OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 25, 2014, 08:53:46 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Crisis in the Church of Rome: Kung  (Read 2230 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« on: April 24, 2010, 12:56:08 AM »

The things one finds in The Irish Times!

Hans Kung has addressed a letter to all the bishops of the Catholic world on the current crisis in the Roman Church.

Church in worst credibility crisis since Reformation, theologian tells bishops
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0416/1224268443283.html

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,575


« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2010, 01:07:25 AM »

I haven't read a ton by Kung, but that interesting, thanks for posting.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2010, 02:59:33 AM »

The things one finds in The Irish Times!

Hans Kung has addressed a letter to all the bishops of the Catholic world on the current crisis in the Roman Church.

Church in worst credibility crisis since Reformation, theologian tells bishops
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0416/1224268443283.html




I never liked Hans Kung. If you have something from a Roman Catholic conservative/neoconservative then I might read it or listen to it. I don't trust Kung........I think he works for the liberal media.
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/
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2010, 04:25:19 AM »

I don't trust Kung........I think he works for the liberal media.

He doesn't. He works for himself, and his agenda has nothing to do with the media, it has to do with promoting liberal ideas with Catholicism.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 7,052



« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2010, 05:19:12 AM »

I wonder whether His Holiness is feeling nostalgic while he is reading that since he used to be liberal before he got old. "Aww, just like me when I was twenty years old!"
Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2010, 02:31:52 AM »

Kung is not just a "liberal." He is a heretic and not even a Christian as the Great Councils understood the term. He hates the Catholic (and Orthodox) faith. He is well into his 80s and quite irrelevant. I pray he repents his apostasy before death, but I'm very glad his type is dying out.
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,003


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2010, 04:19:11 AM »

Kung is not just a "liberal." He is a heretic and not even a Christian as the Great Councils understood the term. He hates the Catholic (and Orthodox) faith. He is well into his 80s and quite irrelevant. I pray he repents his apostasy before death, but I'm very glad his type is dying out.

 You said it, friend.  I wish him the best and pray for him, but he'd rewrite the Bible if he could.  He sorta reminds me of that goofy Episcopalian "Bishop" Shelby Spong. 
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2010, 10:48:59 AM »

An Open Letter to Hans Küng

George Weigel

April 21, 2010

Dr. Küng:

A decade and a half ago, a former colleague of yours among the younger progressive theologians at Vatican II told me of a friendly warning he had given you at the beginning of the Council’s second session. As this distinguished biblical scholar and proponent of Christian-Jewish reconciliation remembered those heady days, you had taken to driving around Rome in a fire-engine red Mercedes convertible, which your friend presumed had been one fruit of the commercial success of your book, The Council: Reform and Reunion.

This automotive display struck your colleague as imprudent and unnecessarily self-advertising, given that some of your more adventurous opinions, and your talent for what would later be called the sound-bite, were already raising eyebrows and hackles in the Roman Curia. So, as the story was told me, your friend called you aside one day and said, using a French term you both understood, “Hans, you are becoming too evident.”

As the man who single-handedly invented a new global personality-type—the dissident theologian as international media star—you were not, I take it, overly distressed by your friend’s warning. In 1963, you were already determined to cut a singular path for yourself, and you were media-savvy enough to know that a world press obsessed with the man-bites-dog story of the dissenting priest-theologian would give you a megaphone for your views. You were, I take it, unhappy with the late John Paul II for trying to dismantle that story-line by removing your ecclesiastical mandate to teach as a professor of Catholic theology; your subsequent, snarling put-down of Karol Wojtyla’s alleged intellectual inferiority in one volume of your memoirs ranked, until recently, as the low-point of a polemical career in which you have become most evident as a man who can concede little intelligence, decency, or good will in his opponents.

I say “until recently,” however, because your April 16 open letter to the world’s bishops, which I first read in the Irish Times, set new standards for that distinctive form of hatred known as odium theologicum and for mean-spirited condemnation of an old friend who had, on his rise to the papacy, been generous to you while encouraging aspects of your current work.

Before we get to your assault on the integrity of Pope Benedict XVI, however, permit me to observe that your article makes it painfully clear that you have not been paying much attention to the matters on which you pronounce with an air of infallible self-assurance that would bring a blush to the cheek of Pius IX.

You seem blithely indifferent to the doctrinal chaos besetting much of European and North American Protestantism, which has created circumstances in which theologically serious ecumenical dialogue has become gravely imperiled.

You take the most rabid of the Pius XII-baiters at face value, evidently unaware that the weight of recent scholarship is shifting the debate in favor of Pius' courage in defense of European Jewry (whatever one may think of his exercise of prudence).

You misrepresent the effects of Benedict XVI’s 2006 Regensburg Lecture, which you dismiss as having “caricatured” Islam. In fact, the Regensburg Lecture refocused the Catholic-Islamic dialogue on the two issues that complex conversation urgently needs to engage—religious freedom as a fundamental human right that can be known by reason, and the separation of religious and political authority in the twenty-first century state.

You display no comprehension of what actually prevents HIV/AIDS in Africa, and you cling to the tattered myth of “overpopulation” at a moment when fertility rates are dropping around the globe and Europe is entering a demographic winter of its own conscious creation.

You seem oblivious to the scientific evidence underwriting the Church’s defense of the moral status of the human embryo, while falsely charging that the Catholic Church opposes stem-cell research.

Why do you not know these things? You are an obviously intelligent man; you once did groundbreaking work in ecumenical theology. What has happened to you?

What has happened, I suggest, is that you have lost the argument over the meaning and the proper hermeneutics of Vatican II. That explains why you relentlessly pursue your fifty-year quest for a liberal Protestant Catholicism, at precisely the moment when the liberal Protestant project is collapsing from its inherent theological incoherence. And that is why you have now engaged in a vicious smear of another former Vatican II colleague, Joseph Ratzinger. Before addressing that smear, permit me to continue briefly on the hermeneutics of the Council.

While you are not the most theologically accomplished exponent of what Benedict XVI called the “hermeneutics of rupture” in his Christmas 2005 address to the Roman Curia, you are, without doubt, the most internationally visible member of that aging group which continues to argue that the period 1962–1965 marked a decisive trapgate in the history of the Catholic Church: the moment of a new beginning, in which Tradition would be dethroned from its accustomed place as a primary source of theological reflection, to be replaced by a Christianity that increasingly let “the world” set the Church’s agenda (as a motto of the World Council of Churches then put it).

The struggle between this interpretation of the Council, and that advanced by Council fathers like Ratzinger and Henri de Lubac, split the post-conciliar Catholic theological world into warring factions with contending journals: Concilium for you and your progressive colleagues, Communio for those you continue to call “reactionaries.” That the Concilium project became ever more implausible over time—and that a younger generation of theologians, especially in North America, gravitated toward the Communio orbit—could not have been a happy experience for you. And that the Communio project should have decisively shaped the deliberations of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, called by John Paul II to celebrate Vatican II’s achievements and assess its full implementation on the twentieth anniversary of its conclusion, must have been another blow.

Yet I venture to guess that the iron really entered your soul when, on December 22, 2005, the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI—the man whose appointment to the theological faculty at Tübingen you had once helped arrange—addressed the Roman Curia and suggested that the argument was over: and that the conciliar “hermeneutics of reform,” which presumed continuity with the Great Tradition of the Church, had won the day over “the hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture.”

Perhaps, while you and Benedict XVI were drinking beer at Castel Gandolfo in the summer of 2005, you somehow imagined that Ratzinger had changed his mind on this central question. He obviously had not. Why you ever imagined he might accept your view of what an “ongoing renewal of the Church” would involve is, frankly, puzzling. Nor does your analysis of the contemporary Catholic situation become any more plausible when one reads, further along in your latest op-ed broadside, that recent popes have been “autocrats” against the bishops; again, one wonders whether you have been paying sufficient attention. For it seems self-evidently clear that Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have been painfully reluctant—some would say, unfortunately reluctant—to discipline bishops who have shown themselves incompetent or malfeasant and have lost the capacity to teach and lead because of that: a situation many of us hope will change, and change soon, in light of recent controversies.

In a sense, of course, none of your familiar complaints about post-conciliar Catholic life is new. It does, however, seem ever more counterintuitive for someone who truly cares about the future of the Catholic Church as a witness to God’s truth for the world’s salvation to press the line you persistently urge upon us: that a credible Catholicism will tread the same path trod in recent decades by various Protestant communities which, wittingly or not, have followed one or another version of your counsel to a adopt a hermeneutics of rupture with the Great Tradition of Christianity. Still, that is the single-minded stance you have taken since one of your colleagues worried about your becoming too evident; and as that stance has kept you evident, at least on the op-ed pages of newspapers who share your reading of Catholic tradition, I expect it’s too much to expect you to change, or even modify, your views, even if every bit of empirical evidence at hand suggests that the path you propose is the path to oblivion for the churches.

What can be expected, though, is that you comport yourself with a minimum of integrity and elementary decency in the controversies in which you engage. I understand odium theologicum as well as anyone, but I must, in all candor, tell you that you crossed a line that should not have been crossed in your recent article, when you wrote the following:


There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005).


That, sir, is not true. I refuse to believe that you knew this to be false and wrote it anyway, for that would mean you had willfully condemned yourself as a liar. But on the assumption that you did not know this sentence to be a tissue of falsehoods, then you are so manifestly ignorant of how competencies over abuse cases were assigned in the Roman Curia prior to Ratzinger’s seizing control of the process and bringing it under CDF’s competence in 2001, then you have forfeited any claim to be taken seriously on this, or indeed any other matter involving the Roman Curia and the central governance of the Catholic Church.

As you perhaps do not know, I have been a vigorous, and I hope responsible, critic of the way abuse cases were (mis)handled by individual bishops and by the authorities in the Curia prior to the late 1990s, when then-Cardinal Ratzinger began to fight for a major change in the handling of these cases. (If you are interested, I refer you to my 2002 book, The Courage To Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church.)

I therefore speak with some assurance of the ground on which I stand when I say that your description of Ratzinger’s role as quoted above is not only ludicrous to anyone familiar with the relevant history, but is belied by the experience of American bishops who consistently found Ratzinger thoughtful, helpful, deeply concerned about the corruption of the priesthood by a small minority of abusers, and distressed by the incompetence or malfeasance of bishops who took the promises of psychotherapy far more seriously than they ought, or lacked the moral courage to confront what had to be confronted.

I recognize that authors do not write the sometimes awful subheads that are put on op-ed pieces. Nonetheless, you authored a piece of vitriol—itself utterly unbecoming a priest, an intellectual, or a gentleman—that permitted the editors of the Irish Times to slug your article: “Pope Benedict has made worse just about everything that is wrong with the Catholic Church and is directly responsible for engineering the global cover-up of child rape perpetrated by priests, according to this open letter to all Catholic bishops.” That grotesque falsification of the truth perhaps demonstrates where odium theologicum can lead a man. But it is nonetheless shameful.

Permit me to suggest that you owe Pope Benedict XVI a public apology, for what, objectively speaking, is a calumny that I pray was informed in part by ignorance (if culpable ignorance). I assure you that I am committed to a thoroughgoing reform of the Roman Curia and the episcopate, projects I described at some length in God’s Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church, a copy of which, in German, I shall be happy to send you. But there is no path to true reform in the Church that does not run through the steep and narrow valley of the truth. The truth was butchered in your article in the Irish Times. And that means that you have set back the cause of reform.

With the assurance of my prayers,

George Weigel

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.
Logged

militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 644


militantsparrow
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2010, 07:02:01 PM »

Kung is not just a "liberal." He is a heretic and not even a Christian as the Great Councils understood the term. He hates the Catholic (and Orthodox) faith. He is well into his 80s and quite irrelevant. I pray he repents his apostasy before death, but I'm very glad his type is dying out.

Amen. To keep things on the up and up with Catholic / Orthodox dialog, it should be known that Kung does not represent Catholic belief.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Cosmos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 140


أيها الرب يسوع المسيح ابن الله, إرحمني أنا الخاطئ


« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2010, 03:23:22 AM »

Kung is not just a "liberal." He is a heretic and not even a Christian as the Great Councils understood the term. He hates the Catholic (and Orthodox) faith. He is well into his 80s and quite irrelevant. I pray he repents his apostasy before death, but I'm very glad his type is dying out.

Amen. To keep things on the up and up with Catholic / Orthodox dialog, it should be known that Kung does not represent Catholic belief.

Thank God for that! Excellent letter. Thank you for sharing it here.  Smiley

Cosmos
Logged

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με!
David Carroll
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 110


Holy Ephraim, pray for us!


« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2010, 03:29:55 PM »

Yes.  Kueng is indeed a heretic, as he does not even believe in the Divinity of Christ.  His book Does God Exist?, which I picked up by chance off a dusty shelf in a small library because it looked "interesting", was very influential in my life though - it is the book that single-handedly made me decide to study philosophy (ultimately, I left college because of this!).  The argument outlined in this book is still, in my opinion, the best proof of God's existence yet (which I call the "psychological proof of God's existence").
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 03:31:29 PM by David Carroll » Logged

Pray that God would deliver me from hatred and pride.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2010, 07:29:10 PM »

Yes.  Kueng is indeed a heretic, as he does not even believe in the Divinity of Christ.  His book Does God Exist?, which I picked up by chance off a dusty shelf in a small library because it looked "interesting", was very influential in my life though - it is the book that single-handedly made me decide to study philosophy (ultimately, I left college because of this!).  The argument outlined in this book is still, in my opinion, the best proof of God's existence yet (which I call the "psychological proof of God's existence").

Has the Catholic Magisterium declared Kueng a heretic?
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.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2010, 07:40:40 PM »

Yes.  Kueng is indeed a heretic, as he does not even believe in the Divinity of Christ.  His book Does God Exist?, which I picked up by chance off a dusty shelf in a small library because it looked "interesting", was very influential in my life though - it is the book that single-handedly made me decide to study philosophy (ultimately, I left college because of this!).  The argument outlined in this book is still, in my opinion, the best proof of God's existence yet (which I call the "psychological proof of God's existence").

Has the Catholic Magisterium declared Kueng a heretic?

The Catholic magisterium is not some kind of official body or office in the Church.

It refers to the teaching charge given to all of the bishops in the Church.  It has an ordinary and extraordinary expression, but it does not deal with disciplinary measures like some kind of court of law.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2010, 07:50:44 PM »

 On the Withdrawal of Hans Küng's Authorization to Teach by Hans Urs von Balthasar

Published in Communio: International Catholic Review 7, no. 1 (Spring 1980): 90-93. Printable version (pdf).

What to many people may seem like a bolt from heaven is, in reality, the culmination of ten years of intensive and tragic investigation. No objective judgment can be formed without access to the nearly 200-page appendix to the statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Conference of German Bishops. It contains all the relevant documents from 1967 to 1979. When studied without prejudice, the surface perturbances recede and the real issues come to the fore. In the following I shall refer to source materials by page numbers in the Appendix of the German Bishops’ statement.

One can be justifiably annoyed by Küng’s poor taste in publicly questioning and throwing doubt on the Pope’s Christianity and then falsely claiming that in retaliation he was deprived of his teaching position. The disrespect with which he addresses the representatives of the Congregation is also irritating. But most aggravating is his obstinacy in leaving the bishops’ questions unanswered and, instead, focusing attention on Roman procedures which he deems unsatisfactory. His technique of prolonging the proceedings is, to say the least, provoking: he answers invitations too late or with a curt “I have no time,” or “it is mid-semester,” or “I am traveling,” or “I am writing a book.” It is amazing that the Roman and German authorities have had that much patience with him. One follows with anguish how those who were sincerely well disposed toward him become frustrated and finally write him off: Cardinal Volk writes, “I beg you from the depth of my heart to speak for once with Rome.” Cardinal Doepfner toward the end of his life concedes that if at long last the difficulties are not cleared up, “I will hardly be in a position to help” (p. 115). The Bishop of Rottenburg also loses heart: “An unpleasant sequel is unavoidable” (p. 185). Küng, in answer to continued pleas for revision, occasionally makes a promise or holds out hope for explanations to come in a new book.

The Roman procedures were “closed for the time being” on April 9, 1974, with a final warning to Küng to cease teaching what is incompatible and irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine, such as denying that the Church’s teaching authority derives directly from Christ or asserting that lay persons can validly celebrate the Eucharist in an emergency. Küng totally ignores these admonitions and says so specifically in his preface to Hassler’s second book on Vatican I, as well as in his theological meditations on truth inherent in the Church. At that time the Sacred Congregation called it to his attention that “it was the Church’s authority that gave him the faculty to teach theology, in the spirit of the Church’s authority and not from a point of view that distorts these teachings or casts doubt on them” (p. 104).

In the course of time dogmatic problems have become more numerous. Particularly after To Be a Christian appeared, not merely the Church’s authority but central tenets of Christology, teachings about the Trinity, about redemption and grace have been questioned. One shares the wish that Küng would take a clear stand on the essentials of the Credo. His answer is gruff: “I find it highly unreasonable that a confession of faith is demanded from me, a tenured professor of theology” (p. 147). But a few sentences further in the document he states: “These extremely subtle and complex questions that are asked from all theologians cannot be answered by the catechism” (p. 148). Avoidance tactics first to one then to the other side? Surely. But it still leaves us on the periphery of the real problem.

The central focus is fundamentally simple: To Küng, Church authority derived from Christ is an unproven belief that would have to be thoroughly discussed (with him) before he would accept a statement or question based on this premise. Actually, he gave the answer—a negative one—in his book on the Church. He questions the continuity between Christ and the Church (echoing Bultmann) and therefore a theologian (read here Karl Barth) stands only under the authority of the Word of God and not under that of the Church. “What authority validates my opinion? The authority of the Word of God, whom as a theologian I have to serve” (p. 102). Hence, it is logical that he continues to demand that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith first prove to him theologically its authority. Therefore, “to quote only those teaching documents which refer to my questions is a vicious circle; what should be proven is taken for granted” (p. 51, 74). “It is an easily seen- through petitio principii to present as a proof those authoritative texts which . . . are exactly questioned” (p. 178).

Küng wants Rome to engage in a debate with him. He invites the members of the Congregation to come to his seminar. Their travel expenses to Tübingen would be reimbursed (p. 52). If Rome does not clarify scientifically its claim to authority, the demand for “a colloquium is meaningless for both parties” (p. 73). But the “Congregation is incapable” of giving proof to its empty statements (p. 53). Therefore, it should hold its peace and leave the theologians to “conduct their inquiries without obstacles” (p. 78).

Contesting that the Church’s authority issues from Christ has a corollary: the demand for unlimited freedom of theological research. Küng repeatedly refers to an allegedly lost document demanding this freedom that was signed by 1,360 theologians. They granted bishops the office of pastoral evangelization but claimed for themselves the authority of “scientific teaching” and resisted “any form of even the subtlest inquisition” (p. 77). “Pastoral” is to be strictly differentiated from “theological.” When questioned about this, Küng said: “Yes, a Catholic Church community was possible and again could be possible without a strongly authoritarian leadership (such as monopoly by the Church’s teaching authority to interpret Scripture and tradition) and with free, unbiased scientific research” (p. 179).

What for Catholics are “binding truths” are for him “not so simple” considering the problems—discerned even in Rome—that were created by the magisterium’s decisions from Galileo through the Syllabus to the encyclicals Humanae vitae and Humanae generis (p. 96). Though behind these actions stand old and new conciliar and papal definitions, these on their part do not claim to be “infallible statements” (p. 172). Ultimately, all statements are historically determined (p. 75). Hassler’s book on Vatican I is grist to Küng’s mill. In his preface to this book he throws all reserve to the winds and demands a complete revision (to be understood as “withdrawal”) of the Council’s statements (p. 181).

Can one be astonished by Küng holding this point of view, the inner consistency of which is beyond question? (His personal honesty has not been questioned.) I don’t think so. These are good Protestant points of view, which many evangelical Christians hold optima fide and the reasons behind them are understandable even to Catholics. All these faithful can profess Una Catholica if they understand by that term the “general, all-inclusive church which continues in faith and community despite all ruptures.” To this Küng also professes allegiance (p. 180). But it is harder to accept the none-too-light cross with which this church would saddle its followers by placing itself under the sole authority of the Word of God and simultaneously submitting this to the forum of the historical-critical method. Küng fully understands this difficulty.

It is not necessary here to go further into the Catholic position, which sees in the hierarchical office (of bishops, councils, popes) a line of communication, established by Christ himself, between the Incarnate Word of God and ourselves and which, of course, implies apostolic succession. Two things should be clear about the Catholic position: as the Word of God in the Gospels speaks in human terms understandable to every man, so the essential truths of the Credo, of the Councils, of the catechisms, have a transparent meaning which is pre- or supra-theological, if one means by theology a specialized scientific discipline. Theology can study and explain these truths but it cannot critically wipe them out. Among these truths belongs also, according to Catholic understanding, the ecclesiastical authority of the successors of the apostles—firmly based on the words of the New Testament, with Peter as the unifying link—whose task is to announce the Word of God but also to keep it uncontaminated. This implies the possibility of examination (that terrible word “inquisition” means nothing more than “examination”) which, as the painful case of Küng shows, can be conducted fairly. The writings of the New Testament tell of several such house-cleanings, which then as now were simply definitions of an already existing situation. No doubt, spiritual authority in the hand of imperfect man is a dangerous instrument. The closer something is to the holy the more it can be misused—otherwise we would not have had the Reformation.

In closing, I can’t but remember that shortly before his death, Karl Barth told me that Hans Küng (whom he began to mistrust) had paid him a visit and said to him triumphantly: “We will witness a new Reformation in the Church.” And Barth answered, “A reform would suffice.”


Translated by Andrée Emery.

Copyright 2010 Communio: International Catholic Review. All rights reserved.

Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2010, 08:15:53 PM »

Yes.  Kueng is indeed a heretic, as he does not even believe in the Divinity of Christ.  His book Does God Exist?, which I picked up by chance off a dusty shelf in a small library because it looked "interesting", was very influential in my life though - it is the book that single-handedly made me decide to study philosophy (ultimately, I left college because of this!).  The argument outlined in this book is still, in my opinion, the best proof of God's existence yet (which I call the "psychological proof of God's existence").

Has the Catholic Magisterium declared Kueng a heretic?

The Catholic magisterium is not some kind of official body or office in the Church.

It refers to the teaching charge given to all of the bishops in the Church.  It has an ordinary and extraordinary expression, but it does not deal with disciplinary measures like some kind of court of law.

M.
OK. Has Kueng been declared a heretic by any Catholic authority?
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.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,575


« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2010, 08:23:51 PM »

Who is Kueng?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2010, 08:24:19 PM »

Yes.  Kueng is indeed a heretic, as he does not even believe in the Divinity of Christ.  His book Does God Exist?, which I picked up by chance off a dusty shelf in a small library because it looked "interesting", was very influential in my life though - it is the book that single-handedly made me decide to study philosophy (ultimately, I left college because of this!).  The argument outlined in this book is still, in my opinion, the best proof of God's existence yet (which I call the "psychological proof of God's existence").

Has the Catholic Magisterium declared Kueng a heretic?

The Catholic magisterium is not some kind of official body or office in the Church.

It refers to the teaching charge given to all of the bishops in the Church.  It has an ordinary and extraordinary expression, but it does not deal with disciplinary measures like some kind of court of law.

M.
OK. Has Kueng been declared a heretic by any Catholic authority?

Not formally.  But as you can see from my next note his license to teach as a Catholic was taken away from him because some of his teachings were heterodox.

The Church is slow to call formally any individual a heretic.  Formally a heretic is one who takes decisive action to destroy the Church or lead others astray in a concerted manner over a period of time and shows no sign of stopping or restoring the faith.
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2010, 08:50:16 PM »

Kung is not just a "liberal." He is a heretic and not even a Christian as the Great Councils understood the term. He hates the Catholic (and Orthodox) faith. He is well into his 80s and quite irrelevant.
That's funny. If he is irrelevant, why did Pope Benedict have a four hour personal talk with him at the Vatican? Why is the Pope spending so much time with people who are irrelevant?
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2010, 08:54:59 PM »

Who is Kueng?
Hans Küng. The umlaut "ü" is often written also as "ue". The "ü" itself is actually a "u" with a small "e" written right above it.
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.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2010, 08:56:41 PM »

OK. Has Kueng been declared a heretic by any Catholic authority?
I don't think so. And I don't think Kung has been excommunicated either. This contrasts rather sharply with the declaration of the Bishop of Lincoln Nebraska, Bishop Bruskewitz, who excommunicated anyone who belonged to the Traditional Latin Mass group, SSPX. Everyone in SSPX in Lincoln Nebraska, lay people and clergy,  were declared formally excommunicated from the Catholic Church by Bishop Bruskewitz.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2010, 12:59:21 AM »

Stanley, so were all members of a number of liberal groups like Call to Action. Bishop Bruskewitz was certainly within his right to excommunicate SSPX members in his diocese since he is one of the great traditional bishops of the Church and the SSPX has no business operating in his diocese.


As for Kung, of course he is irrelevant! I take it from your citing of his 2005 visit with the Holy Father that you are unaware that Kung and Ratzinger were old friends and colleagues and periti (theological consultants) at the Council. Kung even secured for Ratzinger his teaching position back in the 1960s. So a lengthy lunch between two old colleagues says little about Kung's relevance. If he were so relevant, where are the renknowned theologians of the Kungian stripe who are under 50? His kind are either dead or dying out soon. Edward Schillebeeckx and Mary Daly are two of the latest leading theological lights of the 1960s to die.

His hysterical attack on the pope shows how desperate he is as his project for a new Reformation has failed.
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 0.105 seconds with 48 queries.