Diana Carey

March 6th, 2020

SAP Week 4- Blondel’s History and Dogma

1. In the third section of History and Dogma, author Maurice Blondel writes about the role of Tradition
in Catholic theology. He asks the question of whether the lens of Tradition is important when
understanding Catholic faith and dogma. Blondel shares that people assume that “tradition only reports
things explicitly said” and “furnishes nothing that could not be translated into written language” with
this, he notes “Tradition … becomes superfluous,” (266). These consequences are contrary to the way
the Church idealizes Tradition. Blondel goes on to say that as Tradition adapts to avoid superfluity, that
is where it finds its merit: “faith in dogma” is worked in the “matrix of a believing society,” of which
adaptable Tradition brings to light (269). He recognizes that “without the Church, the faithful could not
detect the true hand of God in the Bible and in souls” (277). Faith needs dogma, not just scripture to
survive. Dogma exists outside the stratum of historicism but converges into Tradition, individual faith is
a microcosm of the faith of the Church (279). Whereas historicism seeks to “degrade [Jesus’s] divinity or
diminish his humanity in order to preserve them,” Blondel is saying that Tradition is the option that
“grants them [the sciences] their autonomy in order to not be isolated” (286).

2. When one initially defines the term “tradition,” usually it means customs that don’t change. Blondel’s
argument in History and Dogma is that his Tradition (note the capital ‘T’), does change. The Catholic
Church has always had the issue of being an institution that is seemingly rigid in rapidly moving times
(the Enlightenment). Blondel’s solution to the age-old problem is that the Church can adapt what is calls
‘Tradition’ in its Dogma to suit the times. To him, faith requires guidance, something that the people will
always need, so that the Church must adapt to that need. This concept both fits and juxtaposes the
attitude of the Church in past times; for one, it fills the need for the Church to be needed, a wrench that
the Reformation threw, but it also contradicts the idea that what the Church has once said will always
be right. I don’t think that Blondel’s view on Tradition is a viable approach for the Church, thought it
does seem like the clearest route. Blondel’s tradition allows the Church to always backtrack on what it
has argued in the past, which is the path of least resistance, but it does not provide a solid Dogmatic
foundation of theory for thinking to develop on.

3. Does Blondel’s theory of Tradition legitimize or destabilize Protestantism? How does this wave of
Catholic thought affect anti-Catholic sentiment in the US? How does Blondel’s theory affect the way the
Church controls people’s understanding of their own faith?