Author Topic: The Pope Doesnt believe in the Resurrection of the Body???? (Read 21626 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #285 on:** November 03, 2010, 02:02:14 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: Dawn
Quote from: Alexandria
Quote
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”

Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...

In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?

Not sure if this will help:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “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.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p. 353: “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…”

Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, pp. 357-358: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”

I still would like to know the difference with this line: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”

My thinking is there is no difference except to instill doubt.

They are not even Catholic, I wonder now how God will judge those who know this, checked it out and found it to be true, yet still insist they are popes?

Now if this is all a lie, the vatican should come out and say something, even I am shocked and I don't even believe they are popes.

:stare:

Alexandria · « **Reply #286 on:** November 03, 2010, 02:07:02 PM »

Quote

They are not even Catholic, I wonder now how God will judge those who know this, checked it out and found it to be true, yet still insist they are popes?

[/b]

If He is as you claim He is, there is nothing to worry about now is there?

Belloc · « **Reply #287 on:** November 03, 2010, 02:09:00 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: Dawn
Quote from: Alexandria
Quote
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”

Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...

In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?

Not sure if this will help:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “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.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p. 353: “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…”

Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, pp. 357-358: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”

I still would like to know the difference with this line: “To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons…”

thats what I meant earlier, are they being purposely vague or are they that vague in their thinking?/ if so, that is scarier

:scared2: then being purposely vague..

thanks, too to Myrna, for reviving the old "non-SV are not Catholic" mantra too, for you as usual prove a point and not even trying to!! :applause:

TKGS · « **Reply #288 on:** November 03, 2010, 02:12:19 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”

Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...

In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?

To us, the simple faithful, there may not be a difference between "persons" and "physical bodies". The way Benedict used these words, however, in his book tells us that the terms are entirely different things. The Modernist never defines terms so that they can be understood from one moment to the next.

In Alice in Wonderland, one character, I think it was the Cheshire Cat, noted that words mean exactly what he wants them to mean, no more and no less. (I don't have a printed copy of the book handy so I can't give you the exact quote.) The character goes on to suggest that just because he wanted to use a word to mean one thing today does not preclude him from having a different meaning tomorrow. This confused Alice, but she was in a make-believe land. The problem today is that we live in reality and have people doing exactly the same thing.

What is there not to be confused with?

Alexandria · « **Reply #289 on:** November 03, 2010, 02:15:53 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Alexandria
Quote
“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”

Is there anyone here that has this book that can post the entire paragraph that this quote is from? I would like to read it in context before I say anything. Not that I doubt he would have such ideas...

In the meantime, would someone here please tell me what the difference is between "physical bodies" and "persons". How do you have a "person" without a body?

To us, the simple faithful, there may not be a difference between "persons" and "physical bodies". The way Benedict used these words, however, in his book tells us that the terms are entirely different things. The Modernist never defines terms so that they can be understood from one moment to the next.

In Alice in Wonderland, one character, I think it was the Cheshire Cat, noted that words mean exactly what he wants them to mean, no more and no less. (I don't have a printed copy of the book handy so I can't give you the exact quote.) The character goes on to suggest that just because he wanted to use a word to mean one thing today does not preclude him from having a different meaning tomorrow. This confused Alice, but she was in a make-believe land. The problem today is that we live in reality and have people doing exactly the same thing.

What is there not to be confused with?

Do you happen to know if anyone in the Church ever understood the resurrection of the "body" in this sense before? If not, what gives Benedict the right to change a teaching of the Church as it has always been understood?

If you are now thinking, this lady isn't very bright at all, you would be correct. :tinfoil:

Belloc · « **Reply #290 on:** November 03, 2010, 02:41:46 PM »

far as I know, works like this:

you die and are immediately judged, going to heaven, hell or Purgatory....
your body is planted in ground, vault,etc.

At Christ's return, the just are given new bodies, joined with their immortal souls.
the damned, their souls and bodies, likely those they died with, rotten, diseased infested, arthritic,etc.

Those alive and walking the earth when Christ come back are judged then in General Judgment, as is the race of man in general...the just get their glorified bodies after teh dead get theirs, the evil, same thing, they get what they have....

simple, really and nto sure what mumbo-jumbo b16, et al are saying...

havea friend that has left the Fide, he gets hung up on all these metaphysical, mystic nuances.....right now, troubled over "is hell eternal" and "is the soul naturally immortal vs natural vs naturally immortal"...my response, wh ocares!! hell is eternal, for all time you go there or the opposite direction...who really cares if your sould was eternal prior to your body created or not....I have a soul, it goes on for ever, even after death because God says so...

Him, B16,et al getting that hung up in nuances and trying to wear everythign down to some atomic level, geesh.....

Alexandria · « **Reply #291 on:** November 03, 2010, 02:48:09 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

far as I know, works like this:

you die and are immediately judged, going to heaven, hell or Purgatory....
your body is planted in ground, vault,etc.

At Christ's return, the just are given new bodies, joined with their immortal souls.
the damned, their souls and bodies, likely those they died with, rotten, diseased infested, arthritic,etc.

Those alive and walking the earth when Christ come back are judged then in General Judgment, as is the race of man in general...the just get their glorified bodies after teh dead get theirs, the evil, same thing, they get what they have....

simple, really and nto sure what mumbo-jumbo b16, et al are saying...

havea friend that has left the Fide, he gets hung up on all these metaphysical, mystic nuances.....right now, troubled over "is hell eternal" and "is the soul naturally immortal vs natural vs naturally immortal"...my response, wh ocares!! hell is eternal, for all time you go there or the opposite direction...who really cares if your sould was eternal prior to your body created or not....I have a soul, it goes on for ever, even after death because God says so...

Him, B16,et al getting that hung up in nuances and trying to wear everythign down to some atomic level, geesh.....

Yes, I know all of that as that is what I was taught. What I am asking is whether any Catholic before B16 and the VII debacle ever thought like this.

I agree with you...who cares? Will it make a difference in the end, all of these nuances and distinctions? What is B16's point in doing all of this? Has it helped clarify the faith for anyone? All it does it fog things up all the more. Better to be a simpleton that to be an intellectual, at least that is the conclusion that I have come to.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #292 on:** November 03, 2010, 02:51:46 PM »

Hey Belloc

Quote

thanks, too to Myrna, for reviving the old "non-SV are not Catholic" mantra too, for you as usual prove a point and not even trying to!!

How do you even know what I am trying to do?

Maybe wake YOU up?!

Alexandria · « **Reply #293 on:** November 03, 2010, 03:05:42 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Hey Belloc
Quote
thanks, too to Myrna, for reviving the old "non-SV are not Catholic" mantra too, for you as usual prove a point and not even trying to!!

How do you even know what I am trying to do?

Maybe wake YOU up?!

Belloc, I think she is trying to wake me up! :wink:

Myrna, I would be terrified to be so certain as you are. For a Catholic to be saved, he/she must submit to the Pope. What if there is a chance you are wrong? In order to be so certain, you would have to sit down with Benedict and have a chat with him and ask him pointed questions regarding what he really believes and what he actually meant. I tell you these things as this is what stops me from being a paid up, card carrying sede.

I agree with you, Myrna, that it does not look good for him at all. But I find it very hard to believe that he is doing this with a malicious intent. Only someone controlled by Satan would do a thing like that.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #294 on:** November 03, 2010, 03:36:05 PM »

Alexandria, I am certain because I was taught that one Pope can not contradict a previous Pope in matters of Faith and Morals, and this is what you see over and over with these guys.

Quote

malicious intent. Only someone controlled by Satan would do a thing like that.

You said it!

Dawn · « **Reply #295 on:** November 03, 2010, 04:44:34 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Alexandria, I am certain because I was taught that one Pope can not contradict a previous Pope in matters of Faith and Morals, and this is what you see over and over with these guys.

Quote
malicious intent. Only someone controlled by Satan would do a thing like that.

You said it!

Exactly right Alexandria. Souls are being lost. I for one would love the opportunity to get to Rome.

Alexandria · « **Reply #296 on:** November 03, 2010, 04:48:44 PM »

Quote from: Dawn

Quote from: MyrnaM
Alexandria, I am certain because I was taught that one Pope can not contradict a previous Pope in matters of Faith and Morals, and this is what you see over and over with these guys.

Quote
malicious intent. Only someone controlled by Satan would do a thing like that.

You said it!

Exactly right Alexandria. Souls are being lost. I for one would love the opportunity to get to Rome.

So neither one of you even entertains the possibility that you may be wrong? You are that certain?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #297 on:** November 03, 2010, 04:55:12 PM »

I can only speak for myself, and I feel for Catholics that are uncertain.

The Catholic church was never meant to be complicated.

One doctrine flows into another, and when you know your catechism you can see that. This is why I love to study catechism, it isn't suppose to be ambiguous where words can change with the wind. The Chuch is absolute! This is absolutely wrong, this is absolutely right.

TKGS · « **Reply #298 on:** November 03, 2010, 05:03:08 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Do you happen to know if anyone in the Church ever understood the resurrection of the "body" in this sense before? If not, what gives Benedict the right to change a teaching of the Church as it has always been understood?

If you are now thinking, this lady isn't very bright at all, you would be correct. :tinfoil:

I, personally, do know know if anyone in the church ever understood the resurrection of the "body" in the sense that Benedict understands it. Of course, the fact that I do not know has absolutely no standing as I am not a theologian and could not read the works of most theologians because they didn't write in modern English.

What I do know is that it seems very clear that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is pretty straight forward in all the old catechisms and in all pre-Vatican II Church docuмents to which I have access.

I also know that Benedict XVI has violated the Oath Against Modernism by proclaiming a teaching of the Church in a way inconsistent with the way the Church has previously understood it.

On an unrelated note, I am absolutely dumbfounded that someone has taken such offense to my comments on this topic as to "ignore" my comments. I cannot see how this ignore function belongs on a Catholic forum. If what I say does not have merit, then one need not heed them and if one knows a good counter-argument, the Catholic thing to do is to make that argument so that I do not continue in ignorance. Individuals who exercise the ignore function are modern-day Pilates who simply wash their hands of people who cause them some discomfort and just walk away. Such an attitude is very disquieting.

Alexandria · « **Reply #299 on:** November 03, 2010, 05:10:10 PM »

Quote

On an unrelated note, I am absolutely dumbfounded that someone has taken such offense to my comments on this topic as to "ignore" my comments. I cannot see how this ignore function belongs on a Catholic forum. If what I say does not have merit, then one need not heed them and if one knows a good counter-argument, the Catholic thing to do is to make that argument so that I do not continue in ignorance. Individuals who exercise the ignore function are modern-day Pilates who simply wash their hands of people who cause them some discomfort and just walk away. Such an attitude is very disquieting.

[/b]

Not to :sign-thread-hijacked:, but there is one member who made it quite clear a few months ago that he would put everyone whom he suspected of being a sede on ignore. That may be the source of yours.