Dei Filius and Dei Verbum

 

 

 DEI FILIUS COMPARED TO DEI TO  DEI VERBUM   ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF SCRIPTURE/TRADITION/MAGISTERIUM TO JESUS

BRETT FAWCETT

THEOLOGY OF REVELATION STD 401i FATHER DAVE NORMAN

 

 

Despite the fact that it is named Dei named  Dei Filius (hereafter Filius  (hereafter DF   DF ), ), the Vatican I document is not

nearly as Christocentric as  Dei Verbum (hereafter  DV ). ). In  DF , the name “Jesus” appears two times, “Christ” appears four times, and the titular name “Son of God” is used only five times, while  DV mentions “Jesus” eleven times and “Christ” twenty-six twenty-six times. Some allowance must be made for the fact that DV that  DV is a longer text, but it also makes Christ the centre of revelation in a way that  DF does not, calling Him “ both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation” revelation”. An important  phrase is: “Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself  present and manifesting man ifesting Himself: through His words and deeds de eds…” …” There is no indication in DF in  DF that revelation could ever be “perfected” because it is hard ha rd to see how revelation could ever be imperfect : it is primarily the revelation of true statements. But since DV since DV sees revelation as being a history or an event (we see this when we later lat er discuss the Old Testament), it can culminate in the words and deeds of Jesus. “Words and deeds” becomes beco mes a recurrent motif in in DV   DV : revelation is both  propositional (which means that  DV  can   can include everything that  DF says) and personal: “This  plan of revelation revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: unity: the deeds deeds wrought  wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words words,, while the words words proclaim  proclaim the deeds deeds and  and clarify the mystery contained in them.” them.”1  There are a lot of differences in the attitudes towards Scripture in the two documents, right down to the fact that DF that DF suggests that only the Latin Vulgate is necessary ne cessary for Scripture study does not speak of Scripture in reference to Jesus at all, while  DV also refers to the Septuagint and commends Church-approved contemporary translations of the Bible into the vernacular. But there are larger and deeper differences: DF differences:  DF says that revelation is “contained” in the the Scriptures. This

1

 Hebrew scholars have noted that the Old Testament expression for “word”, dabar , also means “event”.  “event”. 

 

suggests (though perhaps does not necessitate 2) the propositional understanding of revelation: It is something that can be contained in a text. Moreover, DF Moreover,  DF does not explicitly refer to Jesus when talking about the content of Scripture. There is a fascinating passage where it says that the Church does not venerate the Scriptures because they are inerrant, but because they have God for their Author, “having “having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”. Spirit ”. The Holy Spirit is the operative member of the Trinity here.  DV , meanwhile, not only centres its description of Scripture’s content on Christ, but also stresses that the Bible is not just an assembly of true statements about Jesus but an unfolding story in which Christ is progressively revealed. The Old Testament books “contain “contain some things which are incomplete and temporary” temporary ”; revelation needed to be perfected by Jesus’ “life and teaching” (or, to put it another way, His words and deeds), deeds), which is why “among “among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special pre-eminence”. pre-eminence”.   This brings us to the issue issue of the Magisterium. When DF When  DF talks about “the Church”, it is talking about the Magisterium. (This is often how the phrase is also used in  DV .3) as when Here, the relationship to Jesus is largely the fact that Jesus is understood as having deputized the Apostles Ap ostles with authority to protect and propagate His teaching: teaching : “[I]n  “[I]n  order [notice: this is why why   God has instituted the Church] that we may satisfactorily perform the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church, and provided it with clear signs of His institution.” institution .” We will come to those those “clear signs” signs” in a moment, but the the point here is that Christ’s role is understood historically: He has instituted the

2

 If we understand Christ’s Person to be the t he content of revelation, we could possibly understand the phrase “Scripture contains Revelation” to Revelation” to refer to a quasi-sacramental presence of Christ in Scripture —  Scripture — language language which is used freely in  Dei Verbum. Verbum. 3  DV: DV: “… “…all all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. ” 

 

Church to preserve the teaching that He shared during His earthly ministry. ministry. The language of Christ revealing Himself today today in  in the Church does not clearly appear anywhere. There are times where  DV uses similar language in its section on “Handing On Divine Revelation”.. But it does not mention the Magisterium Revelation” Magisterium at all in its section on the interpretation of Scripture4; it not only discusses what is not  permissible  permissible but also what should  what should  be  be done in Scriptural exegesis: textual, formal, formal, and canonical criticism are all important important and essential. Although this section does not clearly talk about Christ as a principle of interpretation (though this comes out in the sections on the Old and New Testament), an analogy between inspiration and Incarnation is used, somewhat like how paragraph 21 will compare the Scriptures to the body of the Lord in the Eucharist. There is probably an indirect reference to Jesus when DF  when DF  says that “God “God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit there should be joined j oined external proofs of His revelation, namely: divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies which, because they clearly show forth the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God”. God”. Jesus, presumably, is the primary example of miracles and fulfilled prophecies, which are understood as “external proofs” which validate the authority of the Church. 5   DV  interprets   interprets the matter differently, almost almost “backwards” from the approach of DF  of  DF : ““The The  principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ… Christ…to announce this coming by prophecy…and prophecy…and to indicate its meaning through various

4

 There may be an implicit reference in the second sentence’s reference to “Holy Mother Church…hold[ing]…”  There is a kind of odd tension in  DF  regarding   regarding the nature of faith: it is different from knowledge because its only  basis is the authority of God who reveals what is to be believed, not human reason or investigation; however, God has given the Church so many proofs of its divine provenance (“ (“its its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works”, works ”, etc.) that it constitutes “an incontestable witness”. Previously, the document has only referred to natural revelation as being incontestable whereas supernatural revelation appeals to faith, and, strikingly, it adds that “an “ an efficacious aid to this testimony has come from supernatural virtue”. virtue ”. Grace is not what makes us recognize the Church’s authority: authority : it supplements it supplements an  an already incontestable witness. 5

 

types.”” Prophecies do  types. do  not so much validate Christ’s authority so much as they explain the significance of Christ’s coming; again, there is a revelatory quality to the union of word (prophecy) and deed (fulfillment). When it comes to to Tradition, there is is an interesting change of pace. In In DF   DF , Tradition is something that is understood to have descended from Christ’s Christ’s   verbal instruction, and thus is inherited from history (“the unanimous consent of the Fathers”) to be passed on intact. intact .  DV , on the other hand, speaks of a “living tradition” which “develops with the help of the Holy Spirit”.   Though the word “Tradition” is not used, there is a reference to “the “the Church taught by the Holy Spirit [being] concerned to move ahead toward a deeper d eeper understanding of the Sacred Scriptures Scriptures”. ”.6  Jesus is not explicitly mentioned; Tradition is linked more clearly to the Apostles than specifically to Jesus. There is a reversal here: while  DF links Scripture to the Holy Spirit and Tradition to Jesus, DV Jesus,  DV links Scripture to Jesus and Tradition to the Holy Spirit. One final thing to note: both documents speak of natural revelation, but neither of them tie the revelation of God in creation to the Incarnation.  DV does say that God creates all things “through the Word”, but does not explicitly connect this to the Word’s earthly mission. That being said, while both texts say that it pleased God to “reveal Himself and the eternal decrees of His will”,  DF adds that He does this “in another and supernatural way” than the way He reveals Himself in nature.  DV does not make the same clear distinction between natural and supernatural revelation; paragraph 6 even hints at the possibility that natural revelation may be a subset of the overall divine revelation with the aim of human salvation, so there is a gesture in the direction of a Bonaventurean understanding of creation being always intended for the Incarnation.

6

 The Church is no longer understood as just  as  just  the Magisterium; the living tradition’s “wealth “ wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church.” Church. ”  Not just the Fathers but the whole mystical and hagiographical hagiographical history of the Church Church is now a criteria for Tradition, as are the “liturgies” which are to be studied in connection to Scripture studies.