CHAPTER TWO

POST VATICAN II DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S TEACHING ON NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS IN GENERAL AND MUSLIMS IN PARTICULAR

In this chapter, we will examine post-Vatican II developments by starting from the establishment of the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions to the present day. Our main objective will be to illustrate how far the Catholic Church has developed its relations with non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular after the SVC. We will explore briefly the establishment, goal and the dialogue activities of the Secretariat. Then we will examine Pope Paul VI's and John Paul II’s teachings concerning the Catholic Church’s relations with non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular in order to demonstrate the attitude of the Magisterium. Finally, we will focus our attention on the documents of the Secretariat. Within this context, we will highlight the significant points of Guidelines for Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims [1969,1981]. Then we will analyse the documents “The Attitude of the Church towards the Followers of Other Religions: Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission” [1984]; and “Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” [1991] which seek to explain the relationship between dialogue, mission and proclamation according to the Secretariat.

It was established by Pope Paul VI in May 1964 to undertake the dialogue activities of the Catholic Church before the promulgation of Nostra Aetate. In 1989, it was renamed the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue[1]. The establishment of this Secretariat can be regarded as one of the most important fruits of the positive statements of the Second Vatican Council concerning non-Christian religions. Prior to that council the church had not felt a need to set up a similar foundation to organise its relations with non-Christians. Pope Paul VI announced his intention to found the Secretariat in his opening speech of the second session of the Council in 1963. It was given the task of initiating dialogue with followers of other religions and has adhered fairly closely to the understanding of the goal of dialogue as defined by Pope Paul VI in his Ecclesiam Suam, as we will see later, and the Conciliar documents, as these have been analysed the previous chapter.[2] Its legal objective was expressed in the Regimini Ecclesiae as follows :

To search for methods and ways of opening a suitable dialogue with non-Christians. It should strive, therefore, in order that non-Christians come to be known honestly and esteemed justly by Christians and that, in their turn, non-Christians can adequately know and esteem Christian doctrine and life.[3][M1]

It seems that this passage clearly states that one of the main objectives of the Secretariat is to acquaint non-Christians with Christianity. Also the following explanations of the first president of the Secretariat supports this view.

In response to a suggestion that the age of mission was over, by establishing a special Secretariat for dialogue with other religions, the first President of the Secretariat, Cardinal Paulo Marella, pointed out that “far from being an alternative to the mission...dialogue represents, on the contrary, its way and its method in the context of contemporary society”.[4] He went on to argue that this is not to suggest that the task of the Secretariat overlaps that of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. He stated that the objective of the Secretariat is “closely connected with but distinct” from that of the Congregation. For that reason the purpose of the Secretariat can be understood not as direct evangelism but as a form of preparatio evangelica. Marella made clear this objective by stating that the Secretariat

certainly does not aim at obtaining the conversion of the interlocutor at once, because it respects his dignity and his freedom. It aims, however, at his advantage and would like to prepare him for a fuller communion of sentiments and convictions.[5]

He then informed the Council Fathers that the Secretariat was set up “to establish good relations with people of other faiths on a human level”[6] not on a religious level. By arguing this, it seems that Cardinal Marella implies that the Church wants to establish friendly relations with non-Christians on a practical level, not on a religious or theological one. In so doing, he made it clear that the Church does not want to convert people of other religious traditions but will seek to prepare them for the Christian faith.

After the closing session of the Council, the Secretariat undertook the Catholic Church’s dialogue activities with non-Christians. We will briefly analyse the dialogue activities of the Secretariat by dividing them into four periods according to its presidents. The reason for this approach is that the president who is in charge of the Secretariat has often followed different policies from his predecessor.

During this period, the Secretariat authorities decided to prepare its plans and projects in accordance with the task to which the Church and the Pope Paul VI had called it.[7] The members of the Secretariat published a number of booklets[8] which were designed to provide guidelines for those engaging in inter-religious dialogue and to encourage Christians to have a better understanding and knowledge of the beliefs and practices of their dialogue partners. During this period, the Secretariat started to publish a quarterly Bulletin to provide information and documentation, and to provoke reflection on issues relating to dialogue.[9] In these publications, dialogue was defined as any type of friendly encounter between Christians and non-Christians.[10] The significant points of these publications can be summarised as follows:

Firstly, in accordance with the main objectives of the Secretariat a distinction was made between human and religious dialogue. In human dialogue, the followers of different religions come together to face some common human problems posed in the society in which they live. Religious dialogue, on the other hand, has to do with the discussions of religious beliefs, practices and customs. According to those publications, in both these types of dialogue, the emphasis should be on the interpersonal encounter between the participants and should be understood as a meeting between persons, not as a meeting between religious systems and beliefs.[11]

Secondly, these publications highlighted the common elements between Christians and non-Christians. One of the most significant common points which makes dialogue necessary for Christians with non-Christians is the common humanity which all people share.[12] [This point was also expressed in Nostra Aetate as we have observed in the previous chapter, and the Kandy Consultation of the WCC in 1967 which we will look in the next chapter]. Other common points regarded as significant for dialogue are the truth and goodness which can be found in all religions. In these publications, it is indicated that God's word is present among all men and women, and God's supernatural revelatory presence may be found in other religions.[13]

Thirdly, these publications spelled out the objectives of inter-religious dialogue as follows: To improve and promote friendly relations between the adherents of different religions by breaking down hostilities and prejudices through personal meetings; to develop the idea of a common humanity between participants in dialogue; and to prepare the way through which the gospel can be proclaimed to all people.[14] These objectives of dialogue seem to imply that the establishing of friendly relationships with non-Christians by disregarding past hostilities and prejudices is urged by the Church in order to prepare the way through which Christians can proclaim the Gospel message in a better way to their dialogue partner.

Besides these publications, the Secretariat convened a number of general meetings with its own consultors to discuss its future policies and to evaluate its own activities in order to prepare the groundroots of dialogue with non-Christians. The significant outcomes of its consultors’ meetings can be summarised as follows: Firstly, it was felt that although non-Christian religions contained real goodness and values which Christians should respect, they did not have the fullness of divine revelation that Christianity had.[15] Secondly, four consultors group were set up to deal with the approaches to the major world religions, namely Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and African traditional religions. Concerning Islam, it was recommended to the Church authorities to make greater efforts to make Christians aware of the need of entering into dialogue with Muslims.[16] During this period, although the Secretariat itself did not sponsor any dialogue meeting, its representatives joined some dialogue meetings which were organised by the WCC, as we shall see in the next chapter.[17]

In short, during this period, 1967-1973, the Secretariat set up its structures, determined its objectives and policies for dialogue with followers of other religions inside and outside the Church. The Secretariat also produced some publications and developed some guidelines to prepare its members to enter into dialogue with others by knowing something about them.

After finishing its interior structure, the Secretariat, under the presidency of Cardinal Pignedoli, opened its door to the world in order to enter into dialogue with non-Christians. The emphasis shifted from studies and preparing guidelines to personal encounters.[18] As soon as he became president of the Secretariat, Pignedoli sent a letter to all Catholic Bishops to ask them to establish commissions for entering into dialogue with non-Christians in their region. Obtaining the approval of the Pope, he prepared an annual programme. According to this programme, the Secretariat would continue its dialogue activities in accordance with its aims which had been determined and defined in the previous period. Christian dialogue partners should be prepared to familiarise themselves with the traditions of non-Christians by gaining knowledge about them in order to develop and promote friendship and hospitality. Local churches should be urged and supported in their relationships with the adherents of non-Christian religions.[19]

In this period, the Secretariat sponsored and co-organised some dialogue meetings with people of other faiths, established a co-operation with the World Council of Churches, and its members visited different Muslim countries to exchange information and experience. The most significant dialogue meeting between Christians and Muslims was gathered by the initiation of the Libyan government in Tripoli [1976]. Because of its importance for the development of Christian-Muslim dialogue, some of its relevant points will be highlighted.

In this meeting both Muslims and Christians came together for the first time in the history of the Secretariat “to create a new atmosphere of mutual confidence between the Muslim and Christian world.”[20] The main objective of this meetings was expressed as follows:

They (both Muslims and Christians) have agreed that the aim of this dialogue is the exchange of the knowledge and ideas that contribute to a better mutual knowledge of history and civilisation between the participants of the two religions, in order to clarify the convergence and differences sincerely and objectively, allowing each party to cling to its beliefs, its obligations and its commitments in a spirit of concord and mutual respect.[21]

In its final report of this meeting, both Muslim and Christian participants agreed to make a number of recommendations to create a more positive environment for dialogue. In our opinion two of them were very important from the theological point of view. The first one was the acceptance of a common revelatory heritage and acknowledgement of all the prophets without disparaging and discrediting them.[22] To Muslims, this recommendation implied that the Roman Catholic Church intended to speak about the prophet Muhammad in the process of Christian-Muslim dialogue. The intention can be regarded as a very significant development in the post-conciliar period, since as observed in the previous chapter, the Church Fathers preferred to be silent on this issue in the conciliar statements of the Second Vatican Council.

In the Tripoli meeting the Catholic Church seems to have broken its silence by taking the first step towards an acknowledgement of the prophethood of Muhammad. For example, Fr. Jacques Langfry, in his presentation, asked Muslims for forgiveness for injurious remarks made about Muhammad by Christians in the past. According to him, in this new process starting with the Second Vatican Council, Christians should be more respectful towards the Prophet Muhammad as the prophet of Islam.[23]

The other issue was the insistence on the necessity of religious freedom for the followers of both religions and the condemnation of proselytism. The report says:

With a view of a real co-operation between the Muslim world and the Christian world, the two parties recommend ending all pressure exerted by Christians on Muslims to turn them away from their beliefs, or by Muslims on Christians for the same purpose.[24]

Clearly this meeting established a basis for both Christians and Muslims to break down the barriers of hostility and prejudice about each other which formed in the history of Christian-Muslim relations.

In addition to the above activities, a Christian-Muslim research group was established by the coming together of a number of Christian and Muslim scholars in 1977. The main task of this group was to work together in order to determine the theological basis and framework of Christian-Muslim dialogue. The members of this group have been working together since that day. Although, this group does not directly represent the official view, we may say that the Christian side’s views are the indirect reflections of the official Catholic teaching concerning Christian-Muslim dialogue,[25] because some members of the Catholic side, such as Robert Caspar, were among those who prepared the conciliar statements concerning Muslims.

Under the presidency of Archbishop Jadot, the Secretariat focused its attention on encouraging local churches to organise regional dialogue meetings with their Muslim neighbours by indicating that “the really pivotal dialogue was that carried out between Christians of the local churches and Muslims of the same country”.[26] Archbishop Jadot also indicated that because of the monotheistic character, fast spreading and socio-political teaching Christians should give Islam and its followers special attention and priority in their dialogue activities.[27] Within this context the function of the Secretariat was seen as an initiator, collaborator and supporter of local churches.

There were no significant dialogue meetings which we can deal with here concerning Christian-Muslim dialogue. But there were two important events during this period. The first one was the publishing of the revised edition of the Guidelines for Dialogue between Muslims and Christians [1969] by Maurice Borrmans in 1981.[28] The second one was the promulgation of the document “The Attitude of the Church towards the Followers of Other Religions; Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission”[29] by the Secretariat in its Plenary Assembly in 1984. Detailed information of these two documents will be given below.

With the presidency of Cardinal Arinze, another shift occurred in Secretariat dialogue policy. During this period the Secretariat was renamed as the Pontifical Council for Interrreligious Dialogue as noted above. The Pontifical Council focused its attention on organising study groups and participating in academic seminars in order to discuss and seek out areas of co-operation between Christians and Muslims.[30] There have been a number of study meetings between the Pontifical Council and different Muslim organisations. For example, it jointly organised three study meetings with the Royal Academy for Islamic civilisation in Amman, Jordan in relation to following issues : “Religious Education in Modern Society”[31], “The Role of Women in Society according to Islam and Christianity”[32], “Nationalism Today: Problems and Challenges”.[33] Also, the Pontifical Council co-sponsored another three study meetings with the World Islamic Call Society on the following issues: “Mission and Da’wah”[34], “Coexistence between Religions: Reality and Horizons”[35] and “The Media and the Presentation of Religion”.[36] It also jointly co-ordinated a colloquium together with the Iranian authorities in Iran under the title of “A Theological Evaluation of Modernity”[37] in 1994.

Cardinal Arinze outlines the above study meetings between Christians and Muslims as having helped to build bridges of friendship and trust and to enable Christians and Muslims to study together and focus on what they can do to make society better”.[38] Furthermore, Arinze remarks that Christian-Muslim dialogue meetings have shown that “Belief in God has to be the foundation for fruitful Muslim-Christian relations, respect for the principle of religious freedom will help and human values can be promoted together”.[39]

In this period the Pontifical Council also prepared a joint declaration together with the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples in order to highlight the relation between dialogue and proclamation under the title “Dialogue and Proclamation; Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.[40] The analyses of this document will be given below.

Besides the above dialogue activities of the Pontifical Council under the presidency of Cardinal Arinze, two plenary assemblies were convened in order to discuss and evaluate the Catholic Church’s dialogue activities with the followers of non-Christian religions. These occurred in 1992 and 1995.[41] Our examination of these assemblies shows that there are a number of important points which came out affecting the Catholic Church’s relations with non-Christians in general and Muslim in particular. The points can be summarised as follows:

Firstly, it was acknowledged that dialogue is a part of evangelisation, as was stated by Pope Paul II in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio in 1990.[42] Secondly, although it stated that the main objective of dialogue should be mutual enrichment, and that Christian values could be regarded as “a source of enrichment for others,” it omitted to say that the values of other religions might be a source of enrichment for Christians. Thirdly, the possibility of conversion in the process of dialogue was acknowledged by indicating that conversion “is not the direct aim of dialogue, but if through dialogue some are led to embrace Christianity, this is a source of joy for Christians”. This principle can be acceptable as long as it is not regarded as one of the main objectives of dialogue. Lastly, it emphasised that Christians should enter into dialogue with followers of other religions in the name of Jesus Christ to show that his love embraces all things.[43] It seems that in this statement what Muslims attribute to God is attributed by Christians to Jesus. For that reason we argue that if Muslims and Christians enter into dialogue with people of other faiths in the name of God rather than the name of Islam and the Church, this would be acceptable to both Muslims and Christians and lead to establishing a better and fruitful relationship between them.

From the Muslim point of view, we argue that the above points of these plenary assemblies have negative implications for interfaith dialogue. Through these points, it seems that Christian participants of dialogue are urged to evangelise their non-Christian partners by proclaiming the Christian message to them and in the end leading them to convert to Christianity.[44]

Besides these negative implications of the plenary assemblies of the Catholic Church, there are also a number of positive implications of the dialogue activities of the Pontifical Council concerning Christian-Muslim dialogue.

Firstly, the Church authorities were encouraged to study non-Christian religions in general and Islam in particular in order to know the religious beliefs and practices of their dialogue partners. In this way both Christians and their dialogue partners would acquire objective knowledge about each other leading to the development of mutual understanding between them.

Secondly, one of the most significant principles of a fruitful dialogue was reiterated by the Pontifical Council as follows: Dialogue should occur between the followers of different religions and not become a meeting between religious systems. If the opposite of this is argued, then that activity would not be dialogue but a clash between religions. For example, if a suitable environment for dialogue has not been established, discussions on religious issues such as beliefs and doctrines could lead participants to dispute with each other by claiming that their own religious traditions are better or superior.

Thirdly, as a continuation of the above points, it was announced that the principle of sharing a common humanity should be the main reason for establishing a better society in which adherents of different religious traditions can live together peacefully.

Fourthly, a first step was taken by the Catholic Church to deal with the theological questions in Christian-Muslim dialogue. As pointed out above, in the Tripoli meeting the Christian participants spoke of Muhammad, using positive statements.

Paul VI was elected Pope during the Second Vatican Council and stayed in this job until his death in 1978. During his pontificate, starting from his earlier days he made great efforts to create a positive dialogue environment for a better relationship between Christians and non-Christians. In doing so, he established the Secretariat for non-Christians, and then issued his first encyclical Ecclesiam Suam [45] to determine the Secretariat's policy in its relation to people of other religions, which led to the promulgation of Nostra Aetate. He also issued an exhortation entitled Evangelii Nuntiandi, [46] in 1975, and made a number of visits to various Muslim countries to promote inter-religious dialogue with Muslims. In order to appreciate his contribution to the development of dialogue these events will be examined by following their chronological order.

This encyclical of Pope VI was issued in 1964 three months after the establishment of the Secretariat in order to outline the theological and pastoral bases for entering into dialogue with people of other faiths.[47] Dupuis states that this encyclical urged the Council Fathers to assume a more positive attitude towards followers of other religions and indicates that because of its character the Pope became known as the "Pope of Dialogue".[48]

In this encyclical all humanity was described in terms of four concentric circles, the innermost of which was represented by the Roman Catholic Church. The outermost circle represented those who did not believe in the existence of God. The third circle was made up of those who were worshippers of God through the great world religions of Asia and Africa namely, Islam , Hinduism and Buddhism. The second circle from the outside and directly surrounding the Roman Catholic centre represented those who were Christians but are not subjects of the Holy See. It seems that this description implied that the Pope regarded the Catholic Church at the centre of the spiritual world and that the further any group deviated from teachings and practices the further away from the centre it stood. This description also implies that the purpose of dialogue between Catholic Christians and others is to draw them into the centre. It would seem that the aim of dialogue was to make members those who were outside the Catholic Church.

The motive of dialogue between Christians and non-Christians was expressed by the Pope as the Church’s love for all humankind, since he says that this is itself an expression of God’s own love for all men and women.[49] In the encyclical the Pope also encouraged Christians to enter into dialogue with non-Christians to preserve and promote religious freedom, human brotherhood, social welfare and civil order.[50] These points were highlighted later in Nostra Aetate as noted in the previous chapter.

As far as the methodology of dialogue is concerned Ecclesiam Suam speaks of two types of dialogue. The first is concerned directly with the preaching of the gospel. In this type, dialogue is described as “a method of accomplishing the apostolic mission” and as a “way of making spiritual communications” with the followers of other religious traditions. The second type of dialogue is considered as a form of pre-evangelisation. Concerning this type, the Pope indicates that by working with others within the context of a common effort to solve the problems of humanity, feelings of good will toward the Christian faith can be engendered in the dialogue process among the followers of other religions who will then become more open to the missionary proclamation of the church.[51]

Concerning the objective of dialogue, too, the Pope emphasised that he is not interested in religious discussion with the members of other religions for its own sake. He says the Church's main purpose in this process is to win souls, not to settle questions definitively.[52] Here, the Pope clarifies the above intention of the Catholic Church concerning the aim of dialogue by maintaining that in the process of dialogue the main objective of the Church is not to discuss the religious issues, but to prepare non-Christians to be receptive to the Christian faith.

In Ecclesiam Suam, for the first time in the history of the Papacy, Muslims and their religion, Islam, were praised by the Pope who declared that “the Moslem religion especially, is deserving of our admiration for all that is true and good in its worship of God”.[53]

Finally, the Pope warned Christians not to change their missionary policy toward those who belonged to other religions in the process of dialogue by pointing out:

The desire to come together as brothers must not lead to a watering down or whittling away of the truth. Our dialogue must not weaken our attachment to our faith. Our apostolate must not make vague compromises concerning the principles which regulate and govern the profession of the Christian faith both in theory and in practice.[54]

In short, according to Ecclesiam Suam the main aim of the interreligious dialogue was to preserve and promote religious freedom, human brotherhood, social welfare and civil order. And in this process, it says, Christians should use dialogue either as a tool for mission or as a form of pre-evangelisation by avoiding religious discussions with the members of other religions. This last sentence opened a discussion among Catholics between entering into dialogue with non-Christians and the Church's evangelising mission among the Catholic authorities, as we will see below.

After the close of the Second Vatican Council, the conciliar statements concerning the importance of dialogue between Christians and non-Christians caused some problems with respect to the relationship between dialogue and evangelisation. While some Christians regarded the dialogue as a new tool to convert non-Christians by preaching the gospel to them, others thought that the Church was about to give up evangelisation.[55] To deal with this confusing situation concerning the relationship between evangelisation and dialogue a Synod of Bishops was convened in Rome in 1974. In the end the participants could not produce a proper statement and handed the matter to the Pope. He produced an exhortation called Evangelii Nuntiandi as a response to the synod decision in 1975. Although it mostly concerns the need for evangelisation in the modern world, the Pope speaks of the religions of the world in one passage within the context of the Church’s evangelising mission.

In this section, the Pope urges Christians to esteem and respect non-Christians for the following reasons: They represent the living expression of the spiritual lives of millions of peoples; they embody the human search for God for thousand of years and, although imperfect, they do so with deep sincerity and righteousness; they have taught generations of people how to pray; they contain innumerable “seeds of the Word”; they constitute a true “preparation for the Gospel”.[56] These statements of the Pope are similar to the conciliar ones as observed in the previous chapter.

The Pope invites Christians only to show respect for other faiths, not to enter into dialogue with their followers. He even avoids using the word dialogue in any part of this exhortation, although he was called the “Pope of dialogue” because of his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam.[57]

In this exhortation, the Pope clearly portrays the non-Christian religions as incomplete searches for God. He argues that they cannot establish an authentic and living relationship with God because they do not have supernatural elements. On the contrary, he says, “The Church finds support in the fact that the religion of Jesus, which she proclaims through evangelisation, objectively places man in relation to the plan of God, with his living presence and with his action”. Because of this, he maintains “the proclamation of Jesus Christ” should be the essential duty of the Church.[58] When we compare the statements of the Pope on this point with the views of Rahner and the conciliar documents as expressed in the previous chapter, it could be argued that the Pope has taken a step backwards with regard to the values of the non-Christian religions. For, while Rahner and the conciliar statements accept the availability of supernatural elements in non-Christian religions, the Pope openly rejects this in Evangelii Nuntiandi.

Regarding Pope Paul VI's negative attitude towards non-Christian religions after the positive statements of the Second Vatican Council, Sullivan discloses that the negative attitude of the Pope started with a sermon in Rome in 1966. In this sermon, the Pope declared that non-Christian religions "are attempts, efforts, endeavours; they are arms raised toward heaven to which they seek to arrive, but they are not a response to the gesture by which God has come to meet man. This gesture is Christianity, Catholic life".[59]

According to Sullivan[60], there are two possible reasons for this negative attitude. One of them was the influence of the writings of some French Catholic theologians such as Jean Danielou. To support this argument, Sullivan points to the noticeable similarity between the Pope's sermon in 1966 and his encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi, on the one hand, and Danielou's article written in 1964,[61] on the other.

Another reason might have been the increasingly positive approaches of some Catholic theologians towards non-Christian religions. Before the promulgation of the Nostra Aetate, the Council had already said something positive concerning the possibility of salvation for non-Christians. Following this, in a conference on “Christian Revelation and World Religions,” some theologians such as Küng considered non-Christian religions as the "ordinary way of salvation" while accepting Christianity as the "extraordinary way of salvation".[62] The Pope considered that this sort of distinction could only impede evangelization,[63] and was an excuse to justify giving up the work of evangelisation.[64]

There seems to be a double standard in Pope Paul VI’s views concerning non-Christians and their religions. On the one hand, he tried to show the Catholic attitude towards other religions positively by saying Christians admire and esteem those people "who adore the One and Unique God."[65] In his face to face meetings with non-Christians--for example in meeting with the Grant Mufti of Istanbul—he tried to remove the anxieties of followers of those religions concerning the relationship between dialogue and mission. On the other hand, in his addresses to Christians he insisted on the necessity of evangelisation to convert those people by indicating that non-Christian religions have been unsuccessful in bringing their followers to an authentic relationship with God.

In short, as has been observed, it is very difficult to say that Pope Paul VI’s statements have had positive theological implications for the development of interreligious dialogue by going beyond the statements of the Second Vatican Council. In spite of this, Muslims should appreciate Pope Paul VI's dialogue initiatives, because of his opening the doors of the Vatican to non-Christian, especially Muslim delegations. By doing this, Pope Paul VI became the first Pope who opened the doors of the Vatican to Muslims.

As soon as he was elected Pope in 1978, Pope John Paul II started to express the official Catholic understanding towards other religions by issuing his encyclical Redemptor Hominis 1979.[66] In 1990 he published another encyclical Redemptoris Missio.[67] In addition to these encyclicals, the Pope visited a number of Muslim and non-Muslim countries and accepted delegations from other religions in the Vatican in order to promote inter-religious dialogue with followers of non-Christian religions. Pope John Paul II's dialogue activities will be examined by dividing them into three groups namely, the encyclicals, addresses to Christian and non-Christian religious leaders on several occasions, and speeches to Muslims during his visits to Muslim countries.

As noted above, Pope John Paul II published two significant encyclicals which have significant implications concerning the relationship between Christians and non-Christians. Here, the related passages of these two encyclicals will be considered.

Although this encyclical was prepared to reflect upon the role of Jesus Christ as the redeemer of the world within the context of the teaching of the Church, it can be regarded as an important official document because of its encouragement to Christians to enter into dialogue with non-Christians after the Second Vatican Council. Three passages of this encyclical in particular are directly related to non-Christians and their religions. The important points of these passages will be highlighted.

In the first passage, the Pope urges Christians to come together with adherents of non-Christian religions to establish better relations "through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common, investigation of the treasure of human spirituality".[68] In the second passage, he praises the statements of Vatican II which urge Christians to respect and esteem the spiritual values of non-Christians religions by declaring that:

The Council document on non-Christian religions is filled with deep esteem for the great spiritual values, indeed for the primacy of the spiritual, which in the life of mankind finds expression in religion and then in morality, with direct effects on the whole culture.[69]

Also, the Pope states that there are some values and truth in non-Christian religions by arguing that the values of those religions are the result of the Spirit who is universally active in the world, and the truths of those religions, too, are “reflections of one truth, ‘the seeds of the Word’”.[70] It seems that these two arguments imply that non-Christian religions do not have as complete revelation as do Christians, but have partial reflections of the exhaustive Christian revelation. By arguing this, Pope John Paul II recalls the statement of the Nostra Aetate.

In the third passage, too, the Pope stresses that the strategy of the Church in her missionary activities toward non-Christians should be carried out within the context of “esteem, respect and discernment”. He maintains that “the missionary attitude always begins with a feeling of deep esteem for ‘what is in man’, for what man has himself worked out in the depths of his spirit concerning the most profound and important problems”.[71] In fact, this statement implies that there is a missionary mandate beneath the Christian esteem and respect for non-Christians.

This encyclical was issued in 1990 to express the validity and universality of the Church's evangelising mission by reflecting upon the following questions:

Is missionary work among non-Christians still relevant? Has it not been replaced by interreligious dialogue? Is not human development an adequate goal of the Church’s mission? Is it not possible to attain salvation in any religion? Why then should there be missionary activity?[72]

The Pope also dealt with the issues concerning the Catholic Church's relation with non-Christians to determine the relationship between dialogue and mission. He reserved three passages to discuss the Catholic Church's relation with non-Christians under the title “Dialogue with our Brothers and Sisters of other Religions” in chapter five of the encyclical. Those passages need to be examined to find out how the Magisterium perceives interreligious dialogue within the context of the Church's missionary activities.

In the first passage, the Pope describes dialogue as “a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment” and then sees it “as a part of the Church’s evangelizing mission”, since, according to him there is “no conflict between proclaiming Christ and engaging in interreligious dialogue”.[73] Also, in this passage, he maintains that in the process of interreligious activity dialogue should be implemented by Christians “with the conviction that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone posses the fullness of the means of salvation”.[74] At this point, Eric J. Sharpe rightly asks the following questions, "If the other religious traditions do not possess the fullness of the means of salvation, what do they possess?"[75]

In the second passage, after repeating his Redemptor Hominis statement and the conciliar statement in Nostra Aetate concerning the requirement of esteem and respect of the Church for the values of non-Christian religions because of the availability of the Spirit in them, the Pope goes on to say that during the dialogue process Christians can find the “seeds of the Word” and “a ray of that truth which enlightens all men” in their dialogue partners’ religions. He also asks that in that process non-Christian religions should be seen as positive challenges for the Church. For, he states that, thanks to dialogue the challenges of those religions” stimulate the Church both to discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ’s presence and the working of the Spirit” in non-Christian religions.[76] Here, the Pope recalls the conciliar statements which consider the truth and holy things of non-Christian religions as partial reflections of the Christian truth namely Jesus Christ. In other words, the Pope's statement means that the truth and holy things of non-Christian religions are the result of the hidden presence of Christ and Holy Spirit in them.

In the third passage, the Pope urges both Christians and non-Christians to develop the “dialogue of life” by sharing their spiritual experiences and trying to build “a more just and fraternal society”.[77] This means living together with people of other faiths as neighbours by establishing mutual respect and mutual understanding with them. In our opinion, this sort of dialogue can be regarded as the ideal dialogue which is necessary for people living together peacefully with those who belong to other faiths. As we will see in the next chapter, the World Council of Churches has emphasised this type of dialogue in its documents almost on every occasion.

In addition to these passages, there are also some important statements which relate to the Catholic Church’s attitude towards non-Christians. For example, at the beginning of the encyclical the Pope announces Jesus Christ as the “one saviour of all, the only one able to reveal God and lead to God” by arguing that “salvation can only come from” him.[78] Undoubtedly, this implies that no one else can grant salvation. Knitter indicates that by stressing this absoluteness and superiority of Jesus for salvation, the Pope is saying that “whatever other ‘mediations’ of God’s love there may be in other religions, ‘they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his’”.[79] Knitter further clarifies that with this argument the Pope does not only reject “just parallel revelations that would be equalised, but he also rejects complementary revelations that could learn from each other”.[80]

After this announcement, the Pope maintains that this “salvation is offered to all” by declaring:

The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be concretely available to all. But it is clear today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free co-operation.[81]

When this passage is examined, it can be seen that it reflects the main teaching of both Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church concerning the position of non-Christians in the process of interreligious dialogue after the Second Vatican Council and even before it. The following points can be drawn from the above passage.

The salvation granted by Christ primarily for those within the Church is available universally for all people. Normally, to attain this salvation it is necessary to accept the Gospel message or to enter into the Church. But, in today’s world there are many good people in other religions whose social and cultural conditions do not allow them to accept the Gospel message or to enter into the church. For those people salvation becomes available through the grace of Christ by the help of the Holy Spirit. This passage implies that non-Christians, one way or another, should be connected with the Christian message or Christianity to attain salvation because their own religious traditions do not have salvific value to provide salvation to them. Briefly, this passage of Redemptoris Missio indicates that there is the possibility of salvation for non-Christians, but this occurs not through their own religious traditions but through the hidden presence of Christ and the universal activity of the Holy Spirit in them.

In fact, this kind of understanding is not new and particular to Pope John Paul II, since similar ideas had been developed by Pope Pius XII and Karl Rahner before the Second Vatican Council, as we have observed in the first chapter. The arguments of this passage are particularly compatible with Rahner’s theses concerning Christianity’s relationship with non-Christian religions. For that reason, we may say that Rahner’s views concerning non-Christians became the official teaching of the Catholic Church roughly thirty years after their development by Rahner.[82] It should be clarified, however, that with regard to the function of the Church there is a difference between Rahner and Pope John Paul II's views. For, while the Pope gives the Church a very significant place because of her function of making Christ known in the world, Rahner questions this function of the Church because of the objective nature of Christ's action.

As has been seen, in Redemptor Hominis and Redemtoris Missio, Pope Paul II's affirmation of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of non-Christians can be regarded as a positive development. However, in his apostolic letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente [1994] he seems rather negative by arguing that non-Christian religions are fulfilled in Jesus Christ and Christianity. These are seen in terms of God's self-communication in his Son, incarnate in response to the universal human search for God expressed in the religious traditions. He states that "The Incarnate Word is the fulfillment of the yearning present in all the religions of mankind: this fulfillment is brought about by God himself and transcends all human expectations. Christ is the fulfillment of the yearning of all world religions, and as such, he is their sole and the definitive completion."[83]

In addition to the statements of these two encyclicals, there are also other significant statements in Pope John Paul II's various addresses which will be highlighted.

In his address to the leaders of non-Christian religions, during his visit to India, the Pope remarked that thanks to dialogue, which depends on mutual respect and mutual understanding, followers of different religions can overcome barriers and difficulties to create a more friendly environment as they try to solve problems and promote common ideals of humanity.[84]

In his address to the Roman Curia after the World Day of Prayer in Assisi[85] with the followers of various religions, he repeated his argument concerning the presence of the Holy Spirit in all people by declaring that “every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person”.[86] Thus, the Pope acknowledged the active presence of the Holy Spirit in non-Christian religions. Also, in this address, he advocated that the Assisi meeting with the representatives of various world religions was “the visible expression” of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council concerning non-Christian religions, since, according to the Pope, this meeting verified the Council’s idea that all humanity has the same divine origin and non-Christian religions have some values.[87]

In his letter to the Bishops of Asia in 1990, the Pope condemns those who adopt a pluralist theology of religions. As we will see in further chapters, the pluralist theologians such as Hick, Smith and Knitter argue that the Church or Christ or even Christianity is one way of salvation among many other ways.[88] The Pope rejects all these views by arguing that they contradict the Gospel message. In this letter he also maintains that to accept the possibility of salvation for non-Christians because of the hidden presence of Christ and the universal activity of the Spirit is not an obstacle to calling them to be members of the Church by being baptised.[89]

Besides his encyclicals and addresses, Pope John Paul II has visited a number of Muslim states and delivered a number of crucial speeches to the Muslim audiences during those visits. In those speeches the Pope usually tried to emphasise what Christians and Muslims have in common.[90] His most famous speech delivered on 19th of August in 1985 to Muslim youths in Casablanca, Morocco[91] will be examined as an example. This speech would seem to cover most of the points mentioned in his other speeches.

First of all, he reminded the youth that Christians and Muslims have many things in common as human beings and as believers in God. As human beings, he said, both Christians and Muslims live in the same world, a world that is “marked by many signs of hope, but also by multiple signs of anguish”. As believers, too, both Christians and Muslims “believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and his creatures to their perfection” by accepting Abraham as their model. This God wants all believers to respect every human being, by regarding him/her “as a friend, a companion, a brother” or sister; to help him/her “when he is wounded, when he is abandoned, when he is hungry and thirsty, in short, when he no longer knows where to find his direction on the pathways of life”.

Secondly, after summarising the teaching of Vatican II, the Pope told the youth that his coming to meet them was proof of the spirit of that teaching, in which the Church committed itself to seek collaboration among believers. For Christians and Muslims this collaboration or dialogue as well as joint witness to God “in a world which is becoming more and more secularised at times even atheistic”, is more necessary today than ever. He added that as believers both Christians and Muslims must give witness to the spiritual values which the world needs, such as the worship of God, “prayer of praise and supplication”, and the search for God’s will. This sort of witnessing, he maintained, should be carried out within the context of respect for others, since “everyone hopes to be respected for what he in fact is , and for what he conscientiously believes”.

Thirdly, the Pope urged Muslim youth to combine their love, self-discipline and collaboration with others, and struggle against the ills of the world such as racism, misunderstanding, wars, injustice, and unemployment in order to build a better and peaceful world, a world of the twenty-first century.

Lastly, he encouraged Christians to respect the religious approach of Muslims and recognise the richness of their religion by esteeming their own religion. The Pope finished his speech by praying “O God, author of justice and peace, grant us true joy and authentic love, as a lasting fraternity among all peoples. Fill us with Your gifts for ever”.

Recently, In his Crossing the Threshold of Hope [1994], Pope John Paul II reserves one chapter on Islam under the name "Muhammad?". It is very strange that although he calls that chapter Muhammad with a question mark, he does not mention his status or role in Islamic faith. The most challenging part of this chapter is that, on the one hand, the Pope expresses his deep respect and esteem of the religious life of Muslims as he did in his Redemptor Hominis by declaring:

The religiosity of Muslims deserves respect. It is impossible not to admire, for example, their fidelity to prayer. The image of believers in Allah who, without caring about time or place, fall to their knees and immerse themselves in prayer remains a model for all those who invoke the true God, in particular for those Christians who, having deserted their magnificent cathedrals, pray only a little or not all.[92]

But, on the other hand, he criticises the Muslim doctrine of God because of its rejection of the Christian teaching of God and doctrine of the Incarnation by arguing:

In Islam, all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testament, has definitely been set aside. He is ultimately a God outside of the world, God is only Majesty, never Emmanuel. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet. The tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very different from Christianity.[93]

As can be seen in the first quotation, the Pope praises Muslims because of their loyalty to observing daily prayer and belief in God under any circumstances. In this sense it seems that he encourages Christians to follow their example. But, in the second one his attitude towards Islam seems rather negative. He strongly reproaches Islam for not accepting the Christian teaching of God. This quotation also implies that Christianity is superior to Islam. By criticising the Muslim doctrine of God the Pope moves away from the teaching of Nostra Aetate which praises that doctrine as observed in Chapter One, section 1.5.1.

In short, as his predecessor Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II has also taken the teaching of Vatican II as the basis for his own teaching about non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular. On almost every occasion he recalls the conciliar statements by praising them. But, unlike Pope Paul VI he uses the term "dialogue" very often in his encyclicals and addresses both Christian and Muslim audiences by encouraging all people to come together to establish better relations with each other. In this sense, it can be said that this Pope has seen the dialogical approach as a necessity for better relations towards those who belong different religious traditions.

Further, our examination shows that his teaching differs from Pope Paul VI with regard to contexts and addressees. For example, when the practical issues such as peace, justice, and human welfare are mentioned the Pope employs very positive statements. He even calls non-Christians brothers or sisters. But when theological issues are discussed, his attitude becomes rather negative. With regard to the question of salvation Pope John Paul II strongly argues that there is only one way to salvation and that it is the Christian way namely through Jesus Christ. On the other hand, he tries to extend this exclusively Christian salvation to non-Christians by reference to the work of the Holy Spirit. He maintains that Jesus Christ is at work in non-Christian religions through the Spirit who is universally available and active in every religious tradition.

Concerning his teaching about Muslims, we may say that while in most statements the Pope seems to go beyond the conciliar statements by calling Muslims brothers and sisters and praising their worship on every occasion, in some of his statements he seems to move away from the Council's positive attitude towards the Muslim doctrine of God.

Briefly, from the theological point of view we may conclude that in his recent statements, such as Redemptoris Missio and Tertio Millennia Adveniente, Pope John Paul II seems to urge Christians to return to the pre-conciliar period in which non-Christians have been seen related to the Church by "implicit faith" or "baptism of desire" or as "anonymous Christians". In this sense, instead of going beyond the teaching of Vatican II, Pope John Paul gives the impression that he wants to go back to the pre-conciliar period. It could be argued that the most important reason for this negative development is the shift of Christian theology of religions from inclusivism to pluralism as is seen in the writings of some renowned theologians.

After examining the highly official Catholic Church's statements which were produced by the Popes, we will move to elaborate on less official Catholic statements which were developed by the Secretariat [Pontifical Council]. In doing so, we first of all will consider the significant points of Guidelines for Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims [1969,1981], before turning to examine two significant documents of the Pontifical Council namely Dialogue and Mission [1984]and Dialogue and Proclamation [1991].

As indicated above, the Secretariat published its first guidelines in 1969 and within ten years it became clear that those guidelines had played an important role in Christian-Muslim relations. For that reason the authorities of the Secretariat decided to bring out a new edition by taking into account new developments in Christian-Muslim relations. This new edition was produced by Fr. M. Borrmans in French and then translated and published in English in 1990, as has been noted in section 2.2.1. Although this Guidelines seems to be the work of Borrmans, it was authorised by the Pontifical Council. For that reason we consider it as an official statement.

Some important points of these two guidelines should be noted. Cardinal Arinze, the President of Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, states that the main objective of these guidelines was "to provide a basic knowledge of Islamic beliefs and practices so that Christians may be better prepared to engage in dialogue with Muslims”.[94] Both of them affirm the absolute necessity of dialogue with Muslims, with the caution that their goal is not to “fix definite formulae for such a dialogue, but rather define the spirit in which it should take place”.[95] The 1969 Guidelines states the general aim of the dialogue as a stimulation to “those taking part not to remain inert in the position they have adopted, but to help all concerned to find a way to become better people in themselves and to improve their relations with one another.…”[96] The 1981 Guidelines remarked that “true dialogue involves the bold venture of individuals who wish to be enriched by their differences, to share their common values, and to respond as individuals to the calls the Lord addresses to each one most intimately”.[97]

Without going into detail[98] concerning the content of these guidelines, we would like to point out their most significant points concerning the development of Christian-Muslim dialogue. These are their statements about Islam as a religion and the Prophet Muhammad. These two points were ignored in the conciliar statements as noted in the first chapter.

The first point is that Islam is regarded as a religious system which Muslims follow during their lives. The 1969 Guidelines defined Islam “as a faith, as progress towards God and the final realisation of all man’s potentialities”.[99] Troll rightly pointed out that Christians can “esteem” and “respect” Muslims only if they consider Islam “first of all as a faith”.[100] The 1981 Guidelines, too, consider Islam “as a monotheistic and prophetic religion having ties--not yet well defined--with the Judeo-Christian tradition, and as a faith in which the Abrahamic model of faith and submission to God is upheld in all its implications”.[101] But, as Troll indicates these Guidelines abstain from giving details in this issue.[102]

The second point concerns the Christians’ view of the Prophet Muhammad. On this issue the 1981 Guidelines urge Christians to leave aside negative and prejudiced judgements which come from past polemics and apologetics. It says that

Christians should assess an objective way, and in consonance with their faith, exactly what was the inspiration, the sincerity and the faithfulness of the Prophet Muhammad, making their judgement within the framework, first, of his personal response to the commands of God, and then on a wider scale, that of the working of providence in world history.[103]

Although, here, for the first time the Catholic Church officially speaks of Muhammad as a prophet, this should not be understood that the Church acknowledges the prophethood of Muhammad as Muslims do. Later these Guidelines are seen to regard Muhammad, on the other hand, as a “great literary, political and religious genius", who possessed particular qualities which enabled him to lead multitudes to the worship of the true God. On the other hand, the Guidelines suggest that Christians can find “evidence of certain mistakes and important misapprehensions” in his teaching.[104]

Further, the Guidelines remark that Christians can find some elements of prophethood by saying, “His faith in the One God is a constant of his message and of his life his call for justice and for human dignity is a cry that cannot be silenced”. They finish by encouraging Christians to use the statement of the Patriarch Timothy of Baghdad in their evaluation of the prophethood of Muhammad. “‘Muhammad followed the way of the prophets for he surely conformed to their example, without, however, corresponding fully to the One whom they foretold”.[105]

The views of individual scholars on the prophethood of Muhammad have influenced the Catholic Church's view of the Prophet: the statements used in these Guidelines concerning the status of the Prophet Muhammad are similar to those of individual scholars such as Watt, Cragg and Küng.[106]

2.6. The Documents of the Secretariat concerning the Relationship between Mission, Proclamation and Dialogue

As has been observed in the previous chapter, the conciliar statements, the activities of the Secretariat, the statements of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, and the Guidelines for Dialogue all have urged Christians to enter into dialogue with non-Christians by listening to, and learning from, them. This openness to other religions caused some anxieties and ambiguities about the mission policy of the Catholic Church in the minds of both Christians and non-Christians. While some Church authorities considered dialogue an alternative to mission, some non-Christians regarded dialogue as a new missionary policy of the Catholic Church with conversion as its focus.

Our main objective in studying the significant documents of the Pontifical Council concerning the relationship between mission, dialogue and proclamation is to observe what the Church authorities have done to remove the anxieties of both Christians and non-Christians concerning the function of dialogue. When the authorities of the Pontifical Council began to discuss the relationship between dialogue, mission and proclamation in its various plenary meetings they produced two significant documents, namely, Dialogue and Mission [1984] and Dialogue and Proclamation [1991]. The essential points of these two documents with regard to interreligious dialogue can be summarised as follows.

The main objectives of the promulgation of this document are spelled out as follows: To reflect on the Church's experiences of interreligious dialogue over 20 years[107]; to offer solutions to "difficulties which can arise from the duties of evangelisation and dialogue which are found in the mission of the Church";[108] and to help people of other faiths to understand more accurately the Church's approach towards them in the process of dialogue.[109]

In the promulgation of this document, Pope John Paul II considers dialogue as a fundamental duty of the Church for the following reasons: God is the Father of the entire human family; Jesus Christ has joined every person to himself; and the Holy Spirit works in each individual.[110] The Pope considers this dialogue as a dialogue of salvation because it finds its place within the Church’s salvific mission. He urges Christians to carry out this duty by avoiding “exclusivism and dichotomies”, since according to him “authentic dialogue becomes a witness and true evangelization is accomplished by respecting and listening to one another”.

In the first section, the document describes mission as a special activity through which the Church makes itself fully present among peoples. It states that this missionary function of the Church includes "the simple presence and living witness of the Christian life";[111] the service of humanity; liturgical life, prayer, and contemplation; dialogue in which Christians meet followers of other religions in order to discover the truth and come together to solve the common problems of humanity; and the announcement to them of the good news of the Gospel. This document also affirms that every Christian should respect others and recognise their freedom by rejecting any form of coercion to convert them.[112] The most significant point of this section is that for the first time in an official Roman Catholic document dialogue "with the followers of other religious traditions in order to walk together toward truth and to work together in projects of common concern" was included among the main duties of the church's mission.[113] By this inclusion dialogue became a necessary norm for Christians.

Although this can be seen as a positive development, the document also adopts the old-age missionary instructions of St. Francis Assisi as a mission policy of the Catholic Church in the contemporary world instead of developing a more open approach to world religions.[114] In this respect, the Roman Catholic Church urges its followers to establish good relations with non-Christians not to acknowledge their ways as true and acceptable to God, but to prepare a suitable environment to proclaim the Gospel message to them. Thus, this kind of understanding can lead us to conclude that the main purpose of the Catholic Church in its dialogue with non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular is to prepare them for the Christian faith. The statement of the head of the Society of Jesus, Peter H. Kolvenbach, concerning the nature of Christian Muslim dialogue supports this conclusion. He maintains that the Catholics are taking part in dialogue with Muslims in a spirit of friendliness and love in order to bear witness of the Christian faith to them.[115]

In the second section, dialogue is seen as "a manner of acting, an attitude and a spirit which guides one's conduct".[116] It indicates that this kind of dialogue wants the dialogue partners to show “concern, respect, and hospitality toward the other” by leaving “room for the other person's identity, his modes of expression, and his values”. Because of these characteristics of dialogue, the document regards it as “the norm and necessary manner for every form of Christian mission”,[117] and urges all Christians to "live dialogue in their daily lives”.[118]

This document identifies four different types of dialogue, namely: dialogue of life, dialogue of deeds, dialogue of specialists, and dialogue of religious experience to encourage Christian dialogue partners to adopt dialogical attitudes towards other people as a way of life.[119] In the context of these types of dialogue, the document regards dialogue not only as a distinct aspect of evangelisation, but also as "an attitude and a spirit" and "the norm and the necessary manner of every form of Christian mission, as well as of every aspect of it, whether one speaks of simple presence and witness, service, or direct proclamation".[120]

In the last section, the document highlights the relationship between mission and dialogue. On the one hand, it states that "missionary proclamation has conversion as its goal: 'that non-Christians be freely converted to the Lord under the action of the Holy Spirit'". By arguing this it gives the impression that in the process of dialogue Christians should proclaim their faith to their dialogue partner by hoping to convert them to Christianity through the universal activity of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, by defining conversion as "the humble and penitent return of the heart to God" it calls all people, Christians and non-Christians, to this conversion.[121] By arguing this, it implies that the spirit of conversion is not to convert from one faith to another but is to convert to the way of God.

Further, the document urges Christians to enter into dialogue with non-Christians by recognising "seeds of goodness and truth" wherever they exist in order to built up genuine peace in the world by promoting social transformation and overcoming racial, social, and religious differences, and accomplishing mutual understanding among all people.[122] Thus, dialogue is considered by the Secretariat as a way of coming together to establish mutual understanding and mutual enrichment between people of different faiths.

In this official Catholic document for the first time dialogue is defined as walking together with people of other religions in order to seek "truth and to work together in projects of common concern”. This is regarded as one of the principal elements of the Church's mission.[123] On this point, Knitter rightly argues that the document did not say anything about how such dialogue as”‘ walking together toward truth’ was to be integrated and balanced with other aspects of the church’s mission, especially its duty to proclaim”.[124]

This document offers three solutions concerning the relationship between dialogue and mission. Firstly, it presents the evangelising mission of the church so comprehensively that dialogue is intrinsic to it. Secondly, it gives a broad view of dialogue with its varied forms, and makes it an obligation for Christians to pursue dialogue in one form or another. Thirdly, it concludes that there is no question of choosing between dialogue and mission but that there clearly is a duty of doing both mission and dialogue.[125]

In short, in this document, the Pontifical Council, on the one hand, makes a clear distinction between the motives, methods, and expectations which belongs to "mission and conversion"; on the other hand, it points out the necessity of dialogue with people of other faiths for the building of God's reign. In our opinion, with regard to the development of the Christian-Muslim dialogue the most significant point of this document is its emphasis that "the most basic requirement for fruitful dialogue is the need truly to respect the other as 'other' and the ability to listen to him/her.[126] Although this is a positive contribution, the document as a whole does not contribute enough to the development of interreligious dialogue in general and dialogue with Muslims in particular. For, instead of clarifying the relationship between mission and dialogue which Vatican II left open, it makes it more confusing by regarding dialogue as the norm and necessary manner for every form of Christian mission. Because of this it is very difficult to conclude that this document has made a positive contribution to the development of the Christian-Muslim dialogue by going beyond the teaching of Vatican II.

As has been pointed out, this document was produced jointly by the Secretariat and the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples in 1991. By taking up the issue of the relationship between dialogue and mission, where the previous document left off, this document tries to bring solutions to the following questions concerning the relationship between dialogue and proclamation as Cardinal F. Arinze stated in his presentation of this document:

If the Church is engaged in dialogue does this mean that she has given up proclaiming salvation in Jesus Christ? Conversely, if the Church is to engage in preaching Jesus Christ and proposing to people faith in him and entry into the Church through baptism, does this mean that dialogue is no longer valid? Are the two mutually exclusive? Do they cancel each other out? What is the relationship between them?[127]

This document consists of three main parts namely, (1) Inter-religious dialogue, (2) Proclaiming Jesus Christ, (3) the Relationship between Inter-Religious Dialogue and Proclamation. We will highlight the significant points of parts one and three concerning the relationship between dialogue, mission and proclamation in the process of dialogue and omit part two because it is not directly related to our concern here.

In its first part, "Inter-religious dialogue", the document firstly deals with the issue of "A Christian approach to religious pluralism". By doing this, it indicates that the attitude of Christians towards the followers of other religions depends on their evaluation of those religions,[128] and in this connection points out that those religions "are to be approached with great sensitivity on the account of the spiritual and human values enshrined in them".[129] After making this point, the document recalls the conciliar statements of Vatican II concerning the presence of truth and holy things in non-Christian religions and concludes that Vatican II has openly acknowledged the presence of positive values through which people can reach salvation through the religions to which they belong.

Our examination of the conciliar statements in the previous chapter has already shown that to take this sort of conclusion from those statements would be to misread them. For, although the Catholic Church acknowledges the availability of positive values in non-Christian religions, she argues that the acceptability of those values depends on their compatibility with the Christian values.[130] Furthermore, the conciliar statements state that the positive values of other religions are not because of those religions, but is due to “the active presence of God through His Word” and to the “universal presence of the Spirit” in them. Also by referring to Lumen Gentium 16, we note this document maintains that those positive values of other religions should be regarded as a preliminary preparation for the Gospel and divine economy of salvation.[131]

After the clarification of the origin of the positive values which are available in non-Christians religions, the document moves on to explain their roles for the salvation of non-Christians. In this connection, it states:

Concretely, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s initiation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognise or acknowledge Him as their saviour.[132]

This statement of Dialogue and Proclamation explicitly implies that the Roman Catholic Church went beyond the teaching of the Second Vatican Council by acknowledging non-Christian religions as bearers of the saving and enlightening Divine Spirit. As Dupuis rightly observes, this is "a weighty statement, not found before in official documents of the central teaching authority, and whose theological import must not be underestimated".[133] For, what this statement indicates is that the people of other faiths can attain salvation through Jesus Christ, not in spite of their religious traditions but in and through them. By this statement, the Roman Catholic Church seems to follow Rahner's consideration of non-Christian religions as "lawful" religions.[134]

It seems that after this positive statement, in order to keep the balance or to decrease the possible objections of some Christians, the document maintains that there is one salvation history, starting from creation and it is not peculiar to one nation or one religion, but for the whole of mankind.[135] It argues that this universality of salvation history does not cause any trouble for the Church's mission, since it showed an open attitude towards non-Jewish people and entered into dialogue with them.[136] This document also advocates that the Holy Spirit is actively present in the life of the followers of other religions by referring to the expressions of Pope John Paul II and the Second Vatican Council. In his encyclical Redemptor Hominis, as noted above the Pope explicitly affirms the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of everyone whether Christian or not . In other words, the Holy Spirit is also active outside the boundaries of the Church.[137] The Second Vatican Council, too, stated that the Spirit is at work in the hearts of every person through the seeds of the Word to be found in human initiatives and in man's efforts to attain truth, goodness and God himself.[138] The interesting point here is that it is argued that the Holy Spirit is active in the lives of individual people and not in their religious traditions. In other words, the Catholic authorities seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is active in the lives of individual Muslims, but not in their religion, Islam.

This document, further, maintains that this function of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people of other faiths can be regarded as a theological basis for the Church's positive approach to the other religions and the practice of inter religious dialogue.[139] The same document indicates that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people of other faiths does not make any sense alone without Jesus Christ for their salvation. It argues that all people can attain salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit. The document says:

all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit. Christians know this through their faith, while others remain unaware that Jesus Christ is the source of their salvation. The mystery of salvation reaches out to them, in a way known to God, through the invisible action of the Spirit of Christ.[140]

According to this document, Jesus is the “new and definitive Covenant for all people”[141] and, thanks to him, “the fullness of revelation and salvation”[142] is available in the world, and for these reasons “there is one plan of salvation for humankind, with its centre in Jesus Christ”.[143] It further argues that "to say that other religious traditions include elements of grace does not imply that everything in them is good and is the result of grace, although it indicates that those religions embrace God's grace and may bring their followers to salvation.[144] So, this document implies that the Christian faith is superior to other faiths because it has the full truth.

Secondly, the document examines "The place of inter religious dialogue in the evangelising mission of the Church". In doing so, it remarks that the objective of inter religious dialogue should go beyond mutual understanding and friendly relations between the participants to "reach a much deeper level, where exchange and sharing consists in a mutual witness to one’s beliefs and a common exploration of one's respective religious convictions". In order to reach this level, it urges both Christians and non-Christians "to deepen their religious commitment, to respond with increasing sincerity to God's personal call and gracious self-gift which, as our faith tell us, always passes through the mediation of Jesus Christ and the work of his Spirit".[145] Here, the document makes a very positive statement concerning the aim of dialogue. It implies that while Christians increase their religiosity through the mediation of Christ and the Spirit, the others, too, can do the same thing through the mediation of their own religious figures, and it continues with the statement that the aim of interreligious dialogue should be "a deeper conversion of all toward God". Further, it correctly states that in sincere dialogue the participants should accept their differences mutually by respecting "the free decision of persons taken according to the dictates of their conscience".[146] Thirdly, the document deals with "Forms of dialogue" by recalling the four types of dialogue outlined in Dialogue and Mission.[147]

Fourthly, the document considers the issue of "Dispositions for inter religious dialogue and its fruits". In doing so, it invites participants in dialogue to be "open and receptive" to each other by recognising their differences.[148] It rightly warns the participants of dialogue not to leave their own religious convictions for the sake of dialogue. On the contrary, it says "the sincerity of inter-religious dialogue requires that each enter into it with integrity of his or her own faith".[149]

Fifthly, the document discusses the issue of "Obstacles to dialogue". It enumerates eleven obstacles which negatively affect the process of interreligious dialogue. The most significant ones can be expressed as follows: inadequate knowledge not only of one's own faith but also of the beliefs and practices of other faiths, lack of openness, defensive and aggressive attitudes towards others, distrust of dialogue partner, and intolerance.[150] As the document rightly remarks, most of these obstacles stem from "a lack of understanding of the true nature and goal of interreligious dialogue".[151]

In the third part "Interreligious Dialogue And Proclamation", the document discusses the issue of relationship between dialogue and proclamation. It argues that interreligious dialogue and proclamation are two necessary elements of the Church's evangelising mission by pointing out their uninterchangeableness.[152] In other words, these two necessary elements, dialogue and proclamation, cannot be used in place of each other. It is claimed that the aim of true inter-religious dialogue should be the proclamation of Christ to others to make him better known and recognised by all people.[153]

This document explicitly maintains that “proclamation and dialogue are both viewed, each in its own place, as component elements and authentic forms of the one evangelizing mission of the Church”.[154] Then it tries to explain how these “component elements” play their role in the “single but complex reality” of the Church’s mission. First of all, the document clarifies its terminology by arguing that the phrase “evangelizing mission” may be rather misleading, because it does not mean the mission of preaching. For that reason, it uses the phrase “proclamation” to let all humanity hear and feel the values of good news and to “transform that humanity from within, making it new”.[155] After this clarification, the document maintains that dialogue and proclamation should be taken together, because “both are legitimate and necessary".[156] This implies that Christians should enter into dialogue with people of other faiths by proclaiming their own faith to them. In our opinion, if it was accepted that others might do the same, there would be no objection to it.

Nevertheless, the document in another passage urges the Church to extend her mission to all people by entering into dialogue with people of other religions and proclaiming Jesus Christ to them.[157] Thus, it would seem obvious that according to Dialogue and Proclamation both dialogue and proclamation are parts of the Church's missionary activities. This leads us to conclude that what the Catholic Church expects from entering into dialogue with others is to proclaim her own message to them, not to acknowledge their faiths as equal with Christianity.

This document, therefore, raises a number of points concerning the Church's objective in entering into dialogue with people of other faiths. The most important one of these points is to consider dialogue as an integral and essential part of the Church's mission policy. As has been observed, the Church authorities have produced various statements in order to encourage both Christians and non-Christians to develop their relationships since the Second Vatican Council. But by doing this, neither of them explicitly declared that Christians should enter into dialogue with others in order to proclaim their own faith to them.[158] Because of this, it could be argued that this document does not make a positive contribution to the developments of interreligious dialogue in general and Christian-Muslim dialogue in particular. Rather, it affects those relations negatively by increasing the anxieties of non-Christian partners.

The overall impression one gets from the document is that it makes proclamation more important and makes dialogue subordinate to proclamation, though it also states that both dialogue and proclamation are absolutely necessary. Here arises a question: Can we make dialogue subsidiary to proclaim and yet carry it out really as absolutely necessary.[159]

Gittens, too, asks whether in the light of the insistence of this document on the necessity of proclaiming the finality and superiority of Jesus Christ a Christian can really listen to and learn from other religious traditions in which he/she claims that God’s revelation is present.[160]

By concluding this section, we maintain that although the recognition of dialogue as an integral and essential part of the Church's mission policy seems a positive development as some theologians remark,[161] it can lead to a rather negative conclusion. For example, it could be argued that Christians must dialogue with non-Christians in order to evangelise them. In order to avoid this negative implication, it would be better to include mission in dialogue rather than dialogue in mission, as Knitter suggests.[162] For, this change implies that dialogue is not undertaken for the sake of mission, but mission is undertaken for the sake of dialogue.

After the epoch-making statements of the conciliar documents concerning the Catholic Church's relations with non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular, the Church authorities continued to produce more statements to develop interreligious dialogue and explain the main objectives of dialogue for Christians. The implications of these developments with regard to Christian-Muslim dialogue will be considered as follows.

1- The establishment of a special Secretariat to handle the dialogue work of the Catholic Church can be regarded as an important development in the Catholic Church's relations with non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular. Through the works of this Secretariat, both Christians and Muslims have had an opportunity to meet each other face to face which has led them to a better understanding of each other.

2- Through the encouragement of the Secretariat authorities, more and more Catholic representatives have started to be interested in studying Islam objectively. These studies have led the Church authorities to speak about some theological issues such as Islam as a religion, the Prophethood of Muhammad and the Qur'an which were ignored by the Council Fathers in the Second Vatican Council.

3- Thanks to the initiatives of the Secretariat authorities and some Muslim organisations, Christian-Muslim study groups have been set up in order to discuss some significant common questions. Through the activities of these study groups both Christians and Muslims have built bridges of friendship and trust.

4- After the prolific statements of Vatican II concerning Christian-Muslim dialogue the Popes, Pope Paul VI and John Paul II, have opened the Catholic Church's door to Muslims in order to promote Christian-Muslim dialogue. In this way, both have visited a number of Muslim countries and have been visited by Muslim delegations. They have given speeches to Muslim audiences using very positive terms. For example, Pope John Paul II on almost every occasion has addressed Muslims as "brothers or sisters" in faith. This sort of address of the Pope to Muslims theologically implies that the Pope acknowledges that Muslims are on the right way in their faiths. Practically, too, it shows the sincerity of the Pope concerning the development of Christian-Muslim dialogue.

5- One of the most important sides of Post-Vatican II developments has been the acceptance of the idea of "dialogue of life" as the foundation for interreligious dialogue. In our opinion, through this the scope of dialogue can be extended not only those who are expert in it but to all people. Thus, it can become an inseparable part of living in harmony together for those who belong to different religious traditions.

6- In the course of the dialogue process, both the Secretariat and other Church authorities have attempted to produce some statements concerning the relationship between dialogue, mission and proclamation. In this respect they have also tried to accommodate a theological place to non-Christians within the context of the Church's evangelising mission. By doing this, they have strongly considered the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as the only source of salvation for both Christians and non-Christians. To make available this Christian salvation for all people, they emphasise the necessity of the proclamation of the Gospel message to non-Christians by inviting them to accept it in the process of interreligious dialogue. Even, in some of the latest documents, such as Dialogue and Proclamation and Redemtoris Missio, it is argued that Christians should enter into dialogue with non-Christians in order to proclaim the Gospel message to them.

Except for the last point, all other ones contribute to the development of Christian-Muslim dialogue. The last point, however, affects those developments negatively, since seeing dialogue as the integral part of the Church mission policy increases the anxieties of non-Christians by leading them to think that the Catholic Church wants to enter into dialogue to proclaim the Christian message to them and thus lead them to convert to Christianity. This last point also underestimates the most significant principal of a fruitful dialogue namely, mutual trust and mutual understanding.

As has been argued at the end of the previous chapter, the conciliar statements of Vatican II concerning Muslims should be taken as a point of departure from previous attitudes towards Muslims rather than systematic guidelines for better relations with Muslims. In the light of our above examination of the post-Vatican II developments, we will now attempt to illustrate how far dialogue issues have been developed during the post-Vatican II period.

As has been illustrated in this chapter, both the authorities of the Secretariat for non-Christians and Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have sought to promote Christian-Muslim dialogue. While doing this, they have often repeated the conciliar teaching of the Second Vatican Council, but sometimes they went beyond it. For example, in the Tripoli meeting and in Guidelines For Dialogue between Christians and Muslims, some theological issues which were ignored in Vatican II were considered. In doing so, the Catholic Church made positive statements about Islam, the status of the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an. However, sometimes they returned to the pre-Vatican period in their teachings. For example the documents, Dialogue and Mission, Redemptoris Missio and Dialogue and Proclamation, clearly indicate that the Catholic Church teaching about non-Christian religions reflect the pre-conciliar period in which non-Christians were regarded as those who could attain salvation through either their "implicit faith" in Christ or "baptism of desire". They were also considered as "anonymous Christians," as we have seen at the beginning of the previous chapter.

The most important reason for this return to the pre-conciliar teaching of the Catholic Church would seem to be the developments in the Christian theology of religions. As we will see in chapter six, after the 1960s more and more theologians, both Catholic and non-Catholic, have attempted to develop a pluralist Christian theology of religions in order to give more room to people of other faiths. As we will see in chapter six, thinkers such as John Hick, Paul Knitter, and to some extent Hans Küng have gone beyond the official teaching of both the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches by arguing that Christianity or Christ or the Church is one way, among others, through which people can attain salvation. In order to respond to these pluralistic developments, the Church authorities strongly continue to proclaim Jesus Christ as the unique saviour of all humankind, as a warning to Christians not to risk their own beliefs for the sake of dialogue. The recent teaching of the Catholic Church therefore seems to close the door to any Christian dialogue with non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular except on exclusive Christian terms.

One interesting point of the post-Vatican II period is that many years after the Council the Catholic Church authorities refer very much to its teaching by using the following phrases "as Vatican II teaches", "the Council taught", and "the teaching of the Council" in their statements. This would seem that the teaching of the Council is not regarded by the Catholic authorities as a starting point but as the goal for interreligious dialogue.

Further, our examination of post-Vatican II developments have shown that although the authorities of the Pontifical Council or the Popes have not explicitly said so, their teaching of non-Christian religions reflects Karl Rahner's views which were laid out before the Second Vatican Council as noted at the beginning of the previous chapter. This can be regarded as the most significant development of this period, since it implies that the Catholic teaching went beyond the conciliar teaching by taking into account individual theologians' views. In short, we can conclude this chapter by stating that although it seems that in the post-Vatican II period the Church authorities have tried to squeeze the toothpaste into the tube which was poured out by the Second Vatican Council, this "cannot be done", as Fitzmaurice correctly maintains.[163]

Having examined the Catholic Church's official teaching concerning non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular, we will, now, move to examine non-Catholic Christian teaching in the light of the World Council of Churches' dialogue activities in the next chapter.

[1] For the sake of clarity we will use ‘The Secretariat’ up to 1989 and then, too, we will use "Pontifical Council" when we are referring to this organisation.

[2] Concerning the history of the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions and the development of Roman Catholic teaching on Intereligious dialogue, see Pietro Rossano, “The Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions from the Beginnings to the Present Day: History, Ideas, Problems”, Bulletin, 41-42(1979), pp. 88-109; Francis A. Arinze, "Prospects of Evangelization with Reference to the Area of Non-Christian Religions, Bulletin, 59 (111-140; Jean L. Jadot, “The Growth in the Roman Catholic Commitment to Interreligious Dialogue Since Vatican II”, JES, 20/3 (1983), pp. 365-378; Michael Fitzgerald, “The Secretariat for Non-Christians is 10 Years Old”, Islamochristiana, 1 (1975), pp. 87-96; Fitzgerald, “25 Years of Dialogue: The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue”, Islamochristiana, 15 (1989), pp. 109-120; Aylward Shorter, "The Secretariat For Non-Christians", in Hastings, ed., Modern Catholicism: Vatican II and After (London: SPCK, 1991), pp. 185-187; James H. Kroeger, "Milestones in Interreligious Dialogue", World Mission, August (1997), pp. 22-26.

[3] Secretariat For Non-Christian Religions, “The Attitude of the Church towards Other Religions: Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission”, Bulletin, 56 (1984), p. 127.

[4] Paulo Marella, “Nature, Presuppositions and Limits of Dialogue with Non-Christian Religions”, Bulletin, 10 (1969), p. 9.

[5] Marella, “Nature, Presuppositions and the Limits of Dialogue with Non-Christians”, pp. 9-10;

[6] Fitzgerald, “The Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions”, p. 91.

[7] Fitzgerald, "The Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions", p. 93.

[8] Towards the Meetings of religions: Suggestions for Dialogue, General Section, The Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions (Vatican City: Polyglot, 1967); The Secretariat For Non-Christian Religions, Guidelines For A Dialogue between Muslims and Christians (Rome, 1969)); Meeting the African Religions, The Secretariat For Non-Christian Religions (Rome, 1969).

[9] Sheard, Inter-religious Dialogue in the Catholic Church since Vatican II, p. 53.

[10] Sheard, Inter-religious Dialogue in the Catholic Church since Vatican II, p. 56.

[11] Guidelines For A Dialogue Between Muslims and Christians, pp. 7-8.

[12] Guidelines For A Dialogue BetweenMuslims and Christians, pp. 34-35.

[13] Meeting the African Religions, pp. 124-125.

[14] Meeting the African Religions, , pp. 124-125.

[15] Sheard, Interreligious Dialogue in the Catholic Church since Vatican II, p. 80-81.

[16] "Recommendation of the Four Section addressed to the Secretariat", Bulletin, 18(1971), p. 213-214

[17] Sheard, Interreligious Dialogue in the Catholic Church since Vatican II, p. 101.

[18] Pontifical Council For Inter-religious Dialogue, Recognise The Spiritual Bonds Which Unite Us, 16 years of Christian Muslim Dialogue (Rome: 1994), p.49.

[19] Rossano, "The Secretariat For Non-Christian Religions", pp. 96-97.

[20] “Text of the final declaration of the Tripoli Seminar”, Bulletin, 31 (1976), p. 14.

[21] “Text of the final declaration of the Tripoli Seminar”, p. 14.

[22] “Text of the Final Declaration of the Tripoli Seminar”, p. 17.

[23] “Report on the ‘Seminar on Islamic-Christian Dialogue’ held in Tripoli (1st-5th February 1976”, Bulletin, 31 (1976), p. 9.

[24] “Text of the Final Declaration of the Tripoli Seminar”, p.19.

[25] Concerning the establishment of this research group see Islamochristiana, 4 (1978), pp. 175-186; Muslim-Christian Research Group, The Challenge of the Scriptures: The Bible and the Qur’an (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1989), pp. 1-7.

[26] Recognizing the Spiritual Bonds, p.50.

[27] Fitzgerald, “Twenty-five Years of Dialogue”, p. 115.

[28] This revised version was prepared by Borrmans and published by the Secretariat in French in 1981 under the name of Orinetations pour un Dialogue entre Chretiens et Musulmans and was translated into English by R. Marston Speight under the name of Guidelines for Dialogue between Christian and Muslims and published by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue in 1990 (Borrmans, Guidelines for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims (New York: Paulist Press, 1990).

[29] Sesretariat for Non-Christian Religions, “The Attitude of the Church towards the Followers of Other Religions. Reflections and orientations on dialogue and mission”, Bulletin, 56 (1984), pp.126-141.

[30] Recognize The Spiritual Bonds, p.70-71; Fitzgerald, “Twenty-five years of Dialogue”, p. 116.

[31] See Islamochristiana 16 (1990), pp. 220-221.

[32] See Islamochristiana 18 (1992), pp. 318-321.

[33] See Islamochristiana, 20 (1994), p. 323.

[34] See Islamochristiana, 16 (1990), pp. 294-295.

[35] See Co-existence between Religions: Reality and Horizons, A Consultation between Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and World Islamic Call Society (Rome: Vatican Polyglot Press, 1990).

[36] See Islamochristiana, 20 (1994), p. 242.

[37] See Islamochristiana, 21 (1995), p. 172.

[38] Arinze, “The Way Ahead for Muslims and Christians”, Pro Dialogo, 91 (1996), p. 27.

[39] Arinze, “The Way Ahead for Muslims and Christians”, p. 28.

[40] Pontifical Council For Interreligious Dialogue, “Dialogue and Proclamation. Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”, Bulletin 77 (1991), pp. 201-250.

[41] For detail information about these plenary assemblies, see Bulletin 82, 28/1(1993), pp. 1-98 and Pro Dialogo, 92/2 (1996), pp. 153-274.

[42] We will examine the related statements of this encyclical below.

[43] Fitzgerald, “Plenary Assembly 1995: An Overview”, Pro Dialogo, 92/2 (1996), pp. 150-152.

[44] Fitzgerald, "Plenary Assembly 1995", p. 150.

[45] Pope Paul VI, Paths of the Church, Ecclesiam Suam, Encyclical Letter of Paul VI (Boston: St. Paul Books& Media).

[46] Pope Paul VI, “Evangelii Nuntiandi”, in M. Walsh & B. Davies, eds., Proclaiming Justice and Peace (London: Collins), pp. 204-242.

[47] Recognize the Spiritual Bonds, p. 7.

[48] Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions, p. 240.

[49] Ecclesiam Suam 70ff.

[50] Ecclesiam Suam 108.

[51] Ecclesiam Suam 81.

[52] Ecclesiam Suam 66.

[53] Ecclesiam Suam 107.

[54] Ecclesiam Suam. 88.

[55] See Mariasusai Dhavamony, “Evangelization and Dialogue in Vatican II and in the 1974 Synod”, in Latourelle, ed., Vatican II Assessment and Perspectives Twenty Years After (1962-1987), pp.264-281.

[56] Evangelii Nuntiandi 53.

[57] See Dhavamony, “Evangelization and Dialogue in Vatican II and in the 1974 Synod”, p. 278.

[58] Evangelii Nuntiandi 53:2-3.

[59] L'Osservatore Romano, March 23 (1966), p. 1.

[60] Sullivan, Salvation outside the Church, pp. 186-187.

[61] In that article Danielou says that "The religions are a gesture of man towards God; revelation is the witness of a gesture of God towards man. The religions are creations of human genius; they witness to the value of exalted religious personalities, such as Buddha, Zoroaster, Orpheus. But they also have the defects of what is human. Revelation is the work of God alone. Religion expresses man's desire for God. Revelation witnesses that God has responded to that desire. Religion does not save. Jesus Christ grants salvation (Jean Danielou, "Christianisme et religions non-chretienes", Etudes, 312 (1964), pp. 323-336 cited in Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church, p. 187).

[62] Küng, “The World Religions in God’s Plan of Salvation”, pp. 25-66.

[63] Evangelii Nuntiandi 80:2.

[64] Evangelii Nuntiandi 80.

[65] For Pope Paul VI's statements concerning Muslims see, Pope Paul VI, "To the Representatives of Muslims in Turkey", in Francesco Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church 1963-1995 (Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1997, pp. 149-150; "To the Islamic Community of Uganda", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 164-165; "To the New Ambassador of Pakistan", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, p. 168; "To the Faithful of Indenesia", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 176-177.

[66] Encyclical Redemptor Hominis of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (Ottowa, 1980).

[67] Pope John Paul II, “Redemptor Mission: An Encyclical Letter on the Permanent Validity of the Church’s Missionary Mandate”, W.R. Burrows, ed., Redemption and Dialogue; Reading Redemprotis Missio and Dialogue and Proclamation (Maryknoll : Orbis Books, 1993), pp. 3-55.

[68] Redemptor Hominis 6:3.

[69] Redemptor Hominis 11:2.

[70] Redemptor Hominis 11:2.

[71] Redemptor Hominis 12.

[72] Redemptoris Missio 4:3.

[73] Redemptoris Missio 55:1.

[74] Redemptoris Missio 55:3.

[75] Eric J. Sharpe, “Mission between Dialogue and Proclamation”, in Burrows, ed., Redemption and Dialogue, pp. 161-172.

[76] Redemptoris Missio 56.

[77] Redemptoris Missio 57.

[78] Redemptoris Missio 5:1.

[79] Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1996), p. 133; Redemptoris Missio 5:4.

[80] Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 133.

[81] Redemptoris Missio 10.

[82] See Rahner, “Christianity and the Non-Christians Religions”, pp. 115-134.

[83] Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, p. 108.

[84] Pope John Paul II, “Address to the Leaders of Other Religions”, in Neuner & Dupuis, eds., The Christian Faith, pp. 409-410.

[85] The Pope convened religious leaders around the world in Assisi on October 27, 1986 in order to pray for world peace. The primary purpose of this meeting was to display to the entire world a commitment to peace and to do so in religious way (see Bulletin, 22 (1987), pp. 11-160; A. Camps, "The Prayers for Peace at Assisi, October 27, 1986: What was Shared", eds. Jerald D. Gort et al., On Sharing Religious Experience; Possibilities of Interfaith Mutuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), pp. 255-266; Francis Arinze, "The Engagement of the Catholic Church in Interreligious Dialogue since Assisi 1986", Pro Dialogo, 95/2 ( 1997), pp. 204-212).

[86] Pope John Paul II, “Address to the Roman Curia”, in Neuner & Dupuis, eds., The Christian Faith, p. 411.

[87] Pope John Paul II, “Address to the Roman Curia”, p. 414.

[88] See chapter six concerning the pluralist understanding of Jesus and salvation.

[89] Pope John Paul, “Letter to the Bishops of Asia”, in Neuner & Dupuis, eds., The Christian Faith, p. 415.

[90] Concerning the Pope’s speeches to Muslim audiences, see Pope John Paul II, “To the Catholic Community of Ankara (11.29.1979)”, in Gioia, ed. Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 219-222; "To the Muslim Leaders of Kenya (Nairobi, May 7, 1980)", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 226-227; "To the Leaders of Ghanaian Muslims (Accra, May 8, 1980)" in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, p. 229; "To the Representatives of the Muslim Community in France (Paris, May 31, 1980)", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 233-234; "To the People of Pakistan (Karachi, February 16, 1981)", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 234-235; "To the Representative of Muslims of the Philippines (Davao, February 20, 1981)", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 235-237; "To the Representatives of the Muslims of Belgium (Brussels, May 19, 1985)", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 284-285; "To the Professors from Turkey in Rom (Rome, May 12, 1989), in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 4030404; "Message to All Muslims in Favor of Lebanon (Rome, September 7, 1989)", pp. 416-417; "To the Participants in a 'Colloquium between Christians and Muslims' (Rome, December 7, 1989)", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 424-425; "Message to the Faithful of Islam at the End of the Month of Ramadan (Rome, April 3, 1991)", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 451-543; "To the Islamic Leaders of Senegal (Dakar, February 22, 1992)", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 475-479; "To the Representatives of the European Islamic Community (Assisi, January 10, 1993)", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 504-505; "To the Representatives of the Muslims of Benin (Parakou, February 4, 1993)", in Gioia, ed., Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 506-507. For further information about the Pope's teaching about Muslims see, Michel, "Pope John Paul II's Teaching About Islam In His Adresses To Muslims", IMA, 18 (1987), pp. 67- 76; Jan van Lin, "Mission and Dialogue, God and Jesus Christ", in Gé Speelman et al, eds, Muslims and Christians in Europe: Breaking New Ground (Uitgeverij Kok: Kampen, 1993), pp. 162-178.

[91] Pope John Paul II, “The Speech of the Holy Father John Paul II to Young Muslims During His Meeting With Them at Casablanca, Morocco”, Encounter, 1985, pp. 1-10.

[92] Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (London: Jonathan Cape, 1994), p. 93.

[93] Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, pp. 92-93.

[94] Arinze, “Preface to the English Translation”, in Guidelines for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims, p. 5.

[95] Guidelines for a Dialogue between Muslims and Christians, p. 9.

[96] Guidelines for a Dialogue between Muslims and Christians, p. 10.

[97] Borrmans, Guidelines for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims, p. 10.

[98] For detailed information of the context of these Guidelines see John Renard, "Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Review of Six Post-Vatican II, Church-Related Documents", JES, 23/1 (1986), pp. 69-89.

[99] Guidelines for a Dialogue between Muslims and Christians, p.143.

[100] Troll, “Changing Catholic Views of Islam”, p. 14

[101] Borrmans, Guidelines for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims, p. 113.

[102] Troll, “Changing Catholic Views of Islam”, p. 14.

[103] Borrrmans, Guidelines for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims, p. 57.

[104] Borrmans, Guidelines for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims, p. 58.

[105] Borrmans, Guidelines for Dialogue between Christians and Muslims, p. 58.

[106] Concerning individual scholars views on the Prophethood of Muhammad see Chapter Five.

[107]Dialogue and Mission 5; Concerning for further information see, Dupuis, "A Theological Commentary: Dialogue and Proclamation", in Burrows, ed., Redemption and Dialogue, p. 129-131; The question of the relationship between mission and dialogue is also very much discussed by individual thinkers. For example see P. Mojez & L. Swidler, eds., Christian Mission and Interreligious Dialogue (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990).

[108] Dialogue and Mission. 6

[109] Dialogue and Mission 7

[110] Pope John Paul II, “Address of the Pope at the conclusion of the Plenary Assembly of the Secretariat”, Bulletin 56, 19/2 (1984), pp. 122-123.

[111] Dialogue and Mission 13.

[112] Dialogue and Mission 18.

[113] Dialogue and Mission 13; also see, Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 137.

[114] It quotes those who "through divine inspiration would desire to go among the Muslims can establish spiritual contact with them [Muslims] in two ways: a way which does not raise arguments and disputes, but rather they should be subject to every human creature for the love of God and confess themselves to be Christians. The other way is that when they see that it would be pleasing to the Lord, they should announce the word of God (Dialogue and Mission 17).

[115] Renzo Giacomelli, Men of God: Men for Others (New York: St Paul Publications, 1994), p. 110.

[116] Dialogue and Mission 29.

[117] Dialogue and Mission 29.

[118] Dialogue and Mission 30.

[119] Dialogue and Mission 29-35. These types of dialogue were also highlighted by the recent document of Pontifical Council (see Dialogue and Proclamation 42). Apart from these types, a number of individual scholars have sugested diverse typologies and different types for dialogue. For example, E. Sharpe broadly classifies dialogue into four different kinds namely, discursive dialogue, human dialogue, secular dialogue and interior dialogue (Sharpe, "The Goals of Inter-Religious Dialogue", in Hick, ed., Truth and Dialogue: The Relationship between World Religions (London: Sheldon Press, 1974), pp. 77-95). D. Lochhead too speaks about four types of dialogue namely, dialogue as negotiation, dialogue as integration, dialogue as activity and the dialogical imperative or dialogue as relationship (see Lochhead, The Dialogical Imperative: A Christian Reflection on Interfaith Encounter (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1988), pp. 59-81).

[120] Dialogue and Mission 29.

[121] Dialogue and Mission 37.

[122] Dialogue and Mission 41,42.

[123] Dialogue and Mission 13.

[124] Knitter, Jesus and Other Names, p. 137.

[125] A. Pushparajan, “Whither Interreligious Dialogue; A Reflective Response to the Vatican Document on Dialogue and Proclamation”, Vidyajyoti, 56 (1992), p. 225.

[126] Fitzmaurice, "The Roman Catholic Church and Interreligious Dialogue", p.100.

[127] Arinze, "Dialogue and Proclamation: Two Aspects of the Evangelising Mission of the Church, Bulletin, 77 (1991), pp. 201-202; For the analysis of the statements of this document see, Dupuis, "A Theological Commentary: Dialogue and Proclamation", in Burrows, ed., Redemption and Dialogue, pp. 131-157.

[128] Dialogue and Proclamation 14.

[129] Dialogue and Proclamation 14.

[130] See Chapter One section 1.4.1.

[131] Dialogue and Proclamation 17.

[132] Dialogue and Proclamation 29.

[133] Dupuis, "A Theological Commentary: Dialogue and Proclamation", p. 137.

[134] See Chapter One section 1.3.1.

[135] Dialogue and Proclamation 19.

[136] Dialogue and Proclamation 21; see concerning Jesus's dialogue with non-Jews, Mt. 8:5-13; Jn.4:23.

[137] Redemptor Hominis. 6.

[138] For the conciliar documents see Ad Gentes Divinitus 3:11; Guadium et Spes 10-11,22,26,38,41 and 92-93.

[139] Dialogue and Proclamation 17.

[140] Dialogue and Proclamation 29.

[141] Dialogue and Proclamation 19.

[142] Dialogue and Proclamation 22.

[143] Dialogue and Proclamation 28.

[144] Dialogue and Proclamation 29.

[145] Dialogue and Proclamation 40.

[146] Dialogue and Proclamation 41.

[147] Dialogue and Proclamation 42; These forms of dialogue are the dialogue of life; the dialogue of deeds; the dialogue of specialists; and the dialogue of religious experience (see, Dialogue and Mission 29-35.

[148] Dialogue and Proclamation 47.

[149] Dialogue and Proclamation 48.

[150] Dialogue and Proclamation 52.

[151] Dialogue and Proclamation 53.

[152] Dialogue and Proclamation 77.

[153] Dialogue and Proclamation 77.

[154] Dialogue and Proclamation 2.

[155] Dialogue and Proclamation 8; see Knitter, Jesus and Other Names, p. 138.

[156] Dialogue and Proclamation 77.

[157] Dialogue and Proclamation 77.

[158] See Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 137.

[159] Pushparajan, “Whither Interreligious Dialogue?”, p. 231.

[160] Anthony Gittens, “A Missionary’s Misgivings: Reflections on Two Recent Documents”, in Burrows, ed., Redemption and Dialogue, p. 220.

[161] See Dupuis, "A Theological Commentary", pp. 119-157; Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, pp. 131-38.

[162] Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 142.

[163] See Fitzmaurice, What will the Third Vatican Council have to say about Relations between Christians and People of Other Faiths, pp. 1-16.