The Documents of Vatican II: Dei Verbum Part I

This video begins with an enumeration of the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council. It then gives an overview of the major themes of The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum. Finally, it does a detailed reading and explication of the Prologue and Chapter One.

To support my efforts, please donate here:

To read my blog, click here:

[markm.]

You've encouraged me to take heart - stand firm - not be swayed by "influencers" and Trust in God. You've also inspired me to dig in, study, pray, and do my due diligence in learning my faith, and get to work. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[SoggyDonuts]

Just donated! Thank you! You've invoked a profound spiritual change within me.

[scrpynlover]

Thank you for this presentation of Dei Verbum . I enjoyed this tremendously. Looking forward to further videos. Keep it simple. God bless

[joshanderson]

Thank you for the great work you do. I'm currently going through RCIA and I find your videos very helpful.

[joanofarc]

Excellent discussion. I love your videos!! Keep posting them. 😇🙏🏻😇🙏🏻

[Newtellasquishy]

I appreciate how you started with a prayer. Thank you for sharing your insight into this document.

[kadeshswanson]

What would you say then is the highest or ultimate object in divine revelation according to dei verbum?

[tomgreene]

Like the emphasis in Revelation and the Trinity thanks for upload . Christ as the fullness of Rev. also good ...not expecting another public. Rev makes knowledge of God in relation to humankind more complete. God--- the Christ who preached---the Christ who was preached about---the Christ who revealed---the Christ who was written about.

[stevenshoenikker]

I'm not sure what you're going to include in Part 2 of this talk, but the largest source of confusion and error in Dei Verbum is the claim that Scripture teaches only those things "required for the sake of salvation." Now, I have run across such confusion borne of this statement so many times in other forums, that I drafted a response, which follows; I wrote this response to one poster in particular, so I tried to edit it as best I can to eliminate the use of 2nd person and form it into a more general statement:

1. Some Catholics hold that one can doubt the historical supernatural miracles of Jesus. They seem comfortable with perhaps not taking these miracles literally because certain mid-20th century scholars like Fr. Raymond Brown took broad and disjointed license with “Dei Verbum” to make their case that apparently Scripture was inerrant only in certain areas and only for the sake of our salvation. This error of limited inerrancy is not only never supported in formal Church teachings prior to Vatican II, but it is not supported by “Dei Verbum” either. “Dei Verbum” begins by saying it follows in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and Vatican I, so it is very difficult to claim that it intends to break with previous Church teachings.
2. Section 11 of “Dei Verbum” states, “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” It is clear that this statement applies to the entirety of the Bible, and the reason it is inerrant is that the Holy Spirit guided the complete inerrancy for the sake of our salvation. Immediately following this statement, 2 Timothy 3 is quoted: “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind.” So here we are taught that Scripture is divinely inspired to “refute error.” So if the Bible makes claims that Jesus performed certain miracles of healing, it does not follow that errors were made in terms of writing what He actually performed. The Gospels were written intended as historical biographies of our Lord, as evidenced by the opening chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel. This despite the claims of some fairly recent scholars who see the Gospels more as “theological reflections, ” in other words fictionalized accounts of Jesus’s life to create a “Jesus of faith” separate from the “historical Jesus.” (or as the NAB footnotes often read, “the Lukan Jesus” or “here, Matthew portrays Jesus as…).
3. In reference to the above miraculous deeds of Jesus and whether they actually happened, “Dei Verbum” is quite clear in Section 19: “Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven.” *[the following sentences of this section are in response to the poster's specific claim that Jesus did not actually perform true miracles of healing]* Now, it couldn’t be any more clear that “Dei Verbum” asserts the miracles of Jesus as they are written. I’m really not sure what the use is of twisting these stories around to the point of saying that a mute person got so excited to see Jesus that he started talking. The healing of the mute man in St. Mark chapter 7 is quite clear that Jesus actively cured the man. Why think otherwise? Where in that passage is there any indication that what really happened is what you claim, that the man got really excited and spoke? It’s not there. In regards to the demons, again the supernatural is denied when it is claimed that well no, it wasn’t demons, but just mental illness that the people didn’t understand back then.
4. Your *[the original poster's]* most confusing statement in your reply is, “Are you telling God what He can and cannot do?” But that is exactly what you’re doing! The Bible states one thing, yet certain scholars think they know better and claim well, no, God actually did this. And no, the iPhone and planes, etc., aren’t miracles; they’re inventions *[this in response to the poster who claimed the aforementioned items were 'miracles]*. So everything humans make is a miracle? Do you think guns are a miracle? Nuclear weapons? Would the Church think artificial contraceptives were miracles?
5. That the Bible is fully inerrant in all matters does not mandate a completely literalistic interpretation of every word in Sacred Scripture; that is where faithful exegesis illuminates the truth of Scripture in light of a particular book’s genre and context. This is where Tradition must reach back to the Fathers, reading passages in their intended form and in light of the relationships between the Old and New Testaments. So yes, narratives like the Great Flood are more challenging to distinguish the historical fact from the poetic style of writing. It is quite clear that a flood occurred, otherwise it makes no sense for it to be such a prominent connection in the New Testament, nor for a merely “symbolic” flood story to somehow prefigure the actual sacrament of Baptism with water.
6. These mysteries of Scripture should indeed be challenging to study. However, it is not up to academic Biblical scholars to just dismiss narratives that they feel aren’t necessary for salvation. Their personal interpretations can surely be offered for consideration, but do not have the power to change previous teachings.
7. Lastly, I feel we are blessed to have great Catholic Biblical scholars working today, whose studies and writings are much more fulfilling and spiritually uplifting than the dissected skepticism of the preceding several decades.

Of course, the passages on the history of the Hebrews and the Israelites (Moses, the Exodus, Jericho) fall into the same realm as the historical nature of the miracles of Jesus. It makes no sense for God to have inspired His Scriptures to contain merely symbolic and fanciful stories in the Old Testament, but then somehow Christ became incarnate in real time and history to fulfill a covenant rooted only in symbolism.

This is a massive problem in the Church; that the USCCB uses the NAB, with its skeptical footnotes, is a scandal to the faithful in my opinion. And much of it seems due to that line in Dei Verbum.

[kateblue]

Don’t you just think that these 16 documents are TLDR? I don’t even mean that flippantly. No previous Council has talked so much fluff. It should just be plain simple Truth. No squirmy greyness. What do you think of the Vatican’s new statement that Tradition should be interpreted in the light of new encyclicals?? Does even this not raise alarm bells for you?

[jamesnielsen]

Who are the Bishop's lackeys. Who defends the indefensible? Who minimizes or approves of homosexuality in the Priesthood? Really, there is a long list of questions. They are all indicative of a person who denies the Complete Historical Magisterium, the Complete Gospel of Jesus Christ. For sure.

[kateblue]

Even in the preface they quoted JOHN 1:2-3 as if to suggest they, the bishops, were the first witnesses of Jesus, and as if they, the bishops, were handing that to us. That is Tradition. Not their New Message. So the documents even start with fraudulent misdirection! The Church must pass on the Deposit of the Faith as you say. So why this word salad disruption? They usurp the Gospel Writers. It is absurd from the start.

[elizabethsheplermusic]

My understanding of Vatican ll is that it was a “Pastoral Council”, meaning there was no change in Doctrine or Dogma. In your opening, it seems you are saying the opposite. Also, Pope Francis disputes the necessity of a “Missionary Church”; actually saying that evangelizing others is wrong. For example, his words to the atheist journalist who he repeatedly gives interviews to. He confirmed him in his atheism. I entirely understand our confusion regarding Vatican ll and many of the teachings of Pope Francis. I am open to trying to understand, but I certainly can see why there is such profound confusion.

[jamesnielsen]

Who are the Bishop's lackeys. Who defends the indefensible? Who minimizes or approves of homosexuality in the Priesthood? Really, there is a long list of questions. They are all indicative of a person who denies the Complete Historical Magisterium, the Complete Gospel of Jesus Christ. For sure.