Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Whole Rahner On Supernatural Existential-Coffey PDF
The Whole Rahner On Supernatural Existential-Coffey PDF
65 (2(Xl4
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
Nature
95
nlEOLOGICAL
STUDII-"
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
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
100
'n-tEOLO(;J('AL STUDII.
h'"
lU]
RAIINER'
,I
uo
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
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
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 Set:
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:'
!~
105
RAHNER'
~~ Ibid. 177.
'" 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,"
37
t06
Tf-I
DIES
RAHNER'S SUPERNA
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
This .,tntement
represents
an ~xplicit advance
in Rahner's
tboughl
that
RAIINl:K~
10
SUPER
Rahner. FO/Uldar;ol!\'
lbid. 127-2K
(If
Irrmit/tI
Faith 127.
.'2 c- cc ihid. 128.
110
TIICOLOGICAL
DJ
,< The
<.llhid.
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.
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
113
RAllN!:.R'S SUP[R
114
DIE.
<>.1
RAil
115
can only
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.
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
II
Lsn'DI
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.