In the april 15 issue of this magazine (p. 42), Professor Leslie R. Keylock gave readers an overview of the International Conference on the Theological Issues of Vatican II, held at the University of Notre Dame on March 20–26. The present article has to do with one aspect of the conference’s concern, revelation.
It should be said at the outset that the differences of opinions (i.e., between conservatives and progressives) expressed in this area were much less pronounced than those that emerged during the discussions of the nature of the Church and the organization of the hierarchical structure. This Protestant observer was at times astonished to hear the statements of responsible Roman Catholic spokesmen about the primacy of the Bible, and to note their tributes to the work of Protestant Bible societies. Certainly the stereotyped idea that the Roman church is determined to “keep the Bible from the people” found little support at Notre Dame.
The interpreters of the Constitution on Divine Revelation accepted as a point of departure the position that divine revelation is a gift from God that man is obligated to accept. This gift (the divine Word) was declared to be a living communication of God himself to man, and in its written form to be the revealing echo of the unitary Living Word, through whom the Father of the Christian Trinity speaks. The centrality of Christ in the Word means, to the drafting fathers, that Jesus Christ sums up in himself everything the Father needs to say, and thus all threads and trends in the Scriptures can be seen to unite in the Son.
Chapter 3 of this constitution affirms that God chose men, infused their powers and faculties with the Holy Spirit, and acted in and through them to convey and affirm the divine will to man. The document insists upon the historical integrity and consequent truth-value of the two Testaments. The Old Testament, it was maintained at the conference, would have been a supremely valuable document even if our Lord had not become incarnate. Stress was laid repeatedly upon the place and role of even the imperfect parts of the Hebrew Scriptures in the divine pedagogy.
The panelists grappled with the question of the proper approach of the reader to the biblical narrative. It was pointed out repeatedly that great theological confusion has resulted from the study of the Bible from the point of view of modern historiography, particularly as this was formulated by the Mommsen-Van Ranke school. With reserve, assent was given to the more contemporary theological “study models,” notably the so-called eschatological model, and to the methodology indicated by the application of the concept of Heilsgeschichte. That is to say, a place was made for a Catholic interpretation of Scripture within other than the classical scholastic perspective. One frequently felt that the spirit of Teilhard de Chardin was present in the discussions.
The fact of revelation was shown—correctly, we believe—to be closely identified with the history of redemption. The entire thrust of Scripture seems to the drafters of this constitution to be evangelical, moving toward the gathering of the People of God. The claim that revelation consists of “both words and deeds” seemed to the interpreters of the document to be adequately met in the concept of the centrality of Jesus Christ in the written Word. In other words, the constitution is incongenial to the severance, common in some contemporary theological circles, of verbal revelation from “the saving acts of God.”
Against this, it was maintained that in reality every deed of our Lord was in itself a word. In him we encounter historical reality: as one panelist noted, “In him we deal with rock-bottom history.” It was pointed out that Roman Catholic scholarship accepts, with reserve, the conclusions of “redaction criticism” where such criticism does not rest upon philosophical presuppositions that negate the principles of the Christian Kerygma.
Admittedly, this leaves open many questions of theological and biblical interpretation. The major one of concern to Protestants is, of course, whether the Sacred Scriptures are or are not regarded to be the sole source of authority. One spokesman for Vatican II who is competent to speak from the inside explained that the statement to the effect that the Church derives her certainty about all that has been revealed “not through Holy Writ alone” was the result of pressure from the conservatives, and yet leaves Catholics free to say that the “whole deposit” is in the Bible. Thus, it seemed to the outsider that the typically Catholic view that authority issues from “the Bible and …” still prevails.
From one of the panel discussions came the significant statement that Vatican II demands, implicitly if not explicitly, that the Roman Catholic Church give the same emphasis to the Word that the “separated brethren” have historically given it. At least one speaker, saluting Protestant efforts toward scholarly linguistic translations, indicated that it will not be many years until a common Bible for all Christendom is a reality.
On the question of the reliability of the Scriptures in matters of historical fact, conclusions were expressed with a measure of reserve. For some reason, the term “infallible” was applied to the written Word with hesitancy; perhaps it was thought that the category of infallibility as applied in another connection was in need of clarification, and that its reassertion in a second area would have been inadvisable at this time. A hint was given that this question would be the subject for subsequent discussion at the highest level.
In the meantime, the emphasis was to be upon presenting the Bible in such a manner as to make eternal truth meaningful to men of the present day. It was indicated that a proposed draft on the sources of revelation was rejected by vote, on the ground that the door ought to be kept open for appropriate adjustments to modern mentalities. Thus was aggiornamento applied to the understanding of the Bible and its relation to contemporary thought.
Leaders of the Notre Dame conference sought to make the sessions into working models for what they hope will be new and more fruitful forms of interfaith theological discussion. Representatives of Protestantism and Judaism were welcomed, both as observers and as participants. With utter frankness, panelists, including several of those who framed the several constitutions during Vatican II, proclaimed the need of the Roman church for biblical revival. One feels that this is one aspect of Vatican II that will not die at the convention level.
It is conceivable that this impetus from the Vatican Council might give rise to a movement of reform within the Roman Catholic Church comparable to that which Christendom, under other circumstances, underwent in the sixteenth century. Dean Samuel H. Miller of Harvard Divinity School predicts she will emerge as “the Church of the Reformation.” Protestants will be well advised to guard their heritage lest it go to others by default.
