An Ecumenical Priesthood

The Spirit of God and the Structure of the Church

Karl Rahner, Jakob Karl Rinderknecht, C. Clifton Black

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN:
  9781506484297
• eBook ISBN:
  9781506484303
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Rituals & Practice

The question of whether Protestant ministers are validly ordained remains a barrier for ecumenical reconciliation between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Because Catholics in the past have judged Protestant ordinations to be invalid, the Catholic Church in the present feels bound to name these communions "not fully-churches." Many Protestants, however, accept Catholic bishops, priests, and deacons as ministers of the gospel and the Catholic Church as a true church (albeit one in need of ongoing reformation).

Since the problem is primarily a Catholic one, any reconciliation will require that Catholics find a solution through the theological resources of their own tradition. In An Ecumenical Priesthood,Karl Rahner proposes that the nature of the church and the affirmation of the presence of grace among Protestants may open a door to renewal and healing. As canon law validates improperly contracted marriages by examining their fruits, so recognizing the spiritual fruits of Protestant sacraments could allow Catholics to "restipulate" their position on these sacramental acts (and thereby the validity of the ministers who perform them), without revising the Church's original judgment.

Because the book is now nearly fifty years old and deals with internal Catholic questions, it is offered with an introduction to the era and an analysis of the argument, as well as an overview of recent decades of ecumenical discussions.

1

Asking the Question, Imagining an Answer

This volume not only appears in the series called Quaestiones Disputatae; it is also truly a quaestio disputata. It intends to consider an open question, not to report a settled view. It means to describe an argument within an open theological disputation that is not yet closed but must be pushed further. Better, it intends to ask questions and register thoughts about them that will require further consideration in order to clarify the matter about which they ask. This matter turns out to be not so clear after all and will require much more work, for so much important theological data, so many facts and possibilities, require reconsideration and application in this context. And so I do not wish to offer a complete solution. This volume is, in a strong sense, a response to a disputed question, as naturally the book of a single theologian will always inevitably be.

The occasion of this work is the work of the Evangelical and Catholic Ecumenical Institutes of Germany.a It appears to this author that the answer given by the doctrinal commission of the German Bishops’ conference to that workb is either too quick to judge according to a very particular manner, or at least seems to do so to this reader. The desire to quickly produce a magisterial clarification can in fact cheapen the respect that is owed to such pronouncements. However, the book of the above-named institutes is not the subject of this little quaestio disputata and will not approach the “ordination question” in the same manner as that book did. Can the contemporary major churches mutually recognize their ministries and the manner of their exercise? This is the question with which the institutes’ book and the contrary Clarification dealt.1 Admittedly, this publication will also relate to that question.

This volume is intentionally conceived as an exercise in blue-skying.2 It was discussed with many people from many directions. The basic theme was contemplated from the most divergent positions possible. These various points of view and starting points and their respective considerations have not been strongly systematized. More is asked than answered. The volume should never lose this character in the reader’s understanding, especially in attempting at the end to find hidden answers in the open questions themselves (should they produce such) and thus derive a system from them. Whoever would refuse from the beginning to undertake such a speculative journey should ask themselves if there, at the source of any truly original theology driven by creative forces (even should one possesses a staff, with which one can navigate the fog3), one will not always find such a speculative attempt standing at the beginning of each theological consideration. Isn’t this actually inevitable, if one is not merely going to be reciting and defending completed and already-proven theological theses? Naturally, such theological considerations are usually only employed in quiet alone. Only afterward is the completed idea first constructed in a strong systematic sense and a proof attempted. But why shouldn’t one occasionally demonstrate one’s own attempts to come to conclusions, or even allow a window into the theological workshop? Why shouldn’t one occasionally print such a “worker’s monologue,” even if the tentative character of it is clear? Is the attempt to jump over a ditch only interesting once the jumper has cleared the trench and we can be certain that he will not fall into it?

In such an attempt, which appears to this author to be permitted, it is self-evident that the critical apparatus of theological argumentation may also be lacking. People (e.g., Hans Küngc) have already implied that I am a despiser of historical theology (both in the exegetical sense and also in the history of dogmas); I supposedly would prefer to jump straight to speculation. But I feel myself to be accused unjustly in this manner because I am not of the opinion that what one might dismiss as theological speculation is the only legitimate theological method. It is certainly not. But regarding historical work, if it does not wish it to become barren, it should not weave the illusion around itself of not having questions that cannot be explained by the historical material alone. If one has no questions, the historical theological material remains silent, and one remains blind viewing it.

But where do the questions for the advancement of theology come from, without which historical investigation, including the study of magisterial pronouncements, remains dumb and blind? From a double but unified source: first, from the life of the church in the present, its needs and requirements and the relationship of the churches among themselves; and second from the tensions that exist—half sensed, half unconsidered—between the individual moments of life, the praxis of the church, and the normal ruling scholastic theology. Such things must be clarified first by an initial reflection and raised into consciousness. In this way, questions and aporias arise, only after which can one turn to the proper theological “sources” (in the conventional sense). Such a first level of reflection, as one could name this initial search (even if it is found already mixed into every truly theological work), does not demand a complex scientific apparatus. One can appeal to facts and teachings that are commonly known. If one wished to scientifically “prove” such appeals at great length, one could spread the haze of a great theological erudition all around such a consideration. But such erudition does not have many actual uses. One can confidently leave such work to dissertations and theses.

The appendix concerning “open communion” that is attached to this work came to be in a very different manner and has a very different purpose. It therefore uses an entirely different method, about which the beginning of that article provides enough information. This article arose as a paper composed for the doctrinal commission of the German bishops’ conference, when it occupied itself with the question of “intercommunion.” Admittedly, it progressed little beyond the conclusion that, within the committee itself, very different opinions held sway. The occasion and the goal of this paper entailed that the committee did not desire more suggestions, as if its author intended to say that he hoped for the possibility of a consensus among the commission and expected to be able to achieve one, especially if such a hope could ultimately not be fulfilled. The charge for this paper therefore required considerably more constrained limits than those of these considerations framed as a quaestio disputata. That paper sought, in my opinion and from my point of view, a kind of “minimal program,” even if it was too far-reaching for some members of the above-referenced commission. This work here, as an actual quaestio disputata, aims at something more in the direction of a maximal program. If this difference, of which the author himself is quite aware, is attended to, the reader will not misunderstand how the two works contained in this volume can fit together. It is especially important on this question because the report regarding open communion only deals with the question of under what circumstances a Protestant Christian can be allowed to receive at a Catholic celebration of the Eucharist; the opposite question is never actually asked. The present work, however, asks precisely this question: How could or can one understand a contemporary Protestant Eucharist theologically from a Catholic perspective (if this be truly Catholic and not legalistically narrowed), even though this question requires in turn that the essay itself adopt the more global perspective of “ministry” generally?

In order to correctly evaluate this quaestio disputata, the following must also be stressed: This work proceeds from the assumption that the church can do (and perhaps in the actual “economy” does) much more in the realm of sacraments and ministry than her scholastic theology reflects or explicitly knows to be true. This also means that the question of possibilities and that of practical realities (whether when implicitly, or especially when explicitly, determined by the church itself) must be distinguished. Making this important distinction means that it is not certain that the realm of the real is simply identical to the realm of that which is explicitly sacramentally and canonically permitted. To the contrary, it is precisely the intent of this work to make possible a conception of the sacramental realm, through an “economical” validation, that is not simply identical with the realm of things recognized as valid by sacramental canon law. However, although the distinction in question remains fundamentally valid, there can be things that are sacramentally invalid because the church does not recognize them. But above all, because it cannot be inferred that the thesis of a validity by “economy” is simply certain, this means that in the entirety of this theological work, there will be no independently practicable norm for Catholics as to how to judge non-Catholic ministers and sacramental practice. The question of practical norms (at least according to my intention) receives only a preparatory study in the present work, no more. Many will judge this to be inadequate. I disagree. One can employ an ecclesial pragmatism as the impulse for theological considerations and their practical conclusions. Such a pragmatism does not replace the theological consideration itself. And such theological work must begin with preparatory considerations. With this caveat, the question must remain open as to how far a single person, according to the usual ethical rules, can practically apply such uncertain precepts in cases where there is no offense (i.e., no basic contempt for the explicit canonical norms) and make use in practice of these considerations that are being presented here for investigation.

One other limit of this work ought to be made explicit at this point—that is, regarding its genre.4 Ministry and sacraments are generically spoken of throughout. This work will speak regarding ministry in general and sacraments in general (even when examples are provided) and will consider both terms together and singly. This appears to the author to be justified by the very nature of an initial consideration. But naturally, it is clear that this effect, to the extent that it is true, remains very general and not directly applicable to any particular problem. Different ministries must be distinguished from one another, and the ministries of specific churches ought to be distinguished and are understood in the different churches to be differentiated; the sacraments are also differentiable and are differentiated within the different churches in their existence and practice. So one must be careful within such a general consideration about drawing immediate conclusions about any particular ministry in a church or any particular sacrament. The present work makes no such assertions. If, however, the present work only manages to show that according to the facts and data of Catholic teaching and praxis, its supposition that a clear concept of economy is conceivable and that concept allows the recognition of sacraments and ministries in the other Christian churches beyond what is already recognized (perhaps by using the term economy itself), then this study has fulfilled its purpose.

1. Rahner here refers to the 1973 German memorandum Reform und Anerkennung kirchlicher Ämter: Ein Memorandum der Arbetisgemeinschaft ökumenischer Universitätsinstitute.

2. Here, as in the foreword, Rahner calls the project eine Fahrt ins Blaue—literally, “a trip off into the blue” (as in the wild blue yonder).

3. Rahner here refers to the saying “mit dem Stange im Nebel stochern”—that is, “to poke around in the fog with a stick.”

4. Rahner uses the term genus literarium.

2

The Essence of the Church’s Structure

1. Initial Considerations

A short story to start. Many years ago, one of the most important Protestant theologians in Germany said to me, “Imagine, if you will, a pair of Christians is banished to Siberia and lives there alone and without an ordained priest (according to their beliefs). And now, tell me, can these people really not celebrate the Lord’s Supper with each other? Do you really believe that God would say in this case, ‘You poor, lonely Christians abandoned by the entire world, who must truly take part in my Son’s passion in a most bitter manner, I’m very sorry, but I cannot help you, for there is a law iuris divini (of divine law) according to which the Lord’s Supper can only be celebrated with an ordained priest as celebrant; I can’t do anything about this. I will bless you in other ways and help you, but I’m sorry, there can be no celebration of the Eucharist for you.’ Is this not (so asked the theologian) a specifically Catholic God, or a rabbinic God, who has the law on his knee, reads it, and interprets it strictly? Is this not legalism, the opposite of the gospel?” This is approximately what this theologian said.a

I felt rather cornered. This is something unusual for the theologian. I don’t quite know anymore how I answered him then. But I probably said something like this: “My dear colleague, there is an old and simple distinction, which one also cannot entirely avoid in Protestant theology—that is, the distinction between the dimension of the sacramental sign and the dimension of the grace of God expressed and made present through the sacramental sign. If you accept, for example, which is indeed more difficult for you than me, that an unbaptized person might also be justified, then in practice you are also making this distinction. And neither of us would deny the meaning or the necessity of the sacraments because such an extrasacramental grace occurs, just as Peter knew that Cornelius already had the Spirit but baptized him nonetheless. Accordingly, my honored colleague, one must distinguish between the conditions that make an operation in the realm of the sacraments legitimate (you would not baptize with sand if you found yourself in the desert without water, or even if you did, you would repeat it with water as soon as possible) and the conditions under which grace itself, which is normally given with and by the sacrament, comes to be, even under circumstances where the legitimate sacramental sign is lacking. These two conditions are not of the same type, and so it is possible that the first could be lacking and the second present. Thus, the grace of the sacraments (the res sacramenti) is present.

“And this is precisely what the Council of Trent, about which you are so suspicious, knows to be true about the Eucharist.b It recognizes a ‘spiritual communion’ (there is an entire book about this by H. R. Schlettec). According to this, one does not merely ineffectively wish when one desires to receive the Body of Christ. Instead, one receives those pneumatic effects of the inner union with the ascended Lord, for which the bodily reception of the consecrated bread is only the sign. And so it is not really so upsetting, from either the divine or human viewpoint, when your people off in Siberia produce no valid sacramental signs. That very thing which is to be represented and made present in the sign, this comes about and is truly received by these Siberians. And this is not the excuse of a contemporary liberal Catholic theologian but is the opinion of the Council of Trent, in line with the older patristic tradition. And this is of course self-evident, for one (even a Catholic, despite your opinion) does not allow God to be a God who ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• A Note on Translation
• Critical Introduction
• Foreword
• 1. Asking the Question, Imagining an Answer
• 2. The Essence of the Church’s Structure
• 3. Recognizing Reality
• 4. Sharing Salvation
• 5. Form, Validity, and History
• 6. Bearing Our Divisions on the Way to Unity
• Appendix: An Excursus on Intercommunion
• Notes
• Other Related Works by Karl Rahner