OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 05:40:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Vatican thirst for power divides Christianity and damages Catholicism  (Read 4426 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,079


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: October 29, 2009, 03:22:39 PM »

Hans Kung:
Quote
After Pope Benedict XVI's offences against the Jews and the Muslims, Protestants and reform-oriented Catholics, it is now the turn of the Anglican communion, which encompasses some 77 million members and is the third largest Christian confession after the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. Having brought back the extreme anti-reformist faction of the Pius X fraternity into the fold, Pope Benedict now hopes to fill up the dwindling ranks of the Catholic church with Anglicans sympathetic to Rome. Their conversion to the Catholic church is supposed to be made easier: Anglican priests and bishops shall be allowed to retain their standing, even when married. Traditionalists of the churches, unite! Under the cupola of St Peter's! The Fisher of Men is angling in waters of the extreme religious right.

I would have though Hans Kung would have been more perceptive on this issue. BXVI isn't trying to capture "Anglicans [merely] sympathetic to Rome". Lots of Anglicans are sympathetic to Rome, as they might be sympathetic to Orthodoxy. But the boat of sympathy won't take you across the Tiber. You have to actually agree with Roman teachings, not simply like them to some extent, in order to play a part in this Anglican structure.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2009, 04:20:50 PM »

Kung is a notorious heresiarch and not worth giving the time of day to.

Of course his whole premise is a lie, since (as he is aware if he is not a man of breathtaking ignorance), this structure is a long-delayed response to the requests of thousands of Anglicans already desiring union with Rome.

This silly, bitter old man is just upset that Benedict isn't kicking to the curb people who have refused to drink the poison Kung Kool-Aid.

And could Kung be any more patronizing to the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Logged
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,306


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2009, 05:27:41 PM »

Quote
Kung is a notorious heresiarch and not worth giving the time of day to.

What's the deal with Hans Kung? What did he say or do that got people riled up? I'm asking sincerely as I've never investigated, asked, or heard. I read his The Catholic Church, and made it half way through his On Being a Christian. I think those were the two. Anyway, that's about the extent of my knowledge on him, and even that knowledge is fuzzy as it was a decade ago that I read books by him.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 05:29:59 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,079


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2009, 06:25:16 PM »

Quote
Kung is a notorious heresiarch and not worth giving the time of day to.

What's the deal with Hans Kung? What did he say or do that got people riled up? I'm asking sincerely as I've never investigated, asked, or heard. I read his The Catholic Church, and made it half way through his On Being a Christian. I think those were the two. Anyway, that's about the extent of my knowledge on him, and even that knowledge is fuzzy as it was a decade ago that I read books by him.
He wrote a book in the early '70s questioning, if not outright rejecting, papal infallibility. That was enough to ruffle some feathers.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Hamartolos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 338


St. Gregory the Theologian, intercede for my soul.


« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2009, 06:28:02 PM »

Believe it or not, he is actually a Catholic priest in good standing with the Church.  However, due to many of his views the Vatican banned him from teaching openly some time ago.  I don't know a lot about him, but I do know that if an Orthodox priest did half of what Kung did, he would be excommunicated.


**In regards to his own Church's (Rome) teachings**
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 06:29:17 PM by mctaviix » Logged

Formerly known as "mctaviix"
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2009, 09:52:27 PM »

**In regards to his own Church's (Rome) teachings**

Not just Rome's, unless you think bashing your own bishop in the press and constantly calling for priestesses, acceptance of sodomy, evolution of dogma, acceptance of abortion and the Pill, religious indifferentism, abandonment of the idea of an infallible Church, etc. are acceptable in Orthodoxy.

I think not.

Kung is an arch-Modernist, one of Satan's unwitting tools to subvert Christians into atheists.

Sometimes you have to use strong terms for wolves like Kung. You see, he is not just a raving lunatic. A man of many gifts, he could have become a great theologian.

He is very lucky St. Pius X is not still sitting in the chair of Peter! He would have lost more than his license to teach theology.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2009, 09:56:38 PM »

Kung has in the past compared Benedict to a Soviet and a Nazi leader, criticizing him for having a theology "stuck" at the Council of Nicaea!

Lol, one can only imagine his bitterness that he and his allies' attempted revolution in the Catholic Church has failed.

That is why he continues his ranting and raving about John Paul II and Benedict being so "backward." The nerve of them that they won't radically remake the Church in Kung's image! They can't, Hans. They're only the Pope!  Wink
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 10:00:12 PM by lubeltri » Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 525


« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2009, 10:37:00 PM »

I love this quote.

http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/kung1.asp

Quote
And I cannot help asking what people may have thought in Geneva or Canterbury (let alone among Old Catholics) when the Pope now infallibly condemns a practice that has long since been tried and tested in the Churches of the Reformation. It is hardly possible to kick our ecumenical brothers and sisters in the teeth more roughly than this Pope has done.

Looks like he's finally found a pope less "ecumenical" than the last one - at least from a Liberal Reform perspective. Seriously, if people want all these wonderful things, and the awful Romans won't let them happen, there is a home... The Episcopal Church of the United States. There are plenty of ex-Catholics there.
Logged

Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatoris.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2009, 11:31:19 PM »

**In regards to his own Church's (Rome) teachings**

Not just Rome's, unless you think bashing your own bishop in the press and constantly calling for priestesses, acceptance of sodomy, evolution of dogma, acceptance of abortion and the Pill, religious indifferentism, abandonment of the idea of an infallible Church, etc. are acceptable in Orthodoxy.

I think not.

Kung is an arch-Modernist, one of Satan's unwitting tools to subvert Christians into atheists.

Sometimes you have to use strong terms for wolves like Kung. You see, he is not just a raving lunatic. A man of many gifts, he could have become a great theologian.

He is very lucky St. Pius X is not still sitting in the chair of Peter! He would have lost more than his license to teach theology.

Development of doctrine is something I see apologists of the Vatican defending all the time.

But you are right.  Kung is a menace, although we share some of his criticisms of Vatican dogma.  Wonder why he doesn't follow Uta Ranke-Heinemann's lead out of the church into disbelief (though I think she still clings to the Christian label. Too bad we can't sue for trademark infringement).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2009, 11:39:56 PM »

**In regards to his own Church's (Rome) teachings**

Not just Rome's, unless you think bashing your own bishop in the press and constantly calling for priestesses, acceptance of sodomy, evolution of dogma, acceptance of abortion and the Pill, religious indifferentism, abandonment of the idea of an infallible Church, etc. are acceptable in Orthodoxy.

I think not.

Kung is an arch-Modernist, one of Satan's unwitting tools to subvert Christians into atheists.

Sometimes you have to use strong terms for wolves like Kung. You see, he is not just a raving lunatic. A man of many gifts, he could have become a great theologian.

He is very lucky St. Pius X is not still sitting in the chair of Peter! He would have lost more than his license to teach theology.

Development of doctrine is something I see apologists of the Vatican defending all the time.

But you are right.  Kung is a menace, although we share some of his criticisms of Vatican dogma.  Wonder why he doesn't follow Uta Ranke-Heinemann's lead out of the church into disbelief (though I think she still clings to the Christian label. Too bad we can't sue for trademark infringement).

Well, development of doctrine (as expounded by Cardinal Newman) is very different from the evolution of dogma expounded by Modernists like Kung. The latter was condemned a hundred years ago by St. Pius X.

Kung does attack papal infallibility, but he does so because he doesn't even believe in Church infallibility. Papal infallibility, of course, is one of the expressions of Church infallibility.

Kung thinks a hierarchy is just a medieval invention, and that the "real" early Church was "democratic."
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2009, 11:41:49 PM »

**In regards to his own Church's (Rome) teachings**

Not just Rome's, unless you think bashing your own bishop in the press and constantly calling for priestesses, acceptance of sodomy, evolution of dogma, acceptance of abortion and the Pill, religious indifferentism, abandonment of the idea of an infallible Church, etc. are acceptable in Orthodoxy.

I think not.

Kung is an arch-Modernist, one of Satan's unwitting tools to subvert Christians into atheists.

Sometimes you have to use strong terms for wolves like Kung. You see, he is not just a raving lunatic. A man of many gifts, he could have become a great theologian.

He is very lucky St. Pius X is not still sitting in the chair of Peter! He would have lost more than his license to teach theology.

Development of doctrine is something I see apologists of the Vatican defending all the time.

But you are right.  Kung is a menace, although we share some of his criticisms of Vatican dogma.  Wonder why he doesn't follow Uta Ranke-Heinemann's lead out of the church into disbelief (though I think she still clings to the Christian label. Too bad we can't sue for trademark infringement).

Well, development of doctrine (as expounded by Cardinal Newman) is very different from the evolution of dogma expounded by Modernists like Kung. The latter was condemned a hundred years ago by St. Pius X.

Kung does attack papal infallibility, but he does so because he doesn't even believe in Church infallibility. Papal infallibility, of course, is one of the expressions of Church infallibility.

Kung thinks a hierarchy is just a medieval invention, and that the "real" early Church was "democratic."

He sounds like he might be happier in Orthodoxy.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,739



« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2009, 11:48:41 PM »

^ Great, I'll email the Vatican and you guys can pick him up from waivers...
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2009, 11:56:13 PM »

**In regards to his own Church's (Rome) teachings**

Not just Rome's, unless you think bashing your own bishop in the press and constantly calling for priestesses, acceptance of sodomy, evolution of dogma, acceptance of abortion and the Pill, religious indifferentism, abandonment of the idea of an infallible Church, etc. are acceptable in Orthodoxy.

I think not.

Kung is an arch-Modernist, one of Satan's unwitting tools to subvert Christians into atheists.

Sometimes you have to use strong terms for wolves like Kung. You see, he is not just a raving lunatic. A man of many gifts, he could have become a great theologian.

He is very lucky St. Pius X is not still sitting in the chair of Peter! He would have lost more than his license to teach theology.

Development of doctrine is something I see apologists of the Vatican defending all the time.

But you are right.  Kung is a menace, although we share some of his criticisms of Vatican dogma.  Wonder why he doesn't follow Uta Ranke-Heinemann's lead out of the church into disbelief (though I think she still clings to the Christian label. Too bad we can't sue for trademark infringement).

Well, development of doctrine (as expounded by Cardinal Newman) is very different from the evolution of dogma expounded by Modernists like Kung. The latter was condemned a hundred years ago by St. Pius X.

Kung does attack papal infallibility, but he does so because he doesn't even believe in Church infallibility. Papal infallibility, of course, is one of the expressions of Church infallibility.

Kung thinks a hierarchy is just a medieval invention, and that the "real" early Church was "democratic."

He sounds like he might be happier in Orthodoxy.

We would not.  Nor would he, because he would lose more than his license to teach.

But since we believe in the infallibility of the Church (which has nothing to do with any alleged papal infallibility), and know that the hierarchy is a 1st century divine institution, and don't buy the innovation of "development of doctrine," what makes you think Kung would be happy with us?  As much as a shock as it may come, non-acceptace of Vatican I doesn't make you Orthodox.  In fact, if you are not coming from the Vatican, the issue never comes up at all.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 11:56:41 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2009, 11:58:47 PM »

Indeed. In other words, being a Protestant doesn't make you Orthodox!
Logged
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,306


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2009, 04:06:45 AM »

I must say, this Kung sounds more and more like an admirable fellow.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2009, 04:18:43 AM »

Kung is a notorious heresiarch and not worth giving the time of day to.

Of course his whole premise is a lie, since (as he is aware if he is not a man of breathtaking ignorance), this structure is a long-delayed response to the requests of thousands of Anglicans already desiring union with Rome.

This silly, bitter old man is just upset that Benedict isn't kicking to the curb people who have refused to drink the poison Kung Kool-Aid.

And could Kung be any more patronizing to the Archbishop of Canterbury?

As long as one understands that he is a "modernist/liberal" then one can give him a time of day within that context.......knowing that he is not speaking for the Roman Catholic church, but only for "modernist/liberals"...... other than that.....I whole heartly agree with everything you said.







ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2009, 04:22:11 AM »

**In regards to his own Church's (Rome) teachings**

Not just Rome's, unless you think bashing your own bishop in the press and constantly calling for priestesses, acceptance of sodomy, evolution of dogma, acceptance of abortion and the Pill, religious indifferentism, abandonment of the idea of an infallible Church, etc. are acceptable in Orthodoxy.

I think not.

Kung is an arch-Modernist, one of Satan's unwitting tools to subvert Christians into atheists.

Sometimes you have to use strong terms for wolves like Kung. You see, he is not just a raving lunatic. A man of many gifts, he could have become a great theologian.

He is very lucky St. Pius X is not still sitting in the chair of Peter! He would have lost more than his license to teach theology.


So you see him as the Bishop Shelby Spong of Roman Catholicism? If so, I agree.


Modernists may have some good things to say, but you have to constantly spit out the bones in order to eat the meat, and that's not always a good thing for someone who may not know what Rome officially teach....may not know what to swallow vs what to spit out.

But this is true with any Theistic or PanenTheistic faith tradition when it comes to "Modernist/Liberals" in their camp. You will automatically gut the soul of that tradition when you try and make it fit within an Atheistic(sola naturalistic/Materialist) worldview.



You can pretty much derive "beliefs" from a "belief". I know that some will reject the idea that ideas have "implications", but they do.

They often do.








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 04:36:45 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2009, 06:07:43 AM »

But since we believe in the infallibility of the Church (which has nothing to do with any alleged papal infallibility)
Do we? I'm not sure that we do. I know that my Archbishop wrote his doctorate about it, but his claims about the "infallibility" of the Orthodox Church have been disputed by Orthodox Theological Schools both here are in the Universities of Athens and Thessaloniki.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
basilthefool
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston (HOCNA)
Posts: 84


htfulcher@comcast.net
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2009, 06:42:39 AM »

This is really off topic: But I notice that OZGeorge is marked "warned" as are a few others. What does this mean?
Logged
Hamartolos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 338


St. Gregory the Theologian, intercede for my soul.


« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2009, 08:36:07 AM »

lubeltri,

I agree with everything you said, and actually laughed at some of the more humorous comments! :-)  What I was saying though is that in his own situation, as a Roman Catholic priest, it is surprising that he hasn't been formally excommunicated.  I suppose he hasn't broken any official laws or anything but I would think Latae sententiae would had taken affect, given he is preaching a lot of Protestant teachings.  Actually, some of the crap he's spewed is extreme for many Protestants as well I'm sure!
Logged

Formerly known as "mctaviix"
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2009, 09:02:07 AM »

levity my friends, it was an attempt at levity. Mea Culpa!
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2009, 09:43:01 AM »

But since we believe in the infallibility of the Church (which has nothing to do with any alleged papal infallibility)
Do we? I'm not sure that we do. I know that my Archbishop wrote his doctorate about it, but his claims about the "infallibility" of the Orthodox Church have been disputed by Orthodox Theological Schools both here are in the Universities of Athens and Thessaloniki.

When I visited the Unitarian Universalist "church" on campus, they said that the average seminarian has more knowlege of theology than any of the bishops at Nicea. "Yes," I said, "that is how the Fathers got it right."

Yes we do, your mileage may vary.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2009, 09:45:08 AM »

**In regards to his own Church's (Rome) teachings**

Not just Rome's, unless you think bashing your own bishop in the press and constantly calling for priestesses, acceptance of sodomy, evolution of dogma, acceptance of abortion and the Pill, religious indifferentism, abandonment of the idea of an infallible Church, etc. are acceptable in Orthodoxy.

I think not.

Kung is an arch-Modernist, one of Satan's unwitting tools to subvert Christians into atheists.

Sometimes you have to use strong terms for wolves like Kung. You see, he is not just a raving lunatic. A man of many gifts, he could have become a great theologian.

He is very lucky St. Pius X is not still sitting in the chair of Peter! He would have lost more than his license to teach theology.


So you see him as the Bishop Shelby Spong of Roman Catholicism? If so, I agree.


Modernists may have some good things to say, but you have to constantly spit out the bones in order to eat the meat, and that's not always a good thing for someone who may not know what Rome officially teach....may not know what to swallow vs what to spit out.

But this is true with any Theistic or PanenTheistic faith tradition when it comes to "Modernist/Liberals" in their camp. You will automatically gut the soul of that tradition when you try and make it fit within an Atheistic(sola naturalistic/Materialist) worldview.



You can pretty much derive "beliefs" from a "belief". I know that some will reject the idea that ideas have "implications", but they do.

They often do.








ICXC NIKA

Bone?  A lot of it is just plain gristle and fat.  A lot of fat (nice analogy though).
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 09:47:27 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2009, 10:21:52 AM »

This is really off topic: But I notice that OZGeorge is marked "warned" as are a few others. What does this mean?
Yes, it is really off topic, so could you start another thread to ask your question?  That would be much appreciated, as opposed to derailing this thread.  Thank you.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 10:22:54 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2009, 10:28:54 AM »

Kung is an arch-Modernist, one of Satan's unwitting tools to subvert Christians into atheists.

Yet he is a Roman Catholic priest in good standing?!? Oh my!  Shocked
Logged
basilthefool
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston (HOCNA)
Posts: 84


htfulcher@comcast.net
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2009, 10:37:36 AM »

This is really off topic: But I notice that OZGeorge is marked "warned" as are a few others. What does this mean?
Yes, it is really off topic, so could you start another thread to ask your question?  That would be much appreciated, as opposed to derailing this thread.  Thank you.

Sorry. I looked around the site and didn't see how to do that or I would have done. Perhaps I erred in expecting at least the courtesy of someone pointing me in the right direction to answer my question while telling me to behave.

I'm sorry. As you are a moderator, perhaps you can mark me as warned as well.
Logged
basilthefool
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston (HOCNA)
Posts: 84


htfulcher@comcast.net
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2009, 12:32:22 PM »

please ignore and delete my previous message and this one as I have just found the place whereby one can start a new thread.

Please also accept my apologies for rudeness.

Basil the fool
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Son of a Preacher man
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,971


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2009, 01:50:27 PM »



Kung is an arch-Modernist, one of Satan's unwitting tools to subvert Christians into atheists.



Love the description!  There are actually a few of those 'arch-Modernist, unwitting tools' on this very forum (Not you, kind sir.  Smiley)
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying

"Yes, you are a white supremacist, ..."  ~Iconodule
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2009, 02:30:29 PM »

I agree with everything you said, and actually laughed at some of the more humorous comments! :-)  What I was saying though is that in his own situation, as a Roman Catholic priest, it is surprising that he hasn't been formally excommunicated.  I suppose he hasn't broken any official laws or anything but I would think Latae sententiae would had taken affect, given he is preaching a lot of Protestant teachings.  Actually, some of the crap he's spewed is extreme for many Protestants as well I'm sure!

Oh, no doubt he is excommunicate. I would not go to any Mass he celebrates.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2009, 02:32:22 PM »

Kung is an arch-Modernist, one of Satan's unwitting tools to subvert Christians into atheists.

Yet he is a Roman Catholic priest in good standing?!? Oh my!  Shocked

On paper only. Any faithful Catholic knows better.
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2009, 02:58:50 PM »

On paper only. Any faithful Catholic knows better.

Huh? What does this mean: "On paper only"?  Does the Pope of Rome still consider him to be a valid priest?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2009, 03:56:25 PM »

It means that his bishop has not formally suspended him as a priest since his banishment as a theologian. However, only a legalist would claim that it means he is in good standing with the Faith. Latae sententiae excommunication is provided for in canon law, and it need not be declared to have effect. I pray for Fr. Kung's soul and for the souls of the children he has caused to fall.

There is no such thing as an "invalid priest." A man is either a priest or he is not. Fr. Kung is a priest, alas.
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2009, 04:00:08 PM »

It means that his bishop has not formally suspended him as a priest since his banishment as a theologian. However, only a legalist would claim that it means he is in good standing with the Faith. Latae sententiae excommunication is provided for in canon law, and it need not be declared to have effect. I pray for Fr. Kung's soul and for the souls of the children he has caused to fall.

There is no such thing as an "invalid priest." A man is either a priest or he is not. Fr. Kung is a priest, alas.

He is in good standing. It means exactly what it says. Can he still serve the Mass?
Logged
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,306


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2009, 05:21:03 PM »

Quote
When I visited the Unitarian Universalist "church" on campus, they said that the average seminarian has more knowlege of theology than any of the bishops at Nicea. "Yes," I said, "that is how the Fathers got it right."

Does not compute.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,417


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 30, 2009, 05:24:00 PM »

I think he means that the Fathers of Nicaea were working on faith and that theology can sometimes get in the way of it.

I've heard this same idea many, many times before Smiley
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,306


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #35 on: October 30, 2009, 05:29:38 PM »

I think I understand his point, I just don't think it's valid. But then he would probably say that I rely too much on reason and not enough on faith. *shrugs* Smiley
Logged
Hamartolos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 338


St. Gregory the Theologian, intercede for my soul.


« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2009, 09:30:44 AM »

I think the real issue is perhaps not even what he is teaching (abstractly) but the fact he is under the rule of Rome. 

For example, if you work for a company and go out telling all the customers that the company has it wrong..the company would fire you.  The man can believe whatever he wants to in private, but why use the Church as a means of getting your personal beliefs across?  Perhaps I answered my own question.
Logged

Formerly known as "mctaviix"
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2009, 12:20:36 PM »

I think I understand his point, I just don't think it's valid. But then he would probably say that I rely too much on reason and not enough on faith. *shrugs* Smiley

No, if you read the Cappodocian Fathers, they are not adverse to reason.  They are just against swelling of the head to think that one knows better than the Church.  If it is not acceptable (and it is not) of the basis of faith (Vatican I), it is not acceptable on the basis of reason (Jesus seminar).

It often amazes me how academics are so interested in seeing bias, etc. in the Fathers, Bible, etc. but seem to be oblivious to their own bias, as if somehow progress has brought us to some utopia in which we may judge all prior ages.  Case in point the UU: they accuse the Fathers of mythology, yet are oblivious to their own humanist persuppositions.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,306


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2009, 04:54:04 AM »

ialmisry

Quote
It often amazes me how academics are so interested in seeing bias, etc. in the Fathers, Bible, etc. but seem to be oblivious to their own bias, as if somehow progress has brought us to some utopia in which we may judge all prior ages.  Case in point the UU: they accuse the Fathers of mythology, yet are oblivious to their own humanist persuppositions.

Such is the way of humanity. We almost all have biases that we haven't rooted out, or perhaps even identified. I certainly did when I was a Christian, and I'm sure I do now as well. The objective in my mind shouldn't be the destruction of all biases, as I think that's impossible, but rather the acknowledgement of biases, so that we can minimize the damage that they do.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.132 seconds with 66 queries.