A
adrift
Guest
Hans Kung who the Vatican censured and banned his teaching as a Catholic theologian?
The one who denied papal infallibility and promotes suicide including his own? Really? What is it that you respect him for?
- Status
The one who denied papal infallibility and promotes suicide including his own? Really? What is it that you respect him for?
C
clem456
Guest
Descarte put a lump in my throat also.
Can’t argue that he wasn’t brilliant philosopher, but I don’t believe he is a friend of faith.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Some of these are venerable greats! But, wow, a mixed bag. A few are unknown to me, and I do not know how many of those unknowns, like your Karl Rahnor, would also leave your Aquinas, Augustine, Pope Benedict XIV, Guardini, JPII, and Augustine aghast. Because, as, you said:
VERY good reason to not accept a theologian just becaseu he is “prominent”. Find one who is pious, and true to the faith! Because the world overrun with intellectual “experts” with hard hearts!
Because its true what Trevor Dewey said to you:
:clapping: Now THATs the truth! [Bolds are mine].
Reading more on Rayner, i see that I was right, Pope Benedict XIV* did *disagree with the direction of his writings, even though he had worked with him in some capacity earlier.
I saw the fruits of Rayner many years ago as a newly Born-again Christian in college. I attended a Newman Center Mass with friends on Sundays, who invited me. To think I might have become a Catholic then! - rather than many years later, and having to shed one-by-one many of the adopted Evangelical Protestant beliefs I’d gained in the meanwhile - had it not been for the priest… I sat with this priest in small of mostly students planning the Baccalaureate Mass. He suggested - and expressed a belief in - this very same belief. No bodily resurrection! There were two nuns there too, the friendly one, who nodded and beamed at this, and the unfriendly one, who flushed angrily. I noticed this because I always liked the nice one and suddenly saw a kindred spirit in the other one. No wonder she was grumpy! I was SO SHOCKED that this priest did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. What about Thomas touching his hands, I immediately asked? Probably, he got these beliefs from Rayner. Yes, had it not been for Rayner, the priest may have never said this, and I’d have been blessed to be Catholic MANY years sooner!
Yes, and as you say, Lily:
Yes. I know. The fruit of that is EVIDENT.
While Rayner was a prolific theologian, and there is plenty of scholarly discipline there one cannot argue with, he, as a theologian, is not worthy of esteem. Adrift explains it well in post #166, here, with some excellent (short) links.
Lily, a basic tool of the evil ones who prowl throughout the world is that they use a whole lot of truth and infuse it with just enough lie to pollute the whole thing. I would not want any theologians on my “favorites” list who do this. A theologian who teaches heresy is NOT worth any favor.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Okay, so Hans Kung goes in the “Problem Pile” with Karl Rayner?
The problem pile grows!
E
ericc
Guest
I think we ought to accept that although none of them are perfect, yet they could still write respectable stuff sometimes. For example, Origen and Tertullian are still highly respected even though their faith could have gone shaky. There were periods when they wrote great stuff and periods when they wrote heretical stuff. Those stuff that was written before they’ve gone bad can be respectable and valuable for learning. Even bad people can write some good stuff sometimes, or write good stuff that one didn’t happen to agree with. There are intelligent people on both sides, even those we disagree with.
E
ericc
Guest
I intend to mean those scholars who would dissect those epistles studying the writing style, language style, choice of words and finally proclaim “Aha! that epistle couldn’t be written by this so-and-so, he normally wouldn’t write like that” and on and on and not an iota of scholarship on the substance itself, on what was written.
I would only take issue with one thing, that scholarship is not part of the “mootness”. The debate about inspiration and innerrancy, yes. that is moot. But it is good that scholars do research to open up the scriptures more fully.
My point is it is the substance that has been declared inspired, so study the substance and tells us more about it rather than do a Sherlock Homes on who the writer is. I am not surprise the one who pen it has to gather his (name removed by moderator)uts from everyone he knows of to verify, to identify omissions, check for errors, because no one can remember everything or be present every second to note what the Master is saying. Or occasionally ask the other guy to write parts of it because “you are more familiar with it or you can expressed it better than I can.” or someone asking their assistants who has taken down notes on what to cover to write it. These writers probably weren’t expecting modern day scholars to spent so much time on just checking their signatures. A memo that comes from an authorised office is good to go no matter who wrote it or how it was written. My ex-boss secretary normally writes for him, sent out using his email for example.
A
adrift
Guest
Yes what you say is true but do you know what Hans Kung wrote that is good?
E
ericc
Guest
I have not read his books, surely there must be at least one good book out of his seventy or so books? How about his earlier books The Council, Reform, and Reunion (1960) and Structures of the Church (1962)? Participating in the Second Vatican Council as a consultant theologian, he ought to have some creds.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Read what I wrote: “I do not accept everything every one of them wrote, but I respect all of them.”
I respect Kung’s efforts to bring harmony to the various religions of the world without compromising any of them, and I respect his great reverence for the natural world.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Who is “Rayner?” I sure never mentioned anyone by that name.
Don’t “preach” to me, Eliza. I didn’t say anything about “Scott Hahn” to you, but his books are the Catholic equivalent of “Chicken Soup for the Soul.” Blah! Thinking people need something to think about, not platitudes. He writes and talks like he’s speaking to ten-year-old kids in a Catechism class. Do you believe we know EVERYTHING there is to know about God right now, in 2015? Or about the Bible? We don’t. I appreciate people who give me something to think about rather than just rehashing old platitudes from another time.
Maybe you didn’t read this, either: “I do not accept everything every one of them wrote, but I respect all of them.”
Until you’ve read all of Kung’s books and studied his theology, you are in no position to judge him. After you’ve done all that, then you can point out what, specifically, you disagree with. And, by the way, you part company with Pope Benedict XVI, who LIKES Hans Kung and respects his brilliant mind even if he doesn’t agree 100% with his views, as I do not. Thinking people appreciate thinking people even if they don’t agree with them on every single point. How many private dinners has Scott Hahn had with a pope? And Hahn is an ardent admirer of Opus Dei, which is VERY controversial.
You have not read Kung’s books or studied his theology, so you don’t understand what he means by “bodily.” He is speaking of a spiritual body as St. Paul, whom I have to presume you also consider a heretic, was. He was speaking of a glorified body. People will not rise from the grave with the little they have that hasn’t decomposed. They will rise with a new, glorified body just as Christ did. Why do you think his closest companions did not recognize him? It was also St. Paul who came into conflict with St. Peter so much of the time.
In ten, twenty years, the theologians who are attempting to harmonize anthropology, biology, cosmology, physics, etc. with mainstream Catholic faith will not seem so radical. I appreciate their (name removed by moderator)ut. And this is not a defense of Kung. He can well defend himself. I don’t agree with all he said, but I do appreciate the fact that he THINKS and is not a “yes” man. That’s how progress is made. In anything.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
You are right, Eric. He has written extensively on ecumenism and respect for the natural world. I admire those books. He has had several private dinners with Pope Benedict XVI, who greatly admires his work even though he does not agree with him 100% as I do not agree with him 100%. Hans Kung is Swiss, and the Swiss tend to greatly respect the natural world as Christ’s home, whether they are religious or not. In the ten years I lived in Switzerland, I saw one piece of litter. In the US, I could drive for an hour and see 100s of pieces of litter. It seems many Americans do not respect the planet.
I don’t know one person I agree with 100%. I could say Christ, but I’m talking about a theologian and scholar writing today, and someone who is 100% human, not divine and sinless as Christ was and is.
Personally, I would rather read someone who gives me something to think about even if I don’t agree with it all than read platitudes we’ve all known since we were kids.
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It was on the mark, as always.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Absolutely true. We studied Origen and Tertullian extensively in Church History classes. They offered the Church some brilliant food for thought even if they did go astray in some areas. Yes, you’re right. They wrote some great stuff and some shaky stuff. Most people know St. Augustine went through a time when he was a great sinner and certainly not in harmony with the Church’s teachings.
Even Albert Schweitzer went astray somewhat.
I respect great minds who give me something to think about. Judging by your posts, I think you do as well. I’ve learned through your posts that you think for yourself. I disagree with Kung on several points, but I can still appreciate his brilliance and many of his thoughts of ecumenism and the natural world.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I guess you missed this part, too, Clem.
“I do not accept everything every one of them wrote, but I respect all of them.”
And, I don’t accept all any of them wrote. Descartes’ contributions to philosophy helped to enlarge the faith and give us new ways to relate to Christ. For that, I respect him.
Like Pascal, though, I consider Descartes more of a Deist, however, Descartes considered himself a devout Catholic and one of his books is a defense of the Catholic faith. He considered himself a friend of the faith, and he wanted to be a friend of the faith.
I don’t agree with everything anyone on that list wrote. I even disagree with some of my deacon’s homilies. He said we owe it to give a beggar money, no matter what he or she is going to use it for. I don’t agree with that. I do not want to enable someone’s alcoholism or drug habit. I think we are our brother’s keeper, and I am not going to be an enabler. I will gladly buy a homeless person a meal or give him a ride to a shelter, etc., but enable his alcoholism or drug addiction, no. I’ve never been an enabler, and I’m not going to start now. Even my priest is in conflict, in a friendly way, with the deacon over that statement.
But these things are all off-topic. The topic is the Bible.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Even though some of your theology presented in this thread is far-fetched and false IMO, I do not think you lack intelligence, so I cannot imagine you are unable to deduce from the context to whom I was referring. THAT is just not believable. So, is this is falseness, or a poor attempt at sarcasm? Or some sort of mocking/scoffing?
Yes, it was me who mentioned Scott Hahn, not you. But wow. I am stupefied here. I have never heard anyone talk about Hahn’s work like this. Also I cannot believe how you characterize his work here is how an honest theologian sees it. I can only imagine that this is the rant you get from your own professors and colleagues who consider themselves the established authority, and are jealous of Hahn’s sudden rise to renown, which they think they are more deserving of. He must be - certainly to you, and then, I suppose your colleagues as well - not up to the standards of those such as Karl Rahner, who did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Our Lord.
[Addressing anyone else reading this thread now: Has anyone ever heard Hahn talked about like this? I’m shocked. I have never come across this. But my guess that explains this is that his popular acclaim is a source of jealousy to the established university theology, the kind that got Our Church to where it is today - and a threat to their superior establishment. Not so unlike how the Pharisees felt about that upstart, Jesus.
…].[editing to add: I bet the Pharisees thought that, in comparison to their own superior and knowing, educated ways of arguing, Jesus’ simple truths and parables were like “talking to kids”, too
…]So this is not preaching in your definition?
But I was preaching to you? Your preaching comment made no sense to me. I thought this was an exchange of opinions. 
As to Kung, if what adrift said,* “Hans Kung who the Vatican censured and banned his teaching as a Catholic theologian?
The one who denied papal infallibility and promotes suicide including his own? Really? What is it that you respect him for?”* is true, then that would be enough for me to remove him from any favored list of mine. I do understand however that *you *need to read all these people to be well read in your chosen discipline. But favoring him is harder to grasp.
C
clem456
Guest
I would just say that a person’s influences are not required to be in line with the Magisterium to be beneficial in some way.
Someone like Neitszche for instance…I do not think like him but it was beneficial, if nothing else than to see how the other side thinks.
I would disagree that Descarte is any friend of faith, but that’s ok. In my opinion Cartesian philosophy is responsible for a lot of bad things.
But, the reader does not necessarily subscribe to everything he/she reads.
Someone like Neitszche for instance…I do not think like him but it was beneficial, if nothing else than to see how the other side thinks.
I would disagree that Descarte is any friend of faith, but that’s ok. In my opinion Cartesian philosophy is responsible for a lot of bad things.
But, the reader does not necessarily subscribe to everything he/she reads.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Well you have a point there. Even a notorious criminal could have something to teach us that is beneficial, like use of time, or persistence, sticking with a goal, etc.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I do agree with you, Clem, though it might have sounded like I didn’t. I don’t think Descartes was a friend of the faith, I agree with Pascal’s portrait of Descartes, but I do appreciate his contributions to a way of reasoning. I think mathematicians have more reason to admire him.
A
adrift
Guest
Dear I did read what you wrote as my question to you indicated. Really this is all off topic. I do believe that the Bible is not history and that is not its purpose however I have yet to see a credible error other than the error of people interpreting it. Errors that have so far been pointed out our more misunderstandings than errors. For instance saying the nativity stories contradict which is untrue. What would be a contradiction is if one said Joseph was the father and the other Mary was a virgin that is a contradiction. What isn’t a contradiction is that one author chose to tell the fact Mary Joseph and Jesus went to Egypt. While the other leaves that out and has them go back to Nazareth. This is not a contradiction. As I quoted before
Since this is not a history, I don’t believe the authors told about Jesus necessarily in a straight time line.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
As for Scott Hahn, I just don’t care for his work, but I see nothing wrong with him as a person. I think he’s honest and loves the Church, and he’s probably a good teacher. I just don’t like his books, but that’s fine. No one can please everyone, and Scott Hahn can do without me as a reader. He has enough as it is. I’m sure he has enriched the lives of many, and that’s good. I’m just not one, and as I said, that’s fine, too. I don’t think any of the professors at my school are jealous of Scott Hahn. Some could write if they wanted to. Some have written scholarly textbooks. They seem happy enough teaching, and jealousy is not something a theologian cultivates. I know you know that.Even though some of your theology presented in this thread is far-fetched and false IMO, I do not think you lack intelligence, so I cannot imagine you are unable to deduce from the context to whom I was referring. THAT is just not believable. So, is this is falseness, or a poor attempt at sarcasm? Or some sort of mocking/scoffing?
Yes, it was me who mentioned Scott Hahn, not you. But wow. I am stupefied here. I have never heard anyone talk about Hahn’s work like this. Also I cannot believe how you characterize his work here is how an honest theologian sees it. I can only imagine that this is the rant you get from your own professors and colleagues who consider themselves the established authority, and are jealous of Hahn’s sudden rise to renown, which they think they are more deserving of. He must be - certainly to you, and then, I suppose your colleagues as well - not up to the standards of those such as Karl Rahner, who did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Our Lord.
[Addressing anyone else reading this thread now: Has anyone ever heard Hahn talked about like this? I’m shocked. I have never come across this. But my guess that explains this is that his popular acclaim is a source of jealousy to the established university theology, the kind that got Our Church to where it is today - and a threat to their superior establishment. Not so unlike how the Pharisees felt about that upstart, Jesus.
[editing to add: I bet the Pharisees thought that, in comparison to their own superior and knowing, educated ways of arguing, Jesus’ simple truths and parables were like “talking to kids”, too
So this is not preaching in your definition?
As to Kung, if what adrift said,* "Hans Kung who the Vatican censured and banned his teaching as a Catholic theologian?
The one who denied papal infallibility and promotes suicide including his own? Really? What is it that you respect him for?"* is true, then that would be enough for me to remove him from any favored list of mine. I do understand however that *you *need to read all these people to be well read in your chosen discipline. But favoring him is harder to grasp.
As for Kung, I dislike as much about him as I like. It is his ecumenism and his exaltation of the natural world that I like. There was a time when he was censured, yes, but no longer. Pope Benedict XVI was/is more open minded.
Sorry to use the word “preach.” It was about 4:00 in the morning when I wrote that, and that was no doubt a poor word choice, so I apologize for that word.
Jesus’ parables are actually very difficult for some people to understand.
I don’t think any of my professors and colleagues consider themselves the “be all and end all” authority. Some of them know an awful lot, but they don’t flaunt it or hesitate to say so when they don’t know. I can tell you from experience that the more you learn, the more you feel you still have to learn. Theology brings up a lot of questions, and I’m pleased to have those theologians kind of give me a jumping off place in thinking. Sometimes their radical thought causes one to see the more traditional is the only thing that can be. Not always, but sometimes.
Again, sorry for the use of the word “preach.”
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Well, someone has tried to harmonize the stories in Matthew and Luke here:
tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.php
I did not read it all, as I have to get aback to my class, but I saw he used Catholic sources.
I still believe the most likely candidate is Nazareth, and so does the professor I asked, but in the end, I don’t think it matters where Jesus was born. I think what matters is that he was resurrected, the only person to have ever been. He is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. I will say that Bethlehem is the only data there is, implausible as I, myself, find the nativities.
You don’t have to try to prove Bethlehem to me. If it is Bethlehem, it is Bethlehem. If is Nazareth, it is Nazareth. He is Christ either way.
- Status