On Inter-Religious Dialogue: III-1 Dialogue Is A Part Of Human Existence

Last updated on: July 6, 2007 at 4:10 pm by Henry Karlson

On Inter-Religious Dialogue: III-1 Dialogue Is A Part Of Human Existence 2007-07-06T16:10:00-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The Catholic Church tells us that interfaith dialogue is an obligatory part of the Christian life. “Dialogue is fundamental for the Church, which is called to collaborate in God’s plan with its methods of presence, respect and love toward all persons (cf. AG 10-12; ES 41-42; RH 11-12)” John Paul II, To the Plenary Session of the Secretariat for Non-Christians, 3-4-1984, pages 268 -71 in Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church (1963 – 1995). ed. Francesco Gioia (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1997), par 419.

Many people disregard this responsibility because they fear that inter-religious dialogue leads to a relativistic understanding of faith. They think that one’s Catholic identity and beliefs would be lost by the end of the dialogical process. Examples can be brought up which seem to suggest this happens. It certainly is a legitimate concern. Indeed, the Church shares this apprehension, but she does not think it justifies our exclusion from dialogue. Instead, it means that there is the need, now more than ever before, for Catholics to engage in a continuing process of catechises throughout their life, to be made better aware of the teachings of their faith and for the reasons why they are believed by the Church. How else can they dialogue with others about their own faith if they do not know their own faith? We cannot ignore the need to dialogue, especially since dialogue can make us more aware of those areas of the faith we do not sufficiently understand. It provides for us the motivation to discover answers to those questions we cannot yet answer, and it could illuminate for us questions which we might not otherwise have known needed to be asked. To engage others in a proper dialogue is difficult, and there are many practical concerns which need to be worked out to help facilitate a respectful and meaningful dialogue. We will concern ourselves with the ways dialogue can take place and the methods involved in such dialogue later. At this point, we need to examine various aspects of why dialogue is fundamental to who we are as human persons, because this will help lead us to discover why dialogue can never be regulated as an optional extra of the Christian life.

Humans are, by and by, communal by nature. We are called to relate to one another, to share with another our lives –to experience life together. We are greater when we work together than when we fight against one another. While we could raise the question of hermits and whether or not they share in these communal needs, we must realize that they represent at best a small portion of humanity, and if we examine their lives closely, we would find that they meet these communal needs in various ways and are never truly neglected.

We need others in our lives; we need to share with them our thoughts, our hopes, our fears, our beliefs, what we have done, what we wish to do, our likes, our dislikes, and anything else which we feel makes us who we are. Except for those who would want to dominate all conversations so that they are the only ones who actually converse (probably the result of an inflate ego), not only do we want to communicate about ourselves with others, we also want to listen to them, and hear the insights they have gained from their own interests, studies and life experiences. The fragile barrier between the I and thou is broken down when we converse, although how much we let others in and how much they let us in depends upon many factors, and communion here on earth tends to be less than perfect. Yet, such communion through dialogue exists. We can and do experience the joys and sorrows of others; we are never set apart as an impartial listener, no matter how much we might try. Moreover, as we listen, and respond to what we hear, we begin to realize another truth: our thoughts are never entirely our own. They do not come out of our minds ex nihilo. They develop and come out of a response from the dialogues we have been engaging with others from the very beginning of our existence. “When the individual thinks, he does not think individualistically; he does not think out of himself alone; nor only in contemplation of God or intercourse with the world, that is, with the object of thinking (his thought), but he thinks already in conformity, harmony with, and / or reaction to, stimulated by, and in dialogue with, other people. Thinking is not an individualistic process, but an act of language” Raimon Panikkar, The Intra-Religious Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1999; revised edition), 36.

Speech is an important, and indeed, central part of how we communicate. We must understand both the power and limitations of speech. St Bonaventure elucidates upon this issue quite well when he writes, “Considering speech in relation to the speaker, we see that all speech signifies a mental concept. That inner concept is the word of the mind and its offspring which is known to the person conceiving it. But in order that this concept may become known to the hearer, it assumes the form of the voice; and by means of this clothing, the intelligible word becomes sensible and is heard externally. It is received into the ear of the listener and yet does not depart from the mind of the person uttering it” St Bonaventure, On The Reduction of the Arts to Theology. trans. Zachary Hayes (St Bonaventure, New York: Franciscan Institute, 1996), par. 16. The power of speech is that it allows us to share concepts together, where the thoughts in my head are able to be received by you, and you can think upon the same things I am thinking about, making a unity of thought between the two of us. Because we are so accustomed to it, and experience it throughout all our conscious lives, we might not realize how valuable and significant a tool this is! We might not even realize what we are doing, yet it is true, speech provides a vehicle by which we find ourselves being united with one another.

What is it that is being shared? What exactly are concepts? Does not their common possession among people who are not materially one and the same show for us evidence of a non-material side to our existence? Because these concepts have an influence upon our actions, and through our actions upon the material world we experience through our senses, does this not show that they are, in part, transcendental to the material side of reality? And does not the fact that we can share with others in a transcendental experience indicate that we are never entirely alone as pure individuals even when we are thinking to ourselves, because our thoughts are not entirely independent from the thoughts of others?

Certainly, speech is a powerful tool, because of how it makes present before us an immaterial reality. Yet, it is also an imperfect tool. The way we communicate these concepts are only imperfect representations of them, and require work on both sides to actualize their potential: speech “never expresses except by means of a likeness; it never teaches except by means of a convincing light; it never persuades except by power; and it is evident that these effects are accomplished only by means of an inherent likeness, light and power intrinsically united to the soul” (ibid., par. 18).

Although speech is central to the way we communicate, it is quite clear it is not the only, nor possibly the best way, we communicate ourselves to others. While probably not the words of St Francis, the famous dictum which tells us to, “preach the Gospel, and use words if necessary,” clearly is in the Franciscan spirit and hits upon this truth quite well. We communicate not only by our words, but by our deeds; what we do for and with others suggests quite a bit about ourselves and what we actually believe in. Indeed, even if we do not share a common tongue, we can nonetheless communicate a significant amount by non-verbal means, and indeed, much of what is communicated between people, even when speaking to another, is done through such means. We must realize that our very body itself communicates who and what we are; unless we believe in some sort of gnostic spiritualism, we must realize that our visage, our image, is a significant part of our identity. Although our body communicates much about ourselves to others, we must also recognize that it does so imperfectly, due in part to the maladies we suffer in life. When we first meet others, often our first glimpse of who we are is established to them by our looks and how we present ourselves to others through them; despite all claims to the contrary, first impressions have a long lasting effect upon people and how they think of each other.

Even if we have never met someone in person, we feel we know more about them once we have seen their picture. This is probably why pictures of authors are so often included with the books they write: it helps create a more personal relationship between the reader and the author, freeing up the communication process that the author wants to establish in their book. Indeed, we feel we cannot fully know someone until we have some image we can use to associate with them. This explains why images in the Christian faith play a very important role in our spiritual life. The Logos took upon Himself human form, providing with it a personal image we can use to relate to Him. The communion we have with the saints is capable of receiving its fulfillment when we can contemplate their images, because by their images their presence before us can be realized and felt and not left as some sort of mental abstraction. Indeed, the body is so important to us because we are all embodied entities and not disembodied spirits.

St Gregory of Nyssa tells us that the soul and body develop together, yet the body conforms to the will of the soul. “For just as a man when perfectly developed has a specially marked activity of the soul, so at the beginning of his existence he shows in himself that co-operation of the soul which is suitable and conformable to his existing need, in its preparing for itself its proper dwelling-place by means of the implanted matter; for we do not suppose it possible that the soul is adapted to a strange building, just as it is not possible that the seal impressed on wax should be fitted to an engraving that does not agree with it” St Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Manin NFPNF2:5. ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), XXIX.7. This points out that even our soul, which is immaterial and invisible, nonetheless can communicate something of itself to others: our body and what it looks like is not a secondary aspect of who we are: it is fundamental to our identity. The two are intricately linked from the time of conception, and the soul provides the framework for which the body finds its form, even as the soul grows in its own existence; the body finally manifests the fullness of the soul’s artifice, not in birth, but in our maturity. In our fallen existence, there can be, and are, errors in this communication, but Catholic theology has always said that the resurrected body will be free from blemishes; the soul will perfectly form the body without any contamination to it from sin. This is why iconography spiritualizes the body, because it represents the transcendent glory that the body is to have in the resurrection.

If our soul, in how it shapes its body, is communicating itself to others, it is doing this because it is following the true archetype of humanity, that is, the Logos who became flesh to communicate with us the fullness of the revelation of God. “It is something like this that we see in the Eternal Word. God conceived the Word by an eternal act of generation, as it is written in the eighth chapter of the Books of Proverbs […]. But that the Word might be known by human beings who are endowed with the senses, the Word assumed the form of flesh….” (St Bonaventure, On the Reduction of the Arts), par. 16). The Father speaks the Word, and the Word assumes flesh to reveal Himself to us; the flesh presents to us the “image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), revealing to us God in the way our flesh reveals to each other our soul.

In saying this, there are many caveats which probably should be made clear. Among the first, and most important of them is this: while fullness of truth is revealed to us in Jesus, this does not mean we can comprehend this truth, that there is no mystery left. “For the image is one thing, and the thing depicted is another; one can always notice the differences between them, since one is not the other, and vice verse” St John of Damascus, On the Divine Images. trans. David Anderson (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), III.16. While Jesus is indeed the fullness of God in bodily form, the divinity of Jesus transcends the humanity, that is, God transcends the human condition. Everything is revealed, and yet in that revelation we encounter the mystery as a part of that same revelation. The divine transcendence is revealed, but it is not exhausted, in the incarnation. This of course has a practical effect for us: it reminds us the limitation of communication. Since there are elements of truth which transcends human comprehension, then all human engagement with truth will be limited, and must indeed be seen as such. Communication is done through likeness and not identity; we must not confuse what we relate to others as being more than a mere likeness of truth; the fullness of truth will always be more than what we can and do say. Our concepts and ideas should be seen as pointers to a reality which transcends the words we use to express them. “Reality is not totally objectifiable,” as Panikkar puts it (Panikkar, The Intra-Religious Dialogue, 34.

Once we realize that our incarnated existence itself is a form of personal communication with others, this alone should demonstrates the fundamental role that dialogue plays in our life. We exist in dialogue; we encounter others always in dialogue. As Jesus represents what humanity is all about, we can easily establish our being as being in dialogue relates Christology. Christ is the archetype for humanity: Marius Victorinus puts it in this way: the Logos is the image of the Father, and our soul is in the image of Christ. But people could still wonder if there is not something deeper and more fundamental which explains the dialogical nature of humanity? Is it only because the Logos, who represents in His Person the Dialogical Principle of God, is incarnate as Jesus Christ, the archetype for humanity, that we too must exist in dialogue?

Dialogue

Henry Karlson

Theological Anthropology

Theology

Previous Post

July 6, 2007

New Immigration Fees

Next Post

July 6, 2007 Iraq War: the Disproportionate Evils That Just Keep Coming

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What animal tricked Eve in the garden?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A lion A serpent A fox A wolf