No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Can Rahner Bridge the Linguistic Divide?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
Abstract
Despite the extensive discussion about theological discourse in both the English-speaking world and in Europe, there have been few serious and extended attempts to relate Anglo-American philosophy and theology to Karl Rahner's “transcendental” perspective. Because of their difference in perspective each has much to offer the other. It is reasonable to hope that in bridging the gap between the two, we might make some progress in the still more formidable task of developing a Christian theology which would enable us to emerge from our linguistic ghettos to offer a more credible response to contemporary secular culture. The article warns, however, that the search for points of affinity between these two casts of mind can easily lead to a distortion of one perspective or the other, rather than to a genuine confrontation and dialogue. An examination of an attempt to find such points of affinity provides the occasion for disclosing Rahner's possible contribution to the discussion of religious language, while also demonstrating the limitations of any approach which seeks points of similarity without at the same time noting the fundamental difference between his perspective and that of some who represent Anglo-American thinking.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The College Theology Society 1979
References
1 “Karl Rahner on Theological Discourse,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies (Winter 1975), p. 55.Google Scholar
2 Naming the Whirlwind (Indianapolis and New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1969).Google Scholar
3 Rahner as quoted by Wood p. 60; from “What is a Dogmatic Statement,” Theological Investigations, 5 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966), p. 46.Google Scholar Further references to the text of his Theological Investigations, 16 vols. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961–1976Google Scholar; New York: The Seabury Press, 1974–76) will be indicated by the abbreviation TI. The corresponding volume (if different) and pages of the German text (Schriften zur Theologie, 12 vols. Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1954–1974)Google Scholar will be indicated in brackets.
4 “The Resurrection of the Body,” TI, 2, p. 208.
5 See Crombie, I. M., in “Theology and Falsification,” in Flew, Anthony and MacIntyre, Alasdair, eds., New Essays in Philosophical Theology (London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1955), pp. 109–130Google Scholar; and “The Possibility of Theological Statements,” in Mitchell, Basil, ed., Faith and Logic (London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1957), pp. 31–83.Google Scholar
6 Geist in Welt, revised and supplemented by Metz, Johannes Baptist, 3rd ed. (Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1964Google Scholar; unaltered rpt. of 2nd ed., 1957; 1st ed., 1939), hereafter GW. ET: Spirit in the World, trans. Dych, William (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968)Google Scholar, hereafter SW. Most of Metz's changes are tabulated in Tallon's, Andrew “Spirit, Matter, Becoming: Karl Rahner's Spirit in the World,” The Modern Schoolman, 48 (Jan. 1971), 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The changes, mostly additions, do not significantly alter the original text and have Rahner's complete approval (see Preface to 2nd ed.), Hörer des Wortes, rev. Metz, Johannes Baptist (Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1964)Google Scholar, hereafter HW. ET: Hearers of the Word, trans. Richards, Michael (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969)Google Scholar, hereafter HW-ET. For a comparison with the original edition (1941), see the French trans.: L'homme a l'encoute du verbe, trans. Jofbeck, Joseph (Paris: Mame, 1968).Google Scholar See also Grundkurs des Glaubens: Emnfuhrung in den Begriff des Christentums (Freiburg: Heider, 1976)Google Scholar, hereafter GG. ET: Foundations of Christian Faith, trans. Dych, William (New York: The Seabury Press, 1978), hereafter FF.Google Scholar
7 GG, p.29/FF, p. 18.
8 GG, p. 30/FF, p. 19.
9 Ibid.
10 GG, p. 31/FF, p. 20.
11 See GW, pp. 129–134/SW, pp. 117–123; HW, pp. 71–74/ET, pp. 53–56.
12 GW, pp. 153–154/SW, pp. 143–145; HW, pp. 77–79/ET, pp. 53–56.
13 GW, pp. 154–156/SW, pp. 143–145; HW, pp. 79–80/ET, pp. 60–61. In the pages which follow Rahner's term das Sein is translated as “be-ing.” Quotes from translations of Rahner's works have been altered to be consistent with this devise.
14 GW, pp. 154–195/SW, pp. 143–186; HW, pp. 7–81/ET, pp. 60–62; HW, 1st ed. p. 79.
15 GW, pp. 189, 195/SW, pp. 180, 186; HW, pp. 83–84/ET, pp. 63–64.
16 GG, p. 71/FF, p. 63.
17 GW, pp. 400–401/SW, p. 401.
18 “The Resurrection of the Body,” TI, 2, p. 208.
19 See GW, Chapter 4.
20 GW, p. 406/SW, p. 407.
21 See HW, pp. 193–200/ET, pp. 157–162.
22 “Priest and Poet,” TI, 3, p. 295 (350).
23 Ibid.
24 “‘Behold this Heart!’: Preliminaries to a Theology of Devotion to the Sacred Heart,” TI, 3, p. 321 (379).
25 “Priest and Poet,” p. 295 (350).
26 Ibid.
27 It is interesting that Rahner's perspective here corroborates and is corroborated by Wittgenstein's criticism of the possibility of “private language.” It is for this reason that I do not see the appropriateness of Louis Roberts' suggestion that knowledge through the foregrasp refers to “something like” the analysts' concept of private language, and that this constitutes an important meeting place for linguistic philosophy and Rahner-Marechal metaphysics. See The Achievement of Karl Rahner (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967), p. 19.Google Scholar
28 “Priest and Poet,” p. 302 (358).
29 Wood, pp. 58-59.
30 “Priest and Poet,” pp. 297–298 (353).
31 Ibid., p. 299 (354).
32 Ibid., p. 298 (353).
33 “‘Behold this Heart!,’” p. 325 (383–384).
34 “Priest and Poet,” p. 298 (354).
35 “‘Behold this Heart!,’” p. 329 (387–388).
36 “Priest and Poet,” p. 299 (354).
37 Ibid., p. 299 (355).
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid., pp. 300–301 (356).
40 “The Theology of the Symbol,” TI, 4, pp. 221–52 (275–311).
41 “Science as a ‘Confession?,’” TI, 3, p. 391 (462).
42 Ibid.
43 See, for example, Nielsen, Kai, Contemporary Critiques of Religion (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971), pp. 73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bean, William, “Eschatological Verification: Fortress or Fairyland,” Methodos 16 (1964), p. 69.Google Scholar
44 See “Ideas for a Theology of Death,” TI, 13, esp. pp. 171–173; “Reflections on Methodology in Theology,” TI, 11, pp. 97-99 (9, 109–111); “The Position of Christology in the Church between Exegesis and Dogmatics,” TI, 11, esp. pp. 206–214 (219–26), and “The Hermeneutics of Eschatological Assertions,” TI, 4, pp. 323–346 (401–428).
45 See in particular “Basic Observations on the Subject of Changeable and Unchangeable Factors in the Church,” TI 154, pp. 3–23 (10, 241–261); “The Church of Sinners,” TI, 6, pp. 253–269 (301–320); “Considerations on the Development of Dogma,” TI, 4, pp. 3–35 (11–50); “The Current Relationship Between Philosophy and Theology,” TI, 8, pp. 61–79 (70–88); “Does the Church Offer Any Ultimate Certainties?” TI, 14, pp. 47–65 (10, 286–304); “The Historicity of Theology,” TI, 9, pp. 64–82 (8, 88–110); also trans, by Dych, William S. J. in Theology Digest, Sesquicentennial Issue (February 1968), pp. 30–42Google Scholar; “On the Concept of Infallibility in Catholic Theology,” TI, 14, pp. 66–84 (10, 305–323); “Philosophy and Philosophizing in Theology,” TI, 9, pp. 46–63 (8, 66–87); also trans, by Dych, William S. J. in Theology Digest, Sesquicentennial Issue (February 1968), 17–29Google Scholar; “Philosophy and Theology,” TI, 6, pp. 71–81 (91–103); “Pluralism in Theology and the Unity of the Creed in the Church,” TI, 11, pp. 3–23 (9, 11–33); “Theology in the New Testament,” TI, 5, pp. 23–41 (33–53); “What is a Dogmatic Statement?” TI, 5, pp. 42–66 (54–81).
46 Wood, p. 59: quote from Rahner's essay “Intellectual Honesty and Christian Faith,” TI, 7, p. 66 (71–72).
47 Wood, p. 59.
48 See in particular: “The Theology of the Symbol,” TI 4, pp. 221–252 (275–311); and also “Christology in the Setting of Modern Man's Understanding of Himself and of His World,” TI, 11, pp. 215–229 (9, 227–241); “Christology Within an Evolutionary View of the World,” TI, 5, pp. 157–192 (183–221); “The Eternal Significance of the Humanity of Jesus for Our Relationship With God,” TI, 3, pp. 35–46 (47–60); “I Believe in Jesus Christ,” TI, 9. pp. 165–168 (8, 213–217); “On the Theology of the Incarnation,” TI, 4, pp. 105–120 (137–155); “The Position of Christology in the Church between Exegesis and Dogmatics,” TI, 11, pp. 185–214 (9, 197–226).
49 For an extended evaluation of this thesis see my “Language, Thinking and God in Karl Rahner's Theology of the Word: A Critical Evaluation of Rahner's Perspective on the Problem of Religious Language,” Diss. Fordham University 1978.
50 “Thoughts on the Theology of Christmas,” TI, 3, p. 32 (44).
51 See note 45.
52 For a thorough justification of this interpretation see “Dynamics of the Word” in “Language, Thinking and God in Karl Rahner's Theology of the Word.”
53 See in particular the essays on the pilgrim church in volume 6 of Rahner's Investigations.
54 For an elaboration of this contention see “Language, Thinking and God in Karl Rahner's Theology of the Word.”
55 Volume 1 and 4 of his A Theology for Artisans of a New Humanity are especially dependent on Rahner's ecclesiological essays.
56 See my dissertation and also my forthcoming essay “A Charmed Linguistic Circle? Rahner and Analytic Philosophy.”
57 Rahner, Karl, “The Concept of Existential Philosophy in Heidegger,” trans. Tallon, Andrew, Philosophy Today 13 (1969), p. 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar; originally published in Recherchesde science religieuse 30 (1940), pp. 126–137.Google Scholar
58 The early philosophical reflections I have in mind here are Spirit in the World, Hearers of the Word, “The Concept of Existential Philosophy in Heidegger,” and “Thomas Aquinas on Truth,” TI, 13, pp. 13–31 (10, 21–40), published originally in 1938.
59 See my essay “Beyond Nygren and Rahner an Alternative to Tracy,” The Heythrop Journal, scheduled for 1980.