Kung v. Ratzinger by Samuel Gregg

[Catholic_Lawyer]

After Vatican II, Ratzinger and Kung took very divergent roads. Ratzinger emerged as a formidable defender of Catholic orthodoxy and was eventually elected pope. Kung became a theological celebrity and antagonist of the papacy.

Now both men are in the evening of their earthly days. What, many wonder, occupies their minds at this time of life? In this regard, Jesus of Nazareth and Can the Church still be saved? are quite revealing.

http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2011...99s-future

[Resurrexi]

After Vatican II, Ratzinger and Kung took very divergent roads. Ratzinger emerged as a formidable defender of Catholic orthodoxy and was eventually elected pope. Kung became a theological celebrity and antagonist of the papacy.

Now both men are in the evening of their earthly days. What, many wonder, occupies their minds at this time of life? In this regard, Jesus of Nazareth and Can the Church still be saved? are quite revealing.

http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2011...99s-future

Interesting article.

[Walty]

As the article suggests, it is all about power for Kung.  And this is because he is an apostate.  He has no need for the Church as Bride of Christ or as the source of his salvation.  He sees what all the atheists, secular modernists, and other enemies of the Church see... an earthly institution which is still quite powerful and reaches across the globe, an institution which can and should be co-opted to play an important role in Man's conquest of "God" and the world.

[SpiderDweeb]

Good article and thanks for sharing.

[SouthpawLink]

De Lubac was a reactionary?  Ratzinger was a formidable defender of Catholic orthodoxy?  According to who?!  Both of them were suspected by the Holy Office prior to the Council... and both were part of the nouvelle théologie, i.e. neo-modernism (twice condemned by Ven. Pius XII).

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Progres...zinger.htm

http://www.cfnews.org/oathmodbtryd.htm

http://www.cfnews.org/V2-unity.htm

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/...at-is.html

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/...f-neo.html

[Catholic_Lawyer]

Good article and thanks for sharing.

Happy to share!

[Alabama Trad]

De Lubac was a reactionary?  Ratzinger was a formidable defender of Catholic orthodoxy?  According to who?!  Both of them were suspected by the Holy Office prior to the Council... and both were part of the nouvelle théologie, i.e. neo-modernism (twice condemned by Ven. Pius XII).

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Progres...zinger.htm

http://www.cfnews.org/oathmodbtryd.htm

http://www.cfnews.org/V2-unity.htm

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/...at-is.html

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/...f-neo.html

Weak links. Not exactly scholarly articles. Lot of accusations against the Holy Father in a small amount of space. Tough to do justice to an intellectual giant's body of work on literally one page of the world wide web, lol.

Ratzinger was, even admittedly himself, pretty liberal prior to the student revolutions of the 1960s. He became more "reactionary" after that.

Now, I agree, there are timebombs in VII and I'm more trad than the pope. That said, the guy is no heretic. There is a difference between framing the Catholic worldview as the average prelate did in the 1940s and the way it happens today. Sometimes it's heretical, sometimes it's not. But you've got to be able to make a distinction between a difference in style and heretical substance. Just sayin'.

[SouthpawLink]

I suppose I could buy Theological Highlights of Vatican II (and Principles of Catholic Theology) and read it for myself.  Anyway (and in my opinion), there's plenty of evidence of then-Fr. Ratzinger's dislike of neo-Scholasticism (which he retained as a cardinal), and I don't think that would pass for orthodoxy in the pre-conciliar Church.

I do not, nor would I, accuse the Holy Father of heresy, although there have been statements he's made over the last several decades that I find to be questionable (e.g., the anti-modernist documents were subject to correction).

Here's another site which may be of interest to you: http://www.waragainstbeing.com/

[Vetus Ordo]

That said, the guy is no heretic. There is a difference between framing the Catholic worldview as the average prelate did in the 1940s and the way it happens today. Sometimes it's heretical, sometimes it's not. But you've got to be able to make a distinction between a difference in style and heretical substance. Just sayin'.

Perhaps, the fact that this Pope declares in his latest book that the Church shouldn't aim to convert Jews is just a "difference in style."

Thus spake that intellectual mammoth, also known as "God's Rottweiler."

Lol, indeed.

[Alabama Trad]

If I'm not mistaken (and I haven't read the book), he merely quotes someone who is saying that, neither approvingly or disapprovingly. It seems context would be especially important if we're leveling such a serious charge against the Holy Father, no?

I'm not of the same mind as Benedict XVI in that I do prefer scholasticism. He doesn't. You don't have to, though the Church does have a preference for it. I just have a real problem with throwing charges against him based on how the secular media has framed something he has said. They've proven that they don't deserve that degree of trust.