Friday, 20 October 2017

HANG KUNG'S LETTER TO POPE FRANCIS


Image result for hans kung

Hans Küng(born March 19, 1928, Sursee, Switz.), Swiss Roman Catholic theologian whose controversial liberal views led to his censorship by the Vatican in 1979.


Küng studied at Gregorian University in Rome and obtained a doctorate in theology from the Catholic Institute at the Sorbonne in 1957. He was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1954, and he taught at the University of Münster in West Germany (1959–60) and at the University of Tübingen (1960–96), where he also directed the Institute for Ecumenical Research from 1963. In 1962 he was named by Pope John XXIIIperitus (theological consultant) for the second Vatican Council.

Küng’s prolific writings questioned the formulation of such traditional church doctrine as papal infallibility, the divinity of Christ, and teachings about the Virgin Mary. In 1979 a Vatican censure that banned his teaching as a Catholic theologian provoked international controversy, and in 1980 a settlement was reached at Tübingen that allowed him to teach under secular rather than Catholic auspices. His more recent research has focused on interreligious cooperation and the creation of a global ethic. His publications include Rechtfertigung: Die Lehre Karl Barths und eine Katholische Besinnung (1957; Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection), Konzil und Wiedervereinigung (1960; The Council, Reform, and Reunion), Die Kirche (1967; The Church), Unfehlbar?(1970; Infallible?), Christ sein (1974; On Being a Christian), Existiert Gott? (1978; Does God Exist?), and Ewiges Leben? (1982; Eternal Life?).


--------------------------------------------


“Receive this comprehensive documentation and allow a free, unprejudiced and open-ended discussion in our church of the all the unresolved and suppressed questions connected with the infallibility dogma. In this way, the problematic Vatican heritage of the past 150 years could be come to terms with honestly and adjusted in accordance with holy Scripture and ecumenical tradition. It is not a case of trivial relativism that undermines the ethical foundation of church and society. But it is also not about an unmerciful, mind-numbing dogmatism, which swears by the letter, prevents thorough renewal of the church’s life and teaching, and obstructs serious progress in ecumenism. It is certainly not the case of me personally wanting to be right. The well-being of the church and of ecumenism is at stake.
“I am very well aware of the fact that my appeal to you, who ‘lives among wolves,’ as a good Vatican connoisseur recently remarked, may possibly not be opportune. In your Christmas address of Dec. 21, 2015, however, confronted with curial ailments and even scandals, you confirmed your will for reform: ‘It seems necessary to state what has been — and ever shall be — the object of sincere reflection and decisive provisions. The reform will move forward with determination, clarity and firm resolve, since Ecclesia semper reformanda.’

“I would not like to raise the hopes of many in our church unrealistically. The question of infallibility cannot be solved overnight in our church. Fortunately, you (Pope Francis) are almost 10 years younger than I am and will hopefully survive me. You will, moreover, surely understand that as a theologian at the end of his days, buoyed by deep affection for you and your pastoral work, I wanted to convey this request to you in time for a free and serious discussion of infallibility that is well-substantiated in the volume at hand: non in destructionem, sed in aedificationem ecclesiae, ‘not in order to destroy but to build up the church.’ For me personally, this would be the fulfillment of a hope I have never given up.”

HANS KUNG INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING IN HIS LETTER TO FRANCIS:



It is hardly conceivable that Pope Francis would strive to define papal infallibility as Pius IX did with all the means at hand, whether good or less good, in the 19th century. It is also inconceivable that Francis would be interested in infallibly defining Marian dogmas as Pius XII did. It would, however, be far easier to imagine Pope Francis smilingly telling students, “Io non sono infallibile” — “I am not infallible” — as Pope John XXIII did in his time. When he saw how surprised the students were, John added, “I am only infallible when I speak ex cathedra, but that is something I will never do.”
I became acquainted with the subject very early in my life. Here are a few important historical dates as I personally experienced them and have faithfully documented in Volume 5 of my complete works:
1950: On Nov. 1, facing huge crowds in St. Peter’s Square and supported by numerous high church and political dignitaries, Pope Pius XII definitively proclaimed the Assumption of Mary as a dogma. “The immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” I was there in St. Peter’s Square at the time and must admit that I enthusiastically hailed the pope’s declaration.
That was the first infallible ex cathedra proclamation by the church’s senior shepherd and highest teaching authority, who had invoked the special support of the Holy Spirit, all according to the definition of papal infallibility laid down at the First Vatican Council of 1870. And it was to remain the last ex cathedra proclamation to date, as even John Paul II, who restored papal centralism and was always happy to seek publicity, did not dare to play to the gallery by proclaiming a new dogma. As it was, the 1950 dogma proclamation had been made despite protests from the Protestant and Orthodox churches and from many Catholics, who simply could not find any evidence in the Bible for this “truth of faith revealed by God.”
I remember German theology students, who were our guests in the Collegium Germanicum (German College) in Rome, discussing the problems they had with the dogma in the refectory at the time. Only a few weeks previously, an article by the then leading Germanpatrologist, Professor Berthold Althaner, a highly regarded Catholic specialist in the theology of the Church Fathers, had been published in which Althaner, listing many examples, had shown that this dogma had did not even have a historical basis in the first centuries of the early church. It goes back to a legend in an apocryphal writing from the fifth century that is brimful of miracles.
We seminarians at the German College at the time thought that the students’ “rationalist” university teachers had kept the Pontifical Gregorian University’s general perception regarding this dogma from them. The general perception at the Gregorian was that the Assumption dogma had “developed” slowly and, as it were, “organically” in the course of dogma history, but that it was already ascertained in Bible passages such as “Hail (Mary) full of grace (blessed art thou),” “the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28), and although not “explicitly” expressed, it was nevertheless “implicitly” incorporated.
1958: Pius XII’s death marked the end of a century of excessive Marian cults by the Pius popes that had begun with the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. Pius XII’s successor, JohnXXIII, was disinclined toward new dogmas. At the Second Vatican Council, in a crucial vote, the majority of the council fathers rejected a special Marian decree and in fact cautioned against exaggerated Marian piety.
1965: Chapter III of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is devoted to the hierarchy but, oddly enough, Paragraph 25, which is on infallibility, in no way actually goes into it. What is all the more surprising is that in actual fact the Second Vatican Council took a fatal step. Without giving reasons, it expressly extended infallibility, which was confined to the pope alone at the First Vatican Council, to the episcopacy. The council attributed infallibility not only to the assembled episcopacy at an ecumenical council (magisterium extraordinarium), but from then on also to the world episcopacy (magisterium ordinarium), that is, to bishops all over the world if they were agreed and decreed that a church teaching on faith or morals should permanently become mandatory.
1968: the year the encyclical Humanae Vitae on birth control was published. That the encyclical was released on July 25 of all times, which was not only during the summer holidays but, on top of that, in the middle of the Czechoslovak people’s fight for freedom, is generally interpreted as Roman tactics so that there would be less opposition to it. Perhaps, however, it was quite simply because work on this sensitive document had only just been finished. Whatever the reason for the timing, the encyclical hit the world “like a bomb.” The pope had obviously greatly underestimated the resistance to this teaching. Isolated as he was in the Vatican, he had not envisaged that the world public would react quite so negatively.
The encyclical Humanae Vitae, which not only forbade as grave sins the pill and all mechanical means of contraception but also the withdrawal method to avoid pregnancy, was universally regarded as an incredible challenge. Invoking the infallibility of papal, respectively episcopal teaching, the pope pitted himself against the entire civilized world. This alarmed me as a Catholic theologian. I had by then been professor of theology at the Catholic theological faculty of Tübingen University for eight years. Of course, formal protests and substantive objections were important, but had the time not now come to examine this claim to the infallibility of papal teaching in principle? I was convinced that theology — or, to be more precise, critical fundamental theological research — was called for. In 1970, I put the subject up for discussion in my book Infallible?: An Inquiry. I could not have foreseen at the time that this book and with it the problem of infallibility would crucially affect my personal destiny and would present theology and the church with key challenges. In the 1970s, my life and my work were more than ever intertwined with theology and the church.
1979-80: the withdrawal of my license to teach. In Volume 2 of my memoirs, Disputed Truth, I have described in detail how this was a secret campaign carried out with military precision, which has proved to be theologically unfounded and politically counterproductive. At the time, the debate about the withdrawal of my missio canonica and infallibility continued for a long time. It proved impossible to harm my standing with believers, however, and as I had prophesied, the controversies regarding large-scale church reform have not ceased. On the contrary, during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI they increased on a massive scale. That was when I went into the necessity of promoting understanding between the different denominations, of mutual recognition of church offices and celebrating the Lord’s Supper, the question of divorce, of women’s ordination, mandatory celibacy and the catastrophic lack of priests, but above all of the leadership of the Catholic church. My question was: “Where are you leading this church of ours?”
These questions are as relevant today as they were then. The decisive reason for this incapacity for reform at all levels is still the doctrine of infallibility of church teaching, which has bequeathed a long winter on our Catholic church. Like John XXIII, Francis is doing his utmost to blow fresh wind into the church today and is meeting with massive opposition as at the last episcopal synod in October 2015. But, make no mistake, without a constructive “re-vision” of the infallibility dogma, real renewal will hardly be possible.
What is all the more astonishing is that the discussion (of infallibility) has disappeared from the scene. Many Catholic theologians have no longer critically examined the infallibility ideology for fear of ominous sanctions as in my case, and the hierarchy tries as far as possible to avoid the subject, which is unpopular in the church and in society. When he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger only expressly referred to it very few times. Despite the fact that it was left unsaid, the taboo of infallibility has blocked all reforms since the Second Vatican Council that would have required revising previous dogmatic definitions. That not only applies to the encyclical Humanae Vitae against contraception, but also to the sacraments and monopolized “authentic” church teaching, to the relationship between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of all the faithful. And it applies likewise to a synodal church structure and the claim to absolute papal power, the relationship to other denominations and religions, and to the secular world in general. That is why the following question is more urgent than ever: Where is the church — which is still fixated on the infallibility dogma — heading at the beginning of the third millennium? The anti-modernist epoch that rang in the First Vatican Council has ended.
2016: I am in my 88th year and I may say that I have spared no effort to collect the relevant texts, order them factually and chronologically according to the various phases of the altercation and elucidate them by putting them in a biographical context for Volume 5 of my complete works. With this book in my hand, I would now like to repeat an appeal to the pope that I repeatedly made in vain several times during the decade long theological and church-political altercation. I beg of Pope Francis — who has always replied to me in a brotherly manner:

“Receive this comprehensive documentation and allow a free, unprejudiced and open-ended discussion in our church of the all the unresolved and suppressed questions connected with the infallibility dogma. In this way, the problematic Vatican heritage of the past 150 years could be come to terms with honestly and adjusted in accordance with holy Scripture and ecumenical tradition. It is not a case of trivial relativism that undermines the ethical foundation of church and society. But it is also not about an unmerciful, mind-numbing dogmatism, which swears by the letter, prevents thorough renewal of the church’s life and teaching, and obstructs serious progress in ecumenism. It is certainly not the case of me personally wanting to be right. The well-being of the church and of ecumenism is at stake.

PAT SAYS:

FATHER HANS KUNG has a brilliant mind and he is one of the greatest theologians of the 20th and 21st centuries.

He is of course, controversial - because he has talked about things that many do not like to talk about and because he believes EVERYTHING is up for discussion.

Theologians are not infallible and I am quite sure Kung knows he is not infallible either.

One of the duties of the theologian is to PUSH THE BOUNDARIES OF FAITH and by doing so to bring us all to a greater understanding of God.

It is NOT the theologian's duty to pontificate or to declare anything to be dogmatically true.

But it is his duty - his vocation - to make us all THINK.

Defining doctrine is the job of THE CHURCH - that is the WHOLE PEOPLE OF GOD - coming to believe something to be true and to have it declared true by the MAGISTERIUM - that part of the Church that TEACHES what is "of faith".

However, the "magisterium" - the bishops and the pope - have often been guilty of arrogance and of usurping the VOICE OF ALL and have proclaimed things that are not vital to the faith and that are not necessarily universally believed.

This is the TAIL WAGGING THE DOG.

The radical theologian - such as Kung - reminds the TAIL that it is NOT THE DOG and asks that the dog wag the tail.

For this reason, there has often been a clash between the theologian and the hierarchy - as happened in the Kung case.

Kung has suffered a GREAT INJUSTICE by being sidelined by men who are like intellectual mice beside the Kung Lion.

There should be freedom of speech everywhere but especially in the CHURCH OF CHRIST.

THE TRUTH is primary GOD HIMSELF - and we move towards the truth when all God's children have a voice.

History will judge Kung to have been a GREAT THEOLOGIAN and those who opposed him and attacked him to be intellectual mice!

58 comments:

  1. MournemanMichael20 October 2017 at 01:04

    An excellent blog Pat.
    Though not ordinarily given to reading theological matter now I read this with interest remembering a little about Kung from the past.
    The whole idea of papal infallibility was a big factor in my decision to leave before sub diaconate in 1968.... the "assumption" dogma in particular.
    In short, my dilemma of: " how can I possibly go forward to ordination and promote this stuff I don't believe in myself " was only resolved by opting out.
    I've never had any regrets.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kung is a spoiled Bishop, and like all such men is bitter and twisted. He accords himself the infallibility he denies the Pope. God will call him home soon for judgment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've read a lot of Kings works.

      I can do d no basis for your judgement.

      I think that God will reward him for his intellectual honesty and authenticity.

      Delete
    2. At 01:18
      Classic argumentum at hominem.
      One hopes a good night’s sleep will have helped.

      Delete
    3. Papal infallibility was Pio IX’s compensation to himself for the loss of the Papal States.

      Delete
    4. 12:03, that is not accurate. The concept of papal infallibility had been around, though obviously not dogmatically, for a very long time before 8 December 1869, when the First Vatican Council held its opening plenary session. In fact, the doctrine of papal infallibility had been exercised on at least six occasions before this.

      Remember the First Vatican Council, the 20th ecumenical council in the history of the Church, took place during a century of radical, even revolutionary, change in (especially) European society. There were challenges to authority from seemingly every direction: from science (e.g. Darwinism), from politics (e.g. the rise of ideology: communism, socialism, even the rising clamour for democratic government); all of this was experienced by the papacy, effectively a medieval absolute monarchy, as a confrontation to its doctrinal authority. The psychological effect of this (a 'seige mentality' in the Church) should not be underestimated, and probably influenced the defensive assertiveness of the dogmas wording in 'Pastor Aeternus'. It is why I stated, in an earlier comment here, that the Dogma of Papal Infallibility cannot be considered in isolation from both its immediate and historical context, because these, though not the intellectual foundation of the dogma, did, undoubtedly in my view, help shape its present form.

      Delete
    5. At 12:56
      Wikipedia-fuelled summary.

      Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't do sentence construction.

      Your final sentence defies logic and is an object lesson in how simple a idea taken to a simple conclusion is lost en route. Nothing can be adequately considered outside of its historical context. That's obvious. And it's tactless to state the obvious.

      Delete
    6. 23:51, you are making as much sense as a corpse. (And this is my being kind.)

      Delete
  3. No one with sufficient knowledge of Catholic Church history and of the New Testament could definitively argue that the matter of doctrinal infallibility, whether papal or collegial, has been fully and finally settled.

    Though the concept of (especially) papal infallibility predates its solemn declaration in 'Pastor Aeternus', a landmark document of the First Vatican Council (and its most controversial then, and ever since), it would be a serious misjudgement to separate the declaration from both its immediate and historical context.

    There is sometimes a tendency to argue that the concept has solely an eschatological pedigree, deriving its substance and form from certain Petrine and Apostolic passages in the New Testament, and from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the living Tradition of the Church. This view may be reassuring to some, but it is scarcely realistic, since it ignores the dialectic of Church and society in history. It is possible to argue that the Dogma of Papal Infallibility may owe as much to the consolidation and triumph of secular papal power as to anything scriptural or spiritual. Certainly history, with its peaks and troughs of social stability and unrest respectively, can hardly have failed to touch the development of the concept to some degree. If this is true, then the high watermark of papal supremacy, under Gregory VII in the 11th century, would be the obvious place to start looking for clues.

    If secular history has had any say in the evolution and formulation of this dogma, then its origin isn't entirely scriptural or spiritual, but anthropological as well. Which means that there is, as Hans Kung believes, intellectual ground for re-examining it by allowing a 'free, unprejudiced and open-ended discussion'. After all, if to err is human, then not to act here might be to compound error (if, indeed, there is such) in our understanding of infallibility, a very real charism in and for the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MourneManMichael20 October 2017 at 10:05

      Informative and well argued points Magna.
      The implications of the phrases: "To the victor the spoils", and, "The conqueror writes history" come to mind bearing in considering the growth of the RC church's temporal powers from its alliance with the Romans onwards.
      MMM

      Delete
    2. I'm surprised you of all people don't think the question of infallibility has been settled.

      Delete
  4. I didn't think that old Lutheran heretic Kung was still alive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An ignorant and stupid comment.

      Delete
    2. Is it true that, circa two years ago, Hans Kung, now suffering from a debilitating and eventually fatal illness, recommended euthanasia in his own and similar cases?

      Delete
    3. I don't think he RECOMMENDED it.

      I think he said that he himself would do it and it should be an option for everyone.

      I think there is merit in his position?

      Delete
    4. Euthanasia, like many other things, is very complex and controversial and definitely would be subject to all kinds of abuse, lies and "misunderstandings"--such things as greedy relatives with their eye on some elderly person's will and property to careless or unscrupulous Nursing Home - or even geriatric hospital--Staff wanting to cut down on difficult and demanding patients or workload to relatives who were looking forward to the freedom of not having to care for a no-longer-fit-for-purpose elderly mum or dad. I would also be shaking in my shoes if I were a severely handicapped wheelchair person who could speak up for myself and worried that I was been regarded as an inconvenience.
      You either adopt a position of complete respect for human life - - your own and everyone else's--or you don't. Talk about a slippery slope!

      Delete
    5. Dr Kung's wish list does sound remarkably like the Lutheran church: intercommunion, no papal infallibility, women's ordination, divorce, no mandatory celibacy, contraception permitted, recognition of other churches and orders, and no directives from Rome. Maybe the venerable professor has wasted his life railing against popes, Rome and traditional Catholic teaching when all the things he desires exist in full flower in the Lutheran church in his native Germany.

      What gets me is that liberals don't think of the Catholic church as being unique, special, the true faith etc. They are far too ecumenical for that and I'm sure they regard the Protestant churches as being equal. Why then don't they join the Protestants and be happy and contended there, instead of spending so much energy on intra debates.

      Conservative Catholics have nowhere else to go, so it's profoundly selfish of liberal Catholics to campaign to turn the church into a facsimile of Anglicanism, whose embrace of the spirit of the age hasn't filled their pews.

      Delete
    6. Arlene, your separitist and personal eccleisiology does you no credit. In pointed fact, it presents you as an anachronism that belongs, with such empty faux theological catchphrases as 'true faith', not in another decade, but in another century.

      Why should what you sneeringly call 'liberal' Catholics secede and join Anglicanism? Why don't 'conservatives' like you just, with the courage of whatever convictions you pretend to have, go into schism and join SSPX? Or, better still, gladhand those stalwarts at Sedecavantism.com?

      Whatever you choose to do, please do it quickly. And let the rest of us find the peace from constant carping in which to build the kind of 'ekklesia' longed for by Jesus when he prayed that his Father make us all one.

      But then, Jesus' petition was probably too ecumenical for you, too liberal. Too theologically 'trendy'.

      Delete
    7. The Whig view of history. Lol.

      Delete
    8. Because if the Father's house has many mansions, might one be left for conservative Catholics, who want to stay in Communion. Lib Catholics have thousands of denominations which give them all they could want, whereas if traditional Catholics, full members of the church [pace who am I to judge] have nowhere to go. Are they to be cast out, like poor relations?

      Delete
    9. Jesus did say "you are either with me or against me". And didn't the Bible warn that you be either hot or cold, but not lukewarm, or the Lord will spit you out of His mouth. Wonder how MC will explain that away?

      Delete
    10. The kind of "ekklesia" which Jesus intended has many dimensions. The "revealed truths" and "traditions" of centuries have their rightful place on which we build firm foundations. But we must also ensure that the teachings of the Church be such that they embrace the ongoing search for our understanding of God, rather than present absolutist dogma. Also, I believe we should listen to and value the stated beliefs of others, conservative or liberal. That we disagree with others should not be an opportunity to name call and to arrogantly castigate them, an attitude Magna constantly adopts. Arlene makes valid points. We must not compromise on the inherited beliefs and teachings of our Church. We can adapt and give new relevance to them but not to uphold and express our beliefs is to literally fall for anything and allow a show of hands to define our beliefs. The notion that such an attitude will bring back the departed fold is untenable. Just look at the empty pews in the Protestant Churches. Being theologically trendy hasn't impacted on the swelling of churches. Perhaps, as suggested, a return to the vision of the early church is what we should all aspire to make real. And I don't believe Magna can articulate the imagination of such an aspiration as to inspire any of us!

      Delete
    11. Why do you think him a 'Lutheran heretic'?

      Delete
    12. 'In pointed fact' What does this mean?

      The expression is 'in point of fact,'

      Delete
    13. No, 23:54, the expression I intended is not 'point of fact'. I love it when people, with pretense of learning, set themselves up for a heady, intellectual fall. But NO! I must resist the temptation to expose these people for the fools they actually are.

      Delete
  5. I do not believe the Pope or anyone else is infallible. Look at the Creeds They have stood the test of time because of the way they were written. It's only when statements are made with a view to legislate for things like contraception and make them legally binding that the church gets in knots. Mary by grace of God is mother of Jesus-amazing

    ReplyDelete
  6. Does Küng actively oppose the dogma of the Assumption per se or just it’s definition as an infallible dogma? If the former, Carl Jung’s enthusiastic writings on the definition are apposite. He regarded the 1950 declaration as being the result of a popular movement motivated by “the continuing incarnation of God which began with Christ”. Criticisms (such as Kung’s) were the result of rationalistic historicism which ignored the continuing work of the Holy Ghost in the hidden places of the soul. “Answer to Job” gives a wonderful explanation of the dogma and its significance for our times (from a heterodox standpoint of course).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He supports it, greeting its solemn declaration in 1950 when he was a seminarian in Rome.

      The ground for declaring the doctrine of the Assumption a dogma was, for Kung, much clearer, and more credible, than others, since it had a long (and universal) provenance, stretching back to the earliest days of the Church.

      Delete
  7. Great stuff today, indeed for the past few days. Well done all... Well, nearly all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose you mean (sniff) ME!😂

      Delete
    2. Magna at 18.54, who of us would have the audacity and unkindness of heart to not compliment you! Your supremacy and breath of knowledge from your encyclopaedic mind is a treasure we would sorely miss!! Now surely you don't have an inferiority complex - do you?

      Delete
    3. MourneManMichael20 October 2017 at 20:47

      Anon @ 19:26, I've valued Magna's comments today, finding them informative and measured. I for one would certainly compliment such contributions from any source.
      While that may surprise those aware of my lack of religious beliefs and consequent Humanist perspective, I'd just say that I find the whole gamut of belief systems interesting and value others perspectives to relate to my own understandings.
      MMM

      Delete
    4. 19:26, I'm, well, I'm, er, (I suppose) all cheered now!😆

      Delete
  8. I agree with you Sean, no human being is infallible,what a ridiculous belief.
    And why would we need believe this.
    The Rc church is jus5 a religion just like any other.
    I don’t need a spefic religion in my life, even though I do go to mass and pray.we are all born into the world equal as far as god is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ".. no human being is infallible.."
      Then why do certain long-winded opinionated on this blog behave as though they are!

      Delete
  9. 17.26. A very contradictory comment. If you don't need religion or the RC Church - what is your attendance at mass and prayer but an expression of your religion!! The RC Church is not just a religion like all others. Think you need to to a little research and study.....your understanding of "religion" is very impoverished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I think you know very well what the poster meant.

      Delete
    2. He's an ethnic Catholic, meets up with acquaintances at Mass, would quite lack a Catholic funeral to be on the safe side, but the children are lapsed and the grandchildren are unbabaptised, or, even worse, Christened as they now, with no intention or commitment to raise in the Faith.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Magna and I love your posts too
      And Mmm and of course I so admire Sean, he had the courage to follow his heart.

      Delete
    4. I doubt if the poster explains himself that clearly. Either that. or he just goes through the motions at Mass without fully appreciating the enormity of the privilege afforded to him. Maybe he does - - but his post gives quite a different impression. If you truly valued the Gift of the Eucharist how could you be so casual as to
      imply that you didn't need it in your life?

      Delete
    5. Your own comment isn't very helpful.
      The writer is speaking about belief which is different from faith.

      Delete
    6. Loved Michael Harding on the late late.
      He’s a Buddhist on a Tuesday and mass on a Sunday.

      Delete
    7. My comment is no way changed or depleted by anything the writer said.

      Delete
    8. On the contrary, I think the poster @23.25 summed it up very accurately as a later post from the original poster shows (possibly below..)

      Delete
    9. So Michael Harding has an a la carte approach.. Very convenient I'm sure.

      Delete
  10. Thank god my understanding is impoverished, I was born into the rc, so that’s why I go to mass.ive often attended other churches when with friends.
    I’ve no intention of researching or studying anything anymore.
    And I’ve discovered-at last that if I miss mass, I haven’t committed a mortal sin
    At almost 80 I couldn’t care less.maybe I go because it is a social thing, I don’t know.
    As I’ve posted here time and time again it’s how I’ve lived my life that counts, not how often I receive sacraments.
    There is only one god, I’m sure he is god to all humanity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think anyone suggested otherwise...

      Delete
    2. Good for you! Freedom at last from Roman tyranny!!!

      Delete
    3. MournemanMichael21 October 2017 at 05:17

      Congratulations Anon @ 22:47, for getting to the essentials: "It's how I've lived my life that counts
      That sums it all up.

      Delete
    4. 22:47 if you are a Catholic, you should know that Missing Sunday Mass without good cause is a mortal sin. How did you "discover" that it was not?

      Delete
    5. 8.20
      How about saying daily mass and masturbating on line of an evening for any young vulnerable to see.

      Delete
    6. If missing mass is my best attempt at sinning, I can cope with that.

      Delete
    7. At 08:20
      Oh if it were only so simple!
      The issues of intrinsic evil and the absoluteness of moral norms sorted in a sentence.

      Delete
  11. 10.26
    The thing is we are all on a journey to our fatal end......eventually

    ReplyDelete
  12. To our ETERNAL end......eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Appealing to both the theology of Hans Kung AND the New Testament can arise only from an intention to deceive or a woeful lack of knowledge. HK was an heir to the Protestant German 'Higher Critics' who believed that all miracles and prophecy in the NT were not literally true but merely 'signs' to a truth to be discerned or attempts (after the event) to prove Christianity true by misdating or inventing prophetic utterances. So, Jesus didn't turn water into wine, He didn't multiply the loaves and fish, He didn't prophecy the fall of Jerusalem according to HK and these 'higher critics'. HK was 'suspect' to say the least and made a fortune from selling his 'dodgy goods' to Christians who preferred his 'gospel' to the actual ones.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Father Michael Commane OP is the author of a blog, Occasional Scribbles.

    It recently informed readers that the Irish Dominicans have invited to give a talk in their Priory in St Saviour's in Dublin Fr Crean OP. Fr Crean is one of the signatories of a letter addressed to Pope Francis and presents itself as a filial correction of him for reputed errors and heresies.

    http://michaelcommane.blogspot.ie/2017/10/english-dominican-to-talk-on-relevance.html

    This is the same church from which a priest expressed his loyalty to Pope Benedict by repeating and promoting the Pope's line that gay people are intrinsically disordered.

    Now that there is a new occupant in the office of Pope the loyalty quickly evaporated and turned into the very opposite.

    Among many other thing it makes you wonder about the sincerity of the loyalty on the former occasion.

    ReplyDelete