On Thursday, Pope Benedict XVI arrives in Germany for a long-awaited visit. Prominent Swiss theologian Hans Küng explains to SPIEGEL why the papal visit will do little to help the crisis in the Church and compares Benedict to Vladimir Putin in the way he has centralized power.Read the rest here.
Küng is of course a self excommunicated overt heretic. No doubt that explains the persistent attraction towards him felt by the press and media.
Thank God for Professor Kung!
ReplyDeleteIf the Roman church doesn't heed its greatest theologian for several centuries, if not a millenium, its doom is assured. Ratzinger will achieve the destruction of the former noble edifice more surely than the Protestant Reformation ever could.
kung is its greatest theologian? Good grief!
ReplyDeleteWhat a big yawn... does the man have no clue of the extraordinary patience shown him by his ecclesiastical superiors? In the "old days" he would have long ago been defrocked and excommunicated, not just barred from passing off his heresy as Catholic "doctrine."
ReplyDeleteBeing Orthodox, I do not accept the way in which Papal authority has been understood by Rome for the last 1,000 years; but I have great respect for the incumbent Bishop of Rome, who is trying to gradually undo the damage done by the people who, like Kung, hijacked Vatican Council II in the name of am imaginary "spirit" of the Council.
Exactly, then, was the purpose of Vatican II?
ReplyDeleteJust a rehash of Vatican I, itself a deep failure to deal with the modern world?
Or was it a recognition that religion, Christianity, needs to speak with another language rather than dogmatism.
The Orthodox,so far, have been very lucky being preserved under glass, as it were, through either being a religious minority or being persecuted.
Philetism won't save Orthodoxy from the same questions.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of V2 was to make us more Catholic.
There are no new doctrines. Disciplines change, traditions change, but doctrines do not, because Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
The only person forcing Christianity to speak their own language are the anti-Christians.
Savvy
Anon@
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing new about the modern world.
There is nothing new about these ideas being promoted.
Just ancient heresies making a comeback.
Savvy
TC,
ReplyDeleteProtestants are the one who rejected these concepts and the traditional Protestants don't want it.
So what the heck are you talking about?
Savvy
Savvy,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry you don't understand.
The problem with the SVC is not that it went too far, it didn't go far enough. RCs believe, or are at least are supposed to believe, that Ratzinger is God's unique 'vicar' on earth and has jurisdiction over every soul - be they RC or otherwise. Such a concept is blasphemy to Orthodox and non-Roman Christians.
Professor Kung is clearly pointing out that what limited gains there were following the SVC began to be reversed under 'Blessed' John Paul II and that policy is being followed and intensified under Ratzinger.
Tradition is not about dressing in lace, the Latin Mass and a protection for priestly paedophilia. If Ratzinger continues unstopped he won't be happy until everyone is kissing the sacred toe and forced conversion of Christians to popery is part of a restored Catholic state.
TC,
ReplyDeleteit would be really appreciated if you would end your rant against the Pope. Many of us find your insulting manner to be most offensive.
I concur. The attacks on Benedict XVI have crossed the line of propriety and civility. Tone it down please.
ReplyDeleteIn ICXC
John (The Management)
TC,
ReplyDeleteWhat are you smoking? These are outright conspiracy theories.
There is no Catholic state.
Please read the writings of the early church fathers. W
Why should we trust Kung over the first Christians?
Savvy
TC,
ReplyDeleteThis is not an RC belief. I don't think you even understand things.
Savvy
John,
ReplyDeleteI agree. This fear and hysteria is now bordering on insanity.
Savvy
http://iglesiadescalza.blogspot.com/2011/09/vatican-ii-lost-and-betrayed.html
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting speech and it's not by Kung but it does argue similar points. Note the remarks on collegiality, ( a theme inspired by Eastern Orthodoxy).
I find it fascinating that RCs who question aspects of Church governance, ( the "supremacy" of the Pope, role of bishops etc;),
are regarded as not quite RC by Orthodox who insist that union with the RC won't happen until Church governance, ( supremacy of Pope, role of bishops etc;), changes.
I don't think the criticism of such RCs has anything to do with their views and everything to do with questioning authority.
So...ironically, it seems those Orthodox are more RC than the RCs.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThe criticism of these RC's are based on the fact that they take liberal positions on moral and sacramental issues.
They attack the Papacy because of these views, and think the church would change it's mind if it was not for the Papacy.
Why are these RC's not sound in basic Christianity, is the question that needs to be asked, instead of jumping into the Pope bashing bandwagon.
The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend
Savvy
Really?
ReplyDeleteRead the article. You'll find that the questions/ issues raised by Vat II have been summarily dismissed even though they are based on sound scholarship, based on Scripture and the history of the early Church.
Your association of questioning the ecclesial structure of the Church with " liberal" positions on morality etc; is not accurate.
But it's typical of those who confuse authority with morality, ( whatever that may mean).
So...you express quite well the contradiction/ conumdrum of those who seek to stifle deep questions through the imposition of authority, yet, if Orthodox, do not accept that authority as normative for their Church.
Anon@
ReplyDeleteWhat are these deep questions, please tell me?
The Orthodox churches can figure this out on their own, they don't need heretics like Kung.
Savvy
Anon@9:02 p.m.
ReplyDeleteNewman outlined seven things for valid development of doctrine.
(1) preservation of type, (2) continuity of principles, (3) assimilative power, (4) logical sequence, (5) anticipation of its future, (6) conservative action on its past, and (7) its chronic vigor.
You can look into these.
Savvy
What are these deep questions, please tell me?
ReplyDeleteRelations with other Christians.
Relations with the other Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Islam.
Relations with other world faiths, ( Hinduism, Buddhism etc;).
Relations with Western cultures, Asian cultures, Latin American cultures, Islamic cultures, ( Middle East and elsewhere), African cultures, aboriginal cultures.
Dealing with technology.
Dealing with science.
Dealing with demographic changes, ( older populations in some areas, youth explosion in others).
Dealing with sexual issues ranging from contraception, homosexuality,
sexual relations in general, etc;
Dealing with environmental issues.
Dealing with nuclear weapons.
Dealing with war.
Dealing with economic issues from income inequality, globalization, exploitation of poor people, massive poverty surrounding islands of obscene wealth, etc;
Issuea dealing with the role of women beyond that of giving birth to future priest,( considering that women are now in many places making political/economic decisions once reserved for men).
Dealing with mass media and consumerism.
A short list, to be sure.
I'm sure the Orthodox hierarchy has deeply thought through all these issues and have responded in kind.
Anon@3:21 p.m.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing new about these ideas.
Jesus did not compromise with the pre-dominant culture, but transformed it.
His first public message was "repent and believe in the Gospel"
There is no new Gospel. There are new ways of preaching the Gospel, but not a new faith.
There's already a growing wall between the boomers stuck in the 60s and younger theologians who do not share their views.
A New Generation of Theologians
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/09/a-new-generation-of-theologians
If you also think these questions have not be addressed, you live on another planet.
ReplyDelete