The One True Church of Christ has two sources of the Deposit of Revelation, the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition. The Modernists, ever seeking to undermine the Church, began to attack Sacred Tradition under the guise of "giving the reverence due to the Bible." It was from the Modernists' desire for ecumenism and a one-world church that this endeavor began. In the 1930s, a movement of Modernist theologians, began what is called the nouvelle theologie (French for "new theology") which claimed a need to "return to the sources" (called ressourcement) and "rejuvenate" Catholicism. They believed that the Church had moved away from the way things were, and should have remained. This idea blasphemously asserts that the Holy Ghost was not moving the Church into a clearer understanding of truth, but rather moving away from truth.
All theologians who ascribed to the "new theology" had one thing in common: a bitter hatred for Neo-Scholastic philosophy and the method of St. Thomas Aquinas. As enemies of the Church, it makes sense. As the great Pope Leo XIII wrote:
A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man [Aquinas]-namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. (See Aeterni Patris para. #23; Emphasis mine).
At Vatican II, these heretical theologians, being rehabilitated and even exalted under Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII), would go on to give a false status of Sacred Tradition, and make the Vatican II sect more palatable to Protestant heretics. This post will expose the successful plot at Vatican II, and how they perverted the authentic notion of Sacred Tradition.
The Original Schema on The Two Sources of Divine Revelation
The original draft on Divine Revelation was drafted primarily by the theologians of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under the direction of the Anti-Modernist Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani. A draft is known by the name schema. Thanks to the work of Joseph A. Komonchack (a V2 sect "priest"), the schema has been translated by him into English. Although this schema carries no Magisterial authority at all (as it was never passed), it nevertheless shows what the most erudite, orthodox, approved theologians taught on the subject, and furthermore believed that it was ripe for being defined by the Church. Called the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE SOURCES OF REVELATION (Constitutionis Dogmaticae de Fontibus Revelationis), the pertinent parts are reproduced below:
4. The Twofold Source of Revelation.
Instructed by the commands and examples of Christ and of the Apostles, therefore, 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. Besides containing what was revealed, the books of the Old and New Testaments were also written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, so that they have God as their author. But truly, divine Tradition, preserved in the Church by a continuous succession, contains all the matters of faith and morals which the Apostles received either from the mouth of Christ or from the suggestions of the Holy Ghost and which they transmitted, outside Holy Scripture as it were, by hand to the Church so that in it they might be handed on further by the Church's preaching.
Therefore, the things which divine Tradition contains by itself [ratione sui] are drawn not from books, but from the Church's living preaching, from the faith of believers, and from the Church's practice. As for things belonging to the past, many are known from various written, although not inspired, documents.
5. The Relationship between the Two Sources.
Let no one, therefore, dare to consider Tradition to be of inferior worth or refuse it his faith. For although Holy Scripture, since it is inspired, provides a divine instrument for expressing and illustrating the truths of faith, still its meaning can be clearly and fully understood or even presented only by means of the apostolic Tradition. 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.
6. The Relationship of Each Source to the Magisterium.
In order that the two sources of revelation might harmoniously and more effectively work together for the salvation of man, the provident Lord handed them over, as a single deposit of faith to be kept safe and defended and authoritatively interpreted, not to individual believers, however learned, but to the Church's living Magisterium alone.
It is the responsibility of the Church's Magisterium, as the proximate and universal norm for believing, not only to pass judgement, having made use of the means which divine providence offers, in matters directly or indirectly concerning faith and morals, on the meaning and interpretation both of the Holy Scriptures and also of the documents and monuments in which the Tradition has in the course of time been recorded and manifested, but also to illustrate and to explain those things which are obscurely and implicitly contained in each source. (Emphasis mine; Emphasis on the words "clearly" and "fully" in original).
It was presented at the Robber Council. The Modernist cardinals and theologians from northern Europe argued that the Bible is the source of all revelation, and Tradition is the theological explanation and interpretation of what Scripture explicitly states or directly implies. Tradition is the authentic teaching of the Church, but that teaching does not include revelation not already in the Bible. Scripture is the norm to which all doctrine and teaching submits. This one-source position of the Bible, which is officially interpreted by the Church, is very close to the Protestant sola scriptura heresy.
The usual list of Modernists spoke out against the schema and wanted it scrapped:
- Cardinal Achille Lienart of France (Abp. Lefebvre's ordaining/consecrating bishop) said that the schema misconstrued what the Council of Trent said about the relationship of Scripture and Tradition; and faith was "based not on academic arguments" but on the Word of God
- The ringleader of the Modernists at the Council, Cardinal Joseph Frings of Germany, said that in this document one hears "not the voice of the good shepherd but the voice of a professor in the textbooks of the 19th century"
- Cardinal Joseph Ritter of St. Louis, USA, argued that the document was "filled with pessimism and negativity" and threw suspicion on the work of Catholic exegetes
- Frings had his peritus (theological expert) Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (later to become false "Pope" Benedict XVI) address the Council: Father Ratzinger’s concerns started with the title, which suggested that revelation included multiple sources (Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium), rather than one source with multiple expressions. Father Ratzinger traced the proper single-source understanding back to Trent, observing that the concept had become clouded in the Neo-Scholasticism that dominated seminary training following Vatican I.
The Council voted to reject the schema, but the rules of the Council only permitted a schema to be wholesale rejected if there was a negative vote of two-thirds, which the Modernists did not have. At the behest of the heretics, Roncalli intervened and changed the rule so that only a simple majority vote in the negative would reject a schema. A Modernist victory was had. A new schema would be drawn up, and three heretical theologians were to be the primary authors.
An Unholy Theological Trinity
Anti-Modernist theologians (which included Fr. DePauw) were blacklisted from having any say in the new schema. Frings and Roncalli made sure truly Catholic theologians and prelates would be marginalized. As Fr. DePauw had told me (and confirmed by an article in the 1963 American Ecclesiastical Review, "Are All Revealed Truths In Sacred Scripture?" by theologian Francis Connell, May, pgs. 303-314), three periti had say over most of the new schema that would become the heretical Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum. A brief overview of each will show the type of heretic writing the new teaching of the Vatican II sect.
Fr. Jean Danielou (1905-1974).
- his father hated the Church
- ordained a Jesuit priest in 1938
- received his doctorate in Sacred Theology in 1943
- became Professor of the History of Christian Antiquity
- was suspect of Modernism for suggesting Universalism (all are saved)
- strong proponent of nouvelle theologie
- made "Cardinal" by Montini in 1969
- died at the home of a prostitute in 1974, and his defenders say he was giving her money "to help her since she was poor"
Fr. Henri de Lubac (1896-1991).
- ordained in 1927 as a Jesuit
- received his doctorate in Sacred Theology in 1929, without ever attending classes or submitting a dissertation, due to his connection with the General Superior of the Jesuits who liked and advanced his ideas
- became Professor of Fundamental Theology and taught Jean Danielou
- removed by Rome from his teaching position, and in 1950 three of his books were censured by the Holy Office for teaching "pernicious errors on essential points of dogma"
- the great encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, was drafted by Anti-Modernist Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, and condemned de Lubac's errors and those of the nouvelle theologie
- strong proponent of nouvelle theologie
- even while under censorship, he wrote (but did not publish) three books praising pagan Buddhism
- was rehabilitated in 1959 under Roncalli
- began writing in defense of notorious apostate, Darwinist, and racist Teilhard de Chardin
- made "cardinal" by Wojtyla
- ordained a Dominican priest in 1930
- in 1931 completed his Doctorate in Sacred Theology
- became Professor of Fundamental Theology
- in 1938 summoned to appear before the Dominican General Superior on suspicion of teaching salvation can be obtained outside the Church in any religion, and on suspicion of Modernism
- in 1954, Pope Pius XII condemned him for an article he wrote in defense of the "Worker-Priest" movement
- subsequently forbidden to "teach, preach, or publish"
- strong proponent of nouvelle theologie
- promoted the heresy that all validly baptized adults are Catholic
- promoted the heresy of the "priesthood of all believers"
- rehabilitated in 1959 under Roncalli
- made a "cardinal" by Wojtyla
Sacred Tradition in Dei Verbum
In his 1963 article (referenced supra), theologian Connell was dismayed at how the rehabilitated heretics hold that all revealed truth is contained in the Bible explicitly and totally. Some doctrines are in the Scriptures only by implication and allusion, and Divine Tradition is merely there in order that the Church can discern the full meaning of what is in the Bible. In this view, Tradition is not really a source of revelation, but rather a tool to fully understanding Scripture.
That view came out in Dei Verbum, promulgated by Montini (Paul VI) on November 18, 1965. Paragraph #9 reads as follows:
9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication 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. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. (Emphasis mine).
The view of Tradition as "that which makes Scripture fully explained" and not containing truth in and of itself apart from the Bible. There cannot said to be two sources of revelation, but only one--just as Protestants believe.
More disturbing is paragraph #8:
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her. (Emphasis mine).
This teaches the heresy that Tradition, which guards the Deposit of Faith from the time of the Apostles' preaching, does not already possess "the fullness of divine truth." In the reading of paragraph #9, one is led to believe there might be something else to be added or that what is already there can be modified. In turn, this error is connected to "subjectivism"-the signature of modern thinking-typified by the "New Theology," of which the idea is that everything is always moving in a continual upward progression, and that absolute truth does not exist, rather, only the endless tending of a subject toward a truth whose endpoint is himself.
The import of this view was not lost on Protestants. Rev. Jaroslav Pelican, a Lutheran theologian, is quoted by Fr. Connell as declaring that if this view should prevail (which it did), "... if Tradition is exegetical, Roman Catholic theology must admit that sola scriptura, properly understood, is correct."
Sacred Tradition is a True and Separate Source of Revelation
The Anti-Modernist theologians, like Fr. Connell, did a masterful job of pointing out the error of the Modernists on Sacred Tradition. Despite the valiant attempts of theologians like DePauw, Fenton, and prelates like Ottaviani and Kurz, the Modernists had Roncalli as their ally and could not be stopped. Nevertheless, their arguments show forth the truth. Fr. Connell cites the teachings of some of the greatest approved theologians regarding Sacred Tradition:
St. Robert Bellarmine: "It is necessary to know that there are some books that are truly divine, and this certainly cannot be had from Scriptures...Hence, this is so necessary a dogma, that there is divine Scripture, cannot be sufficiently had from Scripture alone. Accordingly, since faith is based on the Word of God, we shall have no faith unless we have the unwritten Word of God."
St. Alphonsus Liguori: "Traditions are those truths which were first communicated by Jesus Christ or by the Holy Ghost to the Apostles, then by the Apostles were given to the disciples, and thus under the guidance of the Holy Ghost without interruption were, so to say, transmitted by hand and communicated up to the present time. These Traditions, which are the unwritten Word of God...Traditions are necessary that belief may be given to many articles of Faith...about which nothing at all exists in Scriptures, so that these truths have come to us only in the font of Tradition."
[Theologian] Bergier: "The great question between Protestants and Catholics is to know if there are some divine or apostolic Traditions touching dogmas which are in no wise contained in Sacred Scripture, and which are nevertheless a rule of faith. Protestants deny it, we sustain the opposite."
[Theologian] Liebermann: "Sacred Scripture is not perfect in the sense that it embraces the whole religion of Christ. If Scripture were perfect and the only source of Christian doctrine, it should, before all, tell us which books belong to Sacred Scripture. But it is entirely silent about this dogma of supreme importance."
[Theologian] Franzelin: "After the Apostles and after the completion of the inspired writings the Church propagated by the Apostles always professed, theoretically and practically, that some truths are divinely revealed which She had received, not from Scripture, but only from Tradition."
[Theologian] Tanquerey : "There exists divine Tradition, as a font of revelation distinct from Scripture." This he says, is de fide.
[Theologian] Van Noort: "Tradition is a source of revelation distinct from Scripture, and goes beyond the data of Scripture. This is a dogma of faith from the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council [of 1870]."(Internal citations omitted; all emphasis mine).
The Modernists would point out that that the truths of revelation are contained in written books and unwritten Tradition, a statement that does not include in itself the notion of a separation into two distinct and somewhat unrelated sources. Chapter three of the 1870 Vatican Council's Constitution on the Catholic Faith (Dei Filius) gives the lie to that contention:
Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.
Here it is clear by the conjunction "or" that there are some articles of divine-Catholic faith, not in Scripture, but are in Sacred Tradition. Moreover, in Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII writes on the sources of revelation and of both sources of revealed doctrine.
Finally, what of Ratzinger's charge that implied seeing the Bible and Sacred Tradition as two sources of revelation only came about since the Council of Trent, and most especially after the Vatican Council of 1870? Did the theologians unanimously teach what Vatican II teaches prior to Trent? In a word: NO!
First, if that were true, that would mean the Church taught error (indeed heresy if held unanimously) going against the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium beginning with Trent and going forward for four centuries unstopped and unrecognized. That is an implicit denial of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church.
Second, there is no proof that the Modernist "single source" theory was ever taught unanimously. The statements of some Fathers and approved theologians have been interpreted as upholding the two sources of revelation (see especially theologians Franzelin, Tanquerey, Salaverri, and Van Noort).
Vatican II has given the sect it produced a definition of Sacred Tradition which robs it of its true meaning and scope. Everything is reduced to the Bible, and Tradition is merely an exegetical tool. It is not far from sola scriptura, the way the Modernists wanted it. That's why the original schema had to go. The only "tradition" held by Modernism is the love of ecumenism and novelty.