Touch question about Ratzinger


#1

I know that this is a obscure question.

What was Ratzinger’s position on Resurrection in his book Introduction to Christianity?

THANKS!


#2

Here is a long excerpt where you can read it for yourself: ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/ratzinger_resurrectionitc_mar07.asp

If you read it, let us know if you have any questions.


#3

Didn’t you just ask a question almost identical to this? :confused:


#4

No.

I asked what was Ratzinger’s teaching about the Resurrection of the body.

I have carefully studied *Introduction to Christianity.

*I come away with he teaching the rising of the dead is by *zoe.

*The incorruptible cannot inherit the resurrection.

Thus I am confused.

I want to be really, really, really careful and accurate.

THANKS!!!


#5

What he is saying is that when we rise from the dead we become incorruptible. Yes, the rising of the dead is by zoe (life!), precisely because God is life. Christ’s overcoming death by rising to new life fully incorporates humanity into God, completing the Incarnation. The corruptible bios becomes incorruptible, entering into the Eternal Incorruptible.

Help?

BTW, hopefully you’re enjoying his Introduction to Christianity. It’s a great book, isn’t it? :slight_smile:


#6

I have read it about five times.

I have pulled many notes; I have pulled too many notes.

You are a great help.

I apologize for my questions, but it is really, really tough for me to get all that he is writing.

THANKS!


#7

What he is saying is that when we rise from the dead we become incorruptible. Yes, the rising of the dead is by zoe (life!), precisely because God is life. Christ’s overcoming death by rising to new life fully incorporates humanity into God, completing the Incarnation. The corruptible bios becomes incorruptible, entering into the Eternal Incorruptible.

This is great! From where did you get this!

THANKS!!!


#8

CrossofChrist

Is Ratzinger saying that the body’s resurrection is going to be caused by zoe and not by bios, but that the body that is buried, burned or eaten will be resurrected, reassembled, or something like that?

THANKS!

I hope and pray that you accept my limited abilities.


#9

I think he’s saying that our bodies won’t return to their natural state as they are in right now (bios). What they will be like is impossible to say right now.

He’s a little vague in his Introduction to Christianity about the resurrection of the body, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which he is largely responsible for) provides a little more detail as to what will happen, including whether we get our bodies back (yes). Ratzinger is more trying to explain how the resurrection isn’t as mythological as it can be made out to be.


#10

I pieced it together from what I’ve picked up from reading Ratzinger, the Bible, and other random stuff.


#11

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081105_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060415_veglia-pasquale_en.html


#12

The corruptible bios is corrected with a firmware update. :smiley:


#13

To recapitulate, Paul teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but the resurrection of the persons, and this not in the return of the “fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea which 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. Life has always come from the call of the Lord If the cosmos is history and If matter represents a moment in the history in the history of spirit, Then there is no such thing as an eternal, neutral combination of matter and spirit but a final “complexity” in which the world finds it omega and unity.
In that case there is a final connection between matter and spirit in which the destiny of man and of the world is consummated, even if it is impossible for us today to define the nature of this connection.


#14

I think your explanation of this needs some clarification. First, you seem to have accidentally misquoted the Scripture to make it say the opposite of what it actually says. The real text says, “For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.” Your version seems to say the opposite: “the perishable cannot become imperishable” versus “this perishable nature must put on the imperishable.”

Second, the Catechism says our original mortal bodies will really be resurrected and made imperishable. It says this in CCC 989-990: CCC 989 “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.”

990 The term “flesh” refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality. The “resurrection of the flesh” (the literal formulation of the Apostles’ Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our “mortal body” will come to life again. I think what you are talking about is the fact that the mortal body will be changed: CCC 999 Christ will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, into a spiritual body: “But someone will ask, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?’ You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel. … What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. … The dead will be raised imperishable. … For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.” (CCC 999, some internal quote-marks omitted) If that’s what you mean by saying we won’t be resurrected in our “physical bodies,” then I’m on board with you 100%. :thumbsup: But your post was a little confusing on that point (at least to me), and I think your quotation of that Scripture was accidentally a little messed-up.


#15

Probably.

I was typing and it was rather late for me.

I was quoting or trying to quote directly from Benedict’s book from the 1968.

Those are not my words. They are his at the end of his work. I must have been to sleepy to do it correctly.

THANKS!


#16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.