Why Rahner?

[johnnycatholic]

I thought Fr. Karl Rahner was a dissident theologian, yet i have heard recently of priest teaching classes on him locally. Is this priest necessarily heterodox or did Fr. Rahner have some theology so brilliant before turning to the dark side that it bears study? I refuse to read him because i’ve seen too much of his heterodox stuff and i am really tired of having to read stuff with my “filters” on. I’d rather just have a source i know i can always trust. But i really do wish to be enlightened on this subject because i see quotes from Rahner in tons of various Catholic publications and i feel i must be missing something.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I thought Fr. Karl Rahner was a dissident theologian, yet i have heard recently of priest teaching classes on him locally. Is this priest necessarily heterodox or did Fr. Rahner have some theology so brilliant before turning to the dark side that it bears study? I refuse to read him because i’ve seen too much of his heterodox stuff and i am really tired of having to read stuff with my “filters” on. I’d rather just have a source i know i can always trust. But i really do wish to be enlightened on this subject because i see quotes from Rahner in tons of various Catholic publications and i feel i must be missing something.
Thanks in advance.

You can be wrong in an interesting way. So a theologican doesn’t have to be entirely orthodox to be important.

We can’t have a situation where only left-wing trendies read Marx, or Neo-Nazis are the only people with a qualified opinion on Hitler. However academic study is frequently only a pretext for propaganda. Whether that is the case for your priest I couldn’t say.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I thought Fr. Karl Rahner was a dissident theologian, yet i have heard recently of priest teaching classes on him locally. Is this priest necessarily heterodox or did Fr. Rahner have some theology so brilliant before turning to the dark side that it bears study? I refuse to read him because i’ve seen too much of his heterodox stuff and i am really tired of having to read stuff with my “filters” on. I’d rather just have a source i know i can always trust. But i really do wish to be enlightened on this subject because i see quotes from Rahner in tons of various Catholic publications and i feel i must be missing something.
Thanks in advance.

Your gut feel is correct from what I have read.

 

[Genesis315]

Rahner’s not quite in the same league as guys like Kung. Much of Rahner’s early stuff was good, but his success, especially at the Council, went to his head I think and he went a bit off the deep end (sadly, success can do this to once orthodox men–just read about the fall of Thomas Merton). Rahner’s theology is actually well thought out and has substance as he did try to tackle difficult subjects (whereas a guy like Kung was basically a media darling making inflammatory remarks and beating the same dead horse.) Rahner also kept up a friendship and communication Von Balthasar–who’s a pretty trustowrthy theologian.

So, the final verdict–Rahner’s work is not all bad, and he is an important theological figure–but if you want a source you can always trust for your own edification I would take a pass on Rahner.

 

[Godefridus]

Agreed with the above. Anything from Rahner simply has to be examined carefully–not condemned outright just because it has his named tacked onto it. I’ve studied many of his essays on the sacraments, and they were good stuff, but they often manifested a tendency to overemphasize their natural goods.

Although I’m not well-read enough to say with any real authority, I would say a Rahner beats a Kung, a Schillebeeckx, and a Tielhard de Chardin. I don’t know enough about Lonergan or Congar but I like what I’ve heard of them. But good old Balthy seems to top them all.

Interestlingly, both Rahner and Balthasar have theories about how a non-Christian might possibly enter heaven, but the two are radically different from each other. Rahner’s theory stresses the natural goodness inherent in each person. Balthasar’s, by contrast, emphasizes our total dependence on the sacrifice of the cross. Both are Christological in a sense–but Balthasar’s wins my vote (if either of them have any validity) only because it stems directly from the heart of Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[rightandreason]

Rahner was instrumental in manipulating the Church’s teaching on the Holy Eucharist. He has never and will never be considered an asset to the Church. In fact Fr John Hardon spent alot of time trying to shore up the cryptic theolgian’s teachings on the Eucharist. His cryptic writings include the topic of Transignification, which was Rahner’s way of subverting the Church’s teaching on Transubstantiation. This so-called theologian was and continues to be a menace to the faith! Avoid his cryptic writings at all costs.

 

[Godefridus]

Right. Because why have discussion and understanding when you can have fearful condemnation? Truth has nothing to fear from study.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Rahner was instrumental in manipulating the Church’s teaching on the Holy Eucharist. He has never and will never be considered an asset to the Church. In fact Fr John Hardon spent alot of time trying to shore up the cryptic theolgian’s teachings on the Eucharist. His cryptic writings include the topic of Transignification, which was Rahner’s way of subverting the Church’s teaching on Transubstantiation. This so-called theologian was and continues to be a menace to the faith! Avoid his cryptic writings at all costs.

Transubstantiation needs firming up. Chemists don’t believe in “substances” and “accidents” any longer

I am not familiar with Rahner’s works on transignification, but it doesn’t seem to me to be a bad tack to take.

 

[Ghosty]

Transubstantiation needs firming up. Chemists don’t believe in “substances” and “accidents” any longer

I am not familiar with Rahner’s works on transignification, but it doesn’t seem to me to be a bad tack to take.

Chemists don’t have to, as those are philosophical terms. Chemistry doesn’t touch on any of the issues related with transubstantiation (except that they can affirm that the accidents remain unchanged, which any visual inspection could tell us), so there is no need to force transubstantiation into a Chemist’s language.

Now for my two cents on Rahner.

My biggest problem with Rahner’s theology is that he seems to have been trying to innovate rather than draw from our actual traditions. He mangled the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, trying to twist it into modern categories that it simply doesn’t fit. None of this makes him heterodox, it just makes his work largely irrelevant and superfluous in the long run. Everything positive that he offers was done clearer and more definatively by others, especially St. Thomas Aquinas (Rahner’s work on Grace not only falls short of Aquinas’ precision, but it also potentially falls short of Catholic orthodoxy), and everything negative ranges from confusing to dangerous. Honestly, I don’t think he will be regarded as influential for long, and I think his work is already beginning to fade.

Peace and God bless!