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

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems fairly simple. If the Church, at an Ecumenical Council, was wrong when it taught Papal Infallibility (as Kung believes) then the Church could be wrong on anything and everything she has ever taught at any Ecumenical Council. Thus, we can’t trust the Church’s teaching on anything (the Divinity of Christ, the existence of God, which books make up the Bible, etc). But Jesus promised that such a situation would never occur. Thus, if Kung be right, Christ be wrong. If Christ was wrong He was a false prophet. False prophets aren’t God, therefore Christ isn’t God. If Christ isn’t God none of us should be Christians. So, either Kung is wrong about papal infallibility or you and I should repudiate Christianity.

IOW, we can’t pick and choose which teachings of the Church we like. It all stands or falls together. I know which side I stand on (hint: not with either Kung or the Tablet). I suppose you’ll have to decide which side you stand on for yourself.

Pax.
 
gilliam said:
This article begins with a serious error. Küng, is NOT a former priest. He remains a priest in good standing.
Click to expand...
True, he was simply stripped of his ability to teach theology in pontifical universities for his obstinate opposition to the dogma of infallibility. Let’s see, he has been belly aching about it for 45 years so not really sure why this is an “Exclusive”. Then again the exclusive story went to The Tablet and National Catholic Reporter. They only missed Crux to hit the heterodox trifecta.
 
They way of the world…Things are true until something truer comes along.

Thats why religion is a faith, ya just gotta BELIEVE!
 
Papal infallibility applies only under very narrow circumstances.
Makes me wonder what this guy is REALLY upset about, because let’s face it, the issue practically never comes up.

I agree with the previous poster, whatever the Ecumenical Councils said is the TRUTH.
 
Usige said:
True, he was simply stripped of his ability to teach theology in pontifical universities for his obstinate opposition to the dogma of infallibility. Let’s see, he has been belly aching about it for 45 years so not really sure why this is an “Exclusive”. Then again the exclusive story went to The Tablet and National Catholic Reporter. They only missed Crux to hit the heterodox trifecta.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
PietroPaolo said:
It seems fairly simple. If the Church, at an Ecumenical Council, was wrong when it taught Papal Infallibility (as Kung believes) then the Church could be wrong on anything and everything she has ever taught at any Ecumenical Council. Thus, we can’t trust the Church’s teaching on anything (the Divinity of Christ, the existence of God, which books make up the Bible, etc). But Jesus promised that such a situation would never occur. Thus, if Kung be right, Christ be wrong. If Christ was wrong He was a false prophet. False prophets aren’t God, therefore Christ isn’t God. If Christ isn’t God none of us should be Christians. So, either Kung is wrong about papal infallibility or you and I should repudiate Christianity.

IOW, we can’t pick and choose which teachings of the Church we like. It all stands or falls together. I know which side I stand on (hint: not with either Kung or the Tablet). I suppose you’ll have to decide which side you stand on for yourself.

Pax.
Click to expand...
No one else has said it yet, so I will:

Very well stated.

:clapping:
 
Widlast said:
Papal infallibility applies only under very narrow circumstances.
Makes me wonder what this guy is REALLY upset about, because let’s face it, the issue practically never comes up.

I agree with the previous poster, whatever the Ecumenical Councils said is the TRUTH.
Click to expand...
My guess is that he is upset with something greater, namely, the authority of the Church; Papal infallibility is just one piece of that puzzle. A lot of people who have problems with with Church authority want a church that is decentralized and controlled by the laity so “the people” can decide what is and isn’t “truth.”

You can certainly see these sentiments present if you look at the comments section of the National Catholic Reporter article about Kung.
 
Widlast said:
Papal infallibility applies only under very narrow circumstances.
Makes me wonder what this guy is REALLY upset about, because let’s face it, the issue practically never comes up.

I agree with the previous poster, whatever the Ecumenical Councils said is the TRUTH.
Click to expand...
I would hazard a guess…

The encyclical Humanae Vitae, which not only forbade as grave sins the pill and all mechanical means of contraception but also the withdrawal method to avoid pregnancy, was universally regarded as an incredible challenge. Invoking the infallibility of papal, respectively episcopal teaching, the pope pitted himself against the entire civilised world. This alarmed me as a Catholic theologian. I had by then been professor of theology at the Catholic theological faculty of Tübingen University for eight years. Of course, formal protests and substantive objections were important, but had the time not now come to examine this claim to the infallibility of papal teaching in principle? I was convinced that theology — or, to be more precise, critical fundamental theological research — was called for. In 1970, I put the subject up for discussion in my book Infallible?: An Inquiry. I could not have foreseen at the time that this book and with it the problem of infallibility would crucially affect my personal destiny and would present theology and the church with key challenges. In the 1970s, my life and my work were more than ever intertwined with theology and the church.
 
Papal infallibility is a barrier to union with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
 
unresolved and suppressed questions connected with the infallibility dogma
Click to expand...
Which are…? I guess he can’t mention such questions because they are suppressed? For some reason, I doubt he pulls any punches in his 5 volume work.

To be clear, he’s not just against the notion of “papal infallibility” but “the infallibility dogma” in general, as it is described by the Fathers of Vatican II, LG 25–a description he calls a “fatal step.”

Dan
 
PietroPaolo said:
It seems fairly simple. If the Church, at an Ecumenical Council,

Pax.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
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.
Click to expand...
The whole Eastern Orthodox Church and the whole Oriental Orthodox Church were both shut out of Vatican I.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who could call for one that all the Orthodox Churches would respond to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top