THE CHURCH IN DIALOGUE: WITHIN AND WITHOUT
*Ivo da Conceiçao SOUZA
Introduction
In the contemporary world, which has become a ‘global village’ thanks to communication revolution, there is still chaos: dissensions, wars, riots, bioterrorism, fundamentalism, racism, casteism, fanaticism, political corruption, despotism, religious intolerance, cultural clashes, new forms of slavery. It is multifaceted selfishness that is playing havoc in our society. It disturbs and damages the fabric of happy life of human society. At this difficult juncture, we are witnessing an effort to come back to brotherhood, to a just, peaceful, more humane existence. Religion, which is a search for the ultimate meaning of existence, should guide us, provide inspiration and strength. But unfortunately religion has become the tool of politics, of communalism and of fundamentalism. It is source of confusion.
We are living in a multiethnic, multicultural and multireligious country, a real mosaic of people, of cultures, of religions. In the words of the great historian, Fr.Henry HERAS, SJ, “The history of India is not the history of a nation, it is the history of a continent in which many peoples have been fused together. It is the history of many migrations, all of which have left gold dust in their train; it is the history of many dynasties which all together have raised monuments. Finally, it is the history of a constant desire to seek truth through the centuries, such metaphysical ideas as are not to be found in the most renowned civilizations of the ancient world”.[1] We have to live with them. We cannot repress them, whether covertly or overtly, without losing equilibrium. All religions should unite in their effort to bring back peace to the world through renewal and dialogue. There is a need for dialogue, within and without: dialogue within the Church herself (intra-religious dialogue) and dialogue with the world, with other religions, cultures, ideologies and traditions (inter-religious dialogue). We are at the end of the United Nations-proclaimed Year of Dialogue Between Civilizations. John Paul II had dedicated his World Day of Peace 2001 message to the Year of Dialogue. I shall dwell on the meaning of dialogue in the modern context of chaotic growth and then, after providing anthropologico-theological basis for dialogue, speak about the concrete steps towards dialogue of the Church, within and without.
A. Dialogue
1. Its Meaning
Dialogue, which is derived from the Greek word dia-log(on)/izomai, can be defined as a “conversation on a common subject between two or more persons”. It is a “con-versation”, talk across the table on a common topic, exchange of views, encounter through the word. It is an integral dimension of human existence. It challenges one’s life and changes each other. It is a living, growing I-thou relationship. It is a process of growth. It begins with mutual admiration and acceptance. Its primary purpose is to understand the other and enrich mutually. It is a process of participation in the common learning from the other so as to change and grow. It is a process of transformation. It is an expression of transformative love.
God created cosmos out of chaos, but man through his misuse of freedom “de-created” the world and “created” a new chaos. Now we have to “create” continuously cosmos out of chaos. This is not possible without man’s dialogue with God. Only then will Man be able to promote dialogue with others. Man will have to affirm the value of life against chaos. He will have to work with other human beings for the common goal, for the transformation of the world.
Dialogue means listening to others. Unless we listen to others, we cannot learn from others. To listen, we have to hold others in admiration and respect. We have also to affirm our identity and offer our values to others. This will be a process of mutual enrichment, mutual liberation and mutual growth. Only after a self-critical process, can we engage together in critique of the contemporary society, together can we work for integral development and peace, for a new social order.
Dialogue is an integral part of the Church’s mission. When we are suffering inIndia from an intolerant atmosphere, we can only survive through dialogue. It is the new way of being Church today. It is the only way to survival. It is the only way to peace. We have to listen to the expectations and grievances of the people within the Church, as well as of the people of other religions and cultures, we have to apologize for our faults, learn from our mistakes, see others in a new light, discover liberative dimension in us and in others; in short, shun what divides us, and promote what unites us.
Dialogue should go together with proclamation. Dialogue should be an integral part of evangelization, of mission, of universal ministry of reconciliation. We are pilgrims, we are searching truth. We cannot claim to have monopoly of truth, we are still groping for truth, we see the truth dimly, as if in a mirror (cf.2 Cor 3:18), we have to share with one another, we have to walk with others. On the one hand, we affirm our self-identity, whilst on the other hand, we share in the search of truth in which ‘others’ are engaged.
Dialogue is mutual communication between two individuals or members of different religions and ideologies. It is a reciprocal process: giving and receiving. It presupposes our ability to reason and to change. Each culture may say that its way is the way, to the exclusion of all others. But a genuine dialogue between cultures requires a respect for differences. There has been collision between religions and civilizations. Ethnico-religious differentiation has been used as a justification for brutal conflict, genocide, and persecution. We have crossed the boundaries of elimination of subordinate groups through genocide or of assimilation through ethnocide by dominant groups to dialogue, living encounter and pro-existence. [2]
2. Anthropological Dimension of Dialogue
Dialogue is an integral dimension of human existence. It challenges, recharges and enriches each other. Dialogue is an on-going process. We are bodily beings, in a body-soul unity. Aristotle has defined man as a zoon logikon, which can be understood as animal rationale, as it has been in the philosophical and theological tradition, or rather as “living thinking, intelligent being”.[3] We are social and institutional beings. We grow through affirmation by others, we form our self-identity. We are beings of history and of tradition. We live amidst collective experience. We interpret our personal experience in the light of the collective horizon. We evaluate traditions through our spatio-temporal lenses. We are also liable to misinterpret history, jeopardize progress and bring destruction. Man is not only social and historical being, he is also linguistic being. His personality grows to maturity when he is addressed by others with words of affirmation and love. Language helps us to grow, it becomes our food and a word of support. Human existence is essentially and deeply linguistic. Man questions, decides, hopes.[4] Vatican II sums up the basic questions asked by every human being in his present condition:
“The problems that weigh heavily on the hearts of men are the same today as in the ages past. What is man? What is the meaning and purpose of life? What is upright behaviour, and what is sinful? Where does suffering originate, and what purpose does it serve? How can genuine happiness be found? What happens at death? What is judgment? What reward follows death? And, finally what is the ultimate mystery, beyond human explanation, which embraces our entire existence, from which we take our origin and toward which we tend?” [5]
Through dialogue we share experiences and reflections in order to reach a more complete world vision (Weltanschauung) and be willing to respond with wholehearted commitment for a better world. We listen to others in order to ‘under-stand’ their living worlds and be with them in their joys and sorrows.
There has always been tension between ‘self’ and ‘the others’ or ‘strangers’ (meant by the word bárbaroi), which remains still today in our pluralistic society. The problem of “the one and the many” goes back to ancient Greek philosophy. [6] We have still to steer between Scylla of metanoia of the ‘self’ and Charybdis of paranoia of ‘the other’.
Today philosophers have provided us with the vision of man as a relational being, through his I-thou dimension. The I-thou relationship is deeply rooted in the transcendental I-Thou relationship. Together they co-create a new entity, a “We”. A person cannot be owned, objectified, reified, used as an object (‘thing-ified’).The opposite of I-thou dialogue is monologue, which implies selfishness and manipulation. In genuine dialogue we accept and affirm others in their personhood. By doing so, we nurture the divine spark in them, and thereby actualize God in the world. A world without dialogue, unity or community is a “broken world”. Martin BUBER, Martin HEIDEGGER, and Gabriel MARCEL have elaborated this dialogical dimension of Man.[7] Dialogue has been a concern of philosophers right from Socrates and Plato till today with Hans-Georg GADAMER. This dialogical approach is quite evident in John Paul II’s writings.
Hans-Georg GADAMER brought to light how through the interplay of questions and answers dialogue provides a deeper understanding of a theme. Listening and responding brings openness, which enables us to reach the core-meaning, revealed in the inner word (Logos). Every statement is to be regarded as an answer to a question. Dialogue presupposes goodwill to reason and change. There should be equality and reciprocity, common subject-matter and common questions, which will facilitate the “fusion of horizons” (osmosis) between the speaker and the listener.[8] Only through dialogical dialogue,– which means piercing the ideology in order to reach that trans-logical realm of the heart,– we are ultimately allowed ‘under-standing’, namely standing under the same horizon of intelligibility.[9] But understanding is not a purely cognitive matter, accumulated new information for the sake of curiosity. It is a change in one’s way of being-in-the-world, a conversion. [10] We have to move from tolerance and co-existence to enriching, fulfilling dialogue, a transformative encounter of living worlds.[11]
3. Theological Foundation of Dialogue
Religion is a dialogue between God and humanity, between God and the individual, between I and Thou. Salvation history from the beginning is presented as a dialogue between God and Man—the Father speaks to his children.[12] The Paschal Mystery is the culmination of the dialogic relations between God and Man in Christ. The Eucharist is the kernel of the Christian life and of the priestly ministry. It nourishes our dialogue with the Risen Lord. Prayer is a dialogue with the Lord of our life and history.
This dialogue is rooted in the Trinitarian Mystery: The Triune God is love and communicates love within and without. The Trinity will imprint its seal of love on every genuine religious experience, on every community, one every scriptural record. The Triune God is the Lord of creation and of history. He wants to be the Lord of every human heart. His greatest gift is human freedom. There cannot be meaningful dialogue among civilizations without religious freedom. Every culture of the world, with its diversity of gifts, has to contribute with diversity in unity, to the building up of a “civilization of love”. Differences among civilizations should be respected, since every individual has the right to truth according to the dictates of his/her conscience, within the context of his/her cultural heritage.
Dialogue is not a luxury, but a vital necessity. It is not a new gimmick for conversion to another religion, but sharing of light and values, “like a householder who draws old and new from his treasure” (Mt 13:52). It is conversion of heart and mind. The Church is not only donor, but also recognizer and receiver of values, like harmony, brotherhood, honesty, fidelity, love. The Church has to be self-critical and proclaim brotherly love that corresponds to the aspirations of the contemporary Man, which are also the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ (GS 1). Evangelization consists in proclaiming the law of love which is “the basic law of human perfection and hence of the world’s transformation” (GS 38), or as St.Paul states: to evangelize means to “bring to perfection the Gospel of Christ” (Rm 15:19) or to “realize the event of the Word of God” (Col1:25).[13]
We need understanding, education to forgive, mutual admiration and respect, apology and openness. We have to forgive and forget the past. Dialogue is a practical virtue, an art. It requires effort to love, to understand, to forgive, to change. We have been hurt and we have hurt, let us apologize, let us forgive. Unfortunately, we have been witnessing in these last years attacks on the Christian and Muslim communities on the part of the Hindutva activists. Instead of bridges, we have been building walls.[14] True, we have every right for protection under the Indian Constitution. We should retort to baseless allegations, serenely, calmly. We need more dialogue at this juncture. Christendom cannot be identified with Christianity. We have to identify the latent factors, political and econonomic, as well as prejudices and myths, underlying communal tensions. Without renouncing to our faith, we have to revise our attitudes and behaviour. Truth will always prevail…We start the dialogue from where we are, without diluting or suspending our convictions. Otherwise, we shall not have anything to offer. For example, we cannot dilute the teaching of the uniqueness/universality of Christ, which is central to Christianity… We would deny our identity. We have to stand by our faith, honestly and courageously.
It is to be recorded in golden letters how Mrs.Gladys STAINES publicly forgave the criminals (suspected Hindu militants), who burnt alive her husband, Graham Stuart STAINES, and her two sons, Philip and Timothy inside their jeep, in Orissa. John Paul II asked forgiveness on March 12, 2000, for all the offences committed in the past by the Church. We have to accept the realities of history with humility and courage.
We have to dialogue with Hindus, as well as with Muslims, Sikhs, Parsees, Jains and people of tribal religions. Let us show our identity and our convictions. In Indiaall religious communities are to be respected, the fundamental human rights are to be promoted. Outfits of Sangh Parivar should not interfere with the personal options in the field of religion. Our dialogue with the world religions should go beyond praying together and sharing together the experiences and doctrines. It should go beyond the dialogue of praxis or living. It should address the political reality of India, threatened today by political corruption, communalism, violent fanaticism and distorted, militant nationalism. As Jesus has challenged the power structure of his times, with his “anti-power” stance, with his servant leadership, so our task is also to upset the value system that does not respect human dignity and usher in a new face of society.[15] Dialogue should be self-critical, creatively revising historiographical problems and contributing to the democratic process of rebuilding the nation as a secular (or rather a multireligious) state.[16] It should be at micro and macro levels, including ‘tree-top level’, with the governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), on all issues affecting our human rights and existence. [17]
4. Levels of Dialogue
There can be dialogue at four different levels: a. The dialogue of life, where people strive to live in an open and neighbourly spirit, sharing their joys and sorrows, their human problems and preoccupations; b. The dialogue of action or cooperation, in which Christians and others collaborate for the integral development and liberation of people; c. The dialogue of religious experience or witnessing, where persons, rooted in their own religious traditions, share their spiritual riches, for instance, with regard to prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching for God or the Absolute; d. The dialogue of theological exchange or doctrinal, where specialists seek to deepen their understanding of their respective religious heritages, and to appreciate each other’s spiritual values. The fruit of dialogue will be a deeper communion with God and with other people. We shall grow in friendliness and be able to promote and defend “common ideals in the spheres of religious liberty, human brotherhood, education, culture, social welfare and civic order”[18] We are living with fear psychosis in today’s world where everything seems to divide us. After Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the twin towers of theWorldTradeCenter and the Pentagon inAmerica, the situation has become darker. Also, inIndia we are witnessing terrible attacks against the Christians and Muslims for years together. It is high time to promote understanding between cultures and religions. In his address at the Plenary Assembly of the United Nations inNew York, Archbishop Renato MARTINO, Head of the Delegation of the Holy See and its Permanent Observer to the U.N., explained that “No authentic dialogue can take place if it fails to respect life”.
B.Dialogue with World Religions
1.Paul VI and Dialogue
The Secretariat for the Non-Christians was created on the Pentecost day of 1964, presided then by the Cardinal Paolo MARELLA and later in 1989 renamed Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. Soon was proposed to the world his first Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam (August 6, 1964), which is the “charter of inter-religious dialogue”. It delineates the principles and motivations, the scope and methods, the modality and spirituality. Paul VI in his Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam sees the concrete situation in a series of concentric circles around the central point at which God has placed us. The first circle is mankind, the human race, the world, with common nature, common life with all its gifts and all its problems (ES 97-107). The second circle comprises of the worshippers of the One God, like the Jewish people and the Muslims, and all the followers of the great Afro-Asiatic religions (ES 108). The third circle includes the Christians (ES 109), differing from us on many points concerning tradition, spirituality, canon law, and worship. To the last circle belong the Catholics (ES 113).
Paul VI came toIndiaon December 2, 1964, as a pilgrim of peace, of joy, of serenity and love. His Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam had already set the stage for such a dialogue. In his speech on December 3, to the representatives of the non-Christian religions, Paul VI spoke of the intense search for God inIndia, quoting from the Hindu Scriptures, the Upanishads:
“From the unreal, lead me to the real; from darkness, lead me to light; from death, lead me to immortality”.[19]
2.John Paul II and Dialogue
John Paul II is a man of dialogue, a specialist in theory and practice. Karol Wojtyla belongs to the Dublin School of Philosophy. Under the leadership of Fr.Mieczyslaw KRAPIEC, OP, the Lublin School retained Thomistic realist principles and incorporated insights of Gabriel MARCEL, Martin HEIDEGGER, Karl JASPERS and Martin BUBER, all with their emphasis on the I-thou relationship. With his grammatical, philological and philosophical background, John Paul II enriched theological reflection with anthropological, personalist dimensions.
In all his writings, John Paul II provided the Church principles and guidelines for dialogue.[20] Also through his visits to different countries, the Holy Father fostered dialogue. His visits to Constantinople (1979), Canterbury (1982), Geneva (1984), Khartoum, Sudan (1993), India (January 31-February 11, 1986 and November 6, 1999), Sri Lanka (January 21, 1995) and the World Day of Prayer and Fasting for Peace at Assisi, Italy (October 27, 1986) are to be recorded in golden letters. [21] He has also given audience to several leaders of other churches, religions and states, including the Soviet President Mikhail GORBACHEV, originator of Perestroika and Glasnost.
In Tertio Millennio Ineunte (TMI, n.56), John Paul II is clear about the duty to proclaim the Gospel in an atmosphere of dialogue. Interreligious dialogue “cannot simply replace proclamation, but remains oriented towards proclamation“. “We know in fact that, in the presence of the mystery of grace, infinitely full of possibilities and implications for human life and history, the Church herself will never cease putting questions, trusting in the help of the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (cf. Jn 14:17), whose task it is to guide her “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13)”.
3.World Religions and the Church
i.Since John XXIII sounded the clarion-call for a renewal of the Church (Aggiornamento), there has been an effort for an “Open Catholicity”. Windows were opened and there was a new outpouring of the Spirit of God, a new Pentecost.
ii.Some preliminary remarks about terminology are in order. The expression “non-Christian religions“, though commonly used in our theological discussions, may be misleading. It can be used in statistical sense, for the sake of division, like Jews and non-Jews or Greeks and non-Greeks. It is rather “pre-Christian” religions. It may smack of old colonial thinking (“religious colonialism“). But in default of a better one we shall use the term. But still we can call it, also not quite correctly in the modern communication era, “unevangelized“. We call them world religions and quasi-religions (Marxism, Communism, Fascism, in the words of Paul Tillich).
iii.Statistically, Hindus are 81 per cent (including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, constituting about 23.5 per cent of the total population; if deduced from the Hindu total, the Hindu percentage would come down to 60-62 per cent), Muslims about 12 per cent, Christians about 2.3 per cent, Sikhs 2 per cent, Buddhists .75 per cent, Jains .50 per cent, others .50 per cent. About 60 per cent of the total Christian population are in southern states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. Christians constitute a majority in the tribal states of Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Mizoram, 31 per cent in the state of Goa and 26 per cent in Manipur, 26 per cent in Andaman andNicobar Islands.
This “little flock” is placed in the midst of one billion of Indian population. But Christians who are less than 3 per cent of one billion people ofIndia, are serving the nation through their social commitment, particularly among the marginalized, forsaken people. But it is a pity that we project a ‘divided’ picture inIndia: Catholics, Protestants, Syrian Christians, without speaking of different sects. It is a ‘scandal’ for our neighbouring non-Christian brethren.
iv.The Problem
With new discoveries of peoples and nations in the sixteenth century CE, a reality experienced all over the ‘global city’, the Church had to grapple with the problem of God’s salvific will, on the one hand, and the salvation of the unevangelized, on the other hand. Questions arose in our research: How can the unevangelized be saved? Are the different religions many ways to the one goal? Do all religions not contain God’s Revelation? Is Salvation to be found in the other religions as such? In short, are the religions of the world salvific? How is the Church to be missionary in a pluralistically religious world? Should the Christian missionaries continue to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to people of other faiths? How do we proclaim the uniqueness/universality of Jesus Christ, his Lordship, in the face of similar claims from the followers of other religions?
v.Solutions
Threefold Approach to Other Religions:
Christian attitudes towards the world religions range from the rigid exclusivism of Karl Barth,–for whom there is only one true, revealed religion,–to the broad tolerance of John Hick’s ‘universe of faith’ pluralism.
There are three main approaches proposed by theologians to solve the tension between the two fundamental axioms that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone, and that the good God equally desires the salvation of all human beings.
a)Exclusivism or Ecclesiocentric theories with an exclusive Christology: Both Christ and the Church are constitute of salvation, so that salvation is mediated exclusively through Jesus Christ, and only to those who explicitly express faith in him; and, in some versions, are members of the Christian Church, have the possibility of salvation. Outside the visible Church there is indeed no salvation.[22] Genuine experience of God is confined to Christian revelation alone and there is only a blurred vision of God and little salvific significance in other religions. They do not mediate salvation.
b)Inclusivism or Christocentric theories with an inclusive Christology: Christ, but not necessarily the Church, are constitutive of salvation. Salvation is mediated through death/Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but it can reach all men of good will, even those who do not explicitly believe in Christ’s salvific role.[23] In Rahnerian terms, people who are saved without explicit confession of their faith in the unique Saviour Jesus, are called “anonymous Christians”.[24] They are said to belong to the Church voto (implicitly) if not re (formally)–though this way of speaking or even of thinking is rapidly falling into disuse. Other religions are generally not regarded as salvific in these theories, for the unevangelized are saved, in spite of their religions, but not through them. Such God-seekers are saved because they are in some way linked to Jesus,– as Piet Fransen has suggested, through an option for love, the kernel and the heart of Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God.[25] Thus, according to them, though genuine experiential knowledge of God may be found in other religious traditions, they are not salvific. The fullness of truth is prerogative of Christianity.
c)Pluralism or Theocentric theories:
All religions are equally salvific paths to one God. No saviour can be universal, his salvific influence is limited to his/her own followers. They opt for a ‘Theocentric’ as opposed to a ‘Christocentric’ perspective of history.[26] For John Hick, God/Ultimate Reality is unknowable and ineffable in itself. He draws a distinction between “the Real in itself and the Real as manifested within the intellectual and experiential purview of that tradition”.[27] He called for a ‘Copernican revolution’ in Christian theology to place God at the centre, not Christianity, under the suggestion that “all the religions of mankind, including our own, revolve round him”.[28] There are more variations of these theories (G.D.Kaufman, Paul K. Knitter). Other religions too are salvific in their own right (de iure) and do not need a reference to any ‘unique’ saving event. They constitute a ‘universe of faiths’, centred round an ineffable and ultimately undefinable God.
vi.Theological Reflection
There are efforts among worldwide theologians for elaborating a theology of religions.
*Religion means search for God.[29] It is a constitutive dimension of human existence and clearly meets a deeply rooted human need to find meaning in life, as well as the corresponding social need to find a community which shares and maintains that meaning. In the light of Jewish-Christian Revelation, it springs from the human nature created in the image of God (cf.Gn 1:26f). This longing for the Infinite and for Transcendence is within our hearts and leads us to God (cf.Rm 1:20; Acts 17:26-27). St.Paul tells that the Gentiles are inexcusable because they came to know God and they have the law within their hearts, yet they failed to glorify the Lord, who for this reason left them to their own weaknesses and aberrations (cf.Rm 1:18-2:16; 3:15; see Jr 31:31-34; Ez 36:23-28, cf.27; 37:14; Rm 5:5; 2 Cor 3:6.7-18). The oracles against the nations (Am 1-2; Is 13-21; Jr 46-51; Ez 25-32) do not target the deficiencies found in the religious systems, but rather anti-social aberrations and crimes, pride, cruelty (cf.Acts 14:17; Ps 95:5; 1 Cor 10:20). God of the Covenant, of promises, of faithful love and compassion. God does not leave alone humankind that is striving after him (cf.1 Tm 2:4).[30]
*Religion shapes our culture, that is people’s attitude towards nature, man, history. The mission of the Church is to reveal/communicate God’s love to all people and nations (AG 10). All have but one origin and one final purpose (RMi 31-32). Through evangelization cultures are not diminished, but rather are prompted to open themselves to the newness of the Gospel’s truth. The process of inculturation has to continue. The Church cannot abandon what she has gained from her inculturation in the world of Greco-Latin thought. This criterion is valid for the Church in every age, even for the Church of the future.[31]
*“Outside the Church, No Salvation”:
1.The axiom, “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus), has given a negative image. It goes back to the image of the Noah’sArk, portraying salvation through baptism (1 Pt 3:20). It asserts positively that there is “Salvation inside theArk”, not negative statement: “No salvation outside theArk”. It says explicitly that Christ “died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (3:18), preached the good news after his death (3:19) to those very people “who formerly did not obey” (3:20), and hence were not inside theArk. Therefore, the assertion is “No salvation outside Christ”.
2.The image was adopted by Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria. It is for the first time given its complete, but now negative, formulation by Origen: “Outside this house, that is, the Church, no one is saved”.[32] But it was by Cyprian of Carthage that it was applied with fully consistent juridical exclusiveness.[33]
3.The strict literal sense in which the axiom was taken is shown in this sentence from Augustine’s disciple Fulgentius of Ruspe: “There is no doubt that not only all heathens, but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics who die outside the Church will go into that everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”. [34]
4.Boniface VIII in 1302 in his Bull Unam Sanctam affirms clearly the unity of the Church and within the time-bound ideology seems to propose the hierocratic theory in an extreme form—there are two swords , the temporal and the spiritual powers, but the temporal is under the control of the spiritual, concretely under the jurisdiction of the Pope. Outside the “papal” Church, identified with the mystical Body, there is no salvation: ”We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff” (DS 875/ND 804). But it was not maintained by the subsequent Popes. The doctrinal point is that the Church is necessary for salvation.
5.Only after the discovery of new continents with morally good people theologians, like Robert Bellarmine and Francis Suarez, and the Council of Trent itself, in 1547, in its Decree on Justification, taught that justification could be given either through baptism or through its desire (DS 1524/ND 1928). Against the rigorism of the Jansenists, the proposition that “Extra Ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia” (“Outside the Church there is no grace”: DS 1379/2429) was condemned by Clement XI in his Constitution of September 8, 1713.
6.When the Encyclical Mystici Corporis by Pius XII (June 29, 1943) seemed to give again a rigorous interpretation (cf.DS 3821) and Father Leonard Feeney, with a group of Catholics in Boston, tried to take the words of the encyclical quite literally, namely that everyone outside the Catholic Church is damned, the Holy Office/See intervened to protest against this teaching, with a letter to the Archbishop Cushing of Boston, dated August 8, 1949, [35] emphasizing the ancient doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation—all, in order to be saved, must be in some way related to the Church, at least in desire or longing (voto et desiderio), even implicitly, and this desire must be informed by supernatural faith and love (cf.Hb 11:6). It declared that those, who stated that no one out of the visible Church could be saved, or “falsely maintained that people can be saved equally well in any religion”, was themselves out of the church and excommunicated. [36]
*
* *
–Our approach to the world religions and quasi-religions cannot be one of superiority, blind condemnation or total rejection. On the one hand, we cannot opt for eclecticism or syncretism; on the other hand, we cannot state lightly that “all religions are equal” and fall into relativism. There should not be any compromise, any diluting, any false irenism, or a policy for befriending the brethren of other faiths, but an attempt to delve deeper into the mystery of divine Grace. By studying other religions we shall deepen our own understanding of Christianity, as well as of the other religions. Aware of their deficiencies and shortcomings, we shall realize better the uniqueness and universality of Christ. We shall no longer consider the other religions as inimical to our own. Christ is the only Saviour but his salvific Grace already reaches the non-Christians. It reaches them, not in spite of their non-Christian religions, but by using the very elements of genuine truth and goodness that are present in these religions.[37] They can be better in their own religion and at the same time, draw near to Christ in the recesses of their hearts. Religions are not parallel or complementary to Christianity. Rather, they are convergent, within God’s unique saving plan, on Alpha and Omega, that is Christ, and through Christ on God (cf.Eph 1:4-10; Col 1:20; Rev 1:8; 21:6; 1 Cor 15:28: “God will be all in all”). Dialogue will continue for ever when we shall be with the “fountain of living water”, in the assurance given by God himself that “I shall be God and he will be my son” in the new Jerusalem, the “new heaven and the new earth” (cf.Rev 21:1). From the existential viewpoint, the world religions become the “ordinary” paths of salvation, taking into account that it is Grace welcome through faith, “working though love” that saves (cf.Gal 5:6). They belong to the general/universal history of revelation and salvation, whereas Christians and Jews, and, to a certain extent, Muslims belong to the particular/special history of salvation. On the historical level, members of the world religions receive salvation through their religious practices and beliefs, but on the transcendental level, the Triune God is present in their genuine experience. Since the Word is present and active in the ultimate, transcendental level, any genuine experience will be a saving dialogue with Christ, even if it is not consciously known. Every divine self-gift points towards Christ as its goal and focus, therefore every experience of God’s self-communication is always related to and depends on Christ.[38]
–It is not religions that save us, but God through the religious traditions and systems. It is God who saves us through his Word and Spirit, the “two hands” of God.[39] The Grace of Christ is not confined to any institution or means, it is never commensurate with them; often the Christic grace can purify and elevate seemingly inadequate human means far above their natural efficiency. From the existential viewpoint, a non-Christian can be touched by God and his Grace in his present situation. This does not contradict the tenet of our Christian faith, namely that Christ is the “Way, the Truth and the Life” (cf.Jn 14:6). While giving us all the salvific means, God did not abandon all those who “faultlessly have not come to the explicit knowledge of the Gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by his Grace, strive by their deeds to do his Will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (cf.LG 16); or “those who faultlessly have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his Grace”. He reaches them “in ways known to him alone” (GS 22), in a thousand of unchartered/unstructured ways through the Word (Logos), that “enlightens every Man that comes to the world” (Jn 1:9). Their scriptures, their rites, their traditions, the lessons and examples of their teachers, prophets (rishis) and saints, are means which God’s Providence allows them to use for their growth until they can hear and understand the call of Christ. [40]
–Their sincere, noble lives will be fulfilled by the Christic Grace, in the fullness of Christ (cf.Jn 10:10). Knowing that “the wind blows where it wills” (cf.Jn 3:8), Vatican II reminds us of the activity of the Spirit of God also “outside the visible body of the Church”. The Council speaks of “all people of good will in whose hearts Grace works in an unseen way”. The rationale is clear: “Since Christ died for all, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a maner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery”.[41] The Holy Spirit sows the ‘seeds of truth’ among all peoples, their religions, cultures and philosophies.[42] Countless images, myths and symbols are shadows of the Reality to come. The activity of the Spirit in creation and human history acquires an altogether new significance in his action in the life and mission of Jesus. The “seeds of the Word” (semina Verbi) sown by the Spirit prepare the whole of creation, history and Man for full maturity in Christ”.[43] There may remain admixture of truths and errors in their personal and social ‘credo’, which can be brought to refinement through the knowledge of the Christian mystery. This positive approach to the mystery and theology of world religions should not diminish our missionary love and zeal. On the contrary, it should fill us with more enthusiasm to bring our brethren of other religions to a fuller light and life.
The Declaration Dominus Iesus and Dialogue:
–The Declaration “Dominus Jesus” (DI) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (August 6, 2000) was intended to be a response to deviations in the understanding of Christian faith in the context of today’s multireligious context and the current interfaith and interchurch dialogue.[44] It seems to target as a precautionary measure the theologians of theThird World, chiefly the Indian thinkers. The document does not contain any new magisterial teaching, but recalls the theology of Vatican II, as it has been re-interpreted in subsequent documents. It is to be read together with other Church pronouncements. It may have given the impression of closing discussion than encouraging ecumenical dialogue. The Declaration has put its finger on the important issue of dialogue with the world, with the Christians and the people of other religions. Often dialogue has been more polemical than dialogical. Its central concern has been the dangers of reductionism, relativism and indifferentism. But there have been dissenting voices: It is obstacle to decades of painful ecumenical movement among Christian communities, and chiefly in the dialogue with the other religions. It may reverse the progress ushered in by Vatican II and decades of its follow-up. Its language is rather negative. It did not take into account the historico-personalistic understanding of Revelation and Faith, which came as a source of renewal from the Vatican II.
–The Congregation has two primary concerns, namely “the definitive and complete character of the Revelation of Jesus Christ” and “the nature of Christian faith compared to that of belief in other religions” (DI 4). The first concern can be spelt out in three steps: first, “the fullness and definitiveness of the Revelation of Jesus Christ”; secondly, “the mystery of His incarnation, death and resurrection is the sole and universal source of salvation for all humanity”; and thirdly, the unique mediation of Jesus Christ as the center of salvation history. The Declaration tries to balance two theological concerns: on the one hand, Christ is the sole mediator of salvation (cf.1 Tm 2:5); and on the other hand, further study is needed about how others who remain through no fault of their own outside Christianity, can be saved. But it states immediately that “Christ’s unique mediation does not exclude participated forms of mediation of various types and degrees”, but such forms receive their value from Christ.
–Pedagogy of Dialogue: The fruit of Dialogue should be our common growth in truth and love. Together we should turn to God with greater commitment. “By dialogue we let God be present in our midst; for as we open ourselves in dialogue to one another, we also open ourselves to God”.[45] Therefore, if we want to address our brethren, our dialogue should be phased.[46] We have to advance gradually. We have to start from what is common to us. We may have to bracket what will bring our conversation to a halt, if we are not going to give the partners the feeling of superiority of Christianity on our part or of proselytizing.[47] We have to stress on human and religious values that we share and have to work together to make these values operative in our community. Our service should be an expression of love. Division of any sort openly contradicts the will of Christ and is a stumbling block to the world.
CONCLUSION
Our study carried us through the rich dimensions of dialogue which is the key word today in our relationships. Inspite of the clouds in the Asian-Indian sky, we see a silvery line. We are hopeful that this is the “new springtime of Christian life”.[48] Theologians should continue to work with courage and optimism. All of us should be renewed in mind and heart. It is not the “commandment” of going to the world and proclaiming the Good News that spurs us on, but the mission itself, the love that is burning within our hearts (cf.Lk 24:32; 2 Cor 5:14). We are being watched by our Hindu brethren. It is worthwhile to listen to a Hindu brother, Dr.Kalpesh Gajiwala, who found in Christ a Perfect being, who is ONE with the Supreme Divinity—God. [49]According to him, God manifested himself at different times in different ways: “Ekam sad, bahuda vadanti viprah” (The Truth is one, experts call it by many names). God is Inexpressible. The Word has existed from the beginning of time and has been leading humanity into truth before he became flesh. Dr.Gajiwala feels that Christians have a superiority complex: “they wave their passports for heaven, stamped “Jesus Christ” confident they will be saved (whatever they do) and everyone else doomed”. “It seems as if after giving the Son to the world, God is sitting in some corner somewhere, forfeiting the divine rights to omnipotence and sovereignty, while God’s agents here on earth decide who is going to be saved and by what means”. [50]
We cannot play god, nor can we carry on our old mentality. We need to renew our minds and hearts through an effective, fruitful dialogue.
[1] Cf.Gustavo GUTTIERREZ, Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ, trans.Robert R.Barr,Maryknoll,New York: Orbis Books, 1993. See its review by J.Chathanatt, SJ., VJTR (Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection), September 1996, pp.635f. Bartolomé de las Casas, the great sixteenth century Dominican missionary to the ‘Indies’, is known as “Defender of the Indians” (as the indigenous people of the Americas were mistakenly called , later on ‘Red Indians’), for he prophetically denounced butchery and slavery—after half a century of Spanish domination there was a demographic catastrophe caused by malnutrition, disease, war and hard labour; by 1570 the population was reduced to about nine millions from about sixty-five millions.
[1] Cf.Luigi BOGLIOLO, SDB, “I Fondamenti Antropologici del Dialogo”, Portare Cristo all’Uomo. Congresso del Ventennio dal Concilio Vaticano II, 18-21 Febbraio 1985, vol.1: Dialogo, Pontificia Universita Urbaniana, Roma, 1985, Studia Urbaniana, 22, pp.557-565
[1]Cf.Gerald O’COLLINS, SJ, Fundamental Theology, Darton Longman & Todd,London, 1980, pp. 130-150
[1] Vatican II, Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, n.1
[1] Cf.Rudolf C.HEREDIA, “Pluralism, Tolerance and Dialogue”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.255-264.
[1] Cf.Seymour CAIN, Gabriel Marcel, Regnery/Gateway, Inc.,South Bend,Indiana, 1963, pp.35-48 and 78-86
[1] Cf.Bosco AUGUSTINE, SDB, “Understanding as Questioning in Gadamer’s Truth and Method”, Jnanadaya.Journal of Philosophy, issue no.8, June 2000,Salesian College, Yercaud, Salem Dt., pp.15-20, cf.p.19
[1] Cf.Sandra M.SCHNEIDERS, “From Exegesis to Hermeneutics: The Problem of the Contemporary Meaning of Scripture”, Horizons 8, 1981, pp.23-29; see for details, Ivo DA CONCEICAO SOUZA, “Biblical Hermeneutic for Today”, LUCEAS.Year Book of Rachol Seminary, Jubilee Issue, 1984-1985, pp.78-87
[1] Cf.Bosco AUGUSTINE, SDB, “Understanding as Questioning in Gadamer’s Truth and Method”, p.20. See Hans-Georg GADAMER, Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, London, 1975; Paul RICOEUR, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, The Texas Christian University Press, Forth Worth, 1976; Raimundo PANIKKAR, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics, Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore, 1983, pp.4-10, cf.p.8; Bernard LONERGAN, SJ., Method in Theology, London, 1972, p.155
[1] Cf.William T.CAVANAUGH, “Balthasar, Globalization, and the Problem of the One and the Many”, Communio, Summer 2001, vol.28, n.2, pp.324-347; Xavier PRADES, “The Tribe or the Global Village?: Fundamental Reflections on Multiculturalism”, Communio, pp.348-376
[1] Cf.Jr 7:23; 31:33; Ez 36:28; Gn 1:27; Ex 4:22; DV 14, 21
[1] Cf.Stanislas LYONNET, SJ, La Carita pienezza della Legge secondo san Paolo, Editrice A.V.E., Roma, 1959, p.75
[1] Cf.”Holy Peace, not Holy War”, The Tablet, October 20, 2001, p.1483. See David TRACY, Dialogue with the Other.The Inter-Religious Dialogue, Peeters Press,Louvain, pp.95-123
[1] Cf.Lucien LEGRAND, “Power in the Bible”, Jeevadhara, January 1989, pp.43-56
[1] Cf.T.K.JOHN, “Today’sIndiaand its Religions”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.12-30
[1] Cf.Felix WILFRED, “Inter-Religious Dialogue as a Political Question”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.361-374. See also Archbishop Angelo FERNANDES, “A Global Spirituality of Social Responsibility”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.31-43
[1] Address of John Paul II to the Leaders of Non-Christian Religions, at Rajaji Hall, Madras/Chennai, on February 5, 1986, in: “The Pope Speaks to India”, St.Paul Publications, 1986, Bandra-Bombay, pp.82-87, cf.p.86
[1] Cf.Paul PULIKKAN,IndianChurchat Vatican II, pp.452-458
[1] John Paul II, Inaugural Encyclical Redemptor Hominis (RH, The Redeemer of Man), March 4, 1979; Enc. Slavorum Apostoli (SA, Eleventh Centenary of Sts Cyril and Methodius), June 2, 1985; Enc.Dominum et Vivificantem (DV), May 18, 1986; Apostolic Letter, Euntes in Mundum (EM, Conversion of Russia to Christianity), January 25, 1988; Enc.Redemptoris Missio (RMi, Mission of the Redeemer), December 7, 1990; Enc.Ut Unum Sint (UUS), May 25, 1995
[1] Luigi ACCATTOLI, John Paul II.Man of the Millennium. A Biography, trans.Jordan Aumann, OP, St.Pauls, Mumbai, 2001, pp.101-105
[1] Mariasusai DHAVAMONY, “Theology of Religions”, R.Latourelle and R.Fisichella, eds, Dictionary of Fundamental Theology,New York: Crossroad, 1996, p.888; see also his article, “Christian Theology of Religions”, Seminarium, Year 38, n.4, October-December 1998, pp.751-769
[1] See C.I.GILLIS, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Theology,Louvain: Peeters Press, 1993, p.18
[1] Cf.Karl RAHNER, “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions”,Theological Investigations, vol.5, 1966, pp.115-134; Idem, “Missions”, Sacramentum Mundi, vol.4, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore, 1978, pp.79-81.
[1] Cf.Piet FRANSEN, SJ, “How Can Non-Christians Find Salvation in their own Religions?”, in: Christian Revelation and World religions, ed. And introduced by Joseph Neuner, SJ, Compass Books, Burns & Oates,London, pp.67-122, cf.p.91-103
[1]C.L.GILS, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Theology, p.19
[1] J.HICK, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent, London: Macmillan, 1989, p.236
[1]John HICK, God and the Universe of Faiths (London: Collins/Fount Books, 1977), p.131 .
[1] Religion is derived from Latin religio (from relegere, “to turn to constantly” or “to observe conscientiously”; from religari (“to bind oneself back”) ; and reeligere (“to choose again”). Its etymological derivation points to three possible religious attitudes. According to St.Thomas Aquinas, religion “denotes properly a relation to God” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.81, a.1)
[1] Pietro ROSSANO, “The Bible and the Non-Christian Religions”, in: Bulletin. Secretariatus pro non Christianis, Vatican City 1967, n.4, pp.18-28
[1] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), September 14, 1999, nn.70-72
[1] In Jesu nave, 3:5: MPG 12, 841
[1] De unitate Ecclesiae, 6: CSEL III/1, 214f.
[1] De fide ad Petrum, 38, 78
[1] Cf. ”Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston”, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, ed.J.NEUNER, SJ-Jacques DUPUIS, SJ(ND), Seventh Revised and Enlarged Edition, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore, 2001, n.854/3867, p.329; see Denzinger-Schoenmetzer (DS) 3866-3873, esp.3872. Cf.the Code of Canon Law (CIC ), can.849: “Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire”. Father Leonard FEENEY, self-appointed as the “Defender of Faith”, in his commentary “From the Housetops”, held that all non-Catholics –except the catechumens with an explicit desire (voto explicito) of joining the Catholic Church—would be excluded from eternal salvation, and because of his obstinacy against the warnings of the authority was excommunicated on February 4, 1953.
[1] For a survey of interpretations, cf.Hans KUENG, “The World Religions in God’s Plan of Salvation”, Christian Revelation and World religions, pp.25-66, cf.pp.31-46
[1]Cf.Jesuit Scholars, Religious Hinduism. A Presentation and Appraisal, St.Paul Publications, Allahabad-Bombay, 1964, in his Introduction, “A Christian Approach to non-Christian Religions”, Pierre FALLON,15-21, cf.19; see Vatican II, Aetate Nostra, n.2; Ad Gentes 4; LG 17
[1] Cf.Geral O’COLLINS, Fundamental Theology, pp.122-125
[1] Jacques DUPUIS, SJ, “Le Verbe de Dieu, Jésus Christ et les religions du monde”, NRT123, 2001, pp.529-546; Idem, “The work of the Potter”, The Tablet, November 3, 2001, pp.1560-1561; see also his book, Vers une théologie chrétienne du pluralisme religieux, Cerf, Paris, 1997. On Logos-Christology, see also B.POTTIER, SJ, “Note sur la mission invisible du Verbe chezsaint Thomasd’Aquin”, NRT 123, 2001, pp.547-557
[1] George M.SOARES-PRABHU, “Inculturation-Liberation-Dialogue”, Biblical Themes for a Contextual Theology Today, ed.by Isaac Padinjarekuttu, Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth Theology Series, Pune, 1999, pp.51-78, cf.58-62
[1] GS 22; cf.LG 16. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem, May 18, 1986, n.53
[1] John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia, November 6, 1999, n.15; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio, December 7, 1990, n.28; GS 11.22.26.38; AG 4.15; LG 17
[1]John Paul II, Ecclesia inAsia, n.16; Rmi 28
[1] John Paul II on June 16, 2000, “ratified and confirmed” it and ordered its publication (n.23).
[1] John Paul II, “Address at Rajaji Hall”, The Pope Speaks toIndia, p.85
[1] Cf.Jacob KAVUNKAL, SVD, “Missionin the Context of Other Religions”, VJTR 64, 2000, pp.917-927
[1] Cf.Arvind SHARMA, “Epoché and Hindu-Christian Dialogue”, VJTR 64, 2000, pp.927-932, cf.p.930
[1] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, November 10, 1994, n.18: AAS 87 (1995), p.16
[1]Dr.Kalpesh GAJIWALA, “Liberating the Unlimited. A Hindu’s Reflection on Christ”, VJTR, February 1993, pp.105-109, cf.p.106
[1] Dr.Kalpesh GAJIWALA, “Liberating the Unlimited. A Hindu’s Reflection on Christ”, p.108
*Dr.Ivo da Conceiçao SOUZA is Professor of Biblical Exegesis and Sociology in the Patriarchal Seminary of Rachol GOA 403719, INDIA.
[1] Cf.Rusi M.LALA, “Remembering Father Heras”, Jesuit Parivar, No.30, Diwali 2001, pp.10-13, cf.p.10
[2] Cf.Gustavo GUTTIERREZ, Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ, trans.Robert R.Barr, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1993. See its review by J.Chathanatt, SJ., VJTR (Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection), September 1996, pp.635f. Bartolomé de las Casas, the great sixteenth century Dominican missionary to the ‘Indies’, is known as “Defender of the Indians” (as the indigenous people of the Americas were mistakenly called , later on ‘Red Indians’), for he prophetically denounced butchery and slavery—after half a century of Spanish domination there was a demographic catastrophe caused by malnutrition, disease, war and hard labour; by 1570 the population was reduced to about nine millions from about sixty-five millions.
[3] Cf.Luigi BOGLIOLO, SDB, “I Fondamenti Antropologici del Dialogo”, Portare Cristo all’Uomo. Congresso del Ventennio dal Concilio Vaticano II, 18-21 Febbraio 1985, vol.1: Dialogo, Pontificia Universita Urbaniana, Roma, 1985, Studia Urbaniana, 22, pp.557-565
[4]Cf.Gerald O’COLLINS, SJ, Fundamental Theology, Darton Longman & Todd, London, 1980, pp. 130-150
[5] Vatican II, Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, n.1
[6] Cf.Rudolf C.HEREDIA, “Pluralism, Tolerance and Dialogue”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.255-264.
[7] Cf.Seymour CAIN, Gabriel Marcel, Regnery/Gateway, Inc., South Bend, Indiana, 1963, pp.35-48 and 78-86
[8] Cf.Bosco AUGUSTINE, SDB, “Understanding as Questioning in Gadamer’s Truth and Method”, Jnanadaya.Journal of Philosophy, issue no.8, June 2000,Salesian College, Yercaud, Salem Dt., pp.15-20, cf.p.19
[9] Cf.Sandra M.SCHNEIDERS, “From Exegesis to Hermeneutics: The Problem of the Contemporary Meaning of Scripture”, Horizons 8, 1981, pp.23-29; see for details, Ivo DA CONCEICAO SOUZA, “Biblical Hermeneutic for Today”, LUCEAS.Year Book of Rachol Seminary, Jubilee Issue, 1984-1985, pp.78-87
[10] Cf.Bosco AUGUSTINE, SDB, “Understanding as Questioning in Gadamer’s Truth and Method”, p.20. See Hans-Georg GADAMER, Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, London, 1975; Paul RICOEUR, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, The Texas Christian University Press, Forth Worth, 1976; Raimundo PANIKKAR, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics, Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore, 1983, pp.4-10, cf.p.8; Bernard LONERGAN, SJ., Method in Theology, London, 1972, p.155
[11] Cf.William T.CAVANAUGH, “Balthasar, Globalization, and the Problem of the One and the Many”, Communio, Summer 2001, vol.28, n.2, pp.324-347; Xavier PRADES, “The Tribe or the Global Village?: Fundamental Reflections on Multiculturalism”, Communio, pp.348-376
[12] Cf.Jr 7:23; 31:33; Ez 36:28; Gn 1:27; Ex 4:22; DV 14, 21
[13] Cf.Stanislas LYONNET, SJ, La Carita pienezza della Legge secondo san Paolo, Editrice A.V.E., Roma, 1959, p.75
[14] Cf.”Holy Peace, not Holy War”, The Tablet, October 20, 2001, p.1483. See David TRACY, Dialogue with the Other.The Inter-Religious Dialogue, Peeters Press, Louvain, pp.95-123
[15] Cf.Lucien LEGRAND, “Power in the Bible”, Jeevadhara, January 1989, pp.43-56
[16] Cf.T.K.JOHN, “Today’s India and its Religions”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.12-30
[17] Cf.Felix WILFRED, “Inter-Religious Dialogue as a Political Question”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.361-374. See also Archbishop Angelo FERNANDES, “A Global Spirituality of Social Responsibility”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.31-43
[18] Address of John Paul II to the Leaders of Non-Christian Religions, at Rajaji Hall, Madras/Chennai, on February 5, 1986, in: “The Pope Speaks to India”, St.Paul Publications, 1986, Bandra-Bombay, pp.82-87, cf.p.86
[19] Cf.Paul PULIKKAN, Indian Church at Vatican II, pp.452-458
[20] John Paul II, Inaugural Encyclical Redemptor Hominis (RH, The Redeemer of Man), March 4, 1979; Enc. Slavorum Apostoli (SA, Eleventh Centenary of Sts Cyril and Methodius), June 2, 1985; Enc.Dominum et Vivificantem (DV), May 18, 1986; Apostolic Letter, Euntes in Mundum (EM, Conversion of Russia to Christianity), January 25, 1988; Enc.Redemptoris Missio (RMi, Mission of the Redeemer), December 7, 1990; Enc.Ut Unum Sint (UUS), May 25, 1995
[21] Luigi ACCATTOLI, John Paul II.Man of the Millennium. A Biography, trans.Jordan Aumann, OP, St.Pauls, Mumbai, 2001, pp.101-105
[22] Mariasusai DHAVAMONY, “Theology of Religions”, R.Latourelle and R.Fisichella, eds, Dictionary of Fundamental Theology, New York: Crossroad, 1996, p.888; see also his article, “Christian Theology of Religions”, Seminarium, Year 38, n.4, October-December 1998, pp.751-769
[23] See C.I.GILLIS, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Theology, Louvain: Peeters Press, 1993, p.18
[24] Cf.Karl RAHNER, “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions”,Theological Investigations, vol.5, 1966, pp.115-134; Idem, “Missions”, Sacramentum Mundi, vol.4, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore, 1978, pp.79-81.
[25] Cf.Piet FRANSEN, SJ, “How Can Non-Christians Find Salvation in their own Religions?”, in: Christian Revelation and World religions, ed. And introduced by Joseph Neuner, SJ, Compass Books, Burns & Oates, London, pp.67-122, cf.p.91-103
[26]C.L.GILS, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Theology, p.19
[27] J.HICK, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent, London: Macmillan, 1989, p.236
[28]John HICK, God and the Universe of Faiths (London: Collins/Fount Books, 1977), p.131 .
[29] Religion is derived from Latin religio (from relegere, “to turn to constantly” or “to observe conscientiously”; from religari (“to bind oneself back”) ; and reeligere (“to choose again”). Its etymological derivation points to three possible religious attitudes. According to St.Thomas Aquinas, religion “denotes properly a relation to God” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.81, a.1)
[30] Pietro ROSSANO, “The Bible and the Non-Christian Religions”, in: Bulletin. Secretariatus pro non Christianis, Vatican City 1967, n.4, pp.18-28
[31] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), September 14, 1999, nn.70-72
[32] In Jesu nave, 3:5: MPG 12, 841
[33] De unitate Ecclesiae, 6: CSEL III/1, 214f.
[34] De fide ad Petrum, 38, 78
[35] Cf. ”Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston”, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, ed.J.NEUNER, SJ-Jacques DUPUIS, SJ(ND), Seventh Revised and Enlarged Edition, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore, 2001, n.854/3867, p.329; see Denzinger-Schoenmetzer (DS) 3866-3873, esp.3872. Cf.the Code of Canon Law (CIC ), can.849: “Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire”. Father Leonard FEENEY, self-appointed as the “Defender of Faith”, in his commentary “From the Housetops”, held that all non-Catholics –except the catechumens with an explicit desire (voto explicito) of joining the Catholic Church—would be excluded from eternal salvation, and because of his obstinacy against the warnings of the authority was excommunicated on February 4, 1953.
[36] For a survey of interpretations, cf.Hans KUENG, “The World Religions in God’s Plan of Salvation”, Christian Revelation and World religions, pp.25-66, cf.pp.31-46
[37]Cf.Jesuit Scholars, Religious Hinduism. A Presentation and Appraisal, St.Paul Publications, Allahabad-Bombay, 1964, in his Introduction, “A Christian Approach to non-Christian Religions”, Pierre FALLON,15-21, cf.19; see Vatican II, Aetate Nostra, n.2; Ad Gentes 4; LG 17
[38] Cf.Geral O’COLLINS, Fundamental Theology, pp.122-125
[39] Jacques DUPUIS, SJ, “Le Verbe de Dieu, Jésus Christ et les religions du monde”, NRT123, 2001, pp.529-546; Idem, “The work of the Potter”, The Tablet, November 3, 2001, pp.1560-1561; see also his book, Vers une théologie chrétienne du pluralisme religieux, Cerf, Paris, 1997. On Logos-Christology, see also B.POTTIER, SJ, “Note sur la mission invisible du Verbe chez saint Thomas d’Aquin”, NRT 123, 2001, pp.547-557
[40] George M.SOARES-PRABHU, “Inculturation-Liberation-Dialogue”, Biblical Themes for a Contextual Theology Today, ed.by Isaac Padinjarekuttu, Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth Theology Series, Pune, 1999, pp.51-78, cf.58-62
[41] GS 22; cf.LG 16. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem, May 18, 1986, n.53
[42] John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia, November 6, 1999, n.15; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio, December 7, 1990, n.28; GS 11.22.26.38; AG 4.15; LG 17
[43]John Paul II, Ecclesia in Asia, n.16; Rmi 28
[44] John Paul II on June 16, 2000, “ratified and confirmed” it and ordered its publication (n.23).
[45] John Paul II, “Address at Rajaji Hall”, The Pope Speaks to India, p.85
[46] Cf.Jacob KAVUNKAL, SVD, “Mission in the Context of Other Religions”, VJTR 64, 2000, pp.917-927
[47] Cf.Arvind SHARMA, “Epoché and Hindu-Christian Dialogue”, VJTR 64, 2000, pp.927-932, cf.p.930
[48] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, November 10, 1994, n.18: AAS 87 (1995), p.16
[49]Dr.Kalpesh GAJIWALA, “Liberating the Unlimited. A Hindu’s Reflection on Christ”, VJTR, February 1993, pp.105-109, cf.p.106
[50] Dr.Kalpesh GAJIWALA, “Liberating the Unlimited. A Hindu’s Reflection on Christ”, p.108
