freedom, the Americans were strongly in favour. But some conservatives were unwilling to deviate from the traditional line of thinking. The discussion lasted two days, and on September 30, the chapter was returned to the Secretariat for Christian Unity for further revision. Papal Intervention The normal course of events was suddenly interrupted a week and a half later (19 October). Pope Paul, obviously under pressure from conservatives, let it be known that he wanted the texts on Religious Freedom and on Non-Christian Religions rewritten by a joint commission that would include conservative members of the Doctrinal Commission. The outcry was considerable and eventually the Pope backed down. Schema on Revelation After being rejected in the First Session, the schema on Revelation had not made a return appearance since that remarkable day almost 2 years earlier. A second version had been produced in 1963 but it was considered too bland, and a third version was not ready in time to be introduced during the Second Session. And so on September 30 this third version was presented to the Council Fathers. Where the original version said there were two separate sources of Revelation – Scripture and Tradition – and that some revealed truths were contained in Tradition alone, the current version took a more nuanced position. It rejected the idea that there were two separate “sources” of Revelation or that Revelation consisted in propositions handed down by God, some in the Bible and others in Tradition. There is only one source, which is God revealing himself. Instead of insisting on the “separateness” of Scripture and Tradition, it insisted on their close connection, without indicating exactly how they were connected. But most importantly, it said nothing about whether Tradition contained revealed truths that were not in the Bible. The conservatives strongly insisted on such a statement. The reformers, on the other hand, thought the issue was not ready to be settled: they wanted to leave it open to further discussion by theologians. The new text said that Tradition was found not only in the Church's teaching, but in its liturgy and in people's spiritual experiences. The conservatives thought this too subjective. The schema said that Tradition “progresses”. The conservatives would have none of this. The schema did not state clearly whether the Bible was completely free from error. The conservatives insisted the text should clearly state that it was. In spite of these