The day before the solemn inauguration, the young Bavarian theologian who had just arrived in Rome as a “private expert” working for the Cardinal of Cologne Joseph Frings, had hardly had enough time to unpack his suitcase.
A small team of German bishops, plus some other German speaking colleagues awaited him at the Collegio di Santa Maria dell’Anima, at 17:00 sharp.
That day, Ratzinger was called to teach his small Episcopal audience the content of the document De Fontibus Revelationis (On the sources of the Revelation), the first draft created by the preparatory Commissions and sent to the Synod Fathers to ne discussed during the imminent conciliar sessions.
The report prepared by Ratzinger on that occasion constituted a rather harsh criticism of the draft which had been produced under the supervision of the “Roman school’s” most qualified representatives, from the Jesuit Sebastian Tromp to the Secretary of the Holy Office, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.
According to Ratzinger, the conciliar document draft was badly formulated right from the title, which referred back to recurrent formulas in theology manuals of the time, in which Scripture and Tradition were defined as “two sources! Of divine Revelation. According to Ratzinger, this definition inverted the ontological succession between the Revelation and the historical forms of its transmission.
In his presentation before the Collegio di Santa Maria dell’Anima, Ratzinger pointed out that on a reality level “the Revelation does not come after Scripture and Tradition but rather, it is God’s words and actions that take precedence over any historical recording of his message, the Lord’s word being the only source that feeds Scripture and Tradition.”
Ratzinger did not see this issue as a pointless academic dispute. According to the young Bavarian theologian, the document’s draftsmen had been attacked “by the ghost of modernism” and conditioned by the obsession of having to refute the protestant principle of “sola scriptura”, which only recognises the Bible as a rule for Christian faith and practice.
In their attempt to establish a distance, they almost attributed the power to decide on for faith related content that is not even implicitly present in the Holy Scriptures, to Tradition.
But Ratzinger claimed that this “traditionalist” drift betrayed the age-long teachings of the Church. In his lecture on the eve of the Council, Ratzinger stressed that the Fathers of the Church had rejected any idea of Tradition - understood as a collection of statements that are not contained within the Scriptures - as Gnostic and therefore not Christian.
The solution proposed by Ratzinger was clear: the Council Fathers should have filtered the document on the Revelation, removing “all phrases which describe Tradition as an autonomous material principle.”
He suggested they be replaced with expressions that highlighted “the close interrelation between the Scriptures, Tradition and the announcement of the Church, as well as the Church’s profound duty towards the words of the Scriptures.
The day after, during the inauguration ceremony, the young Bavarian theologian and future Pope was consoled by John XXIII’s opening address. In successive conciliar reports, Ratzinger noted the relief felt on hearing the words pronounced by the Pope, who “avoided purely negative sentences” and invited the Church to use “the medicine of mercy” in its relationship with modernity.
He was not convinced, however, by other aspects of the Council’s opening liturgy, which in his opinion had reduced bishops and all others present to “silent spectators,” stripped of any form of “active participation.”