Theological Sludjcs

65 (2(Xl4

THE WHOLE RAHNER ON THE SUPERNATURAL EXISTENTIAL

DAVID CnFTT

[The allflwr J1Ule.~ tllUt ~(!riow> discrepollcie apparentl\' l!xi.\,t bl:tween Rallller's illititlI {llId later fomlLl.latiolls (Jf hi~ theolf)'::), regarding Ille sl/pernolllral exist(,l/tial. SI/ch {/ conc:ll/\'ioll, if correLl, wOl/ld pres/!m a problem because Ra/mer\ /irst formu/ution has commonlv been tleel1lt'd f(, hI! tl l'lJrrectil'(! to a w?ritm!\ lI'eaklle_~s ill de Lul)(ic's theology which I/nderpinned I/U' nouvelle thologie IIWl'emellt, In order to .w/le rllis "l'parent allomaly. rhl' owhor propose.\ a II/ore comprehensive theology of Ille existentwl hy elaborarillg Ra/Uler'.I rheology of xrace fur ilS /lfrillsic (1111 (,('IIII/mical vallie.}

ORDeR TO DESIGNATL the orientation or human beings to a supernatural end. thaI is. to sulvation in the Christian sense. Karl Rahner (19 1984). in his intervention in lh(; ,wI/I'ell, rhologie debale in j 950, coined tbc expression "supcrnaturnl existential:'! As with so mnny of his original technicalterJ11s. h~ evidently presumed Ibal its meaning would be instantl ckar to his readers. Even in a work as late as FoundatlOlV> of ChristtIll Fairli (Gnnan original 1976) he wa~ stiU m~lniresting. this presumption. There hi~ first words of explanation are thai the supernatural existential "i!

DAVID COIIIo.Y received his S.T.D. [rom thl.: Catholic In~tilute of Sydney. Auslralia, in 196U. He currently holds tlle William J. Kelly. SJ., Chair of Systematic Theology at Marqucll.e Univc.:rsily. I Ie has publbhcd wide I) on Ihe th~olog) of the Triune God and cspeciall) on the Holy Spirit. His recent pulllicalions include n,/! 'acrnnll'fIIof Recmldlianoll (Liturgical. 2001) and "The 'Unities' of the Episcopal Office," in Unfailillg Paticnce lind SOl/lid Teachilll{: U('f/ecrJlls nn Epi,\copal/\ilin;.\lr)/ ill 1l00lor Cl! Rembert G. \V~/lkl(/II". O.S.B .. ed. David A. Stosur (Liturgical, 200:n. He is now rc-editing a col1ecllon of his earlier article!. on PneumaloJogy.
1 Karl Rahllt:r, "Eine Antwort," Oriel1lil'rt/.~lg 1-4(1950) 141-45, This arLicit: was republished in slighLly ~lmeDded I'orm a~ "Ubcr das Verhllnis von Natur un nude." in Schrifrel1 ::'/1,. rheolllgie j (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1954) 323-45. und

eventually
octween

in Cornelius Ernst's English Iran:;lation, "Concerning tllC Relationship nd Grace." in Tlli'olowcal fl/l'I'f/igalillns j (Baltimore: Helicon. IY61) 297-317. Sec my amendments 10 lhe Emsl translation in Document3 01 m article: "Some Resources for Students of /a Iwm'ellt' Ihologie." Philmil/phl' ant! Theology 1I/2 (199IJ) 395-9K ThroughoUl this article I oflen make adjustment" Il1 the rublished English translations of Theologicul 1I/\fe~tiK{/lirJ1/.\ ancl el<;ewhcre.
Nature

95

nlEOLOGICAL

STUDII-"

prC!'Ient in ali human beings," but "as an existential IExisrelltial] of Iheir concrete existenet' Dasein ].'.2 Fortunately. the mcaning of the expression as il occurs in this text can be gleaneJ from Rahner's explanation as it unfolds. Thus, the first pari of Ihe quoted statement requires no elaboration beyond pointing ouI that tht: existential is a consequence of God's universal saving will; the second assertion means that it is an elemenl of the existence rather than of Ih ,ence (nature) of hUIll<ln beings. The firsl ran of the stalement, Rahner affirms, conflicls in no way with the truth of le second. Because il is not part of human nature, and becultse it 11as 10 do ",i] salvation. the existential must be gratuitous, that is, must pertain in some way to grace. Il is clear lhatthc term "existential" is use here as a noun. Rahncr goes on 10 sn that as an existential of human beings ..it i~ present prior to their freedom. their self-unuerstanding and their experience,") If it wcre offered 10 their fJceuom. that is, after its constituLion, it would be something about whose acceptance a decision would need to be made, anJ would be existentiell rath~r Ihan eXstl!llttll. In Ihis sense tbe Lerm is clearly adjectival. Th expression "supt:rnatural existenlial," whIle remaining a substnntiv~. combines the two references: il is an e.lemenl of buman existence rather than of lie human essence, and ils a priori character is asserted and stressed. Since the existential does not of itself bring abOUl justification. "supernatural" cannot at Ihis point inicate sanctifying grace itseli. but rather a relationhip to this grace. lh0 CX<lctnature of which remains to be clarjfi~d. enevcr I refer in what follows to the "tater" Rahner. I mean Rahner' tatemcnts on the supernatural existential after his contribution of 195~. er again did he address the subjecl with the rigor and depth of this first treaLment. but he did return to it OD a number of occasions, some of which. because Ih~y arc recognizable from the tilles of the dictionary or encyclopedia articles to which they belong. are readily found. Olher treatments by Ruhner occur in unexpected places and arc discovered by onty the mosl industrious or serendipitous of researchers. The rew who embark on this task usually receive a shock since Rahner appears, at least in some place and at (irst sight, to contradict what he said in his first and most important tatement. His hard won advantage over the /JouI'elle rhologie seems now la be lightly cast aside. For at tim~s. he refers to the ~xistential as an "oITer" of grace (which certainly sounds existentiell rather than ('xisrential) and 'ometimcs, in an apparently even more compromising way, he speaks of il

Rahner, Fnunrialiolls of Chri~Lilln Faith; All Intr(ull/Clion (l) (j,(I Idca of ChrisWilliam V. Dyeh (New York: Crossroa. 1978) 127, wilh a slighl aJjuslment 10 Dych's lnlllsltltion ("men" becomes "human beings"). German original: Grundkurs des Glaubells: Eil/filhrul/g ill dell Begriff des Christentum' (Freiburg: Herder, 1976) 133. ~ 1bid,
:2

rirwity, trims.

RAH

JR

ItAL

97

"grace" or "the seU-communication of God" (wh.ich seems to identify it already with the grace of jUlltification). hatever the ultimate verdict on this stale of arfairs, it is incontestabl that Rahner's advantage was not as great as it might have been an perhap!' hould have been, for it contained weaknesses that allowed. even facilitated, th~ emergence of the later difficulties. Onc weakness that he frankl admitted ni the time (though not Wi a weakness) was Ihat hit would be necessary to examine more closely how the supernalural existential is relateulo grace itself. and in what sense il is distinct from iL'''' ru other words, when he wrote lhis, Rahncr had no clear idea or the nature or the relationship of the existential to grace. This admission on his part reveals a more fundamental weakness: he was unable to say whtlt the supernatural xistenLial was. He could say what it did (it oriented us la God) and what it was not (it was not a constituent of human nature). Simply 10 call it la Hei.degger an "existential" was to leave untouched the question of it proper identity, I-knri de Lubac. Rahner's opponent in the debate (though an indirecl one), was placed nt n disadvantage by these weaknesses. First, he could not tell the difkrenct: between whal he anu what Rahner \Va aying; second, he did not accept lhat Rahner's use of Heideggerian terminology in an essentially Scholastic debate was "necessary or evcn opportune:''; Had Raltner uscd Schola'itic terminology, his innucnce on de Lubac miglll bave been more positive and rruitful. Having explained the rclevont rerminology and the nature of the problem raised hy Rahncr's later writmgs, I now stale what 1 hope Lo accomplish in lIlls present arlicle and why I consider the exercise important. My bjecl is to establish Lhe thesis tbat. despite appearances, there is no contradiction between Rahner"s late and carly slatements on lhe supernatural existential. What appear in the laler writings as conlradicUol1s are in fact correCI approximatil)ns of a trulh whose entirety eluded him hecause it had not been fully thought through. It will bc for the reader lo judge ho\' uccessfully 1 succeed in achieving. the theory of the supernatural exil'otenliai thai Rahner could have produced himself. The exercise seems important been use in the nrdu <ioC'lrillae the supernatural existential is the foundation of Rahncr's entire th~ology of grace. which is important in itself and idely appreciated ecumenically. More specifically. Rahner's Lheology of the existenlial. if it is corrCCI, frec~ his Catholic lheology of grace [rom an and all reasonable suspicion of semiPelal!.ianism.

I Rnhnr. "Concerning Lh~ Relali()n~hip hetween NaLUrc and Grace:" 316. < See Henri de Lubac, At lilt' Sf'n'ice oj'tln' Church: Ht!nri dl' Lilhac Rt'ftet'/:> Oil tht! CirCllm.IUHlC('S .,.ha/ OCCiI.lil/m'rI l-f Writmgs. Iran'>. Anne Elizabeth Englund (San Francisco: 19nuliu!>.1993) 112n. 5. French original: Mmoire wr I'occasio/l de me~ erils. 2nu ed. (Namur' C'ullurc Cl Verit. 19Y2: original cu, 19l:l9)63 n. 5.

THEOLOGICAL

STUDIE.

r begin with a summary of Rahner's position on the supernatural exi:,,tential in his first published essay. I then continue with a presenlation of hi position in his laler writings. An illlegration of these positions is then ffered by a precise Scholastic theory of the existenliaJ and ils relationship to grace. In my conclusion, 1 consider the contemporary rekvance of the whole question.
RAHNER'S FIRST ARTICLE ON THE SUPERNATURAL EXISTENTIAl

Here 1 Llo not give a full account of Rahner's first essay on the supernatural cxistemiaI.6 Inslead, I am content to extract what i~ relevant to my present study. In his first essay Rahner was responding to Un article "D:,7 an anonymous writer who defendeLl de Lubac against the sever riticism he incurred over the theology of gra presented in his book IImatllrel.8 To explain his position D had provided a systematic presentation of what he understooLl de Lubac's theology to be, for which Rahner as graleful since il made it easier ror him as a systematician to come t grips with it." Tbe central point or this theology was lhat all buman being have by nalure a spiritual orienlaon to the one true God revealed in Jesu hrist. The !lingle element of this to which Rahner took exception was th phrase "by nature." That all human beings are oriented to the God of revelation, far from being in dispute. was affirmed by Rahner with a zeal equal to thal or de Lubac and his confreres. All panies wen: uniled in theu opposition to the duplex ordo characteristic of neo-Scholasticism of the day, according to which in buman beings the nalura! and the supernatural rclers coexisted as separate "layers" (with the supernatural imposed on the natural). That theology. designed to protect the lranscend~nce of God had produced the unintended effect of rendering the Christian religion and all tbat belonged to it, namely: divine revel<Jtion. grace. the Church. God. as irrclevmll to human beings as they went about their lives in the world.
"For publication det.lils sec n. l. For a summary of the article. sec Daniel T. Pckarske, Abslracl.~ of Karl Rlllllfer~~ Thl'()logical/m'cMiguriol/s 1-23 (I\'lilwaukec: Mm'quelle University. 2002) 27-2K 1D's article, "Ein Weg zur Bestimmung des VerhiUlnisscs von Natur und nade;' was published in Orh'llIit?flmg 14 (19511) 13l'l-41. See my translaon. under the tille "A Way towan.l the Detenninalion of the "Relalion of Nation and Grace." in Docul11enl 2 of "Some Resources for StudenlS of la flou~'('II(' l!rologit':' Phi/(}.\o phy Theology lJl2 (1999) 381-9-1. Sec also 111) idcntiticalion ofD lS the French Jesuit Emile Delaye in Doc~Jllcnt 4 or the same article p99-4(2). li De Lubac, Surnaturel: Etudes hiworiqlLl!.I (Paris: Aubier. 1946). See also th revi~ed edition publislll:d in Paris by DescJc de Brouwer, 1991. wilh a preface by iche! Sales. " Sec Rahner. "Concerning the Relationship between Nature and Grace" 30J n. 2. and 3~ n. 3. See also the opening paragraph of Document 4 of Ill)' "Some Resourcel> for Studenl~" 399.

unq

RAIINER'

PERNATURAL

EXJSTEl\'TIAL

99

The st11kes were high. not only between the duple..\ ()rdo theologian~ on the one hand and the I/Ofll'ellt' thologie supporters on the olher, but between D/dc Lubac and Rahner, In the first instance. tbe issue was tb relevance of Christianity. In the second. the issue was the no less crucial question of the absolute gratuity or grace, The first issue was lTiumphantl decided in ravor of de Lubac and coUeagues (including Rahncl') by the ccond Vatican Council in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in th Modern World, GaLldiLlnt er spes. The second. in which Rahner took the opposite view to de Lubac (via D), remains controversial to this day. Piu I thought he had sclcd the mallcr with his statemeni in the encyclical lilltllOlli generis Ihat "others corrupt the 'gratllily' or the supernatural order, since they hall! that God couLd not create beings enowed with intellect without ordering ami calling them to the beatific vision,,,lIl BUI de ubac denied tbat this rebuke wal> intendcd for him," an so the disput continued. uilable point or departure for prcsenting Ruhner's case against 0 i found jl) the following words from his first article ou the supernatural existential: ulf God gives creation and above all man a ~upernatural end and this end is first in illlellfione, then the world and man is by that very fact aJways and everywhere inwardly other in structure than be would be if he did not have this en. and hence other as wcll before he has reached thi cnd partially (the grace which justifies) or wholly (the beatific \tision)."I~ Firs!. we may disregard what Rahner says here ahout the world. not lhat it lad,s importance. bUI because il is not strictly l'devant la the present inquiry. In any case, the structure of this ~entencc of Rahncr reveals that for him loa it is of secondary importunce in this conkxL13 Secondly. Rahncr here affirms the common ground between himsclf and D, namely tbat all human beings have as their concretc cnd the true God revealed in Jesus hrist. This God is expressed not in ohjccth'c terms as I have jusI done. but in subjective terms. where lhc "subject" is the human person ordered t :rod by sanctirying grace (hereafter referred to simply as 'grace"). Thi: rination is already a partial possession of th..: cnd ano tbe heginning or

lu My translaton. Th..: Latin reaus: Alii autem 'gr3LUitatcm" orulnis supernaturalis corrumpunl. cum ilutUl11nent Deum enlin inteJ1eclU praedil8 condcrc non posse. quin eadm <ld beatificam visionem oruinel et vocet" (OS JX91. and lhc riginal in AAS 42 11950] 561-78, (lI 570). II See de Lubac, The MYMI!IJ' 0/ the Supernatllral. trans. Rosemary Sheed (New ork: CrossTClfld. 199R) 50, SO. French original: LI! mystre du .\'Imwmrd (Parb: ubier. 1965). L! Rahner. "ber das Verhaltnis von NaLur und Gna(](:" 321'1-29 ("Concerning
U

th~ Rdationshlp betwccn Nature and Grace" 302-3). 1'1 refer la the fact that immediately after speaking uf "lhe world and man" h..: in'o"e~ the pronoun "he" ralher lhan "lhev:'

100

'n-tEOLO(;J('AL STUDII.

Lotal possession, Ihe beatific vision.'-l I cond in objective terms. A theologically atisfactory way of doing this is to say "God a~ God is in himself," which for the sake of breviLY and inclusive language.l abbreviate La "God in self." Also. pertaining to the common ground, il>the Scholastic principle that the end is first ill i"rellrione, meaning that the cncl clclennines everything else aboul the being under consideration. Thirdly, Rahner goes on 10 sa) that human beings with this end arc olber than they would he if they did not have this end. One needs to go beyond the sentence just quoted to discover the reason fOf ihis. But we should notice thaI Rohner abstains from speculation ahout Ihe "natural end that the human person has or woul have if the supernatural end were not bestowed. Perhapc; the reason [or this is th.at he did not want la get caught up in the seemingly needless and controverial question of whal the natural end of human beings is or would be. Here il suffices for him simply to affirm that such an en exists. This loo is a .,ubject to wtUch we mUSI return. At this point, fourthly, it suffces to note lhat Rahner assumes the perduring identity of the human person in both these scenarios. Ln facL '')'. havc a supcmatural end, but ir God bad nol iven "me" this end, would slill exisl. but then wilh a purely natura] cnd. Rahner's point aboul pt:rduring identity had bcn denied by de Lubac. who had written: "Ln another universe another being than I. possessing a nature analogous tu mine, '... ould have had Ihis more humble destin [namely, a natural end]."15 BUl Rahner's point here is impoliant because perduring identity is essential ror the gratuity of the beatific vision (and grace). The beatific vision is rOTme gratuitous only if I could have not had it as my end. The "otherness" that Rahner asserts of human pcrsons wilh a supt:rnatural end wuuld not be so radical as to precipitate a IOraJ change or identity iCthey were deprived of il. Nevertheless, fjfthly, it is an Olhcrncs "in structure." This makes it sound ontological, and indeed Rabner has already said as mucb a few lines earlier, where he calls the supernatural existential "an interior ontologiC<11 constituent of fthe human person's]
h

h'"

1-1 It is not necessary thntlhe process be concluded In the bealific vision. for it can be nhorteLl by the human person lhrough sin. It comes 10 itl>propacomplClion only if lhis person perseveres in u life of righleousllcsS. l'i De Lubac. "Le mystre clu sUn1:.1lurel,"Rl!cherche.1 de scil'llCl' religiewl' 36 (1949) 80-121, at9.t. Stephen DuCfyfinds "ambiguity" in de Lubnc's approach here, because laH:r in the same article (104) t: Lubac wrot~: "Aftt:r as before, we shall be able LO continue 10 say that. had God Sl) willed. he would have been able not to give u~ being. and lhat this being which h.: has given us. he would have been able not at all to call to sec him" (Duffy, The Graced Horizon: Nt/fllr!' lIlld Gmce ill (\-lodern Cfltholic Thought !Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992] ROt

RAIINER'

lU]

concrete quiddilY lerllllUlrl'e,,'lh So the existential is ontological. hut nol a ubSlancc, Does this mean lhal it is an accil!l:nl? Lopold Maleve7 certainl UlOughl SO.17 But then we are led 10 ask wbal sort of accident il might bc-not an eallY question 10 answer. That conslitute:-o another malleI' to which we must return. Failhrul to Ranner's intention. the translalor ha., used the word '-quiddity" (Wesen) in conjunction wilh "concrete" lo designale the actual human person with a supernatural end. This IS to indicate distinction rrom "nalure" (Nawr) which would designate the same person withoUllhe supernatural cnd but with a purely natural cnd. in other words. concrete instance or "pure naIure'" Thc word rerminarire is Latin. an adverh meaning ntenninalively." In other words, in Rahner's understanding. Ihe existcntial is a definitive determinanl or a concrele human nature. this point we have been able to summarize a large pari of Rahner' first article on the supernalural cxiskntial by "unpacking" a <;ngle sentence from iL BUl 10 complele the task we now need lo range beyond it. Three points remajn to be macle. Firstly, for Rahner lhe bestowal or th existential takes place at lhe initial moment of Ihe human person's exislence. in other words al the moment of his or her creation. This follow [rom the fact that God never had any other intention for human bcing~' than their destination to divine friendship. Hence Rahner slales wilh emphasis that the human per!>on must have thi~ delltinauon nfllways:"x Il i nOl as though pure nature existed [irsl in ils own right and was then determined. Rather, creation and detennination take place together, though creation belongs to the level of nalure, und ueterOlination in some way t the level of grace. Nor is the existential simply added to nature; il lransrorms nalure in ilS coming into being. And lhe transformation will remain forever. unaltered by aJl)'thing the person mayor may not subsequently. ;econdly, il would be a misinterpretation or Rahner 10 read him a posiring "nalure" (as defined above) a.s merely hypothetical. For him il i an actunlly existing realilY. lhough it exists never by itself but always a laken up into Ihe "quiddity" (again as ddined above). This explains wh, for him "nature" is a "remainder,'-l'! or n "remainder concept" (Resrl>e~rifJ).2() in oU,er words. that which remains when evaything pertaining t the supcrnaiural is sublracted. Thirdly, the necessity of tbe theology of the exishmlal flows rrom the gratuity or grace, To pUL this anolher way. without a theology of the exis-

,I

uo

I" Rahner. "ConcernIng the Rclallonship be,tween Nalun.' and Grace" 302. Lopold MalcvcL, "La graluil~ du surnaturel." Nouvelle rI'l'lle ,hologi'lu 75 ~1(53) 561~6, al '\79. nd 673-tll). at 6H5. 1 Rahner. "Concerning the Rdalion~hir belWC1l Nature und Grace" ~12. t'lIbido 302. :1 Ihid. 31.\.
17 Sec

L STUDI'-

tential, grace would lose it~ essential quality or gratuity. This is hO\\- Rahner expresseJit:
10 this mor~ recent viw rot' the tLOuI'dle Ih~()lug;el. Lbis ordination 10 the beatifi

ision on the one hand was considered an inner. inamissibJe const.itu(;nt of humHn nature, and on the other hand was so conceived lhat the Wilhholding of th~ goal of lhis ordination was considered incompatible with the wisdom and goodness of God. And in lhis sense [the ordination] was declar.:d uocondiLional [unhedingt] (proidcd the creAture did not [aillO r0t1ch its goal through il" own fault). In our view, wiUl these presuppo.!>ilions grace [Jod the bCiltilic vision can no longer be called unowcd 19ratuitousl.:21

clariIy this quotation one needs to explain what "unconditional" means in this context. With the flvl/velle t/u!ologie, Rahner shared the con\'iction that every human being has han unconditional desire for God." Two things nced to be explaincJ about this expression. First. this desire i essentially an unconscious yearning which becomes conscious only upon lhe preaching of the gogpel. And secondly. it is unconditional (or absolute) in the sense that God in self has already constituted himself the end of every human heing. Then:: arc no conJitions remaining to be met-b od-before human beings actually have God in self as their ultimate end. Hence their desire for GoJ is "unconitional." Ir God had not yet so given himself, then any desire a human might have ror God in self would b~ only "conditional." and would rem<lin such unJess God rulfilkd the outstanding ndition by thus giving himself. (All agreed that the situation of a bwnan with only a conditional desire had never occurred and never would.) The precise point of differcnce between Rahncr and lhe nOl/velle thologie wa that while the latter regarded the unconditional desire as belonging to human nature as such. Rallner maintained thaI it was already a gift of grace and hence was supernatun11. For him the unconitional desire was the immediate consequence of the supernatural existcntial and hellce shared its supernatural character. As the quolation shows, the nOl/velle tlr(Jl()gi~. by not unambiguously declaring the uncomlitional desire supernatural, had unwillingly comprom~ed the gratuity of gr\ce. For if God assigns an end to everyone he creates. and the "desire" of this end belongs to the nalure of the person in question, Go owes to that pcrson the possibiJity of attaining the assigned cnd either from the unaided resources of hL-; or her nalure or. in the case of Ihe beatific vision. with the help or grace. which would mean Ihat both grace and the beatific ,rision would Jose ther essentially gratuitous characler. To conclude my first section of this article, I offer brief comments on two further clements of Ruhner's article. The rirst is his scant mention of a
I Ruhner. "her das Verhltnis von Natur unll Gnalle" 33lt "Concernin~ the Relationship between Nature and Grace" 304.

RAtINER'

nA!

10'"

'natural" end for human bdogs; the 'iecond is the tanlalizing clue he pruvides 10 his later position on the supernatural existential when he says that possession of lhe existential entails exposure to the permanent dynamism of grace:;2 1 hove alread) drawn attention to Rahner's reticence on the ubjcct of a natural t:nd for human beings. He refers to il only twice in the art.iclc. and then obJiqudy. The first referencc is foun in his brief accounl the "average textbook" theology of grace, the e/uplC'.\ ore/o Iheology then urrentY [n this theology, he <>ays,-'supernatural grace ... can only be tbe uperstructurc lying beyond the range or experience imposed upon a human 'nature' which e\'~n in the prScnt economy turns in its own orbit (though with a relationship peculiar LO itself la Ihe God or creation):'~-1 T say that human nature turns in iis own orbit is another way of saying that underlying ill>supernalural end, which is God in self. it has and retatn!> an as yet unspecified natural entl. And tbc vague rden:nce to Ihe God of crealion suggests that this natural cnd might be God thus conceived. he distinction between Gl)d in self amI the God or creation shaulL! DOL be dismissed out of hand. The suggeslion being made was nol that there were two gods. but thai there were two ifferent aspects under which lbe one true Ood might be encouotered: a lower aspect under which he was known. whether by reason alone or through revelalion, simply as crealor of the world. and a higher aspect under whieb through revelation he becam known in his inner being and life, the first giving aCCCl>S to his unity. the econd lo his Trinity. We need to bear in mind that Rahnr's slatement here occur in his account of a position he is criliciLing. 1L is therefore not clear what he thought of the suggestion that the nalw-al end or human beings m.ighl he the Ood of creation. 1 return to this idea in lhe third ~cction of my article. What i.\ clear is lhal he rejected the centnil idea of the dllplex ordo theology. namely. that a twofold human end gives rise to t ntirely separate though juxtaposed human order~, one natural and the other supernatural. Rahner's second reference to a natural end occurs late in the article where be :-pcaks of the "openness" of the human spirit for the supel11atural existcnlial.2.'i This openness, he says. must be conceived as "noi uncondilional," thaI is, LIS conditional. Thus, "pure" human nalure. thal is. with the existential bracketed out (though in Iacr it is always present), can "confidenUy"2/> he identified al> "the unlimited dynamism or the spirit" of which D had spoken. thaI is. the spirit's unlimited. and hence unconditional drive

URahner. "Concerning the Rel3tion~hip hetween Nature <Uld Grace" 30t. Ibid. 29H-300. The expressIOn ha",:rae textbook conception" occurs on 29K ~4 rbid. 299. ~~ 1bid. 315. 21> Perhap,; a beller way of translating Rahner's mlrig 10 this context thl1n Ernst' word "L1nhesittil1gl-"
1.'

104

L STUDILS

toward the lolality of being. in a word. self-transcendence toward being as ueh. Here, then, the cnd of pure nature is implicitly asserted to be th IOtality of being. But this lotality cannol include God in self. for Ule simpl reason that for Rahner a natural human desire for God thus conceived could only be conditional. Concretely. then, wh:ll is this cnd? Once again Rahner passes up the opportunity of expressing an opinion on this maller. 'inally (and this is the second or the Iwo comments which I earlier nndertook to make). Rahner's claim Ihat the existential entails that we ar expmed lo ..the permanent dynamism or grace,',:!7 is surprising in thaI no reason is provided as to wby this should be so. In section three I argue that Rahncr's claim is de facto correct, and that the fact thnt he was able I make il here can mean only that, without b(;ing ahle to aJ'ticulate it, he must have operated rrom tbe outset with some sort of intuition of an intrinsic llnection between lhe existential and grace. It was not. therefore. something appel.lring (or tbe rirsl time in his later writings on the basis of a rundamental change of position,

RAHNER'5 lATER WRITINGS

ON THE SUPERNATURAL

EXISTENTIAL

In his laler writings Rahner says nothing that directly contradict~ the position of his firsl article on the supernatllJ"a] existential. The question rises, therefore. whether he contradicts il indirectly. that is to say. whether he wrote anything incompatible with il. My presenl study contends that b did nol. Corroboration of lhis thsis is found Ul the fact lhat in the later writings he repeats the findings l1f the first article, which would be incyplicable 011 aoy other hypothesis. In his article "Nature and Grace" in volume 4 or the Schriften (Lierman 1960. English 1964)2X Ralmer c1jstinguisbes the "formal object of the natu~ raj spirit~ aod .. tbe formal object of the slIpernatlUaJly elevated spirit:2'.1 First he defines the term 'rormal objec!" as "the Cl priori hori/on given in consciousm:ss, under which, in grnsping the inuividual (( pos/prior! object, everything is known thaI is grasped as an object slricUy spcaking.':lU The natural formal object of Ihe spirit is then declared to be "transcendence towards being in general, the natural openness [or being as a whoJe:dl while its supernatural counterport is "supernatural tr3nscenllence of the piril, opened and borne by gruce:'32 In Ule German it is clear that "opened n. 22. RahDer. "Nature and Grace:' iD I1reologic:ullfll'C!slguIol1l' U65 .... 8K The origlnul "Natur und Gnade:' in Schrifrcn Z/lr TJw/I/ugit 4.20<)-36. !'l RahDer. "Nature and Grace" 171{-79. 111lbid. 178. JllbiJ. :\2 Ibid. Here I havI.! amended Smyth's Iran,lation. '"sllp~rnalurallransccndcnce. the openness of the soul informed by gracc:'
!~

n Set:

RAHNER'

105

and borne by grace" qualifies '"transcendence," not hl:tpirit:'\\ Rabncr then assens that precisdy lhi~ transcendence "is always present in every human being who has reacbed the age of moral reasun:'J-! This means that il is not nly the grace of justification that he is concerne with hen;, but the upcrnatural existential. In that case. then. what does Rahncr mean b ying lhat supernatural transcendence is ';opellt::d and borne by grace"? The answer must lie in his personalistic understanding of grace and th priority he awards such grace over all (orm~ of crealed grace: "Grace is God himself, the communiclltion in which he giv(;s him!\clf to humans B the divinizing. ractor which he is himself:,35 Tn other words, grace in (hi iensc produces the existential us its first (lnd inalienable errect., und later, on the basis of the human heing's free assent of faith. justification ali it" econd effect. Rahncr nlso cmphnsi..:es the dynamic charnctcr of this grace. by calling it the "offer" of grace and declaring il to be continuous and permanent rather than "intermillcm:,3(' He goes on to say Ihat the two rormal ohjecLs are "not opposed to each other like two things that lie side by <;ide. so thaI they must be either kept separate or con(used:~7 Th'is observation is helpful. but it calls for a positive statement about their rclation!>hip. a statement, howevcr, that is not forthcoming. In the l>am~ volume or the Schriften, in his article "Ouc!>lions or Lontroversial Theology on Ju<;tificution," RHhncr speaks twiC of the supernatural existential (English 200,215-18: German 249-50.267-71). The first Latement is a repetition of malerial already secn. The second is an attempt to cJariry lhe relation hetwccn the existential ant! gruce properly so called.)!; lLS essential point is that ir gr;}ce as such is the self-communication of God (inclusive of lhe created grace of justification), tben the existential purtiol reoli7ation of grace. Rahner says this in three ways. First, th 'istential is a lower "dcgree" (Swf, "level') of grace. Second. since the xjstenlial is "cntitHtively" natural (in tbat il is a modification of created human being HS such), it Th only "modally" supernatural. whereas grace
li The German reads: "die liocrnatrliche. von der Gnade erffnete und gClrL'gene Transzenden7 des Gei~les'" _II Rabner, "Nalure and Grace" l~t),

~~ Ibid. 177.
37

'" Ibal

I~tl.

Ibid. llB. _'1\ Here lhe Sm>th lran"lation ratbel' obfuscates muliers. Fot example. in the German text (261:1), English (215). Rllhncr three times uses the word Gefiille (literally, a "drop" or a 'decline"). and each time in the sense of a distinction between melhing "higha" and something "lower" in U,e some order (in th~ case that of grace). This choice of word corresponds exactly to his inlentions, Smyth translate! il hy a different word e<lch lime. namcl) "discrepancy:' "~phl:' and "inclination'" lie lranslates Gllodell/wJiigkdl as "gralull(lu<;ness of grace." whereas it means sim ply "graciousncl>S" (German IloRI. English 121(1). In thi~ context he mighl jU~1 a., well have translated it "grace,"

t06

Tf-I

DIES

itse1J (being the self-communication of God). is --entitalively" supematural. nd third. the existential is the "deficient mode" of grace. These are iOlponant statements. h In his ent!) on "Existential. Supernatural in the KleillC!s The()I()gi~c:he Wrterbuch [rom 1961 (English J9(5), Rahner restates much of what i contained in his original article.J'J He then speaks of the existential a hadded [siel indeed to Ithe humun being'sj nature by grace ...J(JIn this case as in some others, the Gennan original avoids confrontation through it careful choice of words, speaking of the exiSlenlial as added to nature. not by hgracc" (Gnade) but "graciously" (gnatlellllaft). The distinction intimated here became explicit in Max Seckler's characterization of the exi~tenlial as "gnadenhart, ohne 'ie' Gnade zu sein:.J1 which wc ma) translat as 'gracious. without actuaJJy being grace." but Seckler frankly acknowldged that it was difficult "to characterize this existential more precisely.,,"2 h In the paragraph numhered C~) of his entry on "Grace in the sam work,") Rahner is concerned wilh the reception of grace and hence with iL recipient. the "addressee" of God's offer. The laller is declared to be "human llGture" and not directly the human person as such. not. therefore. a concrete buman nature already elevate by lhtl existential as one might XpCCl. Rahuer is not being inconsistent here. He is thinking personalistically. but is coupling the existential with God in God's selfcommunication through grace rather thfln with the humaJl being. recipient of grace. Though he is nOl saying so explicitly, he mllst be envisionin.g the existential the beginning of the self-communication of God. Otherwise he would not have been able to call the addressee a "n.ature" in the sense of "pur nature" as he does here. (ThaI this is the sense in which he uses the wor is clear from the cross reference he gives. namely, to the enlry 00 "nalure and grace ..') Once again Rahneris saying that hnature" in this sense. which . Ihat of a Restbegrifj: is an actual reality aod oat a merely hypothetical ne. Thil>. however. docs not mean that he sees il as exisling in its own right. In "History of the World and Salvation History:' in volume 5 or th 'cllriJleI/ (German llj62, English 1966).-14 Rahncr has two pages (German
J<I Karl Rnhner and Hcrben Vorgrimltlr. Kleine.\ TJu:ologische.\' I-I'iir/prbllch (Fr~iburg: I Jerder. 1961) 107. English lranslaLion: Theolo~lclll Dictionan. cd. Cornelius Ernst. Lram;. Richar Strachan (New YnrJ...: Ilerdcr ,md Herder. 1(65) l6L. 40 Rahner. Theological DicrioJlary 16L H Max Seckler, Im'linkt IIJld Glall/,emlville nacll TJwlIIlI.I V()/1 Aqrln (Mamz: Matlhias-G rOnewal, 1961) 213 . 12 IbId. 214. J'See Rahner. Theological Dictionury 163. .... , Rahner. "Wcltgesehicblc und Heilsgeschichte," in Schrifre/1 :,ur TheologiE'

RAHNER'S SUPERNA

I URAL EXISTEN! JAL

107

l2l-:~,J: English, ]()3-4;) in which he says some puzzling !hings about the upernatufi:ll existential an grace. The topic adressed in these pages is the possibility or saving faith Jor non-Christians. For our purposes it is not necessary to l>ummarize the urgumem of this passage beyond noting that the supernaluraJ existential figures prominently in il. an in terms nov familiar lu us. ~hc problem is thai the existential is not mentioned explicitly. though the context reveals thut the reference is to lhc existential. allel1st sometimes. Take, ror example. the very Una semence or the passage, "It is part or the Catholic statement of faith that the supernatural saving purpose of od extends to all human being!> in all ages i:!0l1 places in history'" As v bave noted, the universal effect of this divine purpose is thl: e~istential. In other places in the passage. Rahner uses the tenn "grace" in its proper ",mse. So. for example. in the second sentence: "Everyone is offered salation, \\ hich means that everyone, in so far as he does not close himself t this orfer by his own free and grave guill, is offered divine grace-and i" [fered it again and again (even when he is guilty).'4.'i Here the decisive factor is the maniJestly exiwt'lI/iellnature of the offer and lhe response, In 'lill otber plat:es, even though thc teml "grace" is not used, it is clear thaI grace in the full sense is the reality intended. Sometimes it is difficult to tell oJ whether Rahner is speaking of the existential, or uf grace, or of bOlh. () Morc clarity emerges in the third sentenc(;. in which a distinction i madc. Of tbe two realities distinguished. lhe second is clearly grace. grace ut the momcnt of jusufication grasped rTOm the human perspective as 'thc accepttlll or the self-communication or God in grace and glury.'47 Thu'> we arc enuble to iJenliry the fir:.t reality. the "existenlial situation to \\ hieh belongs Ihe obligation of striving towards a supernatural goal of direct union with the absolute God in a direcl vision." as the supernatural existential bestowed at crcalion. A.,sumed i'i a propOSItion we have already tablished. namely. that the existential implies the pennnncnl existentiell
5.115-35: "HisLOI') of the World ~lI1dSalvauon-Hislory."
tlOII.\

in fheological/nvl'srif{fI-

5,97-] lt

IS Th~ English trao:.lalOr has endetl the senlence al this point. though in the original it continues to include what in le translation is the third sentence. But thi!> docs not ch::JTlge anything fmm our pOlOt uf view. Ifi On the middle of page LO~the word "grace" appears in single quotation milrL. which might kad the reatler to thin"- lhat the reference i!> to lhe e"islcnlial rather lhan grace. II should therdon: be noled that in the Germon the corresponding wortl Gllade ocs nol hear these r any other distingubhing l11i\fks. _17 My liteml tr311<;lation of lhe German. nlC Engli:.h translation has "acceptin God's :.cJf-communication in grace anti in glory:' The mention of glory here could 'c seen as pl'llblematic. Do Wl.: acccpt glory JO the act of justification? Slrict! peaking. we Jo not. bUI I lhink lhat \\ hat RlIhner meaJll IS thai justification i~ the pledge of future glory.

JO

TIil::.OLOGICAL

DIE

offer of grace, and this because it (the existential) is the begiml/lf: of the elr-coml11unication of God ill gr The step forward that Rahner has taken bere is that he has identified fI1.'(, "ordinations" lO the beatific vision, the second of which, namely, Ih "genuine subjective possibility of reaching this goal," or justirying grace, one can eaU Ihe proximate ordination. The first, the "existential situation' referred 10 above. thai i~. the superntural existential. can LJ1erefore be described as the remote ordination to this goal.4~ panicuJarly as it is envisioned as the beginning of grace. In SacramellflUn Mltll/i, Rahncr makes several statements on the superDatural existential. aU but the last of which can be omitted. since they cover familiar ground. 49 The last statement is found in the article "Zid d Menschen" (Goal of Man) (German, [19691 4.1432; English. in the article ..r.rder' 4.301, section d). Onc sentence in the G~rman is rendered ill the nglish text as five separate sentences. In the illtcrcstb or exactness and authentic emphasis I g)vc a literallranslntion or thil>long adding punctuation where necessary:
Here alrcm.Iy we mu~1 .:mpha:.ize that Liu: ":,upcmalUral" goal of man. freely e:.I<Jblished by God. also has Ihi~ character of tnlnscenJental necessily, becalJ~e il i always implnnted in the being of every man, through the self-communication of ad in grace, on account of the unIversal savlOg will of God. in l:Idvance uf all Crel: decision (see "existential, supernatural"). and so iL exists in man eilher in the mode of acceptance (sec "faith," "love") or refusal (see sin'). but it can never become just a comOland from Lhe outside and. Lhrough the indiffl:rcncc of freedom. a malter of no con~cquence to him, falling ouuiidc his movemenl toward his goal.

This .,tntement

represents

an ~xplicit advance

in Rahner's

tboughl

that

RAIINl:K~

SUPER

10

had probably long. been implicit. He speaks or th~ supcrnalural existential implllnted at the creation ()f each human being.. But he is no longer conc~med with the moment of creation. lIe is now considering this person in his or her adult life. Because the e.xislential assures the perma.nent and onlinuous orfer of grace, this person ha!' already mode. perhaps "anonymously'" a dt:dsion about God. Hence for this perc;on the existential nov exists either in the mode or frc acceptance. that is. raith and grace, or in the mode of frce rejection throug.h !>in.This rrcedom of choice, however, i. rcised only within the "tran'lccndental" necessity of having to make a decision one way or the 01 her. The process lll.~gin:)with the universal savin \\ il! of God. This produces in each perSOl1 the supernalUral existential. whicb is lhe bl!gmillg of God's self-communication in grace. God then awaits our free decision of faith. which is at the same time the product of the permanent offer of grace and our own authentic act. This beginning of grace is fulfilled, partially in the grace of justification, and ultimatdy in the beatilc vision. ln Gmndkun" de\' Glouhe" .. (1976, 132-39; Engli~h, F(JU/u/atio/lS of '/iri..tII1I Fth 197R, 126-33). Rahner makes his last an most comprehenive statement on the supernatural existential. reprising his previous writings Oil the <.ubject as wdl as developing them further. The statement can he !>ummari7cd under the following five hcading~. 7irst, Rohner characterizes the existential as the self-communication of cl "present in every person at least in the mode of an offer.',sfl Thi~' presupposes Lbat the c'<i<,t-.:ntialis the first effect of the self-communication or God, is present in all hecause it Oows, prior la lreedom. from th universal saving will. and implies-and contains-the conllnuou!> oHer or grace, thai is. of what remains 10 be conferred of the stf-communication of d. Secondly, the next df-.:ct of the ~elf-comll1unication of God. if it is t tak.e place at all, will involve the aSSnl 01 tbc will. that is, the decision of faith. wbjch is not just a human work but the worl-.. or grace as well. Rahner's second point is that: "In this sense everyone. really and radically el'cry person mu~t be under-stool! il.. the event of the: l>upernaLUral self communication of God, although not in the sense that ~very person ner- sari!y ~lccept!) in freedom God's sclf-communculion to maJl.~1 ThirlJ Rahn~r expands his pre\-olls statemcnt thaI the existential exists in th mode of either acceptance or refusal. to cover lhc period in the subject\ life before the dawn or freedom. where tbe offer or grilce exists in the mode ( an oCrer not yet accepted ur rejectl:d. Thus he speaks of three, Ilot just two po~ible moes in which the existential can exi ..t.52 Fourthly. the prior girt of the exibtcnlial is that which enables the r-cmainl!er of the self~Il ~l

Rahner. FO/Uldar;ol!\' lbid. 127-2K

(If

Irrmit/tI

Faith 127. .'2 c- cc ihid. 128.

110

TIICOLOGICAL

DJ

mmunicalion or God. bestowed in justificntion, to continue to be lhe eli-communication of God and not be reduced 10 a purely human real), in other worlls to remain supernatural anu gratuitous. The beginning of th self-communication of God must already be present in C\'cry persoo for Ihe complete self-communication of God to him or her to be possible. In Rabner's words. ;'In order to be ahle to accept God without reducing him, as il were, in thi~ acceptance tn our fniteness, lhis acceptance mUSl be borne by God himself.,,53 And. fifthly, the personal transformation of the human being by the existential is that which enables its acceptance Or refusal to be at the same time human. our own, and therefore free. In Rahner's words: "aod conversely: witham prejudice to its gratuity, God' .,~lf-communication must be present in very person as the condition which makes its personal acceptance possible."~4 In summary rorm, one Oln now set down why and to whal extent Rahner. vcr time. changed his posilion on the supernatural exislcntia1. And one can say unhesitatingly that the only major change that occurred was one of onlext and perspective. I louch first on context. When he was denling with the /lot/vd/e rhologie, Rahner concentrated. as uid bis opponents, on the crcution of the human person. because the central question then under dispute was whether the orientation of this person to lheir supernatural end, God in selL wa~ natural or supernatural. and it was agreed on both iues that this orientatjon existed not only prior to the exercise of fedom but "always:' Rahller held that. as "God in selr:' the end required in the human person a supernalural elevation, which was not. however, thaI or sanctifying grace, though it implied its permanent and continuous offer. This elevation he Lcrmed "the supernatural existential." Later. the context r discussion shifte away rrom creation 10 the moment of e.ri.'>ientie/l decision about God (even if known only "anonymously"), because now human freedom came into pla). This meant that henceforth the existcntiol ould exist only in the rOr1l1of either aCCeplllJ1Ce (faith. grace of justification) or refusal (sin). ow Itoucb on perspective. RighI from the start, Rahner had held for priority of untreated grace, lhe self-communication or GaLl, ovcr aU form f created grace~5 (which would include the existential). The reason for which this insight did not emerge in the Iloln'elle thologie debale was that he was forced by his opponents to adopt the Scholastic perspective 01' reated grace, both because this was their natural inclination, and because
~'Ihld. <.llhid.

original publication date or his gruundbrcaking article. "Some Implications of the Scholastic Concept of Uncreated Grnce" in which thi~ Ide:! was presented for the first time. was 1939 (sce Schrifl/!" 1.7: Tlteologicul 1111'esripwiow
1.319-411).

,< The

RAH

RAL

111

the discus!>ion centered on the powers of created human nature. With the nstralms r~movcd, Rahncr was able to refer to the existenlial as simpl "grace" or "the self-communication of God," though he was clear that it was a "dericient mode" of grace properly '\0 called. a "begullling" (m lerm) of grace.

A MORE COMPREHENSIVE THEORY Of THE UPERNATURAL EXISTENTIAL

The aim or my Lnal section is to rill in as far as possible the gaps left b Rahncr in his theology of the supernatural existential. The more comprehensive theory thu'> acquired will accommodate both his earlier and later statements on the subject. This theory cannot be attributed to Rahner himself but is implicit in his thought. The minimal attention Rahncr gave to the question of a natural end rar human beings is a defect that caBs for remedy in his theology. particular! as be hcld the existence of such an end to be actual and not merely hypothetical. How could he hope ro understand the rel:l1ion<;hip of the existential la grace properly so call cd if he lacked a clear idea or what the c~istential itseJr lVa~'? Am] how could he know what the existential was if he lacked a precise theological knowledge of th~ natural cnd which il transformed? 1l1is is a theological queslion. and therefore tbe nat ural end has to be known theologically. thut is. on the basis of revelation. Bul in thi" context Rahner wa<;satisfed with philosophical knowkdge. The answer h gave. namely, that the naLUraJ cnd was "being as a whole" towar which Ih~ inite spirit transcended by nature. is a purely philosophical statement. reOeclng th thought of MarchalY' While Ihere is no reason to question it as [ar as it goes. it does not go [ar enough. RaImer attributed to the duplex ordo theology the vicw that the natural humnn cnd was "the God of creation" or "God as creator.' This war probably a correct historical judgment on his part. But 1 have alrcad argued against a summary dismissal this conception. ] now wish to sho lhat there is no necessary conclusion to a duplex or(/(J theology from the concept or God as creator as distinct rrom God in self. Indispulably each of these concepts is revealed and each represents a distincl aspect or God. But they could just as easily give rise to a single order in which the supernatural penetrated and permeated Ihe natural as to li twofold order in which th

or

SI. See Joseph Marchal, Le poiw dt! dpart de III m(aphysique: Cuhier V, 2nd cd. (Paris: Descle de rouwer, 19-19)305-15. A good part of thi~ excerpt is reproduced in English by Joseph Donceel in hjs A Marclllll Render (f'<ew York: Herder and

Herder.

11)70) 1-l9-53.

112

THEL

\Vere juxtaposed. And the (irst of these allernalives I hold to be the case.57 Tbc key here is the recognition thaI we arc not dealing with two tolaU di.fferent ends. but with the one end. God, conceived under two aspects. the me higher and tIle othcr lower as explained earlier in my article. Rahner's concept or human "nature" as a Res/begriff implics a natural ultimate end tbal is contained in some way within the supernatural ultimate nd. and is not merely a natural end subordinated to a primary (ultimate) . .,upernatural end aLld therefore secondary. This requirement safeguard both the integrity of human nature and the gratuity of the supernatural od. Unfortunalely. Rahner offers no help in explaining how ]is sLte of affairs might be broughl about. However. a contemporary or his, Walter Brugger. writing from a predominnnlly philosophical perspective uggested thaI the integnly of human nature and the gratuity of the upcrnatural end could be integrated by way of a Hegelian "sublation" (/lll.lhebung). Brugger wrote: --Human naLUre provides the raw material for the natural ultimate end. hut in the case of the creation does not dctermjne whether it is in ils proper form or only as sublated in the supernatural end that il is the actual human end"'5tl This is a briUiallt suggestion. It is surprising lhat Rahner, who was nol averse to using the language of sublation in other circumstances. did not think of it himself. f course this kind or language is not appropriate is one considers the matter from the perspective of Ga. IL makes no sense to say lbat God a" creator exists <lli sublated in God in selL rar thore is only one God. not two. BUI from the human und theological perspective or end il is fully appropriate to say that the natural ultimate end of human heings is sublated in their supernatural ultimale end. for Ihis means thai the former is preserved in its inte!!Tity (and not abolished), but that it and human nature with it

r God as the nmural hum.ln end \\

RAllN!:.R'S SUP[R

113

as taken up (m;sumed, subsumed) into the higher end. Th, l'y unicity of God is what guarante~s the legitimacy of this approach. ami at the same time ensures, against de Lubac, the perduring identity o[ the human person. For One is not dealing with two totally different ultimate ends that would predicate two totally dirrerent beings. One is dealing with the one end, now graspcJ and possessed und~r a lower aspect, and no\' under a higher.59 This DHows for lhe ontological elcvation of a crealed 'pirit lhat retain~ iLS identity throughout. (Or t;oursc, in expressing the maLler thus 1 um not suggesting that buman nature cr actuaUv existel! with a purely natural end,) hus onc can answer D, who held thullhe "wllimiteu dynamism in ever. reated spirit" required, hy virtue of naturc. ilo; inclination toward, it unconditional desire (or God in "dr.('(l For by whal righl would a crealed pirit aspire naturally to God in self? That to which il aspires naturally i ct as creator. an unlimited (infinite) object in himself and the lotality of being. By nature human beings can only aspire to what they can know by nature, and, according to Vatican 1, this is God only as "source and end o[ all things" (rerum omnium prillcipill/11 et jillL\').M not God in self. For God in self represents a realm beyond natural knowledge. As God in self. the trinitarian God of grace, God can be known only hy revelation: in order t accept revelation as true one must have faith; in order to have railh one must have grace. at leac;t in same sense. Now these principles must apply not only on the conscious level, but on the uncon~cious level ,IS well. The desire of the created spirit for God in self was recogni7cd on both sides to he bolh unconscious ami unconditional. bul in a true nonbeliever thi desire. if it existed purely by virtue of nature. could only be conditional, "ince revclation would be lacking. But a person coming 10 conscious faitb recogni7es that tbeir faith corresponds to an lll'1comlaoml!. unconsciou desire tbey have always hud. They should therefore also recognize Lbat their unconscious desire was itself a gift of grace, that is, as we say. a result of the supernatural existential anl! not simply an endowment of nature. What precisely is meant in this context by -ontological ele\ation"? D ubac, following both Thoma!) Aquinas and Bomnenture. had insisted that nly sanctifying grace "orl!crcd" a humun being to God in self, for only Il established between lhem tbc proportion thaI enabled the human bein nctuaIly to allain God in both this life and the ncxl."z Consistently. de Lubnc maintained of hllJ11:ln nature Lhal prior to the be<;towal of grace. and without prejudice 10 Ihe unconditional desire [or God. Ulere was no ordi~..Thi~ point is also made by Malevez, ..Lu gralUit du surnaturd" toll See O. "A Way" 382-83. !ol Sel.: Vatican I. "oogmalic Constitution De; Fil;u~ (OS J(jO~). "" De Lubac. TlU' My.lter\, of Ihe Supernntllflll X54)h. 6

114

DIE.

Ilmion to God in self, indeed "no slightest eleml:nt of the supernatural in it.'('] "Being given finality," he observ(;d, "is not the same as actuaJJ possessing (or failing to attain) tbe end.,,(i-\ There is much truth in this view. and Ra!lner was sympathetic to it. bul. has been noted, he also insisted that the supernatural existential \Va already in same sense an ordination to God in self, an elevation. He solved the dilemma by III wing the existential a.s the "remote" und grace as the "proximate" ordination (though these are my lerms, not his). But if the existential does not or itselr bring abou.l justification, in what sense can it b~ even a remote ordination to the supernatural cnd? Rahncr could speak of the supernal ural end bestowing on concrete human nature an "otherne f structure." for it now had a difrerent end from that which it otherwise would have had (and this is all that I mean when I call it a transformation). But how could it be "ontologic~I" without being r~duced tlnlirely to the level of nature? Malevez believed he had solved this difficulty by calling it an accident. But if the existential is an accident, it certainly is not a habit. First. thcre is nothing in Scriplure Ihat is analogous 10 "sharing in tbc divine life." to ju~ti[y (!lis movc. Sccondly, the existential would coincide with sancfying grace. Perhaps. inasmuch as il is a passive "restructuring" by God, a case might be made [or classifying it as a 'passion." But this would not surfice to mnke it a work of efficient. let alone quasi-formal, causaJity. I arguc in what 1'0110\\15 that it is a work of "material" causality. The existential is ontological in the sense that it is real. The final quesLion, namely. the precise relation of Ole supernaluraJ existential to grace. now need~ to be addressed. In dealing with this question, ne can put to work once again certain Scholastic notions that Rahncr had used already in his exposition of the theology of grace. For him the paradigmatic Conn of grace was uncreatcd grace, the divine indwdling, the self-communication of God.tlS Jt was this thai passed over into Ule beatific vision. This self-communication he explainetl in terms of formal causality. which in this case (and in the case of the Incarnation) he called "quasiformal" causality, in order to safeguard the transcendence of God. With quina.,. he regarded (created) sanctifying grace as LI wurk of efficienl ausality. But he considered these two forms of grace to be intrinsicall related. and therefore as nccessarily given together. In their combination Ibid. 95-96. Ibid. 96 n. Y6. The French reads, "AUIre esl la finalit reue. autre lu fIll possd.: (ou manque)" {Lt- II/l'stre du .IILrllll//lre/ [Paris: Aubier. 1965) 128 n. 2). De Lubac's choice of the word "possess" (possder) here is unfortunale. because il is ambiguous: there is one sense in which il expresses tbe truth. bUl another in which it misleads. hi See Ruhner. "Some Implication" or Ihe Scholastic Concept of Uncrealed Grace" (see ahove n. 55).
1\:1 <>.1

RAil

115

they constitute simply "grace:' grace properly so calkd.()(' Understanding efficient causality as the "deficient mode" or romlaI causality. he grasped sanctifying grace as. at the same time, the condition amI the effect of God' '.elr-communication in grace.fl7 As already shown, Rahner understood the iupematural cx.istentialll'i the "deficient mod~" of grace. I have established thai it is a work neither or quasi-formal nor of efficient causality. I have uggested thai il is a work of material causality. 1 now explain what I mean by this and how it is coheres with Rahner's thought. Rahncr recognized Ihat of the four AJ'istotelian causes the final cause as the noblest and highest, because heing hfirst in intention:' it determines all else about the being n question.6!'1 Not ilself working dectly on the being, it organi.s, gm'ems, anJ operates through tbc other three auses. In grace properly so called, Ibe final cause, God in self. is identical with lhe quasi-formal cause und the erficient cause. Tn other words. God, intending himself as the ultimate end of human beings, creates them and communicates himself to them accordingly. The material cause alone of Ih caUSS is not God: it is tbe crcnturc ;n its receplivily to God in sclf, that i:., as disposcd by God 10 receivc hi:, sclr-communicalon. For Rahner material causality operates in conjunction with quasi-formal ~usaLity only when il is question of the "last" disposition, namely, sanctifying groce, which i produced by efficient causality, and hence not in the case or the existential. Lr Ihere exists some disposition previous to sanclifying grace, it must be allributed to material causality. that is, to the rinal cause acting through the material cause alone. In this circumstance it would be premature to speak of quasi-formal causality, because the form. still busy disposing the subject. has not yet been received by it os a fonn. Rather. the subject is simpl "restrucrured" (Rahner's word). given its "first" (as Jistinc\ from its "last") disposition to receive tbc form of God in sell'. his disposition is !be supernatural existential. And il can now bc rcv gnized to ruJrilJ both the positive and the negative rCl.ju;remenls of material causalitv. Such "obediential" restructuring is a possihility ror th
,,/> Rohner expressed the mltller thus: "Because crealed grace as dl-If'osiJio li/rima
l'xibl along with (he actual formal causality of the Conn for \\ hieh il is lhe lO say: If cre~lled gr3 IS given. so too nl'cesl'arily b) thaI cry fact uncreated grace, and hence the whole grace of jU~lificatjon, is communicMed to man" (ibid. 341). 67 See Rahner. "Selbstl11iucilun Goltes," in LexikoJ1 {iir rheologie und Kird/C!. 2nd t:d .. 9.627a: also "God's Sdf-Communicalion," in )Uaolllentllnl Mllmli (English) 5.353b - 355b. /lll William C. Shepherd appeals to the calegory of (inal c<lu~alil)' in lhe context of lhe exi~lenl1al, bUI link~ it with quasi-formal causality. a po ..ilion against which I argue above (Shepherd. Man ' emil/ilion: God lIml fhe World Pmct'.H [New York: HerdN and Herdl::r. 1969]tn9 70) This criticism notwith~tanding. however. Shephertl'''" work is remarkahle and dcscrvl:S 10 he more widelv known.

can only

dispositiv. it is correct

116

THl:.OLOGICAl

STUD

ubject because il is ordered hy nature already to the same one, true God, though only through the humbler relation of crealure to creator. An inexact and mited, but hopcfully helpful. analogy might be the adjustment an employee would undergo if made aD ofrer of personal friendship by his or her employer. The status of employee bestows no automatic right of friend'hip with the employer, though an employee is at least situated as a posihle candidate for such a friendship. The offer of friendship. if made at all. is completely gratuitous. But the employee to whom such an offer has in ract been made is, even berore it is accepted. different "ontologically" from lhe way he or she was previously, and differenl again from thl: way he or she will be when lbe oller is finally accepled. In this analogy lhe status of mployee corresponds to "nature:' lhe offer of friendship corresponds to the existential. and actual friendship corresponds to gTace. The insight thu gained illuminales Rahncr's description of the existential (when the offer has been made) as a "deficient mode" of grace (when the offer has been accepted). The existential is Uentitatively" natural (the employee simply a uch) and "modally" supematurnl (an employee to whom an offer has been mae and who. though not yet a friend, is poised 10 become one): the restructuring takes place on the level of nature, bUllbe mode of posse or the end is supernatural (gratuitous). It remains to be explained why in the maller of grace lhere nre two ordinations. two dispositions, to tbe ultimate end. and not just olle as in the case of other beings. The reason is that, in all material creation, human beings alone, as spiritual und therefore free. attain their end by God's p.lan not inexorably like other beings. butlhrough lhe exercise of lheir freedom. nd therefore God imparts tbeir ultimate end in two stages, in the first n an exislential. prior 10 freedom, <lnd in the second through their [Tee cooperation, that is. throughjusLification by faith and perseverance in the life of grace. CONCLUSION Between Rahner's first and later writings on the theology of the supernatural existential there took place a significant cbange of perspective and context. Wh~n dealing with the lIo/l\'elle thologie, he had 10 concentratc on the moment of the creation of the human being ~md the difference that the gratuitous self-giJt of God as ultimate end makes to li human nature lhal would otherwise have;) purely natural end. Thus he inserted himself into a neo-Scholastic debalc characterized by the assumption of the primacy of created grace. departing rrom its rules only in resorting finally t Hcidcggcriun temlinolog). However apt the laller might have been t express his thought, and however <;atisfactory his solution of the immediate problem. Ulis move did not free Ilim-as he seemed to think-Cram the

RAH"lER'"

JSTl.:NTlAL

117

bligalion to think through lhe i:.sue in ScholasLic krms. a way beller calculated to convince his contemporaries. Later, wiLh the controversy behind him, he reverted 10 his long-held conviction of Ihe primacy of uncreated grace and the interpersonal nature of the God-human relntion, and he brought Lhis change of perspective to bear on his theology of the existenliaI. Al the same time, he changed his conleXl of refleclion from creation TO decision, that is, la the choice Lhat all must make between faith and unbelief. The Scholastic key LOlhc relation of the exish~ntialto grace. a kc Rahner nVer discovered himsclf. is an extension or his thought on the quasi-formal anel efricicnt causes to include the final and material cau In Scholastic terms. the three subordinale causes are intrinsically related tu each other and to the fim cause in an ascending order. with the last named as the constant, if indirect, operator throughout. In thtl malter of gl'ace u successful applicalion of this scheme prcsupposes tbe deployment of t funher conccpts abscnt (rom Rohner's thought on this question: the creator God as the natural ultimate entl of humans. an the Hegelian de\'i of sublation. Tbe result will he an integraled theory of the supernatural cxistenlial as a work of material cau1>ality. The theology of lhe existcntial contains in germ the whole of Rahner' theology of grace, and thercfore assumes an importance thai has not yet been sufficiently recogni7ed. While it is the humblest, Lhe exi<;tcnti.t1 i. nevertheless an aulhenlic instance of the self-communication or God. which is the very essence of grace. 1l stops in its tracks any suggestion of Pelagianism or semi-PcJagiamsm. because il is unqueslIonably tUl "existenliai," prior to all human freedom. At the same me, as a "restructuring" of all human narure to its end. il is a transrormution of the human and of buman experience, wilhout of itself providing the "platrorrn" from which a life shared with God is launched but en13iling an assurance of the grace by which this may be done. Ils imparlance for curreD! reOcclion on the rel"'tion of Christianily to the world religions is immense. In this article [ have nOt tried to resurrcct Scholastic theology ror toda]. 1 have merely aLlempled. ror the special case of the supernatural existenliaI. to (ornlulate a Scholastic argument thai Rahner could have devised, with beller effect against D/de Lubac, because rar them-and perhaps for us too--a Scholastic argument would have given his theology a consistency and plausibility it lacked. Like other originaJ positions h~ was developing al lhe lime, nowbly his general theology of grace, his emphasis on th supernatural existential could he rcexpressed later in personalistic (and non-causal) terms, retaining. however. ilS reference to Scholasticism for the ake of clarity and intelligibility. My article does not aLLemptto reformulate the lheology of the supernatural exi~teotiaI in trinitarian terms, for the impie reason lhul this was nev(;r Il concem or Rahner's, at least not in a tematic wav. But il needs to be done because the existential belongs

II

Lsn'DI

hould be, trinitarian from me hints to thjs effect in an earlier article.

distanL future, to have the

1,'1 See my "Tilt: Spiril of ehr.", as Entelechy," Philosophy fil/(l Tlteolog) I (ZOOl) 363-98. at 393. 10 produce an article on lhe trinitarian structure of th l'x.SlcIltial would abo tlUow me to revis!: what was less lhan felicitous in Ibis earlier t.:xt:rcise.

Copyright of Theological Studies is the property of Theological Studies, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.