EXEGESIS AND CATECHESIS
IN THE PASTORAL MINISTRY
(NB: The footnotes are not displayed in this format.
Please contact me for a Word file if needed)
Exegetes should continue their efforts to find the real value of the treasures of light and life contained in the sacred Scriptures so that pastors and faithful may more easily have access to them and benefit from them more deeply.
Pope John Paul II
11 April 1991
Robert M. Dunn
St. Joseph's Seminary
April, 1992
Master of Arts in Theology
DEDICATION
This thesis has been inspired by and is, therefore, dedicated to Reverend Francis McAree, S.T.D., of St. Joseph's Seminary. His inspiration and prodding have been both the bane and the blessing of my seminary career. With gratitude for all he has done for me, I dedicate this thesis.
List of Abbreviations
AASActa Apostolica Sede 56 [1964]
ADActa et Documenta Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II
ASActa Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II
BIOfficial Catholic Teachings: Bible Interpretation J. Megivern, Ed. Consortium, Wilmington, 1978
CLOfficial Catholic Teachings: Christ Our Lord Amanda G. Watlington, Ed. Consortium, Wilmington, 1978
CrisisBiblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church, Richard J. Neuhaus, ed., Williams Eerdman's Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1989
DVDogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Latin text)
FlanneryVatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, ed., Costello Publishging Company, New York, 1975, 1986
FulfiilledFulfilled In Your Hearing, NCCB The Bishop's Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, 1982, Washington, D.C.
NJBCThe New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Brown, Fitzmyer, Murphy, eds., Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1990
SchökelConcilio Vaticano II Comentarios a la constitución Dei Verbum sobre la divina revelación, L. Alonso Schökel, ed. Bibioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid, 1964
VorgrimlerCommentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Volume III, H. Vorgrimler, ed. Herder and Herder, New York, 1968
Introduction
Most Catholics have been taught that the Church is the official interpreter of the Bible; but where and when does the Church actually do this interpreting? Is there a large commentary on scripture which gives the final, authoritative, and total meaning of the texts? Obviously not. This study will examine Dei Verbum, Chapter III (the Church's definitive statement on the proper interpretation of scripture) and Chapter VI (the pastoral implementation of this interpretation). From the outset, it must be noted that there is a creative tension between the tools of interpretation (with their fruits) and ancient professions of faith. Beginning with the earliest councils, the Church has been viewed as the authoritative interpreter of the sacred texts. Historically, this role was challenged by the Reformers who, in general, held for a sola scriptura theology and rejected the Catholic understanding of Tradition as a whole. In our own day, acknowledging the reality of the development of dogma and the reality of critical methods, the Second Vatican Council sought to emphasize the compatibility of method and message.
Since the Council, discussions have continued on these issues. Sometimes a divergence of views have become evident, and so, questions have risen concerning the application of this teaching on a pastoral level. These questions have an impact primarily in the catechetical and homiletic areas. Often left to their own training and devices, local ministers have sought to find the tangible meaning of the phrase: "the Church is the authoritative interpreter of scripture."
Our study will begin with a consideration of the background to Dei Verbum beginning with a general historical over-view of the Church's role as interpreter of scripture (and the interplay of Tradition). Within this section, the modern developments in scriptural criticism will be examined.
Chapter Two will attempt to bring out the intentionality of the text by an examination of the arguments and opinions offered by the various Fathers of Vatican II and their theologians. The official record of the discussions (the Acta Synodalia) as well as contemporary writings will be used.
Chapter Three will examine the contemporary response to the teaching of Dei Verbum. First, the exegetical norms of Dei Verbum, chapter III will be presented. Since the Council, many new trends and methods have come to the fore. The Church in turn, must respond to these (and their positive and negative aspects) in its role as guardian of scripture. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Rev. Raymond Brown, S.S., will be the major figures considered in this chapter.
Chapter Four will highlight some ways in which Dei Verbum, chapter VI has been implemented. There are two principle points. The first is the homiletic practice which has, more than ever, become a major part of ministry; second, the catechetical mission of the Church is considered, as well as a particular manifestation of this effort in the work of Carlo Cardinal Martini's "School of the Word."
Dei Verbum is the result of many debates and challenges from both within and without the Church. It did not arise in an historical vacuum. From the earliest days of the Church, the sacred texts have played a role in the determination of the faith of the Church. This paper will begin with these foundations.
Chapter 1
Historical Controversies
The complete consideration of the historical controversies surrounding the Church's role as official interpreter of scripture and the role of scholarship is a monumental task which lies beyond the scope of this paper. There are, however, several significant moments which require attention. This section of our study will consider these moments.
In many periods of the Church history, there has been a creative tension between the interpretation of scripture by the academic and philosophical tools of the day and the Church's role as the privileged interpreter of the meaning of the sacred texts. Since the early gentile Christian decision to transfer the Lord's day from the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) to the day of the Resurrection (Sunday), the Church, in the light of its Tradition and practice, has claimed the right to interpret the Old Testament as well as the New in order to bring out the full meaning of the faith. As a result of this creative tension, the expression of the Church's faith has been refined, become more precise, and will continue in this growth for the rest of its history.
a. The Early Church: The Question of Canonicity
During the separation of Church and Synagogue, the question of exactly what comprised the scriptures came to the fore. In the post-Diaspora Jewish community the division between the Greek-Jewish canon of scriptures (the Alexandrian Canon or the Septuaginta - LXX) and the traditional Palestinian canon of scriptures was settled for the Jews at Jamnia at the end of the first century (c.90-100) with the rejection of the Greek books of the Septuagint. This division carried over into the Church's discernment of the canon of the Old Testament.
In the Roman Catholic Church, the twenty-seven accepted books of the New Testament has rarely been a subject of disagreement. There was, without a doubt, a growth toward the acceptance of the present canon. In the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170), we see an early designation of what was accepted "to be read in the Church" and what is not. One important landmark in the formation of the present Roman Catholic canon was the North African Bishop's Council of Hippo in 393 in which the Septuagint and the entire New Testament were declared as the divine scriptures. This was later confirmed by both Carthage III, canon 47 (397) and Carthage IV, canon 29 (419). In light of the decision at Jamnia, the Catholic Canon was composed of the Protocanonical books (the Hebrew Canon) and the Deuterocanonical books (additional books of the Septuagint not in the Palestinian canon). This distinction and acknowledgment of canonicity, is attested to by Isidore in his Etymologies Book IV c. 630. Jerome, although holding to the Palestinian canon, consented to include the full canon of the Septuagint in his translation of the Vulgate (despite his misgivings about the accuracy of copies he had in hand).
In these questions, one theme predominates: the Church, through its councils of bishops makes the decisions regarding the canon by careful considerations of the scholarship of the day. Here theology and authority are working hand-in-hand; and while they may differ on certain individual points, the result is in the service of the faith. While there were other controversies concerning the allegorical versus the literal interpretation, certain questions of inspiration, etc., it is evident in this early example that it is the Church which authenticated the work of its scholars.
b. The Reformation: Questioning the Role of the Church
From the period of the Fathers through the Reformation, there was deepening reflection on the role and use of scripture in the life of the Church. It was primarily with the rise of the challenges by the Protestant Reformers that many questions concerning the relationship of scripture and the Church's interpretive role were raised. In the area of canonicity, the selection of the Hebrew Canon in favor of the Septuagint gradually gained acceptance among Protestants. Likewise, there were controversies regarding the canon of the New Testament. Essentially, however, the crux of the matter was the debate over who was the final interpreter of the content of sacred scripture. Why, the Reformers asked, was it not possible for an individual, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to independently determine the dogmatic meaning of the texts? Why was a seemingly contained meaning ascribed to the texts on the basis of ecclesiastical tradition alone?
The new criteria for interpretation shifted from the objective and the communal to the subjective and the individual. With the exception of particular doctrines, the result of the Reformation was a whole-scale rejection of an ecclesial determination of doctrine in the Church. This, of course, was related to the Reformers' ecclesiology which concentrated on the individual and on the spiritual and invisible Body of Christ. This spiritualizing of the church and subsequent denial of an authoritative and visible structure, except by a mere human social necessity, eliminated the basic criteria of judgment previously necessary for an authoritative interpretation of scripture.
c. Trent
The converse is true of the Catholic Church which acknowledged without hesitation the role of the Church as the interpreter of the sacred texts. The Church responded to the biblical challenges of the Reformers in the Council of Trent in Sessions IV and V (1546-7). In its first decree, the Council asserted the role of the Church as the guardian of the "purity of the Gospel" and defined the full canon as a doctrinal truth. Most importantly, in its second decree it asserted:
...no one, relying on his own prudence, [may] twist Holy Scripture in matters of faith and morals that pertain to the edifice of Christian doctrine, according to his own mind, contrary to the meaning that holy mother the Church has held -- since it belongs to her to judge the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture -- and that no one dare to interpret the Scriptures in a way contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers. . .
These three roles of the Church -- Guardian, Canonizer, and Interpreter -- are constitutive of the Church and its mission in the world. In Session V, Chapters 1 and 2 assert the mission of the Church to "expound and interpret the Holy scriptures". In response to the Reformer's claims of wide-spread scriptural ignorance among the clergy and laity, Trent likewise mandated the use of ecclesiastical funds for public catechesis and the training of clergy in the homiletic and pastoral mission of the Church. Such a concrete and committed response to the Reformers moved from the necessary defense of the faith to a positive promotion of biblical knowledge.
d. The Modern Period
From the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent Catholic Counter-Reformation to the modern period, the Church was embroiled in the world's revolutionary social changes. During the 18th century, new methods of biblical interpretation arose. The advent of textual criticism which used many of the academic and philosophical tools of the Enlightenment were the foundations of modern criticism. In the eighteenth century, J. Astruc began an examination of the use of the divine name in Genesis, a study which was a landmark in its field. As a result, the later 19th century examinations of the Pentateuch by Herder and Eichhorn provided the basis of historical criticism. The best known scholarly developments of this period are the Genesis multiple-source theory of J. Wellhausen and Duhm's theory of the tri-partite authorship of Isaiah.
The Catholic scholar who responded to these efforts was Marie-Joseph Lagrange, O.P. whose intelligent and faithful response to historical criticism opened the door for modern Catholic biblical studies and moved Catholic authors from apolgetics to exegetical study. It was Lagrange's work that enabled Catholic scholars to make great headway in the area of literary criticism, an advance which has been endorsed subsequently by popes since that time and has been regularized in the documents of Vatican II.
This development was significantly slowed down by the Modernist crisis in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. No overview of Catholic biblical scholarship would be complete if this crisis was not considered. Due to the turbulent political world of the late 19th century which threatened the temporal power of the papacy, the Roman authorities saw in the political philosophies of the day the basis of many of the emerging theologies. In many respects, for good or for ill, they were correct. As a result, many of the trends beginning in the Catholic Church, especially in the area of biblical criticism, were quickly, though temporarily, halted. The Papacy issued documents condemning much of the scholarly activity that was not considered to be in harmony with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Prior to the crisis, Leo XIII had issued Providentissimus Deus which encouraged biblical studies (even going so far as to utilize some work of non-Catholic scholars (always within the context of the Catholic faith) and asserted the Church's role as guardian. As a practical application of this guardianship, the pope issued Vigilantiæ on 30 October 1902 which established the Pontifical Biblical Commission as the official interpreter of Scriptural questions. The Pontifical Biblical Commission would call upon scholars, theologians, pastors, and laymen to aid the Church in discerning questions and topics of interest and conflict. As an official organ of the Church, it would require assent as it would be expressing the mind of the Church on biblical issues. As with any official Church organ at the time of the crisis, the Pontifical Biblical Commission was not spearheading radical change in the biblical landscape; rather it became a bulwark of the traditional Patristic-oriented exegesis of the previous centuries. A "siege-mentality" such as this may not seem to be valid but one must consider the apparent infidelities of certain scholars and pastors such as A. Loisy. The Church was justified in exercising its pastoral role as guardian in these matters.
Unfortunately, there is always a danger of extremes. At the height of the crisis under Pope St. Pius X, the Holy Office issued Lamentabili (3 July 1907) which presented a clear signal to the Catholic world that certain modern methods not be embraced. Later, Pius X issued Pascendi (8 September 1907)which explicitly condemned the theories of the Modernists as inimicable to the mission of the Church. In the practical order, organizations such as the Sodalitium Pianum were given carte blanche to ferret out suspected Modernists in seminaries and universities across the world, and locally in the United States, professors were quickly reassigned.
One of the great visionaries of this period was Pope Benedict XV, successor to Pius X, who encouraged the use of literary criticism in Biblical studies through the encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus. Benedict XV's famous encyclical was occasioned by the 1500th anniversary of the death of St. Jerome. It was primarily a call to a faithful reading of scripture using the sensus literalis which was primary for St. Jerome as well as the practical, pastoral, and catechetical use of the Word of God. Benedict XV was firm in upholding the full historicity of the Bible according to the conservative traditions. In upholding St. Jerome's view of plenary inspiration, inerrancy, truth, and the literal sense, Benedict XV called Catholics to love the Bible in the words of St. Jerome:
"Love the Bible and wisdom will love you; love it and it will preserve you; honor it and it will embrace you; these are the jewels which you should wear on your breast and in your ears."
In addition, and perhaps to his greater credit, he put an end to the Sodalitium Pianum and called for an end to the name-calling and polarization so popular among extremists of the day.
As the dust cleared from the Modernist crisis and the world fell captive to Fascism and other forms of totalitarianism, Pope Pius XII emerged as an educated and courageous pontiff who was not afraid to face these new developments. He realized the importance of scripture study in the life of the Church. On the Feast of St. Jerome, 1943 he issued Divino Afflante Spiritu which commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of Providentissimus Deus. Divino Afflante Spiritu's main thrust was to go back to the beginnings, to the sources. Pius XII called for a greater appreciation of the original languages and ordered new translations faithful both to the original texts and the living faith of the Church. He likewise called for a greater appreciation of the text's sitz im leben, the original setting and conditions in which they were composed. He called for a brave confrontation with some difficult areas of scripture which had been avoided in the past. In many senses, Dei Verbum rests comfortably on the foundations of Pius XII.
e. On the Road To Vatican II
As the preparations for Vatican II began, the world was about to enter a tumultuous period where social change was as common as the previously established order was constant. The historic controversies, discussed above, provide the context for the events of Vatican II. What has happened since, in most cases, is the actualization of the teaching of the Council. For the future, what happens in the relationship of faith and text might be the context of another council. Having looked at where the Church has been, we now turn to the Second Vatican Council and Dei Verbum itself.
Chapter 2
The Formation of Dei Verbum
On 27 October 1960 work began on the preliminary schema of what was to become Dei Verbum. More than five years later, on 18 November 1965, the final form was promulgated by Pope Paul VI. Many discussions, interventions, and revisions preceded the final document, underscoring its importance to the Church. Prima facie the document deals with the issues of the sources of Revelation, their proper interpretation and the Church's guardianship role. In addition, it considers the nature of Revelation itself and the structural aspects of the scriptures. The formation process progressed from a mainly defensive position on Scriptural interpretation to an openness to investigation and appreciation of the truths contained in the sacred Writings. This chapter will outline the formation of the document from its initial stages to its final form focusing on the role of modern scripture methods and the guardianship exercised by the Church and its magisterium.
Beginnings
The Council of Trent spoke of both the authority of scripture and of the magisterium in its interpretation. Given the historical circumstances of the Counter-Reformation, these affirmations were defensive in nature. Since, Vatican II was a pastoral Council (i.e., not occasioned by an external doctrinal challenge), it was less concerned with defensive definitions than earlier Councils. This did not exclude, however, a restatement and contemporary presentation of the official teachings of the Church. On the other hand, the rise of modern biblical scholarship presented a new element in theological discussion which had to be considered in light of Church's interpretative responsibilities. These two elements, restatement and interpretation, formed the "matter" of Dei Verbum from the beginning. While the prior biblical encyclicals (Divino Afflante Spiritu, etc.) dealt with these developments, the Council could not neglect their influence.
The role of differing theological opinion cannot be discounted in the formation of the document. There was a definite sense of division between what Ratzinger calls the "traditionalists" and supporters of modern methods. The traditionalists held for a more conservative (i.e., defensive) role of exegesis and emphasized the divine authorship of the sacred texts over the human mediation. The supporters of the modern methods emphasized the incarnational role of the human author while seeking not to diminish the role of God. They also called for a more vigorous examination of the scriptures beyond mere defense or explanation of "difficult texts." Throughout each of the discussions on the various schemæ, these two perspectives were in evidence.
De Fontibus Revelationis
On 23 July 1962, the first schema De Fontibus Revelationis, approved by John XXIII, and prepared by the Theological Commission (headed by Ottaviani and Tromp) was presented to the Council Fathers. The following November, it was to be submitted to the First Session of Vatican II. This schema contained five chapters.
There were three initial drafts of this schema. Form A was the original draft and Form B was a revised text with a few additions. Form C, the final draft, was presented to the Council Fathers for discussion from 14-21 November 1962. This draft contained an additional three chapters which were conservative in tone as well as a chapter from the Secretariat for Christian Unity which, in turn had a bearing on the contents of chapters I and IV of the final text. It was clear from the start that this draft was not adequate for all the Council Fathers, a view expressed by Cardinal Lanyard:
Praesens doctrinale decretum mihi non placet, quia in tot suo tenore mihi videtur propsus inadaequatum esse materiæ quam tractare intendit.
On 20 November 1962, a vote was taken to interrupt the discussions (rather than seek the normal placet or non placet). The vote was 1368 to 822 in favor of the interruption. The Pope immediately formed a mixed commission (headed by Cardinals Bea and Ottaviani) and entrusted the task of revision to this Commission. De Fontibus Revelationis dealt primarily with the two sources of divine Revelation -- scripture and Tradition -- and not with the role of modern methods of study. With the exception of select references to Divino Afflante Spiritu there was little positive attention paid to these modern developments. As one illustration, Grillmeier notes that the reference to litterarium genus is conspicuously missing from the draft, giving evidence of a lack of emphasis on literary criticism.
De Divina Revelatione
The products of the mixed commission were known as Forms D and E. The revised Form D was presented to the Council Fathers on 22 April 1963. It contained both a new structure and a new title, De divina revelatione. Composed in the center of controversy, the text was vague on the role of Tradition in scriptural interpretation. It left open -- and unanswered -- many questions on the role of hermeneutics. Pope Paul VI wisely decided that Form D should not be introduced to the Council at its present state and in his closing speech at the end of Session II (5 December 1963) transferred the discussions to the forthcoming Session III. He offered several suggestions for the topic to be considered:
Huius generis est, ut exemplum supponamus, questio de divina Revelatione, quam Concilium eo modo persolvet, ut hinc sacrum depostium veritatum a Deo traditarum tueatur adversus errores, abusiones dubitationes, quibus vis earum subiectiva infringatur, illinc studia Sacrorum Bibilorum, ope Patrum ac theologicæ disiplinæ recte dirigat, quæ docti catholici viri, magisterio Ecclesiæ fideliter inhaerentes et quibusvis aptis huius aetatis subsidiis usi, alactriter, prudenter, fidenterque promovere pergent
The interim discussions (January 1964-July 1964) involved some of the most prominent theologians of the time. During the discussions, there was a revision of Form D, which had been sent to the Council Fathers in folio form. Under the exemplary leadership of Archbishop Florit of Florence, Form E was presented to the Council on 30 September 1964 and discussed through 6 October 1964. Although considered a Traditionalist, Florit's support for the progressive document was decisive in gaining the backing of the traditionalists and the respect of the progressives. Again, in the plenary session, the questions of Tradition and Inspiration came to the fore.
These latter forms avoided the scholastic language present in the previous drafts and emphasized a theology of Inspiration over a psychology of transmission. A mechanistic and impersonal emphasis on the instrumentality of the transmission was avoided. Such a change was not appreciated by the more traditional Fathers of the Council, especially Cardinal Ottaviani. Another text (Form F) was revised through the discussions of the general congregations in Session III on 20-21 October 1965 and further clarifications (through interventions) by the Theological Commission specifically in the areas of Inerrancy, Tradition and Historicity.
The specific details of the discussions which occurred between Form C and Form F is well beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that a radical shift occurred in the area of Inerrancy, a shift which served as a floodgate to a wider use of modern scriptural methodologies. Form C had presented general criteria for the interpretation of scripture according to 1) the general character of the book under study, 2) the sitz im leben in which the book was written, and 3) contemporary thought, language, imagery, etc. in which the book was composed. In Form D, the defence of the inerrancy of scripture (against the 18th and 19th century's critique of the Rationalists) was broadened beyond negative statements to a positive search for the veritatem of the sacred books. At the heart of this was a change from the false identification of the absolute inerrancy of God's intended transmission with the human author's capabilities to a more profound understanding of Innerency as the veritates profundæ. This change would speak of the nature and mystery of divine transmission on a new level and thus and avoid a simplistic and fundamentalist understanding framed in terms of a "divine Dictation."
Later in the discussions, Cardinal König, brought certain biblical "contradictions" in historical matters to the floor and pointed out that one need not lose or base faith on the absolute historical accuracy of the various texts. Grillmeier remarks that "one can still maintain the true influence of God on the human authors without making Him responsible for their weaknesses." This was the main point of contention for the traditionalist camp. Stressing this incarnational nature of the transmission (the sacred text) and that of its guardian (the Church) opened the doors to the popular Scripturally-based movements (e.g., Focolare, Cursillo, etc.) which are present in the universal Church today. Such an incarnational search for the veritates profundæ of scripture is at the heart of the principle reason for God's initial communication to humanity which, in the final document, is articulated in the first Chapter of Dei Verbum:
Placuit Deo in sua bonitate et sapientia seipsum revelare et notum facere sacramentum voluntatis suæ, quo homines per Christum, Verbum carnem factum, in Spiritu Sancto accessum habent ad Patrem et divinæ naturæ consortes efficiuntur.
Dei Verbum
The final form of the Document, known as Dei Verbum, came to be voted on in Session IV of the Council. After a flurry of pamphlets circulated among the Fathers, the final vote on the revised and renamed text was taken on 18 November 1965. The vote was 2344 placet and 6 non placet. Pope Paul VI officially promulgated the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation on the same day.
The Results
Dei Verbum is a nineteen-page document that took over five years to compose. The conclusions of hundreds of years of reflection on Revelation were brought into a single doctrinal statement. The result was a growing biblical movement after the Council. Today it is virtually impossible to go into a Roman Catholic church and find a liturgy, para-liturgy, prayer-service or meeting without some form of scripture reading or homily. Dei Verbum brought Catholics to an appreciation of the "living word" in the midst of the Church. Without question, there have also been certain abuses in exegetical work which have -- to the scandal of many -- presented the scientific conclusions outside the context of faith and, therefore, outside the norms established by the Church in its dogmatic constitution. The present day period following the promulgation of Dei Verbum is a time of growth and challenge. The church is still experiencing the effects of these initial influences. Since the Church speaks more of the "scriptures" and the "Word" rather than of the "Bible," it has chosen to emphasize the dynamic character of Revelation beyond static categories.
In the next chapter, the influence of Raymond Brown and Joseph Ratzinger will be examined in order to show how scientific exegesis has been received in the contemporary Church. As a direct result of the proper implementation of Dei Verbum, the Church -- preaching and teaching -- combats an "ignorance of scripture" which is "the ignorance of Christ".
Chapter 3
Introduction
Dei Verbum was written for a modern Church dealing with the challenges and promises presented by the critical tools of exegesis. In searching for the meaning of biblical texts, exegetes were given permission and encouragement to use these tools to obtain a deeper understanding of what the text meant in its original form and what, in the context of the living word of the Church's teaching, that same text means today. The history of these challenges and its eventual codification in Dei Verbum present a Catholic understanding of the task of exegesis. There also must be a practical and pastoral application subsequent to the exegetical task. This chapter will present the exegetical norms of Dei Verbum, Chapter III and will examine two understandings of the application of the norms. The first is, from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, from his 1988 Erasmus Lecture at St. Peter's Lutheran Church, New York. The second is from Rev. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Professor Emeritus at Union Theological Seminary, New York during the subsequent two-day ecumenical theological conference which was attended by a number of prominent theologians. These two examples, which are two of many others, contribute to the growth in understanding of the exegetical task which faces the Church in every age.
Summary of Exegetical Guidelines of Dei Verbum
The third chapter of Dei Verbum contains the main section on exegetical norms. The section also deals with the topics of Inspiration and Interpretation. From the earliest schema, De Fontibus, these areas were of primary concern due to the doubts cast upon the veracity of scripture from the Rationalist movements of the 18th century. One task will be to present these exegetical norms point by point.
Chapter III, no. 11 treats the pneumatological and soteriological aspects of the scriptures. The Church considers the biblical text as a matter of salvific importance and, hence, requires exegesis to move beyond the Rationalistic presuppositions. This prerequisite for exegesis has challenged many who have been unable or unwilling to go beyond the early form-critical studies. A more active role is likewise assigned to the Holy Spirit Whose activity is seen both in the initial inspiration and the present preservation of the texts.
No. 12, building on n. 11, presents the general guidelines for Interpretation. A point by point exposition is necessary here. The norms of this section are critical to the exegetical enterprise.
The first step of exegesis, after the firm acknowledgement of the divine origin and purpose of the text, is to determine what exactly the original text meant as it was written. In order to do this, a careful consideration of the literary character of the text is necessary.
Secondly, the exegete must look at original setting or life situation of the author (sitz im leben). The sciences of biblical archeology and biblical history here come into play.
Thirdly, the exegete must look at the form of these compositions. Given the historical variations in expression and composition, it is clear that there are variables within the scriptures themselves (e.g., classic Hebrew poetry in the Psalms as compared to Johannine monologues in chaistic structure). Thus, Form and Historical criticism are recognized by the Church as a legitimate phase in scientific exegesis.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the exegete is positively commanded to consider scripture within the context of the faith of the Church. There are several elements to be considered here. The first is to remember the original source of all scripture:
. . . cum Sacra Scriptura eodem Spiritu quo scripta est etiam legenda et interpretanda sit. (DV, no. 12)
Sacred Scripture should be read and interpreted in the same Spirit in which it is written. (translation mine)
Such a statement defends the Church's teaching on inspiration and protects it from rationalist approaches which deny the unique quality of Judeo-Christian revelation. In an atmosphere of comparative religions, the cross-referencing of biblical materials with mythic compositions of the same eras (particularly in the Old Testament) might create religious doubts in the minds of the uncritical. For example, many scholars hold the influence of Babylonian mythology has had an influence in the formation of the initial chapters of Genesis. For some, this comparison has led to questioning the religious veracity of the biblical accounts.
Secondly, there is the context of the faith to be considered within the continuum of the Church's teaching:
non minus diligenter respiciendum est ad contentum et unitatem totius Scripturæ, ratione habita vivæ totius Ecclesiæ Traditionis et analogiæ fidei.
no less attention must be devoted to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the Tradition of the entire Church and analogy of faith.
The Tradition of the Church, including the exegesis of the Fathers and the doctrinal uses of scripture in Synodical, Conciliar, and Papal teaching, and the received faith are the parameters in which the entirety of scripture is to be studied. It is the faith of the "entire Church" (totius Ecclesiæ) which avoids any regional hegemony over interpretation. One clear example of this has been the growing influence of South American and African interpretations as they are feeding new expressions of theology today. This universal approach, as a whole, avoids both positivism and fundamentalism in study since these two extremes necessarily exclude a more complete understanding of the texts as a whole.
Thirdly, the guardianship role of the Church is affirmed by ultimately subjecting all interpretations to the judgement of the Church. In the last analysis, it is the Church which is the final authority concerning both tools and interpretation. This is a ministry of service in that it safeguards the purity and integrity of scripture. It is also a divine command, as had been defined by the First Vatican Council.
Section 13, the final part of Chapter III, deals with the incarnational aspect of the scriptures and their interpretation. Returning to its premise, Dei Verbum situates the true origin of the message in the will of God and thereafter the complete Revelation in the Person of Jesus Christ.
Ratzinger: Questions in Exegesis Today
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger presented the annual Erasmus lecture at St. Peter's Lutheran Church in New York City on 27 January, 1988. Ratzinger raised a number of issues which find an echo Dei Verbum and touch on the subject of some modern methods which he sees as containing misleading trends. One of the interesting results of Dei Verbum was not only the promotion of Biblical Studies throughout the Church, but it also made apparent the role of the magisterium in gently guiding this development. This is a positive development which runs counter to the belief of some that the present hierarchy is opposed to modern methods.
Ratzinger begins by pointing out the problem of separating faith and the historical-critical method. This search for the historical background of scripture, including the christological implications of the "search for the historical Jesus," while an objective science in and of itself, cannot be separated from the faith of the Church. When the method is taken to an extreme, Ratzinger says:
No one can really be surprised that this procedure leads to the sprouting of ever more numerous hypotheses until finally they turn into a jungle of contradictions. In the end, one no longer learns what the text says, but what it should have said, and by which component parts this can be traced back through the text.
In the academic popularity of the method, a certain "fundamentalist" attitude has arisen in certain circles which excludes any other method except for a type of "historical autopsy." Ratzinger is not discounting the valuable contributions of the method, but when it is taken -- at least in a Catholic interpretation -- to the extreme (such as by some neo-Bultmanians), then the divorce of method and faith is ultimately detrimental:
One has really not understood something in its entirety simply because one knows how to explain the circumstances surrounding its beginning. If "hermeneutics" is ever to become convincing, the inner harmony between historical analysis and hermeneutical synthesis must first be formed.
At the basis of many of the new methods are philosophical underpinnings which must be taken into account. Ratzinger points out that the entire reconstruction of the historical setting in itself is the result of the scientific philosophies which developed out of the so-called Enlightenment. Many of these developments, taken in the context of the faith, have contributed to a fuller understanding of the texts. However, Ratzinger also notes that some other methods have not done so. In particular, he notes that materialist and feminist philosophies are influencing present exegesis. On these matters he says:
At best [materialist and feminist exegesis] may be seen as an expression of the view that the Bible's message is in and of itself inexplicable, or else that it is meaningless for life in today's world. In this sense, they are no longer interested in ascertaining the truth, but only in whatever will serve their own particular agenda.
Ratzinger observes that many of these trends originate on the fringes of exegesis and have been "disavowed" by the mainstream. But this no reason to ignore them since inevitably they influence the exegetical process as a whole.
Ratzinger moves on from these extremist positions to a general call for a "criticism of criticism." By this he means that there must be some device, some procedure whereby the tools of criticism are themselves subject to critical judgement. In a modern academic atmosphere of "political correctness," such a critique of methodologies would present a challenge to established authorities. Ratzinger notes this difficulty in criticism due to the "Heisenburg principle" which a priori establishes the influence of the observer on the results of what is observed.
In fact, at the heart of the historico-critical method lies the effort to establish in the field of history a level of methodological precision which would yield conclusions of the same certainty as in the field of the natural sciences. But what one exegete takes as definite can only be called into question by other exegetes. This is a practical rule which is presupposed as plainly and self-evidently valid. Now, if the natural science model is to be followed without hesitation, then the importance of the Heisenburg principle should be applied to the historical-critical method as well. Heisenburg has shown that the outcome of a given experiment is heavily influenced by the point of view of the observer . . . Pure objectivity is an absurd abstraction.
The dynamism of observation implies an interaction. The one who employs a method must in some way be involved and related to that method. Any presupposition of complete detachment would be far from incarnational and certainly not human. As a further example, Ratzinger notes one who is immersed in a feminist-critical method would find it difficult to separate one's philosophical and theological framework from an objective critical of the feminist method as a process. The role of objectivity is a serious challenge to the exegetical enterprise.
Using this notion of interaction, Ratzinger moves to examining the diachronic approach to exegesis. The diachronic analysis is the attempt to interpret a text based on the history of past interpretation. Meaning is found in the relationship of the total picture rather than in a singular (and thus, limited) interpretation. For instance, many hold that the more simple the text, the more original it must be. This is seen in the Synoptic question and the perennial Matthean\Marcan primacy debate when it is based on some of the more "simple" elements of the Marcan accounts (e.g., the simplicity of the original Marcan ending of the empty tomb). But this is the application of a strict rule from a singular analysis rather than historical interpretation which hold for Matthean primacy. In a diachronic approach, neither interpretation holds absolute sway over opinion. As Ratzinger states:
Where the heart of the Scriptural message is concerned, there is no such thing as a definitive acquisition of scholarship: no interpretation from the past is ever completely old hat if in its time it turned to the text in true openness...Only by listening to the whole history of interpretation can the present be purified by criticism and so brought into a position of genuine encounter with the text concerned.
Finally, Ratzinger calls upon scholars to avoid a dualism which is both facile and simplistic. He calls for a new synthesis which goes beyond a lack of objective connection of "word" and "event." He draws out the extreme results of this dualistic thinking:
This thesis conceals two further points of opposites: the pitting of word against cult, and eschatology against apocalyptic. In close harmony with these is the antithesis between judaic and hellenistic. Hellenistic was, for example, in Bultmann, the notion of the cosmos, the mystical worship of the gods, and cultic piety. The consequence is simple: what is hellenistic cannot be Palestinian, and, therefore, it cannot be original.
When the text (and its history) is thus judged by a philosophy which pits ideas against one another and leads to certain conclusions, the change of history (and thus meaning) is accomplished by a mere change in the underlying philosophy. This presents a danger to faith by making most of the objective (e.g., the divinity of Christ) subject to the fluidity of philosophical popularity (e.g., Bultmann's "de-mythologizing"). Ultimately, Ratzinger asserts that:
At its core, the debate about modern exegesis is not a dispute among historians: it is rather a philosophical debate.
Ratzinger: The New Synthesis
Ratzinger is not content to remain at the level of merely critiquing some extreme positions in exegesis. He offers a synthesis which attempts to unite the exegetical principles of Dei Verbum, ch. III and the offerings of modern critical tools. He summarizes the problem as follows:
The positive task is without a doubt even more difficult than the critical one. I can only try and conclude these remarks by trying to carve out a few narrow footpaths in the thicket, which may perhaps point out where the main road lies and how it is to be found.
The first point in this synthesis is an openness to the dynamic present within the word itself which does not exclude the action of God. He quotes St. Gregory of Nyssa in warning that theology (θεoλoγειv) should not be confused with science of nature (ψυσιoγειv), but to look deeper and see the life of God revealed and present in the word.
The second point is to avoid any philosophy which,
excludes, a priori, that (almighty God) could speak in human words in the world. He may not exclude that God Himself could enter into and work in human history, however improbable such a thing might at first appear.
Though it may seem obvious, in many circles it is not. One may not approach the study of scripture without a prior belief in the possibility of divine intervention in the natural order. Although there is a trend to treat the scriptures solely as a literary form, this is not the approach a Christian can take.
The third point in this process is to reestablish the relationship between the event and the word. While some modern theories (Ratzinger cites Bultmann and Dibelius) hold that the event in and of itself has no meaning. He states that for these theorists,
the event is the irrational element. It lies in the realm of mere facility, which is a mixture of accident and necessity. The fact, as such, therefore, cannot be a bearer of meaning. Meaning lies only in the word, and where events might seem to bear meaning, they are to be considered as illustrations of the word to which they have been referred.
The problem here goes beyond the scope of the subjective perception. It posits, in the divine activity in the world and in the word, a certain necessity and mere accident in God Himself. Hence, with this perspective one may attempt a theology, but it certainly cannot be a Christian theology. Ultimately, the Event is the Word (λoγoς) by the singularly free act of God. Ratzinger states that the Christian perspective maintains both the meaning and originality of word and event (thus avoiding a dualism approaching Docetism) and establishes the continuity and unity of meaning between the Old and New Testaments. A Catholic exegete, then, cannot fail but to understand the veracity of St. Augustine's observation of the interrelationship of the New and Old Testaments. In this "inner-self transcendence of the historical word" leads to coherent methodologies. Ratzinger quotes St. Thomas and says that the "duty of every good interpreter is to contemplate not the words, but the sense of the words."
Ratzinger concludes and summarizes the lecture with five points. The first is that the time has come to reflect critically upon the methods of exegesis, regardless of how sacrosanct they may be in the academic sphere. Second, exegesis must break beyond the boundaries of a purely scientific approach. Third, any exegesis (and exegetical method) must be seen in light of its underlying philosophical principles. Fourth, instead of constantly rehashing historical possibilities on the sitz im leben, efforts should be made to bring about the collaboration of theology and exegesis. Lastly, exegesis must be called from and stand in the midst of the living reality of the Church - and continue to be subject to this historical and authoritative reality.
Raymond Brown: The Role of Historical Biblical Criticism
Rev. Raymond Brown, S.S. is one of the most famous Catholic exegetes in the English-speaking world. His works on the Gospel and Epistles of John have become standard. His works on questions of ministry, the infancy narratives, and the passion accounts have been received as landmark studies. One of his greatest contributions to contemporary scripture study has been his co-editing of the Jerome Biblical Commentary and the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. As a prominent exegete of the historico-critical school, he has likewise become a voice in defence of the method within the Catholic context. During the theological conference following the Erasmus lecture, Brown presented this paper. At a press conference prior to the discussions, Ratzinger praised Brown's paper and acknowledged that he agreed with it.
The article contains three major sections which describes historical biblical criticism, certain ecumenical discussions, and the contribution of historical criticism to these discussions. It must also be noted that this article was written in the context of historical criticism relative to ecumenical dialogue, a facet Ratzinger did not emphasize. Brown makes a reasonable contribution to the process of examining historical criticism in light of the "critique of the criticism" Ratzinger called for. Brown avoids any heterodoxy in this area since he maintains both the Christian context of exegesis as well the final authority of the Church. It is important to see, however, that Brown is considering these tools in and of themselves and is not focusing on the eventual effects of certain uses and implication of these tools. For this reason, there are some shades of difference which are evident between Brown and Ratzinger.
Brown begins by acknowledging the rationalist origin of the historical-critical method. Notwithstanding, a proper Catholic use of this method, it is possible and, in fact, is standard practice to use it. Brown defines the object of historical-criticism as "what the biblical author conveyed to his readers in the text that he wrote." Beginning with this premise, he presents the "biblical author since antiquity" as having been understood as more than simply a single, physical author. Particularly, he asserts that the Christian Church never based the authoritative character of the New Testament on the accuracy of eyewitness accounts. If that were the case, then the chronology (despite harmonizations) in all four Gospels would necessarily invalidate them. In the context, again, of ecumenical discussions, Brown states, "The authority of the Gospels does not depend on their being written by eyewitness apostles." There is an historical element to the scriptures, but this must be seen in context of the "fuller meaning of the text." Brown cites the examples of the use of "the Jews" in John and Matthew reflecting the sitz im leben of the late first-century Church rather than specifically the ipsissima verbi of Jesus. He also cites the role of women in both 1 Cor 11.2-16 and 1 Tim 2.12 as a reflection of prevailing culture. This broad concept of "authorship" liberates the Catholic faith from the "all or nothing" foundation on which many Bible-denominations are built.
Secondly, Brown considers what is conveyed by the author. Brown asserts that a biblical author need not necessarily have been aware at the time of composition of the fullness of the text's meaning. He gives the example of the possibility of St. Paul knowing of the virginal conception as written of in Matthew and Luke. Brown wisely also realizes how futile an argument from silence is and, therefore at the same time, does not exclude such knowledge as having already been articulated. To read the texts as they are in themselves with a prejudice of denying of affirming such a full knowledge is eisegesis rather than exegesis. For that matter, it may be said that such material would be peripheral to the matter at hand. St. Paul would have has no necessity to assert (or deny) the virginal conception while writing to Timothy on the pastoral duties and situations at hand. Brown maintains that reading the text for exactly what the text says in and of itself as the "control" or as a common ground for ecumenical dialogue. Again, since Brown is considering the role of historical criticism in ecumenical dialogue, this notion of the "control" of the text is quite different from the complete idea of the sensus plenior of the text which is the final goal of true exegesis.
Thirdly, Brown acknowledges that the search for the historical-critical analysis of the exact original meaning of certain texts is going to yield imperfect results. Considering the myriad elements which compose a culture (e.g., the sitz im leben), no analysis could perfectly restate the original intention. In the broader sense of the historical understanding, age after age, of the scriptures, the Patristic "spiritual sense" takes on a greater role. Finally, it is important in this approach to see the value of the Tradition (and tradition) of the Church in both the development of doctrine and in the praxis of the faith (e.g., polity, ministry, etc.). In ecumenical dialogue the historical-critical method (as well as an honest historical appraisal of the causes and situations which resulted in separation) enlighten, to a degree, the theological developments which those in dialogue both share and those which are not held in common. As Brown says,
A study of the New Testament that not only respects the limitations of individual passages but also seeks lines of development with the early Christian picture lends support to an intermediary group of contemporary Christian who can accept Church doctrine that goes beyond the biblical material provided that a connection or line of development can be found that would make the doctrine intelligible as a reflection of the revelation attested to in the Bible.
The second section of Brown's article deals with the nature of ecumenical discussions. Suffice it say that Brown holds the necessity of looking to legitimate authority in the Church and other ecclesial communities which, in viewing the historical-critical method as a tool properly used, is not solely dependent on academicians. A conservative [Protestant] view which rejects historical criticism, fundamentalists, and even those who view historical criticism as too "conservative" in their whole-sale rejection of the Bible as irrelevant are peripheral to his discussion.
Brown's third section considers the contribution of historical criticism to ecumenical dialogue and to scriptural studies as a whole. Acknowledging it as a difficult area for many, he uses the example of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches which employed the historical-critical method to examine the basis and development of the Nicene Creed. After receiving this practical application, the ambiguity which resulted from relying on historical criticism alone was clearly obvious. While Ratzinger was cautious with this type of ambiguity (which comes from imperfect knowledge of the exact historical circumstance and the author's original intention) in relation to faith, Brown presents the challenge of ambiguity as a source of growth in understanding. To respond to these "grey areas," Brown sees first that -
modern challenges to the Church (not unlike past challenges) are often phrased in terms of certitude. A response that the situation was demonstrably ambiguous supplies a warning about the credibility that can be given to such bold affirmations about what should be done.
Such certitude must be just that -- certain. For instance, the primacy of the επισκoπoς in the New Testament communities is a "bold affirmation" which can be made both on the basis of historical criticism of biblical and even non-biblical texts. How that primacy translated in praxis is another matter. Defending the right of a pope today to hold authority over all earthly matters -- spiritual and temporal -- because of the Petrine privilege granted in Mt 16.17-19 and Jn 21.15-19 would be foolish. Distinctions must be made -- which Brown does not explicitly make here -- between those things which are certain through Revelation and others which are time-hallowed customs.
Brown argues that the desire to hold a "totally clear" interpretation of the Bible in ecumenical dialogue is both demeaning and destructive. Save for extremists, Catholic and Protestant, this is not a common trend (at least in the United States). The converse of this is a need to acknowledge that the scriptures do not say everything about anything. To hold that the biblical message specifically and directly comments on every modern situation is naive and could lead to a form of primitivism.
Brown concludes that in dialogue, historical criticism is a challenging but also a re-vitalizing element. In commenting on the role of scripture in the Church in the United States, Brown acknowledges the massive growth in study and popular appreciation of the Bible after both Pius XII and Dei Verbum. After a few pot-shots at poor preaching, fundamentalist attitudes, and the Charismatic renewal, Brown says,
The [ironic] result is that there may now be more interest among Catholics in the Bible than among the Protestants of some mainline churches.
One of the results of the modern usage of historical-criticism and the proper implementation of the exegetical guidelines of Dei Verbum has been the positive response of the Church to these trends and the encouragement of further study and application. Ratzinger and Brown have different perspectives on the role of the "ambiguity" which arises from historical criticism. Such a difference of opinion, when neither touching on matters of faith nor contributing to possible future errors, is a difficult road to travel. When does correction come into play? What is the authority used both to state a position and to interpret? What is the result of correction? Disobedience? Who is involved in these controversies?
These are areas of difficulty and are the sources of the creative tension which lead the church into its interpretive role.
Where, then, is a reasonable, orthodox, and authoritative example of the application of proper Catholic exegetical principles? According to Dei Verbum (as well as Lumen Gentium et alia) it is in the true exercise of the teaching and preaching office the Church, through her members and ordained ministers. It is in this service of the Word that the realities of the faith contained and interpreted in scripture are brought to life. Within the context of the entire Church, there is the dynamic of the traditio of the faith which is found in the homiletic and catechesis which occurs in nearly every gathering, meeting, mission and parish throughout the Catholic world. From the first schema of De Fontibus, in fact, reaching back to Trent, there was a concern for a vehicle by which the treasures of the faith could be opened and presented to the members of the Church. The sixth chapter of Dei Verbum deals specifically with this process. In the following chapter these various vehicles will be examined along with applications already in practice.
Chapter 4
The exegetical enterprise is primarily the task of the scripture scholars, and the clergy. Likewise, official church pronouncements on scripture are known generally to the same groups. How, then, do the fruits of both exegesis and the church's teaching reach the average person in the Church today? Perhaps more importantly, is there an underlying direction to the myriad homiletic and catechetical programs in existence today? While arguments between exegetes rage on in the pages of scholarly journals and opinions of clerics and scholars are exchanged in conferences, every Sunday, millions of Catholics attend their local Churches and are -- in some way and in varying degrees -- formed from the scriptures they hear. The Church has always been aware of the powerful influence of the scriptures on the Catholic faithful. The Church through Vatican II mandated an increase in the public reading of the Bible. Therefore, some practical guidelines and encouragement needed to be offered to allow these treasures to fruit - and bear that fruit without confusion or error.
Chapter VI of Dei Verbum is the practical application of exegesis within the catechetical and homiletic activities of the Church. This chapter of our study will first present the structure of Chapter VI, examine the liturgical role for exegesis and finally, present some uses of exegesis in catechesis. One could not possibly chronicle the post-Vatican II explosion of scriptural conferences, programs, movements, and publications. The examples chosen will provide a framework to see -- in a general way -- the positive effects of this movement of the Holy Spirit within the Church.
Chapter VI: Scripture in the Life of the Church
Without question, the scriptures -- as received and interpreted through the sacred Tradition of the Church -- are the Church's rule of faith. In light of this privileged position of the Word of God in the Church, Dei Verbum calls first for accurate texts which could be easily obtained by all Christians. The Church even permits, with opportunity and permission, the collaborative efforts of Catholics and "separated brethren" in composing these translations.
Secondly, the Church calls on all who preach and study to use as many tools as possible to understand the texts. Aside from the methods already considered in previous chapters, the Church calls for an on-going study of the Eastern and Western Fathers as well as the liturgies of both traditions. Again focusing on the practical aspects, Dei Verbum calls for the application of exegetical tools in service to the faith:
... sub vigilantia Sacri Magisterii, aptis subsidiis divinas Litteras ita investigent et proponant, ut quam plurimi divini verbi administri possint plebi Dei Scripturarum pabulum fructuose suppeditare, quod mentum illuminet, firmet voluntates, hominum corda ad Dei amorem accendat.
Under the watchful eye of the sacred Magisterium, and using appropriate techniques they [Catholic exegetes and theologians] should together set about examining and explaining the sacred texts in such a way that as many as possible of those who are ministers if the divine Word may be able to distribute fruitfully the nourishment of the Scriptures to the People of God.
The cooperation between magisterium and exegetes should produce a vehicle for interpretation useful for the pastoral ministers of the Church. It is through this cooperation that theology becomes pastoral. Section 24 states that scripture and Tradition form the foundation of theology and calls scriptural studies the "soul of theology."
Thirdly, Chapter VI emphasizes the pastoral role of bishops, priests, and deacons as well as catechists and religious. Implying the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, these ministers are called upon to internalize the treasures of scripture through both prayer and study. Bishops, in particular, are to oversee appropriate translations and explanations, emphasizing the New Testament and, specifically, the Gospels. Finally, the production, distribution, and use of such translations (with appropriate notes) are meant to build up the Church.
The Homily: Liturgical Proclamation
The pastoral ministry of the Church is shown forth most clearly in the Liturgy. The Sunday Eucharist especially is the primary point of contact between clergy and the laity in the Church. In speaking of both the seminary education of priests and the liturgical assembly, the Second Vatican Council placed an emphasis on the proclamation of the Word as central to the ministry of the Church. As a result of the Liturgical Movement of the early 20th century, the homily was restored to its ancient position of privilege within the Mass. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal explains the role of the Homily:
The homily is an integral part of the Liturgy and is strongly recommended. It is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should develop some point of the readings or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day, and take into account the mystery being celebrated and the needs proper to the listeners.
It is here, in the liturgy, that exegesis preforms its role in illuminating the texts and illuminating them within the context of the faith of the Church. The education to be imparted in seminaries, the education of students in the exercise of these liturgical roles includes an education in the tools necessary for an understanding of the scriptural texts. According to the exegetical norms of Dei Verbum ch. III, preachers are to make the connection between the meaning of the texts and true pastoral needs.
In the United States, the homily has been the concern of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops who, in 1982 published Fulfilled In Your Hearing: The Homily in the Sunday Assembly, focusing on the goals and methods of Sunday Mass preaching. Commenting on the relationship of exegesis and the preaching mission of the Church, the Bishops write:
It is hard to imagine that a person who has as his primary duty the proclamation of the Gospel to all would be without the basic tools and methods that help to ensure an accurate understanding of this Gospel
The history of the interpretation of the Scriptures is part of the contemporary meaning of the Scriptures. The way they have been preached, the liturgical expressions that have generated, the prayer they have nourished, the magisterial statements they have inspired, the theological systems they have fostered, even the heresies they have occasioned, expand and deepen the way the Scriptures speak to us today.
The Bishops call priests to a hermeneutical task that is beyond exegesis for its own sake. The vibrancy of the scriptures is beyond question. Vibrant preaching is part of a process begun in Seminary and fostered after through books, conferences, and periodicals. The revised New Jerome Biblical Commentary is written with the homiletic task in mind. Finally the growth in the number of books on specific scriptural themes is clear evidence of the importance of exegesis in the Church.
One cannot leave an examination of Catholic scripture study and proclamation without paying homage to the Catholic Biblical Association. It's growth and challenges have already been chronicled far more extensively than here. Suffice it say that this Catholic exegetical organization has contributed to Catholic exegesis by gathering and promoting scholars and publishing the Catholic Biblical Quarterly.
Cathechesis: Handing on the Word
The preaching mission of the Church is not limited to liturgical preaching. Cathechetics, as a distinct program, has developed throughout the world as a science. One of the umbrella organizations for this project has been the Catholic Biblical Federation (formerly the World Catholic Federation for the Biblical Apostolate). Begun in 1966 by Cardinal Bea as a vehicle to implement the recommendations of Dei Verbum ch. VI, it was an outgrowth of the Council's desire to produce translations of the scriptures in union with non-Catholics (the United Bible Societies). The World Federation was officially established on 16 April, 1969. Since then, many more Catholic Biblical societies throughout the world have entered into the catechetical task. Taking the fruits of both exegesis and dogmatic theology, the member groups engage in a promotion of scripture through study groups, prayer meetings, and conferences. Bulletin Dei Verbum is a publication which shares the various methods employed throughout the world in the catechetical process. Perhaps its most stimulating feature is the presence of African and South American groups and the acknowledgment of methods they use.
Going Further: The "School of the Word"
Perhaps the most famous figure in this movement is Cardinal Carlo Martini, the present Archbishop of Milan. Formerly Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute (the Biblicum) and the Gregorian University, Martini has also been a contributor to the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew texts which are used throughout the Christian world. As Archbishop of Milan, Martini established the "School of the Word" which is a catechetical program based on the Patristic Lectio Divina. Our final section now attempts to examine the method and its application.
The Lectio Divina is, primarily, a prayerful reading of a text. It is one of the most ancient forms of meditation. It is based in the scriptures themselves, and practiced was publicly in the early Church. This method became popular among monastic communities and was institutionalized early on in the Rule of St. Benedict (RB 48,1). Lectio was popular for its sheer simplicity. It is a four-part method:
1. Lectio: quiet and meditative reading\hearing of a text.
2. Meditatio:meditation on the text (exegetically, imaginatively, etc.).
3. Oratio: prayerful-response to the Word meditated upon.
4. Contemplatio: prayer of quiet.
It is a simple form of prayer, avoiding -- yet easily adaptable to -- the language of other methods such as the Ignatian, the Salesian, and others.
Martini has brought this public and private prayer to the youth of Milan. On the first Thursday of each month, they gather in the Cathedral and a scripture reading is presented to them followed by an explanation based on exegesis and dogma. Having then explained the method of Lectio, there is a period of silence. This pattern then spread from the Cathedral to individual parishes and even to radio broadcasts. Through an exegetical reflection on a text, catechetical teaching, and practical application, the pastoral use of scripture comes to its greatest fruit -- prayer.
The examples of the Catholic Biblical Association, the Catholic Biblical Federation, and the School of the Word are but a few instances of the manner in which pastoral application is made of sacred texts. On the twenty-fifth anniversary of Dei Verbum, Pope John Paul II saluted the efforts of all these movements and encouraged them to remember that all their efforts are at the service of a faith much greater than any one area of study. Exegetical theories, theological terminologies, and pastoral programs may develop and change, "but the word of our God will stand for ever."
Conclusion
"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." The Church is constantly seeking a deeper knowledge of Christ and, therefore, a deeper knowledge of scripture. This search becomes obvious when considering the historical background of Dei Verbum. The actual text, after five years and much debate, is a well-structured source of encouragement and guidance for interpretation by scholars, theologians, and pastors. The results of the document continue to be debated and applied in both the academic and the pastoral spheres of the Church. The applications, as seen in Martini's "School of the Word", are varied and world-wide. After all has been considered, what is the fruit of Dei Verbum?
While it is only twenty-six years since it was promulgated and may, in some respects, be too early to judge, there is clear evidence of a hunger for the Word of God in the Church today. Local synods (such as in the Archdiocese of New York) have heard calls for better preaching and more study of Scared scripture. Nearly every Catholic educational Institution, from grammar school to graduate school, has a full curriculum of scripture study at all levels. The myriad publications dedicated to scripture -- either thematic or liturgical - witness to this interest. A retreat without a scriptural text is almost unheard of. Several significant ecclesial movements (such as Focolare, Cursillo, and the Charismatic Renewal) have the practical study and application of scripture at the heart of their spirituality. The post-conciliar liturgical renewal has been a major factor in bringing a greater variety of scriptural texts to the Catholic faithful.
This is a certainly a work of the Holy Spirit. This explosion of interest in scripture is showing no signs of abating. Likewise, the Church continues to exercise its right and its duty in guiding these developments. The intelligent and faithful use of scripture in building up the faith of the Church remains a great sign of hope and vitality. This study has been an attempt to underscore that hope. Even in the midst of the shadows of theological debates and uncertainties, the Church interpreting, applying, and proclaiming the Word under the light of the Holy Spirit will shine forth as "a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Ps 119.105).
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Reference Works
Acta Apostolica Sede 56 [1964]. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1964.
Acta et Documenta Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II Series II, Vol 2, pars 1. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1965.
Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II. Vol I, pars 1. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1970.
Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II. Vol I, pars 3. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1971.
Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II Vol II, pars 6. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1973.
Brown, Fitzmyer, and Murphy, Eds. New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.
Documenta Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II. Editio typica. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1966.
Flannery, Austin, ed. Vatican Council II: Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. New York: Costello Publishing Corp, 1975, 1986.
Fulfilled In Your Hearing, Washington, D.C., NCCB The Bishop's Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, 1982.
Megivern, J., ed. Official Catholic Teachings: Bible Interpretation. Wilmington: Consortium, 1978.
Schökel, L. Alonso, ed. Concilio Vaticano II Comentarios a la constitución Dei Verbum sobre la divina revelación. Madrid: Bibioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1964.
Watlington Amanda G., ed, Official Catholic Teachings: Christ Our Lord. Wilmington: Consortium, 1978.
Vorgrimler, H., ed. Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II. Volume III. New York: Herder and Herder, 1968.
Books
Barclay, W. Daily Study Bible: James. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.
Fogarty, Gerald P. American Catholic Biblical Scholarship. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989
Guigo II The Ladder of Monks and Twelve Meditations. Trans. Edmund Colledge, O.S.A. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Studies Series 48, 1981.
Hall, Thelma. Too Deep For Words: Rediscovering Lectio Divina, New York: Paulist Press, New York, 1988.
Neuhaus, Richard J. ed., Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church. Grand Rapids: Williams Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1989.
Panimolle, Salvatore ed., Like the Deer That Yearns. Middlegreen, Slough: St. Paul Publications, 1990
Ratzinger, Joseph and Auer, Johann. Theology 9: Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1988
Articles
Bulletin Dei Verbum. No. 19, February, 1991, Stuttgart, "The history of the Federation, from its foundation to the Banglore Assembly"
L'Observatore Romano. Weekly English Edition, 1991, no. 16
Origins, Vol 17, n. 35 (11 February, 1988)
The Pope Speaks. July\August 1991, vol 36 no. 4