What does Karl Rahner's charm depend on
What does Karl Rahner's charm depend on
A problem still not solved
It has been more than sixty years since the theological scene has been dominated by Rahnerism and there are no significant signs showing a trend reversal, although it appears more and more clear how Rahnerism is at the origin of the current process of the decadence of the Catholic Church, decadence which is naturally denied by those responsible for it [1].
This does not mean that Rahnerism, in the eyes of impartial observers equipped with appropriate judgment criteria, does not constitute the radical responsibility for the very serious current crisis of the Church.
In fact, evaluating the situation of the Church today, as far as humanly we can judge it - and obviously leaving the final judgment of this situation to God-, it is not difficult to perceive the Church as an organism subject to a process of disorganization, a society in process of dissolution, a company on the verge of bankruptcy, unable to meet the needs for which it was established.
We have all the signs of the phenomena of decadence: an organism's internal conflict unrelenting increase, which entails in the Church, as Saint Paul VI already observed almost fifty years ago, a process of "self-demolition", and the presence within the organism of numerous poisons, which the organism does not have the strength to expel, and the entry into the organism of harmful substances, which the organism is unable to recognize, and the CEO’s – so to speak – inability to reduce conflicts into unity, and the lack of convergence of the members of a society towards the common steps and the tendency of many members of it to act on their own account, out of a minimal synergy.
Continuing to believe - as the followers of Cardinal Martini and Cardinal Kasper, Father Timothy Radcliffe [Ed.: the former superior of the Preachers’ Order] or Andrea Grillo [Ed.: born in Savona, Italy, in 1961, he is an influential ultra-progressive professor of theology of the sacraments and of philosophy of religion at the S. Anselm University, in Rome, and liturgy in Padua, at Santa Giustina, a 10th-century Benedictine’s Abbey] or Alberto Melloni [Ed.: another leading Italian historian, follower, and pillar of the Bologna think-tank, the Institute for Religious Studies in Bologna, founded by the post-WWII Italian jurist, politician, and - from 1958 onward - Catholic priest, Giuseppe Dossetti, along with Giuseppe Alberigo. Dossetti, deputy to the Constituent Assembly after WWII, played a prominent role there as an exponent of Catholicism with strong social sensitivity. His political ideas aim at a radical reform of the State and an anti-liberal economic policy. The thought of him has been an important point of reference for Catholics on the left. He received an honorary doctorate from the Faculty of Evangelical Theology in Munich in 1988 and from the Faculty of Catholic Theology in Strasbourg in 1996. During the years of the Council, he was indeed part of the so-called “Bolognese group” that elaborated studies and materials for the famous cardinal, archbishop of Bologna, Giacomo Lercaro, and other conciliar fathers, not to mention important theologians who also attended the Bologna‘s Institute (officina bolognese), like, M.-D. Chenu , Y. Congar, J. Ratzinger, J. Dupont, H. Jedin, H. Küng. A collaboration that resulted at the end in the foundation of the modernist magazine Concilium.
His institute soon became one of the points of reference for historical-religious research at an international level, faithful to the criterion that the history of the Church is a proper historical discipline, which enucleates its object by itself. (and which does not receive indeed from theology.)
Alberto Melloni, in particular, is actually a historian of Christianity at the University of Modena-Reggio Emilia, holder of the UNESCO chair on religious pluralism and peace at the University of Bologna, and of course the most distinguished exponent of the School of Bologna.
His positions tend, in a nutshell, to deny the concept of "Catholic identity", and to interpret the Council with a hermeneutic of discontinuity from tradition, because - it is assumed - the world is going through a profound historical change. A change that has generated a largely de-Christianized society, and which for this reason requires, when meeting others, a diluted approach or "amorphous" as much as possible, avoiding defining identity because it is considered a hindrance or impediment to a true and profitable encounter. The mandate to be as non-"divisive" as possible - in a word, egalitarian - is therefore established.] that the Church is in good health today, and that an "epochal turning point" is opening up, the so-called “era of mercy,” and of freedom and dialogue, [Ed.: the regnum hominis and libertatis of Hegelian and Hobbesian memory: “This enlightenment reason passing through the revolution becomes the eschatology of the revolution. It is not the cold reason of positivism, it is a warm, passionate reason. It is a reason that awaits the establishment of the "regnum hominis" and "regnum libertatis," finally realized in history.” ( cfr. M. Borghesi, “Fede e Sapere in Hegel”, http://www.diesse.org/cm-files/2015/09/30/borghesi-fede-e-sapere-in-hegel.pdf . Another champion of this mantra was, of course, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in 18th century France, who advocates what Tocqueville calls “soft totalitarianism” or “Democratic totalitarianism”. Based on free consent, its sovereign is not any concrete individual but the general will, social consensus, the Zeitgeist, the Spirit of the times, which – for the philosophy of Rousseau - is equally sovereign and infallible and divine and absolute and not subject to any higher standard.
We also see it later, in Huxley's 1929 masterpiece, Brave New World, which is not merely a work of fiction but also a work of prophecy.
Ironically, all these advocates of soft totalitarianism or Democratic totalitarianism, like the aforementioned Rousseau or Hegel, and their ubiquitous followers, exalt what they call “freedom”. We see this for instance in the so-called “Sturm und Drag” movement, or Woodstock generation of the 60s, the so-called “hippies”, sons of the sexual revolution, and finally in the wokeness or LGBTQ+ lobbies, all radical chic movements.
Wokeism is, in particular, sometimes described as the first new religion of the 21st century, or, half-jokingly, as the “Great Awakening”, implicitly comparing it to other outbreaks of religious fervor in the modern period. There have been, we had just stated, an estimated four “Great Awakenings” in the past 300 years, the first lasting about 25 years, the second and third 50 or more, and the fourth in the 1960s and 1970s lasting about 20.
In 17th century England, Thomas Hobbes advocates what Tocqueville calls a hard totalitarianism. Hard means that in an absolute monarchy, there is no recourse against the single King, the Sovereign, and also because it is explicitly based on fear rather than free consent.
Paradoxically, atheistic or nihilistic libertinism is suspicious of the power of the state, and so it seems to be the opposite of totalitarianism. But in setting up as its absolute standard, not the law – either natural, human law, or divine law - but the “will” or “the feelings” of either the individual or the group, it chains us with invisible spiritual chains far more formidable than any emperor or tyrant - like a Caesar or a Hitler - our own willful will and foolish feelings -, not to the enemy without but to the enemy within.
All these paradigms, either far-right nationalist or left-wing liberal ( the latter has many names, postmodern neo-Marxism, the successor ideology, critical social justice theory – but the most common is woke, or some variation on it) are paradoxically tightly organic to the status quo, or power. The beliefs outlined above are not based on science or reason, but on dogmas. It has its own religious symbols – the rainbow flag – as well as a liturgy, including Black History Month and Transgender Day of Remembrance. It even has its own rites – taking the knee, “doing the work”, engaging in public bouts of racial self-flagellation. And it acquired its first martyr in George Floid (Toby Young, Woke: the new religion?, Catholic Herald, May 25, 2023)] if we make an exception for the unpleasant problem of pedophiles and Lefevrians, this illusory trust is a sign of formidable recklessness and the blind optimism of those who do not realize or do not want to realize what is really at stake, gloating over the excessive power they achieved in the Church by dint of lies and hypocrisy.
Of course, the Church will not collapse, but not for the reasons that the aforementioned gentlemen assume, and moreover, the presence of a nucleus of healthy and promising forces, guided by Christ and moved by the Holy Spirit, in the midst of so much ballast and corruption - these are the hope of the future. These are the forces that have truly been able to implement the reform promoted by the Second Vatican Council [Ed.: the hermeneutic of continuity with tradition]: eminent people such as Jean Guitton, Escrivá de Balaguer, Chiara Lubich, San Pio da Pietrelcina, Msgr. Pier Carlo Landucci, Don Dossetti, Don Barsotti, Don Giussani, Cardinals (Ottaviani, Parente, Daniélou and Siri), theologians (Fabro, Maritain, Gilson, Congar, Von Balthasar, Spiazzi, Piolanti),
[Ed.: I dare add a few others to the list, just to build a future bridge, a heavenly wedding between English-speaking thought and Continental thought, or Personalism and Thomism, like Christopher Dawson, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, H. Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Fr. Norris Clarke SJ, Fr. James Schall SJ, Edith Stein, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Josef Pieper, Peter Kreeft, Donald De Marco, Card. Elio Sgreccia, Fr. Servais-Théodore Pinckaers OP, Msgr. Livio Melina, Robert Spaemann, Martin Rhonheimer, Vittorio Possenti and others]
Popes (Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI). The Church is always guided by the Pope, who, however humanly incapable he could be, is nonetheless enlightened by the light of the Spirit in guiding us on the path of faith, and is supported by the strength of the Spirit in leading the Church, in the endless fight against the power of darkness.
The surprising thing in this dramatic situation is why, except for certain aspects, the reform promoted by the Council has not succeeded. Very timely was the idea of St. John XXIII to summon it with the aim he set for himself: to face modernity and propose to the modern man in today's language and with contemporary categories the evangelical message, as the light of today's world and openness to the values of the modern world.
The hope expressed by Pope John XXIII that the reform would give rise to a "new Pentecost" was thrilling. The Council concluded its work in an atmosphere of general optimism, and its message was announced to the world. But then who took over the reins of this announcement? Rahnerians did indeed. Paul VI was caught off guard and could not control the formidable undertaking of explaining the meaning of the Council to the world.
Rahnerians, on one side, took his hand by presenting themselves as the protagonists, interpreters, and promoters of the Council and making Paul VI appear as a braking factor of the prophetic novelty conceived by Pope John. In 1968, as we know, the so-called "contest" was unleashed throughout the West: a revolutionary application of Rahner's concept of freedom. The fact is that just ten years after the end of the Council, Paul VI uttered that famous anguished phrase: "We were expecting a spring and a storm has come!".
Maritain immediately realized that the message of the Council had been distorted. He wrote, in fact, in 1966, Le paysan de la Garonne.
But, this time somewhat strangely - although he was an acute observer of the great spiritual and theological events of his time, as he had always been -, perhaps due to aging and isolation, he did not notice, namely the great maneuver organized by Rahnerians.
At this crucial moment, even Paul VI/Rahner's relationship was not clarified. The Pope sensed the scam but did not know how to denounce the perpetrator, and indeed it seems that at least, in the early years, he esteemed Rahner so much to appoint him as a member of the International Theological Commission.
A strong disappointment occurred in 1968 when Rahner contested the encyclical Humanae vitae. The CDF did a nice job in those years, condemning numerous of Rahner’s errors. But his name was never mentioned. I believe that there is not yet a published study that could clarify what Paul VI's vs Rahner's relationship consisted of in all those crucial and decisive years, and in the following decades up to now.
Perhaps something is found in the acts of the Cause of Canonization. It’s astonishingly astonishing that a Pope, so intelligent and fine detective of the phenomena of the spirit, left us nothing on Rahner’s account, and did not confront himself with him. Are Rahner’s supporters covering up the news? It's possible. Didn't Paul VI notice Rahner's subtle danger? It is not possible. But de facto Paul VI failed to stop Rahnerians.
And from here began the tragedy we are experiencing and facing today.
It actually happened, in those fateful years, that Rahnerians, falsely presented themselves as protagonists, interpreters, and promoters of the conciliar reform. In fact, on the contrary, they let it fail. Did the Council want an increase in Catholics? Instead, we have decreased! Did it want more participation in Mass? Churches have emptied. What about a general improvement of moral habits? They've gotten worse. And strengthening of faith? Apostasy spreads! An increase in vocations? They have decreased. More zeal in the shepherds? They warmed up. Opening of new religious houses? They are, in the West, on a slippery slope, closing all the time. Did it want conversions to Catholicism? Catholics leave the Church for other religions. And what about greater attendance at the sacraments? It's going down and down. A better theological production? It’s undoubtedly worsening. What are the causes? The falsification of the conciliar reform by the Rahnerians [2].
What are the remedies? Proposing the real reform of the Council, as it is proposed by the Popes of the post-conciliar, and systematically daily unmasking Rahnerian’s imposture.
Appearance and reality
To many observers, Rahner appears as the leading theologian who exemplarily made his own program of assumption of modern thought in the light of the Gospel. In reality, Rahner did exactly the opposite: he chose in the Gospel what is pleasing to modern thought, discarding the rest.
A lot of scholars are led to interpret Rahner in an orthodox sense, and obviously, in his numerous writings, many sentences are perfectly orthodox or can be at least interpreted in that sense. Yet, he is very skilled at sipping poison, between one work and another, in such a way that the poison appears evident only when these elements are connected, especially scattered so that they do not attract attention and so letting the poison being inoculated without the victim - unless his eyes remain open - almost realizing it.
It is, therefore, necessary to engage oneself in a patient job, which I have been carrying out for 45 years, of linking those elements and therefore highlighting the poison, especially beyond the contrary appearance. This is the only way the picture appears, after connecting the mosaic tiles. Only in this way, the reader could be preserved by, and on the other hand, effectively assimilating the good substance of Rahner's thought [3].
Rahner presented himself as a powerful celebrator of the dignity of the human person oriented toward God, as the author of a suggestively profound and elevated conception of man, as an acute investigator of the original foundations of conscience, and as a bold defender of freedom, and an enterprising explorer of the boundless world of the spirit, and a genius of metaphysics, and a pioneer of theology, and an emancipator of ethics, and a master of prayer, and a wise director and spiritual adviser, finally as a doctor of grace.
But, for Rahner, man is not a categorical entity, which can open up or not open up to being. Following instead Heidegger, he is «the transcendence of being in general. He is, therefore, by himself absolutely open to being» [4]. Man, therefore, is transcendental, if by the term “transcendental” we mean what relates to being. Nevertheless, he is transcendental not in the Thomistic sense, but in the Kantian sense because this "being" is not the extra-mental entity, but it is the Cartesian cogito, and Kant's I think.
According to Rahner, in all our judgments and thoughts "the previous perception of being as such is implemented in its boundlessness that is inherent to it". And this perception, prior to the experience of individual entities, «is part of the fundamental constitution of human existence» [5].
Thus, man for Rahner does not have the faculty of placing or not placing himself in relation with the being external to him, but man himself is openness and orientation to being, as a being of conscience, for which being understood as self-awareness constitutes man's essential and necessary actuation:
"Man is the transcendence of being in general. He is therefore by himself absolutely open to being» [6]. «The prior perception leads to the absolute being of God insofar as the esse absolutum is always and fundamentally affirmed together with the infinite vastness of the prior perception» [7].
So, Rahner interprets being as being to which man is open, as a being that coincides with his essence. That is, after all, it is God himself. Being does not stand before man as a thinkable being, but as a thought being. Thought does not pass from potency to act but it is pure act. Man, as in Descartes, is a thinking being by essence.
The self is the same being coincident with its essence, that is, the absolute being. Therefore, man is not defined as a reasonable animal, who can place himself in relation to God, but as a self-transcendent spirit, "ever since beyond himself", whose horizon is God. God is «The original horizon of our a-thematic transcendentality in a concept, in a name» [8]. «The original knowledge of what being is is given here in this event of transcendence and is not inferred from a single being that we encounter» [9]. «The horizon of experience and transcendental knowledge, and therefore of an original and enveloping one, is placed in it from the outset as the authentically real, as the original unity of the what and of the that [10]. “In the act of transcendence, we necessarily affirm the reality of the horizon, because it is precisely in this act and only in it that we experience, in general terms, what reality is. The horizon of transcendence is, therefore, the holy mystery as the absolute being or the existent, from the fullness and the absolute possession of being” [11].
But if God is the horizon of our transcending ourselves and the horizon is the extreme limit of our seeing, what about divine transcendence? The true God can only be beyond and above our limited horizon. If he coincides with our horizon, then he coincides with our human vision. And what will God be like above us?
But on the other hand, it is false that “the original knowledge of what being is” is not deduced from the experience of a single entity that falls under our senses. And it is false that “the horizon of experience and of transcendental and therefore original and enveloping knowledge is placed in it from the outset as the authentically real, as the original unity of the what and of the which. The knowledge that God is the being by essence is not at all the object of a reflexive and pre-conceptual, or a priori, or original knowledge but is the conclusion of the rational demonstration of God’s existence, starting from creatures (or the world, (Ed.)).
In reality, in fact, our knowledge begins with the senses. From these, we derive the metaphysical notion of being. And from this, by applying the principle of causality, we obtain the notion of the entity whose essence is its being, i.e., God.
It is not enough, for Rahner, to affirm that man is aimed at God, which is indeed very true, but he goes too far when he argues that every man is striving toward God, in such a way that it results that all men, in fact, tend towards God, which it is absolutely untrue. There are those who do not tend towards God at all, and do not want to know anything about God! And, on the other hand, it seems one doesn't go to heaven out of necessity of nature, but out of free choice, which not everyone wants or plans.
By defining man as tension towards God, God enters - for him - in the definition of man: “Human existence always constitutes also an affirmation of being in general and of the absolute being of God in particular” [12]. And those human existences that are not interested in metaphysics and deny the existence of God, aren't they human existences?
According to Rahner man cannot choose whether to relate or not to God, because by his essence he is a relationship or openness to God: "Man lives his life in a continuous tension towards the Absolute, in an openness to God" [13].
Furthermore, for Rahner, man defines himself as a hearer of divine revelation: “Man, by virtue of his spiritual nature, always and essentially hears a revelation from God” [14]. Apart from the fact that hearing the divine revelation from the side of nature is not enough, grace is needed, what about those who are not interested in divine revelation? Are they no longer men?
The divine being, for him, is the summit of human transcendence: Jesus Christ represents nothing but the supreme summit of being man, although He is God. But the crucial point is just right here: that, for Rahner, the maximum point of being a man is to become God: in the Incarnation “humanity arrives at itself, it arrives at the man-God, at the absolute historical objectification of its transcendental understanding of God” [15].
Furthermore, man, by virtue of his historical and existential and not simply abstract essence, is structured and qualified, for Rahner, by grace as a “supernatural existential”, which is not added to nature, but a transcendence of nature, due to nature, so that man in self-transcendence reaches God, the boundless horizon of his transcendence.
If the human being resolves himself in his self-awareness or in the “pre-conceptual and transcendental experience of the self, of being and of God”, it is clear that subjective consciousness has primacy over objective reality and freedom has primacy over moral law, and that there is no defined, stable and universal human nature and consequently there is no precise, objective, universal and immutable natural law, but everyone is free to decide good and evil and to behave accordingly.
As for grace, it is neither acquired nor lost, because it is the supernatural existential of every man. For this reason, all of us are in a state of grace, all are oriented toward God, all are forgiven and all are saved. All of us are either consciously and explicitly, i.e., categorically, Christians, or are implicitly or anonymously, i.e., transcendentally, unconsciously, and a-thematically, whatever our religion or their ideas, even atheists.
God punishes none but has mercy on everyone, saves everyone, and forgives everyone without the need for repentance or penance, because man as such is a sinner, justus et peccator, a receptacle of divine mercy, since, being a man in a tension towards God, man is jointly the place of divine self-communication, and of the divine kenosis of the self-alienation of God, a God who denies Himself in order to return to Himself in man and as a man. An exquisitely Hegelian mantra.
In spite of everything, Rahner appears to many as a subtle metaphysician, an expert in gnoseology, and a doctor of potentia oboedientialis, and an original apologist. And an effective initiator to the experience of faith, and to the understanding of divine revelation, and to the essential content of the Christian message, and to the understanding of the essential nucleus of the dogma - finally freed from adventitious encrustations -, and to the historical evolution of the magisterium of the Church.
In reality, according to him, consciousness is not distinct from being but being is the consciousness of being. Being is a being thought and thinking being. “The essence of being is knowing and being known in an original unity, which we want to call consciousness or transparency (“subjectivity”, “knowledge”) of the being of every entity” [16].
Consciousness is self-knowledge. But if being is being of consciousness, self-consciousness is the knowledge of being. So, knowledge is not drawn from the object, i.e., from an entity placed outside consciousness, but is drawn from the same subject, i.e., from man. This is what is called by Rahner the “shift to the subject,” (the turning point (Ed.)) which would characterize modern philosophy, initiated by Descartes, perfected by Kant, and completed by Hegel.
The missionary does not instruct the pagan about things he does not know but only restores him categorically of what he already knows a-thematically. He does not give a grace that the other does not possess but makes him aware that he is already in grace (sanctifying grace (Ed.)).
Yet, for Rahner, however, man is a “spirit in the world” because God Himself has His “destiny” in the world. God is a spirit that becomes body, and He is the being that becomes history, and He is abstract that becomes concrete, and He is the essence that becomes existence. The spirit then is inseparable from the body. For this reason, there is no soul separated from the body and eternal life is not after death, but in death. Man is a person who does not have a predefined nature, but it is up to the person to freely shape his own nature in his own way.
Rahner seems to have respect and esteem for the liturgy and in particular for the Mass reformed by the Council, but truly his conception of redemption, and of the remission of sins, and of the sacrifice of Christ, and of the Eucharist, and of the mission of the priest departs from Catholic dogma and assumes the conception of liberal Protestantism so that these issues concern a faith dimidiated of the saving function of the Mass and reduce its celebration and participation to an absolutely useless tool.
Hence the tens of thousands of defections from the priesthood that occurred in the decades following the Council, especially in the Society of Jesus, the institute to which Rahner belonged, and the decline in attendance at Mass by the faithful, starting even from the first years of the post-Conciliar eve.
Rahner seems to bear witness, or concern for the life of the Church, for the mission of the Pope, of the bishops, of the priests, of the religious and laity. He manifests concern that the Church, according to the teaching of the Council, progresses in holiness, promotes justice and peace, respects democracy and freedom, and listens to new and prophetic voices, frees herself from old stuff, knows how to dialogue with the world, with non-Catholic Christians and with the faithful of other religions. Notwithstanding that, he foments rebellion against the Pope, disobedience to the Magisterium, favors “conciliarism,” substitutes the people for the bishops in determining the contents of the faith, substitutes his “Fundamental Course on the Faith” for the official Catechism, and divides the Church into opposing parties, and unreasonably opposes conservativism and progress, and despises and breaks the continuity of Tradition, and denies the immutability of dogma, and changes the concepts of faith, and favors Protestant exegesis and an unchecked Pentecostalism, and confuses public revelation with private revelation, and mistakes the function of the Holy Spirit, cripples and falsifies Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae, and Unitatis redintegratio’s teachings in an egalitarian, reductionist, liberal, relativist and anti-dogmatic sense, and favors the feel-good and overly optimistic tendency towards the world of Gaudium et spes.
Rahner seems to depict a liberal spirit, brought to synthesis, open-minded, conciliatory, welcoming, tolerant, understanding, open to the new, to the different, to pluralism, to freedom of thought; [ Ed.: a movement of thought quite similar to a contemporary rampant relativistic nihilist sophistic secular neologism, the DIE agenda - Diversity, inclusion, and equity - usually abbreviated for politically correctness DEI -, a framework, depicted before, which mainstream organizations and intelligentsia and media mind molders seek to fix and institutionalize all over the world ] vice versa, it is truly a (theological (Ed.)) sectarian, partisan, divisive, partisan, one-sided spirit, rigidly fixed on its concept of progress which is nothing but modernism, and perennially denigrating towards the traditionalist position, scholastic theology, perennial philosophy, care for the preservation of the deposit of faith, the dogmas founded on Tradition.
He fails to contemplate the serene and harmonious composition of the progressive-innovative stance with the conservative-traditionalist one. But considers the former, moreover understood in a modernist or adult sense, in contrast with the Magisterium, as the area of the good Catholic, while the latter is considered not just as a different choice, but simply as the area of the outdated and backward, backslidden bigot bad childish Catholic.
Rahner seems to present Christianity as a synthesis of dogma and history, and he seems to distinguish the immutable core of the truth of faith from its historical forms, but in reality in his Fundamental course on faith, [17] claims to highlight the essential, and substantial, and universal, and immutable faith’s frame, in reality, he discloses arbitrary choices, stripping the body of faith, discarding dogmas and data of faith, almost ignoring the Magisterium, confusing synthesis with syncretism, mixing together incompatible elements and posing as if his idealistic-historicist conception of Christianity were essential and fundamental.
How to get out of this impasse
The task that imposes itself today, as above all Pope Benedict XVI in an unsurpassed way already explained, is that of demonstrating how the conciliar progress took place in continuity with dogma [18] and with respect for Tradition. One must therefore spread the true interpretation of the Council, which is exactly not the Rahnerian one.
In particular, Pope Ratzinger definitely clarified to us, as no post-conciliar Pope did, that the heart of the conciliar reform is not Dei Verbum or even Gaudium et spes, but Sacrosanctum Concilium. In fact, Ratzinger had learned the superiority of the liturgy over theology at the school of Romano Guardini. [Ed.: born in Verona in 1885, in 1906, Guardini was enrolled at the University of Freiburg, passing immediately afterward to the most modern and important German theological university, of Tübingen.
Here he came into contact with the profound crisis opened up in the Church by modernism.
While seeing the movement's limits, he understood its yearning for renewal, the attempt to overcome the division that had arisen between official ecclesiastical culture and modern scientific thought.
During the years of preparation for the priesthood, he had come into contact, in the abbey of Beuron, with the movement of liturgical renewal and had been strongly influenced by it.
In Freiburg, he graduated in 1915, with a dissertation on the subject of the doctrine of redemption in Bonaventure. Little interested in the historical parts, he wanted to apply the principles of his theory of “polar opposition” to this theme.
At the University of Bonn, arrived as a teacher, he came into contact with the circle of M. Scheler and met and frequented M. Buber.
In the meetings held in the old castle of Rothenfels, he was the spiritual director of the youth movement. This place became an important cultural and spiritual center for Catholic youth and anticipated some of the developments of the Second Vatican Council by almost half a century.
Max Scheler, in Berlin, suggested that he would start from the commentary on texts of Western culture to explain the Christian point of view, especially writings on Socrates, Augustine, and Dante. And he took monographic courses on B. Pascal, F. Hölderlin, S. Kierkegaard, F.M. Dostoevsky, and R.M. Rilke. These courses attracted an increasingly large audience of students, Catholics, and Protestants, and also of people outside the university world.
In 1965, Saint Paul VI offered him the cardinal's purple, but, now in his eighties, he refused it.
He died in Munich on 1st Oct. 1968.
He attempted to overcome the one-sidedness of modern thought, both in the form of neo- or post-Kantian idealism which reduces everything to the subject and in the form of positivism which, through the results of science and technology, exalts the power of man and its autonomy in creation. The task of the philosopher is to try to rebuild the unification of knowledge on new bases, so that man can re-appropriate being in its totality.
The principle of polar opposition is an “attempt for a philosophy of concrete living” in which, the oscillation between opposite polarities, such as unity-plurality, singularity-totality, originality-rule, and immanence-transcendence (wonderfully integrated and hierarchized by the future Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium: 1) Time is greater than space; 2) Unity prevails over conflict; 3) The whole is greater than the part; 4) Realities are more important than ideas. These principles were, in fact, drawn from his doctoral thesis on him.
Both Guardini and Francis, in fact, realize the unitary dynamism that constitutes the nature of being; each pole, in fact, while opposing and distinguishing itself from the other, is at the same time conditioned by them. Man's destiny is fulfilled in the possibility either of maintaining the living unity of opposites or of destroying it with his free action. The errors of modern civilization arise from one-sidedness, from the intention of canceling one opposite into the other, distorting the polar movement by exchanging opposites for contradiction (Widersprüche). The spirit tends not to reconcile good and evil, beautiful and ugly, the true and the false, in an impossible synthesis, but to deny the evil, the false; on the contrary, the denial of an opposite leads to the crystallization of movement and the denaturalization of the concrete.
So, the task that Guardini, philosopher, and theologian, had set for himself, consisted, therefore, in helping man to rebuild that spiritual unity that had been torn apart in the modern world: given the laws that dominate the opposites and the methodologies of knowing in relation to the person, understood as a whole.
( cfr: https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/romano-guardini_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/ )]
Guardini, one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century, had the humility to recognize this importance, well aware of the fact that it is useless or even harmful to be learned if you are not a saint. And the principle of sanctification is not theology, but the liturgy.
In truth, however, things didn't go that easy for Ratzinger. In his youth, he had not been insensitive to the attraction of showing off and being noticed as an avant-garde theologian. For this reason, as an expert of the Council together with Rahner, he had let himself be fascinated by the genius of Rahner, who at the time appeared to be the undoubtedly rising star of the Council.
To be honest, both of them gave a decisive contribution to the concept of Revelation presented by Dei Verbum, but then, Ratzinger noticing the unexpected at first sight post-Conciliar Rahner's Hegelian tendency, and the wrongful way in which he presented the Council, feeling the imperious call of conscience inviting him to privilege truth before human ambition and glory (bold mine, Ed.), he not only distanced himself from Rahner, but even in 1981 he dared to address him harsh criticism, and accusing him of pantheism [19].
In the same year, St. John Paul II rewarded him by appointing him as Cardinal and Prefect of the CDF, to which he committed himself tirelessly and courageously. It must be added that, in this new institutional guise, if he did not directly attack Rahner, he struck, however, his mainstream followers.
We absolutely can't help but imagine the violent, sharp Rahnerians’ hatred that arose against Ratzinger. They perceived in fact themselves discomforted in the execution of their diabolical plan to falsify the Council in a modernist sense. They swore vengeance with the clear intention of making him pay hard as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
However, in 2005 Rahnerian’s lobby of the Cardinals College was defeated because the majority of the Cardinals had remained edified by Ratzinger's zeal and hoped that the time had come to free themselves from Rahnerism. For this reason, they elected Ratzinger as Pope, just on the 4th ballot.
However, Rahnerians Cardinals did not at all resign themselves to defeat and organized the notorious clandestine and illegal group of San Gallo with the intention of disguising a Pope as their docile Instrumentum regni. Thus, they organized a formidable smear campaign against Benedict XVI and created a despairing emptiness around him. Benedetto seems to have been frightened at feeling like a lamb among wolves, while the conspirators (Dealing with what kind of diabolical arts we do not dare even desire or want to know) ended up convincing Benedetto to resign in 2013.
The Devil anyway makes pots, not lids. The Rahnerian cardinals wholeheartedly hoped that Pope Francis would demonstrate finally himself to be a Rahnerian one. And yet none of this happened. Pope Francis, assisted by the Holy Spirit, continues to teach correct doctrine in defiance of Rahner's heresies and even avoids naming him.
Not only that but in the Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et exsultate of 2018 he condemns Gnosticism, behind which Rahnerism is easily and clearly recognized.
He advocates realism against idealism. In official documents he is careful not to quote Rahner and, like the Popes who preceded him, he continues to emphasize St. Thomas.
[ Ed.: 1. Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli, at his personal site:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/padre-bergoglio-ci-parla-di-metafisica_1.html
2. https://www.laciviltacattolica.com/interpreting-reality/ ]
The modernists remained dry-mouthed, so to speak, thinking that it would have been advantageous for them to lick the Pope's feet by presenting him as a modernist, in reality, even if they don't dare show it in that form - though pretending to be his friends-, in their hearts, they sizzle with anger.
Obviously, we must hope that these Cardinals will open themselves, and their hearts to that fitting wisdom that is appropriate to their high dignity. In the meantime, let us pray for them. The immense work yet required is to continue the criticism of Rahner's thought, showing, namely, the disastrous abysmal moral consequences of Rahner's thought. In this sense, Stefano Fontana's work The New Church by Karl Rahner [20] is quite a nice job. In this regard, two important editorial initiatives of the last fifteen years are worth mentioning: two collections of critical studies by scholars from various countries: the collective work edited by David Berger in Germany, and Karl Rahner. Kritische Annäherungen [21], and the collection edited by Serafino Lanzetta, and Karl Rahner a critical analysis [22].
However, we mustn't forget the good Rahner has given us, either. Instead, one remains severely embittered in considering another collective work, which undoubtedly brings together high-level scholars, but who for the occasional circumstance demonstrates a too naive and imprudent benevolence towards Rahner. It’s a work edited by Monsg. Ignazio Sanna, The theological Inheritance by Karl Rahner, published in 2004 by the Pontifical Lateran University.
Among them is the current Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Luίs Ladaria. It is possible that the Pope chose him precisely because he is an expert in Rahner's thoughts. We must be trustful that he will be able to approach this very serious matter wisely. This is a very complex operation, for which we ask the Holy Spirit to grant him the critical discernment capable of separating the wheat from the chaff in the indeed immense production of Rahner and of his followers, so that God's people are fed wholesome food and stay away from poisonous substances.
Fr Giovanni Cavalcoli OP
Fontanellato, 30 July 2021
Source:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/2021/09/da-che-cosa-dipende-il-fascino-di-karl.html
[1] A few months before his death, Cardinal Martini wrote in the Corriere della Sera ( the most popular, quintessential, and historical Italian newspaper (Ed.)) that “the Church has never gone so well as today. We have excellent theologians, such as Rahner for example. Only Pope Ratzinger's Church is two centuries behind.”
[2] See my book: Karl Rahner. The Council Betrayed, Faith & Culture Editions, Verona 2009.
[3] A very recent synthesis of Rahner's thought can be found together with that of Küng, in my booklet: Rahner and Küng. The pitfall of Hegel, Edizioni Chorabooks, Hong Kong 2021. Küng is another great person responsible for the falsification of the Council, not by chance a disciple of Rahner, though less astute, less protected, and dangerous than Rahner himself.
[4] Hearers of the word, Edizioni Borla, Rome 1977, p.152.
[5] Ibid,. p.94.
[6] Ibid., p.152.
[7] Ibid., p.95.
[8] A fundamental course on faith, Edizioni Paoline, Rome 1978, p.99.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., p.100.
[12] Ibid., p.129
[13] Auditors, op.cit., p.97.
[14] Ibid., p.128.
[15] Fundamental Course, op.cit., p.227.
[16] Auditors, op.cit., p.66.
[17] The exposition of the doctrine of the faith belongs to the Catechism. But Rahner does not relate at all to the catechisms. He makes an exposition of Catholic doctrine on his behalf, based on his idealistic Hegelian-Heideggerian system, taking the liberty of establishing the truths of the Catholicism faith. To those who want to know which and how many they really are, relying on the doctrine of the Church and not on Rahner's ideas, I recommend my book The Truths of Faith - All Dogmas and doctrine declarations of the Catholic Church, Edizioni Fede&Cultura, Verona 2021.
(For the foreign reader, I would add the amazement - albeit up to a point - of seeing works of this caliber published by publishers who are, though well deserved, absolutely irrelevant in the panorama of high theological literature, even only in Italy. (Ed.))
The difference between this discussion and the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church lies in the fact that here other biblical passages are added, from the Holy Fathers, from the Doctors, and from the Saints, while I limit myself strictly to what is announced by the title of the book. The volume of the book is therefore very small, 260 pages compared to the 780 pages of the Catechism. My book is for anyone looking for the essential; the Catechism (as for) those who desire the abundant.
[18] Progress in continuity. The question of the Second Vatican Council and of the post-conciliar period, Edizioni Fede&Cultura, Verona 2011.
[19] Les principes de la théologie catholique, Téqui, Paris 1982, pp.169-190.
[20] Faith & Culture Editions, Verona 2019.
[21] Verlag Franz Scmitt, Sieburg 2004.
[22] Cantagalli, Siena 2009.