Ratzinger 'Pope Benedict XVI' denies resurrection of the body

Status
Not open for further replies.

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I don't know if this is new or old news. I hadn't heard that the the recent Pope denied the resurrection of the body and redefined what the soul was. I understood he was a return to the old Catholic Dogma. But evidently he has some old skeletons in his closet from his more liberal days.

...

Ratzinger’s book,
Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, covers, amongst other things, the nature of the resurrection. He notes that the accepted view among modern Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant theologians is that body and soul expire at the point of death and that 'the proper Christian thing, therefore, is to speak, not of the soul’s immortality, but of the resurrection of the complete human being and of that alone' (p 105). He notes that the word soul has disappeared from Roman Catholic liturgy (also from Roman Catholic Bible translations) as a consequence. Ratzinger offers his own new definition of the soul: 'The "soul" is our term for that in us which offers a foothold for this relation [with the eternal]. Soul is nothing other than man’s capacity for relatedness with truth, with love eternal' (p 259). The soul is therefore defined heretically as the capacity for relationship rather than real spiritual substance; having a soul means 'being God’s partner in dialogue'.[SUP]10
[/SUP]

In Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger explicitly denies the resurrection of the body. 'It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible'. He says that the word body, or flesh, in the phrase, the resurrection of the body, 'in effect means "the world of man" . . . [it is] not meant in the sense of a corporality isolated from the soul' (pp 240-41).

Ratzinger is deliberately using a meaning that is impossible in the context, in order to explain away the clear meaning of the text. This is also done in relation to the word for body (Greek:soma), which he says can also mean self. He draws the conclusion that 'one thing at any rate may be fairly clear: both John (6:63) and Paul (1 Cor. 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the "resurrection of the flesh", the "resurrection of the body", is not a "resurrection of physical bodies" . . . Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of "flesh body", that is, the biological structure, an idea he expressly describes as impossible ("the perishable cannot become imperishable") but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord' (p 246).

...


This obviously also has to effect his doctrine of the person and work of Christ which is discussed shortly in this short article.

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles
 

newcreature

Puritan Board Freshman
I have long believed that the Papacy is an expression of the anti-Christ. This is a fine example of disbelief of what the Bible tells us. To reason away the word of God by our own logic is to deny His power.
 

jogri17

Puritan Board Junior
Roman Catholicism makes a distinction between the ''body'' and the ''flesh'', if I am not mistaking. The point is to show that Heaven is physical and not just some ghosts, spirits beings floating up there somewhere, rather ultimately we will be physical beings. The stage between death and the Resurrection is not ''heaven'' Biblically speaking rather, though we are with Christ, it is less than ideal because death has not been completely conquered even in the life of the believer until we are raised physically from the dead.

In other words, I am hesitant to trust the article until I go to the library on Monday and check out this book.
 

Jack K

Puritan Board Doctor
Roman Catholicism makes a distinction between the ''body'' and the ''flesh'', if I am not mistaking. The point is to show that Heaven is physical and not just some ghosts, spirits beings floating up there somewhere, rather ultimately we will be physical beings. The stage between death and the Resurrection is not ''heaven'' Biblically speaking rather, though we are with Christ, it is less than ideal because death has not been completely conquered even in the life of the believer until we are raised physically from the dead.

In other words, I am hesitant to trust the article until I go to the library on Monday and check out this book.

Yeah, it sounded to me like he might just be asserting that the resurrected body will be different from the body we have now. That position, or something like it, seems more likely. It's hard to say, though, without reading the book... and I don't think I want to.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
Do quick google search and you will see this "short" article appears to jump to rather spurious conclusions. In my most humble opinion Banner ought to remove this ASAP.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
After looking a little into it, I think the article quoted by Banner is irresponsible. [Retracted this statement, 7/25/2012]

I didn't look up all the quotes, but did look up this one:

'the proper Christian thing, therefore, is to speak, not of the soul’s immortality, but of the resurrection of the complete human being and of that alone' (p 105).

Ratzinger, in this quote, is characterizing the modern view as it developed. He obviously is not, in this section, advocating the view. This is a major blunder that discredits any other conclusion the author of the article might want to make.

I found it here: Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life - Joseph Ratzinger - Google Books

Edited 7/25/2012: I retract the observation made in this post because it was brought to my attention that I misunderstood the quotation above: the author of the article indeed said that Ratzinger "noted" the view in the quote. It did not say he held it.

The blunder is mine.
 
Last edited:

jogri17

Puritan Board Junior
Also this is not a book by Ratzinger, rather it is one person's interpretation of his thought. And given this is Oxford Press, it seems quite possible that it is a liberal Roman Catholic theologian trying to spin a contested papacy (with real problems) into a more liberal image.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
After looking a little into it, I think the article quoted by Banner is irresponsible.

I didn't look up all the quotes, but did look up this one:

'the proper Christian thing, therefore, is to speak, not of the soul’s immortality, but of the resurrection of the complete human being and of that alone' (p 105).

Ratzinger, in this quote, is characterizing the modern view as it developed. He obviously is not, in this section, advocating the view. This is a major blunder that discredits any other conclusion the author of the article might want to make.

I found it here: Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life - Joseph Ratzinger - Google Books

Thanks Vic.
I will lead them to look at this thread if I can get anyone's attention.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
Roman Catholicism makes a distinction between the ''body'' and the ''flesh'',

Really? That's very interesting, especially in light of typical RC interpretation of John 6:53f (the text says "flesh," but the RC interpretation views this as a eucharistic passage and equates/conflates "body" with "flesh," thereby turning the mass into an eternal life giving sacrament).
 

MAV

Puritan Board Freshman
Dear Vic, Randy and others.
I'm grateful to Randy for drawing attention to the article. I think there is considerable misunderstanding here, however. I'm also a bit saddened by the language here "irresponsible", "major blunder", "discredits any other conclusion..." etc. I hope to get the benefit of the doubt that even if there was an error (which I deny) that it would not be deliberate, which would be very serious indeed.

It centres around this section. "Ratzinger’s book, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, covers, amongst other things, the nature of the resurrection. He notes that the accepted view among modern Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant theologians is that body and soul expire at the point of death and that 'the proper Christian thing, therefore, is to speak, not of the soul’s immortality, but of the resurrection of the complete human being and of that alone' (p 105).

The allegation is that I am saying that Ratzinger is advocating these views here. This is a little strange as I didn't impute those views to Ratzinger directly or state that this quote supports the idea that he advocates this view. I simply said "he notes" that this view has developed. This is a separate point and the thesis of the article does not depend in any way upon this quotation. It simply shows that he is aware of a liberal consensus on this point.

Can I suggest that the friends writing above have misread what is stated? That is understandable as sometimes we tend to scan and skim more on screen than on the page.

kind regards
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
Dear Vic, Randy and others.
I'm grateful to Randy for drawing attention to the article. I think there is considerable misunderstanding here, however. I'm also a bit saddened by the language here "irresponsible", "major blunder", "discredits any other conclusion..." etc. I hope to get the benefit of the doubt that even if there was an error (which I deny) that it would not be deliberate, which would be very serious indeed.

It centres around this section. "Ratzinger’s book, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, covers, amongst other things, the nature of the resurrection. He notes that the accepted view among modern Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant theologians is that body and soul expire at the point of death and that 'the proper Christian thing, therefore, is to speak, not of the soul’s immortality, but of the resurrection of the complete human being and of that alone' (p 105).

The allegation is that I am saying that Ratzinger is advocating these views here. This is a little strange as I didn't impute those views to Ratzinger directly or state that this quote supports the idea that he advocates this view. I simply said "he notes" that this view has developed. This is a separate point and the thesis of the article does not depend in any way upon this quotation. It simply shows that he is aware of a liberal consensus on this point.

Can I suggest that the friends writing above have misread what is stated? That is understandable as sometimes we tend to scan and skim more on screen than on the page.

kind regards

Mr. Vogan, your suggestion looks accurate to me.

I am sorry for my misunderstanding and I own my own "blunder."

This was pointed out to me yesterday, and yesterday I edited my post above indicating my retraction. And I enter my retraction here too.

Again, I regret my shoot-from-the-hip judgment on the passage I looked at, and can offer no explanation other than I did not properly and carefully read what you had said.
 

jogri17

Puritan Board Junior
I am still reading the book presently. I find the book generally helpful (him being Ratzinger). To discuss and interact with liberal views instead of just restating generally pre-formulated views is important in Theological writing. I will reread the article, but given most of us (including myself) all came to the same conclusion, isn't it possible that perhaps the article's thesis wasn't clearly as stated as you may have desired at the very least? I reread the article and I still get the same impression. Graciously in Christ, JPG2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top