tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post115216234761196185..comments2023-10-28T03:26:35.948-05:00Comments on Catholic in the Third Millennium: Karl Rahner on the Holy TrinityDan Dunlaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1153343657430012122006-07-19T16:14:00.000-05:002006-07-19T16:14:00.000-05:00Dr. D, I am not sure about your interpretation of ...Dr. D, <BR/><BR/>I am not sure about your interpretation of Rahner's Trinitarian theology. After all, in his book "Trinity" he argues for the incarnation of the Logos as an economic act somehow appropriate to His person as distinguished from the others. That sounds to me like a clear recognition of absolutly distinct hypostases prior to their relation to creation.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, the purpose of this post is to point out that the following statement you made is the exact charge I am making against those who speak of the divine 'ousia' as not 'esse'. <BR/><BR/>"It would appear that Rahner would conclude that anything we can say about the Trinity is meaningful language only in relation to God's activity in creation."Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14449969414952273164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1152417681020183432006-07-08T23:01:00.000-05:002006-07-08T23:01:00.000-05:00Hi AH,As I read Rahner, it would seem that his axi...Hi AH,<BR/><BR/>As I read Rahner, it would seem that his axiom "the Immanent Trinity is the Economic Trinity and the Economic Trinity is the Immanent Trinity" compells a radical identity of the two concepts: i.e. the Immanent truly *is* the Economic.<BR/><BR/>I think it is a mistake to read Rahner as keeping with the Eastern concepts of the Economic Trinity and Immanent Trinity, (in which case the Economic is that which reveals what otherwise cannot be known of the Immanent, i.e. the eternal relations of the divine Hypostases.) Rather I get the impression that, for Rahner, the only thing meaningful that can be said about the Trinity is that the one God has revealed Himself in three "modes of presence." True, Rahner is emphatic that the Hypostases are absolute distinctions within the Trinity, but only with respect to how God makes Himself present in creation and history. It would appear that Rahner would conclude that anything we can say about the Trinity is meaningful language only in relation to God's activity in creation.Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.com