The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration ‘Mysterium Ecclesiae’ (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church ‘Communionis notio’ (1992), and the declaration ‘Dominus Iesus’ (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the Magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

In other words, theologians take note and correct your errant ways (perhaps before the CDF takes corrective action). This warning being noted, both Protestant and Catholic theologians call for dialogue as most theologians believe that history and the interconnectedness of today’s world makes dialogue not only desirable but necessary. However, the agreement that dialogue is necessary does not preclude dialogue partners from maintaining their own beliefs. In fact, religious convictions are a prerequisite for dialogue. One must come to the dialogue with specific convictions which, while they may be subject to revision via the dialogue process, are foundational. Differences must be acknowledged and taken seriously. The process by which one determines similarities and genuine differences must be a careful one so that simple misunderstandings are not labeled as differences and so that the temptation to overlook differences simply in order to claim harmony is avoided.

Thus, dialogue does not signal a retreat from Catholic identity. Catholic theologians approach dialogue from the perspective of a particular history, with specific theological claims, accompanied by fundamental commitment. The willingness to dialogue, however, implies openness to the other and to the possibility that one’s own theology will be affected within the dialogue process. If dialogue is to be more than a mere exchange of information, there should be a mutual understanding by the participants that one’s view of the other and one’s self-interpretation may change as a consequence of the dialogue. This openness implies that dialogue carries an inherent implication that one may think differently even about one’s own tradition because the dialogue reveals new possibilities. One may encounter some unforeseen twists that potentially change both the content of the dialogue and the perspectives of the participants. Theology both precedes dialogue and, to some degree, emanates from it. In this regard, dialogue is not an end in itself but a component of the theological enterprise, an enterprise that may be characterized as a search for truth.

While one believes that one’s own religion represents truth, elements of truth may be contained in the religion of the other as well. Searchers for truth in dialogue should have the humility to acknowledge that their grasp of truth is a conditional one and the courage to embrace truth when it is manifested in the religion of the other. Seeking the truth about the religious nature and destiny of humanity need not be an exclusive enterprise. The search for meaning and the transcendent by various Christian communions can be a complementary endeavor that enriches each participant and leads all to a deeper understanding of truth.