The Foundations of Karl Rahner
Chapter Nine: Eschatology

Rahner and Shri Mataji both offer non-literal reinterpretations of resurrection, but from fundamentally different theological starting points. Rahner maintains traditional creedal language while reinterpreting its meaning through transcendental anthropology, understanding resurrection as "the definitive validity of free human actions" achieving eternal significance [1]. His approach preserves continuity with orthodox Christian formulations while expanding their conceptual framework. In contrast, Shri Mataji explicitly rejects traditional resurrection doctrine as "archaic and scientifically indefensible" [2], replacing it entirely with the concept of Kundalini awakening as the true meaning behind resurrection language.
This difference reflects a deeper theological divergence regarding Christ's significance. For Rahner, Christ's resurrection remains the paradigm and ground of human eschatological hope, with human fulfillment consisting of participation in Christ's glorified humanity. For Shri Mataji, Christ's primary significance lies in his prophecy of the Paraclete—a promise she claims to fulfill. Her teachings suggest that what Christ could only describe prophetically, she actualizes experientially through Sahaja Yoga. This represents not merely a different interpretation of resurrection but a reconfiguration of Christian theological structure around the Paraclete rather than the incarnate Word.

Eschatology and the Paraclete: A Theological Analysis of Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi's Fulfillment Claim

Abstract

This paper conducts a systematic theological analysis of Karl Rahner's eschatological framework as presented in The Foundations and evaluates its purported fulfillment through the teachings of Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi, recognized by her followers as the incarnate Paraclete. Rahner's approach to eschatology, characterized by transcendental hermeneutics and a unified understanding of individual and collective destiny, provides a sophisticated theological lens. This paper demonstrates that while Shri Mataji's teachings on the spiritual resurrection of living beings through Kundalini awakening resonate with Rahner's emphasis on present eschatological experience and the unity of human destiny, they diverge significantly in their Christological implications and metaphysical foundations. The analysis reveals that claims of complete fulfillment are problematic, but that productive dialogue emerges regarding the transformative nature of eschatological hope when viewed through these distinct theological systems.

1. Introduction: A Comparative Eschatological Inquiry

The theological investigation of "last things" has occupied Christian thought for two millennia, yet its interpretation continues to evolve in dialogue with contemporary philosophical frameworks and global religious perspectives. Karl Rahner, one of the most influential Catholic theologians of the 20th century, developed an eschatological framework in The Foundations that sought to reinterpret traditional doctrines in light of transcendental anthropology and existential philosophy. Simultaneously, the teachings of Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi (1923-2011), who proclaimed herself to be the incarnate Paraclete promised in Christian scripture, present a radical re-envisioning of eschatology centered on immediate spiritual awakening rather than future cosmic events. This paper examines the extent to which Shri Mataji's teachings can be understood as fulfilling Rahner's eschatological vision.

The inquiry proceeds from Rahner's foundational claim that eschatological statements are not predictive narratives but rather "conclusions from the experience of the Christian present" and "projections about the future" by the Christian community [1]. This hermeneutical approach creates space for examining how eschatological concepts might be realized in present spiritual experience—a central theme in Shri Mataji's teachings. This paper will analyze key aspects of Rahner's eschatology including his understanding of unified destiny, reinterpretation of resurrection, and theological anthropology, comparing these with Shri Mataji's claims of bringing the messianic age through Sahaja Yoga and Kundalini awakening.

2. The Foundations of Rahnerian Eschatology: Principles and Hermeneutics

2.1 Hermeneutics of Eschatological Statements: Beyond Apocalyptic Literalism

Rahner's approach to eschatology begins with a crucial hermeneutical distinction between traditional apocalyptic expressions and the eschatological reality they attempt to convey. He argues that biblical and traditional statements about "last things" should not be read as "anticipatory, eyewitness accounts of a future which is still outstanding" but rather as "projections" by the Christian community about its own future [1]. This projection theory does not diminish the reality of eschatological hope but rather grounds it in present Christian experience. According to Rahner, eschatological statements emerge from the community's current experience of grace and salvation, extended logically into an understanding of ultimate fulfillment. This approach enables a non-literal interpretation of apocalyptic imagery while preserving its theological significance.

Rahner further distinguishes between apocalyptic form and eschatological content, warning against conflating the symbolic language of revelation with the realities it expresses. As he notes, "We know no more about the last things than we know about people who have been redeemed" [1]. This epistemological humility regarding eschatological particulars creates theological space for diverse interpretations while maintaining core commitments to human freedom and divine promise. This hermeneutical framework proves particularly significant when examining alternative eschatological systems like Shri Mataji's, as it allows for assessment based on existential and anthropological coherence rather than merely doctrinal conformity.

2.2 Unified Eschatology: The Inseparable Destiny of Individual and Collective

Central to Rahner's eschatology is his rejection of a dualistic separation between individual and collective destiny. While acknowledging the distinction between individual eschatology (destiny at death) and collective eschatology (destiny of creation), he insists they "mutually influence one another and make up a single reality" [1]. This unified approach counters tendencies toward either purely personal salvation or abstract cosmic renewal divorced from human particularity. Rahner emphasizes that the "destiny of the soul depends on 'the transformation of the world' and is not independent of the resurrection of the flesh" [1], thereby linking personal fulfillment with cosmic redemption.

This unified perspective extends to Rahner's understanding of temporal existence and eternal destiny. He reconceptualizes eternity not as endless temporal extension but as the definitive validity of free human actions achieved in time: "Eternity subsumes time by being liberated from the time which came to be temporarily so that freedom and something of final and definitive validity can be achieved" [1]. In this framework, death becomes not merely an end but the moment when an individual's contribution to history achieves its "final form" [1]. The transformative significance of human actions, particularly acts of love, lies in their participation in divine salvation and their enduring contribution to collective human destiny.

2.3 Death, Resurrection, and the Transformation of Theological Anthropology

Rahner's treatment of resurrection demonstrates his innovative approach to traditional doctrines. He questions the utility of stark body-soul dualism for eschatology, noting that "it is 'superfluous' to ask what a person does while his body is in the grave and his soul is already with God" [1]. Instead, he emphasizes the essential unity of the human person, whose spiritual reality is always encountered as "corporeal and historical" [1]. Resurrection, in this framework, signifies the definitive fulfillment of the entire person in God, expressed through the traditional concepts of beatific vision and resurrection of the flesh.

Significantly, Rahner reinterprets the resurrected state not as a restoration of biological existence but as the attainment of definitive validity and participation in God's eternal life. He states that "our final validity comes to be in time, not to continue on in time, but to 'form' time" [1], suggesting that human beings become co-creators with God, imprinting divine meaning onto temporal reality through their free, loving actions. This understanding connects with his view of purgatory as representing "the interval between an individual's fundamental decision for God and the integration of that decision in the whole of one's reality" [1], emphasizing the developmental nature of eschatological fulfillment rather than instantaneous transformation.

3. The Claim of Paraclete Fulfillment: Shri Mataji's Eschatological Teaching

3.1 Shri Mataji as the Incarnate Paraclete: Theological Self-Understanding

Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi proclaimed herself to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecies across multiple religious traditions, most centrally as the Paraclete (Comforter or Advocate) promised by Jesus in the Gospel of John. Her followers maintain that she represents "the simultaneous fulfillment of all messianic prophecies as the incarnation of the Divine Feminine, manifesting as the Paraclete (Christianity), Ruh Allah (Islam), Shekinah (Judaism), and Adi Shakti (Hinduism)" [2]. This claim of cross-religious fulfillment addresses what her teachings identify as "the logical impossibility of sequential messianic arrivals" [2], proposing instead a single divine manifestation that transcends particular religious frameworks while fulfilling their essential promises.

Shri Mataji's theological significance centers on her declaration that "I am the Holy Ghost and I have come for this Special Time, that is, the Resurrection Time" [2]. This identification as the incarnate Holy Spirit represents a radical development in Christian theological understanding, as she explicitly claimed to complete what Christ could not fully reveal: "I am here to tell you all these things which Christ could not tell, and to fulfil what He wanted to say" [2]. Her advent is presented as initiating the actualization of eschatological promises that had remained futuristic in traditional Christian expectation.

3.2 Reinterpretation of Eschatological Concepts: From Future Event to Present Awakening

Central to Shri Mataji's eschatological teaching is a decisive reinterpretation of resurrection from future bodily raising to present spiritual awakening. She explicitly rejected "the archaic and scientifically indefensible belief in the literal, physical resurrection of corpses from graves," teaching instead that "resurrection refers to the spiritual awakening of living human beings through Self-realization" [2]. This transformation occurs through the awakening of the Kundalini energy, which she identified with the Holy Spirit, leading to Self-realization—a state of awareness she equated with being "born again" as described in John 3:3-8.

According to Shri Mataji's teachings, the messianic age has already begun with the opening of the Sahasrara Chakra (the "Kingdom of God" within) on May 5, 1970, making "mass Self-realization possible for the first time" [2]. This event inaugurated what she termed the "Resurrection Time"—not a future apocalyptic moment but a present spiritual reality accessible through her guidance. In this framework, traditional eschatological concepts are interiorized and actualized: judgment becomes the immediate discernment of spiritual states through awakened Kundalini, eternal life becomes the present experience of divine consciousness, and collective salvation manifests as the gradual transformation of humanity through widespread Self-realization.

3.3 Collective Destiny and the Divine Feminine: An Integrative Eschatological Vision

Shri Mataji's teachings present a collective eschatological vision grounded in the concept of the Divine Feminine as the unifying principle of creation. Drawing from ancient traditions that revered the "Great Mother" as "the source of life, cosmic order, and spiritual regeneration" [3], her framework understands the Adi Shakti (Primordial Power) as orchestrating the spiritual evolution of humanity toward collective enlightenment. This process involves not merely individual salvation but the transformation of human consciousness on a global scale, leading to what her teachings describe as "the promised era of enlightenment" [2].

The mechanism for this collective transformation is Sahaja Yoga, which she presented as the "spontaneous union with the Divine" made possible through her advent as the Paraclete. Unlike Rahner's emphasis on free human actions as contributing to eschatological fulfillment, Shri Mataji's teachings emphasize receptive awakening to a divine process already underway. The 1948 establishment of Israel is interpreted in her tradition as a key prophetic sign indicating the beginning of this messianic era, yet with the crucial understanding that the political event merely signaled the approach of the true spiritual fulfillment she embodied [2].

4. Comparative Analysis: Rahnerian Framework Applied to Paraclete Claims

4.1 Hermeneutical Resonance and Divergence

Shri Mataji's approach to eschatological concepts demonstrates significant hermeneutical resonance with Rahner's principles while diverging in crucial aspects. Both systems reject literalistic interpretations of apocalyptic imagery in favor of existential significance. Where Rahner understands eschatological statements as "projections" from present Christian experience [1], Shri Mataji reinterprets them as metaphors for immediate spiritual processes. For instance, her teaching that resurrection is "the spiritual awakening of living human beings through Self-realization" [2] parallels Rahner's emphasis on present participation in eternal life through free commitment to the good. Both thinkers shift eschatology from future prediction to present spiritual reality.

However, substantial hermeneutical divergence emerges in their treatment of religious authority. Rahner's hermeneutics operate within the Catholic tradition's authority structures, seeking to "reformulate, under the careful guidance of the church magisterium" traditional eschatological assertions so they "might be meaningful today" [4]. In contrast, Shri Mataji's teachings position her as the supreme hermeneutical authority, claiming she alone can correctly interpret scriptures across traditions because she is their fulfillment. This difference reflects Rahner's commitment to ecclesial tradition versus Shri Mataji's claim to superseding authority as the incarnate Paraclete.

4.2 Unified Eschatology and the Integration of Individual and Collective Fulfillment

The most substantial convergence between Rahnerian eschatology and Shri Mataji's teachings appears in their integrated understanding of individual and collective destiny. Rahner's insistence that individual and collective eschatology "make up a single reality" [1] finds parallel in Shri Mataji's teaching that individual Self-realization contributes to collective spiritual evolution. Both systems reject purely private salvation in favor of a transformative interconnection between personal awakening and cosmic redemption. Rahner's concept that "the individual's concrete acts of love are a participation in the salvation and love of God and contribute to it" [1] resonates with the Sahaja Yoga understanding that realized individuals radiate spiritual vibrations that uplift collective consciousness.

This comparative analysis reveals both convergence and divergence in how Rahner's eschatological principles relate to Shri Mataji's teachings:

4.3 Resurrection Reinterpreted: Spiritual Awakening versus Ontological Transformation

Rahner and Shri Mataji both offer non-literal reinterpretations of resurrection, but from fundamentally different theological starting points. Rahner maintains traditional creedal language while reinterpreting its meaning through transcendental anthropology, understanding resurrection as "the definitive validity of free human actions" achieving eternal significance [1]. His approach preserves continuity with orthodox Christian formulations while expanding their conceptual framework. In contrast, Shri Mataji explicitly rejects traditional resurrection doctrine as "archaic and scientifically indefensible" [2], replacing it entirely with the concept of Kundalini awakening as the true meaning behind resurrection language.

This difference reflects a deeper theological divergence regarding Christ's significance. For Rahner, Christ's resurrection remains the paradigm and ground of human eschatological hope, with human fulfillment consisting of participation in Christ's glorified humanity. For Shri Mataji, Christ's primary significance lies in his prophecy of the Paraclete—a promise she claims to fulfill. Her teachings suggest that what Christ could only describe prophetically, she actualizes experientially through Sahaja Yoga. This represents not merely a different interpretation of resurrection but a reconfiguration of Christian theological structure around the Paraclete rather than the incarnate Word.

5. Conclusion: Assessing Fulfillment Through Rahnerian Lenses

This comparative analysis reveals that Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi's teachings both resonate with and diverge from Karl Rahner's eschatological framework in significant ways. Substantial convergence exists in their shared rejection of apocalyptic literalism, their integrated understanding of individual and collective destiny, and their emphasis on present participation in eschatological realities. These convergences suggest that Rahner's transcendental approach to eschatology creates hermeneutical space for recognizing spiritual experiences outside traditional Christian frameworks as potentially participating in eschatological fulfillment.

However, fundamental theological divergences limit claims of complete fulfillment. Rahner's careful balance between reformulation and continuity with Christian tradition contrasts sharply with Shri Mataji's explicit rejection of central Christian doctrines and her claim to superseding authority as the incarnate Paraclete. While her teachings on spiritual awakening through Kundalini parallel Rahner's understanding of present participation in eternal life, they lack his theological anthropology grounded in Christology and his understanding of human freedom as contributing to eschatological fulfillment through historical action.

Ultimately, assessment of fulfillment depends on whether Rahner's framework is understood as primarily hermeneutical methodology or substantive theology. As methodology, Shri Mataji's teachings demonstrate remarkable alignment with Rahner's principles of non-literal interpretation and existential significance. As substantive theology, significant divergences emerge regarding Christology, ecclesial authority, and metaphysical foundations. Perhaps the most productive perspective recognizes that both thinkers attempt what Rahner identified as essential: making eschatological hope meaningful for contemporary consciousness while preserving its transformative power. In this shared endeavor, if not in doctrinal specifics, meaningful dialogue between Rahnerian eschatology and Shri Mataji's Paraclete claim becomes possible.

---

The Foundations of Karl Rahner
Publisher: Herder & Herder
Publication: November 25, 2005

Paraphrase by Mark F. Fischer

Chapter Nine: Eschatology
Chapter Nine has three parts. In the first part, Rahner lays out the presuppositions for understanding eschatology, the doctrine of the last things. He states that we must understand eschatological statements as a projection by the Christian community about its own future. That future is not to be understood merely as the future of individuals, but also as the collective destiny of all persons. It cannot be reduced to a single scenario.

In the second part of the chapter, Rahner examines the individual aspect of eschatology. Rahner distinguishes individual eschatology (the destiny of the individual at death) from collective eschatology (the destiny of creation as a whole). He rejects, however, the idea of two eschatologies, for together they make up a single reality.

The eternal life that is God's will for human beings is their participation in the good, the good which God invites them to choose. Once they have chosen it, their participation in God has communal consequences.

The third part looks at the collective dimension of eschatology. The death of an individual is not simply a moment of his or her escape from history. It is rather the moment in which the individual's contribution to history—i.e., to the fulfillment of human destiny—begins to achieve its final form. The individual's concrete acts of love are a participation in the salvation and love of God and contribute to it.

Part 1: Presuppositions for Understanding Eschatology

Eschatology is traditionally the doctrine of the"last things"—death, judgment, heaven, and hell. But fundamentally, says Rahner, it is about the human being," a being who ex-ists from out of his present 'now' towards his future" (431). This means that the human being lives by anticipating and choosing. We are creatures and we cannot dispose of our future as if it were wholly in our control. But we can say what possibilities we hope will be freely given to us and freely accepted by us.

In this first part, Rahner begins with the hermeneutical distinction between traditional statements about the last things (often made in the language of apocalyptic) and the eschatological reality they are meant to convey (A). He then introduces the concept of a unified eschatology, in which the entire person, body and soul, experiences death, judgment, and final destiny (B). Finally, he speaks about the"hiddenness"of eschatology, an eschatology that rejects the temptation to predict the future and instead focuses on the incomprehensible mystery of God (C).

A. On the Hermeneutics of Eschatological Statements (p. 431). When Christians read eschatological statements in the Bible, they are tempted to interpret them"As anticipatory, eyewitness accounts of a future which is still outstanding" (431), in other words, as predictions. But although the Bible and the Church say a lot about the future, Rahner asserts that their statements should not be read as if they denied the human ability to make choices. Eschatological statements do not destroy human freedom.

To be sure, every human being is a member of a community. That means that every human being belongs to a collective history. One corollary of this"belonging"Is the existence of a collective eschatology. It makes sense to say that all human beings will face the last things. But a collective eschatology does not mean that every person will share the same fate. Eschatology is the realm of freedom. Christian statements about the future, says Rahner, speak of this eschatology as"The milieu and environment of transcendental spirit" (432). We are not merely actors reading our lines, but manifest the human spirit in our choices. Hence eschatological statements are not the plot outline of a drama whose final act we know in advance. They are rather"conclusions from the experience of the Christian present" (432). They are the Christian community's collective projections about the future. We project our own future and understand the present as its coming-to-be.

Rahner distinguishes between eschatology and apocalyptic. Eschatology is a view of how the future"has to be"If the Christian's view of the present is correct. Apocalyptic is a mode of expression that takes seriously the concreteness of the eschatological future. Biblical apocalyptic speaks of the future as if the writers were eyewitnesses. Eschatology is what the apocalyptic writers mean. They are projecting their interpretation of the present into the future. We have to distinguish between the apocalyptic form of thought and expressions, on the one hand, and the true content, on the other.

Apocalyptic images speak of what is real, namely, our hope for the future. It is real because it is based on a real experience of the present. But often the images suggest a future that we, with our present Christian anthropology, may not be able to affirm. As an example (an example not proposed by Rahner), consider the statement by the author of Revelation (7.4) that the number of those"sealed" (under God's protection) is 144,000. It is hard to believe that the number of the saved is so small. A deeper analysis suggests that this apocalyptic number does not predict the number of the saved, but connotes an eschatological truth. It is the truth that God's salvation will be a complete salvation. Rahner urges us to use caution when interpreting apocalyptic statements.

Undoubtedly there are implications in Biblical apocalyptic from which we can learn. That is the task of hermeneutics, to discern the truth that the Biblical authors intend. But Rahner warns against extravagant claims.”We know no more about the last things," he writes," than we know about people who have been redeemed, who have been taken up into Christ, and who exist in God's grace" (434). We know about them only from their life in our midst. We do not know about their present experience in the"Afterlife.”

B. The Presupposition for a Unified Eschatology (p. 434). A unified eschatology includes both the body and the soul. Rahner contrasts it with the partial eschatology that looks only to the salvation of the soul. Rationalists in the style of the Enlightenment understood eschatology in this partial way. The problem with this partial understanding is that it ascribes immortality to the soul as an abstraction from the body. It is an individualistic and private salvation. But the destiny of the soul, Rahner asserts, depends on"The transformation of the world"And is not independent of the resurrection of the flesh. To be sure, it is correct to speak of the immortality of the soul. It is a part of the salvation of the single person. But there is more to eschatology than the fate of the individual. The last things have to do, not just with the individual soul, but with the body in general. They have to do with the collective destiny of all persons.

C. The Hiddenness of the Last Things (p. 434). An eschatology that"Is not apocalyptic" (one that does not mistake the language of allegory for the realities it expresses) remains focused on the incomprehensible mystery of God. It is hidden. Such eschatology cannot speak as if it could predict the future. When Christians speak about eschatology, they should move"beyond all images into the ineffable" (434).

Part 2: The One Eschatology as Individual Eschatology (p. 435)

The second part of this chapter is about the last things understood from the viewpoint of the individual. Rahner distinguishes individual eschatology (the destiny of the individual at death) from collective eschatology (the destiny of creation as a whole). He rejects, however, the idea of two eschatologies. Although one can speak of them as individual and collective, they mutually influence one another and make up a single reality. Rahner begins by noting that, although it is customary to distinguish between the body and the soul, this is the language of apocalyptic, and the two form an eschatological unity (A). The eternal life that is God's will for human beings is their participation in the good, the good which God invites them to choose and which, once chosen, has eternal consequences (B). Purgatory is the doctrine that expresses the interval between an individual's fundamental decision for God and the integration of that decision in the whole of one's reality (C). The many statements in tradition about the last things represent a plurality of viewpoints and we should not expect to synthesize them into a neat concept (D). Hell represents the possibility of eternal loss, a possibility that exists throughout all of one's life, but which is not equal in weight to God's will that all will be saved (E).

A. The Definitive Validity of Free Human Actions (p. 435). Rahner begins this section by recalling Chapter Three. There he argued that statements about heaven and hell are not parallel.”Heaven"Is a much more potent symbol. Why? Because Christian faith teaches that"The history of salvation as a whole will reach a positive conclusion" (435). Hell, by contrast, is a negative symbol. It symbolizes what God does not want, namely, the rejection by human beings of God's vision for the world. To be sure, we cannot simply hold a theory of"Apocatastasis" (i.e., the restoration, re-establishment, or renovation of the world by an act of God that makes all things right). But we are not obliged either to say that the history of salvation will result for some people in absolute loss. God wills that all will be saved, but merely allows creatures to reject salvation.

When Christians speak of the last things, they normally distinguish between the fate of the body (which undergoes corruption) and that of the soul (which is immortal). But Rahner questions the value of the distinction for a unified eschatology. What does it mean, he asks, to speak about a person whose body is buried and whose soul or transcendental being enjoys God's presence? The human being is a unity. We only meet the human spirit as corporeal and historical. It is"superfluous," says Rahner," to ask what a person does while his body is in the grave and his soul is already with God" (436). The dichotomy is more apocalyptic than eschatological. In other words, we distinguish between body and soul to express a profound truth, namely, that the spiritual reality of the person does not die. We express this reality in terms of the traditional concepts of beatific vision and resurrection of the flesh. They mean that the entire person, body and soul, is fulfilled in God.

What, then, does the Church mean by speaking of a"time"between the death of the individual and his or her ultimate destiny? Rahner answers this question by speaking of two"finalities.”One finality is that of the individual's personal history. That personal history ends at the moment of death. The other finality is that of the human collective reality. It refers to the ultimate destiny of humanity, including the effect that every individual has on that ultimate destiny. Thus the two finalities are not separate. The finality of each individual's death is linked to the finality of human destiny, a destiny to which each individual contributes.

B. Death and Eternity (p. 436). What does it mean to say that the dead are"still alive"? It certainly does not mean that life just continues after death.”Death marks an end for the whole person," says Rahner (437). But it is equally wrong to reject the concept of eternity and to say that human life is over at death. The individual has a proper end, an end that begins in life and continues after his or her death. The new does not simply annul the old that has died.

Rahner expresses the doctrine in this way: "Eternity subsumes time by being liberated from the time which came to be temporarily so that freedom and something of final and definitive validity can be achieved" (437). What does this mean? Eternity subsumes time because what was achieved in time becomes eternal. It is no longer time-bound. Yes, our actions are temporary, but their value is not. Their value expresses our freedom.

When we act freely—that is, in true spiritual freedom, unhindered by what would prevent us from obeying God—then we are joined with God's eternal life. Our deeds in time flower in eternity. They flower in that they are the mature expression of God's Spirit in us. Death, the end of the whole person, allows that person to reach or express his or her God-given freedom in a final way. Our final validity comes to be in time, not to continue on in time, but to"form"time. In other words, we are co-creators with God, and we put God's stamp on time.

Personal existence survives despite biological death. It does so because the person is more than time. He or she is part of an"Inexhaustible and indestructible mystery" (438). The person's real self does not simply fall into nothingness after death, but rather shares in an absolute good. The self has produced something in time that cannot be erased by time. Our good, that is, the good we have chosen and to which we have committed ourselves, has"ripened into an experience of immortality" (438). Death is not the end because we have already experienced immortality before death. It is the immortality of a commitment to the good. It is the immortality of a hope that God's grace and promise are real.

The good we do, and the hope we have, are experienced in moral decisions. These decisions are"Incommensurable"With transitory time. Our present assessment of them is not a final assessment. There is more to them than we can say. In a decision for absolute goodness, we transcend time. When we choose the good, we participate in the eternal life of God, the source of good.

It is not uncommon to hear today that by rejecting Christianity's moral law, one is ultimately expressing one's freedom. The rejection of Christian morality, some say, frees people from superstition and the inhibitions of outmoded belief. Liberated individuals, it is said, make responsible choices without a slavish belief in religion's"ultimate good.”But Rahner questions this assertion. He states that the very concept of free choice, even the supposedly free choice to reject the moral laws that society (including Christian society) defines as good, implicitly affirms the basis for the moral law. It does so by affirming the existence of freedom, which is a spiritual good. When a person proclaims himself or herself as"liberated"from morality, he or she implicitly affirms the spiritual freedom that is the foundation of morality.

The materialist states that all evolution is due to chance. He or she believes that what Christians call the"good"Is merely a radical and empty arbitrariness or a set of conventional moral expectations. Christians affirm, however, that one choice is truly better than another. They mean that there is a spiritual reality, unseen by the materialist, namely the good itself. This has consequences for the understanding of eternity. When people commit themselves to the good, they are setting this commitment over against time. The very act of making a commitment to the good is an experience of eternity. Eternity lives in our choices, which are our participation in the good.

Christian revelation suggests that God allows every person to experience eternity in this life. We experience what St. John called eternal life in our moral choices. Rahner puts the matter this way: "Scripture does not know of any human life which is so commonplace that it is not valuable enough to become eternal" (441). When we experience this eternity in time, i.e., the eternal life of our good choices, we experience our final and definitive validity. God validates our contribution by adding it to the final destiny of human beings. This final and definitive validity is what the Church calls the resurrection of the flesh.

C. On the Doctrine about a"Place of Purification" (441). The doctrine of purgatory expresses two main ideas. One is that the basic disposition of the human being, a disposition that has come about in the exercise of free actions, acquires a final validity at death. The other is that the person continues to mature after death. Even at the moment of death the basic disposition of the human being has not permeated his or her concrete, corporeal existence. The person has made an ultimate and basic decision, but this decision has not yet been fully integrated.

Rahner explains this, first of all, by distinguishing between language and what it intends to convey. We commonly say that there is a"time"that arrives"After"death during which the person still can become his or her true self. The meaning of such temporal categories (e.g.," after"death) is far from clear. Moreover, symbols such as purgatory's"purifying fire"Are apocalyptic images whose eschatological import must be rightly interpreted. We cannot simply accept the traditional language without asking what truth it means to convey.

Next, Rahner focuses on the temporal categories themselves. His main point is that there must be an interval between an individual's death and the person's corporeal fulfillment. One such interval exists between the act of making a fundamental decision for God and the full integration of that decision. Another interval exists between the fulfillment of the individual in death and the fulfillment of the world. A third interval exists between the final validity of a person in death and the manifestation of that fulfillment in the glorification of the body. This notion of interval is problematic, he says, and it is not clear in what senses such a temporal category can be applied. Ultimately, the dogma of purgatory needs to be retained, says Rahner, but not necessarily its mode of expression.

D. On the Necessary Pluralism of Statements about Fulfillment (p. 443). In this section, Rahner distinguishes between the fulfillment of the human being and the various statements used to speak about this one reality. The Church has transmitted a number of ways to express this fulfillment. Immortality of the soul, resurrection of the flesh, interval after death, and collective eschatology, are all ways to speak of the destiny of the person. The plurality of statements cannot be synthesized into a neat conceptual model. The Bible speaks of the last things in a straightforward way, but not all of its statements can be easily reconciled with one another.

E. The Possibility of Eternal Loss (p. 443). The most important thing to know about hell, says Rahner, is that it always remains a possibility for the human being. Up to the very end of life, a person must reckon with"Absolute loss as the conclusion and outcome of his free guilt" (443). This is fundamental to human freedom.

But the individual"does not need to know anything more than this about hell.”For example, people do not have to resolve the question of the relation between the content of Biblical statements about hell and their mode of expression, even the content of the words about hell ascribed to Jesus.

Finally, Rahner repeats his remark from Chapter Three that statements about heaven and hell are not parallel. Christian faith affirms that the history of the world as a whole will in fact enter into eternal life with God. By contrast, the possibility of eternal loss is merely a possibility, not God's will.

The Foundations of Karl Rahner