Posted on 06/13/2011 11:11:30 AM PDT by marshmallow
DETROIT -- Famed theologian Fr. Hans Kung has called for a “peaceful” revolution by world Catholics against the absolutism of papal power.
He made the call in a video message June 10, the first evening of a conference in Detroit of the American Catholic Council.
“I think few people realize how powerful the pope is,” Kung said, likening papal power today to the absolute power of French monarchs that the French people revolted against in 1789.
“We have to change an absolutist system without the French Revolution,” he said. “We have to have peaceful change.”
Kung, who was perhaps the most famous of the theological experts at the Second Vatican Council nearly 50 years ago, was born in Switzerland but spent most of his life teaching at the University of Tubingen, Germany.
Now 83, Kung is ecumenical professor emeritus at Tubingen and rarely travels for health reasons, so his message to the ACC was delivered in the form of a half-hour videotaped interview with American theologian Anthony T. Padovano, conducted last year at Kung’s home.
John Hushon, co-chairman of the ACC, said the conference, being held June 10-12 at Detroit’s Cobo Hall had more than 1,800 registered participants, from at least 44 states and 13 foreign countries.
In the interview with Kung, played on two giant screens in one of the convention center’s main rooms, the theologian predicted change in the church despite resistance from Rome. Vatican II “was a great success, but only 50 percent, he said.
On the one hand, he said, many reforms were realized, including renewal in the liturgy, a new appreciation of Scripture, and other significant changes such as recognition of the importance of the laity and the local church and various changes in church discipline.
“Unfortunately the council was not allowed to speak about..........
(Excerpt) Read more at ncronline.org ...
"In case you, dear reader, are not aware, [the] "Biological Solution" is the traditionalist Catholic notion that the "liberals" will eventually all die, and the Church will belong to them.""Biological Solution"
The most famous person to be a peritus for the Second Vatican Council seems to be the man who became Pope Benedict XVI.
Now I will ask, why on earth a young man of 34 was appointed as an EXPERT theologian to the council itself?
Well, the answer is quite obvious: the people who were pressing for change-at-any-cost stacked the deck by appointing a lad who had hardly even started his academic career as a theologian.
While Father Joseph Ratzinger was young, he a peritus only for a bishop - not for the Church herself. More importantly, he was not suggesting the massive upheaval that Kung was suggesting.
How absurd to have a young man advise you on whether or not to up-end the fabric of the Church.
The most famous person to be a peritus for the Second Vatican Council seems to be the man who became Pope Benedict XVI.
Now I will ask, why on earth Kung - a young man of 34 - was appointed as an EXPERT theologian to the council itself?
Well, the answer is quite obvious: the people who were pressing for change-at-any-cost stacked the deck by appointing a lad who had hardly even started his academic career as a theologian.
While Father Joseph Ratzinger was young, he a peritus only for a bishop - not for the Church herself. More importantly, he was not suggesting the massive upheaval that Kung was suggesting.
How absurd to have a young man advise you on whether or not to up-end the fabric of the Church.
I recognize the @$$hat in that photo.
He was advertised as the the man who would be able to reconcile cutting-edge Catholic theology with Barth's cutting-edge Reformed theology and provide the basis for Christian reunion in the West.
They hadn't yet realized that he was a crank. Luckily, he is a supremely lazy crank.
There is no example in history of a Baptist church ever breaking off from Rome. Laugh all you want, it has never happened.
I never made the claim that the Baptist faith came down from John the Baptist.. .although, if he were alive today, he would probably be a messenger to the SBC. :)
You're right, they broke off from someone else who broke off from Luther who broke off from Calvin. The SBC is probably the most correct and Christian of the Protestant churches left but they're still a Protestant church that can trace itself back no further than Luther or perhaps Wycliffe. Period.
Anything that goes any further back is fantasy at best and deliberate deception at worst. Actually, it's not funny, it's sad that people try to develop theories to counter obvious history and replace it with something they think makes them somehow look better or be more sincere. I don't doubt the faith of any of the SBC folks I know but I do wonder why they're hung up on pretending they're from some sort of little group that hid in caves for fifteen hundred plus years rather than admitting that they're at the root just more Protestants. And I spent many years in a SBC or Independent Baptist Church so I've heard all the theories and they didn't even make any sense with I was a kid fifty years ago.
Or, were you saying that the Baptists are Protestants who broke away from the wave of Protestant groups Luther fostered and I've misunderstood you?
Actually, the Baptists have Menno Simons to thank. They are a branch of anabaptists.
So they have zero connection to Luther, but Menno Simons was a Catholic priest.
Really there are two broad branches of protestants, mainline and the anabaptists. Mainline are Calvinists, Lutherans and Anglicans. Anabaptists tend to be Zwinglian and Mennonite.
The only people who are looking for fame are those who attack the Catholic Church.
True enough -- they broke off from the Puritans who broke off from the Anglicans who broke off from Rome.
The English Baptists did break off from the Anglicans, who broke from Rome. But they aren't the only Baptists. Furthermore, most individuals today who are Baptists, were never part of the Romish church. AND most Baptist churches today, in 2011, came into being totally apart from any influence or involvement from Rome.
Do you consider Baptists to be Protestants? I ask this because different Baptists are either for this statement or against it and I don't wish to offend you by saying you are or are not Protestant
I beg to differ — besides the two you stated, there are also the Pentecostal branch, the Mormon branch, the Unitarian/Jehovah’s Witness/Seventh Day Adventist branch and the Free-for-all branch.
This was the theory that Joseph Smith took and expanded -- first the mainlines said that the "great Apostasy" took place in the 1400s-1500s, then the Baptists pushed it back to the 300s, so it was logical for J. Smith to push it back to the Apostolic times -- the next step. The 300s theory didn't have any proof, but was held, so why not say the G.A. happened in 33 AD?
On a generic level, of course. Baptists, for the most part, embrace the teachings of the Reformers.
But on a technical, literal level, no. No Baptist church of today was a Catholic congregation that protested against Rome and subsequently separated.
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.