I will answer. No, this is not just  a Protestant Newspaper twisting the words of Benedict. Yes, Benedict believes exactly that as I posted earlier in this thread in direct opposition of Church teaching.

There are many other things Benedict holds to be true that are in direct contrast to what Holy Mother Church holds to be true.

 

I originally posted this because I do want to know what is really happening.  I also recognize that the Church, throughout Her history, has been led by less the exemplary men.  God has an amazing ability to use what is perceived as evil for something very good.  

I know that the current Pope was heavily influenced by many people.  I know also that he was a very young man at the time.  What I want to understand is two-fold:

Did he indeed write these words about the Resurrection of the Body?  And, if so, does he still believe this to be true?

If he does, does his personal opinion/belief/theology directly affect the Church?  Or is the Church, designed by God, always protected from the personal ideologies of men, including the Pope?

The Pope is not the Church, but he is the Visible Head of the Church.  How do his public opinions and actions affect us, the Church Militant?  What can we do besides pray?

I have NO interest in discussing the Sede vs. SSPX issue.  While I do not support the Sede argument for various reasons, I can understand that argument and I can appreciate the views of those who hold it.  

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, ex cathedra: “…all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear…” (Denz. 429)

 

Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, ex cathedra: “The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will be brought together with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds.” (Denz. 464)

 

Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, Jan. 29, 1336, ex cathedra: “Moreover, we declare that… all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ…” (Denz. 531)

 

Benedict XVI denies this dogma in his book Introduction to Christianity ( see the quotes from his book above) by teaching that St. Paul doesn’t teach the resurrection of physical bodies, and that the resurrection does not consist in the restoration of bodies.

This is as of 2004. Maybe you can show me where he corrected himself publicly for this error that was written in his book.

I wish I could find his quote since becoming pope where he said point blank that he hasn't changed since his suit and tie days of Vatican II.  

Quote

Let's be real here. Is the SSPX were negotiating with Rome, they would already have worked out a deal like the FSSP.

How is that a logical assumption to make?

Quote

Just because the SSPX is in talks with them does not mean they are negotiating.

Except one can see the effects of the SSPX's new attitude at the local chapter.  A catechism class devoted to defending the conciliar priests against the abuse charges - for example.

Quote

It's nothing more than a false rumor put out by a bunch of extreme sedes or extremists. They are trying to convert Rome.

What about the dinoscopus entry quoted here:

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=12467&f=9&min=0&num=20

1.- The SSPX has been in talks for some time now. Don't you think that if they were negotiating, they would have already bought in to some agreement thrown out by Rome? When negotiating with Rome, their stance is pretty simple. "You have either this option or the other, take your pick." That's usually how it is.

2.- Those catechism classes mean nothing in this particular discussion. Who really expected the SSPX to be just as good if not better without LeFebvre?

3.- Still not buying it. I think some of the extreme sedes went overboard when they first heard that the SSPX was in talks with Rome.

1.- The SSPX has been in talks for some time now. Don't you think that if they were negotiating, they would have already bought in to some agreement thrown out by Rome? When negotiating with Rome, their stance is pretty simple. "You have either this option or the other, take your pick." That's usually how it is.

It is not logical to assume they would have come to an agreement already.  We can say that the excommunications have been lifted and there is some shift in society rhetoric.

2.- Those catechism classes mean nothing in this particular discussion. Who really expected the SSPX to be just as good if not better without LeFebvre?

No, they have to do with the attitude that the society wants sspx goers to have towards the conciliar bishops: ie to defend them against the accusations in the abuse scandal.  

3.- Still not buying it. I think some of the extreme sedes went overboard when they first heard that the SSPX was in talks with Rome.

Not buying what? You said:

It's nothing more than a false rumor put out by a bunch of extreme sedes or extremists.

I showed you that it isn't just extreme sedes talking about it.  

You know it's rather amusing, many sspx priests and bishops are accused by NO types of being crypto-sedes.  Maybe the moment they are no longer in favor this will be a way to banish them, by suddenly discovering they must be sedes because they are saying the same things the society has always said, and you couldn't say those things without really being a sede.

The SSPX actually has plenty of sedevacanists. The ones who are sede may not come out and admit it publicly, but there are indeed sedes in the Society. And when has the SSPX ever wanted priests to accept the abuse scandals going on in the Vatican II church? Please explain that, Tele.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is false. You have to be pertinacious in your heresy to be automatically excommunicated. An accidental heretic is still within the Church.

If these quotes are not appropriate let me know.  Firstly, I don't know what an "accidental heretic" is.  Nor, do I understand what "pertinacious" heresy is.
If you have a dogmatic pronouncement explaining them it would be helpful.

Here are some quotes to illustrate that a heretic is outside the church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441:
"Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
"No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single heresy he is not a Catholic."

from:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Sedevacantism_Refuted.html

My understanding is that even if you don't know you are a heretic, you can still be a heretic.  Its like if I didn't know I had to be baptized to be saved, I still wouldn't be saved.  In orer to not be a heretic you have to know what you need to know to be saved.  

Am I wrong?