Abstract
This article analyses key magisterial documents, investigating the emergence and development of the concept of dialogue in the teaching of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, demonstrating how this concept is central for an articulation of revelation and its dynamic outworking in salvation history. Beginning with Vatican II’s Dei verbum (1965), and its recognition that revelation is a dialogical word-event reality, an overview of magisterial documents in the years immediately following the Council will show how dialogue was reduced to a functional practice for the Church’s mission. Verbum Domini (2010) marks the beginning of a return towards dialogue in magisterial teaching with its re-reading of Dei verbum, bringing the concept of dialogue from the edge of the Church’s life back to the centre of fundamental theology. The social teaching of Pope Francis has continued to deepen this recovery of the dialogical dynamic of revelation.
God is encountered in dialogue. This affirmation on the nature of revelation lies at the heart of this article and reflects a fundamental truth of divine nature itself, namely that God is encountered as dialogue. It is the great novelty of Christian revelation that God becomes known through the dialogue God desires to have with humanity in concrete history. 1 When considered theologically, the category of dialogue opens new horizons for the praxis of theology in the contemporary context, as well as for the very way in which theology is understood today. The term first entered the Catholic lexicon in 1964 in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, and described the attitude with which the Church must approach the contemporary world. 2 The encyclical’s adoption of dialogue epitomizes the paradigm shift brought about by the Second Vatican Council as a whole, reflected in both its dogmatic and pastoral documents. Its Dogmatic Constitution, Dei verbum (1965), presents an eminently dialogical understanding of revelation that is thoroughly interpersonal, historical-dynamic, christological-pneumatological, and soteriological. 3 Beginning with Dei verbum and its recognition that revelation is a dialogical word-event reality, an overview of magisterial documents in the years immediately following the Council will show how dialogue was reduced to a mere functional practice for the Church’s mission to other denominations and religions. Verbum Domini (2010) marks the beginning of a return in magisterial teaching back towards dialogue, moving the concept from the edge of the Church’s life to the centre of fundamental theology. The current teaching of Pope Francis has continued to deepen this recovery of revelation’s dialogical dynamic. First recognized by Vatican II, dialogue is now clearly appreciated as a core concept of revelation in magisterial teaching.
Dei verbum: Revelation Unfolding Through Deeds and Words
The incredibly rich and interpersonal account of divine revelation in Dei verbum recognizes the free and loving action by which God makes known the mystery of the divine will, addressing humanity as friends, and inviting them into fellowship: ‘By thus revealing himself [sic] God, who is invisible, in his [sic] great love speaks to humankind as friends and enters into their life, so as to invite and receive them into relationship with himself [sic].’ 4 In a striking contrast with Dei Filius (1870), the words ‘the eternal laws (decreta) of his [sic] will’ are replaced with the ‘mystery’ (sacramentum) of God’s will. 5 Revelation is recognized as something which ‘progresses’ (proficit) in the Church: ‘There is growth in understanding of what is handed on, both the words and the realities they signify . . . Thus, as the centuries advance, the church constantly holds its course towards the fullness of God’s truth . . .’. 6 It is the Holy Spirit, sent from the Father, who actively accompanies, assists, perfects, prompts, guides, enlightens, helps, and teaches 7 the Church towards an ever-fuller understanding of that divine truth, which is summed up in ‘Christ, who is in himself both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation’. 8 What is more, revelation is oriented throughout the Constitution in terms of its end and purpose: human salvation. 9 And so, rather than simply a supernatural unveiling of prescriptive truths or decrees, completed with the death of the last apostle, Dei verbum describes an interpersonal, historical-dynamic, christological-pneumatological, and soteriological concept of revelation. 10 Departing from the overly conceptual-intellectual understanding that went before, revelation is recognized by Vatican II as an encounter between the Triune God and the human person, with God as the subject, content, and goal of this salvific event. This divine revelation is realized in the words and deeds, the activity and doctrine, which make up God’s economy of salvation throughout history, finding their fulfilment in Jesus Christ and continually interpreted in the life, teaching, and cult of the Church. 11 One can clearly discern a movement towards a communicative-hermeneutical understanding of revelation, rather than the doctrinal-theoretical one that went before, whereby revelation is God’s historical self-communication that invites humanity to salvific fellowship with Godself. 12
One of the most notable developments of Dei verbum, a breakthrough that emerged from the very beginning of the intense debates and numerous redactions throughout the conciliar process, was the recognition that ‘deeds’ (gestis), and not just words, are a constitutive element of revelation. 13 Dei verbum declares: ‘The pattern of this revelation unfolds through deeds and words bound together by an inner dynamism’. 14 Indeed, the citation from 1 John (1:2–3) in the introduction of the Constitution captures this dynamic of both deed and word manifesting revelation: the eternal life which the apostles have ‘seen and heard’ and now proclaim in order to bring believers into fellowship with the divine. 15 Deeds and words are mutually related: God’s works throughout salvation history witness to divine realities and teachings signified by words, while words are needed to proclaim and interpret the works. 16 Dei verbum’s use of ‘communicare’ (highlighting the interpersonal character of revelation) and ‘manifestare’ (a showing of that which is already present) both emphasize all the more the importance of deeds. 17
The analogy of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition might help elucidate the dynamic between the deeds and words of revelation. Jesus passed on God’s revelation through his words, actions, and very presence. This was done not through written texts but in a personal way, making the apostles living witnesses, who in turn continued to pass on God’s revelation. And so it continues throughout the Tradition of the Church. 18 Tradition becomes key ‘as the carrier of the deeds of revelation, which continue to be handed on in the life of the church.’ 19 Of course Tradition includes words, not least doctrinal formulations. But it also ‘includes everything that helps the people of God to live a holy life and grow in faith’. 20 Notwithstanding the normative role Scripture plays in revelation, Tradition by its organic, dynamic, and Spirit-filled nature can transmit, not just the words, but the living deeds of revelation in the here and now. While Scripture is the normative, unchanging Word of God committed to writing, Tradition embraces within itself the development of this written Word (the historic origins and contexts of each passage) as well as its ever-deepening understanding and interpretation in the life of the Church today. In other words, one might say that God’s self-revelation in the Church finds its normative key in Scripture and its ongoing hermeneutical key in Tradition. A note of caution is required at this point. As Dei verbum explains, ‘sacred tradition and Scripture are bound together in a close and reciprocal relationship. They both flow from the same divine wellspring, merge together to some extent, and are on course towards the same end.’ 21 Both Scripture and Tradition are to be honoured equally. 22 The same can be said of the words and deeds of revelation, and so arguably any debate over the priority given to either deeds or words is misplaced.
If due regard is to be given to both Scripture and Tradition, to both deeds and words, then another crucial insight of Dei verbum—the role of historical-critical methods for the interpretation of Scripture—must be equally said of Tradition (including the practice of the magisterium) and indeed the entire reality of God’s self-revelation throughout salvation history until the present. Dei verbum calls for attention to literary genres, ‘among other things’, to understand what the biblical authors intended. 23 Both the inspiration and interpretation of Scripture are contextualized within the entire historical, socio-cultural milieu from which a particular book or passage was written. Thiel argues that, while Dei verbum quite rightly recognized the role of historical criticism for Scripture, the same is not said of Tradition. This, he concludes, is an issue of much needed development in the teaching of the Constitution. 24 He makes a very important and convincing argument. If both Scripture and Tradition together are like a ‘mirror’ (speculum) in which the pilgrim Church contemplates God, then all available means with which to understand this revelation in both Scripture and Tradition as it unfolds throughout history are required. 25 This is true not simply of the words of revelation, whether in Scripture or the doctrinal formulations of Tradition, but also of deeds. Both revelatory words and deeds need to be understood in their historical, socio-cultural context. In fact, the very development of doctrine becomes revelatory of divine pedagogy and the dynamic of divine revelation in salvation history, and could itself be rightly called a deed of revelation. 26
Vatican II: A Word and Deed of Revelation
In many ways, Dei verbum (its text and genesis) can be seen as emblematic of the Second Vatical Council as a whole. As one of the four constitutions of the Council, and one of just two dogmatic constitutions, it is an important hermeneutical lens with which to understand the entire Ecumenical Council as a text-event, word-deed revelatory moment in the life of the Church. Indeed, Dei verbum serves as a symbolic bookend for both the beginning and end of the Council. Heatedly debated during the first session before it was opportunely handed over to a mixed commission for re-working, a final text would not be promulgated until the final days of the Council. The dramatic moment of the removal of the preparatory schema, De fontibus revelationis, from the Council floor to a newly formed theological commission at the intervention of John XXIII (despite a vote by the Fathers for such an action falling just shy of the required two-thirds majority), had a huge bearing on not just the document itself but the dynamics of the entire Council. 27 Moreover, the document’s oftentimes torturous redaction process, to the point of almost being removed from the agenda altogether, serves as a fitting backdrop for the conciliar journey. 28 Dei verbum, therefore, does not just recognize the historical dynamic of revelation and the Church’s understanding of it, but its very genesis is also testament to this. 29 It is, in fact, an explicit and exemplary moment of Tradition as ‘a living reality that encompasses both the learning process and the learning outcome of the whole church, fuelled by its listening to, living by and celebration of the Word of God’, which can be equally said of the entire event of the Council. 30 Dei verbum, in both what it says and how it came to be, helps us understand Vatican II as both word and deed of revelation. In other words, Vatican II—not least in its authority as an ecumenical Council—is a revelatory, dialogical moment for the Church as both a word and deed of revelation, an essential part of the ongoing reality of revelation.
For Ryan, the fundamental importance of the word-deed dynamic of revelation recognized by Dei verbum provides a balanced hermeneutic with which to receive Vatican II as both text and event, continuity and discontinuity, and letter and spirit. 31 He writes: ‘Since revelation is a comprehensive word-deed mystery that is transmitted by the power of the Spirit from generation to generation, each age brings a new horizon of understanding to this reality.’ 32 As each new generation brings with it a new horizon of understanding, the Church’s reception of God’s revelation brings with it fresh insights and deeper meanings, while at the same time other aspects previously emphasized might seem less important. The Second Vatican Council not only recognizes this dynamic of revelation for the first time but represents one such horizon of understanding and its reception in the life of the Church. This dynamic can be described as dialogical and, as such, touches upon a key leitmotif of the entire Council, something to which we now turn.
The Language of Vatican II: A Paradigm Shift
Arguing that Vatican II was a moment of reformation for the Church, O’Malley points to the importance of rhetoric in its self-conscious embracing of ecclesiastical change. 33 In other words, the Second Vatican Council represented a paradigm shift in the history of the Church, evidenced in its linguistic reorientation towards ‘conciliatory rhetoric’ in contrast to the ‘denunciatory rhetoric’ of previous reformations like those of Pope Gregory VII and Martin Luther. 34 A new approach required a new language. O’Malley makes the point that content cannot be fully understood without consideration of its style or literary form, and so when trying to fully grasp the teachings of Vatican II this new linguistic style becomes important, not least through the use of new vocabulary and concepts. 35
Among this new vocabulary found in the texts of Vatican II is the word dialogue. For O’Malley, such was the importance of this concept that he remarks: It was so characteristically attributed to the Council that it turned into jargon, and one became almost ashamed to use it. That lamentable fact should not obscure for us, however, the profound implications of the term, especially for a Church accustomed to a ‘from-the-top-down’ style of dealing with both its members and outsiders.
36
Indeed, it could be argued that dialogue could be seen as almost synonymous with the Council itself. 37 An exploration of the term, its origins in Conciliar teaching, and its emergence as a key concept for the magisterial teaching is therefore required.
Paul VI’S Ecclesiam Suam (1964)
The word dialogue (colloquium) first entered the magisterial lexicon in 1964, with Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Ecclesiam Suam. It describes the attitude with which the Church should approach the contemporary world as well as its own internal, ecclesial life. 38 Published between the second and third sessions, the encyclical placed dialogue firmly to the foreground of the Council’s agenda. 39 The papal endorsement of dialogue and the subsequent adoption of this new term by Vatican II could be said to epitomize the paradigm shift brought about by the Council as a whole, reflected both in its documents and as an event in the history of the Church. Paul VI and the Council Fathers recognized the importance of this new concept for the accomplishment of aggiornamento articulated by John XIII. Jacques Dupuis describes Paul VI as the ‘pope of dialogue’ whose reflections in Ecclesiam Suam deeply influenced Vatican II’s positive, dialogical approach to the world reflected in many documents, not least Gaudium et Spes. 40
The purpose of the encyclical was to outline the three main policies for the pontificate of Paul VI, the third of which is dialogue, and to which two-thirds of the entire text is devoted. The need for dialogue flows ‘naturally’, according to the pope, from his first two policies: the need for deeper, ecclesial self-awareness, and the project of renewal. 41 Dialogue is understood within the context of evangelization, since the Church ‘has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make’ to the world in which it exists. 42 This call for dialogue finds its origins in prayer and divine revelation—what the pope describes as ‘the dialogue of salvation’—whereby the history of salvation is understood as ‘one long, varied dialogue, which marvellously begins with God and which He [sic] prolongs with men [sic] in so many different ways.’ 43 Latourelle notes that Ecclesiam Suam marks the first time an encyclical describes the dialogical character of revelation. 44 The Trinitarian aspect of this revelatory dialogue is highlighted as well as its divine initiative, one motivated out of love. 45 Moreover, this dialogue of salvation is neither limited, self-seeking, nor coercive, but universal. 46 Understanding revelation and salvation as a history of dialogue between God and humanity allows Paul VI to see the Church as having a privileged role in dialoguing with the world. 47 The pope makes it clear that the dialogue God initiates with humanity must be examined closely if one is to understand the relationship between the Church and the world: revelation, in other words, is the prototype for the Church’s dialogue with the world. 48
‘Dialogue’ in the Vocabulary of Vatican II: Dialogus and Colloquium
The concept of dialogue adopted by the Council Fathers in the final two sessions had a rather ambiguous understanding, reflected in its use for the translation of two Latin words: dialogus and colloquium. Both Latin terms have been translated as ‘dialogue’ in several English translations of the Conciliar documents, but by no means consistently. This had created confusion about the concept. The Oxford Latin Dictionary defines dialogus (which finds its origin in the Greek διάλογος) as ‘a discussion, dispute’. 49 Colloquium is defined as a ‘talk, conversation’, ‘entering into a conversation (with)’, or ‘a conference, discussion . . . an interview, meeting’ including ‘a meeting for discussion of terms, etc., especially with an enemy’. 50 There is clearly an overlap in the understandings of dialogus and colloquium, and both can be translated into English as ‘dialogue’.
Nolan’s research reveals that, despite the ambiguity of English translations, the Council Fathers’ choice of either dialogus or colloquium is context dependent. Every time the Council refers to official talks with other Christians or as a method for evangelization dialogus is used; but when referring to interpersonal, social, and cross-cultural relationships (including intra-ecclesial contexts), colloquium is preferred. 51 In other words, dialogus is used by the Council when referring to dialogue in the formal sense, that is, whenever the Church as institution is one of the dialogue partners. Any type of dialogue that does not involve the institutional Church is understood as colloquium. When attempting to reach a proper understanding of dialogue in the teaching of Vatican II, both its formal aspect as dialogus and its more interpersonal aspect as colloquium must be considered.
It is worth noting that colloquium is used exclusively by Paul VI in his blueprint for dialogue in Ecclesiam Suam, and the same word is used, rather than dialogus, for the one explicit reference to dialogue in Dei verbum. 52 However, it is this more interpersonal aspect which has been less developed—both theologically and in ecclesial practice—since the end of the Council. As Nolan explains, ‘Dialogue became an effective part of certain post-conciliar processes, notably ecumenism. The places where dialogue has not really happened despite expectation are those contexts where the Council said colloquium.’ 53 This contrasting approach to dialogue will become clearer when we consider below how the concept developed in the Church in the years immediately after the Council.
‘Dialogue’ after Vatican II
We have seen how dialogue, as a formal process of the institutional Church and referred to as dialogus in Council documents, became an important way in which the Church related to those beyond its confines, in particular other Christians. One might argue, however, that the promising vision of a dialogical Church as outlined in Ecclesiam Suam and Conciliar documents like Gaudium et Spes was soon reduced to a mere method for mission and evangelization. Even dialogus did not meet the expectations of authentic understanding of dialogue. A cursory analysis of three post-conciliar documents help demonstrate how dialogue is developed in a restrictive way by the magisterium. These include: The Attitude of the Church toward the Followers of Other Religions: Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission (1984); John Paul II’s 1990 encyclical letter Redemptoris missio; and Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (1991).
Dialogue And Mission (1984)
Dialogue and Mission was an attempt to augment the new departure ushered in with Vatican II in the Church’s relations with other religions by describing this new approach as one marked by ‘the norm and ideal’ of dialogue. 54 In many ways, the document can be understood to offer practical directions learned from the experience of interreligious dialogue in the 20 years that had passed since Nostra aetate (1965) with an exploration of dialogue and how it relates to mission. 55 This ‘new attitude’ of dialogue is not simply discussion but understood as ‘all positive and constructive interreligious relations with individuals and communities of other faiths which are directed at mutual understanding and enrichment.’ 56 It is noteworthy that this definition of dialogue recognizes the value of dialogue not just for other religions, but also for the Church itself, which has something to gain from fruitful engagement with other religious traditions. However, dialogue is firmly rooted within the framework of the Church’s missionary apostolate. Indeed, dialogue accompanies evangelization, both of which it says are part of the mission of the Church. 57 It goes on to describe the essentially missionary nature of the Church, which is a single but complex reality that has various principal elements, of which dialogue is just but one. 58 These ways, or methods, which express the Church’s mission include the witness of the Christian life, commitment to the service of humanity in social development, liturgical life and prayer, and dialogue, as well as announcement and catechesis. 59 Christians meet other believers through dialogue, so as to ‘walk together towards truth and to work together in projects of common concern’. Dialogue is simply one element among many in the task of mission. 60
An important contribution of Dialogue and Mission is its explanation of the foundations of dialogue. 61 It recognizes that dialogue is not some sort of technical expedient, with ulterior motives, but is based on the personal and social needs of the contemporary context and is rooted in the Trinitarian mystery. 62 The interpersonal foundation of dialogue is particularly insightful. It is in dialogue that one ‘discovers that he [sic] does not possess the truth in a perfect and total way but can walk together with others towards that goal.’ 63 Perhaps even more importantly, the document goes on to describe the Trinitarian mystery, which is marked by ‘communion and interchange’ between the divine persons, as the very raison d’être for the Church’s call to dialogue. 64 Dialogue flows from the Father, is expressed in the Son and is made present by the Holy Spirit. 65 Dialogue, therefore, is motivated and sustained by faith in the Triune God. While the dialogical character of revelation is recognized, its wider significance is not explored and dialogue remains constrained within the context of mission.
Redemptoris Missio (1990) and Dialogue and Proclamation (1991)
The encyclical Redemptoris missio was published just months before Dialogue and Proclamation, both of which address similar themes. 66 These two documents complement each other, and it can be argued therefore that they need to be read together. 67 The category of dialogue is addressed in chapter five of the encyclical, ‘The Paths of Mission,’ as one method among many for the Church’s missionary endeavours. 68 While the encyclical certainly offers a broad, theological outlook, it is mainly directed towards practice and its attention to dialogue is found within the pastoral part of the letter. 69 Whereas the title and structure of Dialogue and Mission suggests a distinction between the two concepts (even if the content of the text does not), Redemptoris missio firmly places dialogue within the broader ecclesial task of mission. 70
The encyclical makes clear that all elements of missionary activity, including dialogue, are directed towards proclamation. 71 While all these elements complement each other, they serve the priority of all missionary activity, that is, explicit proclamation. 72 Having said that, Redemptoris missio describes the distinctiveness between dialogue and proclamation, both of which ‘should not be confused, manipulated or regarded as identical, as though they were interchangeable.’ 73 McInerney notes this unresolved tension within the document, where dialogue is clearly instrumentalized and perhaps even confirms an underlying suspicion that it is simply a means of seeking converts. 74 In fact, the encyclical considers dialogue at times to be the only way for many missionaries to witness to Christ when they find themselves in difficult contexts. 75
Zago suggests that the encyclical is an attempt to integrate and harmonize the various dichotomies that tend to exist between missionary activity and reflection—including that of dialogue and proclamation—by means of a practical pedagogy. 76 In other words, practice takes precedence over theory. It is perhaps within this context we should understand the tensions pointed out by McInerney. The encyclical is more practical in its outlook, and its theology requires fuller exploration.
Following many years of collaboration between the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation offered at that moment ‘the most sustained and profound reflection on interreligious dialogue in Catholic teaching.’ 77 The document provides helpful clarification and definitions for many of the terms used in the context of mission: dialogue, proclamation, evangelization, and mission. A much broader description of dialogue is outlined, with the different ways the category can be understood. All positive relations with those of other religions directed at mutual understanding and enrichment is the focus of the document. 78 The complementarity between dialogue and proclamation is the central theme of the document, which are described as two ways of the one mission. 79 The document clarifies, for the first time, that dialogue is an integral part of mission, and not simply a preparation or prelude for mission. 80
Particularly noteworthy is the theological foundation for the Church’s commitment to dialogue outlined in Dialogue and Proclamation; one supported by Scripture, a theology of revelation, and Trinitarian perspectives. Indeed, this foundation is primarily theological and not simply anthropological: ‘God, in an age-long dialogue, has offered and continues to offer salvation to humankind. In faithfulness to the divine initiative, the Church too must enter into a dialogue of salvation with all men and women.’ 81 The dialogical nature of divine revelation is the foundation and motivation for the Church’s dialogical approach to other denominations and religions. It is for this reason that dialogue becomes integral to its evangelizing mission in the world, in what it calls a ‘dialogue of salvation.’ 82 The divine initiative to dialogue is the central foundation for ecclesial dialogue with the religious other, which is in no way dependent on success in achieving mutual understanding and enrichment. 83 Thus, dialogue begins to be valued for its own sake and has its own theological validity. 84 One can begin to discern in Dialogue and Proclamation a deepening appreciation for dialogue as a category worth pursuing for its own sake, in the light of divine revelation.
While there is undoubtedly a much richer and deeper exploration and appreciation of the category of dialogue in Dialogue and Proclamation, it remains related to, and oriented towards, proclamation. Far from resolving the tensions between dialogue and proclamation, it could be argued that both the title and structure of the document, not to mention the fact that the document is the work of two different dicasteries, only serves to highlight the tensions even more. In its introduction, the problems the category of dialogue creates in the context of mission are acknowledged. 85 The underlying fear is that dialogue risks replacing the proclamation of the Gospel. Herein lies the tension. If one merely understands dialogue as a purely functional method of mission, perhaps this is understandable. Developing the category of dialogue as something more than simply a method, and instead one that is integral to proclamation itself, can help transcends this tension.
Returning to a Dialogical Principle in Theology
Benedict XVI’s post-synodal exhortation, Verbum Domini (2010) and its re-reading of Dei verbum represents an important development in magisterial teaching, bringing dialogue firmly back into the context of revelation theology. This exhortation, ‘On the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church’, offers firstly a reappraisal and expansion of some important insights of Dei verbum. Secondly, it explicitly understands both revelation and faith (as the human response to revelation) through the lens of dialogue. 86 It is the most significant ecclesial teaching on revelation since Vatican II and serves to show how dialogue has come to have an essential place in understanding this teaching. Part one, the most theological section of the document dealing with revelation, bears the title ‘Verbum Dei’, a none-too-subtle nod to the conciliar Constitution. 87 Verbum Domini acknowledges the growth in awareness since Vatican II of the outworking of divine revelation. The Synod regarded itself as part of the ‘continuing journey under the guidance of the Holy Spirit’ to further reflect on revelation, review Vatican II’s implementation, and ‘confront the new challenges which the present time sets before Christian believers.’ 88 Verbum Domini can be seen, therefore, as a magisterial re-reading of Dei verbum for the current context and, as such, is itself part of the ongoing implementation of what was envisioned by the Dogmatic Constitution on revelation. A key insight in this re-reading is the explicit understanding of revelation as dialogue. The chapters, ‘The God Who Speaks’ 89 (revelation) and ‘Our Response to the God Who Speaks’ 90 (faith) in part one of Verbum Domini are worth closer examination.
Part one of Verbum Domini begins with the statement: ‘The novelty of biblical revelation consists in the fact that God becomes known through the dialogue which he [sic] desires to have with us.’ 91 This assertion of the ‘God of dialogue’ was expressed, according to the exhortation, in Dei verbum’s description of the divine approach to humanity. 92 Here one can clearly see in the opening lines a re-reading of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei verbum. Moreover, this divine–human dialogue of salvation history is both Trinitarian and anthropological: its origin is found ‘in the dialogue of love between the divine persons’ and it clarifies in a definitive way ‘the enigma of the human condition’ since humankind has been created in the image and likeness of this dialogical God. 93 God’s method of dialogue is revealing of both Godself and human nature, and as such becomes the very message of revelation. ‘We were created in the word and we live in the word; we cannot understand ourselves unless we are open to this dialogue.’ 94 By highlighting the dialogical nature of revelation, Verbum Domini stresses its objective of inviting humanity to participate in God’s dialogue. 95
Several theological insights in the subsequent paragraphs of the document help illustrate the dynamic of the ‘God who speaks’ and the human response. Commentators of Verbum Domini have noted the analogical use of the word as one of Verbum Domini’s important themes. 96 Human language operates analogically when describing the word of God, so that divine self-communication can be compared to a single word which is expressed in various and different ways, what it calls ‘a symphony of the word’. It is important when making use of ‘word’, ‘God who speaks’, and ‘dialogue’ in describing revelation to avoid an understanding of the concept that reduces revelation to an exchange of words, similar to a pre-Vatican II understanding of revelation as mere content (revelata). The use of analogy for ‘word’ broadens the understanding of revelation. Firstly, ‘word of God’ refers to both the eternal Logos and that same Logos who entered history—the person of Jesus Christ, Son of the Father made man. However, God’s word also refers to creation, to salvation history, and the preaching of the apostles that is handed on in living Tradition and written in Scripture. 97 The acknowledgement that creation—liber naturae—is ‘an essential part of this symphony of many voices in which the one word is spoken’ is not without significance. 98 Once again the document references Dei verbum (para. 3) as already having captured and synthesized this thought, but Pié-Ninot highlights the novelty of this much clearer affirmation of the place of creation in revelation compared with any previous magisterial treatment of the matter. 99 Despite the essential role creation plays in the outworking of revelation, the centrality of Christ in the analogical approach to the word is emphasized. Creation cannot be understood without redemption; both find their unity in Christ. 100 Moreover, there is a pneumatological dimension to be mentioned: there can be no authentic understanding of revelation without the Holy Spirit. The word of God is only able to be expressed in human language and received by believers by means of the Holy Spirit. 101 Human language goes beyond mere words or speech: silence also has an important place in the divine–human dialogue of revelation. 102 The word also has a ‘face’ which we can see 103 and is something to be experienced. 104
Having considered revelation itself, Verbum Domini goes on to explore aspects of the human response, faith, a concept which also shares in the same dialogical dynamic. Yet again, Verbum Domini represents a re-reading and expansion of Dei verbum’s treatment on faith, and as with revelation, it is interpreted through the lens of dialogue. Faith is seen as a dialogical commitment between God and the human person and the ‘obedience of faith’ is the free response from a personal encounter with Christ. 105 Divine revelation is recognized as having the ‘capacity to enter into dialogue with the everyday problems which people face’, responding to every person’s questions and deepest yearnings, in a way that does not threaten human autonomy. And while God teaches humanity how to speak and provides the words, not least in Scripture, ‘our word to God becomes God’s word, thus confirming the dialogical nature of all Christian revelation.’ 106 Although the document maintains the primacy of the word of God stating that the divine–human dialogue cannot be compared to an encounter between two equal parties, at the same time, through God’s pure gift of love, the distance between God and humanity is bridged making them true partners. 107 One can observe a certain tension in the exhortation, an effort to maintain the primacy of God in the divine–human dialogue—which at times risks becoming a divine monologue if this remains unqualified 108 —and affirming a truly dialogical understanding of revelation and humanity’s free and autonomous participation therein.
‘Dialogue’ and Pope Francis
As mentioned above, O’Malley’s research into moments of reformation throughout the Church’s history reveals the importance of language or rhetoric in its self-conscious embracing of ecclesiastical change. Content cannot be fully understood without consideration of its style or literary form, and so when trying to fully grasp magisterial teaching its linguistic style becomes important, not least the use of new vocabulary and concepts. 109 As evidenced in recent papal documents, not least the social doctrine found in Laudato si’ and Fratelli tutti, dialogue has become a very visible concept—a constant refrain—in current, papal teaching. 110
Elsewhere, I explored Pope Francis’s call to dialogue in Fratelli tutti. 111 In terms of the encyclical’s intention to engage with those beyond the confines of the Church on a social issue, as well as its structure and method, many of the same arguments on the importance of dialogue for Francis can be equally said of Laudato si’. The fact that both encyclicals concern social doctrine and are addressed to all people of good will is itself revealing of a pontificate primarily concerned with issues that touch the lives of all of humanity, beyond those in communion with the Church. 112 Both encyclicals are framed as contributing to ongoing dialogues rather than simply re-stating Church teachings. 113 A call to dialogue is the constant theme throughout both documents, which are themselves examples of a dialogical approach to the issue at hand. The Church today calls for a new dialogue, is open to it, and welcomes it. The Church also recognizes that every person is capable of dialogue and invites everyone into dialogue, which is part of the very mystery of authentic human existence and Trinitarian life. 114 For Francis, dialogue is more than just a technical expedient or method for mission, but a style of life and a way of being. 115 It is also worth noting recent documents under the current pontificate in the context of education which place an emphasis on the central importance of dialogue: Educating to Intercultural Dialogue in Catholic Schools: Living in Harmony for a Civilization of Love (2013) and The Identity of the Catholic School for a Culture of Dialogue (2022). These, as well as Francis’s social doctrine, demonstrate how he has brought dialogue to the front and centre of the ecclesial agenda and, building on the insights of Verbum Domini, does not confine it to relations with other denominations and religions. 116
Conclusion: Dialogue as the Medium and Message of Revelation
The survey of relevant magisterial documents in this article has demonstrated both the emergence of the concept of dialogue and its increasing import within such teaching, not least for a theology of revelation. There are many positive elements that have surfaced which offer potential for a systematic theology of revelation that takes dialogue seriously. These include: the dialogical life of the Trinity; the outworking of revelation throughout history, understood as the ‘dialogue of salvation’ and demonstrative of divine life and pedagogy; the place of creation in this dialogical revelation; and not least, a thoroughly relational conception of the human person.
With the post-synodal exhortation Verbum Domini, dialogue is brought back to the centre of the Church’s fundamental theology. Although Dei verbum only makes explicit reference to dialogue once in the context of prayer, theologians have interpreted both the text and genesis of Dei verbum, its message and development during the Council, as a new approach to Tradition which recognizes that it develops dialogically. 117 Indeed, Dei verbum understood itself as a continuation and re-reading of Trent and Vatican I for the new, contemporary context and, as such, its dialogical modus operandi—as a document of an Ecumenical Council—is itself revelatory, demonstrating how both the development and interpretation of Tradition is recognized as done dialogically. 118 Dialogue, in other words, is both the medium and message of divine revelation. While dialogue was soon reduced in the years after the Council to a mere method for the Church’s mission to other denominations and religions, it becomes clear that dialogue is now a fundamental category for magisterial teaching, recovering the dialogical dynamic represented and taught by the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, dialogue is essential for the discipline of theology itself if it wants to engage meaningfully and authentically with the contemporary context.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
2
3
Lieven Boeve, ‘Revelation, Scripture and Tradition: Lessons from Vatican II’s Constitution Dei Verbum for Contemporary Theology,’ International Journal of Systematic Theology 13 (2011): 416–33, at 420.
4
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum (18 November 1965), 2. I have used the translation in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Trent-Vatican II, ed. Norman P. Tanner (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2016), 971–81.
5
René Latourelle, Theology of Revelation: Including a Commentary on the Constitution ‘Dei Verbum’ of Vatican II (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1966), 458–59; Joseph Ratzinger, ‘Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,’ in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1969), 171; see DV 2.
6
DV 8. See DV 5, 12, 23. Three elements of this growth are listed in DV 8: contemplation and study by believers; understanding of spiritual things which they experience; and episcopal teaching and preaching. For Ratzinger (‘Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,’ 186), this highlights the dynamic character of revelation in which the whole life of the Church, not just the hierarchy or magisterium, ‘extracts anew from the yesterday of its historical origin what was meant for all time and yet can be understood only in the changing ages and in the particular way of each’.
7
DV 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23.
8
DV 2. See DV 4, 7, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25.
9
See DV 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 17, 21.
10
Boeve, ‘Revelation, Scripture and Tradition,’ 420; Werner G. Jeanrond, ‘Hermeneutics and Revelation,’ Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift 79 (2003): 187–96, at 190; Avery R. Dulles, ‘Faith and Revelation,’ in Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, eds, Francis Schüssler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011), 81.
11
Wolfgang Beinert, Revelation (New York, NY: Crossroad, 2000), 601.
12
Ibid., 600.
13
Thomas Norris, ‘On Revisiting Dei Verbum,’ Irish Theological Quarterly 66 (2001): 315–37, at 317; Andrew Meszaros, ‘Revelation in George Tyrrell, Neo-Scholasticism, and Dei Verbum,’ Angelicum 91 (2014): 535–68, at 564. See Robert J. Ryan, ‘Interpreting Vatican II: The Importance of Deed in Dei Verbum,’ The Heythrop Journal 63 (2022): 260–76.
14
DV 2.
15
Jared Wicks, ‘Pieter Smulders and “Dei Verbum”: 1. A Consultation on the Eve of Vatican II,’ Gregorianum 82 (2001): 241–97, at 281.
16
DV 2.
17
Ryan, ‘Interpreting Vatican II,’ 263.
18
Ibid., 264. See also Augustin Bea, The Word of God and Mankind (Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press), 1967, 166.
19
Ryan, ‘Interpreting Vatican II,’ 264.
20
DV 8. Ratzinger (‘Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,’ 184–86) points out that this article of Dei Verbum places Tradition ‘not only in the explicitly traditional statements of church doctrine, but in the unstated—and often unstatable—elements of the whole service of the Christian worship of God and the life of the church.’ He regrets, however, that Vatican II ignored the question of the criticism of Tradition, since not everything in the Church is necessarily a legitimate tradition. He regards the compromise qualification in Dei Verbum (only that which leads to holiness and faith) as unsatisfactory.
21
DV 9.
22
DV 9.
23
DV 12.
24
See John E. Thiel, ‘Dei Verbum: Scripture, Tradition, and Historical Criticism,’ Horizons 47 (2020): 207–31.
25
See DV 7.
26
The development of doctrine and the Church’s growth in understanding of revelation might be compared with the divine pedagogy of the Old Testament, described in Dei Verbum 14–15, whereby the people of Israel to come to understand God ‘more deeply and clearly’ by ‘signs and symbols’ in the ‘context of human history’.
27
Lieven Boeve, Theology at the Crossroads of University, Church and Society: Dialogue, Difference and Catholic Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2018), 16–17. For more detail on the debate and vote on De fontibus revelationis in 1962, see Giuseppe Ruggieri, ‘The First Doctrinal Clash,’ in History of Vatican II, Volume II: The Formation of the Council’s Identity, First Period and Intersession, October 1962–September 1963, eds, Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph A. Komonchak (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 233–66; Brendan J. Cahill, The Renewal of Revelation Theology (1960–1962): The Development and Responses to the Fourth Chapter of the Preparatory Schema De Deposito Fidei (Rome: Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1999), 183–204.
28
Ratzinger (‘Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,’ 155) quotes Florit’s relatio on the draft presented on 30 September 1964, which sums up the unique place of Dei Verbum in the history of the Council: ‘Because of its inner importance, as well as the many vicissitudes that it has undergone, the history of the draft of the Constitution on Divine Revelation has fused with the history of this Council into a kind of unity’.
29
Boeve, Theology at the Crossroads, 22. In the words of Boeve: ‘Dei Verbum realizes what it claims’.
30
Ibid., 21. See also DV 1, which opens with the ‘reverent attention’ needed by the Church to confidently proclaim the Word of God: the Church is primarily ecclesia discens before it is ecclesia docens.
31
Ryan, ‘Interpreting Vatican II,’ 270. Those who emphasize the letter and text of the Council, he says, generally underscore its continuity with the past; whereas, emphasizing the spirit of the Council stresses its event character and the ongoing renewal it brought (and continues to bring) about (267). The word-deed dynamic welcomes and includes both approaches. Indeed, any separation between text and event is erroneous (262).
32
Ryan, ‘Interpreting Vatican II,’ 266.
33
See John W. O’Malley, ‘Developments, Reforms, and Two Great Reformations: Towards a Historical Assessment of Vatican II,’ Theological Studies 44 (1983): 373–406. O’Malley’s historical research allows him to conclude that Vatican II, much like the changes brought about the Gregorian Reforms and the Protestant Reformation, can be seen as a reformation, which he understands as ‘a self-consciously induced change in ecclesiastical life or consciousness that is based on principles that tend to dislodge old ones’ (377). Such a reformation, that displaces one model or world view with another is more than simply adjustments or reforms but represents a paradigm shift.
34
O’Malley, ‘Developments, Reforms, and Two Great Reformations,’ 396, 403.
35
John W. O’Malley, ‘Vatican II: Historical Perspectives on Its Uniqueness and Interpretation,’ in Vatican II, the Unfinished Agenda: A Look to the Future, eds, Lucien Richard, Daniel J. Harrington, and John W. O’Malley (New York, NY: Paulist, 1987), 27.
36
O’Malley, ‘Vatican II,’ 28.
37
Ann Michele Nolan, A Privileged Moment: Dialogue in the Language of the Second Vatican Council, 1962–1965 (Bern: Peter Lang, 2006), 2.
38
McInerney, ‘Nostra Aetate,’ 260; ES 58. Only the Latin word colloquium is used by the encyclical and translated in English as ‘dialogue’. It is worth noting, for what follows, that dialogus never appears.
39
Nolan, A Privileged Moment, 383.
40
Jacques Dupuis, ‘A Theological Commentary: Dialogue and Proclamation,’ in Redemption and Dialogue: Reading Redemptoris Missio and Dialogue and Proclamation, ed. William R. Burrows (New York, NY: Orbis, 1993), 125.
41
ES 12.
42
ES 65.
43
ES 70.
44
René Latourelle, ‘La Révélation comme dialogue’, Gregorianum 46 (1965): 834–39, at 835.
45
ES 70–73.
46
ES 74–76.
47
Dupuis, ‘A Theological Commentary,’ 125.
48
ES 71. See Latourelle, ‘La Révélation comme dialogue’, 832.
49
Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P.G.W. Glare (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 536.
50
Ibid., 353.
51
Nolan, A Privileged Moment, 225.
52
The one explicit reference to dialogue in DV 25 is used to describe prayer. In the chapter on Scripture in the life of the Church, it is written: ‘Let it never be forgotten that prayer should accompany the reading of holy scripture, so that it becomes a dialogue [colloquium] between God and the human reader; for “when we pray, we talk to him: when we read the divine word, we listen to him”’.
53
Nolan, A Privileged Moment, 223.
54
55
Felix Machado, ‘Dialogue and Mission: A Reading of a Document of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue,’ in Milestones in Interreligious Dialogue: A Reading of Selected Catholic Church Documents on Relations with People of Other Religions, ed. Chidi Denis Isizoh (Rome: Ceedee, 2002), 181; see DM 5.
56
DM 3.
57
DM 7.
58
DM 13.
59
DM 13.
60
DM 13.
61
McInerney, ‘Nostra Aetate,’ 262.
62
DM 20, 21, 22–24; see Machado, ‘Dialogue and Mission,’ 178.
63
DM 21.
64
DM 22.
65
Machado, ‘Dialogue and Mission,’ 175.
66
John Paul II, Redemptoris missio (7 December 1990), https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio.html. Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (19 May 1991), 
.
67
McInerney, ‘Nostra Aetate,’ 264.
68
RM 55–57.
69
Marcello Zago, ‘Commentary on Redemptoris Missio,’ in Redemption and Dialogue: Reading Redemptoris Missio and Dialogue and Proclamation, ed. William R. Burrows (New York, NY: Orbis, 1993), 60.
70
McInerney, ‘Nostra Aetate,’ 264; see Zago, ‘Commentary on Redemptoris Missio,’ 62. See RM 55.
71
RM 44.
72
Zago, ‘Commentary on Redemptoris Missio,’ 69.
73
RM 55.
74
McInerney, ‘Nostra Aetate,’ 264.
75
RM 57.
76
Zago, ‘Commentary on Redemptoris Missio,’ 61.
77
McInerney, ‘Nostra Aetate,’ 263.
78
DP 9. This third understanding of dialogue develops the definition found in DM 3.
79
Dupuis, ‘A Theological Commentary,’ 129, 147.
80
McInerney, ‘Nostra Aetate,’ 263.
81
DP 38.
82
DP 39; See ES 70.
83
DP 53.
84
See DP 41.
85
These difficulties are also dealt with in RM 4. There is a sense by some that the urgency of mission in the Church has been lost, or even replaced, by interreligious dialogue.
86
It is worth noting that the theological treatment of dialogue in part one of Verbum Domini is not in the context of interreligious dialogue, as in previous magisterial documents discussed above. Having said this, interreligious dialogue is mentioned at the end of part three in the context of the Church’s mission to the world. Whelan describes this document as a restatement and updating of Dei Verbum and indeed the whole Council (Gerard Whelan, ‘La missione della chiesa, proclamare la parola di Dio al mondo,’ in Commento alla ‘Verbum Domini’: in memoria di P. Donath Hercsik, eds, Maria del Carmen Aparicio Valls and Salvador Pié-Ninot [Rome: Gregorian and Biblical, 2012], 127–29).
87
Salvador Pié-Ninot, ‘Il Dio che parla,’ in Commento alla ‘Verbum Domini’: in memoria di P. Donath Hercsik, eds, Maria del Carmen Aparicio Valls and Salvador Pié-Ninot (Rome: Gregorian and Biblical, 2012), 53.
88
VD 3.
89
VD 6–21.
90
VD 22–28.
91
VD 6.
92
See DV 2.
93
DV 2.
94
VD 22.
95
See Joseph Xavier, ‘La risposta dell’uomo al Di oche parla,’ in Commento alla ‘Verbum Domini’: in memoria di P. Donath Hercsik, eds, Maria del Carmen Aparicio Valls and Salvador Pié-Ninot (Rome: Gregorian and Biblical, 2012), 67. Xavier remarks on the appropriateness of the concept of dialogue to describe revelation since faith involves persons, not things.
96
Pié-Ninot, ‘Il Dio che parla,’ 53; Joseph Xavier, ‘La risposta dell’uomo al Di oche parla,’ 67. For Pié-Ninot, the analogy of the Word has a certain novelty not usually found in magisterial documents, and according to Xavier, it allows Verbum Domini to expand upon Vatican II’s idea of the Christ-event, the concrete universal.
97
DV 7.
99
Pié-Ninot, ‘Il Dio che parla,’ 57–58.
100
See VD 13, DV 3.
101
VD 15–16, 18.
102
VD 21.
103
VD 12.
104
VD 7.
105
Xavier, ‘‘La risposta dell’uomo al Di oche parla,’ 69; see VD 22, 25.
106
VD 23–24.
107
VD 22.
108
For example, VD 24 speaks of humanity dialoguing with God using God’s words, especially the Books of Psalms which contain all we need to say. Although the paragraph speaks of our word becoming God’s word, it is in fact more a case that God’s word must become our word. Surely this would more accurately be described as a monologue rather than true dialogue.
109
See O’Malley, ‘Vatican II,’ 27.
110
See Massimo Faggioli, ‘Ecumenism in Pope Francis: ad intra and ad extra,’ in Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, and the Renewal of the Church, eds, Duncan Dormor and Alana Harris (New York, NY: Paulist, 2017), 175. Nieves also points to dialogue as being one of the most frequent words used in his homilies and writings (González Nieves, ‘Dialogue,’ in A Pope Francis Lexicon, eds, Joshua J. McElwee and Cindy Wooden [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2018], 40).
111
See Ryan McAleer, ‘Dialogue and Catholicity: A Critique of the Social Doctrine of Pope Francis,’ Louvain Studies 46 (2023): 70–85.
112
Papal encyclicals, which often speak authoritatively on topical doctrinal and pastoral issues and are usually addressed to the Church’s membership, arguably offer the best insight into a pope’s teaching agenda. Francis’s only other encyclical, Lumen fidei (2013), is generally considered to be mainly the work of Pope Benedict XVI who was unable to have it published before his retirement earlier that year.
113
See LS 3, FT 6.
114
LS 3, 14, 15, 62, 163; FT 6, 69, 74, 85, 87.
115
FT 216.
116
Elsewhere, I have critiqued Francis’s dialogical approach and offer a note of caution: see McAleer, ‘Dialogue and Catholicity.’ I have argued that there remains an underlying risk in what could be described as a binary, dialectical approach to dialogue whereby one version of unity and wholeness takes definitive priority in any encounter with otherness, ultimately assimilating or ignoring that which is different. Nikulin, for example, sums up the difference between dialectics and authentic dialogue: dialectics can be understood as a process which side-lines the other to get to the truth, whereas dialogue in contrast is better understood as an open-ended encounter with the other (Dmitri V. Nikulin, Dialectic and Dialogue [Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010], x).
117
See Boeve, Theology at the Crossroads, 18; Ryan, ‘Interpreting Vatican II,’ 266; Gerald O’Collins, Retrieving Fundamental Theology: The Three Styles of Contemporary Theology (New York, NY: Paulist, 1993), 77.
118
Boeve, Theology at the Crossroads, 18.