Hans Kung has died at 93

[Quiddity]

Catholic priest and theologian Hans Küng, the renowned scholar and prolific writer who had lived with Parkinson's disease, macular degeneration and arthritis since 2013, died April 6 at his home in Tubingen, Germany. He was 93.

Hans Küng, celebrated and controversial Swiss theologian, has died

I can't say I ever got around to reading any of his material but given the overwhelming consensus of the errors of his works, I wasn't in a hurry to read it. Particularly known for being of the opinion that Vatican 2 didn't go far enough.

I'll pray for the repose of his soul.

 

[Glaurung]

I have seen his name pop up from time to time but likewise I have not read any of his works. In any case, may God rest his soul.

 

[exchemist]

Catholic priest and theologian Hans Küng, the renowned scholar and prolific writer who had lived with Parkinson's disease, macular degeneration and arthritis since 2013, died April 6 at his home in Tubingen, Germany. He was 93.

Hans Küng, celebrated and controversial Swiss theologian, has died

I can't say I ever got around to reading any of his material but given the overwhelming consensus of the errors of his works, I wasn't in a hurry to read it. Particularly known for being of the opinion that Vatican 2 didn't go far enough.

I'll pray for the repose of his soul.

Very interesting article, thanks for the link.

He has been a towering intellect of the church for over half a century - and in some ways something of a latter day Luther, in the sense of being a gadfly to the religious establishment. I think historians will see his contributions as crucial to maintaining the relevance of the Catholic church in the modern world. His influence on the 2nd Vatican Council was clearly significant. Some of the issues he raised long ago, concerning celibacy and women priests, cry out ever more loudly for attention.

He was obviously a man of deep faith - and courage.

RIP.

 

[pearl]

I have read several of his books. I guess the publication of 'Infallible An Inquiry' did not make for him any friends among the Curia. He was convinced that the Council invited further discussion in the area of divorce and remarriage, birth control, the ordination of women. He saw Paul VI as not having the courage to follow through, John Paull II and Benedict XVI as sabotaging the Council. But saw new hope in Francis. Kung and Ratzinger were both theological advisors to the German bishops. Ratzinger left Tubingen during the uproar of the sixties and the threat of Marxism, but wrote while he was there a monumental work, 'Introduction to Christianity. I would encourage anyone to read 'Does God Exist', 'On Being a Christian', and 'The Church' by Kung.

 

[exchemist]

I have read several of his books. I guess the publication of 'Infallible An Inquiry' did not make for him any friends among the Curia. He was convinced that the Council invited further discussion in the area of divorce and remarriage, birth control, the ordination of women. He saw Paul VI as not having the courage to follow through, John Paull II and Benedict XVI as sabotaging the Council. But saw new hope in Francis. Kung and Ratzinger were both theological advisors to the German bishops. Ratzinger left Tubingen during the uproar of the sixties and the threat of Marxism, but wrote while he was there a monumental work, 'Introduction to Christianity. I would encourage anyone to read 'Does God Exist', 'On Being a Christian', and 'The Church' by Kung.

According to the link, Ratzinger and Küng had a friendly rapprochement at Castel Gandolfo when the former was pope. Reading this reminded me of the film "The Two Popes", in which it is suggested that Benedict may have realised the next pope needed to be very different from himself - and a reformer. I now wonder if Küng may have sown the seeds of this idea.

 

[Stalwart]

May God have mercy on his soul.

Some of the issues he raised long ago, concerning celibacy and women priests, cry out ever more loudly for attention.

He was obviously a man of deep faith - and courage

One can't speak to the depth or sincerity of his faith, but we can observe that he was clearly a proponent of revolutionary (read: Satanic) theological and ecclesiastical ideas. What a pity that he died in such a state. Oremus.

 

[pearl]

According to the link, Ratzinger and Küng had a friendly rapprochement at Castel Gandolfo when the former was pope. Reading this reminded me of the film "The Two Popes", in which it is suggested that Benedict may have realised the next pope needed to be very different from himself - and a reformer. I now wonder if Küng may have sown the seeds of this idea.

Possibly. Or he could have reminded him of himself at one time. Quote from 'The Path of Joseph Ratzinger the Theologian'.
In the summer semester of 1966 Ratzinger accepted the newly established second professorship for dogmatic theology in Tubingen. From today's perspective, it is astonishing that Hans Kung had vigorously supported such an appointment, and was able to win over his colleagues to the idea. During Ratzinger's years in Tubingen (1966 - 1969) there was a sudden and dramatic "change in the ideological paradigm' by which the students and a part of the teachers" in the humanities faculties directed their thinking. Ratzinger characterizes it as follows; While until now Bultmann's theology and Heidegger's philosophy had determined the frame of reference for thinking, almost overnight the existentialist model collapsed and was replaced by the Marxist."
This seems to be a turning point for Ratzinger, and you may be right, as he faced another turning point.

 

[exchemist]

May God have mercy on his soul.



One can't speak to the depth or sincerity of his faith, but we can observe that he was clearly a proponent of revolutionary (read: Satanic) theological and ecclesiastical ideas. What a pity that he died in such a state. Oremus.

What absurd rot.

What "Satanic" theological or ecclesiastical ideas of Küng's can you name?

 

[Quiddity]

According to the link, Ratzinger and Küng had a friendly rapprochement at Castel Gandolfo when the former was pope. Reading this reminded me of the film "The Two Popes", in which it is suggested that Benedict may have realised the next pope needed to be very different from himself - and a reformer. I now wonder if Küng may have sown the seeds of this idea.

If there was such a thing as Kungians, they overwhelmingly run different levels of the hierarchy. It's gone deeper than just Benedict in my opinion. Francis is not one among many, he is the majority. And they've had a few generations (you can go even further back than V2) to make a dent and they've had little of substance to show for it. Nothing has really changed and nothing will change. This isn't even the first time something like this has happened, where the overwhelming number of bishops just happen to be on the wrong side for many years to come; and still nothing. This will be no different but people talking about it hundreds of years from now on how they almost allowed women to become priests etc. It will swing back in the other direction. It usually does.

 

[pearl]

This isn't even the first time something like this has happened, where the overwhelming number of bishops just happen to be on the wrong side for many years to come;

True. But Francis has elevated to Cardinal those bishops who are more inclined toward continual renewal and more inline with Vat II. I think as the very least he will not turn a deaf ear as John Paul did towards Kung who presented him with his work on justification, wouldn't even give it a read.

 

[exchemist]

If there was such a thing as Kungians, they overwhelmingly run different levels of the hierarchy. It's gone deeper than just Benedict in my opinion. Francis is not one among many, he is the majority. And they've had a few generations (you can go even further back than V2) to make a dent and they've had little of substance to show for it. Nothing has really changed and nothing will change. This isn't even the first time something like this has happened, where the overwhelming number of bishops just happen to be on the wrong side for many years to come; and still nothing. This will be no different but people talking about it hundreds of years from now on how they almost allowed women to become priests etc. It will swing back in the other direction. It usually does.

There have been huge changes in the church in my lifetime, starting with Vatican 2. The reformers, from John XXIII onward, have plenty to show for it, I think. But women priests and married priests will be tough nuts to crack, certainly. It may take a couple of centuries.

 

[Quiddity]

There have been huge changes in the church in my lifetime, starting with Vatican 2. The reformers, from John XXIII onward, have plenty to show for it, I think. But women priests and married priests will be tough nuts to crack, certainly. It may take a couple of centuries.

They aren't any changes of substance really. The vastness/myriad of rulers and empires the catholic church has been a part of demands some fluidity. But not in the way you likely think of it. If the things that are not supposed to change (which is highly documented), start to change, that will be the end. I know you don't see it that way, since you likely see changes in certain areas as a good thing. Once you open the door to such changes, there is no stopping it. Not in this realm.

 

[Quiddity]

This reminds me of something Bret Weinstein discussed whereby he describes that he doesn't see himself in the same way as modern liberals because unlike them, he does believe the human race gets to a point where we can get things right, rather than an ever-evolving ethos.

 

[exchemist]

They aren't any changes of substance really. The vastness/myriad of rulers and empires the catholic church has been a part of demands some fluidity. But not in the way you likely think of it. If the things that are not supposed to change (which is highly documented), start to change, that will be the end. I know you don't see it that way, since you likely see changes in certain areas as a good thing. Once you open the door to such changes, there is no stopping it. Not in this realm.

Ah but who decides the "things that are not supposed to change" and on what basis?

The church changes all the time, as history shows. The early church was full of doctrinal argument. Clerical celibacy became a universal thing - in the Western church, it never was in the East - after about a thousand years, if I'm not mistaken. Regular confession only became normal in about the c.12th, I think. The doctrine of papal infallibility of ex cathedra pronouncements was made official as recently as the c.19th.

 

[Quiddity]

Ah but who decides the "things that are not supposed to change" and on what basis?

The church changes all the time, as history shows. The early church was full of doctrinal argument. Clerical celibacy became a universal thing - in the Western church, it never was in the East - after about a thousand years, if I'm not mistaken. Regular confession only became normal in about the c.12th, I think. The doctrine of papal infallibility of ex cathedra pronouncements was made official as recently as the c.19th.

The very same people (college of bishops, curia, etc.) that are supposed to be revolutionizing and reforming this modern church are the ones that decide. The ones you are cheering for mind you.

It's a self-correcting system that protects what has always been (I realize this requires explaining). Papal infallibility can be seen far before it was actually defined for example; Same with the Immaculate conception. Just takes quite a bit of leg work to unpack. Development for us is essentially augmentations rather than change as most people commonly see it. The Church can't really change anything in the sense that it now means something contradictory to what it once was. That kind of change can't occur.

 

[exchemist]

The very same people (college of bishops, curia, etc.) that are supposed to be revolutionizing and reforming this modern church are the ones that decide. The ones you are cheering for mind you.

It's a self-correcting system that protects what has always been (I realize this requires explaining). Papal infallibility can be seen far before it was actually defined for example; Same with the Immaculate conception. Just takes quite a bit of leg work to unpack. Development for us is essentially augmentations rather than change as most people commonly see it. The Church can't really change anything in the sense that it now means something contradictory to what it once was. That kind of change can't occur.

True enough, but matters of tradition and convention, such as marriage of priests, or women priests, certainly can, as can matters of style. Style I think is quite important. It seems to me the recent scandals in the Catholic church have led to a new and very welcome sense of humility in the hierarchy. Pope Francis fits this style too, seeming less dogmatic and more reluctant to judge than some of his predecessors. Personally I find that style a sign of confidence and I much prefer it to the brittle stiffness the church has sometimes displayed.

 

[pearl]

Papal infallibility can be seen far before it was actually defined for example; Same with the Immaculate conception.

Adding to the confusion is the multi levels of infallibility. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption remain the 'only' infallible teachings of the Church. An interesting quote from Pope John XXIII, "“I am not infallible.”
When that statement had had the desired effect, he explained:
“The pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
I will never speak ex cathedra, therefore I am not infallible.”

In his defense, Kung attempted to invoke 'Mysterium Ecclesiae(1973), that frequently doctrine has been phrased in 'the changeable conceptions of a given epoch' and that one must distinguish between the truth infallibly taught and the way that truth has been phrased.' Sometimes dogmatic truth is at first expressed incompletely (but not falsely), or where Kung was concerned, not to invalidate dogma.

 

[Stalwart]

What absurd rot.

What "Satanic" theological or ecclesiastical ideas of Küng's can you name?

His rejection of the doctrine of papal infallibility is obviously revolutionary, as are his ideas of a female priesthood and diaconate. It is therefore Satanic, in that revolting against Christ and His Church, one emulates the devil in his revolutionary cry of non serviam.

 

[pearl]

His rejection of the doctrine of papal infallibility is obviously revolutionary, as are his ideas of a female priesthood and diaconate. It is therefore Satanic, in that revolting against Christ and His Church, one emulates the devil in his revolutionary cry of non serviam.

To accuse Kung of revolting against Christ and his Church is absurd. It was Kung's position that the Church has been sanctified, made holy, by God. "It is God who distinguishes the Church, sets it apart, marks it out for his own and makes it holy. We do not simply believe in the holy Church, but believe in God who makes the Church holy."
from Kung 'the Church', which incidentally, carries the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur

In the history of the Church the doctrine of papal infallibility is a recent declaration, not until Vatican I and then under questionable circumstances.

 

[exchemist]

His rejection of the doctrine of papal infallibility is obviously revolutionary, as are his ideas of a female priesthood and diaconate. It is therefore Satanic, in that revolting against Christ and His Church, one emulates the devil in his revolutionary cry of non serviam.

How contorted and ridiculous.

Proposing women priests, or questioning the doctrine of papal infallibility - which was only formalised in the c.19th - can hardly be described as "revolting against Christ".