Exclusive: Controversial swiss theologian pleads with pope francis to solve problem of infallibility

[pnewton]

Hans Kung is a priest. He has valid priestly faculties. He has no teaching faculty. While a professor emeritus by tenure, his teaching duties have been discontinued. He does not speak for the Church.

I have no objection to open dialogue one what the dogma of infallibility means, but if Kung means there is not such thing, then there is nothing reliably true in the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit did not “lead us into all truth,” but into a lie.

 

[pnewton]

Vatican I was not an Ecumenical Council in any meaningful sense. It was a western council. There have been no truly ecumenical councils since the first millenium.

Yes, there have, from a Catholic perspective. The Orthodox schism is not the topic on this thread, or any where in the Catholic News area.

 

[JPUSC]

Dear Usige,

Well said!

I always stay away from National Catholic Reporter & Crux, I do not like them at all. Sadly, they are linked on CAF almost daily Very liberal sites…

I love the way you put it, the heterodox trifecta Now, I need to avoid The Tablet as well.
Thanks for your post & (name removed by moderator)ut.

Here is the same news from La Stampa - Vatican Insider, called a ‘very faithful’ newspaper by posters here:

lastampa.it/2016/03/09/vaticaninsider/ita/vaticano/kng-e-linfallibilit-del-papa-Q1CkX1aTCuqx0vzzUz1GGM/pagina.html

 

[Darryl1958]

Hans Kung is a priest. He has valid priestly faculties. He has no teaching faculty. While a professor emeritus by tenure, his teaching duties have been discontinued. He does not speak for the Church.

I have no objection to open dialogue one what the dogma of infallibility means, but if Kung means there is not such thing, then there is nothing reliably true in the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit did not “lead us into all truth,” but into a lie.

I don’t think that it is an accurate portrayal of Kung’s position that the Holy Spirit is leading the church into a lie.

 

[philipl]

Hans Küng believes that the future wellbeing of the church is wrapped up in question of infallibility

thetablet.co.uk/news/5254/0/exclusive-controversial-swiss-theologian-pleads-with-pope-francis-to-solve-problem-of-infallibility

This article begins with a serious error. Küng, is NOT a former priest. He remains a priest in good standing.

I am trying to figure out what is the controversy? Since its only happened twice in the the history of the church.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Orthodox schism is not the topic on this thread, or any where in the Catholic News area.

The question of papal infallibility is related to the schism between east and west.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The question of papal infallibility is related to the schism between east and west.

Not originally, it wasn’t, though it undoubtedly is now. The schism happened well before the doctrine of papal infallibility was proclaimed.

And the persistence of the east/west schism owes a lot to international politics, eastern rejection of Catholic councils and the primacy of the various patriarchs within the ambit of their authority. But of all of them, I would say international politics is presently chief among them; which is closely related to patriarchal primacy. The overwhelming number of Orthodox are Eastern Orthodox under the Patriarch of Moscow. The primacy of that patriarchy is closely intertwined with the desire for re-creation of the “Russian World”, which is wider than the Russian Republic.

 

[Darryl1958]

Rest assured, renouncing the doctrine of papal infallibility would do nothing to erase the animosity that exists in the Eastern Orthodox Church towards Catholicism.

 

[Tomdstone]

Rest assured, renouncing the doctrine of papal infallibility would do nothing to erase the animosity that exists in the Eastern Orthodox Church towards Catholicism.

I don’t think the animosity was all on one side.
Animosity has gone both ways. For example, according to this linked document at Fordham university, a Roman Catholic university, Catholic bishops gave sermons where they said that the Greeks were " were traitors and murderers," “and were worse than Jews.” The Catholic bishops preached that it was not a sin, but an act of great charity to attack the Greek Orthodox.
legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/clari1.asp
Also, you can look up Croatia during WWII and see what some Roman Catholic Croatians thought of Serbian Orthodox at that time.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Rest assured, renouncing the doctrine of papal infallibility would do nothing to erase the animosity that exists in the Eastern Orthodox Church towards Catholicism.

It would be a big step though. It would prove to the Orthodox that Rome is becoming healthier and not simply trying to redefine its dogmas to have a more conciliar vibe while still affirming Pastor aeturnus.

 

[Darryl1958]

I don’t think the animosity was all on one side.
Animosity has gone both ways. For example, according to this linked document at Fordham university, a Roman Catholic university, Catholic bishops gave sermons where they said that the Greeks were " were traitors and murderers," “and were worse than Jews.” The Catholic bishops preached that it was not a sin, but an act of great charity to attack the Greek Orthodox.
legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/clari1.asp
Also, you can look up Croatia during WWII and see what some Roman Catholic Croatians thought of Serbian Orthodox at that time.

The difference is that the voices of animosity coming from the western Church are capable of being sidelined and would not be a source of further schism within the western Church in the event of a reunification.
The voices of animosity coming from the eastern Church are central to the core of that church and will never agree to unity with the “devil”.

 

[Darryl1958]

It would be a big step though. It would prove to the Orthodox that Rome is becoming healthier and not simply trying to redefine its dogmas to have a more conciliar vibe while still affirming Pastor aeturnus.

Well, for the sake of appearance and politics alone, an actual renunciation of the doctrine is an impossibility. Instead, the doctrine would be given different nuances, with stresses for example on how papal infallibility cannot help but include full doctrinal unity with what the Eastern patriarchies have always believed, and that the infallibility of the pope does not work exclusive to orthodoxy but in cooperation with what the Orthodox have always taught. when the infallibility of papal teaching becomes understood to be one and the same with infallibility of Church teaching as a whole, an infallibility that extends to the bishops of the East, then the obstacle becomes redefined without the need for full renunciation. New understandings of a doctrine that stresses that the doctrine changes nothing that has not already been taught, and that includes the infallibility of the Ancient Church of the East would be sufficient to make any doctrine palatable.

But the fracture lines of Schism runs much, much deeper than any one doctrine.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Well, for the sake of appearance and politics alone, an actual renunciation of the doctrine is an impossibility. Instead, the doctrine would be given different nuances, with stresses for example on how papal infallibility cannot help but include full doctrinal unity with what the Eastern patriarchies have always believed, and that the infallibility of the pope does not work exclusive to orthodoxy but in cooperation with what the Orthodox have always taught. when the infallibility of papal teaching becomes understood to be one and the same with infallibility of Church teaching as a whole, an infallibility that extends to the bishops of the East, then the obstacle becomes redefined without the need for full renunciation. New understandings of a doctrine that stresses that the doctrine changes nothing that has not already been taught, and that includes the infallibility of the Ancient Church of the East would be sufficient to make any doctrine palatable.

But the fracture lines of Schism runs much, much deeper than any one doctrine.

The doctrine is in the process of being reformed now. Pastor aeturnus taught that papal decrees are irreformable of themselves and not by consent of the Church. Now, the changing has changed in the minds of most people to “the pope with the consent of the church”. That’s not a development. It is a rupture from the teaching of Vatican I. The Orthodox will not be satisfied with a redefining of the doctrine that keeps its essence unchanged. The Church as a whole possesses infallibility… No single bishop can claim that power over other bishops. There is no such thing as a universal bishop and some popes thought so as well ironically.

 

[Genesis315]

There is no such thing as a universal bishop and some popes thought so as well ironically.

The Catholic conception of the primacy is not the same as the “universal bishop” claimed by John the Faster and condemned by St. Gregory.

John was claiming (or, in reality, what the emperor in Constantinople was trying to claim for him), was that he was the only bishop and that all the other bishops were essentially his representatives or delegates. He made the relationship between himself and the other bishops the same as the relationship between a bishop and his priests. Not only was he wrongly claiming for himself the primacy, but he was also destroying the authority of the other bishops.

This is contrary to Catholic doctrine:
Pope Leo XIII:

1. But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.

Second Vatican Council:

The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern.(59*) Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it,(60*) since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church.

The “universal bishop” controversy is actually a perfect example of the power of the authentic universal primacy being used to preserve, rather than destroy, the authority of the other bishops as the Second Vatican Council describes.

In a letter about the same controversy, St. Gregory affirmed the primacy and distinguished it from what John the Faster was claiming:
St. Gregory Book V:

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, do you love Me? Feed My sheep John 21:17. To him it is said, Behold Satan has desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. And thou, when you are converted, strengthen your brethren Luke 22:31. To him it is said, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven Matthew 16:18.

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think that it is an accurate portrayal of Kung’s position that the Holy Spirit is leading the church into a lie.

I said “if”. Now if there is an alternative to what I said, what it its. The Catholic Church declares papal infallibility and Vatican I. Is the Church* not* lead by the Holy Spirit when defining dogma, or papal infallibility is true. What is the third option?

 

[pnewton]

The question of papal infallibility is related to the schism between east and west.

I guess that will be a moderator decision if and Orthodox position is continued to be promulgated on this thread about a dogma of the Catholic Church. No one in the Catholic Church denies that Vatican I was an ecumenical council. Those that did (after and because this dogma being defined) are now in schism.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

The Catholic conception of the primacy is not the same as the “universal bishop” claimed by John the Faster and condemned by St. Gregory.

John was claiming (or, in reality, what the emperor in Constantinople was trying to claim for him), was that he was the only bishop and that all the other bishops were essentially his representatives or delegates. He made the relationship between himself and the other bishops the same as the relationship between a bishop and his priests. Not only was he wrongly claiming for himself the primacy, but he was also destroying the authority of the other bishops.

This is contrary to Catholic doctrine:

The “universal bishop” controversy is actually a perfect example of the power of the authentic universal primacy being used to preserve, rather than destroy, the authority of the other bishops as the Second Vatican Council describes.

In a letter about the same controversy, St. Gregory affirmed the primacy and distinguished it from what John the Faster was claiming:

First, I don’t recall contesting that the keys bestowed authority. I have consistently argued that the keys concern the power of binding and loosing and authority. It is you, who have tried to separate the keys as solely concerning authority. Second, St. Gregory the Great is not your friend. Gregory had a peculiar way of understanding Petrine qualifications, which he lays out in detail in another letter.

Quote:
For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep (John 21:17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great to Bishop Eulogius, Epistola 40, PL 77: 0898C - 0900C

English translation from Catholic Encyclopedia

St. Gregory the Great believed that the keys of the kingdom of heaven resided in ONLY THREE bishoprics: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. So while he believes that only Peter received the keys, he believes that these keys are not exclusive to Rome. Gregory contradicts both our positions, and he was undoubtedly of a minority opinion. Additionally, this explains fully why in the letter you cited (Epistula 20), Gregory protested against Patriarch John of Constantinople for using the title “universal.” According to Gregory, if anyone deserved those titles, it was Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, although out of Christian humility they do not.

That doesn’t sound like someone who supports the kind of papal primacy espoused by modern day Catholicism. See this thread for the full debate:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=998317&page=6

 

[Tomdstone]

I guess that will be a moderator decision if and Orthodox position is continued to be promulgated on this thread about a dogma of the Catholic Church. No one in the Catholic Church denies that Vatican I was an ecumenical council. Those that did (after and because this dogma being defined) are now in schism.

Well, the Popes have said that the Orthodox Church is a sister Church of the Catholic Church and that it is the second lung of the Catholic Church. Further, according to the American Catholic missalette, Orthodox Christians are allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church, OTOH, the Orthodox see papal infallibility as a barrier to reunion. This may be why Father Hans Kung has brought up this issue.

 

[Cathoholic]

From Wikipedia on Father Hans Küng . . .

He is notable for his rejection of the doctrine of papal infallibility.[1] Although Küng is not officially allowed to teach Catholic theology,[2] his priestly faculties have not been revoked.[3] . . .

Father Küng in his article seems to potentially pit the Bishops against the papacy discussing the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium . . . .

(Bishops “infallible” teaching apart from the union of the Papacy would be the heresy of **Conciliarism **[also called “**Gallicanism”])

. . . . The council attributed infallibility not only to the assembled episcopacy at an ecumenical council (magisterium extraordinarium), but from then on also to the world episcopacy (magisterium ordinarium), that is, to bishops all over the world if they were agreed and decreed that a church teaching on faith or morals should permanently become mandatory. . . . .

What Father Küng neglects to mention here is that the Magisterium is THE POPE . . . and the Bishops united to the Pope.

So it seems ill-informed or disingenuous to discuss the Magisterium even in an implied manner, apart from the papacy.

For readers of this thread (and of the article in discussion of his), please be cautious with Father Küng’s teachings.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[pnewton]

Well, the Popes have said that the Orthodox Church is a sister Church of the Catholic Church and that it is the second lung of the Catholic Church.

That is an analogy. One could make the same analogy with Protestant Christianity in America, as that is the way Christianity is brought into this country. They both breath in the Holy Spirit. However, like all analogies, there is a failure at some point, in this case, of doctrinal certitude. It was only Peter who was given the keys to be the steward of the House of God and only in union with this steward can the Church come together to understand and define new dogma.

This has been done. It cannot be undone for the sake of ecumenism, though it might in this case be unused. If Kung would have suggested that papal infallibility not be invoked until the schism with the East was healed, that would be understandable. It would not be an attack on dogma, but a suggestion on how to exercise prudence. You may very well be right as to his reasons, though I would hope a theologian of his stature would understand this distinction.