A Critical Study of Hans Kung's Ecclesiology: From Traditionalism to Modernism

A Critical Study of Hans Küng’s Ecclesiology Other works by Corneliu C. Simut¸ Richard Hooker and His Early Doctrine ...

Author: Corneliu C. Simut

3 downloads 417 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

A Critical Study of Hans Küng’s Ecclesiology

Other works by Corneliu C. Simut¸ Richard Hooker and His Early Doctrine of Justification. A Study of His Discourse of Justification (2005). The Doctrine of Salvation in the Sermons of Richard Hooker (2005). The Ontology of the Church in Hans Küng (2007).

A Critical Study of Hans Küng’s Ecclesiology From Traditionalism to Modernism

Corneliu C. Simuţ

A CRITICAL STUDY OF HANS KÜNG’S ECCLESIOLOGY

Copyright © Corneliu C. Simut‚, 2008. All rights reserved. First published in 2008 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN™ 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 and Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England RG21 6XS Companies and representatives throughout the world. PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN-13: 978–0–230–60540–4 ISBN-10: 0–230–60540–0 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Simut‚, Corneliu C. A critical study of Hans Küng’s ecclesiology : from traditionalism to modernism / by Corneliu C. Simut‚. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0–230–60540–0 (alk. paper) 1. Church. 2. Küng, Hans, 1928– Strukturen der Kirche. 3. Küng, Hans, 1928– Christ sein. 4. Modernism (Christian theology)—Catholic Church. I. Title. BX1746.K853S56 2008 262.0092—dc22

2007047882

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India. First edition: July 2008 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America.

To my brother, Ciprian Simuţ

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Acknowledgments

ix

A Brief Introduction

xi

Part 1 Traditional Ecclesiology in Structures of the Church (1962) 1 The Unity of the Church The Church and the Holy Spirit The Church and Salvation Unity as Spiritual Reality The Necessity of Unanimity

3 3 5 8 9

2 The Catholicity of the Church The Church, History, and Religious Experience Variety as Essence of the Church The Importance of the Holy Spirit The Church between God and History Healing the Schism by Ecumenicity

13 13 15 16 18 20

3 The Holiness of the Church The Church and the Trinitarian God Personal and Communitarian Morality The Authority of the Holy Spirit In the Spirit of God for the Gospel of Christ

25 25 27 29 32

4 The Apostolicity of the Church A Definition of Apostolicity The Church and Morality The Church and the Apostles

35 35 38 39

viii

●

Contents

Part 2 Modern Ecclesiology in On Being a Christian (1974) 5

The Scripture of the Church Scripture and Inspiration Scripture and Revelation

53 53 58

6

The Spirit of the Church The Spirit and the Historical Reality of the Church The Spirit and the Doctrine of the Trinity

65 65 70

7

The Diversity of the Church The Church and Christ The Church and Its Calling to be a Congregation of God The Church as Local and Universal The Church and Its Trinitarian Constitution The Church and the Priesthood of All Believers The Church and Its Freedom, Indiscrimination, and Brotherhood The Church and Pluriformity The Church and Mission The Church and Its Ministries The Church and Petrine Ministry

77 77 79 81 82 84

8 The Work of the Church The Church as Catholic and Protestant The Church and Its Temporary Character The Church and Service The Guilt of the Church and the Sinfulness of Christians

101 101 106 108 109

Conclusion

113

Appendix: Reading Hans Küng’s Ecclesiology Today

119

Notes

143

Bibliography

179

Index

187

86 88 89 93 99

Acknowledgments

T

he list containing the names of the persons to whom I ought to say thank you for helping me bring this work to completion is almost invariably the same: my wife, Ramona, for being so sympathetic in putting up with me for such a long time when I was writing; my little children, Ezra and Lara, for constantly asking me what I was writing and whether it was a book or not; my colleagues, especially Professor Paul Negruţ, the rector of Emanuel University, for allowing me to leave aside my daily duties at our research centre whenever I needed to do some research abroad, and Dr. Ioan Gh. Pop, for asking me a thousand times when I was going to finish the book; Professor Heinrich Löwen, formerly Rector of the Evangelical Theological Faculty in Leuven, Belgium, for hosting me at the ETF campus during my stay in the city; Professor George Newlands from the University of Glasgow, for his valuable comments on the final draft of the manuscript; and the last but not the least, my brother, Ciprian, to whom this book is dedicated for helping me in any way he could whenever I asked him—and we both know I asked more than dozens and dozens of times. C C. S Oradea, March 1, 2008



A

lthough this book is quite short, its history is a bit longer. Everything started in October 1998, when I had a seminar on modern and contemporary theology with my students at Emanuel University of Oradea, Romania. We had been talking for a while about Hans Küng and other contemporary Catholic theologians when a student suddenly remarked that Küng’s theology looked (actually, she said “sounded”) so traditional while it was, in fact, considerably liberal. As I am primarily a historian of the church, not a dogmatician, I said I preferred the word “modern” instead of “liberal,” but I have to confess that I was not bothered too much about her dubbing Küng’s thought as liberal. Being an Evangelical Christian I could not but agree with her at least partially. Our discussion went on and, at the end of the session, some of my students suggested I should write something on this dual aspect of Küng’s theology, namely the fact that it looks traditional when it is actually modern. Despite the fact that theological discussions with my students are very stimulating and rewarding for me, I do not normally pay too much heed at every single suggestion that comes from them (although I have to admit that a significant number of them are at least extremely interesting) because I am only a limited human being who cannot process the constant f lood of their never-ending intellectual fervor. This one, however, I simply could not get off my mind. Almost ten years have passed since this incident when I finally decided I should set up to work and write a book about Küng’s transition from traditionalism to modernism. I have to say that choosing a doctrine that ref lects this transition was not the easiest thing in the world, but I eventually identified the doctrine of the church as a suitable example. Thus, in order to exemplify Küng’s transition from traditionalism to modernity, I needed to find two reference points: the first is in connection to his traditional theology and the second to his modern outlook. As far as I am concerned, one book that contains Küng’s traditional theology is Structures of the Church (1962), so I thought it would

xii

●


be a good starting point for my study. The second book that I picked up for Küng’s modern view on theology is his On Being a Christian (1974). I have to underline that three aspects will become obvious from an early stage. First, my book is both a historical and a dogmatic study of Küng’s ecclesiology. It is historical because I trace Küng’s transition from traditionalism to modernism in his ecclesiology, namely I foster examples of traditionalism as ref lected in his Structures of the Church as well as find elements that prove his modernity in his later On Being a Christian. My book is also dogmatic because I critically analyze his modern ecclesiology from the classic perspective of traditional Christianity. Second, readers will easily notice that, on the one hand, I define Küng’s traditionalism as applied to his doctrine of the church in close connection to his ontology of the church that—as seen in his Structures of the Church—is given by the four traditional signs of the church: unity, catholicity, holiness, and apostolicity. On the other hand, his ecclesiological modernism is reflected by his later reluctance to describe the church in ontological terms. As a matter of fact, in his On Being a Christian, Küng prefers an approach that highlights the functional elements of the church (such as the understanding of Scripture, the Spirit, the diversity, and the work of the Christian community), not its ontology. Third, my book is highly selective. Any attempt to even talk about Küng’s transition from traditionalism to modernism could easily involve more doctrines than just ecclesiology as well as a considerably larger number of books than just his Structures of the Church and On Being a Christian. For a wide range of more or less obvious reasons that transcend my limited human condition, I eventually decided to restrict my research to Küng’s doctrine of the church as reflected in his two above-mentioned books. The way I organized the book is anything but complex. My work has two main parts. The first is concerned with Küng’s traditional ecclesiology of his Structures of the Church and has four chapters that describe his view of the ontology of the church based on the traditional signs of the church. The second part is an analysis of Küng’s modern ecclesiology of his On Being a Christian, which is built on his undeterred conviction that the church should be primarily described in functional terms. Thus, the church should be understood as a community that functions based on its ideas about Scripture, a common spirit, a fundamental diversity, and a constant work characterized by active involvement in society.


●

xiii

The book ends with a rather lengthy appendix in which I suggest a traditional reading of Küng’s modern doctrine of the church for which I decided to use his more recent The Catholic Church (2001) as a starting point because it is one of his latest books in which he undoubtedly reconfirms his adherence to a nontraditional understanding of Christianity. It will be obvious from the very start that, unlike Küng’s position, my appendix—as well as my entire book—is a personal plea not only for a traditional theology of the church but also for a staunch conservatively Evangelical approach to Christian theology in general.


PART 1

Traditional Ecclesiology in Structures of the Church (1962)


CHAPTER 1

The Unity of the Church

I

n 1962, Küng begins his discussion about the ontology of the church with the external appearance of the church, which discloses his attitude to its unity. Thus, the fact that the church is one should never be only an external reality in the sense that it strikes the eye by stirring feelings of awe. The manifestation of the church and of its true nature should not be “very magnificent and impressive.”1 The church as characterized by unity should never look like a community that is biased to totalitarianism, silences free initiative, and manipulates all things that happen inside of that organization. At the same time, the essential quality of the church of being truly one should never mean that its leadership is accepted without any hint of criticism and with all enthusiasm just for the sake of keeping its affairs untouched by any problems whatsoever. The church is fundamentally one, and this is true of all local churches,2 whenever its unity is truly intrinsic and manifested by means of the two essential characteristics of all sincere Christians— namely, faith and love.3 So, the unity of the church is a spiritual reality4 that is always based on and strongly anchored in faith and love.5 The Church and the Holy Spirit At this point, Küng introduces a pneumatological dimension 6 in his definition of the unity of the church by showing that the true unity of the church can be realized only in the Holy Spirit,7 because the work of the Holy Spirit cannot be but unifying. To make things clearer, Küng explains that the activity of the Holy Spirit, which is the very source of the unity of the church, is always displayed in a unanimous way within the community of Christians who should all be able to exercise their decisions freely. 8 So, the unity of the church should be manifested in peace and freedom,9 not in disputes and divisions,10 because the church is the community of God.11 Summing up, Küng insists that the unity of

4

●

Hans Küng’s Ecclesiology

the church is not a dimension that pertains to the natural order. Any attempt to see the unity of the church based on natural considerations is utterly flawed and leads to misunderstandings concerning the true essence of the church. Thus, the unity of the church should be understood fundamentally from a spiritual perspective. Küng highlights again the pneumatological dimension of the unity of the church by pointing to the fact that the Holy Spirit acts like a bond within the Christian community. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is a bond that is manifested in peace, so that the church exists like one single body that is lead by one single Spirit. Küng is convinced that the true unity of the church can be thought of in this fundamental connection only with the activity of the Holy Spirit. Actually, the church is one because it has been given a call12 with eschatological overtones.13 Ecclesiology and eschatology are interwoven in Küng’s mind since the church exists as one single body and displays its true unity14 only because it has a call that pushes the church toward a fundamental hope.15 The church is one, and all local churches are united in this,16 because they all share this hope that is characteristic to each one of them and must be actively lived out.17 Moreover, Küng writes that all true Christians should have this hope if the Holy Spirit is active in the church and if this reality makes the church be truly one.18 In this sense, Küng makes a strong connection between the historical reality of the church and its transcendent existence in the person of God. For Küng, God is the father of all and the true source of the unity of the church, which is manifested in the hope worked by the Holy Spirit. Precisely because the Holy Spirit is at work in the church,19 the church is one at an objective level and also realizes the veracity of its own unity at a subjective level. Thus, the church understands that it was given the call to hope, which is displayed in its confession 20 of one single Lord, 21 who is truly its firm foundation. 22 It is important to notice here that spiritual unity of the church, which is fundamentally a spiritual reality, 23 is shown in the historical reality of this world by being connected to the life of its Lord, 24 so the hope of the church is essentially eschatological. 25 Furthermore, the church constantly manifests its true unity when its members all share the same faith 26 in the Lord of the church. 27 The correct understanding of this reality of sharing in the confession of one Lord and the manifestation of one faith is proved by the observance of baptism. 28 To be sure, the historical reality of the unity of the church manifested in the confession of one Lord, the display of one faith and the observance of one baptism is fundamentally connected with the transcendent reality of God’s existence that is the very source of the life


●

5

of the church. All these make possible man’s participation in the reality of God. 29 The church is one and all local churches existing in history are united,30 because the reality of God is true in the life of all Christians who are members of the church. Küng explains these aspects in the following paragraph: The unity of the church is not a natural dimension; it is naturalistically misunderstood if it applies wholly to externals (church language, canon law, administration, etc.). The unity of the church is primarily a spiritual dimension: “The unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God the Father of all, who is above all, and throughout all, and in us all” (Ephesians 4:3–6). 31

Küng goes on with his explanation about the unity of the church, insisting on the dialectic between natural and spiritual.32 He forwards the idea that the unity of the church is the result of the unity of God, which is manifested in Jesus Christ.33 This is a powerful confirmation of the strong connection between the transcendent reality of the existence of God 34 and the historical reality of the existence of Jesus Christ.35 It is crucial to notice here that Jesus Christ is worthy of the faith of the church,36 because he is the content of the faith of the church. The actual realization of this link between the transcendent God and the historical life of Christ 37 is made active by the work of the Holy Spirit, which is the starting point of the church.38 Thus, the pneumatological aspect of ecclesiology is present once again in the definition of church unity as a powerful means that confirms the reality of unity. The church is one because God and Christ are connected in the Spirit, and this is reconfirmation of the spiritual character of the unity of the church. In light of these considerations about the unity of the church, it is not too much to say that, for Küng, the unity of the church has a threefold dimension. Thus, it is theological as the transcendent God is its very source, Christological as the life of Christ is inextricably connected to the existence of God,39 and pneumatological as the Holy Spirit is the only one capable to accomplish the relationship between God and Christ. The Church and Salvation There is, however, a fourth dimension of the unity of the church that is, in fact, connected to the theological dimension in the sense that the church, which is essentially part of nature, is totally dependent on the

6

●


will and nature of God, whose essence is grace.40 Thus, in unity, the church is a community of grace.41 Küng emphasizes this connection between nature and grace.42 This fourth dimension can be defined as soteriological because the will and nature of God in relationship to the church is redemptive.43 In other words, the very existence of the church and its unity are the result of God’s desire to save human beings. The church would not exist had God not intended to foster salvation to humanity, so the theology of the church must always be directed toward salvation.44 Thus, the reason for the existence of the church is God’s salvation. Likewise, the reason for the unity of the church is also God’s salvation. The church exists as one single body of believers because God in order to save men and women45 decided to work among them.46 It is relevant here that Küng adheres to the fact that the soteriological aspect of the unity of the church is deeply rooted in the saving act47 and will of God.48 The church is one and is fundamentally characterized by unity because God wanted and subsequently chose to give salvation to humanity, so salvation took place in history.49 Salvation of humanity, however, could be realized in Christ only through the Holy Spirit or, in other words, anthropology can attain its true stature only by means of Christology.50 The church is one because salvation is a unity that works as a result of the unity between God, Christ, and the Spirit.51 Actually, to reverse the order, the fact that salvation is the effect of the essential unity between God, Christ, and the Spirit cannot but result in the unity of the church in God’s plan of salvation.52 Thus, there is close unity between God and humanity.53 It is clear that, for Küng, this is a reaffirmation of the spiritual character of the unity of the church. The church is fundamentally a spiritual body, and its main characteristic is the spiritual unity of all believers.54 Believers, however, are members of the church and they are all united simply because God took the initiative55 to give them salvation in Christ through the Spirit.56 The church is one because God loved humanity.57 This means that there is a strong unity between God in Christ and the church.58 So, the unity of the church is a spiritual reality 59 but this does not make it less connected to historical reality. On the contrary, Küng is convinced that the unity of the church is concrete and historical. Moreover, it is a present reality for the church. It is equally true that the unity of the church has an eschatological dimension but this should not preclude believers from enjoying the unity of the church and their unity as members of the body of Christ 60 in the present life.61 In other words, the unity of the church is theological and historical, eschatological and present, spiritual and actual. For Küng, the unity of the church is not only a future reality that


●

7

we should strive to obtain—although Christians must always be fighting to keep their unity and the unity of the church throughout history—but also a present reality that should be enjoyed now, whenever this now finds itself in history. The unity of the church though should not be sought in an abstract manner but instead experienced 62 in the concrete and present reality of the fellowship of believers.63 It should be underlined that the fellowship of believers as historical and temporal embodiment of the transcendent and spiritual reality of divine existence is a powerful confirmation of the theological, Christological, and pneumatological dimensions of the unity of the church.64 Thus, the church is one because Christians are the one and unique people of God,65 the one body of Christ and the one Temple of the Holy Spirit. Even more so, based on the fact that the spiritual unity between God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit 66 is not only metahistorically transcendent but also historically present and actual, one can easily conclude that the unity of the church as it lives in history 67 is equally present, so it can and should be enjoyed as such. The unity of the church is indeed primarily spiritual but this does not mean that it cannot be experienced in the present time. Actually, believers can experience the unity of the church now or in any present moment of history precisely because the spiritual reality of divine unity is also present; thus, history is a saving history.68 It does not matter that the church lives in history while God exists beyond history; the reality of God’s transcendent unity is already an established fact and this is the basis for the daily experience of church unity at any given time in history. The unity of the church is always a present reality in history because the unity of God’s transcendent being and existence is already a given fact, an established reality that goes beyond the limits of history. 69 At the level of historical reality, the unity of the church can and should be experienced in faith and the knowledge of faith,70 which makes church unity once again a spiritual reality. So, the unity of the church is a spiritual reality both because God is a spiritual reality, and because believers know and experience God spiritually through faith.71 The spiritual character of faith is strengthened by connecting faith to hope and love.72 In other words, the unity of the church is a manifestation of the believers’ knowledge of God through faith73 and of the practical application of their knowledge of God through faith by means of hope and love.74 There is, so to say, a methodology concerning the application of faith, hope, and love in the life of the church as the one and true community of believers.75 These three theological virtues do not bear sufficient witness to the unity of the church unless they are nourished in humility,76 which is a fundamental feature of the church.77 Needless to say humility

8

●


is an attitude of the heart, which makes all the features of the unity of the church a reality of the heart. This is why, in Küng, the unity of the church, although present in history, is primarily a spiritual reality that goes beyond it in the being, nature, and will of God.78 Unity as Spiritual Reality Küng underlines that the unity of the church must be spiritual and intrinsic to the being of the church. So, he speaks of the “inner spiritual unity” of the church that should be seen outside the church. This outward manifestation of the inner spiritual unity of the church should not be taken for a mere “externalization,” so it is not just a feature that is exclusively seen outside the church as an outward characteristic of the church. To be sure, Küng emphasizes that unity of the church has a strong foundation that does not pertain to the natural realm but rather to the supernatural reality of God. People, however, tend to seek a natural uniformity as a sign of the true unity of the church and this human bias is understandable. Regardless of what people think of the unity of the church, the true unity of the church should not be primarily sought in any manifestation of worldly uniformity.79 The unity of local churches that exist in history should not be understood as ecclesiastical conformity or even uniformity in doctrine or practice. Although such uniformity is not necessarily bad and it should be desired indeed for the sake of the church, the true unity of the church does not lie in this form of naturalism. There is always a danger in attempting to look for the unity of the church in the historical manifestation of the church. In other words, the principle underlying the very essence of true church unity should never be taken for a sign of unity. Various signs of unity may well appear in the midst of local churches living in history but, regardless of how many of these signs are there in a certain time and place, they do not stand for the true essence of real church unity. The veracity of church unity is based on the power of spiritual aspects or principles, and only these are capable of achieving true unity among local churches at the historical level. In other words, one can speak of true church unity in spiritual matters while the unity effected in history among various local churches is more a sort of unification than a unity in itself. In order to make things clear, Küng insists that external tokens of church unity do not account for true spiritual unity and the whole tenet should be understood the other way around. Thus, the spiritual unity of the church in its true essence is the sign of visible proofs of church unity in history. 80 So, it is not that the true and spiritual church unity should depend on


●

9

worldly signs of unification among churches on this earth but rather that the frail unity among local churches does indeed depend on the spiritual unity of the church, which is always the true unity. Thus, in the world of history, unity among churches can be a phenomenon with a high degree of variation depending on an infinite stream of factors; while in the world of God’s transcendent and spiritual reality, the unity of the church is always an unshakable principle and a strong foundation for historical unity within the community of Christian churches.81 When it comes to identifying the true unity of the church, what really matters for Küng is spiritual unity.82 He explains that this spiritual unity of the church is the only true unity and it is always connected to the Spirit. Although true spiritual unity can and should be manifested outwardly in the life of the church, 83 it is fundamentally “nonexternal but deeply grounded inner-spiritual unity.”84 In other words, for Küng, the unity of the church is subjectively external, natural, historical, and temporal, on the one hand, and objectively internal, supernatural, spiritual, and transcendent, on the other hand. Leaving aside the objectivity of spiritual unity, Küng highlights the importance of historical unity that should be reflected in “the greatest possible unanimity” as a true sign of a real concord in the church. Concord in the church, however, cannot be attained unless there is a common way of thinking and feeling in the church so that all believers agree in fundamental issues. Nevertheless, one should never lose sight of the fact that church concord as a result of a common manifestation of thinking, feeling, and agreeing in the local church can be realized only in the Spirit, which is a sign that the local church is part of the true church.85 Thus, Küng stresses once again the crucial importance of the pneumatological dimension of church unity, as it resides in the work of the Holy Spirit.86 It is also important at this point to show that the reality of church unity is not only a spiritual reality for the community of faith87 but also a personal reality for each believer practicing his or her faith because the God of revelation is a personal God.88 Küng explains that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of unity and that He cannot but manifest his presence in the concord of the church that leads to the conclusion that all members of the church benefit from the presence of the Spirit both collectively and individually.89 The Necessity of Unanimity It is vital for the unity of the church to depend on the work of the Holy Spirit, because if the Spirit did not work in the church, there would be no unity at all.90 For Küng, things are clear in the sense that unity can be

10

●


reached in the church only if the Spirit supports believers in their efforts to achieve unanimity. In the context of the local and historical churches, unanimity is the expression of unity but, again, this can be reached only through the work of the Holy Spirit. Küng is convinced that the church needs the support of the Holy Spirit in realizing and maintaining unity and unanimity 91 because human nature is fallen in sin and cannot manage on its own; moreover, man is not even disturbed by sin.92 The pneumatological dimension of unity becomes evident especially within the dialectic between truth and sin.93 The church lives in the real world, and this always means that the church is affected by sin during its earthly existence. The mandate of the church in this context, however, is to seek the truth in spite of its being made of believers who are deeply affected by the reality of sin.94 Thus, the church’s path toward the truth is not easy precisely because of the sin that is part of the nature of every Christian. Nevertheless, truth is not an option for the church; truth must be desired and achieved by the church, which means that the church must do its best to march toward the truth, which means that we must love God for his own sake.95 The problem is that the church cannot do this unless helped by the Spirit, because Christians—that is, the members of the church—can be received only by the Spirit.96 Küng is aware that God commands the church to walk in the truth even if this is impossible for the church in its fallen condition. God, however, knows that the church cannot do this and he allows that the church be led by Christ 97 in the Spirit precisely because believers in the church are deeply hindered in accomplishing the truth as a result of sin, which means that man can be accomplished only in Christ.98 So, the church would have no unity as a fundamental dimension of its own existence without the assistance of God. This is why Küng is careful to highlight once again that true church unity is primarily and fundamentally pneumatological, theological, supernatural, and transcendent. These four features of church unity are the result of the being of God, and of the work he did for the church in Christ through the Holy Spirit.99 For Küng, real unity is manifested in history by means of unanimity in the local church. At this point, Küng introduces a distinction between moral unanimity and mathematical unanimity. While the latter can hardly be achieved, lest one should say that it can never be achieved in the local church that is deeply hit by sin, the former can and must be desired as a real embodiment of the spiritual and supernatural unity of the church. Küng emphasizes the fact that moral unanimity does not always depend on mathematical unanimity, which is a clear indication of the spiritual superiority of moral unanimity over its mathematical counterpart. To be sure, moral unanimity does not cease if one or some


●

11

believers hold other opinions than the majority. Thus, true church unity as expressed in moral unanimity is not affected: Obviously moral unanimity by its very nature (as is likewise the case with certitudo moralis, for instance, a concept which is indispensable in moral theology) is not an exact, that is, mathematically ascertainable and applicable positive norm. It cannot be mathematically proved in each case, since with a single nay-vote moral unanimity ceases.100

Moral unanimity and hence true church unity are kept intact because they are spiritual and the result of the work of the Holy Spirit.101 It is worth mentioning at this point that the person and the work of the Holy Spirit in achieving church unity and unanimity, evidently moral unanimity, are so important for Küng that he insists on the fact that the Holy Spirit “must be taken into consideration . . . as a decisive personage.”102 Thus, the church cannot have either unity or unanimity if the Spirit is not a real being. Church unity is warranted because the existence of the Holy Spirit is personal,103 real, and objective. Küng, however, does not forget to mention that the work and the being of the Spirit cannot and does not exist without the equally important work and being of Christ. The church can really enjoy unity and unanimity only because the Spirit, who is a personal, real and objective being, works perfectly for the church in cooperation with Christ, who is likewise a personal, real and objective being. For Küng, the presence of the Spirit in the church, and this is a fact which generates unity and unanimity, is always accompanied by “the presence of Christ,”104 which strengthens once more the reality of church unity and unanimity.105 Consequently, it could be argued that the church is the presence of the incarnate Logos106 in the world,107 and continues the symbolic function of the Logos in the world. Thus, the church must be understood in the light of God’s incarnation in Christ.108 It is utterly important for the unity of the church to be manifested in the historical reality of the life of the church by means of unanimity. Thus, unanimity confirms the supernatural and spiritual work of the Holy Spirit and of Christ. This is why unanimity as a sign of true church unity must manifest itself by means of fellowship, harmony and brotherhood.109 These three features of the local church living in fallen history are ultimately and fundamentally the work of the Spirit,110 which is endorsed by the presence of Christ. So, for Küng, the unity of the church is essentially the result of the work of the Spirit, and of Christ as personal, real and objective divine persons.111 Moreover, God became a person for us, evidently a human person, in Jesus Christ by means of his grace.112


CHAPTER 2

The Catholicity of the Church

T

he second sign that makes up the ontology of the church is catholicity, and in 1962 Küng decided to approach it with a brief discussion about the existence of the church in history. This seems to be the easy way for Küng because the church does exist as a community1 that lives in history.2 Moreover, not only that it exists in history,3 but the church itself has a long history of its own. Accordingly, it is quite reasonable that any attempt to delve into the ontology of the church should be started from the very life of the church that can be seen as developing through history. The Church, History, and Religious Experience In Küng’s theology, catholicity as a sign of the church is closely linked to the freedom of expression of all local churches that exist in history; thus, there are many churches within the one and catholic church of Christ.4 Küng acknowledges the fact that every individual church has a certain history and tradition, faces specific problems and needs, shares particular objections and concerns, and nourishes various wishes and demands. All these things must reach their “full expression,”5 so that churches all over the world should enjoy a fundamental liberty 6 in connection to their religious experience.7 For Küng, this outward manifestation of the liberty of local churches is, to a certain degree, a proof of the fact that all local churches share a dimension that resides in a reality that goes beyond historical boundaries. This dimension is catholicity, or the quality of all historical churches to have in common a wide range of religious manifestations in liberty. So, local churches are catholic 8 if they do not deny and are not denied the reality of what they are in history with good things and bad things.9 In other words, churches all over the place have a common history in spite of their different historical contexts, and a common tradition in spite of their different approaches

14

●


to theology. Likewise, churches everywhere share the same set of problems in spite of their different backgrounds and have the same type of needs in spite of their specific location in time and place. The last but not the least important, churches in history head toward a common set of objections in spite of their specific existence, and share a common number of concerns in spite of their particular constituency. Thus, Küng understands catholicity as a dimension of all historical churches that is manifested in a sort of a common religious experience that includes both positive10 and negative aspects. Catholicity is expressed in its fullness whenever all historical churches enjoy the same degree of freedom in manifesting their specific features. This is why Küng insists that no particular church should ever impose its own life and experience on other churches. This means that none of the churches existing in history should compel other churches to adopt its “particular tradition, . . . particular doctrine, . . . particular discipline.”11 For Küng, catholicity is not an empty concept but a concrete reality in the sense that it actively involves a constant process of integration. Thus, in order that the catholicity of all historical churches be plainly manifested, all local churches must be permanently willing to integrate their specific particularity. Catholicity, however, implies not only integration but also multiplicity. Küng explains that there is a strong connection between the permanent processes of integration and multiplicity because local churches must find a way to integrate their specific realities by accepting the multiplicity of their individual opinions. It is vital to notice here that Küng insists on the fact that the foundation of this process of integrating the multiplicity of specific particularities should reside in a real fellowship. Historical churches are characterized by catholicity whenever they are willing to accept themselves in “an authentic biblical koinonia.”12 So, the essence of catholicity is koinonia or fellowship,13 and this does not mean that all historical churches should accept the particularities of one single local church. On the contrary, catholicity is based on a true communion14 among churches that are always willing to accept each other following the example of Christ.15 In other words, catholicity is not “centralist orientation” but “brotherly communion.”16 Küng, however, does not intend to leave catholicity to the intricacies of history but he wants to anchor it in the genuine existence of Christ. It is important to notice that Küng describes Christ as “the exalted Lord of the church,”17 which means that catholicity is essentially Christological. Christ is not dead but alive in a reality that is fundamentally metahistorical, and this is the solid basis of catholicity. Thus, local churches throughout history have been catholic18 if the


●

15

foundation of their catholicity was not confined to the limits of history but to the real existence of Christ beyond history.19 Küng explains these features of true catholicity in a brief paragraph that indicates that all historical churches should gladly encompass the multiplicity of individual opinions in an authentic biblical koinonia, in short, a koinonia that does not consist merely of a centralist orientation of everyone toward a visible organization centre, but is above all a brotherly communion with each other in the spirit of the exalted Lord of the church. 20

Churches live in history, and this leads at least to the conclusion that the totality of all historical churches represents a variety of ecclesiastical manifestations. Regardless of their dogmatic confession, churches are all part of history and for this reason they cannot be all the same. In this case, variety seems to be a natural feature of all churches in history. Variety as Essence of the Church Küng highlights the fact that true catholicity implies variety in the sense that all churches should be able to accept each other in spite of their specific and particular aspects. Moreover, catholicity implies not just variety but variety by necessity. This is highlighted by the theological aspect of catholicity that makes reference to the very being of God. Catholicity is fundamentally a dimension of the church that must imply variety not as a concession but as a necessity. In other words, all local churches must necessarily accept their own and particular variety of doctrines, practices, and other such aspects, not only because God allows this variety to exist in history but also because he exists as an ontological variety beyond history. In this sense, true catholicity has not only a powerful Christological foundation, 21 but also an essential Trinitarian constitution. 22 Küng explains that God is not only a unity of being but also a variety of ontological particularities, which means that the very being of God is characterized not only by unity but also by diversity, multiplicity, and variety. 23 Churches must be one in the one being of God—this is true unity. However, churches must also be able to share in their specific diversity, multiplicity, and variety24 precisely because God is a Trinity—this is true catholicity. In other words, the Trinity should reflect itself in the church, while the church must ref lect the Trinity so, there must be a close connection between the transcendent and economic Trinity25 because the church is an extension of the

16

●


Trinity in time. 26 Diversity, multiplicity, and variety as essential features of catholicity should not be taken to imply a lack of control over the manifold historical existence and colorful particular manifestation of local churches. Küng stresses once again at this point the Christological foundation of catholicity that is an indication that diversity, multiplicity, and variety are to be understood only in connection to the being of Christ. This reality points not only to the Christological, theological, and Trinitarian aspects of catholicity but also to its soteriological dimension. Thus, local churches living in history are characterized by catholicity27 if they share the same faith in the exalted Christ 28 and in God who exists as a Trinity beyond history. This, however, is not enough. In order to be truly catholic, historical churches must also share the same conviction regarding their common need for salvation. 29 In other words, a church is not truly catholic if it shares only in the faith in Christ and God as a Trinity because Christ was revealed by God;30 that church must also share in the conviction that it needs God’s salvation,31 and this is again connected to the person and work of Christ 32 in history.33 In order to explain these features of catholicity, Küng uses text from Scripture that is an indication that catholicity is not only Christological, theological, Trinitarian and soteriological but also essentially scriptural: Variety within the church is not an unavoidable evil. God himself is not an inflexible monotone unit, but a living Trinity actively involved in history.34 Further, he did not will to create one creature but a wonderful variety of created beings who are held together in Christ (Colossians 1:16ff ). The multitude of creatures fallen away from the union with God has again been joined together within the same Christ.35 (Ephesians 1:10)

So it is not variety that causes problems to the church. Or, to be more precise, variety cannot damage the church as long as the church follows Christ.36 Without Christ, variety is nothing but sheer trouble; in Christ, however, it becomes God’s blessing to the church through the work of the Holy Spirit, which is fundamental for the existence of the church.37 The Importance of the Holy Spirit The last aspect that binds all these characteristics together is the Holy Spirit. The church would not have been able to function without the Holy Spirit, and Küng is aware of this because he begins his argument


●

17

with the notion of the wisdom of God 38 who decided that the church should be indwelled by the Spirit, 39 because we are received by the Spirit.40 In his theology, true catholicity is realized as a result of the gifts of the Spirit. The singularity of the person of the Holy Spirit is a powerful warrant as far as the unity of the church is concerned while its catholicity is confirmed by the plurality, multiplicity, and variety of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Catholicity should not be fundamentally considered in respect with the complex hierarchy or with the nature of the sacraments as essential features of one single local church.41 On the contrary, catholicity is strongly confirmed with reference to the plurality of local churches, which are evidently made of different nations, practices, and ways of expression. From this perspective, catholicity is always and primarily a dimension of the community of local churches,42 not of one single local church. It is equally true that a certain local church may or may not be catholic, namely it may or may not share in the true catholicity of the church of Christ43 in general but catholicity as a fundamental sign of the church should be understood first and mostly as a feature of many, if not all, local churches. In Küng’s words: The manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10) was to become fruitful and made known in the church until the end when God will be all (1 Corinthians 15:28). In the church there is one Spirit, but many gifts, one word of God, but many languages, one body, but many members, one people of God, but many nations.44 The variety in the church is a gift of God, the church surrounded endowed with variety (Psalm 44:10). Since the Middle Ages these words have been predominantly understood as the variety of the virtues, of the sacraments, of the hierarchic levels. But the ancient church gave these words a deeper meaning in terms of the variety of the individual churches, peoples, rites, and languages.45

It should be noticed that, in Küng, the link between true catholicity and the person of the Holy Spirit is so strong that catholicity itself, understood as related to the variety of local churches, is thought to be a gift of the Spirit. In other words, the catholicity of the church, or of all local churches for that matter, is as normal a feature of the plurality of local churches as the gifts of the Spirit are a feature in every true local church. If the gifts of the Spirit are to be encountered in all true churches 46 that exist in history (not in pseudochurches), and this is indeed the case, then the variety of all historical churches is just an indication of true catholicity; moreover, it is indeed a gift of the Spirit that works in history for our salvation.47

18

●


The Church between God and History As catholicity designates one of the essential qualities of the nature of the church, it is part of the ontology of the church. In its quality of fundamental feature of the ontology of the church, catholicity expressed by means of the plurality of local churches has a dual constitution. Thus, catholicity is both a given reality and a reality that should be desired in order to be achieved. From this perspective, catholicity is a reality that pertains to two different realms. First, it is strongly anchored in the reality of God’s transcendent and supernatural existence, and in this particular sense, catholicity is a given fact. Thus, catholicity is a gift of God and it was given to the church by God himself. Moreover, catholicity resides in the reality of God that makes the very existence of the church totally dependent on the being of God. Second, catholicity is to be achieved in the historical existence of local churches and from this perspective it is a task of the entire church. To be sure, catholicity always exists as a fundamental characteristic of the very nature of the church, so the church does not have to do anything to work on its catholicity in the realm of God. It is God who grants catholicity to the church and the church benefits from it. On the other hand, however, this quality of catholicity to reside in the being of God—which is indeed a transcendent catholicity—must necessarily be expressed in the historical life of all local churches.48 Thus, transcendent catholicity must find its way into a practical or immanent catholicity. One should never forget that immanent catholicity as a feature of local churches49 in their historical activity is always the result of transcendent catholicity as directly given by God himself. So, transcendent catholicity as a gift of God is always the foundation of immanent catholicity as a task of local churches. As far as Christian communities are concerned, they must not take transcendent catholicity for granted as a gift of God but should rather strive for the progress of immanent catholicity. In other words, local churches have the duty to develop catholicity in their practical existence as communities of believers50 by means of effective stewardship. Küng explains: This catholic manifoldness, however, is not only a gift of God, but it is also—and precisely for this reason—the task of the church. This catholic manifoldness should not be neglected or even throttled (either by legal or illegal means!) but, instead, it should be preserved and protected. Indeed, it should be fostered and developed (with all legal means) with all the means available within the framework of catholic unity.51

It has been shown before that just as the Trinity is the foundation for transcendent catholicity as gift of God, so is ecclesiastical pluralism—in


●

19

the sense of variety and diversity of local churches,52 —the basis for immanent catholicity. It is very likely that transcendent catholicity cannot be qualitatively or quantitatively measured because it belongs to the very being of God, so it should be perfect and a permanent model for immanent catholicity that pertains to the being of the church living in history. So, because of the fallen human nature, immanent catholicity cannot be perfect and this seems to be the reason why it has to be constantly fostered and developed. It is vital to see at this point that, for Küng, the development of this immanent catholicity should be applied both by individual churches and by all local churches in general within the context of evangelism.53 From this perspective, catholicity should be a sign of the fact that the development of a local church in particular or local churches in general is the result of spreading the Gospel.54 As the Gospel is for everyone—namely individuals from various races, peoples, and countries, who eventually enter specific local churches over the world—it means that the totality of these churches55 is a concrete proof of the catholicity of the true church of Christ in general.56 In Küng’s view, Christian churches must have a plan to develop their catholicity especially in our historical context. Küng lists two main reasons as arguments in favor of his idea about the necessity of the development of true catholicity among churches all over the world. First, he notices that various nations outside Europe have recently developed a strong sense of national identity in contrast to the general failure of Christian missions in these countries, mainly in Asia and Africa. One of the most important religions in such zones is Islam, and Küng is very doubtful that the followers of this religion as well as of other religions for that matter will ever give up their convictions when confronted to the Western Latin Church. Moreover, religious ideas, race issues, and cultural problems are very unlikely to fade away in their fight with contemporary Christianity; on the contrary, Küng prophesizes, religious, racial, and cultural aspects will become instead even more acute. In other words, the present historical situation does not encourage uniformity but rather plurality in all aspects of social life regardless of their particular insistence on religion, race, or culture. Second, Küng draws attention to the fact that Easter Orthodoxy and Western Protestantism have developed religious systems of their own,57 so they now have well-established theological traditions beside and outside Western Catholicism. True catholicity does not reside in any attempts to destroy the theological, religious, and cultural traditions of any of the above-mentioned churches but in the true desire to promote their own values as distinct, rich, and genuine Christian manifestations

20

●


of specific communities of believers in particular historical contexts.58 In other words, true catholicity does not mean the exclusion of Orthodox and Protestant churches from the fellowship of Catholic communities but the integration of all these three major Christian traditions as distinct, genuine, and valuable components of the one and true church of Christ around the world. To be sure, true catholicity should promote the development of the fellowship between Catholic churches on the one hand, and of Orthodox and Protestant churches on the other. Each of these three theological traditions, however, must be accepted for their intrinsic worth as vitally important for the development of true immanent catholicity and, of course, in view of the confirmation of genuine transcendent catholicity.59 From the perspective of its catholicity, the church in general or local churches in particular must be relevant 60 and open to the world, 61 especially on account of its task to spread the Gospel all over the world. 62 The church is essentially a community of people who share the same faith, and this reality should push the church toward being constantly open and receptive to the problems of the world. Actually, the church does not exist only to support the world in trying to solve its problems, so the duty of the church to be open to the world should not be restricted to social assistance or anything similar. On the contrary, the church exists in the world 63 because it has to take the message of Christ to the world in view of the salvation of the entire humanity. 64 Thus, the church should not have a ghetto mentality but an attitude of openness to the world because it is its task to spread the message of salvation to all nations. In doing this, the church should display respect toward other Christian manifestations of various local churches regardless of the language, ecclesiastical practices, and traditions. This attitude of openness and respect should characterize all local churches as it is a sign of true catholicity.65 Healing the Schism by Ecumenicity Küng is keenly aware that catholicity, especially immanent or historical catholicity, should be visibly expressed by means of ecumenicity. The ecumenical character of the church is consequently the embodiment of catholicity itself. As far as Küng is concerned, ecumenicity itself should be understood in a dual fashion. Accordingly, even if Küng does not offer a definition of ecumenicity in precisely these terms, ecumenicity should be understood primarily in ontological terms as a reality that pertains to the very being of the church, in the sense that it is closely


●

21

connected to the supernatural reality of transcendent catholicity. So, one can say that there is a sort of invisible ecumenicity that originates in transcendent catholicity. What Küng does say, however, is that people outside the church, unfortunately even those inside the church, are more concerned with the opposite of invisible ecumenicity, namely the type of ecumenicity that is visible even to the naked eye. For Küng, Christian churches find themselves in a very sad situation, which has been going on since ancient times. This consists of the fact that traditional Christian churches—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant—have not always recognized the validity of their doctrines, traditions, and government. Actually, Küng attempts to go beyond ecumenicity as a concrete fact. Such a definition of ecumenicity—seen as concrete, visible fact—can only lead to an equally reductionist perspective on the catholicity of the church. Ecumenicity, and also catholicity for that matter, is more than mere things that can be discerned in the fallen reality of historical existence. In order to grasp the true meaning of both ecumenicity and catholicity, 66 one should investigate the perfect reality of divine existence—so that the root of ecumenicity and catholicity is no longer seen as originating in the finite capacities or incapacities of human beings 67 but in the infinite being of God himself.68 Moreover, if strictly understood in visible terms, ecumenicity becomes “factual ecumenicity” and this can easily be misunderstood.69 At this point, Küng introduces in his discussion about catholicity and ecumenicity the concept of belief, so ecumenicity as the practical application of catholicity should be believed in order to be accepted as true. In addition to this, ecumenicity should be realized in actual reality as “the reunion of separated Christians,” 70 so historical churches must reach out ecumenically and look for unity71 in love.72 When this happens, ecumenicity must be recognized as such, so belief in the possibility of ecumenicity as historical fact and embodiment of catholicity should be accompanied by the recognition of the plurality of Christian communities,73 which are part of the true church.74 Küng is slightly critical here toward his own church, the Roman-Catholic Church, because he is somehow doubtful about a possible renewal of this church toward accepting other Christian churches. In spite of his slight doubt, Küng is also cautiously optimistic because the renewal he mentions almost in passing may become a real possibility.75 In such a case, factual ecumenicity would be given a new meaning or even a fuller dimension if the “justified demands of the Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, and even of the Free Churches” were indeed paid heed to by the Roman-Catholic Church. In this context, Küng speaks about “a renewed and extended catholicity.” 76

22

●


The problem of interchurch schisms—between the Roman-Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church on the one hand, and between the Roman Catholic Church plus the Orthodox Church and Protestant Churches on the other hand—seems to have affected Küng quite seriously.77 Actually, Küng makes reference here only to the relationship between the Roman-Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches that have already united with Rome, namely to Greek-Catholic Churches. However, his discussion can be applied also to the relationship between the Roman-Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Protestant Church. Küng admits that the Roman-Catholic Church did show some signs of openness to these churches, but he is more concerned with what could happen in future. This is why he launches a series of rhetorical questions that express a refrained pessimism interwoven with careful optimism: The Eastern Churches already united with the Catholic Church act as an indicator, as it were, of the willingness of the Catholic Church to broaden her catholicity and to strengthen the credibleness of her ecumenical character. Will these Eastern Churches be listened to . . . and will they be given their full value? Will they be regarded as a fully legitimate development of Catholicism or only as a (provisionally) tolerated marginal phenomenon, an appendage of the “authentic” Latin Church? Will they be regarded as independent and equal member churches of the one church acting with relative autonomy (with a different theology, liturgy, spirituality, piety, and church constitution) or only as forms (“rites”) of a different kind and archaic museum pieces? Will they be regarded as the important (often sadly misunderstood by both sides) representatives of their Eastern sister churches separated from the Catholic Church (through the co-culpability of the latter!) or as a “Fifth Column” of the Latin Church within the Church of the East under the guise of Oriental rites? . . . will they be regarded as a model for a future reunion (also with Protestant Christians!) or only a repository of catholicity heavily overplayed by Latinity and Romanity? 78

Despite the fact that this paragraph is made up of questions, it also discloses Küng’s perspective on catholicity and ecumenicity. To sum up, for Küng, true catholicity means that a certain church expresses its desire to listen to other churches and grant them full worth as true Christian churches. This attitude of total willingness to recognize formally the fact that all churches, Roman-Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, have an equally legitimate status presupposes genuine openness to the work of the Holy Spirit in the church, which is crucial for


●

23

the being of the church.79 Küng is not saying this at this point, but it can certainly be inferred based on his previous remarks about the essentials of true catholicity that reside primarily in the work of the Spirit, which is crucial for the church. 80 Likewise, true catholicity means that, in the case of the Roman-Catholic Church, other churches should be considered as having total legitimacy as fully genuine churches in all respects. This implies that these churches should not be merely tolerated but viewed as authentic communities of believers in all aspects of their existence as historical entities. Following this line of thought, true catholicity presupposes that all local and visible churches are thought of as independent bodies that have equal rights within the invisible church of Christ. Obviously, this implies that they should enjoy a large degree of autonomy in all respects from doctrines to practices. True catholicity means that all local churches 81 are equally important and none should be considered as being superior to the rest.82 This is a huge concession in Küng’s case, because he is willing to admit that the Roman-Catholic Church cannot exercise any claims of primacy over the Eastern Orthodox Church or over Protestant Churches. Küng is not saying this explicitly, but it follows logically from his argument; moreover, another logical inference would be that the Roman claims of papal primacy are equally inadequate 83 within the wider context of true fellowship with Orthodox and Protestant churches. It is, therefore, important to highlight here that Küng stresses the fact that both churches are equally guilty of causing the separation. It is not only that the Eastern Church should be blamed for cutting herself off the fellowship of the Western Church but also that both churches share the guilt for the present situation in which they are formally separated. The same can be said about the schism between the Protestant Church and the Roman church. Actually, Küng is not bothered too much about the fact that these three churches are indeed separated from each other. What he really wants to say is that, given the present situation in which these churches are separated, it is vital that each of these churches should formally admit the authenticity, legitimacy, and autonomy of the other churches. In other words, these churches are not enemies but sisters and this is why there could be some form of reunion in future. 84 It seems that Küng is not very convinced of the possibility of all Christian churches reuniting in future—although the church must be open to the future 85 —but he is deeply interested in underlining that each of these churches should act out of brotherly love toward each other.86


CHAPTER 3

The Holiness of the Church

T

he third sign of the church that is characteristic of its ontology is holiness. One of the starting points in Küng’s 1962 analysis of the holiness of the church is based on the observation that the church is truly holy when its decision in all matters is to follow spiritual things, not human interests such as partisan wishes or political interests.1 Thus, the church must not be lead by personal desires but by the revelation of God.2 This is also an indication that, for Küng, the church fundamentally belongs to God,3 so its essential being is closely and inseparably connected to the supernatural, metahistorical, and transcendent being of God, who is fundamentally Trinitarian. The Church and the Trinitarian God The church cannot function as a true community of believers in God unless it realizes that its inner essence is fundamentally spiritual and not historical—although it exists in history.4 So, in this, Küng openly admits to the theological dimension of the holiness of the church.5 Then, the church should never lean toward fulfilling human and notably individualistic interests but it should always be driven by the desire to promote and spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.6 This is another evident hint that the holiness of the church has another dimension, namely Christological,7 besides its theological counterpart. Küng underlines the fact that in order to be holy, the church should never be interested in maintaining a certain condition or situation. Küng is not saying why it should be like that but it is logical to suppose that the church should defeat its desire to keep a certain situation or way of existence forever because the fallen nature of humanity can indeed foster wrong insights into this matter. In other words, the members of the church can be wrong in their decision to permanently maintain a certain situation for

26

●


the church, so the church should be continuously vigilant and aware that it needs to be constantly renewed. 8 It is quite evident that this renewal of the church should be the permanent attitude of the church9 in order to serve its purpose in spreading the Gospel. The church cannot effectively and correctly spread the Gospel if it stays secluded in a certain old way of existence. The church should not limit itself to its past experience if it really wants to spread the Gospel. On the contrary, it must be open to renewal and this renewal must be done, first, to confirm its fundamental holiness and, second, in accordance with the spiritual being of God and Christ. So, the renewal of the church must be effectively put into practice based on the theological and Christological dimensions of its essential holiness, which is deeply rooted in the being of God and Christ. Küng also insists on the third dimension of holiness that is pneumatological, in the sense that the Holy Spirit must guide the church in all of its decisions. In identifying the theological, Christological, and pneumatological dimensions of the holiness of the church, Küng affirms the vital Trinitarian character of the church’s holiness. It is important, however, not to miss another equally essential aspect. The church must live and act in accordance with its Trinitarian character; however, in order to do this correctly, the church must be totally open to and interested in the Holy Scripture.10 For Küng, it is clear that the church living in history cannot be connected to the transcendent being of God in any other way but through Scripture. Thus, Küng places the revelation of God and Scripture at the same level, in the sense that Scripture is the revelation of God, so the church must pay heed at Scripture if it really wants to listen to what Christ has to say to it through the Holy Spirit.11 Küng explains all these things about holiness when he writes that the church cannot be holy when partly interests and church diplomacy supplant truly spiritual matters, when personal interests instead of revelation, human right instead of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, preservation of the status quo, and an opportunistic policy instead of a renewal of the church are placed in the foreground.12

So, the church is holy when it carries out the will of the heavenly Father, when it hearkens to a Jesus Christ who speaks to the church through Holy Scripture, when it is open to the Holy Spirit which bloweth where it lists within or without any institution.13


●

27

In order to strengthen the dependency of church holiness on the transcendent reality of God, Küng chooses to emphasize the pneumatological dimension of holiness. At this point, it is clear that the essential being of the church does not depend on human beings despite the fact that the church is made up of men and women. The church is indeed holy but not because its members are holy in some way. In other words, the church cannot be holy because of the morality of believers. For Küng, the holiness of the church should be understood theologically, Christologically,14 and pneumatologically. The church is holy because of its fundamental connection to God, in Christ, through the Spirit. The church is not holy when its members are in communion only with themselves.15 In order to be holy, the church must stay in communion with God,16 in Christ,17 through the Spirit.18 So, one can speak of a transcendent dimension of church holiness that is always connected to the Trinitarian being of God. Küng is convinced that the holiness of the church can be understood only in terms of the Holy Spirit. The church is not holy by virtue of a morality of sinful men, which they have acquired by and through themselves. The church is holy because she calls to community with God in the spirit of Jesus Christ.19

The church is what it is because of God. The God of the Church, however, is Trinitarian, and this reality should be ref lected in the lives of all Christians. In other words, the work of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should enter the realm of history in order to transform the individual life of every Christian believer and consequently of the whole world. 20 Personal and Communitarian Morality Küng stresses that there is also an immanent dimension of church holiness and this is referred to as the quality of believers themselves to be holy. It is important to notice, however, that the immanent holiness of believers is totally dependent on the transcendent holiness of God as Holy Trinity because God can be understood properly only as a Trinity.21 All believers should be saints but this is not a quality that they acquire by themselves. The church, however, is indeed a communion of saints.22 Personal holiness23 is indeed a reality that is manifested inwardly and individually in every believer, but it is not fundamentally inherent to one’s own nature. On the contrary, human nature is fallen and sinful, and so is the church,24 which means that it cannot foster anything holy on its own. So holiness

28

●


should be understood somehow differently as residing in believers in spite of their sinful nature.25 Thus, personal holiness, although residing in every believer, is fundamentally rooted in the being of God, who is a personal God.26 Believers are holy because of God, not because of themselves. As far as believers are concerned, holiness also has an external dimension in the sense that their personal holiness is generated by the holiness of God, in addition to the more obvious internal dimension, which is obviously related to personal morality. Thus, the holiness of the church must mirror the holiness of God,27 so believers must mirror Christ.28 To be sure, personal morality can indeed be a sign of holiness, but one’s true holiness is essentially anchored in the holiness of God. Küng is very keen on underlining that this is true at a communitary level as well. The church as community is holy because each of its members are holy not as a result of their own efforts but because they were called to be holy. In other words, the immanent holiness of believers originates in the transcendent holiness of God. This is why Küng insists on the fact that personal holiness should always be understood in connection to the theological, Christological, and pneumatological dimensions of divine holiness. Fundamentally, the church should be defined and truly is holy in opposition to the world. The church is holy when in spite of all problems caused by the world, it persists in taking the Gospel to the world.29 The church is holy when in spite of all the bruises inflicted upon it by the world, it never ceases in manifesting its love to the world based on the Gospel of Christ.30 For Küng, actions such as spreading the good news31 of the Gospel and showing love to the world are indications of the holiness of the church, but these actions cannot be done without divine assistance. This is just another confirmation of the fact that the holiness of the church is totally dependent on the divine existence of God himself.32 At this point, Küng underlines once again the pnematological dimension of church holiness in using the temple metaphor. The church is holy because it is the temple of God. The church is holy because God himself decided to live in it. The church is not holy on its own but only because God chose to live in it and work through it. The church is holy because its very existence is inseparably linked to God by means of his Spirit. Thus, the Spirit of God acts upon the church so the church is holy, the Spirit of God sanctifies the church so the church is holy, and the Spirit of God guides the church so the church is holy. Transcendent holiness is always the source of immanent holiness. The holiness of God is always the origin of our own holiness. In Küng’s words: The saints of the church, and all her members should be saints, are not self-made saints. They are called to be saints . . . This assembled community


●

29

is “holy” and remains “holy” by virtue of the fact that Christ in the Holy Spirit summons them to the church, gathering and uniting them to her, to the church which lives in contradiction to the world, and is persecuted by it, but which nevertheless serves the world by preaching the Gospel and by deeds of love.33

Küng advocates here a theology of the presence of God and of the personal relationship to God 34 due to the personhood of our God 35 and through the work of the Holy Spirit, 36 which strengthens the pneumatological dimension of both immanent and transcendent dimensions of the holiness of the church. Holiness, however, is not a static reality of the church. On the contrary, it is essentially dynamic 37 because the work of the Holy Spirit in the church, which grants holiness to the church, is always new. The church is always new if the Holy Spirit is indeed at work in it.38 The church is always holy if the Holy Spirit is constantly applying his actions to the life of the church. So, the church should permanently be 39 and always is the Temple wherein dwells the Holy Spirit . . . Thus the church is holy by virtue of the sanctifying Spirit, who continuously grounds and animates the church anew, and preserves, illuminates, guides, and sanctifies the church.40

The church cannot be moral and holy without the Holy Spirit41 and in order to explain this more clearly, Küng resumes once again his discussion about the essential importance of the Holy Spirit in conveying authority to the church. The Authority of the Holy Spirit At this point, it should be noted that the holiness of the church is ultimately a matter of authority. The final authority as far as the ontology of the church is concerned is God in his Trinitarian existence. The authority of God, however, is manifested in Christ42 because the Gospel of Christ is the very aspect that drives the church to its mission and also offers a solid basis, as well as a justification, for its existence. At the same time, the authority of God that is manifested in Christ finds its practical application in the life and mission43 of the church through the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit is the closest possible link that the church has with God and also the church’s direct authority in doctrine and practice. Küng has absolutely no doubt about the

30

●


importance of the Spirit for the church in questions related to authority because the church itself is the temple of the Spirit.44 The Spirit dwells in the church and consequently guides it precisely because it has authority over it. The life and mission of the church cannot be justified without the authority of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the church cannot exist without the authority of the Holy Spirit. This means that the church is not able to achieve its goals in spreading the Gospel if the Spirit does not guide it. It is vital to see here the close connection between holiness and salvation.45 The church is holy because it must take the message of Christ, which is fundamentally soteriological, to the entire world. The church cannot do this properly unless it is assisted and guided by the Spirit.46 The Spirit has authority over the church in its effort to spread the Gospel; this is why the Spirit authorizes the church to spread the Gospel of salvation.47 In order to be able to carry the message of salvation to the whole world, the church must be holy but its holiness does not reside in its historical and natural capacities but in its transcendent and supernatural grace 48 of the being of God. The link, however, between natural and supernatural in the church49 is the Holy Spirit, who guides the church in its mission because the church is placed under the authority of the Spirit by being indwelled by the Spirit.50 Küng points out to another problem of authority that is linked directly to holiness as a sign of the church. The only authority for the church is the Holy Spirit, so there is absolutely no other person who has authority over the church. At this point, Küng obliquely hints at the pope because he underlines that the church must be guided exclusively by the Holy Spirit.51 The logical conclusion, which he stresses quite emphatically, is that the Holy Spirit cannot be equaled in any way by any other spirit that is obviously of human origin. In other words, the church is led from and has its authority from above, not from within humankind. When it comes to the authority of the church, its holiness is shown in the fact that it is guided by the Spirit of God, not by the spirit of man. Human intelligence and experience have nothing to do with the final authority of the church. If the church wants to be truly holy, then it must always submit to the Spirit of God, not to the spirit of man—because holiness originates in God, not in man. The church can discern the true Spirit of God and consequently distinguish it from the spirit of man because the Spirit of God is always the Spirit of Christ. Thus, the theological and pneumatological dimensions of holiness are strongly Christological.52 Christ is the key to the correct understanding of the church and to its holiness. If the church has doubts concerning


●

31

the way it should follow, and if it does not know whether a certain thing is from the Spirit 53 of God, the norm in deciding the right way ahead is Christ.54 The church must never confound the Spirit of God with the spirit of man. Küng is aware that this is a real danger because the fallen nature of believers and the very existence of the church within this universe that is fatally f lawed by sin can easily lead to dangerous confusions. The church cannot always identify the Spirit of God easily because the spirit of man is overwhelmingly present and dominant. The pervasive inf luence of fallen nature is so strong that sometimes it is significantly difficult to perceive the Spirit of God. However, the church is not left without help in this problem, and the solution is not complicated at all. If confusion finds its way into the church, the church must check whether the spirit that claims authority over it is indeed Christologically oriented. It is very likely that a certain person claims authority over the church on the grounds of being inspired by the Holy Spirit; although Küng is not saying this explicitly, it seems to be a reference to the pope.55 Thus, Küng stresses that the community of believers should attempt to find out if that person who says he has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is indeed driven by the Spirit of God.56 The test is simple: the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, so the Spirit of God that should be dominant in the church is the Spirit who emphasizes the importance of Christ. The identification of the Holy Spirit of God and of Christ by the church is done in the power of the Spirit because the church in general and its members in particular have been given spiritual gifts. In this context, spiritual gifts are given to the church in order to identify its true authority as a sign of holiness. So, the church is holy because the Spirit of God works within it through the spiritual gifts that were imparted to all believers.57 At the same time, the church is holy when it recognizes the Spirit of God and dismisses the spirit of man. This is just another indication that the holiness of the church is strongly anchored in the reality of God, not in the existence of man. Küng explains these aspects in the following paragraph: The spirit who guides the church should never be merely a human spirit, no matter how clever, or how experienced or versatile. The church must always be guided by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. The Spirit of Jesus Christ can indeed be mistaken for the spirit of man. When this happens, human thoughts are held to be inspirations of the Holy Spirit, human ways are held to be His ways. It may occur then, and it does so time and again, that some enraptured “Illuminated One” believes himself moved by the Holy Spirit while in reality he is hearing nothing but the vocal manifestations of his own spirit. It is possible that even a church dignitary, particularly

32

●


prone to that kind of temptation and danger, may consider his human impulses, thoughts, wishes, and dictates to be those of the Holy Spirit. Here, as everywhere else in the church, the distribution of spiritual gifts . . . among the members is involved.58

Küng admits that the work of the Spirit is absolutely necessary for the church,59 and it must always be directed to Jesus Christ, because the Spirit is not only the Spirit of God but also of Christ. Thus, the work of Spirit is a living reality in the church, 60 which is a living community.61 In the Spirit of God for the Gospel of Christ So, for Küng, the holiness of the church is not only a matter of authority but also a problem of ontology. It is clear that the authority over the church is fully claimed by the Spirit of God, 62 so the spirit of man must always be subjected to God and his grace.63 This shows that the Spirit of God is fundamentally different from the spirit of man because the being of God is essentially different from the being of man. 64 Thus, Küng admits that the transcendence of God always is and will always be superior to the immanence of man.65 This is why the church should be permanently vigilant in subjecting itself to the authority and guidance of the Spirit of God, not the spirit of man. Küng offers more hints at how the church can identify the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ and subsequently distinguish it from the spirit of man. This is vitally important because the capacity of the church to perceive the Spirit of God in opposition to the spirit of man is an indication of its holiness. The Holy Spirit will never talk about himself but always about Jesus Christ because, as plentifully shown before, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. At this point, Küng stresses that novelty 66 has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, in the sense that the Spirit will never bring at issue things that are new for the doctrine of the church. The Spirit of God will always confront the church with the word of Christ, so there is absolutely nothing new in the proclamation of the church. The word of Christ, which is also the Word of God, is the method to identify the true authority of the church and also to confirm its holiness. In other words, the church is holy if it is led by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the church is holy if it accepts and proclaims the word of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.67 The church will be able to assess its own holiness if it truly spreads the Gospel of Christ. 68 It is significant to notice that, for Küng, the church should never try desperately to find the word of Christ because the Holy


●

33

Spirit will remind her of the Gospel. The church, however, must always be subject to the Spirit and should permanently listen to the Spirit. Küng stresses again here the Trinitarian dimension of church holiness as God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit works together in offering the Gospel to the church. So, the church is holy if it listens to the word of Christ, which is given to the church by God the Father through the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the church is holy if it listens to God, if it accepts the Word of God, and then if it takes the Gospel to the entire world. In this particular context, the holiness of the church is closely connected to the idea of witness. Thus, the church is holy if it is a witness to Christ and his Gospel; in other words, the church is holy if it is mission-minded. To be sure, a church is holy if it is a missionary church in the power of the Holy Spirit of Christ: The Holy Spirit is not just any kind of spirit imprisoned within the church, in one way or another identical with her and of whom the church can dispose at will . . . Neither is the Holy Spirit some “absolute” freef loating world-spirit which develops his own dialectic. No, He is the Spirit of Jesus Christ . . . The Holy Spirit proclaims nothing new to the church. He proclaims the word of Christ to her . . . Thus the Holy Spirit will recall to the church all that Christ has said to her . . . He will remind the church of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Spirit of truth whom Christ sends from the Father will bear witness of Christ to the church, so that the church too may bear witness to Him . . . The church is and proves herself holy by bearing witness to Christ and his Gospel in word and deed. 69

In this sense, the holiness of the church can and should be confirmed evangelically. In other words, if the church acts in accordance with the Gospel in all its aspects, then this is a sign that the church is holy.70 In order to be holy, the church must not praise its clergy or display its power but witness to the power of the Gospel and the salvific work of Christ.71 If the church wants to be holy, then it must not boast with its rule but show its practical willingness as well as duty to serve. Thus, holiness is interwoven with service,72 and service should be done “in the humble imitation of the Lord, whose example it should hold up to men, . . . in a spirit of atonement.” 73 Küng stresses here that the church is holy if it acknowledges its own mistakes. Service is vitally crucial to the confirmation of the holiness of the church because it should be a Trinitarian reality in the life of the church.74 As such, the church is holy if it shows that it is not interested in living for itself but for Christ and for the world.75 The church is holy if it a constant proof of its desire “to

34

●


serve the world in the Spirit through Christ for the Father.” It is important to notice here that Küng does not forget to highlight the eschatological dimension of holiness. If the church does not exists for itself, then it means that it is the way to Christ, not a goal in itself, in the sense that the church shows the way to Christ by spreading his Gospel, not by being centered upon its own ministers. If the church is oriented toward Christ, then it is truly holy also in its eschatological dimension because “she exists for the kingship of God, which will come.” 76 Holiness, however, must be demonstrated and put into practice by “daring deeds in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” 77 In order to demonstrate its holiness, the church must go beyond its doctrines and declarations. So, the church must act in order to support its doctrines and creeds78 but its actions as proofs of its own holiness must always be “rooted in the Gospel.” 79 Last but not the least, the church must prove its holiness in action by showing the courage to implement “fundamental reform” so that the message of the Gospel of Christ should be explained in such a way that everybody is able to understand it. 80

CHAPTER 4

The Apostolicity of the Church

T

he fourth and the last sign that describes the ontology of the church is apostolicity. As early as 1962, Küng does not have many things to say about the apostolicity as a sign of the church apart from the fact that each sign of the church—which, of course, includes apostolicity— should be understood in close connection to the rest. So apostolicity cannot bear its full meaning apart from unity, catholicity, and holiness.1 Actually, the church itself is the true church of Christ, and local churches that exist in history are truly part of the church of Christ,2 if they have all the signs of the church. Consequently, as far as apostolicity is concerned, the unity, catholicity, and holiness are signs of true apostolicity. Moreover, there is no such thing as a church that has apostolicity but does not display the other dimensions of the church. As such, apostolicity is an obligatory dimension of the church if the remaining three are indeed present. A Definition of Apostolicity Küng, however, does have some things to say about apostolicity when he introduces his discussion about ecclesiastical offices and it is here that he attempts to identify a working definition of apostolicity. It should be stressed here that Küng engages in a very vivid dialogue with Luther in respect with the various aspects of apostolicity as an essential feature of the church. Although he examines Luther’s arguments in close detail and even seems to accept many of his claims, Küng emphatically maintains his status as a representative of the Roman-Catholic Church. Thus, having turned Luther’s ideas on every facet, Küng rhetorically asks what a Catholic theologian should do when it comes to affirming his own position regarding the apostolicity of the church from a specifically delineated Catholic perspective.

36

●


First, Küng displays an evidently conciliating tone as he highlights that there are more things that bring Catholics and Protestants together than things that separate them. Although he does not mention them explicitly at this point, they can be inferred from his previous discussion on Luther’s approach to apostolicity. Thus, the things that unite Catholics and Protestants are baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the so-called power of the key (whereby the church has the power, in the name of Christ, to bind and release sins), the preaching office that promotes the Word of God, the apostolic creed, the prayer and worship of the church, the necessity to show respect to secular authorities, the celebration of marriage, the suffering of persecution for the Word of God, and the power to endure all things for Christ instead of retaliating and taking revenge at those who persecute us. These things are presented positively as realities that bind Catholics and Protestants together not because either of the parties is somehow worthy to promote them but because Christ himself had instituted them in the apostolic church. Moreover, it is clear from Küng’s argument that these ten aspects that form the foundation of unity for Catholics and Protestants have always been like that due to the apostolic church that faithfully preserved them and then passed them over to the coming generations of Christians. The most important thing, however, is that these ten aspects are both features of the apostolicity of the church and the strong foundation of its unity. It is clear then that apostolicity is the basis for the church’s unity and that the two cannot function if torn apart. Actually, what Küng wants to say is that there is no apostolicity without unity and vice versa. Secondly, Küng turns to a set of negative arguments that Luther used to differentiate between Catholics and Protestants. All these arguments aim at the fact that the Roman-Catholic Church departed from the apostolic church that was founded by Christ. In other words, the Roman-Catholic Church introduces new elements that were neither instituted by Christ nor promoted by the apostolic church. The list includes theological books that recommended various things that have never been part of the apostolic church: absolution by means of good deeds, the practice of issuing and selling indulgences, the sanctification of water for liturgical purposes, the pursuing of pilgrimages to so-called holy places, the establishment of ecclesiastical brotherhoods (probably a reference to monastic orders, although not clearly stated), the reinterpretation of the Lord’s Supper as priestly sacrifice, the application of the power of the keys in secular issues such as deposition of kings and other secular offices, the insertion of human elements (no details offered by Küng) in sermons (thereby falsifying them), the establishment of papacy


●

37

as ecclesiastical office, the worship of the saints that is paralleled with idolatry, the depreciation of marriage by forbidding it to the ministers of the church, the use of war for pursuing the so-called purposes of the church, the high-esteem offered to the doctrine of purgatory, and the veneration of relics. All these things were listed by Luther and mentioned by Küng as aspects that clearly separate the Catholics from Protestants. Now, a simple mathematical calculation will show that the positive list includes ten elements while the negative list has fifteen items, so the things that unite Catholics and Protestants are not more than those that separate them as Küng emphatically claims. However, Küng’s conviction that we “must sincerely rejoice over that which unites us—despite all differences” because that “is more than that which separates us” should not be taken mathematically but from the perspective of their inner value. Thus, even if the things that unite Catholics and Protestants are only ten in number, they are much more valuable than the fifteen aspects that keep them apart. It is important though that the things that are the basis of sedition should be taken into serious consideration. It is clear that Küng tries to apply this recommendation firstly to himself as a Catholic theologian. The duty of a Catholic theologian is to try “everything fearlessly” in order to see if it is in accordance with the teachings and practices of the apostles. Then, he should take a serious stand against all the things that deviate from the apostolic church. At this point, Küng clearly lists two fundamental issues that are indeed the very morrow of the separation of Protestants from Catholics. The first is the Catholic belief that good works must be performed in order to obtain salvation, while the second is idolatry. Küng does not offer any details on the second aspect but, based on what he had said about Luther’s claims, it is very likely that idolatry is a reference to the veneration of saints. One could easily argue that Küng is a genuine Protestant if he holds to these two convictions but, to his credit, it is important to see that he lists them as part of what a Catholic theologian should do in order to assess the apostolicity of his church. Thus, Küng is convinced that the Roman-Catholic Church should give up its belief in salvation by works and the veneration of saints if it wants to be truly apostolic. The Roman-Catholic Church should also put aside its claims of power in secular matters as well as all the teachings that are not in accordance with the doctrines of the apostolic church. The task of constantly being vigilant in order to clearly assess whether the church nowadays stays in line with the church of the apostles is the duty not only of Catholic theologians but also of their Protestant

38

●


colleagues. Both Catholics and Protestants must be permanently aware of the situation of their churches because taking a different stand from that of apostolic teaching and practice is not difficult at all. But the situation seems to have been altered in a better way, and one can even detect a less concealed joy in Küng’s observation because, as far as he is concerned, many things have changed in both churches since the Reformation. In other words, the good things of Luther’s list are not the sole property of the Protestant church while the bad things do not exclusively belong to the Roman-Catholic Church. This is, in fact, an open critique of the Protestant Church that failed to stand up to Luther’s original claims as well as a word of appreciation for the Roman-Catholic Church that was wise enough to reorient itself toward apostolic theology and practice. In the end, however, Küng wants to offer a balanced assessment of both churches because theologians from either side must share in the effort of staying in line with the apostolic church. Thus, neither of the churches is exempt from modeling itself upon the church of the apostles. What is then the definition of apostolicity for Küng? Quite simply, apostolicity is the essential agreement of the church with the apostolic message. Nevertheless, it is vital to notice here that apostolicity is the only way for the two churches to stay in unity. Thus, unity cannot function without apostolicity, which must be a feature of all churches that exists in history.3 The Church and Morality The unity of the church is fully manifested as a sign of the church only if the church is part of a plurality4 and diversity of local churches;5 thus, the church is powerfully characterized by the same moral principles, 6 which make it behave like one single body, and shares a strong connection to the apostles.7 Likewise, the church cannot be fully catholic if local churches (seen as plurality) do not all act in unity of mind and behavior, in accordance with their apostolic heritage. 8 Following the same reasoning,9 the church is indeed holy if the sum of Christian communities all over the world shares the same norms of conduct10 that evidently make the morality of the church11 a singular and individualized feature of their life. One should notice, however, that this unique norm of morality that makes the church holy, at least in human terms, should be shared by all churches so that catholicity is actively involved in holiness, and it must also be strongly rooted in the reality of apostolic times.12 The same pattern of evaluation should be applied to apostolicity. The church is apostolic if all local churches are truly one in their unity—a


●

39

unity that brings together all local churches in true catholicity and also in the desire to live in sanctity. Küng expresses these connections between the signs of the church in an interrogative fashion: Each feature of the church—understood in its depth in the sense of the New Testament13 —fosters and includes the others. Indeed, how could the one church truly be one, if at the same time the full range of catholicity, the strengthening source of holiness, and the apostolic origin had not been given to her? How could the catholic church be truly catholic if she also were not bequeathed the togetherness of unity, the selfishness of sanctity, and the driving power of apostolicity? How could the holy church be truly holy if at the same time the backbone of unity, the magnanimity of catholicity, and firmly rooted apostolicity were not bequeathed to her? And finally how could the apostolic church be truly apostolic if the collegiateness of unity, the manifoldness of catholicity and the spirit of holiness were not bestowed upon her?14

The reference to the spirit is important here because apostolicity can be achieved only in the spirit. It is clear that what Küng has in mind is the Holy Spirit of God, who is the sole guarantor of apostolicity and consequently of unity, holiness, and catholicity. The Holy Spirit, however, is a gift from God so apostolicity, as well as the remaining signs of the church, cannot be worked out practically in the life of the church by means of human efforts. Whatever we do in our desire to align the church to apostolic claims so that unity, holiness, and catholicity should be truly valid and active must necessarily be assisted from above because only God’s involvement in the church is the way to true apostolicity. The Holy Ghost though is not only the guarantor of apostolicity but also the promise of God to the church, so it is only he who helps the church to be tirelessly concerned with its own apostolicity.15 Consequently, the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church is also the promise of a new morality that is the basis for unity, catholicity, holiness, and apostolicity. If the church needs morality in order to prove its fundamental essence as related to its unity, catholicity, and holiness, then one might ask: whose morality? How far should we go back in history to find a model for this morality, which might account for the apostolicity of the church as we know it today? The Church and the Apostles Küng does not offer a plain answer to such a question and neither does he explain what apostolicity really is as a sign of the church apart from insisting that apostolicity should always be understood together with

40

●


unity, catholicity, and holiness.16 Actually, the only real hints to apostolicity in this context are some phrases such as “apostolic origin,” “driving power of apostolicity,” and “firmly rooted apostolicity.” It is quite evident that neither of the last two phrases can shed any light on a possible definition of apostolicity. The first phrase, however, might offer some ideas about the constitution of apostolicity as a sign of the church. Thus, “apostolic origin” can make reference to the practices of the apostles or indeed to the teachings of the apostles,17 and this clearly includes the morality of the apostles.18 Küng is not suggesting either of these possibilities but if apostolicity is to mean anything at all, then the church as it is nowadays must in at least some ways be similar to the church of the apostles. This means that the church of our days should share in the reality of the church of the apostles and it is not illogical to say that this presupposes practical or moral as well as dogmatic aspects. It is not worth getting into details at this point if Küng does not do it himself, but if this reasoning is correct then apostolicity means that all local churches today as part of the true church of Christ19 must promote the teachings and morals of the apostles. Such an interpretation would obviously support what Küng has already said about the other signs of the church because, taken on its own, each sign is strongly connected to the person and work of Christ. 20 In this respect, the only way for the church of Christ, 21 which lived in history after Christ, to hear about Christ is by means of the teachings of the apostles that, as mentioned before, do presuppose the examples of their moral lives. 22 So, apostolicity can indeed make reference at least to apostolic teachings and morality. A much more evident answer to the question of whose morality is needed for apostolicity is offered by Küng when he tackles the problem of ecclesiastical offices. Thus, he explains that the signs of the church must be the signs of the church of Christ because the church itself was founded by Christ. It is certain that Christ had in mind a number of issues that were the bases of the church, and for Küng, the bases of the church are the foundation of the apostles. The fact that they closely lived and worked with Christ constitutes the normative standard for the church. If the church wants to be apostolic, then it must stay in line with whatever the apostles did during their ministry: Unity, holiness and catholicity are the unity, holiness and catholicity of the church of Jesus Christ only if it is founded on the same grounds on which Jesus Christ willed to found his church; it is the ground of the apostles . . . who were the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Lord and the plenipotentiary heralds sent by him to bear his message and to lead his flock. It is


●

41

only in the testimony of the apostles that we perceive the glorified Lord. This is why the attestation of the apostles occupies a unique, lasting—and unrepeatable—normative position within the church and vis-à-vis the church. This is why a church that desires the designation apostolic . . . requires a succession that is not only historical in character but also one which is objectively understood as such, in the spirit of the apostles, in the faith of their Gospel, and in the obedience to their binding example. 23

Thus, the apostolic succession is not only historical but also dogmatic. This brings Küng to reaffirm his definition of apostolicity that is not only the uninterrupted connection of the church with the teachings and practices of the apostles but also the continuous consent with the testimony of their faith and life. 24 In this respect, apostolicity should be reflected within the whole church and in the multiplicity of its members. 25 This, however, is not only the present state of apostolicity but also its past and future condition. The church has been apostolic since its beginnings and must remain so if it is to stay the church of Christ. The church is not the church without apostolicity, so the fundamental condition of apostolicity (and also of the other signs of the church) is permanence because the church continues Christ’s ministry in the world. 26 Apostolicity must have characterized the church since the moment of its historical start and will continue to be a feature of the church forever. As far as its content is concerned, apostolicity has some aspects that include baptism, common faith in and obedience to the ministry of the apostles, 27 worship, the Eucharist, missionary activity, and fellowship among churches. All these elements that make up the very heart of apostolicity lead to the conclusion that apostolicity and apostolic succession are not only historical but also spiritual. It is here that Küng reaffirms his conviction that apostolicity is constituted pneumatologically. There is no apostolicity without the work of the Spirit. Left to its own human powers, the church would not have lasted through the centuries without the active work of the Spirit of God. Thus, the sustaining power of apostolicity throughout the history of the church has been the Holy Spirit, 28 who made the Gospel of Christ a living reality for every generation of Christian believers. Likewise, Christ himself was made continuously present in the church by the work of the Spirit.29 It is only logical then to suppose that apostolic succession is not a continual line of persons who follow one after another in Christian ministry but the unbroken chain of faith, testimonies, and confessions of the generations of believers who have lived until the present day. In other words, because the church is permanently a new creation,30 apostolicity consists of making Christian

42

●


faith new to each generation based on the testimony of the apostles. Here is Küng’s detailed explanation: The apostolicity of the church consists in the enduring bond of the church with the service of the apostles and in the abiding agreement with apostolic testimony. Thus the apostolic succession first of all pertains to the whole church in all her members. It manifests itself in manifold ways throughout the centuries and in all countries in the continuous process of performing and receiving the sacrament of baptism, in faith and in obedience to the apostolic testimony, in the community of worship and in the Lord’s Supper, in the transmission of the apostolic testimony in the congregations, in missionary proclamation to the world, in the fellowship and unity with the churches of the whole world. This interrelationship of the apostolic succession is not only of an historical but also of a spiritual character; the Holy Spirit continuously insures our encounter with the living Gospel and through it with Christ himself in the apostolic witness of Christ. This interrelationship of the apostolic succession is not only a succession of persons either, but a succession of faith and of confessions; it is after all primarily a question of again and again awakening the faith that was first awakened through the original testimony of the apostles and of making this faith known in the church.31

It is evident that the church nowadays must lead itself in accordance with the faith of the apostles who preached the teachings of the Gospel of Christ. In this context, apostolic succession presupposes the recognition of the priesthood of all believers alongside with the specific ministries and offices of the various historical churches. Küng stresses that those who hold ecclesiastical offices must be constantly subordinated to Christ in accordance with the example offered by the apostles. The necessity of church offices is essentially soteriological because the ministry of the church consists of preaching the Gospel and the ministry of Jesus Christ to save the world lost in sin.32 As this is the work of the church, all those who believe in Christ are called to be priests in order to proclaim the message of salvation to everybody. Believers are priests due to the work of the Holy Spirit who gave them different gifts with the specific purpose to effectively continue the work of Jesus Christ in his church by means of various ministries.33 Although this sounds thoroughly Protestant, Küng is convinced that such a view is also consonant with Catholic theology. He explains: The Catholic view also maintains that the ministry of Jesus Christ to the lost world also justifies, determines and permeates the being and the


●

43

service of his church. Hence all believers in Christ are called to the royal priesthood through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and baptism. They are all commissioned and empowered to carry out and carry on the ministry of Christ to the world. Gifts are bestowed upon each member of the church for this purpose, but they are not all the same kind of gifts. The bestowal of these gifts occurs through the freedom of the Spirit without which the means of transmission would be formally and absolutely laid down at the outset. There is a f luid multiplicity of special ministries in the church.34

Any local church that lives like that and ministers for God in the power of the Spirit will surely share in the unity, catholicity, holiness, and apostolicity of the true church of Christ. This means that the signs of the church will always truly ref lect themselves in the ministry of the church, which is the Gospel.35 Any church that sincerely works for God will be one with the other churches that do the same: be part of their fellowship, display a special morality that prompts it to ministry, and follow in the footsteps of the apostles.36 It is important thus to see who the apostles were. First, Küng explains that the apostles were the first ministers of the church; in other words, the ecclesiastical office of the apostles was the first in the church of Christ, so it preceded any other ministry that was performed in the church later on. Second, the apostles were a special kind of people because they were members of a special community and were given a special revelation, which occurred in time and history.37 To be sure, they were part of the original community that eyewitnessed the special event of Christ’s resurrection.38 It is important to see here that the Lord himself chose to manifest himself to the community of the apostles, and this extraordinary event makes them a special bunch of people. So, the apostles are special and their status is distinctively extraordinary because the Lord of the church decided to reveal himself after his resurrection to his apostles. To make things even clearer, the apostles were those who were the eyewitnesses of Christ’s resurrection. Third, the apostles were given a special task. Thus, they were sent by Christ himself with the special commission to preach the Gospel all over the world. In this respect, they are special both because they were sent directly by Christ to proclaim the Gospel and because their proclamation resulted in the establishment of the church. It is crucial not to overlook the fact that the church was gathered due to the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ that was done by his apostles.39 Fourth, the apostles are important because their preaching established once and for all what became known as the standard testimony to Christ. Whatever they said about

44

●


Christ is binding upon the entire church and cannot be changed at all. Their description of Christ is complete and compulsory for the church of their time as well as for the church of later generations. Actually, because their image of Christ is based on Christ’s revelation to them before and after his resurrection, it is clear that their testimony of Christ is valid for the church in all ages that must contemplate Christ’s revelation.40 The church in every particular time in history must obey and live in accordance with the testimony of the apostles about Christ, the Lord of the church.41 These four characteristics of their work make the office of the apostles unique in the church. Nobody else was ever given the privilege to be the eyewitnesses of the revelation of Christ’s resurrection. This historical reality makes them exclusively unique and their status in the church can never be equaled in this respect. They have always been unique for the church and they will be so forever because Christ himself decided to reveal himself to them, so they were the unique eyewitnesses of his work and especially of his resurrection.42 It is certainly true that they were eyewitnesses of Christ’s entire work but resurrection is special because it prompted them to go forth in order to preach the Gospel that established the church as a community in history. Furthermore, their office is unique because what they saw with their own eyes, namely Christ’s resurrection, is a reality that cannot be repeated. Christ rose from the dead once and for all, so this is a unique and unrepeatable event in history that discloses God’s saving presence in history.43 It is vital to notice that the eyewitnesses of this event were the apostles. For them, the resurrection of Christ was an unmediated historical event that cannot be repeated in any way in later generations. Thus, what they saw as living reality can be interpreted and preserved only by later Christians. It may be equally true that Christ’s resurrection must be a living reality for all Christians through the ages but it was unique for the apostles from the standpoint of history, as an event that was unfolded before their very eyes. Nobody else but the apostles ever enjoyed this special privilege. From the perspective of apostolicity, one must never loose sight of the fact that the calling of the apostles resulted in the establishment of the church. Or, in other words, their special calling to spread the Gospel of Christ makes the apostles the very foundation of the church, which is also called to communicate the same Gospel.44 This, however, is not the only aspect that counts in this particular matter. Besides being the foundations of the church, the apostles are also the “uniting bond” of the church and, in a way, a ref lection of the close connection between Christ and his church.45 Thus, the proclamation of the apostles


●

45

as a result of what they saw concerning Christ’s resurrection is not only the basis of the church but also what holds the church together. The teachings of the apostles not only planted churches all over the world but also kept these churches together within the same fellowship of faith.46 Those who shared the teachings of the apostles were part of the church and all the churches who believed in the testimony of the apostles about Christ were united in the same conviction that they must carry on what they learned from the apostles. So the testimony of the apostles became the testimony of the church and, even more importantly, the testimony of all the churches throughout the world. At the end of the day, this is apostolicity—that is, sharing the same testimony of the apostles and that all believers must share in this testimony.47 All churches that believe in and carry on the teachings of the apostles about Christ are truly apostolic. Küng explains all these things in the following paragraph: The office of the apostles precedes all other ministries in the church. The apostles are those members of the original community to whom the resurrected Lord manifested himself and whom he sent forth with the special commission to proclaim the Gospel that established and gathered the church. Hence their proclamation is the fundamental and, for all time, standard-setting testimony of Jesus Christ. Therefore their office as a whole is by its very nature unique insofar as it encompasses the everfundamental eyewitness account of the Resurrection and the event of revelation, which the succeeding office an only preserve and interpret. On the basis of their calling, they are the foundation and the uniting bond of the evolving church.48

Küng also indicates that the position of the apostles in relationship to the church is twofold in the sense that they are both authorities and members of the church. Concerning the fact that they are authorities for the church, the apostles are not like ordinary Christians. They are the representatives of Christ in a special way because they are the eyewitness of Christ’s resurrection. This reality places them in a position of authority in the church. Actually, Küng emphasizes that the apostles are both authoritative and free in relationship to the church and the world. Although he does not make further comments on this issue, Küng could have meant that the apostles had authority over the church and the world due to their teachings based on Christ’s resurrection that unfolded before their eyes; likewise, they are free before the church and the world because of their status that gives them special privileges; not in the sense that they are free to do whatever they want

46

●


but in the sense that nobody has authority over them except for God who commissioned them to preach the Gospel of Christ. Thus, unlike any other Christian believer, the apostles have and exercise their authority from God for the benefit of the church. On the other hand, however, the apostles are members of the church and, in this respect, they must live in the community of the faith that they proclaimed and under the authority of Christ whom they saw resurrected from the dead. Like any other Christian, the apostles are subject to God’s judgment and are dependent on his grace. It is clear for Küng that the apostles have always been concerned with the welfare of the church. Whatever they did was intended to foster benefits for the church because they proclaimed the Gospel of Christ. It is clear then that the work of the apostles is fundamentally soteriological and this is a crucial observation for the church. The church nowadays must also be essentially soteriological in its proclamation.49 In order to be truly apostolic, the church must not only take the Gospel of Christ to everybody but it must also preach this Gospel so that it fits the original message of Christ that discloses the fullness of salvation.50 The church will never be apostolic if it preaches things that are not in accordance with the saving message of Christ. Actually, the church may well be willing to stay in close unity with other churches, work for the establishment of catholicity in love, and display a special kind of morality as different from the world; nevertheless, it will surely lack apostolicity (and the other signs of the church as well) if it does not preach the saving Gospel of Christ. The apostles preached it, so the church must also preach it.51 There is no apostolicity without the message of salvation because this is exactly what Küng meant by his indication that the apostles were subject to Christ and that they stayed under his authority.52 The church itself must follow the example of the apostles and stay under Christ’s authority; this, however, means that the church must preach the message of salvation.53 The apostles understand that the welfare of the believing community resided precisely in this preaching because nothing else could ever complete the existence of the church. Küng insists that all the members of the church must be driven by this desire to give testimony about the saving message of Christ. At the time of the apostles, this meant that both the apostles and the rest of the Christians had to work together and in agreement for the benefit of the church. The apostles could not work without being fully supported by the church. This is to say that the ministry of the apostles could never and was never divorced from the ministry of ordinary Christians. This is precisely why the church today must


●

47

continue the work of the apostles and preach their message, which is actually Christ’s message.54 At this point, Küng introduces a very important pneumatological aspect. Thus, he indicates that the preaching of the apostles had to be approved by the testimony of ordinary Christians because they all had the Spirit, so the entire church is in close connection to the Spirit.55 It is clear then that the bond between the work of the apostles and the work of ordinary Christians is the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the church today will surely be apostolic if it preaches the message of the apostles in the Spirit. Actually, the message of salvation preached by the apostles cannot be spread all over the world without the permanent assistance of the Holy Spirit, who is always at work within the church.56 Thus, apostolicity is closely connected to the work of the apostles and, even more importantly, with the work of the Holy Spirit. In this respect, for Küng, apostolicity is fully and essentially pneumatologic. In the church of the apostles, this meant that both the apostles and the rest of the Christians worked together in order to proclaim the Gospel of Christ in the Spirit. Here is how Küng explained the details analyzed above: On the one hand, the apostles, as representatives of Christ, stand in a position of authority and freedom toward the world and the community. On the other hand, however, as members of the church they stand in the church and under Christ; they must appear before Christ’s judgment and they are dependent on his grace. The actions of the apostles are always oriented toward the congregations and are in complete agreement with the other members of the church and the services assigned to them. Their testimony is surrounded by the testimonies of all who received the Spirit. Just as the congregations need their testimony and their guidance, they, in turn, need the solace, the intercession, and the cooperation of the congregations.57 (Küng’s italics)

Thus, apostolicity means cooperation in the Spirit, and this is an indication that all the signs of the church function this way. There is no unity, catholicity, holiness, and apostolicity without the Spirit of God. This is precisely why the signs of the church must always be understood holistically and in close relationship to each other.58 The most important reason for this perception is the very essence of the church. The church itself is a living body, so its characteristics are not mere concepts. This means that they cannot exists on their own as torn apart realities of the same and unique ecclesiastical organism because the church is based on the unicity of Christ.59 There is a deep interconnection among all the signs of the church that can be likened to that of the Trinitarian being

48

●


of God.60 This is why apostolicity cannot be taken on its own but always in this sort of ecclesiastical perichoresis.61 In Küng’s words: The attributes of the church are not static labels. Rather, as different dimensions of the one and the same church, they dynamically penetrate each other at every point (in a circumincessio and circumincessio of a unique kind). Amid all the differences, her problems are one. And if special difficulties arise in connection with the question of the representation of the apostolic church—these are the same ones that presented themselves earlier, somewhat more hidden but no less real, on the question of the one, holy, catholic church. 62

To put things together, apostolicity is always understood and represented in relationship to unity, catholicity, and holiness as permanent features of the church.63 For Küng, this is vitally important because all churches in time and history have had, have, and will have the same set of problems.64 This realization, however, cannot but be utterly helpful for a correct understanding of apostolicity as sign of the church as well as for the promotion of the mission of the church, 65 which is to spread the apostolic teachings of the Gospel of Christ all over the world. 66 As the Gospel is to be found in Scripture, it means that apostolicity is nothing less than conformity to Scripture, which is transmitted to nowadays church by the church of the apostles. Küng stresses here that the authority of Scripture is superior to that of the church, so the church must always see Scripture as having a higher authority in all matters pertaining to doctrine and practice. Thus, the church must always stay under the authority of Scripture, while the words of man must never be held as more important than the Word of God from Scripture. At this point, Küng resorts once again to Luther’s theology; Luther was convinced that the importance of Scripture resides in the fact that it is the infallible Word of God. Likewise, Scripture is vital for the church because Christ, who is the Lord of the church, speaks through Scripture. So, the authority of Scripture is founded Christologically because Christ is superior to his church in matters of authority. At the end of the day, this means apostolicity. The church is apostolic if it places the authority of Scripture and of Christ who speaks through Scripture above its own authority and the authority of its ministers. In this respect, the ministry of the church is given to all the members of the church. The priesthood of the apostolic church as well as the priesthood of the church today is a priesthood of all believers because Christ is the priest and shepherd of the church.67 If all believers are able to understand Scripture and they surely are, then they all must reveal the Word of God to the entire


●

49

world. A church is truly apostolic if it spreads the Word of God following the example of the apostles, which is a sign that its connection to Scripture is evidently strong. In Küng’s words, “the apostolic character of the church consists essentially in conformity with the spirit of the apostles; this essential conformity with the apostles is concretely and normatively set by Scripture.”68 Küng fairly admits that the belief in the final authority of Scripture over anything else in the church is predominantly Protestant but he also shares his conviction that this is fully compatible with Catholic theology. Thus, Catholics should recognize that nothing stands above Scripture in matters of authority, so they must all be subject to Scripture. In other words, in order to be part of a truly apostolic church, Catholics must understand some key aspects about Scripture and how they should relate to it. First, they should be fully convinced that Scripture alone is inspired by God. Second, Scripture is the result of the preaching of the apostles who proclaimed the Gospel or the kerygma.69 Third, as kerygma is filled by the Spirit, it means that God himself is the author of Scripture. These three truths about Scripture lead to another three equally important truths about the church. Thus, the church must first always stand below Scripture. There are no new revelations in the church of Christ, only new interpretations of the old revelation. Second, the church has Scripture as its primary norm in all aspects of its existence.70 Third, the church must always place Scripture above tradition. To conclude, apostolicity is to hold Scripture above all other authorities in the church, which is an indication of God’s supreme rule over his church. As apostolicity is the basis of unity and unity always results in catholicity and holiness because they are all grounded in God, Scripture is the firm foundation of all the signs of the church.


PART 2

Modern Ecclesiology in On Being a Christian (1974)


CHAPTER 5

The Scripture of the Church

K

üng’s analysis of the church in 1974 is drastically changed if compared to his 1962 convictions. In his On Being a Christian, Küng’s starting point for his description of the church is a Christological pretext that seems to be aimed at this subsequent treatment of Scripture.1 Thus he writes that Jesus of Nazareth is still alive for humanity even if almost 2,000 years have passed since his activity. It is important to notice here that, if in 1962, Küng’s image of Jesus is still traditional in the sense that he may be regarded as being ontologically divine (although Küng is never undoubtedly clear about this), in 1974 Küng describes Jesus as being alive for mankind while, in fact, he is dead.2 Something, however, managed to keep Jesus alive for humanity and this something is not a book (probably a hint at Scripture). Jesus remained alive in the minds and hearts of millions of human beings because of his word and his spirit. For Küng, Jesus is evidently dead but what he said and did still makes him live for the entire humanity. This conviction about Jesus produces a dramatic shift in Küng’s ecclesiology. The church is primarily not the people of God3 who are strongly anchored in the ontological reality of God’s existence, as described in 1962, but a community of faith4 made up of all those who share the same convictions about Jesus.5 This community of faith believes in the words and in the spirit of Jesus,6 who is dead in reality but very much alive in the consciousness of all those who believe in whatever he said and did. Scripture and Inspiration At this point, Küng turns his attention to Scripture. It should be mentioned here that besides his ecclesiology, Küng also changed his view of Scripture. If in 1962, Scripture was the Word of God, now it is only the word of man.7 Actually, Küng is not interested in speaking about Scripture in general as being the Word of God; what he does now

54

●


is to establish his theological discourse on the New Testament that is said to be the word of man. 8 Thus, the New Testament is not closely related to the reality of God but to that of humanity. For Küng, this means that the New Testament did not “drop out of heaven.” This clearly means that the New Testament is not infallible, so it is not true in all of its sentences. The New Testament is not perfect and it is surely not a holy book that must be believed ad literam. Küng is convinced that the New Testament, as well as the writings of the Old Testament, makes up a collection of works that were written and put together on earth. Küng is very bold and crystal clear in affirming his conviction that the Bible is a human production because he insists on the fact that the Bible is “unequivocally man’s word.” It obviously follows that the Bible contains mistakes of all sorts, information that is anything but clear, a certain amount of confusion, limitations, and even errors.9 This Scripture, however, contains the Word of God.10 It is vital to see that, for Küng, Scripture is not the Word of God but the word of man that contains the Word of God. It seems that Küng struggles to remain within the classic framework of traditional Christianity because he does share his belief in the Word of God but this is made accessible to humanity only by means of Scripture,11 which are to be regarded as being the word of man. In order to explain how the word of man can indeed contain the Word of God, Küng resorts to the traditional concept of inspiration. If in 1962 Küng used this term with no other implications than those related to traditional Christianity, inspiration is now placed between quotation marks that is an early indication that he wants to convey something different from what he had already said about it in his previous writings. In 1974, Küng does not agree with the traditional view of the inspiration of Scripture. Thus, he describes the early Christian view of the inspiration of Scripture by comparing it to Hellenistic paganism and Judaism and by saying that these perspectives were similar in their attitude to inspiration as a manifestation of “divine frenzy” and “dictation of the divine Spirit.” Küng rejects the idea that the biblical authors were directly inspired by God to write the books of Scripture. So, for Küng, God does not actively get involved in the writing of Scripture, which makes it a human production that clearly has mistakes, errors, and contradictions. Küng also rejects verbal inspiration, so he does not believe that every word of Scripture was inspired by God and written down by biblical authors. This obviously means that we should not accept every word of the Bible. Although he does not insist on this, Küng does allude to the fact that such a traditional belief in the concept of inspiration leads to unnecessary trouble in the sense


●

55

that such a view of Scripture results in conf licts with natural sciences and even history. The examples he gives here are the discoveries of Copernicus and the Enlightenment.12 Küng seems to have a very serious problem at this point because he takes for granted the absolute truth of natural sciences and history. It has to be said that even if Copernicus was right this does not necessarily imply that the philosophers of the Enlightenment were or had to be right. Moreover, if the late medieval Catholic Church had a problem with understanding the truth of Copernicus’s discoveries, this does not mean that Scripture is wrong in its affirmations or that its authors failed to convey an accurate image of natural reality. Another problem that Küng has in connection to his understanding of inspiration is to describe the traditional view of inspiration as being mechanical. Thus, he presupposes that inspiration, if understood traditionally, is mechanical. It must be underscored, however, that there is no a priori necessity that a direct connection should be established between traditional inspiration and a so-called mechanical feature. What Küng does not appear to understand is that the inspiration of Scripture, as presented by traditional Christianity, does not necessarily imply mechanicism but the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit. Küng, however, resents any lack of clarity that prompts him to offer reasonbased definitions for all the aspects of Christianity.13 As a matter of fact, this is why he explains that the traditional view of inspiration, which for him is fundamentally mechanical, was criticized by the historical-critical study, which—although he does not say this—is one of the products of his much appreciated Enlightenment. Again, he takes for granted that the Enlightenment is right while traditional Christianity is not. In this respect, he presents the historicalcritical study as if it were one of the most extraordinary discoveries of modernity, which managed to present beyond any reasonable doubt that the authors of Scripture were frail human beings—subject to error and inf luenced by history. This description of biblical authors, however, is not denied by the traditional view of inspiration but is rather fully acknowledged. Actually, this is why inspiration was needed in order that Scripture should be made available to people.14 Those who were to become the authors of biblical books were indeed ordinary people, liable to err and fundamentally weak. This, however, is the definition of any human being that is fully acknowledged both by Scripture and traditional Christianity. The direct inspiration of biblical authors by God himself was indeed a must precisely because they were weak, made mistakes, and were subject to all sorts of historical influences. But

56

●


for Küng this would be too much of a good thing because he seems utterly convinced that a direct inspiration by God is impossible, so Scripture is just a human testimony about what happened to Jesus. For him, such a view of Scripture does not destroy its authority over the community of faith because even if Scripture is not infallible and inerrant, it is still true in its content, testimony, and message. Küng is convinced that such a view of Scripture also presents its authors in a true light as frail, transient, and limited human beings who did nothing but write down (sometimes quite inadequately) their versions of whatever they had seen. In Küng’s words: This traditional view of a kind of mechanical inspiration however has been increasingly shaken by the historical-critical study of the Old and New Testaments. In a way that could never have been suspected, over the last two hundred years, light has been thrown on the genuine human frailty, historicity and capacity for error of the authors of the biblical writings. Today there can be no reasonable doubt about this. But was the authority of these writings thus destroyed, as many at first feared? Or was it not at this very point that a link was again established with the ancient Church, which saw God himself at work in the biblical authors and yet took seriously—as the Old Testament had done—their human and historical peculiarities? What then counted was not the infallibility or inerrancy of the authors, but the truth of the content, the testimony, the message itself. The biblical authors do not appear here as unhistorical, shadowy essences, as almost superhuman and yet essentially inhuman, because ultimately instruments without will or responsibility through which the Holy Spirit directly affects everything. Here they are witnesses of faith who speak of the real ground and content of faith, but in all human frailty, relativity and limitedness, in frequently halting speech and with utterly inadequate terminology.15

In order to support his view that Scripture is not directly inspired by God and thus imperfect, Küng makes a sharp distinction between the Holy Scripture as a whole and the New Testament in particular. He insists again that any theological discourse about the holiness and consequently the perfection of Scripture is fundamentally a JewishHellenistic characteristic. According to Küng, however, the New Testament is not like this; it is not a holy writing and it is surely not a perfect work. It should be said nevertheless that Küng’s logic is at least odd because if all the bad things about Scriptures come from the JudeoHellenistic background and the New Testament is not like JudeoHellenistic writings, then what sort of a collection of writings is the


●

57

New Testament? Where were the books of the New Testament written if not within the Jewish-Hellenistic context? Küng does not ask these questions and he surely does not give an answer to them; this is indeed a problem because he himself admits that the New Testament has at least one Jewish-Hellenistic inf luence in the famous and classical text about inspiration from the pastoral epistles (2 Timothy 3:16, which says that all Scripture is inspired by God). Küng quickly dismisses the issue by saying that this text is not by Paul and “does not imply a mechanistic theory of inspiration.” Küng’s very short explanation begs for further details but he strangely does not offer them. His conviction that Paul is not the author of the pastoral epistles is not unusual given his confessed admiration for the historical-critical study. Actually, his primary problem is not his conviction in the non-Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles even if it partially explains his reluctance toward the traditional view of inspiration; Küng’s problem is the fact that he takes for granted the assumptions of historical criticism much to fast and thus leaves no room for discussions related to traditional issues concerning the inspiration of Scripture. Thus, Küng seems to reject from the very start the traditional tenets of Christianity concerning inspiration because of his willingness to accept the modern presuppositions of historical criticism way too rapidly. On the other hand, also in connection to the text of 2 Timothy 3:16, Küng is strangely right because the text does not indeed imply a mechanical understanding of inspiration. Any further details would have been hopefully illuminative but were unfortunately not provided. Küng’s solution to the problem of the inspiration of Scripture is to dub the concept of inspiration misleading, which is a clear recommendation that it should no longer be used. So, for Küng, Scriptures were not written as a result of God’s direct inspiration of the biblical writers. On the contrary, biblical writers thought they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God,16 so they wrote the books of the New Testament based on this strong conviction they all shared. Thus, the process of the writing of Scripture should not be called inspiration because the biblical authors were not inspired by God; it should rather be called Spirit-pervasion or Spirit-filling because biblical authors thought they were prompted by the Spirit to write. It should be noticed here that their conviction is just an inner feeling, not necessarily a historical or factual reality. This, however, is not important for Küng; what really matters is their conviction that they had been guided by the Spirit even if this was not actually the case. For Küng, this means that “it is in fact simply taken for granted in the New Testament that every reception and proclamation of the

58

●


Gospel happens a priori in the Holy Spirit.” It should be said that Küng’s conclusion is at least surprising if not deliberately biased because after Jesus Christ’s death (acknowledged by Küng) and resurrection/ ascension17 (not accepted by Küng), teachings about Jesus were taught both by his disciples and people who did not quite understand the Gospel and were consequently warned against by the apostles themselves. So, if Küng is right, both the apostles and those whom they criticized proclaimed Jesus “in the Holy Spirit” because both categories were convinced they were pervaded and filled by the Spirit. If this is true, then the community of faith, which is the church, faces a very difficult problem in correctly separating the orthodox doctrine from heresy.18 Moreover, the church is left without any means to check its own theology and to simultaneously counter heretical views. The apostles’ conviction that they were moved by the Spirit is the basis for the free proclamation of the Gospel or, in Küng’s words, of the old message in a new form. This sounds as though the Gospel could not be preached anew if directly inspired by God. Küng, however, does not want to take things too far ahead and, in spite of his open attitude to modern historical criticism, he still tries to underline at least some issues that are supported by traditional Christianity. Thus, he insists that the New Testament has an irreplaceable normative authority over the church and is the norm19 for all true Christians. 20 The proclamation of the Gospel should always be based on the New Testament because it contains testimonies about God’s involvement in the history of Israel 21 and of Jesus Christ. 22 This looks perfectly alright but Küng’s explanation presents a fundamental problem in the sense that if the New Testament is just a collection of testimonies of people who were convinced they had been moved by the Spirit (although they were not), then one has no guarantee that these testimonies are indeed true. One can easily trust a certain apostle (or all of them for that matter) and be convinced of the veracity of his perspective on the life of Jesus but one can never be objectively sure if what he sincerely wrote down is indeed what really happened. This is why, unlike Küng, traditional Christianity insists on inspiration as direct involvement of God in the writing process of Scripture because otherwise the connection between what is written and what truly happened cannot be firmly established. Scripture and Revelation The next step for Küng in talking about the church is to settle the problem of what Scriptures really are. He insists once again that the


●

59

religion of Christians “is not a book religion.” In other words, Christianity cannot and should not seek to build its tenets exclusively on Scripture. This is a radical shift from what he wrote in 1962, when he said that Scripture was an indication of God’s supreme rule over his church 23 and the very foundation of the signs of the church.24 Now, Scripture is not even the basis of Christianity because its dogmatic teachings are not to be held true based only on Scripture. Küng further explains that his conviction that Christianity is not a book religion is closely related to the fact that, in his view, Scriptures “are not in themselves divine revelation.” This is another dramatic change in his thought as compared to his 1962 stance that the revelation of God and Scripture are at the very same level because if the church wanted to listen to what Christ had to say to it, then the full attention of the church should be directed to Scripture. 25 Moreover, in 1962, Scripture was the only connection between the church and its transcendent God, so openness and seriousness toward Scripture was compulsory for the church. Now, in 1974, Scripture is no longer the revelation of God for Küng, so it cannot be considered the foundation of Christianity no matter how attentive the church is toward whatever is written in the Bible. If Scripture is not the revelation of God, then the church simply cannot fully trust them because they are only the work of man.26 This, however, is irrelevant for Küng because he is fully convinced that the exclusive anthropological character of Scripture is, in fact, its strongest feature. Thus, for him, Scripture consists only of man’s testimonies about the revelation of God. 27 This is quite odd because if Scripture is to be understood as merely human testimonies about God’s revelation, then it would be extremely difficult for anyone to be utterly sure of the truthfulness of God’s revelation. Another problem would be that of attesting God’s revelation if Scripture is not part of God’s revelation. 28 Küng acknowledges that there is a revelation of God but if Scripture is not in itself revelation, then the connection between the true revelation of God (irrespective of what that really is) and its understanding by human beings would be difficult to establish. In saying that Scripture is not divine revelation but rather human testimonies about God’s revelation, Küng wants to safeguard the “humanity, independence and historicity” of the biblical authors that all would be affected if Scripture were God’s revelation. Küng simply cannot get over his strong conviction that inspiration should be exclusively understood as a mechanical process that makes biblical authors mere instruments in the hands of God who uses them as a sort of human puppets in order to clearly transmit his revelation. If this is the case, no wonder that Küng wants to avoid such a presentation of the people who wrote the books of

60

●


the Bible. In fact, one should give credit to Küng for his apologetic and evangelistic efforts because what he really wants is to present Christianity to modern people. However, in his desire to do this as rationally as possible, he overlooks the fact that some people would prefer to trust the direct involvement of God in the writing of Scripture than a bunch of individuals who do nothing else but express their own thoughts about what they think the revelation of God really was. Küng is primarily interested in offering a reasonable explanation of whatever Christianity seems to be; this is why he fears that contemporary men and women would be utterly offended if Scripture were the result of God’s active intervention 29 in the life and thoughts of those who wrote the Bible by means of God’s inspiration. Scripture, however, has its own importance for those who call themselves Christians because it somehow points to God, who is attested in the pages of the Bible. Küng sees himself as a believer in God and not in Scripture because the reality of God seems to be more important for him than the reality of Scripture. This is precisely why he insists that he does not first believe in Scripture and its message but in God who revealed himself in history.30 It has to be said here that Küng has an incredibly optimistic view of humanity because it credits men and women with the possibility of believing in God based on a collection of writings that speak only about God without being directly inspired by him. Such a conviction is on the verge of naivete because if Scripture is not divine revelation but we should believe in God only because some people wrote about God in what later was knows as the Bible, then we should trust God only because, for instance, Küng says so. It seems interesting that Küng is still convinced that Scripture should be the source of one’s faith because the Bible offers proofs about God.31 Küng even insists that these tokens present God to humanity in an authentic way. Sadly though, one would have to trust Küng for the authenticity of Scripture because the Bible cannot authenticate itself if it is not the revelation of God. When it comes to faith, Küng highlights the fact that faith should be placed in God, not in Scripture as such; one should believe in God himself not in a book. Again, it appears that Küng loses sight of the gap he produces between God and humanity. The gap exists anyway because, even for Küng, we find about God by reading Scripture. Nevertheless, if Scripture is not divine revelation, then it seems pretty difficult if not impossible to trust God only because the authors of a book say so. Even if Küng tries to convince us that the transcendent and infallible reality of God is much more important than the historical and fallible (for him) reality of Scripture, it is very likely that the gap


●

61

between the two realities would be left unbridged. As for Küng, he either does not see this possibility or is not really bothered by it because he confesses his staunch belief in God as foundation for his faith 32 in God who is merely attested by Scripture: Christianity is not a book religion. The Scriptures are not themselves divine revelation. They are merely the human testimonies of divine revelation in which the humanity, independence and historicity of the human authors always remain intact. I do not believe first in Scripture or even in its inspiration and then in the truth of the message it provides. I believe in God who revealed himself in the history of Israel for believers and finally in a liberating message in the person of Jesus and who is authentically attested in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. My faith arises from Scripture in the sense that the latter provides me with external evidence in an authentic form of this God of Israel and of Jesus Christ. But my faith is not based on Scripture. It is not the book as such, but this God himself in Jesus who is the ground of my faith.33

Even though it is not divine revelation, Scripture seems to convey true things. The truth of Scripture, however, reaches humanity through the weaknesses of its authors, as Küng writes, not through the strength of its God, as believed by traditional Christianity. It must be stressed here that Küng is very careful not to offend his readers with traditional Christian beliefs such as divine inspiration that reportedly treads on human freedom. Küng assumes he addresses a very sensitive audience, and this may well be the case, but this does not mean that traditional Christian doctrines should be trimmed so that they should not make people feel uncomfortable. People nowadays may be offended whenever they hear anything that could jeopardize their alleged freedom but this does not imply we should accommodate Christianity to whatever we hold true. It should rather be the other way around, which is not alright with Küng. For him, the truth of Scripture reaches us only when we see it from the perspective of the weaknesses of its authors. This seems to be the only way for the Bible to appeal to people; any other way, such as through God’s direct inspiration, would be utterly violent and consequently bad. In other words, we should believe the Bible not because it is infallible but precisely because it is fallible. Küng is adamant in his belief that the truth of the Bible should reach people without any violence, that is, without trying to convince them that God directly inspired Scripture. A Bible that is not divine revelation and is very likely to contain errors and contradictions will always be easily accepted. Küng is fully aware of this because, if this is the case, then the truth of such a Bible will make

62

●


everybody feel comfortable. This is why he explains what truth should mean in the Bible. Interestingly enough, truth is not the content of Scripture itself, as in traditional Christianity, but rather fidelity, constancy, and trustworthiness as applied to God. These characteristics of God help him always say the truth even if the Bible itself contains errors. Küng does not explain how we should discern God’s truth in a Scripture that is full of mistakes and contradictions. We should rather take for granted that God never lies in spite of all the problems contained in Scripture. Moreover, Küng writes, “there is not a single text in Scripture asserting its freedom from error.”34 At this point, Küng overlooks at least two texts: Proverbs 30:5, which says that every Word of God is flawless, and the already mentioned 2 Timothy 3:16, which shows that all Scripture is inspired by God. Even if he does not comment on these verses, Küng would surely have an answer that would counter both. First, he would probably underline that Proverbs 30:5 speak of the words of God (oracles), not of the Word of God (Scripture), even if there has to be a correspondence between the two—otherwise God’s fidelity to us would remain unknown. Second, he would indicate again that 2 Timothy 3:16 is a Jewish-Hellenistic influence, so it should not be taken too seriously as it is only an exception. Regardless of the many possible answers given by Küng to these two verses, his best option for highlighting that Scripture cannot escape faults and contradictions is to explain what he means by the phrase “Word of God.” He explains that it is possible to call Scripture the Word of God but, in fact, Scripture is not the Word of God. For Küng, the words written in Scripture must never be taken literally as the very words of God in writing. Even if he does not explain the reason why we should believe that the words of Scripture are not the words of God, Küng does boldly enumerate three postulates about the Bible. First, the Bible is not the Word of God but the word of man; second, the Bible does not even contain the Word of God because all the words in the Bible were written by man; and third, the Bible becomes the Word of God to all those who submit to it in faith: The Bible is not simply God’s word: it is first of all and in its whole extent man’s word, the word of quite definite individuals. The Bible does not simply contain God’s word: there are not certain propositions which are God’s, while the rest are man’s. The Bible becomes God’s word: it becomes God’s word for anyone who submits trustfully and in faith to its testimony and so to the God revealed in it and to Jesus Christ.35 (Küng’s italics)


●

63

It is evident though that for Küng the Bible is not the Word of God. Even when it becomes the Word of God, the Bible is not the Word of God. The Bible is just a book that becomes the Word of God to those who trust the spirit of the Bible, which is also the Spirit of God. When this happens, Küng assures us that the Bible becomes the Word of God that is liberating and saving. For Küng, to believe otherwise is to believe in manipulation and control, as though God would transform us into some silly puppets if he inspired the Bible. According to him, man should be utterly convinced that it is not inspiration as God’s direct involvement in the writing of Scripture that is important but man’s willingness to be inspired by the words of the Bible. What then is the difference between the Bible and any other human writing? What if some people are inspired by other books while being fundamentally convinced that they feel God’s inspiration? Why only Scripture can convey the truth about God and not any other book? Küng’s only answer to these questions seems to be pneumatological because only the Bible becomes God’s word if we allow ourselves to be inspired by the Spirit of the Bible. In other words, the Spirit will inspire us only when we read the Bible, not when we deal with other books. Although this can pose as a reasonable explanation, Küng does not say why the Spirit will surely inspire us only when we read the Bible, not other works. If the Bible is written exclusively by man, like any other book, then Küng’s attempts to assure us that only the Bible authentically attests God do not present a strong case. This is simply because Küng does not manage to differentiate between the Bible and other human writings apart from saying that only the Bible is an inspiring word (which is to say that the Bible is certainly not the inspired Word of God).36


CHAPTER 6

The Spirit of the Church

U

nlike his ecclesiological discourse in 1962, Küng now presents the church without resorting to the traditional categories represented by the signs of the church. Thus, Küng is no longer interested in the being of the church but rather in the function of the church. Consequently, he starts with a discussion about the spirit of the church,1 which he identifies as the traditional Holy Spirit described in the New Testament and the early Christian creeds.2 The Spirit and the Historical Reality of the Church The first step for Küng in describing the Holy Spirit is to inform his readers that the church’s teaching about the spirit is one of the least understood doctrines and, at the same time, one that was oftentimes abused for the sake of more or less legitimate ecclesiological reasons. Thus, Küng explains, the Holy Spirit was frequently invoked by the church throughout history when claims to infallibility could not be otherwise justified, when particular doctrines could not be explained satisfactorily, when church fanatics had no other way to further their beliefs, when those interested in acquiring absolute power found no other method to reach their goals, and when people wanted to safeguard a false security in matters pertaining to faith. This is why Küng is convinced that the Holy Spirit substituted many serious and objective discussions about difficult issues in the church. This deplorable situation, however, has not been typical of the church since its beginnings. In Küng’s view, the early church and even the medieval church made great efforts to explain doctrines without uselessly appealing to the Holy Spirit. If anyone is to be blamed for the irrational use of the Holy Spirit in theological debates, then we should study the modern history of the church starting with the Reformation.

66

●


Küng realizes that this somehow negativistic description of the Holy Spirit can introduce the reader to a general analysis of pneumatology but it surely does not help him understand what the Holy Spirit really is. Thus, Küng decides to take another approach that is closer to the New Testament and the early church that were not stigmatized in his previous discussion. He shows that the primitive church was eager to explain that God and Jesus Christ were close to the believer and the community of faith. Such an intention, however, was not very easy to realize in a practical way unless the theological discussion presented a real and effective relationship between God and Jesus Christ, on the one hand, and the believer and the church, on the other. In order to explain this relationship, the church decided to hold to the view that God and Jesus Christ are close to the believer and the church in the Spirit.3 God and Jesus Christ are actually present in the believer and the community of faith in the Spirit and also as Spirit.4 Having described the Spirit as a means of connecting the reality of God to the reality of man and the church,5 Küng continues to foster further details about what he believes to be the Spirit. First, he equates the Spirit with God’s invisible work.6 Second, he tries to refute a so-called idealistic approach to the Spirit, in the sense that the Spirit is not a principle that can be applied in epistemology, psychology, or ethics.7 The spirit is not even a mental or spiritual reality that strongly opposes the corporeal or material reality. Third, he offers a definition of the Spirit that is seen as the invisible force or power of God manifested in history and particularly in the people who actively live within the boundaries of historical reality. 8 Küng is very eager to explain that the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of man but the spirit of God, so the spirit is not sinful, racist, or sexist but holy and for all people, man and women alike, young and old, privileged and less privileged. Küng insists that the Spirit is neither an impersonal force nor a personal being but God himself who comes close to man and the world. Thus, he explains that the Spirit must never be thought of as an entity that is independent from God. In order to support his view, Küng resorts to the decisions of the Council of Constantinople that presented the Spirit as being of one nature with the Father and Son.9 It should be mentioned here that from the standpoint of traditional Christianity, Küng tells only half of the truth. He correctly identifies the unique substance of the Holy Spirit that he shares with the Father and the Son (thus, the Spirit cannot be thought of as being independent from the Father and the Son)10 but then he says nothing about the fact that the Spirit can indeed be independent as a different person if


●

67

compared to the Father and the Son. At this point, Küng can be charged with monarchianism because God and the Spirit are so closely identified with each other that the Spirit really becomes just another way of being or manifestation of God. In other words, the personal distinction between God and the Spirit is simply blurred. To his credit, Küng resorts to Scripture in order to explain what the Spirit is but unfortunately remains within the limits of the monarchianist definition offered above. Thus, he writes that in the Acts of the Apostles, the Spirit is described as the Spirit of God while in the letters of Paul the same spirit is seen as the Spirit of Jesus as exalted to God. Küng is certainly right in connecting the Spirit to both God and Jesus Christ but, because he unfortunately does not go any further, the Spirit— although described in close relationship with God and Jesus—is still left without a “face” of his own. The essence of this definition of the Spirit remains unchanged even after Küng introduces a soteriological aspect in his presentation of the Spirit. Thus, he notices that because God gives salvation11 through Jesus12 and the spirit is both God’s and Jesus’, the definition according to which the Spirit is no other than God himself should be completed with the observation that the same Spirit is no other than Jesus himself for Küng writes that Jesus can be thought of as Spirit as he became a life-giving Spirit. It is evident that Küng tries to establish a very close connection between the God, Jesus, and the Spirit and this is, of course, in line with traditional theology. Küng’s problem, however, resides in the fact that he insists so much on this connection that he leaves no room for personal distinctions when it comes to portraying the Spirit. On the other hand, because the Spirit is no other than God himself and, at the same time, the Spirit is no other than Jesus himself, it is not only the image of the Spirit that becomes unclear (at least in personal terms) but also the image of Jesus as exalted to God, even if Küng continues to speak of God and Jesus as two different characters. He is right when he says that the presence of the Spirit in the church and the presence of Christ in the church are one and the same.13 Moreover, when it comes to describe the believer’s encounter with God, this is identical to the believer’s encounter with the Lord or with the Spirit. This is certainly in line with traditional Christianity but only if the personal distinctions between God, the Lord, and the Spirit are fully acknowledged, a point Küng fails or refuses to make. Moreover, when Scripture places together the grace of the Lord,14 the love of God,15 and the communion of the Spirit,16 Küng does not insists on the personal differences between God, the Lord, and the Spirit but rather merges them into the one and the same action of God himself,17

68

●


so the church enjoys communion with God,18 which is realized in faith (namely faith in Christ).19 It is at this point that Küng attempts a new definition of the Spirit, which is very much in line with everything he has already said but is also intended to remain his final word on the issue of the Spirit. Following his previous references to the Spirit, Küng’s definition is dual in the sense that the Spirit is defined in relationship to both God and Jesus Christ. This is not to be taken for a traditional definition of the Spirit that recognizes both the common substance of the Father, Son, and Spirit, on the one hand, and the individual personal features of the three as independent divine persons, on the other. Küng prefers to keep his definition closely attached to the common character of the Spirit who is to be understood as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus Christ. 20 Küng’s identification of the Spirit with God is so powerful that any real, or even any ontological, distinction (to remain within the limits of traditional theology at least at the level of theological terms) between the Spirit and God tends to be eliminated. One could argue in favor of Küng’s desire to speak of the common substances that God and the Spirit share as divine realities but this does not seem to be the case because Küng does not make any references at all to the language of personhood. Moreover, the Spirit is viewed as a power and a force that acts based on God’s grace 21 to conquer the minds and hearts of men and women to the point that it becomes an inward presence and a real effective testimony of God to the spirit of man. But the Spirit is also the Spirit of Jesus Christ exalted to God 22 and, from this perspective, reading and interpreting this definition given by Küng presents a real challenge. There are at least two reasons for this. First, as in the previous case when the Spirit was defined in relationship with God, the Spirit is now seen in close connection with Jesus Christ and the identification between Jesus and the Spirit seems to be equally powerful. In fact, it is so powerful that it is very hard to discern whether there is any distinction between Jesus and the Spirit. Second, Jesus Christ is presented as exalted to God but it is clear from previous references to Jesus that Küng believes in all the phases of Christ’s life, including his death, although he says nothing about his resurrection and ascension to heaven (at least, not in terms of real and objective events that took place in history, were seen by others, and confirmed by valid witnesses at later stages). It should be mentioned here that Küng speaks about the resurrection of Jesus in very traditional terms but it is very difficult to see whether he also believes in a real and objective resurrection, in the sense that Jesus walked again among the living. He does mention that Luke


●

69

speaks about the corporality of Jesus (mainly for apologetic reasons that imply that he could have avoided the language of corporality if he had wanted to convey the true historical reality) but he also underlines that Paul sees the resurrected Christ in a much more spiritual way. So, the impression is that Jesus did not really rise again from the dead but he actually became alive for the community of faith. This is also confirmed by the indication that, for Küng, the fact that Christ lives implies neither a return to nor a continuation of this life in space and time. 23 This is why Jesus is not the living Jesus but the living Lord, 24 the resurrected Christ and the model for the church 25 as well as for every single Christian. 26 So, it can be said that Jesus is alive not in the real and objective reality of God’s being but in the real and objective reality of the individual believer and of the corporate church, which is, in fact, a real and subjective reality. All these happen in the Spirit, Küng says, but within a reality that is beyond the possibilities of man. Thus, the Spirit is seen again as a force, power, and gift of God, 27 not as a person or even a divine person. Even if Küng tries to remain as closely as possible to the traditional language of personhood (the spirit is called “he”; he “wills” and “does not permit”), he nevertheless leaves the impression that the Spirit is nothing more than a mere spiritual reality28 that is effective only for the believers but has nothing to do with a living divine person who is functionally and personally different from God and Jesus Christ. So, it is not primarily important that the Spirit wants to live in the believer but rather that the believer wants to submit himself to the message of God and Christ in faith and receive the Holy Spirit as a result. 29 Even if he does not expressly say this, Küng uses his definition of the Spirit to speak about the unity of the church.30 Of course, he does not use the ontological language of the signs of the church or of unity as a sign of the church any more;31 that would be utterly unintelligible for the modern man (at least in Küng’s view) because it always points to God as the source and foundation of unity.32 The other option, however, namely the discussion about the Spirit who can be received by everybody, is much more appealing. Even if the spirit is not identified with the possibilities of man, the reception of the Spirit as a result of being submissive to God is, for Küng, within the reach of every human being. And it is also an invitation to freedom because the Spirit is the Spirit of freedom; the Spirit of a real freedom.33 This freedom, however, appears to be valid and applicable only to this life and is fundamentally existential. The fact that the freedom offered by the Spirit is existential would not be a problem in itself; the problem is that nothing is said

70

●


about the soteriological dimension of this freedom. Thus, man is saved from a sort of inauthentic life characterized by fears, perils, and expectations and helped to step into a new life that is existentially different and full of “fresh courage, support, strength, consolation.” This picture of spiritual freedom is anything but traditional because it does not say a thing about man’s freedom from sin 34 and his expectation to live with God in another life that is fundamentally different from the life we live now in space and time. For Küng, spiritual freedom works only in this reality, in the space and time of our history,35 and the Spirit is a pledge only in view of its consummation. In other words, the Spirit is available for us, here and now, if we want to live a better life, a more authentic life, here and now. The Spirit and the Doctrine of the Trinity As far as the Spirit is concerned, he appears in the New Testament alongside the Father and the Son, or alongside God and Jesus Christ. This means that we must understand the Spirit and the community of faith within a Trinitarian context. Küng, however, is dissatisfied with the traditional formula of the doctrine of the Trinity because this seems to be, in his view, essentially mythological.36 This is why he insists that we must understand the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—but not according to traditional Christianity but, as Küng underlines, in “nonmythological terms.”37 Such a methodology actually deciphers Küng’s entire approach to the church in particular and to Christian theology in general. Thus, if in 1962, he was still professing evident traditional doctrines, he now presents a theology that is not traditional but modern because, as already shown, traditional Christianity is mythological while modern Christianity is nonmythological. In Küng, the problem of the traditional formula of the doctrine of the Trinity is what turned it into mythology and, if we are to believe Küng, the blame should be cast on Hellenistic thought. In other words, with the help of Hellenistic philosophy, Christian theology attempted to present the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in terms that would preserve both their fundamental diversity and essential unity.38 For Küng, this unfortunately resulted in the traditional dogma of the Trinity, which is far from being understood by the modern man.39 Küng is obviously quite unhappy with the description of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as persons because this would immediately imply the use of Hellenistic or Greek categories that, in his view, make up a doctrine that is very


●

71

distant from the original text of the Bible. He seems to be equally dissatisfied with the use of the concept of nature, which in traditional terms presents the unity of the Trinity, because it encourages speculation on whether the three divine entities, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are indeed one in ontological terms. Actually, Küng is bothered by the language of traditional ontology; although ontology was not a problem for him in 1962, now it is something that obliterates the true reality of the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Thus, when it comes to the understanding of the Trinity, it is the idea of relationship that emerges as essentially important, not the concept of ontology. In other words, it is not the life of the divine that is paramount but the way we see how the Father, Son, and Spirit are related to each other.40 Moreover, for Küng, holding to the traditional doctrine of the Trinity that insists on the idea of person and nature as means to describe both the diversity and unity of the Godhead is nothing but a celebration of dogma to the detriment of the salvation event.41 At first glance, the challenge to pursue a high interest in man’s salvation and not necessarily in more or less empty doctrines is theologically and practically commendable.42 For Küng, however, salvation is not man’s escape from sin but his leap from an unauthentic life to a true existence that is free of fear and full of courage. Furthermore, salvation is not prompted by the desire to live for God and with God forever in a world that is beyond actual history, as in traditional Christianity, but is triggered by the urgency of getting rid of existential fears in order to live a better life here and now, in the actuality of present history. This may be an explanation why Küng does not see or refuses to see any clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament. He admits that there are some Trinitarian formulae in the New Testament but John and the Apostolic Creed do not contain “any properly Trinitarian doctrine of God in three persons (modes of being).” Küng is utterly convinced that there is only one single and clear foundation for the traditional doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, namely the text of 1 John 5:7 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”). This text, however, is a forgery for Küng and consequently must be considered a later addition to the original text of 1 John. Thus, there is actually no clear affirmation of the Trinity in the Bible, so the traditional Trinitarian formula is obviously erroneous. Küng overlooks the fact that a doctrine does not necessarily stand on a very clear formulation but rather on the collective testimony of Scripture in general, so if we find plenty of references to

72

●


the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the New Testament (as Küng himself admits), it is very likely that we can think of a teaching about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The fact that this doctrine was later called “Trinity” may be irrelevant but the reality that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit form a unity of three entities (the use of the word “persons” would clearly upset Küng) can hardly be overlooked. Nevertheless, for Küng, it is not the nature or the persons that are important but the relationships. He is particularly interested in the relationship of Christ with God and the Spirit.43 It has to be said that Küng does not totally reject the idea of Trinity. He is willing to talk about the Trinity but only within the limits of the relationships between Christ, on the one hand, and the Father and the Spirit, on the other hand. Such an approach, he argues, would avoid unnecessary problems such as tritheism or modalism. The only way for Küng to accept the doctrine of the Trinity is to talk about the unity of Father, Son, and Spirit, which is a unity of operation and revelation.44 It is crucially important to notice here that this unity only implies the idea of relationship (the relationship that Christ has with God and the Spirit) and that it has nothing to do with the traditional Christian language of the ontology of the divine persons and nature. Küng even implies that the New Testament is against the ontological categories that make up the traditional approach to the doctrine of the Trinity. This is why he writes that “according to the New Testament, Father, Son and Spirit cannot be leveled down in an ontological scheme to one divine nature (three persons in one nature).”45 Actually, for Küng, adhering to and promoting the ontological approach to the Trinity would be an immense error that would continue the mistakes made— more or less intentionally—by people such as the Cappadocians and Augustine. This would, in fact, entertain the controversy between the Latin and Greek churches, between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East. In more dramatic terms, the ontological doctrine of the Trinity as described by means of concepts such as persons and nature is so perilous that it endangers even the idea of ecumenism.46 Why? Simply because, according to Küng, the ontological categories of persons and nature as applied to the Trinity will eventually lead to the impossibility of putting together the unity and diversity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is why, he notices, Greek theologians have always started their theological discourse from the diversity or the persons of the Trinity, while their Latin colleagues proceeded from the essential unity or the common nature or substance of the three divine persons. Thus, Küng seems to favor the idea that traditional Christian theology


●

73

promotes an irreconcilable conflict between unity and diversity, nature and persons, with reference to the doctrine of the Trinity. This is why, he suggests, the teaching of the church on the Trinity should be considered in radically different terms that should exclude ontological categories such as nature and persons but include ideas such as unity, revelation, humanity (of Christ), history, relationship, and salvation. One can hardly miss that Küng prefers to leave aside the ontological reality of God and stress the soteriological significance of God for us.47 In other words, he is interested in showing how the idea of God is relevant for our existential salvation, which, as already shown, is an escape from anguish and lack of authenticity into the real world of courage and meaning. Here is what Küng has to say about these issues: In the New Testament it is unequivocally a question of a unity in the event of revelation, in which the diversity of the “roles” must not be overlooked, the sequence must not be reversed, and Jesus’ humanity in particular must not for a moment be disregarded. Even in John’s Gospel none of the statements about Father, Son and Spirit or on God as Spirit, light, and love are ontological statements about God in himself and his innermost nature, about the static, self-sustaining essence of a triune God. In the whole of the New Testament such statements are concerned with the manner of God’s revelation; his dynamic activity in history, the relationship of God to man and man’s relationship to God. The triadic formulas of the New Testament are meant to express, not an “immanent” but an “economic” theology of the Trinity, not an inner-divine (immanent) essential triunity in itself but a salvation-historical (economic) unity of Father, Son and Spirit in the encounter with us. The New Testament is not concerned with God himself, but with God for us, as he has acted on us through Jesus himself in the Spirit, on which the reality of our salvation depends.48

The ideas of relationship and economic Trinity saliently emerge as crucial for Küng. It is not primarily important to define who God is, or who Christ or the Spirit is, but rather what they all have done for us. It is certainly salutary that Küng tries to promote a very practical kind of theology, but this unfortunately leads him away from traditional Christianity. Thus, the Trinity is not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit but the Father, who is reached through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. This is clearly a functional approach to the Trinity that sadly and intentionally excludes the ontological aspects of the three. Should we take this a little further, it could be argued that what really counts for men and women is the significance of God for their salvation.49 God,

74

●


however, is to be understood by seeing what Jesus Christ did and said.50 The acts and words of Jesus cannot be adequately comprehended unless we learn about them in the “spirit” of the Holy Spirit. Again, it should be stressed that Küng does not see the Trinity in terms of God’s work for us that is meant to save us from sin in order to transfer us beyond history to the eternity of God, but in terms of God’s significance for us that is meant to save us from our own existential problems in order to transfer us, within the same historical reality, to a better life. This is exactly why, for Küng, ontological categories have to be excluded: because they are deceiving in the sense that, if we believe them, we will not be able to understand our lives within the boundaries of present history. Actually, any reference to whatever lies beyond history in the ontologically real existence of God seems to be avoided.51 For instance, it is not only the traditional or classical doctrine of the Trinity that should be cleansed of the “ontologically real” and “beyond history” categories of nature and persons but also the doctrine of the double nature of Christ. Although Küng does not elaborate on this, he appears to support the idea that Jesus should be understood exclusively in human terms while any reference to him as divine should be understood existentially. Thus, the Trinity is not really a Trinity in the traditional sense of three divine persons who share the same common nature or substance but the coordination of God, Jesus, and Spirit. This is the case because the turning point of the doctrine of Trinity is, as Küng correctly notices, its Christological dimension. But if Christ is no longer divine and human ontologically but only a human who acts in accordance with God’s precepts, then it is quite clear that the Trinity cannot function immanently but only economically. It may well be the case that God is in heaven ontologically (although it is increasingly difficult to ascribe such a belief to Küng, given his interpretation of Christ and the Spirit) but Jesus is on earth, he died, and if he lives today this is only because of his words and deeds that, understood correctly or in the Spirit, make him the Christ of the church. Küng realizes he can easily be charged with rejecting the traditional doctrine of the Trinity on the premise that he disagrees with Hellenistic ideas. Thus, he softens the tone and nuances his explanation to the point that he admits the relevance and efficacy of Hellenistic formulations for the first centuries of the church but, at the same time, refuses to believe that this can still be the case nowadays. This prompts him to leave aside once again the ontological dimensions of the traditional interpretation of the Trinity in exchange for the functional aspects of


●

75

what he thinks should be a contemporary approach to the same doctrine. Thus, the Trinity should be understood as the fundamental unity among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit within the reality of history in which the church lives.52 Küng explains that the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a “revelation event and a revelational unity” because it discloses the true and comprehensive set of relationships that exist among the three. Christology and pneumatology are vital for a correct understanding of the Trinity, Küng emphatically underlines. For him, however, the Trinity should be understood primarily from the standpoint of Jesus, who is the revelation of God and who becomes revelation for us in the Spirit.53 It is vital to see here that, for the community or faith, namely for the church, Jesus is important only as Christ because he reveals the presence of God when he is seen as exalted.54 It is in this sense that God is revealed in Jesus Christ in the Spirit.55 Even if Küng does not say this (and his efforts to stay as closely as possible to the classical language of traditional Christianity should be truly appreciated), the Trinity includes Jesus only as the exalted Christ as this is the only way to reveal God in the Spirit. In other words—and it should be stressed again that Küng does not explicitly say this—Jesus is dead but he is alive in the community of faith as exalted Christ who reveals God in the Spirit.


CHAPTER 7

The Diversity of the Church

A

t this point of his argument Küng offers a new definition of the church that is closely connected to the idea that Jesus is dead. This is why the church, in his view, is the “community of those who believe in Christ.” It is significant that he refers to the community of those who believe in Christ, not in Jesus.1 Then, he gives further details about what such a definition of the church as community of those who believe in Christ actually entails. The Church and Christ Thus, the church, Küng explains, was not founded by Jesus but is the direct result of the efforts of some men after his death. So, the church appeared after the death of Jesus but nothing is said about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead or his ascension to the Father. It is clear that, for Küng, Jesus remains dead but something happened after he left this world because one can historically see the emergence of a community that preached what Jesus said and did while he was alive. According to Küng, this community proclaimed both the crucifixion of Christ and the fact that he is still living. Again, no reference at all is made to the resurrection or the ascension of Jesus because Jesus is clearly dead. Thus, the community that believed in his words and deeds proclaimed both the historical reality of his death and the nonhistorical belief that he is still alive even if, historically speaking, he is dead. Küng continues to provide more insights in his definition of the church, which is the community of all those who get involved in the cause of Jesus Christ and who share it with the world as being hope2 for the entire humanity.3 It is crucial to see here that the church does not believe in a person because Jesus is dead, so such a belief would be in vain. A dead Jesus is no support for those who would believe in him. So, as Küng keenly realizes this

78

●


fact, he moves from traditional definitions of the church as community of those who believe in the person of Jesus Christ (who is objectively and ontologically alive as he sits at the right hand of the Father) to a modern definition of the church seen as community of those who do not believe in a person (the person of Jesus who is also the risen Christ objectively ascended to heaven) but in a cause, namely the cause of Jesus Christ (who represents both the words and deeds of the dead Jesus and the hope offered by the living Christ, who is alive not actually in ontological and objective terms but in the sense that he lives in the conscience of all those who believe in him). For Küng, the Easter event is vital for the existence of the church because it determines the very start of the church’s life. Thus, he clearly differentiates between what happened before and after Easter. Before Easter, Küng is convinced that it is impossible to speak about the church because there was nothing as such during the period that marked the beginning at the end of Jesus’ ministry. Yes, some people did believe in Jesus and followed him but they were not the church; they were only an eschatological movement. Easter, however, turned this small eschatological movement into the church, namely the assembly or the community of those who believe not only in Jesus (who died and remains dead) but also in Christ (who is alive in the conscience of this community). This explains why the church, this new believing community, which had obviously kept the eschatological convictions4 of the original movement before the death of Jesus, immediately started to confront all those who defined themselves as the people of God, which is a clear hint at first-century Judaism. Küng condensed all these details in the following paragraph: The Church might be brief ly defined as the community of those who believe in Christ. More precisely: not founded by Jesus but emerging after his death as crucified and yet living, the community of those who have become involved in the cause of Jesus Christ and who witness to it as hope for all men. Before Easter there was nothing more than an eschatological collective movement. A congregation, a Church, came into existence only after Easter and this too was eschatologically oriented: at first its basis was not a cult of its own, a constitution of its own, an organization of its own with definite ministries but simply and solely the profession of faith in this Jesus as the Christ. The “Church of Jesus Christ” in the sense of a community confronting the ancient people of God is also a post-Easter factor according to the New Testament itself.5

One can sense here Küng’s subtle desire to compare (in a less obvious manner) the nowadays church to the early church. Thus, the early


●

79

church did not have a complicated existence as the church in our times. The early church did not have a cult (like today’s church), it did not have a constitution (like today’s church), and it did not have definite ministries (like today’s church). The early church had only the proclamation of the faith in Jesus Christ (more or less like today’s church). It is very difficult if not impossible to say whether, in connection to the church nowadays, Küng thought of the Roman-Catholic Church or of Protestant churches (or both); it is, however, clear that he is quite dissatisfied with the present situation of the church that seems to be concerned with everything but the mere proclamation of Christ. This is why he insists that the church of our time should have only one definite target, that of the cause of Jesus Christ. The church should do its best not to hinder this cause but to actively defend it 6 and put it into practice7 so that it confronts modern society “in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” Even if Küng does not say this explicitly, the church should be evangelistic and missiological. The only problem is that the church, according to Küng’s definition, does not spread the word of the risen Jesus in the world but the cause of the living Christ. It is clear then why Küng does not say a word about the traditional idea that the church should spread the word of Jesus for the salvation of humanity from sin. If so, the church would need the living person of Jesus to sustain it but he is dead and cannot help the church any more. Thus, it is logical that the church should disseminate the cause of Christ because this, although it does not deliver from sin, helps modern men and women understand their unauthentic lives in a new, fresh, and reportedly authentic way. The Church and Its Calling to be a Congregation of God For Küng, it is important that the church should be primarily defined as an assembly, a community that has a very strong conviction about its calling. Thus, he explains that the church is not a mere gathering with secular interests but the church of God. Consequently, the church is utterly and fundamentally convinced that it was chosen by God and is concerned with the affairs of God. Küng even insists that the church has a vitally important eschatological foundation especially in connection to Jesus Christ.8 The church is the very assembly that strongly believes in its election by God and its eschatological reality as congregation of Jesus Christ because it exists in the name and spirit of Jesus Christ: The ecclesia of God is more than the occasional event of gathering together. Ecclesia is the assembly of the group previously chosen by God which

80

●


gathers round God as its centre. The term is used in a religious and cultic sense and increasingly understood in an eschatological sense: ecclesia as the true eschatological congregation of God. When the primitive community adopted the designation of ecclesia, it was deliberately asserting a larger claim: to be the true assembly of God, the true congregation of God, the true eschatological people of God which comes together in the name and spirit of Jesus Christ—that is, the “ecclesia of Jesus Christ.” 9

It should be said here that, for Küng, the church is not objectively chosen by God in the traditional sense that God himself elected the church. The church believes to be elected by God and this strong conviction powerfully prompts it to claim that it is the true congregation of God in the spirit of Christ.10 Ecclesia as assembly has a dual significance. Thus, the ecclesia represents the process of assembling and the assembled congregation. Küng particularly insists on the fact that ecclesia as process of assembling should not be overlooked. The church was indeed founded after Jesus died, but this does not imply a static institution that never changes at all. The church is fundamentally dynamic11—primarily because of its catholicity12 —and permanently new because the men and women who form it come together for worship.13 If the church gathers this way, namely in view of worship,14 then it represents the community of the New Testament.15 The church itself must be aware of the necessity to assemble for worship, so it must always support the “event of assembling.” From this perspective, the definition of the church is threefold: “Assembly” expresses the fact that the ecclesia never exists merely as a static institution but only as a result of the constantly renewed event of actually coming together. “Congregation” stresses the fact that the ecclesia is never merely an abstract and distant superorganization of functionaries over and above the concrete assembly but always a community assembled at a definite place at a definite time for a definite action. “Church” makes clear the fact that the ecclesia is never merely an unconnected juxtaposition of isolated and self-sufficient religious associations but the members of a comprehensive community, united with one another in reciprocal service.16 (Küng’s italics)

One can easily notice that Küng refuses once again an ontological definition of the church that would connect him to traditional Christianity. Evidently, an ontological definition of the church would imply a close


●

81

connection to the person of Jesus. What he actually does is to give a functional presentation of the church that is primarily and essentially based on the event of gathering. This way, the very existence of the church is not tied to the person of Jesus but to the reality of whatever the church does when it comes together. It is true that the church does not come together for the sake of the event of gathering itself; the church has a definite purpose in being together as a community of faith in Christ,17 but the central idea in Küng is that the life of the church is not primarily linked to the life of a person (Jesus or even the living Christ) but to the mechanical reality of the gathering event. This, however, is very much in line with Küng’s earlier definition of the church as community of those involved in the cause of Christ. Unlike traditional Christianity that proclaims the person of Christ as cause of the gathering event of the church (so the church is the result of the reality of Jesus Christ’s actual existence),18 Küng offers a view that pictures the church as the source of the cause of Christ. Thus, in Küng, the church does not come together as a result of what Jesus Christ did, but because it wants to proclaim the cause of Christ in and to the world.19 The Church as Local and Universal This brings Küng to the question of defining the church as universal and local as well as to the relationship between the two. 20 He shows that the local church as individual assembly or congregation is not the universal church but does, however, fully represent the universal church. 21 At this point, Küng wants to bring together the Catholic and Protestant perspectives on the relationship between the local church and the universal church. According to Küng, Catholics admit that local churches are not subdivisions of the universal church but they do fully represent the cause of Christ. 22 Küng even says that local churches are the universal church but only in the sense that they represent the cause of Christ universally, namely all over the world. 23 Again, Küng’s definition of the church, local and universal, is essentially functional. Nothing is said about the person of Christ; everything, however, has to do with how the church functions and what it does as related to the cause of Christ. Thus, the local church must fully realize itself so that the universal church is properly understood. It is clear then that the universal church totally depends on the local church for its definition. 24 If local churches fail to do what they are supposed to do, the universal church somehow suffers in the sense that it cannot fully accomplish itself and it cannot be correctly perceived. 25 Küng rejects once again ontological categories

82

●


such as the being of God that is the foundation of the church, 26 local and universal, and the fact that the church is strongly anchored in the ontological reality of God that exists objectively beyond the boundaries of present history. In traditional Christianity, the universal church is essentially metahistorical because regardless of what happens in and with the local church, it still remains what it is, while in Küng, the universal church is fundamentally historical because it cannot be fully comprehended unless local churches function adequately. Küng also turns to the Protestant view that, he believes, no longer supports the idea that the universal church is made up of local churches. The church, Küng insists, is universal because the same cause of Christ was given to all individual churches. It is evident once more that Küng’s definition is clearly functional because, at the end, the universal church is not an entity of its own but the reality of God’s church in different places. Local churches fully represent the ecclesia of God; the church is all the churches belonging to all theological traditions—Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. This is why, Küng underlines, all local churches can be truly called “the church” and any discussion about the church should include references not to the universal church but to local churches. The Church and Its Trinitarian Constitution In spite of the paramount importance of local churches, Küng affirms that the totality of these local churches 27 addresses the needs of every human being, so the church in general is for the entire humanity. In this respect, one can say that the church is universal as it strives not to side indiscriminately with anyone in particular but to help everybody and especially those who do not enjoy privileges. At this point, Küng reiterates his definition of the church, which is described as the totality of those who believe in Christ as a community of faith and consider themselves the people of God 28 as well as the body of Christ 29 and the building of the Spirit. In other words, the church has a Trinitarian constitution: A Church which represents the cause of Jesus Christ in the great things or in small, bears his name, hears his word and is moved by the spirit, however varied its appearance, can never be identified with a particular class, caste, clique, administration. Like Jesus himself, the Church also turns to the whole people and particularly to the underprivileged. The Church then is the whole community of those who believe in Christ, in which all can see themselves as people of God, body of Christ, building of the


●

83

Spirit. What really counts in this community is not any privilege of birth, class, race or office. The kind of “office” a person holds or even whether he holds office is not important. What matters is whether and to what extent a person is simply and solely a “believer”: whether and how far he believes, serves, hopes and commits himself in the spirit of Jesus Christ in a wholly concrete way.30 (Küng’s italics)

Three things should be highlighted here. First, the fact that Küng tries to come as closely as possible to a traditional presentation of the church. This is why he uses traditional concepts such as people of God,31 body of Christ,32 and building of the Spirit as descriptive for the church. In this respect, his definition of the church appears Trinitarian but is, in fact, far from it. It has already been seen that, in Küng’s thought, Jesus is dead while only Christ is alive for the church. The spirit is not described as a person but as the power of God.33 Only God seems to remain personal 34 in the sense that it is not openly presented in terms that go beyond traditional Christianity. Nevertheless, with Jesus dead and the Spirit seen as a power, Küng’s definition of the church as related to traditional concepts such as people of God, body of Christ, and building of the Spirit is anything but Trinitarian or, to say the least, can hardly be called Trinitarian.35 In the best of cases, it could be called triadic but certainly not Trinitarian. Second, it is extremely relevant to notice that, as far as the people who make up the community of those who believe in Christ are concerned, Küng does not say they are the people of God, the body of Christ, and the building of the Spirit. What he actually says is that they consider or see themselves as the people of God, the body of Christ, and the building of the Spirit. In this, Küng distances himself again from traditional Christianity that sees the church as the result of God’s active involvement in the history of humanity36 by sending Jesus to die for our sins,37 by raising him from the dead, and by ascending him to heaven while the Spirit is sent to live in all those who believe in Christ 38 and consequently make up the church,39 which must be an active witness to God’s work in creation and history.40 Küng sees things the other way around. The church is only a historical entity that is formed of people who are like-minded in the sense that they see themselves as the people of God, the body of Christ, and the building of the Spirit. The traditional language of the ontology of the church is rejected once again because the church is not ontologically and objectively the people of God, the body of Christ, and the building of the Spirit based on the transcendent, ontological, and objective reality of God’s personal existence beyond the boundaries of

84

●


temporal history; the church is subjectively and conceptually the people of God, the body of Christ, and the building of the Spirit because its members think of only themselves as being like that. Third, Küng’s definition of the church is again functional. What really matters in the church is not our status as children of God41 or people of God, body of Christ, and building of the Spirit but the fact that irrespective of our human differences we are all believers who should get involved in the church in a very concrete way. Thus, Küng advocates a sort of social activism in the church that instead of being the result of our status seems to be the cause of our ecclesiastical capacity. The Church and the Priesthood of All Believers Because there must be no differences whatsoever (social, ecclesiastical, etc.) among the members of the church, Küng sees the opportunity to come very close to the traditional Protestant doctrine of priesthood of all believers.42 On the other hand, however, anyone who wants to see the phrase “priesthood of all believers” at this point of Küng’s argument will be utterly disappointed because he does not explicitly say he supports it. What he does say, in fact, is that Christians do not need priests as mediators between God and themselves. They already have Christ as mediator43 in them, so they do not need any ecclesiastically mediated access to God.44 The decisions of faith belong only to the Christian, so the way he relates to God through the mediation secured by Christ45 is a matter that exclusively concerns him. Thus, faith is an inner issue of the Christian who is the only agent that can act upon it. Lest he should be accused of plain subjectivity in matters pertaining to faith, Küng immediately wants to include personal faith in the historical faith of the church.46 This is why he reiterates the idea that Christian faith did not directly fall from heaven but is transmitted in the church. Unfortunately for Küng, the fact that he somehow includes personal faith in the holistic category of the common historical faith of the church as congregation does not automatically make his definition of faith less subjective. On the contrary, his inclusion of personal faith in the faith of the church as a whole does nothing but confirm and strengthen the subjectivity of his definition of faith. This is because personal faith is actually individual faith, so one can speak of individual subjectivity of personal faith as an issue that concerns only the believer and nobody else. Likewise, the totality of individual faiths, which are evidently subjective, does not make the common faith of all believers less subjective; it only makes is communitarily subjective. So, what Küng actually proposes is an individual or personal


●

85

faith that is individually subjective and a common faith that is equally subjective even though not individually but collectively. It has to be said here that Küng fails to connect both personal and collective faith to the metahistorical and personal reality of God.47 Doing this, however, would imply ontological categories that, as already seen quite frequently, he does his best to avoid. This is why he presents the church again in functional terms: the church proclaims the Gospel48 in order to awake faith in Jesus Christ, provoke commitment in the Spirit, make Christ present in society, and carry on the cause of Christ.49 Küng explains all these issues in the following paragraph: Unlike the Pagan or Jewish worshipper, a Christian needs no priest in addition to Christ as mediator in the innermost centre of the temple, with God himself. For in the last resort he has been given an immediate access to God which no ecclesiastical authority can disturb, still less take away from him. No one has any power to judge, control or order decisions which fall within this innermost sphere. It is true that the Christian faith does not drop directly from heaven but is transmitted in the church. But “church,” great or small, is the whole community of faith which proclaims the Gospel—often more through humble people than through hierarchs and theologians, more by deeds than by words—in order to awaken faith in Jesus Christ, provoke commitment in his Spirit, make the Church present in the world in everyday Christian witness and so to carry on the cause of Christ.50 (Küng’s italics)

It is certainly true that these things are not bad in themselves or for the church; on the contrary, the church must do them—otherwise it would be very hard to claim it is truly the church of Christ. The only problem is that Küng does not seem to connect them to God in the traditional sense that the church does all these things because of God and because of whom he is as a personal and saving God51 whose saving presence is visible in history.52 In Küng, the impression is that the church does these things because it likes them and approves of them. It is as if, irrespective of who God is and what he did for humanity, the church rationally understands what the cause of Christ really entails and so it decides to proclaim it in the world.53 In this respect, it has to be shown again that Küng fails to connect the activity of the church to God’s salvation. In traditional theology, the activity of the church is the result of the fact that its members were saved by God himself. Thus, the church preaches the Gospel54 because every member of the church was saved and each individually and collectively wants to spread the good news of salvation to everybody so that the entire world knows God’s

86

●


plan of salvation55 and consequently subjects itself to God for salvation56 and a different kind of morality.57 In Küng there is sadly no such thing but a church that rationally assessed and understood the cause of Christ, so it consequently spreads it in the world so that the cause of Christ, not the person of Christ, should be embraced by society. The cause of Christ must be spread indiscriminately and, because the Gospel of Christ was given to everybody,58 the church must have at least three fundamental features: liberty, equality, and fraternity. The Church and Its Freedom, Indiscrimination, and Brotherhood Liberty has a dual constitution in the sense that it is both a gift and a task for the church.59 Thus, the church must always and permanently be a community of free people who want to serve the cause of Christ. 60 Küng understands the freedom of the church 61 primarily in existential terms.62 This is why believers are described as people who were liberated from the harsh requirements of the law, from guilt, and from the fear of dying. It is no surprise today that the soteriological dimension of freedom is lacking in Küng’s definition. Believers are not liberated from sin but from fear. They are not made free in order to live for God but in order to live meaningfully. Küng also understands freedom in social terms because he mentions that believers cannot be subject to other human beings. Moreover, he insists that the Spirit of the Lord is not present where freedom does not exist and the church should both be a realm of freedom and defend freedom in the entire world.63 So, it could be argued that the freedom Küng refers to is not only ecclesiastical and moral but also social and political. In traditional Christianity, however, freedom is neither moral and ecclesiastical nor political and social; it is merely and exclusively soteriological. Thus, men and women are liberated from sin, not from social and political oppression. It is a commonplace that the New Testament contains references to slaves who were taught to submit to Christ and their masters, not ignite revolts in order to escape political and social oppression. It is equally true that the same New Testament admits the right of a slave to try to obtain his freedom; moreover, it urges the slave to try to gain his freedom but also reminds him that what really counts is his call to be the child of God (see 1 Corinthians 7:21, “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so”). This is why, unlike Küng, traditional Christian theology primarily advocates soteriological freedom, and only after political and social freedom.


●

87

Fraternity is closely related to liberty and Küng’s picture of it follows exactly the pattern used to describe liberty. Thus, the church should be both a place of equality and an advocate of equality of rights in the world. All Christians should have equal rights and equal duties in the church because the life of the church should be characterized by solidarity of love 64 understood in personal terms.65 Thus, based on love, 66 the church is called to bring together people who are not equal in social terms but are to be equal from the perspective of the Gospel. 67 This is why there is enough room in the church for “rich and poor, prominent and obscure, educated and uneducated, white and non-white, men and women.” At this point, Küng makes an unexpected move in admitting that faith in Christ seen as crucified cannot and is not meant to abolish all social inequalities because perfect equality cannot be attained but in the kingdom of God.68 At first glance, this would appear as if Küng wanted to identify himself with traditional Christian theology but it is sadly not the case. Küng admits that faith is not meant to abolish all social inequalities not because it is meant primarily to save us from sins but because he realizes that equality of rights in history is a utopia. So, in admitting to the fact that faith is not meant to erase social inequalities, Küng is not driven by soteriological convictions but by social realities. As far as the church is concerned, Küng insists that it has to do its best to level all the things that build barriers between people such as social (master-servant relationships), cultural (Greek-barbarian relationships), and natural (man-women relationships) inequalities. 69 Fraternity follows the same line of argumentation. The church should be a shelter of brotherliness as well as an advocate of brotherliness in the world.70 From this perspective, the church should be a community of brothers and sisters, a community of believers.71 The authority of the church should be fraternal,72 not patriarchal.73 It is not very clear what Küng means by patriarchal authority, but it is very likely that he refers to hierarchical authority. Thus, the members of the church should not be driven by the desire to uselessly institutionalize the church by means of hierarchical relationships but they should all live from the perspective of Jesus as true brothers and sisters. Küng admits that socially it is very difficult to attain both liberty and equality but discloses his trust in the fact that a genuine spirit of brotherhood74 would surely help in making all people in the church true brothers and sisters.75 The spirit of brotherhood or brotherliness,76 as he calls it, should not be characterized by paternalism and the cult of persons that “are the marks of a clerical system” and are oppressive because they support the “domination of men over men.” Even if it is not very evident from what he actually says,

88

●


Küng might be accused of veiled feminism because his phrase “domination of men over men” could, in fact, be read as “domination of men over women” for the simple reason that he has so far advocated equal rights and duties in the church. These can easily be taken for equal rights and ministries in the church although, it has to be underlined, Küng does not explicitly define duties by using the word “ministries.” The Church and Pluriformity To be sure, Küng emphasizes that liberty, equality, and fraternity do not imply conformity and uniformity77 but the idea of pluriformity or diversity.78 In order to support this, Küng reminds his readers that the Christian church has always been like this, namely it has always functioned as a community that was made up of different congregations that shared the same basic theology. Thus, the Christian church has had members who were Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews, as well as people from outside the Jewish nation (Gentiles); this has reflected the situation of the church in the sense that it has shown its essential diversity since its very beginnings.79 This is exactly why the church today cannot but ref lect is genuine historical roots, which clearly means that the church nowadays take many and diverse forms. As a result, it is clear that we have not only a single church with many subdivisions but a wide spectrum of various churches with many subdivisions of their own that promote a plurality of theologies, practices, and convictions. 80 Küng does not have any problem with this colorful plurality of the various Christian churches (as a matter of fact, he seems to be very happy that this is the case), 81 but he does issue a warning against theological and ecclesiastical isolation of some of these churches from the remaining Christian congregations. For Küng, this is truly heresy, namely breaking off or interrupting the relationships among churches. The solution he finds against such division82 is a strong and committed adherence to Jesus Christ that—if taken very seriously—will prove to be an antidote to any theological and ecclesiastical division, which is a reality in the church. 83 Even if Küng does not say explicitly and emphatically that plurality seems to be the historical condition of the Christian church given the diversity of the human race, 84 if anything else, he does mention that even in the early church “the parties were constantly emerging.”85 This does seem to be a recognition of the historical condition of the church, in the sense that the fundamental feature of history is its utterly evident diversity. If applied to the historical situation of the church, it is clear that the Christian church as represented by the many


●

89

congregations that have always existed along history cannot be but essentially pluralistic and diverse in all their aspects, 86 both theologically and ecclesiastically. 87 The Church and Mission Regardless of or rather in spite of its clearly fundamental diversity, the Christian church must function well enough in order to fulfill its mission. 88 In other words, the church must be faithful to the mission it received from Christ. 89 In order to do this, the church must follow at least three basic rules. The first rule for the proper functionality of the church resides in the fact that the church must be characterized by pluriformity instead of uniformity.90 Even if he does not say it, Küng seems to imply that uniformity in the church is both an impossibility and a utopia. It is simply impossible to have uniformity in the church because the natural condition of the church is to be pluralistic or pluriform.91 The origins of pluriformity within the church are closely related to the work of the Holy Spirit 92 and it has to be said that Küng is very traditional in saying this. At this point, Küng marches on traditional issues because he explains that the work of the Holy Spirit in the church93 is done through charisms or gifts of the Spirit.94 This is why the church has always been characterized by diversity and also because the gifts of the Spirit 95 were many—this fact can easily be seen in the many ecclesiastical functions that existed in the church.96 Thus, as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit, the church has always had apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, and the like.97 Furthermore, concerning the leadership of the church, Küng highlights that this should not be considered in terms of ecclesiastical offices but in terms of gifts of the Spirit because the church itself is a gift of God.98 This is why it is virtually impossible to talk about singularity and uniformity in the Christian church. Thus, in Küng, pluriformity and diversity in the church are constituted and justified pneumatologically in quite traditional terms. Here is what he writes: Distinctions can be found even in the New Testament. There are the functions of apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, admonitors for proclamation. And as auxiliary services there are the functions of deacons and deaconesses, of alms distributors, of those who care for the sick and of the widows who devote themselves to the service of the congregation. And finally for leadership in the community there are the functions of

90

●


the first fruits, those who preside, the overseers, the shepherds. Paul— about whose congregations we have by far the most information—sees all these functions in the congregation (and not only certain “offices”) as gifts of the Spirit, as ways of sharing in the authority of the exalted Lord of the Church: each is a vocation given by God to a particular ministry in the congregation—in a word, charism.99 (Küng’s italics)

It is clear that Küng’s explanation of diversity in the church looks traditional but it is not necessarily so. Küng may well be traditional in saying that the church functions based on the work of the Holy Spirit by means of spiritual gifts offered to Christians for ministry. He, however, switches from traditional theology to a modern approach when he does not objectively universalize the validity of spiritual gifts. Thus, instead of saying that the entire Scripture presents all the functions of the church as gifts of the Spirit, he writes that only Paul describes all the functions of the congregation as gifts of the Spirit. This implies— although Küng does not mention anything here—that based on historical criticism, we do not have a wide array of evidences concerning the way the early church worked or functioned in reality. Nevertheless, we do know some things but these come only from the letters of the apostle Paul. So, based on his writings, we can conclude that only Paul saw the functions of the church in terms related to the gifts of the Spirit. As far as the remaining books of Scripture are concerned, the situation seems to be less clear. Küng, however, tends to overlook the fact that it is not necessary that every book of the Bible should talk about a certain subject in order that this should be undisputedly accepted. Thus, if only Paul talks primarily about spiritual gifts, it does not mean that the remaining authors of the New Testament did not agree with him or saw things differently. The fact that Küng ascribes the theology of spiritual gifts exclusively or, to say the least, primarily to Paul and not to the entire New Testament can lead to a further conclusion, namely the fact that spiritual gifts are not actually charisms that we receive directly and objectively from God but mere attitudes that should characterize every Christian. Thus, spiritual gifts are not supernatural gifts of God but rather natural dispositions that we develop once we embrace the cause of Christ. This conviction is strengthened by the fact that, for Küng, spiritual gifts are a phenomenon that is primarily ordinary, not extraordinary. Küng is certainly right (and also traditional) in admitting that spiritual gifts are not a uniform but a pluriform phenomenon that is not limited to particular persons but to all genuine Christians.100 It is necessary to stress


●

91

here that Küng’s most important problem in defining spiritual gifts (and in this he is anything but traditional) resides in the fact that he fails to connect spiritual gifts to salvation. The lack of a firm binding between pneumatology and soteriology in relation to spiritual gifts can lead to the conclusion that spiritual gifts have nothing to do with salvation per se but only with one’s adherence to the cause of Christ. It is a known fact that, in Küng, salvation should be comprehended existentially101 as escape from the dread of death into an authentic life, so spiritual gifts are to be seen as new attitudes that result from a new understanding of life. This is why he cannot see spiritual gifts as God’s supernatural gifts to those who were saved from sin, but only as new perspectives on life stemming from the existential conversion from fear of death to a courageous and comprehensive life.102 Furthermore, spiritual gifts are not a living reality in us in the sense that they ref lect the Holy Spirit’s objective and ontological indwelling within us103 (as in traditional theology);104 the gifts defined as such are not the cause of church ministry. Thus, for Küng, spiritual gifts are not a spiritual reality that prompts us to minister for the church; spiritual gifts are ecclesiastical ministries. In other words, what we do for the church is not the result of a spiritual gift but the very spiritual gift itself. It is evident that Küng leans once more to a functional definition rather than to an ontological approach to the gifts of the spirit. Another example of Küng’s functional definition of spiritual gifts is to be found in the following paragraph: Genuine charism binds a person to Jesus and his rule. Anyone who has the Spirit from God confesses Jesus as Lord (this is the distinctive mark of being a Christian); genuine charism is related to community. The sign of a true vocation is not a miracle but service for the benefit of the community. Any kind of ministry in the church therefore is of its nature dependent on solidarity, on collegial agreement, on discussion among partners, on communication and dialogue.105 (Küng’s italics)

It is sad that Küng, once again, refuses to say anything about salvation in connection to spiritual gifts. He correctly mentions that spiritual gifts prompt the Christian to confess Christ and bind him to Christ, but the fact that one confesses Christ and adheres to his cause does not necessarily mean he is a Christian or that he has spiritual gifts. In traditional theology, one confesses Christ because he or she was saved from sin106 and was given the Spirit (and the gifts of the Spirit for that matter)—but there is no indication as such in Küng’s definition of spiritual gifts.

92

●


Moreover, while it is certainly true that spiritual gifts are related to the community and must be used in order to edify the church, the ministry of the church does not necessarily depend on solidarity, agreement, discussions, communication, and dialogue as Küng suggests. The ministry of the church, as defined traditionally, is fundamentally based on the practical application of spiritual gifts by those who were saved by God from sin. Then, it is very likely that solidarity, agreement, and other such aspects will follow. In other words, if the ministry of the church depended on solidarity and communication, it would utterly depend on human abilities—and in this Küng is evidently modernistic. The ministry of the church, however, in traditional Christianity does not depend on our capacities but on the very existence of God himself who lives in us, ontologically and objectively, and empowers us to minister for him by giving us the gifts of his Holy Spirit. Küng’s definition though does not reflect this traditional approach but the modern confidence in the capacities of man to carry on the ministry of the church based on solidarity, agreement, and dialogue.107 The second rule for the proper functionality of the church is ministry instead of office.108 Küng is obviously not very happy with the term “office” as it indicates or suggests a relationship between a ruler and a subject; he even writes that the New Testament avoided it precisely because it conveys degrees of superiority and inferiority. This is why Küng proposes the term “ministry” and also because it shows that things are to be done in the church and that if every Christian has spiritual gifts then every Christian should be involved in the ministry (or the various ministries) of the church. Christian ministry, however, must be understood as diakonia, which in the New Testament meant “serving at the table” and suggested the humble attitude that should lie at the foundation of the ministry of the church.109 Küng is very keen to underline that the fact that every Christian should humbly pursue his ministry in accordance with his spiritual gifts is not a proof of the lack of authority in the church. On the contrary, ecclesiastical authority is based on ministry and service, not on power and inf luence. It is evident that Küng avoids once more any ontological references that might even slightly suggest any hierarchy in the church. As a matter of fact, he himself admits that he uses the term “ministry” instead of “office” because ministry is essentially functional, so it does not refer to institutions (and people for that matter) but exclusively to what must be done in the church. Actually, Küng is more concerned with the idea of power that is oftentimes associated with the concept of office. He is not bothered by the idea of power but is surely very careful to distinguish between


●

93

power and the exercise of power. It is certainly correct, he suggests, to exercise power in the church but only as service, not as dominion. Any exercise of power as dominion is opposed to service and consequently an abuse. This is why he is severely critical of his own Roman-Catholic Church that, he plainly emphasizes, should give up the idea of hierarchy as sacred dominion because it is misleading and encourages outward forms of domination.110 The third rule for the proper functionality of the church is described as ministry of leadership instead of priesthood. For Küng, the concept of priesthood must not be understood in Old Testament terms but in the light of the New Testament. Thus, there is no such thing as individual priesthood in the sense that only some people can be priests; Küng correctly notices that the New Testament teaches us that the idea of priesthood must be comprehended universally because every believer is described as priest and has direct access to God. Küng admits again that he prefers a functional approach instead of ontological categories because this would be in line with his functional assessment of the ministry of the church, which is utterly opposed to the idea of office. Thus, Küng rightly defends the use of words such as “presbyters” and “pastors” that reflect the ministerial reality of the church in the New Testament. According to Küng, the church of the New Testament was totally focused on ministry and it did not show any concern for what he calls cultic priesthood. This is why the idea of leadership in the church should be considered from the standpoint of ministry and as a ministry.111 The Church and Its Ministries As far as the ministry of the church is concerned, Küng comes very close to traditional Christianity and especially to Protestant theology. Thus, he insists that church ministry is, in fact, a multitude of various ministries that are based on spiritual gifts.112 If one takes into account the entire history of the church, it is evident that not all the ministries of the church are permanent and public. Thus, Küng explains, some ministries, such as exhorting, consoling, wise speaking, knowledge, discerning the spirits, have only temporary validity because they are “more or less private” and are applied practically at different occasions or whenever needed. It is quite odd why Küng describes these ministries as not permanent and public because the church does need them constantly. For instance, exhortation is the essential element of the ministry of preaching and, as preaching is a permanent ministry of the church,113 it is very difficult to see why Küng saw exhortation as nonpermanent.

94

●


Likewise, offering consolation is a constant feature of the pastoral ministry, so it is again strange why Küng placed it within the nonpermanent ministries of the church. Wise speaking is equally permanent, or at least it should be, because every action of the church should be characterized by wisdom.114 Knowledge falls within the same category unless Küng thought of special knowledge as that given to the apostle Peter in Acts 5. The last but not the least, discerning the spirits should be again one of the constant characteristics of the church in general and of every Christian in particular because it is the very basis of living in the world as a Christian, namely as a person who is utterly different from the pattern of the world. Other ministries, however, are permanent and Küng includes in this category what he calls the “congregational functions” such as apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, deacons, presiders, overseers, and pastors. All these public ministries must be based on a “diaconal structure.” Küng does not give any other details but it is quite clear that in defending this diaconal structure of church ministries he is, in fact, critical of the hierarchical structure of the Roman-Catholic Church. The diaconal structure of the permanent and public ministries of the church should have at least four basic characteristics. First, the basic apostolate is essential for church ministry.115 At this point, Küng approaches the issue of apostolicity that in traditional Christianity and in his 1962 theology is seen as a sign of the church.116 Küng explains that apostolicity or the apostolate has a “church-founding function” as well as a permanent significance for the church. Küng continues his 1962 approach in saying that apostleship as the original witness of the church cannot be restricted to the twelve apostles of Jesus. On the contrary, apostleship is not only the original witness of the church but also the original message of the church and, as this message was not proclaimed exclusively by the twelve but by the entire church, it means that the term “apostle” should be applied to all the Christians in the early church. Their work of proclamation is the foundation of all the subsequent ministries117 of the church because it was primarily characterized by unity118 and this unity served as the firm foundation of the church in its early stages. Unlike his 1962 discussion about apostolicity wherein Küng highlighted the special role of the twelve within the early apostolic community, his current stance ignores this aspect and leaves the twelve at the same level as all the members of the early church. In Küng’s words: According to the New Testament as a whole, among the permanent and public congregational ministries, apostleship has a church-founding


●

95

function and significance for the church at all times. The apostles (who, as we saw, are not simply identical with the twelve) are the original witnesses and original messengers who precede the ecclesial ministries, to whom for that very reason the church as a whole and each individual member remain indebted. As the first witnesses, they proclaimed the message of Christ, founded and led the first churches and provided for the unity of the church. On them therefore the church is built.119 (Küng’s italics)

The discussion about apostolate or apostolicity provides Küng with a special occasion to say what he means by apostolic succession. Thus, he explains, apostolic succession has nothing to do with ecclesiastical offices but with the entire church as a congregation as well as with every Christian as an individual. Thus, the apostolic succession is not hierarchical or clerical but diaconal or ministerial, in the sense that it refers to the ministry of the church. Apostolic succession should be understood in terms of testimony120 and proclamation and it must necessarily be in line with the teachings and practice of the apostles.121 Moreover, it has to keep up with the times, so it needs to be constantly made new in order to better serve the need of the church. This is why the apostolic succession actually refers to the fact that the church has managed to endure throughout history so that it still exists in the present.122 In this respect, the apostolic succession is not the succession of some ecclesiastical offices but the succession of faith, apostolic faith to be precise, confession,123 ministry, and life. Thus, apostolic succession is profoundly missiological.124 Here is Küng’s explanation: The basic “apostolic succession” therefore is not succession to certain offices but that of the church as a whole and of each and every individual Christian. It must consist in a positive concord with the apostles, which is to be continually freshly renewed. What is required is the enduring agreement with the apostolic testimony (transmitted to us in the New Testament) and the continual implementation of the apostolic ministry (missionary advance into the world and building up of the congregation). Apostolic succession therefore is primarily a succession both in the apostolic faith and confession and in apostolic ministry and life.125 (Küng’s italics)

Second, Küng talks about the diversity of styles that exists in the church in connection to ministry. He is convinced that Jesus left a model for the church that found different expressions as time elapsed. Küng notices that the ministries exercised by prophets and teachers were utterly significant for the church but the way they were practically

96

●


applied in various ecclesiastical communities differed radically because they needed to be adapted to the specific needs of those communities. This is why, Küng emphasizes the differences between ecclesiastical communities in the Hellenistic world and those in Palestine that, in his view, were evidently significant. Thus, Küng insists that the churches founded by the apostle Paul were based on his apostolic authority, remained voluntarily under his accountability, and established ministries in order to serve their needs. Furthermore, he underlines that the apostle Paul never spoke of ordination or of presbyters because he reportedly did not know anything about the later institutionalization of church offices. This is why, Küng concludes that the churches founded by the apostle Paul had ministries that were voluntarily based on spiritual gifts: As far as we can ascertain, the congregations founded by Paul himself with apostolic authority, which remained freely responsible to him as the minister of the Gospel, set up whatever ministries of order and leadership seemed necessary for their congregational life. These voluntary congregational ministries acquired an authority which could positively demand subordination. What proved the ministry to be genuine, however, was not the simple fact of possessing a certain function but the form in which the service was carried out. In the unquestionably authentic letters Paul never speaks of ordination or presbyters and obviously knows nothing of any institutionalized office in which a person is first appointed and only then obliged to perform a service. His churches are communities of free charismatic ministries.126 (Küng’s italics)

It is not very difficult to agree with Küng in almost everything he says about the churches established by Paul. His explanation, however, has at least two problematic aspects. The first has to do with Küng’s observation that the churches established by Paul remained free under his supervision. It seems to be evident that these churches remained primarily under Paul’s supervision but it is very difficult if not impossible to believe that they rejected the authority of other apostles who could have visited them. The second aspect concerns Küng’s conviction that Paul never said anything about ordination or presbyters. At this point, Küng is obviously mistaken if the Epistle to Titus was indeed written by Paul as indicated in Titus 1:1. Thus, Paul writes in Titus 1:5 that “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.” The word “elders” undoubtedly refers to presbyters, so Küng is wrong when he says that Paul knew nothing about ordination, presbyters, or the ordination of presbyters.


●

97

Küng, however, seems convinced that the churches founded by Paul, which did not have ordained elders or presbyters, were utterly different from the churches set up in Palestine that directly took over ordination and the office of elders from Judaism.127 Küng is certainly right about the churches in Palestine but then the question arises why this should not also be the case with Paul’s churches. At the end of the day, Paul was a Jew (even if from the diaspora); he studied in Jerusalem, so he was well acquainted with Palestinian Judaism; and when he started his preaching ministry as a Christian apostle, he visited many synagogues in Asia Minor and only then did he establish Christian communities. So it is very likely that Paul founded his churches based on the already established pattern of the Jewish synagogue that had both ordination and presbyters. To give just one example, Acts 18 present Paul’s ministry in Ephesus and then Acts 20 describe the meeting between Paul and the elders or presbyters of the church of Ephesus. Third, Küng mentions what he calls the special apostolic succession, which is described as the ministry of leading and founding churches. This particular ministry must be based on the proclamation of the Gospel128 and is essentially functional. Küng evidently prefers to define this special apostolic succession in functional terms primarily because any ontological reference attached to church leadership could imply that bishops are the successors of the apostles (an idea that Küng staunchly resents). It is obvious once again that Küng is critical of his own Roman-Catholic Church by saying that bishops are not the successors of the apostles in a direct and exclusive way. Bishops are to be regarded only as ministers who have the duty to further apostolic mission129 and ministry.130 They did not and could not replace the apostles as immediate witnesses and ambassadors of Jesus Christ—which confirms the church’s continuity with the apostolic witness of Christ,131 so what they did was to continue the work of the apostles and proclaim the Gospel.132 This is why Küng insists that—in connection to the special apostolic succession—there are some things that cannot be justified exegetically from the New Testament but only historically in the sense that they should be seen as the result of a “long and problematic historical process.” These things include the office of bishops, the monarchial episcopate of a single bishop, and the bishop as the supervisor of a diocese. In this context Küng underlines that: The apostolic succession of leaders does not follow automatically or mechanically on the imposition of hands. It presupposes faith and demands a faith which is active in the apostolic spirit. It does not exclude the possibility of

98

●


failure and error and therefore needs to be tested by the believers as a whole.133 (Küng’s italics)

These comments are quite evidently made with reference to the RomanCatholic Church and especially to the office of the pope.134 The special apostolic succession, which is essentially ministerial or functional, has to be anchored in faith and directed to fellowship135 and mutual service for the church and for the world.136 Fourth, Küng tackles various issues concerning the way the church should function and he insists that the New Testament does not prescribe one single way of doing things in the church but it rather leaves the community of faith to decide which way to go and how to proceed in order to advance the Gospel.137 Some aspects, however, must exist in the church and be done in accordance with the New Testament.138 Thus, the church needs leadership but this must be performed in the Spirit of Jesus Christ and based on a special vocation. In addition to this, leadership must be practically exercised in view of the proclamation of the Word of God. It is equally important that church leadership should be exercised by competent and gifted Christians irrespective of their gender, marital status, education, and other such factors. The ministers of the church need to be ordained in the sense that they must be called to office and service. Thus, participation in the mission of Christ139 is a must and those who are leaders of the church must be distinguished from ordinary believers, although all Christians are priests. Thus ordination to service is distinct from but, of course, not exclusive of the priesthood of all believers. It is important to notice that ordination is active participation in the mission of Christ,140 which is confirmed by prayer141 and the imposition of hands that represent the traditional way of conferring ordination. Küng is not bothered by the use of the term “sacrament” in connection to church service because, in his view, such an issue is just a matter of linguistics. Here is what Küng has to say about ordination: What is ordination? Ordination is a call to office, which is linked with the mission of the church as a whole and must be understood as a participation in the mission of Christ, traditionally carried out with prayer and the imposition of hands. As distinct from the universal priesthood of all believers, it authorizes a person publicly to carry out the one mission of Christ, of which the main tasks are proclamation and the administration of the sacraments. This authority can be exercised in a variety of specialized functions. In the individual case ordination for the person ordained and for the congregation can mean the confirmation of a charism or a calling with the promise of a


●

99

charism. Whether ordination is to be described as a sacrament or not is a question of terminology.142 (Küng’s italics)

It is important to see here that Küng detaches himself from the sacramental approach to ordination of the Roman-Catholic Church. As opposed to this, Küng proposes a ministerial and pneumatological approach because ordination is seen as a confirmation of certain spiritual gifts that consequently authorizes the ordained person to publicly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.143 The Church and Petrine Ministry Küng is also interested in clarifying the issue of Petrine ministry. As far as he in concerned and to make a long discussion short, Küng is convinced that Petrine ministry should not be understood in terms of the Roman Pontiff ’s jurisdiction over all Christian churches—both Catholic and Protestant. Petrine ministry is indeed a matter of succession but not the succession of the bishops of the Church of Rome; what Küng has in mind is succession in the spirit, which is Petrine mission and task, Petrine testimony and service144 in view of church unity.145 So, if we decide to accept the term “primacy” in connection to the pope and the Church of Rome, the only primacy that would be acceptable is a primacy in the spirit of Jesus Christ, a primacy of mission that must not be understood as Roman imperialism.146 So, the idea of primacy should be understood in terms of mission and it should be understood as belonging to the whole church, namely to all Christian churches and not to any single church: This ministerial primacy is more than a honorary primacy (primatus honoris), which no one can bestow in a Church of service and which—being passive—can be of no use to anybody. This ministerial primacy is more than a primacy of jurisdiction (primatus jurisdictionis) which, understood as pure force and power, if it does not deny the essential thing—which is service—at least passes over it in silence. The Petrine ministry is rightly described in biblical terms as ministerial primacy in the whole Church, as pastoral primacy (primatus servitii, primatus ministerialis, primatus pastoralis) at the service of the Church for the cause of Jesus Christ.147 (Küng’s italics)

Moreover, this primacy must always be connected to the Bible and serve as means for all churches, not merely for any one single church, to further the message of Christ based on the tradition of the church (but

100

●


only on a tradition that is faithful to the Bible).148 This is why, for Küng, the primacy of Petrine ministry is fundamentally missiological: The Bible as basic, liberating message, tradition as the faithful transmission of the original testimony, the Petrine ministry as unselfish pastoral service to the church, the free assembly of the brethren under the guidance of the Spirit; all this is good if it is not understood in an exclusive sense, not turned against others, if it is at the service of the cause of Jesus Christ, who is and remains Lord over the church and all that belongs to it. In the last resort no Church can pass judgment on itself. Each must pass through the Lord’s testing fire. This will bring to light how much of its special character, its special tradition and its special teaching is wood, hay and straw, and how much is gold, silver and precious stones, what perishes as worthless and what will be preserved as of proven worth.149

Küng’s definitions of Petrine ministry are certainly appealing, especially to traditional Protestants. It is quite obvious that what Küng does here is actually an attempt to explain Petrine ministry from a biblical perspective as well as a desire to bridge Protestant and Catholic (and even Orthodox) theologies. This is why Küng’s efforts are most commendable. What he said, however, must unfortunately be comprehended based on his overall perspective on Christian theology. It has been shown numerous times that the most important of Küng’s problems is his Christology. Jesus is dead while only Christ is alive and the cause of Christ means nothing other than preaching a message of salvation seen in existential terms as escape from the fear of death and acceptance into a new life that is courageously driven by this new understanding. If this Christological perspective is applied to Petrine ministry, then the result is equally existential in the sense that the primacy of service, which is clearly an attribution of all Christian churches, is nothing but the proclamation of a new understanding of human life within the historical limits of our present existence.

CHAPTER 8

The Work of the Church

H

aving offered a definition of what he thinks the church in general really is in history (which is, at the end, a discussion about the ontology of the church even if Küng seems to be quite unhappy with ontological aspects unlike his 1962 views), Küng moves forward toward an analysis of the work of the church. The first step for him at this point is to establish some key differences and similarities between Catholic and Protestant churches.1 The Church as Catholic and Protestant It has to be said from the very start that Küng has a very optimistic approach to the differences between Catholic and Protestant churches because he is convinced that what are thought to be actual differences between the two are not the traditional doctrinal issues that formally separated them. It is interesting to notice how Küng moves constantly and definitely from a traditional approach to the church (and all the Christian doctrines for that matter) to what may be termed a modern view. Thus, at least from his perspective, if there are differences between Catholic and Protestant churches (and some differences have to exist because we do have two different churches), then these separating issues should not be confused with the traditional doctrinal aspects that divided the two churches since the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Küng explains that if we are to identify whatever is different between the Catholic and Protestant churches, then we should not take into account dogmatic issues such as the complex problem of revelation as reflected in discussions about Scripture and tradition,2 the soteriological views on sin and grace,3 the practical application of faith and works, the sacramental theology of the Eucharist and priesthood, and the thorny problem of the pope and his church.4 Küng’s approach is very optimistic, as previously stated, simply

102

●


because he seems to be utterly convinced that a theoretical agreement has already been realized on these traditional issues or, in the worst possible scenario, if an agreement has not been reached, it is at least theoretically possible.5 His advice in order that such an agreement should become a lasting reality for the church is that all the churches, Catholic and Protestant, should apply their theology to their practical activities.6 Nevertheless, not everything is simply clear between Catholics and Protestants, so Küng is forced to admit that some differences still exist in spite of his optimistic belief that they can be wiped off by means of practical divinity. In tackling these things, Küng firstly underlines that these differences do not lie in traditional dogmas but in traditional approaches to dogmas.7 His intention is clearly to oversimplify the very complex differences between Catholics and Protestants. Küng himself listed the issues that traditionally divided the two churches and, even if he thinks they can be easily surpassed, the complex discussions about salvation (to give just one example) do not seem to be a matter in which Protestants and Catholics are more than willing to give up. What Küng actually does by this oversimplification of the dogmatic differences that still divide Catholics and Protestants is to suggest that if these differences do exist (and they obviously do) then their existence is the result of some attitudes that have prevailed in the history of the church, not of the doctrines promoted by Catholics and Protestants. Küng may be right about these attitudes that led to the schism in the church but unfortunately the fact is that these attitudes actually led to doctrines; so if the church wants to heal the schism it will have to deal not only with schismatic attitudes but also with an entire dogmatic system (actually, with two dogmatic systems and it surely remains to be seen how Catholics and Protestants will manage to harmonize their dogmatic differences if the differences in attitude can be so easily surmounted). It is more than evident that Küng is a firm supporter of what he calls “true ecumenicity”8 — even the easiest way to its practical realization resides in the overcoming of both churches’ one-sidedness.9 Küng apparently attaches such a great importance to these different Catholic and Protestant attitudes (not doctrines) that he does not bother to define the concept of the church or of doctrine (Catholic and Protestant) but gives only brief definitions of what he believes these attitudes really are. The first to be defined is the Catholic attitude that Küng explains in close connection to the idea of the universal church and the notion of continuity of faith10 throughout history: “Catholic” as a basic attitude means that special importance is attached to the Catholic—that is the entire, universal, all encompassing, total—


●

103

Church. In the concrete, to the continuity in time of faith and the community of faith enduring in all disruptions (tradition) and to the universality in space of faith and the community of faith embracing all groups (against “Protestant” radicalism and particularism, which are not to be confused with evangelical radicality and congregational attachment).11 (Küng’s italics)

The second attitude is the Protestant conviction that all the doctrines, traditions, and practices of the church must always be placed under the Gospel12 as found in Scripture so that the church should be able to reform itself constantly13 in full accordance with the provisions of the Gospel14 by faithfully following Scripture:15 “Protestant” as a basic attitude means that in all traditions, doctrine and practices of the Church special importance is attached to constant, critical recourse to the Gospel (Scripture) and to constant practical reform according to the norm of the Gospel (against “Catholic” traditionalism and syncretism, which are not to be confused with Catholic tradition and breadth of vision).16 (Küng’s italics)

Küng’s efforts to appease the differences between Catholics and Protestants are surely evident and most commendable but it seems that in his professed determination to put the two together, he offers a very simplistic solution. Thus, he insists that these Catholic and Protestant attitudes do not reciprocally exclude each other but actually complete each other. So, he suggests that Catholics can be Protestant and Protestants can be Catholic if they share a Catholicity that is based on the Gospel and an Evangelical theology that has a catholic vision. Küng explains that this is actually true ecumenism.17 This does not imply denying one’s own confessional past but attempting not to hinder the accomplishment of a better ecumenical reality in future.18 This is how Küng reached one of his most notorious conclusions that says that being a true Christian nowadays certainly implies being a Christian with an ecumenical vision such as the one proposed here.19 In Küng’s words: And yet, correctly understood, “Catholic” and “Protestant” basic attitudes are by no means mutually exclusive. Today even the “born” Catholic can be truly Protestant in his outlook and even the “born” Protestant can be truly Catholic, so that even now in the whole world there are innumerable Christians who—despite the obstructions of the Church’s machinery—do in fact live out an evangelical Catholicity centred on the Gospel or a Catholic evangelicity maintaining a Catholic

104

●


breadth of vision: in a word, they realize a genuine ecumenicity. In this way a Christian today can be such in the fullest sense, without denying his own denominational past but also without obstructing a better ecumenical future. Being truly Christian today means being an ecumenical Christian. 20 (Küng’s italics)

Küng’s solution is simplistic, as previously stated, not because it offers a simple solution, which otherwise sounds perfectly fine theoretically, but because its practical application is far more complex than putting aside a traditional attitude and embracing a new, ecumenical vision. 21 Küng does say that this should not imply denying one’s denominational past but what he suggests about adopting the ecumenical approach surely requires giving up some traditional tenets. 22 For instance, if a Protestant wanted to follow Küng’s appeal to ecumenicity, he may be able not to deny his confessional past but will have to give up some of his basic convictions about salvation (to give just one example). Likewise for the Catholic it will be fairly easy to admit his own denominational past but it will be a bit more difficult to renounce his traditional beliefs concerning, for example, the church. Küng’s explanations referring to what the church is in its historical manifestations as at least Catholic and Protestant are followed by a definition of the work of the church (and also of all historical churches). Thus, the church should constantly and firmly promote the cause of Jesus Christ that is defined in connection to the cause of humanity in general. The cause of Jesus Christ is, of course, the cause of God and this is meant for the benefit of all men and women. Küng affirms that the cause of Jesus Christ, which is also the cause of God and the cause of man, is actually the mandate of the church defined as community of faith. 23 The approach of the church itself to its mandate should be done in a dual way, namely critically and constructively. In other words, the church should be concerned with both the theoretical and practical issues that pertain to its mandate. Thus, the work of the church consists of showing Jesus to the world 24 and this should also be done in a twofold way, in the sense that the church should proclaim Jesus to the individual in particular and to society in general. Küng insists that Jesus should be presented as a criterion for the world but it is vital to see here that, in doing so, the church should seek to present what Jesus means for the present time as well as for the future. This is an indication that, for Küng, the church should not be preoccupied so much with the person of Jesus but rather with its significance for the world. This is why Küng insists that the church should preach the message of Jesus as a


●

105

model and the Lord. 25 This juxtaposition of the two features of Jesus, seen by Küng as model and Lord, 26 is crucial because they explain each other. Thus, Jesus is the Lord of the church in the sense that he is the model for the church (but also for the world). To be sure, Küng does not present Jesus as the Savior of humanity from sin, 27 as in traditional theology, 28 but only as a model that is very much in line with his modern view of Jesus. Jesus is not the Savior of humanity from sin because such an explanation would be oppressive to the modern man who does not like to be pressured in order to take decisions; Jesus is the model who may or may not be followed, but one thing is sure: he does not force you to see him as your only option and decide accordingly; he only shows you that he is a good option for you. This is why Küng describes the church as the spokesman and the witness 29 for the kingdom of God.30 Unfortunately, Küng does not give any other details about the relationship between the church and the kingdom, which creates the impression that access to the kingdom can be had without the mediation of the church in the sense that people may enter the kingdom without becoming members of the true church of Christ.31 Interestingly enough, Küng mentions that the church has been criticized for leaving aside its first phase of development, characterized by difficult and faithful discipleship, 32 and moving to the second, characterized by the deification of its founder. Because Küng does not counter this criticism, he seems to agree with it, which means that he is actually convinced that, first, the church was initially a community of people who believed in Jesus as a great man who died but left us his most valuable teachings, and second, that the church did, in fact, deify Jesus by making him more than human and transforming him into a divine-human figure.33 Thus, the definition of the church as the spokesman or witness for the kingdom of God 34 seems to be a veiled rejection of the traditional doctrine of the two natures of Christ and the promotion of the modern view that sees Christ only as a model. This is why fidelity to the cause of Jesus is, for Küng, the main characteristic of the church. Thus, being a true Christian no longer concerns being saved from sin by Jesus, who is both divine and human, 35 but to be faithful to Jesus as the model of a better life.36 At first glance, Küng’s definition of the church as fidelity to the cause of Jesus and as spokesman or witness for the kingdom of God is very appealing at least to those who are fascinated by modernity. Why is that? Simply because it seems to preserve the traditional signs of the church as well as offer new and modern insights for a better perception of the church by contemporary society. Thus, unity as a traditional sign

106

●


of the church appears to be present in Küng’s defense of the cause of Christ.37 Catholics and Protestants are one if they share the same determination in promoting the cause of Jesus. Catholicity or universality is closely connected to unity38 because the cause of Jesus is not restricted to a particular church but can and should be embraced by all churches that live in history.39 Even apostolicity can be deduced from Küng’s presentation of the church because the church must follow the example of its first members who displayed an impressive fidelity to the cause of Jesus. The real problem of Küng’s definition is revealed only when it comes to holiness as a traditional sign of the church40 because Küng does not say a thing about the morality of those who follow Christ.41 Although in traditional Christianity the holiness of the church is not primarily considered in terms of morality but in connection to the fact that the church is set apart for God42 in Christ,43 this does eventually imply a different morality both theoretical and practical.44 Küng, however, does not say anything about it, which can have disastrous consequences for the life of the church. If morality is not important, the church should accept all those who are interested in promoting the cause of Christ (catholicity), share the same spirit in doing so (unity), and diligently follow the example of Jesus according to the example of the first Christians (apostolicity), irrespective of their moral conduct and convictions (holiness). The Church and Its Temporary Character It should be underlined at this point that the church does have some obligations to fulfill especially in terms of the quality of community of faith that follows Jesus Christ45 because it understands two main issues: first, that Jesus proclaimed the permanent rule of God46 and the coming of the kingdom of God, which was also to become the task of the church.47 These stem from the church’s consciousness that the only permanent reality is God while its own historical reality is provisional. This is why, for Küng, the church should never point to itself but to God and the presence of God48 that has been shown in Jesus,49 so the church must take the presence of Christ in the world.50 The church, in fact, must proclaim its faith and duly work out its mission.51 So, the church should not be concerned with itself and its problems but with the world and its challenging, difficult issues. It is here that Küng launches a more or less concealed attack on some aspects of the church; although speculations about which church Küng had in mind cannot be avoided, it seems that he refers to the Roman-Catholic Church. Thus,


●

107

he first argues that the church must never draw man’s attention to it but to God and Christ. Second, the church must not see itself as the definitive reality or as the consummation of world history. Third, the church must be aware and consequently transmit the message that its institutions are not to last forever because only God’s word lasts forever and the proclamation of the church should ref lect this basic attitude.52 Fourth, the church must not manipulate secular powers but rather try its best to solve the spiritual problems of men and women. Fifth, the church must always maintain a humble attitude53 in its relationship to the world,54 so it must not display pomp, gather money and possessions, or unwisely grant all sorts of ecclesiastical titles. Thus, the bottom line for Küng is that the church should permanently preach the fact that one should not live for the church but the church should live for the people and, precisely because of this, for the cause of God. This is why Küng warns that the church should have a very clear conscience about its life within the limits of human history. Such an apprehension of its condition should teach the church that, like the world in which it lives, the church has a temporary character. So, the church is a provisional institution that promotes the cause of God on earth and understands itself as an indication to God for all human beings. Küng delivers another warning in the sense that if the church forgets this fundamental aspect of its reality, it has the chance to miss its true future. This is why the church should teach itself always to remember its historical and provisional condition if it really wants to face the challenges of the world successfully. All these aspects may sound well but Küng overlooks a very important point, namely the church’s eschatological existence with God after the completion of world history. The fact that he mentions the idea of future and notions such as hope for the future55 and God’s kingdom56 does not mean that he believes in an eschatologically oriented church in the sense that all true believers will objectively exist in the presence of God even after this history of ours comes to an end.57 Küng leaves the impression that the importance of the church, even though totally oriented to God and Christ, resides in convincing humanity that it must find the meaning of life only in the present history. The church, Küng infers, must not see itself as a definitive reality—otherwise it would lead people to despair. But if Jesus is not objectively alive but only subjectively in the conscience of the church as its Christ, then it is very unlikely that Küng proposes that the church should proclaim an actual existence beyond history. The church must understand that its only hope is to understand Christ existentially in order to face the problems

108

●


of this world.58 Yes, the church must learn to see beyond this history its true significance in God and understand its life from the perspective of God—but Küng does not say that this means that the church will actually live with God in an objective reality that lies beyond present history. Such an understanding of its existence should help the church overcome the “gates of hell,” a notion Küng does not explain.59 This phrase, however, seems to make reference to the problems of the present world, not to hell as seen in traditional theology. So, the “gates of hell” appear to be the existential dilemmas of humanity that can be overcome and correctly perceived only if the church learns to see itself in an existential relationship to God and his significance for it. The Church and Service The church should understand itself not only as a provisional reality but also as a serving church. Thus, the church should not attempt to seize political power by means of revolution; the church should do its best to acquire spiritual power by actively getting involved in serving humanity.60 This is why Küng explains that although the church has to stay calm politically, 61 it has to be active socially.62 So, political restraint by no means implies social inactivity, 63 which explains Küng’s conviction that the vocation of the church “is active diakonia in every form.” The church should not be concerned with power but with ministry, so politics must never overcome spirituality. Moreover, the church must pursue its spiritual goals without violence.64 For Küng, this actually means a constant and efficient intervention for the benefit of those who are socially neglected. This interest of the church should also be coupled with a diligent availability to help the ruling classes because social inequalities do not erase man’s common humanity. The church should not build barriers among people but rather become a means of communication. It must not preach division but unity, friendship, peace, and justice.65 The church must help people, support them, and constantly assist them in correctly understanding one another. This is why the church must always remain objective and impartial; it must not be politically partisan and must refrain from economic or social profiteering. The church must not support any worldly system of any sort (political, economical, social, intellectual, etc.), at least not uncritically and unconditionally. In its relationships with the world, the church must never take the easy way out but, as Küng stresses, the “way of the cross.” This is an indication that the church must permanently relate fairly and equitably to all people, regardless of whether for her they are friends or enemies, supporters


●

109

or persecutors, good or bad. The duty of the church is to regard everybody as neighbors 66 and deal with them accordingly.67 For Küng, such an existence of the church that is fundamentally unselfish should always result in discipleship, 68 discipleship of Jesus, 69 which is a sign of sanctification.70 Thus, the church should not get stuck in the present situation but constantly move forward to the future. The church needs to display its power but not by using force but by displaying meekness, by showing that it correctly understands the world that in turn does not comprehend the church’s goals. Thus, the church should practically effect salvation in the world,71 to both nations and individuals.72 Again, Küng does not speak of salvation from sin but simply of salvation that is, in fact, deliverance from an inauthentic life and an incorrect perspective over reality. Men and women can be saved if they existentially understand their own situation in the light of the cross of the risen Christ.73 The light of the cross is an example of Jesus and his unselfish attitude to all people,74 which must be understood from the perspective of the risen Christ,75 the only one who can offer existential relief to all those who want an authentic life. Unfortunately, Küng still does not provide any indication that could connect the church and salvation to a reality that objectively lies beyond history. The church is indeed advised to take up the way of the cross but this seems to be relevant only for a better understanding of human existence here and now. Or, if it is also for the future, it is only for the future of this earthly history. There is no hint whatsoever at the life of the church beyond the boundaries of history. At the same time, while Küng explains in detail how the church should act toward the world, he does not say how the world should react as a result of the mission of the church.76 Nothing is said about repentance or at least adherence to the church.77 In Küng, the church ministers to the world as if it only wants people to lead better lives without necessarily becoming part of the church. The Guilt of the Church and the Sinfulness of Christians Besides service, the humble attitude of the church to itself also implies the sincere acknowledgment of guilt. Thus, the church must admit that it has not always been sympathetic to the needs of humanity. According to Küng, the church must spread the good news of God’s infinite and unconditional grace.78 This clearly means that the church must never spread threats and intimidate people; it must not proclaim the implacable approach of some cataclysmic disaster and induce a false sentiment of fear. On the contrary, the church must be a promoter of joy;79 it must

110

●


present to the world a good God, not a dreadful God. Very much in line with this, the church must not condemn or anathematize but heal, pardon, and leave the judgment to God. This is because the church itself is not perfect so it must not display a patronizing attitude to those who are not morally upright but rather be sympathetic to their situation. Interestingly, it is only at this point that Küng introduces the notion of sin. The church must accept its own sins as well as the sins of sinful people.80 The church must forgive the sins of people81 so that it should enjoy true happiness.82 The fact that Küng uses the concept of sin, which is fundamentally part of traditional Christianity, is by no means an indication that he is ready to give up his modern view. It is indeed curious that, while he talks about sin, the acceptance of sin, and the forgiveness of sin in the sense that the church should forgive the sins of sinful people, 83 Küng does not say a word about how sinful people should deal with their own sins; he only acknowledges the sinfulness of the members of the church.84 Again, no reference is made to repentance and to the fact that men and women must give up their sins in order to lead a better life. What Küng implies (or at least this is the impression he leaves) is that people can live better lives without necessarily giving up their sins; the only conditions is that they should understand and accept their sins. Furthermore, Küng does not say a word about the traditional aspect of the church’s proclamation concerning the judgment of God over those who do not repent and give up their sins. It is very likely that Küng avoided this on purpose because modern people would be utterly horrified by such news. Unfortunately, Küng’s suggestion that people should be treated in such a way that they do not see a dreadful God but a loving God as well as his idea that sins should only be accepted (which does not imply giving them up) do nothing but create a false sense of security that will never help people identify the true root of their problems. Küng even writes that the church should not pressure people for moral results. The church should rather encourage people and help them trust God and his constant closeness to every human being. Thus, the church should not preach blind obedience by frightening people but show them God’s love 85 for the benefit of everybody:86 The church cannot dispense itself from this radical obedience to God’s will which has as its object the total well-being of man. It could not make up for obedience to God by obedience to itself, its own liturgical, dogmatic, and juridical laws and prescriptions, traditions and customs. It could never declare time-conditioned social conventions, moral constrains, sexual taboos to be eternal norms and then adapt them to each


●

111

new age with the aid of artificial and forced interpretations. When it comes to the great questions of peace and war, the welfare of the masses, classes, races and successive generations, the church may not “swallow camels” while “straining out gnats” in its application of petty moral casuistry to secondary dogmatic and moral (most often sexual) questions. This would mean laying on men’s shoulders the burden of innumerable commandments and prohibitions which they could not bear. The church is not there to demand blind obedience in a spirit of fear, not as a result of understanding and approving the requirement but only because it is commanded and because people would act otherwise if it were not commanded. Obedience must be responsible, justifiable obedience, based on love of God. The Church must never give the impression of preferring external legality to internal dispositions, the “tradition of the elders” to the “signs of the times,” lip service to the purity of heart, “commandments of men” to the absolute and uncurtailed will of God. 87

Thus, the church should always look to God and try to imitate Christ in order to serve the world correctly. For Küng, this is the only way for the church to be truly free in spite of suffering, 88 sin, and death. 89 Küng resorts again to the language of traditional theology when he writes that the church should show the world the coming of the kingdom of God that is characterized by “complete justice, . . . eternal life, . . . true freedom, . . . endless love and . . . future peace, . . . removal of all estrangement and . . . final reconciliation of mankind with God.” All these classical theological concepts that traditionally proclaim the transcendent and ontological reality of God’s existence90 are used by Küng in order to explain that the church should make men and women struggle to understand their historical condition and existence. So, the purpose of the church is to make people happy, not wretched and enslaved. Again, while using traditional concepts such as justice, eternal life, and reconciliation with God,91 Küng does not explain how contemporary people should understand this eternal life and their reconciliation with God.92 Nothing is said about abandoning sin in order to live a happy life and be reconciled with God;93 Küng indicates that free obedience to God is the sole factor that counts.94 The biggest problem of Küng’s explanation is his overly optimistic view of human nature that is reportedly able to decide what to do and how to exercise free obedience to God. Küng does not even slightly allude to the traditional concept of original sin that in classical theology hinders man from listening to God’s voice. This would certainly explain why he is so utterly confident in man’s capacity to rationally understand the will of God95 and to then submit to it in freedom.


Conclusion

T

his work sought to offer basic proofs that Hans Küng’s ecclesiology changed drastically between 1962, when he published his Structures of the Church, and 1974, the very year that celebrated his On Being a Christian that was later to become an influential bestseller. It was argued that this dramatic change is actually Küng’s transition from a fairly traditional ecclesiology as reflected in his 1962 Structures of the Church to a clearly modern approach to the doctrine of the church that is evident in his 1974 On Being a Christian. My book has two main parts, one corresponds to Küng’s traditional ecclesiology and the other to his modern view of the church. The first part, which deals with his traditional ecclesiology of the Structures of the Church, demonstrated that, as early as 1962, Küng promoted a classical perspective on the teaching of the church. This is obvious even at a glance because he discusses the complex problematic of the church in ontological terms such as ecclesiastical signs, which is also the pattern he will later use in his 1967 The Church. Thus, in chapter 1, Küng approaches the notion of church unity in which the fundamental issue of the relationship between the church and the Holy Spirit is seen as crucial. Having described how the church relates to the Spirit of God, Küng immediately and quite naturally explains another vital connection, this time between the church and the salvation offered by God to humanity in the fundamental unity between God, Christ, and the Spirit. When it comes to salvation, it is relevant to notice that the church, which is essentially a spiritual reality, has a unique perception of salvation in Christ that makes all historical churches one in sharing the same spiritual reality of salvation. It is thus imperative that all churches that exist in history have a unanimous view of God’s salvation because this is a crucial element that holds churches together in spiritual unity. Chapter 2 deals with catholicity in the same traditional vein that emphasizes the importance of the God through the Holy Spirit in making the church alive and effective throughout the world. Küng starts his

114

●


argument from the fact that the church lives in history, which clearly shows that the religious experience of Christians is manifested within the boundaries of historical reality. Nevertheless, the very fact of living in history, which is affected by sin, makes human perception fundamentally fragmented. The result is a variety of religious experiences that, if guided and supervised by the Holy Spirit of God, result in a unifying variety that constitutes the very essence of the church. The Holy Spirit is crucial at this point because he builds the link between God and history. Actually, the Spirit connects the people living in history to the reality of God, thus transforming all human beings who believe in God and making them part of the true church of God throughout the entire world. Because of sin, however, people around the world did not perceive the message of God’s salvation in minute unity but rather in a large variety of different perspectives that, although unanimous in recognizing that God is the savior of humanity, resulted in ecclesiastical schisms. The reality of these schisms, which inf licted serious wounds in the historical body of Christ, must be healed by what Küng calls ecumenicity. For Küng, ecumenicity is nothing less than the desire of a certain church to listen to other churches and recognize them as true churches of God. In other words, ecumenicity is constant proof of catholicity. The holiness of the church is dealt with in chapter 3, which is a plea for unity in morality as well as for a unified perception of the church as unique due to the transcendent reality of God. The church is holy because God himself is holy; the church has no quality of its own contributing to any sort of intrinsic holiness. The holiness of the church comes from God, not from the people who make it up. This is why Küng highlights the relationship between the church and God seen as fundamentally Trinitarian. Due to this close fellowship, the morality of men and women in the church must change both personally and communitarily. This vital transformation though is not worked out in human terms and by means of human intrinsic capacities but by God himself through the Holy Spirit. It is clear thus that in matters pertaining to morality and holiness, the authority belongs entirely to God himself who actively works in the personal and ecclesiastical lives of people through his Holy Spirit. The life of the church must be totally lived in the Spirit of God because this generates a new and transformed morality that is characteristic of the church. This, however, is not the only element that should feature the church’s holiness; the church must also live for the Gospel of Christ, which reveals this new morality in close connection to the reality of salvation.

Conclusion

●

115

Chapter 4 is dedicated to apostolicity, which is the last traditional sign of the church. The discussion about apostolicity is quite brief but reveals some basic ideas about Küng’s traditional view of the church. First, apostolicity should be correctly understood when juxtaposed to unity. It is important to notice at this point that Küng does not emphasize the idea of apostolicity as apostolic succession seen in a historical way; he rather stresses the dogmatic aspect of the apostolic message. It is clear then that apostolicity is the agreement of the church with the apostolic message. Nevertheless, this message must be taken to the whole world; however, its dissemination can be done only by a church that is morally transformed by this very message and the power of the Spirit of God. This is why, for Küng, apostolicity is vitally pneumatological. In other words, true apostolicity can never be achieved without God’s Holy Spirit. Küng also tackles the problem of apostolicity as linked to the apostles and, insisting on apostolic succession as primarily dogmatic, he also mentions the uninterrupted connection of the church with the teachings and practices of the apostles. Thus, he slightly alludes to the historical aspect of apostolicity but his entire emphasis is more dogmatic because apostolicity is directly connected to the Gospel of Christ that must be taken to the whole world. In order to do this, the church must live and minister for God in the power of the Spirit, which is the only way to understand the mission of the church in the light of Scripture. The second part of this study is concerned with Küng’s modern ecclesiology as seen in his 1974 On Being a Christian, which is fundamentally different from his 1962 Structures of the Church because his Christology no longer presents a resurrected and ascended Christ but a person who ended his life and lives no more. This conclusion follows Küng’s presentation of the birth and death of Christ while he says nothing about traditional aspects such as his resurrection and ascension to heaven. The impact of such a modern view of Christ upon his ecclesiology is tremendous. Thus, the modern image of Christ, which utterly lacks the historical factuality of his resurrection and ascension, functions as a hermeneutical key to his entire doctrine of the church. Chapter 5 approaches the relationship between Scripture and the church but this should not be understood within the framework of traditional theology but in full accordance with Küng’s new perspective on Christ. Thus, Scripture presents a Christ who died for humanity but his death is significant only in terms that primarily related to the spiritual and psychological aspects of the human being. Scripture is relevant to calm our qualms of conscience, while inspiration should be understood

116

●


in close connection to humanity. Scripture is no longer seen as the Word of God but it contains only the Word of God. Moreover, Scripture is the word of man seen through the lens of the Enlightenment. Taken as such, Scripture is only a human testimony about what happened to Jesus. Küng also analyzes the relationship between Scripture and revelation but this is done once more in anthropological terms, which for Küng constitute the strongest feature of Scripture. His conclusion is that Scripture is not divine revelation; it is revelation only in the sense that it conveys true things. Chapter 6 introduces Küng’s perspective on the Spirit of the church that is put together with the historical reality of the church. The Spirit of God is no longer seen as a divine person as in traditional theology but as a means of connecting the reality of God to the reality of man and also that of the church. He insists so much on this connection that he overlooks the personal distinctions of the Spirit. This special connection between the reality of God and the reality of man discloses the spiritual reality of the spirit of the church, which presents Jesus to us—but not the traditional Jesus who returned to life in space and time but only a model for the church and for the single Christian. Küng knows very well that he cannot totally dismantle traditional theology so he tries to discuss the Spirit within a Trinitarian context. This attempt makes things only worse because Küng cannot avoid a brief presentation of salvation that is not man’s escape from sin due to Christ’s death and resurrection but his leap from unauthentic to authentic life. The urgency of salvation is thus not given by the seriousness of sin but by the necessity that man should temper his existential fears. Jesus is dead, so in this respect sin is irrelevant; whatever is left relevant consists of human anguish that cannot be put away without the constant relevance of the risen Christ, which is alive only in the community of faith. The discussion about salvation and Christ, which is approached in modern-existential terms in chapter 7, prompts Küng to a definition of the church as community of those who believe in Christ, not in Jesus. To be sure, Jesus is dead; so the church was not founded by Jesus but by some people who underwent much struggle after his demise. The only aspect that relates the church to Christ is the experience of humanity. Men and women need Christ not as a factual person but rather as a model that has no life of his own but has a powerful impact in and relevance to their lives. According to Küng, the church is nevertheless called to be a congregation of God. This does not mean that God called the church directly in an objective and traditional sense but that the church itself believes to be elected by God. So it is this subjective conviction of the church that

Conclusion

●

117

makes it the congregation of God, not the actual and objective reality of God’s calling. This church, which convinces itself that it is elected by God, is both local and universal. In other words, all historical churches represent the ecclesia of God, so it is in this sense that every single local church can truly be called the church of God. Küng, however, did not base his definition of functional issues on ontological aspects that pertain to the reality of God’s transcendent life. The church is necessarily universal not because it benefits from the life of God but because it is spread all over the world and functions in accordance with the way it interprets the relevance of Christ. Küng also mentions some aspects about the Trinitarian constitution of the church but this is the closest he can get to traditional theology. As a matter of fact, his mentioning of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is nothing but a way to suggest that believers should get involved in the church in a very concrete way that turns his image of the church into a plea for social activism that helps him disclose his views on the priesthood of all believers. At this point, he mentions that Christians need only Christ as the sole mediator between themselves and God. This statement, however, must be understood in connection to the Christ of faith that has nothing to do with the Jesus who died and remained dead. Every Christian is a priest in the sense that he is able to understand his own existential condition and find immediate relief if he accepts Christ as the model for his life and his relevance as sufficient to put an end to his existential struggle. This makes the church a community of freedom, nondiscrimination, and brotherhood that can easily exist in pluriformity or diversity because its only concern is to advance the cause of Christ, namely the news that man can escape his existential fears if he takes Christ for his model. Küng also brings to issue the ministries of the church as well as his own view of Petrine ministry, which could easily be accepted by traditional Protestants if it were not so heavily influenced by his modern Christology. Chapter 8 presents the work of the church by means of commenting on some similarities and differences between Catholic and Protestant churches. This offers Küng a new opportunity to hold steadfastly to his conviction that the work of the church must primarily be concerned with the advancement of the cause of Christ. The church itself must be fully aware of its mandate because it has a temporary character in the sense that it should not see itself as the consummation of history but only as a means to explain the relevance of Christ to humanity. This only adds to the impression that the church is important not because of its connection to the reality of God’s life but because of its message of relevance for men and women in the present age. The church should

118

●


constantly display a servant-like attitude and acknowledge its guilt as well as its sinfulness. This, although sounding traditional, is in fact quite modern. Küng speaks about eternal life and reconciliation with God without explaining how these should be accomplished. Actually, he does not say a word about the necessity that man should abandon sin in order to lead a happy life and reconcile himself with God. If so, salvation resides in man’s rational capacity to understand that he must accept Christ as relevant to his life if he truly wants to make peace with himself, not with God. The result is clearly existential tranquility that is based on man’s conviction that the relevance of Christ helps him accept himself and calm the gruesome thoughts of his imminent disappearance into nothingness.

Appendix: Reading Hans Küng’s Ecclesiology Today

I

t has been shown in this book that Küng’s transition from traditionalism to modernism is totally dependant on his view of Jesus that automatically modifies his ecclesiology. In other words, his ecclesiology is built upon his Christology, and this is the mark of both his books that display his movement from traditional theology to a modern perspective on the church. Thus, Structures of the Church (1962) and On Being a Christian (1974) contain fundamental insights about Jesus Christ1 that inform Küng’s approach to the church. If in Structures of the Church, Küng’s image of Jesus is traditional in the sense that he is seen as a living person and part of the Holy Trinity, in On Being a Christian, Jesus is no longer depicted as having risen from the dead in a physical sense but only in a spiritual way. This is to say that, in reality, Jesus died and never came back to life as a living and actual person; he is dead and only the church sees him as being alive even if, in fact, he is not. The immediate result of Küng’s Christology is more that evident: in Structures of the Church, where Jesus is seen as resurrected to life in the real sense of the word, namely the same person who was buried rose from the dead in the actual reality of the present world, the church is presented in ontological terms that primarily highlight the life of the church. As such, Küng insists on the traditional signs or dimensions of the church—unity, catholicity, holiness, and apostolicity2 —which are all connected to the reality of Christ’s physically resurrected body.3 This traditional perspective, however, changes drastically in Küng’s On Being a Christian, where he talks about Jesus’ ministry and death as part of actual history, while his resurrection and ascension are only figments of the believers’ imagination. Consequently, the church is no longer a congregation of people strongly dependant on God as ontologically alive—Jesus is obviously included—but only a community of faith that believes in Jesus and his Gospel.4 As such, the church is not approached ontologically by means of its traditional signs but functionally through the elements that produce an impact in society.

120

●

Appendix

But what can be said about Küng’s ecclesiology today? One might reasonably argue that this entire discussion pertains to the 1960s and 1970s, so it may not be relevant for Küng’s view of the church in the third millennium. The best way to see whether Küng changed his mind about his modern perspective on the church as presented in his On Being a Christian is to pick up a book that was published after the year 2000. As far as I am concerned, one of Küng’s most revelatory works is The Catholic Church (2001) because it clearly puts forth his present view of Jesus as well as his up-to-date ecclesiological convictions. Nevertheless, before delving into a brief research of Küng’s The Catholic Church, I have to say that my mind is already made up about Küng’s modern view of Jesus and the church. I am fully convinced that after the dawn of the third millennium Küng did not change his modern perspective on the church as presented in his On Being a Christian. My reason for saying this is a recent interview with Küng,5 which explains his view of Jesus in terms that are thoroughly modern. Thus, he says that Jesus died and that when it comes to the idea of resurrection, one should not understand it mythologically, in the sense that the same body that was buried came to life. In other words, Küng favors a crystal-clear demythologization of traditional Christology because the dead Jesus never rose to life again. This is a fundamental insight of Küng’s third millennium theology, and I shall make use of it in my assessment of his The Catholic Church.6 I have to underline from the very start that this is not a book of Christian dogmatics but a work of church history. Nevertheless, in writing this book, Küng gets himself involved both dogmatically and, even more so, personally. Thus, he confesses his adherence to Roman-Catholicism in spite of what happened to him in his relationship to the Vatican: As the author of The Catholic Church: A Short History I want to say quite openly, right at the beginning, that despite all my experience and how merciless the Roman system can be, the Catholic Church, this fellowship of believers, has remained my spiritual home to the present day.7

In other words, this is a personal history of the Catholic Church that also discloses Küng’s approach to what he believes the Catholic Church in particular and the Christian Church in general should actually be. It is more than clear that Küng cannot write history without making references to doctrine, so his history is heavily dependent on dogmatics as well as personal experience. But it is precisely this personal dogmatic approach to history that makes Küng’s work so vitally important for my book, that is—in presenting the history of his own church—Küng discloses his present convictions about the doctrine of the church. It is absolutely vital to understand that, for Küng, the presentation of the history of the Catholic Church is, in

Appendix

●

121

many instances, a personal and a dogmatic explanation of what he thinks the Christian Church should be. The personal dimension of Küng’s writing is saliently evident as he emphatically describes himself as a full-fledged Catholic: To be quite specific and quite personal, I write as one who was born into a Catholic family, in the little Swiss Catholic town of Sursee, and who went to school in the Catholic city of Lucerne. I then lived for seven whole years in Rome in the elite papal Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum and studied theology at the pontifical Gregorian University. When I was ordained priest I celebrated the eucharist for the first time in St. Peter’s and gave my first sermon to a congregation of Swiss Guards. After gaining my doctorate in theology at the Institute Catholic in Paris I worked for two years as a pastor in Lucerne. Then in 1960, at the age of thirty-two, I became Professor of Catholic Theology at the University of Tübingen. I took part in the Second Vatican Council between 1962 and 1965 as a expert nominated by John XXIII, taught in Tübingen for two decades, and founded the Institute for Ecumenical Research, of which I was director. In 1979 I then had personal experience of the Inquisition under another pope (John Paul II, who was still pope in 2001 when this book was published, my note). My permission to teach was withdrawn by the church but nevertheless I retained my chair and my Institute (which was separated from the Catholic Faculty as a result). For two further decades I remained unswervingly faithful to my church in critical loyalty and to the present day I have remained Professor of Ecumenical Theology and a Catholic priest “in good standing.” I affirm the papacy for the Catholic Church, but at the same time indefatigably call for a radical reform of it8 in accordance with the criterion of the Gospel.9

This last remark is Küng’s license to dogmatize. Before launching any dogmatic assumption, however, Küng wants to make sure that his approach is not only personal but also objective. It is true that Küng applies this claim to objectivity to his historical account but, as dogmatics are closely interwoven with history in his book, I believe that it can and should be extended to his dogmatic affirmations as well: With a history and a Catholic past like this, should I not be capable of writing a history of the Catholic Church which is both committed and objective? Perhaps it could prove even more exciting to hear the story of this church from an insider who has been involved in such a way. Of course I shall be just as concerned to be objective as any “neutral” (if there really are such people in matters of religion). However, I am convinced that personal commitment and matter-of-fact objectivity can as well be combined in a history of the church as they can in the history of a nation. I venture to offer this short history of the church, then, as someone who has much experience in church affairs and has

122

●

Appendix

been much tested by them . . . But since I have both studied this history all my life and lived out some of it, my book is quite distinctive.10

Küng is absolutely right in highlighting the distinctiveness of his book. As far as I am concerned, the distinctive character of his book resides in his dogmatic approach to the history of the Catholic Church that turns into a personal plea for a universal dogmatics of the church—a dogmatics that Küng intents to be fundamentally ecumenical:11 A distinguishing mark of my history will be the way in which tacitly, and indeed at crucial junctures explicitly and without compromise and harmonization, it will face up to the original Christian message, the gospel, indeed to Jesus Christ himself. Without such a reference, a Christian church would have neither identity nor relevance. All Catholic institutions, dogmas, legal rulings and ceremonies are subject to the criterion whether, in this sense, they are “Christian” or at least not “anti-Christian”: whether they accord with the gospel. That is also made clear from the fact that this book by a Catholic theologian about the Catholic Church at the same time seeks to be evangelical, that is to say subject to the norm of the gospel. It thus seeks to be both “Catholic” and “evangelical” at the same time, indeed ecumenical in the deepest sense of the word.12

This paragraph is vitally important for Küng’s approach to ecclesiology, as it is a proof that he, although a staunch adherent to modernity, still wrestles to maintain a traditional format for his doctrine of the church. The traditional elements are obvious and follow one after another: the Christian message, which is actually the Gospel,13 and—Küng subtly underlines— “indeed . . . Jesus Christ himself.” The Gospel and Jesus Christ are undoubtedly traditional Christian elements but they are immediately interpreted in functional terms because, for Küng, the church should have identity and relevance. And in order to be relevant, the church must profess Christ in such a way that modern people should understand him, namely as a dead Jesus who is relevant for us only by means of his message. It is clear that Küng is not concerned to make the traditional connection between ecclesiology and soteriology because personal salvation is not the primary objective of nowadays men and women. What really concerns today’s people is personal relevance because modern men and women cannot identify themselves with a dead Jesus. They are preoccupied only with the living Christ, which is not to be taken for the dead Jesus, but as an ideal character who gives us relevant teachings for our daily experience, so he should be relevant existentially.14 Thus, Küng is much more concerned to be ecumenical than biblical but he is interested only in the sort of ecumenism that accepts the modern approach to Christology (Jesus is dead, only Christ

Appendix

●

123

is alive in the consciousness of the church) and ecclesiology (the church must be relevant to the people who believe this kind of Christology).15 It should be noticed that Küng does not use the term “evangelical” with reference to Protestantism but as a means to display his modern approach to Christology and ecclesiology. Thus, the term “evangelical” includes all those who believe in the modern definition of Jesus as dead yet existentially alive for a church that is not concerned with salvation from sin (this word is very hard to find in Küng’s dogmatic affirmations about human beings and the church) but with relevance in the world. This is why the Gospel of Jesus is not the traditional good news about salvation from sin but the modern reassurance that our mortal existence may be relevant if lived in accordance with Christ’s teachings. So, for Küng, the Gospel is not soteriological but existential as long as it manages to stay relevant to the spirit of contemporaneity: There will be realistic perspectives offering hope for a church which, I am convinced, still has a future in the third millennium—provided that it fundamentally renews itself, in keeping both with the gospel and the age.16

The dialectics between “the gospel and the age” is crucial for Küng’s hermeneutics as it shows that traditional theology should be reinterpreted in modern terms. The traditional Jesus who is seen as resurrected and ascended to heaven is no longer relevant to the reason of modern man. As a result, modern man needs to find a way to reinterpret this traditional image of Jesus in such a way that it becomes relevant to what he thinks that can be reasonably apprehended.17 Thus, as he cannot accept the idea of bodily resurrection, he will agree only with a Christ that perpetuates the ideas that were once professed by the dead Jesus. These ideas, which for Küng make up the Gospel, are relevant if accepted nowadays by all those who want to find inner peace. This transition from traditionalism to modernism in both Christology and ecclesiology is clothed by Küng in the classical garment of “reform and renewal” that he describes as a “critical ‘destruction’ . . . in the service of ‘construction.’ ”18 Küng’s “destruction” is actually a “deconstruction” of traditional theology that destroys the traditional meaning of Jesus and the church and attempts to rebuild a new modernistic approach that is not soteriologically oriented to and existentially rooted in modern consciousness. This “deconstruction,” however, does not produce exclusively unhappy consequences such as the destruction of the traditional significance of Jesus—for the entire Christian Church in general—in the context of his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. On the contrary, Küng applies his deconstructive approach also to the institutions of the Catholic Church in particular those that, in his view, are the result of man’s intervention

124

●

Appendix

in the life of the church. Küng warns his readers that, in applying this deconstruction to the peculiarities of the Catholic Church, the thorough observation that will become evident is the very fact that these Catholic institutions are produced by man. It has to be said that Küng does not stop here with the mere observation that the institutions of the Catholic Church are the result of man’s activities; what he does is, in fact, to suggest plainly that—given the human character of these institutions—they can and should be subject to change and reformation. Küng argues in favor of reform as applied to the human institutions of the church because, as far as he is concerned, otherwise there is no perspective for the church in the present age. Actually, he stresses that in order for the church to remain “capable of life in the third millennium,” the reformation19 of ecclesiastical institutions is a must.20 It has to be pointed out here that Küng professes a functional definition of the church once again, in the sense that he makes the very life of the church dependent on such an institutional reformation. In traditional theology, although the church is in constant need of reformation, the life of the church does not depend on its institutions but on Jesus Christ—especially on his personal ontological reality. In other words, the church and its life traditionally depend on the person and existence of Jesus Christ, as ontologically and objectively alive and as a result of his resurrection from the dead and the subsequent ascension to heaven. Küng seems to be aware of this possible criticism, so he does not further elaborate on what the church is or should be but on the very element that lays the foundation of his entire theology. Thus, for Küng, his entire theology is based on his firm faith; not an empty faith founded on the church seen as an institution but a faith that is powerfully anchored in Jesus Christ himself.21 He even insists that his faith in Jesus Christ is strong and may grow even stronger despite his severe criticism of the institutional church. To quote Küng: For in spite of all the radical criticism of the church, it has probably already become clear that I am buoyed up by and unshakeable faith. This is not faith in the church as an institution, since quite obviously the church continually fails, but faith in Jesus Christ, his person and cause, which remains the prime motif in the church’s tradition, liturgy and theology. For all the decadence of the church, Jesus Christ has never been lost. The name of Jesus Christ is something like the “golden thread” of the tapestry of church history. Through often the tapestry is torn and grubby, that thread is constantly worked in faith.22

At first glance, this looks like a traditional confession of faith that, however, must be interpreted in light of Küng’s deconstruction or demythologization of traditional Christian dogma. Thus, if Jesus is dead and the only

Appendix

●

125

relevant character for human beings is the Christ of the church—who is obviously alive only as long as he is existentially helpful to those who believe in him—then it follows that the faith of the church is not, as in traditional theology, the divinely inspired faith in the living Jesus, who coincides with the resurrected Christ, but a mere human conviction in Christ’s importance for man’s existence. Küng is only partially right when he says that Jesus Christ has never been lost. He is right in the sense that Jesus Christ as a theological concept is indeed part of the church’s tradition,23 but he is wrong because the traditional belief in Christ’s resurrection and ascension was lost for many Western Christians as it was replaced by the modern conviction that Jesus is ontologically dead while Christ is existentially alive only in the consciousness of the church. Küng is keenly aware of the necessity to write his theology in such a way that it still sounds traditional, so he concludes his remarks in a pneumatological key. He insists that the church today will be credible and understood in the world only by means of the spirit of Jesus Christ. The spirit he mentions cannot be the Holy Spirit 24 who is traditionally part of the Holy Trinity because it has already been shown that Jesus himself is no longer part of the traditional theological understanding as resurrected and ascended to heaven. So, within traditional lines, Jesus could not have sent the Holy Spirit if he did not ascend to heaven and, as he is dead, the Spirit—who does not actually exist in a real-ontological way in modern theology—was never sent because he himself does not exist in the very same way. Nevertheless, Küng does not give up his pneumatological discourse for the simple reason that the spirit he mentions is nothing else but the understanding that should govern modern theology today, namely to promote the Jesus of nowadays thought—the one who is relevant, credible, and understandable for the men and women of this age.25 When it comes to picturing Jesus in the minds of modern people, Küng offers a wide range of qualifications that underline the full humanity of Jesus because this is the easiest way to connect the concept of God to our own humanity.26 Nothing is said of his divinity as in traditional theology because the idea of a divine-human being is preposterous to modern thought. Although Küng does not explicitly admit this, he nevertheless presents Jesus as a “man from Nazareth,” “a powerful preacher of the Word,” and a “provocative prophet.”27 The whole idea is to offer a fundamentally human image of Jesus, who should be understood as a mere man who tried his best to do a good job by getting himself involved in the social reality of his day. For Küng, it is more than clear that Jesus did not found the Christian Church, nor did he establish a cult for himself. The only thing he did was to proclaim the kingdom of God,28 not the church or even himself. It should be noted that Küng introduces a soteriological element here in

126

●

Appendix

saying that Jesus’ proclamation was for the salvation of humanity but this is not the traditional salvation from sin based on God’s grace through faith. On the contrary, it is a “do one’s best” sort of salvation, a salvation that is relevant to the world if it spells out love in the sense that Christians should love everybody including their opponents and even their enemies. It must be underlined that there is nothing wrong in putting forward the necessity of love inside and outside the church, but this is not the traditional meaning of salvation. Küng pictures salvation as an action performed by man as if this man does not have any sort of inner problems generated by his sinful condition. There is no such thing for Küng as a sinful condition, so men and women do not need to be saved from sin. What they truly need is to be saved from a fundamental lack of personal significance; this is why they are encouraged to transcend their own personal barriers and live out their love in such a way that it becomes significant, relevant, and credible in the world. In other words, Küng does not advocate a soteriological salvation (and by this I mean traditional salvation from sin that is God’s own initiative and is fully manifested by grace) but a social salvation that does not stem from God but is entirely produced by human beings. God seems to be only a pretext for our ethical involvement in society based on love, which is actually our salvation; so what we do as Christians is not necessarily something specifically Christian but an attitude that reflects general human morality.29 Küng attempts to minimize drastically the traditional image of the church and salvation as initiated and planned by God beforehand in eternity. Küng knows that if God is to be involved in the beginning of the church, then the church is a community of people elected (and consequently saved) by God but Küng utterly opposes such a view. When it comes to salvation, nothing is important for Küng but the idea of love as originating in Christians, not in God, and being dispersed in the world as the only means that attaches significance to human existence: According to the Gospels, the man from Nazareth virtually never used the word “church.” They are no sayings of Jesus spoken in public which programmatically call for a community of the elect and for the founding of the church. Biblical critics are agreed on this point: Jesus did not proclaim a church, nor did he proclaim himself, but the kingdom of God. Governed by the awareness of living in an end of time, Jesus wanted to announce God’s imminent kingdom, God’s rule, with a view to human salvation. He did not call simply for the external observance of God’s commandments, but for their fulfilment in commitment to one’s neighbour. In short, Jesus called for a benevolent love which includes even one’s opponent, indeed one’s enemy. Love of God and love of neighbour are called for to the same degree of love of oneself (“Love . . . as yourself ”), as they are already in the Hebrew Bible.30

Appendix

●

127

It is absolutely surprising how easily Küng dismisses a couple of remarks that concern the traditional understanding of the church. For instance, he insists that Jesus, whom he pictures as a mere man from Nazareth, never uttered the word “church.” At this point, it should be said that Küng deliberately avoids the text of Matthew 16:18–20, which presents the discussion between Peter and Jesus when Jesus tells Peter that he would build his church (italics mine) on this rock. It is more than clear why Küng avoided this text, namely because it is a biblical passage that confirms that Jesus did use the word “church.” However, Küng does mention this text a bit later when he correctly challenges the idea that Peter is the rock 31 Jesus referred to (traditional Catholics agree that Peter was the rock in order to support papal primacy, while traditional Protestants believe Peter’s confession was the rock in order to promote the primacy of Christ’s divinity) but incorrectly writes that this text is not part of the original Gospel according to Matthew but a later addition by the post-Easter church. In other words, the belief in Christ’s divinity is not the original message of the Gospel but a later invention of the church. Of course, Küng does not say how he reached this particular conclusion. A good excuse would be that it does not lie within the purpose of a church history book that is otherwise correct; nevertheless, the dismissal of traditional Christian dogmas—which Küng performs intentionally—could have been just a bit more scholarly.32 A similar superficial critique is the remark that biblical theologians agree that Jesus did not proclaim a church or himself but only the kingdom of God. Küng is wrong in making this affirmation for at least three main reasons. First, Jesus did proclaim a church as a special community and this can be proved by using, to give just one example, the text of Matthew 18:15–20. The text says that, in case a “brother” (to use the biblical rendering) commits a sin and wants to neither repent from it nor listen to the testimony of two or three witnesses, then his sinful attitude must be revealed to the church (my italics). It is more than evident that Jesus did have the church in mind when to spoke to his disciples but—if we are to believe Küng—it may well be that this text is also a later addition to Matthew’s Gospel by the post-Easter church. Second, Jesus did proclaim himself, which is crystal-clear from a wide range of texts that may be found, for instance, in the Gospel of Matthew (again, to give just one example). Thus, if one reads only the first half of Matthew’s Gospel, it will rapidly become evident that phrases such as “come to me,” “follow me,” and “receive me” are spoken by Jesus and refer to himself; all in all, they are evident proclamations of himself. On top of them, the text of Matthew 11:28 is even more saliently individualized as a proclamation that Jesus made of himself: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and

128

●

Appendix

I will give you rest.” Küng does not offer any indication of how he would interpret such evident texts but—following the bits of hermeneutics that he has already disclosed—these passages could be either treated as later additions by the church after the death of Jesus or reinterpreted so as to fit his general argument that Jesus did not refer to himself but gave himself as a mere example to be followed by all those who believe in him. Third, Küng wants to create the impression that a wide (almost total) theological agreement has been reached among biblical scholars who apparently favor his personal interpretation of Scripture. It is true that Küng did not write his book for scholars but this is actually the key to its success. The reason is simple: when a person who is not trained in theology reads phrases such as “biblical critics are agreed on this point”33 or “today even Catholic New Testament scholars accept,”34 the immediate impression is that almost everybody believes what Küng says because his explanation appeals to the experience and reason of modern people. In other words, if Küng’s explanation sounds natural and if almost everybody agrees with him, then nothing about the Bible is absolute and our personal convictions should be modeled according to general belief.35 When it comes to general belief, Küng finds that it is more reasonable to describe Jesus as a human being who had a strong feeling of love toward the entire humanity, so the essence of his preaching about the kingdom of God is fundamentally love for the neighbor. It is at this point that his perspective on salvation becomes even clearer: to be sure, salvation is not from sin in order to love God and others but from ourselves in order to love others. For Küng, human beings do not need to be saved from the power and influence of sin; they need to be saved from a life that lacks any authenticity whatsoever so that it should become meaningful by means of love. It is clear then that salvation originates in us and overflows toward every human being especially those who are socially disparaged. Salvation means to accept socially all those who do not share the same beliefs with us, those who are compromised in any possible way, those who have moral problems, and those who are treated unfairly. Loving all these people is true salvation. It has to be said here that Küng does not explicitly link this sort of love to salvation but this is because he seems to avoid the term “salvation” on purpose. Salvation is a fundamental traditional concept of Christian theology, so he tries to reinterpret it by stressing the importance of love for the kingdom of God. Thus, the kingdom of God includes all those who are ill-treated socially as well as those who love and accept them: Jesus, a powerful preacher of the Word and at the same time a charismatic healer of the body and the soul, called together a great eschatological

Appendix

●

129

collective movement, and for him the Twelve with Peter were a sign of the restoration of the full number of the tribes of Israel. To the annoyance of the pious and the orthodox he also invited into this kingdom those of other religious beliefs (Samaritans), those who were politically compromised (tax collectors), those who had failed morally (adulterers), and those who were exploited sexually (prostitutes). For him, specific precepts of the law, above all those relating to food, cleanness and the Sabbath, were secondary to love of neighbour; the Sabbath and the commandments are there for men and women.36

It is relevant to notice how Küng tries to distance Jesus the man who lived and died in history from the church that, in Küng’s view, was founded after his death. Küng is absolutely convinced that Jesus is not the founder of the church and in order to prove it he insists that Jesus was concerned primarily with the Jewish context because he was not interested in building the church but an eschatologically oriented popular trend that was connected to the religion of Israel. Such tactics would definitively separate the Christian Church from the Palestinian region and would strongly connect it to a more European landscape because it were Jesus’ disciples in the Greek and Italian peninsulas who believed in the resurrected Christ who empowered them to take the Gospel all over the world. Jesus was not preoccupied to spread his teachings beyond the Palestinian world but his disciples did not understand this. What they actually understood based on Jesus’ critiques of Judaism was that he wanted to take his teaching to the entire world, so—even if Jesus never thought of himself as the Messiah— his disciples were convinced he was indeed the Messiah. To be sure, in spite of Jesus’ conviction that he was not the Messiah and that he did not want to found the church,37 his disciples did see him as the Messiah and founded the church after his death. In Küng’s words: Jesus was a provocative prophet, who showed that he was critical of the temple, and indeed engaged in a militant demonstration against the commerce which was so prominent there. Although he was not a political revolutionary, his words and actions thus soon brought him into a fatal conflict with the political and religious establishment. Indeed, in the view of many this young man of thirty, with no specific office or title, transcended the claim of a mere rabbi or prophet, so that they saw him as the Messiah. However, in his amazingly brief activity—at most three years or perhaps only a few months—he did not seek to found a separate community distinct from Israel with its own creed and cult, or to call to life an organization with its own constitution and offices, let alone a great religious edifice. No, according to all the evidence, Jesus did not found a church in his lifetime.38

130

●

Appendix

It would have been interesting to see what Küng means by “all the evidence” based on which Jesus did not found a church during this ministry. Contrary to Küng’s opinion, it has been shown here that Jesus did use the word “church” at least a couple of times, so he did not have to found a church because his disciples and all those who believed in him were indeed the church. Küng insists that Jesus’ disciples were heavily influenced by their conviction that Jesus rose from the dead and by a peculiar way of interpreting Hebrew Scripture that led to something Jesus himself never intended: his recognition as the Messiah and the founding of the church. For Küng, it is a historical fact that Jesus died and never came back to life but this historical fact, in addition to the strong personal convictions of his disciples, generated another historical fact—namely the birth of the Christian Church based on the belief that Jesus, who is in fact dead, returned to life because God himself brought him back to life. In other words, the church is anchored in the reality of God’s ontology only in the belief of Jesus’ disciples; in reality, however, the church is nothing but a community that believes in active love based on the Gospel of the dead Jesus, who was alive only in the minds and hearts of his disciples: We must now immediately add that a church in the sense of a religious community distinct from Israel came into being immediately after Jesus’s death. This happened under the impact of the experience of the resurrection and the Spirit. It was reported that on the basis of particular charismatic experiences (“appearances,” visions, auditions) and a particular pattern in the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (persecuted prophet, suffering servant of God), the Jewish followers of Jesus, men and women, became convinced that this man whom they themselves betrayed, this man who was mocked and scorned by his opponents, this man who was forsaken by God and his fellow human beings and perished on the cross with a loud cry, did not remain dead. They believed that he had been raised by God to eternal life, and had been exalted into God’s glory, fully in keeping with the image of Psalm 110, “he sits at the right hand of God,” made by God “Lord and Messiah”39 (cf. Acts 2:22–36), “appointed Son of God in power on the basis of the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:3f).40

So, for Küng, the church and the divinity of Jesus Christ is nothing but an invention of Jesus’ Jewish disciples. In other words, the church itself is founded on a historical inaccuracy and indeed a lie because, if Jesus is dead, his followers deluded themselves by believing that he was alive. Küng, however, is not bothered by this because the church itself is a community that accepts everybody, even those who believe in doctrines different from those of the members of the church. If this is the case, then the love of the church can accept everything, even innocent lies such as the belief that Jesus is

Appendix

●

131

alive when he is, in fact, dead. At the end of the day, the church for Küng is utterly separated from the reality of the historical Jesus who is dead; the only thing that connects the church to Jesus the Jew is the confession of the church that saw him as being resurrected by God and began spreading itself in the world based on the acceptance of this particular confession of faith, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper:41 Although the church was not founded by Jesus, for its origins it made an appeal to him: the one who was crucified yet lived, in whom for believers the kingdom of God had already downed. It remained the Jesus movement with an eschatological orientation;42 its basis was initially not its own cult, its own constitution, its own organization with specific offices. Its foundation was simply the confession in faith of this Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, as it was sealed with baptism in his name and through a ceremonial meal in his memory. This is how the church initially took shape.43

One should particularly notice that, for Küng, the church is connected to Jesus, the dead prophet, only as far as its origins are concerned because, according to his own words, the church used the name of Jesus “for its origins” and it was only at the beginning of the church that Jesus was seen as the living Messiah. Today, however, we should be aware—in Küng’s view—that Jesus is dead and the only relevant aspect that is still connected to him is, in fact, his moral teachings that help us love our neighbors and especially those who are socially unhappy. Such awareness, however, is possible only if we accept the Gospel through the eyes of the present age, namely accept the aspects that are reasonable: that Christ was not divine and that what really counts is the experience of love for our neighbors as foundation for the kingdom of God.44 When it comes to offering a brief definition of the church, Küng chooses to make use of functional terms in accordance with his modern theological outlook, rather than utilize ontological concepts that would tie it to traditional theology. Thus, the church is not described by means of unity, catholicity, holiness, and apostolicity as ontologically connected to the transcendent reality of God.45 On the contrary, the church is presented from the perspective of its members and of what they do. Thus, the church is seen as a fellowship of people—the fellowship of those who believe in Christ. In order to stress this aspect, Küng insists that the church is the fellowship of those who dedicate themselves totally to Christ and share him with the world: From earliest times until the present the church has been, as it still is, the fellowship of those who believe in Christ, the fellowship of those who have committed themselves to the person and cause of Christ and attest it as hope for all men and women. Its very name shows the degree to which the church is obligated to its Lord’s cause.46

132

●

Appendix

This definition of the church is not centered upon the person of Christ even if the word “person” as attached to Christ is indeed present in the formulation. Nevertheless, having established that Jesus is dead, it means that the Christ who lives in the consciousness of the church is not the same as the Jesus of history who died. Consequently, the person of Christ to which Küng makes a brief reference in his definition of the church is not actually a real person who has an ontological existence. Even less so, it is not the transcendent and forever living person of Jesus Christ who rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. The Christ mentioned in this definition is just an imaginary character who is said to have risen from the dead and then ascended to heaven but, of course, he did not do either of the two. For Küng, this does not seem to matter because the living Christ is important anyway for those who believe in him even if the historical Jesus whom it symbolizes is dead. Christ is important because Küng portrays him as hope for all humanity.47 This is nothing but an existential definition of the church because the church offers hope to those who have nothing as such. The hope the church proclaims by using the name of Christ is not the eternal hope that—as in traditional theology—invades the lives of those who are saved from sin by the grace of God through faith; it is only a worldly hope that helps men and women understand that their lives can be meaningful if they accept to live in accordance to the teachings of this Christ. Actually, the dedication of the members of the church is not fundamentally directed toward the person of Christ even if this is part of Küng’s definition. This Christ has no existence of his own; he exists only through the mediation of the church. If the church proclaims him, he exists; if not, he is dead. In Küng, the church is rather dedicated to the cause of Christ, namely to promoting his Gospel and teachings that contain existentially meaningful ideas also preached by the man Jesus while he was alive in Palestine. It is clear then that, for Küng, ontology is not important in connection to the definition of the church as he says absolutely nothing about the traditional signs of the church. What counts for him is the way the church functions, which means that the church should be concerned to present Christ, not Jesus, to men and women as hope for their lives. One essential aspect should not be left unattended: Küng does not present Christ as the hope of humanity but as hope or a hope. In other words, accepting Christ as hope for one’s life is somehow optional because people may find other hopes for their lives. Nevertheless, Christ and his teaching can be a good choice—among other choices—if one decides to accept them. In spite of this functional definition of the church, Küng cannot simply refrain from the traditional language of classical ecclesiology. This is why he

Appendix

●

133

makes a long list of concepts that are traditionally attached to the doctrine of the church: assembly, local community, salvation, Gospel, baptism, meal (a reference to Lord’s Supper), charisms, and ministries. Furthermore, he also reveals that the church is the people of God, the body of Christ, and the building of the Spirit: This establishes the norm once and for all: the original meaning of ekklesia, “church,” was not a hyper-organisation of spiritual functionaries, detached from the concrete assembly. It denoted a community gathering at a particular place at a particular time for a particular action, a local church, though with the other local churches it formed a comprehensive community, the whole church. According to the New Testament, every individual local community is given what it needs for human salvation: the gospel to proclaim, baptism as a rite of initiation, the celebration of a meal in grateful remembrance, the various charisms and ministries. Thus every local church makes the whole church fully present; indeed it may understand itself—in the language of the New Testament—as people of God, body of Christ, and building of the Spirit.48

Again, it is interesting how Küng manages to insert his own modern view in this long list of traditional ecclesiological concepts. This is evident in the fact that, according to Küng, the church is not compulsorily the people of God, the body of Christ, and the building of the Spirit; on the contrary, the church may consider or see itself as such but it is not necessarily so. It should be said that these three characteristics of the church—people of God, body of Christ, and building of the Spirit—are fundamentally ontological because they present the church as totally dependent on the Holy Trinity seen as a real community of divine persons who have their own ontological status and existence. This is why Küng, who prefers the functionality of the church as compared to its ontology, does not make them essential to the definition of the church; for Küng, the church is essentially a local, historical assembly that comes together because its members share a common belief in Christ and his teaching that give them hope for a better existence.49 Reading Küng’s definition of the church, one can easily get the impression that the church he tries to envisage is a sort of human society that is not so much dedicated to a person (traditionally the person of Jesus Christ as resurrected and ascended to the right hand of God) but rather to a cause, which for Küng is the cause of Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, dedication to the cause of Jesus Christ is fundamental for the church because, as Küng explains, it is actually an obligation. Without this obligation, the church is in peril as it can loose its purpose and reason of existence. It must be said once more that despite his overall modernistic approach to ecclesiology,

134

●

Appendix

Küng still retains some of the traditional ideas that are associated to the dogma of the church, such as the proclamation of God’s kingdom and salvation: Assembly, house, community, church of Jesus Christ. That means that the origin and the name carry with them an obligation: the church has to serve the cause of Jesus Christ. Where the church does not realize the cause of Jesus Christ, or distorts it, it sins against its being and loses that being. We have already recognized to some degree what Jesus intended with his proclamation of the kingdom and will of God and the salvation of men and women.50

In order to strengthen the traditional outfit of his modern ecclesiology, Küng uses the word “sin” to designate the possible failure of the church to implement its task, which is the proclamation of God’s kingdom and human salvation. Placing together the kingdom of God and the salvation of human beings is actually a means both to maintain the traditional language of ecclesiology and to introduce the modern idea of a salvation that is not performed by God but by the members of the human race. In Küng, men and women can work out their own salvation but this has to be done, so to speak, within the context of the kingdom of God—an obvious indication that even in the modern theological discourse existential significance cannot be divorced from the idea of God.51 The idea of God, however, does not seem to be so powerful after all. When Küng discusses what the church should do in order to have a future in the third millennium, he has four suggestions and none of them even incidentally mentions the name of God. All four are put forward as compulsory recommendations that are so programmatic that the church described in their terms looks rather like a social organization that does not bare much resemblance to the church as traditionally known. At any rate, these four conditions are a sort of a reformation platform that is put forward by Küng in view of an obvious change that he strongly defends and supports. It must be said here that although Küng has in mind primarily the Catholic Church when he writes these conditions, they nevertheless apply to all Christian churches or to the church in general. The first condition launches the idea that the church must go back to its origins and this is certainly a clear claim for a reformation of the church. Thus the church is urged to not only return to its origins that represent its purest and simplest form of existence but also concentrate on what it has to do in the present. Küng, however, does not recommend that the church should have anything to do with the Reformation of the

Appendix

●

135

sixteenth century or with the church in any other historical period for that matter. So, at first glance, he cannot be accused of promoting strictly Protestant reforms. Despite this, he does recommend that the church should go back to its beginnings, which is one of the most important ideals of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. This is Küng’s ad fontes slogan: [The church] must not turn backwards and fall in love with the Middle Ages or the time of the Reformation or the Enlightenment, but be a church rooted in its Christian origin and concentrated on its present tasks.52

Even if this first condition may be considered essentially dogmatic and even traditional in its orientation, the second is much more socially based because Küng insists on gender equality that is typically a modern claim.53 Thus, he recommends that the church should give up its traditional male features and allow women to serve in every aspect of church ministry: [The church] must not be patriarchal, fixated on stereotyped images of women, exclusively male language and predetermined gender roles, but be a church of partnership, which combines office and charisma and accepts women in all church ministries.54

It would have been interesting to see how much Küng is willing to concede to feminist claims. If the church is to give up its so-called patriarchal language, should it also redefine the historical factuality of Jesus’ male gender? Was Jesus a male or a female? Should the church redefine the gender of Jesus’ disciples? Or, even better, should it reassess the gender of God himself? In Küng’s theology, however, the reevaluation of God’s gender seems to be the easiest task because it proves to be a mere concept, and then nobody should be upset if God is also or exclusively seen in female terms. The same rule could also be applied to Christ, not to Jesus. Based on all evidence, as Küng constantly writes, Jesus was a man or, more precisely, a male. However, when it comes to Christ who gives us existential relevance, for women to feel better and not ignored, Christ could be defined in female terms as well. I am fully aware that my comments at this point are at the verge of extremism but feminism in itself is theological extremism and I wonder which is the bottom line for Küng in accepting feminist presuppositions. The third rule is fundamentally dogmatic as well as ecumenical. In order for the church to be relevant in contemporary society, Küng recommends that it should be thoroughly ecumenical to the point of an almost uncontrolled liberty. Thus, the church should formally recognize all ministries,

136

●

Appendix

give up any form of excommunication,55 and accept a Eucharistic fellowship that transcends any confessional barriers:56 [The church] must not be narrowly confessional and succumb to confessional exclusiveness the presumption of officialdom and the refusal of communion but be an ecumenically open church, which practises ecumenism inwardly and finally follows up many ecumenical statements with ecumenical actions like the recognition of ministries, the abolition of all excommunications and complete Eucharistic fellowship.57

This is definitely a modern proposal. Traditional theology has its reasons for not recognizing all ministries, for maintaining excommunication and for restricting Eucharistic fellowship. All these have to do with the concept of sin, which in traditional theology is connected to God’s moral law. Although not in full agreement on these issues, traditional churches in general accept that human beings sin against God in thought, action, and nature. This is why—at least until the problem of personal sin is not somehow dealt with—traditional churches cannot recognize any form of church ministry (which has to be confirmed by the entire congregation), cannot cancel all excommunications (if the church really takes the problem of sin seriously), and cannot accept an unlimited fellowship at the Lord’s Supper (if the Eucharist is truly meant for those who have a good standing before God).58 But, as in Küng, the idea of sin is barely mentioned; it does not have any modern relevance because it is essentially restrictive and discriminatory. His suggestions can easily be implemented in churches that do not recognize sin for what it is but prefer to promote a gospel of social equality rather than a gospel of biblical correctitude. Küng’s fourth suggestion is geographically oriented and pushes the church toward religious syncretism: [The church] must not be Eurocentric and put forward any exclusivist Christian claims and show a Roman imperialism, but be a tolerant, universal church which has a respect for the truth that is always greater; it must therefore attempt to learn from the other religions and grant an appropriate autonomy to the national, regional and local churches.59

It is evident that Küng has in mind primarily his own Roman-Catholic Church so that other traditional churches could agree to the suggestion that Eurocentrism and Roman imperialism should be put off. In other respects, however, it is very unlikely that traditional churches would agree. For instance, giving up “any exclusivist Christian claims” is impossible for traditional churches that profess a like-minded traditional theology. Although Küng does not go into details that could identify at least some of these exclusivist

Appendix

●

137

Christian claims, it is quite clear that they include the traditional doctrines of sin, Christ’s divinity, his resurrection and ascension, his return, Holy Trinity, heaven and hell in the real-physical and ontological sense. When it comes to learning from other religions—here the unveiled suggestion is to learn from them dogmatically—this is also an impossible task for traditional churches. Such churches will always straightforwardly uphold that the only source for their teaching is God’s special revelation in Christ and Scripture, so learning from any other sources is simply out of the question. At the end of the day, Küng’s theology is fundamentally not a Christian theology but a political theology.60 What really concerns him is not the traditional message of the church but a stable political and social order. What he wants to see fulfilled is not the world’s salvation from sin based on Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension but a new world order that is governed by peace and harmony. This is why he is fully convinced that the church must first achieve peace among religions if the world is to be a peaceful place. So, for Küng, the task of the church is to get involved socially, politically, and religiously in view of forcing a new era of peace for the entire humanity.61 It must be said clearly, however, that from the standpoint of traditional theology Küng is far too idealistic. Jesus’ message was indeed a message of peace but it was not a message of world peace. Jesus advocated the peace of the individual and the peace of the church, first in relationship to God and then in relationship to the world. Thus, Christians are to live in peace with God, with themselves, and with the rest of the world but they are called to spread the good news of salvation from sin in Christ, not the popular news of world peace without submission to Christ. Küng’s theology does not solve the problem of sin but it simply dismisses it. It is more than crystal clear that Küng does not like the concept of sin but the fact that he avoids it or the fact that he denies or obscures it does not solve the problem of the sin of the world. He is hopelessly idealistic because he believes in religious and world peace without first dealing with the problem of human sin. Traditional theology—one has to admit—is cruelly realistic about it: as Jesus himself declared, war will be a constant reality in the world (and this is because of human sin) but true Christians should not worry about this historical reality. On the contrary and in spite of the reality of war, they should constantly preach Christ and salvation from sin based on his atoning death. As for Küng, he is adamant in believing that the solution to all the problems of the world is the actual implementation of his four conditions for the church: The overturning of communism in 1989 has made it clear that the world has entered a new post-modern period: after 1918 and 1945, there is a third

138

●

Appendix

opportunity for a new world order which is more peaceful and more just. Will it be possible to achieve a breakthrough to a new, responsible economy which goes beyond the welfare state that we cannot afford and an antisocial neo-liberalism? . . . Here too the demand is made to churches and religions: no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. And quite specifically the great Catholic Church is called on to fulfil urgently the four conditions mentioned above, if it is to be adequate for a new age of the world.62

The peak of idealism as far as Küng is concerned resides in his undeterred conviction that the entire world can eventually achieve a global ethic, namely an ethic that can be accepted by every nation in the world or at least by the majority of the world’s population.63 This sort of modernistic idealism stems from two basic questions that Küng asks himself: where is the Catholic Church going? and this question is then connected to another one, where is humanity going? In other words, if the church wants to find its way it will have to see where the world is going, so the church should be going where the world is going. Such a suggestion, however, is much more than traditional theology can put up with simply because in traditional Christianity the church is not going where the world is going but where Jesus Christ is going. The church in traditional theology is urged to follow Christ, not the world. If the world wants to follow the church because the church itself follows Christ, that is always the best option and the desire that all Christians should have but—never the other way around. When traditional theology asks Küng’s second question about where is humanity going, the undoubtedly clear answer is simply “to hell,” which is seen as a real ontological reality. For Küng though there is no such thing as hell because there is no such thing as life after death and this is the direct consequence of his belief in Jesus’ eternal death. Thus, for him, the world cannot go to hell because there is no such thing as hell. So he idealistically suggests that the only way for the church is to move forward in history hoping for the best and for a new order governed by religious peace and ethical harmony. To quote Küng: However, the question “Where is the Catholic church going?” will be misunderstood as being exclusively the church’s concern unless, at the same time, thought is given to the more comprehensive problem: “Where is humankind going?” Here, for me personally, the way is not, say, “from the global church to a global ethic,” but “with the world church to a global ethic.” It is the search for a common ethic for humankind which can be supported by all churches and religions, indeed also by non-believers. Our globe cannot survive without a global ethic, a world ethic.64

Appendix

●

139

It may be crucial to see that Küng is reluctant to identify his global ethic with a specific Christian ethic. As a matter of fact, the sort of ethic he suggests is anything but Christian in the traditional sense of the word because his ethical program does not include basic Christian concepts such as salvation from sin, life in Christ on earth, life with Christ in heaven, and life without Christ in hell. Küng replaces the eschatological hope of traditional Christianity, namely life with Christ in heaven, with a sort of a historical hope—an eschatology that can be realized exclusively on earth and will hopefully be characterized by a global peace based on a global ethic. Then Küng enumerates six purposes for which the church should be fighting a continuous battle. All these desiderates of the church as identified by Küng are concerned with the functionality of the Christian community that is, of course, reflected according to Küng’s personal convictions. Again, nothing is said about the traditional ontology of the church as encapsulated in its signs; the programmatic enterprise of the church for the near future as defined by Küng contains exclusive references to the feature that should characterize the order of the world. In other words, for Küng, the purpose of the church is not soteriologically oriented but rather socially defined. This is evident from a quick reading of Küng’s six propositions because these contain references to sociability, plurality,65 partnership, peace, nature, and ecumenicity: So the Catholic church should support: —a social world order: a society in which human beings have equal rights, live in solidarity with one another, and in which the ever-widening gulf between rich and poor is bridged; —a plural world order: a reconciled diversity 66 of cultures, traditions and peoples in Europe, in which there is no place for anti-Semitism and xenophobia; —a world order in partnership: a renewed fellowship of men and women in the church and society, in which at every level women bear the same responsibility as men, and in which they can freely contribute their gifts, insights, values and experiences; —a world order which furthers peace: a society in which the establishment of peace and the peaceful resolution of conflicts is supported, and a community of peoples who contribute in solidarity towards the well-being of others; —a word order which is friendly to nature: a fellowship of human beings with all creatures, in which their rights and integrity are also observed; —an ecumenical world order: a community that creates the presuppositions for a peace among the nations through a unity of confessions67 and peace among the religions.68

This entire list of propositions looks like the programmatic manifesto of an ordinary social organization precisely because, in Küng, the church is stripped of all ontological connotations whatsoever. At times, it seems that

140

●

Appendix

Küng’s suggestions make up a sort of hippie theology and even if I am willing to admit that such a label applied to the above-mentioned list is slightly exaggerated, I cannot identify any element that speaks about God, Jesus or the Spirit. It sounds at least peculiar that such a theological manifesto is, in fact, a socially driven desire that seems to have entirely lost its traditionally soteriological flavor. It is sad that the name of Jesus Christ does not appear among Küng’s six suggestions but only moral directions that people should follow; it is weird that no word is mentioned about family values but only hopes for the emancipation of women; it is almost absurd to see that nothing is said about a specific Christian ethics but much is said about a world peace that is so unlikely to be established without a straightforward recognition of our sinful condition; it is surprising to notice that an informed attitude to nature is not backed by an equally informed knowledge of its Creator (there is unfortunately no such thing in Küng) and it is disconcerting to read an appeal to world peace that is idealistically based on the postulate of a globally achieved religious peace. At the end of the day, however, none of Küng’s suggestions is fundamentally wrong; on the contrary, the results of his ecclesiological program are indeed desirable. Everybody wants a society that is governed by solidarity, reconciliation,69 partnership, peace, environmental responsibility, and religious rest. There is though one single problem with Küng’s list: it has absolutely no traditionally ontological foundation in the sense that it is not connected in any way to the ontological reality of God’s existence, person, and work as defined by traditional theology. Such a connection should have at least hinted at salvation from sin, reconciliation with God, and life with Christ in the Spirit. Without these basic elements, however, Küng’s list remains nothing but a modern (or even postmodern) theological manifesto that has very low chances (if any) to reach its much desired fruition. As far as Küng is concerned, he is not an incurable idealist although his ecclesiological manifesto is quite idealistic. He knows that confessional boundaries will continue to exists because hundreds of years of confessional history are hard to forget and impossible to erase. Ecumenism today is not what Küng would like it to be and exact predictions regarding the way churches will relate in future simply cannot be made. Despite the present situation, Küng is optimistic: he hopes that confessionalism will vanish within a generation and ecumenical communion will become a lasting reality.70 At this point, a positive aspect should be highlighted: even if Küng’s manifesto does not contain any reference to Jesus Christ, he nevertheless expresses his desire that the renewal of the church will be done in conformity with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. From the standpoint of traditional theology, however, this reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is sadly

Appendix

●

141

ineffective because—as previously proved—Jesus is dead and Christ can help us only existentially. True Christian hope for a new life with Christ after history comes to an end is not part of Küng’s ecclesiological program. His hopes for the church do not transcend history but are deeply embedded in it as well as in the historical life of all local churches. Thus, he hopes that confessional particularities will no longer separate churches but will rather bring them closer together in such a way that Orthodoxy,71 Catholicism, and Evangelicalism (Protestantism included) become complimentary realities. Küng explains: Who is orthodox? Those who are particularly concerned with “right teaching,” true teaching, are orthodox. To be specific, they are concerned with that truth which, because it is God’s truth, cannot be given to the individual (Christians, bishops, churches) at random, but rather is to be handed down creatively to ever new generations, and lived out by the faithful tradition of the whole church. Now if this is decisively “orthodox,” then it is the case that an evangelical or a catholic Christian too can, and must, be orthodox in this sense, of “true teaching.” Who is catholic? Those who are particularly concerned with the whole, universal, comprehensive church are catholic. To be specific: it is those who are interested in the continuity and universality of faith and the community of faith in time and space despite all the breaks. Now if this is what is decisively “catholic,” an orthodox or an evangelical Christian too can, and must, be catholic in this sense, of universal breadth. Finally, who is evangelical? Those who are particularly concerned constantly to refer to the gospel in all church traditions, teachings and practices. To be specific: it is those who reflect on Holy Scripture and on constant practical reform according to the norm of the gospel. And if this is what is decisively “evangelical,” then finally it is the case that orthodox and catholic Christians too can, and must, be evangelical in this sense, being inspired by the gospel.72

In other words, the church should work in such a way that orthodox, catholic, and evangelical will no longer be words that designate different Christian confessions but realities that define every single Christian and every single church. All in all, this last proposal is not bad at all; it is, in fact, something that can be achieved. To be sure, it can be achieved but not in Küng’s terms. Orthodox, catholic, and evangelical will never be associated with the true church if Jesus is thought to be dead and if it is believed that our lives are made better only by the inner existential (and rational) conviction that he is hope for us.73 There is no such thing (and it cannot be) as a true and lasting hope for an equally true and lasting reality in which orthodox, catholic, and evangelical will be features of the true church if the true and lasting—or, even better, everlasting—existence of Jesus Christ

142

●

Appendix

is not fully acknowledged. Orthodox, catholic, and evangelical will never give hope for a true and lasting reconciliation among confessional churches unless men and women truly and lastingly reconcile with God through Jesus Christ. There is no hope for confessional churches to march forward as truly orthodox, catholic, and evangelical communities of true believers if the best of our hopes remain hopelessly chained to our present history. History is too strong a prison for human hopes as to confine the desires of the church to a world that has always been dramatically disappointing in preventing wars, promoting human rights, respecting human dignity, supporting hopeless causes, protecting the environment, or accepting different beliefs. The church in general and all local churches in particular for that matter may truly hope for a confessionalized deconfessionalization (in the sense that they will all be orthodox, catholic and evangelical while remaining confessionally Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical) only when they fully realize that their hopes can realistically transcend the boundaries of history in order to be firmly and permanently anchored in God’s ontological reality as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Notes

1


1. Hans Küng, Structures of the Church (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1965), 30. The original German edition is Hans Küng, Strukturen der Kirche (FreiburgBasel-Wien: Herder, 1962). 2. See also Jean Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité (Paris: Le Centurion, 1975), 200. For more information about Küng’s view of the local church from a radically different perspective, see Hans Küng, On Being a Christian (London: Collins, 1977), 480. 3. Christians must love everybody, namely their neighbors. Hans Küng, The Church (London: Sheed and Ward, 1968), 268. 4. For details about the church as spiritual reality, see also Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, ed. Martin Redfern (London: Sheed and Ward, 1972), 65. 5. For the importance of love, see Andrew Tallon, Personal Becoming (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1982), 139. 6. For von Balthasar, the work of the Holy Spirit in the church is vital. See Hans Urs von Balthasar, Who Is a Christian? (London: Compass Books, 1968), 115, and W. T. Dickens, Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Aesthetics. A Model for Post-critical Biblical Interpretation (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), 225. 7. Joseph Ratzinger, La Ressuscité. Retraite au Vatican, en présence de S. S. JeanPaul II (Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer, 1985), 142. 8. Küng, The Church, 263. 9. See also Andrew Tallon, Personal Becoming (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1982), 140, and Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, vol. 4 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 406, and Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 86–7. 10. Küng, Structures of the Church, 30. 11. Philip Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993), 70. 12. See also Küng, The Church, 263. 13. Actually, Rahner is convinced that the church is the visible sign of the eschatological presence of God’s salvation in the world. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 3 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1967), 55.

144

●

Notes

14. Hans Küng, On Being a Christian (London: Collins, 1977), 478. 15. According to Rahner, the church must have a theology of the future and eschatological hope. See Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 11 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1974), 145, and Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1974), 107. 16. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 72. 17. Hans Küng, Truthfulness: The Future of the Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968), 99. 18. See also Aidan Nichols, OP, The Theology of Joseph Ratzinger (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 72. 19. Charles MacDonald, Church and World in the Plan of God. Aspects of History and Eschatology in the Thought of Père Yves Congar, OP (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1982), 40. 20. See Küng, The Church, 264. 21. Lucy Gardner, David Moss, Ben Quash, Graham Ward, Balthasar at the End of Modernity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 24. 22. Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 13 (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), 39. 23. Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 16 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1979), 138. See Henri de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion (Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer, 1984), 67. Also check, Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, ed. Redfern, 65. 24. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Church and World (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967), 47. 25. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12, 107. 26. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama. Theological Dramatic Theory, vol. 4 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 351. See also Nichols, OP, Theology of Joseph Ratzinger, 70. 27. Henri de Lubac, Autres Paradoxes (Culture et verité, 1994), 88. 28. Küng, The Church, 268. 29. von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 4, 407. 30. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 72. 31. Küng, Structures of the Church, 30–1. For more details about how God gave himself for us, see H. P. Joseph Wong, Logos-Symbol in the Christology of Karl Rahner (Roma: LAS, 1984), 150. 32. At this point, Küng quotes the discussion of H. Schlier concerning the unity of the church. For details, see Heinrich Schlier, “Die Einheit der Kirche nach dem Apostel Paulus,” in M. Roesle and O. Cullman, Begegnung der Christen (Stuttgart-Frankfurt am Main, 1959), 112. 33. Küng, The Church, 263. Also, Rahner actually writes that Jesus is God and man. See Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1966), 14, and Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, vol. 3 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 218.

Notes

●

145

34. In von Balthasar, the existence of God is to be found in his work and in his creation, which includes the church. For details, see Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982), 100. 35. Rahner writes that the reality of Jesus as being both God and man is a concrete historical reality. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 14–5. 36. de Lubac, Autres Paradoxes, 87. 37. Karl Rahner, Theologian of the Graced Search for Meaning, ed. Geffrey B. Kelley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 254. 38. Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. 39. For the centrality of Christ, see von Balthasar, Church and World, 47. 40. Küng, On Being a Christian, 507. 41. The Schillebeeckx Reader, ed. Robert Schreiter (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 193. 42. See Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama. Theological Dramatic Theory, vol. 1 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 116. 43. For Rahner, the church is closely connected to the redemptive act of Christ and of his Spirit. For details, see Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 241. 44. Edward Schillebeeckx, Revelation and Theology (London: Sheed and Ward, 1967), 176. See also John Bowden, Edward Schillebeeckx. Portrait of a Theologian (London: SCM Press, 1983), 90. Cf. The Praxis of the Reign of God. An Introduction to the Theology of Edward Schillebeeckx, ed. Catharine Hilkert and Robert J. Schreiter (New York: Fordham University Press, 2002), 129. 45. Küng, Structures of the Church, 31. 46. Küng, The Church, 265. 47. Küng, The Church, 263. 48. Küng, The Church, 302. See also Rahner writes that the will of God is that the church should manifest the eschatological transcendence of love, which is the essence of her inner life. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 3, 55, and Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, vol. 7 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 175. See also Bowden, Edward Schillebeeckx, 98. 49. Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 6 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1969), 52, and Edward Schillebeeckx, I Am a Happy Theologian (London: SCM Press, 1994), 61. 50. See Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama. Theological Dramatic Theory, vol. 2 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 202. 51. See also Edward Schillebeeckx, The Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal (London: Sheed and Ward, 1968), 91. 52. The Schillebeeckx Reader, ed. Robert Schreiter, 195. The plan of salvation too is crucial for Congar. See MacDonald, Church and World in the Plan of God, 49, and Nichols, OP, Theology of Joseph Ratzinger, 69. 53. von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 3, 218.

146

●

Notes

54. de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 67. 55. God addresses man in order to save him, based on his own initiative, as a result of his free sovereignty and independence. For details, see Svein Rise, The Academic and the Spiritual in Karl Rahner’s Theology (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2000), 118. 56. Von Balthasar argues that God took people from the world not only so that he can be found but also so that he must be looked for. However, the first step was not made by man but by God who looked for us, found us, and gave us faith. For details, see Hans Urs von Balthasar, Homo Creatus Est (Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1986), 368. 57. See Rahner, I Remember. An Autobiographical Interview with Meinhold Krauss (New York: Crossroad, 1985), 108. See also Wong, Logos-Symbol in the Christology of Karl Rahner, 150; von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 4, 407, and von Balthasar, Homo Creatus Est, 368–9, and Edward Schillebeeckx, World and Church (London: Sheed and Ward, 1971), 33. 58. In order to explain the reality of the unity between God and humanity in the church, Rahner uses the image of marriage. For Rahner, the unity between Christ and the church is expressed by means of marriage, which entails love. See Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 10 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1973), 218. For more details about Küng’s view of the relationship between Christ and the church, see Hans Küng, The Council and Reunion (London: Sheed and Ward, 1961), 41. 59. Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, ed. Redfern, 65. The church is a spiritual creation of God. See Küng, The Church, 319. 60. Küng, The Church, 264. 61. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12, 13. See also Kevin Mongrain, The Systematic Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar. An Irenaean Retrieval (New York: Crossroad, 2002), 109, and Aidan Nichols, No Bloodless Myth. A Guide Through Balthasar’s Dogmatics (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2002), 124. Cf. Erik Borgman, Edward Schillebeeckx: A Theologian in His History, vol. 1 (London: Continuum, 2003), 139. Yves Congar, Une Passion: l’unité. Réflections et Souvenirs 1929–1973 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1974), 86. See also Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité, 201, Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, ed. Redfern, 65. Cf. Jean-Pierre Jossua, OP, Le Père Congar. La Théologie au Service du People de Dieu (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1967), 107. 62. The experience of unity is the experience of God’s grace. For details see Declan Marmion, The Spirituality of Everyday Faith. A Theological Investigation of the Notion of Spirituality in Karl Rahner (Leuven: Peeters Press, 1998), 302. 63. Karl Rahner, ed. Kelly, 255; de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 12. 64. Dickens, Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Aesthetics, 225. 65. See also Küng, The Church, 264, and Küng, On Being a Christian, 481, Hans Küng, That the World May Believe. Letters to Young People (London:

Notes

66. 67.

68. 69.

70. 71. 72.

73.

74. 75.

76.

77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

82.

●

147

Sheed and Ward, 1963), 56, and Hans Küng, Living Church. Reflections on the Second Vatican Council (London: Sheed and Ward, 1963), 337. The church as the people of God is an important metaphor in the theology of von Balthasar. For details, see Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama. Theological Dramatic Theory, vol. 3 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 361. Also check Schillebeeckx, World and Church, 33; Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142, and Congar, Une Passion, 86. See also Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité, 201, and Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, ed. Redfern, 65. Cf. Jossua, OP, Le Père Congar, 107. See Schillebeeckx, Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, 91. Schillebeeckx, Revelation and Theology, 177, and Edward Schillebeeckx, God Is New Each Moment. Conversation with Huub Oosterhuis and Piet Hoogeveen (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983), 79. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 11, 144; Schillebeeckx, I Am a Happy Theologian, 61. In Rahner, the history in which the church lives should always be subject to the transcendence of God. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 6, 53. Küng, The Church, 265. Küng, The Church, 264. Küng, The Church, 265. See also Karl Rahner, Christian at Crossroads (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), 34; von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 2, 100, and Nichols, OP, Theology of Joseph Ratzinger, 72. Louis Roberts, The Theological Aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987), 150. See also Edward Schillebeeckx, Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World (London: SCM Press, 1980), 474. See Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. See also Küng, On Being a Christian, 481; Küng, Living Church, 337; Küng, Truthfulness, 95; Rahner, Christian at Crossroads, 34–5, and Nichols, OP, Theology of Joseph Ratzinger, 72. See Küng, Council and Reunion, 191, and Hans Küng, The Church Maintained in Truth. A Theological Meditation (New York: Crossroad, 1979), 84. von Balthasar, Who Is a Christian? 114. Küng, Structures of the Church, 31. See also Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, ed. Redfern, 65, and Küng, The Church, 302. William Henn, The Hierarchy of Truths according to Yves Congar (Roma: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1987), 248. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 16, 138. Küng takes over these explanations from H. Volk. For details, see H. Volk, Einheit der Kirche und die Spaltung der Christenheit (Münster i. W., 1961), 25. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 17 (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 138.

148 83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

96. 97. 98. 99.

100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105.

106. 107. 108.

109. 110. 111. 112.

●

Notes

Küng, The Church, 268. Küng, Structures of the Church, 31. Congar, Droit Ancien et Structures Ecclésiales, 266. Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. See also Rahner, Christian at Crossroads, 35, and Schillebeeckx, World and Church, 34. Cf. Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité, 201, and Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, ed. Redfern, 65. Schillebeeckx, Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, 88–9. See Küng, Structures of the Church, 32. Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 16, 9. Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 1 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961), 300. See also Küng, The Church, 263, and Yves Congar, A History of Theology (New York: Doubleday, 1968), 207. See also Küng, Council and Reunion, 44–5. Karl Rahner, I Remember. An Autobiographical Interview with Meinhold Krauss (New York: Crossroad, 1985), 108, and von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 2, 101. de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 12. Küng, Living Church, 334. von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 2, 202. In order to explain these things, Küng made use of the ideas of H. Jedin. See H. Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church (New York, 1960). See Küng, Structures of the Church, 35. For further details, see Küng, Structures of the Church, 37–8. Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. Küng, Structures of the Church, 39. See also Schillebeeckx, Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, 88–9. See Bowden, Edward Schillebeeckx, 97. Küng, Structures of the Church, 39. Küng appropriates these ideas from Y. Congar. See, for instance, Y. Congar, “Die Konzilien im Leben der Kirche,” Una Sancta 14 (1955): 162. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 240. See also Congar, History of Theology, 207. See Roberts, The Theological Aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar, 150. See von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 1, 116, and also Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama. Theological Dramatic Theory, vol. 5 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1998), 328. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12, 13. See also Nichols, OP, Theology of Joseph Ratzinger, 66. von Balthasar, Who Is a Christian? 114. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 70, and Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. Küng, Structures of the Church, 39. Schillebeeckx, Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, 88.

Notes

2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

●

149


Küng, The Church, 264. Schillebeeckx, Revelation and Theology, 177. Schillebeeckx, God Is New Each Moment, 80. Congar, Eglise Catholique et France Moderne, 80. See Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité, 200. Küng, Structures of the Church, 39. For Küng’s view of religious liberty, see Küng, On Being a Christian, 481. See also Rahner, who makes a strong connection between experience and existence. Thus, he writes that man can experience himself existentially. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 1, 300. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 72, and Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité, 200. Küng, The Church, 320. Faith should always be positive. See Küng, The Church, 265. Küng, Structures of the Church, 39. Küng, Structures of the Church, 39. de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 12. Schillebeeckx, Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World, 474. See also Jossua, OP, Le Père Congar, 109. To follow Christ means to follow God, and the members of the church must try their best to have the desire to prefer God in all things and follow him accordingly. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 2, 100, and von Balthasar, Church and World, 46. See also Roberts, The Theological Aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar, 150, and Schillebeeckx, Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World, 475. Cf. Borgman, Edward Schillebeeckx, 135. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12, 13. See Henn, Hierarchy of Truths according to Yves Congar, 248. Christ is the Lord of the church but, as the church lives in history, Christ is also the Lord of history. See also Marmion, The Spirituality of Everyday Faith, 303. Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité, 200. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 72. See Küng, Structures of the Church, 39–40. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12, 13. Famerée, L’ecclésiologie d’Yves Congar avant Vatican II, 42. Congar, Eglise Catholique et France Moderne, 80. See also Henn, Hierarchy of Truths according to Yves Congar, 248. See also von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 4, 363. Henri de Lubac, SJ, 92. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 72, and Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité, 200. de Lubac, Autres Paradoxes, 88.

150

●

Notes

29. Küng, The Church, 300. 30. von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 3, 219–20. 31. See Schillebeeckx, God among Us, 103. See also Praxis of the Reign of God, ed. Hilkert and Schreiter, 129. 32. Küng, The Church, 263. 33. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 11, 144. See also Schillebeeckx, Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, 88. 34. Mongrain, Systematic Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar, 38. 35. Küng, Structures of the Church, 40. For details about the necessity that Christians should be in union with God, see also de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 66. 36. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 2, 101. See also Borgman, Edward Schillebeeckx, 135. 37. Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. 38. For details about the wisdom of God, see von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 7, 174. 39. Schillebeeckx, Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World, 470. 40. de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 12. 41. Küng, The Church, 266. 42. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 72. 43. Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 324, and Congar, Eglise Catholique et France Moderne, 80. 44. von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 3, 361, Schillebeeckx, World and Church, 34. 45. Küng, Structures of the Church, 40. 46. Küng, The Church, 263. 47. Mongrain, Systematic Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar, 39. For more details, see also Schillebeeckx, I Am a Happy Theologian, 61. 48. Küng, The Church, 300. 49. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 72. 50. Küng, The Church, 263. 51. Küng, Structures of the Church, 41. 52. Congar, Eglise Catholique et France Moderne, 80. See also Henn, Hierarchy of Truths according to Yves Congar, 248. 53. von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 3, 435. 54. See Congar, Une Passion, 87. 55. Küng, The Church, 300. 56. For these ideas, Küng is indebted to K. Rahner and J. Ratzinger. See, for instance, K. Rahner and J. Ratzinger, Episkopat und Primat. Quaestiones disputatae 11 (Herder: Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1961), 97. 57. See also Küng, The Church, 267. 58. Congar, Une Passion, 84. 59. Küng, Structures of the Church, 42–3. 60. Küng, The Church, 263.

Notes

●

151

61. Karl Rahner, ed. Kelly, 266. See also Hans Urs von Balthasar, ed. Schindler, 132, and The Schillebeeckx Reader, ed. Schreiter, 197. 62. Küng, The Church, 320. 63. Guenther, Rahner and Metz, 242. 64. Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 71. 65. Küng, Structures of the Church, 43. Küng is inf luenced here by some ideas of J. L. Witte, “Die Katholizität der Kirche. Eine Neue Interpretation nach alter Tradition,” Gregorianum 42 (1961): 239. 66. For details about unity and catholicity, see Küng, The Church, 303. 67. For details about the constitution of human beings, see Mark Lloyd Taylor, God Is Love: A Study of the Theology of Karl Rahner (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 144–5. 68. von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 2, 202, and von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 5, 328. 69. Küng, Structures of the Church, 49. 70. Küng, Structures of the Church, 49. See also Karl Rahner, ed. Kelly, 255. 71. See also Küng, Living Church, 192. 72. Küng, The Church, 265. See also von Balthasar, Who Is a Christian? 114. 73. For details about the necessity of ecumenical efforts and discussions, see William Dynch, Karl Rahner (London, Continuum, 2000), 96. 74. Congar, Une Passion, 84. 75. Küng, The Church, 263. 76. Küng, Structures of the Church, 49. 77. See also Küng, The Church, 267. 78. Küng, Structures of the Church, 50–1. 79. Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. 80. von Balthasar, Who Is a Christian? 114–15. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 70. 81. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 72. 82. Fries and Rahner, Unity of the Churches, 8–9. 83. This is contrary to Rahner, who is convinced that all churches should acknowledge “the meaning and the right of the Petrine service of the Roman pope to the concrete guarantor of the unity of the church in truth and love.” See Fries and Rahner, Unity of the Churches, 8. 84. Karl Rahner, ed. Kelly, 255. 85. Küng, The Church, 265. 86. For details, see Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12, 13.

3 The Holiness of the Church 1. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12, 13. 2. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 16, 8, and von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 3, 218. 3. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 17, 184.

152 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

●

Notes

Schillebeeckx, God Is New Each Moment, 80. See also Hans Urs von Balthasar, ed. Schindler, 129. See Congar, Une Passion, 87. See Dynch, Karl Rahner, 97. See also Dickens, Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Aesthetics, 209. Küng, Truthfulness, 97. Küng, The Church, 263. See also Küng, The Church, 300–1. Fries and Rahner, Unity of the Churches, 7. See also Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, ed. Redfern, 62–3. Scripture has a trinitarian-Christological content. See Dickens, Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Aesthetics, 109. Küng, Structures of the Church, 52. Küng, Structures of the Church, 52. When the church is open to the Holy Spirit, it is open to God’s grace as well. See Küng, Council and Reunion, 40. Dynch, Karl Rahner, 89. For details, see Henn, Hierarchy of Truths according to Yves Congar, 248, and Jossua, OP, Le Père Congar, 109. Rahner writes that we are called to eternal communion with the God of grace. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 1, 300. Schillebeeckx, Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World, 474. von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 4, 350. Küng, Structures of the Church, 52. von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 1, 117. von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 6, 86–7. de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 11. The church as a communion of saints was also important for Congar. See also Henn, Hierarchy of Truths according to Yves Congar, 248. See Vauchez, Cardinal Yves Congar, 1904–1995, 18. This is based on personal decisions. See Küng, The Church, 263. Küng, The Church, 264. Küng, The Church, 320. Schillebeeckx, Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, 88–9. Mongrain, Systematic Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar, 111. Borgman, Edward Schillebeeckx, 136. Karl Rahner, ed. Kelly, 267. See also Hans Urs von Balthasar, ed. Schindler, 132, and Schillebeeckx, World and Church, 34. Cf. The Schillebeeckx Reader, ed. Schreiter, 197, and Congar, Une Passion, 87. For Rahner, the love of the church must have a Christological character. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 8, 22. Rahner, I Remember, 108. von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 2, 100. Küng, Structures of the Church, 52–3. Schillebeeckx, I Am a Happy Theologian, 60, and Rahner, I Remember, 108. See also Wong, Logos-Symbol, 150. Schillebeeckx, Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, 88–9.

Notes 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

50. 51.

52. 53. 54. 55.

56. 57. 58. 59.

60. 61. 62.

●

153

Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. Küng, The Church, 263. MacDonald, Church and World in the Plan of God, 40. Küng, The Church, 263. Küng, Structures of the Church, 53. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 17, 186. God revealed himself in Christ. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 3, 219–20. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 13, 38. Jossua, OP, Le Père Congar, 109. Küng, The Church, 265. de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 12. Schillebeeckx, World and Church, 34, and Congar, Une Passion, 87. Lloyd Taylor, God Is Love, 144–5. For Rahner, the supernatural experience of grace is present in the concrete economy of the present time. For details, see Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 1, 301. See also von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 5, 328. See also Schillebeeckx, Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World, 470. This affirmation that might have troubled Rahner, in the sense that he defended the teaching authority of the pope and also his infallibility, would have surely made Schillebeeckx very happy because he sternly criticized the transfer of the power of Christ to the pose that was an unfortunate mistake. For details, see Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 16, 11, and Schillebeeckx, God Is New Each Moment, 81. Dickens, Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Aesthetics, 209. For more information about establishing what comes from the Spirit or not, see Endean, Karl Rahner and Ignatian Spirituality, 163. Küng, The Church Maintained in Truth, 84. Christ is the norm in the church because he is the head of the church. See Küng, The Church, 320. This would be much to Rahner’s dismay who agreed on the pope’s infallibility but to Schillebeeckx’s joy who did not like the power of Christ be given to a human being. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 16, 11, and Schillebeeckx, God Is New Each Moment, 81. For details about the bond between the believer and the Spirit, see de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 12. Congar, Droit Ancien et Structures Ecclésiales, 266. Küng, Structures of the Church, 53. See von Balthasar, Who Is a Christian? 114–15, and Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. The love of God is absolutely necessary for man. See Tallon, Personal Becoming, 141. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 70. The work of the Spirit is always present in the church. See Marmion, The Spirituality of Everyday Faith, 332–3. See also Küng, Truthfulness, 99. de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 12.

154

●

Notes

63. Actually, man is inconceivable without God’s grace. For details, see Lloyd Taylor, God Is Love, 145. See also Stephan van Erp, The Art of Theology: Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Aesthetics and the Foundations of Faith (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 94. 64. von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 5, 646. 65. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 5, 646, and von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 4, 407. 66. Küng, The Church, 263. 67. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 72. 68. Congar, Une Passion, 87. 69. Küng, Structures of the Church, 53–4. See also Schillebeeckx, God Is New Each Moment, 79. 70. Küng, Structures of the Church, 63. 71. Congar, Eglise Catholique et France Moderne, 85. 72. Küng, The Church, 263. 73. Küng, Structures of the Church, 64. 74. See also Dynch, Karl Rahner, 94. 75. The Schillebeeckx Reader, ed. Schreiter, 195. See also Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité, 200. 76. Küng, Structures of the Church, 64. 77. Küng, Structures of the Church, 65. 78. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 13, 39. 79. Küng, Structures of the Church, 66. See also Congar, Une Passion, 87. 80. Küng, Structures of the Church, 67.

4


1. Küng, The Church, 356. 2. See also Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 324, and Congar, Eglise Catholique et France Moderne, 80. See also Congar, Droit Ancien et Structures Ecclésiales, 266, and Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité, 200. 3. All these details can be found is Küng, Structures of the Church, 106–10. 4. Küng, The Church, 271. 5. Congar, Eglise Catholique et France Moderne, 80, and Henn, Hierarchy of Truths according to Yves Congar, 248. 6. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 17, 186. 7. Küng, The Church, 345. See also Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 143. 8. Küng, The Church, 344. 9. Congar, Une Passion, 84. 10. For the importance of man’s moral conduct as a result of his membership in the church, see Faith in a Wintry Season, ed. Imhof and Biallowons,142. 11. Küng, The Church, 353. 12. Küng, The Church, 345. See also Congar, Une Passion, 85, and Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 18, 39. 13. See also Küng, The Church, 268.

Notes

●

155

14. Küng, Structures of the Church, 69. 15. See Küng, Structures of the Church, 110. 16. For the connection between holiness, for instance, and the apostles of Christ, see von Balthasar, Church and World, 46. 17. Küng, The Church, 355. 18. See The Praxis of the Reign of God, ed. Hilkert and Schreiter, 156. 19. Puyo, Une Vie pour la Vérité, 200. 20. See also Schillebeeckx, Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, 88. 21. Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 324, and Congar, Eglise Catholique et France Moderne, 80. 22. Küng, The Church, 354–5. 23. Küng, Structures of the Church, 110–1. 24. Also check Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 143. 25. Cf. Hermann Häring, Hans Küng. Breaking Through (London: SCM Press, 1998), 75–8. 26. See also Marmion, The Spirituality of Everyday Faith, 330. 27. Dagmar Heller, “Baptism—The Basis of Church Unity? The Question of Baptism in Faith and Order,” The Ecumenical Review 50 (1998): 486. 28. Manuel Rebeiro, The Church as the Community of the Believers. Hans Küng’s Concept of the Church as a Proposal for an Ecumenical Ecclesiology, vol. 1 (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1992), 149. 29. See also Marmion, The Spirituality of Everyday Faith, 332–3. 30. Schillebeeckx, Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World, 471. 31. See also Küng, Structures of the Church, 180. 32. Nichols, No Bloodless Myth. A Guide Through Balthasar’s Dramatics, 125. 33. Following Yves Congar, Jean Puyo would argue that believers are not priests but have a priestly dignity. Puyo, Une vie pour la vérité, 201. 34. Küng, Structures of the Church, 175–6. 35. Congar, OP, Une passion: l’unité, 87. 36. See also The Praxis of the Reign of God, ed. Hilkert and Schreiter, 156. 37. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 18, 133. 38. See Robert Nowell, A Passion for Truth. Hans Küng and His Theology, New York, Crossroad, 145. 39. See also God Is New Each Moment, 79. 40. von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, vol. 6, 86. 41. See Congar, OP, Une passion: l’unité, 86. 42. For the importance of Christ’s resurrection, check Karl Rahner, ed. Kelly, 254. 43. Chalakkal, The Post-Resurrection Appearances in Contemporary Catholic Christology, 27. 44. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 16, 11. 45. See Küng, Council and Reunion, 41. 46. See also Küng, Council and Reunion, 192. 47. Congar, Eglise catholique et France moderne, 80. 48. Küng, Structures of the Church, 177.

156 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

●

Notes

See also Jossua, OP, Yves Congar, 96. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 17, 141. Guenther, Rahner and Metz, 242. Allan J. Woods, A Look at the Christology of Hans Küng (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1983), 63. Gustave Thils, En dialogue avec l’ “entretien sur la foi” (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1986), 59. Avery Dulles, SJ, “The Catholicity of the Augsburg Confession,” The Journal of Religion 63 (1983): 349. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 241. Endean, Karl Rahner and Ignatian Spirituality, 162. Küng, Structures of the Church, 177–8. Nowell, A Passion for Truth. Hans Küng and His Theology, 142. See also Vauchez, Cardinal Yves Congar, 1904–1995, 21. Küng, The Church, 356. See also Küng, The Church, 353. Küng, Structures of the Church, 69–70. Küng, The Church, 356. These problems, however, can be overcome by the church’s strong belief in Christ. See Küng, The Church, 353–4. Küng, The Church, 350. See also Guenther, Rahner and Metz, 251, and Congar, Une Passion, 87. See also James E. Griffiss, Church, Ministry and Unity. A Divine Commission (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983), 58. For details, see Küng, Structures of the Church, 112–8. See also Schillebeeckx, Revelation and Theology, 28. LaCugna, The Theological Methodology of Hans Küng, 197.

5


1. See Hans Küng, On Being a Christian (New York: Pocket Books, 1976), 461. The original German edition is Hans Küng, Christ Sein (München: Piper Verlag, 1974). 2. Küng is very interested in establishing some facts about Jesus’ genealogy, his birth, and his death, but he says nothing about his resurrection and ascension to heaven. See Küng, On Being a Christian, 149–50. 3. In Catholic theology in general, the idea of the church as the people of God is closely connected to the apostolate. See Schillebeeckx, World and Church, 34. 4. Schillebeeckx prefers the phrase “community of grace”; see The Schillebeeckx Reader, ed. Schreiter, 193. 5. Rahner also insists on the importance of seeing the church as a community of faith but he writes that God’s answer to us in Jesus Christ created the community of faith, which is the church. See Rahner, Christian at the Crossroads, 35. 6. See also Duchrow, Konflikt um die Ökumene, 284–5.

Notes

●

157

7. Nicholas Lash would strongly disagree because he is convinced the church should have a strong doctrine of the Word of God. See Lash, Holiness, Speech and Silence, 40. 8. The New Testament is nevertheless a foundation document for the church. See The Praxis of the Reign of God, ed. Hilkert and Schreiter,142. 9. See Küng, On Being a Christian, 463. 10. In traditional Christianity and Catholic theology, Scripture is much more than this because it mediates the encounter between God and man. See Christopher W. Steck, SJ, The Ethical Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar (New York: Crossroads, 2001), 134. 11. This is why Scripture is closely connected to church unity. See van Erp, Art of Theology, 94. 12. Küng, On Being a Christian, 464. 13. To be sure, Christians have the responsibility to use their reason based on the common memory of the church but the use of reason should not be effected without the general context of revelation. See for details Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142, and de Lubac, Augustinianism and Modern Theology, 299. 14. Scripture should be given to people because it is the only way to know God. See for details von Erp, Art of Theology, 95. 15. Küng, On Being a Christian, 465. 16. The entire church is moved by the Spirit of God. See Endean, Karl Rahner and Ignatian Spirituality, 163. 17. The resurrection of Christ is very important to Rahner because it brings the church into being alongside his life and death. See Karl Rahner, ed. Kelly, 254. 18. It should be interesting to notice here that Küng was accused of speaking from a position outside the community of faith. See The Küng Dialogue, 96. 19. For Küng, it is not only the New Testament that functions as the norm of the church but also Jesus Christ. See Küng, The Church Maintained in Truth, 84. 20. Cf. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 254. 21. God’s involvement in the history of Israel makes the church the new Israel. See Famerée, L’ éclésiologie d’Yves Congar avant Vatican II, 39. 22. Küng, On Being a Christian, 466. 23. See Woods, A Look at the Christology of Hans Küng, 63. 24. Rebeiro, A Critical Study, 52–3. 25. Thus, it could be argued that the church is Christological. See Jossua, OP, Yves Congar, 96. 26. Congar holds the contrary opinion, namely that the revelation of God is received in and by faith. See Congar, History of Theology, 108. 27. It is unclear at this point if by man’s testimonies Küng understands the dogmas of the church. Probably not, in which case Rahner would strongly disagree with Küng. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 3. 28. Rahner also uses the phrase “Christian revelation.” See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 16, 8.

158

●

Notes

29. For details about God’s active intervention in history in general, and not as limited to the inspiration of Scripture, see Schillebeeckx, Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, 89. 30. This makes history a saving history. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 11, 144. 31. For a critical view of Küng’s definition of and attitude to faith, see Constanzo, SJ, The Historical Credibility of Hans Küng, 275. 32. See also von Balthasar, Homo Creatus Est, 368. 33. Küng, On Being a Christian, 466. 34. Küng, On Being a Christian, 467. 35. Küng, On Being a Christian, 467. 36. Küng, On Being a Christian, 467.

6 The Spirit of the Church 1. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 241. 2. For the importance of creeds, see Dagmar Heller, “Baptism—The Basis for Church Unity? The Question of Baptism in Faith and Order,” The Ecumenical Review 50 (1998): 489. 3. This is because Christ works in the church through the Spirit. See von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 4, 350. 4. Küng, On Being a Christian, 468. 5. See also von Balthasar, who is convinced that anthropology can attain its true stature within Christology. For details, cf. von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 2, 202. 6. For Schillebeeckx, this is a sign of the universality of the church. See Schillebeeckx, Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World, 470. 7. Although there must be a close connection at least between ethics and ecclesiology. See John W. De Gruchy, “Church Unity and Democratic Transformation. Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ethics in South Africa,” The Ecumenical Review 49/3 (1997): 362. 8. Mongrain, Systematic Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar, 39. 9. Küng, On Being a Christian, 469–70. 10. See also Küng, The Church Maintained in Truth, 84. 11. Rahner, I Remember, 108. 12. See Schillebeeckx, God among Us, 103. 13. See also Rahner, who writes that the church is the visible sign of the eschatological presence of God’s salvation in the world. For details, Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 55. 14. Christ as Lord is not only the Lord of the church but also the Lord of all history. See Marmion, The Spirituality of Everyday Faith, 303. 15. For further information about the love of God, especially as present in the human being, see Taylor, God Is Love, 145. 16. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 1, 301.

Notes

●

159

17. Küng, On Being a Christian, 470–1. 18. Jossua, OP, Yves Congar, 96. 19. Ola Tjørhom, “The Church and Its Apostolicity. The Porvoo Common Statement as a Challenge to Lutheran Ecclesiology and the Nordic Lutheran Churches,” The Ecumenical Review 52/1 (2000): 200. 20. The common character of the Spirit determines the common faith of the church. See Dagmar Heller, “Baptism—The Basis for Church Unity? The Question of Baptism in Faith and Order,” The Ecumenical Review 50 (1998): 486. 21. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 1, 300. 22. For the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit, cf. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 10, 54. 23. For details, see Küng, On Being a Christian, 358–66. 24. See also Fields, SJ, Being as Symbol, 80. 25. van Erp, Art of Theology, 152. 26. Cf. von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 5, 328. 27. For the idea of gift as applied to the church, see Richard Marzheuser, “Globalization and Catholicity: Two Expressions of One Ecclesiology?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 32/2 (1995): 186. 28. On the other hand, however, the Spirit is a spiritual reality that makes the church a spiritual reality. See Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, ed. Redfern, 65. 29. In other words, believers must live in Christ. See Mark S. Burrows, “Globalization, Pluralism and Ecumenics: The Old Question of Catholicity in a New Cultural Horizon,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 29/3–4 (1992): 354. 30. See Hans Küng. His Work and His Way, ed. Häring and Kuschel, 55. 31. For details about church unity in Küng, see Rebeiro, The Church as the Community of the Believers, vol. 2, 194. 32. See also von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 1, 116. 33. Man can be accomplished as a free being only in Christ. See von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 2, 202. 34. For further information about the fact that the church must actively deal with the reality of sin, see Sobrino, Spirituality of Liberation, 129. 35. See also Thils, En dialogue, 59. 36. Such a view would surely upset von Balthasar because the doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of love. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 6, 87. 37. This is contrary to de Lubac, who stresses that the purpose of the church is to bring us together into the heart of the life of the Holy Trinity. See Henri de Lubac, 92. 38. For details about the unity among the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, see Henri de Lubac, 92–3. 39. Rahner would strongly disagree because the doctrine of the Trinity that ref lects God’s unity is fundamental for the unity of the church. See Rise, Academic and the Spiritual in Karl Rahner’s Theology, 119.

160

●

Notes

40. See Küng, On Being a Christian, 472. 41. For the importance of the event of salvation, see Faith in a Wintry Season, ed. Imhof and Biallowons, 143. 42. This is in line with Schillebeeckx, who is convinced that the entire theology of the church must always be directed toward salvation. See Schillebeeckx, Revelation and Theology, 176. 43. Küng, On Being a Christian, 473. 44. Also check Woods, A Look at the Christology of Hans Küng, 64. 45. Küng, On Being a Christian, 474. 46. This notion is very dear to Küng so defending it against other doctrines is imperative. For more details about ecumenism in general with special reference to Protestantism, see Catholicity of the Reformation, ed. Braaten and Jenson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 94. 47. Cf. Wong, Logos-Symbol in the Christology of Karl Rahner, 151. 48. Küng, On Being a Christian, 475–6. 49. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 124. 50. This is because the culmination of God’s revelation is Christ, see Schillebeeckx, Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, 91. 51. This would not please von Balthasar, who underlines that the existence of God is a confirmation of the existence of the church because the existence of God is to be found in his work and his creation that includes the church. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 2, 100. 52. Hans Küng. New Horizons for Faith and Thought, ed. Häring and Kuschel, 36. 53. Cf. Woods, A Look at the Christology of Hans Küng, 64. 54. See MacDonald, Church and World in the Plan of God, 48. 55. See also von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 3, 218.

7


1. Cf. also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 17, 141. 2. Ratzinger is even more specific when he says that salvation is strongly connected to hope. See Nichols, OP, Theology of Joseph Ratzinger, 73. 3. For details about the church’s theology of hope, see Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 11, 145. 4. Gaboriau, Hans Küng, 62. 5. Küng, On Being a Christian, 478. 6. See also Congar, History of Theology, 208. 7. For the importance of church practice, see M. Thomas Thangaraj, “Is Full Church Unity Possible or Desirable?” The Ecumenical Review 40/3–4 (1998): 93. 8. For the very close connection between Christ and the church, see Mongrain, Systematic Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar, 109, and Nichols, No Bloodless Myth, 124.

Notes

●

161

9. Küng, On Being a Christian, 478–9. 10. Thus, the centre of the life of the Christian church is Christ. See von Balthasar, Word and Redemption, 68. 11. Rebeiro, A Critical Study, 57. 12. John Deschner, “Amsterdam’s Vision of Church Unity Today,” The Ecumenical Review 40/3–4 (1988): 356. 13. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 10, 71. 14. The worship of the church must always be directed to Christ. See Gardner, Moss, Quash, and Ward, Balthasar and the End of Modernity, 25. 15. The church is a worshiping community. For details about this fact from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, see Vassiliadis, Eucharist and Witness, 10. 16. Küng, On Being a Christian, 479. 17. See de Lubac, Autres paradoxes, 88. 18. Cf. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 14–5. 19. The proclamation of Christ must be done in order to transform the world. See von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 1, 117. 20. See also Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 72. 21. For details about the church as a universal community, see Nichols, No Bloodless Myth, 124. 22. See also Congar, who writes that the church is made up of Christian communities or local churches. Congar, OP, Une passion: l’unité, 84. 23. See von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 3, 435. 24. As far as practical reality is concerned, local churches should establish communion among themselves. See Avery Dulles, SJ, “The Catholicity of the Augsburg Confession,” The Journal of Religion 63 (1983): 353. 25. So there should be cooperation among local churches. See Saayman, Unity and Mission, 71. 26. Schillebeeckx would disagree because, according to his theology, in the church the being of God is manifested in history. See Schillebeeckx, God among Us, 104. 27. A reference to catholicity, see Rebeiro, The Church as the Community of the Believers, vol. 2, 201–2. 28. Von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 3, 361. 29. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12, 13. 30. Küng, On Being a Christian, 481. 31. Rebeiro, The Church as the Community of the Believers, vol. 1, 136. 32. For more information about the church as the people of God and body of Christ, see Ratzinger, La Ressuscité, 142. 33. For details about the power of God, see Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 6, 52. 34. The personal character of God is essential to Rahner. See Rahner, I Remember, 108. 35. For an opposite stand as ref lected in Eastern Orthodox theology, see Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church, 184.

162

●

Notes

36. Nichols, No Bloodless Myth, 54. 37. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 6, 52. 38. Union with Christ is essential at this point. See Duchrow, Konflikt um die Ökumene, 285. 39. In other words, God works actively in the church. See Congar, Droit ancien et structures écclésiales, 266. 40. For an Eastern Orthodox view, see Vassiliadis, Eucharist and Witness, 11. 41. In order to evaluate the importance of our status as children of God, see von Balthasar, Homo Creatus Est, 368. 42. Congar would disagree because, in his view, the members of the church, which is the body of Christ, are not priests but they have a priestly dignity. See Puyo, Une vie pour la vérité, 201. 43. See Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 322, and von Balthasar, Word and Redemption, 68. 44. Also check Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 8, 11. 45. For details about the mediation of Christ, see Boweden, Edward Schillebeeckx, 98. 46. See Rahner, Christian at the Crossroads, 34. 47. In von Balthasar, the meta-historical reality of God should be understood in terms of God’s metaphysical love that shows his glory. See for details von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 5, 647. 48. One of the fundamental functions of the church is proclaiming the Gospel. See God Is New Each Moment, 79. 49. The Praxis of the Reign of God, ed. Hilkert and Schreiter,142. 50. Küng, On Being a Christian, 482–3. 51. See also Wong, Logos-Symbol in the Christology of Karl Rahner, 151. 52. Cf. Chalakkal, The Post-Resurrection Appearances in Contemporary Catholic Christology, 27. 53. The Schillebeeckx Reader, ed. Schreiter, 197. 54. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 16, 11. 55. For details about man’s knowledge of God, cf. Roberts, The Theological Aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar, 150. 56. This is an indication that salvation is from God. See Bowden, Edward Schillebeeckx, 90. 57. In this context, holiness is a sign of God’s plan for his people because God wants us to be holy. See Willis, Notes on the Holiness of God, 94. 58. See Tillard, Church of Churches, 2. 59. Küng may refer here to catholicity. See Küng, The Church Maintained in Truth, 84. 60. Häring, Hans Küng, 73. 61. Rebeiro, The Church as the Community of the Believers, vol. 1, 149. 62. This could imply that believers must respond to God in freedom. Von Balthasar would also add that they should welcome God in love. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 6, 87. 63. Küng, On Being a Christian, 482.

Notes

●

163

64. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 8, 22. 65. See also Rise, Academic and the Spiritual in Karl Rahner’s Theology, 118. 66. The foundation of the church is love. See Rahner, Do You Believe in God? 21, and Wong, Logos-Symbol in the Christology of Karl Rahner, 150. 67. Love is an active or dynamic feature of the church that ensures the personal becoming of the members of the church. See Tallon, Personal Becoming, 140. 68. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 11, 145. 69. Küng, On Being a Christian, 483. 70. In other words, Christians must seek what is good. See Schillebeeckx, I Am a Happy Theologian, 60. 71. Küng, Truthfulness, 95. 72. See Fries and Rahner, Unity of the Churches, 8. 73. The foundation of the authority of the church is its divine character. See Griffiss, Church, Ministry and Unity, 58. 74. For the importance of brotherhood in the church, see Nichols, OP, Theology of Joseph Ratzinger, 66. 75. Cf. also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12, 13. 76. See The Küng Dialogue, 188. 77. This is true also for Protestant theology. See Catholicity of the Reformation, ed. Braaten and Jenson, 95. 78. Henn, Hierarchy of Truths according to Yves Congar, OP, 248. 79. The church is diversity in unity. See Congar, Eglise catholique et France moderne, 80. 80. See Nichols, OP, Yves Congar, 52. 81. John Deschner, “More than Inclusiveness. The New Christian Majority and the Shift in the Ecumenical Conversation about Church Unity,” The Ecumenical Review 43/1 (1991): 63. 82. For details about division in the church, see Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 9, 24. 83. Nowell, A Passion for Truth, 142. 84. Diversity should not be a problem for the church. Thus, the church should surpass all limitations including ethnic boundaries. See Kehl, SJ, and Löser, SJ, The von Balthasar Reader, 234–5. 85. Küng, On Being a Christian, 484. 86. See Einheit und Vielfalt, ed. Hillenbrand, Koch, and Pretscher, 72. 87. Nichols, OP, Yves Congar, 53. 88. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 13, 38. 89. See Richard Marzheuser, “Globalization and Catholicity: Two Expressions of One Ecclesiology?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 32/2 (1995): 179. 90. Henn, Hierarchy of Truths according to Yves Congar, 248. 91. See Avery Dulles, SJ, “The Catholicity of the Augsburg Confession,” The Journal of Religion 63 (1983): 349. 92. It could be argued that the church mediates the activity of the Spirit. See also Fields, SJ, Being as Symbol, 80.

164

●

Notes

93. The church should always pay heed at the work of the Spirit. See Lash, Holiness, Speech and Silence, 40. 94. For details about the work of the Holy Spirit within the church, see Mac Donald, Church and World in the Plan of God, 40. 95. See Hans Küng. New Horizons for Faith and Thought, ed. Häring and Kuschel, 37. 96. See also John Deschner, “Amsterdam’s Vision of Church Unity Today,” The Ecumenical Review 40/3–4 (1988): 355. 97. Thus, the work of the Spirit is a manifestation of God’s grace, which is true also for Eastern Orthodoxy. See Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church, 184. 98. The idea of the church as a gift is in line with Eastern Orthodox theology. See Kallistos Ware, “Catholicity and Nationalism: A Recent Debate at Athens,” Eastern Orthodox Review 10/1–2 (1978): 13. 99. Küng, On Being a Christian, 485. 100. Küng, On Being a Christian, 485. 101. This means that man can understand or experience himself existentially. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 1, 300. 102. In Protestant theology, this also implies an active conversion of the mind, a regeneration of thinking. See Mark S. Burrows, “Christus intra nos vivens. The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sanctification,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 98 (1987): 62. 103. See Przewozny, Church as the Sacrament of the Unity of All Mankind, 35. 104. Küng nevertheless claims that the church must be a living reality. See Küng, Truthfulness, 99. 105. Küng, On Being a Christian, 485–6. 106. In classical theology, salvation from sin is closely connected to the doctrine of justification. See Julia Gatta, “Justification and Sanctification: Classical Concerns and Contemporary Context,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23/3 (1986): 515. 107. This dialogue includes interreligious discussions. See O’Lenny, Hans Küng and Papal Infallibility, 14. 108. The church should be a church of ministry for the entire humanity. See Kennedy, OP, Schillebeeckx, 71. 109. This means that the church should be self less. Von Balthasar explains that this humble and self less attitude means that the church should seek the honor of its Lord because the Lord sought the honor only of his Father. See von Balthasar, Who Is a Christian? 114. 110. See for details, Küng, On Being a Christian, 486–7. 111. Küng, On Being a Christian, 487–8. 112. The church in general is characterized by multiplicity. See Häring, Hans Küng, 75–8. 113. Preaching should be the confession of Christ. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 13, 39.

Notes

●

165

114. This is clearly connected to the wisdom of God. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 7, 174. 115. The apostolate of the church must be fulfilled in the midst of people. See Borgman, Edward Schillebeeckx, 134. 116. See Hans Küng. His Work and His Way, ed. Häring and Kuschel, 57. 117. See Küng, The Church Maintained in Truth, 84. 118. This is why the unity of the church is the unity of faith proclaimed by the church. See Rahner, Do You Believe in God? 20. 119. For details, see Küng, On Being a Christian, 488–9. 120. Because the church must bear testimony to God’s work. See also Webster, Holiness, 72. 121. See Congar, OP, Une passion: l’unité, 86. 122. The church must be aware of its existence in history. See Küng, Truthfulness, 98. 123. Confession, namely confession of Christ, secures the unity of the church. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 9, 24. 124. The church in general should be missionary. See Mark S. Burrows, “Globalization, Pluralism and Ecumenics: The Old Question of Catholicity in a New Cultural Horizon,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 29/3–4 (1992): 351. 125. Küng, On Being a Christian, 489. 126. Küng, On Being a Christian, 489–90. 127. Theologically this should not be a problem because the church is catholic, so there are churches within the church. See Congar, Eglise catholique et France moderne, 79. 128. So church ministry should be seen Christologically. Cf. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 18, 40. 129. Chalakkal, The Post-Resurrection Appearances in Contemporary Catholic Christology, 27. 130. Thus, the ancient ministry of apostolic times needs to be adapted in order to suit the necessity of contemporary people. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 18, 39. 131. See Tjørhom, “The Church and Its Apostolicity.” 132. It is crucial to see here that despite the succession of different generations of Christians, the church is maintained in truth by the Gospel of Jesus. See Gaboriau, Hans Küng, 62. 133. Küng, On Being a Christian, 491. 134. Küng’s criticism against the pope reportedly severs the pope from Christ. See Constanzo, SJ, The Historical Credibility of Hans Küng, 274. 135. For fellowship as the essence of the church, see de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 12. 136. See Fries and Rahner, Unity of the Churches, 9. 137. Einheit und Vielfalt, ed. Hillenbrand, Koch, and Pretscher, 73. 138. See Küng, Truthfulness, 98.

166

●

Notes

139. The idea of participation is normally understood as participation in the reality of God. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 4, 407. 140. This is a form of participation in Christ, see Mark S. Burrows, “Christus intra nos vivens. The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sanctification,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 98 (1987): 55. 141. Prayer is an aspect not only of ordination but of the entire life of the church. For details about the role of prayer in theology, see Hans Urs von Balthasar, ed. Schindler, 129. 142. Küng, On Being a Christian, 493. 143. It must not be forgotten that the proclamation of the Gospel is the duty of the church in general. See Saayman, Unity and Mission, 70. 144. Küng, On Being a Christian, 496. 145. See M. Thomas Thangaraj, “Is Full Church Unity Possible or Desirable?” The Ecumenical Review 40/3–4 (1998): 94–5. 146. Küng, On Being a Christian, 498. 147. Küng, On Being a Christian, 500. 148. Tradition, though important, is not the norm of the church. See LaCugna, The Theological Methodology of Hans Küng, 196. 149. Küng, On Being a Christian, 502.

8 The Work of the Church 1. Puyo, Une vie pour la vérité, 202–3. 2. In Küng, Scripture is normative, while tradition is only the whole of church history. See LaCugna, The Theological Methodology of Hans Küng, 197. 3. Sin/nature and grace as closely linked are fundamental to Rahner. For details, see Taylor, God Is Love, 144. See also von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 1, 116. 4. Especially the fact that the pope is not infallible. See Hans Küng. New Horizons for Faith and Thought, ed. Häring and Kuschel, 37, and O’Lenny, Hans Küng and Papal Infallibility, 13. 5. Küng, On Being a Christian, 502. 6. Christians should be equally occupied with the reunion of churches. See O’Lenny, Hans Küng and Papal Infallibility, 13. 7. This is an indication that the church must have a clear understanding of its dogma. See also Guenther, Rahner and Metz, 243. 8. See The Küng Dialogue, 188. 9. The church must reach out ecumenically and look for unity as love. For details, see von Balthasar, Who Is a Christian? 114. 10. The continuity of faith also means continuity with the apostles. See Griffiss, Church, Ministry and Unity, 58. 11. Küng, On Being a Christian, 503. 12. The church needs to evaluate itself in the light of the Gospel. See God Is New Each Moment, 79.

Notes 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22.

23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

●

167

See Vauchez, Yves Congar, 18. Küng, Truthfulness, 96. Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, ed. Redfern, 63. Küng, On Being a Christian, 503. Gaboriau, Hans Küng, 63. See also Dynch, Karl Rahner, 96. For details about the vision of the church, see Congar, Droit ancien et structures écclésiales, 267. Küng, On Being a Christian, 503. This ecumenical vision is oftentimes an excuse to legitimate claims to catholicity. For details about catholicity as ecumenicity, see Rebeiro, A Critical Study, 54. John Deschner suggests that ecumenism under the cross is to be desired as if ecumenism could be realized without the cross. See John Deschner, “More than Inclusiveness. The New Christian Majority and the Shift in the Ecumenical Conversation about Church Unity,” The Ecumenical Review 43/1 (1991): 64. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 17, 138. Cf. Hans Urs von Balthasar, ed. Schindler, 132. The confession of Christ as Lord is vital for the church. See Gardner, Moss, Quash, and Ward, Balthasar and the End of Modernity, 24. It may be interesting to notice that Küng does not use the traditional word “head” to designate Christ’s status in relationship to the church. For more information about Christ as head in Catholic theology, see Dickens, Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Aesthetics, 108. Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 326. Cf. Tillard, Church of Churches, 21. See also Webster, Holiness, 74. Nowell, A Passion for Truth, 145. See also Kehl, SJ, and Löser, SJ, The von Balthasar Reader, 252. Cf. Borgman, Edward Schillebeeckx, 135. This hypostatic union is crucial for von Balthasar. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 3, 218. See Sobrino, Spirituality of Liberation, 128–9. This duality is ref lected by the church as well. Cf. Vauchez, Cardinal Yves Congar, 18. Küng, On Being a Christian, 504. Unity should be Christological. See Dynch, Karl Rahner, 97. See Hans Küng. His Work and His Way, ed. Häring and Kuschel, 56. For the historical reality of the church, see Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 9, 102. See Hans Küng. His Work and His Way, ed. Häring and Kuschel, 56. In von Balthasar, for instance, following Christ is a sign of catholicity. See von Balthasar, Church and World, 46.

168

●

Notes

42. Holiness is extraordinary because it is given to us by God, but it is also ordinary because it must exist within us. See Holiness Past and Present, ed. Barton, 337. 43. In this sense, Christology is the foundation of holiness. See Hauerwas, Sanctify Them in the Truth, 110–1. 44. Cf. von Balthasar, Word and Redemption, 69. 45. See Roberts, The Theological Aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar, 150. 46. This is vital for von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 5, 646. 47. Julia Gatta, “Justification and Sanctification: Classical Concerns and Contemporary Context,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23/3 (1986): 516. 48. For details about the presence of God, see Schillebeeckx, I Am a Happy Theologian, 60. 49. At this point, Küng comes very close to Schillebeeckx, who insists that every member of the church must be formed in the image of Christ and this entails following Jesus. See Schillebeeckx, Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World, 475. 50. For details about the fact that the church must take the presence of Christ in the world, see David Fergusson, “Reclaiming the Doctrine of Sanctification,” Interpretation 54/3 (1999): 382. 51. Karl Rahner, ed. Kelly, 267. 52. See Faith in a Wintry Season, ed. Imhof and Biallowons, 79. 53. See Küng, The Church Maintained in Truth, 84. 54. Cf. Endean, Karl Rahner and Ignatian Spirituality, 162. 55. The idea of hope for the future should be fundamental to the church. See Thils, En dialogue, 59. 56. These are very important for Rahner. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 12, 107. 57. At this point, Küng disagrees not only with traditional Catholic theology but also with classical Eastern Orthodox thought. For instance, Eastern Orthodox theology holds that as members of the church, our true home is in heaven, so the church is eschatological. See Kallistos Ware, “Catholicity and Nationalism: A Recent Debate at Athens,” Eastern Orthodox Review 10/1–2 (1978): 15. 58. In doing so, however, the church must existentially go further with its love for God. See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 2, 101. 59. Küng, On Being a Christian, 504–5. 60. See also de Lubac, Théologies d’occasion, 67. 61. Cf. John W. De Gruchy, “Church Unity and Democratic Transformation. Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ethics in South Africa,” The Ecumenical Review 49/3 (1997): 358. 62. Küng, Truthfulness, 99. 63. See Tillard, Je crois en dépit de tout, 16. 64. For details about the goals of the church, see MacDonald, Church and World in the Plan of God, 46.

Notes

●

169

65. All these should be realized in Christ. See Famerée, L’ écclésiologie d’Yves Congar avant Vatican II, 44. 66. Schillebeeckx discusses this issue within the context of apostolate, which is seen as service to the neighbor in taking the Gospel of Christ to those who do not know it. See Schillebeeckx, World and Church, 34. 67. Cf. Marmion, The Spirituality of Everyday Faith, 303. 68. See also von Balthasar, Church and World, 46. 69. Häring, Hans Küng, 70. 70. See David Fergusson, “Reclaiming the Doctrine of Sanctification,” Interpretation 54/3 (1999): 384. 71. The church must always be fully aware of its living in history. See Schillebeeckx, Revelation and Theology, 177. 72. See Guenther, Rahner and Metz, 242. 73. Küng, On Being a Christian, 505–6. 74. The entire existence of Jesus was directed toward the cross; see von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, vol. 7, 176. 75. For details about the relevance of the risen Christ in Küng, see Chalakkal, The Post-Resurrection Appearances in Contemporary Catholic Christology, 27. 76. For the importance of mission, see von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 5, 328. 77. Repentance, however, seems to have a special significance in von Balthasar. See von Balthasar, Theo-Drama, vol. 4, 351. 78. See Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 8, 23. 79. See Tillard, Je crois en dépit de tout, 16. 80. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 15. 81. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 10, 130. 82. Küng, On Being a Christian, 507–8. 83. Cf. Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 6, 253. 84. Nowell, A Passion for Truth, 143. 85. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 54. 86. Love is absolutely necessary for man. See Tallon, Personal Becoming, 141. 87. Küng, On Being a Christian, 508–9. 88. For details about suffering and human tragedy, see Holiness Past and Present, ed. Barton, 338. 89. For suffering as a reality in the church, see de Lubac, Autres paradoxes, 86. 90. For details about the fundamental transcendence of God, see von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, 407. 91. These are closely connected to the notion of holiness and they secure God’s eternal presence is us. See Willis, Notes on the Holiness of God, 87. 92. In Catholic theology, the church mediates God’s reconciliation to humanity. See Przewozny, Church as the Sacrament of the Unity of All Mankind, 33. 93. The church should live the things of God, see Congar, OP, History of Theology, 206. 94. Cf. Dickens, Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Aesthetics, 108. 95. See also Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 55.

170

●

Notes

Appendix: Reading Hans Küng’s Ecclesiology Today 1. For a valuable perspective on Küng’s Christology, see Allan J. Woods, A Look at the Christology of Hans Küng (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1983). 2. An informed study in Küng’s theology of the signs of the church is Manuel Rebeiro, A Critical Study of Hans Küng’s Structures of the Church and The Church with an Emphasis on His Concept of the Origin of the Church (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1987). 3. See also, Hans Küng. His Work and His Way, ed. Herman Häring and KarlJosef Kuschel (London: Collins, 1979), 55–7. 4. Interestingly enough, Küng was accused that he speaks from a position that is outside the community of faith. See The Küng Dialogue. A Documentation on the Efforts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Conference of German Bishops to Achieve an Appropriate Clarification of the Controversial Issues of Dr. Hans Küng (Tübingen) (United States Catholic Conference, 1980), 96. 5. Professor Paul Negruţ and I had a one-hour interview with Professor Küng in his Weltethos office on June 1, 2007. Professor Küng was very kind as to answer more than a dozen questions that, although primarily concerning the idea of religious and world peace, touched the doctrine of Jesus and the church as well. As Professor Küng gave this interview for Professor Negruţ’s second doctoral dissertation in political studies, it will not be released in print before the doctoral thesis itself is published in 2009. 6. It has to be said that Küng is not alone in his conviction about the permanence of Jesus’ death. Schillebeeckx (his equally famous, life-time supporter) explains his personal conviction that the death of Jesus is one of the basic tenets that should characterize the thinking of modern society. Thus, in an published interview that he gave to Ramona Simuţ and myself on May 3, 2002, Schillebeeckx presents his argument about Jesus based on the necessity of experience as well as the necessity that modern people should realize that Jesus was a mere human being. The image he uses to picture the humanity of Jesus is quite striking for any traditional Christian because he states that, as far as Jesus is concerned, his dead body remained in the tomb forever. This means that, in order to understand Christian doctrines today, we must reinterpret the fundamental doctrines of Christianity otherwise they lack any relevance whatsoever. In Schillebeeckx’s words: Trusting God through the mediation of Christ is the essence. Doctrines are not permanent. Old doctrines are not relevant any more. We are not Greeks, but rather Europeans, so—for example—the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, the hypostatic union, is not relevant any longer. Christ was a human person, but he had a unique relationship with God. I have said many times that in our times, in the twenty-first century, holding that Jesus Christ had both a human nature and a divine nature is like saying that he was a mermaid. Christ was a human being, he was

Notes

7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

●

171

finite as we are. Jesus Christ is a human being, with a personal and unique relationship with God—we must realize this. I am not against the formula of the divinity of Jesus, but we must translate it in order to have meaning for us today . . . A reinterpretation of what we called dogmas is very important and must occur. Having postulated the necessity of reinterpreting the fundamental truths of Christianity, Schillebeeckx continues with a practical application that concerns the essentials of Christology: We must not be busy with what we believe. There is no obligation to believe this and that. For me, the creed has always been the foundation of life, but we must always reinterpret the doctrines of the creed—the resurrection, for instance. I believe in the bodily resurrection, but this has nothing to do with corpses coming to life. The corps of Jesus Christ did not leave the tomb, and whoever holds this believes in a fairy tale. I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus but not as a dead body coming to life again. Here, however, I must mention that there are two major points of interpretation. Firstly, those who believe there will be a bodily resurrection in the sense that life will be given to dead bodies. Secondly, Paul says we have a new body coming from heaven, a pneumatological vision; there is no such thing as a corpse coming out of the tomb. The corporality, the completeness and the wholeness of being a human with God eschatologically is something which cannot be expressed by a representation. We are not a soul only, the resurrected body will be spiritual, I believe in the resurrection of the body but it has nothing to do with a corpse coming to life from the tomb. See Ramona Simuţ, “Reinterpreting Traditional Theology. An Interview with Edward Schillebeeckx,” Perichoresis 5/2 (2007): 281–2. Hans Küng, The Catholic Church: A Short History (London: Phoenix Press, 2002; the first English edition is London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2001), 1. Küng’s call for the reformation of papacy is sternly criticized in Joseph F. Constanzo, SJ, The Historical Credibility of Hans Küng. An Inquiry and Commentary (North Quincy: Christopher Publishing House, 1979), 274–5. Küng, The Catholic Church, 1–2. Küng, The Catholic Church, 2–3. For an ecumenical concern beyond the Catholic realm, see also Catholicity of the Reformation, ed. Braaten and Jenson, 94. Küng, The Catholic Church, 8. See also Manuel Rebeiro, The Church as the Community of the Believers. Hans Küng’s Concept of the Church as a Proposal for an Ecumenical Ecclesiology, vol. 2 (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1992), 198. In the same interview given to Ramona Simuţ, Schillebeeckx even suggests that salvation is at hand for everybody, including those who do not believe in God but do what the Gospel tells them to do. This is a clear indication that salvation does not mean escape from sin as in traditional theology but

172

15.

16. 17.

18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23.

24.

●

Notes

self-giving in view of acquiring self-relevance. In other words, a man is saved when he is able to give himself for others in spite of his lack of belief in God. It is significant to mention that Schillebeeckx discusses these issues within the larger context of secularization. Here is Schillebeeckx’s explanation: I must begin by saying that secularization is not evil. Human beings are secular, but this does not mean they are evil. Secularization will go on forever. I do not believe in the new age to come and all these things. Humanity is one thing. Believing in the church, in love, in doing good to others and being capable to stick to an ideal, which for a Christian is the kingdom of God, is the most important thing of all. Freedom for every human being, solidarity and, above all, justice are the most relevant aspects of humanity. When people do good things they have the kernel of the Gospel even if they do not believe in Christ. Many people see this reality as a fairy tale. Our judgment, however, will be on the basis of our facts, on the basis of doing the good (Matthew 25). Giving our lives for others (not suicidally) is what really counts. When somebody is a victim of evil, we must give our lives for the sake of the good. When we do this, we are Christians. If you are doing the will of God even when you are denying the existence of God, then you are a Christian. See Simuţ, “Reinterpreting Traditional Theology,” 282. Details about ecumenism in modern ecclesiology can be found also in Dagmar Heller, “Baptism—the Basis of Church Unity? The Question of Baptism in Faith and Order,” The Ecumenical Review 50 (1998): 480–9. Küng, The Catholic Church, 9. For the importance of reason in the church, although not within Küng’s lines, see Henri de Lubac, Augustinianism and Modern Theology (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969), 299, and Joseph Ratzinger, La Ressuscité. Retraite au Vatican, en présence de S. S. Jean-Paul II (Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer, 1985), 142. Küng, The Catholic Church, 9. The necessity of reformation and renewal should be a constant characteristic of the church, see Catholicity of the Reformation, ed. Braaten and Jenson, 96–7. Küng, The Catholic Church, 9. For details about faith in Christ, see Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 13 (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), 39. Küng, The Catholic Church, 9–10. For the role and importance of tradition see Catherine Mowry LaCugna, The Theological Methodology of Hans Küng (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982), 196–7. See also Manuel Rebeiro, The Church as the Community of the Believers. Hans Küng’s Concept of the Church as a Proposal for an Ecumenical Ecclesiology, vol. 1 (Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1992), 149.

Notes

●

173

25. Küng, The Catholic Church, 10. 26. See also Stephen Fields, SJ, Being as Symbol. On the Origins and Development of Karl Rahner’s Metaphysics (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000), 47. 27. Küng, The Catholic Church, 11–2. 28. For details about the task of the church to build the kingdom of God, see Julia Gatta, “Justification and Sanctification: Classical Concerns and Contemporary Context,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23/3 (1986): 516. 29. Schillebeeckx would once again agree with Küng: There is no Christian ethics—I must say this; there is only human ethics but we have to seek what is human and humane. To be a human being is the basis of all ethics, but when you are a believer with faith in God, this relationship with God is ref lected in the community of the church. We have to take this ethics into our personal relationship with God. Belief, faith, hope, love, charity are our theological and ethical virtues. They are personal and communal values. They are the immediate basis of our humanity. For a believer, however, this humanity, which is the basis of all ethics, is a gift of God. The deepest perception of ethics is God through the mediation of our feeling and through the ref lection of what ethics really is. I am in favour of autonomous ethics, but God is ultimately the foundation of ethics. It is only through our feelings that we are able to know what ethics is in reality. We know the will of God through our perceptions. See Simuţ, “Reinterpreting Traditional Theology,” 279. 30. Küng, The Catholic Church, 11. 31. For Küng’s criticism of the pope’s office, see Patrick J. O’Lenny, Hans Küng and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Light of the Incarnational Principle (Leuven: Katholike Universiteit Leuven, 1992), 13. 32. To be sure, I do not deny Küng’s scholarly abilities that were substantially proved in his vast work. Even in matters pertaining to biblical theology— which is my main criticism at this point—he did show that he was more than able to produce an academic approach to the complex problematic of Christian hermeneutics in general and Scripture in particular. This is evident, for instance, in his Theology for the Third Millennium, where Küng discusses his perspective on the historical-critical method in relationship to dogmatic theology as well as the four dimensions of the postmodern paradigm (biblical, historical, ecumenical, and political), which includes the necessity of the historical-critical method for the interpretation of Scripture: The meaning and necessity of the historico-critical method for an up-todate interpretation of Scripture and the texts of Christian tradition were clearly affirmed . . . The role of Scripture in the new paradigm remains a critically liberating one. Biblical hermeneutics has to be carried out in continuity with historical criticism since the Enlightenment, however much

174

●

Notes

today’s hermeneutical instruments may have been refined. Nobody wanted to go back to biblical hermeneutics that was rigidly anti-Enlightenment and fundamentalist or reductive in a post-Enlightenment dogmatic style. See Hans Küng, Theology for the Third Millennium (Doubleday: New York, 1988), 77, and also 85–7, and 177–81. The German edition is Hans Küng, Theologie im Aufbruch (Piper Verlag, 1987). Nevertheless, it has to be underlined that his entire argumentation in his 1988 Theology for the Third Millennium is faithfully continued in his 2001 The Catholic Church. The main themes are identical: the biblical dimension is concerned with the continuity of contemporary theology with the “Old Gospel,” witness of the Gospel in freedom, the liberating effect of the historical-critical method, and the liberation of women; the historical dimension contains issues such as the relativist interpretation of history, the relationship between history and nature, and the humanity of the humankind (especially of Jesus of Nazareth); the ecumenical dimension makes reference to the abolition of denominationalism and confessionalism, the diversity of religions, the plurality of intercultural hermeneutics, and gender-equality; while the political dimension deals with the necessity that theology should think politically (namely stop any attempt to politicize religion), the abolition of the imperialistic claims of European theology, and the acceptance of the wide variety of world theologies. 33. Küng, The Catholic Church, 11. 34. Küng, The Catholic Church, 19. 35. Schillebeeckx would totally agree with Küng that all the traditional tenets of Christianity should be reinterpreted in full accordance with our present perception of the world as well as our experiences that make up a general world experience. In the same interview, Schillebeeckx says: I have always said that the theology of experience is the foundation. Human experiences are the basis, not my own experience, all the experiences of the Christian tradition, the religious experience which has been accumulated over time. We have to let this go through our lives and reactualize everything—this is the norm, the norm of our actuality of the moment. The present time is a kind of criticism of tradition but there is a mutual confrontation, a correlation between the past and the new experience of the present. We must always be very sensitive with this proportionality of what comes from the past and our own experience. We cannot transform the Christian tradition into ecclectism. There is no such thing as a set of revelation but a revelation placed in culture, in the times of Scripture, Hellenism, Patristics, Middle Ages and so on. We must take these experiences and place them in our times by mutual criticism. We cannot absolutise either the past or the present. This revelation is embedded in culture, in historical situations. We must not replicate the past but reinterpret it. I am busy with hermeneutics. This means we can read the text of the gospel, either the Old Testament or the New Testament. The meaning of words is always embedded in our

Notes

36. 37.

38. 39.

40. 41.

42. 43. 44.

45.

46.

●

175

image of the world and of ourselves. These experiences change and we must retranslate past experiences for our present experiences. (Simuţ, “Reinterpreting Traditional Theology,” 276) Küng, The Catholic Church, 11–2. This is in total contradiction with Rahner, see Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York: Crossroad, 1978), 326. For Rahner, church was founded by Christ because believers say he is their absolute savior. Küng, The Catholic Church, 12. For the importance of the risen Lord for the church, see Sebastian Chalakkal, The Post-Resurrection Appearances in Contemporary Catholic Theology. A Study of Hans Küng (1928– ), Walter Kasper (1933– ) and Hans Kessler (1938– ) (Roma: Pontificia Universitatis Gregoriana, 2004), 27. Küng, The Catholic Church, 12–3. For details about the missionary aspect of the church, see also Mark S. Burrows, “Globalization, Pluralism, and Ecumenics: The Old Question of Catholicity in a New Horizon,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 29/3–4 (1992): 351. For the eschatological foundation of the church, see also Florent Gaboriau, Hans Küng. Problèmes posés (Paris, FAC, 1980), 62. Küng, The Catholic Church, 13. This is very much in line with Schillebeeckx, who said in the interview to Ramona Simuţ that Jesus was thinking as a Jew, but there cannot be any transcendent elements in what he said, because one prophet criticized what another prophet had said before him. As an eschatological prophet, Jesus was not transcendent; he was rather a messenger of the kingdom of God. The message was the salvation of humankind—this is the most important aspect of the gospel: salvation of the poor, salvation for those who have no voice; it is a kind of liberal theology. There may be an absolute revelation through Jesus, but our interpretation of it is not absolute, as it goes through the filter of our experience and interpretation. We are restrained by language but this is not all. The New Testament was written by Jews who became Christians and who spoke Greek. Their perspective on the world was different from what had been before, for instance, from those who translated the Septuagint. We must be true to the deepest meaning of the gospel. In order to be faithful to this tradition we have to make the proper translation for our times. In this sense, the present time enters within our vision of the gospel. It is not only that we know what the gospel is, we are able to know the meaning of the gospel for us today only through our experience of the present moment. (Simuţ, “Reinterpreting Traditional Theology,” 277) For a traditional perspective, especially on holiness, see David Fergusson, “Reclaiming the Doctrine of Sanctification,” Interpretation 53/4 (1999): 380–8. Küng, The Catholic Church, 13.

176

●

Notes

47. For the necessity of hope in ecclesiology, see John Deschner, “Amsterdam’s Vision of Church Unity Today,” The Ecumenical Review 40/3–4 (1988): 349–58. 48. Küng, The Catholic Church, 14. 49. This existential approach to ecclesiology is important because, if Jesus is dead and salvation is only a way to feel better in this life, there is no life or existence beyond history. This is one of the first and also one of the crucial consequences of the modern approach to Christian theology, which can also be seen in the interview given by Schillebeeckx to Ramona Simuţ: I believe rationality, human rationality, to be the way in which we are thinking and reflecting on human norms and values. I think that our rationality is under the critique of the history of suffering of the entire humanity. No religion can explain suffering or, even more, nobody can explain innocent suffering. Why do I believe in God if there is so much suffering in the world? Jesus had the message of the kingdom of God, which is that good, not evil, will be dominant in the world. Evil can be destroyed only eschatologically. Only goodness is eternal and transcendent to the death of human beings. This is the basis of the belief in the eternity of human life. There is no hell in which we are pushed to suffer eternally. Evil is gone when eternal life outlives it. Certainty of belief— not rational certainty—must be accompanied by hope and love. You can have expectations without faith but belief in eternal life must be accompanied by faith. You cannot prove that there will be any sort of reality after death. Surrendering to the mystery of God is the hope of eternal life and salvation. (Simuţ, “Reinterpreting Traditional Theology,” 279) Schillebeeckx is notoriously ambiguous here because although he does not believe in Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven as well as in the reality of hell, he still speaks of eternal life and the hope for eternal life. However, if he does not believe in the existence of hell as an ontological reality beyond history, then—as hell is indeed mentioned in Scripture— there is no biblical ground for any belief in a reality that corresponds to eternal life and lies beyond our history. One can indeed hope for the best in spite of being convinced that hell does not exist, but such a hope is at least biblically uninformed. 50. Küng, The Catholic Church, 14. 51. To quote Schillebeeckx from the Simuţ interview: For the faithful, solidarity of human beings, love and justice are the most important things. In heaven, we will see people who did not believe in God but did good things. Heaven is the destination of human beings after death, when we are in the presence of God and this becomes transparent in our body, in all that we are. I cannot make a representation of heaven but I can see the difference between the face of an animal and the face of a human being. A human being is spiritual; he or she has personality. We are complete when we are in the presence of God.

Notes

52. 53. 54. 55.

56.

57. 58.

59. 60.

61.

62. 63.

64. 65.

66.

67.

68. 69.

●

177

It is not clear why Schillebeeckx prefers to speak only about heaven and not about hell. He does not believe in hell but the reason why heaven is part of his discourse while hell is not remains a matter of obscurity. See for details, Simuţ, “Reinterpreting Traditional Theology,” 283. Küng, The Catholic Church, 213. See also Herman Häring, Hans Küng. Breaking Through (London: SCM Press, 1998), 73. Küng, The Catholic Church, 213. Küng may refer here to the abolition of divisions among churches. See Robert Nowell, A Passion for Truth. Hans Küng and His Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 142. In other words, the true church and true faith should be free of denominational concerns. See Hans Küng. New Horizons for Faith and Thought, ed. Häring and Kuschel (London: SCM Press, 1993), 37. Küng, The Catholic Church, 213. This is the only way the holiness of the church can be visible, namely when the church confesses its sin in penitence and faith. See John Webster, Holiness (London: SCM Press, 2003), 73. Küng, The Catholic Church, 213. For the relevance of politics, society, and culture for contemporary ecclesiology, see John Deschner, “More than Inclusiveness. The New Christian Majority and the Shift in the Ecumenical Conversation about Church Unity,” The Ecumenical Review 43/1 (1991): 64. For a view that says that society, culture, and politics should not prevail over the church, see John W. De Gruchy, “Church Unity and Democratic Transformation. Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ethics in South Africa,” The Ecumenical Review 49/3 (1997): 356–65. Küng, The Catholic Church, 214. For Küng, however, this global ethic should be applied not only to ecclesiology but also to politics and economics. See Hans Küng, A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Küng, The Catholic Church, 214. For details about plurality in the church, see also Avery Dulles, SJ, “The Catholicity of the Augsburg Confession,” The Journal of Religion 63 (1983): 349. See also Richard Marzheuser, “Globalisation and Catholicity: Two Expressions of One Ecclesiology?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 32/2 (1995): 186. On more or less optimistic attitudes to church unity, see M. Thomas Thangaraj, “Is Full Church Unity Possible or Desirable?” The Ecumenical Review 40/3–4 (1988): 91–9. Küng, The Catholic Church, 213–4. See also Herman Häring, Hans Küng. Breaking Through (London: SCM Press, 1998), 75–8.

178

●

Notes

70. Küng details these ideas in a personal confession: It is impossible for me to predict when and how this vision of a Catholic church renewed in accordance with the gospel of Jesus Christ will be realized. But throughout my life as a theologian I have indefatigably written that this vision can become reality and shown how that can happen. Despite the present ecumenical “low,” I have the well-founded hope that Christianity will finally find its way to an ecumenical paradigm in the present upheaval between modernity and post-modernity. For the new generation, the time of confessionalism is finally in the past. Granted, the traces of ‘confessional paradigms’ will continue to be evident. A uniform Christianity is neither probable nor desirable. But after the abolition of all reciprocal excommunications, the confessions will be abolished and transcended by a new communication, indeed an ecumenical communion—this primarily means Eucharistic fellowship, but also the fellowship of Christians in everyday life. See Küng, The Catholic Church, 215. 71. For more information about Orthodox ecclesiology, see, for instance, Kallistos Ware, “Catholicity and Nationalism: A Recent Debate,” Eastern Studies Review 10/1–2 (1978): 13–5. 72. Küng, The Catholic Church, 216. 73. Schillebeeckx supports Küng in defending a strongly rational and historically critical approach to theology: I would say that theology is always the basis for anthropology. We are humans living in the world, in history. On the other hand, faith in revelation is transmitted by the mediation of all human traditions. We are faithful to tradition by making a rupture; there is no such thing as a smooth growth from revelation to theology. The content of revelation is always explained in human concepts, namely is historically conditioned. We have always the revelation of god which is absolute, but religion is not absolute. There is a difference between the living God and our answer to God. Our answer to God is religious and embedded in culture. God is the basis for our faith; our answer is to trust God. According to Augustine, trust is the nucleus of faith, but what Jesus means for us today is the result of our thinking. Faith is trust in God cum cogitatione, with thinking, with reflection. Without reflection we are fundamentalists. (Simuţ, “Reinterpreting Traditional Theology,” 278)

Bibliography

Borgman, Erik. Edward Schillebeeckx: A Theologian in His History, volume 1. London: Continuum, 2003. Bowden, John. Edward Schillebeeckx. Portrait of a Theologian. London: SCM Press, 1983. Burrows, Mark S. “Christus intra nos vivens. The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sanctification.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 98/1 (1987): 48–69. ———. “Globalization, Pluralism, and Ecumenics: The Old Question of Catholicity in a New Cultural Horizon.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 29/3–4 (1992): 346–67. The Catholicity of the Reformation. Edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Chalakkal, Sebastian, The Post-Resurrection Appearances in Contemporary Catholic Christology. A Study of Hans Küng (1928– ), Walter Kasper (1933– ) and Hans Kessler (1938– ). Roma: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 2004. Congar, Yves M.-J., OP. Droit ancien et structures ecclésiales. London: Variorum Reprints, 1982. ———. Eglise catholique et France moderne. Paris: Hachette, 1978. ———. A History of Theology. New York: Doubleday, 1968. ———. Une passion: l’unité. Réflections et souvenirs 1929–1973. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1974. Constanzo, Joseph F., SJ. The Historical Credibility of Hans Küng. An Inquiry and Commentary. North Quincy: Christopher Publishing House, 1979. De Gruchy, John W. “Church Unity and Democratic Transformation. Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ethics in South Africa.” The Ecumenical Review 49/3 (1997): 356–65. de Lubac, Henri. Augustinianism and Modern Theology. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969. ———. Autres paradoxes. Paris: Culture et verité, 1994. ———. Henri de Lubac, SJ: An Introductory Selection from the Writings of One of Today’s Leading Roman Catholic Theologians. Edited by Martin Redfern. London: Sheed and Ward, 1972. ———. Théologies d’occasion. Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer, 1984.

180

●

Bibliography

Deschner, John. “Amsterdam’s Vision of Church Unity Today.” The Ecumenical Review 40/3–4 (1988): 349–58. ———. “More than Inclusiveness. The New Christian Majority and the Shift in the Ecumenical Conversation about Church Unity.” The Ecumenical Review 43/1 (1991): 57–67. Dickens, W. T. Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Aesthetics. A Model for Post-Critical Biblical Interpretation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003. Duchrow, Ulrich. Konflikt um die Ökumene. Christusbekenntnis—in welcher Gestalt der ökumenischen Bewegung?. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1980. Dulles, Avery, SJ. “The Catholicity of the Augsburg Confession.” The Journal of Religion 63/4 (1983): 337–54. Dynch, William. Karl Rahner. London: Continuum, 2000. Einheit und Vielfalt. Tradition und Innovation in der Kirche. Edited by Karl Hillenbrand, Günther Koch, and Joseph Pretscher. Würzburg: Echter, 2000. Endean, Philip. Karl Rahner and Ignatian Spirituality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Faith in a Wintry Season. Conversations and Interviews with Karl Rahner in the Last Years of His Life. Edited by Paul Imhof and Hubert Biallowons. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Famerée, Joseph. L’ecclésiologie d’Yves Congar avant Vatican II: Histoire et église. Analyse et reprise critique. Leuven: Peeters, 1992. Fergusson, David. “Reclaiming the Doctrine of Sanctification.” Interpretation 53/4 (1999): 380–8. Fields, Stephen, SJ. Being as Symbol. On the Origins and Development of Karl Rahner’s Metaphysics. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2000. Gaboriau, Florent. Hans Küng. Problèmes poses. Paris: FAC, 1980. Gardner, Lucy, David Moss, Ben Quash, and Graham Ward. Balthasar at the End of Modernity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Gatta, Julia. “Justification and Sanctification: Classical Concerns and Contemporary Context.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23/3 (1986): 513–7. Griffiss, James E. Church, Ministry and Unity. A Divine Commission. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. Guenther, Titus F. Rahner and Metz. Transcendental Theology as Political Theology. New York: University Press of America, 1994. Häring, Hermann. Hans Küng. Breaking Through. London: SCM Press, 1998. Hans Küng. His Work and His Way. Edited by Herman Häring, and Karl-Joseph Kuschel. London: Collins, 1979. Hans Küng. New Horizons for Faith and Thought. Edited by Herman Häring and Karl-Joseph Kuschel. London: SCM Press, 1993. Hans Urs von Balthasar. His Life and Work. Edited by David L. Schindler. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991. Hauerwas, Stanley. Sanctify Them in the Truth. Holiness Exemplified. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.

Bibliography

●

181

Heinrich, Fries, and Karl Rahner. Unity of the Churches. An Actual Possibility. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985; New York: Paulist Press, 1985. Heller, Dagmar. “Baptism—The Basis of Church Unity? The Question of Baptism in Faith and Order.” The Ecumenical Review 50/4 (1998): 480–9. Henn, William. The Hierarchy of Truths according to Yves Congar, OP. Roma: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1987. Holiness Past and Present. Edited by Stephen Barton. London: T&T Clark, 2003. The Holy Spirit, the Church, and Christian Unity. Proceedings of the Consultation Held at the Monastery of Bose, Italy (14–20 October 2002). Edited by D. Donnelly, A. Denaux, and J. Famerée. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2005. Jossua, Jean-Pierre, OP. Le Père Congar. La théologie au service du people de Dieu. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1967. ———. Yves Congar. Theology in the Service of God’s People. Chicago: Priory Press, 1968. Karidoyanes Fitzgerald, Kyriaki. Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999. Karl Rahner, Theologian of the Graced Search for Meaning. Edited by Geffrey B. Kelly. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992. Kehl, Medard, SJ, and Werner Löser, SJ. The von Balthasar Reader. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Kennedy, Philip, OP. Schillebeeckx. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993. The Küng Dialogue: A Documentation on the Efforts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Conference of German Bishops to Achieve an Appropriate Clarification of the Controversial Issues of Dr. Hans Küng (Tübingen). United States Catholic Conference, 1980. Küng, Hans. The Church. London: Sheed and Ward, 1968. ———. The Church Maintained in Truth. A Theological Meditation. New York: Crossroad, 1979. ———. The Council and Reunion. London: Sheed and Ward, 1961. ———. The Living Church. Reflections on the Second Vatican Council. London: Sheed and Ward, 1963. ———. On Being a Christian. London: Collins, 1977. ———. That the World May Believe. Letters to Young People. London: Sheed and Ward, 1963. ———. Truthfulness: The Future of the Church. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968. LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. The Theological Methodology of Hans Küng. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982. Lash, Nicholas. Holiness, Speech and Silence. Reflections on the Question of God. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. MacDonald, Charles. Church and World in the Plan of God. Aspects of History and Eschatology in the Thought of Père Yves Congar OP. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1982.

182

●

Bibliography

Marmion, Declan. The Spirituality of Everyday Faith. A Theological Investigation of the Notion of Spirituality in Karl Rahner. Louvain: Peeters Press, 1998. Martin, James Alfred, Jr. Beauty and Holiness. The Dialogue between Aesthetics and Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Marzheuser, Richard. “Globalization and Catholicity: Two Expressions of One Ecclesiology?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 32/2 (1995): 179–93. Mongrain, Kevin. The Systematic Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar. An Irenaean Retrieval. New York: Crossroad, 2002. Nichols, Aidan OP. No Bloodless Myth. A Guide Through Balthasar’s Dramatics. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2002. ———. The Theology of Joseph Ratzinger. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. ———. Yves Congar. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989. Nowell, Robert. A Passion for Truth. Hans Küng and His Theology. New York: Crossroad, 1989. O’Lenny, Patrick J. Hans Küng and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Light of the Incarnational Principle. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1992. The Praxis of the Reign of God. An Introduction to the Theology of Edward Schillebeeckx. Edited by Mary Catharine Hilkert and Robert J. Schreiter. New York: Fordham University Press, 2002. Przewozny, Bernard. Church as the Sacrament of the Unity of All Mankind in Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes and in Semmelroth, Schillebeeckx and Rahner. Rome: Pontificia Facultas Theologica S. Bonaventura, 1979. Puyo, Jean. Une vie pour la vérité. Paris: Le Centurion, 1975. Rahner, Karl. Christian at the Crossroads. New York: Seabury Press, 1975. ———. Do You Believe in God. New York: Paulist Press, 1969. ———. Foundations of Christian Faith. New York: Crossroad, 1978. ———. I Remember. An Autobiographical Interview with Meinhold Krauss. New York: Crossroad, 1985. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 1. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 3. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1967. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 5. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 6. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1969. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 8. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1974. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 9. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1972. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 10. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 11. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1974.

Bibliography

●

183

———. Theological Investigations, volume 12. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1974. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 13. New York: Seabury Press, 1975. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 16. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1979. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 17. New York: Crossroad, 1981. ———. Theological Investigations, volume 18. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1984. Raphael, Melissa. Rudolf Otto and the Concept of Holiness. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Ratzinger, Joseph. La Ressuscité. Retraite au Vatican, en présence de S. S. Jean-Paul II. Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer, 1985. Rebeiro, Manuel. The Church as the Community of the Believers. Hans Küng’s Concept of the Church as a Proposal for an Ecumenical Ecclesiology, volume 1. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1992. ———. The Church as the Community of the Believers. Hans Küng’s Concept of the Church as a Proposal for an Ecumenical Ecclesiology, volume 2. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1992. ———. A Critical Study of Hans Küng’s Structures of the Church and The Church with an Emphasis on His Concept of the Origin of the Church. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1987. Rise, Svein. The Academic and the Spiritual in Karl Rahner’s Theology. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2000. Roberts, Louis. The Theological Aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987. Saayman, W. A. Unity and Mission. A Study of the Concept of Unity in Ecumenical Discussions since 1961 and Its Influence on the World Mission of the Church. Pretoria: University of South Africa, 1984. Schillebeeckx, Edward. Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World. London: SCM Press, 1980. ———. The Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal. London: Sheed and Ward, 1968. ———. God among Us. The Gospel Proclaimed. London: SCM Press, 1983. ———. God Is New Each Moment. Edward Schillebeeckx in Conversation with Huub Oosterhuis and Piet Hoogeveen. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983. ———. I Am a Happy Theologian. London: SCM Press, 1994. ———. Revelation and Theology. London: Sheed and Ward, 1967. ———. World and Church. London: Sheed and Ward, 1971. The Schillebeeckx Reader. Edited by Robert J. Schreiter. New York: Crossroad, 1984. Sobrino, Jon. Spirituality of Liberation: Toward Political Holiness. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1989. Steck, Christopher W., SJ. The Ethical Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar. New York: Crossroads, 2001. Tallon, Andrew. Personal Becoming. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1982.

184

●

Bibliography

Taylor, Mark Lloyd. God Is Love: A Study of the Theology of Karl Rahner. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Thangaraj, M. Thomas. “Is Full Church Unity Possible or Desirable?” Ecumenical Review 40/3–4 (1988): 91–9. Thils, Gustave. En dialogue avec l’ “entretien sur la foi.” Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1986. Tillard, Jean-Marie R. OP. Church of Churches. The Ecclesiology of Communion. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1987. ———. Je crois en dépit de tout. Entretiens d’ hiver avec Francesco Strazzari. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 2001. Tjørhom, Ola. “The Church and Its Apostolicity. The Porvoo Common Statement as a Challenge to Lutheran Ecclesiology and the Nordic Lutheran Churches.” Ecumenical Review 52/1 (2000): 195–203. van Erp, Stephan. The Art of Theology: Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Aesthetics and the Foundations of Faith. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Vassiliadis, Petros. Eucharist and Witness: Orthodox Perspectives on the Unity and Mission of the Church. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998. Vauchez, André. Cardinal Yves Congar, 1904–1995. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1999. von Balthasar, Hans Urs. Church and World. New York: Herder and Herder, 1967. ———. The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, volume 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984. ———. The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, volume 3. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986. ———. The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, volume 4. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. ———. The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, volume 5. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. ———. The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, volume 6. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. ———. The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics, volume 7. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. ———. Homo Creatus Est. Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1986. ———. Theo-Drama. Theological Dramatic Theory, volume 1. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988. ———. Theo-Drama. Theological Dramatic Theory, volume 2. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990. ———. Theo-Drama. Theological Dramatic Theory, volume 3. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992. ———. Theo-Drama. Theological Dramatic Theory, volume 4. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994. ———. Theo-Drama. Theological Dramatic Theory, volume 5. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1998. ———. Who Is a Christian? London: Compass Books, 1968. ———. Word and Redemption. New York: Herder and Herder, 1965.

Bibliography

●

185

Ware, Kallistos. “Catholicity and Nationalism: A Recent Debate at Athens.” Eastern Churches Review 10/1–2 (1978): 10–16. Webster, John. Holiness. London: SCM Press, 2003. Willis, David. Notes on the Holiness of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Wong, Joseph, H. P. Logos-Symbol in the Christology of Karl Rahner. Roma: LAS, 1984. Woods, Allan J. A Look at the Christology of Hans Küng. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1983.


Index

Activity, 3–4, 18, 41, 53, 73, 85, 129, 163 Acts of the Apostles, 67 Adherence, 88, 91, 109, 120 Answer, 39–40, 57, 62–3, 138, 156, 170, 178 Anthropology, 6, 158, 178 Apostle, 58, 90, 94, 96–7 Apostolic succession, 41–2, 95, 97–8, 115 Apostolicity, 35–49, 94, 95, 106, 115, 131, 154, 159, 165, 184 Belief, 21, 37, 49, 54, 61, 74, 77, 102, 125, 127–8, 130, 133, 138, 156, 172–3, 176 Believe, 42, 45, 53–4, 60–63, 70, 74, 77–8, 82–3, 96, 114, 116, 121, 123, 125, 127, 128, 130–2, 146, 163, 165, 171–2, 176, 177, 181–2 Believers, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20, 23, 25, 27–8, 31, 41–43, 45, 48, 61, 69, 84, 86–7, 98, 107, 117, 119, 120, 131, 138, 142, 155, 159, 161–2, 171–2, 175, 183 Bible, 54, 59–63, 71, 90, 99, 100, 126, 128, 130 Building, 82–4, 95, 129, 133 Call, 4, 60, 62, 86, 98, 121, 126, 129, 171 Canon, 5 Catholic, 13, 16–18, 20–3, 35–9, 42, 48–9, 55, 72, 79, 81–2, 93, 94, 97,

99–104, 106, 117, 120–4, 128, 134, 136, 138–9, 141, 142, 146–8, 155–7, 162, 165, 167–79, 181–3 Catholicity, 13–23, 35, 38–40, 43, 46–9, 103, 106, 113–14, 119, 131, 149, 151, 156, 159–65, 167–8, 171–2, 175, 177–80, 182, 185 Change, 48, 59, 113–14, 120, 124, 134, 175 Characteristic, 4, 6, 8, 18, 25, 56, 105, 114 Christ, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13–16, 19, 20, 23, 25–36, 40–9, 58, 59, 61–2, 66–70, 72–5, 77–91, 95, 97–100, 104–7, 109, 111, 113–19, 122–5, 127, 129, 130–5, 137–42, 145–7, 149, 150–3, 155–62, 164–72, 175, 178, 183 Christology, 6, 75, 100, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122–3, 144, 146, 155–8, 160, 162–3, 165, 168–71, 179, 185 Church, 3–11, 13–23, 25–49, 53, 55–6, 58–9, 65–70, 73–5, 77–102, 103–11, 113–17, 119–84 Church history, 120, 127 Community, 3, 4, 6–7, 9, 17, 20, 25, 27–8, 31, 32, 42–7, 53, 56, 58, 66, 69–70, 75, 77–83, 85–9, 91–2, 94, 98, 103–6, 116–17, 119, 126–7, 129, 130, 133–4, 139, 141, 155–7, 159, 161–2, 170–3, 183

188

●

Index

Confession, 4, 15, 95, 124, 127, 131, 156, 161, 163–5, 167, 177, 178, 180 Confident, 111 Congar, Yves, 143–57, 159–63, 165, 167, 169, 179–82, 184 Congregation, 78–81, 84, 89, 90, 95, 98, 117, 119, 121, 136, 170, 181 Constitution, 15, 18, 22, 40, 78–9, 82, 86, 117, 129, 131, 151 Continuity, 97, 102–3, 141, 166, 174 Council, 66, 121, 146–8, 152, 155, 181 Decision, 25 Definition, 3, 5, 20–1, 35, 38, 40, 41, 66–9, 77–84, 86, 91, 92, 101, 105–6, 116–17, 123–4, 131–3, 158 Dependent, 5, 18, 27–8, 46–7, 91, 120, 124, 133 Desire, 6, 19, 22, 25, 33, 39, 46, 60, 68, 71, 78, 87, 100, 114, 138, 140, 149 Dimension, 4, 5–6, 9, 10, 13–17, 21, 25–9, 33–5, 70, 74, 86, 121, 174 Diversity, 15–16, 19, 38, 70–3, 88–90, 95, 117, 160, 163, 174 Doctrine, 8, 14, 29, 32, 37, 48, 58, 70–5, 84, 102–3, 105, 113–15, 120, 122, 133, 157, 159, 166, 168, 169, 170, 175, 179, 180–1 Dynamic, 73, 163 Ecclesiology, 4, 5, 53, 113, 115, 119, 120, 122–3, 132–4, 155, 158–9, 163, 168, 170–2, 176–9, 182–4 Ecumenicity, 20–2, 102, 104, 114, 139, 167 Epistle, 96 Eschatology, 4, 139, 144, 181 Existence, 4–7, 10, 11, 13–16, 18, 21, 23, 25–6, 28, 29, 31, 46, 53, 71, 74, 78–9, 81, 83, 92, 100, 107–9, 111, 123–6, 132, 133–4, 140–1, 145, 149, 160, 165, 169, 172, 176

Experience, 7, 13, 14, 26, 30, 114, 116, 120–2, 128, 130, 131, 146–7, 149–50, 152–3, 155, 158, 164, 168, 170, 174–5, 183 Faith, 3–5, 7, 9, 16, 20, 41–2, 45–6, 53, 56, 58, 60–2, 65–6, 68–70, 75, 78–9, 81–2, 84–5, 87, 95, 97–8, 101, 103–4, 106, 116–17, 119, 124–6, 131–2, 141, 146, 149–50, 153–60, 162, 164–73, 175–8, 180–2, 184 Feature, 7, 8, 15, 17–18, 35, 38–9, 41, 55, 59, 88, 94, 114, 116, 139, 163 Fight, 19 Forgiveness, 110 Form, 8, 23, 36, 58, 61, 72, 80, 96, 108, 134, 136, 166 Freedom, 3, 13–14, 43, 47, 61–2, 69, 70, 86, 111, 117, 162, 172, 174 Fullness, 14, 46 Fundamental, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16–18, 26–7, 34, 37, 39, 41, 45, 58, 70, 75, 86, 88, 89, 107, 113, 119–20, 126, 128, 133, 159, 162, 166, 168–71, 178 Future, 6, 22–3, 41, 103–4, 107, 109, 111, 123, 134, 139, 140, 144, 168, 181 God, 3–11, 15–19, 21, 25–34, 36, 39, 41, 43–4, 46–9, 53–63, 66–75, 78–80, 82–7, 89–93, 98, 104–11, 113–19, 125–8, 130–7, 140–7, 149–66, 168–73, 175–6, 178, 181–5 Gospel, 19–20, 25–6, 28–30, 32–4, 41–9, 58, 73, 85–7, 96–9, 103, 114–15, 119, 121–3, 127, 129–33, 136, 140–1, 162, 165, 166, 169, 171–2, 174–5, 178, 183 Guilt, 23, 86, 109, 118 Healing, 20 History, 5–11, 13–19, 25–7, 35, 38–41, 43–4, 48, 55, 58, 60–1, 65–6,

Index 70–1, 73–5, 82–5, 87–9, 93, 95, 101–2, 106–9, 113–14, 117, 119–22, 129, 132, 138, 140–2, 144, 146–9, 157–8, 160–1, 165–6, 169, 171, 174, 176, 178–9, 181 Holiness, 25–35, 38–9, 40, 43, 47–9, 56, 106, 114, 119, 131, 151, 155, 157, 162, 164–5, 167–9, 175, 177, 180–3, 185 Holy, 3–7, 9–11, 16, 17, 22, 25–34, 36, 38–9, 41–3, 47–8, 54–8, 65–6, 69–75, 89–92, 113–15, 117, 119, 125, 133, 137, 141–3, 152, 159, 162, 164, 181, 184 Holy Spirit, 3–7, 9–11, 16, 17, 22, 26–7, 29–33, 39, 41–3, 47, 55–6, 58, 65, 66, 69–72, 74, 75, 89–92, 113–15, 117, 125, 142–3, 164, 181 Hope, 4, 5, 7, 77–8, 107, 123, 131–3, 139, 141–2, 144, 160, 168, 173, 176, 178 Humanity, 6, 20, 25, 53–4, 59, 60–1, 73, 77, 79, 82, 85, 104–5, 107–9, 113–17, 125–6, 128, 132, 137–8, 146, 164, 169, 172–4, 176 Identification, 31, 68 Immanence, 32 Inspiration, 31, 53–61, 63, 115, 158 Invisible, 21, 23, 66 Jesus, 5, 11, 25–7, 31–4, 40, 42, 45, 53, 56, 58, 61–2, 66–70, 73–5, 77–82, 83, 85, 87–8, 91, 94–5, 97–100, 104–7, 109, 116–17, 119–20, 122–35, 137, 138, 140–2, 144–5, 156–7, 159, 165, 168–71, 174–6, 178 Judgment, 46, 47, 100, 110, 172 Küng, Hans, 3–6, 8–11, 13–23, 25–43, 45–9, 53–63, 65–75, 77–111, 113–41, 143–83, 185

●

189

Liberal, 175 Life, 4–7, 9, 11, 13–14, 18–19, 27, 29, 30, 33, 38–9, 41, 58, 60, 67–9, 70–1, 74, 78, 81, 87, 91, 95, 96, 100, 105–11, 114–20, 122–4, 128–30, 132, 138–41, 145, 157, 159, 161, 166, 170–1, 176, 178, 180 Local, 3–5, 8–11, 13–19, 20, 23, 35, 38–9, 40, 43, 81, 82, 117, 133, 136, 141–3, 161 Lord, 4–5, 14–15, 33, 36, 40–5, 48, 67, 69, 86, 90–1, 100, 105, 130–1, 133, 136, 143, 144–55, 158–9, 160, 162, 164–9, 175, 184 Love, 3, 7, 10, 21, 23, 28–9, 46, 67, 73, 87, 111, 126, 128–31, 135, 143, 145–6, 151–3, 154, 158, 159, 162–3, 166, 168–9, 172–3, 176, 184 Luther, Martin, 35–8, 48 Man, 4–5, 10, 30–2, 48, 53–4, 59, 62–3, 66, 68–71, 73, 87, 92, 104–5, 107–8, 110–11, 116–18, 123–7, 129–30, 132, 135, 144–6, 149, 153–4, 157, 159, 162, 164, 169, 172 Member, 22, 43, 85, 95, 168 Membership, 154 Metaphor, 147 Ministry, 40–3, 46, 48, 78, 90–7, 99–100, 108, 117, 119, 130, 135–36, 156, 163–6, 180, 181 Mission, 29–30, 33, 48, 89, 98–9, 106, 109, 115, 161, 166, 169, 183–4 Missionary, 33, 41–2, 95, 165, 175 Moral, 10–11, 29, 38, 40, 86, 106, 110–11, 114, 128, 131, 136, 140, 154 Morality, 27–8, 38–40, 43, 46, 86, 106, 114, 126 Movement, 78, 129, 131

190

●

Index

Nature, 3, 5–6, 8, 10–11, 17–19, 25, 27–8, 31, 45, 66, 71–4, 91, 111, 136, 139–40, 166, 170, 174 Necessity, 9, 15, 19, 36, 42, 55, 80, 118, 125–6, 150–1, 165, 170–4, 176 Neighbour, 126, 129 New Testament, 39, 54, 56–8, 61, 65–6, 70–3, 78, 80, 86, 89, 90, 92–5, 97–8, 133, 157, 174–5 Objective, 4, 11, 65, 68–9, 78, 83, 91, 108, 116, 117, 121, 122 Old Testament, 54, 56, 93, 174 Opinion, 130, 157 Past, 26, 41, 103–4, 121, 168–9, 174–5, 178, 181 People, 7, 8, 17, 20, 43, 53, 55, 58–61, 63, 65–6, 72, 78, 80, 82–8, 92–3, 105, 107–11, 114, 116, 119, 121–3, 125–6, 128, 131–3, 140, 146–7, 156–7, 161–2, 165, 170, 172, 176, 181 Person, 4, 11, 16–17, 30–1, 40, 61–6, 69, 71, 77–9, 81, 83, 86, 91, 94, 96, 98–9, 115–16, 119, 124, 128, 131–3, 140, 170 Perspective, 4, 17–22, 35, 37, 44, 58, 61, 68, 80, 87, 100–1, 108–9, 113, 115–16, 119, 120, 124, 128, 131, 143, 161, 170, 173, 175 Pluriformity, 88–9, 117 Pneumatology, 66, 75, 91 Practical, 7, 18, 21, 29, 33, 40, 66, 73, 92, 101–4, 106, 141, 161, 171 Present, 5–8, 19, 23, 31, 35, 41, 55, 60, 63, 66, 70–1, 74, 79, 82, 85–6, 95, 97, 100, 104–10, 117, 119, 120–1, 124, 131–5, 140, 142, 153, 158, 168–9, 174, 175, 178, 181 Priesthood, 42–3, 48, 84, 93, 98, 101, 117

Protestant, 20–3, 37, 38, 42, 49, 79, 81–2, 84, 93, 99–104, 117, 135, 163–4 Purity, 111 Rahner, Karl, 143–69, 172–3, 175, 180–5 Ratzinger, Joseph, 143–5, 147–8, 150–1, 153–5, 157, 160–1, 163, 172, 182, 183 Reformation, 38, 65, 101, 124, 134–5, 160, 163, 171–2, 179 Relevance, 74, 116–18, 122–3, 135–6, 169–70, 172, 177 Renewal, 21, 26, 123, 140, 145, 147–8, 150, 152, 155, 158, 160, 172, 183 Responsibility, 56, 140, 157 Revelation, 9, 25–6, 43–5, 49, 58–61, 72–3, 75, 101, 116, 137, 145, 147, 149, 156, 157, 160, 169, 174–5, 178, 183 Roman Catholic, 22, 179 Salvation, 5–6, 16–17, 20, 30, 37, 42, 46, 47, 71, 73, 79, 85, 91, 100, 102, 104, 109, 113–14, 116, 118, 122–3, 126, 128, 133, 134, 137, 140, 143, 145, 158, 160, 162, 164, 171, 175, 176 Sanctification, 36, 109, 164, 166, 168–9, 173, 175, 179, 180 Schillebeeckx, Edward, 143–56, 158, 160–5, 167–78, 179, 181–3 Schism, 20, 23, 102 Scripture, 16, 26, 48, 49, 53–63, 67, 71, 90, 101, 103, 115–16, 128, 130, 137, 141, 152, 156–8, 166, 173–4, 176 Service, 33, 42–3, 80, 89, 91–3, 96, 98–100, 108–9, 111, 123, 146, 151, 169, 181 Sign, 8–9, 11, 13, 17, 19–20, 25, 28, 30–1, 33, 35, 38–40, 48–9, 69,

Index 91, 94, 105–6, 109, 115, 129, 143, 158, 162, 167 Significance, 73–4, 80, 94–5, 104, 108, 126, 134, 169 Sin, 10, 31, 42, 71, 74, 79, 86, 91–2, 101, 105, 109–11, 114, 116, 118, 123, 126–8, 132, 134, 136–7, 139, 140, 159, 164, 166, 171, 177 Sinfulness, 109–10, 118 Soteriology, 91, 122 Spiritual, 3–11, 25–6, 31–2, 41–2, 66, 69, 70, 90–3, 96, 99, 107–8, 113, 115–16, 119, 120, 133, 143, 146, 159, 163, 171, 183 Static, 29, 48, 73, 80 Subjective, 4, 69, 84–5, 116 Theology, 6, 11, 13–14, 17, 22, 29, 42, 48, 58, 67–8, 70, 72–3, 85–8, 90–1, 93–4, 100–3, 105, 108, 111, 115–17, 119–25, 128, 131–2, 135–8, 140, 144–9, 151, 154–7, 159–61, 163–4, 166–84 Time, 3, 7–8, 14, 16, 29, 31, 39, 43–6, 48, 65, 67, 69, 70, 74, 79, 80, 95, 101, 103–4, 109–10, 113, 116, 121–2, 126, 128, 133, 135, 138, 141, 153, 170, 174–5, 178 Transcendence, 32, 145, 147, 169 Transcendent, 4–5, 7, 9–10, 18, 19–21, 25–30, 59, 60, 83, 114, 117, 132, 175 Trinitarian, 15–16, 25–7, 29, 33, 47, 70, 71, 82–3, 114, 116–17, 152

●

191

Trinity, 15–16, 18, 27, 70–5, 119, 125, 133, 137, 159 Truth, 10, 33, 55, 56, 61–3, 66, 136, 141, 145, 147–8, 150–3, 155–8, 160, 162–3, 165, 167–9, 177, 180–3 Unanimity, 9–11 Unification, 8, 9 Unity, 3–11, 15, 17–18, 35–6, 38–40, 42–3, 46–9, 69–73, 75, 94–5, 99, 105–6, 108, 113–15, 119, 131, 139, 143–4, 146, 151–2, 155–61, 163–9, 172, 176, 177, 179–84 Universal, 81–2, 98, 102, 106, 117, 122, 136, 141, 161 Universality, 103, 141, 158 Variety, 15–17, 19, 98, 114, 174 Veracity, 4, 8, 58 Visible, 8, 15, 21, 23, 85, 143, 158, 177 Von Balthasar, Hans Urs, 143–55, 157–69, 180–4 World, 4, 9–11, 13, 19, 20, 27–30, 33–4, 38, 41–3, 45–9, 66, 71, 73, 77, 79, 81, 85–7, 94–6, 98, 103–11, 113–15, 117, 119, 123, 125–6, 129, 131, 137–40, 142–50, 152–3, 155–6, 158, 160–1, 164, 167–70, 174–6, 178, 181, 183–4

A Critical Study of Hans Kung's Ecclesiology: From Traditionalism to Modernism

From Modernism to Postmodernism Anthology

Critical Study Of Work

Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism

Post-Modernism for Psychotherapists: A Critical Reader

Stories From Hans Andersen

Modernism and Theory: A Critical Debate

Stories from Hans Andersen

Arthur Miller: A Critical Study

Classical Cynicism: A Critical Study

A Critical Study of Philip Guston

The uses of sport: a critical study

The Uses of Sport: A Critical Study

A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus

Avant-Garde Florence: From Modernism to Fascism

Literary Landscapes: From Modernism to Postcolonialism

From Modernism to Postmodernism (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies)

The Development of Ethics: A Historical and Critical Study Volume II: From Suarez to Rousseau

The Development of Ethics: A Historical and Critical Study, Vol. 3 - From Kant to Rawls

From Paradise To Paradigm: A Study Of Twelfth-century Humanism

From Paradise To Paradigm: A Study Of Twelfth-century Humanism

Hans Christian Andersen (Bloom's Modern Critical Views)

Modernism in Design (Reaktion Books - Critical Views)

Thomas Hardy's Shorter Fiction: A Critical Study

The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study

Thomas Hardy's Shorter Fiction: A Critical Study

The Semiotic of Myth: A Critical Study of the Symbol

Hans Richter: Activism, Modernism, and the Avant-Garde

A Route To Modernism: Hardy, Lawrence, Woolf

Sacrament of Salvation: An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology

A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature

A Critical Study of Hans Kung's Ecclesiology: From Traditionalism to Modernism

From Modernism to Postmodernism Anthology

Critical Study Of Work

Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism

Post-Modernism for Psychotherapists: A Critical Reader

Stories From Hans Andersen

Modernism and Theory: A Critical Debate

Stories from Hans Andersen

Arthur Miller: A Critical Study

Classical Cynicism: A Critical Study

A Critical Study of Philip Guston

The uses of sport: a critical study

The Uses of Sport: A Critical Study

A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus

Avant-Garde Florence: From Modernism to Fascism

Literary Landscapes: From Modernism to Postcolonialism

From Modernism to Postmodernism (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies)

The Development of Ethics: A Historical and Critical Study Volume II: From Suarez to Rousseau

The Development of Ethics: A Historical and Critical Study, Vol. 3 - From Kant to Rawls

From Paradise To Paradigm: A Study Of Twelfth-century Humanism

From Paradise To Paradigm: A Study Of Twelfth-century Humanism

Hans Christian Andersen (Bloom's Modern Critical Views)

Modernism in Design (Reaktion Books - Critical Views)

Thomas Hardy's Shorter Fiction: A Critical Study

The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study

Thomas Hardy's Shorter Fiction: A Critical Study

The Semiotic of Myth: A Critical Study of the Symbol

Hans Richter: Activism, Modernism, and the Avant-Garde

A Route To Modernism: Hardy, Lawrence, Woolf

Sacrament of Salvation: An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology

A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature

Recommend Documents