Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. Translated by Joseph Donceel. 1967; Reprinted, NY: The Crossroad Publishing, 2001.
Introduction
Karl Rahner (1904-1984) was a German philosopher and Jesuit Catholic theologian. Rahner studied philosophy, and he attended seminars taught by Martin Heidegger at the University of Freiburg. However, his doctoral mentor in philosophy rejected his dissertation (but later published it as Spirit in the World). This rejection led Rahner to shift from philosophy to theology at the University of Innsbruck, a Jesuit university where he later also taught. According to estimates, Rahner had over 3,500 published works. Alongside his academic and theological scholarship, he served the Catholic church as a priest and was appointed by Pope John XXIII as an expert advisor during the Second Vatican Council. He also worked with Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI. His influential work, as one of the important theologians of the 20th century, The Trinity, is the focus of this review.[1]
Rahner’s Axiom
Karl Rahner’s overall aim is to put the doctrine of the Trinity at the center of theology, faith, and practice. Rahner’s thesis, his Trinitarian axiom, is argumentative. He posits, “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity” (22, his italics). It argues against Neo-Scholasticism that emerged after 1840. Neo Scholasticism aims to retrieve Medieval scholasticism; however, according to Rahner, it failed. This Catholic school of thought was the reason for the divorce between ad intra and ad extra, and for the overemphasis on the monotheistic God (divine essence) rather than the Triune God (divine persons). Due to this influence, the doctrine of the Trinity has become irrelevant and overshadowed even in the light of appropriations, distinctions, and the eternal relations of origin. In Rahner’s trinitarian centric view, God, who is relational, is revealed through His self-communication. Against the Enlightened thought and Neo-Scholastic view that God is indifferent, supra-transcendent, and irrelevant, for Rahner God gifted the divine self through self-communication as the Father, Son, and Spirit to his created human beings.
Rahner’s method was to present the Latin medieval structure of the One God, then proceed to his thesis. The Latin medieval period was contrasted with the Greek emphasis on the persons, specifically God as the Father, the unoriginated divine person (17). The former tends to lean toward Unitarianism, semi-Arianism, and Sabellian modalism. Without the emphasis on the Trinity, as revealed in the economy of salvation, or salvation history, it seems that any divine person within the Godhead can become the Incarnate God-Man, Jesus Christ. Further, according to Rahner, that theological error can also tell that any of the Father, Son, and the Spirit be the unoriginate source of divine nature, or the procession of both the Son and Spirit. Thus, it is significant to retrieve Trinitarian doctrine at the center of Christian faith and practice.
The structural flow of his work is divided into three parts: first, the context, including where neo-scholastic teachings failed and the content of his argument or axiom; second, a survey of doctrinal credibility through the Magisterium’s authority and church history; third, a recapitulation of the thesis in a systematic approach. His main argument presents no distinction or division between the economic Trinity (ad extra) and the immanent Trinity (ad intra). The economic Trinity is equally the immanent Trinity, vice versa. Rahner describes the Trinitarian distinction of the persons or “distinct manners of subsistence” (hypostasis) through their relation. The Father as the unoriginate source, the Son who is the uttered and begotten (generation), and the Spirit who is received and accepted (procession, spiration) (101 2). For Rahner, those who do not prioritize the Trinity in the light of his axiom tend to formulate a divine quaternity due to the One God (divine nature) emphasis, then the Trinitarian (divine persons) doctrine. Therefore, Rahner contends that one begins with the Trinitarian persons, the Father, Son, and Spirit, since God revealed himself through this self-communication to his human creatures. One cannot know the immanent Trinity without the economic Trinity. Not that there is a distinction, but for Rahner, the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity.
Rahner’s axiom has significant strengths, particularly in its context and reason for writing, concerning the unity and distinction of the Trinity, the divine mission and its appropriations of each divine person, the inseparable operations, and the eternal relations of origin, including the order of taxis. Most significantly, through Rahner’s axiom, it counters the Neo-scholastic and Enlightenment views of divine transcendental incomprehensibility in a supra-skepticism, by equating the economic Trinity as God “for us” to the immanent Trinity. Moreover, it safeguards Christology as well, that it is only the begotten Son, as the uttered Logos, who can become the Incarnate God Man. Also, the Spirit as the mutual love between the Father and Son, and the grace and love to his created human beings.
However, Rahner views the gift (through self-communication) and the Giver (who self-communicates) as one with no distinction. While the first part of his axiom is acceptable, the latter part bears theological confusion.[2] It seems that there is a fusion of the ad extra and ad intra. Divine self-communication becomes the ontological Godhead for his creation, which sounds panentheistic in a radical sense. Does it mean the revelation of salvation history is God himself, and not just about God’s action? Further, equating the economic to the immanent Trinity seems to lead to subordinationism within the Godhead. Lastly, it takes away the transcendence of God as boundless, eternal, infinite, and incomprehensible. While Rahner was able to bring back the Trinity at the center of theological discussion in the doctrine of God, he somehow made it too “near,” or “theology from below.” Perhaps this reason was due to the emphasis on experience and his appeal to his parishioners to make the Trinity become part of daily life. It is significant to remember that he lived through the two World Wars and was deeply involved in the global Catholic scene.
Nevertheless, it is recommended that all master’s- and doctoral-level theology and seminary students read Rahner’s work. One needs to be familiar with his axiom to understand the twentieth-century Trinitarian doctrinal historiography, which has shaped today’s theological discussion. However, there are parts where Rahner is difficult to read due to the structure of his work, especially in his use of philosophical and theological terms. This work is not a primer, but rather intended for advanced-level theology students, especially those specializing in dogmatics, theology proper, and historical theology.
[1] This 1997 reprinted version includes an intro., index, and glossary by Catherine Mowry LaCugna.
[2] For a comprehensive analysis of Karl Rahner’s axiom, see Malcolm Yarnell III, God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016), 164-177. Yarnell proposes to modify Rahner’s axiom; he states, “The economic Trinity reveals the immanent Trinity truly but not exhaustively” (his italics), 173.
*photo from https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/take-and-read-hearers-word
John&Paul's Reflections 