"Christ decended to Hell"

[Goya]

Well, I was asking more than venturing to answer since it seems that there are quite a number of people on the Apologetics Forum of CAF who are studying or have studied theology and divinity in university, whereas I have never taken a course on religion in my life, neither in university nor high school (public).

In any event, I first came across Balthasar’s name in university where I often bought the monthly religious journal First Things. In one issue in the 1990s, the Catholic editor, the late Richard John Neuhaus, wrote:

"It’s chiefly a Roman Catholic phenomenon at present, this discovery of Hans Urs von Balthasar, but in time it will almost certainly engage Protestants, Jews, and everybody else interested in the possibilities of theology at the edge of the Third Millennium. It seems implausible that one man could have written so much about so much so brilliantly. At his Requiem Mass (he died in 1988 at age eighty-three), Cardinal Ratzinger declared von Balthasar the most learned man in Europe, and it would be as believable if he had said the most learned man in the world.

Shortly before he died, von Balthasar was made a cardinal by Pope John Paul II-a high level imprimatur on his life’s work. This despite the fact that some thought von Balthasar stepped across the line of orthodoxy on a few subjects. For instance, his Dare We Hope that All Men Be Saved? (with a brief discourse on hell) is a daring reflection on universal redemption. His answer is yes, we dare so hope and should so hope, while maintaining the orthodox understanding that the final judgment is, of course, God’s alone. Similarly, in Mysterium Paschale, one of his more difficult books, von Balthasar contends that Christ’s descent into hell should be understood in terms not of his triumph but of his final abandonment by God. That is a break from the interpretation of the received tradition, but is considered by Catholic authorities to be a theological opinion that can legitimately be held and explored."

My curiousity peaked, I then followed articles in First Things on Balthasar with the late Avery Cardinal Dulles writing about “The Population of Hell” relying on Balthasar and the debates between Alyssa Lyra Pitstick and Fr. Edward T. Oakes on hell and Hans Urs von Balthasar’s controversial Holy Saturday theology arguing that Christ’s descent into hell was a passive suffering descent.

One blog pointed out that Pope Benedict, back in his early days as a teacher, used Balthasar to connect Jesus’ death-cry of abandonment on the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" with the Descent into Hell.

In all honesty, I favoured Fulton Sheen’s interpretation of Jesus’ cry of abandonment on the Cross wherein he dealt with the Trinity and what happened at that moment on the Cross and how it pertained to each and every one of us.

It seems, however, that Balthasar left quite the legacy, and his theology on Holy Saturday and the Descent into Hell is one subject which has garnered attention. Even George Weigel makes mention of the man in his book The Truth of Catholicism.

I suppose that is why I asked if anyone here has actually read Balthasar’s works as I would be interested in hearing your views.

But then again, this whole thread is about Christ’s Descent into Hell and it has been quite an interesting read for me as it is, with everyone freely offering their views.

In the end, I suppose, what you’ve read or how much doesn’t matter. As St. Paul said what good is knowledge without Love, so I appreciate hearing everyone’s take, regardless of “expertise” if you will.

God Bless,

Excellent post, sir.

Unfortunately, I can’t add any light to your inquiry, but I thought you layed it out quite well. IMO, this post/topic is worthy of its own thread–pretty compelling topic–it would probably generate more replies, if you opened it up as a seperate thread (whereas in this thread, it’s kind of obscured).

 

[KyivAndrew]

Excellent post, sir.

Unfortunately, I can’t add any light to your inquiry, but I thought you layed it out quite well. IMO, this post/topic is worthy of its own thread–pretty compelling topic–it would probably generate more replies, if you opened it up as a seperate thread (whereas in this thread, it’s kind of obscured).

Thank you for the compliment! I think, however, from my experience on CAF, opening up a new separate thread would not receive more replies. The subject of this thread “Christ descended into Hell” covers all the angles that can pertain to this, including Balthasar’s. If anybody wishes to comment on it in this thread, that would be fine.

 

[Memaw]

Excuse me, I said the “doctrine” of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. “Some” believed and some did not believe from the beginning. It was not yet declared a doctrine of the Church. Until they became doctrines the faithful were not bound to believe them even if many did believe them. Some saints in the early Church did not believe them.

Full of grace does not necessarily mean that Mary was born immaculate. Many prophets in the Old Testament were filled with the Spirit of God. We only attribute that meaning to “full of grace” now that we know by Church declaration that Mary was born immaculate. Before that, it was a debatable matter and was contested among the early Church leaders and saints.

Excuse me too but not all Catholics believe what the Church teaches today. Some do and some don’t, but that doesn’t change one bit what the Catholic Church teaches. And yes the Church did teach from the beginning that Mary was conceived Immaculately. Being filled with the Spirit of God is not the same as being Immaculately Conceived. God Bless, Memaw

All Doctrine, Dogma, must be accepted by the faithful and their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching of the Church or part of natural law. In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. From “Modern Catholic Dictionary” , Fr. John A. Hardon S.J.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Good points.

Just goes to show, English, as many things translate to the same word, isn’t the best language to convey Catholic theology.

It is the best language if you speak English and do not understand Latin.

Where English or other languages give ambiguity, extra words may be needed to ensure that precisely the right meaning is conveyed. This is not impossible, and it will dramatically increase access to, and the reading and study of, important theology.

I was sitting in the audience yesterday next to a fellow who was trying to describe in what looked like Chinese, a new billiard game we were witnessing, called Bonus Ball, that was having its inaugural event streamed worldwide from Las Vegas. He kept writing, and erasing an email on his Ipad because he was having difficulty explaining this brand new game in Chinese, a team game with 9 balls, four orange, four purple, and one black, with especially difficult-to-convey-and-understand game rules. There is no game precedent to compare it to. But he kept at it because it was important to him that his friend in Asia would come to understand and appreciate what he was trying to convey.

It’s difficult to entertain theology in different languages, but well worth the effort, if the goal is to enlighten as many as possible. The religion promulgated by rough-hewn, Jewish fishermen was not meant to become an esoteric religion.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Excuse me too but not all Catholics believe what the Church teaches today. Some do and some don’t, but that doesn’t change one bit what the Catholic Church teaches. And yes the Church did teach from the beginning that Mary was conceived Immaculately. Being filled with the Spirit of God is not the same as being Immaculately Conceived. God Bless, Memaw

All Doctrine, Dogma, must be accepted by the faithful and their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching of the Church or part of natural law. In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. From “Modern Catholic Dictionary” , Fr. John A. Hardon S.J.

Sorry, Memaw, but the Church did not teach as an article of faith from the beginning that Mary was conceived immaculately.

 

[Memaw]

Sorry, Memaw, but the Church did not teach as an article of faith from the beginning that Mary was conceived immaculately.

Same dictionary. Fr. John A. Hardon S.J.: If you question the credibility of Fr. Hardon, you will have to take that up with Rome because his cause for Canonization is in the process.

All Dogmas, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They are revealed either in Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Moreover their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. Can’t make it any clearer than that.

James tell us where you get your information. God Bless, Memaw

 

[JamesCaruso]

Same dictionary. Fr. John A. Hardon S.J.: If you question the credibility of Fr. Hardon, you will have to take that up with Rome because his cause for Canonization is in the process.

All Dogmas, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They are revealed either in Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Moreover their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. Can’t make it any clearer than that.

James tell us where you get your information. God Bless, Memaw

My, my! You’re making it sound like I don’t believe in the immaculate conception. Nothing could be further from the truth. Go back and read my posts. Nothing in them suggests such an opinion. I only stated that the doctrine was not always taught as an article of faith in the Church.

IF you want a capsulized history of the development and acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, you can go to the Catholic encyclopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm It wasn’t that many notable Catholics did not believe in the sanctity of Mary, but that they had trouble with the concept of immaculate conception, which seemed to refute St. Paul who said all men have sinned, and which flew in the face of the idea that original sin was a necessary part of any birth since Adam sinned. It wasn’t just ordinary Catholics as one of your posts suggested, but several were doctors of the Church, including St. Thomas Aquinas. Some reasoned that Christ did not have original sin because of the supernatural source of his conception, and therefore his mother did not have to be conceived without sin. It is really an interesting read, The actual feast of the Immaculate Conception started out in the early Church as the feast of the Conception of Mary (seventh century), similar to the feast of the Conception of John the Baptist. You can read how the Dominican Order, following the teaching of St. Thomas, was opposed to the immaculate conception. The controversy went on until Paul V in the 17th century forbade anyone to teach that Mary was conceived with original sin and Gregory XV (1622) silenced any further discussion until the doctrine could be defined. As you know, Pius the IX finally made it a dogma of the Church in 1854.

 

[Memaw]

My, my! You’re making it sound like I don’t believe in the immaculate conception. Nothing could be further from the truth. Go back and read my posts. Nothing in them suggests such an opinion. I only stated that the doctrine was not always taught as an article of faith in the Church.

IF you want a capsulized history of the development and acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, you can go to the Catholic encyclopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm It wasn’t that many notable Catholics did not believe in the sanctity of Mary, but that they had trouble with the concept of immaculate conception, which seemed to refute St. Paul who said all men have sinned, and which flew in the face of the idea that original sin was a necessary part of any birth since Adam sinned. It wasn’t just ordinary Catholics as one of your posts suggested, but several were doctors of the Church, including St. Thomas Aquinas. Some reasoned that Christ did not have original sin because of the supernatural source of his conception, and therefore his mother did not have to be conceived without sin. It is really an interesting read, The actual feast of the Immaculate Conception started out in the early Church as the feast of the Conception of Mary (seventh century), similar to the feast of the Conception of John the Baptist. You can read how the Dominican Order, following the teaching of St. Thomas, was opposed to the immaculate conception. The controversy went on until Paul V in the 17th century forbade anyone to teach that Mary was conceived with original sin and Gregory XV (1622) silenced any further discussion until the doctrine could be defined. As you know, Pius the IX finally made it a dogma of the Church in 1854.

I am not trying to make it “sound” like anything. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was made a Dogma to all Catholics so as to clarify all that and bring us back to the truths already taught by the Church from the beginning. After the Protestant Reformation many were beginning to doubt it. I don’t recall ever using the term, “ordinary Catholics.” Just because someone doubts a teaching of the church, even if that person is a very holy person), doesn’t make it so. The Magisterial teaching of the Church is Infallible. God Bless,Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Naturally, most doctrine comes from what Jesus and the Apostles taught, but not all, for example, the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the assumption of Mary into heaven. And doctrines like the transubstantiation grew out of what Jesus and the Apostles taught, but advanced and amplified the understanding of what they taught. There is also private revelation, which advances our knowledge. Saint Peter’s vision at Joppa is a good example of private revelation, and it even became a part of the Bible.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon S.J.
“Dogma’s are those Doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.” (Sounds like from the beginning to me). “Catholics are not bound by the Church to believe Private Revelations”, (even those that have been “approved”). My parenthesis.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture go hand in hand in Catholic Teaching. God Bless. Memaw

 

[AmbroseSJ]

My understanding is that Jesus, both God and man, descended into the place where the just awaited the opening of the gates of heaven and he freed the souls there. He did not need to suffer more beyond his passion and death on Calvary, nor do I think he did. Only his body died, just as when we die it is only our body that dies. Our soul may go straight to heaven as when we die imediately upon receiving a plenary indulgence. Since Jesus had no sin there was no reason to go to limbo, purgatory, hell or whatever you want to call it, except to free the souls there, and I don’t think he could do that in his human nature alone. I firmly believe that Jesus, God and man, descended into hell to free the souls there merited by his death on the Cross. Unless someone can quote for me Church teaching to the contrary I will continue to believe this. Anyone?

From the Athanasian Creed:

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead.

Therefore it is heresy to believe that Jesus EVER separated His human nature from His Divine nature. Jesus Christ THE PERSON, is a human nature hypostatically joined with the Divine Nature. Therefore, if Jesus Christ descended into hell in “just his human nature” he would no longer be Jesus Christ.

 

[Memaw]

From the Athanasian Creed:

Therefore it is heresy to believe that Jesus EVER separated His human nature from His Divine nature. Jesus Christ THE PERSON, is a human nature hypostatically joined with the Divine Nature. Therefore, if Jesus Christ descended into hell in “just his human nature” he would no longer be Jesus Christ.

The Church has never taught that Jesus descended to the “hell” of the damned. The term hell is actually a poor translation, it came from the word Haties, (realm of the dead). Descended to the Dead would be a closer translation. God Bless, Memaw

 

[devoutchristian]

From the Athanasian Creed:

Therefore it is heresy to believe that Jesus EVER separated His human nature from His Divine nature. Jesus Christ THE PERSON, is a human nature hypostatically joined with the Divine Nature. Therefore, if Jesus Christ descended into hell in “just his human nature” he would no longer be Jesus Christ.

It is heresy to believe that Jesus was not in his Divine Nature in Heaven at all times. The same goes for the Father and the Holy Spirit. His humanity (the spiritual part anyway, the physical body remained on Earth) went to Limbo, this does not constitute a seperation of his natures anymore than his physical presence on Earth did.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It is heresy to believe that Jesus was not in his Divine Nature in Heaven at all times. The same goes for the Father and the Holy Spirit. His humanity (the spiritual part anyway, the physical body remained on Earth) went to Limbo, this does not constitute a seperation of his natures anymore than his physical presence on Earth did.

Yes, but my post was aimed at the poster that said only the human nature of Jesus went to Limbo. I am saying (with the Athanasian Creed) that Jesus did not separate his Hypostatic Union by only allowing his human nature alone to descend to Limbus Patrum. I am saying that Jesus, in both His human and Divine nature descended to Limbus Patrum. Jesus Christ the person does not exist in only one nature.

 

[JamesCaruso]

After the fall of Adam & Eve, paradise was closed to everyone. Yet, we know from the parable of the rich man and lazarus that there was a place of the dead for those who died in God’s friendship(Lazarus), referred to as Abraham’s bosom and a place of the dead for those damned(rich man). When we say that Jesus descended into hell, it is understood that He went to Abraham’s bosom to preach the good news to them. It wasn’t until his resurrection on the 3rd day that heaven was opened to those in Abraham’s bosom.

While Abraham’s bosom was not heaven, or paradise as we think of it, the repentance of the good thief may very well have kept him from the hell of the damned and put him in Abraham’s bosom until the gates of heaven were opened. There is also another school of thought that says “Truly I say to you today, you shall be with me in Paradise”. Note where the comma is and the difference it makes in our understanding of the verse.

We always say that Christ went to hell to preach to the souls awaiting the opening of the gates of heaven. Did it ever strike you funny that we say “preach” as if there was any question what the response would be? I mean, these souls are beyond sinning again. It would seem that Christ went to hell to “announce” or to “liberate,” but it just strikes me funny that he went there to preach. Like, who there needed to be persuaded anyway? Maybe I have fallen into a wrong idea of the word preach. lol No need to reply unless you want to.