Do not affirm dogma

[Matt25]

I her ‘Letter to a Priest’ the Philosopher/Mystic Simone Weil said this:

*The dogmas of the faith are not things to be affirmed. They are things to be regarded from a certain distance, with attention respect and love. They are like the bronze serpent whose virtue is such that whoever looks upon it shall live. This attention and loving gaze, by a shock on the rebound, causes a source of light to flash in the soul which illuminates all aspects of human life on this earth. Dogmas lose this virtue as soon as they are affirmed.

The propositions ‘Jesus Christ is God’ or ‘The consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ’, enunciated as facts, have strictly speaking no meaning whatever.

The value of these propositions is totally different from the truth contained in the correct enunciation of a fact (for example: Salazar is head of the Portugese Government) or of a geometrical theorem.

This value does not strictly speaking belong to the order of truth, but to a higher order; for it is a value impossible for the intelligence to grasp, except indirectly, through the effects produced. And the truth, in the strict sense, belongs to the domain of the intelligence.

*I see what she means but is it compatible with Catholic Truth?

 

[adnauseum]

I’ll take a try at this. If I veer in the wrong direction, smack me down.

I don’t think she’s out of bounds at all, because faith is the assent to revelation based on the credibility of the witness alone. Faith is an act the will to subordinate our intellect to a truth that is not directly accessible.

In order to affirm a true statement as true, one would have to have grounds for judging it to be true. But the mysteries of faith are not grounded in facts that are accessible to our intellect, thus we can’t strictly speaking affirm dogma.

 

[Ghosty]

I can see what she’s saying, but at the same time I think that affirmation of dogma is a necessary evil. While mysteries are, by definition, beyond the scope of humans to fully comprehend, there are boundaries to them that can be recognized. Certain views violate the dogmas, and it is often easier to declare what is within the bounds than to define everything that is outside of them.

 

[Matt25]

adnauseum:

I’ll take a try at this. If I veer in the wrong direction, smack me down.

I don’t think she’s out of bounds at all, because faith is the assent to revelation based on the credibility of the witness alone. Faith is an act the will to subordinate our intellect to a truth that is not directly accessible.

In order to affirm a true statement as true, one would have to have grounds for judging it to be true. But the mysteries of faith are not grounded in facts that are accessible to our intellect, thus we can’t strictly speaking affirm dogma.

So its an elaboration of the idea that faith contains nothing contrary to reason but much that is beyond reason?

 

[JimG]

Well, I don’t think that the statement: “The dogmas of the faith are not things to be affirmed.” can be said to be a Catholic position.

While religious Faith is based on divine revelation, and the content of divine revelation can never be fully grasped by the human mind, the Faith is not therefore without content. It does affirm some things about God, about Jesus, about revelation, that we accept as true.

Not that I hold this against Simone Weil. She was not, after all, a Catholic, although she was, perhaps, closer to Catholicism than anything else, and she apparently thought of herself as a true Christian. Yet she consistently refused Baptism, even to the end of her life, believing that “a few sheep should remain outside the fold to bear witness that the love of Christ is essentially something different.” But I have no idea what she meant by that. First hearing Gregorian chant at Solesmes apparently diverted her from suicide, although she took so little care of herself that she seems to have starved herself to death during her final illness.
.

 

[JimO]

Matt25:

I*The dogmas of the faith are not things to be affirmed. They are things to be regarded from a certain distance, with attention respect and love. *

I’m sorry, but I’m going to disagree here. I can’t help it, but this “philosophizing” of hers is nothing more than a watering down of the teaching authority given to the Church by Christ. If dogmas are simply to be “regarded from a certain distance”, then the associated truths, though mystical in nature, can be “evaluated” by each individual and assigned a vague validity based on that person’s faith in those dogmas. The mystical truths are either true or they are not. The Eucharist is either the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or it is not. This mystical fact is not dependent on the belief or disbelief of any or all of us.

 

[Matt25]

JimO:

. The Eucharist is either the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or it is not. This mystical fact is not dependent on the belief or disbelief of any or all of us.

But is it a fact of the same order that 2 + 2 =4 is? And if not can it be affirmed in the same way?

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

Matt25:

But is it a fact of the same order that 2 + 2 =4 is? And if not can it be affirmed in the same way?

2 + 2 =4 means nothing accept what we have ascribed to it. We have said that those symbols represent something on the other hand The Body and Blood of Christ is not a symbol but fact.

 

[JimO]

Matt25:

But is it a fact of the same order that 2 + 2 =4 is? And if not can it be affirmed in the same way?

Now we’re getting into philosophy. What is a fact? Are you restricting fact to scientifically proveable phenomena? If so, then can we even state that Jesus Christ existed? It’s not a fact like 2+2=4 because it is based entirely on the accounts of witnesses, fallable human witnesses at that, who all died over 1,900 years ago. We have no physical evidence that Jesus even existed. We don’t have the “original” manuscripts of the New Testament writings. Thus, we can’t even prove that the Bible was not written at a later date by a group of people who wanted to start a religion. Heck, they might have even made up Jesus and created this person so that he fit the ancient Jewish prophecies. I have been led down this road by many atheists.

Atheists want proof for spiritual realities, or mystical truths (as I referred to dogmas above). But, they will not accept any non-scientific data, such as miracles, changed lives, or experiences of individuals that defy reason. With these limitations, God is never proven to them. It is like the blind man who screams into the darkness - “Give me proof that there is light!”

If we do not affirm the dogmas of the Church as binding upon believers, then we end up with people picking and choosing what they want to believe (which is why there are so many denominations to start with), and, we take our first steps on the road to doubt and rejection of God.

 

[Matt25]

Simone was not saying that the dogma’s were not true. On the contrary she affirmed her adherence to the dogma’s on numerous occasions. Further on she said

*The mysteries of the faith are not a proper object for the intelligence considered as a faculty affirmation or denial. They are not of the order of truth, but above it. The only part of the human soul which is capable of any real contact with them is the faculty of supernatural love. It alone, therefore, is capable of an adherence in regard to them.

The role of the remaining faculties of the soul, beginning with the intelligence, is only to recognize that the things with which supernatural love is in contact are realities; that these realities are superior to their particular objects; and to become silent as soon as supernatural love actually awakens in the soul.

The virtue of charity is the exercise of the faculty of supernatural love. The virtue of faith is the subordination of all the souls faculties to the faculty of supernatural love. The virtue of hope is an orientation of the soul towards a transformation after which it will be wholly and exclusively love.

In order that they may subordinate themselves to the faculty of love, the other faculties must each find therein their own particular good; and particularly the intelligence, which is the most precious of all after love. It is, indeed, effectively so.

*I think some of the suspicions that formulations like this create are the common lot of all mystics. St John of the Cross in particular was persecuted for saying similar kinds of things, which is not to say that he was not orthodox in his attachment to the Church

 

[Scullinius]

JimO:

Atheists want proof for spiritual realities, or mystical truths (as I referred to dogmas above). But, they will not accept any non-scientific data, such as miracles, changed lives, or experiences of individuals that defy reason. With these limitations, God is never proven to them. It is like the blind man who screams into the darkness - “Give me proof that there is light!”

Alas, that used to be me.

adnauseum:

…faith is the assent to revelation based on the credibility of the witness alone. Faith is an act the will to subordinate our intellect to a truth that is not directly accessible.

Guess that’s why faith is a virtue.

Ah, I wish someone had said this to me five or six years ago. It might have clued me in, at least a little bit.

Scullinius

 

[Greyhawk]

*The dogmas of the faith are not things to be affirmed. *

It seems to be a question of having perfect knowledge over imperfect concepts (like human concepts of mathematics with the 2+2=4) or imperfect knowledge over the perfect (knowledge and concepts of God and truth). Man made systems like mathematics, languages. and governments, which humans created, are easier to understand because we are ascribing abstract concepts to numbers, sounds, or offices of power in the case of government. Therefore, it is much easier for people to accept these as “facts.” Since God created us, only He can inspire us and send humans knowledge of who they are, their purpose, and truth – the concept of revelation. People (who aren’t atheists) have issues agreeing on what actually mediates and bears the message from God, and so it takes away from being declared a “fact.” Since these concepts may never actually be proven on “human grounds” of the scientific method, it would be through faith only that one could affirm these realities. Thus, I think her statement points to the secular ability to “prove” them.

Yet she consistently refused Baptism, even to the end of her life, believing that “a few sheep should remain outside the fold to bear witness that the love of Christ is essentially something different.”

As far as her approach, I can kind of understand her thinking, not necessarily agreeing with it. I think she wanted to continue to living among non-believers and atheists in as many ways as possible to try and construct “intellectual roads” pointing towards God. I dont think her refusal to be Baptized until the end of her life shows her disagreement necessarily either. She might have thought sacrificing the graces of God made her able to sympathize and have experiences closer to atheists or agnostics. However, I have to disagree with her approach to witness for the faith for two different reasons. First of all, I think the greatest evangelizers are those who are most saintly and holy. I think our actions can speak volumes and eminate truth. The greatest example of conversion by example would be Jesus, but just of think the amount of people some of the more notable saints converted. The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church, and I think our constant daily bloodless sacrifice can convert also. Second, if you bear that type of mindset, it’s like living with your faith on the fringe. I think trying to maintain or build any faith would be nearly impossible by remaining absent to sacrements of grace or any Christian practices. As a result, she probably had a tendency to fall away or be severely tempted because of her minimized interaction with God. Having said all that, comment away.

Dei gratia,
Greyhawk

 

[Matt25]

Ann Cheryl:

2 + 2 =4 means nothing accept what we have ascribed to it. We have said that those symbols represent something on the other hand The Body and Blood of Christ is not a symbol but fact.

No one said that it was not. Is saying that the Body andBlood of Christ is present under the appearance of Bread and Wine a fact of the same order as saying eggs is eggs?

Greyhawk:

I think trying to maintain or build any faith would be nearly impossible by remaining absent to sacrements of grace or any Christian practices.

Actually Simone was very devoted to the sacraments. It was a source of great pain to her that by remaining outside the Church she could not receive them. Be that as it may the truth or otherwise of her propositions depend less on her personal life than on how her propositions relate to truth.

I think that this is a beautiful formulation “* The role of the remaining faculties of the soul, beginning with the intelligence, is only to recognize that the things with which supernatural love is in contact are realities; that these realities are superior to their particular objects; and to become silent as soon as supernatural love actually awakens in the soul.”

*My question is does this formulation help us to deepen our understanding of the faith or does it take us further away from it?

 

[Genesis315]

adnauseum:

In order to affirm a true statement as true, one would have to have grounds for judging it to be true. But the mysteries of faith are not grounded in facts that are accessible to our intellect, thus we can’t strictly speaking affirm dogma.

I think this is dead on. It’s why only the Church can affirm dogma. It’s the only earthly authority with grounds to judge what is true since the grounds the Church has to judge what is true comes from the Holy Spirit’s guidance concerning these matters.

 

[marineboy]

WITH ALL DO RESPECT WHO CARES??? THE cHURCH IS cHRIST’S VOICE ON EARTH WHEN IT TEACHES, THROUGH THE MAGISTERIUM WE ACCEPT-----

 

[A_Chaoidh]

I disagree with this philosopher, though she does write well. The Truth can not be denied from a subjective or relative distance or personal/social perspective. The knowledge of the Truth which itself is based on Love (as well as Justice, etc.) is the foundation. Accepting Dogma does not mean a lack of respect, love nor does it mean hate or intolerance. :banghead:

Catholic Dogma is the Truth of the Catholic Church…it is what we believe. Dogma & Faith are separate, yet connected. Dogma does not replace Faith, Dogma are the Truths that form the basis of Catholic beliefs, and belief is the basis of Faith. Dogma comes primariliy from Divine Law and Holy Writ, that is Scripture. The Word of God is the foundation of Dogma. Understanding of the Truth provided by Dogma is a prerequisite to having an informed “personal conscience”. Dogma establishes a firm foundation upon which Faith is based. If one based one’s Faith on something other than the Truth, would not that Faith be flawed? If one doesn’t understand basic fundamental “truths” of arithmetic and mathematics, how is one to understand Calculus?

I often find many “differences” of opinion on this site are due to a lack of understanding and/or misunderstanding of the fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Many “dissenters” views would be clarified, and I pray re-aligned, if they would only spend some time to learn and understand Dogma to a greater degree.

I highly recommend “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott as well as searching the Holy See web site on Dogma and Canon Law. I’d also like to hear about other sources of information.

 

[A_Chaoidh]

I disagree with this philosopher, though she does write well. I, for one, affirm my belief in Catholic Dogma. The Truth can not be denied from a subjective or relative distance or personal/social perspective. The knowledge of the Truth which itself is based on Love (as well as Justice, etc.) is the foundation. Accepting Dogma does not mean a lack of respect, love nor does it mean hate or intolerance or that one is a pharasee! :banghead:

Catholic Dogma is the Truth of the Catholic Church…it is what we believe. Dogma & Faith are separate, yet connected. Dogma does not replace Faith, Dogma are the Truths that form the basis of Catholic beliefs, and belief is the basis of Faith. Dogma comes primariliy from Divine Law and Holy Writ, that is Scripture. The Word of God is the foundation of Dogma. Understanding of the Truth provided by Dogma is a prerequisite to having an informed “personal conscience”. Dogma establishes a firm foundation upon which Faith is based. If one based one’s Faith on something other than the Truth, would not that Faith be flawed? If one doesn’t understand basic fundamental “truths” of arithmetic and mathematics, how is one to understand Calculus?

I often find many “differences” of opinion on this site are due to a lack of understanding and/or misunderstanding of the fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Many “dissenters” views would be clarified, and I pray re-aligned, if they would only spend some time to learn and understand Dogma to a greater degree. We owe it to ourselves and our Church to understand Dogma.

I highly recommend “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott as well as searching the Holy See web site on Dogma and Canon Law. I’d also like to hear about other sources of information.
as searching the Holy See web site on Dogma and Canon Law. I’d also like to hear about other sources of information.

 

[JimG]

If her philosophy kept her from entering the Church, then I would say that there is something wrong with her philosophy.

Another way of re-stating “do not affirm dogma” is “do not affirm truth.”