Rating: 
Summary: Roman Catholic History By Someone Who Ought To Know It
Review: In all fairness to the reader, I am only halfway through this book; however, Kung is a very intelligent Catholic, who has remained in the Roman Catholic church for his entire life, and who has had a long, scholarly career; further, he is a Catholic priest as well as a scholar. Because of certain disagreements that he has had with the Roman Catholic church, they have revoked his credentials to teach as a Catholic theologian. Nevertheless, a theologian he certainly is, whether he is officially approved as such by the Catholic church or not. It would be a mistake to view this book as an unbiased history of the Roman Catholic Church, for Kung is clearly unhappy with the developing role of the papacy throughout the church's history. However, a historical analysis, by its very nature, involves not only the facts of history, but also an interpretation of those facts. As mentioned above, Kung is clearly biased against the papacy as it has developed. While I don't agree with all the views of Kung as presented in his book, I very much like it, and appreciate Kung's honest attempt to portray Catholic church history as he believes it to actually be, rather than merely regurgitating the Catholic church's claims for itself. Some who read it will certainly believe that he is too harsh and negative in his analysis of the Catholic church; however, I appreciate his honesty. He calls things as he sees them, even though his views on any number of matters differs with the Catholic church's claims about itself.
Rating:
Summary: Not a history, but a great book nonetheless.
Review: Brilliant, forceful, authoritative - what else would you expect from Hans Kung? However, this book is not so much a history of the Catholic Church as it is an anti papal polemic. Kung glosses over or ignores much of church history while he develops his major theme, the rise of the papacy and its corrosive influence on the Church. For those who actually want to read a short history of the Catholic Church (short being a relative term when dealing with a 2000 year old institution) I recommend the following: Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas S. Bokenkotter. Available from this site. For those who are interested in the rise of the papacy, Kung's book is a must read.
Rating: 
Summary: HERESY OF THE CHURCH BY HANS KUNG, Dr. of Heresy
Review: The factual problem with this book is that half of it is simply not true and the rest misleading due to omission. The resason for this is than the author has a view of Church matters that range from modernist to outright heresy. His treatise of Vatican II and what it taught is only credible to those who have never read the Vatican II documents. Kung and hid ilk are the theological equivalent of liberal US Supreme Court justices. If the "spirit of Vatican II" is supposed to drive the Church why did they write a stack of paper? If Vatican II intended a "populist church", then why did they write: This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed (credenda) by all the faithful ...... the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. ..... bishops .... together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him,... have supreme and full authority over the universal Church;[27] but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. .... There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor. ... loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority (magisterium) of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to judgements (sententiae) made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and will .....The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)--he proclaims by a definitive act ("definitivo actu", which is sometimes erroneously translated "by an absolute decision." Note well that this does not say "ex cathedra") a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church's charism of infallibility is present in a singular way." (Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church) UUhhhhh! The readers of the National Catholic Reporter and their ilk will love this book. They are dreaming. None of their "reforms" will ever happen. Try reading Dr. Warren Carroll's three volume history. It is well researched and heavily footnoted to original source documents. It is TRUE!
Rating: 
Summary: History From the Inside
Review: Hans Kung lays all of his cards on the table in the introduction. This book (The Catholic Church: A Short History) will be, in a way, a synthesis of his religious and scholarly work over the past four decades. It will be neither a Church history written from the viewpoint of the official papal historians nor will it be an anti-Catholic catalogue of crimes throughout time. The author writes as a Catholic and both his love for his Church as it should be and his frustration with it as it can often be suffuses the entire history. He covers the material both efficiently and passionately in a short amount of space. This book may be disliked by those who are either blindly pro-papacy or obstinately anti-Catholic, but everyone else should have an entertaining and informative read from an author who understands history as a lived experience.
Rating:
Summary: A superman comic might give a better glimpse of reality.
Review: Hans Küng. Heretic. Revisionist historian. Create all "facts" necessary to support your delusions. The publisher's propoganda mentions Küng as "Kung, the primary writer of Vatican II". If this is indeed the case, then he seems to have betrayed himself with his views. Like so many other liberal alledged-Catholics, he reads into Vatican II what he wants, and rejects the actual teaching of the council. The council **FIRMLY** teaches papal infallibility, yet this enemy of the Faith has the audacity to write "Infallible? NO!". This neo-arian has the audacity to question the divinity of Christ, another theological truth firmly supported by the Vatican II fathers (one of whom, curiously, was Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, now Pope John Paul II - on whose 81st birthday I write this). Küng and his ilk care little for the conciliar teachings. They merely wish to use them as license in their attempt to conform the Catholic Church to the world; what ever happened to Christ's admonition to not be conformed to the world? Like all heretics of the past, they quote scripture to their own ends, citing what they will to support their views, but doing violence to the context. They may be Catholic in name, but certainly not in teaching.
Rating: 
Summary: "A Critical One-Sided History"
Review: Hans Kung's short history of the Catholic Church has its ups and downs. In a sense this book shouldn't really be considered a "history" due to Kung's one-sided and totally impartial approach to reveal the Church's short-comings as a result of its own ideological failures. Kung never acknowledges the Church's abiltity and authority to exercise sound decisions pertaining to political and ecclesiosocial matters except for the segment on Pope John-23rd and Vatican-2; and this luadatory measure is of course is short lived. He also never entertains the idea that the Church's immovable solidarity concerning present-day morals is due to the fact that present-day morals are at the "summa" of decay. Kung obviously doesn't think it's necessary to show the dark side of society; instead he enjoys showing the Church's. It's a wonder why his authority to teach within the Church was revoked? However, in the face of all the unecessary critical pomp, there lies a whole lot of historical truth. Kung just doesn't apply it in an equitable fashion. This book is recommended for individuals with a keen sense of history, and is not a recommended first read for those beginning church history, or for those inquiring into the catholic faith. Instead, I suggest Thomas Bokenkotter's "Concise History of the Catholic Church." It is a definite recommendation for people of all convictions.
Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: Hans Kung has always done the theological world a marvelous service by calling the Christian mind to transcend its temporal notions of Gospel reality and distinguish between the "real" Catholic Church (which exists in the ancient liturgical, charitable, and spiritual traditions of millions) and the "Roman" Catholic Church, which, strictly as an institutional entity, has sought (through centuries of corruption and hubris) to stifle the movement of the Spirit. The whole truth is here...and nothing BUT the truth. Kung does an excellent job of showing how the Roman episcopate gradually took its simple "primacy of honor" in the post-apostolic church and aggressively, greedily deviated from the Gospel in seeking to establish a bizarre, completely non-Gospel stranglehold on the collective and individual Christian consciousness, all based upon structures of Roman empirical lust. He most effectively shows how the papacy went from originally being a position that served as a sign of Christian unity and collegiate servant-leadership, to an utter monstrosity staffed by one unqualified degenerate after another. The riches, the murders, the plotting, the scandal, the vice--all of it is historically documented and stands as a harrowing contrast to the pure message of the Gospel. Kung's demonstration of how papal infallibility "came into being" is enough to make any rational human dismiss the credibility of the Roman Curia for all time.It is especially sobering for fundamentalist Catholics to relaize that Rome, while always a mother Church and strengthening guide of Christianity, was not the undisputed power-engine it has always claimed to be. A must-have for all Catholics.
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent!
Review: I'm not a Catholic and have never read a history of the Catholic Church before and I was mesmerized by this book. Kung's clear and brilliant -- because the Church was among the most important prime movers in world history in the past 2000 years, this is an enthralling history of world events from a very interesting and important perspective. A real eureka! book. It's going to be read again and again.
Rating:
Summary: Claims to be Catholic, but...
Review: ...he is pro-abortion!! It was his obstinate denial of the 2000-year-old basic tenets of the Catholic faith that got his teachings banned by the Church. Just remember that obstinate denial of what he denies incurs a latae sententiae excommunication--an automatic excommuncation. If you like him, then that's fine. But don't be fooled: he is not a Catholic.
Rating:
Summary: History, by one of it's victims
Review: Hans Küng is a priest who has run afoul of Rome essentially since John Paul II took the throne. He is a theological liberal, and therefore has endured the censure of the Vatican. It interesting that when I was in college and Küng came to town, he spoke not at the Catholic church but at the Lutheran. This history is an honest one, pointing out the errors and failings of Rome as an institution. As such, it will find a frosty reception among the staunch defenders of Rome, I am sure. However, it should be read alongside another history, perhaps by one who has not had the same troubles with Rome. Still, can one find fault with the facts Küng points out?.. I think not.
|
