Augustine: "Christ in hell...to release others"

[ABostonCatholic]

I came across a quote by Augustine the puzzles me. It’s from Sermon 70A.

So, brothers, don’t let pride swell in you, let it shrivel instead and rot. Be disgusted by it, throw it out. Christ is looking for a humble Christian. Christ in heaven, Christ with us, Christ in hell-not to be kept there, but to release others from there. That’s the kind of leader we have. He is seated at the right hand of the Father, but he is gathering us up together from the earth: one in this way, one in that; by favoring this one, chastising that one, giving this one joy and that one trouble, may he that gathers gather us up; may he gather us up, otherwise we are lost; may he gather us together where we can’t get lost, into that land of the living where all deserts are acknowledged and justice is rewarded.

The sermon is a brief exhortation to be humble and to take up the yoke of Christ. But the part about Christ freeing us from Hell puzzles me. Perhaps purgatory is what was being referred to, and either it is a mistranslation (I can’t find the Latin, but the translator is a Dominican-OP), or there wasn’t a word for it at that time.

Any thoughts?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I came across a quote by Augustine the puzzles me. It’s from Sermon 70A.

The sermon is a brief exhortation to be humble and to take up the yoke of Christ. But the part about Christ freeing us from Hell puzzles me. Perhaps purgatory is what was being referred to, and either it is a mistranslation (I can’t find the Latin, but the translator is a Dominican-OP), or there wasn’t a word for it at that time.

Any thoughts?

Here is a thread you should check out, especially posts 10 and 11. Jesus was not in Hell where the evil suffer, yet the Pretend Reformers claimed He was (to their own error and blasphemy).

The Catholic teaching, which is what St Augustine describes above is that Christ at His death went to the place of the dead (not hellfire) where the Old Testament Saints were kept and opened Heaven for them (cf 1 Peter 3:19, 4:6), He did not go to the place of hellfire or suffer during this time.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

Catholic Dude, thanks for your help. That makes a lot of sense, and if I find the Latin, my guess is that Augustine probably used the same word in Latin that the Latin form of the creed uses.

 

[Catholic_Hammer]

Here’s my [possibly heretical] opinion:

In the Apostle’s Creed “Hell” refers to, for lack of a better term, “Sheol” or “Hades”, that is, it is a place for non-Saints, those of us that haven’t been brought into Heaven - people like myself, Adolph Hitler, Gandhi, etc.

Anyway, this place is outside of “time”, therefore, when Jesus descends into this place, any of us who are not “Saints” are given a chance to meet Jesus. I would presume that some people would believe that Jesus is there in “Hades” with the rest of us because He is “nothing special”, just another dead guy with the rest of us, waiting to see what happens.

Anyway, Jesus goes on preaching for what would seem like an eternity (being that this “Hades” is outside of time and all…) and a lot of us are less and less likely to believe Him (like today, and it’s only been 2,000 years since His Resurrection and Ascension). Not that anyone will actually be able to “witness” Jesus preaching - it may just be our souls “feeling” the presence of Jesus, or some other non-material way.

After an eternity, the souls that accept the Peace of Our Lord are in “Heaven”, and those that reject it are consigned to “Hell”.

So, our time on Earth is “training” that we go through to prepare our souls for this “Hades”, and, according to my theory, this “Hades” is the same as the Church’s teaching of “Purgatory” - therein lies my possible heresy. If so, sorry Church, sorry Father, Son, Holy Spirit…don’t hold it against me!

 

[Timmy_Z]

Jesus was not in Hell where the evil suffer, yet the Pretend Reformers claimed He was (to their own error and blasphemy).

Be careful of that broad brush of yours. In my experience, such a view is usually reserved for oneness pentecotsals (who aren’t Christian anyway).

-Tim

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Be careful of that broad brush of yours. In my experience, such a view is usually reserved for oneness pentecotsals (who aren’t Christian anyway).
-Tim

The link I posted showed it was none other than John Calvin who said Jesus had to suffer the torments of hell, and I even have seen evidence that some Lutherans held this view as well.

 

[Timmy_Z]

Catholic Dude,

I appears I stand corrected (and have another reason to dislike Calvin), thank you.

Jesus clealy says “It is finished” on the Cross, and there is no reason for Him to suffer further.

-Tim

 

[Contarini]

Here is a thread you should check out, especially posts 10 and 11. Jesus was not in Hell where the evil suffer, yet the Pretend Reformers claimed He was (to their own error and blasphemy).

No, they did not teach this literally. Calvin taught that Christ suffered the agony of abandonment by God on the Cross and in that sense descended into hell, but he did not think that Christ went to a place called “hell.” I see that on the other thread you interpreted Calvin a bit too literally. If you look carefully, you will see that Calvin is talking about Jesus’ abandonment by God on the Cross.

I know of two people/groups who have taught that Jesus actually went to hell: the “Word of Faith” Pentecostals and the great Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar–a favorite of the current Pope, I believe. So I’d be careful about claiming that this is a heretical view. It may be (von Balthasar certainly skirts near the edge of orthodoxy in places), but it has not been declared to be so as far as I know.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Techno2000]

I came across a quote by Augustine the puzzles me. It’s from Sermon 70A.

The sermon is a brief exhortation to be humble and to take up the yoke of Christ. But the part about Christ freeing us from Hell puzzles me. Perhaps purgatory is what was being referred to, and either it is a mistranslation (I can’t find the Latin, but the translator is a Dominican-OP), or there wasn’t a word for it at that time.

Any thoughts?

Excerpt From:THE
DOLOROUS
(SORROWFUL)
PASSION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

FROM THE MEDITATIONS OF

ANNE CATHERINE EMMERICH

When Jesus entered in triumph the demons dispersed, crying out at the same time, ‘What is there between thee and us? What art thou come to do here? Wilt thou crucify us likewise?’ The angels hunted them away, having first chained them. The poor souls confined in this place had only a slight presentiment and vague idea of the presence of Jesus; but the moment he told them that it was he himself, they burst out into acclamations of joy, and welcomed him with hymns of rapture and delight. The soul of our Lord then wended its way to the right, towards that part which really constituted Limbo; and there he met the soul of the good thief which angels were carrying to Abraham’s bosom, as also that of the bad thief being dragged by demons into Hell. Our Lord addressed a few words to both, and then entered Abraham’s bosom, accompanied by numerous angels and holy souls, and also by those demons who had been chained and expelled from the compartment.
jesus-passion.com/THE_PASSION6.htm#CHAPTER%20LIX

 

[Catholic_Dude]

No, they did not teach this literally. Calvin taught that Christ suffered the agony of abandonment by God on the Cross and in that sense descended into hell, but he did not think that Christ went to a place called “hell.” I see that on the other thread you interpreted Calvin a bit too literally. If you look carefully, you will see that Calvin is talking about Jesus’ abandonment by God on the Cross.

Would you mind responding on my thread about this issue using the very quotes I put forth (posts 10 and 11)? The quotes I provided were pretty clear to me.

I know of two people/groups who have taught that Jesus actually went to hell: the “Word of Faith” Pentecostals and the great Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar–a favorite of the current Pope, I believe. So I’d be careful about claiming that this is a heretical view. It may be (von Balthasar certainly skirts near the edge of orthodoxy in places), but it has not been declared to be so as far as I know.

Regarding Balthasar there was an article somewhere online where a Catholic PhD student wrote about how Balthasar was going along with the classical Protestant understanding of the atonement and the PhD student made it clear to me that Balthasar was dangerouly close if not over the edge into heresy on that issue.

 

[Contarini]

Regarding Balthasar there was an article somewhere online where a Catholic PhD student wrote about how Balthasar was going along with the classical Protestant understanding of the atonement and the PhD student made it clear to me that Balthasar was dangerouly close if not over the edge into heresy on that issue.

There was a huge debate on this in First Things–clearly intelligent and orthodox Catholics come down on both sides. You can read the first round here and the second here.

Oh, I see that in the other thread one of these links was brought to your attention, and you rather presumptuously expressed horror that a “Catholic” theologian would say such things. Since the Pope has expressed no such horror (but is a great admirer of von Balthasar), obviously you know a lot more about orthodoxy than he does! Never mind that he has actually read von Balthasar. . . .

Of course you can disagree with von Balthasar. But his views have not been condemned as heretical and thus presumably remain legitimate options for Catholics. They may be condemned at some point in the future, but until then wouldn’t you do well to trade in your horror for some informed disagreement?

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Dude]

There was a huge debate on this in First Things–clearly intelligent and orthodox Catholics come down on both sides. You can read the first round here and the second here.

Yes, that is the article I was thinking of, I forgot where it was located. I dont think I have read part 2 of that debate, Im going to right now

Oh, I see that in the other thread one of these links was brought to your attention, and you rather presumptuously expressed horror that a “Catholic” theologian would say such things. Since the Pope has expressed no such horror (but is a great admirer of von Balthasar), obviously you know a lot more about orthodoxy than he does! Never mind that he has actually read von Balthasar. . . .

Of course you can disagree with von Balthasar. But his views have not been condemned as heretical and thus presumably remain legitimate options for Catholics. They may be condemned at some point in the future, but until then wouldn’t you do well to trade in your horror for some informed disagreement?

Edwin

Im not surprised with ANYTHING a professing “Catholic” and especially “theologian” has to say. To my knowledge the Pope has not commented on that specific aspect of his theology, but Im pretty sure he would not agree with it. Its kind of like Raymond Brown, while he had good stuff to say I read he also put out some clearly erroneous things like he called into question issues like the Virgin Birth and whether it was true.

 

[Contarini]

Im not surprised with ANYTHING a professing “Catholic” and especially “theologian” has to say. To my knowledge the Pope has not commented on that specific aspect of his theology, but Im pretty sure he would not agree with it.

Why are you so sure? Anyway, that was not my point. You put “Catholic” in quotation marks as if von Balthasar were a complete heretic. Of course he may have some mistaken ideas–all theologians do. But if any of his ideas were utterly and obviously contrary to the Catholic Faith, surely the Pope would say so in the course of praising his theology in general!

Its kind of like Raymond Brown, while he had good stuff to say I read he also put out some clearly erroneous things like he called into question issues like the Virgin Birth and whether it was true.

As with von Balthasar, you are getting your info at second hand. Brown did not question whether the Virgin Birth was true. He argued that on scholarly grounds there are good reasons to question the historicity of aspects of the birth narratives in the Gospels. As with von Balthasar, this is understandably controversial but has not been condemned as heretical.

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Why are you so sure? Anyway, that was not my point. You put “Catholic” in quotation marks as if von Balthasar were a complete heretic. Of course he may have some mistaken ideas–all theologians do. But if any of his ideas were utterly and obviously contrary to the Catholic Faith, surely the Pope would say so in the course of praising his theology in general!

I put Catholic in quotes because in todays world its hard to tell who is for the Church and who is messing around. I never said he was a complete heretic.

As with von Balthasar, you are getting your info at second hand. Brown did not question whether the Virgin Birth was true. He argued that on scholarly grounds there are good reasons to question the historicity of aspects of the birth narratives in the Gospels. As with von Balthasar, this is understandably controversial but has not been condemned as heretical.
Edwin

What are you saying? He argued on “scholarly grounds” that there are “good reasons” to question whether the Bible is accurate? In otherwords he is making a case that serves no other purpose than to cast doubt on a central tenet of Christian faith. I doesnt take much to realize such “scholarly” opinions are nothing more than undermining of our Faith.