The Second Vatican Council
In the light of these factors the Catholic Church reflected upon its dogmatic heritage and interpreted its teachings in the modern context in the Second Vatican Council (1962–5). I will outline the major theologoumena that relate to my topic.10 I will argue that we find central dogmatic continuity with the ancient faith but also important innovations and developments in the modern communal thinking-through of these dogmatic issues. Before moving to these texts, I would remind readers that all the teachings advanced below are biblically grounded, but I am unable to attend to that grounding in what follows and take it for granted. For a more robust and extended explication of my position, such a biblical defence would be very necessary.11
God, Christ, the Church: the story of the fall and the coming of salvation
The most important dogmatic document (in contrast to a pastoral document or declaration) on this question is The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church 16 (Lumen Gentium, 1964 – subsequently LG). Before turning to section 16 in detail, it needs contextualizing. LG 1–7 reiterates previous teachings. It starts with the basic Catholic plot-line: God created the world, which was good. After the fall humans seek the living God and yearn for that original communion that has been lost. That restoration begins in Israel and the broken relationship is fully and finally restored in the second Adam, Christ, who is founder of the Church. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it:
Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in . . . Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of . . . Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to ‘convict the world concerning sin’ (Jn. 16:8), by revealing him who is the Redeemer.12
The document then expands on the trinitarian foundation of the Church through the Father, and the Son who founded the Church through the power of the Spirit (2–4). It recognizes the way the kingdom is made present in the Church, primarily through its sacramental character but also in the works of charity that follow conversion of the heart, mind and will to God (5). It shows how the Church is prefigured in the Old Testament (6) and then reflects upon New Testament images of the Church (7), leading to the conclusion that the Church is the sacramental mediator of saving grace: ‘Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (*)13 through which He communicated truth and grace to all (8). It is then stated that this unique Church of Christ ‘subsists [subsistit] in the [Roman] Catholic Church . . .’. This term ‘subsists’ replaced the term ‘is’ [est] in the original draft, and there has been much discussion about the significance of ‘subsists’.14 The same sentence continues: ‘although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.’
The rest of the document until paragraph 16 delineates the different types of relation and belonging to the Church, first for Catholics and then for other Christians and then finally in section 16 in relation to other religions. Catholics are fully ‘incorporated’ (plene incorporantur) into the Church and catechumens are ‘united’ (coniunguntur) to the Church in virtue of their desire to join the Church (14). The term voto (desire) is used solely for catechumens. Then come non-Catholic Christians, who are ‘joined’ (coniuncti) to the Church for various reasons, but are ‘incorporated’ (incorporantur) into Christ. Finally, in paragraph 16 the Council turns to non-Christian religions and non-religions. The stage is now set for our topic and three points are important.
First, LG reiterates the ancient teaching: extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the Church) but with a different phrase: ‘Docet autem, sacra scriptura et traditione innixa, Ecclesiam hanc peregrinantem necessariam esse ad salute’ (‘Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation’).15 The different Latin phrase outlines an important shift of emphasis: the old dogmatic truth is reiterated – that Christ and his Church are necessary for salvation; but that truth is now expressed not in negative relation to others – no salvation outside Christ and his Church, but as a positive teaching about the Church and its binding force upon Catholics. Hence, this same section ends: ‘Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved’ (14). What was often employed negatively against non-Christians before is now turned into a profound call to Catholic Christians and those who truly hear the gospel message. But it does not negate the objective claim that the Church is necessary for salvation. Rather there is an acknowledgement that hermeneutically, the way this might apply to different groups requires contextualizing and further theological reflection.
Before the Council there had already been clarification on extra ecclesiam nulla salus when in 1949 the Holy Office, now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, condemned the teachings of Leonard Feeney SJ, who held to a literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Feeney claimed all non-Catholics were damned: including other Christian denominations as well as those in non-Christian religions. The Holy Office issued a letter against Feeney’s literal interpretation making it clear that the teaching did not mean damnation for all those who were not Roman Catholics. The letter stressed that all people who had not explicitly rejected the gospel had a possibility of being ‘related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire’.16 This teaching would find different expression in the Council, which dropped the notion of ‘unconscious desire’ and ‘Mystical’ Body, as the former was just one model of explaining how this might happen and the Council was not keen to close down discussion in this area, but simply offer a general orientation. It thus still insisted on a connection to the Body of Christ, the Church. The Council also reiterated the clear teaching that those who die not knowing Christ on earth, and even those who do not know God, might still be saved:
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. (16)
This is not Pelagianism through the back door, but presumes grace for the possibility of the ‘good life’. This is very important to stress, for otherwise the effects of original sin would be gravely eclipsed, undermining dogmatic truth.
Here we have the Christological, trinitarian and ecclesiological theologoumena delicately welded together in Catholic theology. Christ, the self-revelation of the triune God, through the power of the Spirit is the source of all salvation. But Christ through the power of the Spirit founds the Church, which is his instrument for salvation to the entire world because the Church is the sacramental body of Christ to the world. Thus all non-Christians who are saved are related to the Church. The relationship of Christ to the Church and precisely how it is to be explained in the context of the salvation of non-Christians is a matter for Catholic theologians to attend to. The Council was simply laying down the legitimate dogmatic parameters for reflection reiterating the