Hans Kung

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We need a greater democratization, votes on married clergy, and women as pastors, a common Eucharist, the pope integrated in collegiality. I think there would be a solid majority–look at the question of contraception. We know 90% of Catholics are ignoring this. The hierarchy does not seem to care. We are the only system without democratic control–no elections, no mechanism to hold the authorities to account. They can just say no;this is a medieval conception of the church and the papacy.
Click to expand...
Kung says elsewhere we should NOT tolerate everything, but…What else is left? Democratic control for accountability. What ever happened to the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth? What in world’s a common Eucharist?
Well, the Episcopal church has all these features and is now under the auspices of its “A Women’s Eucharist: A Celebration of the Divine Feminine” starting to promote the worship of the pagan idols “The Queen of Heaven” referred to in Jermiah. According to
Christianity Today:

christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/143/21.0.html)

Heaven Help Us
 
40.png
jeffreedy789:
why does that pic say hans kung sj? is/was he a jesuit?
Click to expand...
Because it’s wrong.

From a short bio:
Hans Küng (Roman Catholic) was born in Switzerland, ordained a diocesan priest, and studied at the Gregorian University in Rome, from which he received a licentiate in theology, and the Institut Catholique and the Sorbonne in Paris, from which he received a doctorate in theology. He is Professor of Dogmatic and Ecumenical Theology and Director of the Institute of Ecumenical Research of the University of Tübingen and an Associate Editor of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies.
Click to expand...
John
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
Two simple points to make:
  1. Having an open mind is often good, but one does have to be careful that it’s not so open that one’s brains fall out.
  2. What you perceive as truth may not be true at all.
Click to expand...
And just who is the authority on truth? Don’t say the catholic church because I have not seen a whole lot of truth from them lately. Just a whole bunch of priests in trouble. Did their brains fall out too? Messiah Yeshua is the truth and he is the only truth I need.
 
God is the authority on truth. He is, in fact, Truth itself.

He has given us the church (remember what He said to peter? it meant SOMETHING, even if it didn’t mean (i think it DID) that He was building His church on peter himself.) to help us understand the truth.

and please don’t make the silly error of confusing what current priests do or say with what the church officially (and inerrantly and authoritatively) teaches. there’s a difference between the authority of the church, and the mistakes made by its local members.
 
40.png
uniChristian:
And just who is the authority on truth? Don’t say the catholic church because I have not seen a whole lot of truth from them lately. Just a whole bunch of priests in trouble. Did their brains fall out too? Messiah Yeshua is the truth and he is the only truth I need.
Click to expand...
Messiah Yah-shua told you:

Luke 10:16
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

And do tell me if you’re a Saint compare to those low life Catholic priests.
 
40.png
uniChristian:
And just who is the authority on truth?
Click to expand...
Well it certainly isn’t you.
40.png
uniChristian:
Don’t say the catholic church because I have not seen a whole lot of truth from them lately. Just a whole bunch of priests in trouble.
Click to expand...
Humanity has been in trouble since original sin came into the world. The frailty of men does not change the truth of Christ one whit. He had His Judas, and every Christian since then has known a few. We are all sinners.
40.png
uniChristian:
Did their brains fall out too?
Click to expand...
In some cases it certainly appears to have done so. That’s the problem with separating oneself from the vehicle given by God to keep the path straight - it usually starts with people finding their own “truth” and beginning to shape their own church. From then on, it’s downhill most of the way.
 
40.png
jimmy:
John Kerry is not in the White House because we Catholics voted against him. He is not Catholic.

Please stay on topic.
Click to expand...
Wow! Where is the love?
 
Regarding Hans Kung (who this post is supposed to be about), isn’t it better for the Church’s teachers to actually believe and teach what the Church believe’s and teaches?

I don’t know much about Kung, but I have always understood him to be to modern Catholicism what “Karl Barth” was to the Reformed Faith. A dissenter and ultimately a modernist.

That he thinks the church is “less ecumenical” now is odd, I don’t know where he gets that. Do you?

And that he is negative towards returning to Middle Age type thinking is odd. Like, don’t so many people call the Middle Ages the “Dark Ages”, because Catholicism flourished? They just try to cover it up by calling it the Dark Ages.

I take it Kung would be against the “Holy Office of the Inquisition.” Why? What happened to being a Catholic and wanting doctrinal unity?

Your Protestant friend would do better to stick to Catholicism if he were wanting to critique Catholicism.
 
I went to an Anglican book store recently and they had a small “Catholic” section. An entire row of books was devoted to this Hans Kung fellow.

:mad:
 
Reformed Rob, I actually had similar thoughts. How can you claim to be Catholic and then reject the Infallability of the pope?

I think the fact that he thinks the church is not ecumenical proves that he is an extreme progressive that basicly thinks that all churches are the same. He expects the Catholic Church to acknowledge this. The church has not gone far enough in his mind and he thinks they need to go further.
 
Reformed Rob:
Regarding Hans Kung (who this post is supposed to be about), isn’t it better for the Church’s teachers to actually believe and teach what the Church believe’s and teaches?

I don’t know much about Kung, but I have always understood him to be to modern Catholicism what “Karl Barth” was to the Reformed Faith. A dissenter and ultimately a modernist.

That he thinks the church is “less ecumenical” now is odd, I don’t know where he gets that. Do you?

And that he is negative towards returning to Middle Age type thinking is odd. Like, don’t so many people call the Middle Ages the “Dark Ages”, because Catholicism flourished? They just try to cover it up by calling it the Dark Ages.

I take it Kung would be against the “Holy Office of the Inquisition.” Why? What happened to being a Catholic and wanting doctrinal unity?

Your Protestant friend would do better to stick to Catholicism if he were wanting to critique Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Hi Bob,

Slight correction. The ‘Dark Ages’ were referred to as thus because of the downfall of Rome…officially that is. Rome was the light of the West (and much farther) and when it’s empire fell into anarchy (mainly due to germanic tribes and Christian influence), all ‘technology’ was lost.

It was of course, God’s will.

Cheers
 
I’m not looking to restart this argument chain but I’m still trying to find my way back to the Church and have read much on the way; mainly this forum, which I find both insightful and encouraging.

I am also reading Kung ‘The Catholic Church’.

The first few paragraphs of the book are a chronoligical historical account of Christianity and the Catholic Church. Kung says some things which appear way off message as far as Catholic teaching is concerned I agree. But this man is a foremost biblical scholar/historian, irrespective of his theological status, and of the inner sanctum of Vatican 2.

How many people are there as qualified as Hung on what actually happened in the early days of the Church? On the Jewish - Gentile split? On the ‘management’ and ministeries of the Pauline churches? On the establishment of the Bishop of Rome?

I doubt there are many. So who can stand up and tell Hung he’s got it all wrong?
 
Thanks but that doesn’t help. Hans Kung is still part of the Church as we are.So the Church is telling the Church that the Church is wrong?
 
A person can be a part of the Church and still teach heresy. The fact is, Kung, though not excommunicate, has been censured for his teachings.

And not all members of the Church carry the same authority anyway. Insofar as Kung contradicts the official teaching of the Church, he should be disregarded and counted as a heretic.

Theologians do not speak on behalf of the Church, and neither do laypeople. Neither do bishops, for that matter, should they contradict official Church teaching.

And even a Pope can (hypothetically) privately teach error. Even he must be disregarded when he contradicts official Church teaching.
 
To deny the principle of infallibility is to deny the possibility of certain truth. Moreover, it is to say that one is quite certain that there is no infallible authority. The person thinking that very thought must question his own certainty.

Round and round it goes … and Kung knows very well where it stops.
 
  1. Kung is identified as an “expert” because he was defined that way by the secular media. Any theologian who dissents from Catholic beliefs will get 10 times the applause of an orthodox one. That does not mean he is 10 times more brilliant.
  2. Kung is outside his area of expertise when he usurps the Pope’s position, just as I would be outside my expertise if I (a layman) were to try to preach.
  3. Kung explicitly rejects much of Vatican II because he says it was imposed by the Vatican, not part of the “real” Vatican II. This is the same method he and others use to accept parts of Scripture, and reject other parts. He does not really learn from or benefit from Vatican II or the Bible or the Church Magisterium because he is always in the critic’s chair.
  4. The Church should encourage heretics to reconcile with the Church, but it is not loving for the Church to reconcile with heresy. What if a Catholic is a white supremacist? Should the Church open its doors wide enough to be inclusive of racism? Of course not. If we open the doors wide enough to include the Kung heresies, in the long run we would not be able to close them to exclude all the other heresies, like racism.
  5. We should love Kung, pray for him, just as we love Jack Chick or Jimmy Swaggert. Our love for the person should not blind us to their horrible ideas, just as our love for the alcoholic should not blind us to the damage of alcohol. We would not let the alcoholic bring his bottle back into the church, not for our sakes but more for his own. The same logic applies to Kung, and his teaching. He has a right to the continued pastoral care of the Church. The Pope I am sure intends him to receive it.
PTD
 
How long has ‘unChristian’ been his own pope? Since he has decided he is the final arbiter of truth, perhaps he can enlighten the Catholic faithful on just what his objective source is when he invokes God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top