Vatican II, Scholasticism, and Non-Christians

A Clear Interpretation

Unfortunately, it is quite common to read the documents of the Second Vatican Council without a thorough understanding of the pre-conciliar scholastic tradition which shaped the authors of the documents. One of the areas where this is most egregious are the readings of the “non-exclusivity” sections on heretical groups and non-Christian religions.

Due to an anemic understanding of grace, faith, revelation, and related notions on the part of various interpreters, they come away from the document with a completely univocal concept of each of these terms. Hence, when they read the relevant documents, they are lead to such absurdities as affirming that a man could be saved simply through assenting to Natural Revelation (fides late dicta) or even without a belief in God (fides virtualis).

Not only does pre-conciliar theology completely and universally abhor these notions, but even the great interpreters of the Council itself. Dominus Iesus is clear to say (reflecting on the necessity of Divine Revelation for salvation)

the distinction between theological faith and credulitatem 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,’ then 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. 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 credulitate 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.

The clear and unequivocal denial of Divine Revelation in other religions leads to the clear and unequivocal denial of theological faith. Yet, there is the acceptance of some sort of credulitas in other religions. This credulitas consists in a certain sort of human faith whereby belief is had in certain religious traditions passed down in ones community, culture, family, etc., rather than a Divine Faith which is had in God revealing (cf., Fides et Ratio, n. 31).

This is even more strikingly set forth by St. Paul VI in Evangelii Nuntiandi, where he writes

the Church holds that these multitudes have the right to know the riches of the mystery of Christ - riches in which we believe that the whole of humanity can find, in unsuspected fullness, everything that it is gropingly searching for concerning God, man and his destiny, life and death, and truth. Even in the face of natural religious expressions most worthy of esteem, the Church finds support in the fact that the religion of Jesus, which she proclaims through evangelization, objectively places man in relation with the plan of God, with His living presence and with His action; she thus causes an encounter with the mystery of divine paternity that bends over towards humanity. In other words, our religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven.

This may sound quite striking to those who only have a surface level understanding of these matters, but a deeper understanding of the scholastic tradition illuminates these issues quite clearly.

First, there is a certain universality of grace and a certain particularity of grace. On the one hand, there is a sufficient grace which God gives to all men. On the other hand, there is the efficacious graces that are particular to the just.

Second, there is a certain natural revelation of God and a certain supernatural revelation of God. On the one hand, there is the witness of God among creatures. On the other hand, there is the supernatural revelation that came by Christ and the Apostles, passed on today by the Church.

Third, there is a certain natural knowledge of God and a certain supernatural knowledge of God. On the one hand, we have the knowledge of natural theology. On the other hand, we have the knowledge of theological faith.

Fourth, there is a certain natural act of the will towards God and a certain supernatural act of the will towards God. On the one hand, we have the natural virtue of religion. On the other hand, we have supernatural charity and the modally supernatural virtue of religion.

One must keep in mind that these four notions have a synthetic relationship among each other both in the [quasi] natural and supernatural orders. Grace moves one in such a way as to accept revelation, such acceptance being an act of knowledge, which bears fruit in acts of the will. As Catholics, we understand that this is the case in the supernatural order. Divine Revelation is proposed to us, we accept it by faith, our intellect illuminated by grace, and then we go on to bear the fruits of good works our will enflamed by grace.

Yet, it is also important to note that there is not only a distinct relationship between the four notions of each order, but there is also a distinct relationship between the two orders as such. The scholastics labeled the relationship between the two as one of “remote preparation.” Sufficient grace, when cooperated in this way, has the effect of “impetrating” God on the basis of His mercy, rather than on the basis of His justice. Hence, the classic example of the man in the woods who cooperates with sufficient grace and is either illuminated or sent a preacher in return because he has “prepared himself.”

The connection of the two orders and the distinction between the two orders must be emphasized clearly unless one fall into the extremes of two errors. First, there are those who deny the universality of grace in that they do not account for this remote preparation. Second, there are those who deny the particularity of grace in that they construe the remote preparation for the conversion itself.

A further point ought to be made which explains the use of the term “quasi” before the term “natural order.” It is to be kept in mind that these sufficient graces are an effect of a certain universal call that God has towards all men to a certain supernatural end (i.e., the beatific vision). So, while many of these acts are essentially natural, they are still subordinated to such an end. Hence, there is a unity of end and unity of “plan.” This unity of “plan,” “economy,” etc., is frequently emphasized in the magisterial documents.

At this point, we can “map” these concepts very clearly onto some of the ordinary language that is used by the magisterium on this point. The “universality of grace” is sometimes included in the simple phrase “plan of salvation” although “universal operation of the Spirit” is sometimes used as well. The natural revelation of God is frequently spoken of under the terms of “elements of truth and goodness” or “seeds of the word.” The natural knowledge of God is spoken of as “credulitas.” The acts of natural religion are described as “natural religious expressions” or “expression of a religious sense” or “religious asperations.” The connection between this order and the properly supernatural order is referred to with terms like “preparation for the gospel” or “preparation for the reception of the Gospel.”

While this is simply a quick overview of the terminology involved and an inclusion of quite basic quotes, I pray that this helps the reader have a conceptual framework and hermeneutic for interpreting the teaching of the Church.