"Ratzinger flatly denies the fundamental biblical truth of the resurrection..."

Status
Not open for further replies.

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
"The true doctrine of the resurrection of the body.
Ratzinger flatly denies the fundamental biblical truth of the resurrection of the body, erring in not knowing 'the Scriptures, nor the power of God' (Matt. 22:29).14 It is a grave heresy, whose tendency is to 'overthrow the faith of some' (2 Tim. 2:18). It is evident from Scripture that the body that will be resurrected can be said to be the very same body that we now possess: 'this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality' (1 Cor. 15:53). 'He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you' (Rom. 8:11). What is presently 'our vile body' shall be changed and made like to the glorious body of Christ (Phil. 3:21).15 This is well summarised by the Westminster Confession: 'All the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls for ever' (32:2)."



Banner of Truth Trust General Articles
 

Theoretical

Puritan Board Professor
That does indeed smack of good ol' liberalism if those quotes are taken accurately. If these are indeed his views, then talk about a "non-conservative" Pope.
 

SolaGratia

Puritan Board Junior
"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)."
 

EricP

Puritan Board Freshman
He wrote that a long time (1990, elected pope in 2005) before becoming pope, so clearly not ex cathedra. I've said many things in my life I've had to retract or otherwise go back on--I sure can't speak for the pope, but I'd be careful tarring him with a 15 year old brush!
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
Gil,

You mean that Ratz is more like . . .

PopeBenedict.jpg


instead of like this . . .

Benedict.jpg


????

:wow:

Despite all of the popularity associated with "Rodney King" "making nice" with theological differences (e.g., ECT), R.C. Sproul has taken a lot of heat for standing firm against compromise with Rome over justification. It is erven sadder if Benedict weasels over the resurrection too.

Benedict would probably be greatly offended that anyone would accuse him of disbelieving in the resurrection. As they say, the "devil is in the details." Wasn't it Machen who demonstrated (nearly a century ago) that when dealing with modernism, the vocabulary may be the same but the dictionary is decidedly different!

Or, as Inigo Montoya of Princess Bride would say to Ratzinger's claim to believe in the resurrection . . . "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
 
Last edited:

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
That was a very enlightening article! And as to Eric's comment, his comments may have been 15 years old at the time, but Ratzinger was no novice! Far from it. He was a seasoned Roman Catholic theologian and a Cardinal of all things! He knew exactly what he was saying and I doubt much has changed in his thinking since then.
 

EricP

Puritan Board Freshman
I'd fully agree, Pastor Sheffield! I'm not Catholic, but I have seen (for example, if I remember right, Pope JPII and his stance on Vatican II) those who are elected pope tending to fall in line with much of the teaching of the RCC--and traditionally (an important word, to be sure, in the RCC!) Rome has been pretty definite on bodily resurrection. Whether or not Benedict will work to steer the RCC in the direction of his writings as Cardinal remains to be seen--it would seem that his hands are pretty full right now with the abuse scandals and etc.
 

Elimelek

Puritan Board Freshman
Dear Friends

I suspect that Pope Benedict XVI has bigger problems that might threatens his papacy, than what he wrote when he was a cardinal. The idea I have of him is that he is more "traditional" and "conservative" in doctrine since he became pope.

Here is an editorial cartoon I draw for the NG Kerk (Dutch Reformed Church's) newspaper, Kerkbode.View attachment 1943
 

EricP

Puritan Board Freshman
Not to be a hapless Luddite, but I can't seem to get a larger view of the cartoon! Any advice, anyone?
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
I don't get the cartoon. I'm not sure or altogether ignorant of the figures depicted on Britain. I'm also confused by the personages emitting like smoke from the pope's censor.
 

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
I have often wondered how much any recent popes have actually believed anything. Ratzinger, as a professional dogmatic theologian, could well simply be playing with words, seeing in what different ways they fit together, but with no commitment. No doubt many of them have valued religious experiences of the transcendent, or the sobriety of penitence. But really institutional religion, commitment to the political entity that is Roman Catholicism, and a desire to maintain and advance the organization can probably account for nine tenths of the devotion displayed (the same is true, of course, for those in Protestant denominations).
 

dudley

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I have often wondered how much any recent popes have actually believed anything. Ratzinger, as a professional dogmatic theologian, could well simply be playing with words, seeing in what different ways they fit together, but with no commitment. No doubt many of them have valued religious experiences of the transcendent, or the sobriety of penitence. But really institutional religion, commitment to the political entity that is Roman Catholicism, and a desire to maintain and advance the organization can probably account for nine tenths of the devotion displayed (the same is true, of course, for those in Protestant denominations).

Ruben I would agree with you that “really institutional religion, commitment to the political entity that is Roman Catholicism, and a desire to maintain and advance the organization can probably account for nine tenths of the devotion displayed “ However I do not think that is as strong an element among Protestant churches.

I would also add for Gil that what Ratzinger said was not an infallible statement. Even as a pope he is giving an encyclical, a teaching for this time only. The doctrine of Papal infallibility was only used twice both by Pius XII in the 1950’s when he proclaimed RC doctrine of the Immaculate conception and the assumption, both which have no biblical support and why we as Protestants reject both teachings as truth.

Gil as a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian I believe what the HEIDELBERG CATECHISM says:Question. 57. What comfort doth the “resurrection of the body” afford thee?
Answer. That not only my soul, after this life, shall be immediately taken up to Christ, its head, but also that this my body, being raised, by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul, and made like unto the glorious body of Christ!

I initially left the Roman Catholic church because of Joseph Ratzinger and the likes of him who have hijacked the intended reforms of Vatican II. I have said before there are 15 million ex Roman Catholics like me in the United Sates who are now Protestants and there are 414 ex roman catholic priests in the US who are now Protestant ministers. Most of us left in the last 20 years or less.

I believe there is nothing outrageous in believing that all true Christians are justified by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone and that the Bible is our only source of authority. To challenge these twin pillars of Christian faith is to challenge the heart of the Gospel. Those who set aside these basic Christian tenets are themselves ‘outrageous’ and stand against the Gospel.

My studies on the Protestant Reformation allowed me to discover and experience the salvation of the Bible, not the salvation of Romanism and as the result of that salvation I embraced and proclaimed Protestantism and the reformed theology of Calvin and became a Presbyterian. To that extent I renounce Roman Catholicism and her pope. I think more Protestants should. If ever a system was antichrist it is the system of Roman Catholicism, and it will prove to be such in the end.

"Renouncing the Pope and the teachings of the Catholic church is an anti-Catholic stance. That's what it means…to be against their teachings." I am anti Roman Catholicism as were all the reformers I renounce and protest all her false teachings as all Protestants should. We protest the heresies and proclaim the true Gospel of Christ. I am often criticized for openly renouncing Roman Catholicism and her pope.

Calvin passionately sought for the restoration of the Church Catholic of the Apostles and the Fathers, I wish more Presbyterians laid hold of this. That Reformed Protestantism is the restoration of and old religion not the innovation of a new religion. I think our greatest fault as Protestants today is that we are not connected with the ancient faith as Calvin was.

I believe Presbyterianism and Reformed Protestantism is the restoration of the ancient faith of the true Christian church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles. I renounce the papist Roman teachings which continue to be apostasy and corrupt the Gospel and the truth of the scriptures.

We are the heirs of the ancient and true faith. I renounce the pope and Roman Catholicism as did Calvin and all the reformers. I wish more Protestants would understand and accept this fact. I sometimes think that I have found that more ex Roman Catholics like myself who have become Reformed Protestants do understand that fact better than many cradle Protestants.
 
Last edited:

Elimelek

Puritan Board Freshman
With the pope's visit to Britain some atheists and other academics, I think 40, most knighted protested very vocally Benedict's official visit. One of the biggest issues the pope is facing is the way in which the Roman Catholic Church and even himself dealt with the pedophilia of some celibate Roman Catholic priests. From the Netherland's there were new cries for him to step down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top