Posted on 04/28/2004 6:30:50 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
More evidence of how poisoned the V-2 well was. The well from which the church drinks from today.
Hysterical. Ever hear of Peter Abelard?
As an admirer of Rahner's theology, he demonstrated (if this story is true) the kind of particular friendship that has been part and parcel of celibate life through the centuries.
Platonic love.
Not off the top of my head. I've just read his work, not critiques of his work. His influence on the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Avery Dulles is considerable.
Only if Vatican II ends up there, which is highly doubtful.
Wishful thinking won't make it so.
Only in the minds of wishful thinkers.
“The dogma (of the immaculate conception) [sic] does not mean in any way that the birth of a being is accompanied by something contaminating, by a stain, and that in order to avoid it Mary must have had a privilege. — The immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin therefore consists simply in the possession, from the beginning of her existence, of the life of divine grace, which was given to her. — From the beginning of her existence Mary was enveloped in the redeeming and sanctifying love of God. Such is, in all its simplicity, the content of the doctrine that Pius IX solemnly defined as a truth of the Catholic faith, in the year 1854."50
However, the definition of the dogma in Ineffabilis Deus says clearly and repeatedly that the Most Holy Virgin was preserved from all stain of original sin. The text reads:
“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine is revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful, which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of Her conception was, by a unique grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Savior of the human race, preserved from all stain of original sin.”51
Cardinal Siri goes on to show the fallacy of Rahner’s teaching: “... if man at his birth” says the Cardinal, “ is not accompanied by a stain, of what stain does the Bull of Pius IX speak? How can one claim, as Rahner does, that there was not any stain to avoid and that Mary did not need a privilege?”52
In short, this is nothing more than Rahner’s implicit denial of original sin. It also undermines the infallibility of Papal pronouncements, since Rahner’s words clearly contradict Pius IXs solemn definition.
I'm missing something here. Trent says that original sin is "the death of the soul" (Canon 2). It is this "stain" of death which is remitted by the infusion of grace at Baptism. Trent didn't actually use the word "stain" - the Fathers there preferred to use "guilt".
Mary's conception free of the stain of original sin means simply, as Fr. Rahner says, that she was conceived full of grace.
I think what Fr. Rahner is trying to combat here is the heretical notion which grew up in Catholic circles from a misreading of St. Augustine, amplified by Jansenius, that Original Sin was an actual "something" which was caused by sexual pleasure during intercourse and "removed" by Baptism. Around this superstition also grew up the idea that sex and childbirth contaminated women, and they could not go back to Mass until they had been Churched (hence it was thought okay to miss Mass for weeks at a time while waiting for one's Churching).
Sin of course, does not have existence, since it is a tendency to disorder, chaos, and non-existence. Original sin certaily has nothing to do with intercourse. The transmission of original sin by natural propagation is due to the reproduction of human beings from their common substance absent sanctifying grace in their souls, a grevious defect which would not be but for Adam's fall. Mary's freedom from original sin means that she came into the world not suffering from the death of the soul because she was graced. Nothing more, and nothing less.
The stain of sin in general is a blackened soul that is dead to the Lord. That all humans are born in this manner means nothing more but that they are born diseased in a supernatural sense because they are seperated from the sustaining life of God. However, there is nothing wrong with them that cannot be fixed by a trip to the Baptismal font to receive some grace.
I have no idea what Cardinal Siri is getting worked up about. Perhaps a fuller quote of his work would explain it better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.