What do you think?
Rate this book
Ressourcement
The Letter on Apologetics & History and Dogma
'The Letter on Apologetics' is a key statement on the possibility and meaning of Christian philosophy. 'History and Dogma', written in response to the Modernist crisis, is an important contribution to the notion of tradition, seeing it neither in terms of historicism nor as something mechanical, but as a living synthesis.
301 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
2 people are currently reading
181 people want to read
About the author
Maurice Blondel
90 books18 followersMaurice Blondel was a French philosopher, whose most influential works, notably L'Action, aimed at establishing the correct relationship between autonomous philosophical reasoning and Christianity.
Blondel was born in Dijon in 1861. He came from a family who were traditionally connected to the legal profession, but chose early in life to follow a career in philosophy. In 1881, he gained admission to the École Normale Supérieure of Paris. In 1893 he finished his thesis "L'Action" (Action), a critical essay of life and of a science of the practice. He was at this time refused a teaching post (as would have been his due) because his philosophical conclusions were deemed to be too 'Christian' and, therefore, "compromising" of philosophical reason. In 1895, however, with the help of his former teacher Emile Boutroux, he became a Maître de Conférences at Lille, then shortly after at Aix-en-Provence, where he became a professor in 1897. He would remain in Aix-en-Provence for the rest of his career.
In L'Action, Blondel developed a "philosophy of action" that integrated classical Neoplatonic thought with modern Pragmatism in the context of a Christian philosophy of religion. He held that action alone could never satisfy the human yearning for the transfinite, which could only be fulfilled by God, whom he described as the "first principle and last term."
His subsequent works, the Letter on Apologetics and History and Dogma, were also connected to the philosophical problem of religion. They unleashed an enormous controversy at the time of publication. Pope Pius X's 1907 encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis, which targeted the 'Modernist' threat to Catholic thought, targeted Blondel to some degree, and for many years his thought remained associated (perhaps tenuously) with the Modernists. He did, however, have great influence on later Catholic thought, especially through ressourcement theologians such as Henri de Lubac.
His wife died in 1919 and in 1927 he retired for health reasons. Between 1934 and 1937 he published a trilogy dedicated to thought, being and action. In 1935, he published an essay of concrete and integrale ontology "L'être et les êtres" (The Being and the Beings) and in 1946 he published "L'esprit chrétien" (The Christian Spirit).
Blondel died in Aix-en-Provence in 1949.
Blondel was born in Dijon in 1861. He came from a family who were traditionally connected to the legal profession, but chose early in life to follow a career in philosophy. In 1881, he gained admission to the École Normale Supérieure of Paris. In 1893 he finished his thesis "L'Action" (Action), a critical essay of life and of a science of the practice. He was at this time refused a teaching post (as would have been his due) because his philosophical conclusions were deemed to be too 'Christian' and, therefore, "compromising" of philosophical reason. In 1895, however, with the help of his former teacher Emile Boutroux, he became a Maître de Conférences at Lille, then shortly after at Aix-en-Provence, where he became a professor in 1897. He would remain in Aix-en-Provence for the rest of his career.
In L'Action, Blondel developed a "philosophy of action" that integrated classical Neoplatonic thought with modern Pragmatism in the context of a Christian philosophy of religion. He held that action alone could never satisfy the human yearning for the transfinite, which could only be fulfilled by God, whom he described as the "first principle and last term."
His subsequent works, the Letter on Apologetics and History and Dogma, were also connected to the philosophical problem of religion. They unleashed an enormous controversy at the time of publication. Pope Pius X's 1907 encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis, which targeted the 'Modernist' threat to Catholic thought, targeted Blondel to some degree, and for many years his thought remained associated (perhaps tenuously) with the Modernists. He did, however, have great influence on later Catholic thought, especially through ressourcement theologians such as Henri de Lubac.
His wife died in 1919 and in 1927 he retired for health reasons. Between 1934 and 1937 he published a trilogy dedicated to thought, being and action. In 1935, he published an essay of concrete and integrale ontology "L'être et les êtres" (The Being and the Beings) and in 1946 he published "L'esprit chrétien" (The Christian Spirit).
Blondel died in Aix-en-Provence in 1949.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
November 1, 2024
This book contains three texts. There is a long introductory essay of more than a hundred pages (written in 1964). It introduces Blondel’s 1897 Letter on Apologetics and his 1904 text on History and Dogma, both of which are presented here in a translation from their original French.
In those two documents Blondel challenged two contemporary intellectual foes.
On the one hand he rejected HISTORICISM. That was essentially a viewpoint which insisted that the only reliable source of information was historical documents. Historicism was particularly scornful of some Christian dogmas, as there were no historical documents from the era of Christian persecution.
Blondel challenged Historicism by insisting that an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. He insisted that Christian doctrine can carry subconscious and unreasoned (not unconscious and irrational) elements of Church teaching, even in the absence of documents. That ‘implicit’ teaching was to be found in the Tradition of the actions and lifestyles of ancient Christians, and recovering it was a key priority for his ‘Philosophy of Action’ (p.272, History 1.3).
What this meant was that Historicism is inadequate and inaccurate in its claims. Blondel viewed it as essentially foisting its own philosophical prejudices upon the historical evidence of Christianity, and then claiming to read from that evidence as if it had some kind of pseudo neutral perspective (p 237, History 1.2).
The other ‘foe’ which Blondel challenged was EXTRINSICISM. He is understandably a little vague about precisely who and what it is, as he was writing as a Catholic and this category encompassed some aspects of the Church’s official scholastic theologians.
Blondel made (at least) two criticisms of extrinsicism. He argued that (some) scholastic theologians were essentially offering ‘bogus supports’ for doctrine (p.130, Letter 1.1) as they were just re-presenting old rationalist arguments to prove doctrinal points. What their approach seemed to have forgotten was that the contemporary era was challenging the premises of scholasticism’s arguments (p.146, Letter 1.6). When people are querying the premises, there is no point just reiterating the argument. Something else is needed.
That ‘something else,’ according to Blondel, is a need to prepare the subject to receive the arguments. Theologians should be trying to create an ‘inner need’ and an ‘appetite’ for what they are presenting (p135, Letter 1.3). When they fail to do so, their traditional scholastic approach to apologetics is inadequate.
Blondel’s second criticism of Extrinsicism is that it is essentially blurring the distinctions between philosophy and theology. This leads to theologians blurring Revealed Truth into the prejudices of their own philosophical schools, thereby creating (theological) heresies of what are really just ‘divergences (of philosophy) deserving of toleration’ (p.188 Letter 3.1).
Ultimately, what Blondel was arguing for was a position between Historicism and Extrinsicism. He thought that Extrinsicism was wrong to proclaim a fixed immutable truth which meant that it could ignore History, but Historicism was also wrong to try and reduce truth to merely what history recorded. Both viewpoints were ‘dangerous’ to faith (p225, History 1.2).
The position Blondel argued for was one that rejected ‘Fixism,’ ie the idea of a ‘fixed immobility’ of truth in Church teaching (p.275 History 1.3). He believed that doctrine could always be capable of further development because Revelation is ‘inexhaustible’ (p191, Letter 1.6). This meant that the scholastic theologians who were ignoring historical evidence as if it was irrelevant, were essentially ‘zealots’ who (in his opinion) were at risk of acting just like the way Protestants had acted in the Reformation when they had rejected Catholicism by just insisting that they knew better (p.278, History 1.3).
To fully understand Blondel’s views, and the significance of these documents, it is important to appreciate that what he calls Historicism was to be condemned by the Vatican in 1907 as Modernism. In the short term that led to the triumph of what he calls Extrinsicism. But in 1965, the Second Vatican Council largely vindicated Blondel’s key ideas.
This is an important set of historical documents, but this 1964 edition has not aged well. It contains untranslated quotes in Latin (eg p36) and Greek (eg p173) and its 1964 introduction is a little too close to the 1965 Vatican Council for there to have been time to properly digest the Council’s implications for Blondel’s views.
This is a book which would really benefit from a more modern translation with updated notes and introduction.
In those two documents Blondel challenged two contemporary intellectual foes.
On the one hand he rejected HISTORICISM. That was essentially a viewpoint which insisted that the only reliable source of information was historical documents. Historicism was particularly scornful of some Christian dogmas, as there were no historical documents from the era of Christian persecution.
Blondel challenged Historicism by insisting that an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. He insisted that Christian doctrine can carry subconscious and unreasoned (not unconscious and irrational) elements of Church teaching, even in the absence of documents. That ‘implicit’ teaching was to be found in the Tradition of the actions and lifestyles of ancient Christians, and recovering it was a key priority for his ‘Philosophy of Action’ (p.272, History 1.3).
What this meant was that Historicism is inadequate and inaccurate in its claims. Blondel viewed it as essentially foisting its own philosophical prejudices upon the historical evidence of Christianity, and then claiming to read from that evidence as if it had some kind of pseudo neutral perspective (p 237, History 1.2).
The other ‘foe’ which Blondel challenged was EXTRINSICISM. He is understandably a little vague about precisely who and what it is, as he was writing as a Catholic and this category encompassed some aspects of the Church’s official scholastic theologians.
Blondel made (at least) two criticisms of extrinsicism. He argued that (some) scholastic theologians were essentially offering ‘bogus supports’ for doctrine (p.130, Letter 1.1) as they were just re-presenting old rationalist arguments to prove doctrinal points. What their approach seemed to have forgotten was that the contemporary era was challenging the premises of scholasticism’s arguments (p.146, Letter 1.6). When people are querying the premises, there is no point just reiterating the argument. Something else is needed.
That ‘something else,’ according to Blondel, is a need to prepare the subject to receive the arguments. Theologians should be trying to create an ‘inner need’ and an ‘appetite’ for what they are presenting (p135, Letter 1.3). When they fail to do so, their traditional scholastic approach to apologetics is inadequate.
Blondel’s second criticism of Extrinsicism is that it is essentially blurring the distinctions between philosophy and theology. This leads to theologians blurring Revealed Truth into the prejudices of their own philosophical schools, thereby creating (theological) heresies of what are really just ‘divergences (of philosophy) deserving of toleration’ (p.188 Letter 3.1).
Ultimately, what Blondel was arguing for was a position between Historicism and Extrinsicism. He thought that Extrinsicism was wrong to proclaim a fixed immutable truth which meant that it could ignore History, but Historicism was also wrong to try and reduce truth to merely what history recorded. Both viewpoints were ‘dangerous’ to faith (p225, History 1.2).
The position Blondel argued for was one that rejected ‘Fixism,’ ie the idea of a ‘fixed immobility’ of truth in Church teaching (p.275 History 1.3). He believed that doctrine could always be capable of further development because Revelation is ‘inexhaustible’ (p191, Letter 1.6). This meant that the scholastic theologians who were ignoring historical evidence as if it was irrelevant, were essentially ‘zealots’ who (in his opinion) were at risk of acting just like the way Protestants had acted in the Reformation when they had rejected Catholicism by just insisting that they knew better (p.278, History 1.3).
To fully understand Blondel’s views, and the significance of these documents, it is important to appreciate that what he calls Historicism was to be condemned by the Vatican in 1907 as Modernism. In the short term that led to the triumph of what he calls Extrinsicism. But in 1965, the Second Vatican Council largely vindicated Blondel’s key ideas.
This is an important set of historical documents, but this 1964 edition has not aged well. It contains untranslated quotes in Latin (eg p36) and Greek (eg p173) and its 1964 introduction is a little too close to the 1965 Vatican Council for there to have been time to properly digest the Council’s implications for Blondel’s views.
This is a book which would really benefit from a more modern translation with updated notes and introduction.
Read
October 13, 2025History and Dogma
Read
March 23, 2026"Letter on Apologetics"
Read
November 21, 2009None
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews