A bulwark of radical progressivism and heterodoxy, this well-known doctor of theology, priest, and former consultant of the Second Vatican Council spends his life demanding radical changes in the Church, by means of what he himself acknowledges to be a “destructive criticism” offered “in the service of construction, of reform and renewal” . But an analysis of the points on which he calls for renewal makes it possible to realize how progressivism can be, for the Catholic faith, one of its greatest enemies, by affecting its essential content.
On reading Küng, one cannot help but find nothing other than a profound resentment against the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and especially against John Paul II and Benedict XVI, whom he blames for the withdrawal of his permission to teach Catholic theology. For him, no institution, unlike the Catholic Church, “polarizes world society and politics with such a high degree of rigidity” . The problem grows worse when we read what he says about abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia. He also accuses it of discrimination against women, charging John Paul II with waging “a chilling battle against modern women who long for a way of life in keeping with the times, prohibiting birth control and abortion (even in the case of incest or rape), divorce, the ordination of women and the modernization of the female religious orders” .
It is not difficult to understand why, in his book The Catholic Church, he makes copious efforts to demonstrate that the hierarchical structure of the Church is of human and not divine origin.
The Church — Founded by Jesus?
Küng writes:
Founded by Jesus? According to the Gospels, the man from Nazareth practically never used the word “church.” There are no sayings of Jesus publicly addressing the community of the elect with a programmatic call to found a church. Biblical scholars agree on this point: Jesus did not proclaim a church or himself; he proclaimed the kingdom of God. Guided by the conviction that he was living in an age near its end, Jesus wished to announce the imminent coming of the kingdom of God, of the reign of God, with a view to the salvation of man.”
It is strikingly noteworthy that Küng should begin his argument by casting doubt on (in order later to deny) the fact that the Church was founded by Jesus. It is also surprising that he mentions that Jesus “practically never used the word ‘church’”. The truth is that, although the Gospels do not claim to record everything Jesus said (John 20:30; 21:25), from them we know that he had the clear purpose of founding it: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). It is not surprising that already in Jesus’ first preachings the Church appears as the supreme authority of appeal: “If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone.… And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more… But if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Matthew 18:15-17). There is no other explanation for Jesus choosing apostles, on whom he conferred authority (Luke 9:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:7), so that they might make disciples of all people, baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that he commanded (Matthew 28:19-20). Hence the solemn command to “feed” his sheep and lambs (John 21:15-18) is nothing other than the entrusting of the governance of his Church.
How many times did Christ’s intention to found a Church have to be written down for us to take it seriously? If the Ten Commandments appeared but a single time in all of Scripture, would that be reason enough to doubt their divine origin?
He then states that “Biblical scholars agree that Jesus did not proclaim a church or himself; he proclaimed the kingdom of God”. Leaving aside his convenient omission of which scholars he means, it must be said that the one does not exclude the other. Jesus did indeed proclaim himself as Messiah, Son of God, and as the way to the Father (John 3:36; 14:6), he promised that he would found his Church (Matthew 16:18) and he proclaimed the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15). All of this forms part of the Divine Plan; yet Küng presents it as mutually exclusive concepts in order to prepare his readers to accept the conclusion he will present later: that the founding of the Church was the work of the apostles after the death of Jesus, and not of Christ himself.
Authority versus Service
Küng writes:
“It is beyond all doubt that there were apostles in the first community. But beyond the Twelve, whom Jesus himself chose as a symbol, all those who preached the message of Christ and founded communities as first witnesses and first messengers were also apostles. Nevertheless, alongside them other figures are also mentioned in Paul’s epistles: prophets and prophetesses who announced inspired messages, and teachers, evangelists and collaborators of the most varied kinds, men and women. Can we speak of ‘ministries’ in the primitive church? No, for the secular term ministry (arché and other similar Greek terms) is not used in any source for the different offices and callings of the church. It is easy to see why. ‘Ministry’ designates a relationship of domination. In its place, primitive Christianity used a term that Jesus coined as the standard when he said: ‘He that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth’ (Luke 22:26; these words have been interpreted in six different versions). Rather than speaking of ministries, the people referred to diakonia, service, originally similar to waiting at table. Thus this was a word with connotations of inferiority that could not evoke any form of authority, norm, dignity or position of power. Certainly there was also an authority and a power in the primitive church, but in accordance with the spirit of those words of Jesus it was not to favor the establishment of a government (to acquire and defend privileges), but only the common service and welfare. Thus we stand before a ‘service of the church,’ not before a hierarchy.”
Küng now attempts to present authority and service as opposing concepts. It is no accident that he tries to reduce the choosing of the 12 apostles to a mere symbol, for the very existence of the apostles already evidences a hierarchy that held, from the hand of Christ himself, an authority not shared by the other members of the Church. How could Küng deny the existence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy with the capacity to govern the Church, when the apostles themselves are indisputable evidence of that fact? Paul shows himself convinced of this when he writes: “Whereas we might have been burdensome to you, as the apostles of Christ; but we became little ones in the midst of you, as a nurse cherisheth her children” (1 Thessalonians 2:7). Hence it was they who appointed presbyters in each Church (Acts 14:23) and, together with these presbyters, established the norms to be obeyed (Acts 14:6).
Although throughout history many people have sought and will seek to occupy high offices in the Church in order to acquire privileges, this does not mean that authority is at odds with service. Paul, writing as an apostle, asked that men account him “as the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1). It is evident that the dispenser possesses a power or authority of governance, but this was conferred on him not to be served but to serve; hence the words of the Lord exhort that the greatest among them must become “the least of all.”
Sowing Doubt about the Primacy of Peter
Küng writes:
“Already during the public activity of Jesus, the fisherman Simon, whom Jesus perhaps nicknamed ‘the rock’ (in Aramaic ‘Cepha,’ in Greek ‘Peter’), was the spokesman of the disciples” “But today even Catholic scholars of the New Testament accept that the famous saying according to which Peter was the rock on which Jesus will build his church (Matthew 16:18): the statement appears in the future tense, and about which the other Gospels say nothing, is not the words of the earthly Jesus but was composed after Easter by the Palestinian community, or later in the community of Matthew.”
It does not go unnoticed that Küng begins by casting doubt on the fact that it was Christ who changed Simon’s name to Peter. It is false that it is a fact accepted by New Testament scholars that these words were a late invention of the first Christians, so it is not surprising that he mentions neither which scholars he means (a gratuitous generalization) nor any arguments to prove what he claims. The Gospel of John attests to Christ’s intention to change Simon’s name to Cephas (Rock) at the beginning of his ministry: “And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter” (John 1:42). It would not be logical for Peter to keep that name over time (as is shown by the continual mentions by Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:22; 15:5; Galatians 2:9, 11, 14) had he not received it from the Lord.
The purpose of this is none other than to introduce the following reasoning: If Christ was not the one who changed Peter’s name, and who said to him the phrase “Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,” then it was not Christ’s intention to institute a Primacy among his apostles. All the apostles being equal, the Papacy too would become a human invention and could therefore also be changed, or discarded.
Attacking the Monarchical Episcopate
Küng writes:
“… the monarchical episcopate was introduced in Rome relatively late… A careful investigation of the sources of the New Testament over the last hundred years has shown that the constitution of this church, centered on the bishop, in no way corresponds to the will of God nor was it ordained by Christ, but is the result of a long and problematic historical development. It is a human work and therefore, in principle, can be changed…”
“Historically, it can rather be demonstrated that in a first post-apostolic phase the local presbyter-bishops were established, together with the prophets, the teachers and other ministers, as the sole leaders of the Christian communities (and also in the celebration of the Eucharist); thus, already in a first phase a division took place between the ‘clergy’ and the ‘laity.’ In a later phase the monarchical episcopate of an individual bishop gradually displaced the plurality of presbyter-bishops in each city and later throughout the whole region of a church. In Antioch, around the year 110, when Bishop Ignatius was there, the order of the three offices was formed that became customary throughout the empire: bishop, presbyter and deacon. The Eucharist could no longer be celebrated without a bishop. The division between the ‘clergy’ and the ‘people’ was already a fact.”
The hypothesis that in the Primitive Church there was no monarchical episcopate, but rather that this was a normal development of the Church’s organization over time, does not appear very coherent. For, although in the New Testament the words “bishop” and “presbyter” seem to be used interchangeably, the most plausible explanation is that what happened was that the terminology was refined over time, leaving the word bishop only for that presbyter, head of the local Church, with jurisdiction over other presbyters. This would explain why, in the New Testament, Paul speaks of the bishop in the singular as “the steward of God” (Titus 1:7), and is so specific about the requirements for the candidate to the episcopate (1 Timothy 3:1-2).
Küng also falsifies history when he attributes to the Church of Antioch, whose bishop was Saint Ignatius (a disciple of Peter and Paul), the creation of the figure of the monarchical episcopate. A study of the seven epistles he wrote on his way to martyrdom demonstrates that it was not that the rest of the Churches imitated the organization of the Church of Antioch, but rather that they already possessed this hierarchical structure and a bishop who governed them. Saint Ignatius merely attests to the structure of those Churches; he does not establish it. A few examples will serve to illustrate this:
“It is therefore fitting that you should walk in harmony with the mind of the bishop, as indeed you do. For your honorable presbytery, which is worthy of God, is attuned to the bishop as the strings are to a lyre….”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, 3-4
“Forasmuch, then, as I was permitted to see you in the person of Damas, your godly bishop and your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius and my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, in whom I gladly rejoice, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, 2
“VI. Since, then, in the persons mentioned above I beheld all of you in faith and embraced you, I advise you to be zealous to do all things in godly harmony, the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the apostles, with the deacons also who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time. Therefore strive to attain conformity with God and have reverence for one another; and let no one regard his neighbor according to the flesh, but love one another always in Jesus Christ. Let there be nothing among you that has power to divide you, but remain united with the bishop and with those who preside over you as an example and a lesson of incorruptibility.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, 6
“Therefore, just as the Lord did nothing without the Father, [being united with Him], whether by himself or through the apostles, so neither do you do anything without the bishop and the presbyters.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, 7
To the Trallians he speaks again of one bishop (singular) “a type of the Father” and a college of presbyters (plural) as a council of God.
“In the same way, let all respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of the apostles”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 3
“…For it is fitting for each of you, and more especially for the presbyters, to refresh the soul of your bishop unto the honor of the Father [and unto the honor] of Jesus Christ and of the apostles.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 12
Other examples when he writes to other churches:
“…if they are in agreement with the bishop and the presbyters who are with him, and with the deacons who have been appointed in accordance with the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He of His own will has confirmed and established in His Holy Spirit.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, Prologue
“Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, to the presbyters and to the deacons. May it be granted to me to have my portion with them in the presence of God. Labor together with one another, strive together, run together, suffer together, rest together, rise together, as stewards and assessors and ministers of God.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Polycarp, 6
There is nothing in any of Saint Ignatius’ epistles that would allow us to suppose that these Churches adopted the model of the monarchical episcopate of Antioch, and it is exceedingly difficult to believe that, barely 10 years after the death of the last apostle, they had all invented it.
Saint Ignatius is not the only witness to the primitive organization of the Church. We also have an important testimony from the hand of Saint Irenaeus, a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of the apostle Saint John. In his work Against Heresies (3,3,2) he attests that the apostolic churches possess lists of successions of bishops reaching back to the apostles (for reasons of length he limits himself to mentioning only that of the Church of Rome, which he calls the “greatest, most ancient and best known to all, founded and established in Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul”). Tertullian later combats the heretics by challenging them to demonstrate that their churches possess a monarchical episcopate, like the apostolic Churches (Tertullian. “Prescription against All Heresies”. 33,1-2)
Küng continues:
“But it is surprising that even Ignatius, defender and ideologue of the monarchical episcopate, did not address a bishop in his letter to the Roman community, any more than Paul did. And no bishop of Rome was mentioned in any other of the early sources, such as the Epistle of Clement (around the year 90).”
It is true that there is a difference between the letter he writes to the church of Rome and the rest of the churches, but it is above all evidence in favor of its primacy. For the bishop of Antioch, Rome is “the Church that has obtained mercy in the majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ His only Son; the Church that is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God; the Church, moreover, that presides in the capital of the territory of the Romans; worthy of God, worthy of all honor, worthy of all blessedness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining all it desires, worthy of all holiness; and set at the head of love” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, salutation), so that, while he asks all the churches to which he writes to pray for his church of Antioch, he never entrusts it to the care of any other church, but only to Rome, which, in his own words, “presides in love.”
For a more detailed analysis of the monarchical episcopate, one may consult:
In Conclusion…
Each of the points in this heterodox theologian’s argument had no other purpose than to deny that the Church is a Divine Institution. But the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), against which “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matthew 16:19). By casting doubt on Christ’s intention to found a hierarchically organized Church (bishops, presbyters and deacons), he attempts to open a door to achieve a “restructuring” of the Church into a much more “democratic” and less authoritative model, tolerant of heterodox theologians like himself and open to his aberrant proposals.
If Küng is fond of a Church that approves abortion, there already exist many Protestant churches that approve it. If he wishes gay marriage to be approved, or for there to be priestesses, he may well go off to the Episcopalians and Anglicans. If he does not wish to believe in the dogmas of the faith, well, all the Protestants already do that. Everything he asks for is already possessed by those who have departed from the Barque of Peter; but of all this, the least coherent thing is that he should live embittered because he was denied permission to teach Catholic theology, when what he intended to teach was anything but that. Let him get over it and stop deceiving himself by calling himself Catholic, when he himself knows that for a long time now he no longer is.
“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20
Author: José Miguel Arráiz
