What do you think?
Rate this book
Hearer of the Word: Laying the Foundation for a Philosophy of Religion
"A contemporary classic, the best key to understanding Rahner's omnia opera, and the single best effort to show how the human spirit in the world can bear the word of the Spirit who enters human history". -- Andrew Tallon
180 pages, Paperback
Published December 1, 1994
6 people are currently reading
141 people want to read
About the author
Karl Rahner
691 books87 followersKarl Rahner, SJ (March 5, 1904 — March 30, 1984) was a German Jesuit and theologian who, alongside Bernard Lonergan and Hans Urs von Balthasar, is considered one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.
He was born in Freiburg, Germany, and died in Innsbruck, Austria.
Before the Second Vatican Council, Rahner had worked alongside Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Marie-Dominique Chenu, theologians associated with an emerging school of thought called the Nouvelle Théologie, elements of which had been criticized in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII.
He was born in Freiburg, Germany, and died in Innsbruck, Austria.
Before the Second Vatican Council, Rahner had worked alongside Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Marie-Dominique Chenu, theologians associated with an emerging school of thought called the Nouvelle Théologie, elements of which had been criticized in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 24, 2018
This is one my favorite philosophical books written by a contemporary (or nearly contemporary) thinker and one of the most underrated. It is a book that I have reread and reread and which continues to be insightful each time.
As the subtitle indicates, Rahner is attempting give a theoretical basis for the philosophy of religion. He does through his peculiar (but at times compelling blend) of Thomism and German idealism. Rahner's critics have never understood this. He is consistently accused of being a 'Kantian' but in fact his work, like Hegel's, is directed at overcoming Kant transcendental idealism. Rahner is not a Kantian but he has taken seriously the problem that Kant sought to address: the question of how it is that our thought is about objects. For Kant, this was a question of experience, the conditions of the possibility of experience but for post-Kantians like Hegel and Rahner, there is no question of radically separating experience from reality. As such, for Rahner the question he grapples with is how is it that our judgments can get a grip on reality. Answering this question leads to the famous 'Vorgriff,' which would probably be less mystifying if it were translated, rendering it 'anticipation' or something similar.
Rahner's argument is basically that we can understand something as something only insofar as we implicitly understand a particular object against a space of possibility that is essentially unlimited. Thus, Rahner's argument concerns the question of how conceptual thought is possible. Again, most Thomists just ignore the question and by ignoring this question they ignore Rahner, treating him almost as if he was a fool, someone who failed to realize that Kant and Aquinas are incompatible.
Rahner moves from the idea of an anticipation of being, to an affirmation of the traditional proofs for God's existence. Why? Because the space of possibilities required to employ concepts when making judgments is only an anticipation or horizon, the proofs are needed to reach God. But what Rahner adds is a link between the proofs and the possibility of conceptual thought, showing that insofar as one accepts the conditions required for conceptual thought, one is committed to accepting the proofs.
Rahner moves from this account of the space of possibilities (the Vorgriff) to an affirmation of human historicity. Ultimately Rahner, aims to show that human beings are necessarily orientated toward being, the beings in the world are fully dependent upon God, and God is free to speak or to remain silent. Thus, human beings are by nature listening for a possible revelation from God in history.
Recently, I noticed a footnote in an article by a leading Thomist, a Domican theologian, in a leading theological journal. This Thomist casually explained that Kant's set of problems were irrelevant to Aquinas because he begins from different presuppositions. Of course, this is just a means of insulating Thomism from problems that cannot be adequately addressed from within its conceptual framework.
For those who are unwilling to engage in this type of intellectual dishonesty, Rahner offers a surprising dialogue partner with some of the most interesting contemporary philosophy. More specifically John McDowell and Sebastian Rödl are engaged in very similar projects to that of Rahner. Likewise, Terry Pinkard, Robert Pippen, and Robert Brandom are each attempting to show that conceptual thought can be understood merely in terms of a communities practices with no need for more robust metaphysical assumptions. Thomists would do well to take Rahner's philosophical framework seriously, as possibly the most compelling restatement of Thomism in post-Kantian era.
As the subtitle indicates, Rahner is attempting give a theoretical basis for the philosophy of religion. He does through his peculiar (but at times compelling blend) of Thomism and German idealism. Rahner's critics have never understood this. He is consistently accused of being a 'Kantian' but in fact his work, like Hegel's, is directed at overcoming Kant transcendental idealism. Rahner is not a Kantian but he has taken seriously the problem that Kant sought to address: the question of how it is that our thought is about objects. For Kant, this was a question of experience, the conditions of the possibility of experience but for post-Kantians like Hegel and Rahner, there is no question of radically separating experience from reality. As such, for Rahner the question he grapples with is how is it that our judgments can get a grip on reality. Answering this question leads to the famous 'Vorgriff,' which would probably be less mystifying if it were translated, rendering it 'anticipation' or something similar.
Rahner's argument is basically that we can understand something as something only insofar as we implicitly understand a particular object against a space of possibility that is essentially unlimited. Thus, Rahner's argument concerns the question of how conceptual thought is possible. Again, most Thomists just ignore the question and by ignoring this question they ignore Rahner, treating him almost as if he was a fool, someone who failed to realize that Kant and Aquinas are incompatible.
Rahner moves from the idea of an anticipation of being, to an affirmation of the traditional proofs for God's existence. Why? Because the space of possibilities required to employ concepts when making judgments is only an anticipation or horizon, the proofs are needed to reach God. But what Rahner adds is a link between the proofs and the possibility of conceptual thought, showing that insofar as one accepts the conditions required for conceptual thought, one is committed to accepting the proofs.
Rahner moves from this account of the space of possibilities (the Vorgriff) to an affirmation of human historicity. Ultimately Rahner, aims to show that human beings are necessarily orientated toward being, the beings in the world are fully dependent upon God, and God is free to speak or to remain silent. Thus, human beings are by nature listening for a possible revelation from God in history.
Recently, I noticed a footnote in an article by a leading Thomist, a Domican theologian, in a leading theological journal. This Thomist casually explained that Kant's set of problems were irrelevant to Aquinas because he begins from different presuppositions. Of course, this is just a means of insulating Thomism from problems that cannot be adequately addressed from within its conceptual framework.
For those who are unwilling to engage in this type of intellectual dishonesty, Rahner offers a surprising dialogue partner with some of the most interesting contemporary philosophy. More specifically John McDowell and Sebastian Rödl are engaged in very similar projects to that of Rahner. Likewise, Terry Pinkard, Robert Pippen, and Robert Brandom are each attempting to show that conceptual thought can be understood merely in terms of a communities practices with no need for more robust metaphysical assumptions. Thomists would do well to take Rahner's philosophical framework seriously, as possibly the most compelling restatement of Thomism in post-Kantian era.
Read
September 6, 2020Katolickej Heidegger. Riznutej Kantem a Tomášem Akvinskym.
Nehodnotím, protože jsem z rychlocetby pochopili fakt málo 😀. Ale když si člověk přečte nějakej vycuc z Rahnera je to mega zajímavý. Tak já nevím. 🤷♂️😀
Nehodnotím, protože jsem z rychlocetby pochopili fakt málo 😀. Ale když si člověk přečte nějakej vycuc z Rahnera je to mega zajímavý. Tak já nevím. 🤷♂️😀
January 6, 2011
In this fascinating study, Rahner analyzes the relationship between philosophy of religion and theology, in order to come to an understanding of the situation of the human person, i.e. the status of human metaphysics, as it comes in contact with divine revelation. He thus formulates a careful understanding of revelation that avoids two problematic extremes. On the one hand liberal protestantism, led by Schleiermacher and manifested within Catholicism as modernism, utterly reduces revelation to human subjectivity such that the religious phenomenon is merely another word for the objectivization of subjective human experiences. On the other hand, the school of theologians such as Barth and Brunner sees divine revelation as so contradictory to human nature that it boils down to a total judgment upon it, a definitive No. Rahner sees these two extremes as essentially the same: both tie revelation down to human nature, but one in the affirmative and the other in the negative. Therefore, drawing on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rahner responds with an understanding of the human being as an obediential potency for receiving divine revelation. Although revelation is utterly gratuitous and superpasses and human demand, human beings are created in order to receive it after the manner of our own nature: in history.
This book summarizes the key points of Rahner's first major work, Spirit in the World, while going farther theologically. In fact, it is far, far easier to read and comprehend then that work, for a number of reasons. Therefore, it is recommended that this work be read first, followed by the first chapter of Patrick Burke's Reinterpreting Rahner, and then Spirit in the World. However, before all of this, I recommend starting with Rahner's late work, Foundations of Christian Faith.
This translation of Hearer (Donceel 1994) is overall decent. It goes back to the first edition of the German text, since the second edition was significantly altered by Rahner's student, Metz. Although he did so with permission, his editing was no small undertaking, and Metz has become a significant theologian in his own right and even a critic of Rahner, therefore putting his changes into question. Besides, the first edition is a minorly edited collection of lectures that Rahner delivered, making it easy to read and understand because of its natural repetitiveness. However, a number of problems have entered into this translation, and I suspect that they are more the work of the editor (Andrew Tallon) than the translator (Joseph Donceel), because of the editor's own introduction. The editior makes an ill-conceived attempt to neuterize the translation with sometimes drastic alterations, especially pluralizing pronouns and changing sentences from third to first person, sometimes even forgetting to pluralize the verb. At times it also uses some very awkward phraseology. Finally, the editor gives long explanations for certain translated terms, which is good, but some of his reasoning is questionable. He avoids "preapprehension" for "Vorgriff" despite it accepted use (such as in the Dych translations) because of the possibility of misunderstanding it as an actual grasp, and yet this ambiguity should not be avoided, but is within Rahner's own words, such as where he calls it a "knowledge" but then clarifies this.
In short, this text is a must-read for the hardcore theologian, but I do think that it could use a new translation under different principles.
This book summarizes the key points of Rahner's first major work, Spirit in the World, while going farther theologically. In fact, it is far, far easier to read and comprehend then that work, for a number of reasons. Therefore, it is recommended that this work be read first, followed by the first chapter of Patrick Burke's Reinterpreting Rahner, and then Spirit in the World. However, before all of this, I recommend starting with Rahner's late work, Foundations of Christian Faith.
This translation of Hearer (Donceel 1994) is overall decent. It goes back to the first edition of the German text, since the second edition was significantly altered by Rahner's student, Metz. Although he did so with permission, his editing was no small undertaking, and Metz has become a significant theologian in his own right and even a critic of Rahner, therefore putting his changes into question. Besides, the first edition is a minorly edited collection of lectures that Rahner delivered, making it easy to read and understand because of its natural repetitiveness. However, a number of problems have entered into this translation, and I suspect that they are more the work of the editor (Andrew Tallon) than the translator (Joseph Donceel), because of the editor's own introduction. The editior makes an ill-conceived attempt to neuterize the translation with sometimes drastic alterations, especially pluralizing pronouns and changing sentences from third to first person, sometimes even forgetting to pluralize the verb. At times it also uses some very awkward phraseology. Finally, the editor gives long explanations for certain translated terms, which is good, but some of his reasoning is questionable. He avoids "preapprehension" for "Vorgriff" despite it accepted use (such as in the Dych translations) because of the possibility of misunderstanding it as an actual grasp, and yet this ambiguity should not be avoided, but is within Rahner's own words, such as where he calls it a "knowledge" but then clarifies this.
In short, this text is a must-read for the hardcore theologian, but I do think that it could use a new translation under different principles.
March 15, 2023
AN EARLY WORK, INVESTIGATING THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
The Translator’s Introduction to this book explains, “The German edition of this book… was published … in 1941. It followed closely upon Karl Rahner’s other important book on philosophy, ‘Gest in Welt,’ which was published in 1939… When these two works came out Karl Rahner was a young unknown Jesuit… he took over [Joseph] Maréchal’s main ideas, especially the conviction that … we implicitly affirm the existence of God in every judgment and free activity… He worked out and deepened Maréchal’s basic intuition… And in [this book] he applied it… to a study of the philosophy of religion, to a thorough investigation of the relation between philosophy and theology.” (Pg. vi)
Theologian Karl Rahner wrote in the first chapter, “Revelation is essentially a historical process… [which] depends strictly on a unique combination of historical events, in which God’s work has authentically spoken to humanity. The philosophy of religion, on the other hand, seems to be essentially ‘supratemporal,’ ‘transhistorical,’ exactly like metaphysics with which it is supposed coincide. Hence the philosophy of religion seems to establish a religion which is basically independent of any historical event… for which every land is the holy land and every time the fulness of time…. What then do the philosophy of religion and theology have in common?... Does our intention of grounding both of the in one metaphysical question make any sense? Only our study, when completed, can show that this difficulty can be solved.” (Pg. 7-8)
Later, he summarizes, “inquiring in this manner about theology and the philosophy of religion means looking for a metaphysical anthropology in which we understood ourselves as the beings who, in our historical existence, look out for an eventual revelation of God… our next proper task [is] to draw the great lines of a metaphysical analysis of human nature with regard to our ability to perceive the work of God that may come to us, within the purview of history, as the revelation of the unknown God.” (Pg. 23)
He states, “it belongs to humanity’s fundamental makeup to be the absolute openness for being as such… we continually transcend everything toward pure being. Human beings are the first of these finite knowing objects that stand open for the absolute fulness of being… Hence there is no domain of being which might lie absolutely outside of the horizon in which we know our objects, and through this knowledge, we are self-subsistent and capable of freely acting and deciding our own destiny. We call this basic makeup ... Our spiritual nature.” (Pg. 53)
He summarizes, “humanity is the infinity of absolute spiritual openness for being. We have to be this since we are spirits only on account of this transcendence toward being as such. Thus we do not a priori put any limits to the possibilities and extent of a revelation through the narrowness of our receptivity, and revelation is not from the start excluded because there is no room within which it may unfold… this first statement … seems once more to show that revelation is impossible because of humanity’s basic spiritual makeup..” (Pg. 55)
|
He suggests, “We shall understand the possibility of a divine revelation as a free act of God only if we can establish that God remains essentially hidden before every finite spirit as such… It is not enough for us to know that God is more than what we have hitherto grasped of God in our human knowledge… We must also know that God may speak, and may remain from speaking. Only then can God’s actual speaking to us, if it really happens, be understood … [as] the unpredictable act of God’s personal love, before which we fall upon our knees in worship.” (Pg. 64)
He says, “at the heart of the finite spirit’s transcendence there lives a love for God. Our openness toward absolute being is carried by out affirmation of our own existence. This affirmation is… a reaching out of finite love for God… our love for God is not something that may happen or not happen, once we have come to know God. As an intrinsic element of knowledge if is both its conditions and its ground.” (Pg. 82)
He summarizes, “Human beings are spirits in such a way that, in order to become spirit, we enter and have ontically … always already entered into otherness, into matter, and so into the world… we are spirit in a peculiar way. Our human spirit is RECEPTIVE… and because of its receptivity this spirit needs, as its own, indispensable means, produced by itself, a sense power through which it may strive towards its own goal, the grasping of being as such. In this sense, to be human s to be sense-endowed spirituality… The soul as spirit enters by itself, per se, into matter.” (Pg. 106-107)
He states, “it becomes evident that humanity may and must expect a revelation of God within THAT domain in which we are always already standing: the domain in which we are always already standing; the domain of transcendence which is also always historicity. This is the question we must answer…” (Pg. 128)
He summarizes, “an extramundane being may be revealed to us by the human word, as the bearer of a concept of such a being derived through negation from the appearance… we are the beings who must necessarily listen to a possible revelation of the free God. Since… everything, including extramundane beings, may be made known by the human word, as it combines negated appearance and negating transcendence, we have also said that we are at least the ones who must listen to a revelation of this free God IN A HUMAN WORD.” (Pg. 132)
He asserts, “Revelation is possible. Being is luminous and the human person stands absolutely open for being. It is not true that revelation has always already occurred, for the absolute being is absolute freedom and acts freely with regard to humanity, while we ourselves freely decide about the concrete manner of out openness toward God. The place where such a revelation may occur is our history. The historical appearance in the world may, in the human word, make known the free word of the God of revelation.” (Pg. 137)
He concludes, “Theology alone exists because there is a word of God to humanity... of such a theology it is true that it exists because God speaks, not because we think; what appears in this theology is God, not, as in all other sciences, humanity in its essence… philosophy of religion is first of all philosophy… it uses the tools of knowledge that belong properly to philosophy in general… from what is usually called the natural light of reason… authentic religion … comes to the knowledge of the transcendent, absolute and personal God. Thus it acknowledges religion as the existential bond between humanity as a whole and this God… the philosophy of religion … turns out to be a metaphysical anthropology… And when such a philosophy of religion… sets out to say how the religion of such a humanity must be before such a God, it will have to require that humanity should stand ready to perceive in history the living word of the free God.” (Pg. 145-149)
More ‘philosophical’ than most of his later books, this book will interest those seriously studying Rahner.
The Translator’s Introduction to this book explains, “The German edition of this book… was published … in 1941. It followed closely upon Karl Rahner’s other important book on philosophy, ‘Gest in Welt,’ which was published in 1939… When these two works came out Karl Rahner was a young unknown Jesuit… he took over [Joseph] Maréchal’s main ideas, especially the conviction that … we implicitly affirm the existence of God in every judgment and free activity… He worked out and deepened Maréchal’s basic intuition… And in [this book] he applied it… to a study of the philosophy of religion, to a thorough investigation of the relation between philosophy and theology.” (Pg. vi)
Theologian Karl Rahner wrote in the first chapter, “Revelation is essentially a historical process… [which] depends strictly on a unique combination of historical events, in which God’s work has authentically spoken to humanity. The philosophy of religion, on the other hand, seems to be essentially ‘supratemporal,’ ‘transhistorical,’ exactly like metaphysics with which it is supposed coincide. Hence the philosophy of religion seems to establish a religion which is basically independent of any historical event… for which every land is the holy land and every time the fulness of time…. What then do the philosophy of religion and theology have in common?... Does our intention of grounding both of the in one metaphysical question make any sense? Only our study, when completed, can show that this difficulty can be solved.” (Pg. 7-8)
Later, he summarizes, “inquiring in this manner about theology and the philosophy of religion means looking for a metaphysical anthropology in which we understood ourselves as the beings who, in our historical existence, look out for an eventual revelation of God… our next proper task [is] to draw the great lines of a metaphysical analysis of human nature with regard to our ability to perceive the work of God that may come to us, within the purview of history, as the revelation of the unknown God.” (Pg. 23)
He states, “it belongs to humanity’s fundamental makeup to be the absolute openness for being as such… we continually transcend everything toward pure being. Human beings are the first of these finite knowing objects that stand open for the absolute fulness of being… Hence there is no domain of being which might lie absolutely outside of the horizon in which we know our objects, and through this knowledge, we are self-subsistent and capable of freely acting and deciding our own destiny. We call this basic makeup ... Our spiritual nature.” (Pg. 53)
He summarizes, “humanity is the infinity of absolute spiritual openness for being. We have to be this since we are spirits only on account of this transcendence toward being as such. Thus we do not a priori put any limits to the possibilities and extent of a revelation through the narrowness of our receptivity, and revelation is not from the start excluded because there is no room within which it may unfold… this first statement … seems once more to show that revelation is impossible because of humanity’s basic spiritual makeup..” (Pg. 55)
|
He suggests, “We shall understand the possibility of a divine revelation as a free act of God only if we can establish that God remains essentially hidden before every finite spirit as such… It is not enough for us to know that God is more than what we have hitherto grasped of God in our human knowledge… We must also know that God may speak, and may remain from speaking. Only then can God’s actual speaking to us, if it really happens, be understood … [as] the unpredictable act of God’s personal love, before which we fall upon our knees in worship.” (Pg. 64)
He says, “at the heart of the finite spirit’s transcendence there lives a love for God. Our openness toward absolute being is carried by out affirmation of our own existence. This affirmation is… a reaching out of finite love for God… our love for God is not something that may happen or not happen, once we have come to know God. As an intrinsic element of knowledge if is both its conditions and its ground.” (Pg. 82)
He summarizes, “Human beings are spirits in such a way that, in order to become spirit, we enter and have ontically … always already entered into otherness, into matter, and so into the world… we are spirit in a peculiar way. Our human spirit is RECEPTIVE… and because of its receptivity this spirit needs, as its own, indispensable means, produced by itself, a sense power through which it may strive towards its own goal, the grasping of being as such. In this sense, to be human s to be sense-endowed spirituality… The soul as spirit enters by itself, per se, into matter.” (Pg. 106-107)
He states, “it becomes evident that humanity may and must expect a revelation of God within THAT domain in which we are always already standing: the domain in which we are always already standing; the domain of transcendence which is also always historicity. This is the question we must answer…” (Pg. 128)
He summarizes, “an extramundane being may be revealed to us by the human word, as the bearer of a concept of such a being derived through negation from the appearance… we are the beings who must necessarily listen to a possible revelation of the free God. Since… everything, including extramundane beings, may be made known by the human word, as it combines negated appearance and negating transcendence, we have also said that we are at least the ones who must listen to a revelation of this free God IN A HUMAN WORD.” (Pg. 132)
He asserts, “Revelation is possible. Being is luminous and the human person stands absolutely open for being. It is not true that revelation has always already occurred, for the absolute being is absolute freedom and acts freely with regard to humanity, while we ourselves freely decide about the concrete manner of out openness toward God. The place where such a revelation may occur is our history. The historical appearance in the world may, in the human word, make known the free word of the God of revelation.” (Pg. 137)
He concludes, “Theology alone exists because there is a word of God to humanity... of such a theology it is true that it exists because God speaks, not because we think; what appears in this theology is God, not, as in all other sciences, humanity in its essence… philosophy of religion is first of all philosophy… it uses the tools of knowledge that belong properly to philosophy in general… from what is usually called the natural light of reason… authentic religion … comes to the knowledge of the transcendent, absolute and personal God. Thus it acknowledges religion as the existential bond between humanity as a whole and this God… the philosophy of religion … turns out to be a metaphysical anthropology… And when such a philosophy of religion… sets out to say how the religion of such a humanity must be before such a God, it will have to require that humanity should stand ready to perceive in history the living word of the free God.” (Pg. 145-149)
More ‘philosophical’ than most of his later books, this book will interest those seriously studying Rahner.
March 9, 2025
Latin and German:
The subject matter of this book is the formal
relationship between theology and philosophy of religion. This seems like a narrowly conceived topic but it reveals itself to be a powerful prayer just as much as it is a philosophical piece. Thomism as it had developed in the days of Rahner was multifaceted and contained many different kinds of issues. Broadly there was the neothomists with Maritain and Gilson; two roughly analytical thinkers with a cutting philosophical ability. They were in line with the Aeterni Patris of Leo XIII and sought to read into a vast canyon and raise up Saint Thomas from the muck, clean him up, and showed him to be significantly more healthy than he was judged. But in this fight of defending Thomas they stumbled constantly and fell often, much of which came back to their appeal of St Thomas specifically in line with philosophy as it was then. They made quick and decisive decisions to make Aquinas an existentialist, a man who already pre-solved the critical problem of Descartes Hume and Kant. He was already Heidegger. He was already Kant. However this is ridiculous, Aquinas was not an existentialist and is better off for it. If you reduce Heidegger’s philosophy to the often repeated understanding of the ‘ontological difference’ then maybe, if you are willing to abuse Aquinas’s language, he anticipated it. But there is nothing in Aquinas which anticipated the critique of the history of metaphysics, nor in any meaningful sense dasein or phenomenology at all. These philosophical difficulties caused theological problems, because for the Thomist these two are related but radically opposed which is representative of Roman Catholicism but not of earlier Christian thought.
Here is where Rahner asserts his importance. A close student of phenomenology and Heidegger but also raised in the neoscholastic world. His Latin was just as good as his German, and his French did not quite need to be great yet. The above predicament of an obsolete and beautiful Catholic Church was indeed representative of Rahner’s entire formative period. It was not only Catholic thought which had become slightly past its due date, it was many parts of the Church entirely. Liturgically, politically, and most notably pastorally the Church was in need of a closer examination of itself. The world had progressed and German had newly become just as important as Latin for the Catholic. This cultural shift also gave rise to the thought of Benedict XIV.
In a German rather than Latin world, Grace takes a primary importance for the Catholic. How is God present and relevant to us in a rapidly secular society? Through grace. God reaches His hand to us, and since He is ever-present He can always give us Grace. It is a blessing of the Holy Spirit which is to be found by being enthused by Him, by being filled with His love. Reflection on Grace was an important element in the intellectual formation of Bernard Lonergan, the other great Thomist of this generation. Reflection on Grace provides the Thomist the best way to approach contemporary life in thought and event. But there is, for Rahner, an internal ability to hear Him. Rahner was a priest, he gave the Eucharist, he sang the liturgy, he anointed. He gave sermons, many of which are extraordinary. Rahner’s interests were in my view primarily pastoral in a remarkably unpastoral world, and in his readings of Aquinas he improves him greatly in my view likely due to Rahner sensing Thomas’s pastoral spirit which underlined every sentence. For the pastorally committed as Rahner was how exactly to reach Him is the entire point. He develops the concept of the obediential potency, an inner capability to perceive final and Divine things. It reminds me of Christs proclamation that we be childlike, which means many things but one of the meanings clearly is in this vain. Just as children are knowingly and lovingly in obedience to their more knowledgeable and more powerful parents, so also should we be with God. God is, if anything at all, the Highest thing, the Structuring and formalizing caritas that is always perceptible. Although do not take that as some sort of definition. As ‘mere’ humans we lack the full picture which is not to be taken in its cynical and corrosive form as is often represented in theodicies. It is important to remember that whenever we love at all, whether our partner or a dog or whatever that, too, is the movement of the Eternal Caritas (God) and this transcends ourselves. The Aristotelian concerns of Rahner is obvious. The whole project of trying to delineate formally philosophy of religion and theology’s relations with one another is an Aristotelian project. But Aristotle also did not believe in strict separation among the various studies as he is often said to have believed, and Rahner takes the Aristotelian approach at least in my understanding. It is precisely the obediential potency which allows for the ascension from philosophy of religion to theology, revelation is God’s loving self-communication and humans philosophically have the unique ear for His word. The Christological elements of this is obvious and important to stress, it is precisely in the person of Jesus and the presence of the Christ in both natures which allows most easily for us to Hear Him; St Paul (Galatians) in hearing the risen Christ rather than “merely” the material Jesus puts his finger on this Truth. In his travels from German to Latin back to Latin he finally gets to the Truth which is Greek. He finds, through German philosophy and Latin theology the outgrowth of the New Testament. There is no distinction between theology and philosophy, between Latin and German, in the New Testament. Rahner had the ability to hear that.
The subject matter of this book is the formal
relationship between theology and philosophy of religion. This seems like a narrowly conceived topic but it reveals itself to be a powerful prayer just as much as it is a philosophical piece. Thomism as it had developed in the days of Rahner was multifaceted and contained many different kinds of issues. Broadly there was the neothomists with Maritain and Gilson; two roughly analytical thinkers with a cutting philosophical ability. They were in line with the Aeterni Patris of Leo XIII and sought to read into a vast canyon and raise up Saint Thomas from the muck, clean him up, and showed him to be significantly more healthy than he was judged. But in this fight of defending Thomas they stumbled constantly and fell often, much of which came back to their appeal of St Thomas specifically in line with philosophy as it was then. They made quick and decisive decisions to make Aquinas an existentialist, a man who already pre-solved the critical problem of Descartes Hume and Kant. He was already Heidegger. He was already Kant. However this is ridiculous, Aquinas was not an existentialist and is better off for it. If you reduce Heidegger’s philosophy to the often repeated understanding of the ‘ontological difference’ then maybe, if you are willing to abuse Aquinas’s language, he anticipated it. But there is nothing in Aquinas which anticipated the critique of the history of metaphysics, nor in any meaningful sense dasein or phenomenology at all. These philosophical difficulties caused theological problems, because for the Thomist these two are related but radically opposed which is representative of Roman Catholicism but not of earlier Christian thought.
Here is where Rahner asserts his importance. A close student of phenomenology and Heidegger but also raised in the neoscholastic world. His Latin was just as good as his German, and his French did not quite need to be great yet. The above predicament of an obsolete and beautiful Catholic Church was indeed representative of Rahner’s entire formative period. It was not only Catholic thought which had become slightly past its due date, it was many parts of the Church entirely. Liturgically, politically, and most notably pastorally the Church was in need of a closer examination of itself. The world had progressed and German had newly become just as important as Latin for the Catholic. This cultural shift also gave rise to the thought of Benedict XIV.
In a German rather than Latin world, Grace takes a primary importance for the Catholic. How is God present and relevant to us in a rapidly secular society? Through grace. God reaches His hand to us, and since He is ever-present He can always give us Grace. It is a blessing of the Holy Spirit which is to be found by being enthused by Him, by being filled with His love. Reflection on Grace was an important element in the intellectual formation of Bernard Lonergan, the other great Thomist of this generation. Reflection on Grace provides the Thomist the best way to approach contemporary life in thought and event. But there is, for Rahner, an internal ability to hear Him. Rahner was a priest, he gave the Eucharist, he sang the liturgy, he anointed. He gave sermons, many of which are extraordinary. Rahner’s interests were in my view primarily pastoral in a remarkably unpastoral world, and in his readings of Aquinas he improves him greatly in my view likely due to Rahner sensing Thomas’s pastoral spirit which underlined every sentence. For the pastorally committed as Rahner was how exactly to reach Him is the entire point. He develops the concept of the obediential potency, an inner capability to perceive final and Divine things. It reminds me of Christs proclamation that we be childlike, which means many things but one of the meanings clearly is in this vain. Just as children are knowingly and lovingly in obedience to their more knowledgeable and more powerful parents, so also should we be with God. God is, if anything at all, the Highest thing, the Structuring and formalizing caritas that is always perceptible. Although do not take that as some sort of definition. As ‘mere’ humans we lack the full picture which is not to be taken in its cynical and corrosive form as is often represented in theodicies. It is important to remember that whenever we love at all, whether our partner or a dog or whatever that, too, is the movement of the Eternal Caritas (God) and this transcends ourselves. The Aristotelian concerns of Rahner is obvious. The whole project of trying to delineate formally philosophy of religion and theology’s relations with one another is an Aristotelian project. But Aristotle also did not believe in strict separation among the various studies as he is often said to have believed, and Rahner takes the Aristotelian approach at least in my understanding. It is precisely the obediential potency which allows for the ascension from philosophy of religion to theology, revelation is God’s loving self-communication and humans philosophically have the unique ear for His word. The Christological elements of this is obvious and important to stress, it is precisely in the person of Jesus and the presence of the Christ in both natures which allows most easily for us to Hear Him; St Paul (Galatians) in hearing the risen Christ rather than “merely” the material Jesus puts his finger on this Truth. In his travels from German to Latin back to Latin he finally gets to the Truth which is Greek. He finds, through German philosophy and Latin theology the outgrowth of the New Testament. There is no distinction between theology and philosophy, between Latin and German, in the New Testament. Rahner had the ability to hear that.
August 11, 2015
Brilliant, even if his last-minute plug for joining the Catholic Church did not convict me. But seriously, what a moving and provocative argument (in considerable technical detail) for our inherent openness to a possible revelation, from a God whom we always already "sense," in and through our dealings with one another and the world we share.
December 17, 2016
Very informative read on how religion and human thought have an intrinsic relationship. Contrary to popular belief there is room for the religious in scientific speculation. Karl Rahner does an excellent job in laying the foundation for a true dialogue about religious discourse in modern intellectual circles.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews