No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Dei Verbum: Scripture, Tradition, and Historical Criticism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2020
Abstract
The Council Fathers at Vatican II struggled to negotiate the Council's teaching on divine revelation with regard to the teaching of Trent, but more immediately with regard to the modern theology of the Magisterium and the modern value of historical criticism that had recently been recognized by Pius XII as having a legitimate role in the interpretation of Scripture. Dei Verbum's teaching stressed the unity of Scripture and tradition in the revelation of God's word, but never considered the role of historical criticism in the interpretation of God's word in tradition that it affirmed in God's revelation in the biblical word. This article argues that the recognition of the legitimate role of historical criticism in the interpretation of tradition remains an issue of needed development in the teaching of Dei Verbum.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © College Theology Society 2020
References
1 Here I follow the reading of Tavard, George H., Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959)Google Scholar.
2 “First Decree of the Council of Trent,” in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2: Trent to Vatican II, ed. N. P. Tanner, SJ (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 663.
3 Komonchak, Joseph A., “The Struggle for the Council during the Preparation of Vatican II (1960–1962),” in History of Vatican II, vol. 1, ed. Alberigo, G. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995), 227–30Google Scholar.
4 Quoted in Ortigues, Edmond, “Écritures et traditions apostoliques au Concile de Trente,” Récherches de science religieuse 36 (1949): 279Google Scholar.
5 Congar, Yves M.-J. OP, La Tradition et les traditions, vol. 1: Essai historique (Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1960), 215, 227–28Google Scholar, n. 40.
6 Congar, Yves, “A Semantic History of the Term ‘Magisterium,’” in Readings in Moral Theology No. 3: The Magisterium and Morality, ed. Curran, C. and McCormick, R., SJ (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 306Google Scholar.
7 See, for example, Geiselmann, Josef Rupert, “Das Missverständnis über das Verhältnis von Schrift und Tradition und seine Überwindung in der katholischen Theologie,” Una Sancta 11 (1956): 132–39Google Scholar; Die Heilige Schrift und die Tradition (Freiburg: Herder, 1962).
8 Schelkens, Karim, Catholic Theology of Revelation on the Eve of Vatican II: A Redaction History of the Schema de Fontibus Revelationis (1960–1962) (Boston, MA: Brill, 2010), 221–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Komonchak, “The Struggle for the Council during the Preparation of Vatican II (1960–1962),” 244; Wicks, Jared SJ, “Vatican II on Revelation—From Behind the Scenes,” Theological Studies 71 (2010): 646–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Ibid., 647. For another account of episcopal resistance to De Fontibus, see Wicks, Jared, “Peter Smulders and Dei Verbum: 2. On De Fontibus Revelationis during Vatican II's First Period, 1962,” Gregorianum 82 (2001): 559–93Google Scholar.
11 Fogarty, Gerald P., “The Council Gets Underway,” in History of Vatican II, vol. 2, ed. Alberigo, G. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997), 73Google Scholar.
12 Ibid., 390.
13 Baum, Gregory OSA, “Vatican II's Constitution on Revelation: History and Interpretation,” Theological Studies 28 (1967): 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Sauer, Hanjo, “The Doctrinal and the Pastoral: The Text on Divine Revelation,” in History of Vatican II, vol. 4, ed. Alberigo, G. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2003), 195Google Scholar.
15 For a historical sketch of these debates, see ibid., 203–18.
16 Quoted in Theobald, Christophe, “The Church under the Word of God,” in History of Vatican II, vol. 5, ed. Alberigo, G. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2006), 330Google Scholar.
17 Another issue that merited the pope's attention was a disagreement about the draft's wording that scripture teaches “saving truth” (veritas salutaris). Those who objected argued that the phrase narrowed Scripture's divine inspiration only to some of its teachings. Those who defended the phrase saw the notation of truth's specificity as a way of sidestepping a fundamentalist notion of scriptural inerrancy. The Fathers approved a compromise formula in the final text: “we must acknowledge that the books of scripture teach firmly, faithfully and without error such truth as God, for the sake of our salvation, wished the biblical text to contain” (“Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, 976, §11 [hereafter abbreviated DV = Dei Verbum, followed by page number in the Tanner edition, and the document's paragraph enumeration]).
18 J. Neuner, “Das Schema über die Offenbarung,” in KNA—Sonderdienst zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil 56 (Oktober 6, 1964), 5, quoted in Sauer, “The Doctrinal and the Pastoral,” 202.
19 DV, 972, §2.
20 DV, 973, §7.
21 DV, 974, §7.
22 DV, 974, §7.
23 DV, 974, §8.
24 DV, 974, §8.
25 “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2: Trent to Vatican II, 858, §12.
26 DV, 974, §8.
27 DV, 974–75, §9.
28 DV, 975, §10.
29 DV, 975, §9.
30 DV, 975, §9.
31 DV, 975, §10.
32 DV, 976, §12.
33 DV, 977, §16.
34 DV, 979, §21.
35 For an account of these early theories of doctrinal development, see Thiel, John E., Senses of Tradition: Continuity and Development in Catholic Faith (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 59–72Google Scholar.
36 X, Pius, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), in The Papal Encyclicals: 1903–1939, ed. Carlen, C. (Wilmington, NC: McGrath Publishing, 1981), 89, §39Google Scholar.
37 “Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith” (1870), in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2, 806.
38 Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (1893), in The Papal Encyclicals: 1878–1903, ed. C. Carlen (Wilmington, NC: McGrath Publishing, 1981), 336–37, §21, 22.
39 Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) in The Papal Encyclicals: 1939–1958, ed. C. Carlen (Wilmington, NC: McGrath Publishing, 1981), 70, §18.
40 Ibid., 70, §19.
41 Karim Schelkens, Catholic Theology of Revelation on the Eve of Vatican II, 143, 147.
42 Ibid., 237, 259–60; DV, 976, §12.
43 An early sixteenth-century proponent was the Dominican Sylvester Prierias (1456–1527). See Bagchi, David V. N., Luther's Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists, 1518–1525 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 27–29Google Scholar, 59–60.
44 Theobald, “The Church under the Word of God,” 302, 304.
45 DV, 975, §10. Francis Sullivan has noted that the Latin adjective authenticum and the adverb authentice as qualifiers of the exercise of magisterium are better translated respectively as “authoritative” and “authoritatively,” rather than as “authentic” and “authentically” (Sullivan, Francis A. SJ, Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church [New York: Paulist Press, 1983], 27Google Scholar).
46 In an essay on the fortieth anniversary of Dei Verbum, Ormond Rush makes the passing observation: “Despite its promotion of historical-critical research, the document doesn't really apply such research to its own somewhat idealised and anachronistic image of early church development of tradition and authority structures” (Rush, Ormond, “Dei Verbum Forty Years On: Revelation, Inspiration, and the Spirit,” The Australasian Catholic Record 83 [2006]: 406Google Scholar). Nor, to the point I will develop here, does Dei Verbum recognize the role of historical-critical sensibilities in understanding the current exercise of magisterial authority. Rush does address this issue more broadly in his most recent study of the Second Vatican Council. Rush, Ormund, The Vision of Vatican II: Its Fundamental Principles (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2019), 165–87Google Scholar. Several theologians have argued for the need to highlight the hermeneutical importance of Dei Verbum in the history of conciliar reception. See, for example, Theobald, Christoph, “La Révélation: Quarante ans après Dei Verbum,” Revue Théologique de Louvain 36 (2005): 163CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rush, Ormond, Still Interpreting Vatican II: Some Hermeneutical Principles (New York: Paulist Press, 2004), 42–43Google Scholar. Cf. Rush, Ormond, “Toward a Comprehensive Interpretation of the Council and Its Documents,” Theological Studies 73 (2012): 550CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47 Rahner, Karl, “Scripture and Tradition,” in Theological Investigations, vol. 6, trans. Kruger, K.-H. and Kruger, B. (New York: Seabury Press, 1974), 107, 108–12Google Scholar.
48 Tracy, David, “On Reading the Scriptures Theologically,” in Theology and Dialogue: Essays in Conversation with George Lindbeck, ed. Marshall, B. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), 37–38Google Scholar.
49 A fine review of the history and the issues by Curran himself is Curran, Charles, “Humanae Vitae: Fifty Years Later,” Theological Studies 79 (2018): 520–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
50 See, for example, Carr, Anne E., Transforming Grace: Christian Tradition and Women's Experience (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1988), 21–59Google Scholar.
51 For a history of postconciliar magisterial interventions, see Hinze, Bradford E., “A Decade of Disciplining Theologians,” in When the Magisterium Intervenes, ed. Gaillardetz, R. (Minneapolis: Liturgical Press, 2012), 18–50Google Scholar.
52 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis (1990), “Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian,” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html, §31.
53 Ibid., §32.
54 Ibid., §34.
55 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html, §5.
56 Dulles, Avery, “Two Magisteria: An Interim Reflection,” in Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, ed. Salm, L., 35 (1980): 155–69Google Scholar; Rush, Ormond, The Eyes of Faith: The Sense of the Faithful and the Church's Reception of Revelation (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2009), 252–74Google Scholar; Phan, Peter C., “From Magisterium to Magisteria: Recent Theologies of the Learning and Teaching Functions of the Church,” Theological Studies 80 (2019): 393–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
57 “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” (Lumen Gentium), in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2: Trent to Vatican II, 858, §12.
58 There are many examples. Some are: Rahner, Karl, “The Teaching Office of the Church in the Present-Day Crisis of Authority,” Theological Investigations, vol. 12, trans. Bourke, D. (New York: Seabury Press, 1974), 3–30Google Scholar; Seckler, Max, “Kirchliches Lehramt und theologische Wissenschft: Geschichtliche Aspeckte, Probleme und Lösungselemente,” in Die Theologie und das Lehramt, ed. Kern, W. (Freiburg: Herder, 1982), 17–62Google Scholar; Sullivan, Francis A. SJ, Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church; Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium (New York: Paulist Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Thiel, John E., Imagination and Authority: Theological Authorship in the Modern Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Gaillardetz, Richard R., Teaching with Authority (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997)Google Scholar; By What Authority?: Foundations for Understanding Authority in the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2018).
59 Some examples include John E. Thiel, Senses of Tradition: Continuity and Development in Catholic Faith; Thiel, John E., “The Analogy of Tradition: Method and Theological Judgment,” Theological Studies 66 (2005): 358–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tilley, Terrence, Inventing Catholic Tradition (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000)Google Scholar; Boeve, Lieven, Interrupting Tradition: An Essay on Christian Faith in a Postmodern Context (Leuven: Peeters, 2003)Google Scholar; Wiedenhofer, Siegfried, “Tradition-Geschichte-Gedächtnis: Was Bringt eine komplexe Traditionstheorie?” Erwägen, Wissen, Ethik 15 (2004): 229–38Google Scholar; Espín, Orlando O. and Macy, Gary, eds., Futuring Our Past: Explorations in the Theology of Tradition (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006)Google Scholar; Mueller, Joseph G. SJ, “Forgetting as a Principle of Continuity in Tradition,” Theological Studies 70 (2009): 751–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60 In his commentary on Dei Verbum, Joseph Ratzinger expresses regret that the Council Fathers did not heed the call of the American Cardinal Albert Meyer in the debate on divine revelation. In a speech delivered on September 30, 1964, Meyer argued for an emendation to the text that stated that “not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason also be a legitimate tradition,” even to the point that the Cardinal distinguished between “distorting” and “legitimate” ecclesial traditions (Ratzinger, Joseph, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, H., trans. Glen-Doepel, W., et al., vol. 3 [New York: Herder and Herder, 1969], 185Google Scholar). Acknowledging such a distinction in Dei Verbum might have opened the door as well to recognizing the appropriate role of historical criticism in making such judgments.
61 Richard Gaillardetz has made the insightful observation that at the heart of this failure to reconcile magisterial authority with historical criticism lies a defective theology of the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium. See Gaillardetz, By What Authority?: Foundations for Understanding Authority in the Church, 122–24.
62 DV, 975, §10.