CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION "DOMINUS IESUS"

ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE

CHURCH

August 6, 2000
http://search.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

INTRODUCTION
1. The Lord Jesus, before ascending into heaven, commanded his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole
world and to baptize all nations: "Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who
believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:15-16); "All power in
heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world" (Mt 28:18-20; cf. Lk 24:46-48; Jn 17:18, 20, 21;
Acts 1:8).
The Church's universal mission is born from the command of Jesus Christ and is fulfilled in the course of the
centuries in the proclamation of the mystery of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the mystery of the
incarnation of the Son, as saving event for all humanity. The fundamental contents of the profession of the
Christian faith are expressed thus: "I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all
that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the
Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the
Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by
the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was
crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance
with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again
in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He
has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come".1
2. In the course of the centuries, the Church has proclaimed and witnessed with fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus.
At the close of the second millennium, however, this mission is still far from complete.2 For that reason, Saint
Paul's words are now more relevant than ever: "Preaching the Gospel is not a reason for me to boast; it is a
necessity laid on me: woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16). This explains the Magisterium's
particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all in
connection with the religious traditions of the world.3
In considering the values which these religions witness to and offer humanity, with an open and positive
approach, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions
states: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard
for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her
own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men".4 Continuing in this line of
thought, the Church's proclamation of Jesus Christ, "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), today also
makes use of the practice of inter-religious dialogue. Such dialogue certainly does not replace, but rather
accompanies the missio ad gentes, directed toward that "mystery of unity", from which "it follows that all men
and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through
his Spirit".5 Inter-religious dialogue, which is part of the Church's evangelizing mission,6 requires an attitude of
understanding and a relationship of mutual knowledge and reciprocal enrichment, in obedience to the truth and
with respect for freedom.7
3. In the practice of dialogue between the Christian faith and other religious traditions, as well as in seeking to
understand its theoretical basis more deeply, new questions arise that need to be addressed through pursuing
new paths of research, advancing proposals, and suggesting ways of acting that call for attentive discernment.
In this task, the present Declaration seeks to recall to Bishops, theologians, and all the Catholic faithful, certain
indispensable elements of Christian doctrine, which may help theological reflection in developing solutions
consistent with the contents of the faith and responsive to the pressing needs of contemporary culture.
The expository language of the Declaration corresponds to its purpose, which is not to treat in a systematic
manner the question of the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church, nor to
propose solutions to questions that are matters of free theological debate, but rather to set forth again the
doctrine of the Catholic faith in these areas, pointing out some fundamental questions that remain open to
further development, and refuting specific positions that are erroneous or ambiguous.
For this reason, the Declaration takes up what has been taught in previous Magisterial documents, in order to
reiterate certain truths that are part of the Church's faith.
4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to
justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that
certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of
Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature
of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity
of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of
Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction
— of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of
Christ in the Catholic Church.
The roots of these problems are to be found in certain presuppositions of both a philosophical and theological
nature, which hinder the understanding and acceptance of the revealed truth. Some of these can be mentioned:
the conviction of the elusiveness and inexpressibility of divine truth, even by Christian revelation; relativistic
attitudes toward truth itself, according to which what is true for some would not be true for others; the radical
opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West and the symbolic mentality of the East; the
subjectivism which, by regarding reason as the only source of knowledge, becomes incapable of raising its "gaze
to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being";8 the difficulty in understanding and accepting the
presence of definitive and eschatological events in history; the metaphysical emptying of the historical
incarnation of the Eternal Logos, reduced to a mere appearing of God in history; the eclecticism of those who, in
theological research, uncritically absorb ideas from a variety of philosophical and theological contexts without
regard for consistency, systematic connection, or compatibility with Christian truth; finally, the tendency to read
and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.
On the basis of such presuppositions, which may evince different nuances, certain theological proposals are
developed — at times presented as assertions, and at times as hypotheses — in which Christian revelation and
the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church lose their character of absolute truth and salvific universality, or at
least shadows of doubt and uncertainty are cast upon them.

I. THE FULLNESS AND DEFINITIVENESS OF THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST

5.  As a remedy for this relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to
reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ. In fact, it must be firmly believed
that, in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn
14:6), the full revelation of divine truth is given: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows
the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him" (Mt 11:27); "No one has ever
seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him" (Jn 1:18); "For in Christ the
whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9-10).
Faithful to God's word, the Second Vatican Council teaches: "By this revelation then, the deepest truth about
God and the salvation of man shines forth in Christ, who is at the same time the mediator and the fullness of all
revelation".9 Furthermore, "Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, sent 'as a man to men', 'speaks the
words of God' (Jn 3:34), and completes the work of salvation which his Father gave him to do (cf. Jn 5:36;
17:4). To see Jesus is to see his Father (cf. Jn 14:9). For this reason, Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it
through his whole work of making himself present and manifesting himself: through his words and deeds, his
signs and wonders, but especially through his death and glorious resurrection from the dead and finally with the
sending of the Spirit of truth, he completed and perfected revelation and confirmed it with divine testimony...
The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away, and we now
await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Tim 6:14
and Tit 2:13)".10
Thus, the Encyclical Redemptoris missio calls the Church once again to the task of announcing the Gospel as the
fullness of truth: "In this definitive Word of his revelation, God has made himself known in the fullest possible
way. He has revealed to mankind who he is. This definitive self-revelation of God is the fundamental reason why
the Church is missionary by her very nature. She cannot do other than proclaim the Gospel, that is, the fullness
of the truth which God has enabled us to know about himself".11 Only the revelation of Jesus Christ, therefore,
"introduces into our history a universal and ultimate truth which stirs the human mind to ceaseless effort".12
6. Therefore, the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ,
which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith. Such a position
would claim to be based on the notion that the truth about God cannot be grasped and manifested in its
globality and completeness by any historical religion, neither by Christianity nor by Jesus Christ.
Such a position is in radical contradiction with the foregoing statements of Catholic faith according to which the
full and complete revelation of the salvific mystery of God is given in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the words, deeds,
and entire historical event of Jesus, though limited as human realities, have nevertheless the divine Person of
the Incarnate Word, "true God and true man"13 as their subject. For this reason, they possess in themselves
the definitiveness and completeness of the revelation of God's salvific ways, even if the depth of the divine
mystery in itself remains transcendent and inexhaustible.  The truth about God is not abolished or reduced
because it is spoken in human language; rather, it is unique, full, and complete, because he who speaks and
acts is the Incarnate Son of God. Thus, faith requires us to profess that the Word made flesh, in his entire
mystery, who moves from incarnation to glorification, is the source, participated but real, as well as the
fulfilment of every salvific revelation of God to humanity,14 and that the Holy Spirit, who is Christ's Spirit, will
teach this "entire truth" (Jn 16:13) to the Apostles and, through them, to the whole Church.
7. The proper response to God's revelation is "the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26; cf. Rom 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) by
which man freely entrusts his entire self to God, offering 'the full submission of intellect and will to God who
reveals' and freely assenting to the revelation given by him".15 Faith is a gift of grace: "in order to have faith,
the grace of God must come first and give assistance; there must also be the interior helps of the Holy Spirit,
who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and gives ‘to everyone joy and
ease in assenting to and believing in the truth'".16
The obedience of faith implies acceptance of the truth of Christ's revelation, guaranteed by God, who is Truth
itself:17 "Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free
assent to the whole truth that God has revealed".18 Faith, therefore, as "a gift of God" and as "a supernatural
virtue infused by him",19 involves a dual adherence: to God who reveals and to the truth which he reveals, out
of the trust which one has in him who speaks. Thus, "we must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit".20
For this reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held. If
faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which "makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way
that allows us to understand it coherently",21 then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and
thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for
truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute.22
This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the
acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions,
which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals
himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be
reduced at times to the point of disappearance.
8. The hypothesis of the inspired value of the sacred writings of other religions is also put forward. Certainly, it
must be recognized that there are some elements in these texts which may be de facto instruments by which
countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-
relationship with God. Thus, as noted above, the Second Vatican Council, in considering the customs, precepts,
and teachings of the other religions, teaches that "although differing in many ways from her own teaching,
these nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men".23
The Church's tradition, however, reserves the designation of inspired texts to the canonical books of the Old and
New Testaments, since these are inspired by the Holy Spirit.24 
Taking up this tradition, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council states:
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of
the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author,
and have been handed on as such to the Church herself".25  These books "firmly, faithfully, and without error,
teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures".26
Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness
of his revelation and love, "does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also
to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression
even when they contain 'gaps, insufficiencies and errors'".27 Therefore, the sacred books of other religions,
which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the
elements of goodness and grace which they contain.

II. THE INCARNATE LOGOS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE WORK OF SALVATION
9. In contemporary theological reflection there often emerges an approach to Jesus of Nazareth that considers
him a particular, finite, historical figure, who reveals the divine not in an exclusive way, but in a way
complementary with other revelatory and salvific figures.
The Infinite, the Absolute, the Ultimate Mystery of God would thus manifest itself to humanity in many ways and
in many historical figures: Jesus of Nazareth would be one of these. More concretely, for some, Jesus would be
one of the many faces which the Logos has assumed in the course of time to communicate with humanity in a
salvific way.
Furthermore, to justify the universality of Christian salvation as well as the fact of religious pluralism, it has been
proposed that there is an economy of the eternal Word that is valid also outside the Church and is unrelated to
her, in addition to an economy of the incarnate Word. The first would have a greater universal value than the
second, which is limited to Christians, though God's presence would be more full in the second.
10. These theses are in profound conflict with the Christian faith. The doctrine of faith must be firmly believed
which proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, and he alone, is the Son and the Word of the Father. The
Word, which "was in the beginning with God" (Jn 1:2) is the same as he who "became flesh" (Jn 1:14). In
Jesus, "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16), "the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form"
(Col 2:9). He is the "only begotten Son of the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father" (Jn 1:18), his "beloved
Son, in whom we have redemption... In him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him, God
was pleased to reconcile all things to himself, on earth and in the heavens, making peace by the blood of his
Cross" (Col 1:13-14; 19-20).
Faithful to Sacred Scripture and refuting erroneous and reductive interpretations, the First Council of Nicaea
solemnly defined its faith in: "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten generated from the Father, that is,
from the being of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one
in being with the Father, through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth. For us men
and for our salvation, he came down and became incarnate, was made man, suffered, and rose again on the
third day. He ascended to the heavens and shall come again to judge the living and the dead".28 Following the
teachings of the Fathers of the Church, the Council of Chalcedon also professed: "the one and the same Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man...,
one in being with the Father according to the divinity and one in being with us according to the humanity...,
begotten of the Father before the ages according to the divinity and, in these last days, for us and our salvation,
of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, according to the humanity".29
For this reason, the Second Vatican Council states that Christ "the new Adam...‘image of the invisible God' (Col
1:15) is himself the perfect man who has restored that likeness to God in the children of Adam which had been
disfigured since the first sin... As an innocent lamb he merited life for us by his blood which he freely shed. In
him God reconciled us to himself and to one another, freeing us from the bondage of the devil and of sin, so
that each one of us could say with the apostle: the Son of God 'loved me and gave himself up for me' (Gal
2:20)".30
In this regard, John Paul II has explicitly declared: "To introduce any sort of separation between the Word and
Jesus Christ is contrary to the Christian faith... Jesus is the Incarnate Word — a single and indivisible person...
Christ is none other than Jesus of Nazareth; he is the Word of God made man for the salvation of all... In the
process of discovering and appreciating the manifold gifts — especially the spiritual treasures — that God has
bestowed on every people, we cannot separate those gifts from Jesus Christ, who is at the centre of God's plan
of salvation".31
It is likewise contrary to the Catholic faith to introduce a separation between the salvific action of the Word as
such and that of the Word made man. With the incarnation, all the salvific actions of the Word of God are
always done in unity with the human nature that he has assumed for the salvation of all people. The one subject
which operates in the two natures, human and divine, is the single person of the Word.32
Therefore, the theory which would attribute, after the incarnation as well, a salvific activity to the Logos as such
in his divinity, exercised "in addition to" or "beyond" the humanity of Christ, is not compatible with the Catholic
faith.33
11. Similarly, the doctrine of faith regarding the unicity of the salvific economy willed by the One and Triune
God must be firmly believed, at the source and centre of which is the mystery of the incarnation of the Word,
mediator of divine grace on the level of creation and redemption (cf. Col 1:15-20), he who recapitulates all
things (cf. Eph 1:10), he "whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness, and sanctification and
redemption" (1 Cor 1:30). In fact, the mystery of Christ has its own intrinsic unity, which extends from the
eternal choice in God to the parousia: "he [the Father] chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to
be holy and blameless before him in love" (Eph 1:4); "In Christ we are heirs, having been destined according to
the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will" (Eph 1:11);
"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he
might be the firstborn among many brothers; those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he
called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified" (Rom 8:29-30).
The Church's Magisterium, faithful to divine revelation, reasserts that Jesus Christ is the mediator and the
universal redeemer: "The Word of God, through whom all things were made, was made flesh, so that as perfect
man he could save all men and sum up all things in himself. The Lord...is he whom the Father raised from the
dead, exalted and placed at his right hand, constituting him judge of the living and the dead".34 This salvific
mediation implies also the unicity of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, eternal high priest (cf. Heb 6:20; 9:11;
10:12-14).
12. There are also those who propose the hypothesis of an economy of the Holy Spirit with a more universal
breadth than that of the Incarnate Word, crucified and risen. This position also is contrary to the Catholic faith,
which, on the contrary, considers the salvific incarnation of the Word as a trinitarian event. In the New
Testament, the mystery of Jesus, the Incarnate Word, constitutes the place of the Holy Spirit's presence as well
as the principle of the Spirit's effusion on humanity, not only in messianic times (cf. Acts 2:32-36; Jn 7:39,
20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), but also prior to his coming in history (cf. 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 1:10-12).
The Second Vatican Council has recalled to the consciousness of the Church's faith this fundamental truth. In
presenting the Father's salvific plan for all humanity, the Council closely links the mystery of Christ from its very
beginnings with that of the Spirit.35 The entire work of building the Church by Jesus Christ the Head, in the
course of the centuries, is seen as an action which he does in communion with his Spirit.36
Furthermore, the salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible
boundaries of the Church to all humanity. Speaking of the paschal mystery, in which Christ even now associates
the believer to himself in a living manner in the Spirit and gives him the hope of resurrection, the Council states:
"All this holds true not only for Christians but also for all men of good will in whose hearts grace is active
invisibly. For 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".37
Hence, the connection is clear between the salvific mystery of the Incarnate Word and that of the Spirit, who
actualizes the salvific efficacy of the Son made man in the lives of all people, called by God to a single goal, both
those who historically preceded the Word made man, and those who live after his coming in history: the Spirit of
the Father, bestowed abundantly by the Son, is the animator of all (cf. Jn 3:34).
Thus, the recent Magisterium of the Church has firmly and clearly recalled the truth of a single divine economy:
"The Spirit's presence and activity affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and
religions... The Risen Christ 'is now at work in human hearts through the strength of his Spirit'... Again, it is the
Spirit who sows the 'seeds of the word' present in various customs and cultures, preparing them for full maturity
in Christ".38 While recognizing the historical-salvific function of the Spirit in the whole universe and in the entire
history of humanity,39 the Magisterium states: "This is the same Spirit who was at work in the incarnation and
in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and who is at work in the Church. He is therefore not an alternative
to Christ nor does he fill a sort of void which is sometimes suggested as existing between Christ and the Logos.
Whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves
as a preparation for the Gospel and can only be understood in reference to Christ, the Word who took flesh by
the power of the Spirit 'so that as perfectly human he would save all human beings and sum up all things'".40

In conclusion, the action of the Spirit is not outside or parallel to the action of Christ. There is only one salvific
economy of the One and Triune God, realized in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the
Son of God, actualized with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, and extended in its salvific value to all humanity
and to the entire universe: "No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by
the working of the Holy Spirit".41

III. UNICITY AND UNIVERSALITY OF THE SALVIFIC MYSTERY OF JESUS CHRIST

13. The thesis which denies the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ is also put
forward. Such a position has no biblical foundation. In fact, the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only
Saviour, who through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to
fulfilment, and which has in him its fullness and centre, must be firmly believed as a constant element of the
Church's faith.
The New Testament attests to this fact with clarity: "The Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world" (1
Jn 4:14); "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29). In his discourse before the
Sanhedrin, Peter, in order to justify the healing of a man who was crippled from birth, which was done in the
name of Jesus (cf. Acts 3:1-8), proclaims:
"There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must
be saved" (Acts 4:12). St. Paul adds, moreover, that Jesus Christ "is Lord of all", "judge of the living and the
dead", and thus "whoever believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10: 36, 42, 43).
Paul, addressing himself to the community of Corinth, writes: "Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods
in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God, the
Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things and through whom we exist" (1 Cor 8:5-6). Furthermore, John the Apostle states: "For God so loved the
world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved
through him" (Jn 3:16-17). In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the
sole mediation of Christ: "[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For
there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as
a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:4-6).
It was in the awareness of the one universal gift of salvation offered by the Father through Jesus Christ in the
Spirit (cf. Eph 1:3-14), that the first Christians encountered the Jewish people, showing them the fulfilment of
salvation that went beyond the Law and, in the same awareness, they confronted the pagan world of their time,
which aspired to salvation through a plurality of saviours. This inheritance of faith has been recalled recently by
the Church's Magisterium: "The Church believes that Christ, who died and was raised for the sake of all (cf. 2
Cor 5:15) can, through his Spirit, give man the light and the strength to be able to respond to his highest
calling, nor is there any other name under heaven given among men by which they can be saved (cf. Acts 4:12).
The Church likewise believes that the key, the centre, and the purpose of the whole of man's history is to be
found in its Lord and Master".42
14. It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and
Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of
the Son of God.
Bearing in mind this article of faith, theology today, in its reflection on the existence of other religious
experiences and on their meaning in God's salvific plan, is invited to explore if and in what way the historical
figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation. In this undertaking,
theological research has a vast field of work under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.  The Second
Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: "the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather
gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in this one source".43 The content of this
participated mediation should be explored more deeply, but must remain always consistent with the principle of
Christ's unique mediation: "Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not
excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ's own mediation, and they cannot be understood as
parallel or complementary to his".44 Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the
unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.
15. Not infrequently it is proposed that theology should avoid the use of terms like "unicity", "universality", and
"absoluteness", which give the impression of excessive emphasis on the significance and value of the salvific
event of Jesus Christ in relation to other religions.

In reality, however, such language is simply being faithful to revelation, since it represents a development of the
sources of the faith themselves.  From the beginning, the community of believers has recognized in Jesus a
salvific value such that he alone, as Son of God made man, crucified and risen, by the mission received from the
Father and in the power of the Holy Spirit, bestows revelation (cf. Mt 11:27) and divine life (cf. Jn 1:12; 5:25-
26; 17:2) to all humanity and to every person.
In this sense, one can and must say that Jesus Christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its
history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute. Jesus is, in fact,
the Word of God made man for the salvation of all. In expressing this consciousness of faith, the Second Vatican
Council teaches: "The Word of God, through whom all things were made, was made flesh, so that as perfect
man he could save all men and sum up all things in himself. The Lord is the goal of human history, the focal
point of the desires of history and civilization, the centre of mankind, the joy of all hearts, and the fulfilment of
all aspirations. It is he whom the Father raised from the dead, exalted and placed at his right hand, constituting
him judge of the living and the dead".45 "It is precisely this uniqueness of Christ which gives him an absolute
and universal significance whereby, while belonging to history, he remains history's centre and goal: ‘I am the
Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end' (Rev 22:13)".46

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the
Church as a salvific mystery:
he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5).  Therefore,
the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus
Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-
27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a
living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor
separated, and constitute a single "whole Christ".49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New
Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50
Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of
the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so
there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: "a single Catholic and apostolic Church".51
Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he
would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of
the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.52
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic
succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: "This is the single Church of
Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17),
commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as 'the
pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present
world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in
communion with him".54  With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two
doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among
Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that "outside of her
structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth",55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial
communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it
needs to be stated that "they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the
Catholic Church".57
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the
Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in
perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by
apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is
present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church,
since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of
Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine
and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who
are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion,
albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ,
through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

"The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a
collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold
that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches
and ecclesial communities must strive to reach".64 In fact, "the elements of this already-given Church exist,
joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities".65
"Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects,
have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of
Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness
of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".66
The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of
her unity, but "in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history".67

V. THE CHURCH: KINGDOM OF GOD AND KINGDOM OF CHRIST

18. The mission of the Church is "to proclaim and establish among all peoples the kingdom of Christ and of
God, and she is on earth, the seed and the beginning of that kingdom".68 On the one hand, the Church is "a
sacrament — that is, sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of unity of the entire human race".69
She is therefore the sign and instrument of the kingdom; she is called to announce and to establish the
kingdom. On the other hand, the Church is the "people gathered by the unity of the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit";70 she is therefore "the kingdom of Christ already present in mystery"71 and constitutes its seed
and beginning. The kingdom of God, in fact, has an eschatological dimension: it is a reality present in time, but
its full realization will arrive only with the completion or fulfilment of history.72
The meaning of the expressions kingdom of heaven, kingdom of God, and kingdom of Christ in Sacred Scripture
and the Fathers of the Church, as well as in the documents of the Magisterium, is not always exactly the same,
nor is their relationship to the Church, which is a mystery that cannot be totally contained by a human concept.
Therefore, there can be various theological explanations of these terms. However, none of these possible
explanations can deny or empty in any way the intimate connection between Christ, the kingdom, and the
Church. In fact, the kingdom of God which we know from revelation, "cannot be detached either from Christ or
from the Church... If the kingdom is separated from Jesus, it is no longer the kingdom of God which he
revealed.  The result is a distortion of the meaning of the kingdom, which runs the risk of being transformed
into a purely human or ideological goal and a distortion of the identity of Christ, who no longer appears as the
Lord to whom everything must one day be subjected (cf. 1 Cor 15:27). Likewise, one may not separate the
kingdom from the Church. It is true that the Church is not an end unto herself, since she is ordered toward the
kingdom of God, of which she is the seed, sign and instrument. Yet, while remaining distinct from Christ and the
kingdom, the Church is indissolubly united to both".73
19. To state the inseparable relationship between Christ and the kingdom is not to overlook the fact that the
kingdom of God — even if considered in its historical phase — is not identified with the Church in her visible and
social reality.  In fact, "the action of Christ and the Spirit outside the Church's visible boundaries" must not be
excluded.74 Therefore, one must also bear in mind that "the kingdom is the concern of everyone: individuals,
society and the world. Working for the kingdom means acknowledging and promoting God's activity, which is
present in human history and transforms it. Building the kingdom means working for liberation from evil in all its
forms.  In a word, the kingdom of God is the manifestation and the realization of God's plan of salvation in all its
fullness".75
In considering the relationship between the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, it is
necessary to avoid one-sided accentuations, as is the case with those "conceptions which deliberately emphasize
the kingdom and which describe themselves as 'kingdom centred.' They stress the image of a Church which is
not concerned about herself, but which is totally concerned with bearing witness to and serving the kingdom. It
is a 'Church for others,' just as Christ is the 'man for others'... Together with positive aspects, these conceptions
often reveal negative aspects as well. First, they are silent about Christ: the kingdom of which they speak is
'theocentrically' based, since, according to them, Christ cannot be understood by those who lack Christian faith,
whereas different peoples, cultures, and religions are capable of finding common ground in the one divine
reality, by whatever name it is called. For the same reason, they put great stress on the mystery of creation,
which is reflected in the diversity of cultures and beliefs, but they keep silent about the mystery of redemption.
Furthermore, the kingdom, as they understand it, ends up either leaving very little room for the Church or
undervaluing the Church in reaction to a presumed 'ecclesiocentrism' of the past and because they consider the
Church herself only a sign, for that matter a sign not without ambiguity".76 These theses are contrary to
Catholic faith because they deny the unicity of the relationship which Christ and the Church have with the
kingdom of God.

VI. THE CHURCH AND THE OTHER RELIGIONS IN RELATION TO SALVATION

20. From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it
explores the relationship of the Church and the other religions to salvation.
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that "the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the
one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He
himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the
same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door".77 This doctrine
must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); "it is necessary to keep these two truths
together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for
this salvation".78
The Church is the "universal sacrament of salvation",79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour
Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the
salvation of every human being.80  For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church,
"salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church,
does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their
spiritual and material situation.
This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit";81 it has a
relationship with the Church, which "according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son
and the Holy Spirit".82
21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the
Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican
Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it "in ways known to himself".83 Theologians are
seeking to understand this question more fully.  Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for
understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been
stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the "unique and special relationship"84 which the Church
has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour —
it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those
constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even
if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.
Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God,85 and
which are part of what "the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and
religions".86 Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the
Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the
action of God.87 One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy,
which is proper to the Christian sacraments.88 Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar
as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.89
22. With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the
instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31).90 This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere
respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way,
that mentality of indifferentism "characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion
is as good as another'".91 If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also
certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the
Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92  However, "all the children of the Church should
nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of
Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but
they shall be more severely judged".93 One understands then that, following the Lord's command (cf. Mt
28:19-20) and as a requirement of her love for all people, the Church "proclaims and is in duty bound to
proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all
things to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life".94
In inter-religious dialogue as well, the mission ad gentes "today as always retains its full force and necessity".
95 "Indeed, God 'desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim 2:4); that is, God
wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who
obey the promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this
truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes
in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary".96

Inter-religious dialogue, therefore, as part of her evangelizing mission, is just one of the actions of the Church in
her mission ad gentes.97 Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal
personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ
— who is God himself made man — in relation to the founders of the other religions. Indeed, the Church,
guided by charity and respect for freedom,98 must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth
definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of
adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion
with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not
diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the
Lord Jesus Christ.

CONCLUSION
23. The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith, has been to
follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of Corinth: "I handed on to you as of first
importance what I myself received" (1 Cor 15:3). Faced with certain problematic and even erroneous
propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church's faith and to give reasons for her hope in a
way that is convincing and effective.
In treating the question of the true religion, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught:
"We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord
Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all people. Thus, he said to the Apostles: 'Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching
them to observe all that I have commanded you' (Mt 28: 19-20). Especially in those things that concern God and
his Church, all persons are required to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold
fast to it".99
The revelation of Christ will continue to be "the true lodestar" 100 in history for all humanity: "The truth, which
is Christ, imposes itself as an all-embracing authority". 101 The Christian mystery, in fact, overcomes all barriers
of time and space, and accomplishes the unity of the human family: "From their different locations and
traditions all are called in Christ to share in the unity of the family of God's children... Jesus destroys the walls of
division and creates unity in a new and unsurpassed way through our sharing in his mystery. This unity is so
deep that the Church can say with Saint Paul: 'You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are saints
and members of the household of God' (Eph 2:19)". 102
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority,
ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000, the Feast of the
Transfiguration of the Lord.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B. Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary

NOTES
(1) First Council of Constantinople, Symbolum Constantinopolitanum: DS 150.
(2) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 1: AAS 83 (1991), 249-340.
(3) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes and Declaration Nostra aetate; cf. also Paul VI Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi: AAS 68 (1976), 5-76; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio.
(4) Second Vatican Council, Declaration Nostra aetate, 2.
(5) Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples,
Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 29: AAS 84 (1992), 424; cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral
Constitution Gaudium et spes, 22.
(6) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 55: AAS 83 (1991), 302-304.
(7) Cf. Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples,
Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 9: AAS 84 (1992), 417ff.
(8)  John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio, 5: AAS 91 (1999), 5-88.
(9)  Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei verbum, 2.
(10) Ibid., 4.
(11) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 5.

(12) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio, 14.

(13) Council of Chalcedon, Symbolum Chalcedonense: DS 301; cf. St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione, 54, 3: SC
199, 458.
(14) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei verbum, 4.
(15) Ibid., 5.
(16) Ibid.
(17) Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 144.
(18) Ibid., 150.
(19) Ibid., 153.
(20) Ibid., 178.
(21) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio, 13.
(22) Cf. ibid., 31-32.
(23) Second Vatican Council, Declaration Nostra aetate, 2; cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 9,
where it speaks of the elements of good present "in the particular customs and cultures of peoples"; Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen gentium, 16, where it mentions the elements of good and of truth present among non-
Christians, which can be considered a preparation for the reception of the Gospel.
(24) Cf. Council of Trent, Decretum de libris sacris et de traditionibus recipiendis: DS 1501; First Vatican Council,
Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, cap. 2: DS 3006.
(25) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei verbum, 11.
(26) Ibid.
(27) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 55; cf. 56 and Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii
nuntiandi, 53.
(28) First Council of Nicaea, Symbolum Nicaenum: DS 125.
(29) Council of Chalcedon, Symbolum Chalcedonense: DS 301.
(30) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 22.
(31) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 6.
(32) Cf. St. Leo the Great, Tomus ad Flavianum: DS 294.
(33) Cf. St. Leo the Great, Letter to the Emperor Leo I Promisisse me memini: DS 318: "...in tantam unitatem ab
ipso conceptu Virginis deitate et humanitate conserta, ut nec sine homine divina, nec sine Deo agerentur
humana". Cf. also ibid. DS 317.
(34) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 45; cf. also Council of Trent, Decretum de
peccato originali, 3: DS 1513.
(35) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 3-4.
(36) Cf. ibid., 7; cf. St. Irenaeus, who wrote that it is in the Church "that communion with Christ has been
deposited, that is to say: the Holy Spirit" (Adversus haereses III, 24, 1: SC 211, 472).
(37) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 22.
(38) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 28. For the "seeds of the Word" cf. also St. Justin
Martyr, Second Apology 8, 1-2; 10, 1-3; 13, 3-6: ed. E.J. Goodspeed, 84; 85; 88-89.
(39) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Redemptoris missio, 28-29.
(40) Ibid., 29.
(41) Ibid., 5.
(42) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 10. Cf. St. Augustine, who wrote that Christ
is the way, which "has never been lacking to mankind... and apart from this way no one has been set free, no
one is being set free, no one will be set free" De civitate Dei 10, 32, 2: CCSL 47, 312.
(43) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 62.
(44) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 5.
(45) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 45. The necessary and absolute singularity
of Christ in human history is well expressed by St. Irenaeus in contemplating the preeminence of Jesus as
firstborn Son: "In the heavens, as firstborn of the Father's counsel, the perfect Word governs and legislates all
things; on the earth, as firstborn of the Virgin, a man just and holy, reverencing God and pleasing to God, good
and perfect in every way, he saves from hell all those who follow him since he is the firstborn from the dead and
Author of the life of God" (Demonstratio apostolica, 39: SC 406, 138).
(46) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 6.
(47) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14.
(48) Cf. ibid., 7.

(49) Cf. St. Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmos, Ps. 90, Sermo 2,1: CCSL 39, 1266; St. Gregory the Great, Moralia in
Iob, Praefatio, 6, 14: PL 75, 525; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 48, a. 2 ad 1.
(50) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 6.
(51) Symbolum maius Ecclesiae Armeniacae: DS 48. Cf. Boniface VIII, Unam sanctam: DS 870-872; Second
Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.
(52) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 4; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint,
11: AAS 87 (1995), 927.
(53) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 20; cf. also St. Irenaeus, Adversus
haereses, III, 3, 1-3: SC 211, 20-44; St. Cyprian, Epist. 33, 1: CCSL 3B, 164-165; St. Augustine, Contra adver.
legis et prophet., 1, 20, 39: CCSL 49, 70.
(54) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.
(55) Ibid.; cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 13. Cf. also Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen gentium, 15 and the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.
(56) The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of
Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the
authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. "The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that
there exists only one 'subsistence' of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist
elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church"
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book "Church: Charism and Power" by Father
Leonardo Boff: AAS 77 [1985], 756-762).
(57) Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.
(58) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1: AAS 65 (1973), 396-398.
(59) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14 and 15; Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17: AAS 85 (1993), 848.
(60) Cf. First Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor aeternus: DS 3053-3064; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen gentium, 22.
(61) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.
(62) Cf. ibid., 3.
(63) Cf. ibid., 22.
(64) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.
(65) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 14.
(66) Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.
(67) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17; cf. Second Vatican Council,
Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 4.
(68) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 5.
(69) Ibid., 1.
(70) Ibid., 4. Cf. St. Cyprian, De Dominica oratione 23: CCSL 3A, 105.
(71) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 3.
(72) Cf. ibid., 9; cf. also the prayer addressed to God found in the Didache 9, 4: SC 248, 176: "May the Church
be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom" and ibid. 10, 5: SC 248, 180: "Remember, Lord, your
Church... and, made holy, gather her together from the four winds into your kingdom which you have prepared
for her".
(73) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 18; cf. Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia, 17:
L'Osservatore Romano (Nov. 7, 1999). The kingdom is so inseparable from Christ that, in a certain sense, it is
identified with him (cf. Origen, In Mt. Hom., 14, 7: PG 13, 1197; Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, IV, 33, 8:
CCSL 1, 634.
(74) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 18.
(75) Ibid., 15.
(76) Ibid., 17.
(77) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14; cf. Decree Ad gentes, 7; Decree
Unitatis redintegratio, 3.
(78) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 9; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-847.
(79) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 48.
(80) Cf. St. Cyprian, De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, 6: CCSL 3, 253-254; St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, III,
24, 1: SC 211, 472-474.
(81) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 10.

(82) Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 2. The famous formula extra Ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur
is to be interpreted in this sense (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, Cap. 1. De fide catholica: DS 802). Cf. also the
Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston: DS 3866-3872.
(83) Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 7.
(84) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 18.
(85) These are the seeds of the divine Word (semina Verbi), which the Church recognizes with joy and respect
(cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 11; Declaration Nostra aetate, 2).
(86) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 29.
(87) Cf. ibid.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 843.
(88) Cf. Council of Trent, Decretum de sacramentis, can. 8, de sacramentis in genere: DS 1608.
(89) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 55.
(90) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 17; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Redemptoris missio, 11.
(91) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 36.
(92) Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Mystici corporis: DS 3821.
(93) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14.
(94) Second Vatican Council, Declaration Nostra aetate, 2.
(95) Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 7.
(96) Catechism of the Catholic Church, 851; cf. also 849-856.
(97) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 55; Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia, 31.
(98) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration Dignitatis humanae, 1. (99)  Ibid.
(100) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio, 15.
(101) Ibid., 92.
(102) Ibid., 70.

CHRONOLOGICAL INFORMATION [REACTIONS, CRITICISM AND CONDEMNATION]:

The Hierarchy Comment on Dominus Iesus
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3208
September 2000
A Collection of statements from the following Cardinals and Bishops on the document, Dominus Iesus (On
the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church) issued on September 5, 2000, by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, the
prefect and secretary respectively of the Congregation. The document is designed to answer a series of questions about the
importance of the Catholic Church, answering questions that have arisen in the context of ecumenical activities. The
document was approved by Pope John Paul in June.

1. Opposing Religious Relativism

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, IL
September 5, 2000
Today in Rome the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the declaration "Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and
Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church."
In response to questions raised in missionary work and ecumenical and interreligious relations, the declaration presents
both the principal truths of the Catholic faith as well as the status of theological debate in the areas of the mystery of God's
kingdom, the work of Christ as universal savior and his relationship to his church.
There is no new teaching in the declaration, but it serves very well to clarify and summarize the teachings of the Catholic
Church that were established at the time of the Second Vatican Council in its relations with Christians and believers of other
religions. At that time these positions were seen as positive developments in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, and
they continue to be so.
The unique and universal mediation of Christ in the work of salvation, the declaration states, does not exclude "participated
mediation" of various types and degrees in other religions. Theories of a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation
of Jesus Christ and without reference to his body the church are, however, inconsistent with the Catholic faith.
Insofar as these clarifications of Catholic teachings enable Catholics to better articulate their faith, their participation in
ecumenical and interreligious dialogue will be more fruitful. Basically, the declaration opposes religious relativism, which
bases truth in personal experience rather than in God's self-revelation in history.
I am grateful for this declaration, and I pray that it will be a means of promoting proclamation of the Gospel and dialogue,
both of which are aspects of evangelization.

2. Dialogues Will Continue

Cardinal Roger Mahony, Los Angeles, CA
September 9, 2000
In the greater Los Angeles area, Roman Catholics have enjoyed a longstanding and valued relationship with Christians of
other churches and peoples of other religious traditions. The fruits of ecumenical and interreligious dialogue in the
southland have been rich and rewarding for people in this region, throughout the nation and well beyond.
In light of the great progress made in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue in the greater Los Angeles area, it is
discouraging to read the headline "Vatican Declares Catholicism Sole Path to Salvation" (Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6, 2000).
While clarifying the Roman Catholic Church's position, the declaration does in fact affirm that those who are not formally
part of the Roman Catholic Church can indeed be saved (Dominus Iesus, 20).
I would like to take this opportunity to reassure our partners in dialogue that our mutually beneficial conversations and joint
pursuit of the truth will continue. I pledge my unyielding support for these efforts.
The declaration "Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" is best understood
within the context of this ongoing dialogue. The purpose of the declaration is to clarify the Roman Catholic Church's own
position in view of disagreements within the Roman Catholic Church, offering firm critique of those theological views that
appear to relativize the Christian faith and the Roman Catholic Church. Nowhere in the declaration is there criticism of the
fruits of bilateral agreements or of new initiatives taken in interreligious dialogue. Nor is there any indication that such
dialogues or initiatives are to be halted.
The actions of Pope John Paul II himself have demonstrated his own profound respect for peoples and traditions other than
Roman Catholic. His recent visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, his invitation to religious leaders to join him at
Assisi in praying for world peace on Oct. 27, 1986, and his meeting on Sept. 16, 1987, here in Los Angeles with local
Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu leaders are just three instances of his respect for the integrity of others and their
religious traditions.
The tone of Dominus Iesus may not fully reflect the deeper understanding that has been achieved through ecumenical and
interreligious dialogues over these last 30 years or more. This deeper understanding has been prompted in no small
measure by the initiatives of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The council clearly affirmed the importance of
religious freedom and called for deep and mutual respect among people of different religious traditions. The declaration can
only be properly understood in light of these conciliar orientations and affirmations.
It is my sincere hope that our ongoing dialogue and partnership will proceed unabated. The Roman Catholic Church in Los
Angeles remains fully committed to ongoing dialogue and partnership. Only in this way can we continue to move beyond
the tragic estrangement which has characterized so much of our past.

3. What "Dominus Iesus" Reaffirms

Cardinal Bernard Law, Boston, MA
September 5, 2000
It is with gratitude to the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and to the prefect and members of the Congregation of the
Doctrine of the Faith that I welcome the publication today of the declaration Dominus Jesus. This document is the fruit of
several years of labor by pastors and theologians who responded to many requests from around the world for clarification
of the church's constant teaching in light of some discussions and positions that have seemed to place that teaching in
doubt. In contrast to these various theories and opinions, Dominus Jesus is a reaffirmation of that constant teaching. What
the declaration affirms is, for example, contained in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is professed by every
Catholic at every Sunday Mass as the faith of the church.
What is reaffirmed is what has been proclaimed by the apostles and believed by the faithful from the beginning. The
revelation of Jesus Christ is the complete message of God for the salvation of the whole human race. The response of faith
must be the "complete acceptance of the truth of Christ's revelation, guaranteed by God, who is truth itself." This truth is
found in the books of the Bible as God's one and only inspired word as well as in the sacred tradition of the church. The
truth of this divine and Catholic faith can in no way be reduced to merely one message among others or as a culturally
conditioned partial expression of truth among many other similar and equally valid ones.
Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is the one and only Savior of every human person. There can be no separation of
Christ's humanity from the divine eternal Word. Theories that add to or subtract from this central truth deform the full truth
about Jesus Christ. So also do those theories deform the Catholic faith, which claim that the mission of the Holy Spirit is
more universal than the fullness of revelation made in Christ Jesus. The Holy Spirit "works" throughout time so that all men
and women are called and can be incorporated into the divine life of the incarnate Word and so enter into communion with
the persons of the Blessed Trinity.
Because there is no other name than Jesus Christ by which we can be saved, all need to learn this truth. The uniqueness
and universality of Christ's salvific action continues to be exercised in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. That
church is the Catholic Church under the headship of the pope, the bishop of Rome, and the bishops who with him share the
apostolic succession from the apostles down to the present day. The affirmations that Dominus Jesus makes about the
church correspond to what Jesus Christ himself has promised to fulfill in her. Through the gift of the Holy Spirit, these
promises are active in the church until the end of time.

The church is deeply conscious of the fact that she received this extraordinary truth as a gift from the Father, who has sent
his Son so that we might share in the divine life as a gift of the Holy Spirit. Therefore with great humility but with an equal
conviction of truth, the church enters into dialogue with the baptized of other churches and ecclesial communities as well as
with adherents of other religions. Here in Boston we are blessed by the relationships we have with our brothers and sisters
of the Orthodox Church, which maintains apostolic succession and a valid eucharist. We are profoundly grateful for the
many ways the ecclesial communities of the Reformation have been willing to relate to us and to work and pray along with
us. Just as we are convinced that the fullness of grace and truth is God's gift to the Catholic Church, so do we joyfully
recognize and esteem the efficacious life of faith lived by our brothers and sisters in other churches and ecclesial
communities. The many elements of truth and life that animate them derive from Jesus Christ, the same source of grace
and truth which subsists in its fullness in the Catholic Church.
Because Christ has called the church to evangelize the world, we cannot do other than announce to the world the good
news of Jesus, the one Lord and only Savior. In so doing we encounter our brothers and sisters of other religions. Our
dialogue with them is sincere and based on a constant search to understand better God's design for all human beings. With
confidence in the revelation of Jesus Christ, whose kingdom is one of truth and of justice, we seek only to proclaim him, to
worship him and to serve him in all peoples, especially in the sick, the poor, the hungry, the imprisoned, the naked, the
homeless (Mt. 25:31-46). Catholics recognize that other religious traditions search for God and have found God, though
without knowing Christ Jesus. Interreligious dialogue, as part of the church's missionary life, represents a sincere desire to
seek understanding with the adherents of other religions so that all human beings may come to the knowledge of the truth.
The church has issued this statement on Jesus Christ and the church out of her inescapable commitment of fidelity: fidelity
to God and his revelation, fidelity to Jesus Christ and his message, fidelity to the church, which is the means through which
the Holy Spirit transforms human hearts and advances God's kingdom. Dominus Jesus does not signal a lessening of the
church's commitment to ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Rather it is a statement of truth so that the dialogue may
proceed on a firm foundation and not be open to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Dominus Jesus is not a
proclamation of some human superiority in contrast to any other person or institution. It is a reaffirmation of what the
church believes and lives with an ever abiding sense of her own unworthiness as she welcomes all persons of good will to
reflect on its meaning. The Catholic Church is sustained in this task by the revelation made to Abraham, Moses and the
prophets that God's promises are eternal and that his loving providence extends to every human being.

4. The Place of Religious Discourse in American Democracy

Archbishop William Levada, San Francisco, CA
September 5, 2000
The Declaration Dominus Jesus issued by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Tuesday reaffirms the
fundamental teaching of Christian revelation, as handed down in the Catholic Church, on the role of Jesus Christ and the
role of the Catholic Church in our salvation.
The declaration, which was approved and affirmed by the Holy Father, proceeds from a theological context and presents
classic truths of the Catholic faith in contrast to relativistic theories. The declaration is a response to several confusing or
erroneous ideas regarding what it means to call Jesus Christ the one savior of the world and how his saving grace may be
applied to persons who do not explicitly believe in him or who have no connection with the church, to which he entrusted
the application of salvation to the whole human race.
One example of the kind of erroneous and relativistic theories which the declaration addresses could be summed up in an
explanation of the universality of salvation in Christ, which sets up two parallel dispensations in which this saving work
takes place: one for Christian believers, which operates through Christ the incarnate Word and his body, the church; and
the other for followers of non-Christian religions, which would operate through the invisible action of the Holy Spirit.
While reaffirming the essential truth of the uniqueness of Christ as savior and the necessity of the application of this
salvation through the work of the church, the declaration encourages theologians and those engaged in interreligious
dialogue to explore further how the mystery of God's saving will is truly universal, both throughout human history and
among all peoples. For example, with regard to other religions, the declaration says, "Theology today, in its reflection on
the existence of other religious experiences and on their meaning in God's salvific plan, is invited to explore if and in what
way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation" (No. 14).
Moreover, with regard to common action and common purpose by people of good will of any and all religious faiths, and of
no explicit Faith, the declaration reminds us that the kingdom of God is not simply identified with the church in her visible
and social reality, and therefore "the action of Christ and the Spirit outside the church's visible boundaries must not be
excluded" (No. 19). The declaration here goes on to quote Pope John Paul's encyclical letter "The Mission of the Redeemer"
(No. 15); "Therefore, one must also bear in mind that 'the kingdom is the concern of everyone: individuals, society and the
world. Working for the kingdom means acknowledging and promoting God's activity, which is present in human history and
transforms it. Building the kingdom means working for liberation from evil in all its forms. In a word, the kingdom of God is
the manifestation and the realization of God's plan of salvation in all its fullness."'
In this jubilee year, commemorating the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of the incarnate Word of God in the world, the
declaration reiterates common doctrine about the unique status of Jesus Christ as redeemer and savior in the eternal plan
of God. This plan, of course, began with the creation and is unfolding through the history of the world and human history,
making us a part of it; it will find its fulfillment only at "the end of time."

In a sense, then, it is a commentary on the beautiful and familiar words of the first chapter of St. Paul's Letter to the
Ephesians, on the power which comes from God's revelation of — and our response of faith in — Christ our Savior:
"God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly
places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age
but also in the age to come. And he had put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the
church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Eph. 1:20-23).
The declaration notes that in treating the question of the true religion, the fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught:
"We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the catholic and apostolic church, to which the Lord Jesus
entrusted the task of spreading it among all people. Thus, he said to the apostles, 'Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I
have commanded you' (Mt. 28:19-20). Especially in those things that concern God and his church, all persons are required
to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it" (Declaration on Religious Liberty, 1).
This statement illustrates the essential missionary spirit which has imbued Christianity from the beginning. At the same
time, since it introduces the council's important declaration about religious liberty guaranteeing to each person that basic
human right to personal freedom in religious matters, it reminds us of an important point which both religious and secular
leaders failed to understand or ignored too often in history's religious controversies and wars.
While the declaration Dominus Jesus is primarily addressed to the Catholic and Christian theological community, the ideas
contained in it naturally have some connection with the parallel and ongoing discussions about "civil religion," as those
discussions have taken shape over the years in our country in regard, for example, to religious pluralism and the place of
religious discourse in American democracy. For a certain view of religion in our American democracy, the claim that Christ is
the "one" savior will seem problematic, as if Christians refuse to meet as "equals" on a "level playing field." Just as in
interreligious dialogue, where all the participants must meet as "equals" while not surrendering the truth of their respective
beliefs or traditions as the declaration notes in No. 22, so in American society the democratic process guarantees an
equality to all religious beliefs — and to the lack of religion — to make their contribution to proposals for furthering the
common good.
What underlies much religious discourse today, however, as the recent lively discussion about Sen. Joe Lieberman's
remarks on faith and morality in American politics illustrates, is that for some people religion can only be "tolerated" if it is
private. It used to be that any public appeal to religion was considered divisive, presumptively preferring one's own religion
over another's. But in Lieberman's case, even a generic appeal to God and morality has proved offensive to some, since
they feel left out. It is as if the old saw "One religion is as good as another" has now got to be "No religion is as good as
another"!
But, indeed, religion has always provided the moral grounding and social conscience for the American vision, and in my
view attempts to privatize it should be firmly rejected as undermining still further the importance of religious faith for the
pursuit of virtue in personal and public life, the absence of which cannot but undermine our American culture and
institutions. Furthermore, such a tendency toward privatization itself fundamentally skews and tends to violate the First
Amendment guarantees of American constitutional law.
I do not want this aside into American political discourse to distract from the important reaffirmation of Catholic doctrine
which the declaration Dominus Jesus provides for Catholic and Christian believers and for the future of interreligious
dialogue. But I think it does help to provide some comment in the cultural context of our ongoing dialogue with our
neighbors about our purpose and our goals in church and society.

5. Ways of Misunderstanding This Document

Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, Newark, NJ
September 12, 2000
Last week one of the major offices of the Holy See published a document which triggered an immediate reaction in some
sectors of the press. It was a document that reminded Catholics what was taught by the Second Vatican Council and by the
Holy Fathers before and since. As a matter of fact, what the document repeated was what the church has always believed
and constantly taught. It reminded Catholics all over the world that Jesus Christ is Lord and that he is the only savior of the
human race. It reminded us also that Jesus Christ established a church which was to serve as the channel of grace and
truth and holiness in the world. That seems straightforward for anyone, or so it seems to me.
The reason for the promulgation of this document now is tied to the concerns raised by some in the church that we ought
to be open to other ways of salvation — for example, through the teachings of Buddha or the other deep Oriental mystics
— or to accept the validity of other ecclesial communities besides the Catholic Church. The secular press had a heyday with
this document. The headlines trumpeted that Catholics think they are the only ones who can be saved, that the pope called
other religions inferior and that the Catholic Church was returning to what the media so glibly inferred to have been a past
of intolerance and intransigence. What nonsense, especially in the light of our Holy Father's constant outreach to other
faiths and other religious leaders.
Let met try to make some things clear. First, we do not claim that only Catholics can be saved or that only Catholics can be
holy.
We have too great a personal experience of our own sinfulness and too deep an admiration for the goodness and holiness
of other peoples. Second, we do not deny the beauty and the significance of other religious teachings.

Indeed, we believe that in some way the Holy Spirit speaks to all men and women, in many ways calling them to virtue and
inspiring them to seek the truth of the presence of the one living God. The dialogue of true ecumenism does not infer the
denial of what we believe, but the desire to understand and appreciate what our neighbor believes.
What we do believe is that we have received in Jesus Christ the perfect revelation of the Father and that in the Catholic
Church we can find all the necessary helps toward achieving holiness in this life and obtaining the rewards of heaven that
are in the life to come. We believe that this is true. Therefore the denial of this has to be untrue. Wouldn't it be bizarre for
a Catholic to proclaim that the Catholic Church did not have the truth or that salvation won for us by Jesus was merely one
of many such accomplishments in the history of the world? Shouldn't a Catholic rejoice in his or her faith and be proud of
his or her church — even as they know that the human elements of the church can and must be constantly purified and
renewed?
Why would anyone want to be a Catholic, with all the challenges to holiness that are part of our lives, if another religion
was "just as good"? The media should be a little ashamed of the blatant put-down of Catholics that is present in the way it
looks at us. Why would anyone — Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu or of whatever faith — want to remain in that faith
community if they thought that it was not true. When next we pray the Creed at Sunday Mass, let us recite it with
enthusiasm. It is for us the guideline to everlasting life. I wanted to reach as many of our Catholic people as possible on
this subject so that you would know what I was thinking when I am thinking of you.

6. Understanding This Document's Context and Intent

Archbishop Alexander Brunett, Seattle, WA
September 13, 2000
In recent days, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a Declaration titled Dominus Iesus. It is subtitled "On
the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church."
Although this declaration may seem at first reading to be proposing some values and truths that haven't been stated
before, in reality it reiterates much of what has already been said, particularly in the documents of the Second Vatican
Council. The main concern of the declaration was to state again the importance in the life of a Catholic believer of Jesus
Christ as the focal point of our faith and, through him alone, salvation is possible. The declaration does not cover any new
ground or provide any new theological insights. Instead, it is calling attention to the fact that in dialogue and in
conversations Catholics need to be wary of taking positions that could prove to be problematic and even erroneous.
From the perspective of one who has been involved in ecumenical discussions for many years, the declaration itself does
not seem to be needed by those who have been engaged in official dialogues. Dialogue partners usually understand that
there is much give and take and that one should come to the table with a clear understanding of their own religious
convictions and ecclesial identity. From that perspective, this declaration does not add much to the process nor does it
further the cause of mutual understanding and respect.
There are several other Vatican documents of greater significance for the church, particularly the encyclical Ut Unum Sint,
issued by Pope John Paul II in 1996. In that document there is a much clearer understanding of the need to look deeply
into our own lives and to ask forgiveness for the times that we have offended others. The pope also calls for dialogue and
input regarding the role and nature of primacy as it functions in the church. In general, those who know well the Vatican
documents and the thinking of Pope John Paul II and his leadership role in the quest for Christian unity and religious
understanding will recognize that this declaration does not add to the dialogical process. Some perhaps will wonder why it
does not reflect the ecumenical sensitivity achieved through 30 years of dialogue and cooperation.
This declaration will serve as a good reminder of the commitment we each have to Jesus Christ and his universal will for the
salvation of all people. It will be a good corrective against exaggerated forms of religious pluralism. Ecumenists will be
encouraged to continue a dialogue that does not wallow in the controversies of the past but will seek to find ways in which
together we can express a common faith in Jesus Christ.
I encourage everyone to read the full text of the declaration so that the true emphasis and meaning can be understood in
the context and intention of those who framed it.

7. Bishop Loverde Welcomes New Vatican Document

Bishop Paul S. Loverde, Arlington, VA
September 7, 2000
"In the practice of dialogue between the Christian faith and other religious traditions, as well as in seeking to understand its
theoretical basis more deeply, new questions arise that need to be addressed through pursuing new paths of research,
advancing proposals and suggesting ways of acting that call for attentive discernment. In this task, the present Declaration
seeks to recall to Bishops, theologians, and all the Catholic faithful, certain indispensable elements of Christian doctrine,
which may help theological reflection in developing solutions consistent with the contents of the faith and responsive to the
pressing needs of contemporary culture" (Dominus Jesus, 3). "The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and
clarifying certain truths of the faith, has been to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of
Corinth: "I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received" (1 Cor 15:3). Faced with certain problematic
and even erroneous propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church’s faith and to give reasons for her
hope in a way that is convincing and effective" (Dominus Jesus, 23).

Bishop Loverde said he "welcomes the publication of this Declaration. My experience over the last thirty years is that a
number of Catholics have often, through no fault of their own, acquired an understanding of the Church (Ecclesiology) and
of Christ (Christology) that is inaccurate and therefore misleading. Obviously such misinterpretations have significant
implications for the living out of faith within the Church. This Declaration will assist us all in understanding more fully and
more accurately the role of Jesus Christ and of His Church in the salvation of the human family."

Statement by Dr. Timothy George on Vatican Document, "Declaration Dominus Iesus"

September 2000
Timothy George is Dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University and executive editor of Christianity Today. He is
a member of the Southern Baptist-Roman Catholic Conversation Team and an active participant in Evangelicals and
Catholics Together.
As an evangelical theologian committed to Christian unity, I welcome this new statement by Cardinal Ratzinger as an
encouragement to the kind of ecumenism we ought to be engaged in. In some ecumenical circles, the barometer of
conviction has fallen so low that it no longer registers the temperature of truth. In the Evangelicals and Catholics Together
movement, both sides are equally committed to an ecumenism of conviction, not an ecumenism of accommodation. We do
no service to the cause of Christ by smudging the serious theological differences that still divide our two traditions. From an
evangelical perspective, we must say to the Church of Rome the same thing that this document says to non-Catholic
Christians: serious defects remain in Catholic teaching and piety and we call the Church of Rome, as we call our own
churches, to further reformation on the basis of the Word of God.
Seventy-five years ago evangelical leader J. Gresham Machen observed that Bible-believing Protestants and faithful Roman
Catholics shared more in common with one another than they did with others who denied the deity of Christ, the miracles
of Jesus, the Holy Trinity, or the second coming of Christ. That is still true today and we must continue to work for greater
mutual understanding on the basis of a shared commitment to the core of orthodox Christian belief. Evangelicals who care
about the gospel should welcome the Vatican’s spurning of religious relativism and its reassertion that Jesus Christ is the
one and only Redeemer for all peoples everywhere.
We certainly do not agree on the role of the papacy and this remains a barrier to full Christian unity, as Pope John Paul II
himself has acknowledged. But evangelicals believe that God is able to work in, with, and under faulty church structures to
bring lost men and women into a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ. While only God can read anyone's heart, I
dare to say that there are countless Roman Catholics who know Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, just as there are no doubt
(in my denomination) many Southern Baptists who have been duly dunked but are still spiritually dead. There is no place
for either Catholic-baiting or Baptist-bashing among true believers in Jesus. And it behooves all of us to pray for and seek
genuine reformation and revival within our own ranks before throwing too many stones at others.

Canadian Pastors answer Rome’s

http://www.the-highway.com/dominus.html

A decisive moment is now before Evangelicals in the Christian world. In the Roman Catholic document Dominus Iesus,
Rome has declared her position as the sole depository of salvation and has adamantly declared that churches since the
Reformation are not churches in the proper sense. A foremost ecumenist, Timothy George, has welcomed this statement of
Rome. Now, leading evangelical pastors in Canada have written a rebuttal of Rome’s claim. They urge you to endorse the
refutation that they have drafted. In this way, a stand is made for truth in these tumultuous times of false ecumenism.

To give your backing to the statement below, kindly sign your name, and that of your position, church and city, and send it
to Pastor Brian Robinson: [email protected]

Brief History:
Many of you are now familiar with a flurry of ecumenical endeavours on the part of Catholic and Protestant churchmen.
One document that recently caused lively debate is "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (1994), a document signed by
such leading Evangelicals as J.I. Packer and Charles Colson in which past differences between the divided communions
were verbally minimized so that steps toward ultimate unity might be accomplished. Recently, the Vatican has responded to
these ecumenical efforts, indirectly, with a document entitled "Declaration Dominus Iesus" (DI) (September 5, 2000)
presented by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and approved by the "magisterium" of the Roman Church. This document outlines
the direction in which Rome intends to proceed in ongoing dialogue with those outside the Roman Church.

It re-affirms Rome’s so called supremacy in matters of salvation, faith and practice. Timothy George, who is Dean of
Beeson Divinity School at Samford University and the executive editor of Christianity Today, welcomes the document on the
grounds that, "In an unusual way it is an encouragement to the kind of ecumenism we ought to be engaged in." As George
goes on to explain, "In some ecumenical circles, the barometer of conviction has fallen so low that it no longer registers the
temperature of truth." Clearly then, Dominus Iesus has presented itself with conviction and certainty .

What then is the conviction that the document is seeking to express? The answer is the necessity mentioned by Paul in I
Cor. 9:16, to preach the Gospel! (The Gospel here would not be what Paul, or we, would understand by the Gospel but
rather how the Roman Catholic Church perceives the Gospel according to her own peculiar tenets). To quote from Para. 2
of DI, "This explains the Magisterium’s particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of
the Church, above all in connection with the religious traditions of the world." In other words, the document is primarily
addressed not to recent attempts at ecumenism but rather to a desire to confront modern society, awash in relativism, with
the absolute claims of the Christ of the Roman Catholic Church. While recognizing faint glints of "truth" in other religions,
the document claims that the full truth is confined to the Roman Church. It closes on this note, "We believe the one true
religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted the task of
spreading it among all the people."

Now, no one can quarrel with the intent of the document, as Catholics are certainly entitled to their convictions and to
challenge the world to examine them. As has been mentioned, the document says little about the status of present
ecumenical endeavours and inter-church relationships. Further, we can be thankful for DI because it sets out in no
uncertain terms how Rome perceives herself in relation to other religions and other Christian expressions. With no pretence
at dissembling, Rome explicitly declares her estimation of other Christian Churches. Under the section heading "Unicity and
Unity of the Church", DI states that,

...the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic
Church, and on the other hand, that 'outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth' (1)
that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with
respect to these, it needs to be stated that they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to
the Catholic Church.

The Athenians at Mars’ Hill should have felt cheated, had this been true. Nonetheless, is this not what Rome has always
taught? And the answer is yes. While we may marvel at "the mystery of iniquity", we also marvel at how slow present day
evangelicals are to admit the totalitarian nature of the Roman Church. The Roman Church has by and large made herself
into a substitute for God. As B. B. Warfield puts it in his treatise, The Plan of Salvation, "In a word, the Church in this
system is conceived to be Jesus Christ himself in his earthly form, and it is therefore substituted for him as the proximate
object of the faith of Christians" (Warfield, 54). Warfield reminds us that in Catholic thought the God of salvation is largely
deistic. He, God, has provided the means of salvation and then has given the whole matter of salvation over to the Church
to offer salvation to all men through the mediatorial role entrusted to the Roman Catholic Church. The difference between
Biblical Christianity and the Roman system needs to be clearly understood. In the Roman system salvation is found only
through the mediation of the Church and the various things she has to offer for lost sinners. God has provided a way of
salvation for all men but it is up to the Church to administer the means to as many men as she can reach. On the other
hand, classic Protestantism in the form of pure evangelicalism, as Warfield so succinctly states, "...suspends the welfare of
the soul directly, without any intermediaries at all, upon the grace of God alone." A failure to understand this fundamental
difference will mean that all ecumenical talks will fail or Evangelicals will capitulate completely to Rome, which is Rome’s
avowed aim. The only other course would be for Rome to recognize its error and dismantle its whole superstructure, along
with its vaunted claims, something that would be most unlikely.
As space is a factor in our response, we will attempt to isolate the nature of the problem concerning our dealings with
Rome and the above mentioned recent document. Under Section IV, the document, rightly, we believe, rejects " claims,
even more a Truth claim, that seeks an audience in the "public market place” is verifiable on historical grounds. The
question DI raises, as we see it, is where is absolute Truth to be found? The answer it gives is in the Roman Church.
Paragraph 15 reads,

Not infrequently it is proposed that theology should avoid the use of terms like "unicity", "universality", and "absoluteness",
which give the impression of excessive emphasis on the significance and value of the salvific event of Jesus Christ in
relation to other religions. In reality, however, such language is simply being faithful to revelation, since it represents a
development of the sources of the faith themselves.

Notice how Roman thought gives with one hand and takes with the other. Jesus Christ is the Truth but only as he is
reworked through the "development of the sources of faith themselves ".

Jesus declared an inviolable law when he stated that you cannot serve two masters (Mt.6:24). There are really only two
sources of authority: the Church (authoritarianism) and the Written Word of God. For true believers, only the infallible Word
of God is the ultimate and true source of Divine and liberating authority. Again as in other instances, the Roman Church
arrogates to herself what rightly belongs only to God and His Word. Rome claims to be the infallible arbitrator and
interpreter of all questions relating to the truth as it is found in Christ. The Roman Church insists that we owe absolute
allegiance to "the magisterium" because to them God has vouchsafed his Son as well as his Word. If such grandiose claims
are false, as we insist they are, Rome’s culpability will not go unnoticed by God. The paragraph 15 quote is not humble
submission to the infallible Word but rather an arrogant assertion by fallible men presuming to develop the Christian faith
into whatever form they deem necessary to maintain their claims to absolute power. In a real sense it removes God from
the picture and assumes an authority that God never granted to any man or group of men.

Nevertheless, the document in Section IV outlines certain non-negotiables to which we could heartily assent. These non-
negotiables are such as: the "definitive" revelation of God in Christ Jesus our Lord; the uniqueness of the Christian faith in
relation to other non-Christian faiths; the uniqueness of the Bible in comparison to claims made about the sacred books
found in other religions; the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ; the mystery of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture; and the
salvation that is to be found in and through Jesus Christ alone. All this, of course, we as Protestants would want to affirm,
claiming that the mystery of the Universe is unlocked in the 'key' which is, Christ the Creator and Redeemer of the same. So
far, DI has only asserted that to which the devil himself must give assent. But then the document adds to that list the
following, "the universal salvific mediation of the Church" and "the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic
Church". In these additions, they are claiming that God has granted the Church of Rome the monopoly to bestow salvation
upon all men and that the one true Church is the Roman Catholic Church. These arrogant claims we utterly reject, finding
them to be seriously flawed and without any substantial proof either in history or in the Word of God.

Therefore:

#1 We reject the claim that the Roman Church has been given by God a mediatorial role in the salvation of God’s elect. At
the heart of the disagreement is the very nature of salvation itself. The essence of evangelicalism is that God deals directly
with the soul of man in the salvation of his people. This historic position is directly opposed to sacerdotalism, which claims
that the efficacy of salvation is to be found in the administration of the sacraments by a duly appointed and recognizable
priesthood. We re-affirm the priesthood of all believers as taught in the New Testament (1 Peter 2:5) while at the same
time confessing that in the ultimate sense there is but one High Priest to whom we must go, and that is Jesus Christ our
Lord who is a "priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 7:17). B. B. Warfield said it long ago in The Plan of
Salvation, "Over against this whole view [sacerdotalism] evangelicalism, seeking to conserve what it conceives to be only
consistent supernaturalism, sweeps away every intermediary between the soul and its God, and leaves the soul dependent
for salvation on God alone, operating on it by immediate grace" (Warfield, 19). The Roman Church, in her arrogance, has
sought to replace God and the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men and women by replacing God’s unique and rightful activity
in the redemption of his people with the activity of a fallen and sinful hierarchy.

#2 We reject the claim of the Roman Church to be the true Church of God and the successors of the Apostles. Instead,
we believe that the true successors of the Apostles are those who hold fast to Apostolic doctrine and Apostolic practice as
revealed in the Word of God. We further reject as outlined in Para. 16 that Christ’s Church is identifiable and "subsists in
[subsist in] the Catholic Church governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him". The true
Church consists of all those, and only those, who are in union with Christ through saving faith in his finished work on the
Cross and whose union with Christ is exhibited in lives that reflect something of the holiness of God. We further reject the
specious claim that apostolic authority has been passed on through the laying on of hands and that the Pope is the true
successor to Peter, as there is no Scriptural evidence that Peter was to head the Church and to have successors. This is
especially true when we see that the early Church in Jerusalem was guided by James, the brother of Jesus, and not by
Peter (Acts 15).

The word for Church in the Bible is not an ecclesiastical organization that can be visibly seen by the naked eye. Rather, it is
the word 'ekklesia' (I Corinthians 1:2) meaning the "called out ones", that is, those who have been called out of this world
by the Holy Spirit’s regenerating work in their lives and who have been savingly joined to Jesus Christ. The "called out
ones" of which the Bible speaks are first of all, invisible (see Ephesians 2:19-22) and consists of all who are in Christ
spiritually by faith (not simply those joined to a visible Church). This Biblical truth means that no one denomination can
claim to have a monopoly on the truth. Further, mere membership in a particular brand of Christianity does not necessarily
mean one is saved and going to heaven. The true Church does have a visible presence in that it is made up of local
assemblies consisting of true believers in Jesus Christ. As Warfield underlines the above, "In direct opposition to the
maxims of consistent sacerdotalism, he (that is consistent supernaturalism) takes therefore as his mottoes: Where the Spirit
is, there is the Church; outside the body of the saints there is no salvation" (19). Such gatherings are under the leadership
of duly called pastors and deacons, who themselves are under the ultimate leadership of Christ, who alone is the Lord and
Head of every local congregation.

#3 We reject the claim that while it is all right for the Roman Church to proselytize Protestant congregations, the
Protestant congregations must not return the favour. We believe that many in the Church of Rome are utterly ignorant of
the way of salvation and are trusting in their works and the spurious merit of saints and Mary to get into heaven. We reject
Timothy George’s statement, in his reply to "Dominus Iesus" as reported in Viewpoint (Jan/Feb 2001 Reformation and
Revival Ministries) that "there are countless Roman Catholics who know Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, just as there are,
no doubt, (in my denomination) many Southern Baptists who have been duly dunked but are still spiritually dead". This is
to compare apples with oranges. It is one thing to baptize unconverted souls (unwittingly) while warning them that the rite
they are about to undergo does not save them or in any way make them right with God. It is indeed quite another thing to
baptise countless infants and, in the process, tell the whole world as the Church of Rome does in her teaching, "Baptism,
the gate to the sacraments, necessary for salvation... by which men and women are freed from their sins, are reborn as
children of God and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated in the Church, is validly conferred only
by washing with true water together with the required form of words." (Canon 849 Code of Canon Law) We believe that all
Roman Catholics need to be challenged with the truth of the Gospel and the glorious liberty of the sons of God, who put
their faith in Jesus alone for their salvation, in fact, the vast majority of those who adhere to the Catholic faith are lost and
undone, being entangled in a web of deceit that has Satan as its author and not Christ.

#4 We reject the statement found in Para.17, which reads, "Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which
subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him". Agreed
that there is a single Church of Jesus Christ, but it does not subsist in the Roman Catholic Church. This pretentious claim
has been refuted both by the Bible and by history. Many of the so called successors of Peter would not be recognized by
Peter either as to their claims or their immoral life style. As Savonarola (1452-1498) once put it, "In early Christianity we
had prelates of gold and chalices of wood but now we have prelates of wood and chalices of gold." The whole
superstructure of the Roman Church is not found in Scripture and is solely based on the ethereal foundation that Peter
started the Church in Rome. Martin Luther years ago fought this battle with Eck pointing out that,

"If the reverend doctor desire to attack me, let him first reconcile the contradictions in Saint Augustine. For it is most
certain that Augustine has said many times that the rock was Christ (as in Matthew 16:18), and perhaps not more than
once that it was Peter himself. But even should Saint Augustine and all the Fathers say that the apostle is the rock of which
Christ speaks, I would resist them, single-handed, in reliance upon Holy Scriptures, that is, on divine right: for it is written:
'...other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' Peter himself terms Christ the chief cornerstone,
and a living stone on which we are built up a spiritual house (1 Peter 2:6)".

The further claim that the "magisterium" alone is the infallible interpreter of the Word of God is equally false. This usurps
the role of the Holy Spirit who guides the renewed conscience in understanding the mind of God as found in the Word of
God. Moreover, it is a fact that the interpretation of Scripture by the Church hierarchy has been singularly inept and more
often than not misleading and in error. In truth it is amazing to Protestants that the Roman Church cannot see itself in II
Thessalonians chapter 2 and Revelation chapter 17. As Luther whispered to Spalatin, "I am reading the decrees of the
pontiffs and (I whisper this in your ear) I do not know whether the pope is the Anti-Christ himself, or his apostle, so greatly
is Christ misrepresented and crucified in them."

#5 We reject the extra-Biblical and unholy traditions that have evolved in the Catholic Church. While this is not addressed
directly by "Dominus Iesus", as it seldom is in ecumenical discussions, it is still a primary stumbling block, as is the whole
business of the Virgin Mary and her glorified status in Roman Catholic thought and worship. The glorification of this peasant
girl to "Queen of Heaven" and "co-mediator" with Christ is the exaltation of the creature in the place of the Creator
(Romans 1:25). Further, there is the unholy worship and exaltation of saints, the transfer of merit as if Christ’s merit were
not enough, the use of icons and statues, candles, prayers for the dead, purgatory, the submission of one’s conscience to
fallible men, celibacy, forbidding of foods, confessions to priests rather than to God, special dispensations and the
multiplying of the sacrament when Christ has given but two. All these issues demonstrate clearly that the house must be
swept clean of this religious bric-a-brac before there can be any hope of ecumenical oneness for such is not Christianity but
a perversion of all that is holy and righteous. "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s
wrath comes on those who are disobedient." (Ephesians 5:6)

#6 We reject the Roman Catholic teaching concerning the way sinners are instructed to reconciliation with God. The Bible
makes it clear that God justifies sinners and the ungodly, not the righteous (Romans 5: 8). The fact that Rome never
addresses this problem but simply re-asserts time and again that to be made right with God, one must be in union with the
Church of Rome gives us little hope of progress in bringing about meaningful unicity. In "Dominus Iesus" paragraph 16, it is
stated that "...the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord." It is true
that one might possibly interpret this as Christ saving his people but this is not the intent. Christ is pictured here as working
his salvation through the Church as he is united (bound) to the Roman Church! How does a sinner get right with God? The
Roman Church declares that a sinner gets right with God by the means of grace provided through the Roman Church.

They are made Christians by the sprinkling of holy water at baptism so that God’s grace is imparted to the candidates,
thereby enabling them by the help of the Church and God to live lives pleasing unto God. In their thinking, that which is
lacking in Calvary’s expiation is met by Christ’s continual sacrifice in the Mass, by their own good works, by the works of
others, by the satisfaction offered to lift one from purgatory to heaven etc., etc. The whole edifice is quite astonishing and
mind boggling compared to the simple teaching of Scripture concerning the way of salvation. Christ is in heaven and the
Church is on earth. Rome’s assumed task for herself is to be the Saviour of the world through the grace committed to her
by an ascended, and mostly absent, Lord. This is simply untrue. It is Christ, and Christ alone, who saves his people. That
our Lord uses human instrumentality to bring the Gospel message to the unconverted we would not deny. This is
reaffirmed by Paul in Romans 10:14ff. Even here Paul speaks not about sacraments, but rather of preaching the good news
of how Christ and Christ alone, affects the salvation of his own. In Roman Catholic theology, however, the Church is seen
as the Saviour while Christ is absent in glory.

#7 We reject the whole sacramental system of the Roman Church. Baptism in no way makes one a Christian. It does not
infuse a holy nature into anyone. The claim that all sins are forgiven in Baptism is fatuous and should be exposed for the
error it is. The fact is that water has never washed away one sin, let alone a multitude. The only cleansing power for sin is
the blood of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), and the only way the blood is applied is
by faith in the Son of God (Ephesians 1:13). Millions are deceived and doomed to an eternal Hell by the lie that they are
Christians because they have been baptized. Such errors cannot be overlooked else we too will have blood on our hands,
having failed to warn those so deceived when we ourselves had been delivered from such snares (Ezekiel 3:18). Further,
we reaffirm the judgement of the Reformers on the Mass. The claim that the priest sacrifices Jesus over and over again in a
bloodless sacrifice is the devil’s lie and not the truth of God. To claim the wafer is the actual body of Christ is without
Scriptural warrant or scientific evidence. Jesus’ teaching that we are to feed on his flesh, in John 6:53-59, is to be
understood metaphorically, not literally. The Roman Church’s claim that the true sacrifice for sin took place in the Upper
Room has no support in Scripture or in the history of the Church for hundreds of years following the first century. Why
Protestant leaders do not protest the blasphemy inherent in the Mass, which renders Christ’s once and for all finished work
on the cross superfluous, is a puzzle to all who are seeking to be faithful to the Word of God.

#8 We reject this statement in Para.14: "It must therefore firmly be believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal
salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and
resurrection of the Son of God." At first glance, this statement only reaffirms what is taught in Acts 4:12 "...that there is no
other name under heaven given among men by which we can be saved". The problem for this Roman Catholic document is
how to square Christ’s rightful claim to supremacy as sole Saviour of mankind with other religions in the world that make
truth claims for themselves. Like many Protestant thinkers today, it acknowledges Christ’s unique mediatorial role while at
the same time affirming that truth and salvation can be found through other religions, but ultimately such mediators are
subsumed under the one true mediator Christ. Thus, a sincere Moslem can be saved through Christ’s unique role in the
universe even though the Moslem denies Christ’s uniqueness in any salvific sense.

In other words, according to many modern theologians, Catholic or Protestant, a Moslem is a Christian, he simply is not
aware of this fact. This is affirmed in paragraph 14, "The Second Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: 'the unique
mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude; but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in
this one source'". But, we ask, what cooperation is there between Christ and Belial (II Cor. 6:14)? The uniqueness inherent
in Christ’s mediatorial role excludes all who do not believe on his name. The attempt to satisfy those who give a role of
truth to all religions is to tempt God. Paul’s words stand true, "...for, '‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be
saved'" (Romans 10: 13) And how can they call unless they hear, and how can they hear unless someone is sent? And if
someone is not sent, how can they be saved? "Dominus Iesus" is a document that struggles to reconcile the absolute truth
claims of the Roman Church with secular concerns about other religions as having legitimate truth claims, as well. The
document recognizes not primarily the uniqueness of Christ but rather focuses on the perceived uniqueness of the Roman
Church in the saving of men’s souls. Thus with supreme irony DI, while grappling with the claims of other religions who
wish for themselves the legitimate right of being true to reality (and are not), reveals that the whole Roman system is not
true to the God of the Scriptures and therefore joins the false religions of this world in whom there is 'no light' (Isaiah
8:20).

In Conclusion:
We see little in the document "Dominus Iesus" and in on going talks between Protestant and Catholic representatives that
give us much hope for any future breakthroughs. It seems as if the Roman Church is made of elastic, that is, she may bend
but she never breaks and never really changes. She may adapt herself to changing circumstances but the message is
always the same, that where the Roman Church is there is the Spirit, and outside of the Church the Spirit is not. This
document goes so far as to say that if Protestants have any light at all, it is entirely due to the mediatorial work of the
Church of Rome. We therefore reject the proud pretensions of the Roman Church and insist that history and Scripture
continue to show that she is a counterfeit of the genuine Church, which is made up of those redeemed in Christ, who have
been saved by faith alone.

That is, we are saved by the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ imputed to our account that he might have all the glory
and the praise. We question why so many evangelicals want to apologize on behalf of the Reformers when no apology is
necessary. While recognizing the need to continue to reform, the Reformation remains the work of the Spirit reviving and
re-fitting his Church for service to God and man.
We wonder why evangelicals wish to sell their inheritance for this mess of pottage?

(1) Italics in the quotations from DI are those of the authors not of the document itself.

Signed,

Pastors:

 Brian Robinson, Faith Reformed Baptist (Toronto)

 David Robinson, Grace Community (Cambridge)
 Roger Fellows, Richmond Hill Baptist (Richmond Hill)
 William Oosterman, Westborough Baptist (Ottawa)
 Dr. Geoff Adams, Professor of Old Testament (Toronto Baptist Seminary)
 Dr. Andrew Fountain, Principal of Toronto Baptist Seminary
 Kent Shelley, Bentinck Baptist (Elmwood)
 Paul Martin, Grace Fellowship Church (Toronto)
 Richard Valade, Grace Baptist (Essex)
 Kirk Wellum, Sovereign Grace Community (Sarnia)
 Carl Muller, Trinity Baptist (Burlington)
 Stephen Kring, Bethesda Baptist (Delhi)
 Hoarce Wilkins, King Street Baptist (Port Colburne)
 Dale Nevelizer, Tillbury Baptist (Tillbury)
 Randy Mann, Bowmanville Baptist (Bowmanville)
 Eric Wright, Bowmanville Baptist (Bowmanville)
 Don Theobald, Pilgrim Baptist (Ancaster)
 Brad Powers, Berean Baptist (Sudbury)
 Les Clemons, Madoc Baptist (Madoc) retired
 Ken Davis, Thistletown Baptist (Toronto)
 Marino Vereke, Tottenham Baptist (Tottenham)

To give your endorsement of the above statement, kindly sign your name, and that of your position, church and city, and
send it to Pastor Brian Robinson: [email protected]

Statement of Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops,
on the issuance of "Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the
Church".
http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/news/News_Sep2000.htm#Fiorenza
September 5, 2000
"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has once again performed a valuable service in summarizing and clarifying
the teaching of the Church. In its declaration, "On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," the
Congregation reiterates, mainly by recalling the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II, that Jesus
Christ -- the Word made flesh and Son of the Father -- has an absolutely unique role in the salvation of the world.
"Similarly the Church of Christ uniquely contains the means of continuing Christ's saving mission. The Church of Christ is
one, and subsists, or is found, in the Catholic Church where the fullness of the means of grace and salvation are present.
"Beyond the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, Christ's Church is also operative in those Churches which have
maintained a valid episcopate, in succession to the apostles, and sacraments, above all, the Eucharist. Elements which go
together to build up the life of the Church -- such as Baptism, the Word of God, the virtues of faith, hope, charity -- are
present as well in other churches and ecclesial communities of Christians. These endowments form bonds which inspire in
us a deep love and respect for them and a commitment to work with them to overcome what separates us and to achieve
full communion.
"The salvation offered through Jesus Christ and his Church is a gift to all humanity. We believe that Christ invites every
human being to find in him "the way, the truth, and the life." Having been blessed with faith in Christ through no merit of
our own, the members of the Church humbly seek to give as a gift the faith we received as a gift. Our belief in this regard
in no way diminishes the sincere respect we have for the religions of the human family or our conviction that their followers
can receive divine grace.

"This respect -- and love -- goes in a special way to the Jewish community to which Christians are closely related through
Christ himself and the revealed word of God in the Old Testament. Pope John Paul has witnessed to this special relationship
over and over again, especially during his recent visit to the State of Israel.
"The Holy Father has witnessed to the Church's respect for the other great religions during his various encounters with their
leaders on his pastoral visits around the world. In his 1986 call for a Day of Prayer in Assisi, he inspired the leaders of most
major religions to come together to put the power of prayer and belief behind the search for peace.
"This document will be of special assistance to our theologians and theology professors, to those doing missionary work,
and to all engaged in ecumenical and interfaith dialogues. We count it a blessing to live in a time marked by extensive
encounters between the peoples of the world, their cultures and their religions. One can scarcely doubt the importance of
these contacts and exchanges at the religious level as they unfold in the decades ahead.
"As these contacts deepen, it is not surprising that they present searching questions about how a Christian regards the
relationship with other religions in light of faith in Jesus Christ as the unique and universal Savior. The answers of past
centuries do not always come to terms with the reality before us. As the Congregation points out, today, facile answers do
not do justice to the truth of our relationship with other religious traditions. At the same time, little good would come from
contacts with other religions, if those speaking on behalf of the Church were to offer an inadequate or very selective picture
of the Christian faith.
"Respecting the seriousness of the questions surfaced by the interreligious encounters of our time, the Congregation does
not rest with pointing out the faulty answers sometimes proposed. It also invites Catholic theologians to a continuing
exploration in depth and reflection on the existence of other religious experiences, on other religious traditions which also
contain elements that come from God, and on their meaning in God's salvific plan."

World Council of Churches Office of Communication Press Release

150 route de Ferney, P.O. Box 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/news/press/00/23pre.html
5 September 2000
WCC reaffirms importance of ecumenical dialogue and common witness
First reaction to the Declaration Dominus Iesus
September 5 -- The World Council of Churches (WCC) affirms the importance of genuine ecumenical dialogue, and of
common Christian witness on the problems facing the world today. This is a first reaction of the WCC to the Declaration
Dominus Iesus issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome today.
"All churches have gained enormously from the recent entry - through the 2nd Vatican Council in the 1960s - of the Roman
Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement," said the Rev. Dr Tom Best, a staff member of the WCC's Faith and Order
Team. "Within the framework of the WCC, and in the wider ecumenical movement, many sensitive conversations are
underway about the relationships of the churches to one another. What a loss if these were hindered - or even damaged -
by language, which precludes further discussion of the issues. In addition, one would hope for an acknowledgement of the
many positive developments in common Christian confession, witness and service which have happened within the
ecumenical movement over the past 100 years."
A common and credible Christian witness is needed to the many ethical and social challenges facing the world today,
including issues of globalization, prophetic witness, and mission. "What a tragedy," added Best, "if this witness to a hurting
world were obscured by the churches' dialogues about their relative authority and status - however important they may
be."
For further information, please contact the Media Relations Office tel.: (+41 22) 791 6153 (office); e-mail: media

Vatican: Protestants Not 'Sister Churches'

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/october23/22.22.html
By Luigi Sandri in Rome, Cedric Pulford in London and Edmund Doogue in Geneva 5 September, 2000
The Vatican has dealt a blow to Catholic-Protestant relations by reaffirming its doubts about the validity of Protestant
churches and by officially ordering Catholic bishops not to use the term "sister churches" in reference to them.
An official "note" by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, warns
that describing Protestant churches as "sister churches" can cause "ambiguities".
Another document, Dominus Iesus, on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, also published
today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declares that churches that do not have a "valid Episcopate
[bishops] and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery are not Churches in the proper sense".
The two documents suggest a distinction between, on the one hand, the Roman and Orthodox churches which, according
to Rome, are closely related, and, on the other hand, the Protestant communities. Both documents pointedly avoid using
the word "church" when referring to Protestants, adopting instead the non-committal word "ecclesial communities".
Protestant churches contacted by ENI today were politely critical of the Vatican statements, although they pointed out that
the documents contained nothing that had not been said before.

Cardinal Ratzinger's Note on the expression 'Sister Churches', dated 30 June 2000, was published this week by Adista, a
Catholic publication in Rome. Cardinal Ratzinger has also sent a separate letter to the heads of Catholic bishops'
conferences around the world warning that bishops should not use the term "sister churches" when speaking of "the
Anglican communion and non-catholic ecclesial communities".
The cardinal's "note", approved by Pope John Paul on 9 June, is "to be held as authoritative and binding", according to
Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the bishops' conferences.
The four-page note gives a detailed history of the use of the term "sister churches", explaining that it was used in reference
to the Orthodox churches with which Rome was in communion for many centuries. However, even on this point, Cardinal
Ratzinger claims Rome's superiority to other churches, stating: "In this connection, it needs to be noted that no Roman
Pontiff ever recognised this equalisation of sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of
Rome" - meaning that Rome has superior authority.
Cardinal Ratzinger adds that in modern times, the expression "sister churches" was used by the late Ecumenical Patriarch of
Constantinople, Athenagoras I (patriarch from 1948 to 1972), who "often expressed the hope of seeing the unity between
the sister churches re-established in the near future". Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II have also used the expression in
reference to Orthodoxy, the note adds.
But the cardinal adds: "It must always be clear, when the expression 'sister churches' is used in this proper sense, that the
one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but 'mother' of all the particular Churches". He also states
that "one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular church or group of churches. This is not
merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the
Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church, and therefore the plural term churches can refer only to
particular churches."
The cardinal's note ends with a warning: "The expression 'sister churches' in the proper sense, as attested by the common
tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid episcopate and
Eucharist."

Protestants react as Ratzinger proclaims that not all churches are equal
http://www.development.umd.edu/Diversity/Specific/Religion/Issues/dicomments.html
ENI-00-0332 Ecumenical News International, PO Box 2100, CH - 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland [email protected]
[After reproducing the Luigi Sandri story (above):] The other declaration published today - Dominus Iesus - is largely a
reprimand of Catholic theologians who "have argued that all religions may be equally valid ways of salvation". According to
the declaration, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is concerned about "the rapid spread of the relativistic and
pluralistic mentality" among theologians. It points out that Catholics must "firmly believe" in the "unicity" (unique nature) of
the Catholic Church and "in an historical continuity between the church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church". The
declaration adds further that while there can be "many elements of sanctification and truth" in other churches and ecclesial
communities, "they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".
The declaration again makes a distinction between, on the one hand, "churches" - an apparent reference to the Orthodox -
which do not accept the "primacy of the Bishop of Rome" but retain "apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist", and, "on
the other hand, ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral
substance of the Eucharistic mystery, [and] are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptised in
these communities are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Catholic Church *"
According to one leading Italian newspaper, La Stampa, of Turin, the note from Cardinal Ratzinger means that "the
churches born of the Protestant Reformation are automatically excluded from the list of 'sister churches'."
The Repubblica newspaper in Rome states: "With this definition, the Reformed and Lutheran churches are reduced to a
lower level. To say this, half a century after the Second Vatican Council, is a step backwards."
In Geneva Paraic Reamonn, press officer for the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, which has 215 Protestant churches
as members, told ENI: "Vatican II's statement that the one church of Jesus Christ 'subsists' in the Roman Catholic Church
was widely recognised as opening up an ecumenically important distinction between the Christian church and the Church of
Rome. Dominus Iesus is part of a sustained effort by Catholic conservatives to deny this, and to return to what is, even in
Catholic terms, an over-simple identification of the two. Again, Cardinal Ratzinger's denial that the relationship of the
Roman Catholic Church with Orthodox churches is a relationship 'between sister churches' is hard to reconcile with papal
statements, even by the present Pope, that his note itself quotes.
"It is not easy to see how these documents are consistent with the letter of Vatican II or with subsequent ecumenical
progress. They are certainly not consistent with the spirit of Vatican II, and will cause widespread irritation among
Catholics."
The world's leading ecumenical organisation, the World Council of Churches (WCC), also based in Geneva, reacted to
Dominus Iesus by affirming in a statement "the importance of genuine ecumenical dialogue, and of common Christian
witness on the problems facing the world today".
Dr Tom Best, a theologian and WCC staff member, said in the WCC statement: "All churches have gained enormously from
the recent entry - through the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s - of the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical
movement. Within the framework of the WCC, and in the wider ecumenical movement, many sensitive conversations are
underway about the relationships of the churches to one another.

What a loss if these were hindered - or even damaged - by language which precludes further discussion of the issues. In
addition, one would hope for an acknowledgement of the many positive developments in common Christian confession,
witness and service which have happened within the ecumenical movement over the past 100 years."
In London the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, leader of the world-wide Anglican Communion, said in a statement
about today's declaration that his communion "does not for one moment" accept that its ministerial orders and Eucharist
are deficient. Dr Carey pledged to continue improving relations with Roman Catholics.
The statement also pointed out that a meeting in Toronto, Canada, earlier this year between senior bishops of both
churches, headed by Dr Carey and Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the Vatican's specialist in ecumenical affairs, had produced
"striking advances" over a range of issues and had proposed the establishment of a Joint Unity Commission to carry matters
forward.
"By restating the long-held view of the Roman Catholic Church on the position of other Christian churches, this document
breaks no new ground," Archbishop Carey said. "But neither does it fully reflect the deeper understanding that has been
achieved through ecumenical dialogue and co-operation during the past 30 years.
"The idea that Anglican and other churches are not 'proper churches' seems to question the considerable ecumenical gains
we have made."
Arun Kataria, Archbishop Carey's spokesman, told ENI: "Dominus Iesus is not part of the ecumenical dialogue. The
Canadian meeting earlier this year was very productive. As far as we're concerned, it's business as usual."
John Wilkins, editor of the Tablet, an influential Catholic newspaper published in London, described the declaration as
"very, very backwards ... enormously negative". He said of relations between the churches: "It [the declaration] sees the
glass as half-empty, yet since Vatican II we have looked at the glass as half-full."
At least the declaration would challenge liberal Catholic theologians to "use their creativity to get round it", which might
lead to firmer ground than existed before it was published.
Wilkins told ENI he believed the Roman Catholic commitment to ecumenism was irreversible, but he acknowledged that the
Pope must also have been involved in Dominus Iesus: "He can't have ignored this document."
In Hanover, Germany, Manfred Kock, the council president of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), the country's main
Protestant body, described the "signs from Rome" as "a strengthening of the traditional self-image of the Roman Catholic
Church and a set-back for ecumenical co-operation".
Dominus Iesus meant, Kock said, that in Rome's view the churches of the Reformation were at the "lowest level of the
order of ecclesiastical precedence", and that Rome had rejected the principle of equal treatment "with a clarity that leaves
no room for doubt".
Despite this, he added: "The future of the church will be an ecumenical one as promised by Jesus Christ and as required for
the witness and service of the church in Germany and in other places. We cannot let ourselves be put off by the
Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith."

Statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the Roman Catholic Document 'Dominus
Ieusus'
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ecumenical/message/34
Lambeth Palace 5 September 2000
By restating the long-held view of the Roman Catholic Church on the position of other Christian churches, this document
breaks no new ground. But neither does it fully reflect the deeper understanding that has been achieved through
ecumenical dialogue and co-operation during the past thirty years. Even though the document is not part of that process,
the idea that Anglican and other churches are not "proper churches" seems to question the considerable ecumenical gains
we have made.
It is important that we recognise and celebrate ecumenical progress. It is a task to which I remain fully committed on
behalf of both the Church of England and the world-wide Anglican Communion. It is one I shall continue to pursue with
both Roman Catholic and other church leaders on the basis of deep mutual respect.
Indeed, at an important meeting of senior Anglicans and Roman Catholics in Toronto, earlier this year, which I chaired
jointly with Cardinal Cassidy, we made striking advances in acknowledging substantial agreement on a range of issues and
in proposing a new Joint Unity Commission to carry things forward.
Of course, the Church of England, and the world-wide Anglican Communion, does not for one moment accept that its
orders of ministry and Eucharist are deficient in any way. It believes itself to be a part of the one, holy, catholic and
apostolic church of Christ, in whose name it serves and bears witness, here and round the world.

Martini voices some reservations on Vatican text

The Vatican declaration Dominus Iesus issued last week by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had a mixed
reception. Conservatives have welcomed it as a reaffirmation of fundamental Catholic teaching and of the superiority of the
Catholic Church above other religions, while those of more progressive views have been unenthusiastic.
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, Archbishop of Milan, described the document as "theologically rather dense, peppered with
quotations, and not easy to grasp". It focused mainly on dialogue with the world religions, he said, because of the danger
of relativism in these discussions, but the tone "risks being rather strong", he thought. Salvation could be had outside the
Church, he declared, and "the document says so clearly". Salvation is "possible for all, outside any Church", he said, "if one
follows the grace of God, a moral conscience and the Holy Spirit".

He did not believe the declaration would block the ecumenical dialogue, "even if there have been some misunderstandings
which need to be cleared up". He thought the declaration should be read in the "wider and more encouraging framework"
of Ut Unum Sint, the papal encyclical letter on ecumenism of 1995. He noted with approval a positive element in it which
had gone largely unnoticed: the creed used in the introduction was the one acceptable to the Orthodox Church, being
without the filioque clause that was one reason for the split between Eastern and Western Christianity. Cardinal Martini was
speaking in reply to questions in a press conference in Milan on 8 September, Gerard O'Connell reports from Rome.
Cardinal Pierre Eyt, Archbishop of Bordeaux, told the Catholic news agency Zenit in Rome that the document was a
collective effort. He said he had contributed "from a distance" by "identifying certain questions, certain sensibilities", but he
had not seen the text again "until it was in its final form". He said the declaration was "motivated by concern that dialogue
with people of other religions should be founded on what is essential in our faith". But his remarks seemed to indicate that
one of the Church's concerns was for Catholics who married non-Catholics: the Church wanted to ensure that when they
set out on married life they also founded their lives on the "essentials of the faith, in keeping with the Bible, tradition and
the teaching of the Church".
Fr Angelo Amato, said to be one of the drafters of the declaration, particularly for the Christological parts, said the
declaration proposed nothing new, and "the ecumenical dialogue remains the same". The aim of the document was to
reaffirm "central doctrines in the understanding of the Catholic faith", and "no phrase in the text puts the brake on
ecumenical dialogue". He said the declaration called on Catholics to return to their own identity. "This is precisely the
purpose of the document, not to lose our identity."
Fr Tissa Balasuriya OMI, whose investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in May 1996 led to his
excommunication in 1997, a sentence which was revoked in 1998, did not directly condemn the declaration, but compared
it unfavourably with the report of the Interreligious Assembly held in the Vatican in October 1999 by Cardinal Francis
Arinze's Council for Interreligious Dialogue. "Well-disposed persons of other faiths" in Sri Lanka had commented on the
document, he reported: "we are not interested in a dialogue that has the ulterior motive of conversion to Catholicism". He
went on to say that "those of other faiths see the declaration as treating them as `gravely deficient' in regard to salvation.
They see dialogue as undertaken by Catholics from a position of superiority and particular friendship of God". But "if their
religions are not recognised for their own intrinsic dignity", they could not "have a serious desire to dialogue with
Catholics". Further, "they say that if they too take similar uncompromising dogmatic positions, no dialogue is likely to be
meaningful". [Source not available]

Dismay, Disdain over Vatican Document

September 6, 2000
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) Religious leaders and theologians reacted with dismay and disdain Wednesday to a Vatican
document which rejected the concept that other religions could be considered equal to Roman Catholicism.
The controversial document, issued Tuesday by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stunned many,
worried others and left a number indifferent.
But there was general concern that the complex theological document could hurt decades of interreligious dialogue that has
made great strides since the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council.
The bitterness appeared to be felt most by other Christian religions, which the document implied were second-rate because
of "defects,'' including their refusal to recognize papal primacy.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the world's 70 million Anglicans, rejected the Vatican's contention as
unacceptable, saying it appeared to question efforts to cement closer ties among various branches of Christianity.
"The idea that Anglican and other churches are not 'proper churches' seems to question the considerable ecumenical gains
we have made,'' Archbishop George Carey said in a statement.
"The Church of England, and the world-wide Anglican Communion, does not for one moment accept that its orders of
ministry and Eucharist are deficient in any way. It believes itself to be a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church
of Christ,'' said Carey.
DISMAY AMONG PROTESTANTS
There was also ecumenical dismay in Germany, home of Martin Luther's Reformation, where evangelical churches felt
slighted.
"The declaration suggests that the Catholic and the Protestant church are not on equal terms with each other,'' Manfred
Kock, chairman of the council of the Evangelical Church of Germany, told ZDF television.
"This will not help discussions between the two churches,'' he said of inter-religious dialogue in Germany.
The document repeated Catholic Church teachings that non-Christians were in a "gravely deficient situation'' regarding
salvation and that other Christian churches had ''defects.''
It said the clarification and restatement of the official Catholic position was necessary to contest "relativistic theories which
seek to justify religious pluralism'' as a principle rather than a de facto practice.
It said only the revelation of Jesus Christ was "definitive and complete'' and that Christian revelation could not be seen as
complementary to that found in other religions.
Dissident Swiss theologian Hans Kung*, who has been disciplined by the Vatican in the past, said the document was
reactionary. *See pages 39, 42, 69

British Christians express disappointment at Vatican document

By Paulinus Barnes Catholic News Service MANCHESTER, England (CNS) September 6, 2000
Christian leaders in Britain expressed disappointment at the Vatican document stressing the necessity of the Catholic
Church for salvation, but said their commitment to ecumenical efforts remains unchanged.
Anglican Archbishop George Carey of Canterbury, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, said the document "breaks
no new ground,'' but added that it failed to reflect fully the deeper understanding that had been achieved through
ecumenical dialogue and cooperation during the past 30 years.
The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a 36-page document Sept. 5 titled "Dominus Iesus: On
the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church.'' The document acknowledged a certain level of
communion with other Christian churches, but said ``the church of Christ ... continues to exists fully only in the Catholic
Church.'' Archbishop Carey said: "The idea that Anglican and other churches are not `proper churches' seems to question
the considerable ecumenical gains we have made.'' He said it was important to recognize and celebrate ecumenical
progress. "It is a task to which I remain fully committed on behalf of both the Church of England and the worldwide
Anglican Communion. It is one I shall continue to pursue with both Roman Catholic and other church leaders on the basis
of deep mutual respect,'' he said.
For the Methodist Church, ecumenical officer the Rev. Peter Sulston told Catholic News Service Sept. 5 that there was
"nothing surprising'' in the new document. "We were not surprised because we knew what Catholic teaching was. We were,
however, a little disappointed by the tone of the document. We do not feel that relationships between Methodists and the
Roman Catholic Church will be damaged by this and it will not affect the work that has been going on over the last 20 to 30
years,'' he said.
Catholic Archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, chairman of the Department of Mission and Unity of the
Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, said that the main purpose of the declaration was ``to warn against a
tendency to regard all religions as equivalent.'' He said Sept. 5 in a written statement that the document was written
principally for Catholic bishops and theologians. "Certainly no slight is intended by its comments regarding other Christian
communities. As Christians, we share a common baptism, and the Catholic Church believes that this brings us all into a real,
if imperfect, communion. This was made clear in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, where it said that other
Christians 'with good reason are accepted as our brothers and sisters.' This new document does not attempt to change the
teaching of the Catholic Church regarding ecumenism,'' he said.
Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, England, a member of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International
Commission, known as ARCIC, said he hoped that the document would not undo years of patient ecumenical work. He said
that Anglicans would welcome the document's affirmation of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and his relevance for all
cultures and all ages, as well as the assertion that God's wisdom and light are fully revealed in Christ.
"The presence and operation of the true church in other Christian bodies was reaffirmed by Pope John Paul II in his letter
'Ut Unum Sint' ('That All May Be One'). As far as Anglicans are concerned, the (Second Vatican) Council's own Decree on
Ecumenism recognized that structures of Catholic faith and order continue to exist 'in part' in the Anglican Communion. In
the same spirit, Pope Paul VI referred to the Anglican Communion as an 'ever-beloved sister' who would not lose her
heritage in any reunion with the Roman Catholic Church.
"There is a similar recognition in the statement emerging from the recent meeting of Roman Catholic and Anglican bishops
in Mississauga, Canada, and it underlies, of course, all the work done, and being done, by the Anglican-Roman Catholic
International Commission,'' he said, adding that the document was "largely an internal matter for the Roman Catholic
Church.''
At the May meeting in Canada of bishops from the two bodies, the bishops urged that the authorities of their respective
communions form a Joint Unity Commission to oversee preparation of a Joint Declaration of Agreement and to promote
Catholic-Anglican progress toward unity at all levels.

Missionary official says Vatican document recalls core teachings

By John Norton VATICAN CITY (CNS) Catholic News Service September 6, 2000
Theological confusion, undue emphasis on social justice and a "live and let live'' attitude among some minority Catholic
communities prompted a Vatican document stressing the universal validity of Christ and the church, a top missionary official
said. Archbishop Marcello Zago, secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, said the Vatican was
concerned that some theologians – "especially in certain sectors of Asia'' -- had cast doubt on evangelization and seeking
converts from other religions. In an interview with Fides, the congregation's news service, the archbishop said "one cannot
deny Christ's command to go to all peoples,'' even in environments of serious religious tension. The Vatican's Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document Sept. 5 condemning the notion that "one religion is as good as another.''
The 36-page declaration, titled "Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church,''
said followers of other religions were "in a gravely deficient situation'' with regard to achieving salvation.
Archbishop Zago, a missionary in Laos in the 1970s, acknowledged that the Catholic Church's defense of universal truth
proved a challenge in Asia, where "there is an undeniable religious pluralism.'' "In addition, this constant comparison
between religions leads to an exacerbated fundamentalism, because the religions see (the Catholic Church) as the
propagator of a message, see conversions and this is not accepted,'' he said.

"In India, Indonesia, in countries with a Muslim majority,'' there is an attempt "to prevent the church from proclaiming the
Gospel and producing conversions,'' he said.
Some theologians "have fallen into the danger'' of watering down Christianity's claims about Christ and his
church in the interest of living peacefully alongside other religious believers, he said. Others have focused
instead on social justice concerns, losing the "balance to see that the center of all action is to live the Gospel
of Jesus Christ and announce him to others,'' he said.
He said that while Catholic theological relativism was of special concern in India, "these ideas are by now found just about
everywhere, even in the United States and Europe.''
The intention of the Vatican document, he said, was to not only recall certain theological principles "forgotten'' in particular
regions, "but to go to the heart of the faith and of what it means to be Christians anywhere,'' he said.

Holy See reminds that dialogue needs clarity

http://www.development.umd.edu/Diversity/Specific/Religion/Issues/dicomments.html
Statements by Bishop Francesco Lambiasi
ROME, September 6, 2000 (ZENIT.org) Why did the Holy See publish the "Dominus Iesus" Declaration, which was
presented to the press yesterday by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
which highlights the unique and universal character of salvation in Christ and his Church?
Bishop Francesco Lambiasi of Anagni-Alatri, president of the Italian Bishops' Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith,
responded to this question in statements to the Italian newspaper "Avvenire."
"The Declaration comes like a ring on a finger, because while the Pope and the whole Church are celebrating a Holy Year
on the fundamental truth of Christianity, some theologians here and there, in different corners of the world, tend to forget
it. Therefore, it is right to be clear and to avoid that the faithful be disoriented given certain positions," the Bishop
commented.
"In the West we live to a greater extent the danger that stems from the prevailing cultural climate, marked by relativism
and indifference. Undoubtedly, in times of 'weak thought,' [deconstructionism] the Church must remind humanity that there
is salvation only in the name of Jesus," Bishop Lambiasi emphasized.
In face of the concern of those who believe that these statements could be a stumbling block in the ecumenical road, the
Bishop said he does not believe this possibility exists. "Although there might be some theologian who understands the
dialogue among religions as diplomatic treatment (like Hans Küng), the document confirms very opportunely that only a
clear and solid awareness of the truth allows this dialogue. Dialogue implies equality in the dignity among the persons, not
equality in doctrinal contents."
In response to those who say the Declaration is a step backwards, Bishop Lambiasi said: "A more tranquil reading of the
document will enable one to understand the profound intention, which is not to take a step backward in the ecumenical
dialogue but, on the contrary, to take a step forward. It is enough to see how many times Vatican Council II documents are
quoted in the Declaration. I am certain that, once the reactions of the first moment pass, the fidelity to the Council will
emerge with clarity." ZE00090609

Religious leaders comment on "Dominus Iesus" declaration

http://www.development.umd.edu/Diversity/Specific/Religion/Issues/dicomments.html
Criticize Catholic Theology but are Grateful for Clarity
VATICAN CITY, September 6, 2000 (ZENIT.org) Reactions to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's presentation yesterday of the
"Dominus Iesus" Declaration, written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, included perplexity, criticisms, and
the realization that, in declaring her identity, the Catholic Church is re-launching the ecumenical dialogue and discussions
with other religions.
In Great Britain, while Queen Elizabeth prepares to visit the Pope on October 17, Archbishop George Carey of Canterbury
said that the idea that the Anglican Church and other Churches are not Churches in the real sense of the term, seems to
cast doubt on the considerable ecumenical steps that have been taken. The Anglican Archbishop feels that the document
does not reflect the profound understanding that has been reached through ecumenical dialogue and co-operation over the
last 30 years.
In number 17, the Declaration states: "the ecclesial communities that have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the
genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are
baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit
imperfect, with the Church."
However, the Catholic Primate, Archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor denied that the document might negatively affect the
ecumenical efforts, and affirms that "the principal objective of the Vatican Declaration is to warn in face of the tendency to
consider all religions equal."
Reverend Manfred Kock, president of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, who recently spoke about the need
to recognize the Pope as a symbolic unitary figure of Christianity, said that the document "Dominus Iesus" represents "a
step backwards for ecumenical relations."
"We Are Church," a group supporting changes in Catholic doctrine on Papal infallibility, ordination of women, and
homosexuality, stated, "The declaration is a questionable attempt put the reinstate the defeated absolutist image of the
Church from the First Vatican Council, with its limitless primacy of the Pope. It stands in stark contrast to the hopeful
concern for inter-Christian ecumenism and interreligious dialogue initiated by the Second Vatican Council."

However, at the same time Kock acknowledged that "the Declaration has many affirmations that the Reformed Churches
could approve without reservations, beginning with the salvific universality of Christ."
The Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow made no comments, as it prefers to study the document first. A spokesman of the
Patriarchate limited himself to saying that "Catholics and Orthodox have a different conception of the Church's universality,
and this continues to be the heart of the question."
For Islam, the problem is both identical and opposite: to the primacy of Christ they posit the primacy of Allah. Hamza
Piccardo, leader of Italian Muslims, said: "We apply the verse of the Koran, according to which those who believe in Allah
and the prophets, one of whom is Jesus, will be saved."
Amos Luzzatto, president of the Jewish communities in Italy, was concise: "Cardinal Ratzinger can do all the verbal
acrobatics he wishes, but in practice for Jews the New Testament doesn't even exist. Moreover, to say that the only
possible mediator for salvation is Jesus Christ, removes us from all dialogue." ZE00090601

Ecumenical dialogue is intensified on basis of Catholicism’s very identity

Fr. Angelo Amato Comments on "Dominus Iesus" Declaration
VATICAN CITY, September 7, 2000 (ZENIT.org) The presentation of the Declaration "Dominus Iesus" in the Vatican Press
Office on September 5 has had far-reaching repercussions and unleashed an intense debate in the media. The document,
which was presented by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, responsible
for the document, commands Christians to take the light and the salvific force of the Gospel to all people. Saving truths
must, however, always be proposed in charity and respect for freedom.
Among those who presented the document was Salesian Fr. Angelo Amato, professor of the Pontifical Salesian University,
and consultant of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The following is an interview with Fr. Amato, which
focuses primarily on the implications of the Declaration on the ecumenical dialogue.
Fr. Amato: Above all, "Dominus Iesus" is a Declaration. As such, it proposes nothing new; therefore, the ecumenical
dialogue remains the same in its elements of interpretation and also action. "Dominus Iesus" simply takes up again the
Catholic doctrine taught in preceding Church documents. Its purpose is to reaffirm central doctrines in the understanding of
the Catholic faith. We must then ask why? Because it is necessary to clarify Catholic identity given the fact that there are
hypotheses and even theological theses that are erroneous in this respect. In a word, therefore, no phrase in this document
puts brakes on the ecumenical dialogue.
And as regards our relation with other religions?
Fr. Amato: In a word, I would say that in this case also the Declaration proposes to Catholics a return to their own
identity. There must be awareness of our own identity in dialogue, and the Declaration concentrates on this identity in two
affirmations: the salvific uniqueness and universality of Christ's mystery; and the salvific universality of the Church as the
sacrament of salvation. As can readily be seen, therefore, it is no novelty -- it is a reminder to Catholics that we have this
identity in relation to other religions. Dialogue is founded precisely on reciprocal identity: this does not mean a lack of
respect in relations with other religions, but only an expression of our own identity. The dialogue can then converge on
many aspects: on peace, cooperation, international solidarity, harmony among peoples, ecology, etc.
What does the document say to those who affirm that all religions are avenues of salvation?
Fr. Amato: The document underlines what Sacred Scripture has always proposed, that is, that the only mediator between
God and humanity is Our Lord Jesus Christ. As St. Peter says: "There is no salvation outside Jesus Christ." Therefore, the
Church re-proposes this fundamental doctrine that has been at the center of her proclamation since [the coming of the Holy
Spirit on] Pentecost. I repeat, the Declaration does not say new things; it only sheds light on Catholic identity. We have
great openness in regard to other religions, great respect, and we are also very ready for dialogue and, in fact, dialogue is
taking place; however, this should not make us lose our identity.
The Catholic position of great openness to dialogue has developed since Vatican Council II. How must this
dialogue be conducted in light of the "Dominus Iesus" Declaration?
Fr. Amato: It must be conducted by keeping in mind that our rediscovered identity is the starting point of dialogue. This is
precisely the purpose of the document, not to lose our own identity. For example, there are theories that hold that Christian
truth is one aspect of multiple aspects of the truth of God. The Christian instead, and this is found explicitly in the Gospel,
must hold that Jesus Christ is the truth, the fullness of truth. We must conduct the dialogue on this basis. Obviously, this
does not mean, I repeat, that we are lacking in respect for other religions; it means seeing in other religions what they
have that is good, useful, human; a Christian can consider what is religiously correct as a gift of the Spirit of Our Lord Jesus
Christ. Hence, other religions are also under the light of grace of the Spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ZE00090721

World Methodist Council leaders respond to Vatican document

By United Methodist News Service September 8, 2000
World Methodist Council leaders have responded favorably to a recent Vatican statement that reaffirms Jesus Christ as the
one savior of the world.
At the same time, they say there is need for continued dialogue so each of the two bodies will "come to a fuller recognition
of the churchly character of the other."
The WMC response was released Sept. 7 by the Rev. Geoffrey Wainwright, chairman of the council's Committee on
Ecumenism and Dialogues, and the Rev. Joe Hale, the council's chief executive in Lake Junaluska, N.C.

WMC representatives have been involved in a formal dialogue with Roman Catholic leaders since 1967. Wainwright is co-
chairman of the 16-member joint commission along with Bishop Michael Putney, a Roman Catholic from Australia. Hale and
the Rev. Timothy Galligan of Vatican City are co-secretaries.
"The World Methodist Council welcomes the reaffirmation of Jesus Christ as the one savior of the world made by the
Vatican in the recent declaration Dominus Iesus," said the WMC statement. "In its continuing dialogue with the Roman
Catholic Church, the World Methodist Council looks forward to further exploration on the question of how each partner can
come to a fuller recognition of the churchly character of the other."
To understand the 36-page document, Hale said it is helpful to separate the issues of interfaith perceptions and the
relationships of other Christian groups with the Roman Catholic Church.
While Methodists have respect for other faith groups, they share the Vatican concern that people are interpreting religious
pluralism to mean that every religion is of equal significance. "As in all other areas of our life, we make value judgments,"
Hale said. "That is true of our faith commitments." In the sticky theological area of Roman Catholic-Methodist relations, the
Vatican document repeats the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, declaring that "there exists a single Church of Christ,
which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."
Hale says it is easy to read that statement and overlook others, which say that other churches and church communities,
"while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church ... have by no means been deprived of significance and
importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation ... "
While the document does not consider Methodist churches and others outside the Roman Catholic Church as churches "in
the proper sense," it says, "those who are baptized in these communities are, by baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus
are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church." He noted that the theme of the next meetings of the World
Methodist Council and Conference in Brighton, England, next July will be "Jesus: God's Way of Salvation."
Wainwright, a British Methodist on the faculty at Duke University Divinity School in Durham, N.C., voiced his enthusiasm for
the Vatican's statement that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world. "It needed to be said. The World Methodist Council in its
evangelization efforts insists very strongly on this."
Regarding religious pluralism, Wainwright said, "With the Vatican, we affirm there are good things in other religions, but we
nevertheless hold that Jesus Christ is the one savior of the world. We affirm that."
Regarding relations among Christians, Wainwright said the Methodist-Roman Catholic dialogues have improved the way one
group views the other. "We are starting to give more recognition to the Roman Catholic Church as being a church," he said.
"That wasn't true for many Methodists until recent times. On the other side, it is clear that the Roman Catholic Church is
taking much more seriously the contribution of Methodism to the spread of the Gospel and God's plan of salvation for the
world."
Wainwright said Roman Catholic theology has been busily rethinking how it can both acknowledge that contribution and still
maintain its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the church in all its fullness. "What we are doing in the dialogues is
trying to work out ways that will be mutually understandable, whereby each side can understand its own place in God's
plan and the place of the partner."
The Joint Commission for Dialogue is scheduled to meet next in late October at St. Simons Island, Ga. A report of the
dialogues from 1997 to 2001 will be given to both the council, meeting in July in conjunction with the World Methodist
Conference in Brighton, and the Vatican.

LWF General Secretary on the Vatican document 'Dominus Iesus'

http://www.wfn.org/2000/09/msg00071.html
Lutheran World Information, Assistant Editor, English: Pauline Mumia, [email protected]
http://www.lutheranworld.org/ Geneva, September 8, 2000
Statement by Dr Ishmael Noko, General Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, on the Vatican document "Dominus
Iesus"'
The Lutheran World Federation has received news of the document, "Dominus Iesus" - On the Unicity and Salvific
Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman
Catholic Church on September 5, 2000.'
This document pertains primarily to the inter-faith relations of the Roman Catholic Church in the wide framework of the
world's religions. The Lutheran World Federation has seen this document and will want to carefully study and fully discuss it
with our Roman Catholic partners.'
The Lutheran World Federation has also seen a letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent on June 30,
2000 to the presidents of the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conferences around the world. This letter and its accompanying
document, "Note" on the Expression "Sister Churches" says, in effect, that the word "church" should not be used by the
Roman Catholic Church when addressing Protestants.'
The fact that the Roman Catholic Church is only ready to speak of Orthodox churches as "sister churches" is not new to us.
According to this understanding of the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran churches and other churches of the
Reformation are not referred to as churches, but - in line with the principles now restated - as "ecclesial communities."'
The document, "Dominus Iesus", contains the observation that "ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid
Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense".'

Lutheran churches, together with other churches of the Reformation, are not ready to accept the categories now
emphasized by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith nor the definitions and criteria underlying them. We are
disappointed that thirty-five years of ecumenical dialogue between Roman Catholics and Lutherans seem not to have been
considered in the formulation of the letter and documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The
impact of these statements is more painful because they reflect a different spirit than that which we encounter in many
other Lutheran-Roman Catholic relationships.'
On October 31, 1999, the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church took a significant ecumenical step by
signing a Joint Declaration that nullified centuries of conflict between our churches regarding the Doctrine of Justification.
This was an important milestone in the history of Christian unity. In the Joint Declaration, a clarifying note states that the
word "church" is used in the Declaration "to reflect the self-understanding of the particular churches, without intending to
resolve all the ecclesiological issues related to them." This approach is also helpful in the wider ecumenical relationship
between churches. Without it, problems arise, not only on the world level of churches and communions but also on the
local level where pastors and believers are developing relationships as genuine ecumenical partners as they seek to
faithfully serve God in their communities.'
The Lutheran World Federation remains committed to ecumenical dialogue. We believe that ecumenism is not optional but
essential to the Church. Temporary setbacks should neither be allowed to cloud or darken our vision for Christian unity as
willed and prayed for by Christ himself.'
(The LWF is a global communion of 131member churches in 72 countries representing over 59 million of the world's 63
million Lutherans. Its highest decision making body is the Assembly, held every six or seven years. Between Assemblies, the
LWF is governed by a 49-member Council which meets annually, and it’s Executive Committee. The LWF secretariat is
located in Geneva, Switzerland.)'
[Lutheran World Information (LWI) is the information service of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). Unless specifically
noted, material presented does not represent positions or opinions of the LWF or of its various units. Where the dateline of
an article contains the notation (LWI), the material may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment.]'

Ratzinger's latest: Don't call us ‘sister church’

http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2000c/090800/090800d.htm
By John L. Allen Jr., The National Catholic Reporter, Rome, September 8, 2000
A new Vatican assertion that the Catholic church cannot be anyone's "sister church" because it is the "mother" of individual
churches represents a potentially serious blow to relations between Catholicism and other branches of Christianity,
according to several ecumenical experts.
The most direct impact will be felt in the Catholic/Orthodox dialogue, observers said, where the term "sister church" is most
common, but the underlying thinking has implications for the full range of conversations between Catholics and other
Christian bodies.
"Many Orthodox will see this as a kind of proof that there never was any real intent of following through on improved
relations," Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky, a New York-based Orthodox priest involved in dialogue with Catholicism, told NCR. "They
will think that use of the phrase `sister church,' which went on happily enough in an earlier stage of our dialogue, was
possibly deceptive."
Bishops around the world have been asked to attend to the new document, titled a "Note on the Expression 'Sister
Churches'." Sent to presidents of bishops' conferences on June 30 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's top doctrinal
official, the document is presented as a correction of ambiguities "in certain publications and in the writings of some
theologians," especially the habit of referring to the Catholic church as a "sister" of some other Christian body, or using the
phrase "our two churches" with respect to Catholicism and another group.
Ironically, the term "sister church" was first used by a pope, Pope Paul VI, who referred to Anglicans as a "sister church" in
1970. Pope John Paul II has endorsed the concept, referring to Eastern and Western Christianity as the "two lungs" of the
church.
Properly speaking, the new document says, Catholicism cannot be a sister of another Christian body such as the Orthodox
because it "implies a plurality - on the level of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church confessed in the Creed, whose
real existence is thus obscured."
"The one, holy, catholic and apostolic universal church is not sister but 'mother' of all the particular churches," the
document says.
Several observers predicted the document could have wide ecumenical repercussions.
Tom Best of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches told NCR that while the vocabulary of "sister churches" is
associated with the Catholic/Orthodox dialogue, the suggestion that Catholicism best represents the "one church of Christ"
is likely to irk other Christian bodies.
"We would hope for a certain ecumenical discretion," said Best. "We would encourage people not to use language that
seems to preclude open relationships."
Robert Edgar of the U.S.-based National Council of Churches, a federation of Christian denominations, said the Vatican
sensitivity over "sister churches" illustrates the need for "new relationships - on the basis of equality and our mutual
belonging to one body."
"Perhaps it would be best to refer to each other as 'colleagues in Christ,' " he said.

Local Catholic churches, according to the document, can be sisters of non-Catholic churches "that have preserved a valid
episcopate and Eucharist," the document says, but Catholicism as such may not. "This is not merely a question of
terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the church of Jesus Christ.
In fact, there is but a single church, and therefore the plural term churches can only refer to particular churches."
Ratzinger's office did not respond to an NCR request for comment.
A cover letter from Ratzinger adds that use of "sister church" to describe the ties between Roman Catholicism and the
Anglican Communion, as well as "non-Catholic ecclesial communities," is also "improper."
That is just how Pope Paul VI used the term on Oct. 25, 1970. During the canonization of a group of English martyrs, the
pope referred in his homily to the Anglican church as an "ever-beloved sister in the one authentic communion of the family
of Christ."
The retraction implied by Ratzinger's letter irritated some Anglicans.
"So Paul VI was in error, was he?" asked the Rev. Barry Norris, an Anglican priest involved in ecumenical dialogue in
England. "What other term do you use? I mean, either you're sister churches or you're not. If you're not, then it's just the
Catholics and the heretics."
As recently as this summer, some Anglican and Roman Catholic officials used the term "sister churches" to describe their
ties. The Anglican bishop of Windsor, Michael Scott Joynt, and the Catholic archbishop of Florence, Cardinal Silvano
Piovanelli, signed an agreement for a "twinning relationship" on July 14 that states: "The churches of the Anglican
Communion and the Roman Catholic church are able as sister churches to bring shared gifts to their joint mission to the
world."
Norris said, "I think Anglicans have always accepted the term 'sister church' in the sense Paul VI meant it, as a friendly
thing to call one another. I do believe that there is an acceptance of one another today that is brotherly and sisterly. I think
people will be exceedingly put out to hear that at the universal level such language is no longer permitted."
As for the Orthodox, several observers noted that leaders of the various branches are themselves not in agreement about
use of the term "sister church." Some conservatives inside Orthodoxy argue, much as conservative Catholics do, that it
weakens their claim to embodying the lone church of Christ.
Jesuit Fr. Robert Taft, an expert in Eastern Christian churches who teaches at Rome's Gregorian University, told NCR that
some Orthodox churches reject the concept of being anyone's "sister church."
"They do not conceive of sacraments as operative outside Orthodoxy, and hence Catholic sacraments are not `valid' and
they re-baptize Catholics" who convert, Taft said. "What they fail to realize is that the sister churches idea is the only
theological basis for us not being obliged to proselytize them."
Fr. John Matusiak, communications director for the Orthodox Church in America, said, "Some Orthodox do reject the term,
because it makes no one particular church the church of Christ. If the church is one, then you can't have sister churches,
which implies there are at least two churches," he said. Matusiak also noted that some voices within Orthodoxy have long
objected to Pope John Paul II's frequent habit of referring to Eastern and Western Christianity as the "two lungs" of the
church. "To some, that makes it sound like Orthodoxy is only half of the church," he said.
Matusiak said that other Orthodox leaders "don't see a problem with being a sister church."
The concept of Catholicism and Orthodoxy as sister churches became prominent, according to several observers, at the
time of a 1993 agreement known as the "Balamand Statement." In it, Catholic officials agreed to refrain from seeking
converts in predominantly Orthodox territories, and the Orthodox agreed to recognize the legitimacy of the so-called
"uniate" churches - 21 Christian groups that utilize Orthodox liturgies but profess allegiance to Rome.
Not all the Orthodox bodies were represented at the negotiations leading to the Balamand Statement, and some rejected it.
Some Orthodox leaders also believe Rome failed to honor its end of the bargain, pointing to evangelizing activities in Russia
and elsewhere by new Catholic movements such as the Neocatechumenate.
These tensions were reflected in the most recent Catholic/Orthodox dialogue, which took place in Emmitsburg, Md., and
which Kishkovsky said produced only "a description of the present impasse" rather than a breakthrough.
Still, a North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which met in Brookline, Mass., June 1, was able to find
enough common ground to invoke the term now discouraged by the Vatican:
"We are convinced that a unique relationship exists between our churches in spite of our division," its statement said. "It is
for this very reason that in recent times the Catholic and Orthodox churches have been described as `sister churches.' "
The new Vatican document is not the first time Ratzinger has voiced reservations about the term "sister church." In June
1997, he appeared at a news conference to promote a new book on ecumenism by Italian theologian Fr. Nicola Bux, who
asserted that "sister church" is a meaningless phrase unless one understands the "mother church" is in Rome.
Ratzinger's letter accompanying the new document says that while the ban on use of "sister church" with respect to
Catholicism as a whole is "authoritative and binding," the document will not be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the
official compendium of Vatican legislation. Observers say this means it carries less official weight, though given Ratzinger's
signature it is unlikely to be ignored.
Not everyone, however, was prepared to declare a crisis. Harvard theologian and veteran ecumenical expert Harvey Cox
downplayed the potential significance of the document. "I think Protestants have gotten used to Roman Catholic claims
about some unique status and simply take them with a grain of salt," he told NCR.
The full text of "Note on the Expression 'Sister Churches'" is available on the NCR Web site: www.natcath.org. The e-mail
address for John L. Allen Jr. is [email protected].

"THE WORD BECAME FLESH"

http://stlouisreview.com/article/2003-10-06/word-became-flesh EXTRACT
Archbishop Justin Rigali, The St. Louis Review September 8, 2000
In Jesus Christ Salvation History Has Its Fullness
The Uniqueness and Universality of Salvation through Jesus Christ and the Church
In a reflection here some time ago I cited an ancient maxim. The Latin text is:
Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi. Though not a strict translation, the meaning of the phrase is very often rendered: "The Church
believes as the Church prays." This maxim tells the truth that in order to know what it is that the Church believes, one can
readily look to the prayers of the Church's liturgy.
Here I am thinking of one concrete example. It is from the Easter Proclamation - the Exultet - chanted at the Easter Vigil.
In every place where the faithful gather to keep the vigil of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, this "night-watch"
begins with the Blessing of the New Fire. The Paschal Candle is then prepared and lit - the symbol of the light of the Risen
Christ forever victorious over the darkness of sin and death. From the Paschal Candle smaller candles held by all the faithful
are then lighted. Soon enough the darkness is dispelled by so much light. And then the Exultet is chanted.
There is one simple phrase in this Easter Proclamation which poses a profound question: "What good would life have been
to us, had Christ not come as our Redeemer?" All gathered to keep the vigil of the Lord's Resurrection are certain that there
is but one answer. There is no ambiguity. Except for Jesus Christ and His victory over the finality of sin and death, life
would ultimately be meaningless.
Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi. The Church believes as the Church prays!

Correcting Confused or Erroneous Ideas

True as the ancient maxim is which I have noted above, still in recent times some confusion has arisen and erroneous ideas
have developed with respect to the unique role of Jesus Christ as Savior, and the unique role of the Church for salvation. In
order to resolve any confusion and correct such ideas, on September 5, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
made public a document entitled Dominus Iesus: On The Unicity And Salvific Universality Of Jesus Christ And The Church.
The document was first thoroughly reviewed on June 16 with Pope John Paul II by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The Holy
Father subsequently indicated that Dominus Iesus expresses his teaching and ordered that it be published. The teaching
presented in the document is thus to be held by the entire Church.
Cardinal Ratzinger has requested that each Episcopal Conference, and every Bishop in his local Church, take special care
now so that Dominus Iesus having been published, no ambiguous or contrary positions linger. This Declaration, he
proposes, will be a valuable reference point for "theologians, pastors of souls, members of religious congregations," and for
"ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, and in Catholic universities and faculties of theology." Cardinal Ratzinger notes too
that Dominus Iesus will serve as "a solid and indispensable foundation for pastoral and missionary work which is
convincing, effective, and consistent with Catholic teaching."
Accordingly, I welcome the opportunity here to offer a reflection on the salient points presented in Dominus Iesus. This
reflection must necessarily be brief. I encourage all, especially those with a special interest or particular competence in this
matter, to study the Declaration in its entirety. It will be available on the Vatican Website at: www.vatican.va or through
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Website at: www.nccbuscc.org.

Full and Definitive Revelation of Jesus Christ

It has been suggested by some that the revelation of Jesus Christ is limited, incomplete, or imperfect and so might be
considered complementary to that found in other religions. In response to this, Dominus Iesus reiterates the teaching of the
Catholic faith regarding the full and complete revelation of the salvific mystery of God in Jesus Christ. His words and deeds
manifest the totality and definitiveness of the revelation of the mystery of God.
The Declaration recognizes that other religions not infrequently reflect the Truth which enlightens all people. At the same
time Dominus Iesus insists on the distinction between theological faith - which is adherence to the truth revealed by the
One and Triune God, and belief in other religions - which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still
lacking assent to God who reveals Himself in Jesus Christ.

The Sole and Universal Source of Salvation

There has sometimes been a proposal that there exists a twofold salvific economy - that of the eternal Word - universal and
valid also outside the Church, and that of the incarnate Word - limited to Christians. In response, the Declaration asserts
that the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the sole and universal source of salvation for
all humanity. The salvation of all is Trinitarian. It is willed by the Father and realized in the mystery of Christ by the working
of the Holy Spirit.

The Salvific Mystery of Jesus Christ

Dominus Iesus states clearly that in Jesus Christ salvation history has its fullness, its center, and its source. Through His
incarnation, death, and resurrection, our salvation has been brought to fulfillment.
Any theory of a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, is not consistent
with Catholic faith. It is possible, the Declaration recognizes, to speak of participated forms of mediation of various types
and degrees. These, however, cannot be understood as parallel or complementary. Rather they receive meaning and value
only from that unique mediation of Jesus Christ.

Salvation through the Church

In Dominus Iesus attention is given to the misconception that for salvation all religions may be equally valid. The
Declaration is clear in its teaching. Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated.
There is a historical continuity between the Church founded by Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. In fact, this one
Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion
with him" (Lumen Gentium, 8).
With regard to those Church and ecclesial communities not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church, the Declaration
reiterates Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican II that "they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth
entrusted to the Catholic Church" (no. 3).
Dominus Iesus goes on to speak of those Churches which do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy of the Bishop
of Rome but which remain united to the Catholic Church by the closest bonds - by apostolic succession and a valid
Eucharist. The Church of Christ is - the Declaration states - present and operative also in these Churches even though they
lack full communion with the Catholic Church. Even those who are baptized in communities without these elements are in a
certain communion with the Catholic Church - the Declaration states - albeit imperfect. Even though such defects exist, the
Declaration again has recourse to Unitatis Redintegratio, "these separated Churches and communities have by no means
been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation" (no. 3).

The Church and the Kingdom

Dominus Iesus also considers the intimate connection between Jesus Christ, the kingdom, and the Church. It cites
Redemptoris Missio of Pope John Paul II and his teaching that the kingdom of God "cannot be detached either from Christ
or from the Church" (no. 18).

The Church Is Necessary For Salvation

Reiterating the teaching of Lumen Gentium, the Declaration concludes that it must be firmly believed that "the Church, a
pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us
in his body which is the Church" (no. 14). At the same time Dominus Iesus insists that this doctrine not be set against the
universal salvific will of God. Rather - as stated in Redemptoris Missio - "it is necessary to keep these two truths together,
namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation" (no. 9).
The Church rejects absolutely any claim that only Catholics can be saved.
Still Dominus Iesus teaches that, with the coming of Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by Him be the
instrument of salvation for all humanity. The Declaration suggests that this truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect
which the Church has for the religions of the world. At the same time, though, it rules out, in a radical way, the mentality of
indifferentism characterized by what Redemptoris Missio identifies as "the belief that 'one religion is as good as another'"
(no. 36).

To Proclaim Without Fail

The impetus for all that is set out in Dominus Iesus can be found in Vatican II's Nostra Aetate. There we read that, because
of her love for all people, the Church "proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is 'the way, the
truth, and the life.' In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself, men find the fullness of their religious life" (no. 2).
This new document helps us to be extremely sensitive to the beliefs of all, while reinforcing our own Christian and Catholic
faith. […]

Document a test for ecumenism – prelate

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2000/0911/00091100120.html
By Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent, The Irish Times Monday, September 11, 2000
The Church of Ireland Primate, Dr Robin Eames, has said the Dominus Iesus declaration published by the Catholic Church
last week "could be interpreted, and it certainly has been suggested to me by some clergy in the Church of Ireland, that
this is a throwback to pre-Vatican II".
He said if that was the case he would be "bitterly disappointed."
It had been "a considerable time since we read or heard language like this," he said, and he would like to know whether it
represented "any change in the official attitude to us as the Church of Ireland in ecumenical dialogue". Speaking to the
Sunday Tribune, he said he felt "the whole ecumenical movement is being tested by this [document]".
Dominus Iesus, published last Tuesday by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said "there exists a
single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops".
It continued, "On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine
and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery are not churches in the proper sense." This has been interpreted as a
reference to all churches in the reformed tradition.
Dr Eames said, "It says something to the effect that really the Reformation churches are no longer really churches. That to
me could be insulting.
"It could also be questioning what I believe in, which is that by baptism a member of the Church of Ireland, as a member
of the Roman Catholic faith, enters the Christian church. Does it mean that members of the Church of Ireland are somehow
members of something that is less than a church?"

He believed that the vast majority of his Catholic colleagues would not want him to think that. "But I have to say that the
wording is open to a great deal of misunderstanding", he said. Calling on the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference to clarify the
document's implications for Ireland, Dr Eames said that his church was going to have to say to them: "Look, is this back to
square one or are we simply seeing a blip in the progress?"
His hope and prayer was that "it is reinforcing what we have known to be the traditional approach and doctrinal position of
our Roman Catholic friends, that it is simply a reiteration and that it does not represent a change of policy".
The Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, Dr Trevor Morrow, has welcomed the document, which he said in many ways
was a mirror-image of the Presbyterian Church's view of the Catholic Church, which it sees as "defective" and "in error".
The document was also "a positive reiteration" of what the Catholic Church believed to be true "in a post-modern world
where truth is perceived as unimportant".
He could sympathise with Cardinal Ratzinger's anxiety over the use of the phrase "sister churches" to describe other
Christian denominations. It was a concern shared within Presbyterianism.
It was asking too much of the Catholic Church at this time to say that all churches were equal. It had been struggling since
Vatican II with according the honour, status and regard due to other Christian communities while not affecting its own self-
understanding.
Ecumenism was "very hard work", he said. It was not just a case of "hold hands, hum, and expect warm fuzzy feelings". He
was "quite happy" with the document and was indeed "extremely supportive of much of it".

The Truth about Relativism

Martin E. Marty September 11, 2000
The Vatican issued a new statement about the way non-Catholic Christian churches are "in a gravely deficient situation in
comparison with those who," in the Catholic Church, "have the fullness of the means of salvation."
Will such language cause the "gravely deficient" -- Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, evangelical -- to break off relations with
Catholicism in the public sphere?
Not on your life. They may grumble a bit, and go grudgingly to the table in frustration the next time they talk about in-
church things, a.k.a. ecumenism. But even there it is not likely that the Orthodox and many kinds of Protestants, who claim
that *they* are the original Christian church from whom all others deviate, will do more than sulk. Harvard theologian
Harvey Cox put the matter in perspective: "we" knew all along what official Catholicism taught, but we took it with a grain
of salt. This month's statement issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith only calls forth larger grains of
more salt. Otherwise, no problem. They'll keep talking.
Intrachurch and ecumenical Christian life is the subject of our Sightings only when we see it directly impinging upon
extrachurch life, the public order. The statement may sound abrupt and retrogressive to non-Catholics: it steps back from
the Second Vatican Council, which called them "brothers," and from the writings of Pope Paul VI, who called them "sisters,"
to demand that Catholicism now be thought of as the "mother" and all the others as "daughters." But most non-Catholics
know that this was aimed more at relativizing Catholics than at anyone else. So everyone else will go along as before.
How have Catholics and non-Catholics lived both with the notion that each is the "full" or "true" church and that salvation
goes on beyond the scope of each? Are they all indeed relativists? Something more subtle than that goes on. Historian
Sidney E. Mead made much of a report in 1972, in which three-fourths of young people among the doctrinally rigid Missouri
Synod Lutherans told polltakers that they believed both that "belief in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation" and
that "all religions lead to the same God." These are "two theologically contrary views," wrote Mead, yet they did not
paralyze anyone.
Do your own poll-taking and you will find that however exclusivist and absolutist Catholics or members of other
communions are, most clergy and lay people think something bigger is also going on in, through, around, and beyond each.
No statement from the headquarters of any group will tidy up such contradictions, which are so close to the center of
American public religion. And private, too. They will work together, as before.

Vatican document warns against concessions to religious pluralism

By John Thavis Catholic News Service WEEKLY ROUNDUP, VATICAN CITY September 11, 2000
A new Vatican document emphasizing the "exclusive, universal and absolute'' value of Jesus Christ prompted mostly
cautious approval from Catholic dialogue experts and disappointment among representatives of other churches. Taking aim
at the notion that "one religion is as good as another,'' the document warned against concessions to religious pluralism in
the church. The 36-page declaration, titled "Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the
Church,'' was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and was
published Sept. 5.
While acknowledging that non-Christians can be saved through a special grace that comes from Christ, the document said
the church can never be considered merely as "one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions.''
Regarding ecumenical dialogue, it said that despite a certain level of communion with other Christian churches, the "church
of Christ ... continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church.''
In a letter to the world's bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger said Pope John Paul II had approved the document and wanted its
contents to be accepted by the entire church. Cardinal Ratzinger said the document was drafted in response to "the
growing presence of confused or erroneous ideas or opinions'' that cast doubt upon Christianity's universal mission.

The text said there was a tendency among modern Christians to be silent about Christ, to consider him as just one historical
manifestation of God, to elevate other religions as pathways to salvation, to downplay Scripture and to undervalue the
church as an institution. It warned that these ideas are "contrary to Catholic faith'' and listed a series of truths it said must
be "firmly held'' by all Catholics.
"The church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious
pluralism,'' it said.
The document said salvation is possible for those outside the church, but that it always takes place through a special grace
from Christ and in an "indispensable'' though mysterious relationship with the church.
"If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are
in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation,'' it
said.
It struck an ecumenical nerve in stating that ecclesial communities that have not preserved the valid episcopate through
apostolic succession and the valid Eucharist "are not churches in the proper sense.''
Speaking at a press conference, Cardinal Ratzinger criticized what he called an "ideology of dialogue'' that attempts to
replace mission and conversion in the church with a "false sense of religious tolerance.'' The cardinal said that while the
church teaches that good things can exist in other religions, "one cannot close one's eyes to the errors and illusions that are
also present'' in those religions.
Although the impact of the document was expected to be highest in the church's dialogue with non-Christian faiths, most
initial reaction came from Catholic representatives and other Christian churches.
Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the
declaration provides "a valuable service in summarizing and clarifying the teaching of the church.'' He said the Catholic
belief in the unique salvific role of Jesus Christ and his church "in no way diminishes the sincere respect we have for the
religions of the human family or our conviction that their followers can receive divine grace.''
Cardinal Bernard F. Law of Boston said the document "does not signal a lessening of the church's commitment to
ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Rather it is a statement of truth so that the dialogue may proceed on a firm
foundation.''
Cardinal William H. Keeler of Baltimore, a leader in dialogue with Jews and Orthodox churches, said he did not expect the
document to create problems for dialogue experts. Most dialogue partners expect the Catholic participants to be true to
their faith, which is what the Vatican declaration insists upon, he said.
The World Council of Churches warned of potential damage to ecumenical dialogue, however.
"What a tragedy'' if the witness of joint Christian cooperation "were obscured by the churches' dialogues about their relative
authority and status -- however important they may be,'' the WCC said. The WCC said it would have hoped for "an
acknowledgment of the many positive developments'' in ecumenical dialogue and cooperation over the past 100 years.
The World Alliance of Reformed Churches wrote to Vatican ecumenical officials to express "disappointment and dismay''
over the document, which it said was "made without ecumenical sensitivity'' and "seems to go against the spirit of Vatican
II.''
Christian leaders in Britain also expressed disappointment at the Vatican document, but said their commitment to
ecumenical efforts remains unchanged.
Anglican Archbishop George Carey of Canterbury, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, said the document "breaks
no new ground'' but fails to reflect ecumenical understanding achieved through 30 years of dialogue and cooperation.
"The idea that Anglican and other churches are not 'proper churches' seems to question the considerable ecumenical gains
we have made,'' Archbishop Carey said.
Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, England, a member of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International
Commission, known as ARCIC, said he hoped that the document would not undo years of patient ecumenical work. Like
others, he said he thought the church's ecumenical teaching was better explained in other previous documents.
"The presence and operation of the true church in other Christian bodies was reaffirmed by Pope John Paul II in his letter
'Ut Unum Sint' ('That All May Be One'),'' he said.
Catholic Archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, chairman of the Department of Mission and Unity of the
Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, said the document "does not attempt to change the teaching of the
Catholic Church regarding ecumenism.''
"Certainly no slight is intended by its comments regarding other Christian communities,'' he said.
In Asia, where the document was expected to have the greatest impact, retired Bishop Francisco Claver of Malaybalay,
Philippines, said the text seemed out of synch with what most Asian bishops said at the 1998 Synod of Bishops for Asia.
"It seems to resuscitate something that we associate with the pre-Vatican II church and that we have tried to avoid in our
preaching: a triumphalism that we thought was a thing of the past,'' the bishop wrote in a statement reported by UCAN"
"Among the proud religious traditions and ancient civilizations as we have in Asia, this approach is deadly,'' Bishop Claver
said.
[Also see: http://www.usccb.org/education/catechetics/livlghtspr2001.shtml]

Dominus Iesus, a ‘public relations disaster’ for ecumenism

By Edmund Doogue and Stephen Brown ENI-00-0340 Ecumenical News International, Geneva 12 September 2000

A week after publishing a document which casts doubt on the validity of Protestant Christianity and asserts Roman Catholic
superiority over all other churches, the Vatican continues to draw criticism both from other churches and from within its
own ranks.
The general secretaries of two organisations representing major wings of Protestantism have publicly lamented the harm
done to ecumenism by Dominus Iesus, on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, published on
5 September by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document declares that churches that do not
have a "valid Episcopate [bishops] and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery are not Churches in
the proper sense". Another document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published in an Italian magazine
this month orders Catholic bishops not to use the term "sister church" in reference to Protestant churches. This too has also
caused dismay in ecumenical circles.
Although many theologians pointed out that there is nothing new in the Vatican documents, the reaffirmation that the
Vatican does not consider Protestant churches to be authentic churches has provoked widespread irritation, especially
within those organisations involved in long-standing dialogue with the Vatican.
Commenting on the two documents, Dr Ishmael Noko, general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, which
represents 59 million of the world's 63 million Lutherans, pointed out that on 31 October last year the Vatican and the LWF
signed the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" which uses the word "church" in reference to Lutherans and
Catholics "to reflect the self-understanding of the particular churches, without intending to resolve all the ecclesiological
issues related to them".
In his statement, issued on 8 September at LWF headquarters in Geneva, Dr Noko expresses "dismay and disappointment"
that 35 years of ecumenical dialogue between Roman Catholics and Lutherans seem not to have been considered in the
documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He adds that the impact of the recent statements from
the Vatican is more painful because they reflect a different spirit "than that which we encounter in many Lutheran-Roman
Catholic relationships."
He adds that "Lutheran churches, together with other churches of the Reformation, are not ready to accept the categories
now emphasised by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, nor the definitions and criteria underlying them".
Also in Geneva, Dr Setri Nyomi, general secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, has written to Cardinal
Edward Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, to express "disappointment and dismay"
about Dominus Iesus.
Dr Nyomi, whose organisation represents more than 75 million Christians in 215 Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Reformed
and United churches world-wide, says in his letter to Cardinal Cassidy that the declaration is "made without ecumenical
sensitivity" and "seems to go against the spirit of Vatican II ... and the progress made in relationships and dialogues since
then". "We in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches have attached much importance to the dialogue we have engaged
in for a long time now," Dr Nyomi says. "In many nations a number of our constituent members have made major strides in
relationship, often relating as 'sister churches' in common witness and diaconal work vis-a-vis challenges in their
communities."
Dr Nyomi draws attention to the Catholic decree on ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio, approved in 1964 by the Second
Vatican Council, which committed the Roman Catholic Church to whole-hearted participation in the ecumenical movement
and was widely seen as the beginning a new phase in ecumenism.
By contrast, he states in the letter to Cardinal Cassidy, slighting remarks on other Christian communities in Dominus Iesus,
coupled with the note on the use of the term "sister churches", seem to be "part of a sustained effort by Catholic
conservatives" to deny the growing relationship and respect between the Roman Catholic and Reformed and other
churches. By seeming "to contradict commitment to ecumenical co-operation within the Christian family or even to take us
back to a pre-Vatican II spirit", such statements raise questions, Dr Nyomi writes, concerning "how we can continue in
dialogue with integrity - trusting and respecting one another".
Ironically, Dominus Iesus was issued a week before WARC was scheduled to begin a further session of international
bilateral dialogue with the Catholic Church. WARC considered calling off this session pending clarification from the Catholic
Church over what it has described as the "special affinity and close relationship" binding it to Protestant churches.
WARC has however decided to go ahead with the session, but Dr Nyomi states in the letter that "we will be putting on the
table for discussion the questions we have regarding how the Roman Catholic Church views the Reformed family, and its
implications for our continued dialogue".
The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), the country's main Protestant body, issued a statement on 7 September
pointedly declaring that it wanted, despite the statements from Rome, to improve ecumenical co-operation with its "Catholic
sister church".
The governing board of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany (VELKD), which has as members eight regional
Lutheran churches, said on 8 September that there was no biblical justification for the claim in Dominus Iesus that only the
Catholic Church fully incorporated the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. "To make this claim at the present time
shows a lack of ecumenical sensitivity."
The publication of Dominus Iesus on 5 September took place a day after representatives of the VELKD and the Catholic
Church in Germany published a new statement on the nature of the church drawn up by a joint working group. The VELKD
board said that it was confident that the German (Catholic) Bishops' Conference would deal with the statements of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in an "ecumenical spirit" and that there would continue to be a good partnership
between Lutherans and Catholics in Germany in further bilateral discussions.

However, in Switzerland, Heinrich Bolleter, bishop of the Evangelical Methodist Church of central and southern Europe, said
that he could not understand "why Protestants are getting so excited about the statements". According to the Reformierte
Nachrichten (RNA), based in Zurich, Bishop Bolleter said: "In our practical ecumenical work we have always known that we
are not of one mind when it comes to the issue of the nature of the church. We too easily forget how in recent decades we
have dealt with the issue of mutual recognition. We have always avoided the question of the understanding of the church.
But we have constructed a common platform on which we can have fellowship despite different ecclesiologies."
In Italy, Gianni Genre, newly elected moderator of the Waldensian church, said that he was concerned about the "anti-
modernist accent accents being set in recent times by the Catholic Church", RNA reported.
In Paris a prominent Orthodox theologian, Olivier Clement, commenting on Dominus Iesus, said it was an "act of blasphemy
against the church to say that the Eucharist celebrated by Anglicans and Protestants is empty".
Asked by a Swiss news agency, Agence de presse Internationale Catholique, if Orthodox Christians were closer to Roman
Catholics than Protestants, Clement replied: "Of course, I'm convinced of that. But another step should be taken - a step
which would prove that the closer relations between Orthodox and Catholics have positive ramifications for Anglicans and
Protestants. But we can't see any sign of such a step. I would like to add that the beatification of Pope Pius IX [in Rome
early this month] is a disaster for the Orthodox, for he is the man of the First Vatican Council [which proclaimed] the
dogma of papal infallibility * which poisoned relations between the divided churches."
In London, the deputy general secretary of the Baptist Union, Myra Blyth, told the Baptist Times: "We are all part of the
one holy, catholic and apostolic church. For one part of Christ's Church to claim superiority over the other is inappropriate
for the times in which we live, and is unhelpful to the cause of mission."
In the United States, Joe Hale, general secretary of the World Methodist Council (WMC), and Geoffrey Wainwright, the chair
of the WMC's committee on ecumenism and dialogues, said that the WMC welcomed the reaffirmation in Dominus Iesus of
"Jesus Christ as the one Saviour of the world" but added that in its continuing dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church it
looked forward to "further explanation on the question of how each partner can come to a fuller recognition of the churchly
character of the other".
For many progressive Catholics, Dominus Iesus was at best embarrassing and at worst offensive. The German branch of
the We are Church movement, a Catholic organisation campaigning for radical changes in the church, described the
declaration as a "questionable attempt to bring back the absolutist view of the church of the First Vatican Council with the
unlimited primacy of the Pope". The declaration, it continued, was "in stark contrast to the hopeful endeavours initiated by
the Second Vatican Council for ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue". It warned that the declaration was putting at risk
plans to hold an ecumenical Kirchentag (church convention) in Berlin in 2003. We Are Church called for a clear statement
by Germany's Catholic bishops distancing themselves from the declaration.
Hans Kung*, a prominent Swiss, Catholic theologian often at odds with the Vatican, told an Italian news agency that
Dominus Iesus was "a mixture of medieval backwardness and Vatican megalomania".
In London, the Tablet, a leading independent Catholic publication, described Dominus Iesus as "a public relations disaster *
what a pity that it sounds notes of triumphalism that the sympathetic style and way of acting of Pope John XXIII [who
initiated the Second Vatican Council], newly beatified, seemed to have dispelled forever." *See pages 27, 42, 69

Cardinal Mahony pledges `unyielding support' to dialogue partners

By Catholic News Service (CNS) LOS ANGELES September 12, 2000
Saying the tone of a recent Vatican declaration "may not fully reflect the deeper understanding that has been achieved
through ecumenical and interreligious dialogue over these last 30 years or more,'' Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony
pledged "unyielding support'' to "our partners in dialogue'' in a Sept. 9 statement. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith's Sept. 5 declaration – "Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church'' -- is
"best understood within the context of this ongoing dialogue'' with other denominations and faiths and church teachings on
"mutual respect among people of different religious traditions,'' the cardinal wrote.
"The purpose of the declaration,'' he continued, "is to clarify the Roman Catholic Church's own position in view of
disagreements within the Roman Catholic Church, offering firm critique of those theological views that appear to relativize
the Christian faith and the Roman Catholic Church.''
"Nowhere in the declaration,'' the cardinal's statement said, "is there criticism of the fruits of bilateral agreements or of new
initiatives taken in interreligious dialogue. Nor is there any indication that such dialogues or initiatives are to be halted.'' The
cardinal pointed to Pope John Paul II's "profound respect for peoples and traditions other than Roman Catholic'' and listed
three examples of the pope's "respect for the integrity of others and their religious traditions'':
-- The pope's recent journeys to Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
-- His "invitation to religious leaders to join him at Assisi in praying for world peace on Oct. 27, 1986.''
-- His 1987 Los Angeles meeting with "local Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu leaders.''
In addition, the cardinal stressed the Second Vatican Council's affirmation of "the importance of religious freedom'' and its
call "for deep and mutual respect among people of different religious traditions.''
The doctrinal congregation's declaration "can only be properly understood in light of these conciliar orientations and
affirmations,'' the cardinal wrote. "It is my sincere hope that our ongoing dialogues and partnerships will proceed
unabated,'' he said. "The Roman Catholic Church in Los Angeles remains fully committed to ongoing dialogue and
partnership. Only in this way can we continue to move beyond the tragic estrangement which has characterized so much of
the past.''

U.S. bishops say Vatican document not anti-ecumenical

By Jerry Filteau Catholic News Service WASHINGTON September 14, 2000
Several U.S. bishops said that despite the spin given by some newspaper headlines, a new Vatican document on Christ and
the church is not anti-ecumenical. At least two bishops criticized it, however, as less sensitive ecumenically than it could
have been. In statements or weekly newspaper columns, the bishops reaffirmed the church's ecumenical and interreligious
commitment. They emphasized that, as Bishop Robert N. Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., put it, "There is no new teaching in
this document.'' The document, "Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church,''
was issued Sept. 5 by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with approval by Pope John Paul II.
The 36-page declaration focuses on two areas of Catholic teaching. It reaffirms that:
-- Jesus Christ alone is the "Word of God made man for the salvation of all.''
-- The one church of Christ, through which he continues his presence and work of salvation, "subsists in the Catholic
Church, governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.'' Archbishop William J. Levada of
San Francisco said the declaration "presents classic truths of the Catholic faith, in contrast to relativistic theories.''
While reaffirming the unique salvific role of Christ and the church, he said, "the declaration encourages theologians and
those engaged in interreligious dialogue to explore further how the mystery of God's saving will is truly universal both
throughout human history and among all peoples.''
Archbishop Alexander J. Brunett of Seattle, who is Catholic co-chairman of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International
Dialogue, said, "The declaration does not cover any new ground or provide any new theological insights.''
It warns Catholics against "positions that could be problematic or even erroneous,'' he said. But as a longtime ecumenist,
he wondered whether that warning is "needed by those who have been engaged in official dialogues.''
In his experience, he said, dialogue partners understand the need to "come to the table with a clear understanding of their
own religious convictions and ecclesial identity. From that perspective, this declaration does not add much to the process
nor does it further the cause of mutual understanding and respect.'' "Some perhaps will wonder why it does not reflect the
ecumenical sensitivity achieved through 30 years of dialogue and cooperation,'' he added.
Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland of Milwaukee expressed disappointment in the "tone'' of the document, which he said
many ecumenical dialogue partners will find "heavy, almost arrogant and condescending.'' Also a veteran of many
ecumenical dialogues, Archbishop Weakland said the declaration "ignores all of the ecumenical dialogues of the last 35
years, as if they did not exist. None of the agreed statements are cited. Has no progress in working toward convergence of
theological thought occurred in these 35 years?''
But the Milwaukee archbishop was also sharply critical of the headline in the local daily newspaper, The Journal Sentinel.
The headline read, "Vatican insists only faithful Catholics can attain salvation.'' "It is impossible to reconcile'' that headline
with what the document itself says about the salvation of other Christians and non-Christians, he said.
Bishop Lynch said the document was "generally properly reported in the media'' except in the headlines -- which he said
often "reduced the matter to some form of `Catholics think they are the best.''' "Last week's document does not mean a
return to the preconciliar 'my religion is better than your religion' or worse yet, 'you are going to hell' relationship with
those not of the Catholic faith,'' he said. He said some have viewed the declaration as throwing "cold water on ecumenical
dialogue'' but "I do not believe this to be the case.'' He pledged to continue ecumenical and interreligious dialogue with
those of other faiths in the St. Petersburg area "with the deepest respect and affection for their religious beliefs.''
Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick of Newark, N.J., also criticized misleading headlines, saying they "trumpeted that
Catholics think they are the only ones who can be saved, that the pope called other religions inferior and that the Catholic
Church was returning to what the media so glibly inferred to have been a past of intolerance and intransigence.'' "What
nonsense,'' he said, "especially in the light of our Holy Father's constant outreach to other faiths and other religious
leaders.'' In their comments the bishops addressed various aspects of what the declaration actually says and some of the
issues it addresses. Several quoted from papal encyclicals and documents of the Second Vatican Council to highlight what
the church has said in more significant authoritative documents about Christ, salvation, the church, other Christian churches
and ecclesial communities and non-Christian religions and their adherents.
Archbishop Justin A. Rigali of St. Louis devoted most of his weekly column Sept. 8 to reflections on those issues. His
column, posted on the archdiocesan Web site -- www.archstl.org -- also had links to other Web sites where the full text of
the Vatican document could be obtained. Despite his criticisms of the document, Archbishop Brunett encouraged his people
"to read the full text of the declaration, so that the true emphasis and meaning can be understood in the context and
intention of those who framed it.''

Baptists on Dominus Iesus

By Art Toalston 15 September 2000
Vatican document reasserts Catholicism as superior to other faith expressions
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) A Vatican document issued Sept. 5 won't set well with Southern Baptists and other evangelicals and
Protestants.
As described in the lead paragraph of a Washington Post story, it "declares that individuals can attain full salvation from
earthly sin only through the spiritual grace of the Catholic Church and that other faiths -- including Protestant Christian ones
-- have defects that place their followers in a 'gravely deficient situation' in seeking salvation."
As recounted in the lead paragraph of a Los Angeles Times story:

"Censuring what it called the spread of 'religious relativism,' the Vatican on Tuesday instructed Roman Catholics to uphold
the dogma that their church is the sole path to spiritual salvation for all humanity."
The 36-page Vatican document was released at a news conference in Rome by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the principal Vatican body for defining and upholding theological tradition.
Vatican officials said the document has the explicit approval of 80-year-old Pope John Paul II, who has occupied the papacy
for 22 years.
Titled "Declaration Dominus Iesus [Lord Jesus] ... On the Unity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," the
document is the culmination of two years of study, though it breaks no new ground theologically for the Catholic Church,
according to news reports, which also noted the document was aimed mainly at Catholic theologians and its timing
coincides with the millennial celebration of Jesus' birth.
Jerry Rankin, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board, and Rudy Gonzalez, director of
interfaith evangelism for the SBC's North American Mission Board, issued statements Sept. 6 about the Vatican document.
Rankin said: "I think most Southern Baptists would strongly agree that the trend toward religious relativism and pluralism
should be rejected. The way to salvation is a narrow path. We emphatically disagree with the Vatican, however, on the
direction that path takes. Salvation comes by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ and Christ alone -- not through any
institutional church body, be it Baptist, Catholic or otherwise," Rankin continued. "That's why we have always sent
missionaries even to 'Catholic' countries, because people come to salvation only though personal faith in Jesus Christ. That
is the message of the Christian gospel according to Scripture, and that is the message shared worldwide by our
missionaries."
Gonzalez said: "I agree with the Vatican's statement of respect for all faith groups and share their concern that our culture
and our world have all but deified religious relativism. I also agree that the Bible teaches salvation is through Jesus Christ.
"However, I am bound by biblical teachings that salvation is found in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through faith
alone, and not through sacramental or ritualistic religion," Gonzalez continued. "That conviction is not born out of a
disrespect for other faiths, but out of a love for the Bible. True unity will only found in that personal relationship with Jesus
Christ and his teachings."
Statements requested by Baptist Press from two key Southern Baptist proponents of Catholic-evangelical dialogue, Charles
Colson and Timothy George, were not received when BP's deadline arrived Sept. 6.
Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship, and George, dean of Samford University's Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Ala.,
have been at the forefront of controversial "Catholics and Evangelical Together" documents released in 1994 and 1997,
sparking ardent opposition in various Southern Baptist and evangelical quarters.
Jerry Moser, a Louisiana Baptist pastor who has taken an active role in opposing Catholic-evangelical dialogues over
Catholicism's embrace of a sacrament-based approach to salvation, also could not be reached for comment Sept. 6.
Among the Vatican document's assertions, according to news reports: "This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere
respect that the [Catholic] Church has for the religions of the world," but it "rules out, in a radical way ... the belief that one
religion is as good as another."
__ Non-Catholic Christian churches "suffer from defects," partly because they do not recognize the authority of the pope,
but they "have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation." Other Christian
denominations are not "churches in the proper sense," but their members are, through baptism, "in a certain communion,
albeit imperfect, with the [Catholic] Church."
__ The office of the pope is rooted in "the will of God," with the entire church "governed by the Successor of Peter and by
the Bishops in communion with him."
__ Other religions, though not specifically named in the document, have "gravely deficient" chances for salvation due to
"superstitions or other errors [that] constitute an obstacle to salvation."
__ Catholic missionaries have a duty to evangelize adherents of other faiths, to teach that Jesus is "the sole redeemer." The
inter-religious dialogue in which the Catholic Church has engaged other faiths, the document said, is simply "part of her
evangelizing mission."
__ The Catholic Church opposes such beliefs as divine truth being elusive; different truths that exist for some cultures; that
the last judgment of God does not loom; and that reason can be the only source of knowledge.
__ "The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the church," the document said, hindering "the complete
fulfillment of her universality in history."
The Los Angeles Times noted that the document was preceded by a Vatican order in June that bishops avoid references to
"sister churches" and instead remember that "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is not sister but 'mother' of all
the particular [Christian] churches."
Several news reports noted that the document seemed to be a departure for Pope John Paul II, who is a Catholic
traditionalist but has engaged in numerous overtures to mend rifts between Catholicism and other Christian communions
such as Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicans and Lutherans and to promote understanding between Catholics and Jews, Muslims
and adherents of other non-Christian religions.
In a report released last September detailing the findings of the five-year "conversation" regarding Scripture between eight
Southern Baptist leaders -- under the auspices of the North American Mission Board's interfaith evangelism team -- and
eight representatives of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, it was noted that while both groups share a deep
appreciation for Scripture, they hold vastly different beliefs on foundational issues of the Bible's nature, authority and role in
the Christian faith.

The report was consisted largely of outlining the different definitions Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics apply to such
terms as revelation, Word of God, inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility and canon.
Revelation to Southern Baptists, for instance, refers primarily to the written revelation of Scripture, the report noted, while
Roman Catholics point to Jesus Christ as the revelation of God, with both Scripture and church tradition bearing witness to
that revelation.
The dialogue group met at both Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist institutions, sharing their different perspectives and
studying a variety of theological documents from both traditions.
Erich Bridges, Martin King & James Dotson contributed to this article .

“Medieval backwardness and Vatican megalomania”

The New York Times Company, The Tablet (London) September 16, 2000
"It's a mixture of medieval backwardness and Vatican megalomania,'' he was quoted as saying by an Italian news agency*.
Hans Kung**, who had his license to teach in a Catholic University withdrawn by the Vatican cardinal who wrote
Tuesday's document, said it was hypocritical to "continually talk about dialogue while not talking about this colossal
pretence of absolutism.'' Walking a theological tightrope, the document said the ''Church of Christ'' was present in other
Christian Churches. *www.chiesa, see page 65. **See pages 27, 39, 69
But, in the Vatican's view, it subsists fully in the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope is the successor to St Peter,
whom Christ named as his first vicar on Earth.
The sting was also felt by non-Christians, whom the document said were disadvantaged regarding salvation because Christ
was the Son of God.
"This has fundamentalist overtones,'' said Tullia Zevi, director of inter-cultural and inter-religious relations for the European
Jewish Congress. "It saddens and worries us,'' she said.
Rabbi David Rosen, head of the Jerusalem office of the Anti-Defamation League, said the position was not surprising.
But he added: "Those of us...pluralistic in our theological approach, are a little disappointed that nothing is moving in terms
of the present theological position of the Vatican.'' [Source not available]

Unity in Danger
http://www.swbrazil.anglican.org/unity.htm
ACNS 2237 – BRAZIL, 18 September 2000
The Vatican struck a great blow to ecumenical relations in reaffirming their doubts about the validity of the Protestant
Churches (in these we are included) and in officially ordering Roman Catholic Bishops to not use the term "Sister Churches"
in referring to them. An official note from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregations for the Doctrine of Faith,
warns that to describe protestant churches (us included) as "Sister Churches" can cause ambiguity.
Another document, Dominus Iesus, about the universal Salvation of Jesus Christ and the Church, also published by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith declares that the churches (in their understanding) do not have a valid episcopate
and a genuine integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, therefore, are not churches in the true sense of the term.
The two documents suggest a distinction between, on the one hand, the Roman and Orthodox churches which, according
to Rome, are related, and on the other hand, the protestant communities (including the Anglican Communion). Both
documents notably avoid using the word "church" when referring to the protestants, using instead the term, "ecclesial
communities" which does not involve commitment.
The first reaction I had was of perplexity and discouragement in our struggle toward ecumenicity. I was encouraged by the
advances of the Toronto Meeting in Canada, when I received this shocking news.
Nevertheless, as I began to think more about it, I concluded lamentably, the evils of a renegade institutionalism, that
attacks whatever church (ours is not exempt from this) causes the catholic side of Christianity to fall into a structural
fundamentalism, that is, the maintenance of a "complex Christianity". The protestant side falls into a biblical and moralistic
fundamentalism. And our churches, with this, end up as "ghettos" divorced from reality and feeds the sick character that
assaults so many people in humanity today.
William James, famous north American philosopher at the beginning of the century, said in his book, "The Varieties of
Religious Experience," that there are two types of religion: that of the "healthy mind" and that of the "sick mind". The latter
is what grows with great facility. Humanity, unfortunately, is in the majority, a sick humanity and what appeals are those
religions that stimulate our morbid and sick side. The sociologists say that one of the reasons for this is that humanity is
passing from the industrial stage to a post-industrial stage.
Alvin Toffler speaks of the famous 3rd wave. There are people who still live within the parameters of the 1st wave (the
agricultural society); others still very much rooted in the 2nd wave (the industrial society).
As there still exists a process of adaptation to the 3rd wave (the post-industrial or cybernetic society), the majority of
people, in order to deal with their insecurity take refuge in dictated religious precepts or in a biblical fundamentalism (the
Bible becomes the dictate of God and is therefore, not subject to error) or structural (only one church or religious
organization has he truth), or moralistic (the moral code is what says acritically this is right, this is wrong).
The new world into which we are entering is a world that is going to require a great deal of creativity of the human being.
The human being will be more autonomous, not only in his work, but in leisure, as in orienting his life. Thus we are going
to have to recognize that God is not an authoritarian or dogmatic Father, but a companion Father, who manifests himself
through his children, who are co-participants with Him in the work of Creation.

In fact, I am convinced that the unity of Christians, the unity of Humanity is a construction that is being done in the local
bases of the churches and not in their hierarchies, no matter how good these may be. Thus independent from decrees,
encyclicals etc let us continue our construction, that is a process of love oriented by the Holy Spirit that manifests itself in
us.
THE MOST REV GLAUCO SOARES DE LIMA, PRIMATE OF BRASIL
Rev Côn. Maurício Andrade, Secretário Geral, Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil-IEAB [email protected]
http://www.ieab.org.br/

Indians of various religions shocked over “unnecessary” Vatican Document

INDIA NEW DELHI (UCAN) September 19, 2000
Indians of various religions say the document "Dominus Iesus" is dismaying and seems to reflect an inability on the part of
the Vatican to understand Asian reality.
Church of South India Bishop C.L. Furtado of Karnataka South said the document "surprised" and "shocked" him, coming at
a time when Christians in Asia are looking "for a more refined and open sharing with Rome."
The Vatican declaration "Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" has
"absolutely no relevance in the present Indian or Asian context," the Protestant bishop added.
In interviews with UCA News, he and other scholars from various religions reacted sharply to the text, issued Sept. 5 at the
Vatican by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Reverend Sadanada, principal of the Protestant Karnataka Theological College, said the document would "do more harm
than good" to the Asian Church's ecumenism and evangelization efforts.
Father John Fernandez, a theologian at St. Joseph's Catholic Major Seminary in Mangalore, called for a
serious dialogue between the "Western clergy who prepared the document and Asian theologians who (have
to) live with it." Father Fernandez, founding president of the Catholic Priests' Conference of India, described
the document as "far from realities" in trying to impose an "18th-century European faith on a 21st-century
Asian Church."
C.S. Radhakrishnan, a Hindu in Goa state, said the text would foster "unnecessary animosity and frivolous irritations"
among religions in India. He said it would also generate intolerance toward Christianity for claiming to be "the only ideal
salvation to man's soul." He added that it is "ironic" that followers of a "merciful Christ" should speak "intolerant language."
Sheikh Jamal, a Muslim journalist in Goa, said the document's "language of antagonism" cannot be the way to dialogue.
P.P. Shirodkar, a Hindu who sought an apology from visiting Pope John Paul II last year for the Inquisition in formerly
Portuguese Goa, said the text's "external trapping of religion is the villain dividing man and man."
J.P. Singh, a Sikh in Goa, said the document leaves "no room for other religions to exist" and goes against Sikh religious
tenets that say all faiths are alternative routes to God.
Church of South India Bishop Sam Mathew of Madhya Kerala said the Vatican's "new position" would "throttle the ongoing
dialogue" for a concerted ecumenical movement in India. The Protestant Churches will not accept the Vatican stand on the
issue, he said.
George Pinto, a professor in Goa University, said the Church's Western leaders are uncomfortable with the East's "rich
tradition of pluralism, tolerance and interreligious dialogue." He feared that unless the West learns more of the deep
spiritual traditions of the East, Catholicism will "suffer the consequences of being close-minded and mere doctrinal theory."
Jesuit Father Vasco Rego, rector of Bom Jesu Basilica in Old Goa, doubts the document's ability to "draw
Asian crowds to Jesus." He said he regretted that the Church is distancing itself from others instead of
seeking ways for "a deeper understanding of Asians experiencing God."
He said that while Asian theologians are currently under fire for treading new ground in interreligious dialogue, "the future
will progressively value their broader vision."
The head of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Baseliyos Marthomma Mathews II, said he feared that "the document
will nullify the tremendous progress Churches have made" in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue.
Fali S. Nariman, a Supreme Court lawyer who fights discrimination against Christians in India, said he was "taken aback" by
"Dominus Iesus." The document is retrogressive and shows that the Vatican "fails to see Indian Christians as different from
Italian Christians," he added. "The Indian Christian is immersed in the tradition of fostering pluralism, without
compromising on the basics of their religion," the Parsee lawyer said.

Article by Cardinal William H. Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore on Dominus Iesus

http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/news/News_Sep2000.htm#Fiorenza
Cardinal William H. Keeler September 21, 2000
William Cardinal Keeler is episcopal moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The following article appeared in his weekly column in the Baltimore archdiocesan newspaper.
On September 5, the Holy See's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled Dominus Iesus,
a technical document intended primarily for Catholic theologians. A number of media reports took statements of the
document out of context, and I welcome this opportunity to clarify the intent and thrust of the document.
By coincidence I was in Rome at the time for a series of meetings and stopped into the Press Office just before the press
conference for the presentation of the document. This proved to be an interesting event, especially because some of the
reporters were raising very pointed questions.

Those who responded noted that the document assembled a series of quotations from previously issued documents but
broke no new ground itself. A major source was the Constitution on the Nature of the Church, the fundamental theological
statement of the Second Vatican Council. 
The Church's teachings about our faith in the unique and redemptive role of Jesus Christ and of the Church's specific role in
continuing Christ's saving mission were affirmed, as a corrective, it seems, for some misunderstandings, principally in Asia.
However, in none of the press reports did I see the comments of Cardinal Ratzinger, paraphrasing the Council's Decree on
Ecumenism, affirming that the Church is walking a pilgrim way, and must continually call her members from ways of sin to
conversion. Also, he asserted, the Church is called to that "continual reformation of which she also has need, insofar as she
is a human institution here on earth." (Decree on Ecumenism, Art. 6) 
It should also be pointed out that, in this Jubilee year, Pope John Paul II has repeatedly lifted up for our Church the
teaching of the Second Vatican Council concerning the need of repentance for past sins against unity and for forgiveness of
others. He did this notably just before and during his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, including Israel and neighboring lands, in
March.
Representatives of all our parishes, institutions and organizations were present with many representatives of other churches
and faith families in the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen on October 8, 1995, when Pope John Paul II personally affirmed for
us in Maryland: 
"To the members of the various Christian denominations present, may I say that, as we approach the Third Millennium and
the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, we must all the more earnestly strive to heal the wounds of the past. I encourage
everyone to strengthen and extend the ecumenical dialogue that has been for so long a hallmark of this community. We
need to explore together how we might present ourselves before the Lord as a people solidly on the road to the unity for
which Christ prayed on the night before he gave his life for our salvation. (Cf. John 17:21)
"To all the believers in the One True God I express the respect and esteem of the Catholic Church. As I said at the United
Nations, the world must learn to life with "difference," if a century of coercion is to be followed by a century of persuasion.
I assure you, dear friends, that the Catholic Church is committed to the path of dialogue in her relations with Judaism and
Islam, and I pray that, through that dialogue, new understanding, capable of securing peace for the world, may be forged.
"You have shown in this community how dialogue and cooperation can lead to improvements in civic life: in the work you
have done together to promote the teaching of moral values in the public schools, and in providing housing for the poor.
May that work be blessed, and may it increase, as your dialogue of faith deepens in the years ahead." 
The message of the recent document and the words of the Holy Father are not in conflict. Catholics must be true to their
faith, distinct from other churches and religions. At the same time peace, understanding, and even unity are goals that
deserve our finest efforts.
Sadly, many press accounts and the reactions of others based on them did not reflect either the fundamental thrust of the
document or what Cardinal Ratzinger clearly said at the press conference presenting it. A clear imperative for the media is
to engage more writers with a background in reporting religious news, a background which will prepare them to understand
clearly and report accurately on religious issues. 

From Time to Time

September 21, 2000
On September 5, the Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled Dominus Iesus,
a technical document intended primarily for Catholic theologians. A number of media reports took statements of the
document out of context, and I welcome this opportunity to clarify the intent and thrust of the document.
By coincidence I was in Rome at the time for a series of meetings and stopped into the Press Office just before the press
conference for the presentation of the document. This proved to be an interesting event, especially because some of the
reporters were raising very pointed questions. Those who responded noted that the document assembled a series of
quotations from previously issued documents but broke no new ground itself. A major source was the Constitution on the
Nature of the Church, the fundamental theological statement of the Second Vatican Council.
The Church’s teachings about our faith in the unique and redemptive role of Jesus Christ and of the Church’s specific role in
continuing Christ’s saving mission were affirmed, as a corrective, it seems, for some misunderstandings, principally in Asia.
However, in none of the press reports did I see the comments of Cardinal Ratzinger, paraphrasing the Council’s Decree on
Ecumenism, affirming that the Church is walking a pilgrim way, and must continually call her members from ways of sin to
conversion. Also, he asserted, the Church is called to that "continual reformation of which she also has need, insofar as she
is a human institution here on earth." (Decree on Ecumenism, Art. 6)
It should also be pointed out that, in this Jubilee year, Pope John Paul II has repeatedly lifted up for our Church the
teaching of the Second Vatican Council concerning the need of repentance for past sins against unity and for forgiveness of
others. He did this notably just before and during his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, including Israel and neighboring lands, in
March.
Representatives of all our parishes, institutions and organizations were present with many representatives of other churches
and faith families in the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen on October 8, 1995, when Pope John Paul II personally affirmed for
us in Maryland:
"To the members of the various Christian denominations present, may I say that, as we approach the Third Millennium and
the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, we must all the more earnestly strive to heal the wounds of the past.

"I encourage everyone to strengthen and extend the ecumenical dialogue that has been for so long a hallmark of this
community. We need to explore together how we might present ourselves before the Lord as a people solidly on the road
to the unity for which Christ prayed on the night before he gave his life for our salvation. (Cf. John 17:21)
"To all the believers in the One True God I express the respect and esteem of the Catholic Church. As I said at the United
Nations, the world must learn to life with “difference,” if a century of coercion is to be followed by a century of persuasion.
I assure you, dear friends, that the Catholic Church is committed to the path of dialogue in her relations with Judaism and
Islam, and I pray that, through that dialogue, new understanding, capable of securing peace for the world, may be forged.
"You have shown in this community how dialogue and cooperation can lead to improvements in civic life: in the work you
have done together to promote the teaching of moral values in the public schools, and in providing housing for the poor.
May that work be blessed, and may it increase, as your dialogue of faith deepens in the years ahead."
The message of the recent document and the words of the Holy Father are not in conflict. Catholics must be true to their
faith, distinct from other churches and religions. At the same time peace, understanding, and even unity are goals that
deserve our finest efforts.
Sadly, many press accounts and the reactions of others based on them did not reflect either the fundamental thrust of the
document or what Cardinal Ratzinger clearly said at the press conference presenting it. A clear imperative for the media is
to engage more writers with a background in reporting religious news, a background which will prepare them to understand
clearly and report accurately on religious issues.
Cardinal William H. Keeler
Rev Côn. Maurício Andrade [Source not available]
Outside Catholic Church no salvation?
http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/news/News_Sep2000.htm#Weakland
By Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B.*
After reading a newspaper article, what we remember most is the headline. This past week "The Journal Sentinel",
reporting on the document Dominus Jesus from the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, carried the headline:
"Vatican insists only faithful Catholics can attain salvation." After reading carefully the full document, I can tell you this
statement never occurs in the text. It does say that the Catholic Church believes it has all the means that are necessary for
salvation. We Catholics are convinced of this truth. Otherwise, why would we be Catholic? (I know that members of other
Churches believe the same about their particular Churches.)
The Asian bishops in particular, I am told, wanted a statement from Rome asserting this truth because Evangelical
Christians were invading their countries in droves, preaching and disseminating literature that states that Catholics cannot
be saved. I, too, am bombarded by such literature.
The first half of the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is directed toward those scholars engaged
in theological dialogues with other great Religions, especially Buddhism and Hinduism. It takes exception to those Catholic
and Protestant theologians who minimize the salvific role of Jesus Christ and try to find manifestations of the presence of
the second person of the Trinity (the Logos) or the salvific workings of the Holy Spirit in those other Religions, while
diminishing or eliminating the unique role of Jesus Christ.
Concerning members of the other great Religions of the world, however, the document quotes the statement of the bishops
of Vatican Council II that God can bestow salvific grace to adherents to these Religions "in ways known to Himself." It is
impossible to reconcile that statement with the interpretation that God only grants this grace to faithful Catholics.
The second half of the document deals with the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as we Catholics understand it. The
document repeats the teaching of Vatican Council II that the Church founded and willed by Jesus Christ "subsists in" the
Catholic Church. The bishops at that Council debated at length over the right phrase to use "subsists in," or "is the same
as," or "is identified with" and chose the first in order to acknowledge the existence of true ecclesial elements in other
Churches. The document admits that the bishops at Vatican Council II did not want to teach a doctrine of exclusivity, but to
accept the fact that outside the structure of the Catholic Church "many elements can be found of sanctification and truth."
In examining what must characterize a true Church, the new document cites "apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist."
Without these two qualities the document does not call a Christian denomination a Church. In my opinion the documents of
Vatican Council II made the role of baptism much more significant as entrance into the Body of Christ and thus into the
Church: "All who have been justified by faith in baptism are members of Christ's body and have a right to be called
Christians, and so are deservedly recognized as sisters and brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church
(Lumen gentium, #3)." The documents of Vatican Council II do not hesitate to use the word "Churches" to characterize
these communities of the Reformation (Unitatis redintegratio, #19). Unfortunately, Dominus Jesus does not take into
account the enormous progress made after Vatican Council II in the mutual recognition of each other's baptisms and the
ecclesial significance of such recognition.
What is disappointing about this document is that so many of our partners in ecumenical dialogues will find its tone heavy,
almost arrogant and condescending. To them it is bound to seem out of keeping with the elevated and open tone of the
documents of Vatican Council II. It ignores all of the ecumenical dialogues of the last 35 years, as if they did not exist.
None of the agreed statements are cited. Has no progress in working toward convergence of theological thought occurred
in these 35 years? Our partners have every reason to believe we may not be sincere in such dialogues. We seem to be
talking out of both sides of the mouth, for example, making agreements with the Lutherans on Monday and then calling
into question the validity of their ecclesial nature on Tuesday.

To those involved in the ecumenical dialogues this document will be seen as pessimistic and disheartening. It will be a burr
in the side of all involved in the ecumenical movement for decades to come and will continue to promote the conviction that
we Catholic are simply not sincere.
But we Catholics can all hold, without apology, as stating our position what the bishops gathered at Vatican Council II
declared: "Some, and even most, of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to
the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace,
faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, coming from
Christ and leading back to Christ, properly belong to the one Church of Christ (Unitatis redintegratio, #3)."

*The fall of the Archbishop

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7007&Itemid=100 EXTRACT:
By Arturo Vasquez October 8, 2009
Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, a noted dissenter and liberal who had been blackmailed
into giving almost half a million dollars to a man with whom he had a homosexual relationship in
the late 1970s…
[He] also lamented such practices as the use of the grill to conceal the nuns from the outside world, and he
viewed the parlors for visiting the cloistered women as places that were "dark, dreary, and uninviting." His
solution to all this was to "educate" the nuns, including an education in psychology. Those familiar with the
work of Dr. William Coulson with the Immaculate Heart Nuns in southern California in the 1960s
know how devastating such experiments proved to those religious communities. For these liberals, however, in
order to save these communities, they had to destroy them.
Catholic Answers: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=5307047
Archbishop Rembert Weakland - served as Archbishop of Milwaukee, WI 1977-2002. Appointed by
Pope Paul VI on Sept. 20, 1977
Criticised Dominus Iesus in 2000
Retirement was overshadowed by revelations that he paid $450,000 in Archdiocesan funds to
fend off a threatened lawsuit in May, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembert_Weakland
Former Catholic head of Milwaukee admits he's gay
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090512/...gay_archbishop
Weakland's Exit http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher052402.asp
Weakland says he didn't know priests' abuse was crime
http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/45191277.html
Outside Catholic Church no Salvation? By Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B.
http://tinyurl.com/l4el33

Dominus Iesus
The New Leader, October 1-15, 2000
The Vatican Document ‘Dominus Iesus” released on 5 September 2000 emphasized the "exclusive, universal
and absolute value" of Jesus Christ, taking aim at the notion that “one religion is as good as another".
The text criticized the tendency to… elevate other religions as pathways to salvation and to downplay Scripture.
"The Old and New Testaments are the only such writings inspired by the Holy Spirit" it said.
"The Church’s missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious
pluralism."
Equality in interreligious dialogue refers to equal personal dignity of the participants, not to doctrinal content…
This may seem a slight to other religions but in fact "such language is simply being faithful to revelation."

Indian Theologians Regret Vatican Inability to Understand Them

http://www.ucanews.com/2000/10/09/indian-theologians-regret-vatican-inability-to-understand-them/
PUNE, India (UCAN) October 9, 2000
Some theology professors in India have described a Vatican cardinal's comment that "Dominus Iesus" was directed against
them as the Vatican's failure to understand religious pluralism in Asia. "Rome has a suspicion that the Indian theologians do
not accept the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the mediator of salvation," said Jesuit theologian Father Josef Neuner,
92, who has taught in various Indian seminaries for the past 60 years.
Father Neuner and other theologians in Pune, western India, fear that the Sept. 5 Vatican declaration
"Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" will alienate other
religions.
The document stresses the "unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ" and the Church's "salvific
mediation" since it holds that "relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism" endanger the Church's mission.
The theologians made their comments in reports that Cardinal Edward Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council
for Promoting Christian Unity, said Sept. 26 that "Dominus Iesus" was directed at theology professors in
India.

Father Neuner told UCA News Oct. 4 that the Vatican "does not sufficiently understand and appreciate the
implications of religious and cultural pluralism in India in particular and in Asia in general." The Austria-born
Jesuit said the declaration will "alienate Indian theology professors and hamper their creativity and research
as they will not be able to speak out openly." Father Neuner said that to emphasis Christ as the only Savior is
a "challenging task" for Indian theologians and that "it is also very difficult to make Hindus and Muslims understand
it."
Jesuit Father Errol D'Lima, president of the Indian Theological Association, said the declaration shows the
Vatican's fear that Indian theologians' attempt to view other religions positively will dilute "essentials of
Christianity." Father D'Lima, who teaches systematic theology in Pune's Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth (light of
knowledge university), said the problem arises because Indian Christians have a "worldview different from Rome, and our
living experience of being the Church is in dialogue with other religions."
Divine Word Father Jacob Kavunkal, who teaches missiology in the same university, said the Vatican "does not seem to
appreciate the atmosphere of religious pluralism in which Indian theologians have to work." He said the Bible
has "tremendous indication of positive approach to other religions," which are responses to "the revelatory process of the
word." The Divine Word priest said the document's language of exclusivity would "alienate our sister Churches and other
religious traditions, making the task of the Indian theologians rather difficult."
Jesuit theologian Father Francis D'Sa said Indian theologians live in "religious pluralism, not in academe like in the
West" since the country has many religions, including tribal and folk religions.
He explained that Indian theologians have to speak their faith in a language others can understand. Those living in almost
monocultural situations will never understand the situation of Indian theologians, he added.
Jesuit Father Rue de Menezes, a former university rector, warned that the Vatican document "will destroy any spirit of
dialogue with other religions." Indian theologians have the option to either follow the ecumenical council -- the
Second Vatican Council or the opinion of certain individuals in Rome, he said. But "Indian theologians will
opt for the former," he added. The document "reflects the mentality of the Middle Ages," he said.
He added that the so-called "champions of orthodoxy are not faithful to the Jesus of the Gospels" and said he wants the
Church to prescribe a retirement age for the "clerks of the Vatican."
Father Subash Anand, another theology professor, said the document tries to equate Christ's role and
importance with that of the Church. "They are not identical, though related," he added.
FOR MY COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE, SEE
1. THE NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 2 - PAPAL SEMINARY, PUNE, INDIAN THEOLOGIANS, AND THE CATHOLIC
ASHRAMS http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW%20COMMUNITY%20BIBLE%202_PAPAL%20SEMINARY_
%20PUNE_INDIAN%20THEOLOGIANS_AND%20THE%20CATHOLIC%20ASHRAMS.doc
2. THE NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 15 – PRIESTHOOD UNDER ATTACK, DEMAND FOR ORDINATION OF WOMEN
PRIESTS - FR SUBHASH ANAND AND OTHERS http://ephesians-
511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_15_PRIESTHOOD_UNDER_ATTACK_DEMAND_FOR_ORDINATION_OF_WOMENPRI
ESTS.doc
3. THEOLOGIANS LAMBAST THE VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE NEW AGE

ROME & RELATIVISM: 'Dominus Iesus' & the CDF - Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;
document on spiritual supremacy of Catholic Church
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_18_127/ai_66965697/
On September 5, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released the declaration Dominus Iesus: On
the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. The statement restated and reaffirmed the church's
understanding of the unique revelation of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church’s status as the ultimate guardian of that
revelation. In judging other Christian churches inadequate and other religions "gravely deficient," the declaration seemed to
revert to a triumphalistic language not used by Rome since before Vatican II. Ecumenical dialogue partners have raised
questions about the meaning of Dominus Iesus, while many Catholics worry that it is yet another effort to quash theological
exploration, especially among theologians engaged in dialogue with Eastern religions and those writing on the question of
religious pluralism generally. Commonweal asked three theologians, two Catholic and one Protestant, to assess
Dominus Iesus. Their evaluations follow.

Martin E. Marty
We are the oldest. We are the mother and you are the daughters, daughters who "suffer from defects." So says today's
Rome.
We are the best. When it comes to salvation, you are at best half-safe. Thus the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
We are the only. The rest of you Christians, though individually often our brothers and sisters, are not even members of
"churches in the proper sense."
Those claims condensed the document Dominus Iesus in most Catholic and public media, and evidently in public
perceptions, after the Vatican announced its position on non-Catholic faith, churches, and religions on September 5.

If the intent was to reclaim absolutes and fight off relativism, whether among Catholic theologians and the faithful or
among others who thought they were as old as, as good as, and as faithful in sharing salvific work as Catholics can be,
Dominus Iesus is likely to produce ironically opposite outcomes.
The relativizing game of comparison began at once.
No, said the Eastern Orthodox, in some rage: you are the upstarts. We are the bearers of tradition. We are The Tradition.
No, said the Anglicans, in frustrated and aggrieved tones; we are partners in God's saving work, as you had come to tell us
in recent decades.
No, said the Protestants, some of whom, like the Baptists, have always said we were here first, and we are inerrant and
best and only.
No, say the other religions, none of whom had ever pretended to be the same as Catholicism, but who had been schooled
to think of themselves as benign outsiders and profoundly well-intended dialogue partners by Rome.
Interesting, say the media and the by-standing public: You Christians can fight all you want, but you'll only amuse and
bemuse us in your contests and conflicts over un-settleable issues.
Regrettable, say some of us who see in Dominus Iesus a missed opportunity. Catholic theologians in the East, with Asian
spiritual environments in mind, were working to relate the truth in Christ to the light in the East. They were no doubt
making some mistakes--how is a non-Catholic to adjudicate?--as they fumbled their way tentatively into new relations, but
now they are to cut off efforts. Catholic theologians in the West, many of them trying to formulate "theologies of pluralism"
to face urgent and confusing new realities here, were taken to the woodshed and in effect told to cease and desist.
So instead of having an intellectually vibrant encounter among Catholic thinkers and with others, many see a reversion to
pre-Vatican II declarations. At Vatican II other Christian churches could be regarded as "brothers" and thus, presumably,
also as "sisters," as Pope Paul VI also sometimes called them and as John Paul II indicated in word and gesture. No longer.
The other Christians have to be "daughters," and deviating or deviant ones at that.
Of course, ecumenical endeavor will not cease. Of course, dialogue with world religions can continue. But under the sign of
regret.
Anyone who cares about the truth in Christ has good reason to fear relativism in an age where in too many minds and
mouths "we are all, after all, in different boats heading for the same shore"; a time when "it does not make any difference
what you believe, as long as you believe"; a place where "spirituality" gets invented as a do-it-yourself alternative to
churchly "religion." Yet Dominus Iesus gives very few clues as to how to reason about the truth. Its claims have to do with
authority.
Anyone who cares about spreading the truth in Christ, a.k.a. evangelism, and about dialogue among the religions, has to
know that you can "give the store away" in dealings with other faiths on an open market. You can lose the impulse to invite
others into the company of Christ. You can settle for cheap universalisms. Yet Dominus Iesus spends its time saying that
Catholics cannot look for new formulations in a world wherein they cannot hide and where they do not do well simply to
build walls.
Our shrunken world does not permit Rome or Geneva, Athens or Canterbury, Wittenberg or New York, to be sequestered,
closed off, from other believers and nonbelievers.
How present is Jesus Christ in such a world? The authors of Dominus Iesus have this correct: Without clear, reflective, and
empathic guidance, believers will be at sea, awash in tides of relativism. Or, conversely, they will react as fundamentalists
do, building walls, creating barriers, and speaking ill of all who do not belong to their club. It would be unfair to call the
new Vatican document simply exclusivist and fundamentalist, but in its polemical swing at Catholics who, Rome thinks, are
indeed giving the store away, it has not contributed to clarity.
Since we in sister and brother churches do seek guidance, from Rome and elsewhere, and who hope also to be heard,
Dominus Iesus inspires regret, not rage, for the missed opportunity it represents. Back to the drawing board.
Martin E. Marty, the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus at the University of Chicago, has written
extensively on ecumenism and interfaith relations. His newest book is Education, Religion, and the Common Good (Jossey-
Bass).

Robert P. Imbelli
On November 18, 1965, Dei verbum was promulgated by the Second Vatican Council. A remarkable, indeed, revolutionary
document, it secured the church's acceptance of modern historical-critical methods of biblical exegesis. The rejection of the
"traditionalist" preliminary draft of the constitution three years before had marked the effective beginning of Pope John's
council and the beginning of the end of Tridentine Catholicism, with its undeniable beauties and banalities. Dei verbum was
justly celebrated for recovering a more vibrant, personalist understanding of God's revelation, whose fullness is given in the
person of Jesus Christ.
Yet, the robust Christo-centrism of Dei verbum -- indeed, of all the council's documents -- now seems to evoke
embarrassment in certain "progressive" theological and missionary circles. In the thirty-five years since Vatican II, there has
been frequent appeal to the "hierarchy of truths." At one time or other the claim is put forward that birth control or even
papal infallibility does not "rank high" in that hierarchy. Fair enough. But if the doctrine of the unique Incarnation of Jesus
Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity that flows from that confession of faith do not form the apex of the hierarchy of
truths, then there is no such thing.

It seems to me that a concern for securing that definitive article of faith forms the context in which to understand Dominus
Iesus, the recent controversial declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Though the tone of
the document is peremptory and its ecclesiological teaching raises legitimate questions, I shall limit myself to the
Christological teaching because the profession of faith in Jesus Christ constitutes the heart of the matter. In that light, it is
important to note that the declaration is directed not to ecumenical dialogue partners, nor to all people of good will, but to
the bishops of the Catholic church, to be communicated especially to theological faculties and missionary congregations, as
well as to the Catholic faithful. It intends to recapitulate the church's faith in the uniqueness and universal salvific
significance of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God: the article of faith upon which the church itself stands or falls. What
is crucially important about this document is that this article of faith, everywhere professed and presumed by Vatican II,
can no longer be taken for granted.
Put bluntly: There is abroad a measure of innocent and sometimes quite intentional apostasy. Among some Catholic
theologians, there is advanced the idea of "multiple incarnations" of the Christ, or that Jesus is Savior only for Christians, or
that the salvific role of the Spirit is more universal than that of Jesus Christ, or that Trinity is but one "model" for speaking
of the incomprehensible mystery of God. Such "unitarianism of the Spirit" is no figment of some overheated Roman
imagination. It appears in print, both at popular and more sophisticated theological levels. If the church's magisterium
cannot authoritatively declare that such is not "the faith delivered once and for all to the saints" (Jude 3), then there is no
legitimate role for the magisterium. It is simply otiose.
The CDF document does not mount a theological argument but sets forth a profession of faith, drawing in particular upon
the New Testament, the documents of Vatican II, and the papal magisterium of John Paul II. It is of utmost significance
that the first citation is taken from the creed of the Council of Constantinople in its original articulation (without the later
Western addition of the "filioque"): the common Trinitarian faith of the undivided church. Thus the declaration is
"dogmatic," not in the invidious sense of arbitrary or unenlightened; but in the precise sense of what ultimately binds
believers and constitutes their identity as Catholic Christians.
Also significant is that Dei verbum is often quoted and everywhere presupposed. Dominus Iesus' ample citations from
Vatican II do not represent an exercise in proof-texting, but an exercise of spiritual discernment, re-echoing the Christo-
logic of the council in a new context in which it can no longer, alas, be taken for granted. The declaration's much criticized
insistence on the universal significance of the salvation offered through Christ is not a retreat from ecumenical dialogue or
tolerance. It only reiterates the very first words of Lumen gentium, which confesses that Christ is "the light of all peoples"
and that all are called to union with Christ. Hence the council's recognition that God's grace is operative outside the visible
boundaries of the Catholic Church in no way lessens the missionary imperative to "preach the gospel to every creature."
Similarly, the council's epoch-making Nostra aetate explicitly professes both respect and evangelical responsibility--both
mandated by its Christo-centric vision. It states (in a passage several times referred to by the recent declaration): "The
Catholic church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions....Yet she proclaims, and is duty bound to
proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to
himself (2 Cor 5:18-19), men and women find the fullness of religious life."
Moreover, the equally celebrated Dignitatis humanae (also quoted by the declaration) affirms this same tensive both/and.
It certainly acknowledges the right of men and women to be free from coercion in fulfilling their duty to worship God. At
the same time, Dignitatis humanae "professes its belief that God himself has made known to the human race the way in
which men and women are to serve him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness." Gaudium et spes, which
many believe to be the most distinctively original of the council's documents, also proclaims, as it must, this Christological
vision and faith.
Clearly, Christological normativity, the uniqueness and salvific universality of Jesus Christ, was not invented by the current
CDF. It is simply the doctrine of the faith. Dominus Iesus' reaffirmation of this faith does not preclude further theological
investigation. Indeed, the declaration several times encourages precisely such reflection (see numbers 14 and 21). But such
theological exploration must be faithful to the dogmatic content of revelation, if it is truly to be theology: faith seeking
understanding.
In the statement, "Called to Be Catholic," that launched Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's Common Ground Initiative, we read:
"Jesus Christ, present in Scripture and sacrament, is central to all that we do; he must always be the measure and not what
is measured." Dominus Iesus could not have said it better.
The Reverend Robert P. Imbelli, a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and a frequent Commonweal contributor, teaches
Catholic theology at Boston College.

Philip Kennedy
Here is a sobering thought. There is no Christian alive today who agrees with every belief of all other Christians.
Contemporary Christianity is marked by a ubiquitous plurality of tenets and customs. It also stands alongside a host of
other world religions. Ours is an age of far-reaching devotional multiformity. Manifest religious variety within Christianity
and among religions is currently troubling the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. To countercheck the
view that pluralism is tolerable or inevitable, the CDF published a declaration Dominus Iesus ("The Lord Jesus"). It is a
rhetorically somber though theologically questionable document. It is not an irrevocable text for Catholics of the Roman rite
because it fails to represent fully the profoundest teaching of Vatican II concerning divine salvation and the religions of the
world.

At base, Dominus Iesus struggles with the most taxing of all theological questions: How and where might human beings
chance upon a saving God in their world? Its answer is emphatically clear: God is best encountered in the Catholic church
founded by Jesus Christ.
This new declaration is a relatively brief text. It rejects the view that the ultimate mystery of God has been revealed to
human beings in a variety of historical figures apart from Christ. It insists that the fullness of divine revelation is manifest in
Christ. It instructs that God saves in only one way, which is through Christ. It rejects as contrary to Catholic faith theories
of God's saving action beyond the unique mediation of Christ. Having asserted Christianity as superior to other religions, the
declaration comments on the Catholic Church’s relation to other Christian denominations. It repeats a foundational
explanation of Catholic origins deployed in a host of recent Vatican texts concerning ministry and the church. According to
that theory, Christ established a church which stands in historical continuity with the current Catholic Church. Bishops today
are thought to be the successors of the Apostles. Therefore, churches or ecclesial communities that are not currently in
communion with apostolically constituted Catholic Christianity are defective.
Dominus Iesus is a forceful text, yet it is far from convincing. It is devoid of humble penitence and fails to acknowledge the
sins and defects of the Catholic Church that betray the reality and memory of Christ. But the contemporary hierarchically
constituted Catholic Church is unable to regard itself as directly historically continuous with the ministry of Jesus Christ
because he did not establish a church with bishops and diocesan structures to break away from Judaism. Rather, he
preached the kingdom of God to rejuvenate Israel's religious life and enlisted the help of twelve primary Apostles in his
mission to Israel. The church evolved over time after his death and in response to him.
Dominus Iesus styles itself as an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church’s relation to other churches and religions.
And so it is, but not more so than Vatican II. It defers to the council a full forty-five times. Even so, it fails conspicuously to
repeat the council's single most revolutionary statement concerning divine salvation. That statement is, of course, section
16 of the constitution on the church, Lumen gentium, which solemnly teaches that "Those who, through no fault of their
own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by
grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--these too may attain
eternal salvation." Dominus Iesus quotes Lumen gentium 15 and 17, but perplexingly overlooks section 16. Its authors, no
doubt, have no intention of insisting that salvation is entirely unavailable outside the church, but Lumen gentium 16 is too
historically momentous to be passed over in silence.
Section 16 is the most radical turnabout in ecumenical relations for five and one-half centuries. It is a stark counterpoint to
the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Florence-Ferrara (1442), which insisted that hell fire is the destiny of those who are
not received into the Catholic Church before their life's end.
In short, Dominus Iesus is something of a setback in Catholic teaching rather than an advance. Apart from neglecting
Lumen gentium 16, the declaration overlooks that religious pluralism is not a regrettable situation to be overcome, but an
unavoidable fact of reality. Dominus Iesus regards religious pluralism as a worrying phenomenon. Yet religious pluralism is
unavoidable because of the ineffability or complexity of God. Because God is illimitable, no historical reality can manifest the
full richness of God. Jesus Christ is not the complete revelation of God in history, but a partial manifestation of what God
may be like. Since Jesus is not the unveiling of the fullness of God in the world, other religions may have their say about
God's salvific nature. Even according to classical dogmatic theology, Jesus Christ is the enfleshment in history of the Second
Person of the Trinity. The fullness of the Trinity is not incarnate in Jesus. Consequently, there is more to God, so to speak,
than has been shown in Jesus Christ. God remains a Deus absconditus, a God who always escapes human attempts to
picture God.
Oddly, Dominus Iesus seems to slight some world religions apart from Christianity. It makes a distinction between
theological faith and belief. While theological faith is proper to the church, other religions merely enjoy belief (nos. 4 to 7).
Yet Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Abrahamic religions by definition. Christians, like Jews and Muslims, believe in
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore, the faith of Jews and Muslims is properly theological because it is given
to God. While Christians espouse a Trinitarian understanding of God, wherein the Second Person is the incarnation of a
passionate Logos unto death, their God nonetheless remains the God of Abraham.
The Catholic church of the Roman rite is one community where God might be espied. It may be better than many other
signs of divine redemption. It is unable, however, to control God and is therefore not the only possible nexus for divine-
human encounters. There is no place on this planet where God is unable to draw close to human beings, and no situation in
which people are incapable of glimpsing God's reality.
Philip Kennedy, O.P., teaches theology at the University of Oxford.

Cardinal Cassidy says 'Dominus Iesus' had 'negative impact' on ecumenism

http://www.cathnews.com/news/011/86.php
November 21, 2000 - In a candid exchange with students and faculty at The Catholic University of America in
Washington last Wednesday, the head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity said the recent Vatican
document 'has had a very negative impact' on ecumenical relations around the world but expressed confidence that the
harm can be repaired.
"We must try to rebuild bridges which have been a little bit damaged," said Cardinal Edward I. Cassidy in response to a
question about "Dominus Iesus," the document on the Catholic Church's role in salvation issued in September by the
Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. CNS 21-Nov-00

Press alleges Papal contradiction

But Vatican Clarifies Erroneous Interpretations of Pope’s Words
http://www.zenit.org/article-1?l=english
VATICAN CITY, December 7, 2000 (ZENIT.org) Several European newspapers published articles today saying that John
Paul II contradicted the "Dominus Iesus" declaration of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
At first it seemed to be a scoop, since the Pope had made it clear that he himself approved the document, which is signed
by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
The faulty press reports may have started with a brief dispatch Wednesday from the Italian ANSA agency. Entitled "The
Pope: All the Just, Including Nonbelievers, Will Be Saved," the article was what the agency reported on the Pontiff’s address
at the midweek general audience.
The second paragraph of the service stated that the papal affirmation contradicted the Vatican declaration. It read: "On the
contrary, 'Dominus Iesus', a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of Sept. 5, affirms that only in the
'one and universal' Catholic Church can there be salvation, causing critical reactions on the part of other religions and
stirring doubts about the Holy See's ecumenical will."
In order to clarify the misunderstanding, the Vatican Press Office published a statement today explaining that this "hurried
news results, in fact, from insufficient knowledge of the 'Dominus Iesus' declaration."
The Vatican statement noted that section number 20 of "Dominus Iesus," states: "For those who are not formally and
visibly members of the Church, 'salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious
relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is
accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is
communicated by the Holy Spirit.'"
The Vatican press statement concluded: "The teaching of the Second Vatican Council taken up by the Holy Father,
according to which those who are saved, even if they are not Christians, are saved by the grace of Christ, is precisely what
'Dominus Iesus' declares regarding the unique and universal character of Christ."
Moreover, the Pope's catechesis did not refer to salvation, but to collaboration between believers and nonbelievers in
building the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom of heaven.
The Kingdom of God, the Vatican statement clarified, "is the effective but mysterious action of God in the universe and in
the tangle of human events," adding that all "the righteous on earth, including those who do not know Christ and his
Church and who, under the influence of grace seek God with a sincere heart, are called to build the Kingdom of God,
cooperating with the Lord who is its first and decisive architect."
Nevertheless, major newspapers ran headlines containing affirmations which the Pope, in fact, did not make Wednesday
and which are not opposed to "Dominus Iesus."
Il Corriere della Sera, the Italian newspaper with the widest circulation, included a statement in quotation marks that the
Pope did not make: "Even the nonbeliever can be saved," the newspaper reported. While the statement is in line with the
Church's magisterium -- Vatican II's dogmatic constitution "Lumen Gentium" affirmed as much -- the Pope did not say it
Wednesday.

Even those who do not know Christ are called to build God’s reign, Pope says
VATICAN CITY (UCAN) December 8, 2000
Pope John Paul II has said that even people who do not know Christ and his Church are called to build the Kingdom of God.
Before more than 30,000 people at St. Peter's Square Dec. 6, he defined God's Kingdom as "the efficacious but mysterious
action of God in the universe in the tangle of human affairs." In his address on "Cooperation in the coming of the Kingdom
of God in the world," the pope described the citizens of the Kingdom as all those who have chosen the path of the
Beatitudes. These citizens are the "poor in spirit" or those who live unattached to material goods, people who accept
suffering with love, "the pure of heart who select the path of justice," and the just of the earth, the pope said. "Even those
who do not know Christ and His Church, but who under the influence of grace seek God with a sincere heart, are, then,
called to build the Kingdom of God, collaborating with the Lord, Who is its first and supreme Architect," said the head of the
Catholic Church.
The pope, however, stated that this universal call to the Kingdom of God does not dispense with the missionary activity of
the Church. On the contrary, he said, the call commits the Church to work even more to open up the door of the Kingdom
of which it is "seed and the beginning."
Pope John Paul's speech has received an immediate, strong and positive response in the European press in the aftermath of
strong criticisms of some Vatican documents, which were interpreted as an attempt to revive the old axiom: there is no
salvation outside the Church.
In September, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued "Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and the Salvific
Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," reaffirming that there is only one plan of salvation through Jesus and rejects
the idea of a more universal saving plan of the Spirit. The document insists that "there exists a single Church of Christ,
which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."

Dominus Iesus: The Document and the "Spin"

By Douglas Clark

http://www.usccb.org/education/catechetics/livlghtspr2001.shtml#clark

Headlines and editorial comments misled readers as to the purpose and content of Dominus Iesus.

Last fall's interminably long political season when "spin doctors" dominated the media also affected the press's
response to the Vatican document Dominus Iesus (On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the
Church). Secular papers as well as editors in the Catholic press could not avoid the issue of "spin," that is, adding a
subjective opinion to the reporting. One headline of the Washington Post (September 6, 2000) read, "Vatican
Claims Church Monopoly on Salvation," while the Los Angeles Times (September 7, 2000) ran the headline
"Salvation that Reopens the Door to Intolerance." No responsible editor of a Catholic newspaper, however, would
even consider spinning the news in the rather shameless way common to political flacks. But the challenge of
keeping the news objective is not limited to political reporting. A Catholic diocesan newspaper has the obligation to
report pronouncements of the Church's magisterium honestly and in such a way as to gain them a fair hearing even
when the message may be unpopular. The Catholic press's reporting of Dominus Iesus, issued September 5, 2000,
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is an excellent example of this editorial dilemma. In this essay I
describe how the Southern Cross, the newspaper of the Diocese of Savannah, Georgia, of which I am the editor,
handled the story, and I share some of the insights gained from the experience.

The first thing required when reporting on news that may be unpopular to many is accuracy. The Catholic News
Service (CNS) offered a clear précis of Dominus Iesus in its news releases, while Origins printed the full thirty-six-
page text. We at the Southern Cross decided to run the document as a front-page story in our September 16 issue.
Because the CNS release not only offered a fair and logical summary of the document but also included a range of
reactions from Catholic and other religious leaders, we decided to keep the CNS headline, "Vatican Document
Warns against Concessions to Religious Pluralism." This decision turned out to be fortunate for us, as one
neighboring diocese ran the story with its own headline, "Catholic Christianity Necessary for Salvation" (echo of
Pope Boniface VIII's doctrine "no salvation outside the Church"), a headline that caused an avalanche of complaints
that reached the diocesan bishop, who then felt obliged to write a column expressing his regret at the headline and
giving his own helpful exegesis of the document.

In the same Southern Cross issue, I penned an editorial entitled "Not Pride, but Humility," which gave my
interpretation of the document. I saw Dominus Iesus as a reiteration of the teachings of the Second Vatican
Council. I emphasized the parallel between the document's insistence on the unique saving role of Jesus and the
universal mission of the Catholic Church, and drew some implications of this parallel teaching:

When anyone, Christian or not, receives God's grace, he or she is receiving Christ, who is that grace, consciously or
not. If a Jew, a Moslem, or even a Hindu or a Buddhist outshines a professed Christian in the living out of the grace
received, it is to the Christian's shame.

Likewise, all baptized believers belong, to some degree, to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church;
theologically speaking, there is no other. But it should be noted that "denominational" Christians, whose
communities may lack one or more of the means of salvation abundantly present in the Catholic Church, may make
greater use of them in their journeys of faith than do some Catholics, again to the shame of the latter. Not pride
but humility prompts the Church to confess Jesus Christ as savior and herself as his gift.
I was pleased to notice that Pope John Paul II's own statement on the document (October 1) seemed to go in the
same direction.

The Southern Cross received its first letter to the editor on the topic of Dominus Iesus in time for its September 21
issue. It was a negative review of the document, but our policy is generally to print the letters sent to us. Although
written by a Catholic, the letter implied doctrine that was classically Protestant. It insisted upon justification by faith
alone and denied the necessity of the Church in salvation. I was certain that there would be rebuttals to this letter
—and they arrived in due course.

Because honest reporting is part of our mission, I thought it proper to include in the September 28 issue two news
briefs from CNS: "Jewish-Christian Dialogue Day Postponed after Jews Withdraw" and "German, Asian Reaction to
'Dominus Iesus' is Negative." In the September 28 issue, I also published two letters criticizing the document and
defending the negative review printed the week before: one was from a Catholic and the other was from a self-
described "left-of-center Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian." (Publishing these two letters led to some privately expressed
criticism from some of my brother priests regarding giving a forum to malcontents. I am convinced of the value of
such a forum and was certain that the other side would soon weigh in. I was not to be disappointed.)

Then, in the October 5 issue, Southern Cross featured a front-page CNS story on the Holy Father's comments on
Dominus Iesus, quoting him as saying, "Our confession of Christ as the one Son, through whom we see the face of
the Father, is not arrogance that shows contempt for other religions, but a joyful recognition that Christ revealed
himself to us without any merit on our part." Likewise, the pope added that when the document emphasizes the
Church's position that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, "it does not intend to express little
consideration for the other churches and ecclesial communities." On the contrary, he said, the "Catholic Church
suffers" to see that these other churches that contain "precious elements of salvation" have separated from the
Catholic Church. "Thus," John Paul continued, "the document expresses once again the same ecumenical passion
that runs through my encyclical, Ut unum sint (That All May Be One)." This October 5 issue published three letters
—all from lay people—that refuted the first negative review. These letters ranged from a gently worded point-by-
point critique of the review, to a more robust denunciation, and then to a complaint that our paper had printed the
letter in the first place. At this stage, I thought that it might be helpful to append the following editor's note to the
letters column:
 This note is to make it clear why we do not usually respond with an editor's note to the letters published in this
column. It is universally understood that letters to the editor do not necessarily represent the views of the editor or
publisher of a newspaper. Only editorials, signed or initialed by the editors or publishers, represent the views of the
newspaper. The editorial that appeared in the issue of September 16, accompanying the news story, represents the
paper's stance.
The next issue (October 12) ran a CNS news brief, "Cardinal Ratzinger Says He Was Saddened by Reaction to
Document," and three letters sharply critical of the now-notorious negative review and vigorously supportive of the
document. Finally, the October 19 issue ran the final two letters on the topic: the first advocated compassion in
ecumenical relations, and the second, by a priest, defended the document at some length. By now, the topic
seemed to have exhausted itself.

Meanwhile, other religious journals had weighed in on the question. America, in its October 28 issue, ran four
articles analyzing the meaning and intent of Dominus Iesus. Their editorial, "Ecumenical Courtesy," singled out a
few shortcomings of the document and highlighted the journal's concerns with the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith in general. The authors of two of the three feature articles also wrestled with the negative impact the
document could have upon ecumenical dialogue, though many of the authors' comments actually addressed issues
raised by Josef Cardinal Ratzinger's "Note," which accompanied the actual document. Finally, the fourth article, by
Francis X. Clooney, "Dominus Iesus and the New Millennium," cautioned readers about the document's treatment
of world religions.

The Tablet, in its November 18, 2000, issue, presented a dialogue between Eugene Fisher, associate director for
the National Conference of Catholic Bishop's Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, and Edward
Kessler, the executive director of the Centre for Jewish-Christian Relations. Though Fisher and Kessler had different
views of the document, both treated it respectfully. This type of dialogue, while not providing detailed summaries
or explanations of the document, allowed the debate occurring throughout the Church to be witnessed by the
readers. It also allowed the Tablet to present Dominus Iesus—and the fervor it caused—without staking out a
position of its own. A valuable point Fisher raised was that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was
reacting to particular theologians who were ignoring or denying soteriological positions asserted by Vatican II. The
theological context of this document must not be lost in its reading. Moreover, as Fisher claims in the Tablet
dialogue,

This document needs to be read within the context of the rest of the Church's magisterial teaching, of which it is a
part, but by no means the whole. It needs to be read tightly and technically. Read that way, it does not seek to add
anything new of substance to what the Catholic Church has been saying since the Second Vatican Council. (1556-
1557) Indeed, this same method of reading should apply to all magisterial documents.

What have I learned as a result of the Southern Cross's month-long coverage of this controversial document?
1. The secular press, not realizing that Dominus Iesus reiterated the teachings of the Second Vatican Council,
generally caricatured its author, Cardinal Ratzinger, as an inquisitor. Because the secular press
misrepresented the document's statements on the Church's teaching, the Catholic press needed to present
this teaching fairly and accurately.
2. The Catholic News Service proved a reliable source of information, thanks particularly to its Rome bureau
chief, John Thavis. Thavis' well-researched articles were so carefully arranged that paraphrasing them
rather than using them verbatim might have proven unwise, as the neighboring diocese found out when it
tried its hand at composing its own headline. The follow-up CNS news briefs and articles continued to
clarify Dominus Iesus' intent, while pointing out areas for possible misunderstanding or disagreement,
especially with its tone.

3. Providing a forum both for those critical and for those supportive of the document seemed (and still seems)
to be honest and fair. The letters to the editor helped identify the source of misunderstandings and the
points in Dominus Iesus that needed clarification. I also thought from the beginning that letters critical of
the document would be countered—more or less effectively—by the readership, as proved to be the case.

Does this kind of approach constitute "spin"? I do think that the CNS stories were extraordinarily accurate, even
scrupulously so, and do not fall into the category of "spin." I suppose that any editorial, by definition, consists of "spin," but
I would also claim that my editorial on the subject reflected my honest interpretation of the document and not some sort of
party line. If an occasion arose in which I could not in good conscience support a given document or statement editorially, I
would not pretend to do so, but would cede the editorial to someone who could. Finally, letter writers all had their own
"spins" on the issue. Ultimately, the variety of their letters and the preponderance of those supporting the document
justified our paper's providing them a forum.
Douglas Clark is the editor of the Southern Cross, the newspaper of the Diocese of Savannah, Ga.
This article originally appeared in The Living Light Spring 2001, Vol. 37, No. 3.

Online Course on Dominus Iesus and Novo Millennio Ineunte

http://www.zenit.org/article-1144?l=english
DENVER, Colorado, April 10, 2001 (Zenit.org) Two recent Church documents will be the focus of the Archdiocese of
Denver’s third online course, from May 11 through June 29.
Participants will study "Dominus Iesus," from the Congregation of the Doctrine for the faith, and its correspondence with
John Paul II’s most recent apostolic letter, "Novo Millennio Ineunte." The course aims to give insight to the Holy Father's
desire for Christian unity and commitment to interfaith dialogue.
The course is offered in cooperation with jonesknowledge.com. Cost for the five-week course is $55. Registration begins
April 20 through an online link with Jones.
The instructor will be Bill Beckman ([email protected]), adviser to Archbishop Charles Chaput and ecumenical and
interfaith officer for the archdiocese. Students will earn 12 hours credit (6 Christology and 6 ecclesiology) from the
archdiocesan Catechetical School.
The previous courses, "Understanding and Celebrating the Jubilee" and "The History and Documents of Vatican II,"
included students from across the United States and Australia. Beckman expects the new course to attract participants from
Europe and Latin America as well.

Ecumenism and Papal Primacy in Focus - Many Cardinals Thankful for "Dominus Iesus"
http://www.zenit.org/article-1472?l=english
VATICAN CITY, May 22, 2001 (Zenit.org) Ecumenical dialogue, Christian unity and papal primacy were at the heart of
speeches given by cardinals on the second day of their extraordinary consistory.
German Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, was among the cardinals gathered in
the Synod Hall who dedicated his 10-minute address to the topic of ecumenism.
"Unity is the challenge of the third millennium," he said, and ecumenism "the topic" of the times.
Cardinal Kasper said the Jubilee year offered prophetic signs in this regard, such as when the Pope, along with an Orthodox
archbishop and a Protestant leader, opened the holy door of the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls.
The cardinal acknowledged that while ecumenism experiences "evident resistance" and "obstacles" on the part of some
Christians, it has come a long way since the Second Vatican Council. He also said that interreligious dialogue has been
"accelerated" during John Paul II's pontificate.
Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro-Valls, briefing reporters on the closed-door meetings, said that many cardinals thanked
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for the publication of the "Dominus
Iesus" declaration.
That 2000 declaration clearly sets forth the unique and universal character of the salvation brought by Christ through his
Church. In their addresses, the cardinals suggested that this document be a guide, especially in interreligious dialogue.
Cardinals from the East offered new points of view on the debates posed by ecumenism.
Syrian Cardinal Ignace Moussa I Daoud, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Oriental Churches, underlined the
dynamism of Eastern Christians, for whom dialogue with other Christians is not a problem. The challenges they face, he
said, include realities such as anti-Christian violence, in countries like India.
Ukrainian Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, major archbishop of Lvov, explained that there is only one difference between Orthodox
and Eastern-rite Catholics in his land: the recognition of papal primacy.
Moscow Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II has said that the reason for differences between Rome and Orthodoxy is the existence
of these Eastern-rite Catholics. But Cardinal Husar said the opposite is true: Greek-Catholics should be the bridge between
the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. "We have their same liturgy and rite," he reminded his audience.
American Cardinal Avery Dulles addressed the topic of papal primacy and its importance for Church unity. The Jesuit
theologian said that some believe the issue of primacy creates a great ecumenical difficulty. But he contended that the
opposite is actually the case.

In fact, he said, the great problem of many Christian confessions today is that they do not have a sign of communion to
represent them, to give them unity. Many have no leader who can speak on their behalf with other faiths. The absence of
an authority also leads to divisions over doctrine and discipline, Cardinal Dulles pointed out.
Brazilian Cardinal Aloísio Lorscheider, archbishop of Aparecida, referred to the lessons to be drawn from the Jubilee year. In
an interview Monday with the Parisian newspaper La Croix, he said he would ask for greater decentralization in Church
government. But he did not mention the topic today.

The Asian Church in Dialogue with Dominus Iesus

http://sedosmission.org/old/eng/chia_2.htm, http://www.catholic.org.tw/cirpcu/Eng/acd.htm
By Edmund Chia, FSC* [email protected] March 2002 *[See also pages 108 through 124]
Introduction
The present paper is written in response to a request made by a Missionary Society wishing to know more about the Asian
Church in the context of interreligious dialogue. Specifically, the request reads: "We would like to know more about the
formal institutional response to dialogue, specifically the agreements and tensions that exist between what’s happening in
Asia on a regular basis and the statements coming out of Rome about dialogue". I am not exactly sure what was meant in
reference to "the agreements and tensions that exist" and also the part about "the statements coming out of Rome".
But, I would hazard a guess that in speaking of "the statements coming from Rome" it was probably in reference to the
recent Vatican Declaration Dominus Iesus, issued about a year and a half ago, since that has been the most talked-about
document in recent times. Thus, I have entitled my presentation as "The Asian Church in Dialogue with Dominus Iesus".
The presentation will then not only talk about dialogue but will also look at the dialogue between Asia and the Vatican, in
the context of Dominus Iesus. It is interesting that Dominus Iesus has become very much associated with Asia.
It is as if it were a document written specifically for the Church in Asia.

Ecumenical Reactions
However, for those who might have missed it, I think the most vociferous reactions came not from Asia, but from
peoples in the West, especially those from Europe and America. Also, the most critical and negative
comments were against what the document had written about the inter-Church relationship of ecumenism
and not what it had to say about interreligious dialogue. Hence, the reactions were more about issues such as
whether the Church continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, as Dominus Iesus has put it, or whether those who
have "not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharist" can be referred to as
Churches or should be relegated to what Dominus Iesus calls "ecclesia communities", or whether these Churches are by
nature "imperfect" or "suffer from defects", as Dominus Iesus suggests they do.
Hence, it was not surprising that the media’s reports, particularly in the West, had headlines such as "Catholics Are The
Best", "Catholics the Only Ones Who Will Be Saved", "Dominus Iesus Exalts Her Throne", "Not All In The Family", and "Kiss
of Death for Ecumenists". Moreover the statements which came from our Ecumenical partners, from George Carey, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Rev. Konrad Raiser, the General-Secretary of the World Council of Churches, had a note of
regret and disbelief. "What has happened to the 35 years of ecumenical dialogue?" was a question many of them asked. On
the part of the Catholics, of course, many bishops and cardinals had to do a lot of damage-control work. Cardinal Roger
Mahony, for example, had to reassure us that the dialogue will go on. Cardinals Edward Cassidy and Walter Kasper
regretted that the "tone and timing" were not appropriate. These reactions, coming from both outside as well as within the
Catholic Church, were so strong that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself was taken aback. In an interview published by a
German newspaper,1 Ratzinger said: "I would like to first of all express my sadness and disappointment at the fact that the
public reaction, with a few praiseworthy exceptions, has completely disregarded the Declaration’s true theme. The
document begins with the words 'Dominus Iesus’; this is the brief formula of faith contained in the First Letter to the
Corinthians (12:3), in which Paul has summarized the essence of Christianity: Jesus is Lord". The Cardinal then laments:
"The ecclesiological and ecumenical issues of which everyone is now speaking occupy only a small part of the document,
which it seemed to us necessary to write in order to emphasize Christ’s living and concrete presence in history".

Interreligious Reactions
This brings us, therefore, to the real intent of the document. If the ecumenical concerns occupied only a 'small part' of the
document, then for sure the 'big part' of the document had to do with the issues surrounding interreligious dialogue. There
was no camouflage on this, as far as Ratzinger was concerned. In fact, his primary thesis in the entire document was that
the spirit of "relativism" is not only dangerous but has become widespread as well. This, Ratzinger believes, is
on account of the liberal views postulated by theologians, especially those exploring the issues of interreligious dialogue. To
be sure, he specifically identifies Asia as the hotbed for these relativistic theories. Thus, it was necessary to
promulgate the document Dominus Iesus in order to reaffirm the Lordship of Christ, and to reiterate the main tenets of our
Christian faith. That was the professed aim of the document: to spell out in unambiguous terms, what can and must be
believed. In fact, Dominus Iesus used very strong language, such as, it must be "firmly believed" (nn. 9, 20), or we must
offer "full submission", or our response is the "obedience of faith" (n. 7), or that something is "contrary to the Catholic
teachings" (n. 12), etc.

Of course, I would be the first to grant that there is certainly nothing wrong with this. Every religious community is entitled
and even has the duty to reaffirm its own faith and reiterate teachings which serve to encourage greater discipleship. But,
the problem comes when the document begins to distinguish between the Christian religion as "faith in revealed Truth"
while other religions are regarded to have only mere "beliefs". Moreover, these beliefs are then said to be "still in search of
the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God" (n. 7). Also problematic is when the document describes other religions
as containing "gaps, insufficiencies and errors" (n. 8). However, it is when the document asserts unequivocally that "it is
also certain that objectively speaking [other religions] are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in
the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation"(n. 22), that a declaration of war on other religions seems to have
taken place. Unfortunately, such assertions cannot but evoke a situation where civilization is dichotomized into "we versus
they" or "us versus them". "We are the saved, and they are the unsaved", "we are the believers, they are the infidels",
"ours is the true faith, theirs is merely a belief". Such sentiments, I suppose many of us would agree, cannot but fuel the
"clash of civilization" which Samuel Huntington speaks about.
Thus, it is not surprising that even if the reactions from the peoples of other religions were few and far between, — mainly
because they don’t read our Church documents — those who did give feedback were generally very negative. Let us look at
a few responses from India. C.S. Radhakrishnan, a Hindu from Goa, lamented that the Vatican’s Declaration would probably
foster "unnecessary animosity and frivolous irritations". 2 Shiekh Jamal, a Muslim journalist from India, remarked that the
Dominus Iesus Declaration has a "language of antagonism", and therefore cannot be useful for dialogue. J.P. Singh, a Sikh
by religion, commented that the Document leaves "no room for other religions to exist" and simply goes against the Sikh
religious teachings which is unambiguous that the various religions are alternative routes to God.
The Indian media reports were no less critical. The Organizer, the mouthpiece of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, RSS
(National Volunteer Corps) which is linked to the nationalist BJP political party of India, said the Vatican Declaration filled
with "16th — century papal arrogance" is bound to create tension in pluralistic societies such as India. Suggesting that
Dominus Iesus goes against "the basic philosophy of the Indian constitution" that regards all religions to be equal, the
Organizer called on the Federal Government to launch a protest on the Vatican document as it "may cause communal
disturbance in the country".3 Such reactions, coming from a country which has seen a rise in anti-Christian violence
perpetuated by religious fundamentalists alleged to be associated with the RSS movement, is certainly a useful warning.

The Dialogue of the Pastoral Magisterium

In view of such negative reactions coming from peoples of other religions, the Church leaders and theologians of Asia were
quick to offer their own responses. If anything, these responses were more of a distancing of the Asian Church from the
Vatican document. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, for example, circulated a letter aimed at "toning
down" the Vatican’s Declaration.4 The introduction to the circular noted that Dominus Iesus was "hotly
debated" in India. As implied earlier, some of these debates could have led to catastrophic consequences,
especially given the Church’s minority status in predominantly Hindu India. Thus, the Bishops saw fit to
explicitly affirm the importance of Indian Catholics to remain patriotic and ensure the preservation of the
best of the local cultures and other religions, all of which, the Indian Bishops’ circular asserts, God uses as
instruments for salvation.
Fr Saby Vempeny, a scholar of Islam in India, compares the Declaration to the "fatwas" or religious edicts of
the Taliban.5 To be sure, it was a fatwa specifically directed against the Church in Asia, since they are the
ones most engaged in the activity of interreligious dialogue. Vempeny expressed fear that the document would be
used as proof that Christians are fundamentalists, and so deserves to be curbed, if not extinguished altogether.
Another priest, Fr Thomas Kuriakose, the former secretary of the Jesuit secretariat for dialogue in South Asia,
regretted that the Declaration appears insulting to those engaged in the mission of dialogue. His appraisal is that the
Vatican document seems to ignore the human and pastoral dimensions of interreligious dialogue, making it seem that the
authors of it are simply "not living in dialogue". 6 This sentiment was echoed by another Jesuit, Fr Sebastian
Painadath*, who asserted that "this document hasn’t grown out of lived experience". 7 Referring to Dominus
Iesus’ aloof and detached language, Painadath, who is founder-director of Sameeksha Ashram, a centre for
Asian spirituality in Kerala, said, "It is a Western 'desk experience'." *See pages 72, 73
Fr Bao Tinh Vuong Dinh Bich, a commentator on Church-society relations in Vietnam, intimated that Dominus Iesus would
present cultural problems for Vietnamese Catholics. Proposing that respect for the other’s culture is a basic value incumbent
upon followers of Jesus of Nazareth, he then observed that even if Jesus was an Oriental, "the magisterial apparatus of the
Catholic Church is located in Rome and its personnel are almost exclusively Westerners". 8 This accounts for the lack of
understanding on the part of the drafters of the document on sensitive cultural issues. Fr Bich then remarked, "If the
drafters of the Declaration Dominus Iesus had spent a few weeks in the Asian region where Catholics are mostly a minority,
they would have realized the cultural stakes brought about by the magisterial document that was written for the sake of the
Church". Xavierian Fr Franco Xottocornola, director of Tozai Shukyo Koryu, an interreligious centre in Japan, which he co-
founded with a Buddhist monk, resounded Bich’s comments by suggesting that Dominus Iesus has an "Occidental" tone.9
The "Oriental way", he continued, is more concerned about creation of "human relationship first as preparation for
dialogue". The importance of building relationships was similarly echoed in Indonesia at a seminar organized by the Widya
Sasana School of Philosophy and Theology in Malang.
Vincentian Fr Petrus Maria Handoko suggested that it was probably a conservative theologian afraid that the Catholic
Church was becoming too friendly with other religions who formulated Dominus Iesus.10

As is clear from the various voices which have just been highlighted, the response from the leaders of the Church in Asia to
Dominus Iesus was generally negative. In some instances, this negativity was not a negativity for the sake of criticism. To
be sure, they can be a matter of life and death. The already tense interreligious relations in some countries can certainly be
exacerbated by declarations such as these, which pronounce negative judgements upon other religions. Negative
judgements not only insult but can be lethal as well, thus inviting equally lethal reactions. For instance, they could be used
blatantly by peoples looking for an excuse to scapegoat Christians. Yes, the stakes are high, especially in places where
people are studying Church statements for the primary purpose of using them against the Christian community. For
example, when the Pope came to New Delhi in November 1999 to proclaim the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia
in Asia, he made a comment about wishing and hoping that in the third millennium a great harvest of faith would be reaped
in this vast continent of Asia. Shortly after, a very prominent Indian journalist-politician picked up that statement as proof
that the Catholic Church’s ultimate goal was to convert Asia to Christianity. Hence, because the Church is out to destroy the
Hindu and other religions, they ought to be stopped. He then brought out a book entitled, Harvesting Our Souls.
In view of these very sensitive and explosive reactions, when a group of bishops from Asia met for the
purpose of discussing the document Dominus Iesus, they issued a statement saying that in case the Vatican
was not aware of it, it is the local Churches which have to "bear the brunt" of any anger generated on
account of Vatican documents. They urged Vatican officials to be aware that in some countries "groups
inimical to Christianity are making use of Vatican documents to attack the Church and to build a climate of
suspicion and antipathy".11 In other words, it is all too easy for the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith to be promulgating documents while they themselves are hidden behind the protective walls of the Vatican, far
removed from local realities. But, it is the local Churches, some living more than 10,000 miles away from Rome, who will be
the ones having their churches burnt, nuns raped, and priests murdered. And, at times, the evangelistic and aggressive
tone of Church documents have given the excuse for such crimes. Thus, Dominus Iesus, as a document promulgated to
safeguard the Catholic faith could well be the very document used for the destruction of Christianity and the Church in Asia.

The Dialogue of the Grassroots Magisterium

Thus far, we have looked at how some of the leaders of the Church responded to Dominus Iesus. In a sense, it is the
response of the Magisterium of the Asian Church, or more appropriately, it is the response of the pastoral Magisterium of
the Church in Asia. We will now look at yet another Magisterium of the institutional Church — indeed, a much more
significant one at that — and see how they have responded to Dominus Iesus. In particular I am referring to the ordinary
laity, the Catholics on the streets of Asia, sometimes referred to as the grassroots Magisterium. This, we shall do, by
looking at data I collected from a questionnaire survey which I conducted over the past month. Because I am still receiving
a lot of responses, what I shall be sharing with you is therefore not the final analysis but a very basic and preliminary report
on data I already have in hand.
I had e-mailed this questionnaire survey to all my friends, and what I am using for the present analysis are responses from
180 Asian Catholics from countries as far West as Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka, to the East such as Indonesia and the
Philippines and up north to Korea, Japan and even China and Mongolia. This, therefore, can be regarded as the sensus
fidelium of the Church in Asia. Put another way, it is the instinct, the sixth sense or spiritual sense of the Catholic faithful,
the People of God, of the Church in Asia. Let me now delineate seven main themes which Dominus Iesus speaks about and
look at these in the context of the responses I received through the survey.
First, Dominus Iesus insists on the fullness and definitiveness of the revelation of Jesus Christ. The survey showed that out
of a total of 180 respondents, 174 (97%) believe that Jesus is God’s revelation, while only 130 (72% of the total
population) believe that he is indeed the "fullness" of God’s revelation. However, of these 130, 78 (43%) of the
respondents, while believing that the fullness and definitiveness of the revelation is given in Jesus Christ, also believe
that revelation is given elsewhere, for example in the other religions. Only 40 (22%) of the respondents who
believe in the fullness of Jesus’ revelation assert that this revelation is given "only" in Jesus and not
anywhere else. Whereas, 105 (58%) believe not so much in the "fullness" of Jesus’ revelation but that
revelation is given in Jesus as well as in the other religions.
Second, Dominus Iesus postulates the unicity and universality of the salvific mystery of Jesus Christ. The results of the
survey showed that out of a total of 180 respondents, 165 (92%) believe in Jesus as saviour for Christians. Of these, 158
(88%) believe in the universality of Jesus’ saviour-hood. However, only 93 (52%) believe that Jesus is the "only"
saviour for humankind, while 44 (24%) of the respondents believe in Jesus’ universality as well as the
possibility of other saviours for humankind.
Third, Dominus Iesus insists on the necessity of the Church for salvation, while at the same time stating that those who do
not belong to the Church can also be saved through the Church, even if it is not known how that happens. Ignoring the
apparent ambiguity these statements raise, the survey, nevertheless, showed that 149 (83%) of the respondents believe
the Church to be a means of salvation. However, only 70 (39%) of the respondents believe in the "necessity" of
the Church for salvation. Of these, however, 30 (17%) would rule out absolutely the possibility of salvation through
other religions, while 33 (18%) admit of that possibility while also holding on to the necessity of the Church for salvation.
More significant is that 91 (51%) of the respondents hold that the Church is indeed a means of salvation — albeit not
a necessary means — and at the same time hold that other religions could also be a means of salvation.

Fourth, Dominus Iesus asserts that those who are in the Church have the fullness of the means of salvation. 119 (66%) of
the respondents believe in the assertion, while 45 (25%) oppose it. The document then goes on to contrast this with the
followers of other religions who are regarded as being in a gravely deficient situation. Of the 119 respondents who believe
the first assertion that those who belong to the Church have the fullness of the means of salvation, 53 (29%) also believe
in this second assertion that the followers of other religions are indeed in a gravely deficient situation, while 40 (22%)
disagree with this second assertion.
Fifth, Dominus Iesus posits that the Church reserves the designation of inspired texts only to the Bible. Of the 180 total
respondents, 164 (91%) believe the Bible is inspired but only 47 (26%) would go as far as Dominus Iesus to insist
that the Bible is the "only" inspired text or sacred Word of God. Whereas, 79 (44%) accept the Bible as God’s
Word and at the same time accept the possibility of other sacred texts as God’s Word.
Sixth, to the question whether the one true religion exists in the Catholic Church, 168 (93%) of the respondents responded
in the affirmative. However, of these only 55 (31%) would assert that there can be no other true religion while
80 (44%) assert that there can be other true religions, just as Christianity is a true religion.
Seventh, of the 180 respondents, 168 (93%) agreed that the Catholic in Asia should be engaged in interreligious dialogue.

I will not attempt to analyze the results of the study at this point, but will only make some general observations and raise
some questions from the data of the survey. First, a cursory look at the data would suggest that the affirmations of faith
outlined in Dominus Iesus do not seem to be as firmly adhered to as Dominus Iesus might have expected or wanted it to
be. Thus, one would have to raise questions about the relevance of Dominus Iesus’ very strong language such as "it must
be firmly believed", "we must offer full submission", and "it is contrary to the Catholic teachings", if a significant percentage
of Catholics in Asia do not even seem to believe in its basic affirmations. Does it mean that these Catholics are not being
faithful to the Church’s tradition and does it mean they could be excommunicated or could it be that Dominus Iesus is just
not in touch with the lived reality of the people, especially those living in societies where religious pluralism is an existential
reality? Second, one would notice that many of the responses seem to display a sense of openness to complementarity or
the both-and option rather than the mutually exclusive either-or attitude. For example, 58% of the population accepts
the revelation in Jesus while being open to other revelations; 51% believe the Church to be a means of
salvation and at the same time believe that other religions could also be means of salvation; 44% of the 180
respondents accept the Bible as the Word of God while also accepting that there could be other scriptures
which are also God’s Word. This observation, therefore, raises questions about the nature of Church teachings — which
by and large are generally exclusive rather than inclusive — especially in the context of societies where there are other
religious teachings, which many Catholics are not only aware of but also subscribe to.
My next observations have to do with information received surrounding the survey research.
First, I found it interesting that many of the respondents sent me additional messages suggesting to the effect that this is
the first time they were seeing questions such as those used in the survey. Many also said they found it an interesting
study, even if they had never ever discussed such issues with others before. Some asked me why I was doing the study
and how I came up with such questions. My own conclusion from these inquiries is that most of them are
probably not aware of the document Dominus Iesus. If they were, they would certainly have recognized the issues
raised in the questions. A handful, of course, did recognize Dominus Iesus in the survey. But more important, this seems to
suggest that Dominus Iesus had not trickled down to the masses, the ordinary Catholics (lay as well as
Religious) in the dioceses and parishes. Perhaps the bishops who received the document did not deem it
important or necessary to pass it on to the laity and Religious. It was probably too complex or too technical
for bishops to want to disseminate it. Or, perhaps, the document was regarded as simply irrelevant to the
faith of Catholics in Asia. Whatever it was, it probably did not rank very high on the priority of the Church’s
pastoral programme, even if it was, in a sense, directed towards the Church in Asia. This observation, therefore,
raises questions for the theology of reception of Dominus Iesus in particular and Church teachings in general.
Another observation which strikes me as important is the fact that many of the respondents suggested they had never ever
discussed such issues before. Thus, it was something very new for most of the respondents. Nevertheless, they found the
questions very interesting and thought provoking. This may come as a surprise to many of us since religious pluralism is so
real in Asia. How can Catholics not be engaged in discussions about the impact of religious pluralism upon their faith? How
can they not have seriously thought about the meaning of their faith claims in the context of other religions? Is there
something gravely deficient in the theologies and catechisms which we are imparting to the common faithful? Or, could it
be that these issues — such as the possibility of salvation or revelation in other religions, or the question of whether Jesus
or the Church is universal or unique — are simply not relevant to the peoples in Asia. To be sure, many of these questions
have arisen in the West only in the last fifty years or so, on account of the rising pluralism in Western societies. But for us
here in Asia, religious pluralism has been present in societies for as long as we can remember. It is, in a sense, already
deeply ingrained in our psyche, thus they no longer pose as questions. Thus questions surrounding religious pluralism are in
a way irrelevant since they are regarded as givens in society. An analogy might help to illustrate this: Western societies in
the last fifty years or so have also seen an increase in the different types of cuisine. Thus, it is not uncommon to hear
someone say "today I had rice in the Chinese restaurant" or ask "how many times a month do you have rice for meals?"
However, if that same question was asked of us here in Asia, one would probably get a stare. It’s an irrelevant question.
We don’t ask such questions. It is a given. Everybody knows the answer and everybody’s answer would probably be the
same. This is because most Asians eat rice everyday, and several times a day too!

Having said that, it would still be important for us to look at the issues surrounding religious pluralism. Like it or not, Asian
Catholics cannot run away from the fact of their reliance, dependence and connectedness to Western and especially Roman
theologies. Until not so long ago, that was the only form of theology known to Catholics in Asia. Even if these theologies
may not be adequate for Asians to address issues of religious pluralism, they continue to be the only ones taught and
disseminated in many seminaries and formation houses throughout Asia even until today. Hence, at best, the Catholic in
Asia will probably not have any theological basis by which to make sense of her/his lived experience of religious pluralism.
At worst, s/he espouses a fundamentalistic view of religion and regards other religions as "gravely deficient", "insufficient",
or "in error". In this sense, faith is compartmentalized and has nothing to do with their lived experience of relations with
persons of other religions. Their exclusive Christian beliefs are confined to the church walls, while their lives are lived with
utter respect and love for not only their neighbours, spouses, children or parents who belong to other religions, but for their
religions and religious beliefs as well.
This, therefore, raises questions about the importance of a rethinking and/or reformulation of the Church’s teachings. The
teachings have to be relevant not only for the Catholic within the church walls, but outside of it as well. They have to teach
Christian doctrines which are at once authentically Christian as well as interreligiously sensitive. This simply means that
Church teachings can no longer be regarded as "in-house" teachings (as some proponents of Dominus Iesus suggested it
was), but must adequately address issues posed by religious pluralism as well. For this to happen, it is important that
Catholics in Asia be consciously engaged in discussions about religious pluralism. This not only helps clarify Church
teachings, but could also help in the evolution of a theological sense of the faithful in Asia. In a sense Catholics in Asia have
the responsibility and duty in helping to evolve a Christian theology more appropriately related to and in harmony with their
experience of religious pluralism. Such a theology must, with time, be integrated and adopted as a theology not only for
Christians living in Asia, but for all Christians throughout the world as well, since every community on the globe is becoming
more and more religiously pluralistic.

The Dialogue of the Theological Magisterium

This brings me to the final part of my presentation, namely, to discuss the response of the third Magisterium of the
Institutional Church, namely, the academic Magisterium of the theological community. As alluded to earlier, in general, the
response of the theologians of Asia to Dominus Iesus was mainly critical and negative. In fact, an entire issue of the
Jeevadhara* theological journal from India was dedicated to these responses. The various articles, written
by scholars from across Asia, dismissed Dominus Iesus for its incompatibility with the experience of Asian
Catholics with religious pluralism. *See pages 72, 73
Perhaps one of the most critical and at the same time hopeful responses came from Aloysius Pieris of Sri Lanka. One of
Asia’s foremost thinkers, Pieris spoke on Dominus Iesus when presenting a talk at the Ecumenical Institute for Study and
Dialogue in Colombo on 30 September 2000.12 Instead of discussing the Vatican Declaration, he chose to discuss the
background to how the Church operates and why a document such as Dominus Iesus was promulgated. Specifically, Pieris
looked at the Vatican Declaration in the context of the renewal of the Second Vatican Council and the concomitant
"ecclesiastical politics" surrounding the Council, and which continues until today.
Pointing out that the "dynamics of the movement and counter-movements" within the Church today has its roots in the
Second Vatican Council, Pieris then reminds us that Vatican II was a "renewal" Council and not so much a "reform" Council.
A "reform" Council, Pieris suggests, would be a "controlled and graduated process of change that keeps the institutional
set-up of the Church intact".13 Thus, reform is a "top-down" process, or change evoked from the "Centre" moving out
towards the "Periphery". The First Vatican Council and the Council of Trent were reform Councils. The Centre — more
specifically the Vatican Curia — issues decrees or procedures and the local Churches, or the Periphery, implements them.
Change is smooth, predictable and well-managed. A "renewal" Council, on the other hand, is a movement in the opposite
direction. "It irrupts from below and works its way up to the top volcanically", remarks Pieris. Renewals are initiated mainly
by those at the peripheries "where fresh and new ideas flow in more freely than in the Center of the establishment". Pieris
further elaborates it as follows:
"Renewalist currents that begin to whirl in the margin of the church surge into centripetal waves that dash on the fortified
ecclesiastical structures. The resistance at the Center is inevitable. Yet, there is a gradual transformation to which the
Centre has to yield".14
The first irruption from the Periphery, as is well known, was that which irrupted in Latin America. We are probably quite
familiar with the rise of liberation theologies in the 1970s and 1980s and the subsequent assault on it by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, resulting in the investigation of theologians such as Gustavo
Gutiérrez, Jon Sobrino, and the silencing of Leonardo Boff. Then, with the appointment of conservative
bishops to head the Latin American Church, liberation theology was more or less arrested.
If there is any doubt as to whether liberation theology had been arrested, an address by Cardinal Ratzinger to the
presidents of the Doctrinal Commission of CELAM held in Mexico in May 1996 will clear such doubt. 15 Ratzinger begins his
speech by saying that "in the 1980s, the theology of liberation in its radical forms seemed to be the most urgent challenge
for the faith of the Church". He then went on to assert that the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe "turned out to be a
kind of twilight of the gods for that theology of redeeming political praxis". As is crystal clear, this 1996 statement was in
reference to liberation theology and more or less represents the final nail into its coffin. In a way, an era of campaign in the
CDF’s history had closed. Liberation theology no longer posed an urgent challenge for the faith.

However, if this 1996 address ended the war of the CDF against Latin America, it was in this very same address where the
CDF’s guns were turned and pointed in the direction of Asia. For, in that same address in Mexico, Ratzinger also said that
"relativism has thus become the central problem for the faith at the present time". Getting straight to the point, Ratzinger
then remarked that "the so-called pluralist theology of religion has been developing progressively since the 1950s.
Nonetheless, only now has it come to the centre of the Christian conscience". Aiming his guns even more pointedly,
Ratzinger continues: "On the one hand, relativism is a typical offshoot of the Western world and its forms of
philosophical thought ... on the other it is connected with the philosophical and religious institutions of Asia
especially, and surprisingly, with those of the Indian subcontinent".
Thus, when Dominus Iesus was issued, it came as no surprise that many suspected the targets were the
theologians from Asia in general and India in particular. Aside from Ratzinger’s specific mention of the
"negative theology of Asia" in his introductory comments, a statement by Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the President of the
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, was also revealing. Cassidy, in appealing to Jewish leaders who had decided
to boycott a Judeo-Christian function on account of the insensitive posture taken by Dominus Iesus, tried to explain: "The
text is not directed to the ecumenical and interreligious realm, but to the academic world". Cassidy then hit
the nail on the head when he continued, "Above all, it was directed to theology professors of India, because in
Asia there is a theological problem over the oneness of salvation". 16 It seems rather clear, therefore, that in the eyes
of the Vatican, Asia is the "problem", and hence the need for a document such as Dominus Iesus.
However, if Dominus Iesus was directed at Asian theologians, it is but merely a single event in an overall scheme of many
phases aimed at arresting the development of theologies of religious pluralism in Asia. We are probably aware of the
various cases in which Asian theologians have been investigated in the past years since Ratzinger’s 1996 address. Three
cases stand out as most significant for the Church in Asia. The first is the case of the Sri Lankan O.M.I. priest, Tissa
Balasuriya, who, after several years of investigation, was excommunicated in January 1997, only to be reinstated a year
later after intense protests from all quarters both of peoples inside as well as outside of the Church. The second case was
that of the Indian Jesuit Anthony de Mello, who died in 1987. Nevertheless, this did not prevent his works from being
condemned posthumously more than ten years later. Because a dead man cannot defend himself, he remained castigated,
when the CDF issued a "Notification Concerning the Writings of Fr Anthony de Mello" in June 1998. The third case is that of
Jacques Dupuis, a Belgian Jesuit, who had served more than three decades in India. A much respected scholar, very
much identified with Indian and Asian theology, Dupuis’ investigation, which began in September 1998, came as a surprise
to many since he had always been regarded as mainstream and cautious in his theologizing. If not for the insistent defense
put up by Dupuis and his Superiors, he would have been regarded as having committed serious theological errors. In the
end, however, he was vindicated in January 2001, but not without having at least to admit to the possibility of leading
others to err.
Hence, it is in the context of all these investigations that Aloysius Pieris suggests he was more or less expecting a document
such as Dominus Iesus. The Vatican Declaration is but the Centre’s response to the various "irruptions" happening at the
peripheries. Irruptions can by no means be gentle, pleasant, or welcome. If anything, irruptions are chaotic, abrasive and
unsettling. Thus, fear, worry and trembling amidst irruptions are anticipated and even understandable responses. Dominus
Iesus seems to reveal that the authors are fearful of the irruption which goes by the name of the theology of religious
pluralism. The Centre’s response is thus adamant, firm and unyielding. That Dominus Iesus used such strong language —
"to be firmly believed", "definitive and complete", "contrary to the Church’s faith", "required to profess", "full submission",
etc. — seems to suggest that the irruptions from the Periphery must have been equally strong. In a sense, Dominus Iesus
is more or less a verification that the irruptions coming from the Periphery are valid and flowing according to the design of
the law of natural social processes. Put another way, Dominus Iesus is the inevitable resistance to the renewalist currents
coming from Asia, where religious pluralism is an existential reality. This, of course, is nothing more than the dialectics of
change. The fresh and new ideas whirling in from Asia are evoking a backlash from the Roman Centre. This process will
continue for a while until such time as the Center is ready to yield. It is in this context that one sees the hope which Dominus
Iesus seems to be generating: hope that the Vatican II renewal in the area of the Church’s relations with other religions is
slowly but surely being effected in the Church, in which the most significant players can be found in the Church in Asia.
Conclusion
Thus, by way of conclusion, I would suggest that theologians in Asia ought to rejoice at the promulgation of Dominus
Iesus, since through the document, their works have not only gained recognition, but affirmation as well. Asian theologies
of religious pluralism, have, in a sense, arrived at maturity. Dominus Iesus, therefore, ought to be more fully appreciated by
the Church in Asia. It is, after all, a document issued specifically for Asia, even if it was not intended to affirm but to
condemn. Whatever it is, the Asian interpretation of it is probably most relevant and truth revealing. Since the main issues
in Dominus Iesus are about truth and truth claims, let me conclude appropriately with a story from Anthony de Mello.
However, before I share that story with you, I will have to read the Notification which the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith issued on de Mello’s work. So, please be warned that the following story "is incompatible with the Catholic faith
and can cause grave harm!" The story goes that there was once a parachutist who was blown off course from where he
was supposed to land. Unfortunately, he ended up caught on a tree and hung up there until a gentleman passed by. The
parachutist shouted: "Sir, can you help me?" The gentleman replied, "Sure, but please tell me what happened first". The
parachutist told his story and then asked, "And, can you please tell me where I am?" The gentleman replied, "Sure, you are
up on a tree". The parachutist replied, "Thank you. By the way, you must be a theologian". The gentleman was stunned,
taken aback, scratched his head, and then said, "In fact I am. But, how did you know?" The parachutist replied, "Well Sir,
what you said is absolutely true. But, it is totally useless".

Notes
1 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, "Answers to Main Objections against Dominus Iesus", in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
republished in L’Osservatore Romano (22 November 2000) p.10, [Text also available at http://www.ewtn.com/].
2 "Indians of Various Religions Shocked over 'unnecessary' Vatican Document", Union of Catholic Asian News, UCAN (19
September 2000), [http://www.ucanews/].
3 "Media Say Vatican Document Threatens Dialogue, Communal Peace", UCAN (3 October 2000).
4 "Bishops Note Room for 'Theological Inquiry' in Toning Down Dominus Iesus", UCAN (3 May 2001).
5 "Some Church People Regret Vatican Language, Others Justify Recent Declaration", UCAN (14 September 2000).
6 Ibid.
7 "Kingdom Values are Core of Church Mission in 21st Century", UCAN (4 January 2001).
8 "Dominus Iesus Brings Cultural Tension for Vietnam Catholics", UCAN (18 September 2000).
9 "Japanese Indifferent to Dominus Iesus, Theologian Regrets Western Approach", UCAN (5 October 2000).
10 "Theology Institute Initiates Public Discussion on Dominus Iesus", UCAN (29 December 2000).
11 "Bishops Call for Episcopal Solidarity, Collegiality to Avert Interreligious Crises", UCAN (10 September 2001).
12 The paper of this talk is published in East Asian Pastoral Review, Vol. 38 (2001),
[http://eapi.topcities.com/eapr001/pieris.htm].
13 Ibid. 14 Ibid.
15 Cardinal Ratzinger, Relativism: The Central Problem for Faith Today , Address delivered during the meeting of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the presidents of the Doctrinal Commissions of the Bishops’ Conferences of
Latin America (Guadalajara, Mexico, May 1996), [http://www.ewtn.com/library]. All of Ratzinger’s comments in this section
are from this source.
16 ZENIT: The World Seen From Rome, 26 September, 2000 [http://www.zenit.org].
 
New Guide puts “Dominus Iesus” in perspective
Book Explains Declaration on Salvific Event of Jesus and His Church
http://www.zenit.org/article-4249?l=english
VATICAN CITY, April 24, 2002 (Zenit.org) The Vatican Press has just published a book to enrich readers’ understanding of
"Dominus Iesus," one of the Church’s most debated documents in recent years. "Dominus Iesus" is the August 2000
declaration on the unique and universal character of the salvation brought by Jesus and his Church.
The volume "'Dominus Iesus' Declaration: Documents and Studies," which is only available in Italian for now,
addresses the objective by including the declaration’s full text as well as a series of articles.
The book’s introduction is by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which published the declaration.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the congregation’s prefect, wrote the prologue on the context and meaning of the 2000
document.
The volume includes articles by prestigious theologians and ends with the congregation’s "Notification" on Father Jacques
Dupuis’ book "Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism," including a commentary that appeared in L’Osservatore
Romano.
The introduction explains that the doctrinal relevance and ecclesial importance of "Dominus Iesus" are "certainly
undebatable, not only because of the subjects analyzed, which constitute the principal nucleus of the Catholic faith," but
also because of their importance in the current theological debate.
"Unfortunately, at present there are widespread ideas and erroneous or confused opinions regarding the
doctrine on the unique and universal character of the salvific event of Jesus Christ, and on the unity and
indivisibility of the Church, which tend to play down the revelation of Christ," the text explains.
Hence, the temptation arises to "play down the necessity of the Church of Christ as universal sacrament of salvation and to
consider the unity of the Church, not as an existing reality, but only as an objective to attain in the future."
Thus, the declaration and the notification that the Vatican congregation published on Father Dupuis’ thesis "are not
conceived to stymie healthy theological research, much less so to weaken and play down ecumenical and interreligious
dialogue." "Rather, they offer a contribution of magisterial value so that, increasingly, the identity of Catholic doctrine and
of Christian life is better perceived and accepted by all the Catholic faithful, as the permanent and irreplaceable foundation
of all authentic and genuine dialogue," the introduction to the volume explains.
The theology of religious relativism and the culture of relativism are having many consequences, the book states. The main
one "is the essential rejection of the identification of the individual historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, with the very reality
of God, of the living God," Cardinal Ratzinger writes.
Other consequences are: a "mistaken idea" that "the religions of the world are complementary to the Christian
revelation"; denial of the absolute necessity of the Church, and of its dogmas and sacraments; and the
transformation of (ecumenical and interreligious) dialogue into the "ideology of dialogue," which "replaces
the mission and urgency of the call to conversion."
Outstanding among the theological articles included in the book on the Christological and ecclesiological contents of
"Dominus Iesus" are those of Angelo Amato and Fernando Ocariz, respectively. The "Fullness and the Definitive Character
of the Revelation of Jesus Christ," is addressed by Bishop Rino Fisichella. "The Incarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit in the
Work of Salvation" is the title of Luis Ladaria’s article. Donato Valentini explains the question of "The Uniqueness and Unity
of the Church," Nicola Bux studies "Truth, Church and Salvation," and Mariasusai Dhavamony focuses on "The Church and
Religions in Relation to Salvation."

Cardinal Ratzinger on why it’s not time for Vatican III

Also Discusses Interreligious Dialogue, and Fallout from "Dominus Iesus"
http://www.zenit.org/article-5987?l=english
MURCIA, Spain, December 4, 2002 (Zenit.org) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger thinks it's too early to talk about a Third Vatican
Council. The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith shared this view, and others, in a wide-ranging
interview with journalists last weekend. He was in Spain for the congress "Christ: Way, Truth and Life," at the Catholic
University of St. Anthony. The first parts of this interview appeared Sunday and Tuesday.
Q: It has been said that it is necessary to convoke a Vatican III so that the Church will adapt to the new times. What do
you think?
Cardinal Ratzinger: First of all, I would say it is a practical problem. We have not implemented sufficiently the legacy of
Vatican II. We are still working to assimilate and interpret this legacy, as vital processes take time. A technical measure can
be applied rapidly, but life has paths that are much longer. Time is needed to grow a forest; time is needed for a man to
grow.
Thus, these spiritual realities, such as the assimilation of a council, are ways of life, which have need of a certain duration
and cannot be completed from one day to the next. That is why the time has not yet arrived for a new council.
This is not the primary problem, but it would also be a practical problem: We had 2,000 bishops for Vatican II, and it was
already extremely difficult to have a meeting of dialogue. Now, we would have 4,000 bishops, and I think we would have to
invent technique for dialogue.
I would like to recall something that happened in the fourth century, a century of great councils. When, 10 years after a
council, St. Gregory Nazianzen was invited to participate in a new council, he said: "No! I'm not going. Now we must
continue to work on the other one. We have so many problems. Why do you want to convoke another one immediately?" I
think that this somewhat emotional voice demonstrates that time is required to assimilate a council.
In the time between two great councils, other forms of contact are necessary among the episcopates: the synods of Rome,
for example. Without a doubt, it is necessary to improve the procedure, because there are too many monologues. We must
really find a synodal process, a common way. Then there are the continental, regional, etc., synods, the effective work of
the episcopal conferences, the meetings of episcopal conferences with the Holy See.
In the course of five years, we [in the Roman Curia] see all the bishops of the world. We have improved these visits "ad
limina" a lot, which before were very formal and now are genuine meetings of dialogue. Therefore, we must improve these
instruments in order to have a permanent dialogue among all the areas of the Church and among all the areas of the Holy
See, to achieve a better application of Vatican Council II. And then, we will see ...
Q: How can one maintain fidelity to the Church and favor communion, while remaining open to the Spirit to lead us to the
fullness of truth? In other words, how is it possible not to fall into the extremes of rigidity or rupture?
Cardinal Ratzinger: I think that it is, above all, a question of the maturity of personal faith.
To all appearances, fidelity and openness seem to exclude one another. However, I think that authentic fidelity to the Lord
Jesus, to his Church, which is his Body, is a dynamic fidelity. The truth is for everyone, and all are created to go to the
Lord. His open arms on the cross symbolize at the same time for the Church Fathers maximum fidelity -- the Lord is nailed
to the cross -- and the embrace of the world, to attract the world to himself, and make room for all.
Therefore, an authentic fidelity to the Lord participates in the dynamism of the person of Christ, who can open himself to
the different challenges of reality, of the other, of the world, etc. However, at the same time, he finds his profound identity
there, which does not exclude anything that is true; it only excludes falsehood.
To the degree that we enter into communion with Christ, in his love that accepts all of us and purifies all of us, in the
measure in which we participate in communion with Christ, we can be faithful and open.
Q: What is the present state of the ecumenical communication of the concept of Church? In the wake of the instruction
Dominus Iesus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, there were criticisms among the representatives of the
evangelical churches, because they did not accept or did not understand well the statement that, rather than churches,
they should be considered as Christian communities.
Cardinal Ratzinger: This topic would call for a long discussion. In the first place, we were told that if in "Dominus Iesus"
we had only spoken about the unique character of Christ, the whole of Christianity would have been delighted with this
document, all would have joined in applauding the congregation. "Why did you add the ecclesiological problem that has
resulted in criticisms?" we have been asked.
However, it was also necessary to talk about the Church, as Jesus created this Body, and he is present
throughout the centuries through his Body, which is the Church. The Church is not a hovering spirit.
I am convinced that we [in "Dominus Iesus"] have interpreted Vatican II's "Lumen Gentium" in a totally
faithful manner, while in the last 30 years we have increasingly attenuated the text. In fact, our critics have said to us
that we have remained faithful to the letter of the council, but we have not understood the council. At least they
acknowledge that we are faithful to the letter.
The Church of Christ is not an ecumenical utopia; it is not something we make; it would not be the Church of Christ. This is
why we are convinced that the Church is a Body, it is not just an idea, but this does not exclude different ways of a certain
presence of the Church, even outside the Catholic Church, which are specified by the council. I think it is evident that they
exist, in so many hues, and it is understandable that this generates debates within the Church.
Q: Do you think that the Church, especially in the Western world, is prepared to address de-Christianization and the great
void that is left? Or is there still among the men of the Church a vision of Christianity, and not of a missionary Church?

Cardinal Ratzinger: I think that in this connection, we have much to learn. We are too concerned with ourselves, with
structural questions, with celibacy, the ordination of women, pastoral councils, the rights of these councils [and] of
synods ...We always work on our internal problems and we do not realize that the world is in need of answers; it does not
know how to live. The world's inability to live properly is seen in drugs, terrorism, etc. Therefore, the world is thirsty for
answers -- and we remain with our problems.
I am convinced that if we go out to meet others, and we present the Gospel to them in an appropriate way, even our
internal problems will be relativized and resolved. This is a fundamental point: We must make the Gospel accessible to
today's secularized world.
Q: What do you think is the starting point to coordinate the growth of humanity's technical and scientific power with faith
and morality?
Cardinal Ratzinger: It is something that must be rediscovered, because the scientific models change; hence, the situation
of dialogue between science and faith is faced with new challenges.
An important instrument, for example, is the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, of which I am now also a member and, in fact,
a short while ago I participated for the first time in one of it meetings.
To date, it was only an assembly of scientists -- physicists, biologists, etc. Now, philosophers and theologians have also
joined. We have seen that dialogue between the sciences and philosophy and theology is difficult, because they are totally
different ways of addressing reality, with different methods, etc.
One of these academics -- he was a specialist in human brain research -- said, There are two irreconcilable worlds; on one
hand we have the exact sciences for which, in their field, there is no freedom, there are no presence of the spirit and, on
the other hand, I realize that I am a man and that I am free.
Therefore, according to him, they are two different worlds -- and we do not have the possibility to reconcile these two
perceptions of the world. He himself acknowledged that he believed in the two worlds: in science that denies freedom, and
in his experience of being a free man.
However, we cannot live in this way; it would be permanent schizophrenia. In this present situation of acute methodological
specialization on the part of both approaches, we must seek the way in which one discovers the rationality of the other, and
develop a genuine dialogue.
For the time being, there is no formula. This is why it is extremely important that proponents of the two approaches of
human thought meet: the sciences, and philosophy and theology. In this way, they can discover that both are expressions
of authentic reason. But they must understand that reality is one and that man is one.
This is why it is very important that in universities and faculties they not be distinct disciplines separated from one another,
but in permanent contact, in which we learn to think with others and to find the unity of reality.

Papal address to Indian bishops of Bangalore, Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam

Interreligious Dialogue Does Not Replace the Mission, He Says
http://www.zenit.org/article-7703?l=english
VATICAN CITY, July 3, 2003 (Zenit.org) Address John Paul II delivered today to bishops of the Indian episcopal conference
of the … [above] … ecclesiastical provinces whom he received at the end of their five-yearly visit to the Holy See.
Dear Brother Bishops,
1. In the grace and peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ I cordially welcome you, the Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Provinces of
Bangalore, Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam, and make my own the greeting of Saint Paul: "I thank my God through Jesus
Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world" (Rom 1:8). In particular I thank Archbishop Pinto for
his good wishes and kind sentiments offered on your behalf, which I warmly reciprocate, and I assure you and those
entrusted to your care of my prayers. Your visit ad Limina Apostolorum expresses the profound communion of love and
truth which unites the particular Churches in India with the Successor of Peter and his collaborators in the service of the
universal Church. In "coming to see Peter" (Gal 1:18) you thus confirm your "unity in the same faith, hope and charity, and
more and more recognize and treasure that immense heritage of spiritual and moral wealth that the whole Church, joined
with the Bishop of Rome … has spread throughout the world" (Pastor Bonus, Appendix I, 3).
2. To bear witness to Jesus Christ is "the supreme service which the Church offers to the peoples of Asia" ("Ecclesia in
Asia," 20). Living with many people who do not know Christ convinces us ever more of the need for the missionary
apostolate. The radical newness of life brought by Christ and lived by his followers awakens in us the urgency of missionary
activity (cf. "Redemptoris Missio," 7). This demands an explicit proclamation of Jesus as Lord: a bold testimony founded on
his command -- "go and make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:19) and sustained by his promise -- "I am with you always"
(Mt 28:20). Indeed it is in fidelity to the threefold mission of Christ as Priest, Prophet and King that all Christians, in keeping
with their baptismal dignity, have a right and duty to participate actively in the missionary endeavors of the Church (cf.
"Redemptoris Missio," 71).
The call for a new evangelization and renewed missionary commitment which I have addressed to the whole Church
resounds just as clearly for your ancient Christian communities as it does for your newest. While the initial evangelization of
non-Christians and the continuing proclamation of Jesus to the baptized will highlight differing aspects of the same Good
News, both stem from a firm commitment to make Christ ever more known and loved. Such an obligation has its sublime
origin in the "fountain-like love" of the Father made present in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit (cf. "Ad Gentes,"
2). All Christians are thus drawn up into Christ's impelling love, of which "we cannot but speak" (Acts 4:20), as the source
of the hope and joy that marks us.

3. A correct understanding of the relationship between culture and Christian faith is vital for effective
evangelization. On your own Indian subcontinent you are faced with cultures rich in religious and philosophical traditions.
Within this context, we see how absolutely essential is the proclamation of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Son of God. It is in
this understanding of Christ's uniqueness as the second person of the Blessed Trinity, fully God and fully man, that our faith
must be preached and embraced. Any theology of mission that omits the call to a radical conversion to Christ
and denies the cultural transformation which such conversion will entail necessarily misrepresents the
reality of our faith, which is always a new beginning in the life of him who alone is "the way, and the truth,
and the life" (Jn 14:6). In this regard, we reaffirm that interreligious dialogue does not replace the "missio
ad gentes" but rather forms a part of it (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration "Dominus
Iesus," 2). Similarly, it must be noted that relativist explanations of religious pluralism, which state that the
Christian faith is of no different value than any other belief, in fact empty Christianity of its defining
Christological heart: faith alienated from our Lord Jesus, as the only Savior, is no longer Christian, no longer
theological faith. An even greater misrepresentation of our faith occurs when relativism leads to syncretism:
an artificial "spiritual construct" that manipulates and consequently distorts the essential, objective,
revelatory nature of Christianity. That which renders the Church missionary by her very nature is precisely the
definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God (cf. "Dei Verbum," 2). This is the
foundation of our faith. It is this which makes Christian witness credible. With joy and humility we must welcome the duty
that "we, who have received the grace of believing in Christ, the revealer of the Father and the Savior of the world, have to
show to what depths the relationship with Christ can lead" ("Novo Millennio Ineunte," 33).
4. Dear Brothers, your quinquennial reports give ample evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit vivifying the missionary
dimension of the Church's life in your Dioceses. Notwithstanding the obstacles encountered by people -- especially the poor
-- who wish to embrace the Christian faith, adult baptisms are numerous in much of your region. Equally encouraging is the
high percentage of Catholics who attend Sunday Mass, and the increasing numbers of laity properly participating in the
liturgy. Such examples of the ready acceptance of God's gift of faith also indicate the need for the diligent pastoral care of
our people. Responding to the aspiration for a new impetus in Christian living, I have stated that we must remain firmly
focused on the plan already found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition which has its center in Christ himself (cf. ibid.,
29).
The reason to develop pastoral initiatives adapted to the social and cultural circumstances of your communities, yet firmly
rooted in the uniqueness of Christ, is clear: "What we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord with ourselves as
servants" (2 Cor 4:5). Far from being a matter of power or control, the Church's programs of evangelization and formation
are conducted in the belief that "every person has a right to hear the Good News of God who reveals and gives himself in
Christ" ("Ecclesia in Asia," 20). While there are many signs of dynamic ecclesial life in your provinces it is also the case that
challenges remain. A deeper appreciation of the Sacrament of Reconciliation will help to ready your people spiritually for the
task of "doing everything possible to witness to reconciliation and to bring it about in the world" ("Reconciliatio et
Paenitentia," 8). Similarly, our teaching of marriage as a sacred sign of the unfailing fidelity and selfless love of Christ for
his Church points to the invaluable worth of a comprehensive marriage preparation program for those readying themselves
for the sacrament and, through them, for society as a whole. Further, the festivities and devotions associated with the
many shrines dedicated to Our Lady in your areas, while attracting thousands of followers from other religions, must be
soundly incorporated within the liturgical life of the Church if they are to become a gateway to authentic Christian
experience.
5. In a world disfigured by fragmentation the Church -- as the sign and instrument of the communion of God with humanity
(cf. "Lumen Gentium," 1) -- is a powerful bearer of unity and the reconciliation which it entails. As Bishops called to
manifest and preserve the apostolic tradition you are joined in a communion of truth and love. Individually you are the
visible source and foundation of unity in your own particular Churches which are constituted after the model of the
universal Church. So, while it is true to say that a Bishop represents his own Church it is also necessary to recall that
together with the Pope all Bishops represent the whole Church in the bond of peace, love and unity (cf. ibid., 23).
In this regard, a Bishop must never be considered a mere delegate of a particular social or language grouping but must
always be recognized as a successor of the Apostles, whose mission comes from the Lord. The repudiation of a Bishop,
whether by an individual or a group, is always a transgression of ecclesial communion and thus a scandal for the faithful
and a counter-witness to the followers of other religions. Any spirit of antagonism or conflict -- always wounding the Body
of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 1:12-13) -- must be put aside and replaced with that practical and concrete love for every person which
arises from the contemplation of Christ.
6. I give thanks to God for the many indications of growth and maturity in your Dioceses. In addition to the often selfless
dedication of your priests, Religious and catechists, and the generosity of your own people, this development has also
depended upon the ministry of missionaries and the financial generosity of overseas donors. The "pooling of resources and
aspirations in order to promote both the common good and the good of individual churches" ("Christus Dominus," 36),
which has been practiced from Apostolic times, is an eloquent manifestation of the Church's nature as communion. Yet it is
also true to say that particular Churches, including those in countries of the developing world, should seek to build up their
own resources to promote local evangelization, and build pastoral centers and institutions of educational and charitable
works. To this end, I encourage you to further the considerable advances which you have already achieved with the laity
and in collaboration with Religious Institutes (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 222).

For your own part I urge you to set an unquestionable example by your impartiality in the stewardship of the communal
resources of the Church (cf. ibid., can. 1276; 1284). You must ensure that the administration of "goods ... meant for all"
("Sollicitudo Rei Socialis," 42) is never sullied by temptations to materialism or favoritism but is wisely undertaken in
response to the needs of the spiritually or materially poor.
7. Dear Brothers, it is a particular joy for me to share these reflections with you on this feast of the glorious Apostle Saint
Thomas, so venerated by your people. I again assure you of my prayers and support as you continue to shepherd in love
the flocks entrusted to your care. United in our proclamation of the saving Good News of Jesus Christ, renewed in the zeal
of the first Christians, and inspired by the steadfast example of the Saints, let us go forward in hope! In this Year of the
Rosary, may Mary, model of all disciples and bright Star of Evangelization, be your sure guide as you "seek to do what
Jesus tells you" (cf. Jn 2:5). Commending you to her maternal protection, I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you
and to the priests, Religious, and lay faithful of your Dioceses.

For the benefit of the reader who is interested in detail, I now reproduce a lengthy -- and
most illuminative -- article by a reputed Catholic writer, Sandro Magister, founder of
www.chiesa.
Disputed Questions – Like Salvation Outside of the Church
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/19632?eng=y
From Tokyo, an analysis of one of the most controversial points of John Paul II’s pontificate. Epicenter: Asia
16.7.2003 ROMA – To celebrate the 25th anniversary of John Paul II’s pontificate, cardinals from all over the world will
converge on Rome next October. The journalists who cover the Vatican, meanwhile, are traveling in the opposite direction.
From Rome, they are swarming to 25 cities on five continents to talk about the pope.
It’s an initiative of Italy’s foreign ministry. Sandro Magister was assigned Tokyo, a congenial city with his pre-selected
theme: the relationship between the Catholic Church and the great non-Christian religions, in particular those
of Asia. Here is the complete text of the conference address:

John Paul II and the Other Religions: From Assisi to "Dominus Iesus" by Sandro Magister
Tokyo, June 18, 2003
There are some events that John Paul II and he alone, has wished should take place. He has desired them and brought
them into being, for the first time in papal history and against the will of many members of the Church of his time -
cardinals, bishops, priests, and faithful. It is likely that no other pope will reproduce them, at least not in the same way.
He carried out the first of these very special events at Assisi on October 27, 1986. He called to his side representatives
from the most varied religions in the world and asked them to pray for peace - each to his own god. The multicolored
swath of religious men in Piazza San Francesco, with the pope among them dressed in white, was a potent symbol.
But it was a dangerous symbol as well. Even though the idea was far from John Paul II's intention, the
message that came out of this meeting, for many, was one of a kind of United Nations of faiths. It seemed to
speak of a multi-religious coexistence in which each faith was as good as the other, and among which the
Catholic Church took its place as an equal.
Years later, in fact, on August 6, 2000, Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger felt it their duty to
make a declaration that would act as an antidote to this relativistic poison. It was titled "Dominus Iesus,"
and it recalled a basic, fundamental Christian truth: that man finds salvation only in Jesus.
The declaration triggered an earthquake. From without, the champions of secularism accused the Church of
intolerance. From within, charges of anti-ecumenism sprang forth. This was a sign that "Dominus Iesus" had
pinpointed a real malady in the Church, one that was discovered in Assisi and that had its destabilizing
effects in Asia, and even more so in the Indian subcontinent. But let's take things in order.

Assisi, 1986
The first event on this rocky road was staged in 1986, in the town of Saint Francis. John Paul II made the announcement
on January 25, and the critical reactions came immediately, especially within the Vatican Curia. But the pope wouldn't be
bridled, and entrusted the management of the event to one of his trusted cardinals, one of the few who agreed with him on
this point, the French cardinal Roger Etchegaray, the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. The liturgical
aspect was handled by Virgilio Cardinal Noé, the previous papal master of ceremonies. The scenographic and organizational
aspects of the event were entrusted to the community of Sant'Egidio and the Focolare movement, both seasoned engineers
of media events and already at the center of an international network for relations with non-Christian religions.
On October 27, television stations all over the world broadcast the images of the event that the pope had so strongly
desired: pilgrimage, fasting, prayer, peace among peoples and religions. John Paul II even revived a medieval tradition by
invoking on that day a "divine truce," a halt in the use of arms on all war fronts throughout the world. It so happened that
practically no combatants paid attention, but the symbol outweighed reality, and the image of the pope praying with the
heads of so many different religions established itself as one of the most powerful signs of his entire pontificate.
But at the same time, critical reservations about the event were taking shape. The event in Assisi added fuel to the fire
through some of its more excessive gestures.
Some of the city's churches were allotted for the prayers of Buddhists, Hindus, and African
animists, as if these buildings were neutral containers, void of any indelible Christian value.
The Buddhists set up a shrine of Buddha on the altar of the local Church of Saint Peter. The
absence from Assisi of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect for the Vatican Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, was not improperly interpreted as the self-distancing of the cardinal who, by
his office, is the custodian of sound Catholic doctrine. The pope himself did not escape criticism.
There were those who recalled that in February of that same year, during his voyage to India, he
had given speeches of unprecedented openness toward that country's religions, and at Bombay
had even let a priestess of the god Shiva anoint his forehead with a sacred Hindu symbol. A few of
those who complained about this were Indian bishops. One of them, from Andhra Pradesh, said,
"The pope knows Hinduism from books, but we, who live with it and see the damage it does to our
good people, would never make certain speeches."

"Redemptoris Missio," 1990

John Paul II was aware of the criticisms. But that's not all - he welcomed and shared the deep meaning of the remarks
made by Ratzinger and others of similar stature. The pope confirmed this in an encyclical that he began to draft soon after
the meeting in Assisi, which would come to light in 1990: "Redemptoris Missio." As seen in its initial Latin words, the same
as those in the title, the theme of this encyclical is the evangelizing mission of the Church, as it obeys the command of the
Risen Jesus to His disciples, to go forth and teach and baptize all men, even unto the ends of the earth. As often happens,
this encyclical was not produced in a vacuum, but was given in response to a real or feared straying from the mark: a
stroke of the rudder by the successor of Peter to put the barque of the Church onto the right course.
The straying in question is, more specifically, the impoverishment of Catholic missionary vitality, its dilution into a vague
dialogue with other religions and cultures, or even worse, into a dialogue stripped of the will to proclaim the truth and to
solicit conversion to Christ, the only savior. In effect, beginning from the affirmation of the Second Vatican
Council in the decree "Nostra Aetate," according to which "the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is
true and holy in other religions,"* the period after the council saw the widespread approval of the idea of
transforming the missions into a simple commitment to foster the maturation of the "seeds of truth" present
in the various religions - in other words, to help the Hindu be a good Hindu or help the Muslim worship his
one God - as if these seeds were themselves distinct ways of salvation, independent of Christ and even more
independent of the Church. *#2
"Redemptoris Missio" decisively contrasts this "indifferent mentality, unfortunately widely diffused among
Christians as well, which is rooted in incorrect theological views marked by a religious relativism that leads
to the conviction that one religion is as good as another" (no. 36). The encyclical reaffirms the necessity and
urgency of proclaiming the Good News of Jesus. This means an explicit proclamation. It means a
proclamation made in the certainty that no other religion can save anyone apart from Christ, the only "way,
truth, and life." Few at the time noted the centrality of this encyclical in the teaching of John Paul II. But ten years later,
when the pope thought it necessary and urgent to return to these themes, many citations from this encyclical were used
emphatically in "Dominus Iesus," which reemphasized even more definitively than "Redemptoris Missio" that proclaiming
Christ to the nations is both unavoidable and irreplaceable.

The Asian Question

In 1994, John Paul II explained again his view of relations between the Catholic Church and non-Christian religions in his
book/interview entitled "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," published simultaneously in many languages.
The pope maintains that there are religions that are by nature "particularly close to Christianity," like the animist religions of
Africa, from which conversion to the Gospel can come more easily. But he formulates an opposite judgment concerning the
"great religions of the Far East": Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism. These "are of a systematic
character," and are thus far less penetrable. This explains why, in these regions, "the missionary activity of the Church has
born, we must acknowledge, very modest fruit."
But the pope dedicates most of his attention and concern to Buddhism. This religion, he says, "is, like Christianity, a religion
of salvation," but the doctrines of salvation contained in these religions are "contrary" to each other. Buddhism's
salvation is "negative," based upon the conviction that "the world is evil, and is the source of evil and
suffering for man," and that "to free oneself from this evil one must free oneself from the world." This does
not involve drawing nearer to God: "Complete detachment is not union with God, but the so-called 'nirvana,' or rather a
state of perfect indifference toward the world." Ultimately, "Buddhism is to a great extent an atheistic system,"
despite the fascination it exercises. "Thus it is not out of place to warn those Christians who open
themselves enthusiastically to certain proposals coming from the religious traditions of the Far East."
These unexpectedly harsh judgments that the pope expressed in regard to the religion of Buddha provoked protests among
Buddhists, but also among Catholic theologians in the avant-garde of dialogue with other religions. There were those who
thought John Paul II was retreating from the advances in dialogue made in Assisi. In reality, in the same chapter of his
book/interview, the pope recalled the interreligious encounter of 1986 in words that, if anything, might have suggested the
contrary suspicion. The "historic" meeting in Assisi, he said, had convinced him more than ever that "the Holy Spirit works
efficaciously even outside the visible organism of the Church." And "he works upon the foundation of the 'semina Verbi' that
almost constitute a common soteriological root among all the religions."
The Enigma of the 'semina Verbi'
To non-specialists, the preceding phrase may sound enigmatic. "Soteriological root" means the capacity for eternal
salvation. The "Verbum,' 'Logos' in Greek, is the Son of God made man in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, through
whom the world was made and by whom all men are saved. As for the 'semina Verbi,' 'the seeds of the Word,' this is a very
ancient expression, coined by Justin Martyr c. 150 A.D., which returned in the documents of the Second Vatican Council to
designate whatever is "true and holy" even in the non-Christian religions.
To be precise, according to the early Fathers of the Church, including Augustine, the 'seeds of the Word' do not fecundate
the pagan religions, of which the Fathers give an extremely negative judgment; they are rather to be found in Greek
philosophy and the wisdom of the poets and the sibyls. But in its modern version, the formula is applied precisely to the
non-Christian religions, with two meanings. The first meaning is that of the Second Vatican Council, in which the 'semina
Verbi' are the mysterious presence of Christ the savior in all religions, insofar as these contain what is "true and holy" and
thus salvific as well, but always through Christ, in ways that only He knows.
The second meaning is the one adopted by some theological currents during the second half of the twentieth century. In
the judgment of their adherents, non-Christian religions have their own salvific capacity, not a mediated one; all of them
express the manifold experiences of the divine, in an independent and complementary way; and Christ is the symbol of
these manifold ways rather than the one necessary way.
The oscillation between these two meanings is not only a matter of theological dispute. It influences pastoral practice, the
missions, and the public profile of the Church. The second of these meanings, in particular, took shape in a precise religious
enterprise on the border between Christianity and Hinduism, created in India in the middle of the twentieth century by
three spiritual adepts who came from Europe.

The Saccidananda Ashram*

*See my report on the Catholic Ashrams and the seditious Catholic Ashrams movement
CATHOLIC ASHRAMS http://ephesians-511.net/docs/CATHOLIC%20ASHRAMS.doc

These three are the Frenchmen Jules Monchanin (1895-1957) and Henri Le Saux (1910-1973), and the Englishman Bede
Griffiths (1906-1993), all priests, the latter two Benedictine monks. Monchanin and Le Saux, who emigrated to India,
founded an ashram there in 1950, a place of meditation and prayer, dedicated to the Indian-Christian contemplation of the
Trinity. They gave the ashram the name Saccidananda, a three-part Sanskrit word that evokes the 'trinity' of the Vedic
religion: the origin of all, wisdom, and beatitude.
The Saccidananda ashram stands even today in the wooded heart of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, in a sleepy little village
called Thannirpalli, 300 miles south of Madras [Chennai]. And yet, this remote spiritual place soon became an extraordinary
and cosmopolitan center of attention. In 1968, when Monchanin and Le Saux left the scene, Bede Griffiths became the
site's spiritual guide for a quarter of a century, and the ashram became part of the Camaldolese Benedictine family. Some
of the most famous Catholic theologians working in the field of interreligious dialogue made extended visits there: from the
Indian-Spanish priest Raimon Panikkar to the Belgian Jesuit Jacques Dupuis; from the Senegalese Aloysius Pieris, another
Jesuit, to the American Camaldolese Thomas Matus.
The place itself visibly displays the interweaving of the Christian and Hindu faiths. Even now, whoever visits the ashram will
be struck by the resemblance between the church in which the monks pray, which contains some Buddhist elements, and a
Hindu temple. The "Holy of Holies" is dark and mysterious, like the cavern of Mother Earth from which the new creation
arises. The colorful cupola is populated with saints and with four depictions of Jesus similar to the Buddha, a lotus flower,
and the symbols of the five elements, all the way up to the vertex of infinite divinity. The monks begin every prayer with
the sacred Sanskrit syllable "Om," the primordial sound from which the earth was born. Every liturgy is reshaped and
reflects interreligious spaces without immediately recognizable boundaries.
There is, however, a surprising element that leaps immediately to the eyes of the visitor, even more now
than in past years. The few monks of the ashram are Indian, but the men and women who come to the
monastery for hospitality are not: almost all of them come from Europe and North America. Conceived by the
spiritual adepts of the Old Continent precisely as a bridge between the Christian faith and that of the Indian
subcontinent, the Saccidananda ashram would seem to have failed to achieve its stated objective. It seems
to reflect an unresolved problem entirely within Western Catholicism.
Cardinal Ratzinger Takes the Field
It is the problem that Cardinal Ratzinger subjected to incisive criticism in a substantial discourse given in Mexico in May of
1996 to the South American bishops, but intended for the entire Catholic world. It was a watershed address. Ratzinger,
with the pope's full consent, pointed to interreligious relativism as "the fundamental problem of faith in our time." A few
months later came a document from the International Theological Commission in line with the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith. Then came the investigation of the theologian Dupuis, the most visible exponent of a
"pluralistic theology of religions." Then came the declaration "Dominus Iesus." All of this was to reorient the Church with
regard to a tendency judged as being extremely dangerous.
In his discourse in 1996, Ratzinger describes religious relativism as "a typical product of the Western world," which is all the
more insidious in that "it puts itself in contact with the philosophical and religious intuitions of Asia, particularly those of the
Indian subcontinent." And why is this so dangerous? Because throughout its history, Christianity has confronted various
religious and anti-religious challenges, from Greek polytheism to Islam to modern secularism, but now that the Eastern
religions are presenting the challenge, Western Christianity is more vulnerable. This is because the Eastern religions have a
natural affinity for the secular relativism that reigns supreme in the West. Thus they exercise a contagious fascination that
smashes the very foundations of the Church.

The Church has sought to respond to this challenge in various ways over the past decades, and the 1996
document by the Theological Commission traces these responses back to three main principles.
There is an "exclusivist," or "neo-orthodox" current, which in the Catholic context stakes itself on the
traditional magisterium, while that of Protestantism follows the great theologian Karl Barth. This current
defends the thesis that Christianity is the only salvific faith and the only direct revelation of God to
humanity. For the exclusivists, the ancient expression "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" ("Outside the Church
there is no salvation") holds firm.
Then there is the "inclusivist" current, which is well represented in Catholic theology by Karl Rahner. For its
adherents, the previous maxim is reversed: "Ubi salus ibi Ecclesia" ("Wherever there is salvation, there is the
Church"). And what they mean by the Church is a community as vast as the world, made up of baptized
persons, professed Christians, but also by masses of "anonymous Christians": those believers who find
salvation in their respective religions, including those of Asia, and enter mysteriously by these tortuous
ways, without realizing it, into the one Church of Christ.
Last come the "pluralists." The most embattled of these is the Presbyterian theologian John Hick**. But this
current has its defenders even among Catholics, lead by the American Paul Knitter**, followed by Panikkar,
Pieris, and the spiritual teachers of the Saccidananda ashram. For the pluralists, Christianity does not have
the right to make an exclusive claim to the truth. Even Christ is a transcendent reality, composed of all of his
historical incarnations, of which Jesus is not the only - and perhaps not the last - instance. For the pluralists,
the "Shema Israel" of the Jews, the Christian Creed, the Muslim act of faith "There is no God but Allah and
Mohammed is his prophet," and the Buddhist belief that at the heart of reality there is the emptiness of
Nirvana all have their own saving power. **See pages 72, 73
But are these professions of faith all equally true? This is a serious question. From the assertion that "all faiths are
valid" for salvation, the pluralists pass quickly to the assertion that "all faiths are true."
But can truth be relativized in this way? One can understand why Cardinal Ratzinger, the guardian of the Church's doctrinal
truth, would see a grave danger in theological pluralism. The fact that the secular and religious relativism of Europe and
America receives this sort of consecration from the East adds to the persuasive force of his argument.

The Dupuis Case

Until the end of the '90's, anyway, pluralistic theorizing was limited to intellectual circles. Things changed when one of the
regulars of the Saccidananda ashram, the Jesuit theologian Dupuis, left India and came to the Gregorian University in
Rome, run by the Jesuits, the most authoritative of the pontifical universities and the one that for centuries has formed the
leaders of the Catholic Church worldwide. In 1997, Dupuis published a book that was also the outline of his teaching, with
the title "Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism."
Until then, Dupuis had had a reputation as an orthodox theologian. The Vatican had called him in as a consultant
for the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. The secretary of the council at the time, Michael L. Fitzgerald, now its
president, while speaking in Assisi at the tenth anniversary of John Paul II's meeting with religious leaders, introduced him
as "a Catholic theologian who avoids pluralism and forcefully opposes the trivialization of Christ." And when the much-
hyped book came out, the Gregorian endorsed it with great praise; the enthusiasts included Fitzgerald and the rector of the
athenaeum, Giuseppe Pittau, the former rector of Sophia University in Tokyo and currently the secretary of the Vatican
congregation for Catholic education.

But the wind changed a few months later. On April 14, 1998, "Avvenire," the newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference,
unexpectedly did a hatchet job on the book, in an article written by a theologian with strong Vatican ties, Inos Biffi (no
relation to Cardinal Biffi). Also in April, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the one Ratzinger presides over,
opened a preliminary inquiry of Dupuis and his book. On June 10, Ratzinger and the other cardinals of the congregation
decided to conduct a secret investigation. Even Dupuis was told nothing. But another signal appeared in the middle of the
summer. "La Civiltà Cattolica," the bimonthly published by the Jesuits in Rome, issued a review critical of Dupuis' book.

The review was as authoritative as the man who wrote it, the respected Jesuit Giuseppe De Rosa. But it had an even
greater value, as do all the articles of "La Civiltà Cattolica": it was read and approved before publication by the Vatican
secretary of state. The article ended with a list of accusations in the guise of questions, first of all about Jesus Christ: "Does
the Christology of Fr. Dupuis do full justice to the contents of the New Testament and Tradition?" Then it asked about the
Church: "Has it given the proper importance to the mediation of the Church in the work of salvation?" It finished with a
question about the necessity of converting unbelievers: "If the other religious traditions have their own
salvific figures, their own prophets, their own sacred scriptures; if they are already the people of God,
already part of the kingdom of God, why should they be asked to become disciples of Christ?"

On October 2, 1999, Dupuis was finally told that he was under investigation. The Jesuit Father General, Peter Hans
Kolvenbach, sent him a list of the points of controversy, which had been established by the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith. He was given three months to present a brief in his defense. Meanwhile, he was obliged to speak to no one
about the contested themes. He could not even continue to teach, as his course at the Gregorian was closely connected to
those themes.
It was the notice of the termination of the course, posted at the Gregorian, that brought the case into the public eye - and
the polemics broke out immediately. The English Catholic publication "The Tablet" came to the defense of the accused with
an article by no less than the Austrian cardinal Frank Konig, over ninety years old and one of the pillars of the Second
Vatican Council. But the most resounding reactions came from India. The archbishop of Calcutta, Henry D'Souza,
accused the Vatican of wanting to gag theologians by attacking one "respected for his orthodoxy" with the
intention of silencing them all, with India especially in its sights. And it's true, in fact, that India was under
fire. Before the outbreak of the Dupuis case, the last two condemnations by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith were from that subcontinent. The first was Tissa Balasuriya, a religious of Sri Lanka, who was excommunicated in
1996 for his disturbing book in which he demolished important articles of the Creed, and was then readmitted to the Church
on condition of repentance. The second was Anthony De Mello, an Indian Jesuit who wrote wildly successful best-sellers,
still sold in dozens of languages, who was condemned "post mortem" on June 24, 1998, under the accusation of having
dissolved God, Jesus, and the Church into a cosmic, somewhat New Age spirituality with an oriental flavor.

"Dominus Iesus," 2000

The Holy Year of 2000 was drawing near, as planned and prepared with great care by John Paul II, and the Church seemed
to want to establish clarity withindoors. The inauguration of the Jubilee, in reality, refocused some of the critics. The
ceremony of the opening of the holy door was audaciously new, compared with tradition, and was vaguely interreligious:
the resplendently vested pope was surrounded by dancers in Indian costumes perfumed with oriental scents. But the pope
was in no frame of mind for peaceable concessions, as demonstrated by the strong gestures with which he opened the
Jubilee year: from the "mea culpa" for the sins of Christians in the past, to the remembrance of the martyrs of yesterday
and today, to the solemn reaffirmation of the doctrine according to which "Jesus Christ, and no one else, can
give us salvation." (Atti 12:4)
This reaffirmation took on weight in a declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated
August 6, 2000, whose title is taken from its initial Latin words: "Dominus Iesus."
It is not presented as an organic treatment of the relationship between the Christian faith and other religions. It limits itself
to defining the errors to be corrected and to repeating the essential truth. One of its central passages reads: "The thesis
that the revelation of Jesus Christ is of a limited, incomplete, and imperfect character, and must be completed by the
revelation present in other religions, is contrary to the faith of the Church....This position radically contradicts the
affirmations of faith according to which the full and complete revelation of the salvific mystery of God is given in Jesus
Christ" (no. 6).
"Dominus Iesus" shields itself with many citations from the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Even
so, as soon as it was published, it was met with a deluge of criticism, both from within and from outside the
Church, second only to the reception that the highly controversial encyclical "Humanae Vitae" received in
1968. The most famous of the theologians, Hans Kung***, labeled it as "a combination of medieval
backwardness and Vatican megalomania." It was rejected by leaders of other Christian confessions and other
religions. There were protests from defenders of secularism, tolerance, ecumenism, and dialogue.
But the more striking fact is that among the critical voices there also appeared those of senior leaders of the Church
hierarchy. Archbishop (now Cardinal) Karl Lehmann, the president of the German bishops' conference, contested the
declaration's lack "of the style of the great Council documents." The other German archbishop, Walter Kasper (also a future
cardinal), complained of "communication problems." Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini echoed his comment, hoping that "little by
little things will be made clear." But the most clamorous was the distancing of the Australian cardinal Edward Cassidy, then
president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. From Lisbon, where he was participating in an interreligious meeting
after the model of Assisi, Cassidy contrasted the ecumenical sensitivity of the office over which he presided with the
insensitivity of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directed by Ratzinger: "We, with our ecumenical experience,
have a sensitive ear that tells us something is being disturbed. They, on the other hand, have the scholastic manner of
saying 'This is true, that is not true.' This document has created ambiguity, and now we must seek to avoid imprecise
interpretations." To reassure the critics, Cassidy added that in any case "Dominus Iesus" did not bear the pope's signature,
as if to say that its authority was weak and that it could be corrected easily. ***See pages 27, 39, 42

Return to the Origins

In fact, it was Ratzinger who signed the document. But at the end of the document, it was also written that John Paul II
had "ratified and confirmed [it] with sure understanding and with his apostolic authority and [had] ordered its publication."
And to avoid any ambiguity, on Sunday, October 1, 2000, the pope intervened publicly and in person to reemphasize that
he had wanted "Dominus Iesus" and "approved it in a special way."
Ratzinger himself countered the specific accusations made by Church authorities, in an interview he gave to "Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung," reprinted on October 8 by "L'Osservatore Romano." "Dominus Iesus," the cardinal said, represented
the Council documents "without adding or taking away anything." Both Cassidy and Kasper "participated actively in the
drafting of the document," and "almost all of their proposals were accepted." If there were a problem of understanding,
"the document should be translated, not scorned." But above all, "with this declaration, whose authors proceeded step by
step with great attention, the pope wished to offer to the world a great and solemn acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as
Lord at the Holy Year's culmination, thus firmly bringing the essence of the Christian faith to the center of this event."
The polemics surrounding "Dominus Iesus," Ratzinger concludes, must not obscure its true objective, that of forcefully
reaffirming "the essence of Christianity," summed up by the apostle Paul in the formula of faith "Jesus is Lord"(1
Corinthians 12:3).
This last statement is the one that really marks this dispute. A cardinal and theologian, Giacomo Biffi, archbishop of
Bologna, takes it up and repeats it in pointed words:
"That the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should have thought it necessary to intervene in the
question of 'the uniqueness and universal salvific character of Jesus and the Church' with the declaration
"Dominus Iesus" is of unprecedented seriousness, because in two thousand years there has never been felt
the need to recall and defend such basic truths."
The follow-up to the events comforted both Ratzinger and Biffi, as well as the pope. In the fall of 2001, among the most
important cardinals and bishops meeting for a synod in Rome, none of them returned to polemicize over "Dominus Iesus."
On the contrary, most of them agreed that religious orthodoxy was in danger, and that it was necessary to restate
fundamental truths. Dupuis made his amends, and signed a Vatican pronouncement that reaffirmed that "it is contrary to
the Catholic faith to consider the various religions of the world as ways complementary to the Church in the order of
salvation." The theologian Angelo Amato, a specialist in Christology and oriental religions who had lived for many years in
India and was one of the authors of the outline of "Dominus Iesus," was promoted to the top level of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith as Ratzinger's chief collaborator.
And thus John Paul II, on January 24, 2002, could return to Assisi with greater tranquility for an
interreligious prayer meeting similar to the one in 1986. Similar, but not the same, that is. It took care to
avoid any appearance of syncretism and confusion. Ratzinger, who had stayed away the last time, came to
this meeting. His conviction, which is also that of the pope, is that "the faith of simple believers must be protected." And
this is the function of the magisterium of the Church: "The baptismal Creed, in its ingenious literalness, is the measure of all
theology. And the Church must be able to tell its faithful which opinions correspond to the faith and which do not."
To make a sum of this account, between the first and the last of his trips to Assisi, John Paul II has accompanied the whole
Church on a rediscovery of the fountain of its life, its reason for being: "Dominus Iesus," Jesus is Lord.

THE EXAMINER, THE ARCHDOCESAN WEEKLY OF BOMBAY, JULY 2009, AND A LETTER FROM ME
Inter–religious Dialogue
http://examinerindia.blogspot.com/2009/07/letters_20.html
Sir, Kudos to Cardinal Oswald Gracias, the Archdiocesan Commission for Inter-Religious Dialogue and the
Bombay Catholic Sabha for organising seminars and public meetings to strengthen the Hindu-Christian
relationship on June 12-13, 2009. The city of Mumbai was throbbing with the spirit of dialogue.
Our forefathers had a dream of 'Vasudhava Kutumbkum' where religions and communities would dwell in harmony; in fact,
a blend of world religions from the most beautiful fabric of Indian culture. But that dream has been shattered before our
own eyes. We in Mumbai have not yet fully recovered from the nightmare of November 26, 2008. A number of other cities
in India have experienced bloodbaths. Fanaticism and fundamentalism is on the rise. Ironically, all this has taken place in
the name of God and religion. In fact, all religions strive to create peace and harmony, for peace is the prerequisite to
progress and prosperity. Peace was the parting gift of Lord Jesus, who said to His disciples, "Peace I leave unto you, my
peace I give to you." But today, peace is endangered. It has become a rare commodity. As the Psalmist says, “we looked
for peace and behold, there is terror everywhere."
The famous German thinker, Hans Kung, has said, "There can be no peace among the nations without peace among
religions; there can be no peace among religions without dialogue between religions; there can be no dialogue between
religions without research into theological foundations." We need to build a culture of love and harmony. June 12 and 13
should serve as an example for the parishes and basic communities.
We in Vasai experience a considerable amount of communal harmony, because Hindus and Christians work together in the
socio-political field. A number of parishes take leadership in organising inter-religious meetings. In today’s world, it is not
enough to be religious, one has to be inter-religious. Fr Francis D’Britto*, Vasai *A proponent of yoga
Sir, The Archdiocese of Bombay has done good work by inviting Hindu religious leaders for a dialogue on peace and
harmony. The concluding function at St Mary’s was a dull affair.

Instead of the religious leaders from Muslim and Sikh religions, like Kaji or a Granthi, lay people occupied the stage. A Kaji
or a Granthi would have been a better spokesman on the role of religion.
Shankaracharya Saraswati in his statement said, "India is a deeply spiritual country and there should not be any violence
against minorities". He however said that "talks were useless, unless the Church assured Hindus that it would not offend
Hindu sensibilities by conversion, and follow up on those assurances".
Hindu religious leaders regularly organise discourses and talks on the Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata, etc. They even
advertise and use engagement columns of the media to attract crowds. Spreading the Word of God and evangelisation is
the vocation of all religious leaders. Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church, is doing very little in this respect.
Churches own huge meeting halls/auditoriums built from people’s contribution. These halls/auditoriums are seldom used for
spreading the Word of God or evangelisation. These halls/auditoriums are let out on a commercial basis. Many a time, even
Catholic lay organisations are not allowed the use of these auditoriums.
Conversion takes place from Christianity to Hindu religion. A sizeable number of followers of Sri Satya Sai Baba, Sri Sri Ravi
Shankar, Mata Amritadevi, Pondicherry Maa, etc are Christians. There are hundreds of Hindu temples all over UK, USA,
Canada, etc. The biggest temple of Swami Narayan sect is in UK. The great grandson of Ford Motors is building a hundred
crore ISKCON temple at Kolkata.
When the bogey of conversion is talked about and Christians are attacked by the fundamentalists, we do not clarify the
position. It is high time that serious thought is given to this, which would help the Christians lead their lives in peace and
harmony. John D’Silva, Dadar
From: prabhu To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:35 PM
Subject: LETTER TO THE EDITOR BCC: BISHOP THOMAS DABRE, CHAIRMAN - DOCTRINAL COMMISSION, CBCI
Dear Sir,
In his letter on Inter-Religious Dialogue, TE July 18, 2009, of all the Catholics whom he could have cited, I was
surprised to see Fr Francis D’Britto, Vasai, quote dissident Swiss theologian Hans Kung, who has been
disciplined by the Vatican in the past, and who said the 2000 Vatican Document Dominus Iesus was "reactionary"
and "a combination of medieval backwardness and Vatican megalomania."
His publication of a 1971 book questioned papal infallibility and while under Pope John Paul II he lost his licence
to teach as a Catholic theologian. He opposed the church's teaching on birth control, women priests and celibacy,
and for 27 years, Kung unsuccessfully sought a meeting with Pope John Paul II.
Michael Prabhu, Subscriber, Chennai

Priest Says Allowance for Salvation Outside Church Not Diminished

PANAJI, India (UCAN) July 17, 2003
An Indian priest who studied a controversial Vatican document on Christ's uniqueness says it does not deny that salvation
outside the Church is possible.
According to Father Lyndon Bartholomeu Rodrigues, "Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus
Christ and the Church" is in line with other Vatican documents that speak positively about various religions. It is "an
excellent confession" of Christian faith, though its effectiveness in the context of religious plurality and interreligious
dialogue is doubtful, says the priest, who in June earned a doctorate in theology from Pontifical Urban University in Rome.
The claim that the document presents salvation outside the Church as not possible is a misreading, he wrote in his 304-
page doctoral dissertation, "The Declaration Dominus Jesus and the Indian Theological Reflection."
Father Rodrigues belongs to the Society of St. Francis Xavier, or Pilar Society, an indigenous congregation based in
the western Indian state of Goa. He spoke with UCA News July 9 at the congregation's headquarters in Pilar, 1,925
kilometers southwest of New Delhi.
The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued "Dominus Iesus" in September 2000.
In stressing that Christ has a unique and universal role in salvation, it declares that seeing the Church as one way of
salvation amid "complementary" or "substantially equivalent" other ways would be contrary to Catholic faith.
At one point it states: "If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that
objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness
of the means of salvation." Leaders of various Christian denominations and other religions criticized the document, saying it
presented Christ and the Catholic Church as the sole means of salvation. This was true in India as well as elsewhere, but
some Indian theologians also felt the document was directed partly at them and their work.
In Father Rodrigues' view, the document's "generalized statements" do not take into account the specific nuances of
various Christological approaches rising out of deep commitment to Christ.
"Instead, it creates an environment of confusion and insecurity in theological circles in context of positive thinking
manifested in recent Church documents," he said.
His dissertation cites documents of the Second Vatican Council as well as later papal encyclicals and exhortations in support
of his claim that Church teaching allows for the possibility of people of other religions attaining salvation through their
religion. This gives "a fillip to the contextual Indian Christological reflection," the priest said.
Citing the Indian "advaita" (non-dualistic) philosophical tradition, which he explained views God as "an inexhaustible
mystery," Father Rodrigues suggested a multi-pronged contextual approach for proclaiming Christ in India.

Such an approach, he said, would include theological exercise, witness of life through lived Indian spiritual models, social
action and dialogue among religions.
Father Rodrigues points out that people of other religions may not join the Church because they do not know Christ,
through no fault of theirs, or because of following the dictates of their conscience.
"The salvific effects of life, death and resurrection of Christ are made available to them by God in ways known to Himself,"
he wrote in his dissertation, scheduled to come out in book form later this year.
Father Rodrigues said "Dominus Jesus" only reinforces previous Church teaching in an effort to promote
authentic interreligious dialogue. It was written, he explained, not for people of other religions but to make
clear for Catholics what they must "keep in mind while engaging in dialogue."
The scholar maintained that the document "primarily meant for Catholic bishops and teachers in seminaries" triggered a
heated debate because it emerged during the Jubilee Year 2000 "under the glare of the media."
Such a document became imperative during the jubilee, he continued, because of various positions taken by
theologians worldwide, some of them having deviated from Church teaching and others having created
confusion.
A few terms could have been recast, he said, noting that though the document was for the universal Church, it failed to
take into account particularities of regions. Its implications thus became difficult, he noted, especially in the Indian context
where Christians are a small minority among people belonging to almost all the world religions.
He suggested that if some theologians in India have "slightly deviated" from the Church's "stated position,"
it happened because of their "hard struggle" to make Christ meaningful to people of their country.
See my report THE PILAR SEMINARY, GOA http://ephesians-511.net/docs/PILAR%20SEMINARY_GOA.doc

Lefebvre group attacks Pope’s ecumenical vision - Society of St. Pius X Sends a Letter
http://www.zenit.org/article-9287?l=english
ROME, February 2, 2004 (Zenit.org) The Society of St. Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre claims the Church
is in "crisis" because of the ecumenical dialogue promoted after the Second Vatican Council.
The priestly fraternity made that point in a letter dated Jan. 6 and sent to several cardinals. Signed by Bishop Bernard
Fellay, superior general of the fraternity, and by four other bishops of the group, the letter was presented today during a
press conference in Rome.
The letter presents a 47-page document entitled "From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy: 25 Years of Pontificate" ("De
l’oecuménisme à l’apostasie silencieuse, 25 ans de pontificat").
Even though John Paul II is keeping daily public engagements, the letter's signatories explain that "because of the
aggravated state of health of the Holy Father, we have not written to him directly."
The document interprets the position of John Paul II and other Church figures on ecumenism as a sign of the loss of the
Catholic Church's own identity by putting it on the same level with Christian denominations of other confessions.
No mention is made of the 2000 declaration "Dominus Iesus" on "The Uniqueness and Salvific Universality of
Jesus Christ and the Church," or of John Paul II's repeated rejection of this faulty view of ecumenism.
In a letter sent to Bishop Fellay on April 5, 2002, by Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, prefect of the Congregation for Clergy
and president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," following contacts to overcome the fraternity's rupture with
Rome, the cardinal referred to the "frontal attack" implied in the accusation addressed to the Pope of "having abandoned
Tradition." "It constitutes, in fact, a dangerous presumption to also judge the Supreme Authority" and, quoting Vatican
Council I, the cardinal added that in these types of questions "we believe that no one can arrogate to himself the right to
judge the Holy See."
In his 1988 apostolic letter "Ecclesia Dei," John Paul II stressed the "unlawful" ordination of bishops within the fraternity on
the part of Archbishop Lefebvre, which constituted "a schismatic act." The archbishop died in 1991.

FROM “JEEVADHARA”, THE VOICE OF THE INDIAN THEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Taken from "New Age - Theological Response to the Vatican Document" Edited by: Fr. Sebastian Painadath
[Painadath: page 56. He is a leader figure of the seditious Catholic Ashrams movement. Jeevadhara: page 59]
Wrong Answers, but Right Questions
By Paul F. Knitter [See page 68] Jeevadhara, May 2004
The thinkers of the New Age raise questions on radically separating God from the cosmos, and on restricting the saving
presence of the Divine to the Christ-event. These are issues to be addressed in a genuine dialogical process with the
advocates of the New Age. Instead, the document just proposes answers taken from age-old dogmatic theology with no
sensitivity to the way of thinking of the contemporary spiritual seekers. It arrogantly warns against the faulty answers of
the New Age without responding to the valid questions…
Because Vatican theologians do not seem able to recognize a non-duality between God and world, they have to limit the
non-duality of the incarnation to Jesus of Nazareth. Or to put it differently but more sharply, because the Vatican document
holds to an absolute distinction between God and humanity, it cannot recognize a real distinction between Jesus and Christ.
In fact, the Christ (or the Logos), understood as the "divine energy" by which God communicates God's self to creatures
and identifies with them, seems to be limited to the historical reality of Jesus. New Age's attempts explore how what
happened in Jesus of Nazareth might be understood as a "pattern" or a symbol (I prefer the term "sacrament") for what
can take place in all of us (see 2.3.4.2), the Vatican erects a rock-solid barrier:

"According to Christian belief Jesus Christ is not a pattern, but a divine person whose human-divine figure reveals the
mystery of the Father's love for every person throughout history" (3.3) "In the Christian Tradition Jesus Christ is the Jesus
of Nazareth about which the gospels speak, the son of Mary and the only Son of God, true man and true God, the full
revelation of divine truth, unique Savior of the world;" (4)
I don't think that Vatican theologians and dignitaries fully understand how haughty such standard Christological
language sounds and feels for many Christians (and certainly for Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews). To insist that God's
self-communication to and identification with humanity has taken place only in Jesus, to require that Christians inform
others that only we have the "unique Savior of the world," to chide Christians for finding in Jesus the "pattern" by which
they might identify their own potential - such demands appear to both the head and heart of many Christians as arrogant
and profoundly antithetical to the kind of God Jesus experienced and proclaimed.
As the Asian Bishops in their Synod stated clearly and insistently, Christians in Asia (and not only in Asia) must find
different ways - less haughty and more engaging ways - of speaking about the saving, universal message and presence of
God-incarnate-in-Jesus. To insist that we have "the only Savior" or that only we have the "fullness" or the final criterion of
God's truth is to cut off possibilities of relationship and cooperation with others. It is to hamstring the mission of the
Church.
Among both Asian and Western theologians, efforts are being made to get beyond this obstacle to mission - efforts
to find ways of holding to both a full commitment to Christ Jesus and a genuine openness to other expressions of God's
saving truth, efforts to unpack and apply Rahner's understanding of the incarnation in Jesus as the realization of the
potential given to all humans, efforts to understand how the Christ can be fully identified with Jesus but not limited to
Jesus. Admittedly, such efforts need to be developed, and that means they need to be critically evaluated. But all we hear
from this Vatican Document - and other recent Vatican statements such as Dominus Iesus - is rejection.
NOTE: Paul F. Knitter, Paul Tillich Professor of Theology, World Religions and Culture, is a leading theologian
of religious pluralism. His latest publication is Without Buddha I Could Not Be A Christian: A Personal
Journey of Passing Over and Passing Back (Oneworld Publications, 2009). According to Wikipedia, "Along with
his friend and colleague, the Protestant philosopher of religion John Hick, Knitter has come under harsh criticism
from Cardinal Ratzinger (presently the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_F._Knitter.
Paul F. Knitter is an ex-priest, now married, whose theologies are condemned by Rome. Benedict XVI had
criticised his theology years ago, when he was still a Cardinal. The Pope also found Knitter to be New Age.
See my report on Jeevadhara: THEOLOGIANS LAMBAST THE VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE NEW AGE.
It is not surprising that the theologians who opposed Dominus Iesus also attacked the New Age Document.
See also pages 76, 77.

Interview with Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald

By John L. Allen, Jr., National Catholic Reporter, Rome May 7/14, 2004
Interview with Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald (National Catholic Reporter 7/5/04)
To mark its 40th anniversary, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (successor to the Secretariat for Non-
Christians created by Paul VI) is hosting a May 14-19 Plenary Assembly of its members and consultors. Topic areas will be:
1) "Theological Reflection on Religious Pluralism -- Developments and Tendencies";
2) "Bilateral Dialogue Experiences -- Developments and Prospects"; and
3) "Multi-religious Initiatives and the Challenges of Alternative Religiosity."
To talk about the anniversary, I sat down with English Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, head of the Council for Interreligious
Dialogue, on Friday, May 7.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the decision to create a special organism within the Holy See
devoted to dialogue with other religions. What have been the most important fruits over that period of time?

One can look both inwardly and outwardly. Inwardly, looking at the church, the creation of this office was a sign of a new
vision of the church. It signified a church that was not closed in on itself, concerned only with its own affairs, but as Paul VI
said in Ecclesiam Suam, a church that is in dialogue, turned towards the world. That's a big change within the church, and
the mentality of people within the church. It's something that continues to be important. We need to stress this, to
encourage people to have this vision. Outside the church, I would see that particularly in more recent times a growing
awareness of interreligious plurality, intercultural plurality, not only on the part of Christians, but people of other religions
and of civil society, coming to grips with this multi-religious reality. I think a symbol of this, both for the church and for the
world, was the meeting John Paul II convoked in Assisi in 1986. In a way, that falls in a kind of halfway point in the 40
years of our dicastery, 22 years from its foundation. It's a very powerful symbol, a watershed I suppose.
How many bilateral relationships with other religions does the Holy See have?
If you're talking about official relationships, we have a liaison committee with Muslims, with international Islamic
organizations. We have a committee with Al-Azhar. We signed an agreement of intention with Turkey, with the religious
affairs department of Turkey. We also did make an agreement with the World Islamic Call Society of Libya. But with other
religions, with Hindus or with Buddhists, we haven't any formal agreement we have signed. That's not to say, obviously,
that we're not doing anything with them.
Is there some reason these formal agreements are all with Muslims?
Islam is the most widespread religion in the world after Christianity. I think it has been a concern of the Muslims to have a
relationship with us, informal and to some extent formal also.

The desire to formalize these relationships came from the Muslim side?
In a number of cases, yes. We have responded to that. One of our concerns, of course, is that when we respond as an
office of the Holy See, the dialogue should not just be at the top level. The local church in that particular area should be
implicated, should be concerned with the dialogue, and should be brought in so far as it is possible.
Roman Catholicism is unique in having a very clearly identifiable central authority structure. When you want
to dialogue with Hindus or Buddhists or another religious tradition, how do you go about identifying who the
appropriate 'opposite number' should be?
Well, there isn't an appropriate opposite number, obviously. There are Buddhist patriarchs in different places, in Thailand
for example. There are Buddhist leaders of movements in Taiwan. There are abbots of monasteries, which have a big
network in Japan. But there is this multiplicity of leaders, which makes it difficult in a sense. This is in some ways why we
have proceeded a bit differently. With Buddhists, very often we have taken the initiative to invite a certain number of
people to the meetings we have organized. But we also respond to some of their invitations.
In terms of these unofficial relationships, how many does the Holy See have?
Not really very many. One of the things we try to do is to facilitate contacts between representatives of other religions and
other parties in the Catholic Church, not only with us. So the dialogue is not always with us, but it spreads. For instance, in
December I was at a Hindu university in Mumbai. This university has a department for the study of other religions and has
already been in dialogue with various people here in Italy. It is keen to strengthen its relations with the Urbania but also
the Teresianum, for the study of spirituality. We're very happy to facilitate … we like to back those initiatives. Just the other
day an institute of Shariah asked to establish some connection with us. Well, we're not studying law here, but we can put
them in contact with a faculty of canon law. Or maybe the Society of Canon Law in the United States. Who knows? We have
to see, we have to examine this. We consider ourselves a body that is there to facilitate the dialogue, not to dominate it.
Is there a religious body with whom you'd like to have dialogue that has so far proved impossible?
I wouldn't say a "body." When Cardinal Arinze was called to this office to be the president, the Holy Father asked him to
give particular attention to traditional religion. In fact, the dialogue with traditional religion, present not only in Africa but in
other parts of the world, is quite difficult. They have no authorities. There's a local priest, or the head of the family who
acts as a priest in his family. Therefore there's a difficult way of entry into the dialogue, and in fact it becomes more of an
inner dialogue of gospel and culture. It's the absence of leadership that makes it difficult. In answer to your question,
there's no particular body with which we have sought to have relations that we haven't succeeded.
The program for your upcoming Plenary Assembly suggests that one of the major topics of conversation will
be 'Theological Reflection on Religious Pluralism.' How do you see that conversation taking shape?
We've asked an expert to advise us, Fr. Michel Fédou, a Jesuit from Paris, to give his evaluation of the theological progress.
I don't know how he is going to present this, but I would think that he will show how Nostra Aetate has been received, but
also some of the difficulties it has encountered, perhaps some of the exaggerations, some of the correctives that have been
brought in. I would expect that to be his point of view. Then we are opening it up to our members, who come from all
continents and with different experiences. We want them to react, perhaps to see what needs to be done by us in this field
of theological reflection. Maybe we will discern certain areas that require further study, and that maybe they will encourage
us to go ahead.
Are there particular issues likely to surface? For example, pneumatology?
I think the present Holy Father has made a great progress in that, especially the role of the Holy Spirit outside the visible
church. The document that many people consider as negative, Dominus Iesus, in fact opens up fields of research. I'd be
interested to see what the bishops want to tell us about that. How do the different religions contribute to the salvation of
people? They're not ways of salvation, but they have elements of salvation in them. Can we study these, can we identify
these, can this be a way we can go on? These we would attribute to the work of the Holy Spirit. Pneumatology, Christology,
a reflection on the role of the church itself … these would be the three fields that I would see. But we tend to confine our
reflection to dogmatic theology, and in a sense it's not just dogmatics but moral theology as well. I think there is a great
field open today for dialogue at the level of humanity and the ethical problems that are presented by life in the modern
world. We can perhaps share these in the form of dialogue with people of other religions.
To what extent does theology actually affect the practice of dialogue? Is the dialogue dependent upon how
we understand religious pluralism?
Theology is a work of reflection. It is a reflection upon reality in the light of faith, thus scripture and tradition. In a sense it's
a sort of second order activity. You don't get up and theologize. You get up and you wash and you have your breakfast
and, okay, you pray as well, one would hope. Then you reflect on what you're doing. The dialogue in a sense can exist
without the theology, but the theology can also orient the dialogue. When you are more reflective on what you're doing,
you do it with greater intensity. If you don't have that theological reflection, you can neglect this dialogue, because you
haven't foreseen or understood the implications of your faith, which should lead you to this dialogue.
Some would say the theological questions are the most divisive, and we should just set them aside.
Here there is a great difference between our work in the interreligious dialogue and ecumenism. We are not looking for a
theological consensus, at all, because we will not achieve a theological consensus. The theology that I'm talking about is a
Catholic reflection, which falls upon us as Catholics. I don't think we should be aiming at a universal theology in any way.
But do we even need that intra-Catholic reflection to make progress in dialogue?

Well, they go together, they go hand-in-hand. Do we need it? Of course we need it, because we have to make sense of our
faith. We need it from that point of view. Do we need it for the action? Not necessarily, but they go together. Moreover,
people have different gifts. We're not telling people who have a gift for contact and networking with people, "stop, stop, do
your theology." You have to do this together, you have to reflect at the same time. There will be people who are reflective
theologically, and some who are more directed at action.
The second topic is 'developments and prospects in bilateral dialogue.' Anything particular you're looking for
there?
We will report on what we have been trying to do. Maybe I could respond here to an earlier question, because you asked if
there were some bodies with whom we are wanting to relate. Well, in December I was in India with the under-secretary as
I mentioned, and we went to see the Sikhs in Amritsar. That is something that we have been wanting to develop, a greater
dialogue with Sikhs. Perhaps that is one thing. What may come out of this is suggestions from our members as to the way
in which bilateral dialogue and also multilateral dialogue, though that comes afterward, can be conducted, and what they
feel our role should be. We have some ideas, but we want to listen to them. It is the plenary assembly so it is the bishop
members have to have the chance to give us suggestions.
Coming back to Sikhs, are there concrete plans to augment your relationship?
We spoke with the secretary of the community there. We had only a brief meeting, but we said we are willing to take up
and pursue relations with Sikhs. That was last December, and we really haven't done anything since then. I think it
something we will take up. We have relations with some Sikhs in other parts of the world, apart from India. Can we do
something bilaterally on an international scale? This is something on which we're still reflecting.
There is no meeting or event presently scheduled?
No.
The third topic is 'Multi-religious initiatives: The challenges of alternative religiosity.' I confess I'm not sure
what either of those terms means.
Multi-religious … well, we've been speaking about bilateral Buddhist-Christian relations, or Hindu-Christian relations. But
we've had some multilateral [events], where we've had people from a number of traditions coming together. We had this
assembly in 1999 for the Jubilee, when we looked towards the third millennium. We followed that up with a smaller
meeting in January for last year, on the resources of religions for peace. We want to continue with that, kind of reflecting
on the peace goal with the different resources of religions. In fact what we're going to follow up with is a meeting, a kind of
theological reflection with people from the church on the contribution that traditional religion can make to the world. As I
said, it's difficult to have representatives of traditional religions, but we're going to have a theological reflection.
Will there be representatives of traditional religions?
No, not necessarily. There will be Catholics who are knowledgeable about traditional religions, perhaps are working in this
field themselves, and can reflect together.
These are the 'challenges' the topic has in mind?
Well, no. The challenges are that there are many, many, many initiatives around the world, interreligious initiatives, that
take place. Some of these, I would say, lack a degree of discernment. Any type of religious movement is put together, even
someone who has decided to create his own religion, he's there. These bodies are in fact quite numerous, so how do we
relate to them, what advice do we give, what is the experience of our people around the world? Have they been
approached by these movements? Have they not? What is their reaction? We may have something to say to them. It's also
the connection between our work in interreligious dialogue and the work on new religious movements. We have the
coordinator for this work in the Roman Curia in this office, and so this comes into the purview of our dicastery.
These would be the so-called 'New Age' phenomena?
New Age, yes.
Is your conversation on the theology of pluralism going to be coordinated with the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith?
Actually, we have Archbishop Angelo Amato, who was a consultor for us before he was made the secretary, and he hasn't
finished his mandate so he is still officially a consultor. But as we're not at the moment aiming at producing a document
from this plenary, we would not have anything to submit. But that's not to say we don't consult if there are doctrinal issues
that come out. This is the plenary of this office. There are provisions made for joint plenary assemblies, but this was not
thought appropriate at this time, particularly because this is not the full aspect of the plenary, it's only one aspect of it.
Evaluating the 40 years is the main point.
How often do you hold plenaries?
We have done them every three years. The last one was at the end of 2001. Previous to that was 1998, so we let the
Jubilee go by. So it's normally every two or three years.
How was the idea of holding a public event in conjunction with this plenary born?
We felt that 40 years was worth celebrating, so that's why we decided to give it this form. It's a sort of academic event,
really. Since Cardinal Arinze is no longer, we thought he was the obvious person to ask. He was the president of this office
for half of those 40 years. He has a wonderful experience. He accepted. It's also a kind of tribute. We had last year a
tribute to Cardinal Arinze for his 70th birthday, and when we arranged that in conjunction with the volume we published,
we didn't think he would be moving. It turned out to be a farewell gift. I think this is also a very good occasion in which we
can express our gratitude to him, and have him help us in this reflection.

Vatican Document on New Age poses challenge for dialogue

UCAN Commentary October 15, 2004 PORVORIM, India
Concern over the New Age movement is primarily a Western preoccupation, while in Asia it fits into the more essential
challenge of genuine dialogue with other religions, says a former Asian Church official. Commenting on a document the
Vatican issued in 2003 on the New Age movement, Father Desmond de Souza portrays the challenge it sees in New Age
religiosity as less of a problem in Asia than the "dismissive attitude" it continues toward other religions. The Indian
Redemptorist priest asks in this commentary for UCA News whether the Asian Church can truly dialogue with people of
other religions without being more open to their spirituality.
Father de Souza is a former executive secretary of the Office for Human Development of the Federation of Asian Bishops'
Conferences (FABC). He is now based in Porvorim, near the Goa state capital of Panaji, 1,910 kilometers southwest of New
Delhi, and is involved in retreat ministry. His commentary follows:
The Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue issued in August 2003 the document
"Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of life - A Christian Reflection on the New Age ." The document describes itself as "an
invitation to understand the New Age and to engage in a genuine dialogue with those who are influenced by New Age
thought." The New Age is not a direct threat to the Church but exerts a growing fascination on Christians, especially in the
West, who after discarding traditional religious practices, look for spiritual experiences that would offer depth and direction
to their life. It is not a coherent system of beliefs and practices, but a sort of canopy under which diverse neo-religious
movements flourish. The New Age is a sign of the times that challenges the Church for a creative response.
Catholic theologians in India have raised some basic questions about the document under three headings:
context, method and content. Each Vatican document is addressed to a certain historical context. The New Age
document addresses a crisis apparently facing the Church in the West. It concedes that "New Age religiosity addresses the
spiritual hunger of contemporary men and women," and that "many Christians are not satisfied with the Church."
Two places considered the powerhouses of the New Age are the Findhorn Garden community in northeastern Scotland and
the Esalen Institute, a center for the development of human potential in California, the United States. Writers associated
with the New Age - Madame Blavatsky, William Bloom, Fritjof Capra, C.G. Jung, William James - are all Westerners.
The New Age is hardly a universal problem. To insinuate that what is a Western Church problem today may become a
global Church problem tomorrow smacks of a Western colonial mindset. For the Church in Asia, committed dialogue with
religions in a multireligious society, rather than New Age fascination, is one of the most acute problems. For Pope Paul VI,
"Dialogue is a new way of being the Church."
The Vatican's New Age document speaks of a "genuine dialogue with those who are influenced by New Age thought."
However, is genuine dialogue possible between a Church theology that claims to be "rational," having "clear concepts of
God," and New Age thinking labeled "diffuse," "eclectic" and "irrational?"
The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue explains: "Dialogue is a two way communication. It implies speaking and
listening, giving and receiving, for mutual growth and enrichment."
If the Christian standpoint is the criterion to evaluate the New Age thought and practice, is genuine dialogue possible?
The document has certain derogatory remarks about other religious traditions when dealing with the challenge of the New
Age. Prayer practiced in other religions is reduced first to "meditation techniques," then to "psycho-social techniques" to
"feel good," and finally rejected as "non-prayer" or as mere "preparation for prayer."
This dismissive attitude reflects an earlier document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "On
certain aspects of the [sic] Christian meditation" (1989).
New Age thinking views mainline religions, with their authority structures and legislation that often bring pain and suffering
to humans and the ecology, with a growing sense of dissatisfaction. The "religious relativism" that marks the "cultural
environment of New Age phenomenon" will adversely affect every religious tradition, not just Christianity.
Will the FABC become more positive in reading the signs of the times by providing a forum for interreligious collaboration in
the face of the New Age challenge? Would such a forum, formed with other Asian religions, address the growing
dissatisfaction with the spiritual depth and sustenance that mainline religions now provide?
The Church's attitude toward some of the New Age views, as expressed in the document, is similar to its reaction to the
discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo and Giordano Bruno (a Dominican monk who was executed after being condemned by
the Inquisition) in the 15th and 16th centuries. Just as the scientific revolution demanded recognition of the truths
discovered by science, the New Age demands a broadening of outlook and a willingness to understand and appreciate the
spiritual truths found in belief systems outside Christianity.
But there are continuous warnings in the Vatican document that the New Age leads to pantheism or monism or Pelagianism
by removing the essential differences "between Creator and creation, between man and nature or spirit and matter."
The content of this document echoes the haughty Christology of "Dominus Iesus," the 2000 declaration of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that renewed an insistence on Jesus Christ as the "unique
Savior of the world."
The Asian bishops at the Synod for Asia (1998) stated clearly and insistently that Christians in Asia must find less haughty
and more engaging ways to present Jesus as "the only Savior" and the Church as having the "fullness" or the final criterion
of God's truth. This mindset precludes genuine dialogue and prevents any possibility of relationship and cooperation with
other religions. The New Testament has many titles for Jesus that represents various aspects of him as the ideal of faith.
Can the Asian Church, without denying the uniqueness of Jesus, dialogue for instance with Buddhists, Jains or Hindus who
have found this ideal of faith in the founders of their religions?

In "Fides et Ratio" (1998), Pope John Paul II said: "My thoughts turn immediately to the lands of the East, so rich in
religious and philosophical traditions of great antiquity. Among these lands, India has a special place. ... In India
particularly, it is the duty of Christians now to draw from this rich heritage the elements compatible with their faith, in order
to enrich Christian thought." Will the FABC take courage from the inspiring words? END
NOTE: The priest trashes the 1989 Document '…On Christian Meditation' as well as 'Dominus Iesus'.
See also pages 56, 59, 68, 72, 73 for theologians opposing the teachings of the magisterial Documents.

Misunderstandings about Interreligious Dialogue (Part 1)

http://www.zenit.org/article-12821?l=english
Interview with Ilaria Morali, A specialist in the theology of grace, and a lecturer in dogmatic theology at the Gregorian
University, Morali teaches courses on salvation, non-Christian religions, and interreligious dialogue.
ROME, January 14, 2005 (Zenit.org) The idea of dialogue with other religions needs some clarifications, says theologian
Ilaria Morali. A specialist in the theology of grace, and a lecture in dogmatic theology at the Gregorian University, Morali
teaches courses on salvation, non-Christian religions, and interreligious dialogue.
In this interview with ZENIT, Morali discusses what the Second Vatican Council stated about dialogue with
other religions, and makes distinctions between doctrinal documents and pastoral texts.
A lay Catholic, Morali gives particular importance to the declaration "Dominus Iesus", published by the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith in 2000, to remind mankind that Jesus Christ is the only valid mediator for salvation.
Q: The first time the term "dialogue" is found in a document of the magisterium is on Sept. 19, 1964. Can we say that,
from that moment, a doctrine of dialogue began?
Morali: Paul VI's encyclical "Ecclesiam Suam" was promulgated on Aug. 6, 1964, and was distributed to the Fathers, who
participated in the Second Vatican Council, on Sept. 15.
Note, when we speak today of dialogue we understand it almost exclusively as interreligious dialogue. But in a more
complete and balanced view, as proposed by Paul VI, it is only one aspect of dialogue between the Church and the world.
In relation to interreligious dialogue, Paul VI's encyclical came therefore at a crucial moment between the institution of the
Secretariat for Non-Christians, which took place in May 1964, now known as the Pontifical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue, and the promulgation of "Lumen Gentium," the dogmatic constitution on the Church, on Nov. 21, 1964.
This occurred one year before the publication of the "Nostra Aetate" declaration on Oct. 28, 1965, and the "Ad Gentes"
decree of Dec. 7, 1965. "Lumen Gentium" is, therefore, the first magisterial document that presents a whole number, 16,
dedicated to non-Christians.
We can say therefore that a doctrine of dialogue took shape in its essential principles with "Ecclesiam Suam," promulgated
when No. 16 of "Lumen Gentium" was already in the final phase of its writing. There is, therefore, a privileged relation
between the teaching on dialogue, proposed by Paul VI, and the doctrine of "Lumen Gentium" on Christians.
To understand the magisterial idea of dialogue in Paul VI, I would mention, in sum, at least three important points.
In the first place: Paul VI believed that reflection on dialogue must be preceded by reflection on the conscience of the
Church. The faithful must be conscious of the vocation received at baptism. To forget such dignity acquired by grace means
to lose sight of one's own identity.
In the second place: The paradigm of dialogue that the Church establishes with the world, and therefore also
interreligious dialogue, is the "colloquium salutis" [dialogue of salvation] established by God in Christ with humanity. The
Church must allow herself to be inspired by this model in her approach to the world.
In the third place: This interest is translated in apostolic concern and missionary action. Dialogue is precisely the name that
Paul VI attributed to the impulse of interior charity, which tends to become an exterior gift of charity. Historically this is the
first definition of dialogue by the magisterium and the Pope presented it immediately after the quotation of Matthew 28:19
on the missionary mandate.
I think, really, that a "doctrine" of dialogue began to exist 40 years ago. Doctrine in the sense of a "normative teaching" of
the magisterium that establishes precise limits to the definition and the practice of dialogue and, if forgotten, runs the risk
of entering a view of dialogue that is different from that of those who introduced it in the ecclesial vocabulary.
Q: What must be recalled of Vatican II in this connection?
Morali: The conciliar reflection 16 of "Lumen Gentium" gravitates around the affirmation that non-Christians can attain
eternal salvation and that such salvation is realized through grace that operates in persons.
A careful description is given in this number of God's action in the innermost conscience of men who are ignorant of the
Gospel. I would like to remind that no mention is made of the other religions as mediations of grace or ways of salvation.
I add that "Lumen Gentium," 16, remained as constant reference in the writing of the rest of the documents
that subsequently would address the topic of non-Christians: the "Nostra Aetate" declaration and the "Ad Gentes" decree.
I would like to make one final observation, in relation to the value of "Nostra Aetate."
I think it is not an accident that in an official writing on "Nostra Aetate," Cardinal Augustine Bea [first president of the
secretariat for promoting Christian unity] explained to those who thought of attributing to "Nostra Aetate" the value of a
doctrinal document, that the declaration only gave guidelines of a practical order on the specific relationship between the
Church and members of other religions.
Thus, "Nostra Aetate" was conceived as a practical appendix to the lines dictated by "Lumen Gentium" and more generally
of conciliar ecclesiology.

Whoever today in the ecclesial and theological realm tends to forget "Lumen Gentium" and to attribute a
doctrinal value to the "Nostra Aetate" declaration falls, in my understanding, into great ingenuousness and
historical error.
Q: So, then, Vatican II never referred to the other religions as "ways of salvation"?
Morali: In regard to a judgment on the role of religions, the Council spoke of "evangelical preparations" in relation to
"something good and authentic" that can be found in persons, and at times in religious initiatives.
In no page is explicit mention made of religions as ways of salvation.
From the historical-theological point of view, the patristic term of "evangelical preparations" used by the Council in "Lumen
Gentium" and "Ad Gentes" is imitated by that vein of 20th-century theology that defined religions as preparations for the
Gospel, as opposed to the thesis of religions as ways of salvation.
In a study that I will publish shortly, I show how, in the light of the conciliar minutes, it is obvious that the Council in no
way wished to favor this last thesis. Someone might object that this reading of Vatican II is already contradicted by the
very fact of the institution of the Secretariat for Non-Christians.
Q: Yes, that's true. One could argue that with the creation of the Secretariat for Non-Christians the Church goes beyond
this idea of the Council.
Morali: Indeed, many think that with the creation of this institution the Church would give religions a saving and peer role.
But this is not so, I repeat, recalling a very important historical detail: on September 29, 1964, hence, a few days after the
distribution of the encyclical to the conciliar Fathers, the latter received an official Note which explained what the
Secretariat for Non-Christians is not and must not be.
Essentially, this Note stated:
-- that the secretariat "is not an organ of the Council," given that it worked in an environment of "non-Christians," namely,
of persons who "do not have valid reasons to justify their presence in the Council."
-- the secretariat does not tend "to treat doctrinal problems, and much less so to be concerned with the ministry of
preaching and grace, or the task of missionaries, but to establish contacts with non-Christians, on questions of a general
nature."
Warning was given of "the dangers, if one was not careful, that threatened the activity of those who worked on the sense
of the Secretariat for Non-Christians": defeatism and indifference.
"By indifference we do not understand the coldness or incredulity of some in regard to the Christian faith, but the attitude
of those who see all religions as being the same; in each one of them they see ways that lead to the top of the mountain.
Therefore, they say to themselves, that if the guest arrives at the meeting, we should not be worried about the path he
took. In regard to syncretism, suffice it to know something of the religions of the Far East to realize the force of such a
tendency. All the known beliefs come together and melt into one, so long as they present some secondary common
aspects. The phenomenon is so strong and general that it has become a principle in the science of comparative religions.
We think it opportune to open wide one's eyes to these dangers."
This is found in the conciliar minutes [AS III/I, 30-35].
Q: Do you mean to say by this that Vatican II's documents are doctrinal but those of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue, the former Secretariat for Non-Christians, are pastoral?
Morali: As we see, this Note explains indirectly the reasons why the "Nostra Aetate" declaration was not written by the
secretariat and it reminds us implicitly that the documents of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue are not of a
doctrinal character, but only of a practical and pastoral nature.
In light of what we have just said, we can affirm, therefore, that, in the view of Vatican II, interreligious dialogue has an
eminently pastoral and practical role. This is also true for the documents issued by the pontifical council.
Dialogue is a motion that comes from the Christian's conscience and stems from the desire to communicate
the unexpectedly received gift in Christ: the gift of having been constituted children of God.
It also has, according to the view of the Church, an exquisitely human function, of creating premises for an international
collaboration oriented to the overcoming of conflicts and the solution of problems.

In part 2 of the interview with ZENIT, Morali analyzes the meaning and nature of interreligious dialogue.
http://www.zenit.org/article-11990?l=english
ROME, January 16, 2005 (Zenit.org)
Interreligious dialogue does not intend to relativize the truth, says theologian Ilaria Morali.
Q: Why can interreligious dialogue not be assimilated to what is happening in the ecumenical realm?
Morali: The reason is quite simple: ecumenical dialogue takes place in an intra-Christian context, between believers of
different denominations but united in faith in Jesus Christ. This type of dialogue should aspire to achieve the reconstitution
of the unity of Christians -- it still does not exist -- in the Catholic unity -- it already exists in the Catholic Church.
Interreligious dialogue is a relation that is established between Catholic Christians and members of other religions. There is
no unity of certain elements of faith as basis for this type of relation. The superposition between interreligious dialogue and
ecumenical dialogue is a widespread temptation, which depends largely on the lack of clarity of ideas within our
communities. Nevertheless, there is a common condition for the two forms of dialogue indicated by Paul VI: awareness of
the same identity. If, as Catholics, we were to ignore the awareness of our identity in face of a Protestant brother, we
would fall into the same error of those faithful who, because they want to dialogue with Muslims, are prepared to relativize
their own creed.

A Muslim friend recently said to me: "We want to dialogue with true Catholics, not with half-way Catholics. From my point
of view as a Muslim, a Catholic who rejects some fundamental aspect of his faith in order to dialogue would be
like a bad Muslim who does not observe the Koran. One dialogues if one has the courage of one's own
identity. How could we really know your faith if you deny, for example, the uniqueness of Christ?"
I think this is a very sensible consideration that would be useful also to recall within some Catholic movements that say
they favor interreligious dialogue.
Q: Would it be better to speak of "colloquy" (as in Latin's "Colloquium") rather than dialogue?
Morali: The Latin text of the encyclical "Ecclesia Suam" speaks of "colloquium," term that is translated "dialogue," and was
taken up again by Paul VI in his addresses in Italian. I think that it would have been more
opportune and prudent if the original word had been kept, not only because the term "dialogue" has known very different
and ambiguous meanings and applications in history, but also because today it is a word that has been
inflated; it is often used in politics, philosophy, sociology, etc., at times to relativize or deny truth.
It is the opinion of many that there is dialogue because no one can presume to know the truth. If this reasoning is
translated to the Christian realm, the concrete and tangible risk in many publications and speeches is to
relativize the unique value of the truth of salvation in Jesus Christ. This is not the teaching of the Magisterium.
Q: Like the declaration "Dominus Iesus," you speak of two levels of dialogue, the personal and the doctrinal. In what do
they consist and why were they criticized when this declaration was published?
Morali: First of all I would like to state a premise: in the present moment, there is no Christianity-Non-Christian religions
dialogue. There is no such possibility by the very fact that neither Hinduism, Buddhism nor Islam constitute in each case a
unity presided over by a reference authority. There are very different Buddhisms, Islams and Hinduisms among themselves,
although united by some distinctive elements.
This diversity, at times radical, would not be taken into account if one of these religions was considered as an indistinct
denomination. Instead, there is the possibility to dialogue with individuals who belong to one or another tradition of a
specific religion. I don't believe, therefore, that large-scale interreligious congresses are the real image of interreligious
dialogue.
Q: When does interreligious dialogue take place?
Morali: Dialogue is built in personal contact, in a climate of friendliness and congeniality, not in an oceanic meeting. This is
what I have learned when meeting with Catholics who work in the area of dialogue, when I myself have met with believers
of other religions.
Having said this, dialogue between Christians and members of other religions can take place at two levels:
-- on political and social topics, for example when we are questioned on the role of religions in the peace process and
humanization of the world;
-- in topics relating to religious doctrines, for example, the content of salvation according to the corresponding religious
doctrines.
In this connection, the declaration "Dominus Iesus" clarifies that, although on the level of persons, insofar as persons,
those who form part of the dialogue have the same dignity, the same cannot be said on the level of doctrines. If we are
Catholics, there is a necessary difference between the Christian message and the non-Christian message.
It might help to give an example. A few years ago I met with some friends in the home of an elderly Japanese Buddhist.
After speaking at length on the salvation of the Pure Land proposed in Buddhism and that of Christ, he said: "I am and will
continue to be Buddhist, but I must admit that the content of salvation proposed by Christ is of a qualitatively superior level
to that proposed by my tradition. The elevation that is proposed to man by the redemption of Christ is very much above
that outlined in Buddhism. Christ poses questions that I can hardly answer in virtue of my tradition."
In these days, I have heard the testimony of a missionary in Indonesia. He recalled how Muslim journalists affirmed that
the cataclysm of Dec. 26 must be interpreted as a punishment from God.
In the Christian view, God is a merciful Father and natural disasters are conceived as an expression of a nature that has not
yet been totally mastered by man. The missionary explained how he encouraged this explanation among some Muslim
friends. Once again, the difference is not based on the level of persons but of doctrines.
The fact that "Dominus Iesus" was badly received in some realms of the Catholic world should not surprise
us. It was a physiological fact: there would have been no reason to write such a document if large sectors of
present-day Catholicism had not lost sight of the beauty and fullness of the Christian message.
"Dominus Iesus" takes up again, in a certain sense, the same warning of Paul VI in "Ecclesiam Suam," when he put the
faithful on guard against the temptation to lose the meaning and value of the gift received with baptism & the Catholic
faith.
Q: Is this why "Dominus Iesus" got bad press?
Morali: Behind the rejection of the content of "Dominus Iesus," is hidden in general the rejection of the
doctrinal authority of the magisterium, because of the normative value of the tradition, of the principle of
the uniqueness of salvation in Christ. These are the fundamental points of Catholicism.
Interreligious dialogue cannot be understood as an action with which the Christian might get to know aspects of revelation
or even of other divine revelations parallel to the Christian. Whoever affirms this, not only goes beyond the definition of
dialogue admirably defined by Paul VI's magisterium, but also does not recognize in the revelation in Christ that unique
character that is at the very heart of the Christian faith.

From my point of view, with "Dominus Iesus" the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has made a bold gesture, at
the cost of a certain popularity, again specifying principles that cannot be put to one side. As a believer, moreover, if I
lost sight of who I am and what I have received through grace, I could promote a thousand initiatives of
dialogue, but none would reflect the Catholic idea.
All this should lead us to acknowledge that, 40 years after the encyclical "Ecclesiam Suam," the hour has come to recover
the first part of its teaching on awareness of Christian identity. In opening ourselves to the other, we have lost in part
this essential aspect of our lives. I am convinced that we must re-establish this balance in ourselves and in our communities
to give vigor and meaning to our initiatives and our "colloquies" with persons of other religions. ZE05011621

Archbishop Menamparampil Appointed Member Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship

Vatican City, February 7, 2005 SAR News
Two Salesian prelates from Asia are among the cardinals and bishops appointed to the Congregation of Divine Worship, a
Vatican statement said Feb. 2. Pope John Paul II appointed Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil of Guwahati in
Assam, India, and Bishop Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of Hong Kong, members of the Vatican body. According to the 1988 apostolic
constitution 'Pastor Bonus', the Congregation "does whatever pertains to the Apostolic See concerning the regulation and
promotion of the sacred liturgy, primarily of the sacraments, without prejudice to the competence of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith." […]
The Acts of the Apostles in India. A Bishop Spurs on the Missionaries and Theologians
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6937?eng=y
"I see timidness and apathy, a sense of guilt, a lack of self-respect...":  and the missions are dying. But the arch-bishop of
Guwahati gives the remedy: imitate the Apostle Philip with the Ethiopian
By Sandro Magister, April 24, 2003                               
ROMA - The text shown beneath has as its author Thomas Menamparampil, the archbishop of Guwahati, a city in Assam in
eastern India. In his diocese there are six million inhabitants and just fifty thousand Catholics: the typical profile of a
mission territory. And the missions are the crux of this commentary.
The missions, says archbishop Menamparampil, 67, a Salesian, have been the first victim of a tendency
toward the loss of self-respect that has pervaded Catholic thought for many years. Missionaries and
theologians have been paralyzed by it, kept prisoner by internal disputes about interreligious dialogue,
inculturation, and the salvific uniqueness of Christ. The model of the Church as evangelizer should be,
instead, that of Philip (in the image) and the Ethiopian eunuch, from the book of Acts.
This Indian bishop's commentary is intriguing because he touches upon themes that are fundamental to the Catholic
Church today. They are the themes that produced "Dominus Iesus" in 2001: the most unusual and controversial document
from the Catholic magisterium in recent years.
They are the themes that will be at the center of the future conclave, and upon which the choice of the next Pope will be
made. The full text of the archbishop's reflection was published in the number 1, 2003 edition of "Omnis Terra," the
periodical of the Pontifical Missionary Union, with headquarters in Rome. It was reprinted by "Mondo e Missione," the
monthly of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions in Milan, in its April 2003 edition. Here are the essential passages:
"How can I understand if no one instructs me?" (Acts 8:31) by Thomas Menamparampil
In the hearts of many believers, there has recently arisen the hidden fear that, in contrast to the Christian teaching that is
well accepted in Asia, the person of Christ might be an obstacle. [...]
In reality, the problem is not the image of Christ. The difficulties could have another source. There could be unpurged
colonial memories of erroneous histories received from countries considered Christian. There could be even now the
perception of political and economic threats from these nations. [...] But those who evangelize have the responsibility of
making it clear that Christianity is more than the collective interest of a society or civilization. It means an encounter with
God. [...] It means a committed life. It requires an evangelical way of life. An evangelizer is truly effective only when he is
himself free from the sense of being offended, in both personal and historical terms. In fact, part of the mission of the
evangelizer is to heal the memory of historical wounds in the society in which he lives. Forgiveness is the only way to the
future. If those who bear the Gospel feel like strangers in their own country, they must not blame anyone else; this
happens only because they are far from the simplicity, sincerity, and immediacy of the Gospel. [...] It is Christ who
responds to the yearnings of the ancient thinkers of Asia. [...]
Mahatma Gandhi, in his first encounter with the Sermon on the Mount, felt that everything he had been taught from
childhood had received its confirmation. He did not receive it as a foreign message.
He felt that the message of the Gospel was more intimate and natural to him than many of the other teachings he had
made his own through the years.
Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Buddhist artists have painted the face of Christ; they have written poems and novels and acted in
plays interpreting the personality and message of Christ with a dexterity that would surprise Christian believers. They have
acted as if Christ belonged to them. [...] Recently, some fundamentalist Hindu groups, in meeting with representatives of
the Church in India, have asserted that "Christians may not boast that they possess Christ." It's true! The central Christian
message is this: Christ belongs to all.
Anyone who has experienced sharing his faith knows that discussing the uniqueness of Christ as savior is a vain exercise.
Confronting a seeker with theological disputes only suffocates his enthusiasm.

Those who serve the Gospel must cease transforming themselves into self-centered quarrelers. [...]
Let us reveal Christ, instead, as he really is, as he is presented in the scriptures. This is sufficient. It is already enough if we
do not obscure people's vision. Let us permit them to seek, and to be the judges.
"Come and see," Jesus said to the disciples of John the Baptist (John 1:39), a saying similar to Buddha's expression "you
yourselves must come to know." [...] The word "conversion" has acquired a negative connotation in many Asian countries.
It is not rare for people to associate the word with a change of religion made through pressure, enticement, or deceit. We
know that spontaneous conversion is something else. [...]
In any case, if we maintain that everyone has the right to choose his religion, it is also just that he should have the right to
share his faith with others. The most bitter opposition to such rights is usually raised by those who have an ethnic notion
of religion. Some countries in Asia manifest this tendency. A universal religion, like all true human ideals, does not
recognize boundaries. No nation or ethnic group that respects human freedom has ever sought to interfere in the religious
choice of others. It is the most personal choice of all, even compared with political, economic, or cultural choices; it is the
most sacred right. [...]
An authentic encounter with Christ is much more than a simple demand for privileges, for constitutional or human rights. It
is an experience of God. When Nathanael met Jesus for the first time, he fell into a state of total surrender. He could only
exclaim. "You are the Son of God! You are the king of Israel!" (John 1:49). [...]
Another icon is provided by the meeting between Philip and the Ethiopian. It was surprising enough that an Ethiopian high
official should visit Jerusalem to worship God, but it was much more strange that he should be returning home reading the
prophet Isaiah and be ready to accept the apostle Philip as a traveling companion and guru. "How can I understand if no
one instructs me?" (Acts 8:31)
This is what the people of Asia are now asking, as the Ethiopian did then. It is essential that someone be able to teach.
How can people believe "if they have not heard? And how can they hear unless someone preaches?"
(Romans 10:14). Philip began to speak, and beginning from that passage of Scripture, he preached to him the good news
of Jesus" (Acts 8:35). The Ethiopian was baptized.
Thus the first important thing is that there be someone who explains. The second is that this evangelizer should begin from
the point at which he finds the person who poses the question: from his passage of Scripture, his problem in life, his state
of soul, his level of education, the aspirations of his heart, the nature of his culture, and
the limitations of his scope and vision.
In recent years one can note a sort of aversion on the part of many missionaries to assume the role of Philip. We should
ask why. We can only guess at the reasons for such timidity or apathy. The people of countries with a Christian
background, in looking back at the sorrowful  events of their history, including wars of religion, two world wars, the colonial
enterprises, [...] have been brought to severe self-criticism and "a general loss of self-respect" in their ideologies, in their
systems of thought, in their conception of progress, civilization, religion. [...]
And something of this is reflected in contemporary theological thought, the echo of which reaches even the field of the
missions.[...] Many  members of our missionary teams suffer from this "loss of self-respect," which derives from a sense of
guilt toward their past and from a complex of uncertainty as to their future.
But such attitudes do not come from the Gospel. In fact, only the Gospel can raise up those who have done evil and those
who have suffered it. It is the Gospel that permits them to turn their backs on history and move forward with confidence,
and to take the future in their own hands.
Today, more than ever, people are waiting for this help from the Gospel.

Benedict XVI: The Pope and His Agenda

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/28889?eng=y EXTRACT
Joseph Ratzinger re-proposed it in his last homily before the conclave: "being adults in the faith," and not "children in a
state of guardianship, tossed about by the waves and carried here and there by every wind of doctrine." Entry by entry, the
open questions of his pontificate, by Sandro Magister
ROMA, April 20, 2005 – They called him a conservative. But Joseph Ratzinger revolutionized even the conclave which, on
April 19, made him pope, Benedict XVI, "a humble laborer in the vineyard of the Lord."
Never in the past century has the choice of a pontiff been spoken in a language so clear and sharp. And it came with a
build-up which becomes more impressive as the hour of truth drew near. Until his last lecture on the state of the world,
which Ratzinger gave on the last day of the deceased pope’s life. Until, even more importantly, the last homily he
proclaimed in Saint Peter’s at the mass "pro eligendo romano pontifice," a few hours before the closing of the doors of the
Sistine Chapel. As a cardinal, Ratzinger put nothing "on sale" in order to be elected pope. The votes and consensus landed
on him one after the other, month after month, scrutiny after scrutiny, attracted only by his agenda, hard as a diamond. At
the last mass in Saint Peter’s he re-proposed this with the words of the apostle Paul: the goal is that of "being adults in the
faith," and not "children in a state of guardianship, tossed about by the waves and carried here and there by every wind of
doctrine."
Because modern times are leading precisely toward this, he warned: to "a dictatorship of relativism which recognizes
nothing as definitive and leaves as the ultimate standard one’s own personality and desires."
Against this "deceit of men," Ratzinger opposed the principle that "we have, instead, a different standard: the Son of God,
the true man," who is also "the standard of true humanism" and "the criterion for discerning between the true and the
false, between deception and truth."

The plain conclusion: "We must foster the maturity of this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith."
And it doesn’t matter if "having a clear faith according to the Church’s creed is frequently labeled
fundamentalism."
Over the years, accusations of fundamentalism have been scattered against this German theologian who today is the new
head of the Catholic Church.
During the 1960’s, the young Ratzinger followed the second Vatican Council as an expert consultant for the cardinal of
Cologne, Joseph Frings. He launched his first darts against the Holy Office, "out of step with the times and a cause of harm
and scandal," which he would direct many years later. But very soon after the end of the council, he began to denounce its
effects, which were "crudely divergent" from what was to be expected.
The path he took was parallel to that of two other first-rate theologians of the time, his friends and instructors Henri De
Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar, both of whom also became cardinals, both of whom were also accused of having turned
aside from progressivism to conservatism. Ratzinger never paid any attention to the label that was applied to him: "I have
not changed; they are the ones who have changed."
His was a strange conservatism, in any case. It was apt to disturb, rather than pacify, the Church. One of his favorite
models is Saint Charles Borromeo, the archbishop of Milan who, after the Council of Trent, did nothing less than
"reconstruct the Catholic Church, which was almost destroyed in the area around Milan as well, without returning to the
Middle Ages to do so; on the contrary, he created a modern form of the Church."
Today the transformations in civilization are no less epochal, in his eyes. The culture that has established itself in Europe
"constitutes the most radical possible contradiction, not only of Christianity, but also of the religious traditions of humanity,"
he argued on April 1 at Subiaco, at his last conference during the reign of John Paul II. And therefore the Church must
react with all the courage it can muster, not conforming itself to the times, not falling to its knees before the world, but
"bringing, with holy consternation, the gift of faith to all, the gift of friendship with Christ."
Benedict XVI does not dream of the mass conversion of whole peoples for the Church of tomorrow. For many regions, he
foresees a minority Christianity, but he wants this to be "creative." He prefers the missionary impulse to timid dialogue with
non-believers and men of other faiths. Pessimism and angst have no place with him, and here also he breaks with the
labels currently applied to him. He ended his homily-manifesto on April 18 at Saint Peter’s by invoking a world "changed
from a vale of tears to the garden of God."
He has been this way since he was a child: "The Catholicism of the Bavaria in which I grew up was joyful, colorful, human.
I miss a sense of purism. This must be because, since my childhood, I have breathed the air of the Baroque." He is
distrustful of theologians who "do not love art, poetry, music, nature: they can be dangerous." He loves taking walks in the
mountains. He plays the piano, and favors Mozart. His brother Georg, a priest, is the choirmaster at Ratisbonne,
one of the last pockets of resistance for the great tradition of sacred polyphony and Gregorian chant.
And this has been for years one of the points on which he has collided with novelties in the postconciliar
Church. He has had harsh words for the transformation of the mass and liturgies "into spectacles that
require directors of genius and talented actors." He has said similar things about the dismantling of sacred
music. "How often we celebrate only ourselves, without even taking Him into account," he commented in his
meditations for the Stations of the Cross last Good Friday. Here, "Him" refers to Jesus Christ, the one
forgotten by liturgies changed into convivial gatherings.
Benedict XVI has never hidden his reservations even about the mass liturgies celebrated by his predecessor. No one in the
curia of John Paul II was more free, or more critical, than he was. And Karol Wojtyla had the greatest respect for him for
this reason, too. "My trusted friend": this is how he defined Ratzinger in his autobiographical book "Arise, Let Us Be Going,"
praise he never bestowed on any of his other close collaborators.
As prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger criticized John Paul II on many
points, even the ones that most distinguished his pontificate.
He didn’t even go to the first interreligious meeting in Assisi in 1986. He saw in this an obfuscation of the
identity of Christianity, which cannot be reduced to other faiths. Years later, in 2000, a document came to
dissolve any sort of equivocation, the declaration "Dominus Jesus", published with his signature.
It unleashed a storm of controversy. But the pope defended it completely. And in 2002, Ratzinger attended
the meeting at Assisi in its modified form.
Another point on which the new pope did not agree with John Paul II was the "mea culpas". Many other cardinals disagreed
with these, but said nothing in public, with the sole exception of the archbishop of Bologna, Giacomo Biffi, who set down
his objections in black and white, in a pastoral letter to the faithful of his diocese. Ratzinger voiced his criticism in a
different way: in a theological document that responded, point by point, to the objections that had been raised, but in
which the objections were all elaborately developed, while the replies appeared tenuous and shaky.
As a cardinal, Benedict XVI also criticized the endless succession of saints and blesseds that pope Wojtyla raised to the
honors of the altar: in many cases, these were "persons who might perhaps say something to a certain group, but do not
say much to the great multitude of believers." As an alternative, he proposed "bringing to the attention of Christianity only
those figures who, more than all others, make visible to us the holy Church, amid so many doubts about its holiness."
He has always ignored politically correct language. In 1984, in a document against the Marxist roots of liberation theology,
he delivered a deadly series of blows to the communist empire, labeling it "the shame of our time" and "a disgraceful
enslavement of man."

During that same period, American president Ronald Reagan was speaking out against the "evil empire." The news was
spread that Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, the Vatican secretary of state and the architect of a policy of good relations with
Moscow, had threatened to resign in order to distance himself from the prefect for doctrine. It wasn’t true. In any case, five
years later the Berlin Wall came down.
Ratzinger has always distinguished himself as a man of great vision, not as a manager. He would love to see a Church that
is simpler in terms of bureaucracy. He doesn’t want its central and peripheral institutions – the Vatican curia, the diocesan
chanceries, the episcopal conferences – to become "like the armor of Saul, which prevented the young David from
walking." Partly for this reason, he reacted strongly in 2000 when another talented archbishop and theologian, his friend
and fellow German Walter Kasper, charged him with wanting to identify the universal Church with the pope and the curia,
with wanting in effect to restore Roman centralism. Ratzinger replied, confuting Kasper’s thesis. The latter spoke again,
provoking another public reply.
At the center of the dispute, which was fought on the terrain of advanced theology, was the relationship between the
universal Church and the particular local Churches. This was the same question that the progressivist wing was discussing
in more institutional and political terms during those same years, promoting a democratization of the Church, a balance of
papal primacy with greater power for the college of bishops.
The controversy over the balance of power in the Church was also involved in the conclave that elected Benedict XVI, and a
rejection of a greater role for collegiality was attributed to him, a rejection that would also create an obstacle to dialogue
with the Orthodox and Protestant Churches. But the reality is different. It was Kasper himself, whose motives are not
suspect, who gave the name "the Ratzinger formula" to the thesis maintained by the present pope on relations with
separated Christians, and called this "fundamental for ecumenical dialogue." One written form of this thesis maintains that
"in regard to papal primacy, Rome must demand from the Orthodox Churches nothing more than was established and
practiced during the first millennium." During the first millennium, the college of bishops carried much greater weight. It will
be, perhaps, a conservative pope like Benedict XVI who will clear the way for this reform.

A Concise Agenda of the New Pontificate

Just having emerged from the election, pope Benedict XVI really does have the conclave behind him. Nothing is binding him
anymore. Very strict rules forbid his electors from imposing upon him the decisions that they want, or the nominations that
they prefer. And this is one more reason for the hyperactive attention with which we will study his first moves as head of
the worldwide Church. All of a sudden a tremendous, limitless agenda opens up before the new pope. It is the agenda that
John Paul II left to him as an inheritance. Here is a list of entries, in alphabetical order.
ASSISI. This is an unforgettable symbol of the pontificate of Karol Wojtyla: the representatives of the world’s religions
praying side by side in the city of Saint Francis. But it is also one of the more destabilizing symbols: if every religion is itself
a path to salvation, the Catholic Church can close its missions throughout the world for lack of reason to exist. The
correction for this conclusion is found in the declaration "Dominus Jesus" of 2000, which reaffirms faith in Jesus Christ as
the only savior of all men of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The new pope will therefore continue interreligious dialogue,
but will hold firm the irreducible identity of Christianity and Jesus’ commandment to preach the Gospel to the whole world.
"That includes the Dalai Lama and the Muslims," Cardinal Giacomo Biffi once said. […]
INDIA. The immense country of Gandhi is an important frontier for the Church in Asia, and preoccupies the Roman papacy
for at least three reasons. The first is that the Christians who live there are frequently the victims of extremist Hindu
aggression and the intolerance of the civil laws themselves, which in many states forbid proselytism, or the missionary
activity of the Church, and punish it severely. The second fear is connected with the foreseeable rise of India as a great
power. Contact between the Christian West and Indian culture and religious belief, which are markedly polytheistic and
inclusive, instead of strengthening Christian identity, will tend to weaken and absorb it, analogously to what is feared will
happen in the case of contact with Chinese culture. The third concern is more internal.
A broad section of India’s Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, promote an idea of dialogue
between Christianity and Hinduism that places the two religions on the same level, and thus renders
meaningless the proposition of baptizing new Christians, since the Hindus’ faith is already enough for them.
“Dominus Jesus,” which stresses that Christ is the only way of salvation for all, was written in part as a
reaction to what is happening in India.
Benedict XVI will need to decide what practical consequences he should draw from this.

What Cardinal Ratzinger was thinking in 2002. Gave Interview with Journalists in Spain
http://www.zenit.org/article-12821?l=english EXTRACT
VATICAN CITY, April 22, 2005 (Zenit.org) The proclamation of Christ and his Gospel in a relativist world was for the
future Pope Benedict XVI one of the main challenges of the Church.
This is how Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, explained it on Nov.
30, 2002, in this interview with journalists, among whom were several of ZENIT's writers. The interview took place at St.
Anthony's Catholic University of Murcia, Spain, where the cardinal was attending an International Congress on Christology.
We offer this long interview which reflects some of the characteristic features of the new Pope, considered one of the most
important contemporary theologians.

Q: Some interpret the fact of proclaiming Christ as a rupture in the dialogue with other religions. How can one proclaim
Christ and dialogue at the same time?
Cardinal Ratzinger: I would say that today relativism predominates. It seems that whoever is not a relativist is someone
who is intolerant. To think that one can understand the essential truth is already seen as something intolerant. However, in
reality this exclusion of truth is a type of very grave intolerance and reduces essential things of human life to subjectivism.
In this way, in essential things we no longer have a common view. Each one can and should decide as he can. So we lose
the ethical foundations of our common life. Christ is totally different from all the founders of other religions, and
he cannot be reduced to a Buddha, a Socrates or a Confucius. He is really the bridge between heaven and earth,
the light of truth who has appeared to us.
The gift of knowing Jesus does not mean that there are no important fragments of truth in other religions. In the light of
Christ, we can establish a fruitful dialogue with a point of reference in which we can see how all these fragments of truth
contribute to greater depth in our faith and to an authentic spiritual community of humanity.
Q: What would you say to a young theologian? What aspects of Christology would you advise him to study?
Cardinal Ratzinger: Above all, it is important to know sacred Scripture, the living testimony of the Gospels, both of the
Synoptics as well as the Gospel of St. John, in order to hear the authentic voice.
In the second place, the great councils, especially the Council of Chalcedon, as well as subsequent councils that clarified the
meaning of that great formula on Christ, true God and true man. The novelty that he is really the Son of God, and really
man, is not an appearance; on the contrary, it unites God to man.
In the third place, I suggest further study in the paschal mystery: to know this mystery of the suffering and resurrection of
the Lord, and in this way to know what redemption is; the novelty that God, in the person of Jesus, suffers, bears our
sufferings, shares our life, and in this way creates the passage to authentic life in the resurrection. This relates to the whole
problem of human deliverance, which today is understood in the paschal mystery; on one hand it is related to the concrete
life of our time and, on the other, it is represented in the liturgy. I think this nexus between liturgy and life is central, both
founded in the paschal mystery.
Q: What has Cardinal Ratzinger learned that theologian Ratzinger did not already know?
Cardinal Ratzinger: The substance of my faith in Christ has always been the same: to know this man who is God who
knows me, who -- as St. Paul says -- has given himself for me. He is present to help and guide me. This substance has
always continued to be the same.
In the course of my life I have read the Church Fathers, the great theologians, as well as present-day theology. When I was
young, Bultmann's theology was determinant in Germany: existential theology. Then Moltmann's theology became more
determinant: a theology of Marxist influence, so to speak.
I would say that at the present time the dialogue with the other religions is the most important point: to understand how,
on one hand, Christ is unique, and on the other, how he answers all others, who are precursors of Christ, and who are in
dialogue with Christ. […]
Q: What is the present state of the ecumenical communication of the concept of Church? In the wake of the instruction
"Dominus Iesus" of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, there were criticisms among the representatives of the
Evangelical churches, because they did not accept or did not understand well the statement that, rather than churches,
they should be considered as Christian communities.
Cardinal Ratzinger: This topic would call for a long discussion. In the first place, we were told that if in "Dominus Iesus"
we had only spoken about the unique character of Christ, the whole of Christianity would have been delighted with this
document, all would have joined in applauding the Congregation. "Why did you add the ecclesiological problem that has
resulted in criticisms?" we have been asked.
However, it was also necessary to talk about the Church, as Jesus created this Body, and he is present throughout the
centuries through his Body, which is the Church. The Church is not a hovering spirit. I am convinced that we [in "Dominus
Iesus"] have interpreted Vatican II's "Lumen Gentium" in a totally faithful manner, while in the last 30 years we have
increasingly attenuated the text. In fact, our critics have said to us that we have remained faithful to the letter of the
Council, but we have not understood the Council. At least they acknowledge that we are faithful to the letter. The Church of
Christ is not an ecumenical utopia; it is not something we make; it would not be the Church of Christ. This is why we are
convinced that the Church is a Body, it is not just an idea, but this does not exclude different ways of a certain presence of
the Church, even outside the Catholic Church, which are specified by the Council. I think it is evident that they exist, in so
many hues, and it is understandable that this generates debates within the Church.

The Reform of the Reform has already begun

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/29626?eng=y EXTRACT
His first act was the inauguration mass of his pontificate. Benedict XVI is a pope of the great tradition of the liturgy, with
the eucharist at the center. It is a tradition of liturgical texts, rituals, and music - and symbolic places by Sandro Magister
ROMA, April 28, 2005
A note on "Dominus Jesus"
Before he was elected pope, Joseph Ratzinger was best known and most fiercely opposed for one thing in particular: the
August 6, 2000 declaration "Dominus Jesus," "on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church."

Benedict XVI did not cite this explicitly during his first week as pope. But in the opening mass of his pontificate, on Sunday,
April 24, he did in fact repeat with great emphasis the central doctrine of "Dominus Jesus." This doctrine is the nucleus of
the faith of the New Testament.
In his homily, he said that his agenda is not "to pursue my own ideas, but to listen to the word and the will of the Lord, to
be guided by Him." No sooner said than done. The first reading of the mass was from the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 4,
in which Peter says of Jesus: "There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name in the whole world given to
men by which we are to be saved." That same day, Sunday, April 24, in all the churches of the world the Gospel reading
was from the fourteenth chapter of John, in which Jesus says of himself:
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."

Jesuit Resignation Blamed on Benedict XVI

By Deal W Hudson, The Window, June 3, 2005.
The new pope was installed on April 24, [2005] and on May 6 [2005] came the announcement that Father Thomas
Reese, S. J., the editor of America magazine, had been forced to resign… The reaction on the Catholic left was
outrage… Commonweal, The National Catholic Reporter, and America make up the media vanguard of the
Catholic left… The editorial content of America consistently challenges the Church's teaching on issues like
condoms, homosexuality and, most important of all, salvation through Jesus Christ.
For example, the September 2000 issue of America contained articles critical of the document Dominus Iesus
published that year by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The writers took issue with the Congregation's
insistence that Catholics should believe that salvation is given only through Jesus Christ and His Church.

No prophet in his own land: Reflections on Benedict XVI

http://www.crisismagazine.com/june2005/hildebrandt.htm EXTRACT
By Alice von Hildebrand, Crisis Magazine, Vol. 23, No. 6, June 2005
The election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to the throne of Peter has elicited a response of joy from all the faithful who love
Christ and His Church. […]
One may predict that every move that he'll make to appoint faithful cardinals and bishops, to reform the deplorable abuses
of the liturgy, to curb and eliminate immorality in the seminaries, to challenge so-called Catholic universities to follow the
dictates of Dominus Iesus, will be sharply criticized: In a word, Benedict XVI will be crucified. No doubt he knew it, and in
accepting the cross of the papacy (which he didn't strive for, as opposed to some of his predecessors in the Renaissance)
he certainly spoke the words "Fiat voluntas tua" and put his trust in God. […]
This is the pontiff whom the Holy Ghost has inspired weak and imperfect men to give us as the representative of Christ on
this earth. A Te Deum and a Magnificat are called for.
Alice von Hildebrand is professor emerita of philosophy at Hunter College of the City University of New York and the author
of The Soul of a Lion: The Life of Dietrich von Hildebrand (Ignatius, 2000), with preface by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Pontiff Recalls That Christ Is Man's Only Savior

http://www.zenit.org/article-14631?l=english
Comments on Canticle in Ephesians 1:3-10
VATICAN CITY, November 23, 2005 (Zenit.org) Benedict XVI reminded pilgrims at a general audience that Christ is
mankind's only Savior, as he commented on a Pauline canticle from Scripture. "Yes, Lord, draw us to yourself; draw the
world to yourself and grant us peace, your peace," the Pope said as he concluded his traditional midweek address with a
spontaneous exclamation. The great number of people who continue to come to the weekly meeting with the Holy Father --
more than 25,000 today -- made it necessary, despite a chilly wind, to hold the audience in St. Peter's Square. Neither Paul
VI Hall nor St. Peter's Basilica could accommodate the size of the crowd. Benedict XVI used his address to comment on the
canticle of the first chapter of the Letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians, verses 3-10, which begins with the famous hymn:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the
heavens." In this passage, the Pontiff explained, "the figure of Christ is central, in which the work of God the Father is
revealed and fulfilled." Quoting the canticle, the Holy Father said that Christ is the axis that recapitulates in himself all
"things in heaven and things on earth." To emphasize his message, the Pope quoted a second-century saint, Irenaeus, who
recognized that "there is only one God and one Jesus Christ … the Word of God became man" for his salvation. With this
meditation, the Pontiff continued the series of commentaries on the psalms and canticles that are found in the Liturgy of
the Hours. Other commentaries are posted at www.zenit.org/english/audience.

What Does the Pope-Theologian Teach? First of All, the Truth

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/46201?eng=y EXTRACT
by Sandro Magister ROMA, February 23, 2006 – On the day of the feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, at the end of his
weekly audience with the pilgrims, Benedict XVI announced that next March 24 he will create 15 new cardinals.
With this reduced number of appointments, pope Joseph Ratzinger intentionally remained below the maximum threshold of
120 cardinal electors as established by the rules.

John Paul II, on the other hand, habitually exceeded this limit, nominating a significant number of extra cardinals each
time. […]
Another of the candidates for the purple predicted by the media, Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue, not only was not designated a cardinal, but was removed from his office and sent to Egypt as a
nuncio.
The decision was made public on February 15, and came as a surprise even to Fitzgerald himself. In reality, Fitzgerald’s
promotion as a cardinal was entirely unlikely, given the strong disagreement between him and Benedict XVI on crucial
topics in the dialogue among religions, and in particular between Christianity and Islam. Fitzgerald is a convinced
representative of the "spirit of Assisi" of which Ratzinger has always been critical. […]
Program: Restore to the Truth Its Splendor
by Sandro Magister
Ten months have passed since the election of Joseph Ratzinger. Is it possible to identify a clear and coherent direction
here? My answer is, yes.
Look at the first great public act of Benedict XVI. It was his first Mass in Saint Peter’s Square, on Sunday, April 24.
At the Gospel reading, these words of Jesus resounded: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes
to the Father but by me."
They are the words that Christian art has almost always placed at the center of its depictions of Christ, the Risen Christ, the
"Pantokrator" who rules the universe: the Gospel book he holds is opened on these words, so that all of us may read them.
"Dominus Jesus" – the controversial declaration of August 6, 2000, "on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ
and of the Church" – was not therefore an invention of Ratzinger the theologian. It simply sets forth the essence of the
Revelation of the New and Eternal Testament.

The New Curia of Benedict XVI Looks toward Asia

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/60561?eng=y EXTRACT
The new prefect of "Propaganda Fide" comes from India. And the new secretary of the congregation for the liturgy is from
Sri Lanka.
By Sandro Magister ROMA, May 26, 2006
The decapitation of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, with the sending of its former president, English
archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, to Cairo as a nuncio, is not the only novelty introduced into the curia by Benedict XVI. With
some other well-aimed moves, pope Ratzinger has already obtained much more.
The last one, which took place on May 20, was the replacement of the "red pope", a slang term for the cardinal prefect of
the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. This prefect, in effect, has enormous power concentrated in his
position. He oversees more than a thousand dioceses in mission countries, which are found in Asia, Africa, Oceania, and
part of Latin America. He designates the new bishops of these dioceses. He visits them. He helps them financially, with a
large budget at his disposal.
Since 2001, the office holder had been cardinal Crescenzio Sepe, previously the head of the information office of the
secretariat of state (he was the one who in 1984 appointed Mario Agnes as director of "L’Osservatore Romano", and
Joaquín Navarro-Valls as director of the Vatican press office) and then the manager of the great jubilee of 2000, for which
he was rewarded by John Paul II with the cardinal’s purple and appointment as prefect of "Propaganda Fide".
Sepe made no mystery of the fact that he was aiming even higher from there, at the office of secretary of state, which he
prepared for with diplomatic tours that he organized himself and which were widely publicized in “L’Osservatore Romano.”
He made a memorable visit to Cuba in March of 2003, embracing and praising Fidel Castro so excessively that the Cuban
bishops felt the need to issue a declaration denouncing his actions.
Benedict XVI has destined Sepe for Naples, the major city of his region of origin, where he will replace cardinal Michele
Giordano, who has retired for reasons of age. Naples is a prestigious archepiscopal see, but it does not compare to the
worldwide theatre of action of "Propaganda Fide."
As the new prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the pope has called an Indian, cardinal Ivan Dias,
70, who has been archbishop of Bombay for ten years, but before that served at the secretariat of state and as a diplomat
in many countries, including Albania (his last diplomatic post), and before that South Korea, Ghana, Indonesia, and
Sweden, without counting the dozens of countries he followed as a Vatican observer, including Russia, China, Vietnam, and
South Africa. He has learned many languages, speaking eighteen fluently having some familiarity with others.
But even though this skill is very much adapted to his role, it is not the only reason why Benedict XVI chose him as the new
prefect of "Propaganda Fide." Much more influential was the fact that cardinal Dias, who has an excellent understanding of
the Eastern religions, has never surrendered to that "relativism" of faiths that Ratzinger condemned in 2000 with the most
important of his actions as the cardinal custodian of doctrine, the declaration "Dominus Iesus."
As archbishop of Bombay, Dias has on a number of occasions complained of the fact that the Jesuits,
excessively enthusiastic supporters of interreligious dialogue, play the master in the seminaries of India.
His goal was to evangelize and convert, and each year he administered many baptisms. Before the last conclave he was
listed among the candidates for the papacy, but in reality he was one of Ratzinger’s most resolute supporters. […]
You can find an account of these events and the complete text of Dias’ note in this dispatch from the agency “Asia News”:
> Cardinal Dias tells fundamentalists: “Conversion is between man and God”

On India as the epicenter of the theological controversy over religious pluralism, see on this website:
> Disputed Questions – Like Salvation Outside of the Church (16.7.2003)

Christians, have courage to fight against lies

COMMENTS: On August 8, 2006, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) had a story on an interview of Archbishop Amato with
a Polish Catholic weekly "Niedziela" in which the Archbishop stressed how Catholic media needs to be different from
secular news and should seek and transmit the truth of the faith
http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?dz=swiat&id_art=00067
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=7347 EXTRACT
[Archbishop Angelo Amato who has taken the place of Tarcisio Bertone (now Vatican Secretary of State) as the Secretary of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), is a Salesian and a theologian specialized in Christology who has
studied in India and Greece, where he acquired a twofold competence in Asiatic religions and Eastern Christianity.]
Wlodzimierz Redzioch talks to Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, about
the Magisterium of the Church and social communications.
WLODZIMIERZ REDZIOCH: One can have the impression that media are not interested in proclaiming the truth and
showing reality in an objective way. On the contrary, they show a distorted picture of reality in accordance with the
ideological and political demands of their owners. In fact, media become centres of disinformation, means to manipulate
masses, which has been clearly seen in Poland recently. What do you think about this important problem?
ARCHBISHOP ANGELO AMATO: One should admit that we very often have the impression that we are living in some
artificial virtual reality that is created by media workers and various opinion-forming people. Thus a picture (hologram) is
created and it does not exist in reality since it is a fruit of manipulation of people as well as of events and history. But the
Gospel is not a creation of human mind but God's message concerning the reality of man and the universe. Therefore, it is
clear that the Magisterium, which proposes the evangelic truth, the truth revealed by the Son of God, meets obstacles not
in transmitting but rather in accepting the teaching of the Church as the expression of God's truth about our existence,
ethical principles, desires of freedom and joy.
WLODZIMIERZ REDZIOCH: Could you give some concrete examples of the difficulty in accepting the
teaching office of the Church by media?
ARCHBISHOP ANGELO AMATO: A good example of this problem is the case of the declaration Dominus Iesus issued
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. From the very moment of its publication, which was on 5 September
2000, the declaration caused chaotic, mostly polemical, reactions. Dealing with a theological document, a brief but rich and
complex one, media did not focus on its main theme, i.e. the salvific universality of Christ and the Church, but they stressed
the ecumenical statements and arguments in order to polemicize against it. Instead of presenting the whole document the
headlines and first articles in international press showed it in alarming tones, stressing that it meant the end of ecumenism
and interreligious dialogue and using the stereotyped statements 'closing up', 'return of pre-conciliar theology' or 'anti-
ecumenism'.
Geoffrey Wainright, chairman of standing Ecumenics and Dialogue Committee of the World Methodist Council said that as
soon as he heard about the publication of the Vatican document he read the web page of the Holy See and understood that
the press had introduced the document in a wrong way. We can make a conclusion that on the one hand contemporary
media are characterised by certain superficiality and on the other hand they can exert powerful influence. And it is true that
the more superficial the media are the more powerful their influence is.
The example of the document Dominus Iesus is not an isolated case. The Catechism of the Catholic Church was also
treated in an instrumental way, its content being reduced to the discussion about the issues of death sentence and 'just
war'. In both cases the fundamental themes of the documents: religious arguments, mystery of God and our salvation as
well as evangelisation activities of the Church were not discussed.

And Now, Four. Another Theologian Goes Under the Scrutiny of "Dominus Iesus"
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/167881?eng=y
It's Peter C. Phan, of Georgetown University, in Washington. Before him, three famous Jesuits were censured:
Dupuis, Haight, and Sobrino. All judged as being in conflict with the doctrine of Jesus as the only savior of
the world
By Sandro Magister ROMA, September 17, 2006 – Three days ago, the congregation for the doctrine of the faith
published two responses to as many inquiries from the U.S. bishops' conference, on the obligation to provide food and
water for people in a "vegetative state." The backdrop to the inquiries was the discussion that arose around the case of the
American woman Terry Schiavo, who died in 2005 after food and water were deliberately withheld from her.
But this is not the only doctrinal or moral controversy that has the United States as its epicenter today.
On September 12, the Vatican-coverage journalist for the "National Catholic Reporter," John L. Allen Jr., reported that a
prominent American theologian is under official review because of one of his books.
The theologian is Peter C. Phan, and the book, released in the United States in 2004, is entitled "Being Religious
Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interreligious Dialogue."
As the book's title implies, question in dispute is that of the "unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church,"
the Christological doctrine reaffirmed in 2000 by the declaration "Dominus Iesus."

Phan is the fourth leading theologian to go under review after the publication of "Dominus Iesus." Before him, and for the
same reasons, the Vatican congregation for the doctrine of the faith issued notifications against three Jesuits: Jacques
Dupuis, in 2001; Roger Haight, in 2004; and Jon Sobrino, in 2006.
Phan, who is Vietnamese, emigrated to the United States in 1975. He is a priest in the diocese of Dallas, Texas. He studied
theology and philosophy at the Pontifical Salesian University in Rome, and at the University of London. He taught at the
University of Dallas, and then in Washington, at the Catholic University of America. Today he is a professor at Georgetown
University, also in Washington, where he holds the Ignacio Ellacuría Chair of Catholic Social Thought. He also teaches at the
East Asian Pastoral Institute in Manila, in the Philippines. He was the first person not born in the United States to be elected
president of the Catholic Theological Society of America.
Phan has written two other books on the question of the relationship between Christianity and the other religions, before
the one now under scrutiny: "Christianity with an Asian Face" and "In Our Own Tongues." But his subject matter ranges
over a variety of fields: from Orthodox theology ("The Iconographical Vision of Paul Evdokimov", "Culture and Eschatology")
to the Fathers of the Church ("Grace and the Human Condition", "Social Thought"), from eschatology ("Eternity in Time: A
Study of Rahner’s Eschatology"; "Death and Eternal Life") to mission studies ("Mission and Catechesis: Alexandre de
Rhodes and Inculturation in Seventeenth-Century Vietnam"). He edits theological series for Orbis Books and Paulist Press.
His work has been translated into French, Spanish, Italian, German, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese.
In July of 2005 Phan received, through the then-bishop of Dallas, Charles Grahmann, a letter from the Vatican congregation
for the doctrine of the faith, signed by archbishop Angelo Amato, the second in command at the congregation, which until
three months before had been headed by Joseph Ratzinger.
The letter listed 19 observations, grouped under six headings, about six passages from the book "Being Religious
Interreligiously." The points in question concerned, above all, the doctrine of Christ as the only savior of all men, the
necessity of the Church for salvation, and the salvific value of non-Christian religions.
In the congregation's judgment, Phan's book was "in open contrast with almost all the teachings of the declaration Dominus
Iesus." The congregation asked Phan to write an article correcting his theses, and not to have the book reprinted. Phan
responded with a letter in April of 2006, in which he posed objections to the measures taken and asked for monetary
compensation for the writing of the requested clarification. No other letters came to Phan from the Vatican after this. But in
the meantime, a second inquiry about him had begun, this time carried out by the doctrinal committee of the U.S. bishops.
In May of this year, the president of the committee, William Lori, the bishop of Bridgeport, communicated to Phan that his
book had been placed under examination – at the request of the Holy See – and sent to him three pages of objections, for
which he requested replies. The doctrinal committee includes, as consultants, two cardinals in close agreement with
Ratzinger: Francis George, the archbishop of Chicago, and Avery Dulles, a Jesuit theologian.
A spokesperson for the U.S. bishops' conference, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, confirmed on September 12 that "the dialogue is
on-going" between the bishops and Phan. The committee had asked Phan for a response to its objections by September
1st, after which it would issue a public statement to "make clear to the faithful the problems that the committee found with
the book." But Phan replied that it was impossible to respond by that date.
Other details on this matter are found in this note by John L. Allen, Jr., from September 14:
> Why is Fr. Peter Phan under investigation?
The declaration in 2000 from the Vatican congregation for the doctrine of the faith "on the unicity and salvific universality of
Jesus Christ and the Church": > Dominus Iesus
The notifications from the congregation against the theologians Dupuis, Haight, and Sobrino, scrutinized before Phan for
similar reasons concerning Christology:
> Jacques Dupuis, January 24, 2001
> Roger Haight, December 13, 2004
> Jon Sobrino, November 26, 2006
PETER C. PHAN [THE FALLOUT OF “INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE” AND REJECTION OF “DOMINUS
IESUS”]:
1. Praying to the Buddha - Living amid Religious Pluralism
By Peter C. Phan CRCN January 26, 2007 / Commonweal magazine Volume CXXXIV, Number 2 January 25, 2007
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1828  
In 2000, twenty-five members of my family returned to Vietnam, many for the first time since leaving the country as
refugees a quarter of a century earlier. Our nostalgic tour included a visit to the buildings of the Catholic high school where
I used to teach. That visit was disappointing because the school had been seized years earlier by the Communist
government and no longer existed. But our curiosity was aroused by a nearby Buddhist pagoda which, in contrast to the
school, seemed to be prospering, with a beautiful garden and several new buildings.
As we entered the courtyard, dominated by a huge statue of the reclining Buddha surrounded by his five disciples, we were
greeted by a smiling and gentle-looking nun in her late twenties.
She was dressed in a light-grey habit, her head clean-shaven, a necklace of brown wooden beads hanging down from
around her neck. She immediately recognized that we were viet kieu-foreign Vietnamese, the government’s designation for
expatriates-and offered to give us a tour of the pagoda. She showed us various buildings, her voice soft and soothing, her
demeanor radiating warmth and peace. When my mother asked her about her life, she replied that she had entered the
monastery as a girl and had lived there ever since.

Finally she led us into the pagoda itself. In the dimly-lit sanctuary a huge golden Buddha sat cross-legged on a high lotus-
flower throne, his eyes peacefully closed, his hands touching each other and resting on his lap in the traditional gesture of
meditation. In front of the Buddha, offerings of fruit were artfully arranged in golden bowls, along with flowers, incense,
and red candles. On the side stood a statue of the female bodhisattva, or the Buddha of compassion, known in Vietnamese
as Quan Am. The whole place was suffused with a prayerful silence periodically punctuated by the muffled sounds of a
gong. Never had I had as deep an experience of stepping on sacred ground and as overwhelming a sense of
what Rudolf Otto calls the mysterium tremendum et fascinans, not even in Catholic churches. My mother stood
reverently in front of the Buddha, her eyes fixed on him, her palms held together at her chest, her lips murmuring a prayer.
When she finished, she rummaged in her handbag, took out a handful of American dollars, and dropped them into the
coffer. As we left, she turned to me and said: "The Buddha is a holy man."
Just a couple of decades earlier, my mother’s gesture would have been condemned as idolatry. In her youth (she is now
eighty-two) she had been taught that only Christianity-more precisely, Roman Catholicism-was the true religion, and all
other religions the work of the devil. To avoid contamination by such superstitions, Vietnamese Catholics usually lived
together in so-called "Catholic villages," separated from the "pagans". For nearly four centuries they were strictly forbidden
to practice ancestor worship, the most sacred ritual of the Confucian tradition, which the church condemned as idolatry.
The correspondence between the bishops of Vietnam and the Propaganda Fide (now the Congregation for the
Evangelization of Peoples) over those centuries contain repeated queries about the permissibility of venerating ancestors
and of contributing money for the building of temples-queries to which the Propaganda Fide consistently replied with a firm,
curt negative.
How, then, could an old woman like my mother, God-loving and church-fearing, a twice-a-day churchgoer raised to believe
that no one except Catholics can be saved, do what she did that day in that pagoda? And what, exactly, happened between
the 1960s and 2000 that enabled her to honor the Buddhist nun, pray to the Buddha, and contribute money to the
maintenance of the pagoda? The answer lies in the dramatic expansion during our era of interreligious dialogue, particularly
as it has been espoused by the church since Vatican II.

Being religious interreligiously

Lest it be thought that recent theologies of interreligious dialogue are responsible for my mother’s change of mind and
heart, I must confess that she is illiterate (in her youth, girls were not allowed to go to school, and she has never even seen
any of my books on theology-apparently to no spiritual harm). In the West, especially in academic circles, the word
"dialogue" usually evokes images of a learned conversation among intellectuals at conferences and symposia. One envisions
interfaith dialogue as an intellectual give-and-take among professional theologians, scholars, and religious officials such as
rabbis, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, imams, and mullahs.
To distinguish between this kind of intellectual exchange and a broader conception of dialogue, the Federation of Asian
Bishops’ Conferences, taking a cue from a joint 1991 document of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and
the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, describes a fourfold activity: the "dialogue of life", in which people engage
others in their community in a neighborly exchange of daily joys, problems, and concerns; the “dialogue of action,” a call
for Christians to cooperate with those of other faiths in projects of mutual interest; the "dialogue of religious experience", in
which people share spiritual practices, such as prayer and contemplation, with others of different faiths; and the "dialogue
of theological exchange", involving specialists who undertake to enrich each other’s conception of their respective religious
and spiritual traditions.
Contemporary religious pluralism, in Asia and increasingly in the United States, requires interreligious dialogue not only at
the theological level, but at the personal level too. It challenges one to be religious interreligiously. Consequently, pride of
place must be given to the dialogue of life, in which, as the 1991 document prescribes, people of different faiths live
together "in an open and neighborly spirit, sharing their joys and sorrows, their human problems and preoccupations." This
life-in-common with non-Christians, I have discovered, is what opened my mother’s mind and heart to other faiths and
made her reject the older view of non-Christians as "pagans" destined to eternal damnation. My mother lives in an
apartment complex where most tenants are Vietnamese. Among her close friends are two women who, she assures me, are
holy and devout Buddhists. One of them, who is younger and can drive, helps my mother with shopping and visits to
doctors. The other is older and calls my mother em, or "young sister", while my mother in return calls her chi, "older sister".
They accept each other as ba con ruot thit-flesh-and-blood relatives. My mother also had a close Catholic friend who
shunned all contacts with non-Christians and strongly disapproved of my mother’s friendship with the two Buddhist women.
Ironically, after this woman’s death, one of my mother’s Buddhist friends gave money to the local priest to have a Mass
said for her.
Another form of interreligious dialogue that deserves equal emphasis is the dialogue of action, the collaboration between
Christians and other believers "for the integral development and liberation of people". Here in the United States,
Vietnamese Catholics and Buddhists in Mississippi helped each other rebuild both a church and a pagoda destroyed by
Hurricane Katrina.
In Asia, where Christians make up only 3 percent of the population, a dialogue of action is not an intellectual luxury but a
basic necessity for survival; learning to live harmoniously with non-Christians and to work together for justice and peace are
essential parts of the church’s evangelizing mission. In recent years, Vietnamese Catholics and Buddhists have worked
together to help victims of natural disasters and to protest against infringements of religious freedom in Vietnam, especially
in cases of persecution against Catholic priests and Buddhist monks.

The most challenging and spiritually fruitful form of interreligious dialogue is the dialogue of religious experience, in which
believers, while "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." This can entail either an intellectual conversation with
others about one’s spiritual traditions, or a common act of "religious experience", in which Christians and non-Christians
come together to pray, meditate and contemplate, profess faith, and search for God or the Absolute (the latter expression
takes into account non-theistic religions such as Buddhism and Jainism). Pope John Paul II’s meetings with leaders of
various religions in Assisi in 1986 and in subsequent years to pray for peace are often invoked as an example of this
dialogue of religious experience. Yet even Pope John Paul’s actions, symbolically and doctrinally significant as they were, fell
short of what the dialogue of religious experience could be. In Assisi, peoples of diverse faiths gathered together in one
place to pray, but not to pray together. Traditionally, a fear of religious syncretism has made religious leaders-and not only
Catholic leaders-hesitate to recommend merging prayer rituals. But a number of theologians argue that praying together is
possible and highly desirable, especially for believers of theistic faith (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and
Confucianism), and particularly in situations of violence and conflict caused in the name of religion.
Although it may sound like a strange thing for a theologian to say, as the final means of effecting a better awareness of
God’s saving presence in all religions, theological dialogue is less important than the other three forms of dialogue. It is by
necessity limited to a narrow circle of experts and often deals with subjects too recondite for the average believer. More
crucially, theological exchange presupposes the other three dialogues, and ideally is deeply rooted in them. As is clear from
the history of theology, dogmas and doctrines are almost always framed in controversies and frozen in texts that are
intelligible only in their historical contexts. It is only within the dialogues of life, action, and religious experience that one
can obtain an accurate gauge of the relative importance-or, to use an expression of Vatican II, the “hierarchy of truths”-of
these doctrines.
For example, Dominus Iesus, the declaration issued in 2000 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asserts that
"if it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are
in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation."
As I was writing this essay, meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that official Saudi first-grade textbooks for Islamic
studies affirm that "every religion other than Islam is false". My point is not that Dominus Iesus and Saudi religious text-
books are parallel. Rather, it is that the Dominus Iesus statement will be read and understood one way in the corridors of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and in another, quite different way in the context of a dialogue with Islam-
and specifically in a contemporary geopolitical context inflamed by the notion of a "clash of civilizations" that pits Muslim
against Christian. Furthermore, it is only after serious and prolonged dialogues of life, action, and religious experience that
one can say with any degree of certainty whether a devout Muslim is always and "objectively speaking" in "a gravely
deficient situation" and necessarily worse off than a Catholic who has at his or her disposal "the fullness of the means of
salvation."
Such dialogues will also determine whether and when one should compare Christianity with Islam or any other religion,
given the serious possibility of misunderstanding and violence. Imagine, for instance, that you are in Nigeria, a country with
a longstanding and violent history of conflict between its Muslim north and Christian south. Suppose you inform a Muslim
Nigerian, with full fervor and conviction, that in comparison with Catholics he is in "a gravely deficient situation" with regard
to salvation. What is the chance of your convincing him of the salvific advantages of the Catholic Church-a church whose
primary meaning to him may be that it once led the Crusades and is currently awash in sexual scandal? How would you
answer if he countered your assertion with the Saudi textbook’s assertion that “every religion other than Islam is false”?
Such an exchange might exacerbate the already violent tension between Nigerian Muslims and Christians. Unless it is
deeply rooted in genuine and sincere dialogues of life, action, and religious experience, your description of his religious
condition, inspired by an innocent affirmation of an ecclesiastical document such as Dominus Iesus, would be the equivalent
of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.

A Christian theology of religion

I am not suggesting that the dialogue of theological exchange should not be undertaken. Indeed, such a dialogue can be
mutually enriching, dispelling the misunderstandings of teachings and practices that complicate relations between different
faiths, even as it clarifies the teachings and practices of one’s own religion. However, such a dialogue must be accompanied
by a reflection, on the part of Christians, on the role of Christ and the church with regard to other religions. How are we to
understand this role? The answers tend to fall in one or another of four groups, as Paul Knitter has helpfully explained in
Introducing Theologies of Religions: replacement (there is only one true religion), fulfillment (one true religion fulfills other
religions), mutuality (there are many true religions which are called to dialogue), and acceptance (there are many religions
which have different ends). More simply, theologies of religions are often categorized in three models: exclusivism,
pluralism, and inclusivism.
Exclusivism holds that there is only one savior and one true religion or church and that no salvation is possible outside of
them.
At the other end of the spectrum, pluralism holds that there are many saviors and different paths leading to salvation, none
necessarily superior to the others.
Inclusivism maintains that although there is only one savior and one true church, salvation remains possible outside them-
though it is always ultimately dependent on them.

Respected Christian theologians advocate each of these positions, making credible appeals to both Scripture and Tradition
to bolster their views. (Incidentally, these three positions occur also among theologians of other religions, including
Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism.) The official teaching of the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in
Dominus Iesus, favors inclusivism while warning against the dangers of pluralism. It categorically affirms the "fullness and
definitiveness of the revelation of Jesus Christ" and the "unicity and unity of the church", stating that "it would be contrary
to the faith to consider the church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as
complementary to the church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the church
toward the eschatological kingdom of God."
Does this mean that other religions cannot be regarded as "ways of salvation"? The Catholic Bishops’
Conference of India gives a very nuanced answer:
Christ is the sacrament, the definitive symbol of God’s salvation for all humanity. This is what the salvific
uniqueness and universality means in the Indian context. That, however, does not mean there cannot be
other symbols, valid in their own ways, which the Christian sees as related to the definitive symbol, Jesus
Christ. The implication of all this is that for hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings, salvation is
seen as being channeled to them not in spite of but through and in their various sociocultural and religious
traditions. We cannot, then, deny a priori a salvific role for these non-Christian religions.
Does comparing Dominus Iesus with the statement of the Indian bishops merely show a distinction without
a difference? Or do the Indian bishops provide a ground for saying that non-Christian religions are also in a
certain sense "ways of salvation", without thereby jeopardizing the universal relevance of Christ and the
church? Is it not likely that the Indian bishops could arrive at this conclusion only as the result of their
dialogues of life, action, and religious experience with peoples of other faiths?
Another way of approaching the issue is to ask whether religious diversity is simply an accidental fact of history-a de facto
religious pluralism-or something willed positively by God. In Christianity and the Religions, Jacques Dupuis (whose earlier
work Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism was censured by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)
holds that members of non-Christian religions may be saved through the "elements of truth and grace" found in their
religions, and that these religions have a positive meaning in God’s single overall plan of salvation. They are, in Dupuis’s
words, "gifts of God to the peoples of the world". Strong parallels exist between Dupuis and the Indian bishops,
and Dupuis himself says, "If I had not lived in India for thirty-six years, I would not preach the theology
which I am preaching today."

Comparative theology & dialogue

Theologians such as James Fredericks have suggested that the ideas developed by Dupuis and others, variously dubbed
"fulfillment theology" or "inclusive pluralism", test the limits of faithfulness to the twin doctrines of the uniqueness and
universality of Jesus as savior and the universality of God’s saving grace in the Holy Spirit. Fredericks also argues that this
theology of religion, though "faithful to the depth and scope of Christian tradition," is not useful to the Christian community
today as it seeks "new forms of social and religious solidarity with those who follow other religious paths." In Buddhists and
Christians, Fredericks maintains that this theology distorts other religious traditions, minimizes the significance of religious
differences, and actually hinders interreligious dialogue.
This critique misses the point. First, it is premature to call for a moratorium on this theological discussion-as if the "inclusive
pluralism" of Dupuis were already a common doctrine, or a sententia communis, as we used to say in the old scholastic
days. But more important, blaming inclusive pluralism for hindering interreligious dialogue is a little like blaming a chainsaw
for messing up a juicy sirloin. This theology was never intended as a tool for interreligious dialogue. The attempt to
understand how non-Christian religions may disclose "ways of salvation" is not part of an interreligious dialogue but of an
intrareligious one; it is Christian theologians talking to other Christian theologians in a necessary discourse about a matter
of great significance. A pluralistic theology serves as a strong reminder to Christians that non-Christian religious traditions
may and indeed do contain teachings and practices that will help Christians know and love God more faithfully-and
encourages them to enter into interreligious dialogue with a great veneration for those traditions.
The call of theologians like Fredericks and Francis Clooney* for "comparative theology" as a form of interreligious
dialogue is nevertheless well taken. A theological exchange deeply rooted in the dialogues of life, action, and religious
experience is one in which all doctrinal and religious differences must be honored and all attempts at homogenization
resisted. It is only by means of a patient and painstaking investigation of particular texts, doctrines, liturgical practices, and
moral precepts that both differences and similarities between Christianity and other religions may emerge. Only in this way
can there be a mutual understanding, full of challenge, correction, and enrichment, for both Christians and non-Christians.
For even if Christ embodies the fullness of God’s self-revelation, the church’s understanding of this revelation remains
imperfect, and its practice of it remains partial, at times even sinful. Pope John Paul’s repeated begging for forgiveness was
no empty charade. Might it not be precisely through interreligious dialogue that the church comes to an awareness of its
errors and sins-and, with the assistance of people of other faiths, sets out on the path of renewal?
*See my report THEOLOGIANS LAMBAST THE VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE NEW AGE
Interreligious dialogue can be practiced by people of faith, irrespective of educational level, social standing, and religious
status, and is urgently needed in the conflict-ridden political and religious climate of the post-9/11 United States.

Such dialogue is not merely a preparatory step toward peacemaking and reconciliation; it constitutes the very process of
peacemaking and reconciliation itself, a process that occurs precisely in the acts of living together, working together, and
praying together. These dialogues are powerful means to correct biases, erase deep-seated hatreds, and heal ancient
wounds. By promoting communication, grassroots activism toward peace and justice, and above all, shared experiences of
the Divine or the Absolute in spite of religious differences, such dialogue helps forge a new way of life.
Finally, it should be noted that openness to other religions is not a modern invention. As early as the third century, Clement
of Alexandria, a father of the church, wrote: "Among the Indians are those philosophers also who follow the precepts of
Boutta [Buddha], whom they honor as a god on account of his extraordinary sanctity" (The Stromata, Book I, Chapter XV).
Later, in the Middle Ages, the Christian calendar began to mention a Saint "Josaphat" or "Iodasaph". Historians now
acknowledge that, like "Bodisav" in sixth-century Persian texts, "Budhasaf" or "Yudasaf" in eighth-century Arabic documents,
and "Ioasaph" in eleventh-century Greek texts, "Iosaphat" or "Josaphat" in Latin documents are garbled forms of "Bodhisattva"
-that is, Gautama the Buddha. The story of how the Buddha became a Catholic saint is, for interreligious dialogue, a curious
but felicitous one. I wonder if my mother had an intuitive inkling of all this when she was praying to the Buddha in that
pagoda in Vietnam years ago, and afterward explained to her son the theologian, "the Buddha is a holy man".
Peter C. Phan, a Vietnamese American, holds the Ignacio Ellacuría Chair of Catholic Social Thought at Georgetown
University. He has written or edited more than twenty books and three hundred essays. His latest work includes a trilogy:
Christianity with an Asian Face, In Our Own Tongues, and Being Religious Interreligiously (Orbis Books). This essay has
been funded by a grant from the Henry Luce Foundation.

2. U.S. Bishops' Statement on Book of Father Peter Phan - "Could Easily Confuse or Mislead the Faithful"
http://www.zenit.org/article-21240?l=english
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 10, 2007 (Zenit.org) Here is a statement released today by the U.S. episcopal conference's
Committee on Doctrine, regarding "Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue" by Father
Peter Phan. The bishops' statement addresses what it calls "certain pervading ambiguities and equivocations" in the book
written by the Georgetown University professor.
Clarifications Required by the Book Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue by Reverend
Peter C. Phan
Committee on Doctrine
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
1. The development of a theology of religious pluralism, that is, a theology that "seeks to investigate, in the light of
Christian faith, the significance of the plurality of religious traditions in God's plan for humanity,"[1] is an important task
given the exigencies of religious dialogue in our globalized world. The importance of such theological investigation makes it
all the more critical that it be carried out in a way that upholds the truth of Catholic doctrine, keeping in proper order a
variety of truths that pertain to the Christian faith and to the legitimate integrity of other religions.
2. In his book, Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue ,[2] Reverend Peter C. Phan, who
currently holds the Ellacuria Chair of Catholic Social Thought in the Department of Theology at Georgetown University, has
taken up the task of addressing the cultural concerns and theological questions surrounding the diversity of religions. The
way the book addresses some theological issues, however, raises serious concerns.
3. In the light of these concerns, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asked the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops to conduct an evaluation of Being Religious Interreligiously. After examining this book, the Committee on
Doctrine invited Father Phan to respond regarding statements in his book. Since Father Phan did not provide the needed
clarifications, and since the ambiguities in the book concern matters that are central to the faith, the Committee on Doctrine
decided to issue a statement that would both identify problematic aspects of the book and provide a positive restatement of
Catholic teaching on the relevant points.
4. This statement will address three areas of concern: i) Jesus Christ as the unique and universal Savior of all humankind;
ii) the salvific significance of non-Christian religions; iii) the Church as the unique and universal instrument of salvation.
Even though this book contains other areas of concern, we concluded that the above mentioned were the most serious and
so have focused our attention upon them.

I. JESUS CHRIST AS THE UNIQUE AND UNIVERSAL SAVIOR OF ALL HUMANKIND

5. It is true that the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is affirmed at some points in Being Religious Interreligiously. According to
the book, Christ can be described as uniquely constitutive of salvation "because the Christ-event belongs to and is the
climax of God's plan of salvation .... Jesus' 'constitutive uniqueness' means that he and only he 'opens access to God for all
people.'"[3] At other points, however, the term "unique" is rejected or else accepted with confusing qualifications.
6. Being Religious Interreligiously describes Jesus as "unique" with the qualification that this uniqueness is not only
"constitutive" but also "relational."[4] As "relational" (in the sense which the book gives this term) Christ's uniqueness is not
exclusive or absolute, since he is not the only revealer and savior in God's plan of salvation. Christ, according the book, has
a unique role, but this role is "related" to other figures who also have a place in God's plan. Christ "may be said to be the
'one mediator' and the other savior figures and non-Christian religions participating mediators" since, "insofar as they
mediate God's salvation to their followers, [they] do so through the power of the Logos and the Spirit."[5]

7. Being Religious Interreligiously specifies that the way that such savior figures and religions participate in the salvation
brought about by Christ prevents these non-Christian religions from being reduced to Christianity.[6] What they offer is
truly different.[7] The book characterizes this difference as one of complementarity: In this context it is useful to recall that
Jesus did not and could not reveal everything to his disciples and that it is the Holy Spirit who will lead them to 'the
complete truth' (Jn 16:12-13). It is quite possible that the Holy Spirit will lead the church to the complete truth by means of
a dialogue with other religions in which the Spirit is actively present.[8]
8. While at some points the book affirms the uniqueness of Christ with these qualifications, at another point in the book the
use of the term "unique" is entirely rejected. "[O]ne may question the usefulness of words such as unique, absolute, and
even universal to describe the role of Jesus as savior today."[9] Although such terms may have served at one time, "words
are unavoidably embedded in socio-political and cultural contexts, and the contexts in which these words were used were,
in many parts of the world, often tainted by colonialist imperialism, economic exploitation, political domination, and
religious marginalization."[10] From this the book concludes that the terms "unique," "absolute," and "universal" "have
outlived their usefulness and should be jettisoned and replaced by other, theologically more adequate equivalents."[11]
9. Since, at the very least, the use in the book of certain terms in an equivocal manner opens the text up to significant
ambiguity and since a fair reading of the book could leave readers in considerable confusion as to the proper understanding
of the uniqueness of Christ, it is necessary to recall some essential elements of Church teaching. The crux of the issue is
that Being Religious Interreligiously does not express adequately and accurately the Church's teaching .
10. In its declaration Dominus Iesus, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directly addresses the kind of
ambiguities that are found in Being Religious Interreligiously. It warns against any misunderstanding of Jesus and of his
work of salvation. It states: In contemporary theological reflection there often emerges an approach to Jesus of Nazareth
that considers him a particular, finite, historical figure, who reveals the divine not in an exclusive way, but in a way
complementary with other revelatory and salvific figures. The Infinite, the Absolute, the Ultimate Mystery of God would thus
manifest itself to humanity in many ways and in many historical figures: Jesus of Nazareth would be one of these.[12]
Against such a misrepresentation, Dominus Iesus declares: "These theses are in profound conflict with the Christian faith.
The doctrine of faith must be firmly believed which proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, and he alone, is the Son
and the Word of the Father."[13]
11. It has always been the faith of the Church that Jesus is the eternal Son of God incarnate as man. The union of
humanity and divinity that takes place in Jesus Christ is by its very nature unique and unrepeatable. The person who is the
eternal Son of God is the very same person who is Jesus Christ.[14] Because humanity and divinity are united in the person
of the Son of God, he brings together humanity and divinity in a way that can have no parallel in any other figure in history.
12. In the Church's teaching, Jesus is not merely preeminent among many savior figures. As the Son of God incarnate,
Jesus reveals to humanity the fullness of divine truth. "And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and
we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14). The Gospel of John also
professes: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him" (Jn 1:18. See also
Mt 11:27; Acts 14:16; Heb 1:1-2). Dominus Iesus is very clear on this Gospel truth: [I]t is necessary above all to reassert
the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ. In fact, it must be firmly believed that, in the
mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is ‘the way, the truth, and the life' (Jn 14:6), the full revelation of
divine truth is given.[15]
13. Moreover, Jesus Christ, as the Son of God incarnate, is God the Father's definitive and universal means of salvation.
Only Jesus' sacrificial death makes possible the forgiveness of sins and the reconciliation of sinful humanity with God.[16]
By his Resurrection he conquered death and restored life. Through him the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church at
Pentecost. Only by being united to Christ's risen humanity, which is itself united to his divinity, can we share in the divine
life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and be transformed into adopted sons and daughters of the Father (see Rom
8:14-17). The Father's eternal plan of salvation culminates in Jesus Christ, his only Son. In him we have redemption by his
blood, the forgiveness of transgressions, in accord with the riches of his grace that he lavished upon us. In all wisdom and
insight, he has made known to us the mystery of his will in accord with his favor that he set forth in him, as a plan for the
fullness of times, to sum up all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth (Eph 1:7-10).
14. Because of who Jesus is and what he has done and continues to do as the Risen Lord, the Church, from her earliest
days, has proclaimed: "There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the
human race by which we are to be saved" (Acts 4:12). This does not mean that members of other religions cannot possibly
be saved, but it does mean that their salvation is always accomplished in some way through Christ. No one, therefore, can
enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit. Christ's one, universal mediation,
far from being an obstacle on the journey toward God, is the way established by God himself, a fact of which Christ is fully
aware. Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and
value only from Christ's own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his.[17]
15. Dominus Iesus affirms this singular salvific role of Jesus Christ. "[O]ne can say and must say that Jesus Christ has a
significance and a value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive,
universal, and absolute."[18] In the light of this, Dominus Iesus concludes that "the theory of the limited, incomplete, or
imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is
contrary to the Church's faith."[19] It also asserts that "those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the
unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith."[20]

Rather, it must be "firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is
offered and accomplished once and for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of
God."[21]

II. THE SALVIFIC SIGNIFICANCE OF NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

16. The Church affirms that non-Christian religions do in fact possess certain elements of truth. Every human being
possesses an innate desire to know God, who is the common end and origin of the human race.[22] Those searching for
God in other religions have established ways of living and formulated teachings that "often reflect a ray of that Truth which
enlightens all men."[23] The Church regards these elements of goodness and truth found in other religions as a
preparation for the Gospel.[24]
17. Being Religious Interreligiously, however, rejects this teaching as an insufficient recognition of the salvific significance of
non-Christian religions in themselves: The book defends the view that "the non-Christian religions possess an autonomous
function in the history of salvation, different from that of Christianity," and that "they cannot be reduced to Christianity in
terms of preparation and fulfillment."[25] The book asserts: Religious pluralism . . . is not just a matter of fact but also a
matter of principle. That is, non-Christian religions may be seen as part of the plan of divine providence and endowed with
a particular role in the history of salvation. They are not merely a "preparation" for, "stepping stones" toward, or "seeds" of
Christianity and destined to be "fulfilled" by it. Rather, they have their own autonomy and their proper roles as ways of
salvation, at least for their adherents.[26] The book contrasts what it sees as the Second Vatican Council's deliberate
decision to refrain "from affirming that these religions as such function as ways of salvation in a manner analogous, let
alone parallel, to Christianity," with the position of certain contemporary theologians, among whom the author includes
himself. These theologians believe that it is necessary to go beyond the Council's position and to assert "that these religions
may be said to be ways of salvation and that religious pluralism is part of God's providential plan."[27]
18. The book's use of the terms "ways of salvation" and "autonomy" contains serious ambiguities. On the one hand, the
autonomy of these ways of salvation is not portrayed as absolute; the salvation of non-Christians remains somehow
"related" to Christ. According to the book, the Christ-event is "the definitive realization of God's plan of salvation" and its
"definitive point."[28] On the other hand, the nature of this relation remains obscure. The book makes the perplexing claim
that "Autonomy and relatedness are not mutually contradictory but grow in direct proportion to each other."[29] This claim
is seriously undercut, however, by the fact that the autonomy attributed to non-Christian religions is such as to call into
question the very idea of Christian mission to members of such religions.
19. The book affirms in the introduction that the assertion that God has positively willed non-Christian religions as
alternative ways of salvation as part of his providential plan of salvation "brings with it far-reaching and radical
consequences for the practice of Christian mission and raises the thorny questions regarding conversion and baptism as the
primary goals of evangelization."[30] The book reasons that if in fact God has positively willed the existence of the non-
Christian religions as ways of salvation, then the very goal itself of universal conversion to Christianity is misguided.
"Indeed, if religious pluralism belongs to divine providence and is not just the fruit of human sinfulness, then it may not and
must not be abolished by converting all the followers of non-Christian religions, at least during our common journey in
history."[31]
20. Since the book as a whole is based on the idea that religious pluralism is indeed a positively-willed part of the divine
plan, the reader is led to conclude that there is some kind of moral obligation for the Church to refrain from calling people
to conversion to Christ and to membership in his Church. According to the book, religious pluralism "may not and must not
be abolished" by conversion to Christianity. The implication is that to continue the Christian mission to members of non-
Christian religions would be contrary to God's purpose in history. Such a conclusion, instead of being a "theologically more
adequate equivalent" of Church teaching, is in fact an alteration that blurs Church teaching. At this point the autonomy of
non-Christian religions has eclipsed their relatedness to Jesus Christ.
21. This call for an end to Christian mission is in conflict with the Church's commission, given to her by Christ himself: "Go,
therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."[32] Moreover, if one accepts that Jesus Christ is in fact
the one affirmed by Christian faith as the eternal Son of God made man, through whom the universe was created and by
whose death and resurrection the human race has the possibility of attaining eternal life, then it is incoherent to argue that
it would somehow be better if certain people were not told this truth.
22. The Church's evangelizing mission is not an imposition of power but an expression of love for the whole world. The very
fact that other religions do not possess the fullness of the Father's truth revealed in Jesus Christ and the fullness of the
Father's love that is poured out in the Holy Spirit ought to compel Christians, in their love for all men and women, to share
their faith with others. To offer others the gift of Jesus Christ is to offer them the greatest and most valuable of all gifts, for
he is the Father's merciful gift to all. Thus there is no necessary conflict between showing respect for other religions and
fulfilling Christ's command to proclaim the Gospel to all the nations.[33]
23. The fact that Being Religious Interreligiously can envisage an end to Christian mission points to a distortion in its
methodology as a work of Christian theology, a distortion rooted in its persistent downplaying of the singularity of Jesus
Christ as savior of the world. To begin with, the very terms used to describe non-Christian religions as divinely-willed "ways
of salvation" that are "autonomous" from Christianity imply a perspective that is somehow beyond that of Christian faith,
indeed, that enables one to judge what is of "religious" salvific value in a given religion.

24. Christian theology, however, is founded upon supernatural revelation accepted in faith, not simply upon a natural
capacity of the human person to obtain knowledge of God. The Christian theologian, having first embraced the truths of
revelation as found within the biblical proclamation and the Church's doctrinal tradition, strives to come to a deeper
understanding and appreciation of what God has revealed. For the Christian theologian, the significance and validity of
other religious beliefs can only be evaluated from within this faith perspective. Christian revelation demands that the salvific
value of any religious truth must be scrutinized and assessed ultimately in the light of the Gospel itself.[34] There is no
judge or arbiter that is superior to it.
25. The book distances itself from the claim that all religions can be reduced to a common core of religious experience that
could serve as the basis for the construction of a universal theology of religion.[35] Nevertheless, much of the language in
the book implies that its basic perspective is not specifically Christian, but a more universal "religious" perspective, one that
is somehow higher than that of any particular religion. In addition to the use of the terms "ways of salvation" and
"autonomous," another example of this seemingly higher perspective would be the positive portrayal of "multiple religious
belonging," which is described as "not only possible but also desirable."[36] Being Religious Interreligiously derives its title
from this phenomenon.[37]
26. Another example of the tendency toward a universal religious perspective would be the discussion of the ways in which
religions "complement" and even "correct" one another. "Not only are the non-Christian religions complemented by
Christianity, but Christianity is complemented by the other religions. In other words, the process of complementation,
enrichment, and even correction is two-way or reciprocal."[38] Although the book claims that this "reciprocal relationship"
does not endanger the faith of the Church, at the very least the affirmation of a process of complementation and correction
implies the existence of someone above the Christian faith who is able to judge that such a process has in fact occurred.

III. THE CHURCH AS THE UNIQUE AND UNIVERSAL INSTRUMENT OF SALVATION

27. Although Being Religious Interreligiously does not adequately uphold Jesus' singular and universal significance, it does
maintain that one can and should present the claim for the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ in the context of
interreligious dialogue, at least in a qualified form.[39] As for the Church, however, it argues that the claim for her
uniqueness and universality "should be abandoned altogether."[40] With regard to this claim, the book notes that what
arouses much skepticism and even outrage is that a human institution such as the Christian church, with a history of light
and darkness, a mixture of good and evil, claims to be the exclusive vessel of divine grace while there is plenty of evidence
that other religious institutions, no less than the church, have been instrumental in achieving good (and, of course, evil as
well).[41] While it is not clear whether or not this passage represents precisely the position of the author, the reasons that
are in fact given for abandonment of the claim for the uniqueness and universality of the Church all concern the same
issue: the humanness of the Church and her historical entanglement with sin and injustice.[42]
28. The Church, however, is not simply an institution like other institutions. It is true that the Church is composed of human
beings and, in this sense, she is a human institution. However, Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, in accordance with his
Father's will, instituted the Church through his life, death and resurrection. At Pentecost Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, the
promise of his Father, upon the disciples and from that moment the Spirit became the source of the Church's life and
holiness.[43] The Church depends upon the presence of the Spirit, who is at work in her. Thus, the Church is also a divine
institution.[44]
29. The book is certainly correct when it points out that members of the Church, through the course of history, have sinned
and that the credibility of Christian witness to the world has suffered greatly from this. Nevertheless, the holiness of the
Church is not simply defined by the holiness (or sinfulness) of her members but by the holiness of her Head, the Lord Jesus
Christ. He is supremely holy and the source of the Church's holiness in that he imbues the Church with his Holy Spirit.[45]
This Spirit is active in the continual preaching of the Gospel which calls Christian men and women to an ever deeper
conversion to holiness. Similarly, it is through the holiness of the sacraments, instituted by Christ, that the members of the
Church are cleansed of sin and made holy, especially through the Sacraments of Penance and of the Eucharist.
30. According to the Second Vatican Council, the Church as the messianic people of God is "a lasting and sure seed of
unity, hope and salvation for the whole human race. Established by Christ as a communion of life, charity and truth, it is
also used by Him as an instrument for the redemption of all, and is sent forth into the whole world as the light of the world
and the salt of the earth."[46] The Church is the indispensable "universal sacrament of salvation" that has been instituted
by Christ himself and that continues to be sustained by him: Christ, having been lifted up from the earth has drawn all to
Himself. Rising from the dead He sent His life-giving Spirit upon His disciples and through Him has established His Body
which is the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation. Sitting at the right hand of the Father, He is continually active
in the world that He might lead men to the Church and through it join them to Himself and that He might make them
partakers of His glorious life by nourishing them with His own Body and Blood.[47]
31. Because the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation, whatever grace is offered to individuals in whatever various
circumstances, including non-Christians, must be seen in relationship to the Church, for she is always united to Jesus Christ,
the source of all grace and holiness.[48] Since all grace flows from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through his Church, "it
is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by
the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her."[49]

CONCLUSION
32. While Being Religious Interreligiously addresses a number of issues that are crucial in the life of the contemporary
Church, it contains certain pervading ambiguities and equivocations that could easily confuse or mislead the faithful, as well
as statements that, unless properly clarified, are not in accord with Catholic teaching. Therefore we bishops as teachers of
the faith are obliged to take action that will help ensure that the singularity of Jesus and the Church be perceived in all
clarity and the universal salvific significance of what he has accomplished be acknowledged in the fullness of truth.
Most Rev. William E. Lori (Chairman)
Bishop of Bridgeport
Most Rev. Leonard P. Blair
Bishop of Toledo
Most Rev. José H. Gomez
Archbishop of San Antonio
Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Bishop of Worcester
Most Rev. Arthur J. Serratelli
Bishop of Paterson
Most Rev. Allen H. Vigneron
Bishop of Oakland
Most Rev. Donald W. Wuerl
Archbishop of Washington
--- --- ---
[1] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism
by Father Jacques Dupuis, S.J. (24 January 2001)
(www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010124_dupuis_en.html), Preface.
[2] Peter C. Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Dialogue (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Press, 2004).
[3] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 66; see p. 144. The quotation is from Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian
Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1998), p. 387.
[4] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 66; see p. 144. The author notes that these expressions are borrowed from
Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, p. 283 (see Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 144 n.
14).
[5] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 67.
[6] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, pp. 66, 144.
[7] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 65; see also p. 67 n. 20.
[8] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 144-45; see pp. 65 and 67.
[9] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 143.
[10] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 143.
[11] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 144.
[12] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus: Declaration on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus
Christ and the Church (6 August 2000)
(www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html), no.
9.
[13] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, no. 10.
[14] See Council of Chalcedon, Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum ed Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum , ed. H.
Denzinger and P. Hünermann, 39th ed. (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2001), nos. 301-2, and Second Council of
Constantinople, Enchiridion Symbolorum, no. 424. See also, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 461-69.
[15] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, no. 5.
[16] See Council of Trent, Decree on Justification (De justificatione), Enchiridion Symbolorum, no. 1529; Second Vatican
Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), no. 5, and Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World (Gaudium et spes), no. 22; See Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 613-14.
[17] Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter on the Permanent Validity of the Church's Missionary Mandate ( Redemptoris
Missio) (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0219/__P3.HTM), no. 5. See also Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue,
Dialogue and Proclamation
(www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_19051991_dialogue-and-
proclamatio_en.html), no. 29: "From this mystery of unity it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though
differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit. Christians know this through their faith, while
others remain unaware that Jesus Christ is the source of their salvation. The mystery of salvation reaches out to them, in a
way known to God, through the invisible action of the Spirit of Christ. Concretely, it will be in the sincere practice of what is
good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their conscience that the members of other religions
respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or
acknowledge him as their saviour."
[18] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, no. 15.

[19] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, no. 6.
[20] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, no. 14.
[21] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, no. 14.
[22] Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 842.
[23] Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions ( Nostra Aetate)
(www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html), no. 2.
See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 842.
[24] Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among
shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath to all things and wants all men to
be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as ‘a preparation for the Gospel and
given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life'" (no. 843). The Catechism is here quoting Second
Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), no. 16. It also refers to Second Vatican Council,
Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions ( Nostra Aetate), no. 2, and Pope Paul VI, Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975), no. 53.
[25] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 144.
[26] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, pp. 65-66; see p. 143.
[27] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. xxiii; see pp. 139-40.
[28] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 144.
[29] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 144; see p. 66.
[30] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. xxiii.
[31] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. xxiii.
[32] Mt 28:18-20. See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church ( Lumen Gentium), no. 17, and Decree
on the Church's Missionary Activity (Ad Gentes), no. 1; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 849; Pope Paul VI, Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, no. 14.
[33] See Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions ( Nostra Aetate), no.
2; Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter on the Permanent Validity of the Church's Missionary Mandate ( Redemptoris Missio),
no. 55.
[34] See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (24 May 1990)
(www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologianvocation_en.html),
no. 10. The Congregation points out that elements taken from any source of knowledge apart from Christian revelation are
subject to a discernment for which Christian revelation serves as the final criterion: "The ultimate normative principle for
such discernment is revealed doctrine which itself must furnish the criteria for the evaluation of these elements and
conceptual tools and not vice versa."
[35] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 98; see pp. 90-91 and pp. 119-20.
[36] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 67.
[37] See Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 78.
[38] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 66; see also p. 144.
[39] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 91.
[40] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 100. The book stresses the distinction between Christ and the Church,
between Jesus and Christianity (pp. 92-98).
[41] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 95.
[42] Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously, p. 100-1.
[43] See Lk 24:49; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church ( Lumen Gentium), no. 4; Catechism of
the Catholic Church, nos. 731 & 739.
[44] See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 758-69.
[45] See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 823-29.
[46] Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church ( Lumen Gentium)
(www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html), no.
9.
[47] See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), no. 48.
[48] See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), no. 48; Second Vatican Council,
Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church (Ad Gentes), no. 2; Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter on the Permanent
Validity of the Church's Missionary Mandate (Redemptoris Missio), no. 10, and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Dominus Iesus, no. 20.
[49] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, no. 21.

3. Bishops fault book by Georgetown chair - Note Concerns with Father Phan's Treatment of Theology
http://www.zenit.org/article-21243?l=english
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 10, 2007 (Zenit.org) U.S. bishops are drawing attention to "pervading ambiguities and
equivocations that could easily confuse or mislead the faithful" in a book by a chairman at Georgetown University's theology
department.

Father Peter Phan's "Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue" was considered in a
statement released today from the bishops' Committee on Doctrine. The prelates said that the Vatican Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith asked the U.S. conference to review the book.
"The way the book addresses some theological issues," the bishops wrote, "raises serious concerns." Though the author
was asked to respond to the issues in his book, the bishops said he "did not provide the needed clarifications."
They added that "since the ambiguities in the book concern matters that are central to the faith, the Committee on Doctrine
decided to issue a statement that would both identify problematic aspects of the book and provide a positive restatement of
Catholic teaching on the relevant points."
The bishops drew attention to three "areas of concern" in the book, though they affirmed that the volume had further
problems. The prelates discussed Father Phan's treatment of "Jesus Christ as the unique and universal savior of all
humankind"; "the salvific significance of non-Christian religions"; and "the Church as the unique and universal instrument of
salvation."
"In the Church's teaching, Jesus is not merely preeminent among many savior figures. As the son of God incarnate, Jesus
reveals to humanity the fullness of divine truth," the bishops recalled. "Moreover, Jesus Christ, as the Son of God incarnate,
is God the Father's definitive and universal means of salvation. Only Jesus' sacrificial death makes possible the forgiveness
of sins and the reconciliation of sinful humanity with God."
The seven signatories of the statement noted that "the book as a whole is based on the idea that religious pluralism is
indeed a positively-willed part of the divine plan, the reader is led to conclude that there is some kind of moral obligation
for the Church to refrain from calling people to conversion to Christ and to membership in his Church."
But, they affirmed, "This call for an end to Christian mission is in conflict with the Church's commission, given to her by
Christ himself."
The prelates explained that Father Phan's book "argues that the claim for [the Church's] uniqueness and universality
'should be abandoned altogether.' [...] the reasons that are in fact given for abandonment of the claim for the uniqueness
and universality of the Church all concern the same issue: the humanness of the Church and her historical entanglement
with sin and injustice."
However, the bishops recalled, the Church "is not simply an institution like other institutions. It is true that the Church is
composed of human beings and, in this sense, she is a human institution. However, Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, in
accordance with his Father's will, instituted the Church through his life, death and resurrection. [...] Thus, the Church is
also a divine institution."
"Because the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation, whatever grace is offered to individuals in whatever various
circumstances, including non-Christians, must be seen in relationship to the Church, for she is always united to Jesus Christ,
the source of all grace and holiness," the prelates wrote.
The statement from the bishops' Committee on Doctrine concluded, " While 'Being Religious Interreligiously' addresses a
number of issues that are crucial in the life of the contemporary Church, it contains certain pervading ambiguities and
equivocations that could easily confuse or mislead the faithful, as well as statements that, unless properly clarified, are not
in accord with Catholic teaching.
"Therefore," they wrote, "we bishops as teachers of the faith are obliged to take action that will help ensure that the
singularity of Jesus and the Church be perceived in all clarity and the universal salvific significance of what he has
accomplished be acknowledged in the fullness of truth."

4. Phan spells out goals of interfaith dialogue

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/13594
by Robert Mickens, 5 September 2009
Fr Peter Phan, a noted US theologian whose writings have long been under Vatican scrutiny, told a conference in Rome last
weekend that the topic of religious pluralism was "one of the most pressing issues" in the Catholic Church today - and one of the
most dangerous. "It is a controversial theme and one that in the current ecclesiastical climate is broached at one’s peril," the
Georgetown University professor said. He was the keynote speaker at a 28-31 August meeting of more than 40 Dominican priests,
sisters and laity involved in interreligious dialogue around the world.
"To judge from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s [CDF] declaration Dominus Iesus [2000] and the investigations of
the works of theologians Jacques Dupuis, Roger Haight, Jon Sobrino and a host of lesser lights, there is no doubt that what is
called the theology of religious pluralism constitutes the neuralgic point of contemporary Catholic theology," he told the assembly.
Dominus Iesus - subtitled, "On the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" - sought to reaffirm the
Church’s teaching on the nature of the Church and salvation and to refute errors.
The Vietnamese-born Fr Phan, who emigrated to the United States in 1975 and is a priest of the Diocese of Dallas, has questioned
some of the theological assertions in that declaration, leading the Vatican to investigate his teaching.
In 2005 the CDF began reviewing a book he published a year earlier entitled Being Religious Interreligiously. However, it was the
US bishops’ conference’s Committee on Doctrine that eventually issued a 15-page critique of the work in December 2007. It said
the book contained "pervading ambiguities and equivocations that could easily confuse or mislead" Catholics and claimed that it
did "not express adequately and accurately the Church’s teaching" (The Tablet, 15 December 2007). Immediately following that
warning, the CDF issued a "Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelisation", which a Vatican official told The Tablet was
"definitely related" to the US investigation into Fr Phan’s book (The Tablet, 22 December 2007).
The Dominicans invited the theologian to speak at their annual gathering on interfaith dialogue called Journées Romaines
Dominicaines (JRD). The topic of the meeting was "Universal Salvation: Challenged by religious identity". Fr Phan elaborated on
the ideas that are found in his writings and raised more questions than he answered.

"Is interfaith dialogue intended (and organised, sometime surreptitiously) as a means for conversion?" he asked. "The answer, to
my mind, must be no. Its only goal is to learn about other religions as well as to inform others about one’s religion as much and as
accurately as possible, and to be enriched, intellectually and spiritually, by such an exchange of life, action, theology and prayer,"
he said. "Peter Phan was invited to speak so we could discuss his ideas, not to adopt them or follow them, but to discuss them,"
said Fr Márcio Couto, director of Intellectual Life for the Dominican Order and one of the organisers of the JRD.
"We thought he would broaden the horizons for us," said Fr Prakash Lohale, O.P. the order’s Indian director of Apostolic Life. "We
wanted the opportunity to debate with him to understand him better, and to give him a forum here with people already involved in
dialogue." Sr Anna Morrone OP said: "We were impressed by the way he treated everyone with great respect and friendship."
In January 2008 the Dominicans at the Aquinas Institute of Theology in St Louis cancelled an annual lecture that was to
feature Fr Phan after the local archbishop, Raymond Burke, objected to it. Archbishop Burke, now head of Apostolic
Signatura and residing in Rome, said Fr Phan was "not a reliable teacher of the Catholic faith".

VISIT OF THE HOLY FATHER TO THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-
xvi_spe_20061103_gregoriana_en.html EXTRACT
November 3, 2006
"It is impossible to ignore relations with other religions, which will only prove constructive if we
avoid all forms of ambiguity, which in a certain way undermine the essential content of Christian
faith in Christ, the one Savior of all mankind (cf. Acts 4:12), and in the Church, the necessary
sacrament of salvation for all humanity (cf. Declaration "Dominus Iesus," nn. 13-15; nn. 20-22: AAS 92
[2000] 742-765)."

Benedict XVI: Human Heart Longs for Christ - Speaks Out against Relativism
http://www.zenit.org/article-19729?l=english
VATICAN CITY, May 25, 2007 (ZENIT.org) In the midst of secularism and relativism, it is necessary to teach people that
"Christ, the human face of God, is our true and only savior," says Benedict XVI. The Pope said this Thursday in an audience
with participants at the 57th General Assembly of the Italian bishops' conference, who are holding a meeting in the Vatican
on "Jesus Christ, the only Savior of the world: the Church in mission 'ad gentes' and among us." During the meeting with
Italy's prelates, the Holy Father said: "I rejoice in the fact that you have placed at the basis of the missionary effort the
fundamental truth that Jesus Christ is the only savior of the world.
"The certainty of this truth has given, from the beginning, a decisive impulse to the Christian mission. "Today too, as the
declaration 'Dominus Iesus' reaffirmed, we must be fully aware that from the mystery of Jesus Christ, true God and true
man living and present in the Church, comes the unique salvific and universal nature of Christian revelation and,
consequently, the essential task of announcing Jesus Christ to everyone."
The answer Benedict XVI said that amid the challenges of the world today, God is necessary for everyone. "It seems to
me," he said, "that, if we look at the situation of the world today, we can understand -- I would say in a human way,
almost without having recourse to faith -- that God who gave himself a human face, the God who was incarnated, who is
called Jesus Christ and suffered for us, this God is necessary for everyone, and the only answer to all of the challenges of
this age." While giving "respect to other religions and cultures, with the seeds of truth and goodness they contain and that
represent a preparation for the Gospel," the Pope continued, "we cannot diminish the awareness of the originality, fullness
and unique nature of the revelation of the true God who in Christ was definitively given to us, nor can we diminish or weak-
en the Church's missionary vocation." "The cultural climate of relativism that surrounds us makes it more important and
urgent" to instill in the Church "the certainty that Christ, the human face of God, is our true and only Savior," he affirmed.
Benedict XVI mentioned his book "Jesus of Nazareth," calling it "a very personal book, not of the Pope but of this man"
written so that "we can see -- with the heart and with reason -- that Christ is really he whom the human heart longs for."

Cardinal Praises Muslims for "Eloquent" Letter - Says Good Will Can Help to Overcome Prejudices
http://www.zenit.org/article-20787?l=english EXTRACT:
PARIS, October 19, 2007 (Zenit.org) The president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue praised the recent
letter sent by 138 Muslim scholars as "an eloquent example of a dialogue among spiritualities."
Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran said this in an interview published today by the French Catholic daily La Croix, in which he
commented on the letter sent last week. The text was addressed to Benedict XVI and the heads of Christian churches, and
proposed that the two faiths cooperate in establishing peace and understanding in the world.
The 138 signatories of the letter offered an open invitation to Christians to unite with Muslims over what is most essential
to their respective faiths -- the commandment of love…
Regarding dialogue with other religions, Cardinal Tauran said: "The discourses of the Pope are very clear. He
said, in Cologne: 'Dialogue with Islam it not an option, but a vital necessity upon which depends our future.'
Furthermore, a text like 'Dominus Iesus' puts the parameters to avoid religious syncretism.
"We must not put our flag in our pocket, and we should clearly show in whom we believe. Also, when we look at the
teachings of the Pope, the themes of reflection with the non-Christian religions emerge: the sacred character of life; to
cultivate the fundamental values, for example, the family, the place of religion in education."

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, archbishop of Bologna, from 1984 to 2003, in his autobiographical volume, entitled "Memorie e
digressioni di un italiano cardinale [Memories and Digressions of an Italian Cardinal]
Before the Last Conclave: "What I Told the Future Pope"
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/173182?eng=y
Cardinal Giacomo Biffi commits his memoirs to a book. And here's a preview: the speech he gave in the closed-door
meeting with the cardinals. And also, his critical views on John XXIII, on the Council, and on the "mea culpas" of John Paul
II by Sandro Magister October 26, 2007
[…] John XXIII: a good pope, a bad teacher […]
Conclave 2005: what I said to the future pope
The most tiring days for the cardinals are the ones immediately before a conclave. The Sacred College gathers each day
from 9:30 a.m. until 1 p.m., in an assembly where each of those present is free to speak his mind.
But one intuits that public attention cannot be given to the question closest to the hearts of the electors of the future
bishop of Rome: whom should we choose?
And so the result is that every cardinal is tempted to cite, more than anything else, his own problems and difficulties: or
better, the problems and difficulties of his local church, his country, his continent, the whole world. And without a doubt,
there is great value in this general, spontaneous, unvarnished presentation of information and assessments. But also
without a doubt, the picture that emerges is not designed to give encouragement.
My state of mind and the dominant tone of my reflection emerges from the statement that, after great perplexity, I decided
to make on Friday, April 15, 2005. Here is the text:
"1. After hearing all of the statements - correct, opportune, impassioned - that have been made here, I would like to
express to the future pope (who is listening to me now) my complete solidarity, concord, understanding, and even a bit of
my fraternal compassion. But I would also like to suggest to him that he not be too worried about what he has heard here,
and that he not be too frightened. The Lord Jesus will not ask him to resolve all the world's problems. He will ask him to
love him with extraordinary love: 'Do you love me more than these?' (cf. John 21:15). A number of years ago, I came
across a phrase in the 'Mafalda' comic strip from Argentina that has often come back into my mind in these days: 'I've got
it,' said that feisty and perceptive little girl, 'the world is full of problemologists, but short on solutionologists'.
"2. I would like to tell the future pope to pay attention to all problems. But first and most of all, he should take into account
the state of confusion, disorientation, and aimlessness that afflicts the people of God in these years, and above all the 'little
ones'.
"3. A few days ago, I saw on television an elderly, devout religious sister who responded to the interviewer this way: 'This
pope, who has died, was great above all because he taught us that all religions are equal'. I don't know whether John Paul
II would have been very pleased by this sort of elegy.
"4. Finally, I would like to point out to the new pope the incredible phenomenon of 'Dominus Iesus': a document explicitly
endorsed and publicly approved by John Paul II; a document for which I am pleased to express my vibrant gratitude to
Cardinal Ratzinger. That Jesus is the only necessary Savior of all is a truth that for over twenty centuries - beginning with
Peter's discourse after Pentecost - it was never felt necessity to restate. This truth is, so to speak, the minimum threshold
of the faith; it is the primordial certitude, it is among believers the simple and most essential fact. In two thousand years
this has never been brought into doubt, not even during the crisis of Arianism, and not even during the upheaval of the
Protestant Reformation. The fact of needing to issue a reminder of this in our time tells us the extent of the gravity of the
current situation. And yet this document, which recalls the most basic, most simple, most essential certitude, has been
called into question. It has been contested at all levels: at all levels of pastoral action, of theological instruction, of the
hierarchy.
"5. A good Catholic told me about asking his pastor to let him make a presentation of 'Dominus Iesus' to the parish
community. The pastor (an otherwise excellent and well-intentioned priest) replied to him: 'Let it go. That's a document
that divides.' What a discovery! Jesus himself said: 'I have come to bring division' (Luke 12:51). But too many of Jesus'
words are today censured among Christians; or at least among the most vocal of them."

The New Polytheism and its Tempter Idols

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345887?eng=y EXTRACT
Benedict XVI sounds the alarm. Forgetfulness of the one God clears the way for a world dominated by a plurality
of new gods with seductive faces. A voyage among the devotees of modern paganism
by Sandro Magister ROME, December 9, 2010 – "Polytheism": this word echoed like thunder, last October, in a speech by
Benedict XVI at the synod of the bishops of the Middle East, the very birthplace of the one God made man, Jesus, and of
the most powerful forms of monotheism in history, Judaism and Islam.
"Credo in unum Deum" is the mighty chord that gives rise to Christian doctrine. But for Joseph Ratzinger, pope theologian,
polytheism is anything but dead. It is the perennial challenge that still rises up today against faith in the one God.
"Let us remember all the great powers of the history of today," the pope continued at the synod. Anonymous capital,
terrorist violence, drugs, the tyranny of public opinion are the modern divinities that enslave man. They must fall. They
must be made to fall. The downfall of the gods is the imperative of yesterday, today, and always for believers in the one
true God.

But today's polytheism is not made up only of dark powers. Its many gods also have friendly faces, and the ability to
seduce. It is the "gay science" prophesied by Nietzsche more than a century ago, which offers every single man "the
greatest advantage": that of "setting up his own ideal and deriving from it his law, his joys, and his rights."
It is the triumph of the individual free will, without the yoke of a tablet of the law anymore, only one for everyone because
it is written by just one intractable God…
THE "SPIRIT OF ASSISI"
Of course, the current revival of polytheism is not bringing the cults of Jupiter and Juno, Venus and Mars, back into vogue.
But the philosophy of the learned pagans of the Roman empire is again blossoming intact in the reasoning of many modern
proponents of "weak thought." And not only of these. Those who today reread, sixteen centuries later, the dispute between
the monotheist Ambrose, the holy patron of Milan, and the polytheist Symmachus, a senator of pagan Rome, are strongly
tempted to agree with the latter, when he says: "What does it matter by what path each one seeks, according to his own
judgment, the truth? It is not by one road alone that one may reach such a great mystery."
The magnanimous equality among all religions and gods that these words seem to inspire also enchants many Christians.
The "spirit of Assisi" born from the multi-religious gathering held in 1986 has so infected common opinion that in 2000 the
Church of John Paul II and of then cardinal Ratzinger felt the duty to remind Catholics that there is only one savior of
humanity, and it is the God made man in Jesus: a truth on which the entire New Testament stands or falls, a truth that
over two millennia the Church had never felt the need to reiterate with an "ad hoc" pronouncement. And yet, that
declaration of 2000, "Dominus Iesus," was greeted with a firestorm of protests, inside the Church and outside,
because of its exclusion of a plurality of paths of salvation all sufficient in themselves and full of grace and truth.
That these sentiments might conceal nostalgia for a plurality of gods is possible, but today's polytheism, on a mass level, is
more subtle. The current idea is that the various religions are in their way all an expression of a "divine." …

A New Syllabus for the 21st Century

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1346299?eng=y
That is, a document condemning mistaken interpretations of Vatican Council II. It's been requested by a bishop of
Kazakhstan, at a conference in Rome with other bishops and cardinals. Also prompting reactions is the announcement by
Benedict XVI of a new interreligious meeting in Assisi
by Sandro Magister ROME, January 14, 2011 – The announcement by Benedict XVI after the Angelus on New Year's Day,
that he will go to Assisi next October for a new meeting among the religions for peace, has reignited the controversy not
only over the so-called "spirit of Assisi," but also over Vatican Council II and the post-council.
Professor Roberto de Mattei – who has just published a rewriting of the history of the Council that
culminates with the request that Benedict XVI promote "a new examination" of the conciliar documents in
order to dispel the suspicion that they broke with traditional Church teaching – has joined other Catholic
figures in signing an appeal to the pope that the new meeting in Assisi "not reignite the syncretistic
confusion" of the first, the one convened on October 27, 1986, by John Paul II in the city of Saint Francis.
In effect, in 1986, then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not go to that first meeting, of which he was critical. He
did, however, take part in a repeat of it held also in Assisi on January 24, 2002, agreeing "in extremis" after
being assured that the mistakes of the previous meeting would not be made again.
The main mistake fostered by the meeting in Assisi in 1986 was that of equating the religions as sources of
salvation for humanity. Against this error, the congregation for the doctrine of the faith issued in 2000 the
declaration "Dominus Iesus," reaffirming that every man has no other savior than Jesus.
But also as pope, Ratzinger has again warned against the confusion. In a message to the bishop of Assisi dated September
2, 2006, he wrote:
"In order not to misunderstand the meaning of what John Paul II wanted to accomplish in 1986, and what, in his own
words, is described as the ‘spirit of Assisi’, it is important not to forget the attention that was paid at that time to prevent
the interreligious prayer meeting from being subjected to syncretistic interpretations founded upon a relativistic conception.
[...] For this reason, even when we gather together to pray for peace, this prayer must be carried out according to the
distinct approach that is proper to each of the various religions. This was the decision in 1986, and this decision cannot but
remain valid today as well. The coming together of those who are different must not give the impression of a concession to
that relativism that denies the very meaning of truth and the possibility of attaining it.”
And visiting Assisi on June 17, 2007, he said in his homily:
"The decision to celebrate this encounter in Assisi was suggested by the testimony of Francis as a man of peace, upon
whom so many look favorably, even those of other cultural and religious persuasions. At the same time, the light of the
saint 'Poverello' upon that initiative was a guarantee of Christian authenticity, because his life and his message depend so
visibly upon his choice of Christ, excluding a priori any temptation to religious indifference, which would have nothing to do
with authentic religious dialogue. [...] It could not be an evangelical or Franciscan attitude to fail to combine welcome,
dialogue, and respect for all with the certainty of faith that every Christian, just the same as the saint of Assisi, is bound to
cultivate, proclaiming Christ as the way, truth, and life of man, the only Savior of the world."
Returning to the controversy over Vatican Council II, an important conference must be pointed out that was held last
December 16-18 in Rome, a few steps from the basilica of Saint Peter, "for a correct hermeneutics of the Council in the
light of Church Tradition."

Under the critical judgment of the speakers were above all the "pastoral" nature of Vatican II and the abuses that have
taken place in its name.
The speakers included Professor de Mattei and theologian Brunero Gherardini, 85, a canon of the basilica of Saint Peter,
professor emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University, and director of the journal of Thomistic theology "Divinitas."
Gherardini is the author of a volume on Vatican Council II that concludes with an "Appeal to the Holy Father." Who is asked
to submit the documents of the Council for reexamination, in order to clarify once and for all "if, in what sense, and to what
extent" Vatican Council II is or is not in continuity with the previous magisterium of the Church.
The preface to Gherardini's book was written by Albert Malcolm Ranjith, archbishop of Colombo and former secretary
of the Vatican congregation for divine worship, made a cardinal at the consistory last November.
Ranjith is one of the two bishops to whom www.chiesa recently dedicated an article with this title:
> Ratzinger's Best Pupils Are in Sri Lanka and Kazakhstan
And the second of these bishops, the auxiliary of Karaganda, Athanasius Schneider, was present at the conference in
Rome from December 16-18, as a speaker.
Below is presented the final portion of his presentation. Which concludes with a request to the pope for two
remedies for the abuses of the post-council: the release of a "Syllabus" against the doctrinal errors of
interpretation of Vatican Council II, and the appointment of bishops who are "holy, courageous and deeply
rooted in the tradition of the Church."
There to listen to Schneider were cardinals, curia officials, and prominent theologians. Suffice it to say that the speakers
included Cardinal Velasio de Paolis, Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, Bishop Luigi Negri, and Monsignor Florian Kolfhaus of
the Vatican secretariat of state.
The audience included a large contingent of Franciscans of the Immaculate, a young religious congregation
following in the footsteps of Saint Francis, bursting with vocations and of decidedly orthodox in orientation,
the polar opposite of the so-called "spirit of Assisi" and the organizer of the conference itself.
THE CHALLENGE OF OPPOSING INTERPRETATIONS
by Athanasius Schneider
[. . .] For a correct interpretation of Vatican Council II, it is necessary to keep in mind the intention manifested in the
conciliar documents themselves and in the specific words of the popes who convened and presided over it, John XXIII and
Paul VI.
Moreover, it is necessary to discover the common thread of the entire work of the Council, meaning its pastoral intention,
which is the "salus animarum," the salvation of souls. This, in turn, depends on and is subordinate to the promotion of
divine worship and of the glory of God, it depends on the primacy of God.
This primacy of God in life and in all the activity of the Church is manifested unequivocally by the fact that the constitution
on the liturgy occupies, conceptually and chronologically, the first place in the vast work of the Council. [. . .]
The characteristic of the rupture in the interpretation of the conciliar texts is manifested in a more stereotypical and
widespread way in the thesis of an anthropocentric, secularist, or naturalistic shift of Vatican Council II with respect to the
previous ecclesial tradition.
One of the best-known manifestations of such a mistaken interpretation has been, for example, so-called liberation
theology and the subsequent devastating pastoral practice. What contrast there is between this liberation theology and its
practice and the Council appears evident from the following conciliar teaching: "Christ, to be sure, gave His Church no
proper mission in the political, economic or social order. The purpose which He set before her is a religious one" (cf.
"Gaudium et Spes," 42). [. . .]
One interpretation of rupture of lighter doctrinal weight has been manifested in the pastoral-liturgical field. One might
mention in this regard the decline of the sacred and sublime character of the liturgy, and the introduction of more
anthropocentric elements of expression.
This phenomenon can be seen in three liturgical practices that are fairly well known and widespread in almost all the
parishes of the Catholic sphere:
the almost complete disappearance of the use of the Latin language,
the reception of the Eucharistic body of Christ directly in the hand while standing,
and the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the modality of a closed circle in which priest and people
are constantly looking at each other.
This way of praying – without everyone facing the same direction, which is a more natural corporal and symbolic expression
with respect to the truth of everyone being oriented toward God in public worship – contradicts the practice that Jesus
himself and his apostles observed in public prayer, both in the temple and in the synagogue. It also contradicts the
unanimous testimony of the Fathers and of all the subsequent tradition of the Eastern and Western Church.
These three pastoral and liturgical practices glaringly at odds with the law of prayer maintained by
generations of the Catholic faithful for at least one millennium find no support in the conciliar texts, and
even contradict both a specific text of the Council (on the Latin language: cf. "Sacrosanctum Concilium," 36
and 54) and the "mens," the true intention of the conciliar Fathers, as can be seen in the proceedings of the
Council.
In the hermeneutical uproar of the contrasting interpretations, and in the confusion of pastoral and liturgical applications,
what appears as the only authentic interpreter of the conciliar texts is the Council itself, together with the pope.

One could make a comparison with the confused hermeneutical climate of the first centuries of the Church, caused by
arbitrary biblical and doctrinal interpretations on the part of heterodox groups. In his famous work "De Praescriptione
Haereticorum," Tertullian was able to counter the heretics of various tendencies with the fact that only the
Church possesses the "praescriptio," meaning only the Church is the legitimate proprietor of the faith, of the
word of God and of the tradition. The Church can use this to fend off the heretics in disputes over true interpretation.
Only the Church can say, according to Tertullian, "Ego sum heres Apostolorum," I am the heir of the
apostles. By way of analogy, only the supreme magisterium of the pope or of a future ecumenical council will
be able to say: "Ego sum heres Concilii Vaticani II."
In recent decades there existed, and still exist today, groupings within the Church that are perpetrating an
enormous abuse of the pastoral character of the Council and its texts, written according to this pastoral intention,
since the Council did not want to present its own definitive or unalterable teachings. From the same pastoral nature of the
texts of the Council, it can be seen that its texts are in principle open to supplementation and to further doctrinal
clarifications. Keeping in mind the now decades-long experience of interpretations that are doctrinally and pastorally
mistaken and contrary to the bi-millennial continuity of the doctrine and prayer of the faith, there thus arises the necessity
and urgency of a specific and authoritative intervention of the pontifical magisterium for an authentic interpretation of the
conciliar texts, with supplementation and doctrinal clarifications; a sort of "Syllabus" of the errors in the
interpretation of Vatican Council II.
There is the need for a new Syllabus, this time directed not so much against the errors coming from outside
of the Church, but against the errors circulated within the Church by supporters of the thesis of discontinuity
and rupture, with its doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral application.
Such a Syllabus should consist of two parts: the part that points out the errors, and the positive part with proposals for
clarification, completion, and doctrinal clarification.
Two groupings stand out for their support of the theory of rupture. One of these groupings tries to "Protestantize" the life
of the Church doctrinally, liturgically, and pastorally. On the opposite side are those traditional groups which, in the name of
tradition, reject the Council and exempt themselves from submission to the supreme living magisterium of the Church, from
the visible head of the Church, the vicar of Christ on earth, submitting meanwhile only to the invisible head of the Church,
waiting for better times. [. . .]
In essence, there have been two impediments preventing the true intention of the Council and its magisterium from bearing
abundant and lasting fruit.
One was found outside of the Church, in the violent process of cultural and social revolution during the 1960's, which like
every powerful social phenomenon penetrated inside the Church, infecting with its spirit of rupture vast segments of
persons and institutions.
The other impediment was manifested in the lack of wise and at the same time intrepid pastors of the
Church who might be quick to defend the purity and integrity of the faith and of liturgical and pastoral life,
not allowing themselves to be influenced by flattery or fear.
The Council of Trent had already affirmed in one of its last decrees on the general reform of the Church: "The holy synod,
shaken by the many extremely serious evils that afflict the Church, cannot do other than recall that the thing most
necessary for the Church of God is to select excellent and suitable pastors; all the more in that our Lord Jesus Christ will
ask for an account of the blood of those sheep that should perish because of the bad governance of negligent pastors
unmindful of their duty" (Session XXIV, Decree "de reformatione," can. 1).
The Council continued: "As for all those who for any reason have been authorized by the Holy See to intervene in the
promotion of future prelates or those who take part in this in another way, the holy Council exhorts and admonishes them
to remember above all that they can do nothing more useful for the glory of God and the salvation of the people than to
devote themselves to choosing good and suitable pastors to govern the Church."
So there is truly a need for a Syllabus on the Council with doctrinal value, and moreover there is a need for an
increase in the number of holy, courageous pastors deeply rooted in the tradition of the Church, free from
any sort of mentality of rupture, both in the doctrinal field and in the liturgical field.
These two elements constitute the indispensable condition so that doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral confusion may diminish
significantly, and so that the pastoral work of Vatican Council II may bear much lasting fruit in the spirit of the tradition,
which connects us to the spirit that has reigned in every time, everywhere and in all true children of the Catholic Church,
which is the only and the true Church of God on earth.
The complete text of the presentation by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, given in Rome on December 17, 2010:
> Il primato del culto di Dio come fondamento di ogni vera teologia pastorale. Proposte per una corretta lettura del Concilio
Vaticano II
The appeal of last January 11 to Benedict XVI against the doctrinal dangers of a new interreligious meeting in Assisi:
> "Santo Padre Benedetto XVI, siamo alcuni cattolici gratissimi dell'opera da Lei compiuta..."
As for the correct interpretation of Vatican II, Benedict XVI clarified his thought in the memorable speech to
the curia on December 22, 2005, ruling out the idea that the documents of the Council contain doctrinal
errors and points of rupture with the tradition of the Church:
> "Your Eminences..."

Synthesis of the Declaration of Dominus Iesus

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3134
Introduction
In the lively contemporary debate on the relationship between Christianity and the other religions, some Catholic
theologians have argued that all religions may be equally valid ways of salvation. Relativistic theories have been presented
that either deny or view as superseded certain fundamental truths of the Catholic faith regarding the definitive and
complete character of the revelation of Jesus, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the inseparable personal
unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of the
incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the
inseparability - while recognizing the distinction - of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the
subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.
Such theories are based on philosophical and theological presuppositions which have become quite common. The
Declaration highlights some of these; for example, the conviction of the total elusiveness and inexpressibility of divine truth,
even by Christian revelation; relativistic attitudes toward truth itself, which would hold that what is true for some would not
be true for others; the radical opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West and the symbolic mentality of
the East; the subjectivism which regards reason as the only source of knowledge; the metaphysical emptying of the
mystery of the incarnation; the eclecticism of those who, in theological research, uncritically absorb ideas from a variety of
philosophical and religious contexts without regard for consistency, systematic connection, or compatibility with Christian
truth; finally, the tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.
Because of this debate, the International Theological Commission published a document in 1997 entitled Christianity and
the World Religions, which illustrated, with ample biblical references and theological arguments, the lack of foundation of
pluralistic theologies of religions, and which reasserted the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Christ and the
Church, as the source of all salvation both inside and outside Christianity. Given, however, the rapid spread of the
relativistic and pluralistic mentality, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has intervened with the present
Declaration in order to set forth and clarify certain truths of the faith, following St. Paul’s example: "I handed on to you as
of first importance what I myself received" (1 Cor 15:3).
The Declaration is structured in six sections, which summarize the essential elements of the doctrine of the Catholic faith on
the meaning and salvific value of the other religions.

I. The fullness and definitiveness of the revelation of Jesus Christ

Against the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be
complementary to that found in other religions, the Declaration reiterates the teaching of the Catholic faith regarding the
full and complete revelation of the salvific mystery of God in Jesus Christ. Since Jesus is true God and true man, his words
and deeds manifest the totality and definitiveness of the revelation of the mystery of God, even if the depth of that mystery
remains in itself transcendent and inexhaustible. Consequently, while admitting that other religions not infrequently reflect a
ray of that Truth which enlightens all men (cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration Nostra aetate, 2), the Declaration
reaffirms that the designation of inspired texts is reserved for the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, because
these are inspired by the Holy Spirit, have God as their author, and teach firmly, faithfully, and without error the truth
about God and human salvation. The Declaration also states that the distinction must be firmly held between theological
faith, which is adherence to the truth revealed by the One and Triune God, and belief in the other religions, which is
religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself.

II. The Incarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation
Against the thesis of a twofold salvific economy, that of the eternal Word, which would be universal and valid also outside
the Church, and that of the incarnate Word, which would be limited to Christians, the Declaration reasserts the unicity of
the of the salvific economy of the one incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father. The mystery of
his incarnation, death, and resurrection is the sole and universal source of salvation for all humanity. Indeed, the mystery
of Christ has its own intrinsic unity, which extends from the eternal choice in God to the parousia: "he [the Father] chose us
in Christ before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). Jesus is the mediator and the universal redeemer. Thus, the theory
of a salvific economy of the Holy Spirit with a more universal character than that of the incarnate Word, crucified and risen,
is erroneous. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the risen Christ, and his action cannot be placed outside or alongside that of
Christ. There is a single trinitarian economy, willed by the Father and realized in the mystery of Christ by the working of the
Holy Spirit.

III. The Unicity and universality of the salvific mystery of Jesus Christ
The Declaration reasserts the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, who through the event of his
incarnation, death, and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfilment; in Jesus Christ, salvation history has
its fullness, its centre, and its source. At the same time, however, Christ’s unique mediation does not exclude participated
forms of mediation of various types and degrees; these, however, receive meaning and value only from that of Christ and
cannot be understood as parallel or complementary. Theories of a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of
Christ are contrary to the Catholic faith.

IV. Unicity and unity of the Church

The Lord Jesus continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church, which is his
body. Just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church
can neither be confused nor separated.
Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church
founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there
is an historical continuity between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church. In fact, this one Church of Christ
"subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him"(Second
Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8). With regard to the "many elements of sanctification and
truth"(ibid.) which exist outside the structure of the Church, that is to say, in those Churches and ecclesial communities
which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church, it must be stated that "they derive their efficacy from the
very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church"(Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3).
Those Churches which do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome remain united to the
Catholic Church by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. Therefore, the Church
of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral
substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these
communities are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Catholic Church. "Therefore, these separated Churches
and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and
importance in the mystery of salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3).

V. The Church: kingdom of God and kingdom of Christ

The mission of the Church is "to proclaim and establish among all peoples the kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is, on
earth, the seed and the beginning of that kingdom" (Lumen gentium, 5). On the one hand, the Church is the "sign and
instrument of intimate union with God and of the unity of the entire human race" (ibid., 1) and thus the sign and
instrument of the kingdom: she is called to announce and to establish the kingdom. On the other hand, the Church is the
"people gathered by the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"(ibid., 4): she is therefore "the kingdom of Christ
already present in mystery" (ibid., 3) and constitutes its seed and beginning. There can be various theological explanations
of these questions. However, the intimate connection between Christ, the kingdom, and the Church cannot be denied or
emptied in any way. In fact, the kingdom of God which we know from revelation "cannot be detached either from Christ or
from the Church" (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 18).
However, the kingdom of God is not identified with the Church in her visible and social reality. Indeed, "the action of Christ
and the Spirit outside the Church's visible boundaries" must not be excluded (ibid.). In considering the relationship between
the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, it is necessary to avoid one-sided emphases, as is the case of
those who, in speaking about the kingdom of God, are silent about Christ, or put great stress on the mystery of creation,
but remain silent about the mystery of redemption, because - they say - Christ cannot be understood by those who lack
Christian faith, whereas different peoples, cultures and religions are capable of finding common ground in the one divine
reality, by whatever name it is called. Furthermore, the kingdom, as they understand it, ends up either leaving very little
room for the Church or undervaluing the Church. These approaches deny the unicity of the relationship which Christ and
the Church have with the kingdom of God.

VI. The Church and the other religions in relation to salvation

From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it explores the
relationship of the Church and of the other religions to salvation. Above all, it must be firmly believed that "the Church, a
pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us
in his body which is the Church" (Lumen gentium, 14). This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of
God; rather, "it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all
mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation" (Redemptoris missio, 9). For those who are not formally
members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship
to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to
their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by
the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).
With regard to the way in which the salvific grace of God comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council
limited itself to the statement that God bestows it "in ways known to himself" (Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes,
7). Theology is currently seeking to understand this question more deeply. At the same time, however, it is clear that it
would be contrary to the Catholic faith to consider the Church as a way of salvation alongside those constituted by the
other religions.
Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements that are part of what "the Spirit brings about
in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions" (Redemptoris missio, 29). One cannot attribute to
these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments.
Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they follow from superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor
10:20, 21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.

With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument of salvation
for all humanity. This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world,
but at the same time it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism "characterized by a religious relativism
which leads to the belief that 'one religion is as good as another-"(Redemptoris missio, 36). As demanded by her love for all
people, the Church "proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is "the way, the truth, and the life"
(Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:18â?"19), men find the fullness of their religious
life" (Nostra aetate, 2).

Conclusion
The intention of the present Declaration is to reiterate and clarify certain truths of the faith in the face of problematic and
even erroneous propositions.
In treating the question of the true religion, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught: "We believe that this one
true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading
it among all people. Thus, he said to the Apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Mt
28: 19:20). Especially in those things that concern God and his Church, all persons are required to seek the truth, and when
they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it" (Second Vatican Council, Declaration Dignitatis humanae, 1).

Dominus Iesus, Or Rather, Servus Iesus

A Comment on Cardinal Ratzinger’s Dominus Iesus
http://www.arcc-catholic-rights.net/dominus%20iesus.pdf
By Leonard Swidler
As a scholar it is very often discouraging, and really embarrassing, to read Vatican documents. They are so often full of bald
assertions, frequently sustained by citations of previous bald assertions, even of the authors themselves. Cardinal
Ratzinger’s Declaration Dominus Iesus is unfortunately no exception. It is essentially an expansion of an earlier document
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote and delivered before the doctrinal committee of the Latin American bishops, which contained
serious errors in citing the theologians he was attacking; these errors stemmed in no small measure from the fact that he
constantly cited his American opponent from a hostile Italian language secondary source which revealed more about the
views of the Italian author and Cardinal Ratzinger than about the American theologian.
Another embarrassment for scholars in this Declaration is the slippery use of key terms which are not carefully explained.
For example, what does it mean to say that, Jesus has an absolute significance or value? The term "absolute" literally
means unlimited, with no exceptions. Does it here mean that, Jesus has significance and value for every person? If so, who
could disagree? But might not one also say the same of Gutenberg for having invented the printing press, or Jonas Salk,
the inventor of the polio vaccine, or....? Again, what does it mean to say that, Jesus is the definitive self-revelation of God?
Are there no manifestations of God outside of Jesus? No Christian would make such a counter-biblical claim. What then
does definitive mean in these sentences? Again, God’s self-revelation in Jesus is said to be unique. What precisely is being
claimed here, for is not every person unique? These and other critical terms are used in very imprecise and cloudy ways,
which is surely not appropriate in a document which purports to clarify theological and philosophical issues.
Still a third embarrassment is the way Cardinal Ratzinger proceeds to preemptively dismiss positions seriously maintained
by theologians or philosophers either by simply listing them with the implication that they are obviously errors of judgment,
or disemboweling them by giving them a pejorative name which the authors would most likely reject. One such listed
"erroneous" position is: "the inexpressibility of divine truth, even by Christian revelation." Surely no one would claim that
nothing can be known or expressed about "divine truth" presumably referring to statements about God. At the same time,
no one, including Cardinal Ratzinger, would claim that it is possible to express in a complete way the truth about God.
Hence, it must be the latter, not the former, that any theologian would be referring to were s/he to use terminology such as
"the inexpressibility of divine truth", and if that is the case, wherein lies the problem or "error"?
Again, Cardinal Ratzinger implies as erroneous: "opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West and the
symbolic mentality of the East." Surely every serious Christian theologian is aware of the dramatically different mentalities
of the ancient Hebrew and Greek worlds at the time of Jesus. For Jesus, as a Jew, the "big" question was not, How must I
think? but, What must I do? The Jews, from before the time of Jesus to today, have many commandments, halachah, but
very little in the way of creeds. Jesus said, "Not those who say 'Lord, Lord', but those who do the will of God will..." That
is, those who "give food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked....will enter into the kingdom of heaven."
The Jew Jesus was asked not, What are the greatest doctrines, but, What are the greatest commandments? ─ in brief:
What must I do? In contrast, what were the major concerns and products of the great Ecumenical Councils which rocked
the first centuries of religious freedom of the Christian world? They were: What was the nature of God (one God, three
Gods, three Persons in one God.....)? What was the nature of Jesus (true God who just appeared to be human, true human
who was "adopted" by God, true God and true human....)?─in brief: What must I think? It was this "Greek" abstract
mentality that then produced a plethora of creeds: Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed,
Athanasian Creed....all the way up to creeds of the last few popes.
Today, surely every Christian New Testament scholar and every trained theologian is aware that the Jews spoke in "picture
language", using a multitude of metaphors, symbols, myths, and stories.
What Catholic theological or biblical scholar today would understand the two Genesis creation stories and Garden of Eden
stories as some kind of historical accounts rather than mythoi?

Who would mistake the Jew Jesus parables as being as about historical "men who went out to sow seed," or about people
who should physically "pluck out their eyes", or a specifically historical shepherd who went to look for a lost sheep? Surely
every contemporary Catholic Scripture scholar and trained theologian realizes that the ancient Hebrew story teller, and all
subsequent Jews, including Jesus and his Jewish followers, would have been shocked and scandalized were they told that
when the first line of Genesis spoke of the "spirit of God hovering over the deep" that that was the Third Person of the
Blessed Trinity. Such a (Greek) "metaphysical" mentality was clearly foreign to their (Semitic) more "metaphorical"
mentality. Then, wherein lies the problem or error?
Cardinal Ratzinger deliberately dismisses the thinking and language of the pluralist theologians by using a concept and term
that they do not use. He puts in their minds and mouths the concept/term "relativism", when it is clear that they are talking
about and using the concept/term "relational". To accuse the pluralist theologians of "relativism" is to insult the intelligence
not only of those theologians, but also of every knowledgeable reader of this Declaration. Every clear thinking person, upon
the slightest reflection, immediately realizes that an alleged position of "relativism" is literally "non-sense". If all is relative
to me, and again to you, and you, and you....then I am not even talking to a real you, or a real anyone else, since
everything is totally relative to me. We cannot even disagree, for we would have to have something in common which is
not "relative" in order to be able to communicate with each other in order to disagree!
No, the concept and term is not an impossible "relativism", but, as mentioned, "relationality". After the philosophical
advances of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, surely every philosopher and theologian trained in the second half of
the twentieth century is aware that all knowledge is something that I know, you know, we know, they know. All
knowledge exists in the minds of the knowers and comes there through my, your, our, their lenses of my, your, our,
their experiences.
As St. Thomas Aquinas noted centuries ago: "Things known are in the knower according to the mode of the knower"
(cognita sunt in cognoscente secundum modum cognoscientis. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 1, a. 2).
Knowing is in itself a relational activity, a unifying relationship between the knower and the known. The knower is
essentially involved in the very act of knowing. All knowing is necessarily related to the knower.
There is much more to be commented on in this Declaration, but I believe that the foundation of the difficulties that critical
thinkers have with the Declaration lies here in these epistemological starting points that Cardinal Ratzinger in a kind pf
petitio principii preemptively dismisses. In many respects, most of the rest of the Declaration is a logical working out of
these first positions taken by Cardinal Ratzinger. (As St. Thomas Aquinas states somewhere: A small error in the beginning
becomes a huge one in the end.) But, as in every "begging of the question", those are precisely the points that must be
proven, not simply asserted, regardless of the eminence of the authorities that reassert them in the citations.
What is to be done? All sides need to take each other seriously. We all need to enter into a dialogue, a serious dialogue,
not a show trial, but a true dialogue, which means that both sides come to learn from the other!
This is not a new idea. Already in 1979, in preparation for the Vatican interrogation of Father Edward Schillebeeckx many
petitions with thousands of signatures in his support were sent to Rome, including one signed by hundreds of American
Catholic theologians urging that "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith eliminate from its procedures, hearings, and
the like, substituting for them dialogues that would...bring together not only the theologian in question...but also a
worldwide selection of the best pertinent theological scholars.... Such a procedure is by no means new; it is precisely the
procedure utilized at the Second Vatican Council." (Quoted in Leonard Swidler, Küng in Conflict (New York: Doubleday,
1981, pp. 514-517.)
In 1988 Cardinal Jozef Tomko, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, after publishing a speech in
which he attacked dialogue-oriented missiologists and theologians (many the same as those attacked now by Cardinal
Ratzinger), was asked to grant permission for his speech to be reproduced in a book in which a range of missiologists,
missionaries, and theologians would comment on it. He not only graciously consented, but asked for an opportunity to
respond to them ─ which he did in a dialogic manner, that is, in a manner that dealt with them seriously and respectfully.
(Paul Mojzes and Leonard Swidler, eds., Christian Mission and Interreligious Dialogue. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press,
1990.) When Cardinal Ratzinger published his predecessor speech to the Doctrinal Committee of the Latin American
bishops, attacking again by name many of the same theologians, he too was invited to enter into a dialogue with them and
others, much as Cardinal Tomko did. After much delay and repeated requests, he sent his regrets that he was too busy.
But that will no longer do. We are now in The Age of Global Dialogue. As the 1979 document of the American theologians
stated: "The function of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith should be to promote dialogue!" Jesus did not come
to "lord" (dominus) it over us, but to be our "servant" (servus). We Christians are called to imitate him ─ and those who are
"leaders" among the Christian community are to be the servus servorum Dei, the servant of the servants of God.
Also see "Open letter from Leonard Swidler to Josef Ratzinger"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_13_28/ai_n6245104/ September 12, 2004
See: Information Related to Specific Dissenting Catechetical / Evangelization Programs
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/index.html.
Leonard Swidler, Professor of Catholic Thought, Temple University, Philadelphia, is the co-founder of the Association for the
Rights of Catholics in the Church and its current president. He is the Editor of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies (quarterly),
and the Founder/President of the Dialogue Institute – Interreligious, Intercultural, International. With his wife, Arlene
Anderson Swidler, he has written over 70 books. Further information about their work can be found at:
http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Swidler/. He is a known dissenter, promotes the ordination of women priests
and demands a “Catholic Constitution”.

The Sensus Fidelium of the People of God in Asia, 313-327

http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/content/sensus-fidelium-people-god-asia-313-327
By Edmund Chia, F.S.C. [Also see pages 55 through 61]
Edmund Chia, F.S.C. from Malaysia, a frequent contributor to the East Asian Pastoral Review, is affiliated with the
Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference (FABC). He is the FABC executive secretary and secretary of its Office of
Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs. A more comprehensive report of the survey in his article is available upon request at
[email protected]
What’s becoming of Contextual Theology?
"If contextual theology is not being taught in the seminaries and formation houses, then it will continue to remain mainly in
theological journals."1This was a comment made by Fr. Michael Amaladoss, which, of course, is by no means prophetic
as it is simply a statement of reality. Ironically, the statement was made during a course which Amaladoss taught and
which was entitled, "Living in a Pluralistic World". While the course dealt on issues such as the inherent nature and beauty
of religious pluralism and multiculturalism, at the back of our minds we were also very mindful of the recent spate of
violence perpetuated precisely in the name of religion and culture. For sure, there is certainly no denying that just as
religion and culture can energize people into an appreciation of difference, the same can also poison people into a
willingness to kill and also die in the name of difference. This applies, of course, to every single religion, Christianity
included. 
As leaders of Christian churches, therefore, ours is to educate our own into an appreciation of difference. The crucial target
group of this education is none other than the grassroots, the ordinary lay Christians who fill up the pews of churches, as
these are the very people whose attitudes towards persons of other religions can either lead to relationship-building or
relationship-destroying. In this regard, contextual theologies have significant roles to play since they take the context as
starting point for theological reflections. Needless to say, in Asia, the context has to include the fact of religious and cultural
pluralism, ordained by God, but hitherto still largely alien to mainstream theological thought. Because contextual theologies
are not really permeating the seminaries and formation houses, pastors and pastoral workers are in the main passing on
traditional theologies, most of which were developed in the West where religious pluralism is either absent or totally
ignored. It is not surprising, therefore, that the grassroots have also been indoctrinated with these theologies, which have
the potential for leading Christians to feeling superior about their own religion and at the same time willing to denounce the
religions of their neighbors of other faiths in Asia. 

Dominus Iesus
An example of such a theology is none other than the recently released Vatican document Dominus Iesus. As a
"declaration" its aim is to merely reaffirm Christian doctrines, something which is indeed very noble and useful. However, in
so doing, the document also makes comments and passes judgment upon other religions as, for example, that
they are in a "gravely deficient situation", or that they "contain gaps, insufficiencies and errors", or that the
true religion can only reside in the Catholic Church. Such judgments can only lead to attitudes that since "ours is
right and theirs is wrong" there is no need for respect of them as ours is from God and theirs is not. Such "we versus they"
attitudes cannot but fuel interreligious and intercommunal tension. A comment by the Organizer, the mouthpiece of the
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps) which is linked to India’s nationalist political party, is instructive
here: The newspaper alluded to the Vatican Declaration being filled with "16 th century papal arrogance” and so is bound to
create tension in pluralistic societies such as India." 2
Released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in September 2000, Dominus Iesus has become the most
talked-about document in recent Church history. No other Church document has commanded such interest and attention,
perhaps, not since Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae.3 Like Humanae Vitae, whose impact continued to linger on for more than
a decade, the repercussions brought forth by Dominus Iesus may be equally far-reaching, especially for the Church in Asia,
since its major concerns focused on interreligious dialogue and the advances made by contextual theologies. 4

The Sensus Fidelium
A significant criticism of the document is that it seems out of touch with the ground realities of how Christians relate with
persons of other religions. In an article written for an issue of Jeevadhara specifically dedicated to Dominus
Iesus, American theologian Paul Knitter even suggests that, on the basis of these many and varied criticisms, "the
'sense of the faithful' (sensus fidelium) in regard to other religious believers has been clarified, thanks to the CDF’s
declaration" (Knitter 2001:183). Knitter then went on to specifically point out that among the issues raised and clarified is
the issue of "the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one redeemer and mediator of salvation for humankind". He was
actually quoting from an article by his fellow American Richard McBrien* who in his article also advanced the thesis that
among the Asian theologians there is the possibility that some may have erred: "In two or three cases, theologians may
have gone too far in collapsing any meaningful distinction between Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of faith and other so-
called 'Christ figures'" (McBrien 2000). *Fr Richard McBrien is a liberal theologian
Knitter agreed with McBrien that the issue of the uniqueness of Jesus was a point of contention but disagreed with the
latter’s suggestion that this had arisen as a result of the work of "two or three" theologians. Knitter, who himself has been
very much engaged in interreligious dialogue and is also a keen observer of Asian theology, asserts: "I find that there are
many Catholics who are painfully struggling with the traditional teachings that Jesus is the one and only savior of all other
people.

"In view of their encounter with the depth of religious experience in their non-Christian friends, many Catholics, both Asian
and American, find it difficult to continue insisting, to these other religious friends and to themselves, that a saving
experience of God must come only through Jesus and find its fulfillment only in him and his church" (McBrien 2000).
Even if McBrien’s "two or three" is not taken literally but understood to mean that an insignificant number of Asians have
"denied the uniqueness of Jesus Christ,"5 one wonders how he arrived at such a conclusion. Has he met enough Asians to
come to that conclusion? Has he read enough Asian books—not only those available in the West, but also those by Asian
publishers—to surmise that only very few Asians have problems with Jesus’ uniqueness? On the other hand, one can also
ask how Knitter arrived at his own conclusion that McBrien is probably wrong. Does he have any data to substantiate his
claims that "many" Catholics in Asia find it difficult to profess Jesus as the one and only savior? Does he know anything
about what the ordinary lay Catholic in the pews of Asian churches—not just Asian theologians —believe? 

Need for Pan-Asian Experience and Theology

These questions, asked of McBrien and Knitter, could also be posed to everyone else writing on Asian theology. Few, or
none, of the Asian theologians actually have any data to substantiate their hypotheses, be it in support of McBrien’s position
or Knitter’s, or the CDF’s, for that matter. At best, theologians project their personal theological orientations onto their
Catholic brothers and sisters and suggest it to be the sensus fidelium of the People of God in Asia. This "false consensus
bias" influences much of the theological writings of Asia, especially when one attempts to speak on behalf of the Church in
Asia. 
Moreover, many Asian theologians do not have too much contact with the Church and Christians living in other Asian
countries other than their own. In fact, it is not surprising to find more Asian theologians who have visited and/or lived in
European and American cities as compared to those who have done the same in another Asian city. Consequently, when
the Indian theologian speaks of "Asian theology" s/he is in fact speaking from her/his own experience of India rather than
of Asia as a whole. Likewise, when a Taiwanese theologian claims something to be "not in harmony with Asian beliefs"
chances are that s/he has never ever been to Manila, Delhi, or Jakarta but has often visited Paris, New York, or Rome. In a
way, theirs is really a comparison between the West and their experience of their own particular country rather than the
West and Asia as a whole. To confound the problem, there is little valid data on what Catholics in Asia believe, just as there
is little literature written from a truly pan-Asian experience. 

An Empirical Survey
It was in view of this absence of data that an empirical survey was conducted to get a feel of the sensus fidelium of the
Asian Church on the issues raised by Dominus Iesus. Thus, a questionnaire survey was sent out by means of email to
persons from all across Asia. 
For a period of 8 weeks between January and March 2002, a total of 394 responses were received from nearly twenty
countries, from as far West as Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka to as far East as Indonesia and the Philippines to as far North
as Japan, Korea and even Mongolia and China. 
For the sake of easy reading, the results of the descriptive analysis of the data of the survey, in light of the themes raised
by Dominus Iesus (DI), are presented in Table 1 which follows: 
(Table 1)

THEOLOGICAL ISSUES RAISED TOTAL

BY DOMINUS IESUS RESPONDENTS
  1. Yes, Jesus is God’s revelation (382)   97 %
  2. Jesus is fullness of God’s revelation (284)    72 %
Jesus is fullness of God’s revelation, but God’s revelation
  3. (172)    44 %
also given elsewhere
God’s revelation given only in Jesus and not in other
  4. (66)      17 %
religions or elsewhere
Jesus is God’s revelation (not fullness) and God’s revelation
  5.  (245)     62 %
also given elsewhere
  6.  Jesus is savior for Christians (359)    91 %
  7. Jesus is savior for all (357)     91 %
Jesus is the only savior for all but there are also other
  8. (196)    50 %
saviors for all
  9.  Jesus is savior for all, (99)      25 %
  10. The Church is a means of salvation (329)    84 %
  11. The Church is necessary for salvation (140)    36 %
  12. Other religions are not means of salvation (49)      12 %
The Church is necessary for salvation, but other religions
  13. (79)  20%
are also means of salvation
The Church is a means of salvation (but not necessary),
  14. (22) 58%
and other religions are  also  means of salvation
(246)    62
  15. Christians have the fullness of the means of salvation
%     
  16. Christians do not have the fullness of  the means of (96)     24 %
 salvation
  17. Other religions are deficient, as compared to the Church (139)    35 %
  18. Other religions are not deficient, as compared to the Church(139)   35 %
  19. The Bible is the Word of God (362)    92 %
  20. The Bible is the only Word of God (88)      22 %
The Bible is the Word of God, but other scriptures are also
  21. (184)    47 %
Word of God
  22. Christianity is a true religion (357)    91 %
  23. Christianity is the only true religion (120)    30 %
Christianity is a true religion, but there are also other true
  24. (178)    45 %
religions
  25. One religion is as good as another (142)    36 %
  26. One religion is not as good as another (191)    48 %
It is God’s plan that there be different religions
  27. (195)    49 %
(pluralism de jure)
  28. It is not God’s plan that there be different religions (79)      20 %
  29. Yes, to Interreligious dialogue (374)    95 %
  30. No, to Interreligious dialogue (5)        1 %
       
 
Discussion on the Results
From the results of the survey, a few observations can be made. Firstly, it is clear that the following items yielded very high
percentages, viz. more than 90%: No.1, No.6, No.7, No.19, and No.22. In other words, more than 90% of the 394
respondent sample affirm that Jesus is God’s revelation (97%), that Jesus is savior for Christians (91%), that Jesus is savior
for all humankind (91%), that the Bible is God’s Word (92%), and that Christianity is a true religion (91%). Since these are
the most fundamental and basic faith affirmations which distinguish Christians from those who are not Christians, it is safe
to say that more than 90% of the respondent sample is believing Christians.
That only five of the numbered items received such unanimous affirmations speaks volumes of the sensus fidelium of the
People of God in Asia. In particular, it reveals that amongst Asian Catholics, only these five doctrinal assertions are widely
adhered to. In a way, if Dominus Iesus was re-written for Asian Catholics, this is probably how it would begin its first
article: "The fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith for Catholics in Asia are expressed thus (cf. DI,
1): I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty.

I believe in the Lord, Jesus Christ, who is God’s revelation and who is savior for Christians as well as for all of humankind. I
believe that the Bible, the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, is the sacred Word of God. I believe that the
true religion exists in Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular." That’s it. There will probably be no
affirmation of Jesus as the only savior or of the Church as necessary for salvation. On the other hand, of course this does
not suggest that Asian Catholics do not affirm other doctrines of faith. It only implies that as far as the theological themes
raised by Dominus Iesus are concerned, these are the only ones which they overwhelmingly subscribe to. 
A second observation is that even if more than 90% of the respondent sample are decidedly Christian, a significant
proportion amongst this same 90% are also decidedly open to and receptive of other religions. For example, 62% believe
God’s revelation is also given in other religions (No.5), 25% allow the possibility of other saviors (No.9), 58% acknowledge
that other religions could be means of salvation (No.14), 35% do not believe persons of other religions are deficient as
compared to Christians (No.18), 47% allow for other scriptures as God’s Word (No.21), 45% believe that there could be
other true religions besides Christianity (No.24), and 49% accept religious pluralism as within the plan of God (No.27). 
Averaging these seven percentages would give a figure of between 40 and 50%. Hence, in very general terms, one can say
that about 40-50% of Asian Catholics have a sense of openness to other religions. Indeed, contrary to the presuppositions
and demands of Dominus Iesus, this significant proportion of Asian Catholics do not believe that either Jesus, the Church or
Christianity is the sole, unique or normative repository of truth. It is important to be reminded that these same respondents
also affirm the basic beliefs which Dominus Iesus postulates, except that they reject some of the more extreme and
exclusive assertions, especially those which seem to question the integrity and authenticity of the other religions.
Thus, if Dominus Iesus were to be re-written for Asia, it would probably not begin—as does DI, 1—with the mission
mandate: "Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptised will be
saved; he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16: 15-16). Instead, it would probably begin with: "Stop judging,
that you will not be judged" (Mt 7: 1)6 or "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you" (Mt 7: 12). Such is the
respect Asian Catholics have for their neighbors of other faiths and such is the respect they expect others to have for them
in their belief of Jesus, the Church and Christianity. 
A third observation is that a very small percentage of the respondent sample affirmed the more exclusivistic assertions
of Dominus Iesus. Specifically, only 17% of the 394 respondents affirm that God’s revelation is given only in Jesus and not
in the other religions (No.4), 50% affirm that Jesus is the only savior and that there can be no other savior figures (No.8),
12% affirm that the other religions are not means of salvation (No.12), 35% affirm that the other religions are deficient as
compared to those in the Church who have the fullness of the means of salvation (No.17), 22% affirm that the Bible is the
only Word of God and that other scriptures are not God’s Word (No.20), 30% affirm that Christianity is the only true
religion (No.23) and 20% affirm that it is not within God’s plan to have many religions (No.28). Leaving aside No. 8, where
a significant 50% of the respondents affirm Jesus as the only savior, the percentages of the other six items average about
20-25% of the respondent sample.  In other words, in very general terms, only about 20-25% of Asian Catholics would
subscribe to the very exclusivistic aspects advanced by Dominus Iesus which do not acknowledge that truth can also be
found in other religions. 
It cannot be glossed over that a significant 50% of the respondent sample affirms the assertion that Jesus is indeed the
one and only savior for all of humankind. To be exact, it was 49.7% as 196 out of the total of 394 respondents affirm this
theological doctrine. On the other hand, 198 (50.3%) did not affirm the doctrine. This, however, does not mean they reject
the doctrine. Out of this 50.3%, about half or 25% affirm the possibility of other savior figures while the other half are
undecided on the issue. The finding is significant as it is primarily this issue of the possibility of other saviors which has
been most sensitive and controversial. That 25% of the respondents were unable to declare their position on the issue is
also significant. To be sure, the theory of the plurality of saviors remains ambiguous and is not as definitive as Dominus
Iesus has made it out to be. The sensus fidelium of the People of God of Asia certainly reveals that. Moreover, even
Dominus Iesus is not as definitive as it seems. In fact, article 14 of the document invites the Church "to explore if and in
what way the historical figures and positive elements of [the other] religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation"
(DI, 14). The findings of the research, therefore, call to question the very strong reprimands—such as "it must be firmly
believed" or "it is contrary to the faith"—which Dominus Iesus employs. To be sure, the issues are far from firm and final. 
Moreover, if the sensus fidelium does not correspond to these doctrinal positions, no matter how insistent the Vatican is
about them, such beliefs cannot be forced upon the People of God, especially in Asia, where Christians experience other
religions everyday of their lives. 
In summary, therefore, one can say that amongst Asian Catholics, more than 90% believe in the basic tenets of the
Christian faith. Amongst these, about 40-50% also display a theological openness to other religions while only half that
number, or 20-25%, harbor theological positions which exclude the viability of the other religions. 

Sensitive Theological Issues

As can be seen from the results of the survey above, there is still much ambiguity about the theological issues raised
in Dominus Iesus. To be sure, the issues raised by the document are by no means ordinary or mundane. Some of the
questions of the survey, based solely on Dominus Iesus, had some respondents finding them bothersome and even
sensitive. A Religious Sister from the Mekong Valley had this to say: "May I not answer the questionnaire. It’s very catching.
My superior in the house told me in a joking manner she is afraid she might lose her faith while reflecting on the questions
asked!" 

Other friendly messages also advocated caution as, for example, one message which read: "This could be controversial so
brace yourself for some negative feedback by some well meaning Catholics." Two messages, however, were particularly
pointed. The first, which had responded to the questions half-way, had this to say: "I don’t like to answer your questions
anymore. If you like to know more, it is better you ask the bishops, especially those who have doctorate degrees. Please
excuse me if I am too rude." The second, with a similarly angry tone, was even more direct in his challenge to me: "To
Edmund. I come straight to the point. Why are you doing this survey? Why is it necessary for you to do this survey? Why
are you targeting Catholics? Who authorized you with those questions in your so-called survey? Are you trying to doubt the
Catholics’ faith, or create confusion? What’s your objective?" 

Dialectical Tension of Faith and Life

The preceding comments suggest the survey questionnaire was viewed with a certain degree of suspicion and trepidation,
probably in view of the questions which seemed to have hit at the core of the Christian’s being. To be sure, the questions,
because they questioned the respondent’s faith in relation to her/his lived reality of religious pluralism, seemed to have
caused much tension to some. It was as if there is tension between what is believed as taught by the Christian faith and
what is experienced as evidenced in the contextual realities of Asia. 
Of course, one way to deal with such tension is to be indifferent about the differences present between the religions, a
position which Dominus Iesus warns against. For example, one respondent, an accountant, expressed sentiments along
these lines: "As long as I believe that mine is a true religion, it is not important to me whether the rest are true or not." 
Another, a young female TV producer, advises: "To each his own. I believe if it works for you and makes you a better
person, that’s cool."
Yet another way to address the tension is to simply relegate persons of other religions to the "unsaved" and be content that
Christianity is the superior and only true religion. Such sentiments were shared by one respondent, working as a
Management Support Officer, who asserts: "The other religions are man-made religions which may teach their followers to
be good, but ours is the true religion where our God comes down to mankind to live as one of us, to show us the way and
to die in order to save us. No other religion can boast of this and that He rose again, which proves His divinity."
The sincere seeker, however, will find such strategies of dealing with the tension untenable. However hard they try
balancing between what they have learnt and what they feel in real life, often times they still end up being even more
confused and vulnerable. An emotive comment from one undergraduate respondent captures this sense of vulnerability
well: "I believe that only Christianity is for me, and it is different from the rest in a special way. However, I feel
uncomfortable in saying my religion is the best, simply because that would imply that the other religions are not good and
doing something wrong. That is difficult to say because a lot of religions preach goodness, and it is difficult to say goodness
is wrong, just because it is of a different religion. Yet, I also am torn by the fact I’ve learnt all the time in Sunday school
that Christianity is the true religion. It is true, but does it necessarily mean that others are not? What is religion anyway?
Common beliefs? Ultimate truths. Argghh... this is confusing." Another response, from an employee of a shipping company,
which expressed a similar dialectical tension, had this to say: "This is what I believe, although deep in my heart I wish this
is not 100% right, so more people can be saved from hell." 

Experience versus Knowledge

These last few comments seem to indicate that there is a continuous struggle between what is being taught to the ordinary
believers and what they experience of other religions in their day-to-day living. It is as if Asian Catholics have to struggle
with their contextual reality of the experience of truth and beauty in the other religions which is then juxtaposed against
their catechism which insists that these are not from God. Put another way, their experience and heart seem to be
perceiving reality one way while their knowledge and head suggest otherwise. This is probably what Paul Knitter was
referring to when he said many Catholics are "painfully struggling" with the dichotomy between the teachings of their faith
as against their day-to-day experience of very positive relations with persons of other religions. This struggle adheres as the
catechism and theological formation imparted in many Asian seminaries and Sunday Schools continue to be those which are
borrowed from the West, where the phenomenon of religious pluralism is absent or ignored. Hence, it comes as no surprise
that the masses, the grassroots, are in the main indoctrinated with theologies which are alien to their contextual experience
and which do not resonate with their lived realities. 
This is not to suggest that contextual theologies are not being developed in Asia. As suggested by Amaladoss, they are at
present primarily in the academic realm, and hence influence only the intellectuals and the theologians. The ordinary lay
grassroots Christians is in the main oblivious of such endeavours. These final comments seem to imply that perhaps Richard
McBrien was also accurate in his assertion that only an insignificant number of Asians are involved in advocating what is
seen as "relativistic" theories which attribute as much value to other savior figures as to Jesus Christ. These are mainly the
theologians and scholars who constitute a tiny minority of the Catholic community in Asia. 
The others, and especially the grassroots, have practically no access to contextual theologies which could help them
apprehend the religious pluralism of the Asian context. This latter group has only Western theologies such as the Catechism
of the Catholic Church and Dominus Iesus to go by and hence experience a dialectical tension between what they believe
on the head level and what they experience at the heart level. Thus, on the theological and cognitive levels they might
articulate theologies which assert the superiority of Catholicism, but on the affective and experiential levels—as evidenced
by the results of the survey—there are only a few Asians who can dogmatically pronounce the possibility of other saviors
and the truth of other religions, there are many who actually feel and experience such a reality from the depths of their
being even if they may not be able to intellectually assert that conviction. 

Contextual Theology for Grassroots

The preceding reflections point to the urgent need for contextual theologies to be taught and especially made available to
the grassroots. In a way, the results derived from the survey based on Dominus Iesus seem to indicate this as an
imperative. Perhaps, that could be the long-term contribution of Dominus Iesus to theological developments in Asia. In
other words, contextual theologies have to move from the academic realm to the pastoral. They have the potential of
changing lives, especially the lives of the ordinary believing Christian. Besides being able to help them appreciate and live
peacefully and harmoniously with their neighbors of other faiths, contextual theologies can also provide them with
understandings of the Christian faith which harmonizes with their lived experience and help them live with peace of mind. 
In this regard, initiatives and projects which usher in a greater integration of contextual theologies into mainstream
theological institutions and formation centers ought to be priorities and encouraged. 
A recently-conceived initiative by the Institute of Missiology Aachen (MWI), Germany, offers much hope in this direction. 
Its long-term project which spans all the developing continents, seeks first to evaluate the present academic curricula of
theology, and especially to find out what we teach? how we teach? and for whom do we teach? "The ultimate purpose of
the evaluation is to transform theology into an inter-cultural and inter-contextual process." 7
One can only hope that more such efforts will not only be developed, but successfully implemented. Only then will we see
contextual theology reaching the seminaries and formation houses, which, hopefully, will then seep down to members of
the laity at grassroots levels.  When that day comes, Amaladoss will probably say, "Now that contextual theologies is a lived
reality in the minds and hearts of our Catholics, they ought to be given no more space in theological journals!" 

NOTES
1. Private conversation between Fr. Michael Amaladoss and the author on 20 February 2002 at Katholieke Universiteit
Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
2. "Media Say Vatican Document Threatens Dialogue, Communal Peace," Union of Catholic Asian News UCAN (3 October
2000) [www.ucanews.com/].
3. Pope Paul VI promulgated this 1968 encyclical on birth control reasserting the traditional ban on the use of artificial
methods of contraception, much to the chagrin of the specially constituted commission of lay, medical and theological
advisers who had recommended that the ban be provisionally lifted.
4. The American Catholic sociologist, Andrew Greeley, cites Humanae Vitae as the prime factor for the subsequent decade’s
significant decline in Sunday church attendance in the United States. Moreover, Greeley further discovered that the
document helped facilitate the Church’s loss of credibility in that it spurred Catholics along to be selective in their allegiance
to Church teachings. Thus, not only did Humanae Vitae backfire in its aims, it even transformed Catholic morality
permanently. See Greeley 1995). Dominus Iesus could very well play such a role for Catholics in Asia, and, perhaps,
transform interreligious dialogue permanently!
5. Knitter argues that Asian theologians do not actually "deny" Jesus’ uniqueness. To be sure, they have no difficulty
accepting Jesus as savior. They only ask if Jesus is indeed the "only" savior. "Truly but perhaps not only," is Knitter’s
mantra.
6. This is the title of Amaladoss’ article in response to Dominus Iesus. See Jeevadhara: A Journal of Christian
Interpretation, (Vol. XXXI, No. 83, May 2001), p. 179-182.
7. "Teaching Theology in Asian Contexts: A Conference to Evaluate the Curricula," Call for Papers, Institute of Missiology
Missio, Aachen (MWI), Germany, (1 March 2002).
 
REFERENCES
Greely, Andrew 1995 American Catholics Since the Council (Chicago: Thomas Moore).
Knitter, Paul 2001 "Dominus Iesus and the Hermeneutics of Reception," Jeevadhara: A Journal of Christian
Interpretation (Vol. XXXI No. 83, May).
McBrien, Richard 2000 "'Finding' Christ in Other Religions" National Catholic Reporter (22 December).

MY COMMENTS
I wonder how many truly well-informed lay Catholics -- especially apologists, if he even knows a significant
number of them -- De La Salle Brother Edmund Chia sent his questionnaire to. He appears to be too closely
associated with liberals like Fr. Michael Amaladoss to be unbiased and objective.

FABC’s “Response” to Dominus Iesus

http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/content/fabc%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cresponse%E2%80%9D-dominus-iesus
By Edmund Chia, F.S.C.
Edmund Chia, F.S.C. a frequent contributor to the East Asian Pastoral Review, is affiliated with the Federation of Asian
Bishops’ Conference (FABC). He is the Executive Secretary and Inter-religious Secretary of its Office of Ecumenical and
Inter-religious Affairs. This article was originally published in Jeevadhara: a Journal of Christian Interpretation,
India (May 2001)

Variety of Reactions
When asked to write the present article, the first thing I did was to do a Yahoo! search, and, to my delight, found 303
websites which carried the entry Dominus Jesus. I  looked at more than half of these and noticed that the majority of the
articles were critical, and at times even condemnatory, of the Vatican's document, made public by the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith on 5 September, 2000. Even as six months have passed, more articles continue to be churned out and
many regard the Dominus Jesus  document as a "pastoral disaster." A look at some of the article headings on the Yahoo!
sites is revealing. For instance, one article begins with "The much maligned Vatican document..." and another had this for
its title: “Dominus Jesus Exalts Her Throne." Yet another hit the nail right on the head by entitling it explicitly as: "Catholics
are the Best: I know you mean it, but did you have to say it that way?" Others carried titles such as "Negative Reactions
to Dominus Jesus,”  "Vatican  Declaration Provokes Churches," "The Vatican Magnifies Divide Among World's Religions,"
"Rome, Relativism, and Reaction," and "A Kiss of Death for the Ecumenists. "
Of course, there were also articles, though few and far between, which came to the Vatican's defense. Among them was a
report which stated that "Carey, (Archbishop of Canterbury) recently elevated to Cardinal status, dismisses attack on
"'deficient' faith" and another which emphasized the theme of "Preaching the Gospel to Non-Christians." One article
unambiguous in its support for Dominus Jesus  was entitled: "An Overdue Reminder that Not All is Relative." Moreover, one
can also find the "Answers to Main Objections against Dominus Jesus”*, a report of an interview given by Cardinal
Ratzinger, prefect of the CDF, the main person behind the document. *See page 130

Targets Missed!
One cannot help but notice two very distinct traits in the responses to Dominus Jesus. Firstly, the majority of the negative
reactions came from Christians who belong to the other Christian churches, or "ecclesia communities" as Dominus
Jesus  would insist they be called. For instance, the General Secretary of the World Alliance for Reformed Churches has his
response entitled: "Disappointment and Dismay." Others were mainly articles, which criticized Dominus Jesus  for
suggesting that their own churches "are not Churches in the proper sense" and that there only "exists a single Church of
Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church" (DI, n. 17). The avalanche of negative reactions pertaining to this particular
issue surprised many, not the least being Ratzinger himself, as, in the words of the Cardinal, the ecumenical issues "occupy
only a small part of the document." These Christians have simply "disregarded the Declaration's true theme," the Cardinal
laments. Dominus Jesus  is about the Lordship of Christ, whereby “the Pope wanted to offer to the world a great and
solemn recognition of Jesus Christ as Lord."1 In other words, Dominus Jesus  was not really targeted towards the other
Christians as it is to peoples of other world religions. This is a Christian document, meant to assert the supremacy of the
Christian "theological faith," vis-à-vis the "belief" of the other religions (DI, n. 7).
A second observation is that most of the responses, at least those posted on the Internet, were from peoples of the West.
If they were Catholics they were mostly Catholics from Europe or America. Considering that the primary intent of the
document was to counter the "religious relativists," in particular those postulating "relativistic theories which seek to justify
religious pluralism" (DI, n. 4), the Westerners, then, were not really the prime targets. To be sure, the document then goes
on to point out that the "relativistic mentality" is rooted in certain "philosophical and theological" presuppositions and
specifically suggests that the "logical mentality of the West" is in "radical opposition" with the "symbolic mentality of the
East." Dominus Jesus, therefore, does not conceal who its targets are with regard to this particular issue.
They are the fledgling theologians of the East, the seminal thinkers of Asia in general and of India in
particular. Thus, Dominus Jesus  is in effect a document meant for the Church in the "East" (= Asia). Yet, the observation
is that there has been little response from the many bishops and theologians of Asia. It seems that the Asians, to
whom Dominus Jesus  was targeted, have not been altogether vociferous in rebutting it. Or, have they?

Asia's Anticipation of Dominus Jesus

Even if many may not be aware, the Asian Church had actually "anticipated" Dominus Jesus in that she was working out a
response even before the Vatican's document came into being. In fact, soon after the Vatican Declaration was issued in
September 2000, the Asian Church, through the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences (FABC), and specifically
its Office of Theological Concerns (OTC), issued a document on "Doing Asian Theology in Asia Today" within a
month. The FABC’s Central Secretariat in Hong Kong published this document in October 2000. The issues addressed
in Dominus Jesus  are the very same ones addressed in the FABC-OTC document, entitled "Methodology: Asian Christian
Theology." It is worthwhile to note that an FABC-OTC document is not simply a theological treatise produced by one or two
theologians, but one, which has undergone a highly consultative process with its members, comprised of theologians
appointed by each and every Episcopal Conference represented in the FABC. Together with the bishop-members (who are
also theologians in their own right), the OTC members work through a topic over a period of several years before it is
finally approved for publication. The present document under discussion was worked through over a period of three years
and was finally approved in May 2000, shortly after the CDF Plenary Assembly which met a month or two earlier, and
whose product is Dominus Jesus. Thus,  in a way, one can say that the FABC-OTC document is Asia's highest ecclesial body
responding to the Vatican's document, Dominus Jesus.  The response, of course, was being worked out even before the
Vatican's CDF began work on Dominus Jesus!  But, perhaps, that is how the Holy Spirit works, in ever-mysterious ways! It
will do us well, at this juncture, to look at the nature of this FABC-OTC document, and compare it with that of Dominus
Jesus.  In view of the limitation of space, the survey is necessarily cursory.

If the central concern of Dominus Jesus  was with religious relativism, the FABC-OTC's paper on "Doing Theology in Asia
Today" actually begins its 99-paged document by addressing the threat of relativism. Pointing out that pluralism in
theological method "need not always entail a radical subjectivism or relativism, in the sense of claiming that all points of
view are equally valid," it then goes on to say that "just because certain persons and groups are misled in their search for
truth, and just because they tend to perceive pluralism as relativism, or just because they tend to relativise all reality, we
cannot conclude that all pluralism leads to relativism" (p. 6). The document's starting point, therefore, is that there is a
plurality of methods in doing theology, just as "...the world created by God is pluriform" (p, 4). Moreover, the Church itself
has already "a long history of pluralism, especially in theology." This was evident from the very beginning as "both within
the Old and New Testaments themselves, there is a rich variety of theologies" (p. 6). The document then points out that
"the Second Vatican Council promoted pluralism in theology, when it said that the gospel message needs to be adapted
according to each culture" [ref GS 44] (p. 7). It also reminds that ever since its birth in 1970, FABC has always advocated
pluralism in theology and has even asserted that "pluralism should not be a threat to our Christian unity, but on the
contrary, a positive and creative sign that our unity is deeper than whatever the concrete technical analysis or viewpoints
might show: a genuine value that emphasizes unity in diversity" (p, 8). The FABC-OTC document then responsibly points
out that "the Church cannot allow doctrinal irresponsibility or indifferentism" and that "...legitimate theological pluralism
ought to meet the basic standards of revelation [as conveyed through Scripture and Tradition], of sensus fidelium [as
contained in the faith of the People of God as a whole], and of the Magisterium of the Church" (p. 10).
With that as framework, the FABC-OTC document then speaks of the "great flowering of theological thinking evident all
over Asia" as a "continuation of the tradition of the Church, a living tradition which today in Asia experiences an encounter
with other Asian religious traditions and Asian cultures" (p. 2). Hence, if Dominus Jesus  is apprehensive about the influence
of the other religious traditions and relegates them to "belief' and "religious experience still in search of the absolute truth"
(DI, n. 12), the FABC-OTC document informs that "...today Asians are doing theology and draw nourishment from their
Asian cultures" where a "sense of the Sacred is fundamental" and where there is "a respect for the Sacred and for the
experience of the Sacred of various communities and religious traditions" (p. 2). It then goes on to say that given the
overriding value of harmony, Asian Christians will be looking for ways to integrate the experiences of Asia, the experience
of their own forebears, and hence their own psyche, into their Christian faith" (p. 3). It is clear, therefore, that "the Asian
Christian is open to dialogue, a dialogue based on profound respect for individuals, communities and their religious
traditions" (p. 3). Compare this with Dominus Jesus  which, first of all, looks at dialogue instrumentally, in the service of the
Church's proclamation of Jesus Christ (D1, n. 2) and which, secondly, will only grant the respect and equality to the
“personal dignity of the parties in dialogue" but "not to doctrinal content" (DI, n. 22) and certainly not to the religions,
especially when they "contain 'gaps, insufficiencies and errors"' (D1, n. 8) and when "it is also certain that objectively
speaking  they are in a gravely deficient situation" (DI,  n. 22).

Asian Contextual Theology

The FABC-OTC document then goes on to discuss the various sources and resources of theology: "The cultures of peoples,
the history of their struggles, their religions, their religious scriptures, oral traditions, popular religiosity, economic and
political realities and world events, historical personages, stories of oppressed people crying for justice, freedom, dignity,
life, and solidarity become resources of theology, and assume methodological importance in our context" (p. 29). These
sources and resources, of course, far surpass those of Dominus Jesus, a theology conspicuous in its absence of any
discussions on the poor and marginalized or the contextual realities of the peoples. On the other hand, the FABC-OTC
document not only regards the cultures, religions, and contexts of the peoples as resources of theology, but also "sees in
them the action of the Spirit" (p. 37). Unlike Dominus Jesus, which sees the action of the Spirit in the cultures and religions
as "a preparation for the Gospel" (DI, n. 12), the FABC-OTC document sees the action of the Spirit in the context of the
"enrichment of human life, and in the resurrection of the humiliated and the downtrodden" (p. 37).
As if to demonstrate its seriousness about taking the cultures and religions seriously, the document "Doing Theology in Asia
Today" then spends about half the total number of pages of the entire document exploring how followers of other religions
interpret their own scriptural texts, with the view of learning from them as "these ancient approaches to texts developed in
the various cultures of Asia are [also as much] part of the heritage of Asian Christians" (p. 40). Unlike Dominus Jesus  which
"reserves the designation of inspired texts  to the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments" (D1, n. 8), the
FABC-OTC document asserts that "Asian Christian exegetes accept the inspiration of [the Scriptures of other religions] as a
mystery that harmonizes with the Incarnation of the divine Logos in Jesus Christ" (p. 40). This follows from the principle
that "the Asian way is one of integration and inclusion" (p. 3), and certainly not one of absoluteness or exclusion principles,
which Dominus Jesus  seems to suggest "is simply being faithful to revelation" (DI, n. 15). For Asians, "...rather than saying
'A is true, so B must be false,' the Asian tends to say 'A is true, and B is also true in some sense'" (p. 3). Lest the charge of
relativism be levied here, the FABC-OTC quickly points out that "...there is but one Truth; but Truth is a Mystery which we
approach reverently" (p. 3). It is this reverence of Mystery, expressed in the other religions, their cultural traditions, their
scriptures, and their followers, which Asian theology has to display. It is a reverence, which does not pass a priori
judgment, calls upon the "other." It is also a reverence, which respect the maturity and integrity of its own members of the
faith, trusting that life is but a pilgrimage and a never-ending journey of discovery. Asian theology, therefore, is not
absolutist and acknowledges that it is far from being a "finished product" (p. 3). It is certainly not a theology, which
requires its faithful to "firmly believe" or to respond in "obedience of faith" or to offer "full submission." It is but a theology,
which encourages the Church, the people of God, living amongst all of God's people (Eph. 1: 15), to continue "the search
for holiness or harmony with the mystery of God, the mystery of Jesus Christ, [and] the mystery of the Church" (p. 43).

 
NOTES
1. From Interview with Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, published on 22 September 2000 by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Quote
here taken from http://www.ewtn.com/.

Beliefs of Catholics in Asia

http://sedosmission.org/old/eng/chia_1.htm
By Edmund Chia, FSC
Edmund Chia is a De La Salle Brother from Malaysia but works in Thailand as Executive Secretary of the Office of
Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences.
1. Dominus Iesus and the Sensus Fidelium
The Vatican Declaration Dominus Iesus, released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in September
2000, became the most "talked about" Vatican document in recent Church history. A significant criticism of the document is
that it does not resonate well with the ground realities of the Church’s relations with persons of other religions. In an article
written for an issue of an Indian theological journal specifically dedicated to Dominus Iesus, American theologian Paul
Knitter even suggests that, on the basis of these many and varied criticisms, "the 'sense of the faithful' ( sensus fidelium)
in regard to other religious believers has been clarified, thanks to the CDF’s declaration". 1 Knitter then went on to
specifically point out that among the issues raised and clarified is the issue of "the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one
redeemer and mediator of salvation for humankind." He was actually quoting from an article by his fellow American
Richard McBrien who in his article also advanced the thesis that among the Asian theologians there is the possibility that
some may have erred: "In two or three cases, theologians may have gone too far in collapsing any meaningful distinction
between Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of faith and other so-called 'Christ figures'". 2
Knitter agreed with McBrien that the issue of the uniqueness of Jesus was a point of controversy but disagreed with the
latter’s suggestion that this had arisen as a result of the work of "two or three" theologians. Knitter, who himself has been
very much engaged in interreligious dialogue and is also a keen observer of Asian theology, asserts: "I find that there are
many Catholics who are painfully struggling with the traditional teachings that Jesus is the one and only savior of all other
people. In view of their encounter with the depth of religious experience in their non-Christian friends, many Catholics, both
Asian and American, find it difficult to continue insisting, to these other religious friends and to themselves, that a saving
experience of God must come only through Jesus and find its fulfilment only in him and his church". 3
Even if McBrien’s "two or three" is not taken literally but understood to mean that an insignificant number of Asians have
"denied the uniqueness of Jesus Christ",4 one wonders how he arrived at such a conclusion. Has he met enough Asians to
come to that conclusion? Has he read enough Asian books — not only those available in the West, but also those by Asian
publishers — to surmise that only very few Asians have problems with Jesus’ uniqueness? On the other hand, one can also
ask how Knitter arrived at his own conclusion that McBrien is probably wrong. Does he have any data to substantiate his
claims that "many" Catholics in Asia find it difficult to profess Jesus as the one and only saviour? Does he know anything
about what the ordinary lay Catholic on the pews of Asian churches — not just Asian theologians — believe?
These questions, asked of McBrien and Knitter, could also be posed to everyone else writing on Asian theology. Few, if not
none, of the Asian theologians actually have any data to substantiate their hypotheses, be it in support of McBrien’s position
or Knitter’s, or the CDF’s, for that matter. At best, theologians project their personal theological orientations onto their
Catholic brothers and sisters and suggest it to be the sensus fidelium of the People of God in Asia. This "false consensus
bias" influences much of the theological writings of Asia, especially when one attempts to speak on behalf of the Church in
Asia. Moreover, many Asian theologians do not have too much contact with the Church and Christians living in other Asian
countries other than their own. In fact, it is not surprising to find more Asian theologians who have visited and/or lived in
European and American cities as compared to those who have done the same in another Asian City. Consequently, when
the Indian theologian speaks of "Asian theology" s/he is in fact speaking from her/his own experience of India rather than
of Asia as a whole. Likewise, when a Taiwanese theologian claims something to be "not in harmony with Asian beliefs",
chances are that s/he has never ever been to Manila, Delhi, or Jakarta but has often visited Paris, New York, or Rome. In a
way, theirs is really a comparison between the West and their experience of their own particular country rather than the
West and Asia as a whole. To confound the problem, there is little valid data on what Catholics in Asia believe, just as there
is little literature written from a truly pan-Asian experience.
 
2. An empirical survey
It is in view of this absence of data that an empirical survey was conducted to get a feel of the sensus fidelium of the Asian
Church on the issues raised by Dominus Iesus. Thus, a questionnaire survey was sent out by means of email to persons
from all across Asia.
For a period of 8 weeks between January and March 2002, a total of 394 responses were received from nearly twenty
countries, from as far West as Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka to as far East as Indonesia and the Philippines to as far North
as Japan, Korea and even Mongolia and China.

2.1. Analysis: in light of Dominus Iesus

A descriptive analysis of the data of the survey, in light of the themes raised by Dominus Iesus (DI), is as follows:
First, Dominus Iesus insists on the fullness and definitiveness of the revelation of Jesus Christ ( DI, 5-6).

The survey showed that out of a total of 394 respondents, 97% believe that Jesus is God’s revelation, while only 72%
believe that he is indeed the "fullness" of God’s revelation. However, 44 % of these respondents believe on the one hand
that Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation and believe, on the other hand, that revelation is also given elsewhere, for
example, in the other religions. Only 17% of the respondents who believe in the fullness of Jesus’ revelation assert its
definitiveness in that they believe this revelation is given "only" in Jesus and not anywhere else. Whereas, 62% of the
respondents believe not so much in the "fullness" or "definitiveness" of Jesus’ revelation but that revelation is given in Jesus
as well as in the other religions.
Second, Dominus Iesus postulates the unicity and universality of the salvific mystery of Jesus Christ ( DI, 13-15). The results
of the survey showed that out of a total of 394 respondents, 91% believe in Jesus as saviour of Christians as well as
saviour of humankind. However, only 50% claim the unicity of this belief, asserting that Jesus is indeed the "only" saviour
for all of humankind, while 25% of the respondents believe in Jesus’ universality as well as the possibility of other saviours
for humankind.
Third, Dominus Iesus insists on the necessity of the Church for salvation (DI, 20-21). This does not mean, however, that
everyone has to be baptized, as the document also states that those who do not belong to the Church can still be saved
through the Church, even if it is not known how that happens (DI, 20). Not taking into account the apparent ambiguity
these statements raise, the survey, nevertheless, showed that 84% of the respondents believe the Church to be a means of
salvation. However, only 36% of the respondents believe in the "necessity" of the Church for salvation. Of these, only 12%
would rule out absolutely the possibility of salvation through other religions. On the other hand, 20%, while believing in the
necessity of the Church for salvation, also admit that other religions could be means of salvation. More significant is that
58% of the respondents hold that the Church is indeed a means of salvation — albeit not a "necessary" means — and at
the same time hold that other religions could also be means of salvation.
Fourth, Dominus Iesus asserts that those who are in the Church have the fullness of the means of salvation ( DI, 22). 62%
of the respondents believe in this assertion, while 24% oppose it. The document then goes on to contrast this with the
followers of other religions who are regarded as being in a gravely deficient situation. Of those who believe the first
assertion that those who belong to the Church have the fullness of the means of salvation, 35% also believe in this second
assertion that the followers of other religions are indeed in a deficient situation, while another 35% disagree with this
second assertion.
Fifth, Dominus Iesus posits that the Church reserves the designation of inspired texts only to the Bible ( DI, 8). Of the 394
total respondents, 92% believe the Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God. However, only 22% would go as far as
Dominus Iesus to insist that the Bible is the "only" inspired text or sacred Word of God. Whereas, 47% accept the Bible as
God’s Word and at the same time accept the possibility of other sacred scriptures as God’s Word.
Sixth, Dominus Iesus asserts that the true religion exists in the Catholic Church (DI, 23) and distinguishes this as
"theological faith" as compared to other religions which are regarded only as mere "beliefs" ( DI, 7). The results of the
survey showed that 91% of the respondents believe Christianity to be indeed a true religion. However, of these, only 30%
would assert that there can be no other true religions while 45% subscribe to the view that there can be other true
religions, just as Christianity is a true religion.
Seventh, Dominus Iesus warns against the spirit of indifferentism characterized by a belief that "one religion is as good as
another" (DI, 22). The results showed that 36% of the respondents are indifferent and subscribe to the idea that belonging
to one religion is as good as belonging to another, while 48% of those who responded disagreed with the idea.
Eight, Dominus Iesus warns against relativistic theories which seek to justify that it is indeed within God’s plan that different
religions exist de jure [in principle] (DI, 4). The results of the survey revealed that 49% subscribe to the notion that
religious pluralism exists de jure while 20% disagreed with the notion.
Ninth, in keeping with the advances made by the Second Vatican Council, Dominus Iesus insists that interreligious dialogue
"retains its full force and necessity" (DI, 22). Of the 394 respondents, 95% agreed that Catholic in Asia should be engaged
in interreligious dialogue with their neighbours of other religions, while only 1% disagreed with the idea.
A summarized version of these results are presented in Table 1 as follows:

(Table 1)
  TOTAL
  RESPONDENTS
  (394 responses)
THEOLOGICAL ISSUES RAISED BY DOMINUS IESUS
1. Yes, Jesus is God’s revelation (382) 97 %
2. Jesus is fullness of God’s revelation (284) 72 %
3. Jesus is fullness of God’s revelation, but God’s revelation also given elsewhere (172) 44 %
4. God’s revelation given only in Jesus and not in other religions or elsewhere (66) 17 %
5. Jesus is God’s revelation (not fullness) and God’s revelation also given (245) 62 %
elsewhere
6. Jesus is saviour for Christians (359) 91 %
7. Jesus is saviour for all (357) 91 %
 8. Jesus is the only saviour for all (196) 50 %
9. Jesus is saviour for all, but there are also other saviors for all (99) 25 %
10.The Church is a means of salvation (329) 84 %
11.The Church is necessary for salvation (140) 36 %
12.Other religions are not means of salvation (49) 12 %
13.The Church is necessary for salvation, but other religions are also means of (79) 20 %
salvation
14.The Church is a means of salvation (but not necessary), and other religions (229) 58 %
are also means of salvation
15.Christians have the fullness of the means of salvation (246) 62 %
16.Christians do not have the fullness of the means of salvation (96) 24 %
17.Other religions are deficient, as compared to the Church (139) 35 %
18.Other religions are not deficient, as compared to the Church (139) 35 %
19.The Bible is the Word of God (362) 92 %
20.The Bible is the only Word of God (88) 22 %
21.The Bible is the Word of God, but other scriptures are also Word of God (184) 47 %
22.Christianity is a true religion (357) 91 %
23.Christianity is the only true religion (120) 30 %
24.Christianity is a true religion, but there are also other true religions (178) 45 %
25.One religion is as good as another (142) 36 %
26.One religion is not as good as another (191) 48 %
27.It is God’s plan that there be different religions (pluralism de jure) (195) 49 %
28.It is not God’s plan that there be different religions (79) 20 %
29.Yes, to interreligious dialogue (374) 95 %
30.No, to interreligious dialogue (5) 1 %
 
3. Discussion on the results
3.1. The Statistics Speak
From the results of the survey, a few observations can be made. Firstly, it is clear that the following items yielded very high
percentages, viz. more than 90%: no.1, no.6, no.7, no.19, and no.22. In other words, more than 90% of the 394
respondent sample affirm the theological assertions of the numbered items concerned. Specifically, they affirm that Jesus is
God’s revelation (97%), that Jesus is saviour for Christians (91%), that Jesus is saviour for all humankind (91%), that the
Bible is God’s Word (92%), and that Christianity is a true religion (91%). Since these are the most fundamental and basic
faith affirmations which distinguish Christians from those who are not Christians, it is safe to say that more than 90% of the
respondent sample is believing Christians. The remaining who did not affirm these fundamental Christian beliefs are
probably nominal Christians, skeptics, and/or people who project themselves as agnostics for the purpose of the present
survey. In any case, since these latter didn’t seem to identify with Christianity’s basic beliefs, their responses in the survey
were discounted. For, it would make no sense to include a response from them which claimed that other religions are not
true if, in the first place, they also do not believe in Jesus or the Church either.

That only five of the numbered items received such unanimous affirmations speaks volumes of the sensus fidelium of the
People of God in Asia. In particular, it reveals that amongst Asian Catholics, only these five doctrinal assertions are widely
adhered to. In a way, if Dominus Iesus was re-written for Asian Catholics, this is probably how it would begin its first
article: "The fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith for Catholics in Asia are expressed thus (cf. DI,
1): I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty. I believe in the Lord, Jesus Christ, who is God’s revelation and who is saviour
for Christians as well as for all of humankind. I believe that the Bible, the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments,
is the sacred Word of God. I believe that the true religion exists in Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in
particular". That’s it. There will probably be no affirmation of Jesus as the only saviour or of the Church as necessary for
salvation. On the other hand, of course this does not suggest that Asian Catholics do not affirm other doctrines of faith. It
only implies that as far as the theological themes raised by Dominus Iesus are concerned, these are the only ones which
they overwhelmingly subscribe to.
A second observation is that even if more than 90% of the respondent sample are decidedly Christian, a significant
proportion amongst this same 90% are also decidedly open to and receptive of other religions. For example, 62 % believe
God’s revelation is also given in other religions (no.5), 25% allow the possibility of other saviours (no.9), 58% acknowledge
that other religions could be means of salvation (no.14), 35% do not believe persons of other religions are deficient as
compared to Christians (no.18), 47% allow for other scriptures as God’s Word (no.21), 45% believe that there could be
other true religions besides Christianity (no.24), and 49% accept religious pluralism as within the plan of God (no.27).
Averaging these seven percentages would give a figure of between 40 and 50%. Hence, in very general terms, one can say
that about 40-50% of Asian Catholics have a sense of openness to other religions. Indeed, contrary to the presuppositions
and demands of Dominus Iesus, this significant proportion of Asian Catholics do not believe that either Jesus, the Church or
Christianity is the sole, unique or normative repository of truth. It is important to be reminded that these same respondents
also affirm the basic beliefs which Dominus Iesus postulates, except that they reject some of the more extreme and
exclusive assertions, especially those which seem to question the integrity and authenticity of the other religions.
Thus, if Dominus Iesus were to be re-written for Asia, it would probably not begin — as does DI, 1 — with the mission
mandate: "Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be
saved; he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:15-16). Instead, it would probably begin with: "Stop judging,
that you will not be judged" (Mt 7:1) or "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you" (Mt 7:12). Such is the
respect Asian Catholics have for their neighbours of other faiths and such is the respect they expect others to have for
them in their belief of Jesus, the Church and Christianity.
A third observation is that a very small percentage of the respondent sample affirmed the more exclusivistic assertions of
Dominus Iesus. Specifically, only 17% of the 394 respondents affirm that God’s revelation is given only in Jesus and not in
the other religions (no.4), 50% affirm that Jesus is the only saviour and that there can be no other saviour figures (no.8),
12% affirm that the other religions are not means of salvation (no.12), 35% affirm that the other religions are deficient as
compared to those in the Church who have the fullness of the means of salvation (no.17), 22% affirm that the Bible is the
only Word of God and that other scriptures are not God’s Word (no.20), 30% affirm that Christianity is the only true religion
(no.23) and 20% affirm that it is not within God’s plan to have many religions (No.28). Leaving aside No. 8, where a
significant 50% of the respondents affirm Jesus as the only saviour, the percentages of the other six items average about
20-25% of the respondent sample. In other words, in very general terms, only about 20-25% of Asian Catholics would
subscribe to the very exclusivistic aspects advanced by Dominus Iesus which do not acknowledge that truth can also be
found in other religions.
It cannot be glossed over that a significant 50% of the respondent sample affirms the assertion that Jesus is indeed the
one and only saviour for all of humankind. To be exact, it was 49.7% as 196 out of the total of 394 respondents affirm this
theological doctrine. On the other hand, 198 (50.3%) did not affirm the doctrine. This, however, does not mean they reject
the doctrine. Out of this 50.3%, about half or 25% affirm the possibility of other saviour figures while the other half are
undecided on the issue. The finding is significant as it is primarily this issue of the possibility of other saviours which has
been most sensitive and controversial. That 25% of the respondents were unable to declare their position on the issue is
also significant. To be sure, the theory of the plurality of saviours remains ambiguous and is not as definitive as Dominus
Iesus has made it out to be. The sensus fidelium of the People of God of Asia certainly reveals that. Moreover, even
Dominus Iesus is not as definitive as it seems. In fact, article 14 of the document invites the Church "to explore if and in
what way the historical figures and positive elements of [the other] religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation"
(DI, 14). The findings of the research, therefore, call to question the very strong reprimands — such as "it must be firmly
believed" or "it is contrary to the faith" — which Dominus Iesus employs. To be sure, the issues are far from firm and final.
Moreover, if the sensus fidelium does not correspond to these doctrinal positions, no matter how insistent the Vatican is
about them, such beliefs cannot be forced upon the People of God, especially in Asia, where Christians experience other
religions everyday of their lives.
In summary, therefore, one can say that amongst Asian Catholics, more than 90% believe in the basic tenets of the
Christian faith. Amongst these, about 40-50% also displays a theological openness to other religions while only half that
number, or 20-25%, harbour theological positions which exclude the viability of the other religions.

3.2. The Respondents Speak

One very important statistic not looked at is that only 84% of the respondents agree that the Church is a means of
salvation (No.10). Given that more than 90% of the sample is believing Christians, one would have expected many more of
the respondents to affirm this fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, viz. that salvation comes through the Church.

After all, isn’t that why one is baptized into the Church? On the other hand, it would be presumptuous to imagine all
Catholics are aware of this point of catechesis. A comment by an undergraduate respondent captures this well: "I’m guilty
of not remembering much from my catechism, so I don’t really understand the full significance of baptism. I guess it is a
very important thing — after all, it’s a sacrament — but I’m not sure about this". While this lack of knowledge may be few
and far between, others who do understand the significance of the Church and baptism raise questions about the
authenticity of the institutional Church, thus clouding their own ecclesiological understandings about the Church in relation
to salvation. "Yes, the Church is a way of being and supporting each other and is a means of salvation. However, the
Church as an institution is failing I feel to be a true follower of Christ. It has wealth, yet keeps asking for donations. It has
fallen sick, since ancient days, from power, wealth, control, ambition, pride, selfishness, and self-righteousness", remarks a
young woman who works at management level for a non-profit women’s organization. Thus, if only 84% — and not much
more — of the sample affirm the Church as a means of salvation, it could be because of a variety of reasons, ranging from
plain ignorance as to what the theological assertion implies to a sincere conviction that the Church is forfeiting its rightful
role as a means of salvation.
However, on the question of whether the Church is "necessary" for salvation, the majority of Asian Catholics seem quite
clear on the matter as only 36% of the respondents insist the Church is necessary. Most of these responses probably did
not take into account the subtlety expressed in Dominus Iesus which continues to insist that the Church is "necessary" even
if it grants that salvation is also possible for "those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church" ( DI, 20). With
or without this subtle qualification in Dominus Iesus, Asian Catholics, on account of their lived experience, are generally
convinced that baptism is not necessary, just as they feel the Church is not necessary. A self-employed woman from
Singapore expressed this conviction thus: "Our God is a kind God and would he neglect those who for some reasons were
not baptized? Like my mum who was a very kind soul and passed away without being baptized because no one brought the
knowledge and faith to her. But I believe she is now happy with God in eternity". Another respondent, a Malaysian
journalist, expressed similar convictions but in question form: "What about Encik Mokhtar, the Muslim man working for the
conservation of the Belum Valley forests, because he as a human person is a steward of creation? What about the strong
presence of God’s spirit in his actions and words? Is he excluded from salvation just because he is not baptized? [Encik
Mokhtar is just one example of a real person. I mention it here because I saw Christ-likeness in his ways and actions and
speech on a recent research trip up to the forest]." Perhaps this issue of the necessity of the Church for salvation, in the
context of religious pluralism, is best captured by the response of a bishop, who asserted: "The Church is necessary for
salvation in the sense that it is a Sign as well as a witness to the invitation for the salvation of all. If one does not recognize
this Sign, or does not want to accept the invitation, then it usually means that the person has found some other way
meaningful to him/her. Therefore, I don’t think it is necessary for every person to be baptized. But it is necessary for each
person to find some Sign or direction in his/her life. As a Christian, I must continue to give witness to the Sign which I think
is the correct and true one".
This brings the discussion to whether Christianity is indeed the true religion or if Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation or
if Christians have the fullness of the means of salvation. The statistics showed that 91% of the respondents affirm
Christianity as a true religion (no.22), 72% affirm the assertion that Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation (no.2) and that
62% affirm the assertion that, indeed, Christians have the fullness of the means of salvation (no.15). The responses,
however, have to be looked at in view of the fact that a great proportion of these respondents — as discussed earlier —
had also affirmed the truth of other religions, the possibility of other revelations, and the efficacy of other religions as
means of salvation. For those who operate from an exclusive and dialectical either-or philosophical mindset, such a position
may seem contradictory and thus untenable. However, for Asians who generally operate from a mutually inclusive both -
and mindset of complementarity, it is all too common for such display of openness to and acknowledgment of two different
and perhaps contradictory truths. The comments of a student from Japan captures this spirit well: "For me, Jesus is my
only saviour. But I am not sure about others. If there are people who have their own savior, I think we should all respect
their faith". Others see this openness as an existential and pragmatic matter. A respondent who works as an administrative
assistant described it such: "We are all brought up in a multiracial country. It’s our duty to respect one another regardless
of religion. Whether it’s the fullness of the means of salvation or not. This question makes me feel uncomfortable ... Sorry.
… If you let others see this, hmmm, you gonna start a fight… Ten Commandments: Love your neighbour as you love
yourself!" Ignoring the fact that this last quote of "love for neighbour" is not really part of the Ten Commandments, the
message is clear — our lived reality demands we respect each others’ ultimate commitments, even if we ourselves sincerely
believe in our own unique Christian commitment that Jesus is indeed God’s revelation and our saviour. A general manager
of a finance company in Indonesia expressed similar sentiments: "I feel very lucky and proud to be a Catholic because
according to me Catholicism is the correct and true religion. But it should be noted that other than the Catholic religion, all
humankind can be saved too". Yet another respondent, a retired teacher from Malaysia, reconciled this seemingly
contradictory dilemma thus: "I’m sure of my own religion and so I follow my religion. Maybe other religions can be true too
and I hope other people can be saved by their religion. If there are different roads to go to Kuala Lumpur, I prefer to go
the way I’m sure of instead of trying some other ways that I may end up getting lost." Others expressed similar sentiments
of openness to other religions but with a certain bias towards that which they themselves adhere to. A pastoral counselor
had this to say: "Personally I am biased that the revelation of Jesus seems more wholesome than most others, but again by
no means the totality. A bit like the Rolls Royce of automobiles. Most cars can take you to the same destination but some
others are more lovely, comfortable and wonderful to ride in".

It is not too far-fetched to suggest that the preceding comments and positions taken represent a sort of implicit theology
that many Asian Catholics adhere to. A variance of such a position is seen from the response of a male student: "It is very
selfish to say that all people of other faiths will not be saved just because they are not Christians. A good and righteous
person, just because he isn’t Christian, doesn’t mean that he is condemned to hell". Others may not be as explicit and
raised questions about their beliefs as, for example, the response from a senior application specialist: "Although I have
heard and believe that salvation is possible only through Christ, but there may be Christians who are bad and there may be
non-believers who are good". Of course, those who are uncertain can find recourse in God’s mystery as, for example, a
female employee of an MNC from Indonesia, who had this to say: "He is mystery, cannot be comprehended by me. But up
till today, I believe I’m on the right track, i.e. Christianity". Yet others are definitely more explicit as, for example, the
response of a young female accountant: "As long as I believe that mine is a true religion, it is not important to me whether
the rest are true or not".
These last comments beg further discussion, especially in connection with Dominus Iesus’ caution on the "mentality of
indifferentism 'characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that one religion is as good as another'" ( DI,
22). In fact, in response to the question if other religions could also be means of salvation, the respondent of the last
comment also said: "Why not? I believe in one thing but why should everyone be made to believe what I believe?" These
comments, it must be reminded, have to be taken in light of the fact that the respondents have also acknowledged the
definitiveness of Jesus’ revelation and his salvific role for all of humanity. Thus, in no way does it suggest the theological
position taken lacks rootedness, as it would if it were relativistic and subjectivistic. In fact, the same respondent further
declared: "Personally, I would not want to belong to any other religion, but if one is already of another, I can’t see why it is
less good if the person is not of deviant character". A Filipino teacher expressed rather similar sentiments, but from a
hypothetical perspective: "Had I been born to a family where Islam is the known true religion, or Buddhism, I would adhere
to it as I do adhere to Christianity as my family’s religion". Another respondent, a Religious Brother of an indigenous tribe
living on the Borneo island, had this to share about his own personal life: "I grew up with my Muslim relatives and friends
and therefore I have no problem accepting Islam. Each and every person is different and God’s revelation also varies from
one person to another. I think everyone has a right to choose a belief system that suits his/her uniqueness". Another
respondent, a young female TV producer, advises: "To each his own. I believe if it works for you and makes you a better
person, that’s cool".
On the other hand, of course, there are those who, like Dominus Iesus, reject such "relativist" theories. One respondent,
who works as a Management Support Officer, asserts: "The other religions are man-made religions which may teach their
followers to be good, but ours is the true religion where our God comes down to mankind to live as one of us, to show us
the way and to die in order to save us. No other religion can boast of this and that He rose again, which proves His
divinity". Another, a General Project Manager of two Industrial Estates and a Freelance Architect, shared similar sentiments:
"Not because I am a Catholic, but as far as I know there’s no quote nor word in any other religion which guarantees people
salvation. It’s only Jesus Christ who taught and guaranteed our salvation". A woman, who works in customer service,
shares similar sentiments but expressed it a little differently: "I don’t mean to sound fanatical, but in my findings on other
religious teachings, there’s no God so loving, forgiving, so close to men as in Christianity. A God who loved people so much
that He allowed His only son to experience death in the most disgraced form. A God I can call Father!" The response of a
middle-aged businessman is even more specific in this affirmation of faith: "Only in the Roman Catholic Church the means
are complete with the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist and the Pope that can be traced back to St Peter". Another
respondent, a Religious retired from active high-school teaching, suggested why the relativist theory could be problematic:
"There could not be more than one saviour as that would imply different teachings and paths of salvation. Since truth can
only be one and so there can be only one religion that is the true religion". Yet another respondent, a young priest from the
Mekong valley, personalized this affirmation of faith. When asked if Christianity is the true religion, he responded: "Yes, I
certainly believe. If I do not believe it why can I totally give my whole life to God and for God". Others rejected the
relativist hypothesis by appealing to hypothetical situations, as for example, the response of a young woman who was an
Electronic Publisher before but is now a homemaker: "If we believe that truth is revealed in other religions, then we might
as well say that salvation and truth can be via the other religions. When that happens we might as well worship other gods
and forget about 'I believe in one God'. And when you believe in other religions you might as well believe and practice the
things condoned by the other religions — if they teach the principles of Christianity [believe in one God, love thy neighbour,
forgiveness, thou shall not kill, etc.] then Yes. However, if they teach these and then something else contradictory, then
No".
Along similar orientations, to the question if interreligious dialogue is essential for Catholics in Asia, one respondent, a
computer operator, responded: "It creates confusion and even sometimes is a scandal to other Catholics. In our secular
lives we normally have dialogues with others [Catholics and Non-Catholics], but when it comes to religious matters, we
need to convert them. What did our Lord command us to do — isn’t it to convert non-believers to believe what He taught
us? Go, convert them and baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Didn’t He say
this?" Of course, as is evidenced from the statistics, only 1% of the sample respondents rejected the need for interreligious
dialogue. 95% affirmed it wholeheartedly while the remaining did not express an opinion. Needless to say, the reasons for
interreligious dialogue are also varied. An undergraduate female suggested one: "I myself am largely ignorant of other
religious practices and beliefs. I think it is necessary so that we can work together toward a common good and have
respect for one another without overtly trying to convert them... yet... that will come in His own time — maybe weeks,
months, years, or at the end of our lives".

Others do not harbour such explicit ulterior motives but see dialogue as a process for self-enrichment, as evidenced in the
response of another female student: "There is so much that we do not know about other religions. How can we even start
to understand what we do not know? It’s about time we got to it rather than making wild guesses and condemning each
other’s religions, as we Asians are so fond of doing". There are also those who see interreligious dialogue as essential in
view of Christianity’s minority status as, for example, the response from a young journalist: "Since Catholicism is a minority
religion in Asia, it’s best that Catholics engage in interreligious dialogue to foster better understanding with our neighbours
of other religions. This will certainly help create an environment where people of all religions can co-exist peacefully." These
last comments of interreligious dialogue being a means for peace resonate well with another response, from an MNC
employee in Indonesia: "Look at Indonesia, where I belong. This idea would help a lot". Another respondent, an employee
in a shipping company also from Indonesia, confirmed the need for interreligious dialogue: "Yes, very important. However
in my country it never works, because we are being slaughtered, our churches are burned and the environment is hostile
everywhere".
Others speak of the existing culture of enmity and isolation in different terms as, for example, the response of a female
business manager: "It might do us all good to have a wider perspective of things so that we can live in the real world. Right
now too many of us are living in cloistered homogenous communities and not only that, having blinkers on as well". A
student formator from the Philippines is more positive and sees interreligious dialogue as more for mutual enrichment: "We
have to engage in interreligious dialogue so that people with different faiths, beliefs and religious practices could somehow
be enriched and enhanced in their being Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc. And at the same time able to appreciate the
beauty and wonder of one’s religion." Another such response came from a Consultant of Corporate Strategy, E-business &
Development: "Yes, by understanding each other makes the environment a better place to live in. Even in my career,
understanding customers’ needs and wants are important for corporate strategies and marketability too".
 
4. Discussion on the survey
A final area which needs to be discussed is the feedback received on the survey itself. To be sure, many of the respondents
expressed surprise at a survey of the present nature. This is in part because academic surveys are not as common a
feature in Asian cultures as they are in the West. Moreover, surveys which deal with religious questions are even more
atypical.
Thus, it did not come as a surprise that many of the respondents sent additional email messages expressing their
fascination at the nature of the survey. One message read: "I'm interested in these sorts of surveys. Do forward me more if
any. Just wondering if there are any these types of on-line questions and answers in regards to the Catholic faith." Aside
from those who found the survey interesting others were so interested that they asked that the results be shared with
them. One respondent even asked: "Do you have 'model' answers? If you have I like to have them". A few of the
respondents asked why the study was being done and how the questions came into being. Some shared that even if this
was the first time ever that they had come across questions such as those asked in the survey, they found them thought
provoking. Some wanted to know if they were the only ones responding the way they did as, for example, a message which
read: "I hope I do not scare you with 'radical' way of thinking. I would be interested to be kept informed of the
consolidated results of your survey to see if my thinking is 'average'." A few wrote back to request for more time to work on
the survey, saying something to the effect that "I want to reflect carefully on the questions because I think they will help
me to work through my beliefs". One person said she was making photocopies of the survey and would request her parish
priest to distribute it to all the parish-council members, for "it will be good for them to do". On the basis of some of these
feedback, it looked as if the survey had become more than a statistical instrument to measure Asian Catholics’ beliefs as it
had also taken on the function of a formation tool.
These observations beg three points. Firstly, if many of these respondents expressed surprise at the nature of the questions
it is because they had not come across the document Dominus Iesus. If they had, they would have recognized that the
issues raised in the survey were really those of the document. Of course, a few respondents did recognize the document
when they wrote to say, "Looks like you are working on Dominus Iesus!" The majority, however, had no idea where the
issues came from or why they were being discussed because they had equally no idea of the existence of Dominus Iesus.
Given that the survey was conducted more than a year after the document was officially issued, it only suggests that the
Vatican document had not trickled down to the masses. Perhaps the bishops of Asia found the document too complex and
technical and so decided that it should remain on the shelves of libraries rather than being disseminated. Perhaps the
bishops found the issues raised by Dominus Iesus simply unimportant or irrelevant to the peoples of Asia and so decided
against passing it on to their parishes. Whatever it is, these facts speak volumes of the reception of the document, which is
supposed to have the status of "Universal Magisterium".
Secondly, if the Asian bishops had decided that the document Dominus Iesus was irrelevant it is more because the
"answers" were so, but by no means the questions. One respondent, a parish priest from Japan, who left many of the
questions unanswered, commented: "I found that most of the questions if answered with A, B, or C, are too black and
white and do not give a true reading of what a lot of us are thinking along these lines". Another respondent, also a priest
but from India, who refused to accomplish the entire questionnaire, expressed similar sentiments: "I found the questions
rather tricky especially since I strongly feel that we are caught in our own language game". Thus, if Dominus Iesus was
deemed irrelevant it could be because it attempted to provide too many "black and white" answers which had to be "firmly
adhered to," without taking note of the "language games" which we trap ourselves into.

A third point which the observations raise is that even if many of the respondents were unfamiliar with the nature of the
questions asked, they found the questions truly interesting. To be sure, the questions were not only interesting, but also
thought provoking and for some even bothersome or at least bordering on the sensitive. A Religious Sister from the Mekong
Valley had this to say: "May I not answer the questionnaire. It’s very catching. My superior in the house told me in a joking
manner she is afraid she might lose her faith while reflecting on the questions asked!" A few more messages which
expressed similar sentiments were equally friendly. Other friendly messages also advocated caution as, for example, one
message which read: "This could be controversial so brace yourself for some negative feedback by some well meaning
Catholics". Two messages, however, were particularly pointed. The first, which had responded to the questions half-way,
had this to say: "I don’t like to answer your questions anymore. If you like to know more, it is better you ask the bishops,
especially those who have doctorate degrees. Please excuse me if I am too rude". The second, with a similarly angry tone,
was even more direct in his challenge to me: "To Edmund. I come straight to the point. Why are you doing this survey?
Why is it necessary for you to do this survey? Why are you targeting Catholics? Who authorized you with those questions in
your so-called survey? Are you trying to doubt the Catholics’ faith, or create confusion? What’s your objective?"
As can be seen from the preceding comments, the questionnaire was not only thought provoking but viewed with a certain
degree of suspicion as well, in view of the questions which seemed to have hit at the core of the Christian’s being. In fact,
the questions seemed to have caused much tension as they questioned the respondent’s faith, especially in relation to
her/his lived reality of religious pluralism. Of course, one way to deal with such tension is to block out the lived reality and
act as if persons of other religions did not exist. Another way is to simply relegate them to the "unsaved" and be contend
that Christianity is the superior and only true religion. The sincere seeker, however, will find such strategies of dealing with
the tension untenable and could end up being even more confused and vulnerable. An emotive comment from one
respondent captures this sense of vulnerability well: "I believe that only Christianity is for me, and it is different from the
rest in a special way. However, I feel uncomfortable in saying my religion is the best, simply because that would imply that
the other religions are not good and doing something wrong. That is difficult to say because a lot of religions preach
goodness, and it is difficult to say goodness is wrong, just because it is of a different religion. Yet, I also am torn by the fact
I’ve learnt all the time in Sunday school that Christianity is the true religion. It is true, but does it necessarily mean that
others are not? What is religion anyway? Common beliefs? Ultimate truths? Argghh ... this is confusing". Another response,
which expressed a similar dialectical tension, had this to say: "This is what I believe, although deep in my heart wish this is
not 100% right, so more people can be saved from hell".
 
5. Win-win conclusion
These last two comments seem to indicate that there are some Asian Catholics who have to struggle with their contextual
reality of the experience of truth and beauty in the other religions which is then juxtaposed against their catechism which
insists that these are not from God. It is as if their experience and heart seem to be perceiving reality one way while their
knowledge and head suggest otherwise. This is probably what Paul Knitter was referring to when he said many Catholics
are "painfully struggling" with the dichotomy between the teachings of their faith as against their day-to-day experience of
very positive relations with persons of other religions. This struggle adheres as the catechism and theological formation
imparted in most Asian seminaries and Sunday Schools continue to be those which are borrowed from the West, where the
phenomenon of religious pluralism is absent or ignored. Hence, it comes as no surprise that the masses, the grassroots, are
in the main indoctrinated with theologies which are alien to their contextual experience and which do not resonate with
their lived realities.
This is not to suggest that contextual theologies are not being developed in Asia. To be sure, they are, but have remained
primarily in the academic realm, and hence influence only the intellectuals and the theologians. A comment by Indian
theologian Michael Amaladoss captures the current predicament well: "If contextual theology is not being taught in the
seminaries and formation houses, then it will continue to remain mainly in theological journals." These final comments
seem to suggest that perhaps Richard McBrien was also accurate in his assertion that only an insignificant number of Asians
are involved in advocating what is seen as "relativistic" theories which attribute as much value to other savior figures as to
Jesus Christ. These are mainly the theologians and scholars who constitute a tiny minority of the Catholic community in
Asia. The others, and especially the grassroots, have practically no access to contextual theologies which could help them
apprehend the religious pluralism of the Asian context. This latter group has only Western theologies such as the Catechism
of the Catholic Church and Dominus Iesus to go by and hence experience a dialectical tension between what they believe
on the head level and what they experience at the heart level. Thus, on the theological and cognitive levels they might
articulate theologies which assert the superiority of Catholicism, but on the affective and experiential levels, they might be
convinced that this could not be. In other words, if there are only a few Asians who can dogmatically pronounce the
possibility of other saviors and the truth of other religions, there are many who actually feel and experience such a reality
from the depths of their being even if they may not be able to intellectually assert that conviction. Be that as it may, the
conclusion one draws from these discussions is that while Knitter is correct in his assertion, McBrien is also correct in his
own assertion. Both, therefore, are right. This win-win conclusion, of course, is true to the Asian spirit of yin-yang
complementarity and mutual inclusion.

NOTES
1 Paul Knitter, "Dominus Iesus and the Hermeneutics of Reception", Jeevadhara: A Journal of Christian Interpretation, Vol. XXXI, n. 83, May 2001, p. 183.

2
Richard McBrien, "'Finding' Christ in Other Religions", National Catholic Reporter, 22 December 2000.
3
Ibid.
4
Knitter argues that Asian theologians do not actually "deny" Jesus' uniqueness. To be sure, they have no difficulty
accepting Jesus as saviour. They only ask if Jesus is indeed the "only" saviour. "Truly but perhaps not only", is Knitter's
mantra.
5
Private conversation between Fr Michael Amaladoss and the author on 20 February 2002 at Nijmegen. The Netherlands.
This conversation is in relation to a recently-conceived long-term project to evaluate and develop a more integrated and
contextual curricula for the teaching of theology in Asian contexts.

Dominus Iesus and Modern Heresies

http://isrpune.org/pdf/FXDSa_articles/2001_b%20Dominus%20J%20&%20Heresies_FXDSa_articles.pdf
By Francis X. D’Sa, S.J.
From: Dominus Jesus and Modern Heresies, Jeevadhara. A Journal of Christian Interpretation XXXI: 183
(2001), 197-202.
Introduction
"Dominus Jesus" [DJ] thematically treats of a number of heretical positions which Archbishop Cassidy has attributed to
Indian theologians. Unfortunately there are no references to the culprits. On their side Indian theologians themselves might
be inclined to believe that this is a fight against wind-mills. But wind-mills or not, DJ sums up these untenable views thus:
the conviction of the elusiveness and inexpressibility of divine truth, even by Christian revelation; relativistic attitudes
toward truth itself, according to which what is true for some would not be true for others; the radical opposition posited
between the logical mentality of the West and the symbolic mentality of the East; the subjectivism which, by regarding
reason as the only source of knowledge, becomes incapable of raising its "gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the
truth of being"; the difficulty in understanding and accepting the presence of definitive and eschatological events in history;
the metaphysical emptying of the historical incarnation of the Eternal Logos, reduced to a mere appearing of God in
history; the eclecticism of those who, in theological research, uncritically absorb ideas from a variety of philosophical and
theological contexts without regard for consistency, systematic connection, or compatibility with Christian truth; finally, the
tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. (n.4)
What is disturbing about DJ is that its presuppositions – pre-sub-positions – are replete with hidden heresies, the overriding
heresy being that of hermeneutical innocence.
One would not be far wrong in asserting that DJ hardly shows signs of being affected by hermeneutic concerns. It gives the
appearance of labouring under the illusion that it is speaking in the name of God. Phenomenological hermeneutics is a
search for the way humans are before they even reflect how they are. Such a search however superficial and distorted by
prejudice and ideology it may be leads to humility because it clarifies the human situation, human understanding, human
possibilities, as well as the potential and the limitations of history and language. In that sense it also reveals some very
important characteristics of being human. Apparently when you speak for God there is no need of any hermeneutic
awareness.
DJ is so fully preoccupied with '‘heretical positions' and with formulations that are to be "firmly believed"
that it loses sight of satyam, shivam, sundaram of life in the world and especially of the life of faith.
One gets the impression that even the satyam that it speaks about (symptomatically around 47 times compared to love
which occurs only twice!) is not seldom reduced to truth propositions which sensim sine sensu are brought in relation to
divine and revealed truth[s]. Even the shivam and sundaram aspects of the Christian message (forget about God’s work in
other faith traditions) are nowhere in evidence. And this in a document that tells us what is firmiter credendum.
The European theologians (at least of the German variety) have been agitated because of ecumenical, not interreligious
concerns. There has been little awareness of the heretical presuppositions implicit in DJ. Because of the exigencies of space
we can at the most mention the more important ones and that too unfortunately very superficially.

First Heresy: Divine truth, even that of Christian revelation, can “be grasped and manifested in its globality and
completeness by any historical religion.” (n.6)
The heresy – at least implicitly – denies the historical nature of all language, even language of [Christian] revelation. True,
there is no dispute about the absolute nature of Divine truth and about the absolute nature of Christian revelation. The
issue is about the absolute nature of its grasp by humans. As historical beings the grasp of humans, in spite all the help and
support of the Divine Spirit, remains limited – a limitation which not even the Spirit can remove without destroying human
nature.

Second Heresy: The truth about God spoken in human language is “unique, full and complete” (n.6).
Such an assertion does away with the historical nature of human language and is in effect a denial of the historicity of the
human. Undeniably, whatever the Divine Mystery does and speaks is unique, full and complete. Human language however
– even that of Christian revelation - is historically conditioned and relative; it cannot carry the weight of the Absolute in all
its uniqueness, fullness and completeness.

Third Heresy: DJ talks of faith as if it were a matter of the will.

Interestingly the phrase firmiter credendum and its equivalents occurs around ten times in the document: nos. 5, 7, 8, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 16, & 20. The voluntaristic approach from Western Europe is hardly surprising. Just look at the voluntaristic
approach of the two quotations (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church [of the West], 150 & 153): "Faith is first of all a
personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has
revealed". What is surprising is that it is made out to be the catholic understanding of faith. For Indians faith is a matter of
grace - an attitude that expresses itself in the prayer, "Increase our faith!" (Lk 17:4).

Fourth Heresy: DJ repeatedly quotes Scripture selectively and thus distorts the Christian message in a substantial manner.
Exegetes and hermeneuts tell that the meaning of a text – the semantic axis – can be worked out only when we take the
whole text into consideration. I shall not here go into details but am confident that biblical experts will point out the
selective use biblical texts and expose the one-sidedness of the Roman documents in general and of DJ in particular.

Fifth Heresy: From the Christian revelation we can know that “belief, [credulitas!] in the other religions, is that sum of
experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for
truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute” (n.7)
Christian revelation is God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ who spoke of the belief of people not of his faith-tradition in a
refreshingly different kind of language: "I have not found such great faith even in Israel." (Lk 7:9); "Your faith has saved
you; go in peace." (Lk 7:50); "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace." (Lk 8:48); "Receive your sight; your faith
has healed you." (Lk 18:42).
Compare in this respect the language of DJ with that of another document "The attitude of the Church towards the
Followers of other Religions: Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission, AAS 75 [1984], 3" and quoted in
"Dialogue and Proclamation. Reflection and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ", 9: "Thirdly, in the context of religious plurality, dialogue means 'all positive and constructive interreligious
relations with individuals and communities of other faiths which are directed at mutual understanding enrichment'" (Joint
Document of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, Rome, 19
May 1991; OR.21 June, 1991. My italics). Sadly DJ did not seem to have heeded the wise words of "Dialogue and
Proclamation", 14: "A just appraisal of other religious traditions normally presupposes close contact with them. This implies,
besides theoretical knowledge, practical experience of interreligious dialogue with the followers of these traditions."
Summarized in a nutshell the fifth heresy implicitly denies in fact that "God, in an age-long dialogue, has offered and
continues to offer salvation to humankind." ("Dialogue and Proclamation", 38)

Sixth Heresy: By implicitly but completely reducing the Christ to Jesus, DJ denies the humanity of Jesus on the one hand
and the work of the Christ in the rest of creation on the other.
The sacrosanct theandric formula for Jesus Christ was and remains “true God and true man”. The humanity of Jesus means
that he was like us in all things, except sin. His divine nature notwithstanding, his human nature was historically
conditioned. A number of consequences follow. Creation was not through Jesus but through the Christ. Furthermore
Christ’s mediation which is at work in the whole of creation cannot be said to be operative exclusively in the historical
Jesus. The opposite would be a denial of the fact that Jesus was a real man, and like all humans historically conditioned
and subject to the effects of history, except sin.

Seventh Heresy: By employing the language of ‘unicity’, ‘universality’ and absoluteness’ in the realm of faith DJ distorts the
understanding of faith on the one hand and faith-language on the other.
Such language is not of faith and so cannot lead to faith. Faith is known from its effects: love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal 5:22); effects, that lead to faith Besides, such language
can only lead to unhealthy and useless competition as history bears out. The language of faith has to be symbolic and
evocative, language which derives from faith and leads to faith. The language of unicity, universality and absoluteness is
ideological, not theological.

Eighth Heresy: Because God has spoken DJ entertains the illusion that it is speaking in the name and authority of God.
Nobody except God can speak in the name of God. What God has said only God’s word can testify. Humans can at the most
assert what God has not spoken – even this is difficult since the Spirit alone is God’s hermeneut but humans know not
whence she comes and whither she blows. The hermeneutics of language excludes the possibility of human language being
capable speaking for God or in God’s name. We have to be wary that we do no fall a prey to hybris [sic], that we can be
like God and speak in God’s name. That this is not a superfluous warning is shown by the megalomaniac tendencies of DJ.

Ninth Heresy: DJ speaks authoritatively of the other religions without knowledge and experience of other religions .
In today’s global village context genuine understanding has to promote understanding in the global direction. This does not
imply that understanding is global; it only implies that every tradition has to make a concerted effort to speak 'cross-
culturally' so that cultures and religions can communicate meaningfully among themselves. This is especially true of the
Christian religion whose mission has to do with proclamation and evangelization.

To do this one has to proclaim the good news in a way that the people to whom it is proclaimed understand it. To be
understood by them presupposes the prior effort that the proclaiming religion makes to understand them and their
religions. Not only does DJ not show the slightest sign of familiarity with other religions and their religious experience. On
the contrary it has the temerity and the arrogance to pass judgement on them as being "in a gravely deficient situation"
(n.22) and to reduce their beliefs to human striving for wisdom (n.7).

Conclusion
DJ is an unexpected step and in the wrong direction. It is an effort to put back the clock of history in the
areas of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue. But history, especially the history of salvation, has its own dynamics;
it is affected but not deflected by human intentionality. After all it is the history of salvation, that is, a movement of
reconciling and making all things whole.
The above lines are by a friend, not an enemy. They intend not so much to challenge any power as to point out the
presuppositions of a Document that only a cross-cultural awareness can lay bare. It is the responsibility of Indian
theologians to hear the call of the universal church. But it is also their responsibility to respond to it in the local key. Moral
responsibility is preceded by and built on the ontological state of response-ability. Indian theologians will do well to test not
just their responses to universal claims but also their local ability to respond from the local context. DJ hurriedly condemns
"the tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church" (n.4) as if this
would be harmful to the church. The universal church cannot contribute what the local church can contribute. As a matter
of fact, since such activity promotes the growth of the church there should have been praise and encouragement for the
efforts of the local in this direction. This would be the gift of the local church to the universal church. The local church is
really the concretization, not a rubber-stamping extension, of the universal church. For this, universal church and local
church have to be in dialogue, mutually to listen and to enhance, to correct and to qualify.
DJ is a good example of the absence of such a dialogue. But if it makes us aware of the deficiencies of the present model it
will – albeit in a negative fashion – have served its purpose.
MY COMMENTS
Fr. Francis X. D’Sa, S.J .is one of the theologians who lambasted the Vatican Document on the New Age
Movement. See respective report for his critique in Jeevadhara, May 2004 as well as for detailed information.

Paul Tillich Professor of Theology, World Religions and Culture Paul F. Knitter [who slammed the Vatican’s
2003 New Age Document in Jeevadhara, May 2004, see pages 72, 73] is also one of the theologians who
attacked Dominus Iesus: "Dominus Jesus and the Hermeneutics of Reception," Jeevadhara, XXXI/183 (May
2001) 183-186.

Liberal theologian Fr. Michael Amaladoss S.J. [see pages 108 and 113] is yet another who lambasted
Dominus Iesus in his article "Stop judging, that you will not be judged" in the Jeevadhara May 2001 issue.

Dominus Jesus and Mission

http://mangalapuzha.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/dominus-jesus-and-mission/
Posted by Mangalapuzha Seminary on August 25, 2009
By Fr. Vincent Kundukulam
No other Vatican document has produced so many storms in the recent past like Dominus Iesus,(DI), a Declaration
prepared by the Office of the Congregation for Doctrine of Faith (CDF) and by the Pope John Paul II and published on 6
August 2000. There ensued many discussions about DI in the form of study seminars and symposiums and through the
publication of books, theological journals and popular magazines both inside and outside the Catholic Church. The
conservative groups in different religions and Christian denominations came out with severe criticisms against it. Among
the Indian catholic theological journals, Jeevadhara brought out a special issue in May 2001, a collection of
reactions from theologians representing various continents. We are not in a position to examine this voluminous
literature and that is not our objective too. Our aim is to understand the concerns of Dominus Jesus from a missiological
perspective and the reasons for which it is known as a polemic document.

1. Nature of the Document

The Declaration Dominus Jesus besides the introduction and conclusion contains six small chapters and is spread in 23
numbers. Compared to other Vatican teachings like Redemptoris Missio or Fides et Ratio which have 92 and 108 paragraphs
respectively, DI is not a very big document. It does not contribute any new insight regarding the uniqueness of Christ or
unicity of Church. It reiterates only what has been taught in previous magisterial documents about this subject. Then
naturally one may ask why it creates so much uproar.  
A look into sources of this Letter gives us a glimpse on the nature of the document. Apparently this heavily documented
Declaration is largely based on the open perspectives of Second Vatican Council. For, among the 102 citations 42 belongs
to Second Vatican Council and 30 are taken from the encyclicals of John Paul II. But a close scrutiny of these citations
shows that the drafter is very much selective in his references. He has chosen mainly the orthodox statements,
which reinforce the primacy of Christ, Church and mission and seldom refers to the passages of inclusive and
integrating order. The 7 citations from Ancient Councils and 5 from CCC add to its exclusive language.

2. Purpose of the Declaration

The objective of the document, as made explicit in its beginning, is to recall to bishops, theologians and the faithful certain
indispensable elements of Christian doctrine which would help them develop answers consistent with the content of faith
and refute erroneous or ambiguous positions regarding faith. (No. 3) This intention is again repeated in the last number:
"Faced with certain problematic and even erroneous propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church’s
faith and to give reasons for her hope in a way that is convincing and effective." (No. 23)
What are the erroneous doctrines that the document refers to? Mainly, these are propositions originating
from relativism. DI rules out the mentality of indifferentism, which leads to the belief that Jesus is one of the
manifestations of God and that one religion is as good as another. It takes extreme care to defend the
uniqueness of Christ and unicity of Church. But a cautious reading of the Letter will show that these
Christological and ecclesiological concerns are led by another objective namely to rejuvenate missionary
preaching and baptism. The propositions coming from relativist ideologies had cast shadows of doubts
regarding the need of missionary proclamation.
This missiological concern is very clear from the document, which laments that inspite of two thousand years of missionary
efforts the mission still remains far from complete. DI cites St. Paul crying, "woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel" (I Cor
9, 16). (No. 2) Moreover the fact that the document begins with the missionary command of Resurrected Jesus to the
disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world and to baptize all nations shown in all the Synoptic Gospels (Mt, 28, 19-
20; Mk 16, 15-16; Lk 24, 46-48) make evident the priority of the Declaration for mission. (No. 1)

3. Affirmations of DI
From the above explanation the three theological disciplines in which the document likes to put certain order is very clear.
They are Christology, Ecclesiology and Missiology. Though the sixth chapter deals with the salvific value of non-Christian
religions it is not a major preoccupation of the Declaration. If it were so, the document should have positively defined their
role in building the kingdom of God.

3.1 Christological: Jesus, the only Unique Redeemer

One of the main assertions of DI is that Jesus Christ is the mediator and the universal redeemer. Christ, the Son of God
Lord and only Saviour, through the event of incarnation, death and resurrection, has brought the history of salvation to
fulfillment and there is no other name under heaven among men by which they can be saved. (No. 13) God the Father
raised Jesus from the dead, exalted and placed at his right hand constituting him judge of the living and the dead. This
gives him unique, singular, exclusive, absolute and universal significance as the mediator of the world. (No. 15)
The document rejects the concept of limited, incomplete or imperfect character of revelation of Jesus Christ which will be
complementary to that found in other religions. It denies also the underlying relativist theory, which says that God cannot
be grasped and manifested in its globality and completeness by any historical religion. According to the document this
theory is not applicable to the person of Jesus. The truth about God is not abolished or reduced even though it is spoken in
human language by Jesus because he who speaks and acts here is the Incarnate Son of God. (No. 6) The attitude of
perceiving Jesus as a particular, finite, historical figure manifesting one of the many faces of Logos communicating with
humanity in course of the history does not conform to the faith of the Church. (No. 9) 
DI cautions against the different sorts of separation made by the progressive theologians: between Jesus of history and
Christ of faith; between humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ and between the economy of salvation realized through the
Three Persons of Trinity in order to create space for the mediations of other religions in the salvific project of God. The
document denies the view that there are two economies of salvation: one of the Eternal Word, which is valid even outside
the Church and another of the Incarnated Word, which is limited to the Christians. (No. 9) The declaration does not accept
any separation between the Word and Jesus Christ and the salvific actions of the Word as such and that of the Word made
flesh. (No. 10)
DI admits the work of the Spirit extending beyond the visible boundaries of the Church and affecting other cultures,
peoples, and religions. It quotes Gs 22: "For since Christ has died for all and since all men are called to one and the same
destiny 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". But the declaration does not accept a separate economy of the Holy Spirit with a more universal breadth
than that of the Incarnate Word. It is the same Spirit who is active among other religions and who was at work in the life
death and resurrection of Jesus and now present in the Church. The action of the Spirit is not parallel to that of Christ. (No.
12)

3.2 Ecclesiological: Necessity of Church

The fourth and fifth chapters of the document defend the Unicity of the Church. Because there is an historical continuity
between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church DI argues that she has the fullness of Christ’s salvific
mystery. Just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church
can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute single 'whole Christ'. Just as there is one Christ so there exists a
single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ, a single Catholic and apostolic Church. Church of Christ, despite the divisions
which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and
by the Bishops in communion with him. (No. 16)

Church being the legitimate continuation of Christ claims the declaration: 'none can empty or deny the intimate connection
between Christ, the Kingdom and the Church'. The declaration is aware that the kingdom of God is not identical with the
Church in her visible and social reality. Church is oriented toward the kingdom of God, of which she is the seed, sign and
instrument. Yet while remaining distinct from Christ and the kingdom, the Church is indissolubly united to both. Church is
the kingdom of Christ already present in mystery. (No. 18) On account of the indissoluble mysterious relationship that
Church has with Christ, it would be contrary to faith to consider Church as one way of salvation along side those constituted
by other religions. Other religions cannot be seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even
if they will converge with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. (No. 21)
After affirming the specificity of Church DI alerts the Catholics not to boast of their exalted condition: 'if they fail to respond
in thought, word, and deed, not only they shall not be saved but also they shall be more severely judged'. (No. 22) In fact
these chapters reveal drafter’s tension to keep two truths together: the necessity of the Church for salvation on the one
hand and the possibility of salvation for all mankind in Christ on the other. DI finds Church necessary for salvation because
of Christ’s presence in her. Since Church is united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, she has, in God’s
plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being. She is the universal sacrament of salvation. But
at the same time DI affirms that to those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation is accessible
by virtue of a grace. (No. 20)

3.3 Missiological: Urgency of Mission

Apart from relativism, what put down the missionary zeal in the Church is misunderstanding caused by some forged
concepts of dialogue. Some missionaries doubt the need to work for the conversion of the gentiles if the latter are already
on the way of salvation while they obey the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Responding to this situation DI explains the basic
reason for evangelization: God has made himself in the fullest possible way known to Christians. Since Church possesses
the definitive revelation of God she has by her nature to be missionary. (No. 5)
According to DI though the followers of other religions can receive divine grace in their own religions, it is also certain that
they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who in the Church have the fullness of the means of
salvation. Hence the Church, to whom the fullness of Truth has been entrusted, has the duty to bring them the full truth.
Guided by charity and respect for freedom Church must commit herself to proclaim the truth revealed by the Lord, to
announce the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of the adherence to the Church through baptism and other
sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (No. 22)
With regard to dialogue DI says that the inter-religious dialogue does not relegate the necessity of mission. Dialogue is just
one of the actions of the Church in her mission ad gentes. Inter-religious dialogue as well the mission ad gentes today as
always retains its full force and necessity. Dialogue does not replace but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes. In brief
the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish but rather increase the duty and urgency of the
proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ. (No. 22)

4. Attitude towards other Religions

In some instances DI endorses the open outlook of Second Vatican Council. For example, the first chapter quotes NA 2:
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life
and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often
reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men". Referring to the universal salvific will of God DI admits that 'the sacred
books of other religions receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace for God who desires to call
all people to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation. God’s love does not fail to make
himself present in many ways not only to individuals but also to entire people through their spiritual riches. Hence other
religions are the main and essential expression of God’s revelation even when they contain gaps, insufficiencies and errors'.
(No. 8) A similar attitude is obvious in the last chapter: "Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious
elements, which come from God, and which are parts of what the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of
peoples, in cultures and religions". (No. 21)
But in many other parts DI compares Christianity with other religions and thereby downplays their value. First of all, the
document makes a distinction between faith in Christianity and belief in other religions. Theological faith gives Christians
revealed truth whereas beliefs of other religions are the sum of experience of human treasury of wisdom and religious
aspiration, which are still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. (No. 7)
Secondly DI makes a distinction between the sacred writings of other religions and Bible. The Scriptures of other religions
contain however some elements to nourish and maintain inter-relationship with God but they can not be considered as
inspired texts, a title which is reserved only to the Canonical Books of the Bible as they are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, DI compares the Christian prayers and rituals with that of other religions. DI recognizes some of them as
preparation for the Gospel but it does not attribute to them a divine origin or ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is
proper to the Christian sacraments. (No. 21)
In the light of above pages we can certainly say that Dominus Jesus projects an ambivalent attitude towards Non-
Christians. In one context, it would say that other religions receive elements of goodness and grace from God and in spite
of the errors contained in them, are essential expressions of God’s revelation (no 8). But on other occasions DI does not
hesitate to affirm that other religions are in a gravely deficient situation (no 22) and that they are the sum of experience of
human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which still lacks assent to God’s revelation (no 7).

Such sort of incoherence happens partly due to the presence of members having diverse sensibilities in the redaction
committee. When Pope John Paul II convened the meeting of leaders of the World Religions at Assisi in 1986 there were
some misgivings already in the Vatican and Pope had to give a special address to the Roman Curia explaining the
theological foundations of that initiative. We will now see non-Catholic reception of Dominus Iesus.

5. Reactions from outside Church

Abd-al-Haqq, the director of Institute for Islamic Higher Studies at Paris thinks that Dominus Jesus is "taking a step back".
He observes that for the first time in the history of humanity the religions coexist in different continents and above all they
encounter and know mutually. We can no more understand Truth in the same way as in the past. God does not want to be
exhausted by one faith. Haqq regrets of the exclusive attitude in Dominus Jesus and he is afraid that such kind of text
reinforces the rigid attitude in Islam. (La Croix, 7 September 2000, Paris) 
Olivier Clement, an orthodox theologian who has been engaging in ecumenical dialogue since years comments that "this
abrupt way of saying things make me to think that this text is a reaction of those who have difficulty in the Curia to accept
the open attitude of John Paul II. I don’t see any continuity between this text and Ut unum sint (1995), an encyclical on the
unity of Christians."
Rabbi Korsia, the director of College of Rabbis in France, does not understand why a text from Vatican takes position on
Judaism. When the Association of Rabbis makes a declaration to the Jews, it does not discuss any issue related to the
Catholic Church. It is true that each religion must be able to articulate for its own members where lays the Truth. The only
thing that we accuse is the fact of imposing one’s own truth on others. ( La Croix, 7 September 2000, Paris, p.11)
The Hindu world, the Sangh Parivar in particular, could not digest the premises of Dominus Iesus. N.S. Rajaram, an
ideologist of RSS writes: "In a just released document titled Declaration of Lord Jesus the Vatican proclaims non-Christians
to be in a gravely deficient situation" and that even non-Catholic churches have "defects" because they do not acknowledge
the primacy of Pope. This of course means that the Vatican refuses to acknowledge the spiritual right (and freedom) of
non-Catholics. This consigns non-Christians to hell, and the only way they can save themselves is by becoming Christians,
preferably Catholics, by submitting to the Pope. (Organizer, 3 June 2001, Delhi, p. 19)

6. Lacking pedagogy of encounter

As we mentioned in the introduction a bundle of articles had already come out criticizing this document. Due to constraint
of time we will discuss about only one aspect, namely language of DI.
No doubt, the tone, style and language of the Declaration are very different from that of the Second Vatican Council. The
Council Decrees by its inclusive style generates in the reader a feeling of harmony. Reading them we are moved to work
with all peoples, cultures and religions. For example see the human fellowship outlined in Nostra aetate: "All men form but
one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock". (No. 1) Gaudium et spes writes: "Through loyalty to
conscience Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems
which arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships" (No. 16).
But this spirit of commonality or togetherness is unseen in Dominus Jesus. Exclusive language, imposing style and
comparative statements of DI nourish a ghetto culture. Referring to the language of DI, Felix Wilfred* has rightly
observed that Church still lacks the pedagogy of dialogue. Many misunderstand tolerance, compassion and the concern for
other’s faith as compromise. We are afraid to follow in our relationship with other religions the path of renunciation and
kenosis showed by Jesus. The only way to get rid of this fear is to let us be touched by the neighbour ( La Croix, 28
September 2000). *Theologian Fr. Felix Wilfred has been castigated by Rome for his liberal teachings.
Some may underestimate Felix’s comment, as he is a theologian, known for his modernism. But Joseph Dore, Archbishop of
Strasbourg, known for his orthodoxy and allegiance to Vatican, also confesses that the style of DI is different from that of
the Council. There are expressions of command like "In fact it must be firmly believed that" (No. 5) "It must be firmly held"
(No. 7) "all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that" (No. 22), etc. in the document, which may badly
affect its reception by local Churches. (La Croix, 6 September 2000). Archbishop Vincent Concessao of Delhi, CBCI
Vice-President said, "Dominus Iesus is immediately relevant to the multi-religious and multi-cultural situation in India
but it was felt that the document has to be toned down". (The New Leader, vol. 114, no: 10, June 1-15, 2001, p.30.)
As Jacob Parappally** notes, DI cannot but be exclusive because its language is confessional. Our task is to proclaim the
faith of the Church in the context of plurality of religions and ecclesial communities. It is the charism of the local Churches
to evolve a language in which the faith affirmations can be meaningfully communicated. Overemphasis on the historicity of
Jesus in DI reduces him to be one among the founders of religion. DI makes Jesus Christ small and his Church a sect.
(Parappally, Profession and Proclamation of Faith, Jeevadhara, Vol., 31, no 183, May 2001, pp. 225-227)
Against the above-mentioned accusations CDF’s response was that DI is not destined to other religions. But this argument
does not stand in Asia and Africa where to be religious means to be inter-religious. Whatever is said by one religion affects
all others. Nobody can seek God in isolation here. In such a context the Church teachings must be expressed in local
cultures. "Doing Asian Theology in Asia Today" (DATAT), a document published by FABC in October 2000 seems to be a
glaring example. It begins with addressing the threat of relativism, as does DI. But DATAT does not equate relativism with
pluralism; instead as Second Vatican Council, DATAT advocates pluralism in theology. At the same time it warns against
irresponsibility or indifferentism with matters affecting the faith of the Church. When DI relegates other religious traditions
to beliefs still in search of truth DATAT draws nourishment from Asian cultures.

DI presents Church as custodian of Truth but DATAT consider Truth as mystery, to be approached with reverence. This
reverence does not allow FABC make judgment upon other religions (Jeevadhara, Vol. 31, no 183, May 2001, pp. 230-233)
The absence of the theology of incarnation has also affected the missiological perspective of DI. It finds the source of
mission in Jesus’ missionary command to the apostles after resurrection. To base mission on this mandate is an outdated
approach. The Second Vatican Council accepts the Mystery of Incarnation as the source and model of evangelization. As
Jesus who, being sent by the Father, assumed what is good in humanity the missionary must assimilate the fruits of Spirit
already present in the local culture before announcing the Gospel. Unfortunately, DI is silent about inculturation, dialogue,
liberative actions, witness, etc. which should precede mission.
 
7. There is yet to hope for  
Inspite of all the above noted drawbacks DI cannot be, in my view, totally discarded because all along with the rigid stand-
points it has also retained inclusive attitude of Second Vatican Council. For example, the document still believes in the
participatory mediation of other religions: "The unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to
a manifold cooperation, which is, but a participation in this one source. These participatory forms of mediation acquire meaning
and value only from Christ’s own mediation. They cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his." (No. 14)  
Similarly, DI has not totally identified Church with Christ and the Kingdom: "The kingdom of God is not identified with the
Church in her visible and social reality. In fact the action of Christ and the Spirit outside the Church’s visible boundaries
must not be excluded. Therefore, one must also bear in mind that the kingdom is the concern of everyone: individuals,
society and the world". (No. 19) On the contrary if DI had equated Church with Kingdom there would have been no room
left for dialogue and inculturation.
It must also be noted that the Declaration believes in the salvation of those who remain outside Catholic Church by means
of a special grace from God: "For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is
accessible by virtue of a grace, which while having a mysterious relationship to the Church does not make them formally
part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way, which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This
grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit." (No. 20)
Above all, the document promotes the freedom of theologians to cogitate over the mystery of salvation. DI invites the
theologians to explore in what way the historical figures and positive elements of other religions fall within the divine plan
of salvation. (No. 14) It encourages them to find out the meaning of the statement in AG 7 saying: "Although in ways
known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without
which it is impossible to please him." (No. 21) The present Pope Benedict XVI during the Holy Mass that he offered on the
subsequent day of his election (20th April 2005) promised to continue the efforts of dialogue commenced by his
predecessor. Let us hope that Church will rediscover the vision of the Council about other religions.
**Fr. Jacob Parappally MSFS is one of three theologians of the Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth [JDV], Pune to
critique the New Age Document in Jeevadhara. He is a former president of the Indian Theological
Association. He is Professor in Systematic Theology and Rector, Tejas Vidya Peetha, MSFS Institute of
Contextual Theology, Bangalore. For more on him, see THEOLOGIANS LAMBAST THE VATICAN DOCUMENT.

ANSWERS TO MAIN OBJECTIONS AGAINST DOMINUS IESUS

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/obdomihs.htm

In an interview published on 22 September 2000, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung invited Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to respond to the principal objections raised against the
Declaration Dominus Iesus. Even if the questions and answers reflect the German context, the text of the interview offers
sound explanations that are also applicable and useful outside this context. The daily edition of L'Osservatore Romano
therefore published an Italian translation of the interview, omitting the parts that only concern the German situation. Here
is a translation of the Italian version of the interview.
Your Eminence,
You head a structure in which "there are tendencies to ideologization and to an excessive penetration of foreign and
fundamentalist elements of faith". The reprimand was contained in a communication published last week by the German
section of the European Society for Catholic Theology.
I must confess that I am very annoyed by this kind of statement. For some time now I have known by heart this
vocabulary, in which the concepts of fundamentalism, Roman centralism and absolutism are never missing. I could
formulate certain statements on my own without even waiting to receive them, because they are repeated time and again,
regardless of the subject treated.
I wonder why they never think up anything new.

Are you saying that criticism is false because it is repeated too often?
No. It is only that this type of predefined criticism fails to address the various topics.
Some proffer new criticism with the greatest of ease, because they consider everything that comes out of Rome in the light
of politics and the division of power, and do not tackle the content.

Indeed the content is somewhat explosive. Is it really surprising that a document in which it is claimed that Christianity is
the sole repository of truth and the ecclesial status of Anglicans and Protestants is not acknowledged should encounter
such opposition?
I would like first of all to express my sadness and disappointment at the fact that public reaction, with a few praiseworthy
exceptions, has completely disregarded the Declaration's true theme. The document begins with the words "Dominus
Iesus"; this is the brief formula of faith contained in the First Letter to the Corinthians (12:3), in which Paul has summarized
the essence of Christianity: Jesus is Lord.
With this Declaration, whose writing he followed stage by stage with great attention, the Pope wanted to offer the world a
great and solemn recognition of Jesus Christ as Lord at the height of the Holy Year, thus bringing what is essential firmly to
the centre of this occasion which is always prone to externalism.

The widespread resentment precisely concerns this "firmness". At the peak of the Holy Year, would it not have been more
appropriate to send a signal to the other religions rather than setting about confirming one's own faith ?
At the beginning of this millennium we find ourselves in a situation similar to that described by John at the end of the sixth
chapter of his Gospel: Jesus had clearly explained his divine nature in the institution of the Eucharist. In verse 66 we read
"After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him". In general discussions today, faith in
Christ risks being smoothed over and lost in chatter. With this document, the Holy Father, as Successor of the Apostle
Peter, meant to say: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come
to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (Jn 6:68 ff.) The document is intended as an invitation to all Christians to open
themselves anew to the recognition of Jesus Christ as Lord, and thus to give a profound meaning to the Holy Year. I was
pleased that Mr Kock, President of the Protestant Churches of Germany, recognized this important element in the text in his
reaction, which was moreover very dignified, and compared it to the Barmen Declaration of 1934, in which the recently
founded Bekennende Kirche rejected the Church of the Reich founded by Hitler. Prof. Jüngel of Tübingen also found in this
text—despite his reservations about the ecclesiological section—an apostolic spirit similar to that of the Barmen Declaration.
In addition, the Primate of the Anglican Church, Archbishop Carey, expressed his grateful and decided support of the true
theme of the Declaration. Why, on the other hand, do the majority of commentators disregard it? I would be glad to have
an answer.

The explosive element of a political-ecclesiastical nature is contained in the section of the document concerning
ecumenism. With regard to the evangelical section, Eberhard Jüngel made a statement, asserting that the document
ignores the fact that all the Churches "in their own way" want to be what in fact they are: "one holy, catholic and apostolic
Church". So is the Catholic Church deceiving herself by claiming to have the exclusive right, since, according to Jüngel, she
shares these rights with the other Churches?
The ecclesiological and ecumenical issues of which everyone is now speaking occupy only a small part of the document,
which it seemed to us necessary to write in order to emphasize Christ's living and concrete presence in history. I am
surprised that Jüngel should say that the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church is present in all the Churches in their own
way and that (if I have understood correctly) he thus considers the matter of the Church's unity to have been resolved. Yet
these numerous "Churches" contradict one another! If they are all Churches "in their own way", then this Church is a
collection of contradictions and cannot offer people clear direction.

But does an effective impossibility also stem from this normative impossibility?
That all the existing ecclesial communities should appeal to the same concept of Church seems to me to be contrary to
their self-awareness. Luther claimed that the Church, in a theological and spiritual sense, could not be embodied in the
great institutional structure of the Catholic Church, which he regarded instead as an instrument of the Antichrist. In his
view, the Church was present wherever the Word was proclaimed correctly and the sacraments administered in the right
way. Luther himself held that it was impossible to consider the local Churches subject to the princes as the Church; they
were external institutions for assistance and were certainly necessary, but not the Church in the theological sense. And who
would say today that structures which came into being by historical accident like, for example, the Churches of Hesse-
Waldeck and Schaumburg-Lippe, are Churches in the same way that the Catholic Church claims to be? It is clear that the
Union of German Lutheran Churches (VELDK) and the Union of Protestant Churches in Germany (EKD) do not want to be
the "Church". A realistic examination shows that the reality of the Church for Protestants lies elsewhere and not in those
institutions which are called regional Churches. This should have been discussed.

The fact is that the Evangelical side now considers the definition "ecclesial community" an offence. The harsh reactions to
your document are clear proof of this.
I find the claim of our Lutheran friends frankly absurd, i.e., that we are to consider these structures resulting from chance
historical events as the Church in the same way that we believe the Catholic Church, founded on the apostolic succession in
the Episcopate, is the Church. It would be more correct for our Evangelical friends to tell us that for them the Church is
something different a more dynamic reality and not so institutionalized, or part of the apostolic succession. The question
then is not whether the existing Churches are all Churches in the same way, which is obviously not the case, but in what
does the Church consist or not consist. In this sense, we offend no one by saying that the actual Evangelical structures are
not the Church in the sense in which the Catholic Church intends to be so. They themselves have no wish to be so.

Was this question addressed by the Second Vatican Council?

The Second Vatican Council tried to accept this different way of determining the locus of the Church by stating that the
Evangelical Churches are not actually Churches in the same way that the Catholic Church claims to be so, but that
"elements of salvation and truth" are found in them. It might be that the term "elements" was not the best choice. In any
case, its sense was to indicate an ecclesiological vision in which the Church does not exist in structures but in the event of
preaching and the administration of the sacraments. The way in which the dispute is now being conducted is certainly
wrong. I wish there had been no need to explain that the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has
merely taken up the Council's texts and the postconciliar documents, neither adding nor removing anything.

On the other hand, Eberhard Jüngel sees something different there. The fact that in its time the Second Vatican Council did
not state that the one and only Church of Christ is exclusively the Roman Catholic Church perplexes Jüngel. In the
Constitution Lumen gentium, it says only that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the
Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him", not expressing any exclusivity with the Latin word
"subsistit".
Unfortunately once again I cannot follow the reasoning of my esteemed colleague, Jüngel. I was there at the Second
Vatican Council when the term "subsistit" was chosen and I can say I know it well. Regrettably one cannot go into details in
an interview. In his Encyclical Pius XII said: the Roman Catholic Church "is" the one Church of Jesus Christ. This seems to
express a complete identity, which is why there was no Church outside the Catholic community. However, this is not the
case: according to Catholic teaching, which Pius XII obviously also shared, the local Churches of the Eastern Church
separated from Rome are authentic local Churches; the communities that sprang from the Reformation are constituted
differently, as I just said. In these the Church exists at the moment when the event takes place.

But should we not say then: a single Church does not exist. She is divided into numerous fragments?
In fact, many of our contemporaries consider her such. Only fragments of the Church are said to exist, and the best of the
various pieces should be sought. But if this were so, subjectivism would be warranted: then everyone would invent his own
Christianity and in the end his personal taste would, be decisive.

Perhaps the Christian actually has the freedom to interpret this "patchwork" also as subjectivism or individualism.
The Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, is convinced that a definition of this kind is irreconcilable with Christ's
promise and with fidelity to him. Christ's Church truly exists and not in pieces. She is not an unattainable utopia but a
concrete reality. The "subsistit" means precisely this: the Lord guarantees the Church's existence despite all our errors and
sins, which certainly are also clearly found in her. With "subsistit", the intention was to say that, although the Lord keeps
his promise, there is also an ecclesial reality outside the Catholic community, and it is precisely this contradiction which is
the strongest incentive to pursue unity. If the Council had merely wished to say that the Church of Jesus Christ is also in
the Catholic Church, it would have said something banal. The Council would have clearly contradicted the entire history of
the Church's faith, which no Council Father had in mind.

Jüngel's arguments are philological and in this regard he claims that the interpretation of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, which you have just explained, is "misleading". In fact, according to the terminology of the ancient Church, the
one divine being also "subsists", and not in one person alone but in three. The following question arises from this
reflection: If, therefore, God himself "subsists" in the difference between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and yet is not
separated from himself , thus creating three reciprocal othernesses, why should this not also apply to the Church, which
represents the "mysterium trinitatis" in the world?
I am saddened to have to disagree again with Jüngel. First of all, it is necessary to observe that the Church of the West, in
her translation of the Trinitarian formula into Latin, did not directly adopt the Eastern formula, in which God is a being in
three hypostases ("subsistences"), but translated the word hypostasis with the term "person", since in Latin the word
"subsistence" as such did not exist and would therefore not have been adequate to express the unity and difference
between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
However, I am particularly determined to oppose this increasingly widespread tendency to transfer the Trinitarian mystery
directly to the Church. It is not suitable. In this way we will end up believing in three divinities.

In short, why cannot the "otherness" of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be compared to the diversity of ecclesial
communities? Is Jüngel's not a fascinating and harmonious formula?
Among the ecclesial communities there are many disagreements, and what disagreements! The three "persons" constitute
one God in an authentic and supreme unity. When the Council Fathers replaced the word "is" with the word "subsistit", they
did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by "is" (to be) is far broader than that expressed by "to subsist".
"To subsist" is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant
to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it
acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.

Let us go back a step. One is struck by the curious semantics which are sometimes found in Church documents. You
yourself have pointed out that the expression "elements of truth", which is central in the current dispute, is somewhat
infelicitous. Might not the expression "elements of truth" betray a sort of chemical concept of truth?

The truth as a recurrent system of elements? Or: is there not something overbearing about the idea of being able to
separate truth from falsehood or from partial truth through theorems, since certain theorems claim to reduce the complex
reality of God to a pattern drawn with a compass?
The Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Church speaks of "many elements of sanctification and of truth" that are
found outside the visible structure of the Church (n. 8); the Decree on Ecumenism lists some of them: "The written word of
God, the life of grace, faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements" (n, 3). A
better term than "elements" might exist, but its real meaning is clear: the life of faith that the Church serves is a
multifaceted structure and various elements can be distinguished inside or outside it.

Nevertheless, is it not surprising that there should be a desire to make a phenomenon that escapes empirical verification,
such as religious faith, intelligible through theorems?
With regard to faith and to making it understandable through theorems, dogma is distorted if it is regarded as a collection
of theorems: the content of faith is expressed in its profession, whose privileged moment occurs in the administration of the
sacrament of Baptism and is thus part of an existential process. It is the expression of a new direction in life, but one which
we do not give ourselves but receive as a gift. This new direction to our life also implies that we emerge from our ego and
selfishness and enter that community of the faithful which is called the Church. The focal point of the baptismal formula is
the recognition of the Trinitarian God. All subsequent dogmas are no more than explications of this profession and ensure
that its fundamental orientation, the gift of self to the living God, remains unaltered. Only when dogma is interpreted in this
way can it be properly understood.

Does this mean that from this spiritual perspective one can no longer arrive at the content of faith?
No, the certitude of the Christian faith has its own content. It is not an immersion in an inexpressible mystical dimension in
which one never comes to the content. The God in whom Christians believe has shown us his face and heart in Jesus
Christ: he has revealed himself to us. As St Paul said, this concreteness of God was a scandal to the Greeks in the past and,
of course, still is today. This is inevitable.

One is struck by the ease with which precisely in Church circles people tend to appear "injured" or "full of suffering"
regarding definitions of the faith which emphasize content rather than form. How do you explain this moralization of the
intellectual clash, which now seems a constant for theologians?
It is not only a moralization but also a politicization: the Magisterium is considered to be a power that should be countered
with another power. In the last century Ignaz Döllinger had already expressed the idea that the Church's Magisterium
should be opposed by public opinion and that theologians should play a decisive role in this. However, believers at the time
rejected Döllinger's positions en masse and supported the First Vatican Council. I maintain that the harshness of certain
reactions is also explained by the fact that theologians may feel that their academic freedom is threatened and wish to
intervene in defence of their intellectual mission. Naturally, a decisive role is also played by the climate fostered by secular
culture, which is more compatible with Protestantism than with the Catholic Church.

I detect a certain irony when you speak of the intellectual mission of theologians. And so what about the academic freedom
of Catholic theologians? Might not insistence on the ecclesial nature of theology that is faithful to doctrine be a kind of
conditioning? And often is there not a lack of transparency in granting the permission to teach Church doctrine (the nihil
obstat)?
For theology, conformity with the Church's faith does not mean submitting to conditions that are foreign to theology. By its
nature, theology seeks to understand the Church's faith, which is the presupposition of its existence. In certain cases,
moreover, Evangelical Church leaders have had to deprive academics of their mission to teach, because they had
abandoned the foundations of this mission. As for us and the nihil obstat, we must first remember that no one has a right
to a teaching post. Faculties of theology are not obliged to communicate to individual candidates the reason why they were
not chosen or what prompted their decision. We communicate to our Bishops the reason why, in our opinion, the nihil
obstat cannot be granted to a certain candidate. How to inform him of this is then up to the Bishop. In a certain number of
cases a correspondence was begun with the candidates, whose explanations often made it possible to change the decision
from negative to positive.

Peter Hünermann's criticism centres on the following: by reinforcing the obligation to take an oath of fidelity, theologians
and clergy are also required to hold as valid teachings that are only indirectly connected with the truth of revealed faith but
not explicitly revealed.
I have already addressed in detail the false information on this in my two articles in Stimmen der Zeit in 1999 and in my
contribution to Wolfgang Beinert's book, published that same year, Gott - ratlos vor dem Bösen?, so I will be brief.
Hünermann directs his criticism at the so-called second level of the profession of faith, which distinguishes teaching that is
valid and indissolubly linked to Revelation from true and proper Revelation. It is utterly false to say that the Fathers of the
First and Second Vatican Councils expressly rejected this distinction. On the contrary, precisely the opposite is true. The
concept of Revelation was re-elaborated at the beginning of the modern era with the development of historical thought.

A distinction began to be made between what had been actually revealed and what was derived from Revelation, without
being separate from it or directly contained in it. This historicization of the concept of Revelation had never existed in the
Middle Ages. The separation of the two levels took conceptual form at the First Vatican Council through the distinction
made between "credenda" (to be believed) and "tenenda" (to be held). Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati recently explained
this concept in the document Papers from the Vallombrosa Meeting (2000). Moreover, it is enough to leaf through any
theology book from the pre-conciliar period to see that this is what was precisely written, even if details in elaborating the
second level were debated and still are today. The Second Vatican Council naturally accepted the distinction formulated by
the First Vatican Council and strengthened it. I fail to understand how one can assert the contrary.

The greatest criticism does not concern these distinctions so much as the claim of the highest magisterial authority for
teachings which have only the status of "theologically well-founded", in which, despite their good foundations, objections
are still raised that have never been completely eliminated.
Of course, with teachings to be held ("tenenda") something more than "theologically well-founded" is meant; the latter are
changeable. The literature includes among these "tenenda" important moral teachings of the Church (e.g., the rejection of
euthanasia and assisted suicide), so-called dogmatic facts (e.g., that the Bishops of Rome are the Successors of St Peter,
the legitimacy of Ecumenical Councils, etc.).

Let us return again to your Congregation's disputed document. Rather than being blamed for failing to emphasize content
rather than form, the Declaration Dominus Iesus is often accused of a somewhat tactless approach that irritates the
spokesmen of other religions and denominations. Cardinal Sterzinsky of Berlin said that in theological formation it is
necessary not to forget in sermons the "when, where and how". In Roman documents, however, it seems that this has
been forgotten. And Bishop Lehmann of Mainz said that he would have liked "a text written in the style of the great
conciliar texts", and wonders to what extent the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith collaborated with other curial
authorities in preparing the document. In this connection, he mentions the Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the
Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
As for collaboration with the other curial authorities, the President and Secretary of the Council for Promoting Christian
Unity, Cardinal Cassidy and Bishop Kasper, are members of our Congregation, as is the President of the Council for
Interreligious Dialogue, Cardinal Arinze. They all have a say in the matter, as I do. The Prefect, in fact, is only the first
among equals and is responsible for the orderly conduct of the work. The three members of the Congregation I have just
mentioned took an active part in drafting the document, which was presented several times at the ordinary meeting of the
Cardinals and once at the plenary meeting in which all our foreign members take part. Unfortunately, Cardinal Cassidy and
Bishop Kasper were prevented by concurrent engagements from taking part in some of the sessions, although they had
been informed of the dates of these meetings well in advance. Nevertheless, they received all the documentation and their
detailed written vota were communicated to the participants and thoroughly discussed.

Did they get a hearing?

Almost all the proposals of the two persons in question were accepted, because the opinion of the Council for Unity was
naturally very important for us in dealing with this matter. Moreover, I can easily understand that the German Bishops are
particularly sensitive to difficulties arising from the situation in our country. But there is also another side to the coin. Just
recently, for example, on my way home I met two men in their prime who came up to me and said: "We're missionaries in
Africa. How long we've waited for those words! We're constantly meeting difficulties, and missionaries are becoming fewer
and fewer". I was deeply touched by the gratitude of these two people, who are in the front lines of preaching the Gospel.
And this is only one of the many reactions of this kind. The truth is always disturbing and never easy. Jesus' words are
often terribly hard and expressed without much diplomatic subtlety. Walter Kasper rightly said that the sensation caused by
the document betrays a communications problem, because classical doctrinal language, as used in our document in
continuity with the texts of the Second Vatican Council, is entirely different from that of newspapers and the media. But
then the text should be interpreted and not held in contempt.

In the discussion of your Congregation's document, the question of the possibilities and limits of ecumenism was raised
once again. The problems connected with the ecumenical project do not only concern the existence of a tendency on both
sides to tone down what divides and no longer to take seriously the indispensable demand to prevail. In an article 15 years
ago in Theologische Quartalschrift, you had already warned against considering "ecumenism as a diplomatic task of a
political kind", and in this sense you criticized the "ecumenism of negotiation" of the immediate post-conciliar period. What
did you mean?
First of all, I would distinguish between theological dialogue and political or business negotiations. Theological dialogue is
not concerned with finding what is acceptable and eventually suitable to both parties, but with discovering profound
convergences behind the different linguistic forms and with learning to distinguish what is connected to a specific historical
period from what instead is fundamental. This is possible particularly when the context of the experience of God and Self
has changed, when the language can thus be confronted with a certain detachment and fundamental insights can flow from
passions that divide.
Can you give an example of this?
It is obvious in the doctrine of justification: Luther's religious experience was essentially conditioned by the difficult aspect
of God's wrath and a desire for the certainty of forgiveness and salvation.

However, the experience of God's wrath has been completely lost in our era, and the idea that God cannot damn anyone
has become widespread among Christians. In a now very different context, they were able to seek points that the two sides
have in common, starting from the Bible, which is the foundation we share. I can find no contradiction, then, between
Dominus Iesus, which only repeats the central ideas of the Council, and the consensus on justification. It is important that
dialogue be conducted with great patience, with great respect and, especially, with total honesty. The challenge posed to
us all by agnosticism consists in abandoning historical preconceptions and going to the heart of the matter. For example, to
go back to a previous point in our conversation, honesty means not applying the same concept of Church to the Catholic
Church and to one of the Churches formed according to the borders of former principalities.

So then, after the publication of your document is the ecumenical formula of "reconciled diversity" still valid?
I accept the concept of a "reconciled diversity", if it does not mean equality of content and the elimination of the question
of truth so that we could consider ourselves one, even if we believe and teach different things. To my mind this concept is
used well, if it says that, despite our differences, which do not allow us to regard ourselves as mere fragments of a Church
of Jesus Christ that does not exist in reality, we meet in the peace of Christ and are reconciled to one another, that is, we
recognize our division as contradicting the Lord's will and this sorrow spurs us to seek unity and to pray to him in the
knowledge that we all need his love.

Occasionally one reads passages from the Pope and his collaborators which relativize the division of Christianity in a
dialectical treatment of salvation history. The Pope then speaks of "a metahistorical reason" for the division and, in his book
Crossing the Threshold of Hope, he wonders: "Could it not be that these divisions have also been a path continually leading
the Church to discover the untold wealth contained in Christ's Gospel and in the redemption accomplished by Christ?
Perhaps all this wealth would not have come to light otherwise". Thus the division of Christians seems a pedagogical work
of the Holy Spirit, since, as the Pope says, for human knowledge and human action a "certain dialectic" is also significant.
You yourself wrote: "Even if the divisions are human works and human sins, a dimension proper to the divine framework
exists in them". If this is so, one wonders by what right can the divine pedagogy be opposed by identifying the Church of
Christ with the Roman Catholic Church. Are not the conceptual imprecisions deplored in the ecumenical dialogue also found
in the speculations of salvation history on God's pedagogy?
This is a difficult subject which concerns human freedom and divine governance. There are no valid answers in an absolute
form because we cannot go beyond our human horizon, and therefore we cannot unveil the mystery that links these two
elements. What you have quoted from the Holy Father and from me could be roughly applied to the well-known saying that
God writes straight with crooked lines. The lines remain crooked and this means that the divisions have to deal with human
sin. Sin does not become something positive because it can lead to a growth process when it is understood as something to
be overcome by conversion and to be removed by forgiveness.
Paul already had to explain to the Romans the ambiguity stemming from his teaching on grace, according to which, since
sin leads to grace, then one could be at ease with sin (Rom 6:19). God's ability to turn even our sins into something good
certainly does not mean that sin is good. And the fact that God can make division yield positive fruits does not make it
positive in itself. The conceptual imprecisions which do in fact exist are due to the disturbing unfathomableness of the
relationship between the freedom to sin and the freedom of grace. The freedom of grace is also shown by the fact that, on
the one hand, the Church does not sink and break up into antithetical ecclesial fragments in an unrealizable dream. By
God's grace the Church as subject really exists and subsists in the Catholic Church; Christ's promise is the guarantee that
this subject will never be destroyed. But on the other hand, it is true that this subject is wounded, inasmuch as ecclesial
realities exist and function outside it. In that fact the tragedy of sin and the paradoxical breadth of God's promise most
clearly emerge. If this tension is removed to reach clear formulas, and it is said that all ecclesial communities are the
Church, and that all, despite their disagreements, are that one and holy Church, then no ecumenism exists, because there
is no longer any reason for seeking authentic unity,

The same question can be asked again from another angle: whether the question of religious profession is related to that
of personal salvation. Why mission, why the disagreement over "truth" and Vatican documents if, in the end, man can
reach God by all paths?
The document is far from repeating the subjectivist and relativist thesis that everyone can become holy in his own way.
This is a cynical interpretation, in which I sense a contempt for the question of truth and right ethics. The document
affirms, with the Council, that God gives light to everyone. Those who seek the truth find themselves objectively on the
path that leads to Christ, and thus also on the path to the community in which he remains present in history, that is, to the
Church. To seek the truth, to listen to one's conscience, to purify one's interior hearing, these are the conditions of
salvation for all. They have a profound, objective connection with Christ and the Church. In this sense we say that other
religions have rites and prayers which can play a role of preparing for the Gospel, of occasions or pedagogical helps in
which the human heart is prompted to open itself to God's action. But we also say that this does not apply to all rites. For
there are some (anyone who knows something of the history of religions can only agree) which turn man away from the
light. Thus vigilance and inner purification are achieved by a life that follows conscience and helps to identify differences,
an openness which, in the end, means belonging inwardly to Christ.
For this reason the document can affirm that mission remains important, since it offers the light that men and women need
in their search for truth and goodness.
But the question remains: since, as you have said, salvation can be achieved through every path, provided that one lives
according to one's conscience, does mission then not lose its theological urgency? For what else can be meant by the thesis
of the "Intimate and objective connection" between non-Catholic paths of salvation and Christ, if not that Christ himself
makes superfluous the distinction between a "full" and "deficient" truth of salvation, since, if he is present as the
instrument of salvation, he is always and logically "fully" present.
I did not say that salvation can be achieved by every path. The way of conscience, the keeping of one's gaze focused on
truth and the objective good, is one single way, although it can take many forms because of the great number of
individuals and situations. The good is one, however, and truth does not contradict itself. The fact that man does not attain
one or the other does not relativize the requirement of truth and goodness. For this reason it is not enough to continue in
the religion one has inherited, but one must remain attentive to the true good and thus be able to transcend the limits of
one's own religion. This has meaning only if truth and goodness really exist. It would be impossible to walk the way of
Christ if he did not exist. Living with the eyes of the heart open, purifying oneself inwardly and seeking the light are
indispensable conditions of human salvation. Proclaiming the truth, that is, making the light shine (not putting it "under a
bushel, but on a stand"), is absolutely necessary.

It is not the concept of Church that irritates Protestants, but the biblical interpretation of Dominus Iesus, which says that it
is necessary to oppose "the tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition of the Church's
Magisterium" and "presuppositions ... which hinder the understanding and acceptance of the revealed truth". Jüngel says:
"The inappropriate revaluation of the authority of the Church's Magisterium corresponds to an equally inappropriate
devaluation of the authority of Sacred Scripture".
Fortified by 500 years of experience, modern exegesis has clearly recognized, along with modern literature and the
philosophy of language, that mere self-interpretation of the Scriptures and the clarity resulting from it do not exist. In 1928
Adolf von Harnack said, with typical bluntness, in his correspondence with Erik Peterson that "the so-called 'formal principle'
of old Lutheranism is a critical impossibility; on the contrary, the Catholic one is better". Ernst Käsemann has shown that
the canon of Sacred Scripture as such does not ground the Church's unity, but the multiplicity of confessions. Recently, one
of the most important Evangelical exegetes, Ulrich Luz, has shown that "Scripture alone" opens the way to every possible
interpretation. Lastly, the first generation of the Reformation also had to seek "the centre of Scripture", to obtain an
interpretive key which could not be extrapolated from the text as such. Another practical example: in the clash with Gerd
Lüdemann, a professor who denied the resurrection and divinity of Christ, etc., it has been pointed out that the Evangelical
Church cannot do without a sort of Magisterium. When the contours of the faith are blurred in a chorus of opposing
exegetical efforts (materialist, feminist, liberationist exegeses, etc.), it seems evident that it is precisely the relationship with
the professions of faith, and thus with the Church's living tradition, that guarantees the literal interpretation of Sacred
Scripture, protecting it from subjectivism and preserving its originality and authenticity. Therefore the Magisterium does not
diminish the authority of Sacred Scripture but safeguards it by taking an inferior position to it and allowing the faith flowing
from it to emerge.

The Declaration of your Congregation indicates the acceptance of "apostolic succession" as a decisive criterion for the
definition of a "Sister Church" by the Roman Catholic Church. A Protestant like Jüngel rejects this principle as non-biblical.
For him, the successor of the Apostles is not the Bishop but the biblical canon. In his opinion, any person who lives
according to the Scriptures is a successor of the Apostles.
The assertion that the canon is the successor of the Apostles is an exaggeration and mixes up things that are too different.
The canon of Scripture was arrived at by the Church in a process that continued into the fifth century. The canon, then,
does not exist without the ministry of the successors of the Apostles and, at the same time, establishes the criterion of their
service. The written word is not a substitute for living witnesses, just as the latter cannot replace the written word. Living
witnesses and the written word refer to one another. We share the episcopal structure of the Church as the way to be in
communion with the Apostles, with the whole ancient Church and with the Orthodox Churches; this should give cause for
reflection. When it is asserted that someone who lives according to the Scriptures is a successor of the Apostles, the
following question is left unanswered: who decides what it means to live according to the Scriptures and who judges
whether someone is really doing so? The thesis that the successor of the Apostles is not the Bishop but the biblical canon is
a clear rejection of the Catholic Church's concept. At the same time, however, we are expected to use this same concept to
define the Churches of the Reformation. It is a logic that I frankly do not understand.
Taken from: L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 22 November 2000, page 10; 29 November 2000, page 6; 6
December 2000, page 8. L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See. The Weekly Edition in English is
published for the US by:
The Cathedral Foundation
L'Osservatore Romano English Edition
320 Cathedral St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315
Fax: (410) 332-1069
[email protected]
MORE EWTN LIBRARY DOCUMENTS RELATING TO DOMINUS IESUS
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/DOMIESIN.HTM
The Pope's Words Before the Angelus - Pope John Paul II
Before reciting the Angelus, at the end of Mass, celebrated 1 October 2000 in St Peter's Square for the canonization of 123
new Saints, the Holy Father spoke to those present about the recent document Dominus Iesus, noting that it does not deny
the salvation of non-Christians, but affirms that its ultimate source is Christ.
Dominus Iesus and Ecumenical Dialogue - Cardinal Cahal B. Daly
Cardinal Daly responds to critics of Dominus Iesus, the curial declaration affirming traditional Church teaching on the one
Savior and the one Catholic Church.
Note on the Expression 'Sister Churches' - CDF
The expression "Sister Churches" has sometimes been misused in ecumenical dialogue. This Note, issued 30 June 2000,
clarifies its proper use, as conforming to the teaching of Vatican II and the post-conciliar papal Magisterium. It is
accompanied by a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, summarizing the purpose and
authority of the Note.
Notification on the Book 'Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism' - CDF
This Notification of 24 January 2001 addresses arguments about the concept of salvation in Christ, which can lead one to
think that any religion is, in itself, a valid way for salvation. Rather, five points are affirmed by the Holy See, which clarify
the Church's position on the place of other religions in the plan of God, vis-à-vis Christ, as the only Savior.
Commentary on the Congregation's 'Notification' - LOR
This commentary clarifies the intent of the Notification by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, regarding
ambiguities in the Jacques Dupuis book, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. It was to communicate the fact
that central truths of the Faith cannot be treated as "debatable opinions or disputed questions." 
To National Directors of Pontifical Mission Societies: The Declaration Dominus Iesus - Archbishop Charles
Schleck
Archbishop Schleck, of the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, summarizes the teaching of Dominus Iesus,
clarifying terms, and addressing concerns as to its impact on dialogue with other faiths.

Perils of Pluralism
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2000c/091500/091500e.htm
By John L. Allen Jr., National Catholic Reporter, September 15, 2000
Below are some milestones in the Vatican’s decade-long effort to reassert Catholic belief in the unique
saving role of Christ. The Vatican’s clear stance: Members of other religions may be saved through the
merit of Christ, but the "fullness of the means of salvation" resides only in the Catholic Church.
December 1989: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
warns against placing Buddhist concepts on the same level as Christian revelation. The document,
titled "Some Aspects of Christian Meditation," calls for caution in incorporating practices based on
Eastern spirituality, such as yoga.
March 1993: Ratzinger delivers a speech in Hong Kong warning against "cultural relativism". He
warned specifically against a tendency among certain theologians working in interreligious dialogue to
emphasize the reign of God rather than Christ or the church. Ratzinger mentions Jesuit Fr. Jacques
Dupuis in a footnote.
May 1996: Ratzinger identifies the "theology of religious pluralism" as the gravest threat
facing the church and compares it to liberation theology in the 1980s. Speaking of religious
pluralism, Ratzinger said, "In some ways [it] occupies today -- with regard to the force of its
problematic aspect and its presence in the different areas of culture -- the place occupied by the
theology of liberation in the preceding decade."
January 1997: Sri Lankan theologian Fr. Tissa Balasuriya is excommunicated after being
accused of theological aberrations, including assertions that Christianity is on the same level as other
religions. A year later, the excommunication is lifted after Balasuriya signs a statement expressing
regret for "perceptions of error" in his work and agrees to submit future writings to bishops for
approval before publication.
March 1997: Ratzinger describes Buddhism as "an auto-erotic spirituality" in an interview with a
French newspaper. Ratzinger said, "In the 1950s someone said that the undoing of the Catholic Church
in the 20th century wouldn’t come from Marxism but from Buddhism. They were right."
February 1998: German theologian Perry Schmidt-Leukel is denied permission by Cardinal Friedrich
Wetter of Munich to teach Catholic theology.
Schmidt-Leukel holds that "pluralism", the notion that other religions offer salvation on their own
terms, should be kept as an option. Schmidt-Leukel says he believes Ratzinger was consulted on the
decision.
April-May 1998: At the Synod for Asia, a stark clash between many Asian bishops’ conferences and
the Vatican emerges on questions of Christology and mission. The Japanese bishops, for example, said
in their preparatory document: "If we stress too much that 'Jesus Christ is the One and Only Savior',
we can have no dialogue, common living, or solidarity with other religions." In the synod’s final
document, formed under the influence of Vatican officials, such ideas are not reflected.
August 1998: Ratzinger’s office censures certain ideas in the work of Indian Jesuit Fr. Anthony de
Mello, who died in 1987. De Mello’s work is accused of uncritically blending ideas from Eastern and
Western traditions and of promoting "religious indifferentism".
October 1998: Jesuit Fr. Jacques Dupuis takes a leave of absence from the Gregorian University
in Rome in order to answer charges against him concerning his book, Towards a Christian Theology of
Religious Pluralism, in which he argued that Christ as God’s Eternal Word can be active in non-Christian
religions. Dupuis’ response runs to some 118 pages, but fails to satisfy Vatican concerns.
November 1999: Pope John Paul II delivers the official concluding document from the Synod for Asia
during a visit to New Delhi, India. The document emphasizes Jesus as the unique savior of humanity
and calls for a new round of "proclamation" of the gospel, widely seen in Asia as a call for religious
conversion.
July 2000: American Jesuit Fr. Roger Haight confirms that he is under investigation by
Ratzinger’s office for his book Jesus: The Symbol of God. In it, Haight argues that other world religions
can offer pathways to God alongside Christianity.
September 2000: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issues Dominus Iesus. In
the same week, Dupuis is brought before Ratzinger and asked to comment on a document citing errors
in his work. He voices disagreement, leaving the outcome of the case uncertain.
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/330196/Dominus%20Iesus:
Dominus Iesus is a difficult document originally aimed at the Latin Church in India
because of its syncretistic tendencies. It was never actually intended to reflect upon the
Orthodox or any of the other Apostolic Churches, including the Eastern Catholic
Churches.

Cardinal Ratzinger Considers Whether Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Are Compatible
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/cardratzinger_tt_oct04.asp
October 2004
Jesus Christ is the only savior, says Christianity. "Can this absolute claim still be maintained today?" That’s the question
addressed by the Vatican’s Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in his new book, Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World
Religions.
When, in 2000, the Catholic Church reiterated its teaching about Jesus in its declaration Dominus Iesus, "a cry of
outrage arose from modern society," notes Ratzinger, "but also from great non-Christian cultures such as
that of India: this was said to be a document of intolerance and of religious arrogance that should have no
place in the world of today." Ratzinger argues that the Church’s teaching is not intolerant but true.
How can Christianity insist it is true in the face of other religions and philosophies making competing claims? Do truth and
tolerance inevitably conflict with each other? Does respect for others mean all religions are equally true? Does the diversity
of religions prove there’s no such thing as religious truth? Or do all religions ultimately teach the same thing? Are all
religions capable of saving their adherents?
Truth and Tolerance is Ratzinger’s careful answers to these important questions.
Ratzinger confronts head-on the claim that Christianity has imposed European culture on other peoples. "Christianity …
originated, not in Europe, but in the Near East, in the geographical point at which the continents of Asia, Africa, and Europe
come into contact," he writes.
Yes, Christianity has a European element. But above all it has a perennial message that comes from God, not from any
human culture, argues Ratzinger. While Christians have sometimes pushed their cultures on other peoples, as have non-
Christians, Christianity itself is alien to no authentically human culture. Its very nature as a free response to God’s gift of
himself in Jesus Christ means that Christianity must propose itself to culture, not impose itself.
The issues of truth and diversity in religion are also tackled by Ratzinger. Some people relegate religion to the realm of
feelings and taste. As people’s feelings and tastes vary, so, too, do their religious ideas and practices. Ratzinger responds
by presenting what he calls "the inevitability of the question of truth."
Other people argue that all religions essentially affirm the same things. Truth and Tolerance points to fundamental, non-
negotiable differences among religions, as well as certain common elements.
Ratzinger distinguishes two main forms of religion. On the one hand, there is a kind of mysticism in which
one seeks to merge into or become identical with everything, in an all-embracing, impersonal unity. Many
Eastern religions and the New Age movement are religions of that sort. On the other hand, there is "a personal
understanding of God," in which one is united in love with a personal God and yet remains distinct from him. Christianity,
Judaism, and Islam are examples of the latter kind of religion.
A first-rate theologian, as well as a church leader, Ratzinger also assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the three main
contemporary approaches to a "theology of religions": exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism.
Exclusivism holds that only those who explicitly accept Christ and the Christian message can be saved. Inclusivism is the
view that non-Christian religions implicitly contain Christian truth and therefore that their adherents are "anonymous
Christians." Pluralism holds that there are many valid ways to God among the various religions.
At the heart of the discussion about the diversity of religions, contends Ratzinger, is the identity of Jesus Christ. Is the he
the sole savior, prefigured by other religious leaders perhaps but nonetheless unique? Is he one among many religious
figures who bring salvation? Is he the one true God in human flesh, rather an avatar or one among many different
manifestations of the divine?
Christianity has always held that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is definitive, argues Ratzinger. The divinity of Jesus is
"the real dividing line in the history of religions," which makes sense of "two other fundamental concepts of the Christian
faith, which have become unmentionable nowadays: conversion and mission."
Relativism, which Ratzinger calls "the central problem for faith in our time," lurks behind most modern mistakes about faith
and morality. The net result is a deep skepticism about whether anything is true or can be known to be true.
Christianity can help modern thought overcome its relativism and skepticism by presenting the One who is the truth, Jesus
Christ, the one who sets people free by their coming to know, understand and love the truth. Ratzinger explains how
tolerance, reason and freedom are not only compatible with truth, but ultimately depend upon it.
With respect to the difficult subject of things interreligious, Ratzinger strongly supports interreligious dialogue, so long as it
isn’t understood as assuming all points of view are and must be, in the end, equally valid. About interreligious prayer—
understood as prayer together by Christians and non-Christians, with widely different religious views—he is more skeptical.
He distinguishes multireligious prayer, where different religious groups come together but pray separate from one another,
and interreligious prayer.
Ratzinger doubts whether reasonable conditions for interreligious prayer can generally be met. Still, he lays out careful
criteria for such prayer, which include agreement about the nature of God, and the nature and subject of prayer, as well
circumstances that don’t lend themselves to misunderstanding such common prayer as relativism or a denial of the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ in the Christian faith.
Truth and Tolerance is a book for anyone interested in how Christianity, world religions, faith, truth, and freedom fit
together.

A LETTER FROM AN INDIAN CARMELITE THEOLOGIAN IN RESPONSE TO MY REPORT

“THEOLOGIANS LAMBAST THE VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE NEW AGE”
From: sebastian athappilly Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:37:55 +0530 (IST)
Subject: Re: JEEVADHARA MAY 2004: THEOLOGIANS LAMBAST THE VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE NEW AGE
Dear Michael Prabhu,
Thanks once again. I have gone through your comments. I can only agree with you. I presume you are a priest and
theologian. I am only glad that you have critically evaluated the many writings and docs.
In January this year there was a colloquium organized by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith and the CBCI
Doctrinal Commission in India in Bangalore. I was one of those assigned to present papers. My paper was on the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the universal saviour, a position I cannot but firmly hold in the light of my faith
based on the revelation in the Bible as well as the teaching of the Church.
Have you brought your observations to the attention of the Nuncio and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
I have an acquaintance there and I also have some official contacts with [nn.].
A Jesuit Fr. P. K. George from Shoranur is also very much concerned about the unorthodox teachings of some theologians
in India and has discussed with me certain matters. If you would like, I shall give you the email address of my friend Fr nn.
working at the Vatican as well as the postal address of Fr. P. K. George, SJ.
The authors or theologians of whom you have made critical remarks are all known to me from their writings and attitudes.
Hope that the authorities really grasp the subtle and dangerous positions represented by some of the theologians, whether
from America or India or anywhere. In face to face discussions or colloquia all of these theologians present often a different
picture, namely of being loyal and orthodox, especially when there are persons from the higher authoritative circles. This is
the joke! In my articles and the latest book on Christology Today (2007) I have sharply criticized the authors who are
against the Vatican Document Dominus Iesus. I am still teaching at Dharmaram College, Bangalore, as visiting professor.
God bless us all. Best wishes! Fr Sebastian
Pater Prof. Dr Sebastian Athappilly, CMI, Seelsorger, LKH Univ. Klinik, Graz Mobile phone (Handy): 0043-676-8742-6635  
1) Wohnung (Residence): KATH. PFARRAMT St LEONHARD, LEONHARDPLATZ 14, 8010 GRAZ, Austria, Europe.