There is a fascinating discussion on Pontifications about how the Roman Catholic Church needs to "get over Rahner". The Pontificator says on one of the comments that readers of his blog would most likely not agree with the theology of Karl Rahner, or his contemporaries, such as Schilldbeeckx, Lonergan, David Tracy, and (obviously) Kung. And I imagine that he is probably right! And yet Rahner is taught in all of the Catholic seminaries, and has been for a long, long time. How very interesting.
We were force fed all those guys mentioned above, and especially Rahner, in seminary. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard the Rahnerian phrase "transcendental openness" in my classes! His thought permeated every single class - from fundamental theology, to liturgy, to moral theology. For those of you who do not know, Rahner was a student of the philosopher Martin Heidegger, so he builds his theology on those categories, much like the Anglican, John MacQuarrie (who translated "Being and Time"). Many traditionalists believe those ontological categories are unsuitable to serve as a basis for Christian theology.
Honestly, I don't think Rahner is going anywhere in the Catholic Church. He has been taught in the seminaries for so long already, and was a major influence during Vatican II (indeed he was peritus - the theological expert - for almost all of the German bishops during that time). And insofar as the Catholic seminary system is built around the documents of Vatican II, he is going to be around for a long time. So in a word, if one is Catholic and does not like Rahner, he must simply learn to deal with it, and accept the fact that his priest and bishops are probably ardent disciples of Rahner - preferring him over St. Thomas Aquinas.
I suppose it is hard for converts to the Catholic Church to accept how the theology and method of the church has changed so much in the 20th century. Usually converts read only the books on a particular faith that they wish to read, and they develop in their mind some Platonic ideal of the way the faith they're converting to is supposed to be. But then they get discourgaged and disillusioned when, after converting, they see it's not really the way they envisioned it in their minds. For example, if one limits himself to only reading books by Ignatius Press, watching EWTN, going to an Indult Mass (or some more tradtional Novus Ordo mass), he may very well have an unpleasant surprise when he sees how the church actually is in all of its breadth and diversity. Incidently, people do this when converting to any number of faith traditions. It happens with Anglicanism too, so I am not just picking on Roman's here. Zealous converts to another faith tradition, would do well to seek out the wackiest stuff that people of that tradition have to offer, and to familairize themselves with it, so they will not surprised by anything coming down the pike.
