Some of you may be aware of document issued by the International Theological Commission (henceforth, ITC), called Christianity and the World Religions, which can be found here: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1997_cristianesimo-religioni_en.html.
In this document it says:
Some theologians adopt the tripartite division exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, which is seen as parallel to another: ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism, theocentrism. §9
Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22). §10
Christocentrism accepts that salvation may occur in religions, but it denies them any autonomy in salvation on account of the uniqueness and universality of the salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. This position is undoubtedly the one most commonly held by Catholic theologians, even though there are differences among them. It attempts to reconcile the universal salvific will of God with the fact that all find their fulfillment as human beings within a cultural tradition that has in the corresponding religion its highest expression and its ultimate foundation. §11
**A polytheistic prayer may be directed to the true God, since a salvific act may occur through an erroneous mediation. But this does not mean that this religious mediation is objectively recognized as a salvific mediation, although it does mean that this authentic prayer was enkindled by the Holy Spirit **(Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, “Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” , 27). §17
**The inclusivist position no longer considers mission as a task undertaken to prevent the damnation of those who have not been evangelized (exclusivist position). ** §24
The bolded parts I have a problem with. How do you reconcile §17 with Wis. 13:1-9:
1 Foolish by nature were all who were in ignorance of God,
and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing the one who is,*
and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;a
2 Instead either fire, or wind, or the swift air,
or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water,
or the luminaries of heaven, the governors* of the world, they considered gods.b
3 Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods,
let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these;
for the original source of beauty fashioned them.c
4 Or if they were struck by their might and energy,
let them realize from these things how much more powerful is the one who made them.d
5 For from the greatness and the beauty of created things
their original author, by analogy, is seen.
6 But yet, for these the blame is less;*
For they have gone astray perhaps,
though they seek God and wish to find him.
7 For they search busily among his works,
but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair.
8 But again, not even these are pardonable.
9 For if they so far succeeded in knowledge
that they could speculate about the world,
how did they not more quickly find its Lord?
Also, it would seem that many great saints throughout history has evangelized to save the souls of unbelievers. I understand that some who are inculpably ignorant can be saved by implicit faith, hope and charity, but we still are not told to entertain unfounded hope of the salvation of those outside the Church.
Also, I feel I should mention; I deeply respect the authority of the Church; I don’t want any criticism of the “Vatican II Church” etc. I really want to see a resolution to this. Also, if I am correct, the ITC doesn’t have Magisterial authority, but still, it’s not to be taken lightly.