D
Dovekin
Guest
The modern Jesuits are responsible for Leonard Feeney; Malachi Martin; Avery Dulles; Joseph Fessio; Mitch Pacwa and many more. They are such hard right fundamentalists, I do not know why anyone takes them seriously.
- Status
C
choose_to_love
Guest
Did you just call Fr. Pacwa a ‘hard right fundamentalist’, and compare him to Fr. Leonard Feeney?
So far as I am aware, Father Rahner was never judged by any competent court or tribunal in the Catholic Church as being a formal and pertinacious heretic. He may have been a material heretic as a private theologian, or may have held heretical ideas that he never published, but we have no way of knowing that.
If I am understanding correctly how theological study and analysis work, theologians are allowed to speculate on ideas and concepts that the average layman in the pew shouldn’t be musing about. In the end, if it comes to that, the Church then makes a decision yea, nay, or maybe.
As anyone who reads here regularly well knows, from time to time I dabble in a little speculative moral theology. (Full disclosure: I am toying, in the back of my mind, with going back to school — it would have to be distance learning — after my son graduates high school, and getting a degree in theology or counseling.) For instance, I have wondered if it would be morally licit for couples to use condoms, solely for the purpose of not spreading or contracting a loathsome disease, with the contraceptive effect being totally unwilled and unwelcomed. You’ve got to admit that’s pretty progressive for an SSPX-sympathetic traditionalist
But I cannot speak authoritatively on any of this, and for now, it remains within my own mind — and if I were in those circumstances, I wouldn’t be entitled to invoke in dubio libertas by saying “it’s a probable theological opinion”.
But to return to the point. Rahner has never been judged a heretic, and as far as I am aware, the Church has put no kind of monitum on his writings (as she did with Teilhard). He does skate on the edge of Catholic orthodoxy. I couldn’t recommend his writings to the average Catholic who needs solid catechesis and orthodox doctrine more than he needs speculation and theological boundary-pushing.
If I am understanding correctly how theological study and analysis work, theologians are allowed to speculate on ideas and concepts that the average layman in the pew shouldn’t be musing about. In the end, if it comes to that, the Church then makes a decision yea, nay, or maybe.
As anyone who reads here regularly well knows, from time to time I dabble in a little speculative moral theology. (Full disclosure: I am toying, in the back of my mind, with going back to school — it would have to be distance learning — after my son graduates high school, and getting a degree in theology or counseling.) For instance, I have wondered if it would be morally licit for couples to use condoms, solely for the purpose of not spreading or contracting a loathsome disease, with the contraceptive effect being totally unwilled and unwelcomed. You’ve got to admit that’s pretty progressive for an SSPX-sympathetic traditionalist
But I cannot speak authoritatively on any of this, and for now, it remains within my own mind — and if I were in those circumstances, I wouldn’t be entitled to invoke in dubio libertas by saying “it’s a probable theological opinion”.But to return to the point. Rahner has never been judged a heretic, and as far as I am aware, the Church has put no kind of monitum on his writings (as she did with Teilhard). He does skate on the edge of Catholic orthodoxy. I couldn’t recommend his writings to the average Catholic who needs solid catechesis and orthodox doctrine more than he needs speculation and theological boundary-pushing.
C
CTBcin
Guest
Hey, I wouldn’t put de Lubac with the others on that list.
D
Dovekin
Guest
I did, just like Henri de Lubac was just accused of liberation theology. Wild, unsubstantiated charges that I expected would be ignored because they are so silly.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
Ah, gotcha. And touche’, I suppose.
Crusader13
New member
I don’t think he’s been formally charged with heresy, but some Catholic scholars and theologians today tend to avoid his interpretations. He’s more popular amongst those who prefer the Vatican II understanding of scripture and tradition.
I’ve tried to read his works, but admittedly they are are not for the casual weekend reading. lol. He’s a true scholar no doubt and sometimes his writings feel like they were intended for other scholars and not the average layman.
I’ve tried to read his works, but admittedly they are are not for the casual weekend reading. lol. He’s a true scholar no doubt and sometimes his writings feel like they were intended for other scholars and not the average layman.
2
27lw
Guest
Well this book review details how the “Heroic Generation” of Catholic theologians (1960s on,) derailed the neoscholasticism of the previous hundred years, leaving little of substance in its place.
It’s hardly a ringing endorsement of Rahner and his generation. It’s not like “First Things” is heartily praising him.
It’s hardly a ringing endorsement of Rahner and his generation. It’s not like “First Things” is heartily praising him.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
Some years ago I had and consulted all the volumes of “Theological Investigations” published up to that time, almost 20 volumes then.
I appreciated some of his essays in these volumes.
When I leaned more about his theology, I hesitated as I considered this, then threw all of them out.
I appreciated some of his essays in these volumes.
When I leaned more about his theology, I hesitated as I considered this, then threw all of them out.
2
2014taylorj
Guest
Rahner also believed in transfinalization.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Actually, a formal definition is almost the definition of formal heresy. If we rely on our Catholic sense of faith, Rahner certainly is not a heretic.
Of course, there are minor dissenting views. Like Cardinal Siri’s odd condemnation. Is he also condemning Cardinal Ratzinger? (the english translation came out in 1981, before appointment to the CDF) If so, you have to question his “Catholic sense of the faith.” While Siri was a man of great faith, his sense of the faith was not sufficient to recognize Benedict XVI’s faith.
J
JulianN
Guest
They were.
B
Bithynian
Guest
I tend to see him as the Catholic counterpart to the Russian Orthodox Lossky, the Swiss Reformed Barth and the German Lutheran Niemöller: fantastic minds, greatly insightful (and challenging) theology, with semi-contested legacies and the occasional charge of heresy.
2
2014taylorj
Guest
Personally I don’t understand how it is possible to believe in transfinalization, support birth control and women’s ordination to the priesthood and simultaneously not be a heretic?
- Status