THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S TEACHING WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
1.1.
Introduction
The
teaching of the Second Vatican Council on non-Christian religions has been
regarded as an important beginning and an epoch-making breakthrough in the
Catholic Church’s relationship with non-Christians and their religious
traditions. For the first time in the history of the Catholic Church, the magisterium
(the teaching office of the Catholic Church) has spoken about non-Christian
religions as entities which the Church should respect and with which Christians
should enter into dialogue. In this chapter we will examine the conciliar
documents which deal with non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular in
order to investigate their contribution to the development of Christian-Muslim
understanding. In the light of the statements of the Second Vatican Council, we
will ask how the Catholic Church theologically perceives non-Christians in
general and Muslims in particular. We will also note which aspects of Muslim
life and religion are emphasized, omitted or hardly mentioned in those
statements.[1]
We believe that it is necessary to examine the text concerning Muslims in
conjunction with other conciliar texts which refer to non-Christians in general,
since the conciliar statements about Muslims can only be understood within the
context of the Vatican II's general theological teaching concerning
non-Christian religions and their followers.[2]
1.2. A Brief History of Catholic
Teaching Until Vatican II
It
is important to recall the official Catholic teaching about non-Christians up to
the Second Vatican Council in order to see clearly to what extent the conciliar
statements affected the Roman Catholic Church’s attitude to non-Christians in
general and Muslims in particular. Up to the Second Vatican Council the official
Catholic teaching concerning non-Christian religions was mainly concerned with
the possibility of the salvation of non-Christians. During that period the major
issue discussed among Church authorities and individual theologians was the
axiom Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus [there is no salvation outside the
Church].[3]
A brief history of this axiom will highlight how it developed and applied to
non-Christians in the history of the Catholic Church.
The
German theologian Hans Küng traces the roots of the axiom Extra
Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria and Origen and all the Greek fathers.[4] F. A. Sullivan indicates
that this axiom was first offered by Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch in Syria,
as follows:
Be
not deceived, my brethren: if anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not
inherit the Kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine, he has no part
in the passion.[5]
It
is argued that the intention of Ignatius in this passage was only to warn
Christian schismatics and heretics in order to assure the unity of the Church,
and not to condemn those who belonged to other religions.[6]
In the third century, too, the above statement of Ignatius was formulated by
Origen in the East as “Let no man deceive himself, outside the Church no one
is saved”, and Cyprian in the West as “if there was one who outside the ark
of Noah could escape, then also one who is outside the Church may be saved”.[7]
Thus, it was argued that when Origen and Cyprian formulated the axiom Extra
Ecclesiam Nulla Salus it was directed against their contemporary schismatics
and not those who belonged to other religions. Concerning the application of
this axiom in the first three centuries, Sullivan argues that
when the early Church Fathers spoke of those who were excluded from
salvation by reason of their being outside the Church, they were directing this
as a warning to Christians who were considered to be guilty of committing the
grave sin of heresy and schism, since there is no indication that that axiom was
applied to anyone other than Christians at a time when Christians were
persecuted as a minority.[8]
Paul Knitter stresses that during this period
the early Church Fathers - Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen- acknowledged the availability of an authentic revelation and salvation
for all people without making any distinction.[9] These arguments imply that
in the first three centuries the axiom Extra
Ecclesiam nulla salus applied only to heretics and schismatics in order to
keep the unity of the Church and did not apply to those who belonged to other
religions. Therefore, the question arises as to how the axiom started to apply
to those who were not members of the Church.
At
the end of the fourth century when Christianity had become the official religion
of the Roman empire, the Church Fathers widened the scope of the axiom by
applying it not only to the Christian heretics but also to those who belonged to
other religions.[10]
Especially with the influence of St. Augustine, the attitude of the Church
towards those who belonged to other religions began to shift toward exclusivism,
since according to Augustine, the statements of Mark 16:15-16
indicate that faith and baptism together are necessary for salvation.
Further, Augustine stressed that those who had heard the message of the Gospel
but had not become Christians were guilty because of their rejection of the
Gospel message, and their salvation could be found only in the Church.[11] Thus, the axiom
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus began to apply to anyone who was outside
the Church such as pagans and Jews. Much later Muslims, referred to as Turks,
were added to this list. In short, there was no longer any hope of salvation for
anybody who did not accept Christ by becoming a member of the Church after
hearing about him.[12]
Prior to Augustine, the axiom Extra
Ecclesiam Nulla Salus applied only to those who had spoiled the unity of the
Church by separating themselves from her. But, from Augustine onwards it began
to be used as a delimiting means to exclude from salvation those who did not
belong to the Church.
The
Magisterial statements of the fourth Lateran council [1215] declared, for the
first time that “there is indeed one universal Church of the faithful outside
which no one at all is saved”.[13]
In his bull Unam Sanctam [1302], Pope
Boniface VIII moved the axiom a step further by expressing the necessity of
acknowledging papal authority as well as being a member of the Church in order
to reach salvation. He declared this as follows: “...outside of whom (church)
there is neither salvation nor remission of sins... it is absolutely necessary
for salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff”.[14]
In the Council of Florence (1442), too, for the first time in her history
the Catholic Church officially declared that:
no
one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews,
heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life.…No one can be
saved, no matter how much alms one has given, even if shedding one’s blood for
the name of Christ, unless one remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic
Church.[15]
As
we can see from the historical development of the axiom Extra
Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, in the course of time the scope of exclusiveness of
the Catholic Church was getting wider and during the medieval period, when
knowledge of the wider world was severely limited and Western Christendom
threatened by the Muslim Ottoman army, there was almost nobody who questioned
the implication of the above axiom. However with the discovery of America in
1492 and the voyage of Vasco da Gama around the Cape of Good Hope to India in
1497, the eyes of Western Christians were opened to the existence of whole
countries and continents of people who had never had a chance to hear and
respond to the message of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, attempts began to be made
to rethink the Church’s attitude to other religions in the light of this new
and wider knowledge of other people in other continents. These changes came
about in the characteristic Roman Catholic way of continuing to pay allegiance
to the axiom Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in its original form, but at the same
time adding further interpretative
principles which would alter the dogma as far as its practical effect was
concerned.[16] For instance, Pope Pius
IX in his Allocution Singulari Quadam
(1854) stated that:
It
must, of course, be held as of faith that no one can be saved outside the
apostolic Roman Church, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that
whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. Yet, on the other hand, it
must likewise be held as certain that those who are in ignorance of true
religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this
matter before the eyes of the Lord.[17]
As
can be seen from this passage, for the first time in the history of the Catholic
Church an exception was made for those whose ignorance was invincible.
Being a member of the church was not necessary for those who were in
ignorance of the Christian faith. Although Pope Pius IX did not spell out how
those people would attain salvation, his statement can be regarded as a positive
development, since it implied that there would be the possibility of salvation
without embracing the Christian faith.
Another
Roman Catholic stratagem to get round the implications of a literal
interpretation of the axiom Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus makes use of the terms "implicit
faith" and " a baptism of desire". Examples of this can be found
in Pope Pius XII’s encylical Mystici
Corporis and his letter to the Archbishop of Boston in 1949. For example, in
Mystici Corporis [1943] Pope Pius XII
stated that those who have a certain unconscious desire and wish to join the
Church may be related to the Mystical Body of Christ, and, thus, they may attain
salvation.[18]
In his response to the Archbishop of Boston, concerning the Leonard Feeney case[19]
Pope Pius XII stated that implicit
faith and baptism of desire can be enough to reach salvation.[20]
Thus,
we may conclude that the traditional Catholic axiom Extra
Ecclesiam nulla salus went through the following stages from its advent
prior to Vatican II. Firstly, the axiom was produced by the Church Fathers to
fight Christian heretics and schismatics in order to re-establish the unity of
the Church. Secondly, after the third century, through the influence of St.
Augustine, its scope was widened to include those who did not become members of
the Church, and up to the age of discovery it continued to be understood
literally, i.e. in an exclusive way. Thirdly, after the age of discovery,
influenced by various events and the inspiration of theologians the Church
authorities started to use different expressions such as “implicit faith” or
“baptism of desire” to lighten its strongly exclusivist character. These
inclusive expressions can be regarded as positive developments as it seems that
in the end sincere members of other religious traditions were assumed as members
of the Church in some way. Because of this implication, these kinds of inclusive
terms can be regarded as bridges through which the Church can go beyond her
exclusive attitude toward people of other faiths. In this connection, as John
Hick rightly argues the terms, “implicit faith” and “baptism of desire”
should be regarded as “epicycles” which “have served a useful purpose,”
in order to rescue the Church from exclusivism. But, nevertheless they can only
operate as an interim measure, since they are fundamentally weak arguments,
accepted for the sake of intuitively accepted conclusions until better arguments
are found.”[21]
1.3. Theological Interpretation of
Non-Christian Religions
Parallel
to the above official developments in the understanding of the traditional axiom
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, the
twentieth century has witnessed the rise of individual theologians endeavouring
to find theologically sound and positive interpretations of the axiom in order
to develop a more positive Catholic theology of religions. After the age of
discovery although a number of theologians produced fragmentary comments
concerning the position of non-Christians, they were not able to have much
influence on the official teaching. As a result they became marginalized, having
ideas outside the official view.[22] But after the second half
of the twentieth century, theologians began to influence the official Catholic
teaching indirectly, as we will see below. Within this context, the views of two
Catholic thinkers, Louis Massignon and Karl Rahner, will be briefly considered.
Massignon was a French Islamicisit and mystic who played an influential role in
the developments of Christian-Muslim understanding in the twentieth century.
Rahner was a dogmatic theologian who dealt with the question of the relationship
of Christianity to non-Christian religions before Vatican II. Both of them have
influenced the conciliar teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
1.3.1.
Louis Massignon and Karl Rahner
Louis
Massignon[23]
was one of the leading Catholic Islamicists whose thoughts influenced the
official Catholic attitude towards Muslims and led the Church to open up
dialogue with the Muslim world. S. H. Nasr considers him as “a sort of guiding
light for a whole later generation of Catholics interested in Christian-Muslim
relations”.[24] Basetti-Sani states that
Massignon, during his life , was actively involved in developing
Christian-Muslim relations by setting up the Badaliya, a spiritual organisation, in order to introduce Jesus
Christ to Muslims “by means of fraternal understanding and zealous charity”.[25]
Because of the above importance of Massignon in the development of
Christian-Muslim relations, we will summarize his views on Islam and highlight
his contribution to the texts of the Second Vatican Council concerning Muslims.
Massignon's
most important contribution to the changing Catholic views on Islam was firstly,
his inclusion of Muslims in the Abrahamic tradition by connecting them to
Abraham via Ishmael. By doing this, he
considered Islam within the context of God's plan of salvation which was
promised to Abraham. Secondly, he relates the three monotheistic religions,
namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam, together
by pointing out that Judaism is the religion of hope, Christianity is the
religion of love and Islam is the religion of faith. He explained this argument
as follows:
Islam
is first and foremost a testimony (shahada)
through which we express our adoration for the only and merciful God of Abraham.
If Israel is rooted in hope and Christianity is devoted to charity, then Islam
is centred around faith. Islamic observance is first and foremost the memorandum
[the recitation] of a creed, while Jewish observance ritualises the commandments
provided in the sworn covenant and Christian observance, after the truth of its
creed and the obligations of its own commandments, uses the sacraments to
sanctify the virtues.[26]
Within
this context of the Abrahamic tradition, Massignon urged Christians to recognise
the Qur’an as an authentic religious mystical source, since, according to him,
the Qur’an is in line with the Old and New Testament confirming their truth.
The Qur’anic confirmation of the virgin birth of Jesus and veneration of Jesus
and his mother Mary led Massignon to reach this conclusion. What attracted
Massignon in the Qur’an was its assertion that there is grace in human history
and that Mary and Jesus are signs
of God. In this it takes no advantage for itself. According to Massignon, the
Qur’an, as a revelation transmitted to Muhammad by the angel, operates as a
mediator between God and human beings.[27]
Concerning
the Prophet Muhammad, Massignon dismissed the belief that Muhammad was the
‘anti-Christ’ as certain sections of the Church had presented him in the
past.[28]
He emphasised the sincerity of Muhammad, noting the following points as proofs.
In Mecca, he received revelation to preach. He behaved like a prophet and tried
to explore the unity [Oneness] of God. In Medina, he established such
foundations as ritual prayer. He rejected the Jewish claims concerning Jesus by
confirming his virgin birth. He saved Ishmael from being excluded from the
divine promise. Although Massignon acknowledged that Muhammad was a true and
sincere prophet, he considered his role in this prophethood to be that of a prophete
negatif, in the sense that he denies God being more than what he affirms him
to be.[29]
Thus, Massignon contributed to the Copernican shift in the Christian attitude
towards Islam by insisting on the need to move “from mission to dialogue” in
Christian theology. [30]
In this sense, he meant that "instead of
viewing Islam from outside, and 'attacking it tooth and nail', one must
situate oneself, 'by a Copernican revolution, at the very centre of Islam, there
where that spark of truth dwells from which all the rest is invisibly and
mysteriously sustained'".[31]
With
regard to Massignon's impact on the conciliar texts regarding Muslims, Christian
Troll indicates that Massignon influenced the contemporary theological
developments of the Catholic Church because of his scholarly authority and his
friendship with the Catholic hierarchy, such as Msgr. J.B. Montini who became
Pope by taking the name Paul VI during the Second Vatican Council. Although,
Massignon himself did not take part in the preparation of the conciliar texts on
Muslims because of his death in 1962, Troll argues that his views on Islam
became leading guidelines for those who prepared the consiliarose texts.
Troll
continues his argument concerning the influence of Massignon on the conciliar
texts on Muslims by insisting that if those texts are compared with
Massignon’s views, it is not difficult to see his effect. To show this,
he points to the similarities between Massignon’s views and the council
statement as follows:
The
Church looks with esteem on the Muslims...Abraham seen as the type and symbol of
Muslim faith...The special mention of the veneration in which many Muslims hold
Mary the Virgin...The special mention of Muslim prayer and fasting which had
been the subject of such deep interpretations by Massignon and had been
perceived and repeatedly presented by him as a precious spiritual link between
Muslims and Christians.[32]
Troll
concludes his evaluation of Massignon’s influence on the Catholic Church’s
positive attitude towards Muslims by stressing that “Massignon has singularly
contributed towards changing Christian-Muslim relations from a sterile and
destructive confrontation to a fruitful dialogue and co-operation in the service
of the One God of all humankind”.[33]
Karl
Rahner a prolific German Jesuit whom many consider to be the most influential
Catholic theologian in the second half of the twentieth century, has developed a
phrase concerning the position of non-Christians which has become the trade mark
of his views and the focus of discussions about what is generally called
Catholic “inclusivism” since the 1960’s.[34]
During the Second Vatican Council Rahner exercised enormous influence on the
final shape of many conciliar documents as one of the official theologians of
the Council.[35]
Rahner
started to reflect upon the position of non-Christians and their religions in
his lecture “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions”[36]
delivered in 1961 before the Council and continued to write about this issue
after the Council.[37]
In our examination of Rahner’s views concerning the position of non-Christians
we will focus our attention on his earliest writing “Christianity and the
Non-Christian Religions” (1961) for two reasons: first, this essay reflects
his main teaching concerning the subject; second, this essay was produced by
Rahner before the Council.
Rahner’s
main intention in his views on non-Christians was to break down the tradition of
pessimistic Christian exclusiveness
and to speak optimistically of God and
His saving will.[38]
For that reason he is regarded by Catholics as a leader of a new way of thinking
in their approach to other religions by emphasising that these religions are not
only reflections of man’s natural cognition of God. According to Rahner,
divine religions are something more than mere expressions of “natural
religions”, because they include the mediation of grace and thus add something
to man’s relation with God as creature to his Creator.[39]
Rahner argues that non-Christian
religions “not only contain elements of natural knowledge of God but also
supernatural instances of the grace which God presents to man because of
Christ”.[40]
Rahner
for the first time spells out his views on Christianity’s relation to
non-Christian religions under four theses. Before elaborating on these theses it
is appropriate to recall Rahner’s main objective in developing them. He says
We
simply want to try to describe a few of those basic traits of a Catholic
dogmatic interpretation of the non-Christian religions which may help us to come
closer to a solution of the question about the Christian position in regard to
the religious pluralism in the world today.[41]
Within
the context of this objective, Rahner develops his first thesis by announcing
Christianity as the only “absolute religion”. He says “Christianity
understands itself as the absolute religion intended for all men, which cannot
recognise any other religion beside itself as of equal right”.[42]
He also defines Christianity as the valid and lawful religion through which God
provides salvation to all people in Christ.
The
question of how this Christian salvation could be available for non-Christians
led Rahner to develop his second thesis as follows:
Until
the moment when the gospel really enters into the historical situation of an
individual, a non-Christian religion does not merely contain elements of a
natural knowledge of God, elements, moreover, mixed up with human depravity
which is the result of the original sin and later aberrations. It contains also
supernatural elements arising out of the grace which is given to man as a
gratuitous gift on account of Christ. For this reason a non-Christian religion
can be recognised as a lawful religion.[43]
This
thesis, as can be seen, is very much related to Rahner's understanding of the
relation between nature and grace. For, according to him, nature and grace are
not terms which describe phases conceived as entirely separate or distinct in
the lives of either persons or communities. Rather, according to him, grace is
conceived as operating in a person’s life prior to any conscious response to
the gospel and also as operating anonymously in that person’s religion. Rahner
believed that it is unlikely that anyone could find salvation without being a
member of a religion, since humans are by nature social beings, and since
religion itself is both a social as well as an individual phenomenon.[44]
Because of this, Rahner regarded non-Christian religions as “lawful”
religions given by God to persons in a given social and historical context to be
the means through which they can be saved. Alan Race concludes that we may say
Rahner regards non-Christian religions as “vehicles of salvation, available to
individuals in their particular and differing historical settings, and given by
God for the purposes of achieving the saving relationship”.[45]
However Rahner in this thesis puts a time limitation for non-Christian religions
by stressing that non-Christian religions were “lawful” religions which
contained supernatural grace-filled elements until Christianity came into the
world. This implies that they are no longer lawful religions.
This
first thesis that Christianity is the absolute religion and the source of
salvation, and the second thesis that non-Christians and their religions are not
excluded from God’s salvation, led Rahner
to develop his third thesis in order to reconcile the first and second
theses to determine the position of non-Christians and their religions in
relation to Christianity. In this thesis, Rahner points out:
If
the second thesis is correct, then Christianity does not simply confront the
member of an extra-Christian religion as a mere non-Christian but as someone who
can and must be regarded in this or that respect as an anonymous Christian[46]
Here,
Rahner is expressing his main argument concerning non-Christians by claiming
that though those people are not aware of it,
their religions become lawful ways of salvation through Jesus Christ, who
is anonymously present within them.
In
his fourth and final thesis, Rahner outlines the Church’s function in the
light of the logical conclusion of the previous theses. He argues that in an
anonymous Christian world the Church should regard herself not:
as
the exclusive community of those who have a claim to salvation, but rather as
the historical tangible vanguard and the historically and socially constituted
explicit expression of what the Christian hopes is present as a hidden reality
even outside the visible Church.[47]
Because
of this hiddenness, Rahner argues that the mission of the Church should be to
serve non-Christians in the name of Christ with the hope that one day their
implicit and hidden desire will be explicit by becoming members of the Church.
So, the most significant side of this thesis is that the aim of the Church is to
be an example for others, not only to make them members.
In
short, according to Rahner’s understanding all grace is by definition
supernatural grace. On the basis of this, he succeeds in creating a foundation
for a new type of theological approach to non-Christian religions. This new
model reconciles and holds together the universal salvific will of God, and that
salvation comes through God in Christ and in his Church.
As
has been observed up to now, these two influential Catholic thinkers, Massignon
and Rahner, have made many positive statements laying the foundation for a
different approach in the development of a positive Catholic teaching on
non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular.
1.4. The Second Vatican Council and
Non-Christian Religions
In
considering the teaching of the Second Vatican Council
we will focus our attention mainly on its most significant document,
"Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian
Religions".[48]
(This document is known as Nostra Aetate
because of its opening words.) In doing so, we will also refer to the
related statements of the other documents especially "Dogmatic Constitution
on the Church,"[49]
which is known as Lumen Gentium. In
our examination of these documents, our primary purpose will be to observe the
teaching of the Second Vatican Council about Muslims, following its general
teaching about non-Christians. A brief history of the Nostra Aetate records how and why the Catholic Church produced it.
As
noted earlier, the Second Vatican Council was regarded as an important beginning
for the Catholic Church in contacting non-Christians and their religious
traditions. This Council was formally inaugurated on the 11th October, 1962, by
Pope John XXIII, in accordance with his announcement on the 25th January, 1959.
It went on until 8th December, 1965. There were altogether four sessions, one
each year. After the first session Pope John XXIII died and his successor Paul
VI was elected in his place. According to Pope John XXIII, the need for such a
council was to update the Church [aggiornamento],
since he thought that the Catholic Church was becoming outdated and less
relevant in the context of modernity and of contemporary world events.[50]
In this council sixteen documents were agreed upon and
promulgated. There is no doubt that the most important of these documents concerning non-Christian religions was Nostra Aetate. For, until this declaration the Catholic Church was
not officially interested in establishing a dialogical relationship with
non-Christians and thus had not produced any positive official document on this
issue.
At
the beginning of the Council, Pope John XXIII did not make any statement on
non-Christian religions with the exception of Judaism. At the time he was
greatly concerned about anti-Semitism within the Church. Some Jewish leaders
were fearful that this Council would increase anti-Semitism. The French Jewish
scholar, Jules Isaac, outlined this anxiety of Jews to the Pope in a
private conversation.[51]
Thereupon, Pope John appointed Cardinal Bea to prepare a conciliar declaration
that would be concerned with Jewish people in order to clarify who the Jews were
and what the relation between Church and synagogue should be.[52]
The text was completed only after the death of Pope John XXXIII and introduced
by Cardinal Bea to the Council as part of the document on ecumenism on 19th
November in 1963.[53]
But
it met with opposition especially from Arab and Asian bishops. A number of
bishops considered the declaration to be outside the Catholic concern for
ecumenism. Some bishops who came from Arab countries regarded this text as
support for the political state of Israel.[54]
Others insisted that if the Council invited Christians to show a more positive
attitude towards Jews, then a similar attitude should be encouraged towards
Islam. Upon these objections, the
text was postponed for further discussion and revision.[55]
Meanwhile, the desire of some Council Fathers, emerging positive ideas about
Islam and the influence of Massignon led Pope Paul VI to ask the conciliar
commission to prepare a text on Islam like the one prepared on the Jews.[56]
Finally, the prepared text which deals with non-Christian religions was
discussed and promulgated under the title of "Declaration on the
Relationship to Non-Christian-Religions" at the 7th session of the council
on the 28th October, 1965.[57]
The
Finnish theologian, Heikki Ruokanen, indicates that at the time of the
promulgation of the Nostra Aetate
there were some conservative bishops who opposed its promulgation theologically
by arguing that this document would lead to indifference to the Church's missionary activity and,
even, put an end it by regarding all religions as of the same value.[58]
In response to this sort of criticism, Cardinal Bea expressed the main aim of
the Nostra Aetate as follows:
The
purpose of the Declaration is not a complete exposition of these religions, nor
of their discrepancies among themselves and from the Catholic religion. This
council rather intends through this Declaration to show that there is a bond
between man and religions which is meant to be the basis of dialogue and of
collaboration. Therefore, greater attention is paid to those things which unite
us, and are helpful in a mutual approach.[59]
As
has been seen in this brief history of the emergence of the Nostra
Aetate, this most important and controversial document of the Second Vatican
Council on non-Christian religions came out as a result of objections of some
Council Fathers to the Council’s intention to produce a document on the Jews.
Now, we will move to observe how this accidental document deals with
non-Christians and their religions.
1.4.1.
Nostra Aetate
As
noted at the beginning of this chapter, with the declaration of
Nostra Aetate, non-Christian religions began to be regarded as entities that
the Church should respect. Christians and non-Christians were encouraged to
dialogue with each other. Within
this context, this declaration insisted upon the essential unity of the human
race, based on the fact that all men and women have God as their Creator and
their Ultimate Goal.[60]
Ruokanen remarks that in this declaration the Church wanted to express common
elements which unite all religions by leaving aside offensive terminology such
as “pagan”, “idolatry”, “error” or “fallacy” terms which the
Church had been using previously in her statements about non-Christians and
their religions.[61]
The
opening sentence of this declaration notes the idea of progress of humanity
towards unity as follows:
In
this age of ours, when men are drawing more closely together and the bonds of
friendship between different peoples are being strengthened, the Church examines
with greater care the relation which she has to non-Christian religions.[62]
This
expression also explains the reason why the Church has to possess a more
positive attitude towards non-Christians. The second sentence indicates that the
Church has a special duty to promote this unity of humanity by declaring:
Ever
aware of her duty to foster unity and
charity among individuals, and even among nations, she [the Church] reflects at
the outset on what men have in common and what tends to promote fellowship among
them.[63]
According
to this passage, the Church takes the responsibility of promoting the unity of
humankind and fellowship among people and nations.
Nostra
Aetate further stresses the brotherhood of all people irrespective of their
race, colour, religion, and other perspectives of life by maintaining that
Christians:
cannot
truly pray to God if [they] treat any people in other than brotherly fashion,
for all men are created in God’s image. Man’s relation to God the Father and
man’s relation to his fellow-men are so dependent on each other that Scripture
says, ‘he who does not love, does not know God (Jn. 4:8). There is no basis
therefore, either in theory or in practice for any discrimination between
individual and individual, or between people and people arising either from
human dignity or from the rights which flow from it. Therefore, the Church
reproves any discrimination against people, any harassment of them on the basis
of their race, colour, condition in life or religion.[64]
According
to this passage there are two important essential foundations of the brotherhood
of all people. The first, God is Creator of all people. That is, all people have
been created by the same God; the
second, the dignity of the human being because of his/her creation in God’s
image. Because of these common elements between Christians and non-Christians,
the Church urges her followers to treat others with respect and love, since
their relationship to God depends on their relationship to others.[65]
In
this declaration, the Catholic Church makes a clear examination of the religions
of the world by defining what is common for all people as follows:
All
men form one community. This is so, because all stem from the one stock which
God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common
destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving design extend
to all men against the day when the elect are gathered in the holy city which is
illuminated by the glory of God, and in whose splendour all peoples will walk.[66]
By
taking this common point, the Nostra
Aetate considers all religions as expressions of the human search for truth.
In this respect, it implies that the both moral and the religious aspects of any
religion may be acceptable as means to reach salvation. Thus, for the first time
the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged as legitimate both the search for God by
those outside herself and the kernel of truth in non-Christian religions. In
this respect, the Nostra Aetate
states:
The
Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in other religions. She
has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines
which often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.[67]
In
this passage the Council Fathers spell out one of the most significant points of
the Nostra Aetate. For it implies that
the Catholic Church implicitly accepts the possibility of revelation in other
religions by acknowledging what is true and holy in them. But, on the other hand
when we investigate this passage deeply the following questions stand out: Who
will decide what is true and holy in non-Christian religions? By which criterion
will it be decided? In our opinion, Ruokanen’s analysis of this passage
answers these questions.
Ruokanen,
in his comment on the above passage, argues that "religions contain
religious truth only insofar as they reflect something of the Christ-centred
truth, or have some sort of reference to the truth revealed in Christianity, or
at least seek that truth which became plain in Christ”.[68] For according to him, the
Latin verb veritas, which is
used in the original passage of the Nostra
Aetate, expresses the Christian truth. This, also, can be seen clearly in
the following conciliar expressions which declare Jesus Christ as the truth. Ipse Christus est veritas ‘Christ
himself is the embodiment of the truth’[69]
which is veritas revelata. [70]
Veritas catholica[71]
or veritas evangelica.[72]
In
the light of this interpretation of Ruokanen, what is true and holy in
non-Christian religions depends on how much they reflect the Christian truth. In
other words, the acceptability of the religious truth of non-Christian religions
by the Church depends on their compatibility with the Christian truth. This,
too, means that non-Christian religions do not have independent revelation apart
from Christian revelation. But what they have is a partial reflection of the
exhaustive Christian revelation in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Ruokanen asks how
much and what kind of religious truth the Nostra
Aetate sees in non-Christian religions. He points out that two different
answers can be given to this question. On the one hand, the Church seems to
admit that there is much good in regard to common human morals in the other
religions. On the other hand, she advocates that these moral goods and religious
truths of other religions are to be tested by the Christian revelation and
truth.[73]
The following passage of another conciliar document, Lumen Gentium, supports Ruokanen's argument: "whatever good or
truth is found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for
the gospel and given by Him who enlightens all men that they may at length have
life...".[74]
At this point, we may say that although the Council Fathers acknowledged
the availability of goodness, truth and holiness in the life of those who belong
to other religions, on the other hand they indicated that those elements are
associated with evil, darkened by the absence of the light of the Gospel and
restricted in their perfection by their separation from their author.[75]
After
accepting the truth of other religions, provided that they are compatible with
the Christian truth, the Nostra Aetate invites Christians to acknowledge, preserve, and
promote the spiritual and moral goods which are found in non-Christian religions and their adherents through
"collaboration with the followers of other religions”.[76]
This declaration also suggests three guidelines to show Christians how to behave
to non-Christians when they encounter them. "The Church, therefore, urges
her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration
with members of other religions while witnessing to their own faith and way of
life".[77]
As we can see in this expression, the Church recommends to her adherents three
ways of relating to followers of other religious traditions. The first one is to
enter into discussion or dialogue [colloquia]
with them. The second is to collaborate [collaboratio]
with them on social issues such as
justice, world peace, human welfare and social ethics. Thirdly, during the first
and the second stages to tell them
about one's own beliefs and way of life and enter into dialogue with them.[78]
In fact, not only Christians but also non-Christians would do well to follow
these guidelines when they encounter followers of other religious traditions,
because they can be seen to be some of the necessary conditions of a fruitful
dialogue. Those who participate in that process will have the opportunity get to
know his/her dialogue partner. After this stage, the participants can reach a
position in which they can work together in order to solve their common
problems. During the first and second stages, the participants may find
opportunities to tell their own beliefs to each other not to convert them but to
share their religious experiences. We turn now to examine closely the Council's
statements about Muslims.
1.5. The Second Vatican Council and
Muslims
As
mentioned above, the Second Vatican Council, at its beginning, had no intention
of making any statements concerning Muslims or the adherents of other religions
except the Jews. This intention had to change following the reactions and
objections of Arab and Asian bishops to the declaration about Jews, and the
influence of some Orientalists, such as Massignon. As a result, a more positive
attitude towards Muslims began to come out as the Council proceeded, and at the
end two important passages
emerged. One is in Lumen Gentium 16 and the
other is in Nostra Aetate 3. We will
analyse these two texts together by taking into account their main theological
themes, namely, the monotheistic character of Muslim belief, Abraham as the
common father, Muslim veneration of Jesus and his mother Mary, the
eschatological belief of Muslims, the religious and moral life of Muslims, and
the possibility of salvation for Muslims, so as to expose their implications for
Christian-Muslim dialogue. The reason we take these two
texts together is that although their promulgation did not occur at the
same time, they originate from the same Council context. While doing this,
firstly, we will explain what the conciliar statements say; secondly, we will
discuss what they accomplished; finally, we will do an assessment of those
statements.
1.5.1.
Muslim Doctrine of God
Concerning
the Muslim doctrine of God, both Nostra
Aetate and Lumen Gentium declare:
Muslims
worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the
Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to man.[79]
[the
Muslims] acknowledge the Creator and together
with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.[80]
As
can be seen from these two statements, the Council officially declares that
Muslims worship God, not Muhammad or other gods as was claimed in medieval
times.[81]
In doing so, the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges the first and most important
article of Muslim faith, namely the oneness of God (tawhid)
by using the Qur’anic terms such as Merciful, Almighty, the
Creator of heaven and earth.[82]
Now, we will search out what the Council Fathers mean by these attributes of
God.
God
is Living and Subsistent (al-hayy al-qayyum): This attribute of God was expressed by the
Council Fathers in Qur'anic terms. The reason for this, Caspar remarks, was to
avoid such terms that "would have no meaning for Muslims or could be
misunderstood" by them.[83]
God is Merciful and Almighty [al-Rahman-
al-Rahim and al-Qadir ala kulli shay]:
Here, the Council Fathers mention the most frequently used Qur'anic attributes
of God. Muslims always repeat these attributes in their prayers and daily lives.
Concerning the significance of these two attributes, Borrmans remarks that to
stress that God is Merciful and Almighty "means that God's mastery over
everything is tempered by His Mercy..."[84]
God
has spoken to men: It is believed in both Islam and Christianity that God has
spoken to humankind in various ways such as through the prophets, Jesus Christ
and the Qur'an. While both Christians and Muslims believe that God has spoken to
them through the prophets, they differ on the way this has happened. For
instance, while Christians maintain that God has spoken through his son Jesus
Christ, Muslims believe that He has spoken to them in the Qur'an. The Council's
reference to God as Speaker or in other words Revealer can be regarded as having
a very positive development, indeed. For, although it does not explicitly
indicate that God has spoken to Muslims in the Qur'an through the Prophet
Muhammad, one can draw this conclusion. This conclusion can mean that the
Catholic Church acknowledges Islam as a prophetic religion like Judaism and
Christianity, since it refers implicitly to the Islamic revelation, the Qur'an,
without passing any judgement. In this respect, Borrmans points out:
the
Council's intention is not to evaluate the authenticity of the revelation to
which Islam appeals, but to recognize that Islam, unlike all theism which
originate solely from human efforts, claims to be the fruit of a personal,
divine word and therefore a revelation in the strict sense. The Muslim believer
accepts the Word of God because God reveals, and this allows Christians to
regard the faith of such a believer as subjectively supernatural and therefore
salvific.[85]
God
is humankind's judge on the last day [malik
yevm-al- dinn]: Here, the Council announces that God is the Judge on the
Last Day. By doing this, it indicates that both Muslims and Christians believe
there is no one who will judge mankind other than God on the Last Day.
As
has been observed so far, the Council's acknowledgement of Muslims as fellow
believers in God with Christians, should be regarded by Muslims as a very
positive development, since it rules out any supposition that Muslims worship a
God other than Christians worship.[86]
In other words, the Council stressed that the God of Muslims is the true God
whom the Christians worship. However, besides these very positive developments,
there are some shortcomings in the above conciliar statements. For example, the
Council Fathers carefully chose those divine attributes which substantially
conform to the attributes of God in Christianity.[87]
By doing this, the Council gave the
impression that the Muslim and Christian doctrine of God is the same. However,
as Caspar rightly remarks, “The focal point and the nature itself of the faith
in God in Islam and within Christianity are radically different”.[88]
For that reason, the Council should
have expressed the difference to avoid misunderstanding by those who do not know
anything about the Muslim doctrine of God. This misunderstanding can lead
Christians to Christianise Islam. Some Christian scholars of Islam such as
Basetti- Sani and Kenneth Cragg have been accused of doing this by their
Christian colleagues.[89]
Another
shortcoming in the conciliar statements on Muslims was the omission of the
second part of the first article of the Muslim creed, namely that Muhammad is
the messenger of God. Although it can be argued that the Council implicitly
referred to the Prophet Muhammad, the Council Fathers preferred to be silent on
this issue. In this respect,
Farrugia says that “any possible reference to him which might be understood as
indicative of some sort of theological appreciation of the most important
prophet for the Muslims” was omitted.[90]
Anawati, too, indicates that the
Council Fathers chose to be silent on the most sensitive issue of Muslim faith,
namely, the prophethood of Muhammad. But he adds, “Once the dialogue is under
way, this central point will have to be considered in more detail.”[91]
On this issue, Muslim scholars, too, rightly maintain that there is no
possibility for dialogue unless the prophethood of Muhammad is considered by
Christians.[92]
The Swiss theologian, H. Küng, too, indicates that if the Catholic Church wants
to establish a fruitful dialogue with Muslims, she must speak about Muhammad
with greater respect, just as she did in the conciliar statements about Muslims.[93]
In
short, as Anawati rightly points out this
official recognition by the Catholic Church of the God of Islam as the one,
living and true, merciful and almighty God, the creator of heaven and earth,
"is a more important step in the context of relations between Christians
and Muslims”[94]
Farrugia, too, indicates that this positive appreciation of the Muslim doctrine
of God will be accepted as common ground and a standpoint for a better dialogue
between Christians and Muslims.[95]
Further, the Council's acknowledgement of the most important Muslim attributes
of God by referring to the Qur'anic terms, indicates that in the process of
dialogue Christians can benefit from the Qur'an in order to express their
doctrine of God.
1.5.2.
Our Common Father Abraham
Concerning
the Islamic reverence for Abraham, the Council Fathers declared that
They[Muslims]
strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just
as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly
link their own.[96]
...the
plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first
place amongst whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of
Abraham...[97]
These
two passages clearly consider Muslims as being within the context of the
Abrahamic faith. The Council Fathers acknowledge that Muslims strive to submit
themselves to God as Abraham did. In fact, the Qur'an itself calls Muslims to do
this by announcing Abraham as a model in faith and his religion as a pure and
unambiguous monotheism.[98] Within this context, the
Council Fathers recognised Muslims as partakers of the Abrahamic faith as are
Christians. However, they failed to mention whether Muslims are historically
linked to Abraham. Borrmans concludes that the Council “was not concerned with
certain assumptions that would make Abraham the genealogical ancestor of Arab
Muslims”.[99]
Caspar, in his comment on the above Council statement concerning the connection
of Muslims with the Abrahamic faith, also maintains that Abraham
finds
his true place, according to the Muslim and Christian faiths. Abraham is not the
genealogical ancestor, the father according to the flesh, of Muslims; for that
has no religious value at all, even if we disregard the historical aspect. But
he is their father in faith, as a type and model of a heroic submission, with an
active and confident faith, in the paradoxical will of God who asked him for the
sacrifice of the son of the promise. It is in this sense that Abraham is the
father of all believers...[100]
As
has been observed so far, parallel to its statements on the Muslim doctrine of
God, the Second Vatican Council includes Muslims in the Abrahamic faith possibly
because of the influence of Massignon.[101]
However, there is a significant difference between the Council and Massignon in
this issue. While Massignon connected Muslims to Abraham via his son Ishmael,
the Council does not speak about his historical link with Muslims. Anawati in
his comment on this issue maintains that the Council Fathers were “most
cautions of all with regard to the question of the Moslems’ historical link
with Abraham and thus with true revelation”.[102]
Perhaps, this silence should not be regarded as very important, since the Qur'an
presents Abraham not as the possession of a single community but as the model in
faith for all humankind.[103]
Briefly,
in these passages the Council Fathers drew attention to the Muslims’ constant
search for the will of God and their continuous endeavour for whole-hearted
submission to the faith of Abraham. Borrmans comments that “it was out of
respect for this faith that Vatican II acknowledged the importance of the
fundamental Muslim religious attitude, the total submission of the soul to
God’s decrees” and “fittingly recalled that Abraham was the model for the
Muslims’ faith and obedience”.[104]
Thus, the Council regards Abraham “as a type and model of heroic submission
the father of all believers; it is in this sense that he is the common father of
Jews, Christians and Muslims”.[105]
1.5.3.
Muslim Veneration of Jesus and Mary
Concerning
the Muslim esteem of Jesus and Mary, the Council says that
Although
not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his virgin
Mother they also honour, even at times devoutly invoke.[106]
As
has been observed above, the Council dealing with the Muslim doctrine of God,
and also with Abraham as a common father of faith, highlighted common elements
between Christians and Muslims. Here, however it refers to their main
difference. The Council Fathers state that although Muslims regard Jesus as a
prophet and praise his mother Mary, they do not recognise his divinity as
Christians do. It is interesting that in presenting this great difference
between Christians and Muslims concerning the person of Jesus, the Council does
not criticise the Muslims' perception of Jesus as some Christian thinkers, as do
Kenneth Cragg.[107]
Farrugia maintains that the only reason the Council Fathers remained silent on
the Muslim perception of Jesus as a human prophet was for the sake of dialogue.[108]
The
Council also appreciated the Muslims' respect for Mary. The possible reason for
this appreciation is that Mary the mother of Jesus has a high status among
Catholics. The above conciliar statement implies that those who esteem Mary can
be appreciated by the Catholic Church. Also, as has been noted in section 1.3.1.
the prolific Islamicist Massignon urged Christians to recognise the Qur'an as an
authentic religious and mystical source because of its positive statements about
Jesus and Mary.
Farrugia
maintains that the Council appreciates the Muslims’ veneration of Jesus and
his mother Mary in accordance with the statement of the Nostra
Aetate that the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in
non-Christian religions. He states that by praising the Muslim perception of
Jesus the Council may want to show that Islam may “reflect a ray of that truth
which enlightens all men”, although its teaching differs in many ways from the
Christian teaching. Thus, he indicates that the council statement on Muslims’
esteem of Jesus means that “although the eminent identity of Jesus recognised
in the Christian world is absent in Islam, the historical figure of Jesus and
his relevance to God’s plan of salvation are not totally ignored”.[109]
Briefly, the Council's appreciation of the Muslims' esteem of Jesus and Mary
creates a common ground for better relations between Christians and
Muslims.
1.5.4.
Eschatological Beliefs of Muslims
Concerning
Muslim eschatology, the Council says that “Further, they await the day
of judgement and reward of God following the resurrection of the dead.”[110]
In
accordance with its acknowledgement of the Muslim God as the Master of the Day
of Judgement, the Council highlights the basic eschatological beliefs of Muslims
namely, the belief in the Last Day, resurrection, judgement and retribution.
This text shows one of the essential beliefs in the Christian and the Muslim
faith, as Troll points out by saying:
The
modalities and the criteria of this judgement can differ from one theology to
the other. It remains that, according to the Qur’an as well as according to
the Gospel, everyone will be judged by their actions.[111]
Caspar
too, in his comment on this text, remarks:
Eschatology
is important, both in Islam and Christianity, for the meaning it gives to the
world and to the lives of men; a meeting with God at the end of the time, when
true values will be revealed. It is this direction and eschatological tension
which gives full meaning to human activity in this world.[112]
As
we have observed, here, too, the Council Fathers seem to highlight only the
common points of the eschatological beliefs of Christians and Muslims without
speaking about their differences. In this respect, Borrmans indicates that “at
this level of generalisation it may be said that Christians and Muslims are in
agreement, whatever may be their differences in substance or form”.[113]
Briefly, by highlighting the main points of convergence between the Christian
and Muslim eschatological beliefs,
the Council implies that Muslims, who worship the same God as Christians, do
this in order to attain God's grace and salvation in the Day of Judgement.
1.5.5.
Religious and Moral Life of Muslims
The
Council makes the following statement concerning the religious and moral life of
Muslims:
they
highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer,
almsdeeds and fasting.[114]
As
we have observed so far, the Council defined Muslims as those who believe and
worship God by trying to submit themselves to Him as did Abraham, and as those
who believe in the Day of Judgement in which the dead will be resurrected. Here,
the Council highlights how Muslims worship God. In doing so, it
indicates that Muslims try to live a righteous life and worship God by
way of prayer, almsgiving and fasting in order to obtain God's reward in the
Hereafter.
There
are two significant points here. The first is the Council's esteem of the
Muslims' religious and moral lives. In this respect, Borrmans suggests that the
Council Fathers reflected on their admiration for the religious and moral lives
of Muslims to specify the reasons why the faith and life of the followers of
Islam are worthy of the esteem of Christians. He says, “It was out of respect
for this faith that Vatican II wished to stress the importance of the
fundamental religious attitude, the total submission of the soul to God’s
decrees. The Muslims are known to be proud of being faithful and obedient
servants, who extol ‘God’s rights’ before thinking about ‘human
rights’”.[115] As we will see in the
Second Chapter, the religious and moral lives of Muslims has been highlighted
with great esteem by Pope Paul VI
and Pope John Paul II
in their speeches to Muslims.[116]
The
second point is the Council's appreciation of the three main pillars of Muslim
faith. However, it is well known that there are five main pillars of Muslim
faith. These are: the profession of faith in the One God and in the prophethood
of Muhammad [shahada], the observance
of daily ritual prayers [salat], the
giving of alms [zakat], fasting in the
month of Ramadan [sawm], and the
pilgrimage to Mecca [hajj]. The
question, here, is why the Council just mentioned three of these articles of
Muslim faith, namely salat, zakat and sawm
by giving partial attention to shahada
and totally omitting hajj?
Caspar
who was a member of the commission which prepared the text concerning Muslims,
justifies this omission by claiming that those three pillars of Muslim faith
which the Council mentioned “are indeed the most important, by way of the
place which they occupy in the religious life of Muslims and their religious
significance”.[117]
Caspar continues to defend the Council's omission of hajj by arguing that the great majority of the Muslims turn out to
be unable to participate in the pilgrimage to Mecca, and moreover, its
prescription is limited to once in a Muslim’s life-time.[118]
Farrugia, too, maintains that the reason of the Council's omission of some
Muslim beliefs and devotional acts is that:
The
council never intended to produce a complete exposition of the doctrinal and
devotional characteristics of Islam. Its consideration of such Islamic themes as
those which eventually appeared in the promulgated texts was essentially
functional and subjected to its declared desire for a positive relationship with
the Muslims.[119]
After
these explanations for the Council's omission of some pillars of Muslim faith
and devotional acts, we can argue that for whatever reason it does seem that the
Council Fathers producing the conciliar statements concerning Muslims, only
noted those doctrinal and devotional acts of Muslims which are substantially
compatible with Christian doctrines and devotional acts. Caspar supports this
view when he says that while the Council appreciated
the moral life of Muslims, it was "more concerned with the
principles of Christian morality than with the values to be found in Muslim
family life as it is really lived”.[120]
Crollius explains that the reason the Council only mentioned those Muslim
elements which are compatible with the Christian elements was to proclaim
"biblical monothesim in its Judeo-Christian form".[121]
However,
in our opinion this may be explained as follows: Starting from the advent of
Islam to the second half of the twentieth century, the Christian World
has regarded Islam either as a heretical religion or as an extension of
the Judeo- Christian tradition. While prayer, almsgiving, and fasting, which are
regarded as the devotional acts in the Judeo-Christian tradition were mentioned,
the second part of the shahada and
pilgrimage to Mecca were omitted in this declaration. If the Council had
mentioned these two in its document, it would have meant that the Catholic
Church regarded Islam as a separate religion outside the Judeo-Christian
tradition. This admission would compel the Church to re-read its own beliefs and
doctrines.
1.5.6.
Salvation of Muslims
Concerning
the possibility of salvation for the Muslims, the Council declares that
...the
plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first
place amongst whom are the Moslems.[122]
By
the promulgation of this statement, the Council clearly includes Muslims within
God's plan of salvation. This is a very bold statement indeed, since it ends the
traditional Catholic belief that Extra
Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This inclusion of Muslims in God's plan of salvation
can be regarded as one of the important contributions of the Council to the
development of the Catholic Church's relations with Muslims, since it implies
that Muslims have a place in God’s plan of salvation because they acknowledge
God as their Creator. Although the Council does not mention the Muslim faith
"Islam" in its statements, one can accept that the Catholic Church
admits that the faith of Muslims’ "Islam" has a special position in
God’s plan of salvation as a strict monotheistic religion by taking into
account the Council's recognition of Muslims as fellow believers in God, and its
appreciation of the religious and moral lives of Muslims.[123]
Farrugia,
in his comment on this text, argues that by this statement the Council wanted to
state that God’s grace is available for Muslims so that they attain eternal
salvation. He also says that the acceptance of Muslims within
God’s salvation “puts them in relation to ‘the people of God’ to
which ‘those who have not received the Gospel are related in various
ways’”. He further states that the Council text does not explain the nature
of these “various ways” nor does it clarify “the modality of the
Muslims’ inclusion in the plan of salvation”.[124]
As has been observed in section 1.3.2., before the Second Vatican Council Rahner
spelled out similar views concerning the possibility of salvation for
non-Christians.
Apart
from the above theological statements, there are also other declarations in the Nostra
Aetate which provide some principles for development of Christian-Muslim
understanding in practical issues:
Over th