Apostles Creed confusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kindnessmatters
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kindnessmatters

Guest
I am curious about a line in the Apostles Creed which stands out to me during the rosary, where it says Jesus descended in to hell at the time of his crucification, then rose on the third day and ascended into heaven.

Why would Jesus have descended into hell at all?
 
To lead the Saints of the Old Testament out of Abraham’s Bosom. The word “Hell” doesn’t quite describe the place Jesus descended to correctly when using it in the modern sense as the Hell of the dammed souls.

I tend to think of it more like the first circle of Dante’s Inferno where the virtuous pagans were damned to. Not a place of suffering so much as a place without hope.
 
The original phrasing was apparently ad infernos, which means under the earth, roughly equivalent to was buried in the Nicene Creed. It was part of the sequence in the creed, when Jesus came down, was buried, rose, ascended and will come again.

Around the 4th century the language shifted to ad inferna, or into Hell. This was accompanied by speculation about what happened to people who died before Christ came. The Sabbath rest in the tomb was recast as redeeming the ancestors to join us in the Resurrection.

Martin Connell has an article with more insight.
 
The way it was explained to me, the word “hell” is, today, used to mean exclusively, the place of the damned. But in antiquity, and this is an ancient prayer to which you are referring, the word “hell” had a wider meaning. It used to mean, the place where all the souls, good and evil, were gathered when they died.

If you look up other versions of the Apostles Creed, you’ll see that some say, “He descended to the dead”.

Anyway, Jesus descended to that place in order to gather the righteous souls of the Old Testament Hebrews. This is how Scripture describes the situation:

1 Pet 3: 18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,
19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:

Hebrews 9:15 And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions, which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

See also, Hebrews 11, to see the names of many of the Hebrews who were led out of the place of the dead, by Jesus.
 
Thank you. I figured as much but several searches revealed no results.
 
Kindnessmatters said:
I am curious about a line in the Apostles Creed which stands out to me during the rosary, where it says Jesus descended in to hell at the time of his crucification, then rose on the third day and ascended into heaven.

Why would Jesus have descended into hell at all?
Click to expand...
The apostle’s creed doesn’t actually say hell at all in the Greek. It says he descended into the lower regions, which is consistent with Romans 10:7, which states Who will descend into the abyss?" (that is to bring Christ up from the dead). Hell doesn’t seem to be the appropriate English translation here since the reference from which the clause in the Apostle’s Creed appears to be taken seems to be referring to Sheol or Hades, the place of the dead, not Hell or Gehenna the place of judgment upon the resurrection at the last day. The other place this part of the creed may be referencing is 1 Peter 3:19 where Christ went and proclaimed his victory to the spirits in Tartarus (which if you read Revelation still doesn’t seem to be commensurate with Gehenna or Hell).

The better translation of the Creed into English would probably be, “He descended to the dead.”
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
The better translation of the Creed into English would probably be, “He descended to the dead.”
Click to expand...
Here we go again. Same old stuff. People cannot understand that some texts use the old meaning of a word.
 
Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell:
  1. Hell (infernus of the damned) in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men;
  2. Limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment.
  3. Limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ, awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam.
  4. Purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven.
Each of those are considered “hell” because they represent a separation between the individual and the Beatific Vision of God
 
Last edited:
The one area of Catholic teaching I cannot accept is the limbo of babies. I will always believe they go directly to heaven. I know you are citing correctly, however.
 
Kindnessmatters said:
The one area of Catholic teaching I cannot accept is the limbo of babies. I will always believe they go directly to heaven. I know you are citing correctly, however.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to sidetrack this thread, but I have heard debates on it being either a theological speculation or doctrine. I tend to look at it as a mystery, and have hope in Gods love.
“Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb—were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God.”
-St Bernard of Clairvaux (A.D. 1090-1153)
Click to expand...
 
The apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, (also called Acts of Pontius Pilate). Presents the Lord going to Hell to free Adam and the other just of the Old Testament. He also goes through the gates of hell to declare his victory, bind the devil.
 
Jesus desceded into hell to rescue the souls of the faithful Jews who died prior to his atoning sacrafice at Calvary. He went into a place that, while commonly called, hell, was really like a waiting place. It is usually called Limbo of the Fathers. Jesus did not go to the place where the devils and souls of the unsaved are. For more, I reccomend reading The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Look at Paragraphs 631-637. Here is the link: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

God bless
 
Kindnessmatters said:
The one area of Catholic teaching I cannot accept is the limbo of babies. I will always believe they go directly to heaven. I know you are citing correctly, however.
Click to expand...
So the Catechism is careful to say we cannot be certain for the unbaptised infants (can merely have hope), just as we cannot be certain of a particular person’s salvation without divine revelation. The actual dogma of faith is from the 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-45):
  • The souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell but their punishment is very different.
 
irenaeuslyons said:
Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell:
  1. Limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment.
Click to expand...
These would be the theologians who are engaging in conjecture, then, and not discussing what the Church herself teaches? 🤔
Kindnessmatters said:
The one area of Catholic teaching I cannot accept is the limbo of babies. I will always believe they go directly to heaven.
Click to expand...
You’re cool. You’re quoting something that the Church itself teaches that it hopes.
I know you are citing correctly, however.
Click to expand...
Hmm… not precisely.
irenaeuslyons said:
I don’t want to sidetrack this thread, but I have heard debates on it being either a theological speculation or doctrine.
Click to expand...
You’ve read The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die without Being Baptised, then? It’s pretty clear that this is merely a theological opinion, and not doctrine.
 
Kindnessmatters said:
Why would Jesus have descended into hell at all?
Click to expand...
To release the souls of those captive there.
This is called the harrowing of hell.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07143d.htm

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

At memorial services for the departed, we have this hymn:
With the souls of the just brought to perfection, give rest, O Savior, to the souls of your servants, keeping them for the blessed life with you, for you love us all.
In your place of rest, O Lord, where all your saints repose, give rest to the souls of your servants, for you alone love us all.
Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit: You are the God who descended into Hades and loosed the bonds of those imprisoned there. Now, O Savior, give rest to the souls of your servants.
Now and ever and forever Amen: Virgin, uniquely pure and immaculate, without seed you gave birth to God. Intercede for the salvation of the souls of your servants.
Click to expand...
 
Gorgias said:
These would be the theologians who are engaging in conjecture, then, and not discussing what the Church herself teaches?
Click to expand...
From your link:
“It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo. …It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.”
Ultimately we don’t know, and it is a mystery like I said. In fact, I don’t see anything wrong with what I had posted so I am not sure what you are taking issue with.
 
irenaeuslyons said:
Ultimately we don’t know, and it is a mystery like I said.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
irenaeuslyons said:
In fact, I don’t see anything wrong with what I had posted so I am not sure what you are taking issue with.
Click to expand...
The assertion that it may be doctrine. It isn’t. (Kinda just quibbling, but I think it’s an important point, since many denigrate the idea of infallibility when they see what they think is ‘doctrine’ being later abandoned by the Church.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top