Francis’ ‘Favorite’ Cardinal Aveline and His Subversion of Christ’s Role As Mediator

A continuation of the look at the heterodoxy of Francis's favoured candidate to succeed him in the Papacy. May God spare His Church!

From LifeSiteNews

By S.D. Wright

In this part, we will examine Aveline's subversion of the traditional understanding of Christ as mediator, and how he presents non-Catholic religions as participating in this mediation.

Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline is rumored to be the favorite to succeed Francis in the next conclave. In Part I, we looked at Aveline’s interreligious theology and the clear departure of his ideas from Catholic tradition. In this part, we will examine his subversion of the traditional understanding of Christ’s status as the mediator between God and Man, and how he presents non-Catholic religions as participating in this mediation.  

I. AVELINE’S DOCTRINE OF ‘CHRISTIC MEDIATION’ AND ITS CREATION 

Aveline’s theological trajectory: From religious pluralism to a new theology of salvation 

Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline’s “theology” is a comprehensive system designed to replace the Catholic faith from within. At its center is a technique of subversion: the deconstruction of commonly accepted ideas by treating them as problematic, subject to critique, and in need of refinement.  

Applied to the Church’s teaching, this is a significant inversion. It is the Church’s teaching that gives us the light to evaluate our understanding of reality, not the other way around. Aveline’s approach hollows out the Catholic religion, and replaces it with a new theology—one which maintains a veneer of Catholicism through its use of traditional terms and ideas, but which are ultimately evacuated of their real meaning. 

Understanding Aveline’s theology has never been more important. He was just elected president of the French Bishops’ Conference, and Vatican insiders have told LifeSiteNews that Aveline “will be the next pope.” Edward Pentin and Diana Montagna’s Cardinalium Collegii Recensio likewise states that he is “allegedly Pope Francis’ ‘favorite’ cardinal to succeed him.”[1]  

In order to understand Aveline’s subversive approach to Christ’s status as mediator, we must first understand the true doctrine.

The true doctrine of Christ‘s unique mediation—prior to its subversion 

Holy Scripture speaks of Jesus Christ as the “one mediator” between God and Man.[2] 

The purpose of a mediator is “to join together and unite those between whom he mediates,” as St. Thomas Aquinas says.[3] Given the estrangement of Man from God in sin, Christ’s mediation had a reconciliatory quality, and it was through his redemptive death on the Cross that he mediated this reconciliation.  

Only the concrete, individual man, Jesus of Nazareth, is capable of mediating the reconciliation between God and Man, because only he is both divine and human.[4] These two natures in one person allowed Christ to offer an act of sacrifice of perfect and infinite value, while at the same time still being a member of the human race (and indeed as its new head). 

While it is possible for others to be called mediators in some lesser respect, such mediation is different in kind,[5] and only effective insofar as it participates in and is united to Christ’s mediation. 

One may benefit from Christ’s mediation and his atoning sacrifice by being united to him in the Church (his mystical body) and by the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity.[6]  

This understanding of Christ’s unique mediation poses no problems for those who hold to traditional Catholic doctrine. However, it does create a problem for those who wish to affirm that men can be saved, despite not knowing Christ or his Church (or even rejecting them), and without possessing the theological virtues as traditionally understood.[7]

It is this a priori commitment to the salvation of non-Catholics that “requires” the creation of Aveline’s fabricated concept of “Christic mediation.” 

Let us see how Aveline’s theological method destabilizes dogmatic certainties and opens a way for this concept. 

Aveline’s method: problematize, reinterpret, replace 

Aveline’s theological system rests on a destructive method: problematization. This technique treats settled truths and even dogma as uncertain human ideas, which are subject to allegedly powerful objections. It assumes that these objections mean that that the traditional formulations need to be reinterpreted, and it presumes to save the Catholic religion and bolster it against contemporary questions by retaining traditional formulations, whilst elevating and refining their meaning. 

In effect, Aveline’s results are a theology of words and terminology that might sound orthodox, but which convey a novel and heterodox meaning. Aside from being a tactic forbidden by Vatican I and Pope St. Pius X (as well as all of Catholic tradition), this manipulation of “verbal orthodoxy” is a hallmark of the modernists, as noted by Pietro Parente: 

A heresy, or rather a group of heresies […] with the pretense of elevating and saving the Christian religion and the Catholic Church by means of a radical renovation. […]

[A] hybrid amalgamation of verbal Catholicism with real naturalistic rationalism…[8] (Emphasis added)

Instead of beginning from revealed truth, this method begins from contemporary questions—questions posed by religious diversity, historical change, and human experience. It then treats traditional doctrine not as a source of answers, but as problems in need of solutions and reinterpretation. 

This technique comes not from the Fathers, nor the Scholastics, nor the Magisterium. It descends from Protestant relativism, Enlightenment historicism, and postmodern literary theory. Its goal is not clarification, but destabilization. 

How it is applied to the necessity of the Church and supernatural faith 

In Part I, we discussed how Aveline applies this subversive approach to the Catholic dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church, no salvation) and the nature of supernatural faith. He claims that the Church herself “recognizes the possibility of a positive role for other religions, as socio-cultural realities, in the general economy of salvation”—and that non-Catholic religions can have a “salvific or revelatory value.”[9] He dismisses views that reject this as being:  

• “Exclusivist” 

• Based on “a narrow ecclesiocentricism” 

• Relying on what he alleges is “a hardened, and thus distorted, interpretation of the ancient Patristic adage: ‘Outside the Church, no salvation.’”[10] 

In the previous part, we demonstrated that this “ancient Patristic adage” is in fact a dogma of the Church, and that what he calls a “hardened and thus distorted interpretation” is precisely what both the Magisterium and the Fathers taught.  

However, after other religions have been recast as positive instruments in the divine plan, Our Lord’s role as the one Mediator between God and Man is the next problem to be reinterpreted. This is precisely what Aveline attempts.

In place of the Catholic doctrine—that Christ alone reconciles man to God through the Cross—he offers the notion of a universal christic[11]mediation. While this novel term may sound orthodox to some, this term masks a radical inversion. He expresses his understanding of the matter as follows: 

[T]he uniqueness and universality of the christic mediation in the general economy of salvation. Jesus Christ is “the only mediator of salvation” (1 Tim 2:5) and “there is no salvation outside of him, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12).[12]

This might appear to be a strong statement, notwithstanding the novel term. However, he continues, revealing his departure from the sense of the dogma: 

Consequently, it is only through their relation to Christ that the religions hold, in the eyes of Christians, their positive value in the order of salvation…[13]

In other words, rather than being devoid of salvific value, they are endowed with salvific value through Christ. He adds: 

In this way, a relativist position is excluded, which would hold that all religions can lead to salvation in a way completely independent of the concrete history of salvation accomplished in Jesus Christ.[14]

Exposing Aveline’s false dichotomy exposes the subversion 

Here we see Aveline creating a false dichotomy between “pure” relativism and his mitigated version. He reframes the question “Can all religions lead to salvation?” as “Can all religions lead to salvation independently of Christ?”  

This maneuver allows him to present a dichotomy between two forms of relativism, despite both being false. This in turn allows him to redefine the Church’s exclusive claim without directly denying it—recasting it as a theological puzzle to be explained, rather than a revealed truth to be accepted with faith. 

We see the false dichotomy compounded further in Aveline’s work. He boldly states that “the universality of salvation through the unique christic mediation is established,”[15] and on this false assumption, he proceeds to consider whether other religions participate in this “christic mediation” in a provisional or permanent way: 

1. Do other religions have a role to “play in the economy of salvation,” but with “only a provisional status, due to a temporary tolerance of divine mercy” 
2. Do they have a “specific role in the divine plan of salvation” and thus should be recognized as legitimate mediations of grace.[16]

These are the only two permitted options in Aveline’s false dichotomy, because the traditional doctrine has already been excluded. 

Aveline himself clearly prefers the second option, which necessitates redefining Christ’s mediation in a way that includes other religions, rather than requiring men to come out of them.[17] In this model, conversion to Christ and his Church is rendered optional at best, because every religion already partakes of Christ’s salvific work.

False solution to a non-existent problem  

In fact, neither option is correct, and there is no “problem” or “mystery” of religious pluralism to resolve in the first place.  

The truth is, as discussed previously, that all other religions are false religions—a fact that does not fit into Aveline’s theological synthesis. 

These false religions are tolerated by God’s permissive will. They may serve as “stepping stones” towards the truth in some cases, although this occurs “accidentally”—that is, not by the nature of the false religion itself, but by incidental truths or elements within it that may lead a soul toward the Catholic faith. However, in many cases, these “good elements” actually serve to keep their adherents trapped and away from the true religion.[18]

The only mysteries here are those of original sin and of God’s permission of evil. As such, there is no need to explain how false religions might have a “salvific or revelatory value”—because they do not have such value. This means, in turn, that there is no need to reimagine the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Christ’s mediation, or to reorientate the mission of the Church around the concept of dialogue.  

In short, the whole of Aveline’s project is exposed as unnecessary and subversive of the Catholic religion. 

Let us see how both Aveline’s artificial problem and solution arise from his excessively respectful treatment of non-Catholic sources. 

Aveline’s theological sources: Protestant and modernist influences 

Aveline’s research thesis was on the debate between the Protestant writers Tillich and Troeltsch—both of whom have been influential in shaping Aveline’s thinking. In different ways, both of these figures erode the traditional understanding of revelation, mediation, and the necessity of the Church for salvation.  

In the previous part, we noted that Aveline’s handling of Tillich and Troeltsch is itself ambiguous, in that he sometimes reports their theories neutrally, whilst at other times expresses a deeper level of endorsement.  

For instance, he describes a lecture by Troeltsch as “masterful [magistrale]”—and yet this lecture rejected the “supernaturalist” view of Christianity (which, as discussed previously, is essentially the true view). This lecture was also critical of treating Christianity as an “absolute” religion, and argued that all world religions are “expressions of religious consciousness corresponding to certain determined types of culture.”[19]

Meanwhile, Aveline explains how Tillich (the other focus of his research work) constructed a theology in which religions “play a role in the divine plan of salvation”; this role is “christic,” but “is not reducible to [Christ’s] historical manifestation in Jesus of Nazareth.”[20]  

This allows for a universal mediation of grace through all religions, making explicit faith in Christ unnecessary, and even negating the necessity of the supernatural virtue of faith itself. 

How Aveline builds on these Protestant thinkers to present his ‘christic mediation’ 

Aveline’s own conception of “christic mediation” is an adaptation of Tillich and Troeltsch’s ideas, with the additional influence of Henri de Lubac.   

De Lubac emphasized that the Church has a “dual relationship”: on one hand, to the unique mediation of Christ; on the other, to the plurality of the world’s religions.[21] He explains the matter further, approvingly citing de Lubac’s ideas about what the Church offers the world: 

Starting from the postulate that ‘the human race is one,’ that it forms a body, that this body is called to salvation, and that this salvation consists in receiving the form of Christ, de Lubac deduced that the Church, ‘as a visible and historical institution, is the providential means of this salvation,’ and that, ‘as the invisible Body of Christ,’ it identifies with the final salvation.[22]

On the contrary, the starting point for such a discussion should be divine revelation itself, not the unity of the human race, or any observations about a plurality of religions. However, such ideas allow de Lubac (and Aveline) to claim that non-Catholics already have “vital exchanges” (échanges vitaux) with the Church through their religious traditions, even if they do not formally belong to her.[23]

These ideas move far beyond the traditional Catholic understanding. The Church acknowledges that individuals outside her visible structure may receive extraordinary graces; Aveline transforms this possibility into a principle. He excludes the idea that these graces may be ordered towards bringing men to Christ in his Church, and instead makes false religions positive means of salvation.  

However, in Aveline’s system, “christic mediation” turns false religions into unofficial extensions of the Church’s saving work. This explains how Aveline can propose the functional rejection of extra ecclesiam nulla salus we considered in the first part, and replace the missionary mandate with dialogue and religious accompaniment (as we shall see in the next part). 

II. THE IMPLICATIONS OF AVELINE’S CHRISTIC MEDIATION FOR CATHOLIC THEOLOGY 

Aveline’s concept of “christic mediation” is not merely a benign novelty—it is a theological maneuver, which unacceptably reinterprets the doctrine of Christ’s unique role. 

Aveline’s approach is like a man pulling on a piece of thread, and causing the whole tapestry of the Catholic Church to unravel. By artificially excluding or ignoring aspects of traditional doctrine, he artificially creates theological lacunae, which result in either the unravelling of doctrine or the need for further “solutions.” 

Let us examine the effect of his reimagined “christic mediation.” 

‘Christic mediation’ negates the supernatural nature of salvation 

By emphasizing the universal nature of “christic mediation” across all boundaries, Aveline (following de Lubac) emphasizes the unity of humanity as a whole, and presents its natural, biological unity as having itself a supernatural and revelatory meaning.[24]  

This previous focus on the “one body of humanity” as a participant in “christic mediation” and “vital exchanges” with the Church contradicts the Church’s teaching on the necessity of faith and formal membership in the Church for salvation.  

Modern theology has been criticized for suggesting that salvation does not consist in a supernatural redemption from sin and a restoration of the divine likeness; but rather, in a reality which has already occurred, consisting in “the mystery of man” being unveiled through Christ’s incarnation, in which he “united himself, in a certain way, with each man.”  

Aveline expresses a repackaged and further developed version of this reading in his 2023 book, Dieu a tant aimé le monde, and does so in a way that subtly problematizes the necessity of individual conversion, recasting it as redundant within a broader universal process. 

[T]he Franciscan Éloi Leclerc places these luminous words in the mouth of Francis of Assisi during his conversation with Brother Tancred: 

‘To evangelize a man, you see, is to say to him: you too are loved by God in the Lord Jesus. And not only to say it but to truly think it. And not only to think it but to act towards this man in such a way that he feels and discovers that there is something in him that is saved.'[25]

These words could perhaps be interpreted in an orthodox way. However, in the wider context of Aveline’s ideas, they cannot help but take on an unorthodox sense that negates the necessity of supernatural faith. 

‘Christic mediation’ negates the necessity of supernatural faith 

However, supernatural faith is absolutely necessary for salvation, and Pope Gregory XVI stated that this was a dogma: 

You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation.[26]

Outside of cases of direct private revelation, the Church’s proposition is a condition sine qua non for the virtue of faith, as discussed in the previous part. Those who do not submit to the Magisterium of the Church cannot have supernatural faith,[27] unless they receive a direct supernatural revelation from God—an extraordinary case, which is not to be presumed. Without the Church (whose credentials are established on independent grounds[28]) or immediate revelation, there is no certainty that what is believed has been divinely revealed—only opinion, however sincere.[29] 

In discussing the eternal destiny of those who have never heard the Gospel, the theologians Rivas and de Aldama state the following principle: 

A solution of this problem should not be attempted which ignores the basic elements of this problem. Hence it is necessary to say: if an adult is saved, he is not saved without an act of faith; if an adult is not saved, he is not damned without his own fault. 

Therefore these two points must be maintained in any attempt at a solution.[30]

Aveline’s theory simply ignores “the basic elements of this problem”: in fact, he ignores necessity of both faith itself, and the Church’s role as a condition sine qua non. This is the characteristic pattern of Aveline’s theology. He does not openly deny the Church’s teaching on supernatural faith—but by ignoring it, and problematizing other related dogmas, the necessity of faith is abandoned. 

In fact, he does not need to deny anything at all—because the negation is achieved implicitly, whether through silence or by presuming that such faith is possible (or even unnecessary) for non-Catholics.  

As such, his system renders supernatural faith unnecessary in practice, and is a denial of the truth that “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). 

‘Christic mediation’ negates the necessity of the Church for salvation 

Once salvation is de-supernaturalized and the need for supernatural faith is negated, insisting on membership of the Church becomes incomprehensible. It becomes impossible to see how membership of the Church differs from that of any other society (such as a nation, or a political party), and any attempt to link it to salvation comes to seem like chauvinism or bigotry. 

This leads to the creation of a false ecclesiology in which the Church is merely one way of reaching salvation; perhaps the “privileged route” or an umbrella under which others participate, but not the exclusive route. Thus, the Church is no longer a visible society of salvation, but one religious community among many—albeit the one which provides grace and salvific value for all (or most) of the others. Aveline uses these conclusions to affirm the “spiritual, moral, and socio-cultural riches” in other religions, and to tell Catholics to seek “traces of the Spirit’s work” within them.[31]

The supposed presence of “christic mediation” in other religions cannot help but destroy any urgency in seeking converts, which becomes condemned as “proselytism.” As we shall see in subsequent parts, Aveline’s studied hostility towards planning and strategy in evangelization is a theme to which he returns throughout his work: 

[M]ission does not consist in devising missionary strategies for the conversion of Muslims— that would seem to me pretentious and profoundly arrogant. Rather, one must be present, in friendship and openness, attentive to the work of the Holy Spirit in the other and in oneself, always ready to bear witness to our Lord Jesus Christ.[32]

The implications of ‘christic mediation’ are condemned by the Church 

All this unravelling leads to positions that have been explicitly condemned by the Church. For example, the Syllabus of Errors rejects the following proposition: 

Condemned Error n. 16: Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.[33]

Further, the Council of Florence’s solemn teaching takes a very different view to Aveline: 

[“The Holy Roman Church”] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives.[34]

We have examined these and similar texts in the previous part.  

Aveline’s framework, which insists that non-Catholic religions hold “a positive value in the order of salvation” and participate in “christic mediation” directly contradicts defined teachings and falls subject to these condemnations.   

His position, therefore—both in itself and in its implications—are not simply misguided. It leads to the dissolution of Catholic doctrine, and this is why these ideas have already been condemned by the Magisterium itself. 

However, this is not all. 

‘Christic mediation’ dissolves all religion into naturalism 

The sidelining of the supernatural order, faith, the Church, and urgency in spreading the Gospel ultimately lead to Aveline’s naturalistic definition of religion. For instance, in 2019, he said: 

Basically, religions are ways for men and women to seek answers to the great, simple questions of life. It’s better to have a religion that helps you, that doesn’t give you answers to questions you don’t ask yourself, but that helps you to truly experience life – that’s the most important thing.[35]

This is not even a profession of natural religion but of naturalism itself. In 2024, speaking of the relationships he cultivates in the Marseille diocese between Christian and Muslim families, Aveline said: 

What matters most to me is the development of personal relationships. We are all human beings, grappling with the same fundamental questions: ‘What is happiness? What happens after death? Why does evil exist?’ These are human questions, common to us all.

[…] If we begin with our shared human condition and pool what we have found in our respective sources, then we can also listen to the source of our neighbour. At that point, the discussion changes. It is no longer about saying, ‘My source is better than yours.’ Rather, we can say, ‘This is what I have discovered in response to questions we all share.'[36]

Thus we see that Aveline’s reconfiguration of Christ’s mediation and of Catholic dogma brings us to a religion focused on this world, rather than the next; on the natural, rather than the supernatural; and on human fraternity, rather than supernatural charity.  

In other words, we arrive at the attempted dissolution of the Catholic Church, and the replacement of the cult of God with the cult of Man. 

Conclusion: From a ‘christic mediation’ to a ‘dialogical Church’ 

The idea of Christ exercising an extended mediation in false religions is common amongst some conservatives, who wish to argue that one can be saved in any religion, but do not wish to depart from the bounds of orthodoxy. To such persons, the requirements of orthodoxy are fulfilled by stating that such salvation is through Christ, and that there is no way of salvation independent of Christ. 

However, as we have seen, Aveline’s “problematizing” theology cannot be adopted without denying or substantially redefining fundamental dogmas, including:  

• That “there is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved” (defined divine and Catholic faith)[37] 

• The necessity of supernatural faith for salvation (defined divine and Catholic faith)[38] 

• The nature of supernatural faith itself, as an assent to divine revelation (defined divine and Catholic faith)[39] 

• The unicity of the Catholic Church (implicitly defined)[40], not as a meta-religious framework offering “christic mediation” to others, but as the mystical body of Christ (catholic faith and/or divine faith)[41] 

• The traditional understanding of false religions as obstacles to grace and salvation, not as “more or less good and praiseworthy” (the latter affirmation constituting apostasy, according to Pius XI).[42]

Aveline’s pseudo-theology necessarily undermines, negates or denies these truths, whether directly or by evacuating them of their traditional sense and substituting new and contrary interpretations.  

However, the novel concept of “christic mediation” is a necessary theological bridge between Aveline’s claim that false religions are salvific, and his redefinition of the Church’s mission as being founded upon the new summum bonum of dialogue. 

This final goal has wide-reaching implications, and it is both the cause and the fruit of his other ideas. Once all religions are said to participate in this ephemeral “christic mediation,” the Church’s mission is no longer to convert, but to accompany. Conversion becomes an optional byproduct of dialogue, and zeal for souls is reduced to mere “sloganeering.”[43]  

This culminates in the most sweeping distortion of all: the redefinition of the Church’s very identity. For Aveline, dialogue is not a method but a constitutive principle. It is treated as a theological virtue, or even a ritual action and quasi-sacrament.   

Thus, the Great Commission is nullified. In place of the Church sent to teach all nations, we will be offered a Church that listens, affirms, and apologizes. Aveline’s claim that the Church’s mission is founded on dialogue leads not merely to doctrinal confusion, but to a denial of her true mission—and the proposal of a new Church which is not the Catholic Church.  

References

References

↑1	https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/jean-marc-aveline/
↑2	Cf. 1 Timothy 2.4-6, Hebrews 8.6 and 9.11-15.
↑3	Summa Theologica, III Q26 A1.
↑4	Cf. Summa Theologica III Q 26 A2.
↑5	St. Thomas calls this mediation “dispositive and ministerial,” as distinguished to that which is perfective in Christ.
↑6	Even difficult questions to do with invincible ignorance can be resolved by reference to being united to the Church in voto (in the will) and by the theological virtues (as discussed in the previous part).
↑7	Some might point to the 1949 letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston and suggest that its teaching resembles Aveline’s—particularly in reference to the idea of being united to the Church by “implicit desire.” But this is a misunderstanding. That letter explicitly reaffirms that implicit desire for salvation must be “animated by perfect charity,” which “cannot produce its effect unless a person has supernatural faith.” Aveline, by contrast, builds a system that omits or redefines supernatural faith altogether—recasting it as present in all religions by default. The issue, therefore, is not whether God may extend grace in extraordinary cases, but whether such grace can be presumed to operate apart from supernatural faith and explicit or implicit desire for the truth. On that point, Catholic doctrine is clear, as we shall discuss in this piece.
↑8	Pietro Parente, “Modernism”, 190-1, in Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee 1951.
↑9	Aveline, 2006.    “The Catholic Church first recognises the possibility of a positive role for other religions, as socio-cultural realities, in the general economy of salvation. This excludes an exclusivist position, which, on the basis of a narrow ecclesiocentrism, would deny non-Christian religions any salvific or revelatory value, relying on a hardened, and thus distorted, interpretation of the ancient Patristic adage: ‘Outside the Church, no salvation.’”    L’Église catholique reconnaît tout d’abord la possibilité d’un rôle positif des autres religions, en tant que réalités socio-culturelles, dans l’économie générale du salut. Par là se trouve écartée une position exclusiviste qui, au nom d’un ecclésiocentrisme étroit, refuserait aux religions nonchrétiennes toute valeur salvatrice et révélatrice, en s’appuyant sur une interprétation durcie, et donc faussée, de l’antique adage patristique : « hors de l’Église, point de salut »
↑10	The phrase “as socio-cultural realities” may appear to acknowledge a merely “accidental” role. However, he immediately makes clear the alleged teaching of the Church “excludes an exclusivist position, which, on the basis of a narrow ecclesiocentrism, would deny non-Christian religions any salvific or revelatory value, relying on a hardened, and thus distorted, interpretation of the ancient Patristic adage: ‘Outside the Church, no salvation.’”L’Église catholique reconnaît tout d’abord la possibilité d’un rôle positif des autres religions, en tant que réalités socio-culturelles, dans l’économie générale du salut. Par là se trouve écartée une position exclusiviste qui, au nom d’un ecclésiocentrisme étroit, refuserait aux religions nonchrétiennes toute valeur salvatrice et révélatrice, en s’appuyant sur une interprétation durcie, et donc faussée, de l’antique adage patristique : « hors de l’Église, point de salut »
↑11	As Aveline renders this term “meditation christique” in the lower case, we shall follow his usage.
↑12	Aveline 2006. … l’unicité et l’universalité de la médiation christique dans l’économie générale du salut. Jésus le Christ est « l’unique médiateur du salut » (1Tm 2,5) et « il n’y a aucun salut ailleurs qu’en lui, car il n’y a sous le ciel aucun autre nom offert aux hommes qui soit nécessaire à notre salut » (Ac 4,11-12)
↑13	Aveline 2006. He continues: “… the contribution of mediations of different types and orders is not excluded, but they derive their meaning and value only from that of Christ, and they cannot be considered parallel or complementary.” And yet this attempt to “exclude” a relativist position is itself rendered problematic through the use of a false antithesis, as discussed in this essay.
↑14	Aveline 2006. Par là se trouve cette fois-ci écartée une position relativiste, qui tiendrait que toutes les religions peuvent conduire au salut d’une manière totalement indépendante de l’histoire concrète du salut accomplie en Jésus Christ.
↑15	Aveline 2006: If there are indeed “seeds of the Word” to be discovered in them, it is also necessary to reject what, conversely, belongs to human hubris and idolatry. The discernment must therefore be carried out religion by religion, doctrine by doctrine, rite by rite. In a sense, once the fundamental principle of the universality of salvation through the unique christic mediation is established, we need less a general theology of religions, than several sectorized studies, giving rise to a Christian theology of encounter with Islam, or with Buddhism, etc. This is, moreover, one of the most promising avenues in the theology of religions, as will be shown by the articles gathered in the second part of this issue of Recherches.   S’il y a bien en elles des « semences du Verbe » qu’il s’agit de découvrir, il convient également de rejeter ce qui, à l’inverse, relève de l’hybris humaine et de l’idolâtrie. Le discernement doit donc être opéré religion par religion, doctrine par doctrine, rite par rite. En quelque sorte, une fois posé le principe fondamental de l’universalité du salut par l’unique médiation christique, nous avons moins besoin d’une théologie générale des religions, que de plusieurs études sectorisées, donnant lieu à une théologie chrétienne de la rencontre avec l’islam, ou avec le bouddhisme, etc. C’est là d’ailleurs l’un des chantiers les plus prometteurs en théologie des religions, comme le montreront les articles rassemblés dans le deuxième volet du présent dossier des Recherches.
↑16	Aveline 2008. He writes: Indeed, following the trend of the Second Vatican Council, we moved from concerns about a theology of salvation for the unbelievers, questioning the conditions under which salvation could be accessible to those who do not confess Christ and are not explicitly part of the institutional Church, to the search for a genuine theology of religions. The goal of this theology is to determine, in the light of Christian faith, the role that religions, as historical-social institutions, may play in the economy of salvation. Should they be granted only a provisional status, due to a temporary tolerance of divine mercy, or should they be recognized as having a specific role in the divine plan of salvation?  On est en effet passé, dans la mouvance du concile Vatican II, des préoccupations d’une théologie du salut des infidèles, qui s’interrogeait sur les conditions de possibilité d’accès au salut pour les personnes qui ne confessent pas le Christ et n’appartiennent pas explicitement à l’Église institutionnelle, à la recherche d’une véritable théologie des religions, dont l’objectif est de déterminer, aux yeux de la foi chrétienne, le rôle que jouent éventuellement les religions, en tant qu’institutions historico-sociales, dans l’économie du salut. Doit-on ne leur accorder qu’un statut provisoire, en vertu d’une tolérance temporaire de la miséricorde divine, ou bien faut-il aller jusqu’à leur reconnaître un rôle spécifique dans le dessein divin de salut ?
↑17	Aveline 2008. He writes:   But then, if we hold, with Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus Christ is indeed the unique mediator of salvation, it forces us to address the question of the relationships that these religions could have with Christ Himself. How do they participate in His unique mediation? And how, then, do we define the difference between these religions and the Church, whose identity and mission must therefore be redefined? It is my belief—and this is the first orientation of my work—that, beyond these various issues, the fundamental question is christological, concerning the possibility of accounting for the presence and action of the Mystery of Christ in religions other than Christianity.   Mais alors, si l’on tient avec l’Écriture et la Tradition, que Jésus Christ est bien l’unique médiateur du salut, force est d’en venir à la question des relations que ces religions pourraient avoir avec le Christ lui-même. Comment participent-elles à son unique médiation ? Et comment définir, dès lors, la différence entre ces religions et l’Église, dont l’identité et la mission doivent en conséquence être redéfinies ? Je tiens, et c’est là une première orientation de mon travail, que par-delà ces problèmes divers, la question fondamentale est christologique, et porte sur la possibilité de rendre compte de la présence et de l’action du Mystère du Christ dans les religions autres que chrétienne.
↑18	Fr. Henry James Coleridge SJ likewise observed that the “good elements” in heathen religions are “skilfully used by the authors of evil to disguise their own work for the delusion of men.” https://www.fathercoleridge.org/p/three-elements
↑19	Aveline 2006: Selon la conception supranaturaliste, le christianisme est la religion absolue parce que Dieu lui-même l’a voulu ainsi : au moyen d’une révélation surnaturelle, il a fondé le christianisme en l’isolant du reste de l’histoire. Cette stratégie de retrait ne peut cependant tenir face aux exigences méthodologiques de la science historique.  He quotes Troeltsch:  Dans la relation avec les grandes religions du monde, nous devons reconnaître qu’elles sont les expressions de la conscience religieuse correspondant à certains types déterminés de culture […]
↑20	Jean-Marc Aveline, ‘L’enjeu christologique en théologie des religions : Le débat Tillich – Troeltsch’ in Recherches de Science Religieuse, 2008/4 Tome 96, pp. 591-598. Our translation. Available here. Aveline continues:  Tillich, as far as I understand him, would answer: yes, religions play a role in the divine plan of salvation, and this role, which can indeed be designated as a christic function, must not be understood independently of the history of salvation that occurred in Jesus Christ. However, it is essential to hold three things: first, that what qualifies this function as christic is its relationship with the Spirit of Christ, which is not reducible to His historical manifestation in Jesus of Nazareth, which remains, however, the kairos (moment of grace) central to all of history, from which all other kairoi (moments of grace) derive; secondly, that the christic function of religions is expressed in their struggle against the demonic, with Christianity itself not being immune to the risks of demonisation and profanation of revelation, even though it claims to be—and this is its specificity and universal significance—the proclamation that in the cross of Christ, the demonic has been defeated, and that this is the centre of history, from which the salvation of the world proceeds; finally, that what is said of Christianity and religions can equally be said of secular culture, on the one hand, because, according to the Christian faith, God is no closer to the religious person than to the secular person, and on the other hand, because the demonic distortion of secularisation leads to what Tillich calls “quasi-secular religions,” namely, for him, fascism, communism, and liberal humanism, and that the confrontation of these quasi-secular religions with the great historical religions, in the political and economic fields, is decisive for analysing the encounter between religions in our historical situation.
↑21	Aveline: De Lubac’s response to these questions emphasises one of the major points of the current debate, namely the issue of the Church’s particular status, in its dual relationship, on the one hand, to the unique christic mediation and, on the other, to the plurality of the religions of humanity.   La réponse de de Lubac à ces questions met l’accent sur l’un des points majeurs du débat actuel, à savoir le problème du statut particulier de l’Église, dans son double rapport, d’une part, à l’unique médiation christique et, d’autre part, à la pluralité des religions de l’humanité.
↑22	Aveline 2006.  La réponse de de Lubac à ces questions met l’accent sur l’un des points majeurs du débat actuel, à savoir le problème du statut particulier de l’Église, dans son double rapport, d’une part, à l’unique médiation christique et, d’autre part, à la pluralité des religions de l’humanité. Partant du postulat selon lequel « le genre humain est un », qu’il forme un corps, que ce corps est appelé au salut, et que ce salut consiste pour lui à recevoir la forme du Christ, de Lubac en déduisait que l’Église, « en tant qu’institution visible et historique, est le moyen providentiel de ce salut », et que, « en tant que Corps invisible du Christ », elle s’identifie au salut final.
↑23	Aveline 2006:   … de Lubac established that the “others” are not radically foreign to the salvation that the Church must nonetheless announce to them. Not because they implicitly possess what the Church confesses explicitly, but because, as members of the one body of humanity, called entirely to salvation, they already maintain, with the ecclesial body that is its sacrament, vital exchanges by which the Holy Spirit makes the body of Christ grow.  ‘Providentially indispensable to the building of the Body of Christ, the “infidels” must benefit in their own way from the vital exchanges of this body. By an extension of the dogma of the communion of saints, it thus seems just to think that, although they are not themselves placed in the normal conditions of salvation, they may still attain this salvation by virtue of the mysterious bonds that unite them to the faithful. In short, they may be saved because they are an integral part of the humanity that will be saved.’  Original French:  […] de Lubac a établi que les « autres » ne sont pas radicalement étrangers au salut que l’Église doit cependant leur annoncer. Non pas parce qu’ils posséderaient à l’état implicite ce que l’Église confesserait de façon explicite, mais parce que, membres du corps unique de l’humanité, appelé tout entier au salut, ils entretiennent déjà, avec le corps ecclésial qui en est le sacrement, des échanges vitaux par lesquels l’Esprit Saint fait croître le corps du Christ.   Providentiellement indispensables à l’édification du Corps du Christ, les « infidèles » doivent bénéficier à leur manière des échanges vitaux de ce corps. Par une extension du dogme de la communion des saints, il semble donc juste de penser que, bien qu’ils ne soient pas eux-mêmes placés dans les conditions normales du salut, ils pourront néanmoins obtenir ce salut en vertu des liens mystérieux qui les unissent aux fidèles. Bref, ils pourront être sauvés parce qu’ils font partie intégrante de l’humanité qui sera sauvée.
↑24	Aveline 2006. He writes: Starting from the postulate that “the human race is one”, that it forms a body, that this body is called to salvation, and that this salvation consists in receiving the form of Christ, de Lubac deduced that the Church, “as a visible and historical institution, is the providential means of this salvation,” and that, “as the invisible Body of Christ,” it identifies with the final salvation.  He also observed that, from the very beginning of its history, the Church “has recognised the charge of the entire human race”, and that this concern is the sign of its catholicity, ever in becoming. De Lubac emphasised that for this task, the Church does not start from nothing. She knows that the “others” are internally moved by the supernatural desire of God, by virtue of their condition as creatures, and that this desire expresses itself in various religious forms which, as sociocultural realities, cannot fail to fulfil a certain positive function in the history of salvation, a function that theology must attempt to define.   Without attributing to religious institutions such a function, de Lubac established that the “others” are not radically foreign to the salvation that the Church must nonetheless announce to them. Not because they implicitly possess what the Church confesses explicitly, but because, as members of the one body of humanity, called entirely to salvation, they already maintain, with the ecclesial body that is its sacrament, vital exchanges by which the Holy Spirit makes the body of Christ grow.   “Providentially indispensable to the building of the Body of Christ, the “infidels” must benefit in their own way from the vital exchanges of this body. By an extension of the dogma of the communion of saints, it thus seems just to think that, although they are not themselves placed in the normal conditions of salvation, they may still attain this salvation by virtue of the mysterious bonds that unite them to the faithful. In short, they may be saved because they are an integral part of the humanity that will be saved.”  This is the reason, de Lubac explains, that if not all are members of the visible Church, all will nonetheless be saved by the Church. This is how he understands the truth of the axiom “Outside the Church, no salvation”. It is a praxeological truth, because the catholicity that marks the Church remains a requirement for it and it cannot claim it without fulfilling the task: being ‘in the Church’ is not enough to live ‘from the Church’!    French: Partant du postulat selon lequel « le genre humain est un », qu’il forme un corps, que ce corps est appelé au salut, et que ce salut consiste pour lui à recevoir la forme du Christ, de Lubac en déduisait que l’Église, « en tant qu’institution visible et historique, est le moyen providentiel de ce salut », et que, « en tant que Corps invisible du Christ », elle s’identifie au salut final.  Observant en outre que, dès les premiers temps de son histoire, l’Église « s’est reconnue la charge du genre humain tout entier » [32], et que c’est cette préoccupation qui est le signe de sa catholicité, toujours en devenir, de Lubac soulignait que pour cette tâche, l’Église ne part pas de rien. Elle sait que les « autres » sont travaillés intérieurement par le désir surnaturel de Dieu, en raison même de leur condition de créatures, et que ce désir s’exprime dans diverses formes religieuses qui, en tant que réalités socioculturelles, ne peuvent pas ne pas remplir dans l’histoire du salut une certaine fonction positive [34], qu’il revient précisément à la théologie d’essayer de définir. Sans aller jusqu’à conférer aux institutions religieuses une telle fonction, de Lubac a établi que les « autres » ne sont pas radicalement étrangers au salut que l’Église doit cependant leur annoncer. Non pas parce qu’ils posséderaient à l’état implicite ce que l’Église confesserait de façon explicite, mais parce que, membres du corps unique de l’humanité, appelé tout entier au salut, ils entretiennent déjà, avec le corps ecclésial qui en est le sacrement, des échanges vitaux par lesquels l’Esprit Saint fait croître le corps du Christ.  Providentiellement indispensables à l’édification du Corps du Christ, les « infidèles » doivent bénéficier à leur manière des échanges vitaux de ce corps. Par une extension du dogme de la communion des saints, il semble donc juste de penser que, bien qu’ils ne soient pas eux-mêmes placés dans les conditions normales du salut, ils pourront néanmoins obtenir ce salut en vertu des liens mystérieux qui les unissent aux fidèles. Bref, ils pourront être sauvés parce qu’ils font partie intégrante de l’humanité qui sera sauvée [35].   C’est la raison pour laquelle, explique de Lubac, si tous ne sont pas membres de l’Église visible, tous seront cependant sauvés par l’Église. C’est ainsi qu’il comprend la vérité de l’axiome « Hors de l’Église, pas de salut ». Il s’agit d’une vérité praxéologique, puisque la catholicité qui est la marque de l’Église reste pour elle une exigence et qu’elle ne saurait y prétendre sans en accomplir la tâche : être « in ecclesia » ne suffit pas pour vivre « de ecclesia » !
↑25	Jean-Marc Aveline, Dieu a tant aimé le monde—Petite théologie de la mission, p 27. Les éditions du cerf, Paris, 2023. [L]e franciscain Éloi Leclerc fait dire à François d’Assise, dans sa conversation avec frère Tancrède, ces phrases lumineuses : « Évangéliser un homme, vois-tu, c’est lui dire : toi aussi, tu es aimé de Dieu dans le Seigneur Jésus. Et pas seulement le lui dire, mais le penser réellement. Et pas seulement le penser, mais se comporter avec cet homme de telle manière qu’il sente et découvre qu’il y a en lui quelque chose de sauvé. »
↑26	Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Summo Iugiter Studio, 1832, n. 5.
↑27	This, at least, is the view of Marín-Sola and the many authorities he cites. The alternative view is subject to very many difficulties. Cf. Part I: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-aveline-is-rumored-to-be-the-next-pope-but-is-he-catholic/
↑28	Vatican I teaches:  [T]he church herself by reason of her astonishing propagation, her outstanding holiness and her inexhaustible fertility in every kind of goodness, by her catholic unity and her unconquerable stability, is a kind of great and perpetual motive of credibility and an incontrovertible evidence of her own divine mission.  Further discussion of this claim is outside of this discussion. It is defended in the previous part. For more, see Fr Francisco Marín-Sola, Homogenous Evolution of Catholic Dogma, as well as John Henry Newman’s Grammar of Assent.
↑29	Marín-Sola writes:   The Church, according to Saint Thomas, becomes a true rule and a true reason for every act of our divine faith. This rule and reason do not pertain to our faith in its divine aspect, or in itself, but rather to divine faith insofar as it is ours [quoad nos]. They condition or modify the same First Truth or revealed deposit, not in themselves but in relation to us. This rule and reason are not about the formal object of faith but about its proposition and explanation. They are as necessary for every act of our divine faith as the proposition of the object by intelligence is necessary for the act of the will. A true act of the will cannot occur without this proposition, and it is reduced to a mere act of passion or sensitive appetite when this proposition is lacking. The proposing or proximate rule must belong to the same order as what is regulated. Anyone who acts against this rule of the Church’s definition, acts against divine faith – committing an act of heresy. Anyone who acts without this rule commits an act without divine faith – an act of mere science or human faith. Any explanation of the implicit or inclusive virtuality of the revealed deposit made against the Church’s definition is heretical. If made without the Church’s definition, it is purely scientific or human. If made by the Church’s definition, it is a divine explanation, a dogma of faith.  Fr Marín-Sola, The Homogenous Evolution of Catholic Dogma. Chapter III, Section III.
↑30	Severino González Rivas SJ, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IIIB, Treatise IV, n. 175, p 345.
↑31	Aveline 2019 (Famille Chretienne)  For this reason, the Christian faith holds that the path of Islam is not sufficient for salvation, yet it would be wrong to disregard the “spiritual, moral, and socio-cultural” (Nostra ætate 2) riches of this path and to fail to seek, with tireless curiosity, the traces of the Spirit’s work in the human lives of those who walk this path as genuine seekers of God.  C’est la raison pour laquelle la foi chrétienne tient que, selon elle, le chemin de l’islam n’est pas suffisant pour assurer le salut, mais que l’on aurait tort de négliger les richesses « spirituelles, morales et socio-culturelles » (Nostra ætate 2) de ce chemin et de ne pas chercher, avec une inlassable curiosité, les traces du travail de l’Esprit dans les existences humaines de ceux qui avancent sur ce chemin en authentiques chercheurs de Dieu.
↑32	Aveline 2019. C’est pourquoi la mission ne consiste pas en la mise en place de stratégies missionnaires pour la conversion des musulmans : cela me paraît prétentieux et profondément orgueilleux. Mais il faut se tenir là, dans l’amitié et la présence, à l’écoute du travail de l’Esprit Saint en l’autre et en moi, en se tenant toujours prêt à témoigner de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ.
↑33	Syllabus of Errors, Error #16, Pope Pius IX, 1864
↑34	https://www.papalencyclicals.net//councils/ecum17.htm
↑35	Nathalie Courtial, ‘Catholiques et musulmans ont “beaucoup de choses en commun”, rencontre entre évêques et imam à la mosquée’, l’Éveil, 6 February 2019. Available at https://www.leveil.fr/puy-en-velay-43000/actualites/catholiques-et-musulmans-ont-beaucoup-de-choses-en-commun-rencontre-entre-eveques-et-imam-a-la-mosquee_13129039/ [L]e point le plus important pour moi, ce sont ces relations d’amitié. Au fond, toute personne, qu’elle soit croyante ou pas, on est tous des hommes et des femmes qui vivont une vie humaine avec toutes les questions qu’elle soulève. On peut avoir des théories dans la tête, balancer des versets du Coran contre des versets de la Bible, on reste confronté aux mêmes questions, un jour ou l’autre : qu’est-ce la vie ? Qu’y a-t-il après ? Comment trouver le bonheur ? Pourquoi la souffrance existe ?  Les religions, au fond, sont des façons pour les hommes et les femmes de chercher des réponses à ces grandes questions simples de l’existence. Il vaut mieux une religion qui vous aide, qui ne vous donne pas des réponses à des questions que vous ne vous posez pas mais qui vous aide à faire en vérité l’expérience de la vie, c’est ça le plus important”.
↑36	‘Cardinal Aveline : au carrefour du christianisme et de l’islam’, interview by Simon Lessard for Le Verbe, 22 November 2024.. What matters most to me is the development of personal relationships. We are all human beings, grappling with the same fundamental questions: What is happiness? What happens after death? Why does evil exist? These are human questions, common to us all. And we, as Christians, along with our Jewish brethren, confess that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, regardless of the sources he draws upon to satisfy this desire for resemblance. If we begin with our shared human condition and pool what we have found in our respective sources, then we can also listen to the source of our neighbour. At that point, the discussion changes. It is no longer about saying, “My source is better than yours.” Rather, we can say, “This is what I have discovered in response to questions we all share.” Le plus important pour moi, c’est d’avoir des liens personnels. Nous sommes tous des êtres humains avec les mêmes questions de fond. « Qu’est-ce que le bonheur ? Qu’y a-t-il après la mort ? Pourquoi le mal ? » Ces questions-là sont humaines, et nous les avons toutes en commun. Et nous, chrétiens, avec nos frères juifs, nous confessons que tout être humain est créé à l’image et à la ressemblance de Dieu, et ce, quelles que soient les sources auxquelles il va puiser pour assouvir en lui ce désir de ressemblance. Si l’on part de la condition humaine et qu’on met en commun ce qu’on a trouvé dans les sources qui sont les nôtres, alors on peut écouter la source du voisin. À ce moment-là, on ne discute pas de la même façon. On ne cherche pas à dire : « ma source est meilleure que la tienne », on va simplement dire : « voilà ce que moi j’ai trouvé par rapport à des questions que nous avons en commun ».
↑37	Lateran IV, https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm Cf. Part I: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-aveline-is-rumored-to-be-the-next-pope-but-is-he-catholic/
↑38	STS IIIB, Rivas, Treatise IV, n. 152, p 107.
↑39	Ibid, p 272
↑40	STS IB, Salaverri, n. 1132, p 463.
↑41	Ibid., n. 986, p 391.
↑42	Cf. the notes above for the sources. If false religions are not obstacles, then they are “more or less good and praiseworthy.” But the idea that non-Catholic religions are “more or less good and praiseworthy” is condemned as apostasy by Pius XI:Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. Mortalium Animos n. 2. https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html
↑43	Aveline 2023, p 27, immediately following his anecdote about Éloi Leclerc and Brother Tancred:

Non pas le proclamer tel un slogan qui resterait extérieur à la vie des autres, mais en vivre de telle sorte que ces autres aient envie de découvrir ce qui nous fait vivre.   

To entrust the Gospel, then, as one entrusts a treasure— not to proclaim it as a slogan that remains exterior to the lives of others, but to live from it in such a way that these others desire to discover what it is that gives us life.