English Translation of Karl Neufeld’s Joseph Maréchal and Karl Rahner (K. Rahner death anniversary 30. 3.): Dealing with Thomas Aquinas

The following is an English language translation of the following article published in 2015.  It is posted here for those who may be interested. I ask that any any use of the article include a citation of this page.

Joseph Maréchal and Karl Rahner (K. Rahner death anniversary 30. 3.): Dealing with Thomas Aquinas

Author(s): Karl H. Neufeld

Source: Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, Vol. 137, No. 2 (2015), pp. 127-140

Published by: Katholisch-Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Innsbruck

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44651352



In the very succinct preface to the text of his Geist in Welt (Spirit in World) study, written as a philosophical doctoral thesis, Karl Rahner remarks: “If Pierre Rousselot and Joseph Maréchal are quoted above all else, it is to be expressed that this work feels excellently committed to the spirit of their interpretation of Thomas”1. In the list of used writings he refers more closely to “Maréchal, Joseph: Le point de départ de la métaphysique. Cahier 5 : “Le Thomisme devant la philosophie critique, Louvain 1926”2 and “Rousselot, Pierre: L’intellectualisme de Saint Thomas, Paris 2 1924”3.

Repeated attention was therefore drawn to the lack of appropriate investigations, which conclusively ascertained what the young Rahner meant by this obligation and what he did not. This is all the more necessary since neither Rousselot (1878-1915) nor Maréchal have been able to play a major role in the German-language discussion of philosophers and theologians to date, let alone that a unanimous opinion on their influence on this side of the Rhine has arisen. Rousselot’s study appeared first in 1908, then in 1924 and finally again in 1936. It was translated into German just as little as Marechal’s extensive work, which is devoted to an examination of Kant and could therefore have attracted attention. In the interwar period, a number of Christian philosophers and theologians attempted to do the same.

Now it is noticeable in the work of K. Rahner that he hardly ever returns to J. Marechal emphatically later. There is a reference to an early article by him ” The foundations of an epistemology by J. Maréchal”, which was never published by Rahner, but at least suggests the sense and necessity of such a conception in the German context. Engelbert Wingendorf SJ ( 1904-1946) had this in mind in the preface to his philosophical doctoral thesis ” The Dynamic in Human Cognition. Maréchal. A New Attempt to Solve the Basic Problem of Epistemology 4 mentions this in his preface, where he thanks Karl Rahner for leaving this text to him 5. It is now found in Volume 2 of the Complete Works of Rahner 6 based on a typescript which J. B. Lötz had kept and of which Rahner is said to have passed it on several times. The date 13. 4. 1927 is noted as the date of origin. At that time Rahner was at the end of his basic studies of scholastic philosophy with the prospect of becoming a professor of the history of modern philosophy himself later. But in the following years he had to devote himself to other tasks and then to theology.There is no indication whatsoever that he would have continued Marechal’s work during this decade. It was then the spirit of his interpretation of St. Thomas that became acute again for Rahner in the preparation of his own philosophical dissertation in Freiburg between 1934 and 1936, as he believed to find it similarly with his other brother Pierre Rousselot.

After the renunciation of the continuation of the doctoral procedure in Freiburg, Rahner wrote the text of the lecture ” Whether Who or what drew his attention to Article 7 of Quaestio 84 in the first part of the Summa Theologica of the Aquinas as the key text for his theme is still unclear today.

After having decided not to continue the doctoral procedure in Freiburg, Rahner wrote the text of the lecture “The Truth in Thomas Aquinas”, which he gave on 26 January 1938 before the Philosophical Society in Innsbruck, but which was not published in German until 1972 7. In note 5 here is also mentioned on P. Rousselot 8 and J. Marechal; in addition to them, a number of others are mentioned who had dealt with the subject up to that time. We shall continue with this reference.

In the light of this finding, one will have to give the actual weight to the word spirit of Thomas’ interpretation and not seek a connection to individual questions and arguments. It was the freedom in dealing with the thinking of the Aquinates, the regaining of the vitality of thought in the face of systematic rigid repetition, that Rahner had learned here and took with him. But this was not only the case with Maréchal. In Innsbruck, it was to be the thinking and the contribution of J. Stufler 9 that supported this once again.

It is only in the late interviews that the memory of Maréchal comes back to life, for example in 1980 during a conversation on ORF about his career, where he says that he lived in Pullach. . . he also became acquainted with Joseph Maréchal, the Belgian Jesuit philosopher, who was perhaps one of the first to bring about a positive encounter between scholastic philosophy and Kant. That was a great experience, which already brought me a little out of the scholastic philosophy 10; he summarizes it for himself as “Maréchal’s provenance 11. In a conversation in 1965, he had already given an unusually open answer to the question: “What other philosophers have influenced you? I must mention Jean-Pierre ( they ! ) Rousselot and Joseph Maréchal of Louvain, because both of them had a great influence on my philosophy. Certainly, although Maréchal has greatly influenced me, it cannot be said that my philosophical ideas are entirely in accord with his. There were many other and deep influences which helped to elaborate and sometimes transform what Maréchal had said. But the initial, truly philosophical insight was given to me by Maréchal. His book Le point de départ de la métaphysique , especially Cahier V, influenced me a lot when I was younger 12. Rahner confirmed this again in 1984 shortly before his death: One of my great experiences back then was reading the books of Joseph Maréchal from Leuven. Maréchal had succeeded in creatively producing a very specific type of modern Thomism, perhaps this basic approach unfortunately worked for me 13. And it had had an effect in the concept of grace with a terminology that comes largely from Maréchal 14; the remark must make one sit up and take notice, because the concept of grace certainly became an important part of his theological endeavors and the terminology had a decisive mediating function for it – in understanding and misunderstanding.

Insightful interview

On 28 May 1982 Rahner was questioned at length in Innsbruck on the reception of Thomas Aquinas 15 in theology and church after the Council. This was done from the Netherlands 16, where Aquinas had been largely forgotten by theologians 17. This should be illuminated by the example of the personal history and the work of a theologian of the time; in this sense the questioner turned to Rahner. And Rahner took up the question accordingly. He speaks of the stages of his life’s development that “had nothing to do with Thomas or in which he dealt with the Thomists, as was normal at that time for every theology student of my Order who was reasonably interested in scholarship 18. A few general remarks on Thomism in Germany and in Rome finally explain: A lively, inspiring contact with Thomas certainly did not take place at that time. Of course Rahner had heard of Stufler’s controversy with his Thomist opponents, but then he said: Why me . . . . why I have worked on the epistemological metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas, I no longer know exactly. It certainly played a role that Gustav Siewerth had previously done his doctorate in Freiburg with a work that was also inspired by the Thomists in the true sense of the word. Of his work he says: my way of interpreting Thomas, also to a certain extent of reorganizing and thinking further 19 led to rejection by the intended thesis supervisor. He then published it with the Innsbruck publisher Felician Rauch. The publishing house printed Geist in Welt without any financial support from my side, but only because I had the little booklet Words in Silence published by them at the same time 20. The censor of the Order of the Gregorian had let the book pass unobjected. At that time, Maréchal was still suspected, basically he denied or obscured the strict supernaturalism of the Visio beatifica (the beatifying vision of God), because he had brought the desiderium naturale in visionem beatificam ” (the natural orientation towards the beatifying vision of God) back into the conversation with Thomas Aquinas 21. For young Jesuits, according to Rahner, his dissertation shows in a certain way in which light my generation saw the relationship with Thomas. . . differently than with the classical Thomists, especially with the Dominicans 22. There he was treated like a second holy scripture, while my generation read him like a great father of the church 23; in the end we approached him with our own questions and problems 24, especially not in a scholasticism of Thomas, but “in our relationship with Thomas … a very specific way of inspiration or standardization 25. And so he learned from Thomas when I studied a …transcendentalistically infected philosophical Thomism through Marechal, Kant and German idealism. I apply this Thomism also without inhibitions in theology 26. It was at the same time a way of dealing with Kant. That should not be forgotten, even if it is not a subject of its own here.

Of course one could ask here whether one can and should call this Thomism. In this interview, Rahner speaks anyway of his own thinking and its becoming, but he can also, on the insistence of the interviewer, name points in which he is at one with Thomas against a Jesuit basic current that denies the connection between nature and grace, as Rahner tried to grasp it. His relationship to Thomas is even shown here in his surpassing of him 27. Grace is a new formal object that cannot be reached by natural knowledge. From the outset, the history of revelation runs parallel with grace and the history of salvation, whether Thomas explicitly admits this or not 28. Rahner emphasizes: “Here I am radically a Thomist”, because the hiatus between nature and grace, as it was taught, is basically terrible. One would have to learn many things from Thomas against Thomas ! 29

But there are also views of Aquinas which he rejects completely because he thinks they are bad; he mentions concrete points such as the view that one can only hope for oneself. Rahner thinks that this is not compatible with a real concern for the reason behind Thomas’ thinking. Or his intellectual version of the visio beatifica could be formulated differently; there are not entirely elaborated pieces in his work, as his great metaphysics of freedom remained a draft. Of course, the impression remains from the conversation that Rahner is less interested in such individual themes than in another kind of philosophical and theological reflection. In any case, Thomas did not play a special role in his academic activity, also because he himself usually turned to certain individual topics only because I was forced to do so by external circumstances. I did not study Thomas, Duns Scotus, Orígenes or Augustine for their own sake, but to deal with concrete questions of the man of today 30.

Whether his interviewer was satisfied with this is not easy to see; presumably Rahner’s attitude, which is becoming clear here, rather irritated him. And so – picking up on a remark by H. Vorgrimler – he comes back to a concrete point: a stronger turning to earthly reality, which is connected with a rediscovery of Thomas, as Spirit worked out in the world.

Rahner thinks that transcendental Maréchal Thomism [has] experienced a certain correction through spirit in the world 31, because spirit is thematized as transcendence that can only be conveyed to itself through the conversio ad phantasmata, which can be translated as “turning to history, to the execution of freedom, to one’s fellow man 32. At the same time he warns of a not rarely observed appropriation of God as stopgap, i.e. again of a general attitude of thinking, which seems to be more important to him. And presumably in order to put an end to his interlocutor’s insistence on concrete thematic agreements with Thomas from his side, he emphasizes once again: He had never been a commentator on St. Thomas and had actually had no relationship with him, as perhaps the Dominicans had in former times 33. – This is the answer to the question whether he is a modern recipient of St. Thomas. – Now Rahner brings a concrete point into the conversation: the pax cum ecclesia in penance, as the Second Vatican Council had reminded us. In such and similar cases I have gladly referred to Thomas 34. Or the seriousness of Thomas’ metaphysics could have been the reason for Rahner’s opinion that man in death does not become acosmic but all-cosmic, but Thomas’ teaching was not entirely consistent; for then he should not have spoken of an anima separata 35.

The interviewer goes on to note that Rahner’s motives for pursuing theology are very similar to those of the Thomists, thus moving towards Rahner’s emphasis on the general and fundamental closeness in thinking to Thomas’ way of thinking. Rahner takes up this in contrast to his contemporaries, noting that he never “questioned the church teaching authority where it absolutely obliges me 36. And he gives examples where he himself had earlier held views that betrayed a too narrow conception of the teaching authority, declaring his defense of the monogenism of 1950 to be perhaps clever, but ultimately wrong. In this attitude he feels one with Thomas, who as a theologian among many others got along well with the Popes.The apotheosis of the Thomists developed only slowly later on and can be described as exaggeration and nonsense; personally, he likes Thomas because he remains more sober and objective than others, but this does not devalue the real achievements of others. The history of the influence of such thinkers depended on many circumstances and was never only directly and explicitly applicable. And with reference to Teilhard, of whom he has read practically nothing, he refers to a kind of atmospheric communication of a meta-literary kind 37, which obviously also exists, without meeting with great enthusiasm from his partner. He can back up the reference with a few examples and concludes from this that there are different stories of effects. Again he refers to a thought of Thomas – the incomprehensibility of God – which is indeed present in his work, but is not sufficiently clearly elaborated. Similarly, for him – Rahner – a dependence on spruce was claimed, of which he never read a line 38. Thomas himself was a thinker who was influenced by others in a similar way.

The interviewer breaks off this consideration, because it seems to lead him into the gigantic. He feels committed to the task of proving, using the usual methods, which works or certain works of Thomas Leute had read. So who really deserves to be called a recipient of Aquinas?39 Rahner had, of course, already answered this question and justified his answer. Now he cites J. Pieper, expressing understanding for the wish of his interviewer and suspecting that with a concentration on certain philosophical-theological topics one could make progress. At the same time he makes clear that this is not his thing and that he is not interested in it.

Rahner can show a certain respect for the work of J. Stufler, for example, and use his example to point out the possibility that Thomas saw something that was overlooked by the Thomist school. The interviewer, on the other hand, suggests starting with specifically Thomist themes, thus returning to the idea that was already on his mind throughout the conversation. But Rahner does not go along with this idea, not because he is not familiar with such themes. For the first step, he even takes such a beginning for granted, but he immediately continues with the question “that the form of the in this sense traditional Thomism has changed”, substantiated by a reference to Bánez, who is considered unthematic in recent times. And his partner formulates: Where has Thomas been correctly understood?

Rahner adds: “The misunderstandings caused by facts are also part of the history of effects, because somewhere Thomas is naturally responsible for them too 40. The interviewer counters this: However, we only speak of Thomas’ influence on someone where it has been correctly understood, as long as one can judge this objectively 41. But hadn’t Rahner already constantly made it clear that this was not so easy to decide and that this precondition could hardly be found clearly in reality? He explains this by pointing out that great minds are in the end quite rightly very ambivalent about many things – something that belongs to greatness. But moreover, they cannot always reflect on the contradictoriness or reconcilability of all their pluralistic statements, so that for Thomas it is almost self-evident that he too has contradicted himself without realizing it 42.

Rahner mentions some interpreters of the Thomists, who all referred to Thomas and thought they had understood him correctly, but who were involved among themselves in seemingly insurmountable disputes, up to the grace dispute between Dominicans and Jesuits at the beginning of the 17th century, for which reason Rahner would like to ask about a fundamentally different reception of Thomas 43. At the end of the conversation the focus is on the Thomas renaissance of the recent past, the neo-Thomism emanating from and demanded by Jesuits in the 19th century. But here, too, Rahner goes beyond the template, in that he wants to use the necessity and possibility of a historical assessment of restorative Thomism in its significance for an evaluation of the Catholic Church in the Pian era. Cosmopolitanism and narrowness were often close together, and the danger cannot be dismissed of being content with simple contradictions. Rahner now defends that the restorative Thomists and St. Thomas were anything but fools. And he asks – as always – whether it is not biographically verifiable here that these representatives in Rome underwent a kind of existential turning away from the world to a polemical relationship with it. He mentions only Jacques Maritain’s rapid and fanatical Thomism, but says that in the final analysis, with such questions one is faced with a problem that can hardly be solved in the history of thought 44.

The interviewer’s final question sounds a little astonished: can one actually become restorative by turning to Thomas Aquinas? Surely Thomas himself was not? 45. Rahner answers with a reference to Pope Leo XIII, and to the peculiar, the strange idea that of course there had been a history of dogmas and their development, but now one was finally in possession of unsurpassable concepts 46. This view lets us understand how the recourse to a progressive thinker like Thomas could lead to restoration 47.

This concludes the conversation, in which much more can be read than the statements collected here thematically on Thomas Aquinas and his work in the new life of the Church.

What is Rahner and his thinking about this?

A thinker like Karl Rahner would not be able to do his service if he were to behave himself as a mere mouthpiece of another way of thinking, i.e. he would not allow the possibility of thinking and contemplating for himself to come alive again and again. Even less will he allow himself to be constricted to such a role by others, although he will undoubtedly remain aware that he has inherited Gospel and faith, admittedly with the inner mission to appropriate this heritage in the respective tradition and world for himself and to draw from it the means and possibilities for a right handling of reality and time. If he is a priest and a religious, he will feel all the more strongly the responsibility for people and the world, the more inevitably he will also be confronted with challenges which must be taken up here and now.

The contact with Thomas Aquinas, who was effective for Rahner throughout his entire intellectual life, is not universally documented, but can be traced in his testimonies in such a way that not only for his self-understanding, but also for his service in the world and time, so much can be seen that Rahner’s interest in spirituality and pastoral care as well as his constant contributions simply belong to it, without hindering or restricting thinking, but on the contrary, stimulating it and using it for solutions.

It becomes clear that he does not see himself in the sense of his interlocutor only as a recipient of St. Thomas; the commentator has repeatedly and explicitly rejected this. There are other ways of a positive relationship, even when it is not the concerns of the Thomists that are at the forefront, but the challenges of the 20th century.

How exactly this could be determined remains secondary for Rahner. With the mention of Father Stufler he can refer to a Jesuit theology in which Thomas played a role and yet at the same time reject the neothomism of the Roman confreres, whom he therefore does not declare stupid or irresponsible.

What is important to him is a lively and comprehensive reference to thinking, or more precisely perhaps: to the way the Thomists thought and argued. Individual questions have their right, but they presuppose far too much as being decided, in order not to include provisions which can have a restrictive effect, especially if they are thoughtlessly and unintentionally restricted. Most interesting to him is his assumption: I believe that in Thomas there exists or could exist a metaphysics of freedom that is not fully elaborated, but basically great, and that was not seen clearly enough in Scholastic Thomism 48. The formulation of this conjecture says a lot about the nature of his relationship to Thomas’ thinking. One can sense that he would have liked to pursue this. That would have been – apart from the epistemologically accentuated contributions – an extension to the field of decision, action and leaving, which he had already tackled from Ignatius under a challenging situational ethics, but also in inner connection with other realities, and just not only considered for himself in isolation.

He himself thus indicates where he sees a meaningful and perhaps even necessary further work in his sense as possible. Otherwise, he is holding himself back in this relationship in a conspicuous manner.

Whether or not he is considered a Thomist is noticeably indifferent to Rahner; anyone who asks about his relationship to the Thomists will have to be satisfied with what he himself admits. But this is a very peculiar answer compared to the usual expectations. As a theologian Rahner cannot get away from the topicality of faith and church. There the tasks come up, for whose solution he can then fall back on the whole heritage of also philosophical and theological reflection. But that should happen as far as possible, so that from the outset possibilities are not faded out that would have allowed a valid solution. He tried to achieve this width, but it was also suspected to him and interpreted as a kind of betrayal. If liveliness is condemned in this sense, then an essential piece of the Gospel and faith is misjudged.

Rahner took something unbiased into his theological thinking, where and when he could use it. Admittedly, this theology first offered itself very traditionally, with all the will to work out and present a presentation that more perceptibly dealt with challenges of the world and of the time than was characteristic of the older contributions.

Rahner mentioned that a basic Maréchalian view of Thomanic thought had become important to him in the context of the discussions about the Nouvelle Théologie of the confreres of Lyon-Fourvière. The Swiss confreres of Schönbrunn had organized a meeting on Nature and Grace from 7-9 June 1949, which – according to all the information available – provided K. Rahner with a first opportunity after the war to go abroad again. Unfortunately neither Henri de Lubac nor Henri Bouillard took part in this exchange. After all Hugo Rahner through his relations to Switzerland until 1947 and in October 1948 on a journey to France had heard so much about the discussions there that he had already in 1947 in the magazine Orientation reported about ways to a new theology 49 and one year later he exchanged intensive information with Jean Danielou during a longer study stay in Innsbruck. His brother Karl had certainly taken part in it. He did not go to Schönbrunn unprepared. This becomes clear when he took advantage of his stay in Switzerland in June 1949 to give a lecture on ” Thomas’s Body-Soul” in the Academic House in Zurich and to participate in a meeting of sociologists at Freiburg. The talks at Schönbrunn were presented in 1950, even before the publication of the encyclical “Humani generis” and the associated practical measures in Fourvière in the orientation 50. Rahner then expanded his statement into the contribution On the Relationship between Nature and Grace 51, in which he developed the proposal of a supernatural existential. There also the reference to his French main interlocutor Émile Delaye (D.) can be found: “D. belongs to the circle of those theologians who are usually (partly under their protest) summarized as the school of nouvelle théologie. We leave it open whether and to what extent the account of D. really correctly reflects de Lubac’s view, as D. intends. [^54] H. de Lubac already then emphasized in his letters that in Delaye l’essentiel est omis 52. He later occasionally returned to this. His historical research on the idea of a natura pura made him react very reservedly to Rahner’s compromise proposal, which quietly wants to resort to the concept of potentia oboedientialis 53, which de Lubac spurned, and to let nature as a counter-concept to the supernatural be regarded as a residual concept 54 Rahner, too, expresses reservations about this, because ” this pure nature is not a definite, delimitable, definable quantity” and “this postulated pure nature never occurs “for itself alone” and “what exactly is meant by such a concept of pure nature” raises difficulties … it “remains a residual term. But a necessary and objectively justified one, if one wants to bring to one’s reflexive consciousness the innocence of grace despite man’s inner, unconditional dependence on it. For then this unconditional ordering must itself be understood as innocent and supernatural; the concretely experienced being of man differentiates itself into this supernatural existential as such and into the remainders this pure nature 55.

Rahner had greatly expanded and revised these considerations for publication in the writings in accordance with the tendencies of the discussions of the time. He believed that this was a justified point of humani generis. Perhaps later, as in the case of monogenism, he would have corrected himself here too. In the theological situation of the fifties of the last century he succeeded by his presentation to keep the question alive in the discussion, after it was considered condemned in H. de Lubac’s version. However, he himself did not see it that way at all, but was directly and indirectly hindered in his statements. He had referred among other things also to Maréchal, and like Rahner emphasized the dynamics of man and his spirit towards God. From M. Blondel he was familiar not only with extrinsic sects but also with the problem of “natura pura”, the problem of separate realities that could oppose each other and that had done so in broad spiritual currents of the time. In a completely different way than K. Rahner he therefore fell back on Thomas Aquinas and got involved in direct arguments with neo-Thomists. But the attitude to the Jesuit tradition looks with H. de Lubac similarly as with K. Rahner, so that it is to be asked why they did not find together. In terms of age both were almost a decade apart, and they came from spiritual worlds which seemed to be far away from each other by the First World War. H. de Lubac took part in this war from the beginning to the end on a side which, because of its attitude towards church and religion, carried a heavy burden for a Catholic, while on the German side the older traces of the cultural struggle seemed to be gradually lost. There were republics here and there; exile for religious also, but the effects were very different. Embedding and participation in the respective cultural awakening, for all their unmistakable similarities, nevertheless show significant differences. Both were great workers, but were characterized quite differently in their manner. Jesuit was one as well as the other, theological teacher likewise. In volume IV of the biography of H. de Lubac 56 some pages with photos are attached 57, of which the first shows Henri de Lubac at the Gallery of Experts, Saint Peter of Rome Basilica, 6 December 1962. On the dark background, a second figure stands out in profile : Karl Rahner. They proved themselves here as collaborators and servants of a church in search of a witness to the Gospel and faith in the world of this time. And one result has found undivided agreement with both of them, even if their share in it may have been quite different: the dogmatic constitution “Dei verbum”. That God in it communicated himself to the world presupposes that this is possible, namely that man and the world can become partners of this self-communication in all freedom and innocence from God.

Here H. de Lubac has made himself a commentator58, while K. Rahner, according to his nature, devoted himself to further questions and searches, e.g. with the considerations ” On the history of revelation after Vatican II” 59. That can serve here only as hint at a common ground not of external or tactical kind, but based on an idea of God’s self communication, which in recourse to statements of the Thomists about the relationship of God and world had produced a lively deepening for our time. H. de Lubac followed the traces for it in tradition to show how this truth has already been there; K. Rahner took up pending pastoral and spiritual questions in which this understanding should have an effect. For one as for the other, such an effort was important in view of the present. Of course, it is possible to reflect on other perspectives and ways of dealing with the Council and with Thomas Aquinas. Neither de Lubac nor Rahner would have made monopoly claims here. Both of them placed themselves in the life of the Church of their time, both of them kept themselves open to the general reflection of Gospel and faith, both of them did so with the means of thought they were familiar with and had learned to use. But for one as well as for the other, the impulses were J. Marechai’s impulses had become important for both of them, however, no matter how independently one of them and the other took them up – something that Marechal had demonstrated in his own way with regard to Thomas. Understood correctly it was only about what H. Bouillard had already condensed during the war years in the then so controversial sentence: “Quand l’esprit évolue, une vérité immuable ne se maintient que grâce à une évolution simultanée et corrélative de toutes les notions, maintenant entre elles un même rapport. Une Magistrisne theologie qui ne serait pas actual serait une theologie fausse” 60. However, actuality does not simply mean what wishes to present itself in this way.


Karl Rahner was much influenced by Joseph Maréchal whose works he got to know during his philosophical studies in Pullach. Yet it is somewhat surprising that Rahner cites Maréchal’s works only sparingly, most notably in “Geist in Welt”.Only late in his life does Rahner return to Maréchal explicitly in a number of interviews. Here Rahner cites Maréchal as influential, yet he also refers to a transformation of thought in his own reception of Maréchal. This transformation can be traced by comparing Rahner ‘s appropriation of Maréchal’s thought with that of Henri de Lubac.


{^54]: STh I, Einsiedeln 1954, 329-330, Anmerkung 2.

  1. K. Rahner , Geist in Welt, Innsbruck 1 939, V. 
  2. Dazu “Au point de départ – Joseph Maréchal entre la critique kantienne et l’ontologie thomiste”, P. Gilbert (Hg.), Bruxelles 2000. 
  3. K. Rahner , Geist in Welt, IX. 
  4. Teildruck Bottrop i. W. 1939; vollständig Bonn 1939 und noch einmal ebd. 1940. 
  5. Ebd. X. 
  6. SW 2, 373-406. 
  7. STh X, 21-40. 
  8. Pierre Rousselot, L’ intellectualisme de Saint Thomas, Paris 2 1 924; erste Auflage 1 908, dritte Auflage 1936. 
  9. Er lebte von 1 865 bis 1 952 und wirkte als Professor in Innsbruck von 1 908 bis 1 935; Rahner hat ihn dort noch persönlich kennengelernt. 
  10. Karl Rahner Im Gespräch 2, München 1983, 149. 
  11. Ebd. 151. 
  12. Karl Rahner Im Gespräch 1, München 1982, 32. 
  13. Glaube in winterlicher Zeit, Düsseldorf 1986, 28-29. 
  14. Ebd. 
  15. Ebd. 49-71. 
  16. Gesprächspartner war Jan van den Eijnden. 
  17. Ebd. 49 Einleitung. 
  18. Ebd. 50. 
  19. Ebd. 53. 
  20. Ebd. 
  21. Ebd. 54. 
  22. Ebd. 54. 
  23. Ebd. 
  24. Ebd. 55. 
  25. Ebd. 
  26. Ebd. 57. 
  27. Vgl. ebd. 58. 
  28. Ebd. 
  29. Ebd. 58-59. 
  30. Ebd. 60. 
  31. Ebd. 61. 
  32. Ebd. 
  33. Ebd. 62. 
  34. Ebd. 62. 
  35. Vgl. ebd. 63. 
  36. Ebd. 63. 
  37. Ebd. 65. 
  38. Hier wäre noch nachdrücklicher die Frage nach dem Einfluss von I. Kant zu stellen, dem gegenüber J. Maréchal sein Cahier V entwickelt hat. Und bei Kant steht man gleich vor der Frage, ob es der der “reinen Vernunft” oder jener der “praktischen Vernunft” ist, mit dem die Auseinandersetzung stattfindet. 
  39. Glaube in winterlicher Zeit ebd. 65. 
  40. Ebd. 67. 
  41. Ebd. 67. 
  42. Ebd. 68. 
  43. Vgl. ebd. 69. 
  44. Vgl. ebd. 70. 
  45. Ebd. 70. 
  46. Ebd. 71. 
  47. Ebd. 
  48. Ebd. 60. 
  49. Orientierung 11 ( 1947), 213-217. 
  50. Ebd. 14(1950), 141-145. 
  51. STh I, Einsiedeln 1954, 323-345. 
  52. Brief H. de Lubacs an A. Hayen vom 30. Juni 1953 zitiert in “Note historique” von G. Chantraine : H. de Lubac, Méditation sur l’Église (SW 8), Paris 2012, xxxviiis. 
  53. STh I, Einsiedeln 1954, 342. 
  54. Vgl. ebd. 340. 
  55. Ebd. 342. 
  56. Paris 2013. 
  57. Zwischen 4 1 6 und 417. 
  58. La Révélation Divine, Paris 1968, 1983. 
  59. Ursprünglich in “Neues Testament und Kirche” (Freiburg 1974), 543-549, STh XII, 241 -250, SW 21/2, 950-957. 
  60. H. Bouillard, Conversion et grâce chez Thomas d’ Aquin (Paris 1944), 219. 
Liked it? Take a second to support Maddison Reddie-Clifford on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: