This article presents a theological-historical survey of the Roman Catholic theology of religions from the pre-Conciliar period to Vatican II.Footnote 1 The question of the eternal destiny of the adherents of other faiths is not a new one, and it is crucial from the outset to distinguish this from the issue of the value of religions. Within the doctrinal development of the Catholic Church, it will be argued the question of the soteriological function of religions was addressed with the assumption of a prior positive answer provided to the former, i.e. the church accepted the possibility of salvation of non-Christian individuals before it moved to discuss the role of their religions in attaining this.Footnote 2 The status of religions vis-à-vis that of non-Christians within Catholic discussions became a question of whether people are saved despite their religions or through them?Footnote 3 As I shall explore, the trajectory of Catholic theology has some significant differences from Protestant developments, which do not necessarily begin with an a priori assumption of the salvation of the unevangelised or a form of soteriological inclusivism, and which remain centred on a theology of non-believer salvation. Despite this difference, the importance of the Catholic view can be seen in its marking the emergence of the ‘theology of religions’ as a distinct discipline during Vatican II as well as its influence on some Protestant theologians.Footnote 4 An overview of Catholic attitudes towards other faiths culminating in Vatican II would therefore be illuminative for Protestantism as it seeks to advance its theological understanding of world religions.
Structurally, this article contains two main sections. The first examines pre-Conciliar attitudes towards followers of other religions encapsulated by the axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus, before moving into a discussion of the historical background and hermeneutics of Vatican II. The main documents of that period pertaining to the function of religions will be analysed, followed by an overall assessment of its theology. This article will conclude that, while significant strides have been made to recognise the positive attributes of other faiths, the Council ultimately chose to leave the specific question of their salvific status open for subsequent discussion within its theological constituency.
Pre-Vatican II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the concerns of the Catholic Church were centred on the non-Christian as an individual outside the church and focused on a theology of salvation for non-believers summarised by the axiom, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the RCC).Footnote 5 Hence, before examining the theology of the Council, I will briefly outline the understanding of this axiom, which had its beginnings in the church fathers.Footnote 6 The question of the fate of those who had not professed Christ during their lifetime, due either to rejection or ignorance of him, arose early during the patristic era. Irenaeus argued for the possibility of knowledge of the pre-incarnate Christ to his creatures:
For the Son is the knowledge of the Father; but the knowledge of the Son is in the Father, and has been revealed through the Son . . . ‘No man knoweth the Son, but the Father . . . and those to whomsoever the Son shall reveal [Him].’ For ‘shall reveal’ was said not with reference to the future alone . . . but it applies indifferently throughout all time.Footnote 7
Historically, however, it was to Cyprian that the axiom became attached. The church father writes:
Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy . . . He who does not hold this unity . . . does not hold life and salvation.Footnote 8
While this castigation may seem sweeping, in context, it was clear Cyprian had in mind heretics and schismatics who had voluntarily left the church, rather than pagans who had never been part of it in the first place.Footnote 9 In the fourth century, a significant shift occurred in the application of this axiom to pagans as the status of Christianity in the Roman Empire was transformed from a persecuted sect to its official religion. Due to the then prevailing assumption of the universal availability of the Christian faith, Fulgentius of Ruspe asserts:Footnote 10
Hold most firmly and never doubt that not only all pagans but all Jews and heretics and schismatics who finish this present life outside the Catholic Church will go into eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels.Footnote 11
The association of pagans with Jews, heretics and schismatics brings them to the same level of culpability as the latter due to the widespread belief that all had had a chance to hear the Gospel. Within this ecclesio-soteriological stricture, Thomas Aquinas worked out a theology which allows for the possibility of salvation of those who were unbaptised before death by arguing for a distinction between those who lack baptism in reality (in re) and those that lack in desire (in voto), and this would subsequently be analogised for non-Christians. He writes:
(T)he sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire . . . And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of ‘faith that worketh by charity’ whereby God . . . sanctifies man inwardly.Footnote 12
In general, the medieval period was marked by the evincing of this axiom in an exclusivist form through papal pronouncements which further asserted salvation's inextricable relationship to membership in the RCC. As Flanagin observes, the Catholic Church became understood as the sacramental means through which divine grace was granted to the believer, especially through baptism, penance and the eucharist, and this ecclesiology was underpinned by Cyprian's axiom.Footnote 13 The promulgation of Unam Sanctam in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII thus included requirement for membership of the RCC and also submission to the pontiff for salvation.
That there is only one holy, catholic and apostolic Church we are compelled by faith to believe and hold, and we firmly believe in her and sincerely confess her, outside of whom there is neither salvation nor remission of sins . . . Furthermore we declare . . . that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all people that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.Footnote 14
The General Council of Florence in 1442 took another step when it drew upon the language of Fulgentius of Ruspe and linked Jews and pagans together with heretics and schismatics with the need for salvation,
[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that ‘no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans,’ but also Jews, heretics and schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘eternal fire prepared for the devil and its angels’ [Matt 25:41].Footnote 15
However, a significant theological turn would take place with the discovery of the New World in 1492, as the existence of entire populations who had lived and died for the past fifteen centuries without any awareness of the Gospel prompted a doctrinal re-examination by Catholic theologians about the salvific destiny of non-Christian individuals.Footnote 16 In 1854, Pope Pius IX utilised the concept of ‘invincible ignorance’ to assert that those who lived an honest upright life in observance of natural law could be saved without diluting the assertion for the necessity of the church for salvation.Footnote 17 In Singulari Quadam, he declared:
It must, of course, be held as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church . . . Yet, on the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not subject to any guilt to this matter before the eyes of the Lord.Footnote 18
In the immediate period before Vatican II, the development of a solution to the question of salvation for non-Christians reached into a discussion of the nature of the church itself. Given the RCC has asserted its instrumental necessity for salvation, the question of its role in this ‘extra church’ salvation had to be addressed, and this was accomplished by a conceptualising of itself as both a visible and mystical body based on the Thomist re–voto proposal. In a 1943 papal encyclical, Pope Pius XII drew attention to those who have not heard of the Gospel as well as those separated from the church. Mystici Corporis Christi states:
We must earnestly desire that this united prayer may embrace in the same ardent charity both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel, are still outside the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from Us . . . For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. (MC 102–3)Footnote 19
This official reference to the Thomist notion of implicit desire, however, did not distinguish between non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians.Footnote 20 In addition, there remained some who held to the traditional view of the impossibility of salvation outside the RCC and, in response, the Holy Office provided its interpretation of the doctrine of the Mystical Body:Footnote 21
The infallible dictum which teaches us that outside the Church there is no salvation, is among the truths that the Church has always taught . . . To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is required that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio) . . . When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire.Footnote 22
Hence, before the Council, official Catholic theology had developed to affirm, on the one hand, the continued necessity of the church for the salvation of non-Christians and, on the other, the possibility of their salvation based on an in voto desire with an assumption of invincible ignorance on their part. Given this evolution, the continuing relevance of the axiom extra ecclesiam has been debated, though it is likely that it will be retained in its present form with the aforementioned implicit qualifications.Footnote 23 Knitter aptly summarises that the Catholic view of the state of non-Christians has moved from holding ‘outside the church no salvation’ to ‘without the church no salvation’ (emphases original), i.e. from an exclusive to inclusive ecclesiocentrism.Footnote 24
The preceding section has provided a brief discussion of pre-Conciliar attempts to advance a theology of salvation for non-Christians, and much of this account has centred on the axiom of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the utilisation of the notion of invincible ignorance to allow for the inclusion of non-Catholics into the salvific plan. By the time of the Council, however, new questions were being asked about how other religious traditions per se are to be related to Christ and the church in light of the possibility of their followers attaining salvation.Footnote 25 The Catholic theology of religions would begin its genesis in the Council.
Historical background and hermeneutics of the council
The announcement for the convening of a new ecumenical council was made on 25 January 1959 by Pope John XXIII, three months after his election as successor to Pius XII. When the Pope officially summoned the Second Vatican Council as the twenty-first Ecumenical Council on 11 October 1962 he emphasised its pastoral nature over a dogmatic intent in his opening address.Footnote 26 Although John XXIII had convoked the Council and opened its first session, he did not live to see its completion and it was left to Pope Paul VI to continue this work.Footnote 27 When the Council was closed on 8 December 1965, sixteen documents had been produced, including four apostolic constitutions, nine decrees and three declarations, covering a wide range of topics.Footnote 28
While the Council may have concluded, its influence endures, but not without debate. Even as some hailed it as an achievement of the Catholic episcopate, it was less clear to others what it had actually accomplished.Footnote 29 In particular, attention has focused on the inevitable question of its hermeneutics.Footnote 30 Rahner drew attention to the question of Conciliar hermeneutics by suggesting a ‘fundamental interpretation’, by which he meant an intra Council evaluation, and proposed it be seen as marking the de-Europeanising of the RCC.Footnote 31 By contrast, de Lubac was less optimistic and noted ‘almost the very day the Council ended, a deformed and deforming interpretation began to spread’.Footnote 32
In recent years, the divisions over what the Council meant have not converged. For the purposes of this article, I will describe two broad factions, one arguing that the Council signified much greater discontinuity than continuity, and the other the reverse. Komonchak, representing the former, suggests that Vatican II should be seen as a dynamic ‘event’ and having generated documents which require ‘redaction’ to ascertain their original meaning, and Oviedo concurs.Footnote 33 In response, Marchetto took direct aim at Komonchak's multi-volume work and argued that he was attempting a ‘Copernican revolution’ into another form of Catholicism, a particularly polemical accusation.Footnote 34 Current Vatican support for Marchetto's position seemed apparent when the Pope's vicar-general for the diocese of Rome, Cardinal Ruini, critiqued the ‘Bologna-school’ for advocating an interpretation of the Council as a ‘rupture’. However, O’Malley has argued that, despite the Council's continuity, it was nevertheless discontinuous in other aspects, while Ormerod agrees that the two key Conciliar concepts, i.e. aggiornamento and ressourcement, do imply change.Footnote 35
The official Catholic position was reiterated by Pope Benedict XVI who argued against a ‘hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’ and advocated a ‘hermeneutic of reform’ which does not sever text and spirit.Footnote 36 Dulles also quotes John Paul II in a special audience in 2002 as saying ‘(t)o read the Council supposing that it involves a rupture with the past . . . is decisively misleading’, while de La Soujeole called hermeneutics of the Council ‘tradition with its dual aspect: a faithful memory and a creative innovation’.Footnote 37 In light of Benedict XVI's response as well as supporting voices, the interpretation of Council's legacy appears to lean towards placing the emphasis on continuation rather than discontinuity, although the murmurs of disagreement have not ceased.Footnote 38 As I proceed to examine the Conciliar documents in detail regarding the theological role of religions, these interpretative tensions, between those who construe them as standing in continuity with tradition and others who see them signifying real discontinuity and divide, will continue to surface.
The main Conciliar documents
Among the sixteen documents, Dupuis has argued that the chief directly material ones are to be found in Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes.Footnote 39 To this list, I will add Gaudium et Spes which discusses the paschal mystery in article 22. Hence, these Conciliar documents will now be analysed in theological sequence, beginning with Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes, followed by Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes. Although Nostra Aetate is the main document containing mention of other religions, I will treat it third in order because the Catholic view of religions needs to be understood in relation to the self-definition of the church within the first two documents. Before that I will make a brief excursus into an encyclical by Paul VI which has had a significant impact on subsequent developments in interfaith dialogue. After analysing the Conciliar articles, I will then conclude with an overall assessment of Vatican II's theology of religions, and the case will be made that the question of the salvific function of other religions was ultimately left unanswered.
Ecclesiam suam (1964)Footnote 40
In the earlier discussion of MC, I have noted that the RCC had developed a theology of the church as the Mystical Body of Christ to allow incorporation of the invincibly ignorant with an in voto desire into its membership, and ES did not break new ground as it continues with this identification of the RCC.Footnote 41 However, Paul VI did introduce a theology of ‘dialogue’ with the world, based on God's initiative in revealing himself which requires a human response in turn (ES 70), a dialogue differentiated using four concentric circles revolving around the RCC (ES 96–113) beginning with (1) mankind, (2) monotheistic believers, Jews, Muslims and ‘Afro-Asiatic religions’, (3) non-Catholic Christians and (4) Catholics. In discussing the church's attitude towards those in the second circle, he noted that:
(W)e do not wish to turn a blind eye to the spiritual and moral values of the various non-Christian religions, for we desire to join with them in promoting and defending common ideals . . . Dialogue is possible in all these great projects, which are our concern as much as theirs. (ES 108)
Hence, a positive note on the status of other religions has been struck, and this marks the beginning of a series of affirming indications on how the church will view them. While he did not ascribe salvific function to them, their ‘spiritual and moral values’ were noted, and hence would no longer be ignored and be considered part of the church's wider dialogue with the world. Also, a few months earlier, on 17 May 1964, Paul VI had instituted within the Curia the ‘Secretariat for Non-Christians’, due to a growing recognition that a new body would be needed to carry forward the work of religious dialogue. The theology of ‘dialogue’ contained in ES became the charter for this new Secretariat to carry on the work of dialogue with the non-Christian religions.Footnote 42
Lumen Gentium (1964)Footnote 43
The first Conciliar document under consideration, LG, is of such prime significance for the RCC that it has been called ‘the most important document promulgated by Vatican Council II’.Footnote 44 For the analysis of religions, it is crucial to understand the view of the church propounded here since the other religious traditions are inextricably seen in relation to her. McBrien argues Vatican II's ecclesiological focus far outweighs any christological or eschatological discussions, and that LG and Gaudium et Spes formed the ‘twin pillars’ of this ecclesiology since they were originally intended as one single document (i.e. De Ecclesia).Footnote 45 Lindbeck concludes from LG's ecclesiology that the RCC has moved from the Mystical Body of Christ to three coexisting primary models: (1) the Mystical Body, (2) the People of God and (3) the Divine Sacrament of salvation.Footnote 46 De Lubac concurs and reasons greater emphasis was now placed on the church as the ‘People of God’ rather than the other two models.Footnote 47 Of especial ecumenical, and by extension, inter-religious significance, was article 8, which appears to go beyond MC with its acknowledgement that ‘some elements properly belonging to this Church founded by Christ are found among the others’ (emphasis original).Footnote 48 This particular article is of key relevance for the auto-understanding of the RCC and worth quoting in full:
This Church [‘the Church of Christ’] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. (LG 8)
The phrase, ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’ (subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica), has become a theological lightning rod, with the primary contention that it asserts a non-exclusive identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church, a point strenuously argued by Komonchak and Grillmeier.Footnote 49
In contrast, Becker asserts that the usage of subsistit in from the original est does not suggest the Council had deviated from total identification, by noting Vatican archives had shown the suggestion to use subsistit in originated from Fr Sebastian Tromp, a theologian known for consistently asserting full identity.Footnote 50 Also refuting Komonchak et al.'s views, Welch and Mansini contend that such an assertion contradicts post-Vatican II magisterium teachings which articulated an unequivocal identity.Footnote 51 The debate is unlikely to subside soon, and its wider implications lie not only for ecumenism but also for the RCC's view of the theological status of other faiths. For if the church exhibits a clear unwillingness to admit the ecclesial character and the existence of salvific elements in other Christian churches, which seems to be the current position, it is highly improbable that it will be willing to acknowledge other religions as salvific structures.
I turn now to the specific discussion of religions found in LG 16–17. These two articles form part of a continuation in thought started by article 13, which had described all humanity as either belonging or related to the People of God. LG 16 follows with a detailed categorisation of non-Christians which is worth quoting at length:
In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given . . . But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place, amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who . . . along with us adore the one and merciful God . . . Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God . . . Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church . . . Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. (LG 16)
In this passage, LG 16 classifies non-believers into four groups from the closest to the most distant, i.e. (1) Jews, (2) Muslims, (3) people who seek the unknown God ‘in shadows and images’ and (4) those who have no ‘explicit knowledge of God’ but seek to live an upright life. Given this division, the task of the church is then discussed:
Through her [the church’s] work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only saved from destruction but is also . . . perfected unto the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of man. (LG 17; emphasis added)
There are several key advances made by these two articles. In contradistinction to the perspective of non-Christians as a monolithic pagan group, there is now a graded recognition of their differences according to the degree to which they share in the RCC's spiritual patrimony. In particular, the shared elements of spiritual heritage between Jews and Christians and the common belief in one Creator with Muslims will be expanded later in Nostra Aetate 2–4. LG 17 also suggests that ‘goodness and truth’ may be found among non-Christians by depicting the religions they belong to as also containing ‘latent goodness’. Third, even as the positive values enshrined in other religious traditions are affirmed, the possibility of salvation for the non-Christian has officially become a non-issue.Footnote 52 However, there remain several open matters. First, there is no direct association yet of the praeparatio evangelica mentioned in LG 16 with the religions mentioned in LG 17 and, second, there is no clear affirmation that religions per se are either independent, dependent or mediating means of the one salvation found in Christ.Footnote 53 I conclude therefore that the focus of LG 16–17 remains at the individual level as their religions are a subsidiary consideration, and it will be left to Nostra Aetate to provide a fuller account of the Catholic view of religions.
Gaudium et Spes (1965)Footnote 54
Being one of the four Apostolic Constitutions promulgated by the Council, GS enjoys the same magisterial status as LG and likewise contains ecclesiology as its subject matter, though they differ in it being a ‘Pastoral’ rather than a ‘Dogmatic Constitution’. GS's agenda is primarily orientated extra church, as its main purpose was to explicate the relationship between the RCC and society or, as the document puts it, ‘to explain to everyone how it [the RCC] conceives of the presence and activity of the Church in the world of today’ (GS 2). The document is of significant length and has endured a mixed reaction, but for the purposes of our discussion, the relevant article is GS 22:Footnote 55
For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (GS 22; emphasis added)
In this key article, an analogue is established between Christians connected ‘with the paschal mystery’ and non-Christians as having prospects of association with this same mystery. Significantly, the Spirit is described as working within all humanity and this provides for the first time a hint of a trinitarian operation. Notwithstanding this positive mention, the traditions of other religions are again left unmentioned as the work of the Spirit is depicted at the individual level. In fact, there will be no further mention of the relationship of the Spirit with non-Christians or other religions until the post-Conciliar encyclical Redemptoris Missio by John Paul II. Nevertheless, this article has been welcomed for its declaration that the way of salvation is not a human matter but divine.Footnote 56
Nostra Aetate (1965)Footnote 57
Having examined several relevant articles of ES, LG and GS on Vatican II's view of religions, I am now in a position to analyse the one Conciliar document which addresses their theological status.Footnote 58 The origins of NA may be traced to John XXIII's desire to express the relationship between the church and the people of Israel which led him to commission Cardinal Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (SPCU), on 18 September 1960 to prepare a draft declaration.Footnote 59 The subsequent development of this text to include people of other religions was prompted by, among other factors, a widened consciousness of and concern for these people outside the church.Footnote 60
The text itself comprises five articles which treat the relation of the ‘Other’ with respect to the RCC, using a series of stratified layers similar to ES.Footnote 61 Articles 1–2 begin with a preamble about the unity of humanity and the great religions of the world, with specific mention of Hinduism, Buddhism and ‘other religions’ in the context of people seeking answers to the deepest questions of life. NA 2 then ends with a significant summary about the church's understanding of other religions:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which . . . often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. (NA 2)
The remainder of the document deals with the Abrahamic faiths, as article 3 describes at the phenomenological level the Islamic faith and praxis and declares the church's respect for Muslims who believe in a Creator God. This is followed by a discussion of Jews and their common spiritual patrimony, making clear the RCC's rejection of discrimination against Jews.
NA signifies a decisive change as it constituted the first positive affirmation of religions by any Council, when taken together with LG 17. Fisher has observed that the formation of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews (CRRJ) was a direct legacy of this document, and Oesterreicher notes the church had made public her understanding of the Pauline view of the role of Israel in God's salvific plan.Footnote 62 Dupuis’ assessment was also positive, while Stransky observes that the Declaration did not provide an answer but ‘presented anew old theological questions’, i.e. the question of the salvificness of the faith-experience of other religions, and he leans towards suggesting they are salvific.Footnote 63
Nevertheless, despite the affirming responses NA has garnered for its constructive tone, it continues to fall short of a fully developed theology of religions as it did not discuss in detail their salvific or non-salvific attributes. What it established was an explicit theological base that religions are to be appreciated as positive entities, and although that was a significant departure from the previous view of non-Christians as isolated individuals divorced from their religious affinities, the exact theological function of religions remains unspecified. There is still some road to traverse before a full Catholic theology of religions will emerge.
Ad Gentes (1965)Footnote 64
I will conclude my analysis of Conciliar documents with AG, which is essentially a vision of Catholic missions with reference to the validity of the religious attempts of other faiths. The document was prompted by the desire of missionary bishops to exhort Western Catholics to continue their support for foreign missionary work, and constitutes the basis for Catholic discussions on mission.Footnote 65 For the purposes of my analysis, AG 3 contains affirmations of both the positive inclinations of man and the religious efforts of other faiths:
This universal design of God for the salvation of the human race is carried out not only, as it were, secretly in the soul of a man, or by the attempts (even religious ones by which in diverse ways it seeks after God) if perchance it may contact Him or find Him, though He be not far from anyone of us (cf. Acts 17:27). For these attempts . . . may sometimes serve as . . . a preparation for the Gospel. (AG 3; emphasis added)
As in NA, one notes the favourable tone in which other religious attempts are spoken of, even as they are depicted at the same time as needing to be ‘enlightened and healed’, which implies that missions should now include purification as well as proclamation.Footnote 66 The difference in emphasis between NA and AG may be summarised as the former exhorting Catholics to dialogue with the adherents of other religions while the latter develops this dialogue in the context of Christian witness.Footnote 67 I conclude then that AG has ascribed positive values to both individuals and religions and asserted the presence of God within the latter without positing them as possessing or mediating salvation, thus maintaining a reticence which stretches back to NA 2, GS 22, LG 16–17 and ES 108.
Assessment of Vatican II's theology of religions
In assessing the theology of religions presented during the Council, a polarity mirroring the divide in Conciliar hermeneutics may be noted. Among those assertions generally accepted and affirmed by both sides are the instrumental role of the church in salvation, the indispensability of that salvation through Christ, and a positive view of religions, but beyond these, opinions differ. Standing firmly on one side, Küng puts forth the view that, since Vatican II, the church has a newfound sense of respect for other faiths, and clearly recognises the possibility of salvation for non-Christians.Footnote 68 Knitter goes one step further when he contends that ‘(t)he majority of Catholic thinkers interpret the Conciliar statements to affirm, implicitly but clearly, that the religions are ways of salvation’.Footnote 69 These views were subsequently moderated by the observation that there remains an ‘ambiguity in its understanding’ of the extent of truth and grace in them.Footnote 70 Stransky arrives at Knitter's earlier conclusion when he argues that in NA, ‘(i)n some way an individual can be saved not despite but in one's community of faith’ (emphasis original).Footnote 71 Amaladoss also contends that other religions are now seen as ‘many ways of salvation’ and Kunnumpuram concludes that, ‘(f)or those who have not yet been existentially confronted with Christianity, non Christian religions can serve as ways of salvation . . . through the doctrine and practices of these religions’.Footnote 72
By contrast, Ruokanen, a Protestant observer, contends that the Council in no way recognises their salvific efficacy but only acknowledges the presence of God's grace.Footnote 73 In rebuttal, Knitter argues that Ruokanen was operating from a dualistic conception of nature and grace whereas Catholic theology implicitly understands the ‘ray of Truth’ in NA 2 as Logos spermatikos.Footnote 74 However, the Catholic theologian Burrows opines that Ruokanen's understanding of Vatican II's theology of religions was ‘the most accurate account of that doctrine I have seen in print’, and argues contra Knitter, that ‘there simply are unresolved tensions in the Vatican II magisterium’ (emphasis original).Footnote 75
The majority of Catholic scholars have leaned towards seeing Vatican II as leaving unspecified the exact status of the religions and delegating the task to subsequent theologians. Rahner observes that NA has expanded the understanding of religions as ‘concrete sociological realities’ but continued to leave the question of their theological status unanswered.Footnote 76 D’Costa summarises Vatican II as having manifested unprecedented signs of openness towards other religions without granting full recognition of them as channels of salvation.Footnote 77 On the whole, I concur and conclude that, while Vatican II ushered in an era of positive attitudes towards non-Christian religions, it deliberately chose not to move beyond that to ascribe any salvific significance to them, and left it to the Catholic theological community to work out the ramifications of its pronouncements.
In summary, this article has analysed the Catholic view of religions which was presented in the Second Vatican Council. It has demonstrated that the RCC has moved beyond the pre-Conciliar question of the salvation of non-Christians as condensed by the axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus into an assertion of the possibility of them being saved on account of their invincible ignorance. In the period around Vatican II, the Church began assessing the non-Christian person not just as an isolated individual but also taking into account her wider affiliations to a religious community and hence developed an inchoate understanding of other religions per se as well as recognised for the first time the positive values inherent within them. In the process, this analysis has revealed current hermeneutical tensions within the church about whether the Council signified continuity or discontinuity with tradition, and similar contrasting views about the extent it saw other religions as holding salvific function. In sum, the majority of Catholic theologians have tended to see Vatican II as leaving this particular question open, and hence it will be necessary to trace the trajectory of post-Conciliar developments for an answer.
