E
ej1111
Guest
Has anyone read theologian Karl Rahner, and if so, how do you like him?
- Status
J
John_Higgins
Guest
The late Holy Father liked him; that’s good enough for me.
John
John
R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
Well, I haven’t read any of his writings, other than what’s been quoted in other reading I’ve done.
But Francis Sullivan, in “Salvation Outside the Church?” says after examining his teaching on “anonymous Christians” and examining Rahner’s primary critics, that Karl “Rahner’s position that both non-Christian religious and secular realities must be recognized as serving as mediations of salvation for non-Christians is undoubtedly the position of “mainstream” Catholic theology today.” (p. 181).
He then cites several Catholic theologians, such as Yves Congar, Walter Kasper, Hans Kung, and alas, Joseph Ratzinger, and others, who all side with Rahner.
But Francis Sullivan, in “Salvation Outside the Church?” says after examining his teaching on “anonymous Christians” and examining Rahner’s primary critics, that Karl “Rahner’s position that both non-Christian religious and secular realities must be recognized as serving as mediations of salvation for non-Christians is undoubtedly the position of “mainstream” Catholic theology today.” (p. 181).
He then cites several Catholic theologians, such as Yves Congar, Walter Kasper, Hans Kung, and alas, Joseph Ratzinger, and others, who all side with Rahner.
R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
Sacramentalis,
Perhaps you already have, but If you’ll read all of the statements of John Paul that are cited, you’ll see there in a part, what he is specifically referring to.
"3. It therefore seems that a complementarity understood in this way finds its foundation in the words of Christ according to Matthew l9:ll-l236 (and also in the First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 737) On the other hand, there is no basis for a presumed counterposition according to which celibates (or unmarried women), only by reason of their continence, would make up the class of those who are ‘perfect’, while on the other hand, married persons would makeup a class of those who are ‘imperfect’ (or ‘less perfect’).38 Hey, read the following, it is a key to understanding this****If, according to a certain theological tradition,39 one speaks of a state of perfection (“status perfectionis”), it is done not by reason of continence in itself, but with regard to the entirety of a life based on the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity and obedience40), since this life corresponds to Christ’s call to perfection (‘If you would be perfect…’: Mt. 19-21). Perfection of the Christian life, instead, is measured with the rule of charity.41 It follows that a person who does not live in the state of perfection’ (that is, in an institution that bases its life plan on vows of poverty, chastity and obedience), or, in other words, who does not live in a religious institute, but in the ‘world’, can, 'de_facto’42 reach a superior degree of perfection - whose measure is charity - in comparison to the person who lives in the ‘state of perfection’ with a lesser degree of charity
So, it seems that he is simply saying, in agreement with Pope Pius XII cited on that same page, in the encyclical “Sacra Virginatis”
“In the first place it must be openly declared that, although virginity is to be considered as more perfect than matrimony, it does not follow from this that it is necessary for the attainment of Christian perfection. Holiness of life, even without chastity dedicated to God, can in reality be attained; a fact which is frequently testified to by the holy men and women whom the Church honours with public devotion, and who are shining examples of faithful spouses and excellent fathers and mothers of families; indeed it is by no means a rare thing to encounter married couples who are very eagerly striving after Christian perfection.”
Does that help? I think it should help some. He was not necessarily saying that virginity is not superior to marriage, he was saying that in a certain way, in accord with the perfection of charity, it is not, and was not taught by Christ, to be superior to marriage. But rather, it is superior with regard to the entirety of a life based on the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity and obedience40), since this life corresponds to Christ’s call to perfection (‘If you would be perfect…’: Mt. 19-21).
That’s what I gleaned, at least. Good question and topic.
Perhaps you already have, but If you’ll read all of the statements of John Paul that are cited, you’ll see there in a part, what he is specifically referring to.
"3. It therefore seems that a complementarity understood in this way finds its foundation in the words of Christ according to Matthew l9:ll-l236 (and also in the First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 737) On the other hand, there is no basis for a presumed counterposition according to which celibates (or unmarried women), only by reason of their continence, would make up the class of those who are ‘perfect’, while on the other hand, married persons would makeup a class of those who are ‘imperfect’ (or ‘less perfect’).38 Hey, read the following, it is a key to understanding this****If, according to a certain theological tradition,39 one speaks of a state of perfection (“status perfectionis”), it is done not by reason of continence in itself, but with regard to the entirety of a life based on the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity and obedience40), since this life corresponds to Christ’s call to perfection (‘If you would be perfect…’: Mt. 19-21). Perfection of the Christian life, instead, is measured with the rule of charity.41 It follows that a person who does not live in the state of perfection’ (that is, in an institution that bases its life plan on vows of poverty, chastity and obedience), or, in other words, who does not live in a religious institute, but in the ‘world’, can, 'de_facto’42 reach a superior degree of perfection - whose measure is charity - in comparison to the person who lives in the ‘state of perfection’ with a lesser degree of charity
So, it seems that he is simply saying, in agreement with Pope Pius XII cited on that same page, in the encyclical “Sacra Virginatis”
“In the first place it must be openly declared that, although virginity is to be considered as more perfect than matrimony, it does not follow from this that it is necessary for the attainment of Christian perfection. Holiness of life, even without chastity dedicated to God, can in reality be attained; a fact which is frequently testified to by the holy men and women whom the Church honours with public devotion, and who are shining examples of faithful spouses and excellent fathers and mothers of families; indeed it is by no means a rare thing to encounter married couples who are very eagerly striving after Christian perfection.”
Does that help? I think it should help some. He was not necessarily saying that virginity is not superior to marriage, he was saying that in a certain way, in accord with the perfection of charity, it is not, and was not taught by Christ, to be superior to marriage. But rather, it is superior with regard to the entirety of a life based on the evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity and obedience40), since this life corresponds to Christ’s call to perfection (‘If you would be perfect…’: Mt. 19-21).
That’s what I gleaned, at least. Good question and topic.
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Oh, good. If he’s an anti-“rigorist EENS” guy, I like him even better
John
John
C
Cockney_Clive
Guest
He is a good thinker but hard going. English isn’t his first language ( but then again; neither is German)
Reminds me of the joke about him. An American Theologian goes to a International Theological Seminar because the key speaker is going to be Karl Rahner. He is talking to a German colleague and the American says: “We are all really excited over in US because they are about to publish Rahner in English. At last we will be able to understand the works of this great man.”
The German turns to the American and says: " Yes, that is really great news. Here in Germany we are also waiting for karl to be published in German so we can all understand his ideas."
Karl has a brother, also an emminent theologian. He says of his brother Karl; yes, a brilliant thinker but such a terrible writer!
Reminds me of the joke about him. An American Theologian goes to a International Theological Seminar because the key speaker is going to be Karl Rahner. He is talking to a German colleague and the American says: “We are all really excited over in US because they are about to publish Rahner in English. At last we will be able to understand the works of this great man.”
The German turns to the American and says: " Yes, that is really great news. Here in Germany we are also waiting for karl to be published in German so we can all understand his ideas."
Karl has a brother, also an emminent theologian. He says of his brother Karl; yes, a brilliant thinker but such a terrible writer!
E
Emerald
Guest
John Higgins:
You mean, if Rahner is an opponent of the dogma of the Catholic Faith, you like him even better?
B
Brian_Crane
Guest
I have not read any of Rahner’s works (nor do I care to), but from what I have read and heard about him I would be very wary. He is considered a “progressive” theologian by his admirers and a “modernist” or heterodox theologian by his detractors. His orthodoxy has been questioned. The CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger pronounced some of his theology as ambiguous. That sends up red flags for me. In addition, if Kaspar and Kung are his admirers: 
John Higgins:
Despite their friendship, Ratzinger has long harbored reservations about Rahner. Here is what Ratzinger wrote in his 1997 memoirs, Milestones: “Rahner for the most part allowed himself to be ‘sworn in’ according to the progressive slogans, and allowed himself as well to be pushed into adventuresome political positions difficult to reconcile with his own transcendental philosophy.”
Rahner likewise felt misgivings about the drift of Ratzinger’s career. In 1979, when Ratzinger was archbishop of Munich, he refused to allow progressive theologian Johann Baptist Metz to teach at the University of Munich. Rahner published an open letter to Ratzinger, in which he wrote: “Twenty-five years ago the Holy Office in Rome forbade me to write anything further on the subject of concelebration. That was a senseless, unscientific manipulation by church bureaucrats. I judge your action against Metz to be of the same category.”
PS- Its good to run into you Emerald! I’ve missed you.
John Higgins:
I think the current Holy Father likes him as well, but I don’t think he is all that fond of his theology. This from a May 2002 article by John Allen:
Despite their friendship, Ratzinger has long harbored reservations about Rahner. Here is what Ratzinger wrote in his 1997 memoirs, Milestones: “Rahner for the most part allowed himself to be ‘sworn in’ according to the progressive slogans, and allowed himself as well to be pushed into adventuresome political positions difficult to reconcile with his own transcendental philosophy.”
Rahner likewise felt misgivings about the drift of Ratzinger’s career. In 1979, when Ratzinger was archbishop of Munich, he refused to allow progressive theologian Johann Baptist Metz to teach at the University of Munich. Rahner published an open letter to Ratzinger, in which he wrote: “Twenty-five years ago the Holy Office in Rome forbade me to write anything further on the subject of concelebration. That was a senseless, unscientific manipulation by church bureaucrats. I judge your action against Metz to be of the same category.”
PS- Its good to run into you Emerald! I’ve missed you.
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Emerald,
Rigorist EENS is Feeneyism. That’s already been condemned by the Church.
John
PS: For those who haven’t been around when EENS has been done to death–
EENS is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or Outside the Church No Salvation. A rigorist version of that concept would be if you aren’t a Mass going Rosary saying baptized by a priest Roman Catholic you can’t be saved. Nonsense, I say. So does the CCC.
Rigorist EENS is Feeneyism. That’s already been condemned by the Church.
John
PS: For those who haven’t been around when EENS has been done to death–
EENS is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or Outside the Church No Salvation. A rigorist version of that concept would be if you aren’t a Mass going Rosary saying baptized by a priest Roman Catholic you can’t be saved. Nonsense, I say. So does the CCC.
E
Emerald
Guest
John Higgins:
I’ve never seen the CCC say anything like that at all… I think you’re probably overstating things a bit, maybe.
Want to talk about the Rahner thing instead?
Seems you disagree with Pope Benedict XVI, who when still a Cardinal had this to say:
Two things. According to the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now pope, it isn’t heretical, for one. Secondly, get this: to hold another position is the “more liberal interpretation”. More liberal!
Has it been answered intelligently though? I could drive a stake through the heart of this topic, if you so… desire. So utterly and completely that there would be no escaping the truth of the matter whatsoever. Are you game?
The CCC says that “… rigorist version of that concept would be if you aren’t a Mass going Rosary saying baptized by a priest Roman Catholic you can’t be saved.”?
I’ve never seen the CCC say anything like that at all… I think you’re probably overstating things a bit, maybe.
Want to talk about the Rahner thing instead?
E
Emerald
Guest
Hey brian, I missed that on the first read. How are you? I should have clued in by your name alone; straight over my head. Sorry!
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Emerald,
Here’s what the Catechism says:
Those paragraphs above work with these below:
That’s the view of the Catholic Church as ordered promulgated by John Paul II.
John
Here’s what the Catechism says:
CCC said:
Those paragraphs above work with these below:
CCC said:
That’s the view of the Catholic Church as ordered promulgated by John Paul II.
John
J
John_Higgins
Guest
I’ll be glad to discuss Father Rahner, if you want.
John
John
E
Emerald
Guest
John Higgins:
But once you start explaining to me exactly what you think these texts mean, that’s when you’ll start falling off dogma and into error against dogma.
Do you mind if I ask you to explain exactly, in your own words, what those texts mean?
All of which I’ve read many times.
But once you start explaining to me exactly what you think these texts mean, that’s when you’ll start falling off dogma and into error against dogma.
Do you mind if I ask you to explain exactly, in your own words, what those texts mean?
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Those who believe in Christ are saved by Him through his Church. As the Catechism says, non-Catholic Christians are in a certain “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church.
This whole triumphalist concept reminds me of the old joke: St. Peter is welcoming a Methodist, a Lutheran, and a Presbyterian to heaven. On the tour he shows them the “many mansions.” There is one area where he asks them to be silent. They complied. After they passed through that area, the Lutheran asked St. Peter why he asked them to be quiet. He said, “Those are the Catholics; they think they’re the only ones here.”
BTW, spare me the quotes from the St. Benedict Center website; I’ve read them all.
John
E
Emerald
Guest
So in other words, there really is salvation outside the Church according to your belief. Correct?
E
ej1111
Guest
John Higgins,
What books have you read by Rahner?
What books have you read by Rahner?
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Not exactly. I said what I said. In the cited passages, the Church has defined itself to encompass the whole of Christianity. Plus, not in my words but in the words of the Catechism, “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (Bolding mine)
Further, the Catechism says:
CCC said:
John
J
John_Higgins
Guest
I’ve read excerpts from Foundations of Christian Faith and some commentaries of some of his other work. The more Rahner I read, the more I’m inclined to agree with him.
John
T
threej_lc
Guest
I’m not very fond of Rahner. I’ve never explicitly disagreed with anything he said, but he seemed like a bit of a plagiarist to me. All the pieces of his that I ever read was just taking long-understood theology, mangling the phrasing until it makes no sense, using the same politically correct terms as other liberal theologians like, “Ultimate Reality” (So as not to offend those who dont’ believe in “God”) and “Enlightened Understanding” (So as not to offend those who don’t believe in the “Holy Spirit.”) and spit it back out as if it were his own original ideas.
Josh
Josh
- Status