Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

232 JOSEPH CHAPEL
true man.” 67 Although human language cannot completely express
the reality of God, “faith clearly presupposes that human
language is capable of expressing divine and transcendent reality
in a universal way….” 68 In this way, the word of God is a divine
word, although expressed in human language.
However, philosophy needs to go beyond more limited existential,
hermeneutical and linguistic questions, to examine the
more radical questions about the fundamental meaning of personal
existence, being and God. Otherwise, philosophy offers
less to theology than it might for, in the Holy Father’s estimation,
people are settling for, “partial and provisional truths, no longer
seeking to ask radical questions about the meaning and ultimate
foundation of human, personal and social existence. In short,
the hope that philosophy might be able to provide definitive answers
to these questions has dwindled.” 69
As a Catholic thinker, Ebner’s notion of God as the Eternal
Thou and his understanding of “Word” as foundational – to be
echoed later in Dei Verbum – make a substantial contribution
here: faith and reason meet in our human nature, we are created
in the Word, the Word of faith who is Jesus Christ, while at
the same time, it is “having the word,” which is the very manifestation
of reason. Because the central reality of man and
woman is the fact of being created by God, their very identity is
found as dialogue partners with the Eternal Thou.
Ebner does not substantially develop this relationship between
word, language and reason, which is a central theme for
language philosophy. Rather, Ebner’s significant contribution is
to provide the theological link to Jesus Christ, the Word made
flesh, as the foundational word that undergirds human language
which mediates reason.
The dialogical reality of the relationship between God and
man founded in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, suggests an
invitation both in God’s “call,” and at the same time, in man’s
ability to “respond.” In Ebner’s thought, this “ability to respond”
67 FR, 66.
68 FR, 84.
69 FR, 5.