Hah. That's a laugh and a half. When I answer in some depth, I get a trite (and crude!) three word response. A more brief reply is called "non-responsive".

Honest debate requires making responses that are to the point.  What is the "hermeneutic of continuity" in the mind of Benedict XVI?  It's obvious that it is a totally unorthodox conception of the Catholic religion.  He shows he is willing to deny the fundamentals of the Creed and is knavish enough to deny the Church ever taught differently!  That is his "continuity."  

To respond with quotes from the cathechism is just to try to brush aside and ignore what is posted.

Listen, Guest, you bring up such a multitude of different matters, Christology, Resurrection, even the Atonement, then historical veracity, and make all sorts of claims, am I supposed to reply to them all, especially when you seem more interested in a personal bout than in a reasoned theological discussion?

Yes, there's a mountain of evidence as to how Benedict XVI really sees things.  And there is no way to honestly respond to it without admitting that's how he really sees things.

So yes, your side can't and won't answer these questions, because your side is completely wrong.

And I would say, to deny Benedict XVI is a modernist is a sign of dishonesty, particularly for someone well informed on traditional matters.

I gave you the answer about the Resurrection already.

You explained that he really meant that physical bodies are r e s t o r e d, he just said they weren't?  

[Like the Church Fathers, even the greatest of them, when they are treating of a pagan and heretical view with the intention of trying to refute it,

That is a patently absurd explanation, and a ridiculous comparison, to compare Benedict XVI to the Church fathers, to say he doesn't know the significance of saying bodies aren't raised?

it is quite possible and has often happened that they themselves mis-speak, or describe the matter inaccurately,

No, it's not possible to make such an error and not correct it.  Either you believe the physical body is restored or you are denying a truly physical restoration.  There is no middle ground.

sometimes it even happened in the early Church with such doctrines as the Trinity and the Incarnation. The Church does not regard this as serious, though, because it is clear they were well intentioned but mistaken. I think it is quite possible the Holy Father made a similar mistake in speaking somewhat imprecisely.

There is absolutely no analogy.  It's positively ridiculous, and flagrantly dishonest to deny Benedict XVI is a modernist.  

Pope Benedict XVI is attempting to confute several different views in his book, some pagan and some heretical, one which held that the soul sleeps after death, another which opined that the body would not be transformed and glorified, and finally one more which only admits the eternality of the soul separate from the body. Against these views, he writes,

Over against the theories sketched out in the opening section of this chapter, we were able to show that the idea of a resurrection taking place in the moment of death is not well-founded, either in logic or in the Bible.  We saw that the Church's own form of the doctrine of immortality was developed in a consistent manner from the resources of the biblical heritage, and is indispensible on grounds of both tradition and philosophy. But that leaves the other side of the question still unanswered: what, then, about the resurrection of the dead?  [...] Such questions make us realize that, despite their contrary starting points, the modern theories we have met seek to avoid not so much the immortality of the soul as the resurrection, now as always the real scandal to the intellectuals.  To this extent, modern theology is closer to the Greeks than it cares to recognize.

...

Immortality as conceived by the Bible proceeds, not from the intrinsic power of what is in itself indestructible, but from being drawn into the dialogue with the Creator; that is why it must be called awakening.  Because the Creator intends, not just the soul, but the man physically existing in the midst of history and gives him immortality, it must be called “awakening of the dead” = “of men”.  It should be noted here that even in the formula of the Creed, which speaks of the “resurrection of the body”, the word “body” means in effect “the world of man” (in the sense of bibilical expressions like “all flesh will see God's salvation”, and so on); even here the word is not meant in the sense of a corporality isolated from the soul.

The intellectuals now regard the resurrection as a "scandal"?  Which ones?  Certainly none who are Christians.

The whole passage is simply modernist speak.  Immortality is not indestructability, but rather something that comes from dialogue.  Man existing in history receives "immortality" - which is not an intrinsic power of being indestructable?  The "body" in the Creed, is actually a reference to the world as a whole!  Not in the sense of a corporality isolated from the soul, that means, simply, not as a body!

He says the body is glorified before the soul is reunited with it, as St.Paul says it is "raised a spiritual body" with imperishability as Christ's was, so it must not be conceived that the body returns merely to its natural life untransformed which is what he means about restoration as such. I admit some terms are impreciseand awkardly used here and there, unlike in the Catechism which quotes various sources from Scripture and Tradition, and is more easily understandable.

That he is using modernist speak any good-willed intelligent, slightly learned person should be able to recognize.

If Pope Benedict XVI really denied the resurrection, either the Catechism he approved or the doctrinal discussions would have brought it up.

He's changed all the meanings of the words.  That he repeats the formula with a totally subjective meaning does not mean he holds to the Resurrection of the body.

I doubt from your tone you are as much interested in having a serious examination of the problems from the last Council as much as in having a go at "neotrads", Rorate caeli, me or whoever else it is. Do spare me from that game if that is your intention.

Neotrads and modernists are not interested in honest debate or serious discussion.

The very idea that someone can come onto an SSPX forum and deny Benedict XVI is a modernist is patently absurd.  It strongly suggests bad-will.

Pope Pius XII's Encyclical established some parameters for Biblical studies after the Commission and it is this that Pope Benedict XVI refers to.

I'm certain I could mulitply the quotes which show Benedict XVI rejecting the Gospels as an historical account:

“An extension of Mark’s ochlos, with fateful consequences, is found in Matthew’s account (27:25), which speaks of ‘all the people’ and attributes to them the demand for Jesus’ crucifixion.  Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here: How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus’ death?  It seems obvious that the historical reality is correctly described in John’s account and in Mark’s.”

Now the reality is Benedict XVI does not treat the Gospels as history in any of his writings.

 

As for the veracity of the Gospels and similar matters, it is well known Dei Verbum says, "The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day"

This description could easily allow all of Benedict XVI's modernism through the cracks.  You can't prove Vatican II is not modernist by quoting such things.  There are plenty of ways to hold to this statement while getting around the interpretation most people would give to it.  The simple fact is that the

On the 100th anniversary of the Commission you mention, Pope Benedict XVI once more reiterated,

"The opinion that faith as such knows absolutely nothing of historical facts and must leave all of this to historians is Gnosticism: this opinion disembodies the faith and reduces it to pure idea. The reality of events is necessary precisely because the faith is founded on the Bible. A God who cannot intervene in history and reveal Himself in it is not the God of the Bible. In this way the reality of the birth of Jesus by the Virgin Mary, the effective institution of the Eucharist by Jesus at the Last Supper, his bodily resurrection from the dead - this is the meaning of the empty tomb - are elements of the faith as such, which it can and must defend against an only presumably superior historical knowledge."

You cannot prove Benedict XVI holds orthodox views by taking these quotations, which any modernist can easily parrot while not actually meaning what they say.  To say Faith knows nothing of historical facts - that is a straw man.  A God who cannot reveal himself - another strawman.  Benedict XVI can recite the Creed, it means nothing from his lips because he's shown that his view of what words mean is totally subjective.

That Jesus - in all that is essential - was effectively who the Gospels reveal him to be to us is not mere historical conjecture, but a fact of faith. Objections which seek to convince us to the contrary are not the expression of an effective scientific knowledge, but are an arbitrary over-evaluation of the method.

"Historical conjecture" - another straw man for the modernist.  The modernist doesn't doubt Christ was a man.

To understand Chrstology, you must understand a doctrine called theosis. This is a traditional Christian doctrine, described by St.Athanasius, St.Thomas Aquinas, the Roman liturgy and even in Scripture by St.Paul, St.Peter and Our Lord Himself but not very widely known among Catholics. Do you? If so, you will see the meaning of what Pope Benedict XVI said in that respect.

I understand that you are not interested in good faithed discussion.

You brush over the FACTS of what Benedict XVI REALLY believes.  His MODERNISM is a FACT.

And then you put yourself up as some sort of expert, introduce a new term, claim other people don't understand what the Catholic Faith teaches.

Well, I understand Benedict XVI well enough, and I understand that people who defend him who claim to be educated traditionalists are BAD-WILLED.

I gave you the answer about the Resurrection already.

Just to re-emphasize the point one more time: this guy didn't answer anything.

He makes excuses, compares Benedict XVI stating that  to Church fathers.  It's would be a joke if it weren't so pernicious.

The following is a statement of pure modernism:

"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.”

 . . .

"The foregoing reflections may have clarified to some extent what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval"

. . .

“To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”

This is not a mistake.  This is not something to compare to the Church Fathers unclear ways of speaking.

To pretend this is not the denial of the resurrection of the body is simply to lie, which is what modernism and the neo-SSPX is about: lying.  As Cardinal Siri said, the problem is the Eighth Commandment.

And we need to be unafraid to call these people liars, to their face, because that's what they are.

Mr Guest, firstly, please calm down. Do you really want an open discussion or do you want to continue this polemical exchange? You cannot have both.

The intellectuals now regard the resurrection as a "scandal"?  Which ones?

The ones he is refuting. Have you read the book yourself?

Note that he said immortality is not intrinsic to the body, but is something given to it immediately by God.

At very, very best, the Pope is mistaken in his personal writings. I've already quoted both the new Catechism and the text of the Council on historical reliability, yet you continuously insist that this is the issue, thereby distracting from the actual matters at stake.

Since you cast so many needless aspersions, let me reply. Doctrinal orthodoxy and traditional orthopraxis to me, and to the Indult groups, the FSSP the ICK and many in the SSPX means and has always meant to believe and to practice what the Church has always taught and always done - it does not mean to resort to novel theories about jurisdiction and apostolicity nor to conduct garage conclaves to replace "Father Ratzinger" with a do-it-yourself Pope of our own which was also not Archbishop Lefebvre's position - and it does not at all consist simply in asserting as dogmatic fact that the Successor of Peter, the Pope is a modernist and a formal heretic, sorry.

Pope Benedict XVI has had a somewhat tumultous career where he has not been totally immune to the dreadful influence of his peers but has repudiated some of his former colleagues and since the Holy Ghost chose him for the Apostolic See, many orthodox and traditional Catholics can and in fact do presume his good will. To do otherwise many have discovered is a dead end, both personally and in one's own spiritual life, and for the Church as well.

We respect Archbishop Lefebvre more than you will ever know, it is only on the matter of the 1988 preamble and its provisions which he originally considered seriously and which St.Peter's eventually signed, that we disagree. Despite such disagreement, which even exists among other traditional Catholics, if you think we don't take doctrine seriously, you don't know us at all. I'd suggest you read, speak or listen to FSSP priests in particular, when you can, and see if you still think that.

The simple fact that you call theosis a new term may suggest you should tread more carefully on such an important matter like Christology, and at least that further study may be warranted before you accuse the Pope of being culpable for modernism. Might it not? The book was not written for a lay audience, but for an audience with some theological competence.

I am more interested in what lay faithful around the world will believe, which is why I cited the new Catechism, which is obviously more important from that perspective. Also the four matters I mentioned earlier, these are most important for the future of the Church as the SSPX theologians well knows and to whom immense credit is due for bringing it up with the Roman authorities.

It is the ancient and traditional truth of theosis that is the doctrine Pope Benedict XVI is describing in the portion that is criticized, it is not the heretical and modernist notion of man apart from God. If that is not apparent to you, do read up on theosis. You owe that to yourself and it can be done in all of a few minutes, you will see how it relates to the Incarnation and what it has meant for man in union in Christ.

Listen, your emotional reaction is altogether disproportionate to anything I have said. I do not see why you wish to be angry. I'm not at all interested in meaningless polemics carried out for their own sake, but I take the faith very seriously in my personal life and am ready to discuss anything related to that, though you already seem to believe anyone who disagrees with you is bad willed as a consequence of your own position so that is up to you. Nor do I use anonymity on a forum, which is not really such anyway, as a cover for rudeness. Anyway, I doubt you would speak to me if we met in real life as you have here. I wish you the best.

The simple fact that you call theosis a new term may suggest you should tread more carefully on such an important matter like Christology, and at least that further study may be warranted before you accuse the Pope of being culpable for modernism. Might it not? The book was not written for a lay audience, but for an audience with some theological competence.

I've heard the term theosis before.  That you introduce it as some sort of mysterious explanation for the Pope's denial that St. Paul means that physical bodies are r e s t o r e d is pure garbage.

It is just a refuge in obscurity, the same garbage you tried before.

It doesn't take any theological competence to know that Catholics believe the physical body is r e s t o r e d.  

It doesn't take any theological competence to see that Benedict says St. Paul doesn't assert bodies are r e s t o r e d

That's the bottom line - that is the whole issue.

I did not speak of theosis with regard to the Resurrection, but with regard to Christology in reply to what was said in the link you had given. This is what I mean when I say you've begun so many different matters now that it's almost impossible to keep track of them all - it was the Resurrection, then the Atonement, then the historicity of the Gospels and much else.

It's all really one matter.  As St. Paul said, if there is no resurrection of the body, then Christ is not raised.

I've already explained how I read what he wrote, and yes, I have read the passage in question, and no, I can't see how it could possibly be interpreted in an orthodox manner.

Here's how a Protestant interprets it:

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).

Ratzinger could not be more explicit about his interpretation of 'the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection'. He says that 'their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval; their aim is to tell men that they, they themselves, live on . . . because they are known and loved by God in a way that they can no longer perish . . . the essential part of man, the person, remains . . . it goes on existing because it lives in God’s memory' (p 243).[/b]

The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Given the connection that Scripture makes between the resurrection of Christ and that of his people (1 Cor. 15:15; 1 Cor. 6:14), we might wonder how such views affect Ratzinger’s theology of the resurrection of Christ. Certainly, he dismisses an 'earthly and material notion of resurrection' and resists defining it as a real historical event.11 'The Resurrection cannot be an historical event in the same sense as the Crucifixion is', he says. 'For that matter, there is no account that depicts it as such, nor is it circuмscribed in time otherwise than by the eschatological-symbolical expression "the third day".'12

Ratzinger brushes aside all attempts to verify the resurrection as a historical event and asserts that it was really a matter of personal experience. Christ is 'the one who died on the cross and to the eye of faith, rose again from the dead'.13 How far this is from the biblical truth of passages such as John 20:27: 'Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing'. What a contrast with the clear and faithful summary provided in the Westminster Confession: 'On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered' (8:4).

I answered the point about "restoration" - He says the body is glorified before the soul is reunited with it, as St.Paul says it is "raised a spiritual body" with imperishability as Christ's was, so it must not be conceived that the body returns merely to its natural life untransformed which is what he means about restoration as such.

A Catholic cannot deny the physical body is raised.  

He said that God gives man immortality, not only his soul but his body as well, by which he distinguishes this from for example a mere raising as Lazarus had which was only a restoration to his natural life.

That cannot explain what he said.

I'll just note as even you say your quote is from an "Evangelical" (i.e. heretical) Protestant whose purpose in writing the article was the factor of prominent "Evangelicals" in recent years turning to Rome. I'll deal with what it says if you want, but do you really think this is a source you can trust to be objective?

I said he was a Protestant.  Yes, I can read as well as he can, but I thought it was a very good description of what the text says.

The phrase this thread is about, is a lie.