Part 1 - Saint Paul VI and Rahner
A Distant Duel for the Leadership of the Church – Part One (1/3)
Admonish, rebuke, exhort
with all patience and teaching.
2 Timothy 4:2
Why Saint John XXIII Wanted the Council
Revisiting the early post-conciliar years, which were decisive in shaping the present, is greatly beneficial. This will help us understand the current state of the Church—its challenges and values, its sufferings and successes—and free it from its afflictions while offering it a luminous future.
In this regard, I believe that to grasp the significance of that period, it is necessary to clarify, as much as possible, the relationship between a saintly Pontiff and a great theologian—a shrewd, brilliant, and mighty man—Karl Rahner. His theological output was quantitatively astonishing, to the point that, apart from his extraordinary abilities and methodical work ethic, it remains difficult to understand how he could have produced so much within a timespan that, while not brief, was not particularly long either—without considerable advantages and substantial assistance, the nature of which remains unclear. To shed light on this, it is useful to take a step back in time and recall the intentions of another saintly Pontiff, John XXIII, in convening the Council and his stance toward Rahner.
As for the latter, Pope John appointed him as a theological expert for the Council at the request of German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, even though Rahner had previously been subject to censure under the pontificate of Pius XII. Yet, curiously, his hazardous work—because it was tainted by idealism—Hearers of the Word (Hörer des Wortes), published in Germany in 1941, had not drawn the attention of the Holy Office.
At that time, Rahner undoubtedly enjoyed a solid reputation as a theologian, and Pope John likely considered this when appointing him as an expert. It is well known that Rahner later made a significant contribution to the development of the Council’s teachings. However, while he concealed the poison of idealism during the Council’s deliberations, once he had secured international prestige and recognition for his role in the Council, he felt emboldened by a sense of impunity, openly manifesting his so-called Thomist ideas, which in reality were modernist. Unfortunately, this indeed came to pass under Paul VI. Rahner effectively spread what was beneficial in his work at the Council, but he mixed it with modernist deception. In this article, we will examine how and why this happened.
As for Vatican II, it is remarkable that it was convened so suddenly and unexpectedly by the Pope less than a year after his election, without any prior proposal, recommendation, or invocation, whether from within the Church or from external voices, for its convocation. This contrasts with previous instances when Councils were frequently called in response to widespread appeals for their necessity. The memory of Vatican I still endured, convened by Blessed Pius IX to reaffirm the foundations of the Catholic faith against the prevailing errors of the time—materialism, ontologism, idealism, Protestantism, positivism, liberalism, pantheism, atheism, and Freemasonry.
The Pope’s initiative was not surprising at the time, as the Catholic world largely shared his combative stance against modernity. Strengthened after the French Revolution, Catholics were prepared to demonstrate their indomitable vitality to the Masonic, atheistic, liberal, and Protestant world of their era.
Soon after, the Thomist revival promoted by Leo XIII would take place. With the advent of Modernism, St. Pius X believed that defeating it did not require a new Council, but that an encyclical—his famous Pascendi—would suffice.
Indeed, the Thomists were able to support the Pope in his battle, and it seemed as though Modernism had been defeated. However, the Modernists’ demand was not entirely wrong: it was necessary for the Church, after centuries of opposing the errors of modernity, to decide to adopt its values.
The error of the modernists lay in their attempt to carry out this difficult task without recourse to Saint Thomas, instead yielding to the influence of the very authors from whom, when viewed in the light of Saint Thomas, the positive elements could have been extracted—Luther, Descartes, Kant, Hume, Fichte, Hegel, Comte, Rousseau, and Marx. Due to this methodological flaw, their endeavor was bound to fail.
Before becoming Pope, Roncalli recognized that while Pius X had been right to condemn the errors, he had been too harsh in failing to acknowledge that the modernists’ request was legitimate and needed to be fulfilled, albeit with the right criterion—the Thomistic one. I believe that Roncalli understood that the challenging task of discerning and reclaiming what was valuable in modern thought had to be assumed by the Church itself—only under this condition could the endeavor succeed.
Thus, the idea of a Council emerged, which, in a sense, would act as a new Pascendi, succeeding where the first had failed, but with a change in method: to conquer Modernism not by attacking its errors but by properly addressing its legitimate concerns, thereby depriving it of the weapons it had against the Church. Few understood the wisdom of this subtle strategy, and some thought that the Council was pro-modernist, either to please it (the Rahnerians) or to regret it (the Lefebvrians). Yet, it is from the Council that the true victory over Modernism stems, provided it is interpreted rightly.
This, in my view, is the origin of the Council. When the Pope announced it, he did not delve into these details but kept his remarks entirely general, speaking merely of “updating. " This was to avoid hindrances to the conciliar work from those who upheld the anti-modernism of Pascendi and would not have understood this new, seemingly reckless tactic, which was, in fact, more sound. Rather than highlighting errors, it is built on truth.
The Council, then, originated from the Pope himself and was not primarily polemical against errors, as had been the case with previous Councils. Instead, it was primarily expository, to embrace the values of modernity using language suited to contemporary expressions. Its evangelical intent was to appeal to Catholic unity among dissenting communities and separated brethren without resorting to new dogmatic definitions, yet it proposed a more developed doctrine regarding the Church, Christian life, and the Church’s relationship with the world.
As we all know, two opposing factions of Fathers emerged during the Council, which, at certain dramatic moments, led to fierce opposition that deeply troubled Paul VI. On one side were the Fathers from Southern Europe, particularly the representatives of the Roman school, who were strongly, perhaps pedantically, attached to tradition and zealous in preserving the revealed deposit. They espoused a sincere Thomism, but one that was closed and conservative, continuing the polemic against modernity in the style of Pascendi and Pius XII’s Humani generis, scrupulously obedient to the Pope, even in areas where reasonable freedom of dissent or criticism was allowed. These Fathers were thus called “conservatives.” They felt more inclined to condemn Modernist errors than to modernize the Church.
On the other hand, the Fathers from Northern Europe were intent on a serious confrontation with modernity. They were relatively independent of the Pope, attached to modern thought, and less faithful to St. Thomas. However, they were eager to make progress and refresh the Church, and thus were labeled “progressives.”
This situation provided an opportunity to exercise great mutual charity, enduring one another, learning from each other, and acknowledging one’s errors. Throughout the entire Council (three years!), the Fathers gradually, though with great difficulty and continual effort, learned from one another and corrected each other’s mistakes, a splendid example of fraternal charity! Is this not also a message of the Council?
The Fathers realized this reciprocity, purified by the hardships of the interminable sessions, in the fire of suffering and mutual tolerance, humbly learning from one another and correcting each other's errors. In the end, their shared and strenuous labor gave rise to those documents of supreme wisdom, where the tempests were stilled, and a serene, elevated atmosphere could be breathed. The sharp tones of polemic had faded, leaving in the measured and discerning words the burning fervor of charity.
The Characteristics and Purpose of the Council
Pope St. John XXIII set this goal for the Council: “This concerns the Council above all: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be preserved and taught more effectively” [1]. In doing so, he gave it a strictly pastoral focus. It was Pope Paul VI who sought to deepen its doctrinal scope, aiming for a fuller understanding of the Church’s nature, beauty, and mission.
Given this pastoral framework, the Council abandoned the use of canons enforced by the anathematization of dissenters. Previous Councils established precise formulas or fixed theses, dense and brief, and anyone deviating from them or neglecting them, even in a single word, was ipso facto excommunicated. These formulas provided certainty but could also provoke scruples.
Instead, Vatican II developed a theme by constructing a plurality of propositions logically connected according to various modes of exposition, such as narrative, syllogistic, descriptive, or prescriptive forms. Even doctrinal teachings did not carry the normative and legislative tone of previous Councils but were presented in a simply assertive manner, without declaring them as articles of faith, leaving to the reader the wisdom to understand them, as they concerned the revealed deposit. The fact that the Council does not provide the aforementioned clarification does not authorize anyone to believe that the Council could be wrong or say things that are open to revision.
The literary style of the Council is therefore not primarily juridical, didactic, or scholastic, with terms drawn from Thomistic philosophy or metaphysical notions. Rather, it resembles Christ’s way of teaching in the Gospel; it has the tone of preaching, the so-called "kerygmatic" style, oratory and homiletic, using metaphor or image, with terms drawn from the Bible, attentive to sacred history, and closer to the Augustinian style and the Fathers of the Church. It is proportionate to the common faithful and the modern person.
The Council speaks of God not so much with a speculative eye aimed at the mystery of His nature as with a gaze directed at the operations of the Most Holy Trinity in history, humanity, and the Church: the God incarnate in Jesus Christ, the Savior, and Redeemer, the eschatological Judge of the living and the dead.
The great error of the modern age denounced by the Council was materialist atheism. However, the Council did not think to denounce another equally dangerous threat, corresponding exactly to atheism, which is pantheistic idealism. It took Marx into account, but not Hegel. Thus, it did not show us that atheism and pantheism are perfectly complementary; they are two sides of the same coin.
Atheism is a form of mental blindness in which the mind is trapped in earthly things and incapable of rising to the level of the spirit. As a result, the atheist cannot see anything better than man and thus deifies man; “man,” says Marx, “is god for man.” In the atheist, the vices of the flesh are at work.
On the other hand, the pantheistic idealist knows what the spirit is but, deceived by pride, considers his spirit as if it were God, thus deifying man again. However, this time, he does not degrade man to the level of animals, as the materialist does; instead, he believes man possesses absolute freedom, a freedom that belongs only to God.
Pantheism hides within modernism and has its early origins in Descartes' cogito. Luther's subjectivism does not exclude the distinction between man and God; on the contrary, it accentuates it too much. Yet, in his attempt to remove this opposition he created, he ends up in the immanentism of the “God-in-me” and “God-for-me,” which is the antechamber to pantheism. For if God is in me, and I am in God by essence, as if I were an attribute or mode of God's being, what is left to say that I am God and God is me?
Now, the fundamental snare of Rahnerism lies precisely here: Rahner, intending to give the impression that he has understood, beyond the Thomists, what the true Thomistic concept of being is, falsifies his thought by presenting Thomas as if he were a Hegelian. Yet, if there is one champion of realism, it is precisely Thomas. Rahner’s bold move is therefore formidable and astonishingly audacious. And the marvelous thing, which demonstrates how skillful the devil is at deceiving our spirit, is that many Catholic theologians have not noticed this, considering Rahner to be a new St. Thomas or a new Doctor of the Church.
The Council contains the teaching of new doctrines and practical directives. We have new doctrines on liturgy, revelation, the relationship between natural ethics and Christian ethics, episcopal collegiality, the pastoral mission of the Pope and bishops, the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, the relationship between science and faith, the role of theology, religious conscience, the vastness of divine mercy, the Church in itself, its progression through history, its continuous reform, and its relationship with the world and the state, Mariology, clergy formation, religious life, eschatology, the function of the laity, and the concept of holiness.
We have new practical directives on how to celebrate the Mass and the sacraments, the role of the laity, religious, priests, bishops, the Pope, and the episcopal college, the method of evangelization, how to regulate the relationships between the Church and the state, Catholic education, the use of communication media, the role of ecclesiastical laws, and how to implement Marian worship.
Pope St. John XXIII appointed a preparatory commission for the Council’s work. It worked for two years, producing around 2000 pages of material. This material primarily reflected the perspective of the Roman theological school, loyal to St. Thomas, but little sensitive to the values of modern thought, in fact with a marked tendency to condemn it. For this school, saying “modern thought” meant the abandonment of objectivism, realism, transcendence, and theism, replaced by subjectivism, immanentism, idealism, and atheism.
During the conciliar work, an untimely and unjust polemic against scholastic theology emerged, a theology that had always been praised and recommended by the Popes in the past. This polemic reflected the reappearance of a hint of modernism within the Council’s work, a modernism that had not completely disappeared but had persevered underground throughout history. It would explode once more in the immediate post-Council period through Rahner and other theologians, some of whom were censured. However, Rahner always managed to escape censure, thanks to the powerful protections he enjoyed and his skill in presenting himself as a great thinker, even as a mystic.
In reality, the disdain or rejection of scholastic theology is an attitude that dates back to the Renaissance and to Luther, expressing hostility or rejection of Thomistic theology in the name of theology based solely on biblical terminology, especially Hebrew, without considering that while the Hebrew vocabulary is more limited than the Greek, Hebrew terms carry many semantic potentials, often saying more than what Greek or Latin words convey. For example, barā in Hebrew means both to make and to create, whereas Greek, with its words ktizein and poiein, lacks a specific term for creation. Likewise, dābār (word) in Hebrew corresponds to rhema in Greek, but it also includes meaning, nòesis (thought), reason, logos, work, pragma, and action, praxis.
Nevertheless, the conciliar Fathers from Northern Europe were right to urge the conservative Fathers to fulfill the wishes of St. John XXIII and St. Paul VI by using a language that was not scholastic or didactic, as in a classroom lecture, nor juridical like positive law, but biblical, patristic, homiletic, or, as it was termed, kerygmatic or pastoral.
End of Part One (1/3)
Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP
Fontanellato, January 13, 2025
source:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/san-paolo-vi-e-rahner-un-duello.html
Note:
[1] Opening Address of the Council on October 11, 1962.