Читать книгу Only One Way? - Gavin D'Costa - Страница 19

What is the theological status of these religions in the light of the two sets of discussion above? There is widespread consensus that Vatican II was silent about the theological status of these religions in terms of denying or affirming that they can be viewed as ‘salvific means’.41 The Council itself does use a group of cognate phrases that indicates a reasonably clear answer. In the most important dogmatic document, LG 16, we find the important phrases that these positive elements in the religions and non-religions are ‘considered by the church as a preparation for the gospel [praeparatio evangelica]’.42 Eusebius and the tradition after him that employed this phrase did not impute any salvific significance to what was to be found in the traditions, but rather that the truth there at least provided a bridge whereby the gospel might be understood and error abandoned. The prisca theologia tradition is not invoked, but the logos spermatikos or semina verbi is. In NA 2 it says of the religions that while differing from the Catholic Church’s teachings they nevertheless ‘often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men [sic!]’. This is also found in AG 11, which says that Christians living among non-Christians ‘should be familiar with their national and religious traditions and uncover with gladness and respect those seeds of the Word which lie hidden among them’. From Justin Martyr onwards and in the Council, ‘seeds’ is not used in any way to justify religions per se but denotes them as preparatory, like Aquinas’s potentiality, for the coming of Christ even while being immersed in error and superstition.43

Given the subsequent heated theological debate on this matter after the Council, the magisterium issued a specific declaration on this issue: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church (Dominus Iesus, 2000; subsequently DI). Paragraphs 20–2 address the intention of the Council teachings and also indicate illegitimate explications from the Council documents. DI acknowledges that while the religions may contain truth and goodness moved by the Spirit, nevertheless: ‘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’. This thereby counters any form of pluralism de iure (in principle). It also shows why the other religions cannot be understood as a ‘means of salvation’ as this term is uniquely applied to the Church precisely because of its Christological foundations. It is for this reason that the document is able to say, despite the many positive teachings that are unhesitatingly repeated, that the other religions per se cannot be understood as ways to salvation. Section 21 is important (as are its notes):

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.44,89

The door is thus closed on trying to establish any form of pluralism de iure,45 but it is kept open to explore how these religions might be forms of ‘participated mediation’ in so much as their positive elements might actually be part of God’s plan to lead all people to Christ. These positive elements cannot be viewed as positive in themselves, but only as some form of praeparatio. Such a distinction is crucial. DI rightly suggests that this is a question that requires serious theological exploration. However, it also needs to be said that the ‘positive elements’ that might act in this fashion are not necessarily how those religions would interpret themselves. The meaning of religions is not fixed, although one must take the various historical forms seriously that contest what the right interpretation of a religion is. But logically speaking, to turn the situation around, a Muslim has both the epistemological and political right to claim that the true meaning of Christianity is disclosed in the Qur’an and has been misunderstood by mainstream Christianity. The Christian at least would then need to turn to the Qur’an and the Bible to try and refute this claim Quranically, and if they could not, they would then have to try and show why Christianity better understands the meaning of Islam. Whether there is any resolution to such arguments is not relevant. That they are required is all-important. For example: many mainstream Jews would resist the affirmation that the Church might give to the positive elements drawn from Judaism. How so? If these affirmations were to end in Christian support for messianic Judaism or Jews for Jesus or Hebrew Christians. Likewise, if a Muslim considered unorthodox because they believed Isa (Jesus) to be a fulfilment of the Prophet’s teaching. What the Church might deem ‘positive elements’, as happened with Justin and Eusebius, are not necessarily viewed in the same light by the non-Christian to whose traditions they belong. Of course, in very many cases the positive elements will be mutually affirmed by both Christians and the partner, as in almsgiving and fasting, valued by Muslims and Catholics. And in some cases the positive elements might cause deep shame and also learning and wonder in a Catholic.

To summarize: while other religions might be affirmed in the way outlined above, they can only be seen as part of God’s plan in so much as they provide a praeparatio to the gospel, but not in themselves as a means of salvation. While saying this latter, there is no implication that non-Christians are damned or that genuine holiness is to be found in adherents, and wisdom in their traditions. We see emerging a nuanced and delicate balance between a group of theological principles that uphold both the ancient orthodox faith of the Catholic Church as well as positively engaging with this new context whereby the religions are seen as other than schismatic and heretical cultural configurations. Of course, that they might contain idolatries of all sorts is also an important continuity in teaching. This point is consistently made in all the documents we have examined. I have been stressing the positive themes, but they cannot be taken seriously and in a balanced manner without taking seriously the reality of sin. LG 16 adds this ominous and realistic note after the positive appraisal of the religions:

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. (See Rom. 1.21, 25) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, ‘Preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mark 16.16) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.