The church’s mission to the world in the new millennium will require a careful balance of global vision and local sensitivity. Karl Rahner’s ecclesiology supplies useful tools for this balance, in that it moves toward an appreciation of the inherent authority and dignity of the local church community, understood as an interpersonal network within the broader church. Rahner’s focus on the church as sacrament provides the key consideration: that the church necessarily accomplishes its mission in the midst of concrete historical contexts. Rahner also provides a way of understanding the presence of the whole church embodied in the local community, particularly as it gathers for Eucharist. This sharing in the essence of the church also manifests itself in the local community’s roles in nurturing and responding to official authority. Rahner’s trust in the work of the Spirit for the maintenance of unity allows him to revel in the church’s diversity. The local community shows most clearly the aspect of church as pilgrim in the world, which Rahner underscores. Because the local community embodies the universal church in a particular location, the study of the community and its contexts is essential for understanding the reality and the mission of the church in the world.

The following article is both a reminder to those interested in the development of the doctrine of universal salvation that it has a long history, and an exercise in historiography of Karl Rahner’s relationship to a seventeenth century Spanish Jesuit theologian, Juan Martînez de Ripalda. Rahner’s thesis known as the “supernatural existential” has Jesuit antecedents in the thought of Ripalda and his magnum opus entitled De ente supernaturali. After some historical contextualization of Ripalda we will focus on Rahner and offer possible reasons why the “Molinist” thought of Ripalda with respect to the possibility of salvation for non-Christian persons was so important for his own work. The article will then provide a critical study of Rahner’s reading of Ripalda and point out some key areas of difference in theological approach between the two Jesuits who, almost four hundred years ago, asked similar questions and came to the same answers using very different methodologies.

How is experience possible if the one who experiences is ‘forgotten’ and transcended? In his book Meister Eckhart: Mystic and Philosopher Reiner Schürmann explores two lines of thought in Eckhart’s philosophy of mind—Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic. The first of these, he observes, leads to the idea that being is revealed in the “birth of the Son”—that is, in God acting in place of the active intellect. The second leads to the idea that being is revealed in an unrepresentable Unity. These two lines of thought are, on their face, inconsistent. While the idea of the “birth of the Son” permits a division between ‘illuminator’ (universal) and ‘illuminated’ (particular), and so preserves the possibility of experience, the idea of an unrepresentable Unity does not. The resulting aporia, Schürmann argues, is resolved through Eckhart’s concept of detachment. But if, as Eckhart suggests, detachment is fundamentally atemporal, then it is not clear how, when one ‘lives in detachment,’ the process of becoming, through which an object appears to a subject, can be sustained. Hence, Schürmann’s resolution is problematic. In his Defense to charges of heresy, however, Eckhart takes positive steps towards explaining how something can simultaneously be a Unity and a multiplicity. In so doing, he offers us a window into both the nature of detachment and the nature of mind.