This report is an attempt to reread the event of Revelation in view of DV 8: «Ecclesia, volventibus saeculis, ad plenitudinem divinae veritatis iugiter tendit, donec in ipsa consummentur verba Dei». The text aims at clarifying the eschatological character of Revelation, raising however a theological problem of great importance: if and in what measure is it possible to think of Revelation as a never concluded process, if the theological tradition asserts that Revelation is concluded with the death of the last (...) Apostle and Dei Verbum speaks of Christ as the fullness of Revelation? The eschatological character of Revelation is investigated in the light of the dynamism of the Tradition, in particular of DV 8, which gives indications of great interest to resolve the matter of the persistence of Revelation in the time of the Church. The report affirms that the Tradition does not limit itself to the understanding of the revealed fact, but it points out the participation of the Church in the dynamism of Revelation itself. The conclusion is reached by means of a description of the constitutive relationship between Christian experience and knowledge - described in Dei Verbum as intima spiritualium rerum quam experiuntur intelligentia - which has it most clear and most pertinent expression in the sensus fidei. (shrink)

In the debate on the heritage of the Council an careful study focusing the figures of the Fathers who had an important influence on the Council is still missing. Mons. Luigi Maria Carli is one of these: bishop of Segni during the Council, one of the most heard and feared of the minority, that he was considered the 'informal' voice of the Council. Carli was noted for 14 interventions during the four sessions of the Council. Theologian, expert in Canon law, (...) and excellent apologist, in his interventions he always asked that the doctrine be formulated in the fidelity of the Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. His participation in the Council deserves to be remembered not only for his interventions but also because, after the end of the Council, he carried out its decisions and recommendations with commitment and fidelity first in the diocese of Segni and then in the diocese of Gaeta. (shrink)

The starting-point of this article is the fact that within the language of theology it is a widespread usage to identify public opinion with sensus fidelium. The Author is convinced that the two formulas cannot be directly superposed. An accurate examination of similarities and differences is necessary otherwise the undifferenciated use of the two locutions could bring elements of confusion and groundless conflict into the theological debate. As a matter of fact the difference does not only concern the difference of (...) field or disciplines - sociology for public opinion, theology for the sensus fidelium - so that it would be a matter of the same phenomena interpreted by different points of view. Even if similar dynamics in the two functions can be gathered, sensus fidelium and public opinion are of a different kind so that also subject, object, conditions and way of practice are different. On the basis of these differences the two dynamisms -both utterly important for the life of the Church - can be correctly applied in theology as well as in the more concrete praxis of the Church. (shrink)