I appreciate the concise presentation. What I've appreciated most about Rahner is his ability to blend theology with spirituality in the context of living/practicing the Christian faith. Much like Eastern Orthodox writers, for Rahner, to speak about theology is to speak about spirituality and the way we live.
I actually wrote a thesis about the (basically more Eastern tradition of) prayer of heart (in the orthodoxy e.g. practiced ín hesychasm) and compared it with the theology of prayer found in Rahners written work. Surprisingly similar understanding of prayer. So I cannot more agree on Your take.
To all Roman Catholics: if you want to understand what's going on in our Church today and understand Pope Francis' choices, you need to know he follows Rahner's theological and philosophical views!!!!!
The catholic church is in a crisis today as big as the one it was at the times of the Reformation. The main problem with Pope Francis, as it was with other prior Popes is that he never preaches the gospel, never. He speaks about politics and social issues all the time, instead of focusing on Christ crucified for the sins of the world and the need for the world to repent and come to Christ in faith to receive salvation. You cannot blame Paul Francis though, the catholic church needs to go back to and preach Christ crucified without ceasing as Paul did in his Ministry. But it is the most disappointing that you never hear the Pope talk about sin and the sole remedy that God has provided in Jesus Christ, there are millions of people perishing because nobody has told them that God commands them to repent and believe the gospel. The Pope and the Catholic Church have blood in their hands, because in the Pope's view speaking about world peace, the abolition of capital punishment, doing good to others etc. (none of which will save a single soul) is more important than preaching Jesus Christ and his cross which will bring man to saving faith. I am not sure we can blame Pope Francis though, this problem has been going on forever, except that it has really gotten worse since Vatican 2, and Karl Rahner's anonymous christian theology is the primary culprit, after all if we can be saved without hearing about and believing in Christ why preach Christ to begin with.
In him we live , move ...etc St Paul....the infinity of God opens the possibility of Grace....the Church does not invent Grace ...or have Grace at its disposal.....without Mystery we are lost...theology must engage the imagination ..not just the organised mind. Theology sees through a glass darkly.
"Encounters with Silence", as Kilby says in 10:05, is certainly a great place to start. Echoing what Kilby says earlier in this interview (0:55), I can attest to Rahner's great speculative theological mind, yet with a pastoral sensitivity to the doubts that the clergy and laity alike may be experiencing, and a deep spirituality that moves your soul. It is a book of prayer, which you can read again and again in your dialogue with God.
Because my cat can sense concrete things, e.g., food, me, the can opener, etc., does that mean that it too has a sense of God, that it too can experience the transcendent? Reading Kilby's book on Rahner she says, "Rahner’s conception of what it is to be human is by no means an obvious or a common sense one. It is not what one would hear if one were to ask the man in the street what he understands himself to be... What is both strange and powerful about Rahner’s picture of the human being is, to put it very simply, the way in which God comes into it." So how are we different as humans from other animals, if God comes to all life forms as this transcendent experience, or the horizon that allows for the experience beings, things? Essentially, we are no different from the animals. Kilby, Karen. The SPCK Introduction to Karl Rahner (SPCK Introductions) (p. 2). SPCK. Kindle Edition.
Man is different from animals, because unlike other creatures, man is made in the image of God (cf. Genesis 1:2-27). Hence, understanding the truth about man -- who he is, his genesis, and his destiny -- is made known to us via a fusion between divine revelation (faith) and human reason. Such an understanding cannot come from mere common sense of man, but rather, from a common trait that we as man all share. This human trait is the call to be with God and be God-like (i.e. theosis). Whether it is Augustine's insight of the man's restlessness of the heart, Hans Urs von Balthasar's insight that God himself is restless and thirsts for man (cf. John 4:4-42 - Samaritan woman at the well), or Karl Rahner's pre-apprehension of beings, these ideas all describe this human/divine trait.
In regards to Carl Rahner's anonymous Christian theory, why would God give a person enough grace to be an anonymous Christian that "sincerely seeks Him and strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience", but not give them enough grace to be an actual Christian and believe in Jesus and join the Catholic Church?
@@czerwonykwadrat6843 This is going to sound harsh, but if they never come across a Christian maybe it's what Jesus said in the Gospel "no man comes to the son unless the Father calls him" and in the old testament it was only the Israelites that were the chosen people of God, everybody else was unchosen so to speak.
Muy intresante, pero no puedo entenderlo todo, pues mi nivel de inglés es muy bajo, podrían traducirlo y subirlo aunque sea subtitulado por favor? Gracias.
+Eliette René Quintero We are just making enquiries to see if we can do this for you. (Sólo estamos haciendo consultas para ver si podemos hacer esto para usted.)
+Eliette René Quintero We've had the video transcribed into English. You can view these as captions on the video itself. We've used Google translate to translate the transcript into Spanish for you, hopefully it will give you everything you need to understand the video fully. Please see link to Spanish transcript Best Wishes. (Hemos tenido el video transcrito en Inglés. Usted puede ver estos como subtítulos en el vídeo en sí. Hemos utilizado Google translate traducir la transcripción al español para ti, espero que le dará todo lo que necesita para entender el video completo. Por favor vea el enlace a españoles transcripción mejores deseos.) www.dropbox.com/s/qup3tzldiczaa26/Spanish%20Theology.txt?dl=0
+University of Nottingham quedo inmensamente agradecida por la traducción... gracias de nuevo por atender a mi solicitud, Dios les pague por su amabilidad...
watch the video where she is interviewed about Balthasar... the question that comes to mind is: why is her accusation against Balthasar about being an "unfettered theologian" (and in her book: possessing a God's eye view) not applicable to Rahner? the vorgrif auf esse she considers intelligible, but it is clearly speculative and a logical construct and is NOT an argument but an assumption. this mixing of Heideggerian and neo-scholastic categories, is it not "unfettered"? how does Rahner know that in every knowing and willing I intend the infinite? I intend God? this is the weakness in Rahner's thought recognized by many theologians like Rowan Williams and Walter Kasper...
as for the "theory of the anonymous Christian," the way she explains it is nothing new and is in fact rather traditionsl. what she does not say is Rahner's explanation of it, its conceptual vocabulary and quasi-philosophical system.
Is this "pre-apprehension of being" actually pantheism? If God is not a distinct being but in the background of all being, does he have a distinct being? Secondly, if mystery means not any specific truth revealed by God that is above the apprehension of men, but what merely what we do not know about God, is this merely skepticism whereby the essence of an object is practically unknowable? Lastly, why not read what the Church has said about Rahner before reading Rahner without the guidance of the Church? Is so, read Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII where Rahner's ideas were condemned. Theologians ought to be servants of the Church, not her masters.
No knock on 20th century theologians, but sadly this was not a good century for theology. The main reason is that there has been a break with the orthodox christian faith, and Rahner was certainly a liberal theologian. The anonymous christian doctrine, where somebody can be a Christian who never heard Christ, although it is a nice idea it is not taught anywhere in scripture. I am not saying it is not possible, God can save anybody, with that said we have not been called to preach that those that never heard about Christ may actually be saved. This certainly is not the great commission, and it is a dangerous teaching, solely because it is a doctrine of man and not a doctrine that comes from God. The second thing is with regard to evolution, Rahner, as well as many catholics (and protestants) today think they are at liberty to conclude that the first chapters of Genesis are somehow poetry or mythology, but not historic events. This to me is very dangerous, God the Father is best known for his creation, God the Son for redemption, and the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier. By denyng that God the Father or the triune God created man from dust, and man was good, and then he sinned in the Garden of Eden and as a result of his disobedience death entered the world and now we are all sinners, by denying the doctrine of creation and the fall we have denied one of the three most important works of God, i.e. creation (the other two being redemption by Christ and the sanctification of the spirit). This departure from orthodox christianity, in my view amounts to heresy, yet we do not have an Augustine today that called Pelagius a heretic that would have the courage to call Karl Rahner a heretic. This is a sad state the church is in today, very close to apostacy of the faith by recommending that we read Karl Rahner, instead of the divinely inspired word of God, we should spend time learning the theology of a man that has no resemblance to what the word of God teaches.
With the second thing I agree, I'm pretty much creationist myself, for the same reasons, but the first thing is surly supported by the Holy Bible. Read Jesus's dialog with the woman from Samaria, dear brother, from the Gospel according to saint John the Theologian: 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:19-20)
I appreciate the concise presentation. What I've appreciated most about Rahner is his ability to blend theology with spirituality in the context of living/practicing the Christian faith. Much like Eastern Orthodox writers, for Rahner, to speak about theology is to speak about spirituality and the way we live.
I actually wrote a thesis about the (basically more Eastern tradition of) prayer of heart (in the orthodoxy e.g. practiced ín hesychasm) and compared it with the theology of prayer found in Rahners written work. Surprisingly similar understanding of prayer. So I cannot more agree on Your take.
Great conversation, thank you
To all Roman Catholics: if you want to understand what's going on in our Church today and understand Pope Francis' choices, you need to know he follows Rahner's theological and philosophical views!!!!!
The catholic church is in a crisis today as big as the one it was at the times of the Reformation. The main problem with Pope Francis, as it was with other prior Popes is that he never preaches the gospel, never. He speaks about politics and social issues all the time, instead of focusing on Christ crucified for the sins of the world and the need for the world to repent and come to Christ in faith to receive salvation. You cannot blame Paul Francis though, the catholic church needs to go back to and preach Christ crucified without ceasing as Paul did in his Ministry. But it is the most disappointing that you never hear the Pope talk about sin and the sole remedy that God has provided in Jesus Christ, there are millions of people perishing because nobody has told them that God commands them to repent and believe the gospel. The Pope and the Catholic Church have blood in their hands, because in the Pope's view speaking about world peace, the abolition of capital punishment, doing good to others etc. (none of which will save a single soul) is more important than preaching Jesus Christ and his cross which will bring man to saving faith. I am not sure we can blame Pope Francis though, this problem has been going on forever, except that it has really gotten worse since Vatican 2, and Karl Rahner's anonymous christian theology is the primary culprit, after all if we can be saved without hearing about and believing in Christ why preach Christ to begin with.
Yes exactly.
@@billk8874 the implications of the gospel and the Christian message are deeper than just individual salvation
Thank you Dr Kilby.
Very good interview. I became interested in Karl Rahner after reading a book called "Universal Salvation".
by who ?
me too
@@endikamartinezgutierrez6899 By Karl Rahner. :)
Thank you. It has made me go and find out more about Karl Rahner
Thank you for this. Great video!
Thank you for this.
Reading An Introduction To Christianity by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, I became interested in learning more about Rahner. Thank you.
In him we live , move ...etc St Paul....the infinity of God opens the possibility of Grace....the Church does not invent Grace ...or have Grace at its disposal.....without Mystery we are lost...theology must engage the imagination ..not just the organised mind. Theology sees through a glass darkly.
This is the Balthasar’s position as suppose to Rhanner isn’t it?
"Encounters with Silence", as Kilby says in 10:05, is certainly a great place to start. Echoing what Kilby says earlier in this interview (0:55), I can attest to Rahner's great speculative theological mind, yet with a pastoral sensitivity to the doubts that the clergy and laity alike may be experiencing, and a deep spirituality that moves your soul. It is a book of prayer, which you can read again and again in your dialogue with God.
where to start with Karl Rahner?
Thanks Karen
Si las Rtas. de la e trevista fueron densas ¿Que pensar de la teología de Rahner?
Because my cat can sense concrete things, e.g., food, me, the can opener, etc., does that mean that it too has a sense of God, that it too can experience the transcendent?
Reading Kilby's book on Rahner she says, "Rahner’s conception of what it is to be human is by no means an obvious or a common sense one. It is not what one would hear if one were to ask the man in the street what he understands himself to be... What is both strange and powerful about Rahner’s picture of the human being is, to put it very simply, the way in which God comes into it."
So how are we different as humans from other animals, if God comes to all life forms as this transcendent experience, or the horizon that allows for the experience beings, things? Essentially, we are no different from the animals.
Kilby, Karen. The SPCK Introduction to Karl Rahner (SPCK Introductions) (p. 2). SPCK. Kindle Edition.
Man is different from animals, because unlike other creatures, man is made in the image of God (cf. Genesis 1:2-27). Hence, understanding the truth about man -- who he is, his genesis, and his destiny -- is made known to us via a fusion between divine revelation (faith) and human reason. Such an understanding cannot come from mere common sense of man, but rather, from a common trait that we as man all share. This human trait is the call to be with God and be God-like (i.e. theosis). Whether it is Augustine's insight of the man's restlessness of the heart, Hans Urs von Balthasar's insight that God himself is restless and thirsts for man (cf. John 4:4-42 - Samaritan woman at the well), or Karl Rahner's pre-apprehension of beings, these ideas all describe this human/divine trait.
Theology is a sort of symphony....comprehended in part (St Paul)....but never fully grasped.
In regards to Carl Rahner's anonymous Christian theory, why would God give a person enough grace to be an anonymous Christian that "sincerely seeks Him and strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience", but not give them enough grace to be an actual Christian and believe in Jesus and join the Catholic Church?
Sometimes it’s just not possible, some people never come across a christian
@@czerwonykwadrat6843 This is going to sound harsh, but if they never come across a Christian maybe it's what Jesus said in the Gospel "no man comes to the son unless the Father calls him" and in the old testament it was only the Israelites that were the chosen people of God, everybody else was unchosen so to speak.
Muy intresante, pero no puedo entenderlo todo, pues mi nivel de inglés es muy bajo, podrían traducirlo y subirlo aunque sea subtitulado por favor? Gracias.
+Eliette René Quintero We are just making enquiries to see if we can do this for you. (Sólo estamos haciendo consultas para ver si podemos hacer esto para usted.)
+University of Nottingham muchas Gracias!!
+Eliette René Quintero We've had the video transcribed into English. You can view these as captions on the video itself. We've used Google translate to translate the transcript into Spanish for you, hopefully it will give you everything you need to understand the video fully. Please see link to Spanish transcript Best Wishes. (Hemos tenido el video transcrito en Inglés. Usted puede ver estos como subtítulos en el vídeo en sí. Hemos utilizado Google translate traducir la transcripción al español para ti, espero que le dará todo lo que necesita para entender el video completo. Por favor vea el enlace a españoles transcripción mejores deseos.)
www.dropbox.com/s/qup3tzldiczaa26/Spanish%20Theology.txt?dl=0
+University of Nottingham quedo inmensamente agradecida por la traducción... gracias de nuevo por atender a mi solicitud, Dios les pague por su amabilidad...
en español puede ser?
Hi just want to know, its true karl rahner have mantal illness.. i just read from website..
watch the video where she is interviewed about Balthasar... the question that comes to mind is: why is her accusation against Balthasar about being an "unfettered theologian" (and in her book: possessing a God's eye view) not applicable to Rahner? the vorgrif auf esse she considers intelligible, but it is clearly speculative and a logical construct and is NOT an argument but an assumption. this mixing of Heideggerian and neo-scholastic categories, is it not "unfettered"? how does Rahner know that in every knowing and willing I intend the infinite? I intend God? this is the weakness in Rahner's thought recognized by many theologians like Rowan Williams and Walter Kasper...
as for the "theory of the anonymous Christian," the way she explains it is nothing new and is in fact rather traditionsl. what she does not say is Rahner's explanation of it, its conceptual vocabulary and quasi-philosophical system.
Is this "pre-apprehension of being" actually pantheism? If God is not a distinct being but in the background of all being, does he have a distinct being? Secondly, if mystery means not any specific truth revealed by God that is above the apprehension of men, but what merely what we do not know about God, is this merely skepticism whereby the essence of an object is practically unknowable? Lastly, why not read what the Church has said about Rahner before reading Rahner without the guidance of the Church? Is so, read Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII where Rahner's ideas were condemned. Theologians ought to be servants of the Church, not her masters.
No knock on 20th century theologians, but sadly this was not a good century for theology. The main reason is that there has been a break with the orthodox christian faith, and Rahner was certainly a liberal theologian. The anonymous christian doctrine, where somebody can be a Christian who never heard Christ, although it is a nice idea it is not taught anywhere in scripture. I am not saying it is not possible, God can save anybody, with that said we have not been called to preach that those that never heard about Christ may actually be saved. This certainly is not the great commission, and it is a dangerous teaching, solely because it is a doctrine of man and not a doctrine that comes from God. The second thing is with regard to evolution, Rahner, as well as many catholics (and protestants) today think they are at liberty to conclude that the first chapters of Genesis are somehow poetry or mythology, but not historic events. This to me is very dangerous, God the Father is best known for his creation, God the Son for redemption, and the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier. By denyng that God the Father or the triune God created man from dust, and man was good, and then he sinned in the Garden of Eden and as a result of his disobedience death entered the world and now we are all sinners, by denying the doctrine of creation and the fall we have denied one of the three most important works of God, i.e. creation (the other two being redemption by Christ and the sanctification of the spirit). This departure from orthodox christianity, in my view amounts to heresy, yet we do not have an Augustine today that called Pelagius a heretic that would have the courage to call Karl Rahner a heretic. This is a sad state the church is in today, very close to apostacy of the faith by recommending that we read Karl Rahner, instead of the divinely inspired word of God, we should spend time learning the theology of a man that has no resemblance to what the word of God teaches.
With the second thing I agree, I'm pretty much creationist myself, for the same reasons, but the first thing is surly supported by the Holy Bible. Read Jesus's dialog with the woman from Samaria, dear brother, from the Gospel according to saint John the Theologian:
19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
(John 4:19-20)