Thank you, Dr. Blosser, for this very helpful article on Kung!
When I read the interview with Kung, I couldn't help thinking that this man sounds like a liberal Anglican from the 70's and 80's.
If anyone wants to know how much punch this kind of liberalism has, all they have to do is look at first-world Anglicanism! We embraced the liberal Protestant theology represented by Kung and look what we have now become!
I have taken the liberty of emailing the link to your article to Titusonenine.
Cheers!
Dr. Blosser-
WELL SAID. This is frankly one of the best articles I've read on the general subject matter (i.e. modern "mainline Protestant" style religious "liberalism".
Article excelente!
This material needs to be expanded into ook form. There are now umpteen shrill books on Dan Brown and the DVC, but none that I know of that are accessible and explain the divergent theological emphases that have echoed down from Vatican II. A study on the problematic aspects of Kung, Schb...x, Rahner,and the like, and the corresponding correctives of Danilou, Bouyer, and Ratzinger would dispel years of confusion. Currently the list of names and publications remains for all but the most persistent a dizzying morasse.
I've never read Barth, but what you say regarding his alleged "orthodoxy" is interesting -- I'd like to learn more.
Trackback:
http://pontifications.classicala...index.php?
p=599
A great critique, sir. The only thing I want to add is that every time I tried to get into Küng's "big books," I was tormented by the spiral, meandering nature of his prose. This is a matter of style and not of substance, I guess, since I prefer more linear, more logical sentence structures. Perhaps "fuzzy logic" is an integral part of today's "fuzzy theology" and I hadn't realized it until now.
The remarks about Barth took me by surprise. I admit I haven't studied him in depth to form a personal judgment, but your caveat will definitely help me if I decide to read him in the future.
Thanks again.
In Christ,
P.
Among the differences between Wojtyla and Kung is that Wojtyla writes quantity *with* quality and Kung merely writes quantity. And (of course) Wojtyla's speculations always take the Church dogmas and doctrines and starting points whereas Kung's do not. As one of my mentors used to say "definitions are the tools of thought" and because he has no boundaries that he recognizes -noi "definitions" if you will- that is why Kung's stuff meanders without really getting anywhere while Wojtylas has a tendency towards digression which *does* get somewhere if the reader invests the patience to stick with it.
Contrary to your article, I and many others, have found Hans Kung's writings of the greatest help to our Christian Faith, Hope and Charity.
Commenting by HaloScan
