Taylor Marshall, Bishop Barron, Karl Rahner and Salvation

 I guess we should be happy for the fame of Bishop Barron no one has caused this reaction in the American Church on the topic of Salvation, since Fr. Feeney; except Fr. Feeney was defending Christ, and Bishop Barron is abandoning Him.  I really like how Taylor was able to be strong and firm, but also kind to Bishop Barron.

Taylor also read The Council of  Florence, seldom heard in Catholic circles even conservative ones. Taylor really nails the problem with Karl Rahner--excellent explanation.  It is hard to get anyone to clearly take on Karl Rahner.

Karl Rahner was the one who edited the Denzinger and put in it the letter to the Bishop of Boston regarding Fr. Feeney, even though it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Rahner also moved the statement of  Pope Zosimus on Salvation of infants to a footnote, thus undermining the doctrine of Limbo.

Karl Rahner has always weakened the need of membership in the Church for Salvation. He was honest enough to state it openly-- that Church Fathers would have rejected that:

"...we have to admit...that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church.

For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already 'Christianus', and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism.

Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire. "(Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, Translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40,41, 57 Or. 40, 23 (PG 36, 3890), 58 'Sermo contra dilationem Baptismi' (PG 46, 424), 59 Cf. Fr. Hoffmann, Der Kirchenbegriff des hl. Augustinus (Munich 1933), pp.221 sqq., 381 sqq., 464 sqq., New York, The Seabury Press, 1975.)


It is hard to excuse Bishop Barron's ignorance. I hope the push back on his recent sermon will finally help him to see his mistake.