The paragraph in Jesus the Christ after the one you posted above starts "It would be wrong nevertheless to conclude from this that there are no historically authenticated miracles of Jesus." Even though Kasper believes that some miracles can be "historically authenticated" you seem to be suggesting that he does not believe in them. Why?

The article posted is similar. They prooftext from Kasper's work, but cut things out of context. The whole line of argument about miracles is a tired one, long settled by more recent documents on Scripture such as Dei Verbum.

Their comments about Lehmann are even more egregious, because they are based on a critique of a document that has been affirmed by the past 3 Popes, most Lutherans, and many other denominations as well. To attack Lehmann for his part in this achievement is reprehensible, even without the more-catholic-than-the-pope attitude.

Labels: moderation: safe