Thank you both. I found this very illuminating. For five years I resisted becoming a Catholic because of what I now know to call 'the scandal of particularity'. A couple of years after I had finally given in to God , and was received into the Church without finding an answer to my objections, I remember hearing in eucharistic prayer 2 "To our departed brothers and sisters **and to all who were pleasing to you at their passing from this life,** give kind admittance to your kingdom (I think there's something similar in EP 3 and 4 but haven't found it in 1, the Roman canon, but I may have missed it). I remember thinking afterwards that I had finally received my answer. It is not to me to second guess God's plans for us all. But I did particularly like your discussion of Limbo. It would certainly solve a lot of problems.
This was really interesting, Dr. Chapp. It does make me curious, however, if your views regarding the possibility of eventual universal reconciliation have changed somewhat over the past couple of years, alongside your overall sympathies towards universalism. The arguments made in this discussion would be very interesting to bring up to somebody like Jordan Daniel Wood. His work is pretty great and I really enjoyed your previous discussions with him. I’m certainly curious what he would make of this - especially the more expansive view of Limbo.
In the Conversations, Marcel Van affirms that Jesus Christ gave some clues as to the solution of the ancient Catholic debate on the topic of unbaptized children: "JESUS: Remember this well. When the intelligence of little children is still undeveloped, the same applies to will. Intelligence is used to understand whether a thing is good or bad and the will is used to act in accordance with what the intelligence discerns. These two faculties are essential, and it is these essential faculties that little children lack. It is therefore necessary for another will to settle within the hearts of these little children. If this will acts in accordance with good, it is equivalent to the little children acting in this way of their own volition. However, for this will to manifest itself, it must act in accordance with good, with truth itself. If this will acts in a way opposed to good, to truth, it will not produce any effect. You must place your will within the hearts of little children. In this way they will also belong to the Holy Church. Should they come to die before attaining the use of reason, they will nonetheless ascend to Heaven with Me, for they will have your will with them. You have the will to believe everything the Holy Church teaches you to believe, and you also possess the will to love Me. Because of this, the children will share your will and their souls will belong to the Holy Church and to Me in their entirety. These children may know nothing, but within them resides the will of another who knows, and though they may not know, they will understand. Do you understand this, little brother? Offer Me your will and I will put it in the souls of children on earth. Henceforth you can rest assured that all little children already belong to Me. Little brother, this notion of will I have revealed to you was not known until now. Little children were always saved in this manner without man ever realizing it. Come little brother, banish your sadness and be joyful. You are the apostle of children. It was necessary for you to know this. Children saved in this manner are baptized in Love itself. They are allowed to confess their faith in love. This act of love is accomplished by will."
In case it helps, my understanding of the supernatural existential is this: not “de jure” but “de facto,”we know that in this world, wherever there are humans, grace is also present, at least as an offer. (Whether it is cooperated with and thus made effective is not, however, guaranteed.) It rests on the two-fold revelation that God desires all to be saved and that grace is necessary for salvation. It follows that God offers his grace to all. It is therefore existential because it marks the concrete existence of every person and supernatural because it is beyond pure nature. For clarity, and this is a mistake I believe Balthasar makes in his book on Barth, the supernatural existential and the obediential potency are NOT the same thing! The obediential potency = Rahner’s Vorgriff, not his supernatural existential. The O.P. is on the side of nature and thus intrinsic to humans; the S.E. is extrinsic in that it comes from outside of and above the nature.
Thanks Richard. I think that this is exactly right. That has always been my understanding of it as well. I have just never been certain that my armchair understandings of Rahner are to be trusted!
Theologians of Chapp's generation have a tendency to see theology in terms of Balthasar vs. Rahner. This is understandable given the way that Balthasarians began to challenge the Rahnerian stronghold when Chapp was in school. But I think history will see these figures as two peas in the pod of a single tradition and culture, with more in common than not. For example, the inclusivist motivation in both Rahner's thought and _Dare We Hope?_ is incredibly similar; _Principles of Christian Morality_ shows Balthasar to be highly Kantian; and in general, the way the two thinkers tend to subsume the faith into an overarching system of thought is very similar, even though Balthasar achieves something nearer a meta-system than Rahner does.
I think so yes. I have written on Weil who I love. And that opens up a big set of questions!! Because she considered baptism and yet seems to have explicitly rejected it out of a sense of solidarity with the poor.
Thank you both. I found this very illuminating. For five years I resisted becoming a Catholic because of what I now know to call 'the scandal of particularity'. A couple of years after I had finally given in to God , and was received into the Church without finding an answer to my objections, I remember hearing in eucharistic prayer 2 "To our departed brothers and sisters **and to all who were pleasing to you at their passing from this life,** give kind admittance to your kingdom (I think there's something similar in EP 3 and 4 but haven't found it in 1, the Roman canon, but I may have missed it). I remember thinking afterwards that I had finally received my answer. It is not to me to second guess God's plans for us all. But I did particularly like your discussion of Limbo. It would certainly solve a lot of problems.
Great talk. Thanks
This was really interesting, Dr. Chapp. It does make me curious, however, if your views regarding the possibility of eventual universal reconciliation have changed somewhat over the past couple of years, alongside your overall sympathies towards universalism. The arguments made in this discussion would be very interesting to bring up to somebody like Jordan Daniel Wood. His work is pretty great and I really enjoyed your previous discussions with him. I’m certainly curious what he would make of this - especially the more expansive view of Limbo.
Anyone buy this book yet? How is the read for the average reader?
It's almost like we have to be saved from God.
In the Conversations, Marcel Van affirms that Jesus Christ gave some clues as to the solution of the ancient Catholic debate on the topic of unbaptized children:
"JESUS: Remember this well. When the intelligence of little children is still undeveloped, the same applies to will. Intelligence is used to understand whether a thing is good or bad and the will is used to act in accordance with what the intelligence discerns. These two faculties are essential, and it is these essential faculties that little children lack. It is therefore necessary for another will to settle within the hearts of these little children. If this will acts in accordance with good, it is equivalent to the little children acting in this way of their own volition.
However, for this will to manifest itself, it must act in accordance with good, with truth itself. If this will acts in a way opposed to good, to truth, it will not produce any effect.
You must place your will within the hearts of little children. In this way they will also belong to the Holy Church. Should they come to die before attaining the use of reason, they will nonetheless ascend to Heaven with Me, for they will have your will with them. You have the will to believe everything the Holy Church teaches you to believe, and you also possess the will to love Me. Because of this, the children will share your will and their souls will belong to the Holy Church and to Me in their entirety. These children may know nothing, but within them resides the will of another who knows, and though they may not know, they will understand.
Do you understand this, little brother? Offer Me your will and I will put it in the souls of children on earth. Henceforth you can rest assured that all little children already belong to Me.
Little brother, this notion of will I have revealed to you was not known until now. Little children were always saved in this manner without man ever realizing it. Come little brother, banish your sadness and be joyful. You are the apostle of children. It was necessary for you to know this.
Children saved in this manner are baptized in Love itself. They are allowed to confess their faith in love. This act of love is accomplished by will."
In case it helps, my understanding of the supernatural existential is this: not “de jure” but “de facto,”we know that in this world, wherever there are humans, grace is also present, at least as an offer. (Whether it is cooperated with and thus made effective is not, however, guaranteed.) It rests on the two-fold revelation that God desires all to be saved and that grace is necessary for salvation. It follows that God offers his grace to all. It is therefore existential because it marks the concrete existence of every person and supernatural because it is beyond pure nature.
For clarity, and this is a mistake I believe Balthasar makes in his book on Barth, the supernatural existential and the obediential potency are NOT the same thing! The obediential potency = Rahner’s Vorgriff, not his supernatural existential. The O.P. is on the side of nature and thus intrinsic to humans; the S.E. is extrinsic in that it comes from outside of and above the nature.
Thanks Richard. I think that this is exactly right. That has always been my understanding of it as well. I have just never been certain that my armchair understandings of Rahner are to be trusted!
Theologians of Chapp's generation have a tendency to see theology in terms of Balthasar vs. Rahner. This is understandable given the way that Balthasarians began to challenge the Rahnerian stronghold when Chapp was in school. But I think history will see these figures as two peas in the pod of a single tradition and culture, with more in common than not.
For example, the inclusivist motivation in both Rahner's thought and _Dare We Hope?_ is incredibly similar; _Principles of Christian Morality_ shows Balthasar to be highly Kantian; and in general, the way the two thinkers tend to subsume the faith into an overarching system of thought is very similar, even though Balthasar achieves something nearer a meta-system than Rahner does.
Was Simone Weil saved?
I think so yes. I have written on Weil who I love. And that opens up a big set of questions!! Because she considered baptism and yet seems to have explicitly rejected it out of a sense of solidarity with the poor.