the text of Vatican II that is studied here is available, as are all others, in the Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, as is stated in the notes and bibliography here. However, as far as I know the minutes of Vatican II in general are not available in English, except for specific sections translated for various purposes on an individual basis. The translations given in this essay are my own.

[3] Ibid., 185.

[4] Ibid., 189.

[5] Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, rev. ed. (Boston: St. Paul Books & Media, 1992), 753. Dei Verbum 7.

[6] Ibid., 754-5. Dei Verbum 8.

[7] Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, vol. IV, part I (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1976), 353.

[8] Ibid., 349.

[9] Ratzinger, 189.

[10] Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, 353.

[11] Ratzinger, 186.

[12] Ibid., 187.

[13] Flannery, 754.

[14] Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, 353.

[15] Flannery, 754. Dei Verbum 8.

[16] Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, 353.

[17] Ratzinger, 193.

[18] Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, 350, 354.

[19] Flannery, 756. Dei Verbum 10.

[20] Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, 354.