THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE OF CULTURE AS A "THEOLOGICAL PLACE"

* Indication of books about this subject for personal deepening:

. HOLY BIBLE

. BOFF, C. Theory of theological method. 3. ed. São Paulo: Vozes, 1999.

. CNBB. New evangelization, human promotion and Christian culture. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1993. (Santo Domingo - SD)

. IMBAMBA, José Manuel. A new culture for new women and men. Luanda: Paulinas, 2003.

. QUEIRUGA, A. T. Dialogue of religions. São Paulo: Paulus, 1997, p. 16.

. SUSIN, L. C. The psalms in the Christian life. Porto Alegre: ESTEF São Lourenço de Brindes, 1976.

. ZILLES, U. Meaning of Christian symbols. 6. ed. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, 2006.

            As we have said, the human being in his cultural making is not only creative, but also aware that there is an omnipotent force that makes him so and at the same time overcomes him. This force is God Himself present in the human action, making the culture be a ‘theological place’, that is, God manifests Himself in and through the culture. However, God has His own language that gradually can be assimilated by the human being as long as he allows himself to be led by divine inspiration, becoming an instrument of God’s will and action. The language of God passes through the elements of culture. Therefore, let us try to understand how this process takes place through a brief study on the symbolic language of culture as “theological place”.

            Language, as an essential tool for communication, is an important instrument that expresses the culture of each people[1]. The Santo Domingo document[2] considers “the communication among the people an admirable element that generates culture” (SD 23). As a cultural being, the human being uses language to express his way of being and thinking. It involves the whole human being and reflects the worldview of a particular people.

        According to the theologian U. Zilles, “language is linked to experience. The experience happens in a place and a time; it involves people, gestures, attitudes and objects. How can I explain about the taste of orange to someone who has never had the taste of orange?”[3] We say, therefore, that the human being is a being of language because he speaks, communicates and externalizes what he thinks and what he experiences. The author J. M. Imbamba, quoting J. B. Mondin, thus expresses:

Language denotes the function, the capacity that the human being is naturally endowed (...) of expressing himself and communicating with his related ones through the word. It is an innate capacity that is appropriate in the same way to all human beings, regardless of the nation and culture to which they belong.[4]

           The language, being a fruit of time and experiences, is something agreed according to the walk and the maturity of the human groups. We value our experiences when we seek to transform them into some language. This is a fundamental aspect so that these experiences may not be lost in time. It is a way of recovering the memory to avoid losing identity. This is also affirmed by the author L. C. Susin:

Language is the specific corporality of the human being. It’s our house. ‘Language is the home of the human being’ (Heidegger), home that feeds and makes him fertile (...) If our most intimate experiences do not become a language, they are bound to lose themselves and disappear. What is not externalized does not exist. By language we communicate, we entre in communion, we love.[5]

        The human being is made of language and makes language. When it is said, for example, “man does not live by bread only, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Mt 4: 4), we have the ‘word’ as a concrete instrument of language, which has much to do with Intimate. From God’s side, this is His wisdom, translating what comes from His mind and heart; it is an expression of His tenderness and care and has a very concrete purpose (this should not go back to Him empty). On the part of the human being, it translates to what goes on inside of him in relation to his feelings, needs, intentions, etc. The word also expresses the different realities in which the human being is involved, being a reference so that God, incarnating Himself in these same realities, could communicate His life, inviting all to His intimacy.[6]

            God used the language of love in creating the human being and in a more supreme way assumed the human condition filling it with meaning. We are talking about the divine migration. Thus, He reveals Himself in the history and culture of men and women of all times. Even through the limited human gestures and words, one can perceive divine strength and greatness. God comes to the human being to make him more human. The language used by God is an invitation to get out of oneself, because the human being does not become more human if he remains centred in himself.

          As we can see, referring to the mystery of God, we understand better the human being and “speaking of God and His mystery, it demands a language more suggestive than argumentative, more open than closed. Metaphorical language is, in addition, the language preferred by the Bible.”[7] This is a concrete example of the language of God that is expressed through human language and there is no opposition between them. In this sense, the sensitivity of the mystics who make use of a ‘full’, ‘saturated’ language of immediate experiences, through symbols, predicative, poetic narratives, drawings ('mandalas') is admirable.[8]

        In its cultural dimension, language uses symbols as vehicles because they are a human phenomenon.[9] Let’s remember that symbols are part of the richness of the interior of the human being, which is communicated as expression and cultural production. Symbols, while expressing an identity, a great passion, is mediator in the relationship between God and human being. In this sense, we see in Jesus Christ the symbol par excellence for being the concrete meeting point between God and humanity. He is the true temple, the “theological place” par excellence. In His person the human being is guaranteed to meet God, because His passion was to reveal the Father fully.[10] He brings in his own person and work the maximum that God wanted to reveal to the humanity. Becoming the referential point of human history (B.C. and A.D.), everything is seen from Him and through a symbolic language the faithful Christians nourish their faith and join Christ.[11]

      Each culture through its religious experiences expresses its own language in its relationship with God. The language of God in Jesus Christ, far from eliminating the other languages, allows us to consider with respect the rich symbolic language of Buddhism or Hindu tradition, to admire the greatness of Zarathustra and also, in many ways, Islam. The other religious expressions are expressing the different forms of human responses, in the context of different cultures or human life forms, to the same divine reality[12] that was revealed by Jesus Christ as Father who knows well what is happening with his sons and daughters. The experience of the Sacred, for a people, will depend very much on their historical, sociological, and ultimately their worldview. It will be more intense the greater their searches; The sense of divine revelation will be better experienced if, behind the natural element and the abundance of gifts, they can discover the Being that grants them and makes them to happen uninterruptedly.

Author: Josuel Degaaxé dos Santos Boaventura PSDP - Fr Ndega

Theological review: ThD Fr Luis Carlos Susin

English review: EdM Mary Kung'u

---

[1] Cf. IMBAMBA, José Manuel. Op. cit., p. 138.

[2] It is about the Final Document of the IV Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Conference, which took place in Dominican Republic on October 1992.      

[3] Phrase of the professor and theologian U. Zilles during the classes of Theology and Language in Systematic Theology License of Faculty of Theology PUCRS, 2011.

[4] MONDIN, João Battista. apud IMBAMBA, José Manuel. Op. cit., p. 40.

[5] SUSIN, Luiz Carlos. Op. cit., p. 14s.

[6] Cf. Ibid., p. 15.

[7] Cf. BOFF, C. op. cit., p. 61, apud HACKMANN, G. L. B. Método teológico in Exam of The Universal Theology. Systematic Theology License – PUCRS.

[8] Cf. SUSIN, Luiz Carlos. Op. cit., p. 12.

[9] Cf. ZILLES, Urbano. Significação dos símbolos cristãos. p. 11. O autor L. C. Susin states that “the symbol is the typical language of human being because he is opened to ‘something else’, transcends himself.”    (SUSIN, Luiz Carlos. Op. cit., p. 83).

[10] Cf. ZILLES, Urbano. Op. cit., p. 14.

[11] Cf. Ibid., p. 14.

[12] Cf. QUEIRUGA, A. T. op. cit., p. 16s.

A LINGUAGEM SIMBOLICA DA CULTURA COMO “LUGAR TEOLÓGICO”

* Indication of books about this matter for personal deepening:

. BIBLIA SAGRADA

. BOFF, C. Teoria do método teológico. 3. ed. São Paulo: Vozes, 1999.

. CNBB. Nova Evangelização, promoção humana e cultura cristã.  Petrópolis: Vozes, 1993. (Santo Domingo – SD)

. IMBAMBA, José Manuel. Uma nova cultura para mulheres e homens novos. Luanda: Paulinas, 2003.

. QUEIRUGA, A. T. O diálogo das religiões. São Paulo: Paulus, 1997, p. 16.

. SUSIN, L. C. Os salmos na vida cristã. Porto Alegre: ESTEF São Lourenço de Brindes, 1976.

. ZILLES, U. Significação dos símbolos cristãos. 6. ed. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, 2006.

         

        Como havíamos dito, o ser humano em seu fazer cultural é criativo, mas também consciente de que há uma força onipotente que o faz ser assim e, ao mesmo tempo, o supera. Esta força é o próprio Deus fazendo-se presente na ação humana, tornando a cultura um ‘lugar teológico’, ou seja, Deus se manifesta na e através da cultura. Mas Deus tem sua própria linguagem que pouco a pouco pode ser assimilada pelo ser humano na medida em que este se deixa conduzir pela inspiração divina tornando-se instrumento do querer e do agir de Deus. A linguagem de Deus passa pelos elementos da cultura. Portanto, procuremos entender como se dá este processo através de um breve estudo sobre linguagem simbólica da cultura como “lugar teológico”.

A linguagem, enquanto instrumento essencial para a comunicação, é um importante meio que veicula a cultura de cada povo[1].  O documento de Santo Domingo[2] considera “a comunicação entre as pessoas um admirável elemento gerador de cultura” (SD 23). Enquanto ser cultural, o ser humano serve-se da linguagem para manifestar seu jeito de ser e de pensar.  Ela envolve todo o ser humano e, ao mesmo tempo, reflete a visão de mundo de um determinado povo.

Segundo o teólogo U. Zilles, “a linguagem está ligada à experiência. A experiência acontece num lugar e num tempo, envolve pessoas, gestos, atitudes e objetos.  Como eu vou explicar sobre o sabor da laranja para alguém que nunca teve o gosto da laranja?”[3] Dizemos, portanto, que o ser humano é um ser de linguagem pelas circunstâncias de que: fala, comunica e exterioriza o que pensa e o que experimenta. O autor J. M. Imbamba, citando J. B. Mondin, assim se expressa:

A linguagem denota a função, a capacidade de que o ser humano é naturalmente dotado (...) de exprimir-se e comunicar com os semelhantes mediante a palavra. Trata-se de uma capacidade inata que convém, do mesmo modo, a todos os seres humanos, independentemente da nação e da cultura a que pertencem[4].

           A linguagem, sendo fruto de uma época e de experiências, é algo convencionado de acordo com a caminhada e a maturidade dos grupos humanos. Valorizamos nossas experiências quando buscamos transformá-las em alguma linguagem. Este é um aspecto fundamental para que estas experiências não se percam no tempo. Trata-se de uma forma de resgatar a memória para não perder a identidade. Sobre isso afirma também o autor L. C. Susin:

A linguagem é a corporeidade específica do ser humano. É a nossa casa. ‘A linguagem é o lar do ser humano’ (Heidegger), lar que o alimenta e o torna fecundo (...) Se nossas experiências mais íntimas não se transformam em alguma linguagem, estão fadadas a se perder e a desaparecer. O que não se exterioriza não existe. Pela linguagem nós nos comunicamos, comungamos, amamos[5].

O ser humano é feito na linguagem e faz a linguagem. Quando se diz, por exemplo: “não só de pão vive o ser humano, mas de toda palavra que sai da boca de Deus” (Mt 4, 4), temos a palavra como um instrumento concreto de linguagem que tem muito a ver com íntimo: da parte de Deus, esta é a sua sabedoria, traduzindo o que vem de sua mente e seu coração; é expressão de sua ternura e seu cuidado e tem uma finalidade bem concreta (esta não deve tornar a ele vazia). Da parte do ser humano, traduz o que se passa dentro dele com relação a seus sentimentos, necessidades, intenções, etc. A palavra expressa também as diversas realidades nas quais o ser humano está envolvido, sendo referência para que Deus, encarnando-se nestas mesmas realidades, comunique sua vida, convidando todos à sua intimidade[6].

         Deus usou a linguagem do amor ao criar o ser humano e de uma forma ainda mais suprema, ao assumir a condição humana enchendo-a de sentido. Falamos de uma migração divina. Assim ele se revela na história e na cultura dos homens e mulheres de todos os tempos. Mesmo através dos gestos limitados e das palavras humanas - que são muitas vezes vazias de sentido - se pode perceber a força e a grandeza divinas. Deus vem ao ser humano para fazê-lo mais humano. A linguagem usada por Deus é um convite a sair de si, pois o ser humano não se torna mais humano se permanece centrado em si mesmo.

          Como se pode perceber, fazendo referência ao mistério de Deus entendemos melhor a o ser humano e “falar de Deus, de seu mistério está a pedir uma linguagem mais sugestiva que argumentativa, mais aberta que fechada. A linguagem metafórica é, ademais, a linguagem preferida pela Bíblia”[7]. Este é um exemplo concreto de que a linguagem de Deus se expressa por linguagem humana e não há oposição entre elas. Neste sentido, é admirável a sensibilidade dos místicos que fazem uso de uma linguagem ‘repleta, ‘saturada’ de experiências imediatas, através de símbolos, predicativos, narrativas poéticas, desenhos (‘mandalas’)[8].

         Em sua dimensão cultural, a linguagem usa os símbolos como veículos por serem um fenômeno humano[9]. Recordamos que os símbolos fazem parte da riqueza do interior do ser humano, que é comunicada como expressão e produção cultural. Os símbolos, ao mesmo tempo em que expressam uma identidade, uma grande paixão, é mediador no relacionamento Deus/ser humano. Neste sentido, vemos em Jesus Cristo o símbolo por excelência por ser o ponto concreto de encontro entre Deus e a humanidade. Ele é o verdadeiro templo, o “lugar teológico por excelência. Em sua pessoa o ser humano tem garantia de encontrar-se com Deus, pois a sua paixão foi revelar plenamente o Pai[10]. Ele reúne em sua pessoa e obra o máximo que Deus quis revelar a humanidade. Tornando-se o ponto referencial da história humana (Antes de Cristo e Depois de Cristo), tudo é visto a partir dele e através de uma linguagem simbólica os fiéis cristãos alimentam a sua fé e se unem a Cristo[11].  

         Cada cultura através de suas experiências religiosas expressa uma linguagem própria no seu relacionamento com Deus. A linguagem de Deus em Jesus Cristo, longe de eliminar as outras linguagens, nos permite considerar com respeito a rica linguagem simbólica do budismo ou da tradição hinduísta, admirar a grandeza de Zaratustra e também, em tantos aspectos, o Islamismo. As demais expressões religiosas estão a expressar as diversas formas de respostas humanas, no contexto das diferentes culturas ou formas de vida humana, à mesma realidade divina[12] que foi revelada por Jesus Cristo como Pai que sabe muito bem o que se passa com seus filhos e filhas. A experiência do Sagrado, para um povo, vai depender muito de sua realidade histórica, sociológica, enfim, de sua cosmovisão. Será mais intensa quanto maiores forem as suas buscas; será melhor vivenciado o sentido da Revelação se, por trás do elemento natural e da abundância de dons, conseguirem descobrir o Ser que os concede e os faz acontecer ininterruptamente.

Author: Josuel Degaaxé dos Santos Boaventura PSDP - Fr Ndega

Theological review: Dr. Fr Luis Carlos Susin

---

[1] Cf. IMBAMBA, José Manuel. Op. cit., p. 138.

[2] Trata-se do documento conclusivo da IV Conferência do Episcopado Latino-Americano e Caribenho ocorrida em outubro de 1992 na República Dominicana.

[3] Frase do professor e teólogo U. Zilles durante as aulas de Teologia e Linguagem no Mestrado em Teologia Sistemática da Faculdade de Teologia da PUCRS, em 2011.

[4] MONDIN, João Battista. Apud IMBAMBA, José Manuel. Op. cit., p. 40.

[5] SUSIN, Luiz Carlos. Op. cit., p. 14s.

[6] Cf. Ibid., p. 15.

[7] Cf. BOFF, C. op. cit., p. 61, apud HACKMANN, G. L. B. Método teológico in Exame de universa theologia. Mestrado de teologia – PUCRS.

[8] Cf. SUSIN, Luiz Carlos. Op. cit., p. 12.

[9] Cf. ZILLES, Urbano. Significação dos símbolos cristãos. p. 11. O autor L. C. Susin afirma que “o símbolo é a linguagem própria do ser humano porque é aberto a ‘algo mais’, transcende a si mesmo”. (SUSIN, Luiz Carlos. Op. cit., p. 83).

[10] Cf. ZILLES, Urbano. Op. cit., p. 14.

[11] Cf. Ibid., p. 14.

[12] Cf. QUEIRUGA, A. T. op. cit., p. 16s.

CULTURE AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: The religion is the “soul of the culture”

* Indication of books about this matter for personal deepening:

. CONCÍLIO ECUMÊNICO VATICANO II, 1962-1965, Cidade do Vaticano. Gaudium et Spes. In: VIER, Frederico (Coord. Geral). Compêndio do Concílio Vaticano II. 22. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1991, p. 141-256.

. DURKHEIM, Émile. As formas elementares da vida religiosa. 2. ed. São Paulo: Paulus, 1989.

. GONZALEZ, Carlos Ignázio. Ele é a nossa salvação. São Paulo: Loyola, 1992.

. IMBAMBA, José Manuel. Uma nova cultura para mulheres e homens novos. Luanda: Paulinas, 2003.

. LANGA, Adriano. A oração cristã e exigências da inculturação. Maputo: Ed Paulistas, 1993.

. NUNES, José. Didaskalia. Dezembro 2008, p. 3. Disponível em:

http://www.snpcultura.org/pcm_a_permanente_relevancia_do_cristianismo_para_a_cultura.html. Acesso em: 03 de abril de 2012.

. RÉVILLE, A. Prolégomènes à histoire des religions.

. SCHREITER, Robert J. A nova catolicidade: a teologia entre o global e o local. São Paulo: Loyola, 1998.

. SUSIN, Luiz Carlos. Os salmos na vida cristã. Porto Alegre: ESTEF São Lourenço de Brindes, 1976.

. TILLICH, Paul. Symbol und Wirklichkeit. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.

. TILLICH, Paul. Théologie de la culture. Paris: Ed. Planète, Paris 1968.

. ___________.  Teologia da cultura. São Paulo: Fonte Editorial, 2009.

. ZILLES, Urbano. Significação dos símbolos cristãos. 6. ed. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, 2006.

         

         Culture is revealing of the identity of the human being. It is a characteristic, which is fundamental to him. It is inconceivable to the human being outside the culture, because this is a specific way of being of man and woman. Culture is embedded in their being. There are strong characteristics of the culture, “the communion, the unity, the diversity, the intersubjectivity and the social character of the human existence”.[1] In a more concrete way, it can be defined as “the way of thinking, the mentality of a human group that explains the ways of proceeding (way of life) of that group”.[2] It is there that one understands the richness of diversity and how much is acquired when this diversity is valued and promoted.

      Beyond identity and mentality, culture has much to do with task, mission, responsibility and perpetuity. When the human being creates and reveals the overflow of his creative interior, he aims to offer a contribution - as a legacy - for future generations.[3] We understand this creative and inexhaustible inner richness in relation to the Creator Himself, who endowed the human being with the necessary faculties for this purpose. In this sense, He is culture and does culture. According to J. M. Imbamba, culture is not the work of God nor of nature, much less of chance; it is the work of the human being; it is fruit of his genius, his fantasy and creativity, his intelligence and will; it is everything that the human being creates because of the privileged faculties that he possesses.[4] This in no way should lead us to “think that the works of human inventiveness and power are opposed to the power of God, or to consider the rational creature as a rival of the Creator” (GS 34). However,

When we affirm that the human being is the creator of culture, we do not mean to say that he creates from nothing (exclusive activity of God, therefore, is the Supreme Being), because in this case, the human being is nothing more than a ‘free instrumental cause’ with The divine command to dominate and administer the things of this world. This is why culture is the response of the human being to the divine (providential) will; This is why, in beyond to humanize, the human being, through culture, should also glorify his creator.[5]

       It is, therefore, divine will that the human being be culturally creative and this is how he defines himself among other created beings. But, according to J. M. Imbamba, the process is not automatic, because, in order the human beings can produce culture, it requires learning, education, and constant commitment. Still it will be subject to contradictions because of the limitations of being a man and a woman.[6] This does not stop the insistent and persevering journey aiming the extension and development of the work of its Creator.[7]

        Even if the human being is capable of creating, nothing would be possible if a greater force did not motivate him. Then, he becomes aware that there is an omnipotent force that makes him creative and, at the same time, overcomes him.[8] To reach this awareness, the religions have played a key role. They seek to respond to the deepest questions of the human being in his aspiration to the infinite, putting him in communion with the one he conceives as his Creator[9]and fellowshipping with the others. That is why some authors affirm that the “religion is the soul of culture”.[10] The author P. Tillich uses a corresponding expression in saying that the “religion is the substance that gives meaning to the culture”.[11]The author J. Nunes also agrees with this truth by recalling situations that reinforce even more the understanding of religion as the soul of culture. According to him, the religion

(...) was almost always a factor of social cohesion (visible in public manifestations or communal celebrations, for example, those of popular religiosity here in our country), it was the matrix of most cultural elements (in the case of Christianity, see as it taught how to write to think, to express oneself aesthetically and architecturally), it was, in some cases, a factor of scientific development (...), it is able to offer a sense and a 'sanction' to human effort (note that Christianity, as well as other religions, carry with them an ethic and a response to the anxieties of salvation, allowing even to integrate the experiences of failure and limits typical of the human experience. Religion, after all, and ultimately, offers a pattern of humanization to culture, to any culture.[12]

      This makes us to understand that every cultural group has its religious experience, which guarantees the cohesion of the group, motivating a way of being, of thinking and acting. On this important work of the religion in the core of culture, the author É. Durkheim also adds more,

The individuals who compose it feel connected to one another simply because they have a common faith. A society whose members are united by the fact of conceiving in the same way the sacred world and its relations with the profane world, and of translating this common conception into identical practices.[13]

          Indeed these practices rescue the meaning of the sacred in the world. This sacralisation happens through celebrations, in which the human being seeks communion with the deity, making his presence visible. The symbols, in this sense, representative or cultic, play a fundamental role, being the central element of the diverse conceptions of salvation.[14] They are part of the inner richness of the human being, which is communicated as cultural expression and production. The symbol is not worth for what it is in itself, but for what it means. Thus, a hug, a gesture, a movement, or an action bring a meaning that surpasses them as visible situations.

       When we refer to religious symbols, this truth seems even more remarkable. About this, U. Zilles, quoting Paul Tillich, states that the meaning of religious symbols “consists in being the language of religion, the only language through which the religion can express itself immediately”.[15] However, the symbols diverge greatly from one culture to another and from one religion to another. A symbol that in one religion or culture is full of meaning, has no meaning for another culture or religion.[16] According to L. C. Susin, “the symbols have a common note, but they gain multi-purpose directions. To know the strength of the symbol and its direction, it is necessary to know what experience one has of this symbol within the culture in which it is”.[17]

        The religion is not opposed to culture; on the contrary, it is the source of its vitality and its sacred sense. It is in the use of symbols that the religion allows the human being to see beyond and the hidden.[18] That is why it is said that the symbol has something mysterious and fascinating. If we take Sacred Scripture, we see the creation as a particular symbol of the goodness, generosity, and greatness of its Creator. If we take Afro-Brazilian cultures, we realize how much the religious experience is expressed in everything they do and how much this experience becomes a factor of identity and survival.

Author: Josuel Degaaxé dos Santos Boaventura PSDP - Fr Ndega
Theological review: ThD Fr Luis Carlos Susin

English review: EdM Mary Kung'u

---

[1] IMBAMBA, José Manuel. Uma nova cultura para mulheres e homens novos, p. 27s.

[2] LANGA, Adriano. A oração cristã e exigências da inculturação, p. 78.  Another definition well synthetic in this direction, we have with R. J. Schreiter, “Composition of ideational elements (world vision, values, roles of behaviour), operational elements (rituals and papers) and material elements (language, symbols, food, cloths, homes and other artefacts” (SCHREITER, Robert J. A nova catolicidade, p. 89).  

[3] “(...) The more increases the power of human beings, the more increases their personal and community responsibility” (GS 34).  

[4] Cf. IMBAMBA, José Manuel. Op. cit., p. 32.

[5] Cf. Ibid., p. 32.

[6] Cf. Ibid., p. 33. 

[7] The human beings “do convenient service to society, with reason can consider that extend the work of the Creator with their work, help their Brothers and give personal contribution for the realization of the designs of God in the history” (GS 34).

[8] Cf. DURKHEIM, Émile. As formas elementares da vida religiosa, p. 55.

[9] “The religion, says A. Réville, ‘is the determination of human life for the feelings of a lace that unites the human spirit to mysterious spirit, whose domain recognises upon world and upon himself and to whom likes to feel united” (RÉVILLE, A. Prolégomènes à histoire des religions, p.34. Apud. Durkheim Émile. Op. cit., p. 60).

[10] It is about an expression used for many authors, but we don’t know really who formulated it. We can find reference about its meaning in DURKHEIM, Émile. Op. cit., p. 75 and TILLICH, Paul. Théologie de la culture. Paris: Ed. Planète, Paris 1968, p.92. Apud. NUNES, José. In: Didaskalia, Dezembro 2008, p. 3.

[11] TILLICH, Paul. Teologia da cultura, p. 83.

[12] NUNES, José. Op. cit., p. 3.

[13] DURKHEIM, Émile. Op. cit., p. 75.

[14] Cf. GONZALEZ, Carlos Ignázio. Ele é a nossa salvação, p. 35.

[15] TILLICH, Paul. Symbol und Wirklichkeit. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Apud. ZILLES, Urbano. Op. cit., p. 11.

[16] “(...) The symbols have value fixed to all human beings, and in the same time they take direction according to the culture, the conscience and the religion. For example, the sun: can be ‘lord’ and ‘God’, or can be ‘lord’ and brother. Being lord, it is fixed value. Being God for some ones and brother for others, it is directed” (SUSIN, Luiz Carlos. Os salmos na vida cristã., p. 91).  

[17] Ibid., p. 18.

[18] “The symbol is more than a mere conventional sign which points to something else, like it would be the indicator arrow on the road. The symbol is the condensation of a reality of which it participates. It points to within itself. To see the symbol is to see the reality that does not exhaust in the sight. Enjoy the symbol is to taste the reality that does not exhaust in this taste” (Ibid, p. 83).