The Swiss apostate, Fr. Hans Kung, has made the news again. He called on fellow apostate Jorge Bergoglio (aka "Pope" Francis) to allow "an open and impartial discussion on the infallibility of the pope and bishops." The false pope responded in the affirmative, and according to Kung (who has a personal letter from Frankie), there will be "no restrictions" on the "discussion." Fr. Kung was born in 1928 and was ordained to the priesthood in 1954. He was the youngest peritus (i.e., theological expert) at Vatican II. Along with his Modernist comrade, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (later "Pope" Benedict XVI), they eschewed clerical garb and chose to wear a suit and tie instead.
Kung and Ratzinger were on the side of the heretical Rhineland bishops, serving their de facto ringleader, the despicable Joseph Cardinal Frings. They were a constant voice for Modernism, and sabotaged the efforts of the Traditionalists at every turn. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, was a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani and Bishop Blaise Kurz in their attempt to stop the Modernist takeover. Fr. DePauw told me of how Ratzinger and his allies battled him frequently at the Council, and were largely responsible for the Great Apostasy in pushing through their heretical agenda. Interestingly, Ratzinger would turn on his former friend in the 1970s when he was "campaigning for pope." To ingratiate himself with Wotyla (John Paul II), he had Kung's ability to teach as a "Catholic" theologian at "Catholic" institutes of higher learning revoked when Kung refused Ratzinger's order as head of the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," to change some theological opinions in two books. Ratzinger helped Wotyla seem "consevative" whilst dismantling all that was Catholic from their new sect. Twenty-six years later, he was rewarded by becoming the next false pope, and he made amends with Kung.
For those in "conservative" Vatican II sect circles, the news of Kung's request and Frankie's reply were met by gasps. For those of us Traditionalists, it was no shock that Kung is on the verge of getting all he ever wanted--the final transformation of what is still wrongfully called the "Roman Catholic Church" into a one-world, dogma-free religion.
1. Kung openly admits in 1965 that Vatican II was called to make the Church a neo-Protestant sect
In the 1965 book-compilation entitled The Great Themes of the Council edited by Fr. Alting von Geusau, Kung wrote one of articles for the collection. The following is a pertinent quote, "The Council was convened by the Holy Father to prepare for reconciliation...the final aim of the Council: reconciliation with the separated Christians... It is also not, as many Christians would desire - especially the Catholics, by tranquilly inviting the others to come to their own Church - as if the others had something for which they needed to be forgiven - or through the conversion of individuals .... or simply by a general reform of customs .... Vatican II saw its mission in a very different way: reconciliation with the separated Christians can only be accomplished by means of a renewal of the Catholic Church herself. " (pgs. 103-105; Emphasis mine). Kung makes clear that there is to be a corporate reunion, not by converting others to the Truth, but by "renewal" (read: "subverting").
2. Kung openly contested papal infallibility as far back as 1970
In his 1970 book Infallible? An inquiry, Kung asked for the same thing he asked of Frankie this year; "open debate" on the topic by (Modernist) theologians. Ratzinger wrote an article entitled "Contradictions in the Book Infallible by Hans Kung" wherein he appears to defend the dogma. All he did was support change to the dogma, but claimed Kung goes too far (at least in the 1970s). Ratzinger wrote, "I want to emphasize again that I decidedly agree with Kung when he makes a clear distinction between Roman theology (i.e. Scholasticism) and the Catholic Faith. To free itself from the constraining fetters of Roman Scholastic Theology represents a duty upon which, in my humble opinion, the possibility of the survival of Catholicism seems to depend." (Word in parenthetical mine). What does the True church teach?
"Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non-Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly 'to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,'..." (See Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, paragraph # 18, 1950)
"It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion." (Ibid, para. # 19)
CONDEMNED propositions in Lamentabili Sane by Pope St. Pius X, 1907:
53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.
58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.
63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.
65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.
3. In his book The Church, Kung compares believers in the miraculous and approved apparitions to ancient heretics
From the book, "As in Montanism, some post-Tridentine visionaries have been dominated by apocalyptic conceptions (prophecies of an imminent end of the world, a great war, an apocalyptic catastrophe, or the conversion of Russia), which causes in the devotees terror and, at the same time, attraction and fascination. This is one of the reasons for their astonishing success... As in Joachimism, there are mystical numbers and anticipated dates: important events have taken place on the 13th day of the month ....As in Joachimism, a new religious congregation is often considered necessary to spread the ideas according to which .... a specific work of piety (a statue, a devotion, a medal) is considered as important as the Word of God witnessed in Scripture. "
Montanism was a second century heresy, and Joachimism refers to the 13th century monks who were fixated on end of the world prophesy. While no one needs to believe in apparitions and private revelations, and it is not sinful to do so (unless such rejection stems from contempt for Church authority), Kung denigrates Fatima for being a manifestation of the supernatural, condemning such beautiful practices as the Five First Saturdays as some sort of "superstition" and (in typical Protestant fashion) exalting the Bible above all else.
4. Kung receives an award from Freemasonry
According to the May 26, 2007 edition of The Tablet, we read on pg. 39, "The architect of the Global Ethic Foundation, the Swiss theologian Hans Kung, has been awarded the German Freemasons' Culture Prize. Grand Master Jens Oberheide said that the ideal of a common, ethical foundation based on human rights and the demand for freedom, equality, and fraternity that underlay Kung's foundation, was also 'fundamental' for Freemasons. Although the Vatican has rejected Freemasonry, Kung said the award was an encouragement and added, 'Hope...accompanies every new beginning."
According to religioustolerance.org, Kung's Foundation put forth a declaration in 1993 which, " ...was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world's major faiths, including the Baha'i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian. The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions offers it to the world as an initial statement of a group of rules for living on which all of the world's religions can agree."
5. Kung contemplates euthanasia
According to First Things, "Hans Kung is planning to take his life. Or so he said in an interview last week in the British Catholic weekly, The Tablet. Kung is suffering from Parkinson’s disease, macular degeneration, and polyarthritis in his hands. Determined not to go gentle into that good night, he has apparently decided that he will at some point travel to Switzerland in order to be assisted in committing suicide. His reasoning is threefold: he does not wish to live when there is no quality of life; his life is a gift from God and he intends to give it back to God; and death, like birth, is 'our own responsibility.'
It is perhaps no surprise that someone who has spent a lifetime opposing the teaching of his own church on so many different issues (to the complete confusion of Protestants such as myself, I hasten to add) should choose to end his life in breaking one last church taboo. It is surprising, though, that his reasoning seems so weak. The analogy between birth and death seems entirely inappropriate to the case Kung is trying to make. His birth, after all, was no more his responsibility than my birth was mine. That is not just basic Christian teaching; it is a really rather obvious fact of life.
It would appear, therefore, that his own analogy should mean that his death is not his responsibility either, that there are much wider issues at play. And the language of responsibility and gift seems rather plastic as well: if life is a gift, if it comes to me from another, then my responsibility is not simply to myself, as Kung seems to assume. Indeed, to talk of having responsibility simply to myself is specious anyway. Such is really no responsibility at all, merely egoism scantily clad in the rhetoric of a hollow morality. Responsible only to myself, I am simply going to do exactly what suits me at any given point in time. Kung the radical libertarian: Who would have thought it would come to this?" (See http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/02/kung-the-confused)
Herr Kung, now age 88, wants to see the spiritual death of whatever remnants of Catholicism remain in the Vatican II sect before he kills himself to be with Satan, his master. He is one of the most evil men to have ever lived for his work in advancing the Great Apostasy. By removing the dogma of infallibility with the help of Francis, he will have eviscerated the very idea of a Teaching Authority, or Magisterium. There will be no real obstacles left to a world-wide religion when no one can be sure of anything and "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," is the "global ethic." I wonder how many people see the self-contradictory irony in Kung's world where the adage, "There is no immutable, infallible, and unchanging truth," is the only immutable, infallible, and unchanging truth to which he demands that all must submit.