CHAPTER ONE

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S TEACHING WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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 the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims. The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.[125]

As can be seen from this passage, the Council, first of all, concedes that there have been many quarrels and unpleasant situations between Christians and Muslims. Then it offers the following steps in order to overcome those events. Firstly, the Council invites both Christian and Muslims to forget the past. This is a very challenging invitation, indeed. Forgetting the past is not an easy task because it involves our memory. If we were to lose our memory, we would not remember who we were. Because of this, we do not think that the Council actually wants Christians and Muslims to forget their past for the sake of better relations with each other. What the Council is asking is that both Christians and Muslims should not take the past as examples for their present and future relations with each other. Otherwise, as one Muslim thinker comments, 'forgetting the past' is "a contradiction of the Qur'anic spirit, simply because the Qur'an reminds us of the past 'in order to reconcile with the present and future'".[126] In this respect, Caspar comments that the above text of the Council:

Focuses the perspectives of understanding and co-operation, present and future, between Christians and Muslims. The past of hatred and wars should not be ‘forgotten’, not ignored but left behind. Mutual understanding, objective and respectful, still demands a great deal of effort and progress on either side. But Muslim-Christian 'dialogue' itself must be behind it in order for it to become co-operation between believers towards the same end; together to face the challenges of modern thought and civilisation, not only to preserve faith in God, especially among the young, but also to allow genuine and committed faith to play its part in saving our civilisation from the dangers brought upon it by its neopaganism and in building a better world. This means to promote social justice, among the classes of every nation and between rich and poor countries; to uphold moral values, not only by 'moralism' but by a life in conformity with faith; to preserve or restore peace; to allow people more real freedom, in all ways which are compatible with the common good especially religious freedom. [127]

After overcoming the past, too, the Council encourages both Christians and Muslims to make a sincere effort for mutual understanding and to work together in protecting and promoting for the benefit of all men, social justice, good morals as well as peace and freedom.

After all the above analysis of the conciliar statements concerning Muslims and Christian-Muslim understanding, we may highlight the theology of those statements as follows. Our above examination of the conciliar teaching on Muslims implies that the underlying attitude seems to be that the normative expression of truth is the Catholic doctrine. In this respect, where the Muslim faith, or in other words Islam, agrees with this it is right, and where it departs from it, it is wrong. This indicates that the Council dealing with non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular defends the centrality of the Roman Catholic Church.

While doing this, as has been observed so far, the Council leaves unexplored the status of Muslim faith, Islam, as a religious tradition into which the above particular elements of faith fit. Thus, we may argue that the Second Vatican Council opens the way for a more positive Christian approach towards Muslims and their faith, but it remains silent about Islam as an alternative expression of truth. This means that by producing the conciliar statements about Muslims, the Catholic Church wants to open the way of dialogue with Muslims while keeping open the door for proclamation. In other words, dialogue and proclamation are found in the conciliar teaching side by side.[128]

As has been seen at the beginning of this chapter, the traditional Catholic axiom Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was preserving its strong position as an official teaching of the Catholic Church in her relation with non-Christians prior to the Second Vatican Council, although the Church authorities were using different expressions to lessen its strong implication. In the light of our examination of the conciliar teaching about non-Christians, we will consider the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the question of salvation of non-Christians. Our primary objective will be to illustrate whether the conciliar teaching went beyond the traditional Catholic axiom that Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus? If it did, how far?

To get a proper answer to our above questions, it is necessary to elaborate not only on the teaching of the Nostra Aetate, but on all other documents which deal with the question of salvation. For, as observed above Nostra Aetate speaks about non-Christian religions with sympathy and in a tone of goodwill. And while doing this, although it clearly recognizes the universality of God's salvation by indicating that “His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all men.”[129] it does not clarify how this event would be possible. For that reason, we will look at other conciliar documents which deal with this question in order to find some answers to the above questions. By so doing, we will start with the momentous statement of Lumen Gentium which was promulgated before Nostra Aetate because it brings to an end officially the status of the traditional axiom Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

In Lumen Gentiun on the one hand, the Church is seen as the necessary element for attaining salvation[130] by stressing that Jesus Christ is active in the world in order to lead all people to her.[131] On the other hand, it asserts that right behaviour is enough to be acceptable to God and to attain salvation by declaring that "at all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to Him(God)."[132]

In another passage, non-Christian religions are divided into two groups. The first group, i.e those who hear the Christian message and "know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ but explicitly reject the Church", cannot attain salvation.[133] The second group, i.e. those who do not know the Gospel and do not enter into the Church, but "seek God with sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their action to do God's will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience" can succeed in attaining salvation.[134] This passage can be regarded as the most significant conciliar text concerning the issue of salvation for non-Christians, since it gives three conditions of salvation. These are (1) not deliberately refusing to accept the Gospel or to enter into the Church; (2) seeking God, the Creator with a sincere heart and open mind; (3) carrying out God’s will as they know it through their conscience.

When we compare this statement with the traditional teaching of the Church, it is obvious that the Catholic Church explicitly acknowledged the possibility of salvation for non-Christians, making a 180 degree turn on the question.[135] For, this statement implies that one does not need to follow the Gospel message by being a member of the Church when one encounters it. What one needs is not to deny the Gospel message deliberately by indicating that it is not truth. In fact, this is very similar to the Islamic teaching. In Islam, when those who belong to other faiths meet the Qur'anic message , they do not need to follow it in order to get salvation. But they must not deny that it is truth from God.

This positive side of this passage, as Ruokanen rightly argues, does not mention the possible contribution of non-Christian religions to provide salvation for their followers. According to this passage, their salvation comes not from their own religion but from a natural knowledge of the One God and natural moral law.[136] It can be concluded, therefore, that although the Catholic Church acknowledges the possibility of salvation for non-Christians, she does not recognise that their own religions are ways of salvation for them. For what Lumen Gentium 16 indicates concerning the possibility of salvation of non-Christians is that the activity of God’s salvific grace is not restricted to the visible boundaries of the Church, so that even those who “through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart” have a real possibility of attaining salvation when, “moved by grace”, they “try in their actions to do God’s will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience”. When we compare the teaching of this passage with the views of Rahner which he laid out before the Second Vatican Council, we realise that his views are more positive than the teaching of the Council, since Rahner included not only non-Christians but also their religious traditions in God’s plan of salvation by regarding them as "lawful religions".[137]

In Gaudium et Spes [Joy and Hope], the Council asserts that all humankind is one and the same, and the Holy Spirit offers to all people the possibility of becoming partakers of the paschal mystery by declaring " since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery".[138] Although this passage does not give any positive implication about the possibility of salvation through non-Christian religions and salvific value of their religions, it can be regarded as significant in regard to its reference to the universal grace of God, since, according to this passage, God calls all people to be partakers of His grace; because He created them in His image; and because all have the same origin and also the same theological destiny.[139]

In Ad Gentes Divinitus [The Universal Sacrament of Salvation], unlike the Lumen Gentium 16, it is asserted that those who know about the Church but refuse to be members of it cannot attain salvation. This document indicates that only those who are ignorant of the Church can attain salvation.[140]

As has been observed so far, the Council explicitly cancelled the age-old Catholic axiom Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus by stating that there is salvation outside the Church. Although this is a positive development, there is ambiguity in its teaching, since it still maintains that "the Church is necessary for salvation" and that it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, with its all-embracing means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be found.[141] In the light of this ambiguity, the question is that if there is salvation for non-Christians without being members of the Church, what is the role of their own religious traditions? Are they ways of salvation for their followers? As has been noted above, the Council neither explicitly indicates that they are ways of salvation nor that they are not ways of salvation. For that reason, there is disagreement among Catholic theologians about the interpretation of the conciliar statements on this issue. For example, while Knitter and Stransky argue that the conciliar statements affirm not explicitly but implicitly that the non-Christian religions are ways of salvation,[142] Ruokanen claims that from the conciliar statements one cannot conclude that they recognise

any divinely approved alternative ways of revelation and salvation, or any reinterpretation of the standard doctrine in Christology and soteriology. The Council did not recognize the salvific efficacy of other religions in particular; but it did recognize the general salvific presence of God's grace in all the universe God created.[143]

Our examination of the conciliar statements about non-Christian religions show that the Council acknowledged the possibility of salvation of non-Christians by implicitly implying that non-Christian religions are independent ways of salvation for their followers. Although, on the one hand it acknowledges that "grace and truth" are available in those religions, on the other hand it argues that they are made available in them though the mediatorship of Jesus Christ. This seems to be a negative implication of the Council's teaching, but within the broader theological context of the conciliar statements it would be more appropriate to interpret the silence of the Council positively instead of negatively in order to appreciate its contribution on this issue.[144]

In short, we may conclude that the documents of the Second Vatican Council accept the possibility of salvation for non-Christians provided that they follow the orders of their conscience without rejecting deliberately the Gospel message and entering into the Church. By doing this, it is emphasised that the religious tradition of those people does not play a role in the salvation of their followers because they are not included in God’s plan of salvation. This implies that non-Christians can attain salvation not through their own religious traditions but in spite of them. Although the conciliar teaching maintains that the divine grace of salvation is available for all human beings, it does not attempt to clarify the actual manner by which this grace operates amongst the non-Christians and refrains from defining the measure of this grace.[145]

Our above examination of the conciliar statements indicates that they contain very positive statements concerning non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular and their religious traditions. For example, in Nostra Aetate, the Catholic Church "proclaims”, “acknowledges”, and does not reject what is true and holy in them”, but "preserves and promotes” them;[146] in Ad Gentes, she encourages her followers to “respect and love”, to “ know” the people among whom they live and to “prepare dialogue with non-Christians".[147]

Nevertheless, all those positive expressions are not enough to establish and develop fruitful dialogue between Christians and non-Christians, because there are a number of expressions which negatively affect the process of dialogue especially with Muslims. We can summarise the deficiencies of the Council's statements as follows. Firstly, there are expressions which speak about the necessity of evangelization of non-Christians. While, on the one hand, the Council acknowledged all those elements in non-Christian religions namely, the “truth and grace”[148] “true and good”[149] and “precious religious and human elements"[150] it emphasised, on the other hand, that Christ must be proclaimed as "the way, the truth, and the life" and "...in whom God reconciled all things to himself, men find the fullness of their religious life".[151]

Regarding the possibility of salvation outside Christianity, the Council indicates the necessity of mission and evangelization of non- Christians. For instance, in different places of the conciliar statements, it is spoken about the necessity of proclamation, evangelisation, and conversion to open the minds of non-Christians to hear the Gospel.[152] What all these statements indicate is that there is certainly a tension between the appreciation of other religions and the call for evangelisation. Although this tension does not prevent dialogue, it makes it difficult. However, in our opinion, the difficulties should be overcome for the sake of dialogue.

Secondly, non-Christian religions are seen only as a preparation for the Gospel. According to Vatican II all good elements which are found in the life of individual non-Christians are to be regarded as preparatio evangelica. “Whatever good or truth is found among 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”[153]

Thirdly, the Council Fathers tries to patronise non-Christians by seeing their truth as a reflection of the Christian truth which illuminates all the world and by regarding the Catholic Church as the champion of the spiritual, moral social and cultural elements of other religions.[154]

The weak points of the conciliar text on Muslims must also be noted. Firstly, the major weakness of the Council statements is that they do not mention Islam as a religious system apart from the Judeo-Christian tradition but speak about the Muslims, their doctrines and their religious and moral lives. In other words, by referring to Muslims and not to Islam the Council puts stress on individual Muslim men and women and not on their faith. By doing this, the Council Fathers do not wish to give the impression that Islam, with all the claims it makes, is a means of salvation for their followers. Secondly, although the Council speaks about the first article of the Islamic faith, it omits the second part of this article by leaving out the prophetic mission of Muhammad through whom the Muslims profess to have access to the final revelation. The Council also leaves out the last pillar of Islamic faith, i.e. the pilgrimage, by citing prayer, alms-giving and fasting as acts of Muslim faith.

Although the conciliar teaching about non-Christians in general and Muslims in particular has many shortcomings, there are also very positive and significant points in this teaching. We will highlight these points with regard to the Christian-Muslim dialogue. As Farrugia rightly points out, Muslims must concede to the conciliar statements, for "not only is it the first time in over thirteen centuries of more or less difficult co-existence that the Church takes an official stance regarding the Islamic religion as proposed in the religious attitude of its adherents but also, in so doing, the practical and doctrinal perspectives have been openly conducive to future dialogue between Christians and Muslims".[155] The Council statements provide the following epoch-making points.

Firstly, for the first time by those conciliar statements the Catholic Church officially acknowledged the presence of truly religious values in the Muslims’ faith and religious beliefs. Secondly, through those statements, the Catholic Church acknowledges that both Muslims and Christians are worshipping the same God although they express their beliefs differently. Thirdly, the Catholic Church for the first time in her history officially acknowledged the Muslims’ esteem and veneration of Abraham, Jesus and Mary. Fourthly, for the first time, the Catholic Church called both Christians and Muslims to come together by forgetting the past and striving sincerely for mutual understanding in order to “promote and preserve peace, liberty, social justice and moral values” for the benefit of all humankind.

Briefly, these significant points indicate that the teaching of the Second Vatican Council made tremendous progress in the way of establishing better relations with Muslims. Without these advances, it can be argued, today's dialogical relationship between Christian and Muslims would have been much more difficult.

It seems that the conciliar statements on Muslims imply that Islam is put on the general formula of recognition, that in it the truth of Christianity which illuminates all people can be recognised by Christians. Yet, Muslims are seen as being outside the biblical history of revelation “like all the other ‘Gentiles’”.[156] Concerning this point, i.e. the double standard of the conciliar texts on Muslims, the German Islamicist, Hans Zirker, rightly asks, “Is it really enough for a Christian theology first to put Islam with all the other religions... and secondly, in addition, to list the individual elements which it shares with the biblical tradition?”.[157]

When we take the Second Vatican Council’s teaching as a whole, we may argue that in these Council documents the Catholic Church has moved away from exclusivism to inclusivism concerning her attitude towards non-Christians. Because, as Fitzmaurice rightly remarks, on the one hand those documents assert that salvation of humankind depends on the Christ event in one way or another; on the other hand they acknowledge that there are “real holiness and moral goodness” in the lives of those people.[158]

It seems that the most serious aspect of the conciliar texts on Muslims is their silence on the revelation and the prophethood of Muhammad. As we have observed above, although in these texts the Council Fathers have spoken about Muslims, their belief of One God, the Hereafter, their moral goodness, and some Islamic devotions [prayer, almsgiving, and fasting], they have not said anything about the prophethood of Muhammad and the Qur'an which are central to the faith of Muslims. In our opinion, the reason for this omission was not to regard Islam as a separate religion, through which people reach salvation. If the Council spoke of Muhammad as a Prophet of God, then the Catholic Church would have to acknowledge his prophethood, and as a consequence of that the divine origin of the Qur’an which was revealed to him from God. As a result, the Church would have to accept the presence of prophethood after Jesus, and the continuity of revelation after the New Testament. It seems that the reason for the silence of the Council Fathers on these two issues is that they did not want to acknowledge Islam as a religion apart from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

If we take the conciliar statements on Muslims as a point of departure rather than a goal for a better dialogue between Christian and Muslims, we may say that Muslims can recognise this Council as an epoch-making breakthrough in the history of Christian-Muslim relations and appreciate it by hoping that the Church authorities will continue to produce a more positive statement on Muslims by overcoming the weak points of the Council which we have indicated above. In the light of this hope , we shall analyse post-Vatican II developments in the next chapter.

In short, in our opinion, the most important contribution of the conciliar statements on Muslims is their encouragement to Christians and Muslims to forget past hostilities and to discover the deep religious character of each other’s religion by doing objective research. By concluding this chapter, we would like to point out that our examination, so far, has shown us that while some people regard the conciliar statements as being too cautious, others consider them as a bold step forward. Whatever one's interpretation concerning these statements, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council did succeed in clarifying a broad theological foundation.

In the next chapter, we will examine post-conciliar developments concerning the Catholic Church’s relationship with non-Christians in order to observe how far the Roman Catholic Church developed her relations with non-Christians after the Second Vatican Council.

[1] For similar questions see Mikka Ruokanen, The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions According to the Second Vatican Council (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p.10; Geoarges C. Anawati, “Excursus on Islam”, in H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, v.3 (London: 1969), p.151-155; Christian Troll, “Changing Catholic Views of Islam”, to be published in J. Waardenburg, ed., Christianity and Islam: Mutual Perceptions since the Mid-20th Century (Kampen: Kok Agora), p.2.

[2] Joseph Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims: The Church’s Consideration of Islam in Vatican II and its Resonance in Subsequent Christian-Muslim Relations (Roma: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1987), p.12.

[3] Ruokanen, The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions, p. 10.

[4] Hans Küng, The Church (London: Search Press, 1978 first published in 1968), pp. 313ff; Küng, “The World Religions in God’s Plan of Salvation”, in J. Neuner, ed., Christian Revelation and World Religions (London: Burns and Oates, 1967), p. 31; also see Molly T. Marshall, No Salvation Outside the Church? A Critical Inquiry (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1993), pp. 11ff.

[5] Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church: Tracing The History of the Catholic Church Response (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), p. 18.

[6] Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church, pp. 18-19.

[7] Kurien Kunnumpuram, Ways of Salvation: The Salvific Meaning of Non-Christian Religions According to the Second Vatican Council (Poona: Pontifical Athenaeum, 1971), p. 13.

[8] Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church, p. 23.

[9] Knitter, No Other Name?, p. 121.

[10] Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church, p. 27.

[11] Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church, p. 35.

[12] Sullivan, The Church We Believe In, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), p.113.

[13] J. Neuner & J. Dupuis, eds., The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (Banglore: Theological Publication in India, 1996), p. 16.

[14] Neuner & Dupuis, The Christian Faith, p. 281.

[15] Neuner & Dupuis, The Christian Faith, pp. 383-384.

[16] See Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church, pp. 69ff.

[17] Neuner& Dupuis, The Christian Faith, p. 386.

[18] Neuner& Dupuis, The Christian Faith, pp. 300-301.

[19] In this case, Archbishop Feeney was excommunicated by the Pope because of his insistence on a literal interpretation and application of the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation,” along the lines of the Council of Florence by defining a dogma of faith, and anyone who denies it, or waters it down, is guilty of heresy. This literal understanding of the traditional dogma means that there is no possibility of salvation for those who do not live and die as a Roman Catholic. (Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church, pp. 135-136).

[20] Neuner and Dupuis, The Christian Faith, p. 306. Pope Pius XII declared that, "To gain eternal salvation it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is required that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not necessary that this desire be explicit. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will".

[21] Hick, God and Universe of Faiths (Oxford: Oneworld, 1993 first published in 1973), p. 124.

[22] See Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church, p. 82ff.

[23] Concerning the life of Massignon, see Giulio Basetti-Sani, Louis Massignon (1883-1962) Christian Ecumenist; Prophet of Inter-Religious Reconciliation (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1974); Herbert Mason, Testimonies and Reflections; Essays of Louis Massignon (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1989); Bert Breiner, "Louis Massignon - An Interpretive Essay", Newsletter, CSIC, 14 (1985), pp. 19-26.

[24] Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “In Commemoration of Louis Massignon: Catholic Scholar, Islamicist and Mystic”, in Presence de Louis Massignon; Hommages et temoignages (Paris: Editions Maisonneuve Et Larose, 1987), p. 55.

[25] Basetti Sani, Louis Massignon (1883-1962) Christian Ecumenist, pp. 91-92.

[26] Basetti Sani, Louis Massignon (1883-1962) Christian Ecumenist, p. 110.

[27] Pierre Rocalve, Louis Massignon et L’Islam (Damas: Institut Francais De Damas), 1993, pp. 37-43.

[28] Troll, “Changing Catholic Views of Islam”, p. 10.

[29] Rocalve, Louis Massignon et L’Islam, pp. 45-49.

[30] See Karl- Josef Kuschel, Abraham; A Symbol of Hope for Jews, Christians and Muslims (London: SCM Press), 1995, p. 219.

[31] Caspar, Traite De Theologie Musulmane: Histoire De la Pensée Religieuse Musulmane, Tome 1 (Rome: P.I.S.A.I, 1987), p. 80.

[32] Troll, “Islam and Christianity Interacting in the Life of an Outstanding Christian Scholar of Islam: the case of Louis Massignon (1883-1962)”, IMA, 15 (1984), pp. 163-164.

[33] Troll, “Islam and Christianity Interacting in the Life of an Outstanding Christian Scholar of Islam”, p. 165; also see Caspar, Traite De Theologie Musulmane, p. 81; Neal Robinson, "Massignon, Vatican II and Islam: As an Abrahamic Religion", ICMR, 2/2 (1991), pp. 182-205.

[34] See Maurice Boutin, “Anonymous Christianity: A Paradigm for Interreligious Encounter”, JES, 20 (1983), pp. 602-629.

[35] See William V. Dych, Karl Rahner, Oustanding Christian Thinkers Series (London: Geoffrey Chapman), 1992, pp.12-13.

[36] Karl Rahner, "Christianity and Non-Christian Religions", Theological Investigations, v.5 (London: Longman& Todd, 1966).

[37] These writings are: Rahner, “Anonymous Christians” in Theological Investigations, v.6 (London: Longman & Todd, 1969), pp. 390-398; Rahner, “Anonymous Christianity and the Missionary Task of the Church”, in Theological Investigations, v.12 (London: Longman & Todd, 1974), pp.161-178; Rahner, “Observations on the Problem of the ‘Anonymous Christian’” in Theological Investigations, v.14 (London: Longman & Todd, 1976), pp. 280-298; Rahner, “Anonymous Christianity and Explicit Faith” in Theological Investigations, v. 16 (London: Longman & Todd, 1979), pp. 52-59; Rahner, “Jesus Christ in the Non-Christian Religions”, in Theological Investigations, v. 17 (London: Longman & Todd, 1981), pp. 39-50; Rahner, "On the Importance of the Non-Christian Religions for Salvation", in Theological Investigations, v. 18 (London: Longman & Todd, 1984), pp. 288-295.

[38] Ruokanen, The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions, p. 29.

[39] Rahner, "Christianity and Non-Christian Religions", p. 131.

[40] Rahner, “Christianity and Non-Christian Religions”, p. 121.

[41] Rahner, “Christianity and Non-Christian Religions”, p. 117.

[42] Rahner, “Christianity and Non-Christian Religions”, p. 118.

[43] Rahner, “Christianity and Non-Christian Religions”, p. 121; A lawful religion means here an institutional religion whose ‘use’ by man at a certain period of time can be regarded on the whole as a positive means of gaining the right relationship to God and, thus, for the attaining of salvation, a means which is therefore positively included in God’s plan of salvation.(p. 125).

[44] See Roger Haight, The Experience and Language of Grace (London: Macmillan, 1979), pp.122-126.

[45] Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, p. 47.

[46] Rahner, “Christianity and Non-Christian Religions”, p. 131.

[47] Rahner, “Christianity and Non-Christian Religions”, p.133.

[48] See "Declaration on the Relation of the Church to the Non-Christian Religions", in A. Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II; The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Dublin: Dominican Publication, 1975, pp. 738-742.

[49] See "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", in Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II, pp. 350-423.

[50] Thomas Stransky, “The Church and Other Religions”, IBMR, 9 (1985), p. 154.

[51] John M. Oestereicher, "Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions; Introduction and Commentary", in H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, v. 3 (London: 1969), pp. 17-18; Tamara Sonn, "The Dialogue between Islam and the Judeo-Christian Tradition" in C. Wei-hsun and G. E. Spiegler, eds., An Analysis and Sourcebook of Developments Since 1945; Religious Issues and Interreligious Dialogues (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), p. 440.

[52] Stransky, “The Church and Other Religions”, p. 155; Sonn, "The Dialogue between Islam and the Judeo-Christian Tradition" pp. 440-441; also see Reinhard Neudecker, “The Catholic Church and the Jewish People”, in R. Latourelle, ed., Vatican II Assessment and Perspectives Twenty Years After (1962-1987), v.3 (New York: Paulist Press), 1989, pp. 283-323;

[53] Robert Caspar, “Islam According to Vatican II: On the Tenth Anniversary of Nostra Aetate”, Encounter, 21 (1976), p. 1.

[54] Oesterreicher, “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions", p. 122-123.

[55] Caspar, “Islam According to Vatican II”, p. 2.

[56] Ruokanen, “Catholic Teaching on Non-Christian Religions at the Second Vatican Council”, IBMR, 9(1985), p. 56.

[57] See Oesterreicher, “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions”, p. 129; Sheard, Interreligious Dialogue in Catholic Church Since Vatican II, p. 28.

[58] Roukanen, Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions, p. 42.

[59] Stransky, “The Church and Other Religions”, p. 157.

[60] Nostra Aetate 1:1

[61] Roukanen, The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions, p. 7.

[62] Nostra Aetate 1:1.

[63] Nostra Aetate 1:1.

[64] Nostra Aetate 5:1-3.

[65] See Ruokanen, The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions, pp. 50-51.

[66] Nostra Aetate 1:2; When we look at the book of “Revelation” in the New Testament, we encounter the similar passage dealing with the eschatological vision of the nations (Revelation.21,22). According to K. Cracknell, the expressions of this passage deal with the eschatology of nations and peoples and challenge the theologies which speak of the eschatology of a single people, and which suggest that God has but one single pattern of working in his saving action toward humankind. If God wants to save all nations and so He is at work in various ways to do this, Christians have to accept that their partners in the process of dialogue have truth in their holy books and their religious traditions are valid. (K. Cracknell, Towards A New Relationship, Christians and People of Other Faith (London:Epwort Press, 1987), pp. 51-52).

[67] Nostra Aetate 2:2

[68] Ruokanen, The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions, pp.59-60.

[69] Ad Gentes 8:1.

[70] Lumen Gentium 35:4.

[71] Lumen Gentium 25:1.

[72] Nostra Aetate 4:6; Ruokanen, Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions, p. 60; also see Pietro Rossano, "Christ's Lordship and Religious Pluralism in Roman Catholic Perspective", in G.H. Anderson & T.F. Stransky, eds., Christ's Lordship & Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1981), pp. 96-110; Paul Hacker, "The Christian Attitude Toward Non-Christian Religions: Some Critical and Positive Reflections", ZMR, 2 (1971), pp. 81-97.

[73] Ruokanen,The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions, p. 61; Ruokanen, "Catholic Teaching on Non-Christian Religions", p. 58.

[74] Lumen Gentium 16:1.

[75] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, pp. 21-22.

[76] Nostra Aetate 2:3

[77] Nostra Aetate 2:3.

[78] See Ruokanen, Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions, pp. 86-87.

[79] Nostra Aetate 3:1.

[80] Lumen Gentium 16:1.

[81] In the medieval age, it was claimed that Muslims were idolaters, because they did not worship one God but a false trinity which consisted of Tervagan, Muhammad, and Apollo (R.W. Southern, Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Harward Unv. Press, 1962), p. 32; Albert Hourani, Europe and Middle East (London: Macmillan, 1980), p. 9; Thomas Michael, "Christianity and Islam; Reflections on Recent Teachings of the Church", Encounter, 112 (1985), p. 3.

[82] Related Qur'anic verses see Qur'an 1:3; 2:255; 112:1ff; Concerning the common points of Christian and Muslim doctrine of God see Maurice Borrmans, "The Doctrinal Basis Common to Christians and Muslims and Different Areas of Convergence in Action", JES, 14/1 (1977).

[83] Caspar, "Islam According to Vatican II; 1-7; see, Qur'an 2:255.

[84] Borrmans, “The Muslim-Christian Dialogue in the Last Ten Years”, PMVB 74 (1978), p. 12.

[85] Borrmans, "The Muslim-Christian Dialogue in the Last Ten Years", p. 12.

[86] David Thomas, "A Christian Theology of Islam", unpublished essay, CSIC, Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham, p. 1-10.

[87] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 40.

[88] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 40.

[89] See Willem Bijlefield, “The Danger of 'Christianizing' our Partners in Dialogue", MW, 57(1967), pp. 172-177; Charles Adams, "Islamic Religious Tradition", in Leonard Binder, ed., The Study of the Middle East: Research and Scholarship in the Humanities and the Social Sciences (New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1976), pp. 29-95.

[90] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 63.

[91] Anawati, “Excurcus on Islam”, pp. 151-153.

[92] See Nasr, “ Response to Hans Küng” in MW, 77 (1987), pp. 96-102.

[93] Küng, Christianity and the World religions, p. 27

[94] Anawati, “Excursus on Islam”, p. 153.

[95] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 41.

[96] Nostra Aetate 3:1.

[97] Lumen Gentium 16:1

[98] See Qur'an 6:120-123.

[99] Borrmans, “The Muslim-Christian Dialogue in the Last Ten Years”, p. 12; also see Caspar, “Islam according to Vatican II”, p. 5.

[100] Caspar, “Islam according to Vatican II”, p. 5.

[101] For Massignon see section 1. 3.1.

[102] Anawati, “Excurcus on Islam”, p. 153.

[103] See Qur'an 3: 65-67.

[104] Borrmans, “The Muslim Christian Dialogue in the Last Ten Years”, p. 12.

[105] Caspar, “Islam according to Vatican II”, p. 5; for further information about Christian and Muslim perception of Abraham see, Kuschel, Abraham.

[106] Nostra Aetate 3:1.

[107] The Anglican Bishop and Islamicist, Kenneth Cragg, expresses his sadness concerning the Muslim perception of Jesus as a prophet by stating that "In conforming Christ to its own conception of the successful prophet, Islam has robbed him of himself, transformed him into an unrecognisable Jesus". (Kennth Cragg, Call of Minaret (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 261-262).

[108] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 45.

[109] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 49.

[110] Nostra Aetate 3:1.

[111] Troll, “Changing Catholic Views of Islam”, p. 8.

[112] Caspar, “Islam according to Vatican II”, p.5.

[113] Borrmans, “The Muslim-Christian Dialogue in the Last Ten Years”, p. 13.

[114] Nostra Aetate 3:1.

[115] Borrmans, “The Muslim-Christian Dialogue in the Last Ten Years”, pp. 12-13

[116] See Chapter Two section 2.3 and 2.4.3.

[117] Caspar, “La religione musulmane”, p. 228 cited in Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 56.

[118] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 56.

[119] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 57.

[120] Caspar, “Islam according to Vatican II”, p. 6; also see Anawati, "An Assesment of the Christia-Islamic Dialogue", in K. C. Ellis, ed., The Vatican, Islam, and the Middle East (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1987), pp. 51-68.

[121] Ary A. Roest Crollius, “The Church Looks at Muslims”, in Latourelle, ed., Vatican II Assessment and Perspectives Twenty Years After (1962-1987), p. 327.

[122] Lumen Gentium 16:1.

[123] Ruokanen, The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christians, p. 78; Concerning this point, Crollius incorrectly argues that the Council's appreciation of Muslims’ doctrinal, religious and moral elements could not be used "as arguments to prove that the plan of salvation also embrace Muslims”, since it clearly contradicts the Council statement itself (Crollius, “The Church Looks at Muslims”, p. 327)

[124] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 62.

[125] Nostra Aetate 3:2.

[126] Siddiqui, Christian-Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century, p. 55.

[127] Caspar, Traite de Theologie Musulmans, p. 87.

[128] As we will see in the next chapter, the relatioship between dialogue and proclamation has been discussed by the Catholic authorities in the post-conciliar period (see Chapter Two section 2.6.)

[129] Nostra Aetate 1:2.

[130] Lumen Gentium 14:1.

[131] Lumen Gentium 14:2.

[132] Lumen Gentium 9:1.

[133] Lumen Gentium 14:1.

[134] Lumen Gentium 16:1.

[135] See Kuschel, Abraham, pp. 134ff.

[136] Ruokanen, The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christians, pp. 99-100.

[137] See section 1.3.1.

[138] Gaudium et spes 22:5.

[139] Gaudium et spes. 29:1; Ruokanen, Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christians, pp. 95-96.

[140] Ad Gentes Divinitus 7:1.

[141] Lumen Gentium 14.

[142] Knitter, "Roman Catholic Approaches to Other Religions: Developments and Tensions", IBMR, 8(1984), pp. 50-54; also see Knitter, "Interpreting Silence: A Response To Mikka Ruokanen", IBMR, 14(1990), pp. 62-63; Stransky, "The Church and Other Religions", pp. 154-158; David Wright, "The Watershed of Vatican II: Catholic Attitudes towards Other Religions", in A.D. Clarke & B.W. Winter, eds., One God One Lord; In a World of Religious Pluralism (Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1991), pp. 153-171.

[143] Ruokanen, "Catholic Teaching on Non-Christian Religions", pp. 57.

[144] Knitter, "Interpreting Silence: A Response to Mikka Ruokanen", p. 62.

[145] Farrugia, Vatican II and The Muslims, p. 15; also see, Kunnumpuram, Ways of Salvation, p. 91; James Dupuis, "The Salvific Value of Non-Christian Religions", in M. Dhavamony, ed., Evangelization, Dialogue and Development, Documenta Missionalia 5 (Roma: Universita Gregoriana Editrice, 1972), pp. 169-194.

[146] Nostra Aetate 2.

[147]Ad Gentes Divinitus 11: 1; 41:5.

[148] Ad Gentes Divinitus 9.

[149] Lumen Gentium 16.

[150] Gaudium et spes 92:4.

[151] Nostra Aetate 2:2; see also J. Dupuis, Jesus Christ Encounter at the World Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991), pp. 137-138; Kunnumpuram, Ways of Salvation, p. 65-66.

[152] See Ad Gentes Divinitus 13:1; 15:8; 39:1; 40:2.

[153] Ad gentes Divinitus .9; Lumen Gentium 17

[154] Nostra Aetate 2:2-3.

[155] Farrugia, Vatican II and the Muslims, p. 70.

[156] Kuschel, Abraham, p. 216.

[157] Hans Zirker, Islam: Theologische und Gesellschaftliche Herausforderung (Dusseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1993), p. 27 cited in Kuschel, Abraham, p. 217; also see Troll, "Christianity and Islam: Mutual Challenges: Hans Zirker's recent work on Islam", OCP, 61 (1995)., pp. 571-580.

[158] Redmond Fitzmaurice, “The Roman Catholic Church and Interreligious Dialogue: Implications for Christian-Muslim Relations”, ICMR, 3/1(1992), p. 92; Fitzmaurice, What Will the Third Vatican Council have to say about Relations between Christians and People of other Faiths, Occasional Paper 14, (Birmingham: Selly Oak Colleges, 1997).