¹ Lonergan, Bernard, “Theology in its New Context”, A Second Collection, (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974), pp. 55–67Google Scholar.

² See Daniel, Norman, Islam and the West: The Making of an Image, (Oxford: Oneworld, 1993 [1960])Google Scholar and Goddard, Hugh, A History of Christian-Muslim Relations, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000)Google Scholar give very good historical background to the shifts I am outlining. One cannot minimise the negative view of Islam or its socio-political consequences. Equally, it is difficult to stand in judgment over the past from a radically different viewpoint.

³ See Jukko, Risto, Trinity in Unity in Christian-Muslim Relations: The Work of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar who takes the story up on this issue after the Council, as does the extensive review of literature after the Council presented by Troll, Christian, “Changing Catholic Views of Islam”, in Waardenburg, Jacques (ed), Islam and Christianity: Mutual Perceptions since the Mid-20^th Century, (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), pp. 19–77Google Scholar.

⁴ Literature regarding these different interpretations is well documented in the rather one-sided survey: Faggioli, Massimo, Vatican II. The Battle for Meaning, (New York: Paulist Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

⁵ Pope Benedict XVI, “A Proper Hermeneutic for the Second Vatican Council”, (from AAS, 6 January 2006, 40–53, address given to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005) in Lamb, Matthew L. & Levering, Matthew (eds), Vatican II. Renewal within Tradition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. ix-xvCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ For the first reading see Routhier, Gilles, “The Hermeneutic of Reform as a Task for Theology”, Irish Theological Quarterly, 77, 3, 2012, pp. 219–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and for the second see Lamb and Levering, Vatican II, pp. 3–22.

⁷ Nicholas Lash mistakenly criticises Benedict's speech as failing to deal with the historical and social context and working with “sweeping generalisations” and “papal polemic”, and attributes to Benedict a simplistic either continuity or discontinuity! Theology for Pilgrims, Darton, pp. 254–260, 256. Lash's position is not unlike Benedict's as I understand Benedict. See Lash, Nicholas, “Revolution and change”, in Change in Focus: A study of doctrinal change and continuity, (London: Sheed & Ward, 1973), pp. 168–82Google Scholar.

⁸ See Congar's comment about Roncalli's comments on this book prior to the Council: Congar, Yves OP, True and False Reform in the Church, translated with an introduction by Philibert, Paul OP, (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2011)Google Scholar (French edition: 1968 second revised edition), p. 2; and his own very cautious words about reform, continuity and discontinuity pp. 199–307. Paul VI's reading of Vrai et Fausse Réforme dans l’Église, is noted by Hebblethwaite, Peter, Paul VI: The first modern Pope, (HarperCollins, London, 1993), p. 232Google Scholar. Ratzinger was, of course, well acquainted with this as both were periti at the Council.

⁹ See: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Privatican.htm; and numerous blogs and websites.

¹⁰ See Dulles, Avery Cardinal, “The Death Penalty: A Right to life issue?”, in Dulles, , Church and Society. The Laurence J. McGinley Lectures, (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008), pp. 332–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ See Avery Cardinal Dulles, “Dignitatis Humanae and the Development of Catholic Doctrine”, Catholicism and Religious Freedom: Contemporary Reflections on Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Liberty, Grasso, Kenneth L. and Hunt, Robert P. (eds), (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield), pp. 43–67Google Scholar.

¹² This point is well made in Nicholas Lash in “Revolution and Change”.

¹³ See Harold Ernst, Theological Notes and the Interpretation of Doctrine, Theological Studies, 63, 2002, 813–25, who argues that Vatican II maintained the tradition, but it fell away not because of the Council, but possibly because of its being intimately related to neo-Scholasticism.

¹⁴ See O'Malley, John W. SJ, “Vatican II. Did Anything Happen”, in Theological Studies, 67, 2006, pp. 3–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar who argues for the unique genre employed in Council teachings.

¹⁵ See Lash “Revolution and Change”. The best guide is Nichols, Aidan, From Newman to Congar: the Idea of Doctrinal Development From the Victorians to the Second Vatican Council (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990)Google Scholar. Newman and Mohler are key here.

¹⁶ See Robert Caspar's commentary on this in “La religion musulmane”, Vatican II: Les relations de l’Église avec les religions nonchrétiennes, (Paris: Unam Sanctam 61, 1966), pp. 201–02Google Scholar. Caspar notes some exceptions, but does not outline what they are.

¹⁷ See further Robert Caspar, “La vision de I'Islam chez Louis Massignon et son influence sur l'Église' in L'Herne Massignon, ed. by J-F Six, series Cahiers de l'Herne, no 13, Paris, Editions de l'Herne, 1970, pp. 126–47; and Hebblethwaite, Paul, pp. 225, 374.

¹⁸ See: http://www.saint-mike.org/library/synod_bishops/final_report1985.html for the Synod, and Dulles’ very helpful summary of its six hermeneutical rules, Official Norms. See my forthcoming: The Hermeneutics of Vatican II and its Doctrinal Teachings on Other Religions, (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ All texts and translations are from Tanner, Norman, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Volume Two: Trent to Vatican II, (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990)Google Scholar, unless otherwise stated.

²⁰ See Morali in Becker, Karl J& Morali, Ilaria, (eds) Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study, (New York: Orbis, 2010), p. 126Google Scholar; and Bullivant, Stephen, “Sine Culpa? Vatican II and Inculpable Ignorance” in Theological Studies, 2011, 72, pp. 70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ See Carola, Joseph, “Appendix: Vatican II's Use of Patristic Themes Regarding Non-Christians”, Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study, Becker, Karl J. and Morali, Ilaria (eds), (New York: Orbis, 2010), pp. 143–153Google Scholar; and Morali, op cit, pp. 127–130.

²² Some Muslims have understandably complained about this (see Siddiqui, Ataullah, “Islam and Christian Theology”, in Ford, David F. with Muers, Rachel, The Modern Theologians, (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), pp. 663–82, 675–79Google Scholar), but these matters would not gain any consensus on the Council floor. See Caspar, op cit, and Anawati, Georges C, “Excursus on Islam”, in Vorgrimler, Herbert (ed), Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. III, (London: Burns & Oates, 1969), pp. 151–155Google Scholar.

²³ Robert Caspar, “Islam According to Vatican II” in Encounter. Documents for Christian-Muslim Understanding, Vol 2, No 21, 1976, (Roma: Pontificio Instituto Di Studi Arabi e D'Islamistica), 1–7, p. 2Google Scholar. Interestingly this is the term Massignon uses to suggest that Christians should embark upon a “spiritual Copernican revolution” by turning to the origins of Muslim teaching – cited by Anwati, op cit p. 152.

²⁴ Anawati, op cit, p. 152 and 151 respectively.

²⁵ Morali, “Salvation, Religions, and Dialogue in the Roman Magisterium”, in Karl J. Becker and Ilaria Morali (eds), Catholic Engagement, pp. 122–143, esp. 126.

²⁶ Unsworth, Andrew, A Historical and Textual-Critical Analysis of the Magisterial Documents of the Catholic Church on Islam: towards a hetero-descriptive account of Muslim belief and practice, PhD thesis, Heythrop College, London, 2007Google Scholar. Unsworth's thesis should be published as it contains so many original insights and findings. I have learnt greatly from my reading and his work convinced me that my own earlier readings (2000) on Islam in the Council were incorrect.

²⁷ Anwati, op cit, p. 151.

²⁸ Unsworth contains the most comprehensive analysis and he shows that the most vitriolic critics cite no texts showing condemnations of monotheism in Islam (pp. 56–182).

²⁹ See DeGoia, Francesco (ed), Interreligious Dialogue: the Official Teaching of the Catholic Church from the Second Vatican Council to John Paul II (1963–1995), (Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1997), p. 159Google Scholar; French from Vatican website:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1964/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19640106_epiphanie_fr.html)

³⁰ Unsworth, op cit, p. 167. Oddly, neither Anwati nor Casper mention this source as an influence in their commentaries.

³¹ Unsworth, ibid, 197–202.

³² My one criticism of Unsworth is that he does not emphasise Massignon's view of “fulfilment” in interpreting the Vatican II texts, although he attributes very significant influence from Massignon.

³³ See Bea's speech of 14 October, 1965, in Bea, Augustin,The Church and the Jewish people. A Commentary on the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, trans by Lovetz, Philip (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), pp. 169–72Google Scholar, 169. Given that this is the sole note in the document referring to any magisterial teachings, Bea is not far from the truth.

³⁴ See for example, Kedar, Benjamin Z., Crusade and Mission: European Approaches Toward the Muslims, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 56–8Google Scholar; and the helpful discussion of critics found in Unsworth, op cit. pp. 66–72.

³⁵ Dupuis, Towards, pp. 102–03.

³⁶ Kedar, op cit, p. 57.

³⁷ Crollius, Ary A. Roest SJ, “The Church looks at Muslims” inLatourelle, René (ed), Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives. Twenty-Five Years After (1962–1987), (New York: Paulist press, 1989), pp. 324–334Google Scholar takes the borrowing thesis for granted, but does not see it as prohibitive.

³⁸ And here we clearly find the invincible ignorance supposition that has supplanted the presumption of heretical deviance.

³⁹ Unsworth, op cit, p. 201, relying on the translation of Paul Dean.

⁴⁰ See Jukko, Trinity in Unity and DeGoia, Interreligious Dialogue for numerous instances.

⁴¹ See Maurice Borrmans, in Becker & Moralli (eds), op cit, p. 500f. Borrmans was responsible for drafting the important Guidelines after Vatican II so his comment is particularly pertinent: “Consequently, whether a matter of the simply unique God of the Muslims (whom philosophy by itself could reach) or the Trinitarian unique God of the Christians (revealed gradually by the biblical history of salvation), both surely would have to affirm together, though differently, the oneness of essence .. oneness of worship…. The fact is that God is transcendence alone for Muslims, while he is transcendence and immanence for Christians. The difference therefore remains essential” (p. 500f.). I argued for a God of natural theology within Islam in the Council documents in The Meeting of the Religions and the Trinity, (Orbis Books, New York, 2000), pp. 102–08, but Unsworth has changed my mind. This natural theology position is also held by Ruokanen, Mikka, The Catholic Doctrine on Non-Christian Religions According to the Second Vatican Council (Leiden: Brill, 1992) pp. 75–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴² This is the position of Anwati, Caspar, and Troll and would be the position of Massignon. I would also argue for this position.

⁴³ This seems feasible for just as the Hebrew prophets got some things wrong, but could have been moved by the Spirit, a partial inspiration might be attributed to Muhammad and the Qur'an in so much as they convey both revealed truths and some valid deductions from them. I've tried to do this in ‘The Holy Spirit and the World Religions’, Louvain Studies, 34, 2009–10, 279–311Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ See the helpful categorisation and outline of these post-Conciliar moves in Troll, ibid; and also in David Marshall, ‘Catholic views on Islam’ forthcoming.