Hans Kung sounds like an atheist to me

  • Thread starter Thread starter redrosetea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pope Benedict knows Father Hans Kung well. They both taught theology together in the sixties and where both backroom boys during Vatican II. When Benedict became Pope one of his first private meetings was with Father Kung.
But I guess you all know the Father’s faith better than the Pope does.
 
From the Ignatius press blog

On a more serious note, one has to wonder to what degree Küng is even Catholic (to put it bluntly). In a 2005 piece for Catholic World Report, “Hans Kung Has a Religion the New York Times Can Love”, Donna Steichen wrote:
How far has Hans Küng moved from his Catholic roots? Far enough to relegate the Catholic Church to the odious “moralist” category in his San Jose address: he said the Church’s “rigorism” on “contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality” made it impossible for the Parliament of the World’s Religions to discuss those subjects because “no consensus exists.” (Marcus Berquist, a tutor at Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California, mused, “As a matter of fact, homosexuality is one question on which the world’s major religions are pretty much in agreement.”)

Also at Santa Clara University, Küng spoke in favor of married priests, women priests, and intercommunion. Elsewhere, his writing reveals far more radical deviations from the essentials of the Creed, the authenticity of John’s Gospel, the pre-existence of Jesus, even the doctrine of the Trinity (see, e.g. Christianity: Essence, History and Future, [Continuum, 1995], Credo: The Apostles’ Creed Explained for Today [Doubleday, 1994], My Struggle for Freedom: Memoirs [Eerdmans, 2003], and Küng’s foreword to Born Before All Time? The Dispute over Christ’s Origin [Crossroad, 1993]). Küng’s ecumenism is apparently aimed toward a synthesis of the three “prophetic” monotheistic religious systems: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Seen in that light, his Global Ethic campaign assumes more ominous proportions. He denies that he is trying to invent a new world religion. His standard presentation assures listeners that adopting his universal ethical principles will in no way compromise their present beliefs and practices. But the distinctive beliefs historically accepted by major world religions would not remain, if his grandiose plans should carry the day.
 
brigantine said:
It always astounded me why the last two Pope’s have not had excommunication bonanzas?? The would have been well justified with some of stuff that has gone on.
Click to expand...
These are dangerous times. Between 1520 and 1560, theologians waffled all over the place and the range of opinion among those who stayed loyal to Rome is amazing to see. Not until the Council of Trent was a definite answer to Luther et al. formulated. But this did not magically settle all the issues.
 
redrosetea said:
From the Ignatius press blog

On a more serious note, one has to wonder to what degree Küng is even Catholic (to put it bluntly). In a 2005 piece for Catholic World Report, “Hans Kung Has a Religion the New York Times Can Love”, Donna Steichen wrote:
How far has Hans Küng moved from his Catholic roots? Far enough to relegate the Catholic Church to the odious “moralist” category in his San Jose address: he said the Church’s “rigorism” on “contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality” made it impossible for the Parliament of the World’s Religions to discuss those subjects because “no consensus exists.” (Marcus Berquist, a tutor at Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California, mused, “As a matter of fact, homosexuality is one question on which the world’s major religions are pretty much in agreement.”)

Also at Santa Clara University, Küng spoke in favor of married priests, women priests, and intercommunion. Elsewhere, his writing reveals far more radical deviations from the essentials of the Creed, the authenticity of John’s Gospel, the pre-existence of Jesus, even the doctrine of the Trinity (see, e.g. Christianity: Essence, History and Future, [Continuum, 1995], Credo: The Apostles’ Creed Explained for Today [Doubleday, 1994], My Struggle for Freedom: Memoirs [Eerdmans, 2003], and Küng’s foreword to Born Before All Time? The Dispute over Christ’s Origin [Crossroad, 1993]). Küng’s ecumenism is apparently aimed toward a synthesis of the three “prophetic” monotheistic religious systems: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Seen in that light, his Global Ethic campaign assumes more ominous proportions. He denies that he is trying to invent a new world religion. His standard presentation assures listeners that adopting his universal ethical principles will in no way compromise their present beliefs and practices. But the distinctive beliefs historically accepted by major world religions would not remain, if his grandiose plans should carry the day.
Click to expand...
So it is puzzling that the Church has not defrocked him. He must have friends in the Curia.
 
I certainly agree…He doesn’t even sound civil let alone christian

Contrary to a legend repeated often in recent weeks, it was not Cardinal Ratzinger who stripped Küng of his license to teach as a Catholic theologian. Küng’s book, Infallible, had been under examination since shortly after it was published, during the reign of Pope Paul VI. Pope Paul died in 1978. When Pope John Paul I, his successor, also died only 33 days after his election, Pope John Paul II inherited the Küng investigation along with his papal office. The decision by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) that Father Küng could no longer contradict defined doctrine under cover of an official Catholic license was far from hasty: it followed seven years of careful study. Küng was told in 1979 that his certification as a Catholic theologian had been withdrawn. That was three years before Pope John Paul II asked Cardinal Ratzinger to come to Rome and take charge of the CDF.

n the Outside

Nevertheless, Cardinal Ratzinger came to be seen as the embodiment of Vatican concern for orthodoxy, and thus as the adversary of Hans Küng. “I will not speak badly of him as a person,” Dr. Küng has said of the future Pontiff, adding:

He has always regarded me a Christian. But in theological terms, we are quite different. He was defending the old paradigm of the medieval church. I was defending the postmodern paradigm.

Some people may think Küng’s on-the-record comments about his old colleague do, in fact, constitute speaking badly of him. He has called Ratzinger “very sweet–but very dangerous.” He has said that conversing with him is like talking with “the head of the KGB.” He said that Ratzinger’s election as Pope Benedict XVI was “an enormous disappointment for all those who hoped for a reformist and pastoral Pope.”

These remarks are mild, however, compared to the blistering invective Küng directed at Pope John Paul II. He marked the 25th anniversary of John Paul’s election by labeling his pontificate “a disaster,” In his 2003 memoir, he declares that the young Karol Wojtyla received a “thin theological foundation” because he couldn’t make the cut for the Jesuit-run Gregorian University, and so was forced to settle for a third-rate education at the Angelicum. As the Pope lay on his deathbed, Küng wrote in Der Speigel that he had become “the symbol of a fraudulent church that has calcified and become senile.”

The source from which this vituperation springs is the official censure that ended Küng’s first career.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/cwr_steichen_kung_aug05.asp
 
Nepenthe said:
Not to me. Although you do not sound especially charitable or well-informed, but pretty presumptuous.

Go ahead and do your thing though, I suppose. I feel fortunate daily that neither you nor people like you have any authority over me.
Click to expand...
And the reasons you are posting on a predominantly Catholic forum, would be?

So you can lord your authority (and I might add your “superiority”) over us. Get real. No one asked you to be Catholic.
 
redrosetea said:
He clearly doesn’t believe in the God of Abraham and Jesus of Nazareth, and figures the 10 commandments are subject to negotiation

He may believe in a god but not the God, who forbids the very things he wants to allow…he is a pagan
Click to expand...
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Kung, but none of the things you list are true. Do you have some basis for saying that Kung doesn’t believe in Jesus of Nazareth or the commandments? If so, what is it? If not, why do you slander a priest like this?
 
I took that right from an article on the net…I should have bookmarked it, and I am not going to search for it all over again
 
I’ve read some Hans Kung, and while he certainly has some unorthodox (but thought-provoking) views I’m not sure why anyone would ever come away thinking he was an atheist or does not believe in the Biblical Christ?
 
redrosetea said:
He clearly doesn’t believe in the God of Abraham and Jesus of Nazareth, and figures the 10 commandments are subject to negotiation
Click to expand...
To be fair we negotiate a little around keeping the Sabbath holy ourselves.
 
We are all sinners, however most of us do not try teach others it’s ok to sin…by concdoning abortion and sodomy which scripture forbids

It sound as if he also doesn’t believe in Satan and Christ certainly did…

Mythological ideas of Satan with legions of devils…penetrated from Babylonian mythology into early Judaism and from there into the New Testament."-On Being a Christian.
 
redrosetea said:
See what our poor pope has to endure from heretics?..:mad:

News Briefs
Hans Küng says Obama would make a better Pope
February 09, 2009

The dissident theologian Hans Küng has suggested that Barack Obama would be a better pope than Benedict XVI. “The mood in the church is oppressive," Küng told a German outlet. “Benedict is unteachable in matters of birth control and abortion, arrogant and without transparency and restrictive of freedom and human rights." The theologian who once argued for greater democracy in the Church suggested that the Pope should follow Obama’s example and issue executive orders to bring about radical changes in Church doctrine and discipline, “using the power of his executive office to issue decrees.”
Click to expand...
Hans Kung is an Apostate. He should just be ignored he is irrelevant nowadays.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top