His definition is both strange and ambiguous. “Resurrection”, he writes, “expresses the idea that the immortality of man can exist and be thought of only in the fellowship of men” (p 172). The doctrine, he claims, creates a “curious dilemma” (p 238) because modern liberal theologians no longer believe that body and soul can be identified as separate entities, something that Ratzinger dismisses, together with the immortality of the soul, as a Greek notion which has “become obsolete” (p 241).

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”.10

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).

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).

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).

It is alarming to think of the extent of the heresies held by those who have authority within the bounds of Rome if Ratzinger is to be considered conservative.

I'll probably get banned for asking this question, but here goes.

How can some still believe he is a true pope?

A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.

Quote from: CathMomof7

 But did Our Lord not promise us that it could never be destroyed and that we would never lose the Church?  

Sure. But if there is no pope for a period, that does not mean the Church is destroyed.

The pope is not the Church.

By that same token, we can have a bad Pope for a period and it does not mean the Church is destroyed.

I only know that I am convinced that Benedict XVI cannot be the pope of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.