Karl Rahner

Camden M. Bucey

• Publisher: P Publishing
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781629951652
• eBook ISBN: 9781629951669
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religious Biographies

Camden Bucey introduces and critiques Rahner—one of the most influential twentieth-century Roman Catholic theologians—who developed a bold theology that shaped Vatican II and an inclusivist approach to missions.

1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

While John Paul II or Benedict XVI could challenge for the role, a compelling case can be made that Karl Rahner, SJ (1904–84), was the most influential Catholic theologian of the twentieth century. Rahner’s theological influence is perhaps most evident in the theology of the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II was itself the most significant event in Catholicism in the twentieth century, and Rahner’s fingerprints are all over its documents. He did not write them, but his influence was pervasive. Some have even called him “the Holy Ghost writer of Vatican II.” Rahner’s theology is representative of a significant portion of post-Vatican II Catholicism, which itself is representative of a modern inclusivist approach to world religions, missions, and social engagement. Studying Rahner is a convenient shortcut for grasping a wide-reaching program of theology. It is odd that while Rahner is so significant and well-known in Catholic circles (whether loved or hated), he has gone relatively unnoticed in the Reformed tradition. We have had our hands full with theologians like Karl Barth. Whereas hundreds, if not thousands, of volumes have been written on Barth, surprisingly few have been written on Rahner by Reformed theologians. My goal is to increase awareness of and promote deeper engagement with Rahner’s theology in this brief introduction.

Rahner probes the deepest questions of Scripture: Who is God? Why did God create man? What is the future of humanity? In seeking to answer these questions, Rahner introduced or developed several theological principles that have received widespread adoption in Catholicism as well as Protestantism. He is well known for his Trinitarian axiom that “the ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.”¹ While Rahner readily admits that he was not the first to present this idea, he nevertheless became the face of it and used the idea to develop a bold theology. Rahner is also known for his theology of the “anonymous Christian,” the doctrine that people may be saved by Jesus Christ without ever hearing the gospel or professing faith in Christ—without even knowing or having heard of Jesus and his claims. Far from being discreet developments, these major theological contributions are deeply related.

Rahner was born in Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, and raised in a Catholic home. In 1922, he entered the Society of Jesus. As part of his Jesuit training, Rahner studied philosophy at Feldkirch, Austria, and Pullach, Germany, and then theology in Valkenburg, Holland. After he was ordained in 1932, Rahner’s Jesuit superiors directed him toward doctoral studies in philosophy. But after an unfortunate disagreement with his advisor over his approach to the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, Rahner moved to studying theology. In 1936, he received his doctorate in theology from the University of Innsbruck in Austria and embarked upon a storied academic and ecclesiastical life. He saw himself censored by the magisterium, only to become a theological expert (peritus) and one of the most influential figures at the Second Vatican Council. He held several teaching posts, lectured widely, and wrote until his death, just twenty-five days after his eightieth birthday.² Several decades after his death, Rahner’s legacy is still taking shape, and while the luster of Rahnerian studies may have dulled after the turn of the century, his influence is still felt.

Many excellent introductions to Rahner’s theology exist, and I do not intend to replicate them.³ I seek to do something different, something that will lead to a deeper understanding of Rahner’s theology as a whole. We could simply list a dozen or so talking points on Rahner’s theology, but then the reader would only obtain a glossary-level understanding of his theology, merely matching terms to discreet definitions. I want the reader to understand these doctrines individually, but, more importantly, I want the reader to understand Rahner’s theology as an organism. As we begin with Rahner’s Trinitarian theology and move through each of the traditional departments of theology, we will learn how Rahner develops one basic idea from beginning to end. Rahner’s entire theological program is concerned to explain how God communicates himself to humanity, whom he created specifically for this purpose of self-communication. If we understand one thing about Rahner, it must be this point. Everything Rahner does theologically is about this basic idea. By tracing that thread, we will gain an understanding of his Trinitarian axiom and his doctrine of the “anonymous Christian” much deeper than we could have through the standard handbook format.

Outline and Summary of the Argument

If Rahner’s fundamental concern is to explain how God communicates himself to humanity, it is prudent to begin our exploration with the doctrine of God in order to describe precisely who God is. Rahner wants to maintain Nicene orthodoxy in his doctrine of the Trinity, but he is wary of some of its language, especially the language of “person.” For Rahner, the personal subjectivity that applies to finite creatures is based upon limitation and the experience of “otherness.” God does not experience himself in this way. He is not a subject before another subject, and therefore the divine essence cannot exist as a “person” in this sense. But that does not rule out the language of “person” in all senses. In terms of one notion of personhood, involving self-consciousness and free agency, God is the absolute “person,” who gives the gift of himself to humanity. This is the essence of religion at the heart of the deepest question of both divine and human existence.

Rahner identifies the Father with the divine essence, while the Son and Spirit are not immediately identified with the essence, but rather with the Father.⁴ This ordering is true for Rahner according to both divine ontology and economy, that is, in terms of God’s being in himself and his actions with regard to creation. Ontology and economy are closely linked for Rahner, because the divine self-communication that humanity experiences in history has its foundation in an eternal self-communication of the Father. As I will explain in the next chapter, the Father is properly the “absolute person” of the Godhead, while the Son and Spirit are communicated expressions of that absolute person. The economic Trinity should be understood as a new, concrete expression of the immanent Trinity. That is to say, the experience of the Trinity in history is an expression of an eternal reality—the Father’s eternal self-communication of Son and Spirit. I will seek to demonstrate that, for Rahner, the unity of the Godhead is more basic than the diversity. This ontological “imbalance” ultimately compromises Rahner’s theology of divine self-communication.

Man, as spirit in the world, is the capable recipient of God’s gift of self. He is like a divinely created radio that is capable of receiving God’s frequency. For Rahner, man possesses a twofold nature (spiritual and historical), which corresponds to God’s twofold self-communication (Son and Holy Spirit). This relationship between the divine giver and his intended recipient is thoroughly personal. It is characterized by thought, emotion, and freedom. God freely chooses whether to communicate himself, and human beings freely choose whether to accept that communication. Seeing that the acceptance of such a gift would have significant effects upon humanity, Rahner must ensure that the gift is both given and received. He does so through his doctrine of Christ. When the eternal Son of God assumed a human nature, he became the new humanity, actualizing and intensifying the relationship between God and man. In his person, he guarantees the divine free offer of grace and its human acceptance. This solidifies God’s saving purpose.⁵ God does in the person of Christ what he intends to do for all who open themselves in freedom. When a person accepts this divine gift of self, he or she receives an ontological self-communication that results in a change of being.

Although the main features of Rahner’s theology complement one another, internal inconsistencies render his program implausible. Consequently, Rahner cannot deliver what he initially promises. God is seeking to give the gift of himself, and that self is triune. But in Rahner’s theology, the content of the gift is the Father, identified with the divine essence, whereas the Son and Spirit are not directly identified with the essence. The Father communicates himself as Son and Spirit, but since the Godhead knows no genuinely personal “other” within the Trinity, Rahner is unable to identify another equally ultimate “person” to receive that intra-Trinitarian self-communication. And therefore, since the Son and Spirit are fundamentally self-communications of the Father, Rahner directs his Trinitarian theology externally by connecting his conceptions of hypostasis and divine self-communication to humanity through his Christology.

In practice, Rahner employs an anthropocentric theological method that begins with human experience, because Rahner must go to humanity in order to complete his doctrine of the Trinity. Still, his error is deeper than a misdirected methodology. Rahner cannot “solve” his problems by adopting a new starting point. These are deep-seated and systemic issues that, in spite of their common cause and relation, force his overall theological program into internal inconsistency. Rahner’s insistence that God desires to give the gift of himself is biblical, but his theological formulations prevent him from explaining exactly how God gives the gift of himself if he is essentially Trinitarian. Rahner’s theology is Trinitarian in delivery only, because unity and diversity are not ontologically absolute. Trinitarian diversity (the persons of the Godhead) serves as the means by which the unity of God (identified particularly with the Father) is communicated.

In his theology, Rahner seeks answers to the most important questions of human existence. I am thankful that he compels us to consider more deeply the wonderful mystery of God’s relationship to his people. Yet, as I hope to demonstrate, the doctrines he formulates prove to be inadequate. Leaning upon the theology of Cornelius Van Til, I will seek to offer biblically sustainable answers to these questions. In response to Rahner’s ontological model of self-communication, which leads to a change of being in its recipients, we will consider a covenantal framework for understanding the beatific vision. We will come to learn how, through covenant, God is conforming his people to his image, replicating his glory analogously in his people through the resurrected Christ (cf. Gen. 1:26–27; Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). Only by sharing in his image can God’s people truly experience consummated union and communion with the triune God.

---

1. Karl Rahner, The Trinity (New York: Crossroad, 1997), 22.

2. Harvey Egan has compiled a chronology to accompany his brief biography of Rahner. Much of this information has been taken from Harvey Egan, Karl Rahner: Mystic of Everyday Life (New York: Crossroad, 1998), 14–27. For an extensive biography of both Karl and Hugo Rahner, see Karl H. Neufeld, Die Brüder Rahner: Eine Biographie (Freiburg: Herder, 1994).

3. For example, William V. Dych, Karl Rahner (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 1992); Egan, Karl Rahner; Karen Kilby, Karl Rahner: A Brief Introduction (New York: Crossroad, 2007); Herbert Vorgrimler, Understanding Karl Rahner: An Introduction to His Life and Thought (New York: Crossroad, 1986).

4. Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity (New York: Seabury, 1978), 118.

5. Karl Rahner, “Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World,” in Theological Investigations, trans. Karl-H. Kruger, vol. 5 (Baltimore: Helicon, 1966), 183–84.

2

TRINITARIAN PERSONHOOD

Rahner’s doctrine of the Trinity is at the heart of his theology, because it makes possible a genuine, substantial communication from God to his creatures. This communication is described in terms of a gift that is willingly given and then freely received. Such a self-communication involves a relationship between two persons, which establishes personhood as a critical feature of Rahner’s theology. For our purposes, we will define personhood as the requisite characteristics of a person. Personality is the set of characteristics that distinguishes one person from another. By receiving the Son and Spirit as modes of divine self-communication, humanity is brought into a relationship with the intra-Trinitarian relations themselves.

What Does It Mean to Be a Person?

Since the fourth century, orthodox Christians have universally affirmed that God is three persons in one essence. This basic statement places limits on the ground that orthodox theologians may tread. At the same time, such a minimal definition is open to a variety of interpretations, since it does not define “persons” or “essence” precisely or describe the way in which they relate. As a result, a wide variety of theologies fit under the broad banner of orthodoxy. Theologians today struggle with many of the same issues that occupied Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers centuries before. What is a person with reference to the Godhead? How do the persons relate to the unity of the Godhead? How do they relate to one another? The ecumenical creeds offer guidelines for answering these questions according to a so-called “creedal” definition of “person.” For example, a person is a distinct substance in the divine essence. Throughout this study, we will use the historical term hypostasis (plural, hypostases) when referring to this creedal definition of persons.

There are other senses in which we can speak of persons, which often cause confusion. There are many philosophical conceptions of personhood that are often imported into the language of persons in the ecumenical creeds. These are not necessarily opposed to the theology of the creeds; however, the semantic range of the terms are not coterminous. Philosophically speaking, we may refer to personhood as a confluence of rationality, self-awareness, consciousness, and volition. God is indeed a person in this sense, since we may ascribe rationality, self-awareness, consciousness, and volition to him. Nonetheless, whatever we say about God’s personhood cannot be understood univocally to apply to human personhood or interpersonal experience.¹ Rahner expresses this challenge: “We shall not have touched the real difficulties which such an assertion about God as person creates for people today until we have discussed explicitly the relationship between God and man, the self-communication of God to man in grace as the transcendental constitution of man.”² Moreover, it is not clear how these things pertain specifically to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “persons.”

While Rahner acknowledges the distinction between the creedal and the philosophical senses of “person” as they pertain to ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Series Introduction
• Foreword by Chris Castaldo
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Introduction and Overview
• 2. Trinitarian Personhood
• 3. The Recipients of Grace
• 4. Hypostatic Union and Personality
• 5. The Hypostatic Union and Divine Self-Communication
• 6. A Proposal for Perichoretic Personality
• 7. A Proposal for Covenantal Image Conformity
• 8. Conclusion
• Glossary
• Introductory Works on Karl Rahner
• Bibliography
• Index of Scripture
• Index of Subjects and Names