Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum

The citations from the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum are taken from the official Vatican publication in English or Latin. I use the numeration of articles of the official publication and use decimal numbers for the paragraphs of an article.

Preface

Article 1 of Dei Verbum titles “Preface”. Article 1 affirms that the Second Vatican Council is “hearing the word of God with reverence and proclaiming it with faith”, that it observes “the words of Saint John: ‘We announce to you the eternal life, which dwelt with the Father and was made visible to us. What we have seen and heard we announce to you, so that you may have fellowship with us and our common fellowship be with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:2-3)’” (Paul VI 1965d).

What is “eternal life”? First of all, eternal life is a predication of Go’d “the Father”. We do not see Go’d, we do not know who Go’d is, we hear about Go’d from “the logos of life” (1 John 1:1) that is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the word of Go’d, that is the first message of Dei Verbum. Seeing and hearing the word of Go’d, listening and believing the word of Go’d and then proclaiming and announcing serves the “common fellowship” among the believers and “with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ” (ibid.). Believing in the logos of life, hearing, and listening to Jesus Christ in the Scripture and proclaiming this faith, creates a fellowship, that connects us to Go’d and to each other. I want to take a moment to reflect on the term “fellowship” that translates the Greek term koinonia.

The New Testament Greek Lexicon of the New American Standard Bible (NAS) translates koinonia with fellowship, association, community, and communion; this fellowship is also translated as participation, as intimacy and as a contribution in the sense of proof of this fellowship (“Koinonia,” Bible Study Tools, https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/koinonia.html). There is no doubt that the author of the first letter of John uses the term koinonia to describe the communion of the believers with one another and with Go’d the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. The appearance of the term koinonia in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council is quite an exciting event if we understand this term as a theological description of the Church itself. The Church is the community that listens, believes, and proclaims the Word of Go’d.

The Preface of Dei Verbum does not mention the Church. Why? Well, Jesus never speaks of a Church, he speaks of the communion of the believers. If the Second Vatican Council would have stayed coherent and would have described the Church as a community and communion of believers, the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church would have had to stop speaking of the Church as a hierarchical society under the absolute power of the pope and the bishops. When Cardinal Florit started to present the final text of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, to the Council on September 20, 1965, he referred to the assessment of the ecclesiological function of revelation in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium (Theobald 2001, 288). For Theobald it is clear that the aula of the Council was conscious of the essential relationship between the two documents since the fall of 1964, when Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum had been discussed together (ibid. 289.). Lumen Gentium speaks about the Church. The conservative minority of the Council fiercely fought mentioning the ecclesiological function of revelation in the Preface to Dei Verbum and the pope consented. With Dei Verbum the Second Vatican Council turned to the Scripture as the foundation of the Church and the basis of the Council but lacked the will and understanding of the consequences for organising the Church. The “communion of the believers with one another and with Go’d the Father and His Son Jesus Christ” cannot be described as an absolute patriarchal monarchy. Pope Paul VI never spoke of Dei Verbum as the basis of the Council or the Church. Instead, he turned away from Scripture to concentrate again on the institutional aspect of the Church with absolute powers for the pope (ibid. 359). The word of eternal life of the logos Jesus Christ easily gets overruled by the corrupted and corrupting Roman Catholic Tradition of the rule of power of a few celibate men over millions of believers, women, men and queer.

If we look at the etymology and meaning of the English word “church” that “derives from the Greek adjective kuriakos, meaning “belonging to the Lord” (Hill, Edmund. 1990. “Church.” In The New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins and Dermot A. Lane, 185–201. 185. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press), we may observe that the term koinonia as used by the author of the first letter of John is very aware of the centrality of Jesus Christ for the fellowship of the believers. It is also clear that the most important reference to the word “church” in Greek is ekklesia and in the New Testament the primary reference of ekklesia “is to the actual assembly meeting for worship (1 Corinthians 11:18, 14, 19 and 35)” (ibid. 187). There are also other images of the Church in the New Testament such as the Church as Temple, the Church as Zion or Jerusalem, the Church as the Bride of Christ, and the Church as the Body of Christ (ibid. 188-90). Throughout the centuries the theological tradition developed models of the Church based on an understanding of the Church as the People of Go’d as observable social reality with institutional structures (ibid. 190-97), but also as Mystery and Sacrament (ibid. 197-99).

Rosino Gibellini states that the term koinonia was rediscovered for ecclesiology in the second half of the nineteenth century by the German lay theologian Friedrich Pilgram, although reception of the term remained very limited (Gibellini, Rosino. 2009. “Il rinnovamento della teologgia.” In In principio la Parola. Introduzione a Dei Verbum, edited by Stelle Morra and Marco Ronconi, 73–90. 79. Milano: Periodici San Paolo srl). Pilgram used the term koinonia to describe the Church as a politéia, that is a communion in the sense of a society (ibid.). Indeed, the term koinonia was frequently used in Ancient Greek culture, Athenian practice as in Aristotelian theory as the central concept for expressing the order in society. The city-state (in Greek: polis) of Athens is a koinonia of Athenian citizens (Ober, Josiah. 1993. “The Polis as a Society. Aristotle, John Rawls and the Athenian Social Contract”. In The Ancient Greek City-State. Edited by Mogens Herman Hansen, 129–160. 131. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. Commissioner: Munksgaard). Aristotle describes in the first book of his Politics children, women, slaves and free men as noncitizens (ibid.). The polis therefore was a koinonia defined by tensions that were generated by the conflicts of citizens and noncitizens between and within society at large (ibid. 148). If we look at the use of the term koinonia in the New Testament, we observe that it describes the interactive relationship between God and believers who are sharing new life through Christ as operating peace, justice and communion in the community. Koinonia as active participation in the community of believers overcomes differences of cultures, social status and power. Romans 15:26-27 tells us that Gentile believers in Macedonia had nothing in common with the Jewish believers in Jerusalem except Christ. In Philippians 3:10 Paul uses koinonia to describe the way he identifies with Christ’s sufferings, Acts 2:42 describes koinonia as breaking bread and praying together that is as Eucharist and Agape, and 2 Corinthians 9:13 uses koinonia to express generosity in community (“Koinonia,” Bible Study Tools).

First Chapter “Revelation itself”

Article 2 of Dei Verbum opens the first chapter of Dei Verbum that titles “Revelation itself.” Article 2 has 13 references to the New Testament and two references to the Old Testament. I suppose there is not a second article in the documents of the Second Vatican Council that works with this large number of biblical references. Certainly, citing verses of the Scripture is the best way to deal with “revelation itself.” In the following five articles of Chapter I the references to the Bible continue with a lower frequency. References to the Epistle to Diognetus from the second century AD to the Second Council of Orange (529 AD), and to the First Vatican Council (1545-1563) point to the understanding of some key concepts of tradition that the Council fathers in1965 felt were important to clarify.

Article 2 concentrates on Jesus Christ, the revelation of “the invisible God Himself.” It is through Jesus Christ that women, men and queer (Dei Verbum simply speaks of homines i.e. “man”) in the “Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (Ephesians 2, 18; 2 Peter 1, 14).” After having repeated this main argument of the preface, Article 2 continues describing Go’d’s “plan of revelation”.

In the official English text of Dei Verbum, the term “economy of revelation” gets lost. The term “economy” describes a wider range of realizations than the word “plan” that is used to translate the Latin term oeconomia. Jesus Christ realizes the economy of revelation in the unity of his deeds of salvation that confirm and proclaim his teachings, and by his teaching words that operate salvation. These Christological affirmations legitimate the orthodoxy of the claim that pastoral and dogmatic realizations are to be considered from the source of their unity in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is allowed to say that the Second Vatican Council is pastoral and dogmatic. The economy of revelation in Article 2 of Dei Verbum is an operation of Go’d that has engendered a “history of salvation” with women, men and queer. The “economy of salvation” is a “mystery”, and we access this mystery through Jesus Christ. From Jesus Christ we hear about the invisible Go’d and about the salvation of women, men and queer that we experience. The last sentence of Article 2 of Dei Verbum defines the concept of “truth” in strict relation to the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. Dei Verbum makes clear that we must use the term “truth” very carefully, that is in strict reference to the Scriptures (Ephesians 1:9). The assessment of the truth of revelation in Jesus Christ, his sentences about Go’d and his realizing our salvation, on our part is possible by an assessment of faith that is expressed by blessings, praise, and thanksgiving to Go’d, as the hymn in Ephesians (Ephesians 1:3-14) demonstrates. What we mean when speaking about Go’d and salvation we have to take from the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, in whom we believe as our Lord. Christ is the “mediator of revelation”. Using the word “Go’d” we cannot show whom we mean, because Dei Verbum rightly affirms again that Go’d is invisible. The Bible frequently uses language games concerning human vision. What we mean when seeing Jesus Christ and listening to his Gospel and speaking about this message, Dei Verbum describes as “intimate truth,” but not as the whole truth or any other assessment that would claim the truth-value true. This “intimate truth” functions as “illumination” of our existence, but not as a description of Go’d the invisible. Speaking of the “fullness of revelation” as predicate for the words and deeds of Jesus Christ in my eyes makes sense if the predicate qualifies our little understanding of Go’d’s revelation and does not disqualify possible revelations of Go’d in other religions.

Article 3 of Dei Verbum describes the history of salvation that realizes Go’d’s economy of revelation according to the Christian faith starting with creation, Adam and Eve, Abraham, the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets.

Article 4 continues this history of salvation and speaks of the sending of His Son, the manifestation of Christ as the Epistle of Diognetus had confessed and defended. With Jesus Christ Go’d’s economy of salvation is revealed to the whole world. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the sending of the Spirit for us complete and conclude revelation, so that we entered the “Christian economy” awaiting “the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

Article 5 turns to obedience to Go’d who is revealing. We have to offer oboedientia fidei, that is “the obedience of faith,” as a free commitment of oneself to Go’d. The first sentence of Article 5 of Dei Verbum insists on the necessity of free consent for the oboedientia fidei. There is no oboedientia fidei without liberty, freedom, and the social choice to believe. Cardinal Döpfner’s insistence on using the term “freedom” in the context of faith is important for the faith of contemporary women, men and queer. With 2 Corinthians 10:5-6 Dei Verbum pays tribute to “fear of divine justice” to motivate obedience. Nevertheless, the act of believing and obeying Go’d does not depend on one’s own will and capacities in the first place. The “grace of God” and the “help of the Holy Spirit” are unambiguously asserted as possibility conditions for believing and obeying the word of Go’d.

Article 6 of Dei Verbum legitimates speaking of Go’d’s will to “manifest and communicate Himself” in reference to the Frist Vatican Council. The last sentence of Article 6 refers to Romans 1:20, as the First Vatican Council had already done. “Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been perceived by the mind’s understanding of created things (Romans 1:20).” Concerning Go’d’s universal will of universal salvation, Paul’s assessment in Romans 1:20 is of fundamental importance. If the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 16 claims Go’d’s universal will of salvation: “God our Savior wants everyone to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth”; then everyone must have some knowledge about this universal will of salvation. The declaration on the relation of the Church to Non-Christian religions Nostra Aetate in number 2 affirms: “From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power, which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history.”

Second Chapter “Handing on Revelation”

Paragraph 1 of Article 7 asserts that “Christ the Lord commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching”. The Apostles fulfilled this commission to preach “what they had received from the lips of Christ and from living with him … or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit”. Apostolic men “under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.” References to Scripture, to the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council legitimate these claims.

Paragraph 2 of Article 7 brings forward an illegitimate claim. The claim that “the Apostles left bishops as their successors, handing over to them the authority to teach in their own place” is illegitimate because there is no legitimating reference in the Sacred Scriptures for this claim. The Second Vatican Council is not able to legitimate the claim with a reference to the Sacred Scriptures. Instead, the reference goes to Saint Irenaeus’ book “Against Heresies” (Chapter III, 3:1). We may say that the teaching authority was transmitted from the Apostles to the bishops, because Irenaeus wrote that this was the case. The transmission of faith and care for the authentic proclamation of the faith as the primary task of the bishops stands in line with Lumen Gentium numbers 20 and 21 (Hoping, Helmut. 2005. “Dei Verbum.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil. Vol. 3. Edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 695–832. 753. Freiburg: Herder). Dei Verbum as well as Lumen Gentium historically justify the origin of the bishops’ role as teachers with the help of Irenaeus (ibid.). Hoping recalls that there were times when the bishops did not use their office in the Church for the purpose of serving the authentic handing on of the faith; by contrast, the Apostles did indeed serve with their Magisterium, that is the teaching office, the transmission and proclamation of the faith (ibid.). From the bishop’s teaching - thus claims the last sentence of number 7 of Dei Verbum – emerges a “sacred tradition” that together with “Sacred Scripture” mirrors Go’d’s revelation. Hoping is clear about the fact that the term “sacred tradition” in Dei Verbum 7, 2 has to be understood as the authentic handing on of the Gospel in the Church (ibid. 754). Dei Verbum speaks of “tradition,” whereas Trent still spoke of “traditions”, that is rites, customs, and habits etc. (ibid. 755).

Paragraph 1 of Dei Verbum Article 8 again is dedicated to the preservation of apostolic teaching that is handed on by “preachers”, “faithful” and “the people of Go’d”. “The Church hands on “all that she believes”. There is no word of bishops or monarchic popes.

This sober modesty of the Council Fathers starts to give way to the bishops’ powers in paragraph 2 of Article 8. The change to episcopal power by succession comes smoothly. First there is reference to the Holy Spirit: “This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.” It was a central claim of Orthodox theology not to forget the Holy Spirit in the text (ibid. 759). For Orthodox theology the texts of the Second Vatican Council are unilaterally Christocentric. Orthodox theologians claim a comprehensive theology of the Holy Spirit when considering transmission of the faith (ibid.). What the Apostles “had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum 7, 1) always must be seen as authentic transmission of the Gospel. This transmission and development of tradition in the Church happens “through contemplation and studies of the believers, who treasure these things in their heart (Luke 2, 19; 51)”, through their spiritual experiences, but transmission and development of tradition happen above all by those “who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth”, that is the bishops and the pope.

The term “Episcopal succession” in paragraph 2, Dei Verbum Article 8 is written with a capital letter. This documents the great importance that the bishops of the Second Vatican Council attributed to the term that legitimates their powers. In his work of redacting the text, the diplomatic theologian Philips succeeded in performing one of his many balancing acts of redaction. On the one hand, there is the transmission of the faith by all believers, and, on the other hand, there is the role of the Church’s teaching government. Philips asserts the fundamental participation of the millions of believing Christians, women, men and queer, in the faithful transmission of the word of Go’d and refers to the Sacred Scripture. Luke himself writes in the childhood story of Jesus of the simple believers, the shepherds, who pass on revelation to the parents of Jesus. Philips was a renowned expert on Mariology, and it is not by accident that we find at this place of the text a reference to Luke 2:19 and 2:51. No conservative theologian and papal monarchist would question the faith of the Mother of Jesus who treasured in her heart the revelation that the shepherds had received and passed on to her and Joseph and all who listened (Luke 2: 8-20). For the conservatives Mary, the Mother of Jesus, behaves like all obedient faithful should behave, she treasures revelation in her heart but does not speak out. Mary had spoken out in Luke 1, 46-55 and will speak out all through the Gospels. Patriarchal social order succeeds silencing her in Acts (Acts 1, 14) reducing her speaking capability to prayer. On the other hand, Philips satisfies the claims for modification of the proposed text - the so called “modi” - of those bishops who insist on asserting their authority, power, and legitimacy for “preaching” and instructing the lay because they possess “the sure gift of truth”. Power of government, power of teaching, power of jurisdiction are all pretended legitimate offices, ministries and claims because of Episcopal succession.

In later years the Roman Catholic Church is aware that there was a transition from the apostolic period of the Christian communities to the institution of a ministry of teaching and governing. In 1973 the Roman Catholic International Theological Commission claims that this ministry “should never be separated from the community in such a way as to place itself above it: its role is one of service in and for the community” (International Theological Commission 1973). The Commission is also very clear about the fact that “the absence of documents makes it difficult to say precisely how these transitions came about” (ibid.). “By the end of the first century the situation was that the Apostles or their closest helpers or eventually their successors directed the local colleges of episkopoi and presbyteroi,” by the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop appears, and in the third century ordination with imposition of the hands was considered necessary (ibid.). The Commission’s document does not further reflect what happened to Church government in the fourth century, the European Middle Ages, or later centuries where the powers of the pope steadily augmented for finally reaching absolute power of bishops and the Church. The statement of the International Theological Commission in 1973 on the subordination of the ministry to the community did not lead to a rethinking of the monarchic structure of Church government.

Paragraph 3 of Article 8 confirms the understanding of tradition as making understood and making active in the Church the Sacred Scriptures. Paragraph 3 of Article 8 ends referring to Colossians 3, 16: “Let the Word of Christ, in all its richness, find a home with you. Teach each other, and advise each other, in all wisdom. With gratitude in our hearts sing psalms and hymns and inspired songs to God”. The text of Article 8, 3 does not reflect this encouragement of mutual empowerment of the faithful. Rather Go’d and the Holy Spirit are the actors, who “make the word of Christ” dwell in the faithful without any active participation on their part.

Article 9 attributes to sacred tradition the same “divine wellspring”, that is the same quality: “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture ... flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into unity and tend toward the same end”. Sacred tradition is not any more described in the sense that Hoping had already claimed in Dei Verbum 7, 2 as “handing on” the word of God, that is as authentic transmission of the Sacred Scripture (Hoping 2005, 754) but as “the word of Go’d entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles”. Finally, we read Colombo’s compromise formula solving the unending problem of one source or of two sources of revelation: “Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.” There is no talk of two sources of revelation, but there is the claim that “sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” as the Council of Trent has claimed. Hoping points at the broad consensus within the Churches of the Reformation, who already at the time of the Second Vatican Council understand Luther’s sola scriptura in the sense that the Scripture is to be understood together with its interpretation (ibid. 762). The recognition of the hermeneutic function for understanding the Scripture is common understanding of Catholics and Protestants. In my understanding, Sacred Scripture is a kind of passing on and interpretation of the words of Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. Go’d’s revelation to Jesus and Jesus’ passing on revelation and the Holy Spirit is first, Sacred Scripture is tradition, passing on of revelation in scripture.

“Common life,” “the breaking of the bread” that is the Eucharist and “prayer” constitute the central foundation of the hermeneutics of understanding the Scripture in the Church, we learn in Article 10, paragraph 1 of Dei Verbum (ibid.). The Council claims that this effort “of practicing and professing the heritage of the faith” is “a single common effort … on the part of the bishops and faithful”. On March 4, 1963, in the last session of the Mixed Commission Congar insisted on the active contribution of the believers to the transmission of the faith. Conspiratio pastorum et fidelium were his words. The Latin word conspiratio is usually translated as “conspiration.” In the context of Dei Verbum number 10 the official translation of the Latin conspiratio as “effort” is ok. A second look at the word “conspiration” reveals that it is composed of the prefix con that in English means “with” and the noun spiritus that means “spirit”. It is allowed to interpret that the spirit with which bishops and believers practice and profess the faith is the Holy Spirit. In 1963 Ottaviani rejected the claim of a conspiratio pastorum et fidelium. In the final text we find the claim again: Antistitum et fidelium conspiratio are the words in Dei Verbum number 10. Again, that is right; but the interpretation of the Word of Go’d by the faithful’s is not given the same dignity and right as the the faithful’s interpretation of the Word of Go’d by the Magisterium. What happens, when the Magisterium of the Church differs with the theologians or the faithful in their understanding of the faith? Hoping comments that Article 10 of Dei Verbum does not present the answer (ibid.). Hoping is wrong. Article 10, paragraph 2 affirms that the authentic interpretation of the word of Go’d has been “entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church” that is the Magisterium. Article 10, paragraph 3 binds together Sacred Scripture, sacred tradition and “the teaching authority of the Church” as inseparable.

Third Chapter “Sacred Scripture, its divine inspiration and interpretation”

Article 11, paragraph 1 claims with the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are “sacred and canonical, because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” For the validity of this claim “Mother Church” relies “on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20; 3:15-16)”. We carefully read and study these verses by John the Evangelist and the verses of the second letters by Timothy and Peter and find that they do not speak of Go’d as the author of the Sacred Scriptures:

John claims that the Sacred Scripture has been written, in order that I may believe as we read in John 20:31: “These are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you may have life through his name” (The New Jerusalem Bible). Dei Verbum claims something very different, namely that the Sacred Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and that Go’d is their author.

The second letter by Timothy claims in 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by Go’d: “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be upright” (ibid.). The reference to the second letter of Peter 1:20 is not about authorship but about interpretation and about the community: “At the same time, we must recognize that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual” (ibid.). The second letter of Peter is very clear on the fact that interpretation of the Scripture is a matter of the community of the believers in Jesus Christ.

The official Latin text of Dei Verbum refers to the following verse that is 2 Peter 1:21: “For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God, it was the Holy Spirit that moved them” (ibid.). The Holy Spirit empowers people to speak for Go’d. This is not an easy claim, because who can speak for Go’d? What is the validity condition for this claim and the range of validity? Verse 15a in 2 Peter 3, tells us that Go’d wants our salvation: “Think of our Lord’s patience as your opportunity to be saved” (ibid.). The youngest text of the New Testament refers to the “beloved brother Paul” as authority for the revelation of Go’d’s patience with humanity at its salvation. The second letter of Peter does not teach us the use of the word “salvation”, so we do not understand the meaning of the word. But we have the hint in 2 Peter 3, 15-16 that the Apostle Paul has written extensively on the matter.

Article 11,1 of Dei Verbum continues to claim three affirmations concerning inspiration and three references for their legitimation that explain in what way Go’d is “author” of the Sacred Scriptures: “In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him …” is the first claim. The reference is to Pius XII and his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. The second claim is that “while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them.” The references for the claim that Go’d acted “in” the chosen men who composed the sacred books are Hebrew 1:1 and 4:7. The references that Go’d speaks “through” man are 2 Samuel 23:2 and Mathew 1:22. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council uses “in” and “through.” There is a clear affirmation of the powers and abilities of the chosen men who composed the sacred books. Finally, they are called “true authors.” The third claim repeats with Leo XIII and his encyclical Providentissimus Deus that “they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.” We find ourselves in front of another diplomatic balancing in the redaction of the text: There is a reference to Providentissimus Deus, but the claim that Go’d is the “principal author” of the Scripture is no longer made (Hoping 2005, 767), Go’d once in Article 11,1 is called “author”. But then there are men as “true authors” of the Sacred Scriptures. It is true that this first paragraph of number 11 of Dei Verbum speaks of the use of “the powers and abilities” of the men who were “employed” by Go’d to write “only those things which He wanted.” There is no longer any mention of these men as “instruments” or “secretaries” as we find in the encyclicals Providentissimus Deus from 1893 and Spiritus Paraclitus from 1920 (ibid. 766). Dei Verbum no longer teaches – as the two mentioned encyclicals did, writes Hoping – that the Scripture is “absolute without any error” (ibid. 768).

The second paragraph of Dei Verbum Article 11 enables us to admit that errors concerning the historic truth occur in the Sacred Scripture. The inspiration of the whole Sacred Scripture does not exclude these errors of history or concerning knowledge of the natural sciences, as Cardinal König had affirmed in the fall of 1964: Divine inspiration does not consist of dictating sentences (ibid.). The end of the truth of the Sacred Scripture concerns salvation (ibid. 770) and again we find the citation from 2 Timothey 3:16 and 17. It is in this scriptural context that we must understand the Council’s claim to teach faith “faithfully and without error” (Dei Verbum 11, 2). The expression “for the sake of salvation” (Latin: nostra salutis causa) ends the endless quarrels about Philip’s suggestion to speak about the “salutary truth” of the Gospel, Bea’s consent and later dissent. The final consensus of all and the pope was once more Philip’s compromise wording that speaks of a truth “for the sake of salvation” (Schelkens, Karim. 2006. Carnet Conciliaires de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale. Texte néerlandais avec traduction francaise et commentaires. 153. Leuven: Maurits Sabbe Library, Faculty of Theology K.U. Leuven).

Dei Verbum Article 12, 1 establishes the rules for biblical hermeneutics as they were accepted in 1965. In “City of God” Saint Augustine asserted that “God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion,” as Dei Verbum 12, 1 says. Dei Verbum 12, 1 abandons speaking of a literal sense and a spiritual sense of the Scripture: We “should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended”, that is what they wanted to communicate and did communicate, because it is “by means of their words” that Go’d wanted to manifest what He “wanted to communicate to us.”

The second paragraph of Article 12 of Dei Verbum teaches how to come to understand the sense that the authors (Latin: sensus auctoris) of the Bible intended. Interpretation must pay attention to the literary genders and forms as well as to the circumstance of the edition of the text. Hoping observes that Dei Verbum follows Hermann Gunkel’s term Sitz im Leben that includes not only the literary genders but the whole cultural context of the texts (Hoping, Helmut. 2005. “Dei Verbum.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil. Vol. 3. Edited by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 695–832. 773. Freiburg: Herder).

Article 12, 3 concludes, “The unity of the whole Scripture” and “the living tradition of the whole Church” must be considered by the exegetes. The final word on interpreting the Scripture is commissioned to the Church, that is her “ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of Go’d (First Vatican Council, On Revelation)”. Dei Verbum does not discuss the problems of the history of Bible interpretation and its consequences for the teaching and life of the Church (ibid. 774).

The third chapter of Dei Verbum ends with a citation from a Homily by Saint John Chrysostom in number 13. Chrysostom repeatedly pointed to the Sacred Scriptures, where there is shown the “condescension” of eternal wisdom, that is nothing less than wisdom of of Go’d. The New Testament uses the term kenosis to express this condescension of Go’d in Jesus Christ as the hymn in Philippian 2:6-11 proclaims in order that every woman, man and queer “set their mind in Jesus Christ” (Philippians 2:5) (ibid. 775). The Easter Morning Exsultet also speaks of this “condescension” (Latin: dignatio) (ibid.). The last sentence of Dei Verbum Article 13 presents a credible example of a so-called analogy of faith: The Sacred Scripture is kenosis of Go’d as is Jesus Christ. “For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.”

Fourth Chapter “The Old Testament”

Dei Verbum Article 14 concerns the Old Testament, the hope of Israel and “our hope” as Christians.. Saint Paul is rediscovered for asserting a theology of the Old Testament that was “written under divine inspiration” and remains “permanently valuable” (Dei Verbum number 14). “For all that was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Romans 15:4)” (ibid.). Go’d’s “plan of salvation” (Latin: oeconomia salutis) is found in both Testaments.

Dei Verbum Article 15 affirms that the Scriptures of the Old Testament “show us true divine pedagogy” (Latin: paedagogia divina). It is very important to observe with Hoping that Dei Verbum uses the present tense when speaking of the revealing Old Testament (ibid. 780). In the second half of the third century, Origen of Alexandria and other Church fathers used the term “divine pedagogy” (ibid.). Dei Verbum itself refers to Pius XI and his Encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (With deep concern) from March 14, 1937, that was directed against Nazism. In my eyes there is no need to say, “the principal purpose … of the old covenant … was to prepare for the coming of Christ”. Both, the old and the new covenant serve the hope for salvation.

Article 16 of Dei Verbum acknowledges the unity of the Two Testaments as founded by Go’d and cites the classical wording of Augustine: “God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New” (Hoping 2005, 781). Well, originally Augustine speaks of the two economies of salvation, not of the Two Testaments (ibid.).

Fifth Chapter “The New Testament”

Dei Verbum Article 17, paragraph 1 starts with the sentence: “The word of God, which is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe (see Romans 1:16), is set forth and shows its power in a most excellent way in the writings of the New Testament.”

The reference is to Romans 1:16: “For I see no reason to be ashamed of the Gospel; it is God’s power for the salvation of everyone who has faith, Jews first, but Greek as well” (The New Jerusalem Bible). There is no doubt that the term “word of God” in this first sentence of Dei Verbum 17,1, refers to the Old and the New Testament, to Jews and Greeks.

The second sentence of Dei Verbum 7,1 profess the Christians’ faith that Jesus Christ is the “word of God”:

“The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us in His fullness of grace and truth (see John 1:14)”.

The reference to John 1,14 again affirms Christians’ belief in Go’d’s initiative. The Logos of Go’d is a power, a might, a strength, a force, that is His capability to operate salvation by believing in the Logos. Hoping wished that the Council had also cited the following verse, Romans 1,17, that proclaims that “the Word of God” justifies the believer (Hoping 2005, 782). The connection between the word of Go’d and justification is not only of ecumenical importance.

In Romans 1,17 Saint Paul claims on behalf of the Gospel: “for in it is revealed the saving justice of God: a justice based on faith and addressed to faith. As it says in scripture: “Anyone who is upright through faith will live” (The New Jerusalem Bible). “Anyone who is upright through faith will live” is a citation from Habakkuk 2:4. The Septuagint translation of the Greek pistis is faith. The Hebrew Bible translates aemunah as firmness, fidelity. Once again, we see that Abraham is the father of all believers in Go’d.

Dei Verbum 7, 2 concludes that the task of the “holy Apostles and prophets in the Holy Spirit (see Ephesian 3:4-6)” consists of preaching the Gospel, “stir up faith in Jesus, Christ and Lord, and gather together the Church” (Latin: ecclesia, i.e., the community of the called).

Dei Verbum Article 18, paragraph1 claim “a special preeminence” for the four Gospels in the New Testament and Hoping points out the fact that the Christians recognize this preeminence, for example, in liturgy by solemnly celebrating the proclamation of the Gospels.

Article 18, 2 confirms that the four Gospels “are of apostolic origin”. It is important to observe with Hoping that until Justin Martyr, that is until the second half of the second century, the term “Gospel” (Greek: euangelion, English: the good message) was understood as the announcement of the good message by Jesus Christ and not as a literary genre (Hoping 2005, 784).

Article 19 of Dei Verbum discusses the historic foundation of the Church and touches again on the conflicting views concerning the relationship between tradition and Scripture. Already in the first sentence of Dei Verbum number 19 the Church again affirms the historicity of the four Gospels. By citing Acts 1:1-2 it was possible to avoid speaking of the resurrection as a fact of history and to affirm the resurrection as a fact of faith (ibid.). Dei Verbum 19 thereby preserved a plurality of interpretations of the “empty grave.” The Gospels are historic testimonies of faith that transmit what Jesus “really did and taught for eternal salvation” (Hoping 2005, 785). Finally, the end of number 19 cites Luke 1:2-4. These verses present the most elaborate Greek sentences of the four Gospels.

Dei Verbum Article 20, paragraph 1 affirms “the New Testament also contains the letters of Saint Paul and other apostolic writings, composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”. These apostolic writings tell of Jesus Christ and “the story is told of the beginnings of the Church and its marvelous growth” without making any further use of the juridical term “institution of the Church” as the text still suggested in 1964 (ibid. 789).

The New Testament also “foretold” the “glorious fulfillment” of the Church. Dei Verbum Article 20, 2 legitimizes the claim of the “glorious fulfillment” of the Church by the fact that “the Lord Jesus was with His Apostles as He had promised (see Mathew 28:20).” This promise might be legitimately interpreted as “glorious fulfillment” if we take seriously the promise made by Jesus: “I am with you always; yes, to the end (completion) of time” (Mathew 28:20) as the announcement of this fulfillment (Hoping 2005, 790).

Sixth Chapter “Sacred Scripture in the life of the Church”

Dei Verbum Article 21 starts by seeing the Sacred Scriptures together with the Body of Christ, that is the Eucharist. The Church “unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God’s word and of Christ’s body.” This affirmation is of prime ecumenical importance, because for Luther the word, the speech-act is essential in the Eucharistic transformation of the bread into the substance of the Lord that is the community’s communion. Cardinal Volk prepared at the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians this part of the document on the Sacred Scripture in the life of the Church (ibid. 792). He referred to the picture of the twofold “bread of life,” one from the table of the word and the table of the Body of Christ, as Hieronymus, Augustine and other Church Fathers had expressed, but above all he refers to the Imitatio Christi, a book of immense spiritual influence and incredible dissemination that is attributed to John from Kempen (1374-1432). It is good to tell the Christian preachers “All the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture.” Oscar Cullmann’s positive commentary on Dei Verbum 21 is important of ecumenism (ibid. 795).

“Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful” is the first sentence of Dei Verbum Article 22. The Council confirms the Church’s acceptance of the Septuagint since the beginning and of other Eastern translations as of the so-called Vulgate, the Latin translation. “Suitable and correct translations are made into different languages” and the Church supports ecumenical efforts to translate the original texts of the Bible, that is the Biblia Hebraica and the Novum Testamentum Graece (ibid. 795). The affirmation that the biblical original text is the text that is common to all Christian Churches is of fundamental importance for ecumenism (ibid.). Go’d also speaks in the authorized translations of the two testaments, says the Catholic Church (ibid.).

The Church owes her existence to the word of Go’d. Therefore, the Church is called “the bride of the incarnate Word” (ibid. 797). Hoping says it is not the faithful women, men and queer of the Church, who are meant by “the Church” but the hierarchy (ibid. 797). The Church “also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of sacred liturgies” affirms Dei Verbum Article 23. “Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology” should “provide the nourishment of the Scripture for the People of God.” All this should happen “under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church,” that is that the exegetes must pay attention to the interpretation of the Sacred Scripture by the Magisterium of the Church (ibid.).

The first sentence of Dei Verbum Article 24 affirms that “Sacred theology rests on the written word of God.” The Sacred Scriptures “are inspired, really are the word of God” and the study of the Sacred Scriptures “is the soul of sacred theology.” This means for theology that it must start with the testimony of the word of Go’d (ibid. 800). Because of this point of Dei Verbum Catholic dogmatic theology has to change its traditional methodic paradigm of first considering Church doctrine (Latin: doctrina ecclesiae) and then looking at the Scriptures to find a verse that defends the claims of tradition and speculation (ibid.). Church doctrine, theology and tradition are not inspired. “By the same word of Scripture, the ministry of the word, that is pastoral preaching, catechetics and all Christian instruction,” and above all “the liturgical homily,” is nourished and flourished.

Dei Verbum Article 25, paragraph 1 addresses the clerics first and exhorts them to a “sacred reading and careful study” of the Sacred Scriptures. The deacons and catechists are also “legitimately active in the ministry of the word.” “All Christian faithful” are urged to “learn by frequent reading of the divine Scripture.” There is the “sacred liturgy,” where the faithful get to the sacred text itself and then there is their “devout reading” in private and the study of the sacred text. The “suitable institutions” that can help the faithful read the Bible and other aids or helps are put under “the approval and active support of the shepherds of the Church.” Dei Verbum in 25, 1 center on Christian Spirituality and prayer, the Bible and the sacred liturgy (ibid. 802).

Dei Verbum 25, 2 calls for the “sacred bishops,” who with Irenaeus of Lyon “have the apostolic teaching” to supervise all reading, interpreting and instruction of the lay women, men and queer reading the Bible. These women, men and queer are not treated as equal Christians, responsible persons living with the Holy Spirit. They are considered “children” and the Church consists of the hierarchy that must guide, instruct and control them.

It is true that in the 50 years that followed the Second Vatican Council Christian expert exegetes invested their professional life energies in the production of precious translations of the Bible in vernacular languages. These translations immensely help the lay women, men and queer come into contact with the word of Go’d in the Bible. The New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 brought the much-needed education for understanding the Second Testament on the basis of the First Testament. This education was important for a new relationship of respect and understanding among Christians and Jews. The Einheitsübersetzung and the Traduction écumenique de la Bible were very important for realizing the ecumenical claims of Dei Verbum. An important claim of the Gospel itself, namely the call to all of mankind, that is women, men and queer, to take part in the table of the word of Go’d, led to translations of the Bible that were conscious of gender equality and gender-sensitive language. The Bibel in gerechter Sprache (2007) is an example of these discrimination-fighting efforts of women, men and queer exegetes that produced wonderful translations that lyrically transmit the poetic pictures of the original text. This German translation was not accepted by the German-speaking Catholic episcopal conferences, because the bishops are not yet open to the dignity aspects of gender or to a second look at the original text for identifying discriminating official translations. The renowned scholar Bruce M. Metzger, author on behalf of and in cooperation with the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (Metzger 1994) is not ready to open his eyes to view the text. In this Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Metzger against all textual evidence in Romans 16:7 and hundreds of inscriptions, conscientiously continues to replace the female Apostle Junia with the male Apostle Junias. Some members of the Committee considered “it unlikely that a woman would be among those styled apostles” (Metzger 1994, 475).

Dei Verbum 25, 3 is important because it prepares the possibility conditions for women, men and queer, Christians or non-Christians, to come into contact and live with the Bible: “Editions of the Sacred Scriptures, provided with suitable footnotes, should also be prepared for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation.”

Dei Verbum Article 26 concludes with the hope that the life of the Church may be strengthened by celebrating more often the Eucharistic mystery and the life of the Spirit may be strengthened by “a growing reverence for the word of God”.