Being Salvation

Atonement and Soteriology in the Theology of Karl Rahner

Brandon Peterson

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781506423326
• eBook ISBN: 9781506408958
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Karl Rahner's theory of how Jesus saves has garnered criticism. Rahner's portrayal of Jesus has been described by Hans Urs von Balthasar as merely notifying the world of God's salvific will. Others have doubted whether Rahner thinks Jesus "causes" salvation at all. Even Rahner's advocates style his Jesus as a kind of sign, albeit an effective one, the primal Sacrament. But another major and yet underappreciated dimension to Rahner's christology is his identification of Jesus as Representative—both our representative before God and God's before us. As such a Representative, Jesus is not a redemptive agent who accomplishes human salvation simply through an act, and even less is he a mere exemplar or notification. This Jesus does not only "do" our salvation—rather, he is the locus of salvation itself. He not only "opens" heaven's gates, but he creates heaven with his own resurrection. Being Salvation uncovers this dimension within Rahner's theology, relating it to other historical examples of representative soteriology (e.g. Irenaeus's theory of recapitulation) and to Rahner's more familiar sacramental soteriological categories. It gives special attention to Rahner's intense attention to the church fathers early in his career, including Rahner's untranslated theology dissertation, E latere Christi ("From the Side of Christ").

4

Rahnerian Ressourcement

A Historical Basis for the Fathers’ Influence

The preceding chapters have functioned primarily to set the stage for my thesis that, contra Hans Urs von Balthasar’s analysis of it, Karl Rahner’s soteriology can be legitimately classified as “representative” in character. This stage-setting includes: (i) specifying what I mean by representative, utilizing the three characteristic markers as well as the contentious term Stellvertretung, (ii) demonstrating that Rahner’s sacramental or realsymbolisch concepts entail representative counterparts when he utilizes them in christological and soteriological writings, and (iii) considering other major proponents of representative soteriology, especially patristic theologians such as Irenaeus of Lyons. The connection on the “conceptual” level between Rahner and representative soteriology, made in a somewhat limited way in chapter 2, will be the focus of the fifth and final chapter below.

My focus now, however, will be upon establishing the historical plausibility of identifying Rahner as a representative thinker, a plausibility rooted in his early engagement with and ongoing appreciation for theology and doctrine from the age of the church fathers. I will proceed with some initial biographical considerations, followed by an examination of Rahner’s doctoral dissertation on patristic typology, E latere Christi (“From the Side of Christ”). This dissertation, to which little attention has been paid, focuses its ecclesiological and soteriological claims upon the idea of Christ as the New Adam, an idea paramount within the theology of the fathers (who receive the lion’s share of Rahner’s attention in his dissertation). Finally, I will argue that in addition to having a formative impact on Rahner’s own creative systematic theology, the theology and dogmatic pronouncements of the early centuries of Christianity remained indispensable for Rahner throughout his career. Although he is known primarily for his efforts to render the gospel intelligible to the contemporary person (efforts which might be accurately summarized by the term aggiornamento or “updating,” heard frequently in discussions surrounding Vatican II), Rahner made it clear in his final years that he saw himself as a deeply “historical” (or, to once again use conciliar parlance, ressourcement) theologian.^[1] Rahner’s recourse to “the sources” of Christian soteriology, particularly as seen in E latere Christi, provide a historical and biographical explanator for my contention that he articulated a representative soteriology in common with patristic thinkers such as Irenaeus.

The Biographical Status Quo

For a well-known and heavily studied figure such as Rahner, short biographies abound.^[2] In their treatment of Rahner’s early years as a student and, eventually, lecturer, the majority of such biographies devote their attention to his philosophical interests, particularly his reading of various philosophers (e.g., Immanuel Kant, Maurice Blondel, Pierre Rousselot, and especially Joseph Maréchal), his participation in Martin Heidegger’s seminars at Freiburg, his philosophy dissertation (Spirit in the World), and his subsequent work on anthropology and philosophy of religion, Hearer of the Word. Reference to Rahner’s interest in the fathers is either made in passing or, more typically, is omitted entirely.^[3] It is, of course, true that these philosophical interests and the corresponding figures significantly shaped Rahner’s career as a theologian.^[4] Rahner himself cites Maréchal as a major influence^[5] and even identifies Heidegger as his “master,” the “only one whom I can revere as my teacher.”^[6] Yet, it is important not to overestimate these influences as if Maréchal and Heidegger somehow determined Rahner’s theology.^[7] In fact, he denies that either figure even had this kind of decisive influence on his philosophy.^[8] Rahner specifies that Heidegger’s effect upon him came by means of “a style of thinking” rather than any “specific doctrines.”^[9]

Unfortunately, the widespread tendency to portray Rahner’s theology as emerging from the crucible of modern continental philosophy has led many of his readers, both enthusiasts and critics alike, to operate within an excessively narrow scope when considering the influences on his theological career. Two years prior to his death, Rahner declared to an interviewer, “I refuse to be condemned as a theologian to being subject exclusively to a completely determined philosophical system.”^[10] A full appreciation of Rahner’s thought requires giving serious (rather than mere passing) attention to other early, formative factors which shaped his theology.

Especially beginning in the 1980s, such attention began to appear in writings on the significance of Rahner’s Ignatian spirituality. Joseph Wong,^[11] Annice Callahan,^[12] and Herbert Vorgrimler^[13] offered somewhat brief but important forays into the manner in which Rahner’s Jesuit training, specifically Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises, heavily shaped his projects.^[14] In more recent years, increasing attention has been rightfully called to this topic.^[15]

With the exception of Neufeld and Batlogg (whose relevant work is only available in German), the efforts to examine Rahner’s early nonphilosophical influences have focused almost entirely on prayer and spirituality. And, as with that on Rahner’s philosophical influences, such a focus is warranted and valuable. However, Rahner’s writings (including his theology dissertation) which concern the church fathers have received sparse attention, especially in the English-speaking world.^[16] Accordingly, the short biography which I will offer below is not intended to be at all comprehensive nor balanced in its attention to the variety of sources which influenced Rahner. Rather, it is intended to fill in lacunae concerning historical theology which exist in many biographical summaries of Karl Rahner, situating these lacunae within the more widely reported timeline of Rahner’s early years.^[17]

A Biographical Corrective: Rahner’s Early Years

Rahner entered the Jesuit novitiate in Feldkirch, Austria during April 1922, having turned 18 about a month earlier. Within two years, Rahner penned his first publication, on “Why we need to pray.”^[18] During this time, his brother Hugo, who preceded Karl into the novitiate, reports that the two of them undertook “timid, early attempts at collaborative work . . . to sense and present in the field of scholarship the presence of God to the world.”^[19] Karl Rahner studied philosophy at Feldkirch in 1925 and then continued his philosophical studies in Pullach through 1927. Following the convention of his Order, Rahner spent some time doing “practical” work between his philosophical and theological studies, returning to Feldkirch as a Latin instructor. During this period, he also studied Greek at Innsbruck (1928). In the fall of 1929, Rahner set out for Holland to begin his theological studies in Valkenburg, where he would stay until 1933.^[20]

Although Rahner’s Jesuit Provincial had, by this time, decided that his future lay in teaching philosophy for the Order, Rahner immersed himself in these theological studies. Although the theology taught to him at Valkenberg was markedly neo-Scholastic in its approach, Rahner reportedly “enjoyed” it; he would even go on to say that he would prefer it to the theology being taught by the German theological faculties in his final years.^[21] That said, Rahner c...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table Of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Christ the Notification?
• Rahner’s Realsymbol
• Representative Soteriology in the Patristic Period
• Rahnerian Ressourcement
• Representative Soteriology in Rahner’s Mature Work
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of Names
• Index of Subjects