Inspired authors wrote the Bible

Genesis of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum

The successful intervention by Cardinal Liénart on the second day of the first session of the Council, October 11, 1962, created joy but also confusion (Fogarty, Gerald. 1996. “L’avvio dell’assemblea.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 87–128. 91. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The bishops overcame their confusion and solitude by organizing meetings. In Fogarty’s opinion, the most important element of Vatican II as an event in the history of the Catholic Church was the beginning of a mutual exchange of opinions and of institutionalized meetings of the bishops of the nations, that is the bishops’ conferences (ibid. 94). From this experience of sharing and working together emerged a sense of collegiality of the episcopate (ibid. 95). The world episcopate was able to serve as an effective counterpart to the forces of the Roman Curia and became an active player of the Council. Many bishops together with their trusted theologians were disappointed with the prepared documents, especially with the schemes concerning doctrinal questions (ibid. 88). During their work in the preparatory commissions of the Council these cardinals and bishops together with their theologians publicly stayed quiet with their critique.

Since the end of 1961 Karl Rahner had studied the texts that Cardinal Franz Koenig from Vienna, Austria, gave him from the central Preparatory Commission and his feedback was very critical (ibid. 90). He started to prepare elements of a text on revelation on his own and pleaded for all the prepared texts to be replaced; only the schema on the liturgy could be accepted in a corrected form (ibid. 91). Schillebeecks, the trusted theologian of Cardinal Bernard Alfrink from Utrecht, Netherlands, was more careful. He criticized the prepared texts but wanted to correct them to make them acceptable (ibid. 93).

On October 22, 1962, the Council started its work on the prepared scheme on sacred liturgy. The Council overcame confusion and insecurity by starting with the one preparatory document that was acceptable to a vast majority, namely the document on liturgy. On November 14, 1962, the president of the Council asked for a vote on each of the four chapters of the text. The fathers could cast a vote either approving or not approving or approving at the condition of further amendments. To everyone’s surprise the four chapters passed with an overwhelming majority, receiving only ten to 26 negative votes from the 2200 fathers present (Lamberigts, Mathijs. 1996. “Il dibattito sulla liturgia.” In In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 129–192. 184-85.Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). With this kind of vote on the direction of a document, a so-called direction vote, the aula would give general approval of a text that was still in the process of emendation. The final scheme will be voted on only later after all necessary corrections had been made in the text. This kind of democratic procedure was the contribution made by a lay Catholic to the Council (Alberigo, Giuseppe. 1996. “Imparare da sé. L’esperienza conciliare.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 613–634. 620. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

On November 10, 1962, Italian Television asked Professor Constantino Mortati, eminent member of the Italian Constitutional Court, if he judged the regulation statute for the Council capable of steering the decision-making process. He saw the challenge for consensus-finding procedures and proposed that the statute be expanded to include a kind of orientation vote (ibid.). The procedure foreseen for the orientation vote significantly enhanced the process of reaching a consensus on arguments and the discussed texts.

With the positive vote on liturgical reform on November 14, the Council’s honeymoon was about to end (Ruggieri, Giuseppe, 1996. “Il primo conflitto dottrinale.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 259–294. 259. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

The Council started to debate a central dogmatic question of Catholic theology, that is the relation between the oral revelation of the predication of Christ and its successive transmission by tradition. This tradition consists of the New Testament and the Magisterium – the teaching office - of the Church (ibid.). In the period from November 14 to December 8, 1962, the Council took the decisive step to open to modernity (ibid.). Since the end of World War I Catholics had hoped for this turn to come about (ibid. 260).

The bishops needed theological concepts on the sources of revelation - with some rare exceptions. Their formation did not include the new biblical sciences, the methods of critical exegesis, knowledge about the cultural background of Israel, knowledge about the development of Church teaching throughout history and the ecumenical movement of the 20th century. The theological experts of the bishops organized meetings to empower and capacitate the bishops for the debate on the prepared scheme (ibid. 261). This scheme concerning the sources of revelation, since its presentation in preparation for the Council met with severe criticism. Schillebeeckx insisted that all the history of Israel as well as all the Christians of the first Christian communities were inspired by God, and not only the writers of the Gospel (ibid. 262-63). Rahner had asserted the classic teaching that a Council was bound to proclaim the truth of Christ. Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church must serve the Word of Go’d and not master it by tradition. After years of fierce discussion, at the end of the Council the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum will take up this point in its number 10 (ibid. 265).

The Cardinals König, Döpfner, Bea, Hurley and Alfrink raised substantial criticism of the scheme on the sources of revelation in the central Preparatory Commission in November 1961 (Komonchak, Joseph. 1995. “La lotta per il concilio durante la preparazione”. In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 177–380. 327. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Bea wanted Scripture to be seen as the principal source of revelation. Ottaviani identified tradition as an equally important source of revelation since the Church existed very well without the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, but not without tradition (ibid. 328).

At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the term “source of revelation” was predicated only from Scripture. The text that the Council fathers had to discuss in November 1962 spoke in its first chapter of the two sources of revelation: Scripture and Tradition (Ruggieri 1996, 261). The second chapter spoke of individual inspiration and not of a collective inspiration of the authors of the Scripture and claimed in an undifferentiated and creationist way that the Bible’s sentences constitute empirically true states of affairs concerning matters of faith and everyday life (ibid.). The third chapter spoke of the relationship between the Old and the New Testament. Chapter 4 claimed that all facts narrated in the New Testament are historically true and Chapter 5 declared the Vulgate – Latin traduction of the Hebrew and Greek Bible - as authentic testimony of the Christian faith and called on the exegetes and the faithful to submit to the Magisterium of the Church (ibid. 261- 62).

Cardinal Ottaviani wanted to start the discussion on the sources of revelation with tradition, his Dogmatic Commission wanted first to debate on the deposit of the faith, then on revelation. Thanks to the persistent effort of Cardinal Bea, president of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, the debate started with discussion on revelation. His argument was pope John XXIII’s imperative for a pastoral council and not for a dogmatic one (ibid. 268). The line of argumentation put forth by Cardinal Bea was crucial for the decisive intervention of pope John XXIII on the future of the prepared document (ibid.).

When the aula began debating the scheme on revelation on November 14, 1962, Ottaviani and Salvatore Garofalo, Professor of Scripture and Rector of the Pontifical Urban University in Rome, succeeded in building up antipathy against their cause. Ottaviani took the floor before Garofalo, did not present the prepared scheme, but attacked those who criticized it. Garofalo then repeated the arguments of Ottaviani (ibid. 276). This repetition produced impatience and bored distress among the fathers. The aula became more and more alienated from the Curia’s position. Ottaviani put doctrine first and pastoral matters second (ibid. 278). That clearly contradicted the pope’s intention, as Bea dryly had remarked in his intervention (ibid.).

The pope wanted the faith to be presented in a way that the people could understand, agree, appropriate, and live with it. On the eve of November 14 John XXIII wrote in his calendar that the proposed scheme went against the intentions of his official speeches before and at the opening of the Council. He noted by name the eight cardinals that followed his intention, citing his speech and rejecting in the aula the scheme of the Preparatory Commission: Liénart, Frings, Léger, Koenig, Alfrink, Suenens, Ritter and Bea. John XXIII was aware that the discussions would show contrasts and conflicts. He closed by imploring the Lord “to help us and unite us” (ibid. 282-83).

Dei Verbum in the first session of the Council (October 1962-December 1962)

The aula began debating the scheme on revelation on November 14, 1962. The debate was controversial; accusations of heresy were made as well as of failure to obey the pope’s intentions. Following the debate, it was not clear, whether the prepared scheme would be rejected or maintained (ibid. 287). The reunions and meetings of the bishops intensified. On November 19, 1962, the Council’s Presidency decided to ask the aula to vote whether the discussion of the scheme on revelation should continue or not (ibid. 289). The motion was changed to “should the discussion of the scheme on revelation be interrupted?” (ibid.). The next day Felici communicated the decision of the Council’s Presidency to the aula and incited unrest among the bishops concerning the aim of the vote (ibid.). Did all the bishops understand that a vote to interrupt the discussion would actually reject the prepared scheme on revelation? Cardinal Ruffini from Palermo, member of the Council’s Presidency, intervened to clarify that “interruption” meant “renovate” and “remake” (ibid.). After 11 minutes of voting, Felici made another clarifying statement to this effect (ibid.).

If a two-thirds majority voted for interruption, the prepared schema would be dead. There were 1,368 votes in favor of interruption and 822 against it (ibid. 290). Not only was this overwhelming majority produced by the bishops of Central Europe, but also Italian, Spanish, North American and Latin American bishops joined them to reject the scheme. Nevertheless, the result of the vote fell 105 votes short of the required two-thirds majority. The vote had created a deadlock. To end the impasse an intervention by the pope was needed (ibid.). Bea was contacted by Secretary of State Cicognani and insisted that the pope would have to intervene.

On November 20, 1962, Cardinal Léger was able to speak to the pope in private (ibid. 291). The Cardinal presented a written note suggesting an intervention by the pope and the creation of a commission that in the upcoming intersession would work on redoing the documents. Léger had the impression that the pope was undecided about whether to intervene (ibid.). Pope John XXIII told the Cardinal that his speech at the opening of the Council was clear: Trent and Vatican I had already dealt with the object of faith, Vatican II was to present the Christian message to the modern world and to the world of tomorrow. The next morning Léger received an old and precious cross from John XXIII and a letter thanking him for the “endearing” note and conversation of the previous evening (ibid.).

John XXIII had made up his mind the same evening. The next day during morning mass the Secretary of State handed the document with the pope’s decision to Felici, the Council Secretary. The Italian theologian Giuseppe Ruggieri, historian on the team of Alberigo in Bologna, who at that moment was standing right behind the Council Secretary’s table, personally witnessed the perplexity of Felici and Cardinal Ruffini when they opened the document from the pope (ibid. 292). In the document the pope wrote that the vote of November 20, 1962, was sufficiently clear concerning the direction of the Council, but the rules of the Council statute did not permit a conclusive answer to be given on the grave problems of the scheme concerning revelation. Therefore, a mixed commission was to be created with members of the Doctrinal Commission and the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians in order to amend and correct the scheme, shorten and clarify and find a consensus on general principles in the text (ibid.). Cicognani opposed the decision in front of the pope. John XXIII disciplined Cicognani and calmed his annoyance and anger: “I prayed a lot about it and thought it over all night long. I am at peace and calm. We want to do it” (ibid.).

On December 5, 1962, John XXIII spoke for the last time to the bishops. In St. Peter’s Square they listened together with many men and women from all over the world to the incurably ill pope, who implored Mother Mary to take care of him and the families of all those listening to him below his window (ibid. 126).

Dei Verbum in the first intersession of the Council (December 1962-September 1963)

The Coordinating Commission was very important for the dynamics and the direction of the first intersession period of the Council (Grootaers, Jan. 1996. “Il concilio si gioca nell’intervallo. La seconda preparazione e i suoi avversari.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 385–558. 413. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). The Coordinating Commission together with John XXIII, who was impatiently awaiting death, overcame between January and March the impasse on the text concerning revelation (ibid. 414). The Coordinating Commission designated Cardinal Liénart as relator for the document on revelation. He reports to the Coordinating Commission on January 21, 1963, that at the three sessions of the Mixed Commission on Revelation in the beginning of December 1962, a minority insisted that with absolute certainty Tradition possesses truths that are not to be found in the Scriptures and are nevertheless revealed (ibid. 416). Liénart continued to refer to the definitions of Trent and Vatican I that claimed: Yes, Scripture and Tradition are two forms of revelation. This has to be understood in the sense that the faith constituting function of Tradition, one may call this function revelation, roots itself in the Scriptures. The Scriptures contribute to the faith function of Tradition. The historian who reconstructs the compromise that was reached during the first intersession already mentions that heavy conflict on this point will erupt again in 1964 and 1965, leading to a veritable crisis of the Council in October 1965 (ibid. 417).

On February 23, 1963, the Mixed Commission met again. Of the Mixed Commission’s 38 members 29 voted not to close the discussion on the subject as demanded by Ottaviani. Eight members voted against Bea’s proposal to postpone discussion of the matter (ibid.). In the session of February 25 Ottaviani openly accused Bea of infidelity to the faith of the Church. Bea said he could veto a decision in the Coordinating Commission anyway, and Cardinal Léger’s threat to appear before the Coordinating Commission calmed the explosive atmosphere for the moment (ibid.). In the session of March 1, 1963, the Mixed Commission listened as the letter from Cardinal Cicognani announced that if no consensus is possible the question will be given to the presidents of the Council. Léger proposed wording saying that Scripture and Tradition are strictly linked to each other and communicate with each other, and Bea called for a vote on the wording. Thirty votes were cast in favor of the wording and seven votes were against it. This vote is considered historical for ecumenical dialogue (ibid. 418).

On March 4, 1963, the Mixed Commission on Revelation met for the last time (ibid. 420). The Commission agreed on a compromise on revelation stating that Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium work together for the salvation of mankind. It was the first time that Yves Congar participated in a Council Commission and raised his voice in favor of introducing to the text the active role of the faithful concerning the teaching of the faith. The text also referred to the role of the faithful, against the will of Ottaviani. When Liénart reported the compromise to the Coordinating Commission, he protested against the reference to the faithful in the text that had been distributed to the Commission members. Congar’s mention of a conspiratio pastorum et fidelium - which means that men and women and bishops were all inspired to pass on the faith -, was rejected by Ottaviani. Very interestingly, two and a half years later Congar’s term again appears on November 18, 1965, in the final document (ibid.).

In the meantime, the Doctrinal Commission will have to liberate itself from the control of Ottaviani’s Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (ibid. 422). The majority of the Council members were not happy with the compromise agreed to by the Mixed Commission on March 4, 1963. During the second session of the Council the text on revelation was not discussed (ibid. 421). Progress on the text followed the closing speech of the second session of the Council where on December 4, 1963, Paul VI exhorted the Council that the text on revelation be advanced (ibid.).

In the second session of the Council (September 29 – December 4, 1963) the text on revelation was not discussed (Sauer, Hanjo. 1999. “I problemi della dottrina sono i problemi della pastroale.” In La chiesa come comunione. Il rezo periodo e la terza intersessione settembre 1964 – settembre 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 221–259. 222. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

The second intersession of the Council (December 5, 1963 – September 13, 1964)

Paul VI’s speech on Wednesday, December 4, 1963, was very important for the document’s survival. Many were hoping that the document had already been buried (ibid.). The pope insisted on the importance of the document on revelation and scheduled it to be worked on during the coming second intersession (ibid.). The version of the document of April 22, 1963, received 93 observations from June 1963 to January 1964 and by the end of April 1964 it had 300. Seventy-five observations came from individuals, the others in the name of episcopal conferences (Vilanova, Evangelista. 1998. “L’intersessione (1963–1964.” In Il concilio adulto. Il secondo periodo e la seconda intersessione settembre 1963 – settembre 1964. Vol. 3 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 367–512. 393. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). There were 2,481 proposals for amendments; all agreed that a complete re-elaboration of the text was necessary (ibid.). The Coordinating Commission decided in the session of December 28, 1963, that the scheme on revelation would be presented to the fathers after the Doctrinal Commission had studied all the observations that it had received (ibid. 394). The Mixed Commission met on January 3, 1964, and also preferred that the text be completely revised. The doctrinal commission was then asked to do the work and Cardinal Bea would oversee the resulting text (ibid.). On March 15, 1964, the Doctrinal Commission created a sub-commission that was to elaborate the new scheme based on the observations the commission had received from the bishops (ibid. 395). This sub-commission consisted of seven bishops and 19 expert theologians. There were conflicts again, and Philips mediated successfully (ibid. 396). He was assigned the task of reviewing the whole text of the new document (ibid. 397). On May 11, 1964, Felici announced that the document on revelation would be the first to be discussed in the third session of the Council (ibid. 397). From June 3 to 5, 1964 the Doctrinal Commission in four sessions approved the text with a two-thirds majority against the resistance mounted by Ottaviani (ibid.). On June 26, 1964, the scheme was approved by the Coordinating Commission and sent to the fathers (Sauer 1999, 224). The title no longer spoke of a dogmatic constitution, but simply of a constitutional scheme. Nobody knows who dropped the qualification “dogmatic” (ibid.).

Nevertheless, important points were established: Revelation was seen from the perspective of the Bible and not as a compendium of positive truths. Biblically, revelation takes place within an economy of salvation as the word and deed of Go’d within a history of men and women. This encounter between Go’d and men and women in the form of revelation is ongoing in the present and will continue in the future. Tradition is understood to concern the whole existence of the Church: doctrine, life, and cult. The Scripture is the soul of theology and exegetic research is important for understanding texts. The Magisterium deals with a living Tradition and gives an authentic interpretation of the Scripture and of Tradition, always referring to the present predication of the word of Go’d (ibid.). The first chapter of the new text deals with revelation itself, the second chapter with handing on divine revelation, the third chapter with inspiration and divine interpretation of Sacred Scripture, the fourth chapter with the Old Testament, the fifth chapter with the New Testament and the sixth chapter with Sacred Scripture in the life of the Church (ibid. 225).

Dei Verbum in the third session (September 14, 1964 – December 21, 1964)

On September 30, 1964, the document on revelation was presented and debated (ibid. 229). Florit presented to the aula of the Council the compromise of the majority vote of the Doctrinal Commission against went against his own conviction. The compromise was, that both Tradition and Scripture are important for the doctrine of faith. For acceptance of the document in the aula, it was very important that a Roman cardinal presents the scheme. After Florit’s presentation of the document Ernesto Ruffini opened the debate. He was on the side of those who defended the strong function of Tradition (ibid. 235). Döpfner responded to Ruffini in the name of 78 German-speaking and Scandinavian bishops. He defended a personalist view that biblical faith is a gift of Go’d. Believing is a grace, grace is part of the event of revelation and in faith revelation finds its fulfillment (ibid. 236). In his intervention Cardinal Meyer from Chicago spoke out in favor of having the text state that the living Tradition also shows the limits and weaknesses of the Church (ibid.).

On October 1, 1964, Cardinal Lercaro presided over the aula and Cardinal Léger took the floor and defended the presented document. Cardinal Landázuri Ricketts from Lima defended the text in the name of 45 Latin American bishops. Cardinal Ricketts (1913-1997) in the 1960s and 1970s was most prominent and protested human rights abuses perpetrated by numerous military juntas in Latin America. He defended liberation theology and theologians and served as acting president of the 1968 Medellin Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean promoting the preferential option for the poor. He moved out of his palace to a small house in a working-class area of Lima. After Cardinal Ricketts, Ireland’s Cardinal Michael Brown took the floor to oppose the proposed text of the scheme. The Armenian Patriarch Ignazio Pietro XVI Batanian praised the scheme, as did Bishop Kowalski in the name of the Polish bishops. In the name of 66 African bishops, the Archbishop of Ouagadoungou Paul Zoungrana from today’s Burkina Faso, who was made a cardinal in 1965, also praised the presented text and insisted for his part that the Council aims to facilitate the realization of the personal renovation of the members of the Church with love (Sauer 1999, 240-41). There were still many interventions concerning the first chapter of the scheme before the second chapter was discussed the same day.

The multiple interventions on the second chapter treated many questions concerning the handing on of divine revelation: is the Bible “sufficient” to be granted the gift of faith and is it possible to live a Christian life by the Scriptures alone? Is the primitive community of the Apostles the normative rule and this for all time? How does the uniqueness of the Apostolic time relate to the post-apostolic life of Christians in terms of the foundation of their rules and norms (ibid. 242-43)? The Council of Trent and Vatican I hold the Scriptures to not only be the roots of Tradition, but to have also contributed to Tradition a constitutive function equal to that of the Scriptures themselves. Are there convictions in the Christian faith that are essential for its profession and that are not grounded and founded in Scripture? Does it help that we distinguish between divine truths of Tradition and human truths of Tradition? Divine truths of Tradition would come from the predication of the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit and from the Magisterium (ibid. 244-45).

Chapters 3 to 6 of the scheme were discussed from October 2, 1964, to October 5, 1964, under the presidency of Cardinal Döpfner (ibid. 247). After the presentation of these chapters, Ruffini was the first to speak and insisted on the hermeneutic function of the literary genders for interpreting the Scriptures, on the importance of the Church Fathers, and the informed faith of the faithful that the Church has taught and teaches (ibid. 246). Cardinal König from Vienna was the second to speak and did so in the name of the German-speaking Bishops’ Conference. He described how the progress of the oriental studies made it possible to overcome many obstacles in discerning what is historic in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, and what is the divine element (ibid. 247). What is divine and what is human? This question blocked the exegets in the nineteenth century. König gave three examples to show where the Bible misconstrued historic facts without thereby restricting the authority of the Scriptures in any way (ibid.). Mark 2:26 erroneously gives the High Priest’s name (Abiathar instead of Abimelech, see 1 Samuel 21:2). The reference to Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9 actually cites Zechariah 11:12, and Daniel 1:1 dates the first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar – that actually took place in 597 BC – to the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, who was King of Judah from 608 to 598 BC (ibid.). Cardinal Meyer spoke positively of the chapters and presented his personalist view on inspiration and revelation (ibid.). Augustine Bea examined the chapters in great detail in his speech and many speakers followed, often proposing modifications, and a few expressed how difficult it was to accept the new methods of exegesis, some opposed the exegetic methods of the literary forms (ibid. 248-53).

On October 7, 1964, interventions with Pope Paul VI intensified for having him withdraw the scheme from the aula (ibid.). Ruffini, Siri, Browne, Larraona and Cardinal Rufino Jiao Santos from Manila in the Philippines pushed in this direction (ibid.). A mass of written observations and modes had to be studied. In the sub-commission doing that work on October 20, 1964, the Dutch theologian Tromp, his German disciples Schauf and Trapé, all members of the minority, again espoused the constitutional character of Tradition for the faith (ibid. 258). On November 10 and 11, 1964, a decision was finally made on the necessary changes to be made in the text of the revelation scheme by the Doctrinal Commission (ibid.). Philip’s proposal of the salutary truth (in Latin: veritatem salutarem) found in the Scriptures was taken into the text and received 19 positive votes out of a total of 22 votes (ibid.).

On November 14, 1964, Philips confides in his Notebook XII that for him the last weeks were the most difficult of the Council so far. First, he had to work on the text on the Church, then on divine revelation and in between on religious liberty (Schelkens, Karim. 2006. Carnet Conciliaires de Mgr. Gérard Philips. Secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale. Texte néerlandais avec traduction francaise et commentaires. 57. Leuven: Maurits Sabbe Library, Faculty of Theology K.U. Leuven).

Until November 16, 1964, Philips had still hoped that a vote would be held on November 19 on the scheme on revelation together with the scheme on the Church, then he recognizes, that no vote will be held on revelation on Thursday November 19, 1964 (ibid. 62). Instead, on November 20, 1964, the latest version of the scheme on revelation went to print and was sent to the fathers for the fourth session of the Council. There, the concept of salutary truth met new resistance and was discussed again (Sauer 1999, 258).

Dei Verbum in the fourth session of the Council (September 14 - December 8, 1965)

The votes on the six chapters of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, took place from September 20 to September 22, 1965. The text passed with a big majority, but 1,498 modi resulted from the votes and needed to be worked into the final text (Theobald, Christoph. 2001. “La chiesa sotto la Parola die Dio.” In Concilio di transizione. Il quarto period e la conclusion del concilio (1965). Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 285–370. 288. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

Theobald recalls the presentation of the text by relator Florit (ibid. 289). A central point in Flort’s report is about the necessary understanding of Dei Verbum, especially of the preamble, as foundation for all other Constitutions and documents of the Council (ibid.). Theobald documents the connections between Dei Verbum and the other documents of the Council. Chapter 6 of Dei Verbum explicitly refers to the liturgy. The problem of atheism in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the modern World Gaudium et spes is found in number 6 of Dei Verbum, when speaking of the knowledge of God (ibid. 361). The relationship with the Jews emerges in number 14 of Dei Verbum, that deals with the history of salvation in the books of the Old Testament. The universalism of the auto-communication of Go’d that is asserted at the beginning of Dei Verbum points at the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to the Non-Christian Religions (ibid.). Florit refers to the ecclesiological function of revelation in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. The bishops of the Council had been conscious of the essential relationship between the two documents since the fall of 1964 when Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum were discussed together (ibid.).

Paul VI never spoke of Dei Verbum as the basis of the Council. Instead, he turned away from Scripture to concentrate on the institutional aspect of the Church (ibid. 359). Cardinal Florit, on the contrary, also indicated the central importance of Dei Verbum for ecumenism. Yet, the Degree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, formulates stronger than Dei Verbum: Chapter 11 of Unitatis Redintegratio, clearly puts the Church under the word of Jesus Christ (ibid. 360).

From September 22 to 30, 1965 in House Martha, a small commission worked over the 1,489 modi. Tromp and Philips were secretaries. There were still massive interventions by Cardinals and theologians who tried to influence the pope. Philips is tiered of the intrigues and again proposes a compromise for saving ecumenism: Not everything is found directly in the Scriptures (ibid. 301). Philip’s compromise met again resistance. The diplomat Philip knew how to manage the situation: He asked the conservative Jesuit theologian Tromp to intervene with Cardinal Ottaviani, his chef. Ottaviani consented to present Philip’s wording to the pope and received Paul VI’s ok (ibid. 302).

On September 27, 1965, another problem developed in the small commission. Tromp called the expression “salutary truth” illegitimate predication of the Scripture (ibid. 303). The fight over the terms “salutary truth” and “truth” will be fought for some weeks in the Theological Commission. Finally, the term “salutary truth” is maintained in the text and the work on minor difficulties of the text continued (ibid. 322).

The discussion on the relationship between Tradition and Scripture was touched off again when the historic foundation of the Church was discussed in Chapter 5 (ibid. 324). On Saturday, October 9 and Monday, October 11, 1965, the last two sessions of the Theological Commission were held on revelation. There was a significant and unusual decrease in the number of bishops and experts present at these two sessions (ibid. 325). Historicity was discussed again and by citing Acts 1:1-2 it was possible to avoid speaking about the resurrection as a fact of history and not of faith (ibid.). The relationship between the exegetes and professors of Theology and the Magisterium was discussed (ibid. 327). The outright submission of the Biblical scholars to the Magisterium was avoided in the text (ibid.). The next day, October 12, 1965, the revised text was sent to Paul VI. In his accompanying letter Ottaviani wrote that the minority had failed to convince the Commission to better express the “constitutive function of Tradition” as the second source of faith and he suggested that Paul VI act on the matter (ibid. 328).

There was fear about the connection between the conservative minority of the Council and the pope (ibid.). Paul VI indeed was unhappy with the term “salutary truth,” he was not familiar and felt uncomfortable with the – patristic and Orthodox - theological concept of the economy of salvation that is Go’d’s plan for all of creation. Paul VI leaned toward the theory of the two sources of revelation, Scripture and Tradition. Döpfner protested the papal interventions on the Commissions’ work with Colombo. All this happened in a general climate of fatigue and exhaustion. The bishops are no longer capable, nor do they have the will to really listen and debate the suggestions made by their theologians.

On October 17, 1965, Paul VI made up his mind and decided to ask the Doctrinal Commission for a last session on the text on revelation. The known problems – the source(s) of revelation and the term salutary truth – concern number 9 of Chapter 2. The doctrinal commission therefore met on October 19, 1965, notwithstanding the fact that the Council was officially on vacation (ibid. 342). Following the wish of the pope the president of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, Cardinal Bea, also attended this session; he was accompanied by his secretary, Johannes Willebrands. He had presented to Paul VI a compromise wording that Paul VI liked, although Bea had earlier signaled to Philips his consent to the term “salutary truth.”

The pope’s letter concerning the problems and seven possible solutions to them was read to the Commission. Then Ottaviani invited Bea to speak on the relationship between Tradition and Scripture (ibid. 343). He professed his preference for the third proposed solution – from Colombo - that claimed that the Church obtains her certainty about everything that has been revealed not solely from the Sacred Scripture. The vote on this wording received a two-thirds majority of the Commission’s votes (ibid.).

Bea continued to comment on the text of Chapter 3 and spoke in favor of omitting the expression “salutary truth” (ibid.). All were amazed that Bea repeated arguments he had presented to the pope: neither Saint Augustine nor Saint Thomas – this went against Congar’s argument - know this expression. “Salutary truth” is not part of Tradition and was never discussed in a general plenary session of the Council (ibid.). Philips notes in his diary that nobody was given the opportunity to answer Bea and that Ottaviani immediately called the Commission to vote (Schelkens 2006, 153). There were 17 votes in favor of omission, 7 in favor of keeping and 4 blank votes in the first vote on the wording “salutary truth” (Theobald 2001, 343). Immediately it was announced that no two-thirds majority was achieved. A second and a third vote showed the same impasse. Only now was Philips given permission to speak. He suggests a compromise formula based on a description he had taken from some members of the minority (Schelkens 2006, 153): “…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation” (Theobald 2001, 344). Bea had no immediate objections and immediately there were 19 votes for and 9 votes against, meaning that the necessary two-thirds majority had been achieved (ibid.). Philips notes dryly: the text immediately gets the two-thirds majority (Schelkens 2006, 153). Concerning the term “historicity of the faith” (in Latin: fides historica) that was proposed in the letter from the pope, Philips again suggests a compromise that says that the Church unhesitatingly asserts the historical character of the four Gospels (Theobald 2001, 344). This wording was accepted with 26 to 2 votes (ibid.).

Theobald claims that Philips and the whole “Belgian group” in the commission were hurt by Bea’s “abuse of authority”. Theobald’s source is Prignon, the trusted theological adviser of Cardinal Suenens (ibid. 345). Prignon writes that the presidency of the Theological Commission agreed on October 18, 1965, that the next day, at the last meeting of the Commission, Philips would first present the issues that the Commission would then vote on (ibid. 342). Philips describes this meeting of the presidency a little differently in his diary (Schelkens 2006, 153). The presidency agreed to vote immediately and without commentary on the relationship between Tradition and Scripture. Only then would Philips present his compromises concerning “salutary truth” and the historicity of the Gospels (ibid.). From Philips’ diary, I do not see that he was hurt by the presence of Bea and his interventions (ibid.). Philips unemotionally documents that Ottaviani first gave the floor to Bea. In reality, Philips is quite an independent personality, and, in my observation, he is not easily hurt. It is true that not only Prignon but also Bea’s associates Willebrands and De Smedt were irritated that Bea suddenly withdrew his consent to the term “salutary truth” (Theobald 2001, 345). The Belgian Tromp seems to have told the Belgian Prignon that Bea had been convinced all his life that the expression “salutary truth” would invite restricting the truth of inspiration in the sense that error was possible concerning the truth of faith (ibid.).

The final text of Dei Verbum was sent to the pope, who approved it (Theobald 2001, 347). On October 29, 1965, the votes on the chapters of Dei Verbum were scheduled to take place and the pope had asked all bishops to be present for this vote (ibid. 348). On November 18, 1965, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, received 2,344 votes in favor of it and only 6 votes against it; that same day, Dei Verbum was approved and promulgated by Paul VI. (Rahner, Vorgrimler 1966, 361). The votes document an almost perfect and unanimous consensus of the Council (Theobald 2001, 349).