Porn incest. Free incest porn stories. Incest sex movie and family porn vids. Incest porn….

http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/articles/AtlanticMonthly-Rebuttal2.htm

Joseph Kung
Cardinal Kung Foundation

May I invite you to read my rebuttal to Adam Minter’s “Kepping Faith” published by the Atlantic Monthly July-August issue. The rebuttal has now been published by the Atlantic in its September issue, but was thoroughly edited by the Atlantic’s editorial staff. A number of important issues were deleted by Atlantic. You may read the unedited version of my rebuttal on my website http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/articles/AtlanticMonthly-Rebuttal.htm

Thank you.

Joseph Kung
President
Cardinal Kung Foundation

As for the underground - the letter revokes all special provisions dating back to 1978 that justified it via canon law. It’s over. There’s only one Church. End of story. The outlying bishops are a minor concern at this point. Let’s complete the reconciliation, quite the divisions, and move on to North Korea.

Nino

I appreciate your observation. Thank you.

In the Pope’s letter, in section 8, the third paragraph from the end of this section, the Pope writes: “Finally, there are certain Bishops – a very small number of them – who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for or have not yet obtained the necessary legitimation. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church……Therefore, although not in communion with the Pope, they ………”

Therefore, the Pope clearly pointed out that there is still a group of bishops in the official Church in China that are “not in communion with the Pope.”

In his speech in January 1995 during the World Youth Day celebrated in Manila in January 1995, our late Pope John Paul II stated very clearly: “A Catholic who wishes to remain such and to be recognized as such cannot reject the principle of communion with the successor of Peter.” He repeated the same quote again on other occasion. Therefore, communion with the Pope as requisite for being a Roman Catholic is a basic Catholic doctrine. It is not a mere discipline.

Inasmuch as that portion of bishops in the official Church in China are still not in communion with the Pope as I described in the first paragraph above, and inasmuch as the late Pope John Paul II stated very clearly that in order to be a Catholic one must be in communion with the Pope, it is clear that the part of the official Church controlled by those bishops who are not in communion with the pope is not Roman Catholic.

Therefore, when I referred to two Churches in China, one of these Churches is one described in the previous paragraph. The other Church is, of course, the Church that is in full communion with the Pope and with the universal Church. It goes without saying that there is only one “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” not only in China, but all over the world.

Thank you for your attention.

Joseph Kung
Cardinal Kung Foundation

I think the point is that there is only one Church:

“This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.”

Lumen Gentium, 8

I think we need new language for the situation in China that reflects this point, there is only one Church. We should speak of those in full communion and those in imperfect communion or some such. Or perhaps “those who set themselves up as a Church independent from Rome” something that they attempt, but isn’t actual, as we would say of Protestants.

It seems relatively few Catholics in China are setting themselves up as seperate from Rome these days… perhaps there are some who want to be with the Pope, but not under him.

(These are just some brief general and unpolished thoughts and should be taken in that spirit.)

This refers to the posting by Patrioticus on June 30th, 2007 at 10:11 am.

Patrioticus quoted the paragraph that I wrote on our website that “China has two Churches that call themselves Catholic…..They are not the same church.”

Patrioticus wrote that “the Holy Father himself declares, in his letter to China’s Catholics, that there is but one Church in China…..”

I have difficulty in locating any verbiage by the Holy Father saying clearly that “there is but one Church in China….” in his China letter as Patrioticus claimed. In this connection, I should appreciate if Patrioticus could tell us where this quotation is.

There are several places in the Holy Father’s China letter that he clearly describes a situation in what he called an “entity” which is “incompatible with Catholic doctrine”. This could easily and reasonably be construed that there are two churches.

1) In section 7, paragraph 1, the Holy Father said: “Still today, in fact, recognition from these entities is the criterion for declaring a community, a person or a religious place legal and therefore “official”.” When one talks about “official”, one is surely aware of the fact there is an opposite called “unofficial”. We all should know that the “official” church has not publicly declared its full communion with the Holy Father, because they are, as the Holy Father said, “incompatible with Catholic doctrine”. On the contrary, the “unofficial church” is in full communion with the Holy Father and the universal church. This situation is what I referred to as “two churches.

2) In the last paragraph of section 8, the Holy Father wrote “…..the present College of Catholic Bishops of China cannot be recognized as an Episcopal Conference by the Apostolic See: the “clandestine” Bishops, …..in communion with the Pope, are not part of it…..; it includes Bishop who are still illegitimate…..” The pope himself made a distinction between the “clandestine” bishops who belong to the “unofficial church” and “Bishops who are still illegitimate” who belong to the “official church”. They are obviously not the same church, Otherwise, the Pope would not make a distinction. This is why I referred to as “two churches”.

Patrioticus himself said that “divisions are caused by government entities.” I am therefore very puzzled when he asked, “Are you with Kung, and his divisions”. What do these divisions have to do with me when they are caused, as Patrioticus himself said, by government entities?

I wish you all a very happy, patriotic, and blessed July the 4th.

Joseph Kung
Cardinal Kung Foundation

“In the light of the principles expounded above, the present College of Catholic Bishops of China cannot be recognized as an Episcopal Conference by the Apostolic See: the “clandestine” Bishops, those not recognized by the Government but in communion with the Pope, are not part of it; it includes Bishops who are still illegitimate, and it is governed by statutes that contain elements incompatible with Catholic doctrine.” (Section 8)

“Communion and unity – let me repeat (cf. section 5 above) – are essential and integral elements of the Catholic Church: therefore the proposal for a Church that is ‘‘independent” of the Holy See, in the religious sphere, is incompatible with Catholic doctrine.” (Section 8)

I don’t want to dwell too much on the letter’s consequences; there are people far more qualified to do that, and they will. For now, I’d just like to point out that - in a small way - the letter serves as a near total and complete repudiation of the rhetoric and methods of the Cardinal Kung Foundation. For those who aren’t familiar with it, the Kung Foundation is an American non-profit whose stated goal is support of China’s underground Catholics; in reality, the foundation and its leader Joseph Kung have spent the better part of the last two decades agitating for more division among China’s Catholics (a stance which the Pope’s letter implicitly recognizes as contrary to his and the late John Paul II’s intentions). I outline some of this in my recent profile of Jin Luxian in the July/August issue of the Atlantic.

The Pope’s letter has only been available for a few hours, and so it’s a bit unreasonable to expect the Foundation to have already pulled its references to the Eight Points as “China Guidelines from the Vatican.” Still, it will be interesting to see when and if it does. More important, however, is whether the Foundation will stop referring - incorrectly - to the Catholic Patriotic Association as China’s official “Patriotic Church.” Joseph Kung surely knows the difference, but in the past he has refused to use accurate language. For example, consider this passage, taken just a few moments ago from the Foundation’s website:

“China therefore has two Churches that call themselves Catholic. One Church is founded by Christ approximately 2005 years ago. The other Church is established by atheist communists 48 years ago. One Church has been under severe persecution for the last 56 years since 1949. The other one is under the protection of the Chinese communist government and has not been persecuted. One Church is in full communion with the Pope and with the universal Church. The other one is not in communion with the Pope. One Church, of course, is the underground Roman Catholic Church. The other one is the official Patriotic church. Regardless the differences that I listed above, there are many bishops, cardinals, and other church hierarchies claim that they are the same church. Do not let anyone mislead you, even if he is a bishop or a Cardinal, into thinking that these two churches are the same church. They are not the same Church.”

Now, dear friends of the Cornell Society, none other than the Holy Father himself declares, in his letter to China’s Catholics, that there is but one Church in China, that divisions are caused by government entities, and calls for reconciliation.

So, dear Cornell friends, declare yourselves. Are you with Kung, and his divisions, or with the beloved Holy Father.

I’ll leave this one up, though, because although coherent enough, it’s ridiculous. All scholars put the number of deaths due to the Inquisition at fewer than 5000 during its four hundred year duration, while numbers for Tiananmen range from your Communist gov’t figure of 300 up through Amnesty International’s figure of 1000 to other estimates in the range of 3-5 thousand.

Use your head, man! The population of all Europe during the 15th - 19th centuries probably never reached 50 million, so it would have been rather difficult for the Inquisition, even if it were as bloody minded as the Black Legends claimed, to have found so many victims.

I find it very gratifying that you continue to be drawn here, as a moth to the flame, to defend the indefensible. Perhaps it’s something in the polluted Chaobai river water?

If you happen back by, friend, could you perhaps enlighten me as to when the Church killed “millions”? That’s a slander, as it happens not to be true. It took about a century of the Spanish inquisition, for instance, to execute as many people as were killed in one day at Tiananmen square.

Anger and outrage are never permitted.

Unless of course you are talking to stubborn, schismatic Traditionalists. Then righeous anger and fury is totally justified.