Response - Catholic church building : A currently report by Hans KungHans Kung s work , The Catholic church : A Short History should more(prenominal) aptly be c al iodined `a recap more so than a `history , although its historic s atomic number 18 seemingly more than adequate . Kung cites a essence of the popish Catholic perform s history in its two-thousand form human race . The work begins at the send-off by cover outcry the Catholic perform s claims that it was grounded by savior Christ , Himself basically tracing its roots to the maiden century churchI will invite a response to Kung s endorsementtion entitled light direct . stopcock is the alleged foremost pontiff of the Catholic Church . The roman Church claims its validity of the papacy as be founded on the stain and subprogram of the Apostle c ock that is , that the Church s expression from its beginning was intended to watch scape as its coping [see Catechism of the Catholic Church , pt . 1 , art .9 , sec . 765 cf . sec .771] . Kung assumes the claims of the Roman Church at the commencement ceremony and presents a critique of that position I will put forward points in which I agree with his claims while likewise whirl points of statement and disagreementKung states and affirms that hammer had a position of primacy and leadership in his government agency during Jesus ministry with the twelve chosen apostles . For manakin , he pay heeds how gumshoe was , indeed , spokesman of the disciples [`Catholic Church ,. 10] . scratch was frequently the first to speak up amongst the apostolic band . This is for sure do evident by the Gospel-documents , themselves . For example , when Jesus wanted the disciples as a group about His identity , creature spoke-up on behalf of them all , answering , Thou art th e Christ [Mark 9 :29 NASB cf flatnesshew 1! 6 :16] . Likewise , slit is the first one and only(a) to ask about the disciples rewards in forsaking mankindly possessions [Mark 10 :28] . And yet at a nonher point we find son of a bitch s boldness in telling Christ to de lay out for the dish the dirt reason that he felt unworthy to be in Jesus presence [Luke 5 :8]Kung also mentions how bastard was in a position of peculiar(prenominal) authority [`Catholic Church ,. 10] . dent was sited in a distinct and special role amongst the first apostles . This can hardly be repugn considering the circumstance that Peter s give ear was specially given at the snip of his initial calling from Christ . Peter s archetype name was Simon Son of John (or , Simon Bar-Jonah for the Hebrew surname ) and converted to Cephas (Aramaic ) or Peter (Greek ) which means rock [see John 1 :42] . end-to-end the Gospels , Peter s name is typically at the head of the list [see Matt .10 :2-4 Mark 3 :16-19 Luke 6 :14-16] . When Jesus faced the immanency of His death , He want for soothe in prayer . When Jesus returns from praying and finds all of His disciples dormancy in that locationby sloughing on their responsibility to be vigilant , He calls Peter to account for such behavior [see Matt . 26 :40] . Lastly , Peter is the one specially designated in instauration the church [Matt . 16 :18-19]There are also points to action concerning Kung s variance on Peter For example , he seems to be ` similarly loyal to regard Peter s role as collegial and non as absolutely authoritative . He regards Peter as first among equals [p .10] . His essential spotlight is not that of a monarchy , still rather an episcopacy [Ibid .] Although this may seem accredited in both(prenominal) regards , in that respect seems to be points offering the strange . For example , Peter exclusively makes the decision for replacing Judas s office with a new apostle [see Acts 1 :15ff] . Likewise , Peter is the furbish up individual to re ceive Christ s promise of the keys for the founding o! f the Church [Matt .16 :18-19] . Kung implies that Jesus statement is , by and large , unreliable and a result of later edition by Matthew s Palestinian compevery [`Catholic Church ,. 10] . He adds that even Catholic exegetes hold back themselves admitted such a fact . But , it is important to spud d bear that although some Catholic teachers have express such it is not the official Catholic position . heretofore the present pope , Pope Benedict had stated as a primeval that such an assertion is nothing more than a venture in that locationby regarding Jesus promise to Peter to be taken as it stands- an authentic statement from idol s very own Word [see Ratzinger , Cardinal Joseph , Called to Communion (San Francisco :Ignatius , 1991 ) pp . 57-58]Kung also implies that the authenticity of Peter s office is contingent upon whether Peter go forth field permutations in capital of Italy . Firstly , Kung implies that since the unfermented testament makes no mention of ei ther successors to Peter thither essential and then be no evidence of succession to Peter s office Kung then adds that there is no evidence of Peter laying a installation of succession in capital of Italy [`Catholic Church ,. 11] . Although Kung admits that there is indisputable evidence of Peter s martyrdom placed in Rome , the claim that Peter left successors to the papal tin can in Rome is found wanting . There were no bishops exercising a papal-authority in Rome after Peter , according to KungIn response to this last mentioned assertion , we have private road to bring up two objections . Firstly , one must note the principle from keep mum Kung utilizes . Simply because the New Testament fails to mention successors to Peter does not prove its non-existence . One cannot positively prove something with silence . Just as oftentimes the New Testament fails to mention a successor , it does not strike down its plausibleness . There is no positive assertion on the part of t he New Testament that there is no successor nor is th! ere each indicative that such was never meant to beSecondly , one could ask , Is the validity of the papal chair contingent upon whether a bishop occupied the seat from Rome Does the Catholic Church authentically moot that the papacy should be traced to Rome to uphold its validity ? Although Kung is sort out in stating that there is no record of any bishop governing body the church in Rome in Peter s fast context , is this not merely a overturn or accidental point ? The Catholic Church does not place the papal chair by way of locus , tho by way of legitimate succession . That is , heedless of whether Peter established a succession in Rome , the af evenhandedly at hand should be located upon whether indeed , there is viable evidence for an office succeeding from Peter at all . It does not seem reasonable , or fair to base the premise of the Catholic Papacy upon whether there is a true succession that germinated out of ancient RomeIn completion , Hans Kung offers an enk indle and thoughtful work . The Catholic Church has a long-standing historical tradition that has impacted the ways of the western world as we know it . Although , Hans Kung seems to present fairly accurate facts and depictions of this considerable surname , it still must be maintained that we see to it the Roman Church more fairly . Kung is often too quick to dismiss the Catholic claims to the primacy of Peter either for the pastime of maintaining transiency for his work , or out of innocent ignorance . In any case , it is important to present both sides (pros and cons ) whenever we are presenting an cut back we disagree with . In doing such , we will be much more discerning and therefore gain a richer understanding of the truthPAGEPAGE 1 ...If you want to get a luxuriant essay, aim it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment