Dominus Jesus maintains the Council's positive attitude to non-Catholics: but

it also recovers Vatican II's teachings on Christ and the authority of the Catholic Church, explains Fr Ian Ker
What has he pulled out of his bag now?
FTER THE First Vatican Council Newman observed that up until then Trent had been the last Council "and our theologians during a long 300 years had prepared us ... now we are new born children, the birth of the Vatican Council ... We do not know what exactly we hold — what we may grant, what we must maintain." He pointed out that Councils were frequently followed by bitter contro versies within the Church.
Although there was no dogmatic definition at Vatican II comparable to the 1870 definition of papal infallibility, nevertheless Newman's words could be said to apply with much greater force to the second Council. After all, the ordinary Catholic was immediately and intimately affected by the radical liturgical reforms, to take only the most obvious of the changes. The atmosphere was one not of reform so much as revolution.
The most vocal reactions to the apparent collapse of Tridentine Catholicism and the end of the counter-Reformation came from the extreme ends of the socalled left and right wings. Archbishop Lefebvre withdrew into an eventual schismatic position of protest, while Hans Kung and his allies insisted that the crisis was the result of not fully realising what came to be referred to as "the spirit of Vatican II.
There was, however, a via media, which I have no doubt that great historian and theologian of the early Councils of the Church would have taken. Newman, who would certainly have been not in the least surprised at the post-conciliar chaos and strife, would have insisted that time was needed to integrate the Council into the Church's tradition.
It required the work of theologians on the one hand, and the charisms of those men and women that the Holy Spirit would raise up from among the baptised, for after all the Tridentine Church has been created as much by the great saints of the counterReformation as by the actual decrees of Trent.
But although Newman once memorably wrote that "Theology is the fundamental and regulating principle of the whole Church system", he had no intention of minitnising what he called the "regal" office of the Church in comparison with the "prophetic" or theological office. The teaching authority or magistetium of the Church has also an indispensable role to play.
The Declaration Dominus Jesus of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is a good example of the way in which the Church is "receiving" and interpreting the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. In its Declaration on the relation of the Church to
non-Christian religions, the Council stated unequivocally that "the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions" which " often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men". But while the Council was unambiguous in affirming the possibility of salvation for those who are not explicit Christian believers, it was very careful at the same time to maintain that all who are saved arc ultimately saved by Christ who alone is "the way, the truth, and the life". In this way the Council reasserted the Catholic Church's rejection of both the narrowness and exclusivity of the Evangelical Protestantism which restricts salvation to Christian believers, as well as any kind of Liberal Protestant approach which undermines the uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator. And since Christ who died for all is the sole source of salvation, that means that those who are saved, even if they are not Christians, must somehow be enabled by the Holy Spirit to partake, "in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery".
Inevitably no doubt, the Council's open and positive approach has been exaggerated and distorted in the post conciliar period. Relativistic theories at' religious pluralism have caused the pendulum to swing to the other extreme of the worst kind of pre-conciliar triumphalism. The present Declaration does not seek to dilute the Council's teachings on this subject but warns against the sort of "indifferentism" that one frequently encounters to-day both in ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue.
IN IIIS DAY Newman deplored the lack of theological freedom and creativity in the Church. With a distinguished German theologian at the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is not surprising that the Declaration goes out of its way to emphasise the role theology has to play in this increasingly important area — always provided of course that there is no infringement on the fundamental Christian doctrine: "...theology to-day, 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 salva
lion." It reminds us that the Council allowed that "the unique mediation of the redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold co-operation which is but a participation in this one source". It is this participation which theology must explore more deeply, but always without prejudice to the unique mediation of Christ.
However, the Catholic understanding of Christ's redemption inextricably involves his Body, the Church. And it is part of the Catholic Faith, solemnly declared in the creeds, that the oneness of the Church is one of her essential notes — like the catholicity and apostolicity ("We believe in one..."). This doesn't mean that this oneness can't be damaged or wounded by Christian disunity. The Declaration notes that the famous expression in the Vatican II Constitution on the Church to the effect that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Roman Catholic Church sought to harmonise the doctrine of the oneness with the fact that other baptised Christians, especially those with valid sacraments, cannot simply be dismissed as non-members of the Church, which in fact they have varying degrees of communion. The Declaration makes a distinction between the Orthodox Churches which have the apostolic succession and valid sacraments and which can therefore be called "true particular Churches" and other ecclesial communities which "are not Churches in the proper sense".
Clearly this part of the Declaration will cause most offence in this country as the Church of England does claim to be Catholic in that sense. But the fact is that for all the progress made by ARCIC the Catholic Church does not accept that claim. Nor of course does it accept the "branch theory" of the Church because of the doctrine of oneness. On the question of dialogue with other religions and other Christians, the Declaration makes a significant distinction: the equality which genuine dialogue presupposes "refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content".
The Declaration was preceded by a "Note" from the Congregation sent to the presidents of Episcopal conferences.
This concerns the common ecumenical use of the term "sister Churches", employed by the magisterium itself, as the Note carefully docu ments. This is perfectly acceptable provided it is only used of particular Churches. But to speak of the Catholic Church as the sister Church of the Orthodox Church would be to deny the fundamental Catholic belief in the oneness and uniqueness of the Catholic Church which is not the sister but the mother of all particular Churches.
This note has clear implication for ARCIC. For not only is it only those ecclesial communities with apostolic succession and valid sacraments that can properly be referred to as sister Churches, but the expression "our two Churches" which is used in the preface to the most recent ARCIC agreed statement and signed by the then Catholic co-chairman, Cormac Murphy O'Connor, is expressly warned against.
Both documents have been criticised for exuding an air of triumphalism that is alleged to be inconsistent with the eirenic approach of John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council. But that good pope, whose name is so often invoked in ways he would never have approved of, would scarcely have supposed that technical doctrinal teachings like these should be written in the same style as his own pastoral discourses. Far from being triumphalistic, these two statements are written in sober, careful, precise theological language. Such "precision", as Newman remarked in On Consulting the Faithful in. Matters of Doctrine, "is the only human means by which the treasure of faith can be kept inviolate".