Did Vatican II Reject Two Sources of Revelation?

When Christians talk of two sources of Revelation, they are typically referring to Scripture and Tradition. People sometimes say that Vatican II rejected the idea of two sources of Revelation, but the issues are more complex than they might initially seem.

1. The Council of Trent

The issue of whether there is one or two sources of Revelation is a question which can be traced back to a statement made by the Council of Trent. In 1546 the Council said:

The…ecumenical… Synod of Trent [teaches that]… our Lord Jesus Christ… commanded to be preached by His Apostles…  both saving truth, and moral discipline; and…  this truth and discipline are contained in… written books, and… unwritten traditions. (Session 4)

The reference to written books is a reference to Scripture and the reference to unwritten traditions is a reference to Tradition.

On the surface this looks like a statement of the two-source model of Revelation. But the text is ambiguous. It could be read in a two-source sense, as saying that Revelation is split across the two sources. Or it could be read in a one-source sense by saying that Revelation is contained entirely in one source, and it is simply repeated in the other source.

In the centuries after the Council of Trent, Catholic interpretations generally read the Council as teaching the two-source model of Revelation.

However, in 1958, that reading was challenged by Josef Geiselmann. He argued that Trent had rejected a draft version of its text, which had included the word “partly,” and which read as follows:

(Truth and discipline)… are contained partly in written books and partly in unwritten traditions. (The Meaning of Tradition)

That sentence is a clear statement of the two-source model. But Trent declined the opportunity to include the word “partly.” So Trent’s decision raises the question of whether Trent should be interpreted as rejecting the two-source model.

2. The Sufficiency of Scripture

One of the reasons why the question of one source or two sources is important, is that it is logically linked to the doctrine of the material sufficiency of Scripture.

To say that Scripture is materially sufficient is to say that it contains the totality of God’s Revelation, which is the information which is sufficient in order to achieve salvation. If Scripture is materially sufficient, then that means that there is one source of Revelation.

The doctrine of material sufficiency is often confused with the alternative doctrine of Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) but they are making subtly different claims. The doctrine of material sufficiency states that Scripture contains all of Revelation, but it is compatible with the additional view that Tradition (and the Magisterium) are also necessary in order to interpret Scripture. The doctrine of Scripture Alone includes the idea of material sufficiency, but the word “alone” typically indicates an additional rejection of the necessity of Tradition (or Magisterium) in order to interpret the Bible.

Scripture Alone is a Protestant doctrine, but material sufficiency is a doctrine which is compatible with Protestantism or Catholicism. Joseph Ratzinger even referred to material sufficiency as a potentially Catholic version of “Scripture Alone.” (See his Commentary on Article 9 of Dei Verbum.)

There are many reasons why the doctrine of material sufficiency seems attractive to theologians. Part of the reason is that if Scripture is not materially sufficient, then that can seem to imply a disparagement of Scripture, or an inadequacy in Scripture. It can even look as if God failed, or erred by accidentally leaving crucial information out of the divinely inspired Scripture. So, there are good reasons for Christians to affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture.

But there are also reasons to reject that doctrine. One of the main reasons is provided by the problem of canonicity.

3. The Problem of Canonicity

The problem of canonicity is the question of how Christians can know which texts constitute Scripture (or which books should be in the Bible). If material sufficiency is true, then there should be something akin to a contents list in Scripture, which specifies the contents (or “canon”) of Scripture.

But there is no contents list in Scripture.

Advocates of material sufficiency typically construct arguments to show that Scripture (somehow) specifies its own contents. However, critics are typically quick to point out that those kinds of arguments are often just reading into Scripture already existing assumptions about the contents of Scripture. (See “Bible Canon: Can Scripture Solve the Problem?”).

This means that advocates of material sufficiency can end up with a version of Christianity which looks irrational. They risk insisting upon an observational fact that is contrary to observational evidence, by insisting that the contents of Scripture are specified by Scripture, when independent observers cannot see a contents list within Scripture. To the extent that this is irrational, then it means that advocates of material sufficiency can end up with a version of faith that is Fideistic.

In 1870 Fideism was rejected by Vatican I (see Dei Filius 3.4). So, traditional Catholic doctrine has generally not embraced the idea of material sufficiency (i.e., one source of Revelation), as it has wanted to avoid any risks of a slippery slope into Fideism. Traditional Catholic theology has instead tended to insist that there are two sources of Revelation, so that Tradition can provide a solution to the problem of canonicity.

However, Geiselmann’s 1958 challenge to the traditional interpretation of Trent (see section 1) had the effect of querying the two-source model.

This encouraged theologians like Yves Congar to favor a version of material sufficiency, and its consequent implications of a one-source model of Revelation. He argued that approach in his 1963 book The Meaning of Tradition. However, when we look closely at the text of that book, we can see that it struggles (and arguably fails) to offer an ultimately coherent solution to the problem of canonicity.

4. De Fontibus Revelationis

When Vatican II met in 1962, one of the documents placed before the Council was the draft document de Fontibus Revelationis (dFR). That document is significant because it went through multiple pre-council drafts, before being signed off in 1961 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (of the Holy Office) as an accurate statement of the Church’s faith.

The document directly and explicitly addressed the issue of whether there was one or two sources of Revelation. It stated:

Holy Mother Church has always believed and believes still that the complete revelation is not contained in Scripture alone but in Scripture and in Tradition as in a twofold source, although in different ways. (dFR 4)

In the next paragraph the document explains why there needs to be two sources (i.e., another source in addition to Scripture):

Indeed, Tradition and it alone is the way in which some revealed truths, particularly those concerned with the inspiration, canonicity and integrity of each and every sacred book, are clarified and become known to the Church. (dFR 5)

In the middle of that paragraph is a reference to canonicity. This shows that the document is presenting a two-source theory of Revelation because that was the traditional Catholic way of solving the problem of canonicity.

5. The Rejection of De Fontibus Revelationis

When de Fontibus was presented to the Council in 1962, it was almost immediately rejected. The reasons for its rejection are complicated, as there were a number of very different concerns which converged around the document.

One set of issues involved the theological language of the document. Joseph Ratzinger noted at the time that many bishops wanted to insist that God was the one source of Revelation, rather than Scripture or Tradition. (See “The Understanding of Revelation in ‘Dei Verbum’ and the Response of Faith.”)

There were also philosophical issues about the relationship between the reality and the perception of Revelation. Thus, Cardinal Frings insisted that two sources was metaphysically right but epistemologically wrong. (See “Benedict XVI and the End of the ‘Virtual Council.’”)

There was also a feeling that the document was too polemical. Cardinal Liénart noted that the document was too focused upon reiterating the contours of anti-Protestant arguments against Sola Scriptura. (See Jack P. Oostveen, “Vatican II: ‘Two Sources of Revelation.’”)

But perhaps the most fundamental issue was the “tone” of the document. Bishop De Smedt argued that the Church’s style of arguments had not succeeded over the last 400 years in achieving unity with non-Catholics. So, it was time for a change of approach to produce a document which conveyed a more irenic ecumenical invitation to dialogue. (See “The Debate on Divine Revelation Was a Pivotal Moment of Vatican II.”). His intervention received an approving ovation from many bishops.

In the background of Council debates there may also have been an issue of “groupthink,” in which theologians encouraged each other to support the doctrine of material sufficiency, without being properly alert to the consequences of that doctrine for the problem of canonicity. That issue became so serious that it took papal intervention to move the matter forward within the Council. Even 50 years later, those issues were a clear enough memory for Pope Benedict XVI to describe them in the following words:

The idea had arisen that Scripture is complete; everything is found there; consequently there is no need for Tradition, and so the Magisterium has nothing to say. At that point the Pope transmitted to the Council, I believe, fourteen formulae for a phrase to be inserted into the text on Revelation. (Speech, 14 February 2013)

6. Vatican II

Vatican II’s teaching on Revelation is contained in the document Dei Verbum. Discussions of that document were intense and it went through multiple drafts between the first session in 1962 and the final session in 1965.

The text of Dei Verbum shows clearly that Vatican II declined to use de Fontibus’ explicit language of two sources of Revelation. The Council stated, instead, that:

there exists a close connection… between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end… Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. (Dei Verbum 9)

This is a carefully crafted paragraph which avoids affirming or rejecting the doctrine of material sufficiency (and its implied one source of Revelation). It also avoids affirming or rejecting the doctrine of two separate sources of Revelation which are jointly sufficient (i.e., Scripture + Tradition).

It is all too easy to compare the paragraph from Dei Verbum 9 (above) with the text of de Fontibus (see previous section) and to conclude that Vatican II is therefore rejecting the view that there are two sources of Revelation.

But that would be a hasty and arguably inaccurate interpretation of Dei Verbum. We can see this particularly clearly when we look at what the Council said about the problem of canonicity. It stated:

Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood. (Dei Verbum 8)

Those words present the same solution to the problem of canonicity as the solution provided by the draft document, de Fontibus. They effectively say that the Revelation of the Canon of Scripture is contained in Tradition, i.e., not in Scripture.

This means that paragraphs 8 and 9 of Dei Verbum propose a very nuanced teaching on the issue of the sources of Revelation. Paragraph 9 explicitly avoids affirming or denying that there is one or two sources of Revelation, while paragraph 8 implicitly presupposes the traditional model (found in de Fontibus) that there are two sources of Revelation: Scripture and Tradition.

7. Conclusion

Did Vatican II reject the view that there are two sources of Revelation? The answer is yes and no. Yes, Vatican II rejected the opportunity to use a set of words which would endorse the theory of two sources of Revelation. But no, it did not reject the substance of the theory itself, as the text of Dei Verbum actually presupposes the two-source model of Revelation in order to solve the problem of canonicity.

To some extent, Vatican II has followed exactly the same approach as the sixteenth-century Council of Trent. Both councils were presented with draft documents which offered the opportunity to explicitly endorse two sources of Revelation. Both councils declined that opportunity. Nevertheless, both councils implicitly presupposed the necessity of two sources of Revelation in order to solve the problem of canonicity.

The fact that there is a difference between what the Church is committed to, explicitly and implicitly, indicates that this is an issue where there is unfinished theological business. That means that the set of issues embedded in the question of whether there is one or two sources of Revelation is likely to reappear on the agenda of a future ecumenical council.

In the meantime, care is needed to accurately understand the Church’s position on this matter, as Vatican II’s approach is far more nuanced than might initially seem to be the case.