The Popes prior to the Second Vatican Council never considered dialogue an end in itself, but a means subordinated to the mission of bringing all souls to the one Church of Christ. Pius IX, in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (August 10, 1863), states that “we must hold firmly that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can achieve salvation; it is the only ark of salvation,” and adds that dialogue with the separated must serve “so that they may return to the one ark.” Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum (June 29, 1896), commands to “call the dissidents back to the Chair of Peter, where the root of unity lies.” Pius XI, in Mortalium Animos (January 6, 1928), decrees that “the union of Christians can only be promoted by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ, from which they once departed.” Pius XII, through the Instruction of the Holy Office (December 20, 1949), permits meetings with non-Catholics “only if the Catholic truth is expounded in its entirety.” In all these documents, dialogue is a missionary instrument; its ultimate end is conversion. This doctrinal clarity does not arise from a merely human intransigence, but from the fundamental principle that the Church, as the mystical body of Christ, possesses divine authority and the fullness of the means of salvation, and therefore cannot place revealed truth on equal footing with error in a common search (Amerio, 2011, §35.1).
🔄II. Post-Vatican II Dialogue: An End in Itself
The Second Vatican Council alters the language and, consequently, the praxis. Unitatis Redintegratio (November 21, 1964), n. 11, declares that “dialogue itself favors unity.” The expression “in itself” breaks with tradition: dialogue ceases to be a means to become an end. This semantic deviation reflects a new philosophy of dialogue, in which the act of dialoguing acquires an intrinsic value, independent of its ultimate end, which is the proclamation of truth. The process of exchange is elevated to the category of a good, obscuring the fact that the Church does not enter into dialogue to seek a truth it already possesses, but to communicate it (Amerio, 2011, §16.2). Paul VI, in Evangelii Nuntiandi (December 8, 1975), n. 79, still acknowledges that “dialogue is a method of evangelization,” but soon adds that one must “respect religious freedom in everything,” a phrase that, in practice, eliminates the urgency of conversion. John Paul II, in Redemptoris Missio (December 7, 1990), n. 55, assures that “dialogue does not replace the mission,” yet he organizes the Assisi Meeting (October 27, 1986), where Buddhists, Shintoists, and animists pray in separate rooms without any explicit preaching of conversion. Benedict XVI, at Assisi III (October 27, 2011), tries to correct: “We are not praying together, but we are together to pray”; the middle ground, however, maintains the ambiguity. Francis, in the Abu Dhabi Document (February 4, 2019), states that “the pluralism and the diversity of religions are willed by God in the world” – a phrase unprecedented in Tradition. The Synod on Synodality (2021-2024) elevates “mutual listening” to a structural principle, transforming the Church from a teacher into a disciple of the world and promoting a "discussionism" that suspends judgment on the truth (Amerio, 2011, §16.1), omitting any mention of the “return to the Catholic Church” in its final documents.
🔀III. Textual Comparison: From Clarity to Ambiguity
Pre-Vatican II: “Return to the one Church” (Mortalium Animos).
Post-Vatican II: “Joint path towards unity” (Unitatis Redintegratio).
Pre-Vatican II: “Conversion of the separated” (Satis Cognitum).
Post-Vatican II: “Mutual enrichment” (Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, 19).
Pre-Vatican II: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Syllabus, 1864).
Post-Vatican II: “Elements of salvation outside” (Lumen Gentium, 8).
Pre-Vatican II: “Dialogue with integral truth” (Holy Office, 1949).
Post-Vatican II: “Dialogue on an equal footing” (Ut Unum Sint, 29).
Pre-Vatican II: “Condemnation of errors and heresies” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis).
Post-Vatican II: “Search for ‘seeds of the Word’ in other religions” (Ad Gentes, 11).
The former language was hierarchical, missionary, unequivocal; the latter is horizontal, diplomatic, ambiguous. This linguistic variation is not accidental but manifests a deliberate loss of the essential antithesis between the Church and the world, seeking points of convergence where the necessity of conversion was once affirmed (Amerio, 2011, §1.5).
⚔️IV. Saint Francis of Assisi: Model of Evangelization, Not of Synodality
In 1219, Saint Francis crosses enemy lines during the Fifth Crusade and proposes to Sultan Al-Malik al-Kamil the trial by fire: “If I pass through unharmed, you will convert to Christ.” There is no joint prayer, no “walking together”; there is explicit preaching of the Catholic faith (Legenda Maior, chap. 9; Chronicle of Thomas of Celano). The Saint's attitude reveals an absolute certainty in the truth he proclaims, in direct contrast to the suspension of judgment that characterizes modern dialogue. To use Saint Francis to justify the current synodality is a historical distortion.
📉V. Conclusion: Practical Rupture, Not Merely Linguistic
The two-thousand-year Tradition has always subordinated dialogue to conversion. The post-Vatican II era inverts this hierarchy: dialogue becomes the end, conversion optional. The “synodal Church” no longer wants to convert; it wants to “walk together.” This inversion is not a mere linguistic accident; it is a practical rupture that dilutes the missionary urgency and opens the door to indifferentism. In essence, we are witnessing the transformation of the substance of the mission under the pretext of a change in modality, a classic error of innovators who treat fundamental principles as if they were mere historical forms subject to change (Amerio, 2011, §42.3). Those who wish for fidelity to Tradition must reject ambiguity and reclaim Christ's mandate: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19).
📚References
Amerio, R. Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century. (Corrected version, September 2011).