Posted on 05/23/2008 6:04:59 AM PDT by NYer
A little more to it than that. He declined to give his views on the Gospel of John to a panel of bishops. He was judged "unsound" on Catholic doctrine.
Were you replying to my post?
Hangs Kung is so passe! Tres 20th century. Progressives, you’ve lost the battle, OK? You’re regressing not progressing. It’s over, 1968 was almost two generations ago, your aging movement is failing, even Cardinal Mahony has been charmed by Benedict! So give up and get over it already. Embrace the True Church or get out, you’re not going to mold Her to your weird version of truth.
If you are not Catholic, leave the thread.
My apologies. I didn’t notice that designation. Was it there at the start of the thread?
I don’t think it was at the time I posted; or maybe I just missed it.
Your apology is appreciated.
Yes, Kueng’s differences with the Church are deeper than the “old” Catholics’.
“Rome had failed to follow the path of liberalisation set out by the Vatican II council in 1965.”
The “liberalisation” he speaks of is nothing more or less than theological leftism. All leftism is of and from Satan.
Sorry, I guess I am dense tonight. I still don’t see what your reply has to do with my post. The text you put in italics was not from my post.
Kung is a theologian, but he lost his credentials to teach catholic theology twenty years ago...
Alas, the UK reorter doesn’t know the difference.
Thanks be to God liberal Catholism is dead and buried. God Bless B16!
I have a hard time considering Hans Kung As Catholic.
He used to be, and he used to be a darned good theologian, but since the wagon went round the bend, and lost a wheel, not so much anymore.
I consider Hans Kung to be passe and a reminder of a dying liberal Catholism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.