Modernists rarely go on record denying anything. They are very clever- that is their ploy. You have to read between the lines and see their heteropraxis demonstrated
In compact style, Kasper handles practically all the standard Christological questions, such as the pre-existence of the Son, the hypostatic union (one person in two natures), the virginal conception, the freedom and sinlessness of Jesus, his Messianic claims and titles, his miracles, and his resurrection. Refusing to separate Christology from soteriology, Kasper likewise treats the redemptive character of Jesus's sacrificial death. On all these points, Kasper stands with the ancient councils and with the mainstream of the theological tradition.Kasper is opposed not only to the liberal Christologies of the nineteenth century but, even more emphatically, to the twentieth century secular and anthropological Christologies, which present Jesus as the culmination of the evolutionary process and as the supreme fulfillment of essential humanity. In Kasper's estimation, such theories (represented by Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, among others) inevitably tend to reduce Christ to a mere symbol of cosmic and human evolution. Particularly sharp are Kasper's criticisms of the Dutch Catholic theologian, Piet Schoonenberg, whom he accuses of falling into modalism and of directly contradicting the ancient councils by holding that Jesus is a human-not a divine-person.
I don't see how you can "read between the lines" here and somehow see Kasper as denying Christ's divinity, miracles, or resurrection.