Anti-realism
the German Jesuit Karl Rahner
Here is a quick review from a earlier Chapter of Rahner who was one of most influential Catholic theologians of the twentieth century. He was a disciple of the philosopher Immanuel Kant who taught that one could only know the phenomena of the mind or ideas in the brain and not know reality:
"Kant, who begins with ideas and, as all the history of modern philosophy shows, never gets to reality."
(Chesterton: A Seer of Science, page 19)
Kant and those who follow him thought God was only a thought and not real:
"'God is not a being outside me but merely a thought within me.'"
(Angels, Apes and Men, page 10)
Rahner's Kantian philosophy lead him to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Fr. Regis Scanlon.
John Paul II because he partially accepted philosophical inadequacies such as his relativist inter-religious dialogue blind spot that lead to the Assisi scandalous episode unlike, at least to some extent, Benedict XVI. Scholar Fr. John Coleman S. J. wrote:
"John Hick's pluralist model is based on a Kantian epistemology that undermines, at the outset, any notion of a normative revelation of God in history... In Danielou's theology, the grace of Christ may mysteriously touch individuals outside Christianity but the other religions, their scriptures and rituals, remain purely human customs... Rahner did not make such a strict distinction... John Paul was closer to Rahner... Whereas Ratzinger had warned of the dangers of relativism in inter-religious dialogue." (Inter-Religious Dialogue: Urgent Challenge and Theological Land-Mine, PFD Australian Catholic University>au)
However, theologian David Schutz explained that "Ratzinger's [Benedict's] personal position" was also influenced by the religious relativism of John Paul's Kantian Radnerism to some extent:
Next, Larson quote from page 140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further information and considerations for this chapter:
http://scecclesia.com/archives/1471:
After all, in spite of his comparative superiority, he is also the bearer of many nebulous and ambivalent tendencies.
Our situation is dire and seemingly unprecedented in history.
the German Jesuit Karl Rahner
Here is a quick review from a earlier Chapter of Rahner who was one of most influential Catholic theologians of the twentieth century. He was a disciple of the philosopher Immanuel Kant who taught that one could only know the phenomena of the mind or ideas in the brain and not know reality:
"Kant, who begins with ideas and, as all the history of modern philosophy shows, never gets to reality."
(Chesterton: A Seer of Science, page 19)
Kant and those who follow him thought God was only a thought and not real:
"'God is not a being outside me but merely a thought within me.'"
(Angels, Apes and Men, page 10)
Rahner's Kantian philosophy lead him to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Fr. Regis Scanlon.
John Paul II because he partially accepted philosophical inadequacies such as his relativist inter-religious dialogue blind spot that lead to the Assisi scandalous episode unlike, at least to some extent, Benedict XVI. Scholar Fr. John Coleman S. J. wrote:
"John Hick's pluralist model is based on a Kantian epistemology that undermines, at the outset, any notion of a normative revelation of God in history... In Danielou's theology, the grace of Christ may mysteriously touch individuals outside Christianity but the other religions, their scriptures and rituals, remain purely human customs... Rahner did not make such a strict distinction... John Paul was closer to Rahner... Whereas Ratzinger had warned of the dangers of relativism in inter-religious dialogue." (Inter-Religious Dialogue: Urgent Challenge and Theological Land-Mine, PFD Australian Catholic University>au)
However, theologian David Schutz explained that "Ratzinger's [Benedict's] personal position" was also influenced by the religious relativism of John Paul's Kantian Radnerism to some extent:
January 8, 2009
Dear Fr Coleman,
... I appreciate too your comparison of the current debate to the Jesuit/Dominican debate on Grace and Freedom, and your point that we could perhaps find a workable solution to the current debates by adopting a similar “both/and” rather than “either/or” approach to God’s universal will for salvation and Jesus’ unique mediatorship of salvation.
Thank you also for reminding me of the relationship between Danielou and Ratzinger. This is in fact a documentable relationship – they were both founders of the Communion school, for one thing, but for another Ratzinger often refers to Danielou in his writings. I do not know whether you could find a similar documentable relationship between the theology of John Paul II and Rahner. The positions of these two may seem similar in many ways, but I am not aware of the late holy father footnoting Rahner in support of any of his statements in the same way Ratzinger regularly does of Danielou.
It is in reference to this latter point that I feel uncomfortable with one aspect of your paper. You consistently refer to the declaration Dominus Iesus as an example of the personal theology of Joseph Ratzinger (now gloriously reigning as Benedict XVI, of course!) when in fact it was the work of a group of theologians (your own quotation from James Frederichs notes this better than you do), an official statement of the Congregation of the Document, and a document which was authorised by John Paul II himself. That should raise some questions.
I think you would have gained a far more accurate idea of Ratzinger’s personal position if you had actually referred to his personal writings on the matter (which, not incidentally, are more clearly reflected in BXVI’s magisterium than is Dominus Iesus). I am thinking of the essays included in the collections “Truth and Tolerance” (published 2003), “Many religions, One Covenant” (pub 1999), and in particular his 1998 essay “Interreligious Dialogue and Jewish-Christian Relations” (published in Communio in 1998). The latter especially, I think, shows Ratzinger to be much more open to interreligious dialogue than you portray him to be by taking Dominus Iesus as representative of his theology. The influence of Danielou, take note, is still very strong in these writings – yet Ratzinger goes much further than Danielou in the final analysis towards an acceptance of the value of Interreligious dialogue. In particular, I think Ratzinger would share with you the need to value dialogue in itself, and a desire to go beyond “overarching theories” based on soteriology. His discussion of the two major ways of being “religious” (mystical and theistic) is much more “pluralist” than Danielou’s theology.
Just one other point. I regularly find (in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue) that a hermeneutic of suspicion is applied to Dominus Iesus which it might not merit. It helps if we take it as a document addressed to Catholics, and not to the wider religious world. It is entirely (perhaps one sidedly) preoccupied with the dangers of pluralist theologies such as that of Hicks. This explains why it hardly offers an “invitation” to interreligious dialogue. We fall into difficulty if we take it to refer to more than it understands itself to refer to.
In this respect, one discrepancy I noted in your essay was this sentence:
“On the other, those who insist, as Dominus Jesus does, that there is no “economy of the eternal Word that is valid also outside the Church and unrelated to her” ( # 9 ) may be conflating, unjustifiably, the church, as such, and the reign of God ( which while related to the church is not entirely co-extensive with it).”
What Dominus Iesus was rejecting was that there could be any valid “economy of the eternal Word” external to the Church which was at the same time “unrelated to it”. In bringing up the very important and oft’ repeated assertion that “the Church is not entirely co-extensive with” the Kingdom of God while at the same time always related to it, you in fact yourself show that Dominus Iesus does not conflate “unjustifiably, the church, as such, and the reign of God”. In saying that there is no “economy of the eternal Word” which is both external to and unrelated to the Church, Dominus Iesus is simply saying (as it says elsewhere in the document) that the Church and the Kingdom cannot be completely separated from each other.
These criticisms not withstanding, I thank you for this insightful essay which I have added to my collection of essays on the subject.
Every best wish for your work in the new year.
David Schütz
(A response to Fr John A. Coleman's essay "Inter-Religious Dialogue: Urgent Challenge and Theological Land-mine": http://scecclesia.com/archives/1471)
Next, Larson quote from page 140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further information and considerations for this chapter:
http://scecclesia.com/archives/1471:
Your contrast of Bergoglio with John Paul ii and Benedict xvi concerning
devotion to the Eucharist as patently real and true for the latter two
seems difficult to argue with.
Arguably, on the personal level and in their overall public stances they promoted such. However, neither did anything markedly decisive institutionally to promote and inculcate this profound truth.
Moreover, the ambivalences within the papacies of these two figures, however, are troubling.
Your reference to Fr. Coleman's essay reminded me that he was contacted by a Dr. David Schütz, who insisted on the following, and Coleman fully accepted what is said below.
"I think you would have gained a far more accurate idea of Ratzinger’s personal position if you had actually referred to his personal writings on the matter (which, not incidentally, are more clearly reflected in BXVI’s magisterium than is Dominus Iesus). I am thinking of the essays included in the collections “Truth and Tolerance” (published 2003), “Many religions, One Covenant” (pub 1999), and in particular his 1998 essay “Interreligious Dialogue and Jewish-Christian Relations” (published in Communio in 1998). The latter especially, I think, shows Ratzinger to be much more open to interreligious dialogue than you portray him to be by taking Dominus Iesus as representative of his theology. The influence of Danielou, take note, is still very strong in these writings – yet Ratzinger goes much further than Danielou in the final analysis towards an acceptance of the value of Interreligious dialogue. In particular, I think Ratzinger would share with you the need to value dialogue in itself, and a desire to go beyond “overarching theories” based on soteriology. His discussion of the two major ways of being “religious” (mystical and theistic) is much more “pluralist” than Danielou’s theology."
Both John Paul ii and Benedict xvi, in their theological reflections and pastoral actions, obscured clarity of judgement (hence, markedly emphatic articulation of propositional certitudes)that one would typically have found in thinkers committed to, and inspired by, St. Thomas Aquinas.
At this stage of the game, it is distressing to face the fact that Bergoglio is almost certainly an anti-pope, due not only to likely violations of the conclave that elected him, but also due to unresolved ambiguities of Benedict's formal resignation. Finally, Bergoglio assuredly is an utterly shallow, and verifiably heterodox person.
But one wonders whether, even if it were and is possible to attain firm recognition of Benedict xvi as still being the Pope, would this alleviate our extreme difficulties and the current implosion of the Church's institutions?
Arguably, on the personal level and in their overall public stances they promoted such. However, neither did anything markedly decisive institutionally to promote and inculcate this profound truth.
Moreover, the ambivalences within the papacies of these two figures, however, are troubling.
Your reference to Fr. Coleman's essay reminded me that he was contacted by a Dr. David Schütz, who insisted on the following, and Coleman fully accepted what is said below.
"I think you would have gained a far more accurate idea of Ratzinger’s personal position if you had actually referred to his personal writings on the matter (which, not incidentally, are more clearly reflected in BXVI’s magisterium than is Dominus Iesus). I am thinking of the essays included in the collections “Truth and Tolerance” (published 2003), “Many religions, One Covenant” (pub 1999), and in particular his 1998 essay “Interreligious Dialogue and Jewish-Christian Relations” (published in Communio in 1998). The latter especially, I think, shows Ratzinger to be much more open to interreligious dialogue than you portray him to be by taking Dominus Iesus as representative of his theology. The influence of Danielou, take note, is still very strong in these writings – yet Ratzinger goes much further than Danielou in the final analysis towards an acceptance of the value of Interreligious dialogue. In particular, I think Ratzinger would share with you the need to value dialogue in itself, and a desire to go beyond “overarching theories” based on soteriology. His discussion of the two major ways of being “religious” (mystical and theistic) is much more “pluralist” than Danielou’s theology."
Both John Paul ii and Benedict xvi, in their theological reflections and pastoral actions, obscured clarity of judgement (hence, markedly emphatic articulation of propositional certitudes)that one would typically have found in thinkers committed to, and inspired by, St. Thomas Aquinas.
At this stage of the game, it is distressing to face the fact that Bergoglio is almost certainly an anti-pope, due not only to likely violations of the conclave that elected him, but also due to unresolved ambiguities of Benedict's formal resignation. Finally, Bergoglio assuredly is an utterly shallow, and verifiably heterodox person.
But one wonders whether, even if it were and is possible to attain firm recognition of Benedict xvi as still being the Pope, would this alleviate our extreme difficulties and the current implosion of the Church's institutions?
After all, in spite of his comparative superiority, he is also the bearer of many nebulous and ambivalent tendencies.
Our situation is dire and seemingly unprecedented in history.
Dear David Schutz,
Thank you for your helpful comments. The essay was originally a public lecture at Notre Dame U in Freemantle when I was the Thomas More Chair at the University of Western Australia. I only wish I had had your comments before I published it. It is not, of course, my own field as such ( I do social ethics and sociology of religion) but I wanted to venture into it. I have actually read a wonderful explanation of both the uniqueness of Christ as mediator and the relativity ( but not relativeness) of Christian language by Robert Bellah in a reflection on H. Richard Niebuhr’s book on Monotheism.. It appears in the Bellah reader which I am reviewing. Like your comments, I feel my essay would have been improved if I had read the Bellah piece previously. But I will save your remarks for any further treatment of the topic. Best wishes.
[NB. The Bellah essay to which he refers may be accessed at: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=241