kung

[N/A Gone]

Seriously...what happened? There was so much promise..I mean really, he had the crossover, even the mid-range game, but it was the love of the 3 that doomed him in the end,.

for real, Hans kung..anyone got some 411, Im doing an eccesiology assigment and I need to pick a theologian or movement and his name pops up

[Era Might]

Ratzinger is my hero. Even before he was Pope. I believe he's maybe the greatest Papal theological mind since Gregory the Great.

Von Balthasar was certainly a prolific modern thinker.

Edited December 5, 2005 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Just to add: you said the project is on ecclesiology? Ratzinger had an interesting squabble with Cardinal Kaspar on ecclesiology some years back, you might explore.

Edited December 5, 2005 by Era Might

[N/A Gone]

really? do you have a link? I just need to do the paper on an eccesiologist or a movement. if the paper is long enough or important enough I could probably do it...link me

fluff, I call dibs!!!


but really, what happened to Kung

[Era Might]

Some resources for the Ratzinger-Kaspar duel:

[url="http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Ratzinger_Online.html#compilation"]http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Ratzinger_...tml#compilation[/url]

As for Kung, I'm not sure what happened with him. He and Ratzinger were apparantly good friends back in the day. They just went in different directions, I guess.

[N/A Gone]

yea, I heard that kung was a mentor or something. Instersting

[N/A Gone]

thank you

[phatcatholic]

regarding where kung went wrong, start with these two:

[b]--[url="http://catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2930"]The Roman Curia and the Ecumenical Council[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/KUNGINF.HTM"]The Historical Credibility of Hans Kung[/url][/b]

[N/A Gone]

I like the ratzinger kasper dual...good stuff

[tojo]

didn't the Holy Father recently meet with Kung?

[Nathan]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 5 2005, 02:20 AM']for real, Hans kung..anyone got some 411, Im doing an eccesiology assigment and I need to pick a theologian or movement and his name pops up [right][snapback]811360[/snapback][/right][/quote]

I would forget about Kung. The man is Darth Vader -- a brilliant young theologian who crossed over into the dark side and never came back. He was stripped of his license to teach Catholic theology by the Vatican long ago for his rampant heterodoxy and fruity leftist ideas.

Go with Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, or Joseph Ratzinger -- three of the greatest theologians of the 20th century, all totally faithful. Even Karl Rahner is a thousand times more worthy than Hans Kung.

[dairygirl4u2c]

It's interesting no one has gotten into why Kung fell away. It'd be even more interesting, amazing, if someone here were to actually explain why he fell away. That'd prove that you at least understood opposition to your stance. you could even give your rebuttal, and i'd still think it amazing that you understood it enough to articulate it.

I could post what happened. In fact, I have. I've posted the theories he's espoused separate from him too. People think if you can't disprove the Catholic Church, they'll continue to believe. But really, if you want to see the world for what it is, less than certitude in everything, you'd be able to explain his position.

Something more than long drawn out articles like you all like to post so much like above. Nobody actually reads those. There are a few of us that do. But if you want to reach out to most people, you should be willing to put it into simplier words. If your mission is to have a databank of apologetics, by all means, post the references, but begin creating more readable apologetics to the common man. I've been in the business long enough to begin to realize that confusion for apologetics is in poor taste, and often really a cop out not addressing the real issues or just a defense and not an analyzation between the opposing perspectives,.

Edited December 8, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[dUSt]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 8 2005, 01:06 PM']It's interesting no one has gotten into why Kung fell away. It'd be even more interesting, amazing, if someone here were to actually explain why he fell away. That'd prove that you at least understood opposition to your stance. you could even give your rebuttal, and i'd still think it amazing that you understood it enough to articulate it.

I could post what happened. In fact, I have. I've posted the theories he's espoused separate from him too. People think if you can't disprove the Catholic Church, they'll continue to believe. But really, if you want to see the world for what it is, less than certitude in everything, you'd be able to explain his position.

Something more than long drawn out articles like you all like to post so much like above. Nobody actually reads those. There are a few of us that do. But if you want to reach out to most people, you should be willing to put it into simplier words. If your mission is to have a databank of apologetics, by all means, post the references, but begin creating more readable apologetics to the common man. I've been in the business long enough to begin to realize that confusion for apologetics is in poor taste, and often really a cop out not addressing the real issues or just a defense and not an analyzation between the opposing perspectives,.
[right][snapback]817091[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Can you explain this in simpler terms please?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 8 2005, 01:06 PM']It's interesting no one has gotten into why Kung fell away. [/quote]
I have the book put out by the USCCB"The Kung Dialogue" which contains letters, documents, and such explaining exactly what happened. Sadly enough, it is sitting on my shelf gathering dust until I get around to reading it. I plan on reading it on my next plane ride, but that is not in the near future. When I do read it, I will be sure to reply dairy.

[Pennypacker11]

Kung was removed from teaching for, among other things, rejecting papal infallibility.

As for Benedict and Kung, they go way back. Kung actually got then-Fr.-Raztinger hired at Tubingen. They used to eat dinner together reguarly. Obviously they went their opposite ways and Kung expressed his extreme disappointment when Benedict became pope..

Also, they did meet a couple months ago (incidently, Kung regurarly asked JP II for a meeting and was turned down for 26 straight years; Benedict, for whatever reason, accepted immediately). They met for a few hours, ate dinner together, and then they each made statements. Benedict's statement avoided the thorny topics which still rightly keep Kung from teaching Catholic theology but he praised Kung for his work for peace and social justice.

As for who you could look at, people on the fringe like Kung are always entertaining to study but not always the most helpful. Von Balthasar, De Lubac, Rahner, and Congar all would be excellent choices. Congar is the only one out of the group who was really an ecclesiologist by trade. The Kasper/Ratzinger debate was also excellent. They both had articles in "America" so you could probably find those online.

[Nathan]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 8 2005, 02:23 PM']I have the book put out by the USCCB"The Kung Dialogue" which contains letters, documents, and such explaining exactly what happened. Sadly enough, it is sitting on my shelf gathering dust until I get around to reading it. I plan on reading it on my next plane ride, but that is not in the near future. When I do read it, I will be sure to reply dairy.
[right][snapback]817189[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I was flipping through this very book today at a second-hand bookstore. Needless to say, I didn't buy it. I've read enough of Kung to know what he is all about.

[Theoketos]

Congar is the man when it comes to the Study of the Church.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I was reading a book by Kung a few days ago and I was actually laughing out loud because some of his statements were so stupid.

[N/A Gone]

thats mean...dude might even be smarter than you.,.

[phatcatholic]

i doubt it

: