Michael Amaladoss

Michael Amaladoss, S.J

The Second Vatican Council 50 Years After
Occasionally we hear calls for a Third Vatican Council. The calls may be too early. We have not fully absorbed and implemented the Second Vatican Council yet. Fifty years after the beginnings of the Council is a time to assess the progress we have made and to look forward. Though the Council made 16 documents I think that its major new thrusts were in three areas: the universal Church as a communion of local Churches; the Church as primarily the People of God, at whose service there are ministers; and a Church in dialogue with the world, with other religions and other Churches.

A Communion of Churches
Its very first document on the Liturgy laid the ground work for a vision of the universal Church as a communion of local Churches. It spoke of the need to inculturate the liturgy and gave this responsibility to local Bishops’ conferences. (Document on Worship – W 37-40) The use of the local languages and music visibilize the variety of local Churches. National and regional conferences of Bishops meet regularly. The Synod of Bishops is also celebrated regularly. (Document on Bishops-B 36-38) Though how autonomous the local Churches really are remains a question, the framework is there. (Document on the Church-C 13) In India, for instance, while the official liturgy has been a touchy point, some movement is visible in the area of popular religiosity, spirituality and theology. The Christians are also in dialogue with secular society as Dalit, Tribal, Feminist and Ecological theologies bear witness. That the Church organization is strongly centralized is also undeniable. But in a post-colonial era the people cannot be totally dominated. People in positions of leadership are probably more sensitive to centralization than others. An occasional challenge is thrown our way as when John Paul II wrote in Fides et Ratio: “An immense spiritual impulse compels the Indian mind to an acquiring of that experience which would, with a spirit freed from the distractions of time and space, attain to the absolute good. This is the time, above all for Indian Christians, to unlock these treasures from their inheritance.” (72) When the Hindutva brigade calls Christianity a foreign religion we cannot really jump up and say that we are fully Indian, self-financing, self-propagating and self-governing. We still have a long way to go to become an Indian Church, not merely the Church in India. It is our task: it will not be anyone else’s gift.

The Church as the People of God
The second major thrust of the Council is the self-understanding of the Church as the People of God. (C 9-17) The First Vatican Council had focused on the authority of the Pope. The Second Vatican Council balanced it with Episcopal collegiality. The various Bishops’ Conferences and the Synod of Bishops do offer a framework for the exercise of collegiality. But the structure and the forces of centralization in the Church today seem strong, reducing college to a mere consultative role. The Latin Church is nowhere near the synodal system of the Oriental Churches. John Paul II did ask theologians to explore the nature and of the Papal office in the Church. Though there have been some studies and statements like the one on authority in the Church by an Anglican – Roman Catholic Commission, there has not been much movement. It is true that the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Churches in India have succeeded in acquiring some autonomy, which the Latin Church does not have. But the development that has been largely ignored in practice is the realization of the Church as the People of God. The Council, before talking about its hierarchical structure, presents the Church as the People of God. It is the people of the new covenant with the law of God written in their hearts. (cf. Jer 31:31-34) St. Peter calls it “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation… who in times past were not a people, but now are the People of God.” (1 Pet 2:9-10) The people are priests participating in the priesthood of Christ, offering not only Christ’s sacrifice as his body, but themselves. The presbyters only have a ministerial or service role. The People of God also share in Christ’s prophetic office. The Council says: “The whole body of the faithful… cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when ‘from the bishops to the last faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.” (C 12) There is a fine balance here between the ‘sense of the faithful’ and the official teaching of the Pope and the bishops. The Holy Spirit also gives special gifts to the people, not for their own benefit, but for the service of the people. (cf. 1 Cor 12:7-11) Unfortunately the Church remains largely and strongly clergy-dominated. Rather than being a consensual, not majoritarian, democracy, the Church is seen as essentially hierarchical and autocratic with the leaders enjoying absolute authority.

A Church in Dialogue
While these two thrusts can be seen as rather internal to the Church, the third makes the Church look outside itself. At the Council the Church enters into dialogue with the world. In its document on The Church in the Modern World (CMW), it does not take a merely negative view of the modern world, with its secularization and even atheism, but seeks to dialogue with it, focusing particularly on the family, culture, socio-economic development, political life and peace. As a matter of fact the document is addressed, not only to Catholics, but to the whole of humanity. It has a section on dialogue between the Church and the world. (CMW 40-44) In true dialogical fashion, it is not only ready to offer, but also to receive from the world. (CMW 44) In its document on Religious Freedom (RF) it dialogues with political structures demanding freedom, not only for itself, but for all religions. We can say that it indirectly dialogue with the religions too acknowledging them as legitimate holders of rights. The desire for dialogue is more explicit in its document on Other Religions (OR), focusing particularly on Islam and Judaism. It opens up finally to other ecclesial communities in its document on Ecumenism (E). A certain theological background to such dialogue, especially with reference to other religions, is provided by other more dogmatic documents on the Church(C), Divine Revelation (DR) and Mission (M). I think that this is an important development that is going to determine increasingly the identity and action of the Church in the world in the 21st century. So I would like to focus on it in the rest of the article. I shall start with the dogmatic statements, move on to the pastoral directives and then reflect on the theological vision and implications for mission. At the end I shall show how it links to the other two thrusts that I have mentioned in the beginning.

The Mission of God
I think that what we have in the Council documents are two, but interrelated, ways of God’s presence and action in the world. But their relationship can be interpreted in different ways. While the Council speaks of both ways it is not always clear about the relationship between them. Perhaps our Indian experience and reflection may give some insight into this. I shall try to show this.

The Document on Mission speaks on, what is called popularly today, the ‘mission of God’.
The Church on earth is by its very nature missionary since, according to the plan of the Father, it has its origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit. This plan flows from ‘fountain-like love,’ the love of God the Father… God in his great and merciful kindness freely creates us and moreover, graciously calls us to share in his life and glory. He generously pours out, and never ceases to pour out, his divine goodness, so that he who is creator of all things might at last become ‘all in all’ (1 Cor 15:28). (M 2)

This presence and action of the Word and the Spirit, starting with creation, are obviously found everywhere and always. But God’s mission acquires a new form with Jesus Christ.
However, in order to establish a relationship of peace and communion with himself, and in order to bring about brotherly union among men… God decided to enter into the history of mankind in a new and definitive manner, by sending his own Son in human flesh… so that he might make men sharers in the divine nature. (M 3)

To do this, Christ sent the Holy Spirit from the Father to exercise inwardly his saving influence, and to promote the spread of the Church. Without doubt, the Holy Spirit was at work in the world before Christ was glorified. On the day of Pentecost, however, he came down on the disciples that he might remain with them forever. (cf. Jn 14:16) (M 4)

The question we can ask is whether the mission of the Word and the Spirit from creation ends when the Word became flesh and the Spirit was given to the Church or continue, not in a parallel, but in a deeper, related way. In the document on The Church in the Modern World we read:
The Christian…, as one who has been made a partner in the paschal mystery, and as one who has been configured to the death of Christ, .. will go forward, strengthened by hope, to the resurrection. All this holds true not for Christians only 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. (CMW 22)

It seems clear that, while it is possible for all humans to have a share in the paschal mystery, for some it comes through the Church, while for others it is accessible through other ways known to God. The fundamental unity behind the pluralism of religions is affirmed in the document on Other Religions:

All men form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth (cf. Acts 17:26), and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all men (cf. Wis 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom 2:6-7; 1 Tim 2:4). (OR 1)

The question then is what is the relationship between these different ways through which God seems to be reaching out to humanity. Let us look at some more texts before we take up the question again. Since we know well and agree about God’s saving action in Jesus Christ and the Church, let us rather focus on the ‘mission of God’. The document on Divine Revelation asserts:
God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, (cf. Jn 1:3), provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities (cf. Rom 1:19-20). And furthermore, wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation, he manifested himself to our first parents from the very beginning. After the fall, he buoyed them up with the hope of salvation by promising redemption (f. Gen 3:15); and he has never ceased to take care of the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing (cf. Rom 2:6-7). (DR 3)

This describes the ‘Mission of God’. It then goes on to talk about Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ. The document on The Church makes a similar affirmation.

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, through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation. (C 16)

The document The Church in the Modern World says:
It is by the gift of the Holy Spirit that man, through faith, comes to contemplate and savour the mystery of God’s design. Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. His voice, even calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells him inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. His dignity lies in observing this law, and by it he will be judged. (CMW 15-16)

Here conscience is evoked as the place where God makes God’s presence and will felt. Conscience is given a collective dimension in the document on Religious Freedom.
It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters. The reason is because the practice of religion of its very nature consists primarily of those voluntary and free internal acts by which a man directs himself to God… his own social nature requires that man give external expression to these internal acts of religion, that he communicate with others on religious matters, and profess his religion in community. (RF 3)

Here we see, not merely man’s individual conscience, but his collective and religious conscience given freedom and protection. God reaches out to the humans not merely as individuals but also in their socio-religious structures. (Cf. also M 3) This is, of course, balanced with statements like:
The Lord Jesus… founded his Church as the sacrament of salvation; and just as he had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn 20:21), so he sent the apostles into the whole world… Hence the Church has an obligation to proclaim the faith and salvation which comes from Christ… (M 5)

The Church’s Mission at the Service of God’s Mission
Looking at all these texts it seems clear that in many of its documents the Council holds on to the vision that God, the Word and the Spirit are present and active everywhere and always. That this happens, not only in human hearts, but also in their religions seems to be indicated, though this would be developed further by Asian theologians. This presence and action of God is salvific. But all salvation is a participation in the paschal mystery of Christ, either known and acknowledged or unknown. At the same time, Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Word has proclaimed and is realizing God’s kingdom in history and has commissioned the Church to proclaim it to all peoples and make disciples. (cf. Mt 28:181-20) We know as a historical fact that the majority of humanity so far are not members of the Church and have salvation available to them through ways known to God alone.

How do we come to terms with this complex experience of the mission of God through the Word and the Spirit always and everywhere and the mission of the same God in and through Jesus Christ and the Church? There seems to be two paradigms in the Council itself. One is the paradigm of preparation-fulfillment. We move from God’s covenant in nature and go on to Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Jesus is the fulfillment of all that has gone before. Once Jesus is there the others are no longer relevant except as promises pointing to the fulfillment that has already been reached. (M 3) The previous manifestations of God are at the service of God’s self manifestation in Jesus and the Church, preparing for it and leading to it. Dialogue with them is a way of preparing them for their fulfillment in the Church. God’s mission is at the service of Christ’s and the Church’s mission. This is the paradigm that is generally accepted in the Church today. (John Paul II, The Mission of the Redeemer, 28-29) The problem is that the majority of humanity, in the past, in the present and most probably also in the future, does not seem to follow this path. They never reach such fulfillment in the Church in this life. They are beyond the reach of the Church.

The second paradigm is not so uni-linear, but pluralistic without being relativistic. God is manifesting God’s self to people in various ways in history. All such manifestations, since they are divine, are salvific. One of these manifestations is the incarnate one in Jesus Christ, continued in the Church. This particular manifestation may be more perfect, but does not abolish or do away with other manifestations. Rather it is at their service, reaching out to them and bringing all God’s manifestations to a communion. This is an eschatological goal. In the meantime, the Church is helping them towards this goal through dialogue. The mission of the Church is at the service of God’s mission, which is broader and more inclusive. God’s mission, unlike the Church, is actually reaching out to everyone at any given time, in ways known to God.

This second paradigm is the common one in Asian theology today. One way to understand this is to contrast the Church and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is the goal of God’s mission. The Church is not the Kingdom but only a pilgrim towards it. As the document on the Church says:

The Church, endowed with the gifts of her founder and faithfully observing his precepts of charity, humility and self-denial, received the mission of proclaiming and establishing among all people the kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is, on earth, the seed and the beginning of that kingdom. While she slowly grows to maturity, the Church longs for the completed kingdom and, with all her strength, hopes and desires to be united in glory with her king. (C 5)

The whole chapter 7 of the document on the Church speaks of it as a pilgrim which will “receive its perfection only in the glory of heaven”. (C 48) Therefore it is not proper to set up the Church as the fulfillment of other religions. The Church, like the other religions, is also a pilgrim on its way. Its own fullness is in the future. It cannot be presented as the fullness of other religions.
All religions, including the Church, are not merely God’s initiative, but also human response and, therefore, may be tinged by limitations and even sin. It is in mutual dialogue that these can be challenged and corrected. The Church is not exempt from this situation.

A theological consultation on “Evangelization in Asia” organized by the Office for Evangelization of the FABC says:
The Kingdom of God is therefore universally present and at work. Wherever men and women open themselves to the transcendent Divine Mystery which impinges upon them, and go out of themselves in love and service of fellow humans, there the Reign of God is at work… “Where God is accepted, where the Gospel values are lived, where the human being is respected… there is the Kingdom.” In all such cases people respond to God’s offer of grace through Christ in the Spirit and enter into the kingdom through an act of faith…

This goes to show that the Reign of God is a universal reality, extending far beyond the boundaries of the Church. It is the reality of salvation in Jesus Christ, in which Christians and others share together; it is the fundamental “mystery of unity” which unites us more deeply than differences in religious allegiance are able to keep us apart.

The Indian Bishops in their response to the Lineamenta before the say Synod for Asia:
As God’s Spirit called the Churches of the East to conversion and mission witness (see Rev 2-3), we too hear this same Spirit bidding us to be truly catholic, open and collaborating with the Word who is actively present in the great religious traditions of Asia today. Confident trust and discernment, not anxiety and over-caution, must regulate our relations with these many brothers and sisters. For together with them we form one community, stemming from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth. We share with them a common destiny and providence. Walking together we are called to travel the same paschal pilgrimage with Christ to the one Father of us all (see Lk 24:13ff, NA 1, and GS 22)

They Continue to Say:
In the light of the universal salvific will and design of God, so emphatically affirmed in the New Testament witness, the Indian Christological approach seeks to avoid negative and exclusivistic expressions. Christ is the sacrament, the definitive symbol of God’s salvation for all humanity. This is what the salvific uniqueness and universality of Christ 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.

It is my contention that the Council has laid the basis for such a vision by making it clear that the mission of God continues in the world and not identifying it with the mission of the Church. The Council is also telling us, both directly and indirectly, that the way of mission (for the Church) is dialogue with God’s mission manifested in various ways in history. This is done in the documents on The Church in the Modern World, Other Religions, Religious Freedom and Ecumenism. How does this link to the two thrusts that I had mentioned in the beginning?

1. Josef Eilers (ed), For All the Peoples of Asia, Vol II (Manila: Claretian, 1997), p.200
2. See Peter C. Phan (ed), The Asian Synod: Texts and Commentaries. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002) , p.21.
3. Ibid.,p.22.

First of all, since God is speaking to a particular people in a particular time, place and culture, it is bound to be ‘inculturated’. The Christian community can dialogue with God’s mission in that culture only if it is also inculturated. That means that it must become an authentic local Church, more local than it happens to be. As a matter of fact, the Asian bishops at their first FABC assembly said that it is by dialoging with culture that the Church becomes a local Church. If it is not local, it will be neither credible nor relevant. The Church therefore has to become local in order to engage in mission credibly, leading to transformation from within. In an era of globalization, the local Churches will have to dialogue with each other so that they can offer a collective challenge to the world. In the course of such dialogue the local Churches too may challenge each other prophetically.

Secondly, dialogue with God’s mission will have to be primarily the dialogue of life. The focus should be on the collaboration of believers in transforming life and society. The Document on the Church in the Modern World, after speaking about dialogue in general, goes on to spell out concrete areas for dialogue: the family, cultures, social and economic life, the political community and the peaceful coexistence of nations. For dialogue at these levels we need, not so much the clerics, who have a special within the Church, but the people who live in the (secular) world. We have to declericalize and secularize the Church at this level. We have to encourage the People of God to commit themselves to transform the world in collaboration with all people of good will. Addressing other religious leaders in Chennai in February 1986, John Paul II said:

By dialogue we let God be present in our midst; for as we open ourselves in dialogue to one another, we also open ourselves to God… As followers of different religions we should join together in promoting and defending common ideals in the spheres of religious liberty, human brotherhood, education, culture, social welfare and civic order.

Challenges
If the Second Vatican Council has shown us that dialogue is the way of mission, what have we done in the last 50 years? A true answer would be: nothing much, except occasional symbolic gestures. Mistrust, conflicts and violence between religions have increased. Ecumenical movements are nearly dead. The secular world has moved further away from the Church necessitating a special Synod on New Evangelization. It would not be fair to lay all the blame at the doors of the Church. Consumerism, individualism, secularization, fundamentalism and communalism, monopoly capitalism, unfair trade practices, militarism and the arms’ race – all these and more are responsible for injustice, violence and war in the world. But the Church cannot escape responsibility for not being prophetic. I shall limit myself to three comments in this context.

3. Ibid.,p.22.
4. Origins 15 (1986) 598. For similar sentiments see John Paul II’s address to leaders of other religions in New Delhi after the publication of Ecclesia in Asia: “The Interreligious Meeting”, Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection 63 (1999) 884-886.

In spite of the inspiration of the document on The Church in the Modern World, the Church sees itself as the depositary of a spiritual message. Some charitable activity is okay, but the Church is not really in the world in order to transform it from within, following the way of the incarnation. Liberation theologies in the Third World, especially in Latin America, have been more or less successfully suppressed, accused of promoting a this-worldly kingdom in the Marxist manner. The Church is satisfied with proclaiming general spiritual and moral principles in its social encyclicals. Its focus seems to be on an other-worldly salvation. It would not like to dirty its hands on the ground. In this sense, there is a proclamation of a message of justice, but no active involvement. For example, in the area of peace making, the Church would pray for peace, but not animate any active movement for peace. It is left to others. There is no dialogue with the world. The Church seems to limit itself to offering a spiritual message which others are expected to listen to. Placing itself on a high pedestal, it may not invite listeners. The leaders in post-Christian Euro-America seem to be anti-clerical. The Islamic world is not interested. Others in India and China would be suspicious in a post-colonial context.

Secondly, the Church has a superiority complex that is very detrimental to dialogue. It is true that Jesus Christ as the incarnate divine Word is the fullness of Truth. But the Church does not possess Christ. It does not fully understand him either. It is only a pilgrim Church going ever deeper into the mystery that it has received. So it cannot think of itself as the fullness to which all the others have to come. I think that the Church is misled by the Old Testament – New Testament paradigm. They are related in the plan of God and the events narrated in the New Testament are seen as accomplishing the prophecies of the Old. But it cannot project this paradigm on the mystery of the mission of God in the universe. The other religions and Churches may witness to aspects of the divine mystery which the Church itself has not experienced. Anyway the Church is called to be at the service of God’s mission, not to dominate it. If the Church is aware of its limitations as a pilgrim Church, it will certainly be open to dialogue, to give and to receive. Otherwise it can think only of a monologue and the others will not be interested. Though the Second Vatican Council talks so much about the mission of God in the universe, I do not think that the Church has really interiorized this mystery and open to dialogue with other manifestations of the One Truth of Jesus Christ. Its political status and organizational strength in the world today, because of historical reasons, also allow it to dominate any formal or informal conversation with other cultures, religions and ideologies. So there is no real mutuality in dialogue and the other partners are not interested to be only subaltern. As a matter of fact, with rising religious fundamentalism, each religion thinks of itself as the only true religion. When they meet, at the religious level, there would be a clash of absolutes rather than dialogue.

Thirdly, the Church seems to instrumentalize dialogue as a preparation for and a first step towards proclamation. Mission is seen primarily as the proclamation of the Kingdom of God as revealed and realized by Jesus Christ. Dialogue is then perceived as only a step towards proclamation. Sometimes it is even seen as a threat to proclamation. It is not seen as meaningful in itself. The religious others then see in it a hidden agenda and are not interested. St. Irenaeus speaks of Christ and the Spirit as the two arms with which the Father holds up the universe. Perhaps we can see proclamation and dialogue as the two arms of mission, equal in dignity.

Conclusion
I would like to suggest that the Second Vatican Council has pioneered a new era of dialogue in the Church and in the world. Blessed John XXIII called it a pastoral Council. Dialogue with the world is the pastoral thrust that the Council gave to the Church. This dialogue operates at all levels, secular and sacred, socio-economic, political, cultural and religious. This is clearly seen in the document on The Church in the Modern World, supported by other pastoral and dogmatic documents, as I have tried to show above. After fifty years we have not yet fully understood it and engaged in it, apart from some sporadic attempts at official and unofficial levels. While we are aware of the mission of the Church, we have to become aware increasingly of the mission of God. These two have also to dialogue with each other. If we become conscious of the mission of God in the universe, which is to build up a better human community of freedom, fellowship and justice, though it is never-ending process, then it will also challenge us to go beyond dialogue to collaboration to gather all things together so that God will be all in all. (cf. Eph 1:3-10; Col 1:15-20; 1 Cor 15:28)