Search

Karl Rahner completed his in 1951 but did not receive permission to publish it from his Jesuit superiors. The work appeared in 2004, twenty years after Rahner's death. This essay examines his work on the Assumption and the censors' objections. Rahner's publication of 1947, "On the Theology of Death," was appended to the Marian treatise as an "excursus" but laid the foundation for the later work. Rahner interpreted the Assumption as an anticipation of the resurrection of the dead. This essay focuses on three speculations by Rahner: on the relation of the soul to the body, on the maturation of the soul after death, and on the final resurrection as the world's transformation. The censors criticized Rahner's theology of death as too speculative and his Mariology as too minimal. Yet 's treatment of Mary as a sign of hope until the second coming vindicated Rahner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay traces the history of the Karl Rahner Society between the years 1998 and 2019. It lists the achievements of the society's coordinators, many of the books and articles about Rahner published by members of the society, and the role played in the society by Presidents of the Catholic Theological Society of America. The essay also identifies three persistent themes of the society: Rahner and his contemporaries, Rahner and the Catholic Church, and Rahner and ecumenism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar differed in their approaches to Christian soteriology, especially in their understandings of redemption and the cross. These differences stem in part from Rahner’s emphasis on the Trinity in history (the economic Trinity) and Balthasar’s focus on the Trinity’s inner life (the immanent Trinity). While Balthasar’s soteriology better reflects the Church’s official descending Christology, Rahner’s ascending Christology (with its view of Jesus as the fullness of God united to human nature) is the more profound. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Karl Rahner's transcendental Christology examined the conditions for the possibility of faith in Christ and presented human nature as developing in response to God's grace. This article affirms Rahner despite the critiques of Michel Henry, Roger Haight, John McDermott, Patrick Burke, and Donald Gelpi. Rahner's Christology is not a phenomenology (Henry) but a theology that affirms God's presence in history. To be sure, some critics have attacked Rahner for emphasizing God's initiative and diminishing human responsibility (Haight) and for uncritically accepting Greek metaphysics (Gelpi). Yet Rahner rightly depicted Christ as a sacrament of the Father's will, an event in history with consequences for all time. Other critics have accused him of obscuring the distinction between God and humanity (McDermott) and suggesting that there are two conscious subjects in Christ (Burke). This article accepts Rahner's view of Jesus as both the presence of God's Word and the human response to it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Christologie: Systematisch und exegetisch was published in 1972 by Karl Rahner and Wilhelm Thüsing. When in 1980 the translation appeared as A New Christology, it did not include Rahner's five chapters from the 1972 volume, but inserted three essays by Rahner whose German originals were unidentified. The present essay identifies the source of the three chapters. It also reveals that Rahner's original five chapters were published a second time in the 1976 Grur:dkursdes Glaubens, although in a different form, and in 1978 were accurately translated in the sixth chapter of Foundations ofChristian Faith. The present essay concludes by tracing the genesis of Rahner's transcendental Christology from its 1969 origins to its 1972 publication to its 1978 translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do the assertions of Karl Rahner (1) that the soul does not exist for its own sake but is a "principle" of being, and (2) that one must reject anthropological dualism in order to consider the body and soul a unity, endanger the traditional doctrines of the soul's independence and immortality? Rahner's Christology says no. As a principle of being, the soul "causes" the body to realize its potential for immortality. United with the body, the soul is the seat of human (distinct from animal) nature, capable of spiritual growth. Immortality and independence reflect the divine Word's entrance into human nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]